ChessPub Forum - refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #401 - 02/24/09 at 20:17:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/24/09 at 00:43:51: This thread has caused the majority of posters to lose faith in their own perception of reality. TN, Markovich, Uruk and myself can no longer discern whether someone is being sarcastic or enthusiastic, facetious or facile, serious or silly. Sloughter has, effectively, destroyed reality itself. Kodos continues to cling desperately to the last vestiges of his sanity. Alas...


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #400 - 02/24/09 at 19:33:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 02/24/09 at 19:23:42: drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 19:15:22: And the idea that would you tolerate a Nazi anywhere is really a despicable thing to say to a person that has lost families at their hands. I have the greatest respect for you, but I hope you will pardon me, because this goes to liberty and free expression. If you ban someone's presence or rights of expression based only on your detestation of his views, you become a tyrant to him and a slave to your presently held opinions. No it does not. It is not about free expressions. Making threats is not protected speech, nor is advocating the death of other people. British and US laws are very clear about this. Nazi's and pedophiles should never be welcome anywhere as they have but one shared goal, and that is to satisfy their abnormal lust. And please, I do not need respect from anyone, am not looking for it, and refuse it from someone that would tolerate a Nazi for any reason. That is what The Roman Catholic Church did when they helped these people escape to S America and I had hoped you were not that type of person. I am sorry to see I was wrong and remain optimistic that you talk to someone that puts some common sense back into you because I like what your offer in chess, but now will not even be able to enjoy that aspect of you. Let me be clear: I have no respect at all for your position. You? Yes, a little, but only because I hope you come to your senses as your powerful and skillful rhetoric could help solve problems instead of allowing them to live on and be empowered by your inactivity and unwillingness to do what is right. You have convinced me I need not be here, there is no reason to spend any more $$ here and I will likewise try to influence others to do likewise. If that makes me a slave and a tyrant, I can sleep well tonight and each ensuing evening with that new definition attached to me knowing from whence it came. I am sure I will not be missed and I equally sure I will not miss anything really significant to me. Good luck with your own latent hatreds. Sincerely, ~ drkodos

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

AlanG Full Member Offline Posts: 159 Joined: 10/16/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #399 - 02/24/09 at 19:32:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	The Hand wrote on 02/24/09 at 18:52:42: The FACT that they put up a copy of his article shows their shared ideology. It shows that they both have a desire to denigrate Einstein, but perhaps for different reasons. It's not sufficient evidence to call someone a Nazi, if you don't want to end up defending a libel suit. Still I don't want to get stuck here defending sloughter, so I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #398 - 02/24/09 at 19:23:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 19:15:22: And the idea that would you tolerate a Nazi anywhere is really a despicable thing to say to a person that has lost families at their hands. I have the greatest respect for you, but I hope you will pardon me, because this goes to liberty and free expression. If you ban someone's presence or rights of expression based only on your detestation of his views, you become a tyrant to him and a slave to your presently held opinions. Also I don't want to belittle what you said, but sloughter hasn't brutally murdered anyone, so far as I know. This is my last post to this thread, which has become an arena for hysteria and insanity.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #397 - 02/24/09 at 19:15:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich: He is here to recruit. That is a fact as he has stated so much in his provision of background info and insistence to look into his "resume." Look closely at the replies and you can see has has already gained some followers here. And the idea that would you tolerate a Nazi anywhere is really a despicable thing to say to a person that has lost families at their hands. I suggest that if someone brutally murdered a member of your family you would not feel ok that I tolerate their inclusion to a party where they are free to recruit more people to commit such deeds. You are far too wise to be as ignorant as your statement would seem to indicate. If you put chess knowledge above human life I feel sorry for your family, and that is what you have done with your utterly indignant and ignorant statement of tolerating a Nazi. Moody brought the subject up. He has shown his contempt for people here and the hatred he has the he would do everything possible to make sure innocent people are slaughtered Please do compel me to get the AJDA involved because they are much tougher to deal with and tend to get very legal in their activities. British laws about this type of hate are more strict than US. There is a line and there are only two side to stand upon. There is no middle ground, and anyone that pretends there is has actually chosen a side. Choose wisely.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #396 - 02/24/09 at 18:53:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/24/09 at 16:35:21: The allied armies of Mensa, L Ron Hubbard, Kent Hovind and Lyndon LaRouche are massing at the border. They await the order to attack from the the inventor of the mains-powered perpetuum mobile. Coals to Newcastle. But seriously, I don't think that sloughter's politics, however detestable they may be (I have no idea of there is any truth to these allegations), should be at issue here. While I fully respect drkodos sensibilities, sloughter wasn't spouting this stuff here: someone had to go looking for it. What I do think is relevant is that, as you can see from his Einstein article and his other creations, he is utterly contemptuous of received truth across a wide range of intellectual endeavor. In once sense that is admirable, truth could never advance without people to challenge what's taken for granted. But when you set yourself up in field after field as a natural genius whose insights are profoundly revolutionary, you are either God's gift to humanity or something pretty close to a lunatic. I rather think that sloughter is the latter. If you read his Einstein piece, for example (http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm), you see that he not only accuses Einstein of stealing ideas (whether he did or not is nothing but a footnote to the history of modern physics, it would seem to me), but he seriously maintains that Eddington's work done later and validating general relativity was a hoax. Eddington allegedly promulgated fraudulent results merely for the purpose of elevating Einstein. I am not entirely sure whether sloughter doubts general relativity, but it's worth nothing that it has been amply verified since Eddington. So it would not seem entirely surprising that Eddington's observations were consistent with Einstein's theory. In any case I fail to see why this forum should be a regular venting-place for whatever dark aspects of sloughter's character lead always to the conclusion that he is the Sole Possesser of the One Truth. Unlike drkodos, I would suffer a Nazi here so long as he didn't tout his Nazi ideas, but I would not suffer an obnoxiously vocal Mad Hatter whose insights into chess would be just as good if they had been obtained with the assistance of a telescope and an astrolabe.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #395 - 02/24/09 at 18:52:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	AlanG wrote on 02/24/09 at 17:13:42: But how do you know he has any connection to them? They've put up a copy of his article, but he may know nothing about it. The FACT that they put up a copy of his article shows their shared ideology.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #394 - 02/24/09 at 18:26:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	AlanG wrote on 02/24/09 at 17:13:42: drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 17:08:11: Do some homework on these folks: Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party Google that. But how do you know he has any connection to them? They've put up a copy of his article, but he may know nothing about it. Are you serious? So, do you hang out with Nazis and put their stuff on your website and attend their meetings as a guest lecturer? Connect the dots he himself has drawn. If you are unwilling to do that honest work, then allow one who has to tell you what really is going on lest you be complicit in aiding and abetting the goals of these truly nefarious people, whose history of inhumanity is well documented.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

AlanG Full Member Offline Posts: 159 Joined: 10/16/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #393 - 02/24/09 at 17:13:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 17:08:11: Do some homework on these folks: Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party Google that. But how do you know he has any connection to them? They've put up a copy of his article, but he may know nothing about it.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #392 - 02/24/09 at 17:08:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	Do some homework on these folks: Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party Google that.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #391 - 02/24/09 at 17:07:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	Indeed, I wondered the same. All I've been able to conclude so far from his crazed writings is that Moody Jr is a certified plum duff, who, despite his 'Masters in Geology' seems committed to misrepresenting academic practices as inherently dishonest. Without know anything about this stone cold loon's personal political or religious convictions, this feels remarkably similar to the standard creationist smearing of Darwin as a plagiarist.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #390 - 02/24/09 at 17:03:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	AlanG wrote on 02/24/09 at 16:58:56: These quotes seem to be from a website that contains the article on Einstein, but are you sure they're not written by someone else? Would you post those words on your site and defend them? Just wondering.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

AlanG Full Member Offline Posts: 159 Joined: 10/16/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #389 - 02/24/09 at 16:58:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	These quotes seem to be from a website that contains the article on Einstein, but are you sure they're not written by someone else?


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #388 - 02/24/09 at 16:49:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Another DIRECT QUOTE from Moody's work: "Niggers in Africa wouldn't even accept this degenerate kike as a role model. Why should our Christian children be forced to?" His user name is an inside reference on what he thinks should be done to those people he has identified above. Quite frankly, if Nazis are allowed to post here and use this site to generate more members of the cult of hatred, I will make sure to not renew and to tell my other friends likewise. It is come to that. A lot of members of the Tribe play chess and would not appreciate this guy being protected because of ignorance to what are his real goals. If Nazis are at the party I am sure I will not attend.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #387 - 02/24/09 at 16:35:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	The allied armies of Mensa, L Ron Hubbard, Kent Hovind and Lyndon LaRouche are massing at the border. They await the order to attack from the the inventor of the mains-powered perpetuum mobile.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #386 - 02/24/09 at 16:32:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 02/24/09 at 16:25:03: Oh my god, don't tell me that sloughter wants Poland. Here is an example of his anti-semitic, misogynistic remarks from his "work": "The brain of the smartest jew in the world is smaller than a woman's--and the smartest jew sin the world is a LIAR, plagiarist, and idiot" "This "brilliant", "pacifist" jew, who condemned us for nuking Japan, is referring to a people who, almost totally destroyed in a jew-created world war, succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of jews, and within half a century rebuilding their country to achieve family incomes almost twice as high as ours and proved that exiling the jew is worth every electron of effort required to accomplish that noble goal" Markovich, in all seriousness, as a person married to a woman of Jewish persuasion, who has herself lost family members in Concentration camps, the words of Richard Moody Jr are a deeply painful reminder that there are those out there that would walk my wife and kids into an oven if given that opportunity. He is a front-man of seriously cult of hatred. I am not joking at all about this. It it talks like a Nazi and walks like a Nazi, it is a Nazi. Defending sloughter in any fashion is akin to defending Goebels, Goering or any other member of the Third Reich.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #385 - 02/24/09 at 16:25:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	Oh my god, don't tell me that sloughter wants Poland.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #384 - 02/24/09 at 16:10:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	He should be banned for violating the TOS in which it explicity states: "You agree, through your use of this YaBB forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate to this YaBB forum." His entire scheme is one big Spam-a-lot to promote his books among his fellow cultists and to attract more members to said cult. I also see the irony in that I have also willfully breached said TOS and I am willing to live with whatever repurcussions grow from my actions. Matemax: Ignorance will not work with this guy, nor did it work with Hitler. Sloughter has crossed over the Poland-Germany border and that is why I have been carpet bombing his attempts at fortifying his advance positions. And as much fun as I am having with rhetorical target practice, my aim the entire time has been to take this thread into the closest Black Hole in the Gamma Quadrant in the hopes of restoring some sanity here so that I can continue to learn something from the real chess players.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #383 - 02/24/09 at 15:54:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	I always have thought that Einstein had taken the maths for his special relativity from the Austrian-Dutch mathematician/physicist HA Lorentz. Before you guys accuse me of exaggerated patriottism, my source is the American book Elementary Modern Physics by RT Weidner and RL Sells. Concerning Sloughter: while Antillian is right, that the level of this thread approaches Absolute Zero, this imo is not enough reason to ban Sloughter. This is his thread; he does not spoil other threads. As soon as that happens it is time for a ban indeed. Sorry Markovich, I don't back you (yet?)

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #382 - 02/24/09 at 15:27:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? I hate to say it, but sloughter is on to something here. Still he gets no marks for originality. It is known that for his 1905 article about special relativity, Einstein drew very heavily on a paper by Poincare without crediting him. Some remarks about the 'transformation group' cannot have been devised by a 1905 physicist, even if more interested in math than Einstein. E=mc2 and the notion of relative time are found in Poincare. In his reference work Sir Edmund Whittaker talks about 'the relativity of Poincare-Lorentz'. This is not yet mainstream knowledge because restoring credit where due is usually slow, especially when the media can't wait to create icons.


	IP Logged

Matemax God Member Offline Chesspub gives you strength! Posts: 1302 Joined: 11/04/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #381 - 02/24/09 at 15:02:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: I am sorry, but this is the end. I'm writing to Tony with a request to have you banned, and I hope others do so as well. The easiest way of banning is to ignore those people. If they dont get attention (and thats what they want, not a discussion) they will leave and find a different place.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #380 - 02/24/09 at 14:49:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: You know my name since it has appeared on this site several times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian. Cheesus K. Reist!

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Antillian God Member Offline Brilliance without dazzle! Posts: 1757 Joined: 01/05/03 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #379 - 02/24/09 at 14:35:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	Agree that this thread has descended into the abyss now. It is not even funny anymore. I suggest it is time to lock it.

