The Blackburne Shilling Gambit is all book moves, even White gets 100 accuracy from the engine after falling for the trap and losing. Always thought it was odd.
Don't know if it'd be considered ludicrous enough to be posted though.
The most idiotic BOOK MOVES ever
Sort:
OMG only book moves until checkmate. I thought it wasn't possible.
Book moves until death!
And a 100% accuracy. I'm amazed! I'm shocked! Speechless!
This is way beyond ludicrous! Thanks for posting! You deserve an award for this one, and I've sent you one.
Dec 3, 2021
0
#4
indeed. Obviously, you can't tell the plain difference between a "good" book and a "bad" one. I salute you Mr. Sherlock👏🏽
Dec 3, 2021
0
#5
Monster_Melons wrote:
I thought book moves were acceptable moves.
Look at these ludicrous book moves:
Believe it or not, they are all book moves! Stockfish says white is up about 4.3 now, after just 4 moves, all book moves. Ludicrous! Whatever black does, white will take the pawn on e5 in the next move.
Do you know any other ludicrous book moves? Post them here!
All "Book Moves" means is the line can be found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.
Take a look at C40. That is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 and then responses OTHER THAN 2...Nc6, 2...Nf6, or 2...d6.
Yes, the Latvian Gambit is in there. Does not make it good or even acceptable. Almost all lines there end with +/-.
Dec 3, 2021
0
#6
My "Kids, don't try this at home!" game was known theory out to move 28... although the chess.com engine didn't recognize more than half of that as "book".
Should you get accuracy of 100 if you make those book moves? The engine sees them as perfect moves. There is a reason why some moves are book moves and others not. Book moves should be moves that follow opening theory.
the term “book moves” has two very different meanings. 1. Recognized theory. 2.moves that are in some book. It’s important to tell the difference
#9
Book move = move that has been played before and then has been recorded in a book.
It does not mean the move is good or recognised, it means it has been played before.
Some book moves get refuted, then they stay in the book, but players shun them.
tygxc wrote:
#9
Book move = move that has been played before and then has been recorded in a book.
It does not mean the move is good or recognised, it means it has been played before.
Some book moves get refuted, then they stay in the book, but players shun them.
When I started to mention BOOK MOVES in this thread, already in the headline, I was thinking of moves that the analyzing tool here on Chess.com recognizes as book moves. That was my initial definition of book moves in this context. I should have mentioned that, as it sure can be misunderstood. Book moves are registered as 100% accurate, and of course, we should remember that accuracy is far from exact, it's mostly for fun, but it is also being used as a tool. Where the analyzing tool has got its book moves from, I don't know.
It can be up to debate if the analyzing tool should use book moves. It would be better to operate with another type of opening moves instead. It could be something like "moves that follow opening theory and that are widely recognized as acceptable moves today" or something like that. Anyway, we're talking about specific moves in a database that the analyzing tool is using. And those moves should be seen as 100% accurate. The reason for the database is naturally that the analyzing tool can not calculate opening moves well, hence the need for a database with opening moves.
I think we will see such a change in the future. These tools are getting better all the time, and more and more functionality is being added.
Dec 4, 2021
0
#12
Monster_Melons wrote:
tygxc wrote:
#9
Book move = move that has been played before and then has been recorded in a book.
It does not mean the move is good or recognised, it means it has been played before.
Some book moves get refuted, then they stay in the book, but players shun them.
When I started to mention BOOK MOVES in this thread, already in the headline, I was thinking of moves that the analyzing tool here on Chess.com recognizes as book moves. That was my initial definition of book moves in this context. I should have mentioned that, as it sure can be misunderstood. Book moves are registered as 100% accurate, and of course, we should remember that accuracy is far from exact, it's mostly for fun, but it is also being used as a tool. Where the analyzing tool has got its book moves from, I don't know.
It can be up to debate if the analyzing tool should use book moves. It would be better to operate with another type of opening moves instead. It could be something like "moves that follow opening theory and that are widely recognized as acceptable moves today" or something like that. Anyway, we're talking about specific moves in a database that the analyzing tool is using. And those moves should be seen as 100% accurate. The reason for the database is naturally that the analyzing tool can not calculate opening moves well, hence the need for a database with opening moves.
