Not a forced win (24.Nxf8 Kxf8 is unclear IMO) but very interesting stuff that for me was completely new. Thanks!

I think Alekhine's is not a particularly good example for your point. Alekhine's is very easy to prepare for as white. When I used to play it, it wouldn't be uncommon for white to throw out the 20+ move theoretical variations with the Nxf7 sac. But that is because white dictates how the opening is played. If he wants he can also play the 4 pawns, or just the simply crushing modern variation - the variation which made me quit playing Alekhine's. White can also opt for the chase variation or a zillion other dangerous lines. Black for his part has to prepared for every single one of these lines and they all play way differently from one another. Black's room for deviation is is very limited since white's moves can often force black into one variation or another.

d4 scores better than e4 for one reason: the sicilian.

First comment I made was takened from memory based on old GM-analyses, which I dont even have.

My next comment was made after having looked at these lines with modern technology, Fritz 8 on a somewhat old computer.
This kind of analyses wasnt even possible back when this game was played and I have no idea whether anyone else has analysed it since then.

Whatever the final verdict will be, Miles position is highly suspect at several points and he only won thanks to Karpov hanging two pawns on b2 and e5 at the end.

Maybe they knew you played it and prepared it specifically for you?

The typical 1.e4 player migth be met by the Alekhine once or twice/year so there is no way he will know that much or even prepare against that opening very often.

In the 4p, black has at least two sound choices
In the Modern line, black has 3 or 4 lines whereas black only need to prepare one
Even in the chase line, I think black has at least two sound respones.

I absolutely don't get why Shandrax is getting so much **** for this, it's a) quite interesting and b) i think almost every GM, at least everyone that has written on this subject, agrees.

I mean, wtf there are no 12 answers to 1. d4 d5 if you want to play serious chess. There are exactly 2 tries for a theoretical edge, 2. c4 and 2. Nf3 and 3. c4.

The whole discussion makes no sense at all if you don't assume that white is going to try for something.

You could also simply try to write down your main repertoires until move 7 or so and look if you've taken more space for white or for black. Unless your main "weapon" is the Colle or London i predict it's White.

I'm going to guess it is partly because of his twisted logic, partly because of his controversial thesis and partly because of his insistence on describing anyone who disagrees with him as "clueless", "donks" or "beginners". But there might be other factors I'm overlooking.

I don't really think "every GM who has written on the subject" agrees either. I mean you have the likes of Rowson, Suba, and especially Adorjan who are famous for writing books about how being Black at least is not too bad. Then you have 1000 GMs writing run-of-the-mill opening manuals which target achieving an advantage with White or equalising with Black, indirectly taking the opposite position by default.

Naaaah I think you covered everything.

did you even read what shandrax wrote? He claimed that black can use his information advantage to reduce the amount of preparation he has to do, not that black has the advantage. I can understand his frustration here sometimes.

honestly I'm not really sure what he's claiming as he seems to flip around a bit.

What's "the amount of preparation he has to do?" No one HAS to prepare anything. If you mean "the amount of preparation he wants to do" or "the amount of preparation he needs to do to get a comfortable position as Black or a slight advantage as White" then either of those make sense. But he was claiming he had better results as Black (which is true for all I know) and that this is due to it being easier to prepare as Black, and he was being called out to make sense of this.

You seem to be misreading his statements in the same manner YouKnowWho was. Who has more top notch options available is an interesting discussion but not what Shandrax was on about. He said specifically he was getting beat as white when caught in weird, and by implication inferior, sidelines. And was better able to keep to his memorized lines as black, to the point that he was actually scoring better, and would rather play, black than white. Rather than accept that this was due to a low level of chess ability and over reliance on memorization over skill, he decided to blaim it on some abstract notion of information and try to appeal to a nonexistent authority that all players including Kramnik/Kasparov also suffer from this which seems incredibly self deluding.

Point of that being that white's 12 moves at move 2 have significant relevance against his 'argument'. If white wants to divert to weird sidelines he certainly has vastly more opportunities than black, if only by nature of having the first chance for 'diversion'.

1. d4 d2
2:
a3
c4
g3
Bg5
Bf4
Nf3
Nd2
h3
Nf3
e3
c3

A few choices of moves at move 2, with a particular ordering. That comes from a filtering of games with an avg rating of 2400+, in order of performance. As for moves by rating. A total of 6 different moves have been selected by opponents rated 2700+. A total of 13 different moves have been played by opponents rated from 2480 to 2674.

Actually maybe this is a better expression of what he means:

I think he felt he had to play the sharpest, most theoretical mainstream lines as White to get an advantage, but could play an inferior but still respectable pet line/system as Black and that would be OK. The sharp lines didn't suit him or he didn't prepare them well enough.

Do you think this post correlates with that interpretation?

I don't see why this is a hard thread to understand. Shandrax's score is better with Black against strong opponents, because he could choose the line they played. This doesn't mean that Black has an advantage. For instance, my tournament results against Phil Ivey would probably be better if I played a "Kill Phil" style system, moving in preflop a lot to negate his advantage. That doesn't mean that the player who gets to move in first has an advantage, or any rubbish like that. It means that given my inherent disadvantage against strong players, I need to attempt to remove the possibility of any skilful play taking place and instead steer things down a narrow path of my choosing.

I don't really understand his last point (the one with the sidelines people played against him). I am happy to see stuff like the Bg4 KID. Like some GM wrote: "I study the mainlines in the hope that my opponent avoids them"

@Dire: Of course 2. Nf3 is fine and 2. Bg5 and 2. Bf4 have also been ventured by strong players. But the rest is either junk (although you might dig up some GM games with them) or transposes to standard 2. c4 stuff. But to base an argument on the fact that white can play like this even if 95% of GM games continue with 2. c4 is a bit far-fetched.

no

I don't think his posts are internally consistent though

The last point is the one that stood out more than any other to me since it shows quite alot. It also wasn't some slip of the tongue. He references it in multiple posts throughout this thread. His comments make a bit of sense if you just strip out about 20% of what he said, but then you completely change the content!

The point of white's alternatives after d4 d5 was not that white should diverge, but rather that white CAN diverge and in many ways. That most white players choose not to diverge is, I think, more of something to be studied as issue of psychology (or sociology) rather than as a validation of any sort of truth.

I think 2. c4 is just the move that puts the most pressure on Black, and also clearly the best move in this given position. It's the move that White wants to play, everything else commits some piece to early (e.g with 2.Nf3 white gives up the option of playing the exchange QGD for an advantage, without really avoiding anything dangerous).

surely it's easier to prepare with white, you've got the first move so can go 1. d4 and ignore the sicilian/lopez/petroff/scandi/etc or vice versa