	"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #378 - 02/24/09 at 14:20:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:07:31: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I see a bunch of scared little boys who hide behind the anonymity of their screen names and pretend to dispense wisdom when, they are, just a bunch of pathetic little boys who always like to raise their hands to get attention from the teacher. I really feel sorry for you post members---what pathetic lives you must lead! I am sorry, but this is the end. I'm writing to Tony with a request to have you banned, and I hope others do so as well. You only have to read any of the other threads on chesspub to see how serious people are here about sharing chess ideas and learning from what others have to say. The community here is not closed, but is very open to newcomers. It welcomes not only those with chess knowledge to contribute, but anyone who comes in a constructive and questing spirit. Though there is the occasional spat, this also happens to be one of the most polite forums that you'll come across on the internet. A little decency is all that's expected here. You instead come here with a markedly superior tone and dispense definitive lectures in support of chess ideas that are pretty well understood to be false. It appears you think that your chess engine, your personal knowledge of the deep structure of chess (in spite of being a rather weak player yourself), and your private conversations with Lev Alburt place you on a plane of chess understanding higher that that occupied by anyone else here (in spite of some here being quite strong players, and most being stronger than you). Anyone with any sort of social sense would understand that this kind of conduct is much more likely to irritate people than to draw them into useful conversation. I advised you in the beginning to take a less superior tone, but it was advice that went unheeded. Now having run into so much opposition, you react in this way (see quotation). You don't pay attention to any of the chess thinking that people share with you, instead coming back with more superiority. Your whole approach to this forum makes constructive discussion impossible. People here either have to yield to your highly dubious conclusions and hail you as the font of chess wisdom, or be decried as naysayers, pigheaded poohbahs, or scared little boys in need of a real life. I don't know what you find satisfying about any of this. For a long time I thought that you should be tolerated, and that perhaps you'd eventually come around to some sort of decent mode of interaction with others here. But you haven't, and instead you resort to ever more imperious and insulting rejoinders. So I've had it with you, and I'm going to do my best to get you kicked out of here. P.S. I have no problem with anyone posting here anonymously, but my own true identity is well known here, and as you will recall, I even sent you a couple of messages signed with my real name. P.P.S. I rather strongly suspect that your failure to make progress in chess is due to your stubborn unwillingness to accept your present degree of ignorance and your shortcomings as a player. You should think about that.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #377 - 02/24/09 at 14:20:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 06:55:15: sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: You know my name since it has appeared on this site several times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? You religious zealots don't really understand how science works, do you? For your next act I suspect you will refute the Holocaust? If people here really knew what you were, what type of person you really are, they would be ashamed to even take your money. Except for those types like you that make living bastardizing the works of brilliant people and disparaging them long after they are dead and gone and can no longer provide defense. You are an insult to faith, a joke of an author, and truly a harbinger of hatred with regards to secular humanism. I only hope that when you really snap for good you take out only yourself and do not even perpetuate property damage to others. I remain shocked that a Ukrainian-Jewish person would deal with you and it now remains forever a blemish on the face of Lev Alburt for sleeping with the enemy and making money from such a hateful and vitriolic person. I hereby curse you! In the name of the Romani! You have been cursed and all who are near and dear to you shall suffer systemic acne from your actions and no amount of Proactiv-X will ease their blemish!! I'm pretty shocked myself at how bad this is turning out. It's one thing when a guy espouses ridiculous opinions on a board game, but when he tries to discredit one of history's most creative thinkers (In the name of Aryans?) now it's getting into the tin-hat-to-block-out the CIA-mind-control-zone. Quote: ...or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast? Sloughter, for the love of Pete, are you serious? This example produces the opposite of your intention. I mean for crying outloud, KENT FRICKIN' HOVIND WAS A GUEST ON THIS SHOW!! ITS FOR CRACK POTS! If you want to know about science and critical thought, why don't you go and read Richard Dawkins and leave "thinking" and science to other people.

	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #376 - 02/24/09 at 14:00:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 02/24/09 at 04:17:53: Peer reviewed? The first question to ask. Of course not. Nobody on this planet has an IQ high enough to peer review Sloughter's articles on any subject. He is the one to do the peer reviewing. I am sure he also peer reviews the articles in NIC-yearbooks.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #375 - 02/24/09 at 11:53:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	4.Ng5!? is a very interesting alternative indeed. I am highly surprised that it hasn't been subjected to a serious analysis yet, as White seems to develop a very strong attack. For example: 4...Qg5 (4...Qf6 5.Nf3 Qd8 is bad in view of 6.b4! and Black is getting sloughtered) 5.d4!! A brilliant concept! White attacks both the c5-bishop and g5-queen at the same time, whilst seizing control of the centre! Here are some examples of how quickly Black has collapsed in the face of such a powerful onslaught: [Event "Michigan Novice"] [Site "Auburn Hills"] [Date "2005.01.16"] [Round "4.10"] [White "Maier, Jonathan"] [Black "Bora, Safal"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C50"] [PlyCount "15"] [EventDate "2005.01.15"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "5"] [EventCountry "USA"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2005.11.24"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Ng5 Qxg5 5. d4 Bxd4 6. Bxg5 Bxb2 7. Qf3 Bxa1 8. Qxf7# 1-0 [Event "Pan American-ch Amateur"] [Site "Hermosillo"] [Date "2001.??.??"] [Round "6"] [White "Farias Bojorquez, Cristobal"] [Black "Acuna Serna, Judas"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C50"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "2001.12.01"] [EventType "swiss"] [EventRounds "9"] [EventCountry "MEX"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2002.11.25"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Ng5 Qxg5 5. d4 d6 6. Bxg5 Nxd4 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. Qh5 Nxc2 11. Qxf7+ Kd8 12. Rad1 Re8 13. Bb5 Bxb5 14. Nxb5 Re7 15. Qf8+ Re8 16. Qxf6+ Re7 17. Qh8+ Re8 18. Qxh7 Re7 19. Qg8+ Re8 20. Qc4 c6 21. Qxc2 cxb5 22. Qxc5 Rc8 23. Qxd6# 1-0 The critical line is 5...Qg2, but then 6.Qh5!! wins: 6...Qh1 (6...d5 is better) 7.Kd2 Bd4 8.Qf7 Kd8 9.Qf8#, as in the game Scholar-Fool, Sloughterhouse 2009. I am surprised that nobody had discovered the ingenious 6.Qh5 in the 500+ years that the game of chess as it is today has existed.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 70 Joined: 02/06/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #374 - 02/24/09 at 11:27:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	TN wrote on 02/24/09 at 06:43:25: @GM Sloughter(ed), Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? I am interested to know your refutation as this ground-breaking evidence could overturn 500 years of theory and prove a major improvement over the play of hundreds of Grandmasters. Pah, that's so easy to refute that I could do it in my sleep. 4. Ng5 Bxf2+ 5. Kf1 +-


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #373 - 02/24/09 at 06:55:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: You know my name since it has appeared on this site several times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? You religious zealots don't really understand how science works, do you? For your next act I suspect you will refute the Holocaust? If people here really knew what you were, what type of person you really are, they would be ashamed to even take your money. Except for those types like you that make living bastardizing the works of brilliant people and disparaging them long after they are dead and gone and can no longer provide defense. You are an insult to faith, a joke of an author, and truly a harbinger of hatred with regards to secular humanism. I only hope that when you really snap for good you take out only yourself and do not even perpetuate property damage to others. I remain shocked that a Ukrainian-Jewish person would deal with you and it now remains forever a blemish on the face of Lev Alburt for sleeping with the enemy and making money from such a hateful and vitriolic person. I hereby curse you! In the name of the Romani! You have been cursed and all who are near and dear to you shall suffer systemic acne from your actions and no amount of Proactiv-X will ease their blemish!!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #372 - 02/24/09 at 06:43:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	@GM Sloughter(ed), Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? I am interested to know your refutation as this ground-breaking evidence could overturn 500 years of theory and prove a major improvement over the play of hundreds of Grandmasters.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #371 - 02/24/09 at 06:35:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15: I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's. Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir. drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:54:09: Slaughter: I will meet you face to face if you wish. I will be at the World Open this year in Philadelphia and I would love to meet you or anyone else that want to tell me to my face what they think and allow me to do likewise and hopefully play some chess and settle the argument. I assure you, and people that know me well will attest, I am little rougher in person than I am here. You can also see me in an upcoming PBS American Experience video about American chess hustler Tom Murphy. The crazy guy wearing the purple bathrobe while playing in the Blitz tournament and during the subsequent interviews...that will be me. I will always be glad to say exactly what I write, and then write you a prescription for Depakote to help you cope with the problems you will have dealing with it. Until then, I remain anonymously yours, ~ drkodos drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:14:39: MNb wrote on 02/24/09 at 02:05:10: After all he is to GM's like Kasparov and Alburt what JC was to G*d: the Chess Messiah. Using that form of the word god in a public forum is very offensive to some of us. Those of us with a brain enough to realize that if there is a god he is a terrible one take absolute offense. What parent would let their children behave thusly as we have here on this watery rock? Only a negligent one or one that is utterly indifferent. So, even if christians are correct, I really hope they keep their god to themselves because I find any mention or use of the word god and the atrocities the word represents to be most offensive in whatever guise it is used. I try to be egalitarian, so I make sure to always be equally offended by those I offend. After all, I am a god member on this site.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #370 - 02/24/09 at 06:32:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/24/09 at 00:43:51: This thread has caused the majority of posters to lose faith in their own perception of reality. TN, Markovich, Uruk and myself can no longer discern whether someone is being sarcastic or enthusiastic, facetious or facile, serious or silly. Sloughter has, effectively, destroyed reality itself. Kodos continues to cling desperately to the last vestiges of his sanity, but the only thing I can be sure of any more is that I will never, ever purchase a book by Lev Alburt. In fact, e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Qe2 Qe7 Nc3 Nc6 Qd1 Qd8 is now looking so interesting to me that I intend to publish my analysis of the 'Cuban Missile Crisis' variation in pamphlet form. 'With apocalyptic violence overdue, both White and Black agree to climb down in the face of armageddon. However, whilst Black is genuine in his desire to avoid mutual d-pawn advances, White merely feigns the permanent removal of his Queen from its optimum launch site, returning it the next move with 6. Qe2!' Bazam! neeeeeeeyowwww, ack-ack-ack, vroom vroom, gibber gibber