I think we will see such a change in the future. These tools are getting better all the time, and more and more functionality being added.
What it also amounts to is that the analyzing tool here is total crap!
It uses 1 CPU Core, others use multiple, like nextchessmove.com uses 20 CPU Core.
It uses Stockfish 10. Do you know how old that is? We are already at Stockfish 14. The difference between Stockfish 10 and Stockfish 14, if you were to compare people to machines, would be the equivalent of comparing King Henry VIII to Boris Johnson.
Oh, and Stockfish 1 would be Julius Caesar!
You can't get any worst than this
No, but you can still brag about playing the whole game with 100% accuracy. 
How much you wanna bet you could find that line in a book to showcase why 2..f6 doesn't work?
Tobi-01 wrote:
How much you wanna bet you could find that line in a book to showcase why 2..f6 doesn't work?
You mean f3 ? If you mean f6, then I don't understand what you mean.
It shouldn't be listed as a book move in the analyzing tool because of that (although that's probably how it got there). If you lose by falling into the scholar's mate, you won't get a book move, you will get a blunder.
In general, you can trust the book moves in the analyzing tool to be acceptable. As far as I can remember, I have never lost a game because of a book move. I have seen book moves that I don't like, and book moves that I don't think is the best move, but I have never made a book move that is a disaster in itself.
Dec 6, 2021
0
#17
Monster_Melons wrote:
...
In general, you can trust the book moves in the analyzing tool to be acceptable.
...
No, you can't.
Monster_Melons wrote:
I thought book moves were acceptable moves.
Look at these ludicrous book moves:
Believe it or not, they are all book moves! Stockfish says white is up about 4.3 now, after just 4 moves, all book moves. Ludicrous! Whatever black does, white will take the pawn on e5 in the next move.
Do you know any other ludicrous book moves? Post them here!
Why use rubbish Books based on 2200-2800 human when you can access 3600+ engines for free?
drmrboss wrote:
Why use rubbish Books based on 2200-2800 human when you can access 3600+ engines for free?
I think engines are slightly below 3600 these days, but still way above humans. However, engines are not good at openings. I find the analyzing tool useful to point out mistakes and missing wins. I also find it useful to see which moves are book moves in a game already played, but if you want to find good moves to use in the future, it's better to look at top games or to look into an opening database to find popular moves. Those opening moves are normally better than what Stockfish suggests, or it can be moves that you personally like better or find easier to play because the continuing moves and the coming position will be easier for you to handle. You must keep in mind that you can not play like Stockfish the rest of the game, you can only play like humans. You need a position that humans can manage to continue from.
Monster_Melons wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
Why use rubbish Books based on 2200-2800 human when you can access 3600+ engines for free?
I think engines are slightly below 3600 these days, but still way above humans. However, engines are not good at openings. I find the analyzing tool useful to point out mistakes and missing wins. I also find it useful to see which moves are book moves in a game already played, but if you want to find good moves to use in the future, it's better to look at top games or to look into an opening database to find popular moves. Those opening moves are normally better than what Stockfish suggests, or it can be moves that you personally like better or find easier to play because the continuing moves and the coming position will be easier for you to handle. You must keep in mind that you can not play like Stockfish the rest of the game, you can only play like humans. You need a position that humans can manage to continue from.
There is no evidence human books are better than engines. If Stockfish did blunder in 1 in 1000 opening positions, human do blunders at least x10 times than Stockfish.
You dont understand what is the reason behind this move Carlsen played etc. Dont lie. But you can see what is the reason the moves are played by engines, there are always PV and searched lines.
And these people extensively analysed and prepared with computers and regurgitate in OTB from their memory ( with of course with hit and miss ). Then why dont you prepare with engines like them yourself?
I thought book moves were acceptable moves.
Look at these ludicrous book moves:
Believe it or not, they are all book moves! Stockfish says white is up about 4.3 now, after just 4 moves, all book moves. Ludicrous! Whatever black does, white will take the pawn on e5 in the next move.
Do you know any other ludicrous book moves? Post them here!