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #369 - 02/24/09 at 04:17:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: You know my name since it has appeared on this site several times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15: I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's. Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir. Peer reviewed? The first question to ask. Otherwise, some may suspect that the output is of equal consequence to the efforts herein. You may choose to take that as a compliment. Others however may be sceptical as to the value of your efforts in other fields. Which may be unfair, but is certainly understandable.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #368 - 02/24/09 at 04:09:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: You know my name since it has appeared on this site several times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15: I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's. Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir. I am happy being an anomymous Lilliputian to your dazzling intellect. And yes, me, my canary, and the frozen fish are all closely familiar with your "papers." But please, tell me more. Is there somewhere I could go to hear you speak or at least tell me what frequency to tune my hat so I can listen in. Do you like Art Bell? He smart.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #367 - 02/24/09 at 03:58:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04: or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? How much is the subscription? I confess I haven't kept up with developments of 32nd century science.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #366 - 02/24/09 at 03:43:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	You know my name since it has appeared on this site several times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15: I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's. Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #365 - 02/24/09 at 03:31:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nh7! Bc5 (Rxh7 8.dxc6 b4 9.Be2 Qd6 10.O-O Qxc6 11.d3 Be6 12.Bf3 Bd5 13.Bxd5 Qxd5 14.a3 +/-) 8.Nxf6ch Qxf6 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qd2 Ne7 11.c3 Bc5 12.Bxb5ch c6 13.dxc6 O-O 14.O-O +/- 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 = to +/=.sloughter wrote on 02/22/09 at 10:48:19: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 cxd5 9.Qxa8 Qd7 10.Qf3 Bd6 11.d3 Bb7 12.Qe2 Bxg2 13.Rg1 +/- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bxe2 11.Qxe5ch Be7 12.Qxe2 +/- 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Qd6 11.Nc3 Rb8 12.Be2 Be6 13.O-O +/- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.d3 Nb4 12.Bd1 Be6 13.Nbc3 +/- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.a3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Qxe2 +/- 8.Qf3 Bd7 9.Be2 Bd6 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Qe3 Nd5 12.Nxd5 Bxe2 13.Nc3 Bg4 14.Nge4 O-O 15.Nxd6 Qxd6 16.Qg3 Be6 17.d3 f5 18.O-O f4 19.Ne4 +/- 8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bf1 Nb4 11.Na3 f6 12.Ne4 Be6 13.b3 Bf5 14.f3 Rd8 15.c3 Nd3ch (Nd5 16.Nc4 Nxc4 17.Bxc4 +/=) 16.Bxd3 Rxd3 17.Ke2 Rd7 18.d3 Nb7 19.Nc4 Nc5 20.Rd1 Ne6 21.Be3 +/= 8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bf1 Rb8 11.a3 Be7 12.Ne4 f5 13.Nec3 Nb7 14.d3 Nc5 15.Nd2 Bf6 16.Nc4 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Be6 18.Be3 Na4 19.d4 Bxc4 20.Bxc4 Nxc3 21.dxe5 Bxe5 22.O-O Kd7 (Rb7 Rae1 +/=) 23.Bxa7 Rb2 24.Bd3 g6 25.Be3 +/= 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.Nc3 Qxe4 13.Nxe4 Be6 (f5 14.Nc3 Be6 15.d3 g5 16.h4 g4 h5 +/=) 14.d3 f5 15.Nc3 g5 16.h4 g4 17.h5 Kd7 18.f3 gxf3 (g3 19.f4 Bd6 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Bf3 Be7 22.Nd1 +/=) 19.Bxf3 Nb7 20.Kd1 Bc5 21.Re1 Bd4 22.Be3 c5 23.Kc1 Nd8 24.Nd1 Bxe3ch 25.Rxe3 Nf7 unclear to +/= 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qc4 O-O 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Nf3 e4 14.Ne5 Ba4 15.d3 Qa5ch 16.Nc3 Bb4 17.O-O +/=sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 23:43:16: Here is the latest analysis of the Ulvestad and the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.cxd4 bxc4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.f4 e4 9.Nc3 Qxc6 10.Ngxe4 +/= 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O +/= sloughter wrote on 02/10/09 at 12:43:27: Here is the definitive analysis and practical play in the 8.Nh3 variation. From a book I published in 1999, "Theory pretty much ends with the move sequence 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nh3 although the author and GM Alburt analyzed this variation in detail in EMPIRE CHESS, Winter 1988 p.6. We also recognize the contributions of ICM van der Tak, NM Alon Bochman, FM Craig Mar and the pretty tactical shot pointed out by Pete Tamburro (8...Bg4 9.Qxg4?? (Bb5ch!) Nc2ch 9.Kd1?? Nce3ch! -+), and minor computer-assessed analysis of 8.Nh3 Bxh3 by NM Eric Schiller." "GM's Alburt's concept, first recognized in the game Alburt-Gulko, USSR Student Cham., Dubna, 1970 is a profound idea that places the onus on Black to equalize. The first point is that White prepares to exhange off a pair of Knights after say Ne6/Nef4. This is obviously not possible in the variation 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nef4 when Black has compensation. We now follow Alburt-Gulko: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch; we prefer 10.Qa4 see below: 10...Qd7 11.O-O Be7 12.Qe2 Bf6?! 13.d3 (d4 +/=) O-O 14,Ba3 Rfe8. Black has a variety of alternatives to 8...Ne6 e.g. 8...Nc6 9.Bxb5 +/- or 8...Bg4 9.Bxb5ch Nxb5 10.Qxg4 or 8...Nf5 which leaves the Knight on a peculiar square and, of course, 9.Bxb5ch wins a pawn. This narrows the choices to 8.Nh3 Bxh3!? and 8...Ne6. If 8...Bxh3 9.cxd4 (gxh3 Qh4! with comp: ICM van der Tak) 9...Bd7 (To defend b5). If now 10.dxe5 +/= GM Alburt. Black only has partial compensation for the pawn, but, NM Eric Schiller maintains that Black is okay after 10...Qh4. This is difficult to accept after 10.Nc3! White hits d5 and bv5; if 11...Nxc3 12.dxc3 Qe4ch 13.Qe2 +/-. and on 11...c6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 Qg5 14.O-O Qxe5? 15.Re1 looks pretty good for White. Other tries like 10...Nb4 or Be7 don't promise Black very much either. "Thus the stem game, Alburt-Gulko appears to have revealed the main line very early. The key continuation for White appears to be 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4!. White either forces Black to accept an inferior middlegame or an inferior endgame: 10...Nb6 11.Bd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 Be7 14.Nc3 O-O 15.d5 +/=. "Black avoids an endgame but is not out of the woods yet; with best play, White should win this. There are a host of similar endings Black can achieve a pawn down, with no real compensation for the pawn. Obviously, this is unacceptable to the majority of chess players. Black can also try 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.O-O Be7 13.d4 +/= Black is shy of equality. The decision to enter an endgame is only marginally better: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4! (Ke2 e4 14.Na3 Nd3 15.Nc2 Nd5f4ch 16.Nxf4 Nxf4ch 17.Ke3 Nd3: and NM Bochman wonders if White can dig out) 13...exd4 14.cxd4 (O-O dxc3 =) 15.Nc3! Nxd4 (Nb4 16.d5 +/- or Nxc3 16.bxc3 +/- Evaluations by GM Alburt) 16.Nxd5 Nc2ch 17.Kd1 Nxa1 18.Bd2! +/= (GM Alburt) "One final try is 10.Qa4 Bc5 but 11.d3 f5 +/= (GM Alburt)" There doesn't appear to be any simple pathway to equality for Black here.sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:10:54: In order to keep the analyzed lines in one place, here is a way to avoid the complicatons of 8.Ne4 Ne6 i.e. 8.Nh3!? Bxh3 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & White is better than the 8.Ne4 line because he can oppose Knights when one of them gets to f4) 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/= (I'll have to check my analysis here; Black may have a draw by repetition in one of the subvariations). So far, not one menber of this post has tried to engage in an analytical battle over even one variation. Since many are controversial e.g. my latest attempt at an advantage against 8.Ne4 Ne6!sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15: In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #364 - 02/24/09 at 03:14:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 02/24/09 at 02:05:10: After all he is to GM's like Kasparov and Alburt what JC was to G*d: the Chess Messiah. Using that form of the word god in a public forum is very offensive to some of us. Those of us with a brain enough to realize that if there is a god he is a terrible one take absolute offense. What parent would let their children behave thusly as we have here on this watery rock? Only a negligent one or one that is utterly indifferent. So, even if christians are correct, I really hope they keep their god to themselves because I find any mention or use of the word god and the atrocities the word represents to be most offensive in whatever guise it is used. I try to be egalitarian, so I make sure to always be equally offended by those I offend. After all, I am a god member on this site.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #363 - 02/24/09 at 03:04:10	Post Tools	Print Post
	Funniest post ever ? sloughter wrote on 01/03/09 at 15:04:09: GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:11:22: What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development. Not the way I define development. There is a certain internal harmony in chess. (...) Without analyzing anything (I don't have a chess board here), my immediate reaction is to reject gxf3 (...) The way I look at the position, I am going to try to give back the piece advantageously (...) Obviously, the way I define time, 12...O-O is vastly superior to 12...Be6.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #362 - 02/24/09 at 02:05:10	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:07:31: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I see a bunch of scared little boys who hide behind the anonymity of their screen names and pretend to dispense wisdom when, they are, just a bunch of pathetic little boys who always like to raise their hands to get attention from the teacher. I really feel sorry for you post members---what pathetic lives you must lead! This is post-modern satire - Sloughter proves he understands Gulliver's Travels indeed. In the 21st Century an ELO-1600 player is the teacher and those with a higher rating the pathetic pupils who try to get Master Moody's attention .... So lets all be silent and rejoice in Master Moody's analytical brilliancies. After all he is to GM's like Kasparov and Alburt what JC was to G*d: the Chess Messiah. 4.Ng5! +-! Master Moody has spoken. Who are we to doubt his word? Chess Lilliputians! Please, Master Moody, forgive us, as we know not better.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #361 - 02/24/09 at 01:54:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	Slaughter: I will meet you face to face if you wish. I will be at the World Open this year in Philadelphia and I would love to meet you or anyone else that want to tell me to my face what they think and allow me to do likewise and hopefully play some chess and settle the argument. I assure you, and people that know me well will attest, I am little rougher in person than I am here. You can also see me in an upcoming PBS American Experience video about American chess hustler Tom Murphy. The crazy guy wearing the purple bathrobe while playing in the Blitz tournament and during the subsequent interviews...that will be me. I will always be glad to say exactly what I write, and then write you a prescription for Depakote to help you cope with the problems you will have dealing with it. Until then, I remain anonymously yours, ~ drkodos

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #360 - 02/24/09 at 01:42:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's. Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #359 - 02/24/09 at 01:33:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	Anonymity? Teacher (you?)? Lives? Discretion being the better part of valour, I'll admit to being suitably chastened, and sit quietly at the front of the class for the remainder of the semester.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #358 - 02/24/09 at 01:07:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I see a bunch of scared little boys who hide behind the anonymity of their screen names and pretend to dispense wisdom when, they are, just a bunch of pathetic little boys who always like to raise their hands to get attention from the teacher. I really feel sorry for you post members---what pathetic lives you must lead!Roger Williamson wrote on 02/24/09 at 00:43:51: This thread has caused the majority of posters to lose faith in their own perception of reality. TN, Markovich, Uruk and myself can no longer discern whether someone is being sarcastic or enthusiastic, facetious or facile, serious or silly. Sloughter has, effectively, destroyed reality itself. Kodos continues to cling desperately to the last vestiges of his sanity, but the only thing I can be sure of any more is that I will never, ever purchase a book by Lev Alburt. In fact, e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Qe2 Qe7 Nc3 Nc6 Qd1 Qd8 is now looking so interesting to me that I intend to publish my analysis of the 'Cuban Missile Crisis' variation in pamphlet form. 'With apocalyptic violence overdue, both White and Black agree to climb down in the face of armageddon. However, whilst Black is genuine in his desire to avoid mutual d-pawn advances, White merely feigns the permanent removal of his Queen from its optimum launch site, returning it the next move with 6. Qe2!' Bazam! neeeeeeeyowwww, ack-ack-ack, vroom vroom, gibber gibber


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #357 - 02/24/09 at 00:59:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	Are you the Wicked Witch of the West or the flying monkey? From your lack of intellectual freight, I can assure you, that it is the latter.drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 20:20:48: sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:38:38: I feel like Gulliver in Gulliver's travels with all the Lilliputians trying to tie me down! Notice how it takes 100 Lilliputians to tie down one Gulliver? drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 00:05:39: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". The other linked review is a bone crusher, theory breaker, deal killer. The book is a joke and the author should be criminalized for the killing of trees to produce a 90 grade sandpapery toilet tissue. The people here egging him on to provide further proof of his insanity puzzle me. Telling him he his an ardent student of chess is a mistake and so is any praise of his feeble efforts. An intervention should be done instead. If someone spends so much time on something and cannot grasp even the points that 10 year-old beginners are able to gain they should be honesty told, ESPECIALLY BY THEIR INSTRUCTORS, that they may have a learning disability and they should seek some type of professional help to address the underlying issues they have as a human being instead allowing them to continue to waste other people's time, efforts and resources. If someone cares about sloughter they should assist him in getting him the real help he needs, and not just a better chess coach. That book is satire, something for which you have not demonstrated intelligence enough to distinguish from other forms of literature. There is hierarchy of understanding in literature as well as understanding chess. You cannot possible hope to comprehend what exists on the upper rungs until you have at least surmounted the lower. Stop posting. Start climbing.


	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #356 - 02/24/09 at 00:43:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	This thread has caused the majority of posters to lose faith in their own perception of reality. TN, Markovich, Uruk and myself can no longer discern whether someone is being sarcastic or enthusiastic, facetious or facile, serious or silly. Sloughter has, effectively, destroyed reality itself. Kodos continues to cling desperately to the last vestiges of his sanity, but the only thing I can be sure of any more is that I will never, ever purchase a book by Lev Alburt. In fact, e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Qe2 Qe7 Nc3 Nc6 Qd1 Qd8 is now looking so interesting to me that I intend to publish my analysis of the 'Cuban Missile Crisis' variation in pamphlet form. 'With apocalyptic violence overdue, both White and Black agree to climb down in the face of armageddon. However, whilst Black is genuine in his desire to avoid mutual d-pawn advances, White merely feigns the permanent removal of his Queen from its optimum launch site, returning it the next move with 6. Qe2!' Bazam! neeeeeeeyowwww, ack-ack-ack, vroom vroom, gibber gibber


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #355 - 02/24/09 at 00:03:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:17:27: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 dxe4 6.exf6 exf3 7.fxe7 exf2 8.exf8ch +- I see, he's been kidding all along Or could it be...


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #354 - 02/23/09 at 20:36:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	And slaughter, learn how to post. Stop wasting so much space with those asinine lengthy quotes in which you do not even properly use that function. Even a seven year old can hit the button and type in the space it provides, but somehow you over complicate even that, and in so doing, make your ridiculous points even more clunky, unwieldy and just plain nasty to look at. Form Follows Function, slaughter. Ask Lev. I am sure he can explain it to you for the low-low cost of a chess lesson by phone.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #353 - 02/23/09 at 20:31:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:17:27: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 dxe4 6.exf6 exf3 7.fxe7 exf2 8.exf8ch +-Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 += Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them. I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight. Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round? Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program. Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that? 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.de5 Ne4 is equal for Black.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #352 - 02/23/09 at 20:20:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:38:38: I feel like Gulliver in Gulliver's travels with all the Lilliputians trying to tie me down! Notice how it takes 100 Lilliputians to tie down one Gulliver? drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 00:05:39: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". The other linked review is a bone crusher, theory breaker, deal killer. The book is a joke and the author should be criminalized for the killing of trees to produce a 90 grade sandpapery toilet tissue. The people here egging him on to provide further proof of his insanity puzzle me. Telling him he his an ardent student of chess is a mistake and so is any praise of his feeble efforts. An intervention should be done instead. If someone spends so much time on something and cannot grasp even the points that 10 year-old beginners are able to gain they should be honesty told, ESPECIALLY BY THEIR INSTRUCTORS, that they may have a learning disability and they should seek some type of professional help to address the underlying issues they have as a human being instead allowing them to continue to waste other people's time, efforts and resources. If someone cares about sloughter they should assist him in getting him the real help he needs, and not just a better chess coach. That book is satire, something for which you have not demonstrated intelligence enough to distinguish from other forms of literature. There is hierarchy of understanding in literature as well as understanding chess. You cannot possible hope to comprehend what exists on the upper rungs until you have at least surmounted the lower. Stop posting. Start climbing.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #351 - 02/23/09 at 19:38:38	Post Tools	Print Post
	I feel like Gulliver in Gulliver's travels with all the Lilliputians trying to tie me down! Notice how it takes 100 Lilliputians to tie down one Gulliver? drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 00:05:39: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". The other linked review is a bone crusher, theory breaker, deal killer. The book is a joke and the author should be criminalized for the killing of trees to produce a 90 grade sandpapery toilet tissue. The people here egging him on to provide further proof of his insanity puzzle me. Telling him he his an ardent student of chess is a mistake and so is any praise of his feeble efforts. An intervention should be done instead. If someone spends so much time on something and cannot grasp even the points that 10 year-old beginners are able to gain they should be honesty told, ESPECIALLY BY THEIR INSTRUCTORS, that they may have a learning disability and they should seek some type of professional help to address the underlying issues they have as a human being instead allowing them to continue to waste other people's time, efforts and resources. If someone cares about sloughter they should assist him in getting him the real help he needs, and not just a better chess coach.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #350 - 02/23/09 at 19:27:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	Grabbing the second is a gourmand approach. A more restrained approach is to play 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bf1 (With an idea borrowed from the Fritz. See my analysis on the last analysis post). This allows White to regroup with Qe2.Uruk wrote on 02/23/09 at 02:06:32: Uruk wrote on 02/09/09 at 16:16:24: sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 11:41:36: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 O-O 12.Qe2 Not that it has any significance until you beat Arkhein's 11...Qc7, but I'd play 12...Ng4 for the fun of it. 13.Ne4 Rc8. This still has some theoretical value because it could arise by Qf3-e2 instead of Qa6-e2. Comes from page 15. Sorry, didn't bother to mention a third route Qc4-e2. Not exactly a new idea from our hero...


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #349 - 02/23/09 at 19:22:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Funny you should mention the "sarcastic" nature of his review, particularly when we have been playing a half dozen games in the Latvian Gambit in the past several months, where John is one of the World's leading experts. I drew two of the first four games (one of the ones I lost, John said I was clearly winning by move 11). (We never finished the fifth and I have an equal position in the sixth). If it was a sarcastic review, then why does John like to play the Latvian Gambit against me month after month? MNb wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:20:05: Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it. As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #348 - 02/23/09 at 19:22:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	slaughter

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #347 - 02/23/09 at 19:17:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 dxe4 6.exf6 exf3 7.fxe7 exf2 8.exf8ch +-Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 += Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them. I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight. Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round? Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program. Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #346 - 02/23/09 at 18:02:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	Three chess players walk into a bar. All three now have a lump on their foreheads.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Matemax God Member Offline Chesspub gives you strength! Posts: 1302 Joined: 11/04/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #345 - 02/23/09 at 17:54:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: I once sat at a bar when Timman, Hubner and Miles joined me and sat next to me. Friendly fellows,.......... especially after I provided a round of drinks. Let me guess : Timman: a glas of wine, another glas of wine and a third one Miles: some green tea Hubner: milk ("What else?")


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #344 - 02/23/09 at 17:01:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Roger Williamson (quote: I once shared a cab with Nigel Short) @Bibs: (quote: I once met Bob Hoskin on the bus) ============================================ Something similar: I once sat at a bar when Timman, Hubner and Miles joined me and sat next to me. Friendly fellows,.......... especially after I provided a round of drinks. This happened during one of the Tilburg/Interpolis tournaments at a pub not far from the players hotel.


	IP Logged

Antillian God Member Offline Brilliance without dazzle! Posts: 1757 Joined: 01/05/03 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #343 - 02/23/09 at 15:58:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	dfan wrote on 02/23/09 at 15:30:22: Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it. I did, of course, and I still thought it was serious. Elburg is so relentlessly positive about everything that it's hard to imagine he's being sarcastic in this one review. I happily admit the possibility of being wrong, though. Agree. He was not being sarcastic. But it is meaninglessness nonetheless. It is like getting a recommendation from your mom.

	"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
	IP Logged

dfan God Member Offline "When you see a bad move, look for a better one" Posts: 766 Location: Boston Joined: 10/04/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #342 - 02/23/09 at 15:30:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it. I did, of course, and I still thought it was serious. Elburg is so relentlessly positive about everything that it's hard to imagine he's being sarcastic in this one review. I happily admit the possibility of being wrong, though.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #341 - 02/23/09 at 13:21:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	TN wrote on 02/23/09 at 07:15:05: Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 += Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them. I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight. Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round? Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program. Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that? Are you serious or are you joking? He's joking. Pretty funny, too.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #340 - 02/23/09 at 11:12:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them.


	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #339 - 02/23/09 at 11:02:26	Post Tools	Print Post


	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #338 - 02/23/09 at 07:15:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 += Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them. I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight. Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round? Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program. Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that? Are you serious or are you joking?

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #337 - 02/23/09 at 05:24:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Is he related to Derek Griffiths of Playaway and Playschool fame? Never saw him on any form of public transport though. Probably a cyclist.


	IP Logged

IM Christoph Wisnewski Full Member Offline International Master Posts: 195 Location: Kiel Joined: 04/03/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #336 - 02/23/09 at 05:21:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:19:18: Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that? I once sat next to Bob Hoskins on a bus in Clapham. And I met the man who met Andy Griffith...

	"Chess you don't learn, chess you understand!" (V. Korchnoi)
	WWW ICQ IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #335 - 02/23/09 at 05:19:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04: Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that? I once sat next to Bob Hoskins on a bus in Clapham. Friendly fellow. Asked him whether Fridays were still long and good. 'Occasionally'.


	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #334 - 02/23/09 at 05:04:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 += Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them. I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight. Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round? Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program. Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #333 - 02/23/09 at 04:52:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:38:45: MNb wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:20:05: Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it. As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable. Oh dear. Oh dearie me. That is unfortunate if that could have been a serious review. Mind you, I have assumed that much of what is written here is tongue-in-cheek by people attempting a wind-up. Only for it to become apparent that the query was disturbingly genuine. 'Has anyone read Reader's Digest?' my favourite, still tickles me a tad. It is highly amusing to me that the subject of discussion has changed from an author who doesn't know what he's talking about to a reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about. Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 yet sloughter? Your 'book' claims that 3.Qe2 wins, but simply 3...Qe7 looks quite strong.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #332 - 02/23/09 at 02:06:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	Uruk wrote on 02/09/09 at 16:16:24: sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 11:41:36: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 O-O 12.Qe2 Not that it has any significance until you beat Arkhein's 11...Qc7, but I'd play 12...Ng4 for the fun of it. 13.Ne4 Rc8. This still has some theoretical value because it could arise by Qf3-e2 instead of Qa6-e2. Comes from page 15. Sorry, didn't bother to mention a third route Qc4-e2. Not exactly a new idea from our hero...


	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #331 - 02/23/09 at 01:38:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:20:05: Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it. As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable. Oh dear. Oh dearie me. That is unfortunate if that could have been a serious review. Mind you, I have assumed that much of what is written here is tongue-in-cheek by people attempting a wind-up. Only for it to become apparent that the query was disturbingly genuine. 'Has anyone read Reader's Digest?' my favourite, still tickles me a tad.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #330 - 02/23/09 at 01:20:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26: dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it. As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #329 - 02/23/09 at 00:05:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". The other linked review is a bone crusher, theory breaker, deal killer. The book is a joke and the author should be criminalized for the killing of trees to produce a 90 grade sandpapery toilet tissue. The people here egging him on to provide further proof of his insanity puzzle me. Telling him he his an ardent student of chess is a mistake and so is any praise of his feeble efforts. An intervention should be done instead. If someone spends so much time on something and cannot grasp even the points that 10 year-old beginners are able to gain they should be honesty told, ESPECIALLY BY THEIR INSTRUCTORS, that they may have a learning disability and they should seek some type of professional help to address the underlying issues they have as a human being instead allowing them to continue to waste other people's time, efforts and resources. If someone cares about sloughter they should assist him in getting him the real help he needs, and not just a better chess coach.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

SWJediknight God Member Offline Alert... opponent out of book! Posts: 916 Joined: 03/14/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #328 - 02/22/09 at 23:01:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	A rare exception: he didn't like Italian Game and Evans Gambit by Jan Pinski: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg91.html


	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #327 - 02/22/09 at 22:36:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26: TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews". Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic. Perhaps, dfan, you could read it.


	IP Logged

dfan God Member Offline "When you see a bad move, look for a better one" Posts: 766 Location: Boston Joined: 10/04/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #326 - 02/22/09 at 20:39:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25: http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect. It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews".


	IP Logged

Kramnikaze YaBB Newbies Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 26 Joined: 03/09/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #325 - 02/22/09 at 19:07:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/22/09 at 16:04:49: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bf1 O-O 10.d3 Ng4 11.Nh3 f5 12.Nc3 Ba6 13.Qd1 Bb4 14.Be2 e4 15.O-O exd3 16.Bxd3 Bxd3 17.cxd3 Qf6 18.Bf4 Rad8 19.Qc2 Qd4 20.Rfd1 Rfe8 21.Ne2 +/-Kramnikaze wrote on 02/22/09 at 13:08:22: Dear Sloughter: I appreciate your hard work,but please spend more time with your engine to make conclusions: I did only look at this line: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qc4 O-O 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Nf3 e4 14.Ne5 Ba4 15.d3 Qa5 ? Sorry to say,but this reminds me of Patzer sees a check,patzer plays a check.Much more to the point is: 15....Rc8! and after: 16 Nc4 Bc2! 17 Qc2 ed3 white faces a tough defense for a draw. Why Ng4 ? You should,by now, know that the optimal square is d5.So 10...Nd5! and if you play 11 Nh3 f5! with the idea of e4, and white is not a happy camper.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #324 - 02/22/09 at 17:04:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter, what a bad memory: you already gave 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 where I already gave 9..Nd5 where we played some moves and you didn't find anything here. But no, you come back again with a "poor" move for Black with 9..Nxe4. Then you give 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 (your new try) where 9..Bg4 should not be very good. I would play 9..Be7 I think. You give 9..h6 too but I don't see Black should mix 8..Tb8 with 9..h6, 8..h6 may be better for that. About 8.Qf3 Bd7 or 8..Qd5 I don't care watching that as Black because it's clearly not the main defense and it may indeed be good for White. 8..cxd5 is known to be doubtful too. I see you got a new idea here too: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Bd7 11.Qc4 0-0 12.Qe2 (almost a new move here), and Black has many moves to equalize. Even 12..Rc8 is still good here (as in the line 12.Nc3 Rc8) where it seems to me that the best move for White is still 13.Nc3 with the transposition (if 13.d3, 13..Bb4+! 14.c3 Bb5! with strong pressure). Oh and don't forget about our game! It's your turn since a while!


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #323 - 02/22/09 at 17:00:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	GM: I am excited to see your ideas! Student: yes, I think they are really good. GM: Wonderful! That is a nice idea. Student: Do you think I can get better despite the fact that I am stagnating like 3 day old fish? GM: Of course! I think what you need to do is take more classes with me. Also, this book I wrote could prove very helpful. Student: Wow. Thanks for being so generous to sell me the stuff you have on hand. GM: Fresh Fish!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #322 - 02/22/09 at 16:57:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	Fish Monger: Fresh Fish! Customer: That does not look fresh, How old is it? Fish Monger: It is fresh, sir! Customer: But it looks and smells nasty and is rotting! Fish Monger: I assure you it is fresh, sir! Customer: I don't know...looks 3 days old. Fish Monger: Nonsense! No one would buy Fish that is 3 days old. Customer: Ok, I'll buy it. Fish Monger: Fresh Fish!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #321 - 02/22/09 at 16:19:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	GM Alburt needs to tell this guy some truths and stop being so disingenuous no matter how much he likes those Pastrami sandwiches because there are better and more noble ways to make a buck in America than leading on some poor sap the way a buxom and desirous stripper leads on her pathetic cash cow.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #320 - 02/22/09 at 16:04:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bf1 O-O 10.d3 Ng4 11.Nh3 f5 12.Nc3 Ba6 13.Qd1 Bb4 14.Be2 e4 15.O-O exd3 16.Bxd3 Bxd3 17.cxd3 Qf6 18.Bf4 Rad8 19.Qc2 Qd4 20.Rfd1 Rfe8 21.Ne2 +/-Kramnikaze wrote on 02/22/09 at 13:08:22: Dear Sloughter: I appreciate your hard work,but please spend more time with your engine to make conclusions: I did only look at this line: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qc4 O-O 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Nf3 e4 14.Ne5 Ba4 15.d3 Qa5 ? Sorry to say,but this reminds me of Patzer sees a check,patzer plays a check.Much more to the point is: 15....Rc8! and after: 16 Nc4 Bc2! 17 Qc2 ed3 white faces a tough defense for a draw.


	IP Logged

Kramnikaze YaBB Newbies Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 26 Joined: 03/09/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #319 - 02/22/09 at 13:08:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Dear Sloughter: I appreciate your hard work,but please spend more time with your engine to make conclusions: I did only look at this line: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qc4 O-O 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Nf3 e4 14.Ne5 Ba4 15.d3 Qa5 ? Sorry to say,but this reminds me of Patzer sees a check,patzer plays a check.Much more to the point is: 15....Rc8! and after: 16 Nc4 Bc2! 17 Qc2 ed3 white faces a tough defense for a draw.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #318 - 02/22/09 at 10:48:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 cxd5 9.Qxa8 Qd7 10.Qf3 Bd6 11.d3 Bb7 12.Qe2 Bxg2 13.Rg1 +/- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bxe2 11.Qxe5ch Be7 12.Qxe2 +/- 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Qd6 11.Nc3 Rb8 12.Be2 Be6 13.O-O +/- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.d3 Nb4 12.Bd1 Be6 13.Nbc3 +/- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.a3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Qxe2 +/- 8.Qf3 Bd7 9.Be2 Bd6 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Qe3 Nd5 12.Nxd5 Bxe2 13.Nc3 Bg4 14.Nge4 O-O 15.Nxd6 Qxd6 16.Qg3 Be6 17.d3 f5 18.O-O f4 19.Ne4 +/- 8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bf1 Nb4 11.Na3 f6 12.Ne4 Be6 13.b3 Bf5 14.f3 Rd8 15.c3 Nd3ch (Nd5 16.Nc4 Nxc4 17.Bxc4 +/=) 16.Bxd3 Rxd3 17.Ke2 Rd7 18.d3 Nb7 19.Nc4 Nc5 20.Rd1 Ne6 21.Be3 +/= 8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bf1 Rb8 11.a3 Be7 12.Ne4 f5 13.Nec3 Nb7 14.d3 Nc5 15.Nd2 Bf6 16.Nc4 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Be6 18.Be3 Na4 19.d4 Bxc4 20.Bxc4 Nxc3 21.dxe5 Bxe5 22.O-O Kd7 (Rb7 Rae1 +/=) 23.Bxa7 Rb2 24.Bd3 g6 25.Be3 +/= 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.Nc3 Qxe4 13.Nxe4 Be6 (f5 14.Nc3 Be6 15.d3 g5 16.h4 g4 h5 +/=) 14.d3 f5 15.Nc3 g5 16.h4 g4 17.h5 Kd7 18.f3 gxf3 (g3 19.f4 Bd6 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Bf3 Be7 22.Nd1 +/=) 19.Bxf3 Nb7 20.Kd1 Bc5 21.Re1 Bd4 22.Be3 c5 23.Kc1 Nd8 24.Nd1 Bxe3ch 25.Rxe3 Nf7 unclear to +/= 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qc4 O-O 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Nf3 e4 14.Ne5 Ba4 15.d3 Qa5ch 16.Nc3 Bb4 17.O-O +/=sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 23:43:16: Here is the latest analysis of the Ulvestad and the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.cxd4 bxc4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.f4 e4 9.Nc3 Qxc6 10.Ngxe4 +/= 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O +/= sloughter wrote on 02/10/09 at 12:43:27: Here is the definitive analysis and practical play in the 8.Nh3 variation. From a book I published in 1999, "Theory pretty much ends with the move sequence 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nh3 although the author and GM Alburt analyzed this variation in detail in EMPIRE CHESS, Winter 1988 p.6. We also recognize the contributions of ICM van der Tak, NM Alon Bochman, FM Craig Mar and the pretty tactical shot pointed out by Pete Tamburro (8...Bg4 9.Qxg4?? (Bb5ch!) Nc2ch 9.Kd1?? Nce3ch! -+), and minor computer-assessed analysis of 8.Nh3 Bxh3 by NM Eric Schiller." "GM's Alburt's concept, first recognized in the game Alburt-Gulko, USSR Student Cham., Dubna, 1970 is a profound idea that places the onus on Black to equalize. The first point is that White prepares to exhange off a pair of Knights after say Ne6/Nef4. This is obviously not possible in the variation 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nef4 when Black has compensation. We now follow Alburt-Gulko: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch; we prefer 10.Qa4 see below: 10...Qd7 11.O-O Be7 12.Qe2 Bf6?! 13.d3 (d4 +/=) O-O 14,Ba3 Rfe8. Black has a variety of alternatives to 8...Ne6 e.g. 8...Nc6 9.Bxb5 +/- or 8...Bg4 9.Bxb5ch Nxb5 10.Qxg4 or 8...Nf5 which leaves the Knight on a peculiar square and, of course, 9.Bxb5ch wins a pawn. This narrows the choices to 8.Nh3 Bxh3!? and 8...Ne6. If 8...Bxh3 9.cxd4 (gxh3 Qh4! with comp: ICM van der Tak) 9...Bd7 (To defend b5). If now 10.dxe5 +/= GM Alburt. Black only has partial compensation for the pawn, but, NM Eric Schiller maintains that Black is okay after 10...Qh4. This is difficult to accept after 10.Nc3! White hits d5 and bv5; if 11...Nxc3 12.dxc3 Qe4ch 13.Qe2 +/-. and on 11...c6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 Qg5 14.O-O Qxe5? 15.Re1 looks pretty good for White. Other tries like 10...Nb4 or Be7 don't promise Black very much either. "Thus the stem game, Alburt-Gulko appears to have revealed the main line very early. The key continuation for White appears to be 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4!. White either forces Black to accept an inferior middlegame or an inferior endgame: 10...Nb6 11.Bd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 Be7 14.Nc3 O-O 15.d5 +/=. "Black avoids an endgame but is not out of the woods yet; with best play, White should win this. There are a host of similar endings Black can achieve a pawn down, with no real compensation for the pawn. Obviously, this is unacceptable to the majority of chess players. Black can also try 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.O-O Be7 13.d4 +/= Black is shy of equality. The decision to enter an endgame is only marginally better: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4! (Ke2 e4 14.Na3 Nd3 15.Nc2 Nd5f4ch 16.Nxf4 Nxf4ch 17.Ke3 Nd3: and NM Bochman wonders if White can dig out) 13...exd4 14.cxd4 (O-O dxc3 =) 15.Nc3! Nxd4 (Nb4 16.d5 +/- or Nxc3 16.bxc3 +/- Evaluations by GM Alburt) 16.Nxd5 Nc2ch 17.Kd1 Nxa1 18.Bd2! +/= (GM Alburt) "One final try is 10.Qa4 Bc5 but 11.d3 f5 +/= (GM Alburt)" There doesn't appear to be any simple pathway to equality for Black here.sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:10:54: In order to keep the analyzed lines in one place, here is a way to avoid the complicatons of 8.Ne4 Ne6 i.e. 8.Nh3!? Bxh3 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & White is better than the 8.Ne4 line because he can oppose Knights when one of them gets to f4) 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/= (I'll have to check my analysis here; Black may have a draw by repetition in one of the subvariations). So far, not one menber of this post has tried to engage in an analytical battle over even one variation. Since many are controversial e.g. my latest attempt at an advantage against 8.Ne4 Ne6!sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15: In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #317 - 02/22/09 at 02:10:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	I think Sloughter has more "cooks" and "innovations" in store for us.
	« Last Edit: 02/22/09 at 10:35:04 by ghenghisclown »
	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #316 - 02/21/09 at 01:05:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	As this is something of an intermission, let's all go to the lobby and ask each other questions like 'How does Black complicate the position to generate winning chances after e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 0-0 b5 Bb3 Bc5 d3?' and 'did you read Moody's first? It got a rave review from the fellow who wrote that dreadful pamphlet on the Marshall Attack'. Curtain is going up, time to retake our seats.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #315 - 02/21/09 at 00:55:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	I love a good stoning. Where is the concession stand?

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #314 - 02/21/09 at 00:48:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	'This guy is for real?' Apparently so. It's amusing that such a piece of performance art can attract 5 posts in only half an hour.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #313 - 02/21/09 at 00:44:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Roger Williamson wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:38:50: I had assumed this thread was a piece of performance art. It is.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #312 - 02/21/09 at 00:38:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	This guy is for real? I had assumed this thread was a piece of performance art.


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #311 - 02/21/09 at 00:21:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Moody

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #310 - 02/21/09 at 00:20:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://www.masschess.org/Chess_Horizons/Book_Review/review_content.asp?id=3 A quote from the above review: "I could give this book a few marks for originality, but everything else is bothersome and sometimes infuriating." http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #309 - 02/20/09 at 20:43:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	They shoot horses, don't they?


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #308 - 02/20/09 at 20:29:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	Henri wrote on 02/20/09 at 18:30:16: MNb wrote on 02/20/09 at 01:56:37: Here is a simple way to achieve a plus in the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.d4 Nxd5 9.Qa4+ Black moves 10.Qxc4 +/= 8.d4 is also illegal ! Do you mean 8.dxe5 ? In that case, books suggest 9.Qa4+ Qd7 10.Qxc4 a5 11. Nc3 Nb4 True - except that I did not write it. I suppose Sloughter meant 8.dxe5. I have my doubts on the book evaluation though. And so I switched to 5...b5 instead, which avoids all this nicely.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

Kramnikaze YaBB Newbies Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 26 Joined: 03/09/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #307 - 02/20/09 at 20:26:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	micawber wrote on 02/16/09 at 15:15:24: @Kramnikaze You should continue your variation a little longer: 8.Qf3, Be7 9.Bxc6,Nxc6 10.Qxc6, Bd7 11.Qc4, 0-0 12.Nc3,Rc8 13.Qe2 And now Black should play 13....h6! with suficient compensation A) 14.Nge4, Nxe4 15.Qxe4,Bc6= (Vouldis-Sheram, 2006) B) 14.Nf3, e4! B1) 15.Ne4,Nxe4 16.Qxe4,Bb5! with (17...Re8 to follow) =/+ (Mas-Iuldachev, 2008) B2) 15.Ne5, Be6!= 16.b3?,Rxc3 -/+ (Sacharov-Bakhmatov, 1960) Hi Micawber, I didnt say anywhere its leading to the +- Just wanted to reflect the posters refutation,that also with a plan like Nc3 and Qe2,you are not just winning out of the blue.Open lines,diagonals and the bishop pair count for enough compensation!


	IP Logged

Henri YaBB Newbies Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 4 Location: Cergy Joined: 08/18/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #306 - 02/20/09 at 18:30:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 02/20/09 at 01:56:37: Here is a simple way to achieve a plus in the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.d4 Nxd5 9.Qa4+ Black moves 10.Qxc4 +/= 8.d4 is also illegal ! Do you mean 8.dxe5 ? In that case, books suggest 9.Qa4+ Qd7 10.Qxc4 a5 11. Nc3 Nb4


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #305 - 02/20/09 at 15:13:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	Take a look at today's game Mamedyarov-Tomashevsky at the Aeroflot Open. The way he understands chess, poor Mamedyarov found no advantage. He has to wait, down with the rest of us, for the holy day when sloughter's intuition will kick in and enlighten us, and blow away the arm-waving and flying unbelievers.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #304 - 02/20/09 at 01:56:37	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 22:59:40: Here is a simple way to achieve a plus in the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.d4 Nxd5 9.Qa4+ Black moves 10.Qxc4 +/= Congratulations. You have finally found out why Black should prefer the move-order 5...b5 6.Bf1 Nd4. Something I already knew for a decade - and I was late. In the meantime 5...b5 stands as strong as ever. I admit (for the third time) that 8.Nh3 etcetera is an interesting idea, but it is way too early to claim even the slightest advantage for White. Your other "refutations" are non-refutations. And of course, despite all the pseudo-philosophies on practice vs. theory, += still is not the same as 4.Ng5 +-. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 23:43:16: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.cxd4 bxc4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.f4 e4 9.Nc3 Qxc6 10.Ngxe4 +/= Now only if you get your moves correct ....

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #303 - 02/20/09 at 01:42:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 23:43:16: Here is the latest analysis of the Ulvestad and the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.cxd4 bxc4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.f4 e4 9.Nc3 Qxc6 10.Ngxe4 +/= 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O +/= What, the very latest? Do you think you're the only one with a chess engine? Do you think Chess Truth comes out of those things? When they design a Truth Engine, I'll pay attention to it, but not to its poorly educated, self-appointed priests.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #302 - 02/20/09 at 00:13:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	The Hand wrote on 02/19/09 at 23:17:04: One time after I drew with him, GM Ivanov said my move" Did not suck." I am waiting for the appropriate publication to blurb with that. LMAO,TH.

	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #301 - 02/19/09 at 23:43:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	Here is the latest analysis of the Ulvestad and the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.cxd4 bxc4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.f4 e4 9.Nc3 Qxc6 10.Ngxe4 +/= 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O +/= sloughter wrote on 02/10/09 at 12:43:27: Here is the definitive analysis and practical play in the 8.Nh3 variation. From a book I published in 1999, "Theory pretty much ends with the move sequence 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nh3 although the author and GM Alburt analyzed this variation in detail in EMPIRE CHESS, Winter 1988 p.6. We also recognize the contributions of ICM van der Tak, NM Alon Bochman, FM Craig Mar and the pretty tactical shot pointed out by Pete Tamburro (8...Bg4 9.Qxg4?? (Bb5ch!) Nc2ch 9.Kd1?? Nce3ch! -+), and minor computer-assessed analysis of 8.Nh3 Bxh3 by NM Eric Schiller." "GM's Alburt's concept, first recognized in the game Alburt-Gulko, USSR Student Cham., Dubna, 1970 is a profound idea that places the onus on Black to equalize. The first point is that White prepares to exhange off a pair of Knights after say Ne6/Nef4. This is obviously not possible in the variation 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nef4 when Black has compensation. We now follow Alburt-Gulko: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch; we prefer 10.Qa4 see below: 10...Qd7 11.O-O Be7 12.Qe2 Bf6?! 13.d3 (d4 +/=) O-O 14,Ba3 Rfe8. Black has a variety of alternatives to 8...Ne6 e.g. 8...Nc6 9.Bxb5 +/- or 8...Bg4 9.Bxb5ch Nxb5 10.Qxg4 or 8...Nf5 which leaves the Knight on a peculiar square and, of course, 9.Bxb5ch wins a pawn. This narrows the choices to 8.Nh3 Bxh3!? and 8...Ne6. If 8...Bxh3 9.cxd4 (gxh3 Qh4! with comp: ICM van der Tak) 9...Bd7 (To defend b5). If now 10.dxe5 +/= GM Alburt. Black only has partial compensation for the pawn, but, NM Eric Schiller maintains that Black is okay after 10...Qh4. This is difficult to accept after 10.Nc3! White hits d5 and bv5; if 11...Nxc3 12.dxc3 Qe4ch 13.Qe2 +/-. and on 11...c6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 Qg5 14.O-O Qxe5? 15.Re1 looks pretty good for White. Other tries like 10...Nb4 or Be7 don't promise Black very much either. "Thus the stem game, Alburt-Gulko appears to have revealed the main line very early. The key continuation for White appears to be 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4!. White either forces Black to accept an inferior middlegame or an inferior endgame: 10...Nb6 11.Bd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 Be7 14.Nc3 O-O 15.d5 +/=. "Black avoids an endgame but is not out of the woods yet; with best play, White should win this. There are a host of similar endings Black can achieve a pawn down, with no real compensation for the pawn. Obviously, this is unacceptable to the majority of chess players. Black can also try 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.O-O Be7 13.d4 +/= Black is shy of equality. The decision to enter an endgame is only marginally better: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4! (Ke2 e4 14.Na3 Nd3 15.Nc2 Nd5f4ch 16.Nxf4 Nxf4ch 17.Ke3 Nd3: and NM Bochman wonders if White can dig out) 13...exd4 14.cxd4 (O-O dxc3 =) 15.Nc3! Nxd4 (Nb4 16.d5 +/- or Nxc3 16.bxc3 +/- Evaluations by GM Alburt) 16.Nxd5 Nc2ch 17.Kd1 Nxa1 18.Bd2! +/= (GM Alburt) "One final try is 10.Qa4 Bc5 but 11.d3 f5 +/= (GM Alburt)" There doesn't appear to be any simple pathway to equality for Black here.sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:10:54: In order to keep the analyzed lines in one place, here is a way to avoid the complicatons of 8.Ne4 Ne6 i.e. 8.Nh3!? Bxh3 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & White is better than the 8.Ne4 line because he can oppose Knights when one of them gets to f4) 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/= (I'll have to check my analysis here; Black may have a draw by repetition in one of the subvariations). So far, not one menber of this post has tried to engage in an analytical battle over even one variation. Since many are controversial e.g. my latest attempt at an advantage against 8.Ne4 Ne6!sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15: In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #300 - 02/19/09 at 23:17:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	ghenghisclown wrote on 02/19/09 at 22:43:50: sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:09:21: From my book, "We receive a steady stream of letters proposing rules changes, more than on any other subject. This one we almost dismissed right away until we saw the writer's name---when the idea comes from someone with a proven history of thinking of chess in a fresh way, it must be taken seriously. (Moody already came up with a new third move in the ancient King's Gambit, a move that Kasparov called, "Perfectly playable." Editor: Chess Life .....this is an appeal to authority (Kasparov paid me a compliment therefore I'm right when I say I've busted a major opening) type of fallacy. I believe calling a move "playable" is no more a compliment than calling it "legal." One time after I drew with him, GM Ivanov said my move" Did not suck." I am waiting for the appropriate publication to blurb with that.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #299 - 02/19/09 at 23:02:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb---you seem to have done little to contribute to this post except be critical. It is much easier to destroy rather than create. Why don't you go to some other post and take your great intellect with you. Yawn.MNb wrote on 02/19/09 at 22:27:04: sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: You are obsessed with the move order 8.Ne4 Ne6. Basically, it can be refuted three separate ways. Perhaps you can find solutions to all three. I don't have to explain the feeble logic here, do I? sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 & if Qxd5 9.exf6 Qxg5 10.Qf3 Rb8 11.Qe3ch and Black can flounder around in an endgame with a busted pawn structure. Thank you for explaining my preference for Ulvestadt's move. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.d4 & White either reinforces the e5 pawn or forces Black to give up a tempo with 9...cxd3 10.Qxd3+/= Please consult a book. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: The Ulvestad is no better e.g. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.dxc6 bxc4 6.Qe2 Qd5 7.f4 e4 8.Nc3 Qxc6 9.Ngxe4 +/= Perhaps you should enlarge your universe. Again - why don't you consult a book? Ah, I get it, books don't belong to your universe.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #298 - 02/19/09 at 22:59:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Here is a simple way to achieve a plus in the Fritz: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.d4 Nxd5 9.Qb5ch Black moves 10.Qxc4 +/= Once again, we see a post member waving his arms so much, he can almost fly.bragesjo wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:46:57: This is the supidest thread I have ever seen. Quck look with Rybka 3 suggests that black is equal in almost all lines and thats callled += and sometimes that scale reaches -.


	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #297 - 02/19/09 at 22:43:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:09:21: From my book, "We receive a steady stream of letters proposing rules changes, more than on any other subject. This one we almost dismissed right away until we saw the writer's name---when the idea comes from someone with a proven history of thinking of chess in a fresh way, it must be taken seriously. (Moody already came up with a new third move in the ancient King's Gambit, a move that Kasparov called, "Perfectly playable." Editor: Chess Life At absolute best this is an appeal to authority (Kasparov paid me a compliment therefore I'm right when I say I've busted a major opening) type of fallacy. In your case perhaps we should spell it phallacy. The move Kasparov blessed with "playable" as a adjective takes place too early to be considered a noteworthy innovation. Many times I have played around with a database and I can find moves played by GM's. Generally, the earlier it is in the game, the easier to find. This doesn't mean I can follow it up with precision or with full knowledge of all the penumbras entailed or consequent moves. When Kosten pointed out a line you advocated leads to (for White) undesirable situation with Black boasting a huge lead in development...your response amounted to "Well, not according to me...I have my own definition of development and tempos." You don't seem to be able to acknowlege how that opens you up for all kinds of criticism. "Hey only us PUBLISHED GODS who are smart enough to pay someone to play blitz against us need comment on esoterica." * *OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that's what the dude said, common.

	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #296 - 02/19/09 at 22:27:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: You are obsessed with the move order 8.Ne4 Ne6. Basically, it can be refuted three separate ways. Perhaps you can find solutions to all three. I don't have to explain the feeble logic here, do I? sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 & if Qxd5 9.exf6 Qxg5 10.Qf3 Rb8 11.Qe3ch and Black can flounder around in an endgame with a busted pawn structure. Thank you for explaining my preference for Ulvestadt's move. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.d4 & White either reinforces the e5 pawn or forces Black to give up a tempo with 9...cxd3 10.Qxd3+/= Please consult a book. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 21:04:27: The Ulvestad is no better e.g. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.dxc6 bxc4 6.Qe2 Qd5 7.f4 e4 8.Nc3 Qxc6 9.Ngxe4 +/= Perhaps you should enlarge your universe. Again - why don't you consult a book? Ah, I get it, books don't belong to your universe.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

bragesjo God Member Offline CCE at ICCF 2021 and CCM at ICCF 2023 Posts: 1839 Location: Eskilstuna Joined: 06/30/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #295 - 02/19/09 at 21:46:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	This is the supidest thread I have ever seen. Quck look with Rybka 3 suggests that black is equal in almost all lines and thats callled += and sometimes that scale reaches -.


	WWW IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #294 - 02/19/09 at 21:09:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	From my book, "We receive a steady stream of letters proposing rules changes, more than on any other subject. This one we almost dismissed right away until we saw the writer's name---when the idea comes from someone with a proven history of thinking of chess in a fresh way, it must be taken seriously. (Moody already came up with a new third move in the ancient King's Gambit, a move that Kasparov called, "Perfectly playable." Editor: Chess Life.sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 13:33:14: It is so nice of you to restrict yourself to just one or two subvariations of subvariations and promptly declare the analysis I present in other variations are not as important. Why don't you read the literature of the Wilkes Barre (I am aware of four books devoted exclusively to the Wilkes Barre)? My move sequence 5.Bxf7ch/6.Bd5/7/Bxc6/8.Nf3 replaces all the theory and practical play in this opening because my move order is A) Best play by both sides, and B) Leads to an effortless White advantage. I defeated Fritz 8 in this opening. How many extremely complicated middlegames have you defeated Fritz? White has to know no theory in the Wilkes Barre, one of the most complicated and meticulously analyzed openings in all of chess (Just read Williams' The Real American Wilkes Barre and count all the variations where he analyzes the "openings" well beyond move 20). My analysis replaces that entire book, the book by Estrin and the book by Cramer. NM Dan Heisman also wrote a book on the Wilkes Barre after analyzing it for two years. Since he published it as a full length book, I must assume he missed the highly favorable continuation given above. Your obsession is pointless with respect to subvariations of subvariations as if the only lines anyone is going to play are your pet lines. Dream on if you think your analytical skills are better than mine. It takes me years to "cook" various openings; in the interm, I just "try" various move orders and ideas until I find the correct ones. Why don't you read the earlier posts I published on this very topic? It will take me a few months working on the lines you give to cook them. How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I was told by GM Andy Soltis in print how good my analysis was in the Evans Gambit. How many GM's have you got to validate your analysis? My analysis is routined approved by GM Lev Alburt. Here is what he said about my book, "Magic", "I have been consulting Richard Moody on various chess openings for about 25 years. Today, Richard is an unrelenting opening researcher, well schooled in using all tools of the trade---books, data bases, Fritz. His book is another proof that one doesn't have to be a Master to make important discoveries. And making your own opening theory is one of the surest paths to success in chess." Lev Alburt (chess Grandmaster Three times U.S. Champion) Chess4less indicated that my book had, "more major innovations than any book they have seen in the past several years" My analysis in the King's Gambit has been vetted by World Champion Garry Kasparov. How much of your analysis has been approved by a World Champion? I have published over 20 articles including in the Canadian Magazine Check!, Rank and File Magazine (for which I was paid for my analysis), Empire Chess, Chess Life and Inside Chess The overwhelming majority of the ideas presented in the 8.Nh3 variation are mine that were validated by GM Alburt. I notice how you warmed up to the quality of the analysis there. Were you aware at the time that most of the innovations and evaluations in this variation are mine? MNb wrote on 02/19/09 at 11:04:52: sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler? My analytical skills are poor as well, but still better than yours. Please reread this thread and count how many times I refuted your lines. The fact that after 18 pages you finally showed up with something decent (8.Nh3 etc.) does not give you the right to have a big mouth, exactly because you needed 18 pages. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: It is easy to be critical and destructive. It's even easier to consequently justify +- with bad moves by Black. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes? Which successes? You mean your refuted claim of 3...Nf6 +- in your initial post? You mean proving \|+- in lines like the Berliner and the Traxler, which have been evaluated +- decades ago by eg Estrin? sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: How often do you revise the theories of World Champions successfully or have your work reviewed and approved by greats like Garry Kasparov? I have. Have you? Never and neither have you. You are not able to give references, where Kasparov recognizes your successes (whatever you mean with this). sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: How many critically acclaimed books have you written? As many as you: zero. That's because I know my chess books (yes, I have written a few) are not fit for publication, a knowledge you lack. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: Tunnel vision applies to posts like yours when you systematically ignore my posts on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver. Definite proof of your feeble logic. On the very first page I have explained why I restrict myself to the Fritz-Ulvestadt. Like Schaakhamster explained, my verdict on the 2-K does not depend on the three variations you mentioned here. Looks like Matemax is right after all.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #293 - 02/19/09 at 21:04:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	You are obsessed with the move order 8.Ne4 Ne6. Basically, it can be refuted three separate ways. Perhaps you can find solutions to all three. First of all the move sequence 8.Ne4 Ne6 can be avoided two entirely different ways, 1) 8.Nh3 and 2)Cook the Ulvestad and Fritz separately. With the Fritz you must demonstrate equality after: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 & if Qxd5 9.exf6 Qxg5 10.Qf3 Rb8 11.Qe3ch and Black can flounder around in an endgame with a busted pawn structure. or 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.d4 & White either reinforces the e5 pawn or forces Black to give up a tempo with 9...cxd3 10.Qxd3+/= The Ulvestad is no better e.g. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.dxc6 bxc4 6.Qe2 Qd5 7.f4 e4 8.Nc3 Qxc6 9.Ngxe4 +/= Perhaps you should enlarge your universe. It seems to me you are desperately trying to establish that if 8.Ne4 Ne6 is equal, you have achieved some monumental goal. Let me disabuse you of your delusion. Your idea is a trivial addition to chess literature and analysis.MNb wrote on 02/19/09 at 13:57:23: Repeating nonsense does not enlarge it's quality. Yawn.


	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #292 - 02/19/09 at 20:04:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 12:44:38: The last five letters of your screen name suit you well. Holy crap Sloughter! You showed me, huh? You are indeed a comeback master. I think it makes sense that someone that has analyzed the Sclossenberg-Gottlieb variation of the Stevie Wonder Gambit would possess a Hannibal Lecter-sized intellect. I mean, who would have thought to take the latter portion of my name and package it as a pejorative? Truly brilliant. Does Lev know that the guy who keeps him in Pastrami sandwiches has this kind of brain!? I call SCISSORS!!

	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #291 - 02/19/09 at 16:10:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 02/19/09 at 15:32:33: Let's not be too hard on sloughter, proustiskeen. He is at least an earnest student of chess. I admit, though, that it might be very satisfying to see his head cut off. sloughter, please see my proposal in the post just before proustiskeen's. He has failed the Turing Test.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #290 - 02/19/09 at 15:32:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	Let's not be too hard on sloughter, proustiskeen. He is at least an earnest student of chess. I admit, though, that it might be very satisfying to see his head cut off. sloughter, please see my proposal in the post just before proustiskeen's.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

proustiskeen God Member Offline Hello from Omaha! Posts: 681 Joined: 08/11/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #289 - 02/19/09 at 15:29:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	Look, you _pay_ Alburt to consult with you. And it sounds like you've paid him to consult with you for quite some time. Of course he's going to give you a good quote - you're a cash cow. I assume that the Kasparov 'vetting' is a paid job too, or perhaps he just did a favor for his pal Lev Alburt. For a more recent review of your self-published manifesto, check out the panning of your book in Chess Horizons. Apparently people who aren't on your payroll are less kind to your work. Finally, the idea that you're an outstanding analyst because you take years and years to somehow find good moves - moves that aren't too good, according to the ongoing game that you refuse to continue - is laughable. Analysis involves correctly assessing ideas in a timely fashion. Randomly banging the pieces around ("trying" them) until you stumble upon something that Fritz doesn't hate isn't analysis. It's what the proverbial thousand typing monkeys in a room do. Enough. Time to ban this clown. [quote author=richard_moody_jr. link=1230634273/285#286 date=1235050394]... Dream on if you think your analytical skills are better than mine. It takes me years to "cook" various openings; in the interm, I just "try" various move orders and ideas until I find the correct ones. Why don't you read the earlier posts I published on this very topic? It will take me a few months working on the lines you give to cook them. How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I was told by GM Andy Soltis in print how good my analysis was in the Evans Gambit. How many GM's have you got to validate your analysis? My analysis is routined approved by GM Lev Alburt. Here is what he said about my book, "Magic", "I have been consulting Richard Moody on various chess openings for about 25 years. Today, Richard is an unrelenting opening researcher, well schooled in using all tools of the trade---books, data bases, Fritz. His book is another proof that one doesn't have to be a Master to make important discoveries. And making your own opening theory is one of the surest paths to success in chess." Lev Alburt (chess Grandmaster Three times U.S. Champion) Chess4less indicated that my book had, "more major innovations than any book they have seen in the past several years" My analysis in the King's Gambit has been vetted by World Champion Garry Kasparov. How much of your analysis has been approved by a World Champion? I have published over 20 articles including in the Canadian Magazine Check!, Rank and File Magazine (for which I was paid for my analysis), Empire Chess, Chess Life and Inside Chess The overwhelming majority of the ideas presented in the 8.Nh3 variation are mine that were validated by GM Alburt. I notice how you warmed up to the quality of the analysis there. Were you aware at the time that most of the innovations and evaluations in this variation are mine? [quote author=MNb link=1230634273/270#284 date=1235041492]


	WWW IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #288 - 02/19/09 at 15:22:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter, There is a fellow here that Schaakhamster and I would like you to meet. He goes by "Gambit" and he is a tireless proposer of gambits that are either unsound or ingenious (no one can tell which), all of which he names for himself. It seemed to us that the two of you could have a very interesting discussion, in a thread reserved for your exclusive use, of course, concerning the objective merit of these various gambits. When, after what I am sure would be lengthy disputes, Chess Truth eventually emerged, I feel certain that Tony would agree that it would make a very interesting offering on the Gold section of this website. One note of warning, however: Gambit will challenge you to an ICC contest at speed. He regards the outcome of such contests to be a principal form of theoretical proof. Since Gambit is something of a Speed Chess Terror, you might want to have Alburt at your side during the contest. One good Lev (also Gambit's name) no doubt deserves another.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #287 - 02/19/09 at 13:57:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	Repeating nonsense does not enlarge it's quality. Yawn.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #286 - 02/19/09 at 13:33:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	It is so nice of you to restrict yourself to just one or two subvariations of subvariations and promptly declare the analysis I present in other variations are not as important. Why don't you read the literature of the Wilkes Barre (I am aware of four books devoted exclusively to the Wilkes Barre)? My move sequence 5.Bxf7ch/6.Bd5/7/Bxc6/8.Nf3 replaces all the theory and practical play in this opening because my move order is A) Best play by both sides, and B) Leads to an effortless White advantage. I defeated Fritz 8 in this opening. How many extremely complicated middlegames have you defeated Fritz? White has to know no theory in the Wilkes Barre, one of the most complicated and meticulously analyzed openings in all of chess (Just read Williams' The Real American Wilkes Barre and count all the variations where he analyzes the "openings" well beyond move 20). My analysis replaces that entire book, the book by Estrin and the book by Cramer. NM Dan Heisman also wrote a book on the Wilkes Barre after analyzing it for two years. Since he published it as a full length book, I must assume he missed the highly favorable continuation given above. Your obsession is pointless with respect to subvariations of subvariations as if the only lines anyone is going to play are your pet lines. Dream on if you think your analytical skills are better than mine. It takes me years to "cook" various openings; in the interm, I just "try" various move orders and ideas until I find the correct ones. Why don't you read the earlier posts I published on this very topic? It will take me a few months working on the lines you give to cook them. How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I was told by GM Andy Soltis in print how good my analysis was in the Evans Gambit. How many GM's have you got to validate your analysis? My analysis is routined approved by GM Lev Alburt. Here is what he said about my book, "Magic", "I have been consulting Richard Moody on various chess openings for about 25 years. Today, Richard is an unrelenting opening researcher, well schooled in using all tools of the trade---books, data bases, Fritz. His book is another proof that one doesn't have to be a Master to make important discoveries. And making your own opening theory is one of the surest paths to success in chess." Lev Alburt (chess Grandmaster Three times U.S. Champion) Chess4less indicated that my book had, "more major innovations than any book they have seen in the past several years" My analysis in the King's Gambit has been vetted by World Champion Garry Kasparov. How much of your analysis has been approved by a World Champion? I have published over 20 articles including in the Canadian Magazine Check!, Rank and File Magazine (for which I was paid for my analysis), Empire Chess, Chess Life and Inside Chess The overwhelming majority of the ideas presented in the 8.Nh3 variation are mine that were validated by GM Alburt. I notice how you warmed up to the quality of the analysis there. Were you aware at the time that most of the innovations and evaluations in this variation are mine? MNb wrote on 02/19/09 at 11:04:52: sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler? My analytical skills are poor as well, but still better than yours. Please reread this thread and count how many times I refuted your lines. The fact that after 18 pages you finally showed up with something decent (8.Nh3 etc.) does not give you the right to have a big mouth, exactly because you needed 18 pages. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: It is easy to be critical and destructive. It's even easier to consequently justify +- with bad moves by Black. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes? Which successes? You mean your refuted claim of 3...Nf6 +- in your initial post? You mean proving \|+- in lines like the Berliner and the Traxler, which have been evaluated +- decades ago by eg Estrin? sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: How often do you revise the theories of World Champions successfully or have your work reviewed and approved by greats like Garry Kasparov? I have. Have you? Never and neither have you. You are not able to give references, where Kasparov recognizes your successes (whatever you mean with this). sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: How many critically acclaimed books have you written? As many as you: zero. That's because I know my chess books (yes, I have written a few) are not fit for publication, a knowledge you lack. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: Tunnel vision applies to posts like yours when you systematically ignore my posts on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver. Definite proof of your feeble logic. On the very first page I have explained why I restrict myself to the Fritz-Ulvestadt. Like Schaakhamster explained, my verdict on the 2-K does not depend on the three variations you mentioned here. Looks like Matemax is right after all.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #285 - 02/19/09 at 12:44:38	Post Tools	Print Post
	The last five letters of your screen name suit you well.ghenghisclown wrote on 02/19/09 at 09:01:11: http://beachboysuruguay.es.tripod.com/egg_03.jpg How dare you be so glib and shockingly nonchalant about my genius - my cooks and calculations, and my "novelties" in the Fried Liver, Damiano Gambit, and my forced win after 1.f3 f6? for White. It's complete nonsense to compare theory with practice. I myself have written 5 textbooks on sex education, yet never even seen a girl's thingy in real life. How many examples can you think of ...of say, plastic surgery how-to-books written by celebrities? After I wrote Sloughter's Step by Step: How to Get Pregnant, I also wrote Lipo for Dummies. There is NO RELATIONSHIP, PEOPLE! Not to mention my developments in Hopscotch....and the fact that I'm close to solving Rock-Paper-Scissors! You scoff at my genius! Don't you know I'm the originator of Bibleman! http://www.challies.com/media/bibleman.jpg Clearly, there are only three outcomes. Either 1)I win, 2)you win, or 3)anyone needing a good laugh will get it from reading me will win! There are no in-betweens! Well maybe 2 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive...but there's nothing INBETWEEN!!! Now, where's my MoodyChesstm credit? Where's my ownership of having come up with a "playable move?" I tell you I AM CHESS! Kasparov, after I bested him in a game of shadow puppetry of the scrotum.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #284 - 02/19/09 at 11:04:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler? My analytical skills are poor as well, but still better than yours. Please reread this thread and count how many times I refuted your lines. The fact that after 18 pages you finally showed up with something decent (8.Nh3 etc.) does not give you the right to have a big mouth, exactly because you needed 18 pages. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: It is easy to be critical and destructive. It's even easier to consequently justify +- with bad moves by Black. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes? Which successes? You mean your refuted claim of 3...Nf6 +- in your initial post? You mean proving \|+- in lines like the Berliner and the Traxler, which have been evaluated +- decades ago by eg Estrin? sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: How often do you revise the theories of World Champions successfully or have your work reviewed and approved by greats like Garry Kasparov? I have. Have you? Never and neither have you. You are not able to give references, where Kasparov recognizes your successes (whatever you mean with this). sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: How many critically acclaimed books have you written? As many as you: zero. That's because I know my chess books (yes, I have written a few) are not fit for publication, a knowledge you lack. sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43: Tunnel vision applies to posts like yours when you systematically ignore my posts on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver. Definite proof of your feeble logic. On the very first page I have explained why I restrict myself to the Fritz-Ulvestadt. Like Schaakhamster explained, my verdict on the 2-K does not depend on the three variations you mentioned here. Looks like Matemax is right after all.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

ghenghisclown God Member Offline Pedicare Vestri Latin Posts: 1022 Location: HollyWeird Joined: 07/19/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #283 - 02/19/09 at 09:01:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	How dare you be so glib and shockingly nonchalant about my genius - my cooks and calculations, and my "novelties" in the Fried Liver, Damiano Gambit, and my forced win after 1.f3 f6? for White. It's complete nonsense to compare theory with practice. I myself have written 5 textbooks on sex education, yet never even seen a girl's thingy in real life. How many examples can you think of ...of say, plastic surgery how-to-books written by celebrities? After I wrote Sloughter's Step by Step: How to Get Pregnant, I also wrote Lipo for Dummies. There is NO RELATIONSHIP, PEOPLE! Not to mention my developments in Hopscotch....and the fact that I'm close to solving Rock-Paper-Scissors! You scoff at my genius! Don't you know I'm the originator of Bibleman! Clearly, there are only three outcomes. Either 1)I win, 2)you win, or 3)anyone needing a good laugh will get it from reading me will win! There are no in-betweens! Well maybe 2 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive...but there's nothing INBETWEEN!!! Now, where's my MoodyChesstm credit? Where's my ownership of having come up with a "playable move?" I tell you I AM CHESS! Kasparov, after I bested him in a game of shadow puppetry of the scrotum.

	"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
	IP Logged

Schaakhamster God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 650 Joined: 05/13/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #282 - 02/19/09 at 08:52:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler? It is easy to be critical and destructive. What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes? How often do you revise the theories of World Champions successfully or have your work reviewed and approved by greats like Garry Kasparov? I have. Have you? How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I have published two. Have you published any? Tunnel vision applies to posts like yours when you systematically ignore my posts on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver. This is roughly half of all the major variations in the Two Knights' Defense and they all lead to either an advantage of +/- or +- a fact you conveniently ignore. One way to be a lousy teacher is to systematically ignore the contributions of your students. With you I am certain the students are better and wiser than their teacher. It is complete nonsense to compare practical and theoretical results. In theory, the TKD is either a win for White, a win for Black, or a draw. There is nothing in between. Practical results are different i.e. we allow for small advantages or disadvantages in OTB or postal chess. What means "everything" is your inability to comprehend the difference between theoretical results and practical results first of all: learn to quote properly. Secondly: the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver are lines which have been considered suspect for black for some time now. They are hardly relevant for the soundness of the Two Knights. Heck the Berliner Variation isn't even relevant anymore for the Ulvestad/Fritz complex. The soundness of an opening depends on both sides playing the best moves. So nothing new there. Thirdly: Theory for the sake of theory is just outright stupid. I could proclaim here that gravity works the other way around: when I release a object it floats to the ceiling but if this theory isn't backed up by reality it just isn't correct. Theory gains its relevance by explaining some phenomenon out of reality. In my book a refutation of a variation constitutes the following: a forced line (with forced meaning: both sides playing the best moves) which end with a lost position. A lost position is a position in which there is a decisive material or positional advantage, a mate or a lost ending. To be completly correct I would even prefer if the positional advantage to be worked out into any of the 3 other possibilities. You haven't done that.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #281 - 02/19/09 at 04:26:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler? It is easy to be critical and destructive. What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes? How often do you revise the theories of World Champions successfully or have your work reviewed and approved by greats like Garry Kasparov? I have. Have you? How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I have published two. Have you published any? Tunnel vision applies to posts like yours when you systematically ignore my posts on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver. This is roughly half of all the major variations in the Two Knights' Defense and they all lead to either an advantage of +/- or +- a fact you conveniently ignore. One way to be a lousy teacher is to systematically ignore the contributions of your students. With you I am certain the students are better and wiser than their teacher. It is complete nonsense to compare practical and theoretical results. In theory, the TKD is either a win for White, a win for Black, or a draw. There is nothing in between. Practical results are different i.e. we allow for small advantages or disadvantages in OTB or postal chess. What means "everything" is your inability to comprehend the difference between theoretical results and practical results.quote author=MNb link=1230634273/270#280 date=1234966771]sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18: The evaluation of 3...Nf6, +-, was a theoretical, not practical advantage. Sounds nice, but means nothing. 3...Nf6 +- means that you can prove a huge advantage, ie a forced win or close to it. sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18: It is believed by the author that best play from 4.Ng5 is +/= or better i.e. Black has some, but not full compensation for the pawn after that. And this means that White is by far not winning yet. So you are contradicting yourself. sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18: Here, for example, White could try 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.cxd4 Bb4ch 13.Nbc3 O-O 14.O-O Rad8 (Rab8 15.Qd3 or 14...f5 15.Nxd5 +/=)15.Re1 +/= or 12.cxd4 Nb4 13.O-O Nxd4 (Qxd4 14.Qf3 +/=) 14.Nbc3 Rd8 (Nbc2 15.Rb1 f5 16.Ng3 +/=) 15.a3 Nbc2 (15...Nc6 16.b4 +/=) 16.Ra2 +/= Do you see lines where Black can equalize here? And have you done your best? MNb wrote on 02/18/09 at 01:35:56: you have forgotten two important lessons once again: 1) do some research first. You could have found Ciocaltea-Minev, Zonal Tournament Prague 1954. Black had an easy draw. 2) when you have found a line leading to an advantage for White, start looking for improvements for Black. You should have questioned 15...f5? which is a pointless move. At some time I intend to dig up the interesting stuff on the Fritz-Ulvestadt and post it in another thread on the Two Knights. Matemax wrote on 02/18/09 at 09:28:51: Quote: why does sloughter always give the worst moves for Black? Why do people still answer? 1. Otherwise he can't prove a forced win. It's called tunnel-vision. 2. Because 95% garbage still means 2% useful stuff. Until recently I had not been aware of the 8.Nh3 idea and I do think that 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ is worth a try for White. Black may have enough for the pawn, but faces the problem of converting his compensation into something concrete. White at the other hand has to acticate his pieces, keep Black's initiative under control and may hope to convert his extra pawn. So I learned something, even though this does not justify 19 pages. And, of course, being a teacher in an area that has suffered from a civil war 20-25 years ago, I am used to stubborn problem childs. So I keep on hoping that Sloughter may improve his analytical skills. [/quote]


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #280 - 02/18/09 at 14:19:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18: The evaluation of 3...Nf6, +-, was a theoretical, not practical advantage. Sounds nice, but means nothing. 3...Nf6 +- means that you can prove a huge advantage, ie a forced win or close to it. sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18: It is believed by the author that best play from 4.Ng5 is +/= or better i.e. Black has some, but not full compensation for the pawn after that. And this means that White is by far not winning yet. So you are contradicting yourself. sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18: Here, for example, White could try 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.cxd4 Bb4ch 13.Nbc3 O-O 14.O-O Rad8 (Rab8 15.Qd3 or 14...f5 15.Nxd5 +/=)15.Re1 +/= or 12.cxd4 Nb4 13.O-O Nxd4 (Qxd4 14.Qf3 +/=) 14.Nbc3 Rd8 (Nbc2 15.Rb1 f5 16.Ng3 +/=) 15.a3 Nbc2 (15...Nc6 16.b4 +/=) 16.Ra2 +/= Do you see lines where Black can equalize here? And have you done your best? MNb wrote on 02/18/09 at 01:35:56: you have forgotten two important lessons once again: 1) do some research first. You could have found Ciocaltea-Minev, Zonal Tournament Prague 1954. Black had an easy draw. 2) when you have found a line leading to an advantage for White, start looking for improvements for Black. You should have questioned 15...f5? which is a pointless move. At some time I intend to dig up the interesting stuff on the Fritz-Ulvestadt and post it in another thread on the Two Knights. Matemax wrote on 02/18/09 at 09:28:51: Quote: why does sloughter always give the worst moves for Black? Why do people still answer? 1. Otherwise he can't prove a forced win. It's called tunnel-vision. 2. Because 95% garbage still means 2% useful stuff. Until recently I had not been aware of the 8.Nh3 idea and I do think that 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ is worth a try for White. Black may have enough for the pawn, but faces the problem of converting his compensation into something concrete. White at the other hand has to acticate his pieces, keep Black's initiative under control and may hope to convert his extra pawn. So I learned something, even though this does not justify 19 pages. And, of course, being a teacher in an area that has suffered from a civil war 20-25 years ago, I am used to stubborn problem childs. So I keep on hoping that Sloughter may improve his analytical skills.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #279 - 02/18/09 at 13:13:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	Good question Matemax, But as you can see at the top of this post, I directed my post at MNB, and the post before that at Kramnikaze. I too have grown tired of this thread, and stopped applying to Sloughters good sense. There are some interesting variations in this thread, but by now they are hard to find, as they have been burried beneath a mountain of inconsequential posts.


	IP Logged

Matemax God Member Offline Chesspub gives you strength! Posts: 1302 Joined: 11/04/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #278 - 02/18/09 at 09:28:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: why does sloughter always give the worst moves for Black? Why do people still answer?


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #277 - 02/18/09 at 06:58:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	@MNB: Quote: Sloughter: Does your data base include the following move orders that appear to lead to a slight practical edge for White? Here, for example, White could try 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.cxd4 Bb4ch 13.Nbc3 O-O 14.O-O Rad8 (Rab8 15.Qd3 or 14...f5 15.Nxd5 +/=)15.Re1 +/= or 12.cxd4 Nb4 13.O-O Nxd4 (Qxd4 14.Qf3 +/=) 14.Nbc3 Rd8 (Nbc2 15.Rb1 f5 16.Ng3 +/=) 15.a3 Nbc2 (15...Nc6 16.b4 +/=) 16.Ra2 +/= 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.cxd4 Be7! (why does sloughter always give the worst moves for Black?) 13.Nbc3 O-O (13.0-0,0-0 14.Nbc3 transposes) 14.O-O Rad8 (14.....Rfd8 15.Be3,Nxc3 is OK for Black as well: Narciso-Kuzmin, 1997) 15.Nxd5 (15.Be3,Nxc3 16.Nxc3,Nxd4 or 16.bxc3,f5=;15.Re1,Nxc3 16.bxc3,c5=) 15......., Qxd5 16.Nc3 , Qxd4 17.Be3, Qe5 (17....Qh4= Richter-Schulz, corr.,1996) 18.Qa4, Bc5= (Bohak-Norevall, corr., 1967)


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #276 - 02/18/09 at 06:11:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Now we are getting somewhere i.e. this is true test of ideas, not just vague allusions to bad theory and bad analysis. In OTB or Postal (Which is the common useage, there is indeed +-, +/-, +=, =, =/+, -/+, -+.) Thus my evaluation in the original move sequence in a practical sense would be +/=. However, in theory, there is only +-, =, -+ i.e. any advantage, no matter how small, can ALWAYS be converted into a win, otherwise there never was an advantage. Just as soon as the "advantage" disappears, there never was an advantage at any time prior to that, starting with Black's first move in the game. The evaluation of 3...Nf6, +-, was a theoretical, not practical advantage. It is believed by the author that best play from 4.Ng5 is +/= or better i.e. Black has some, but not full compensation for the pawn after that (practical sense), due to the fact that Black is more or less forced to sacrifice a pawn because the Fried Liver is +/- to +-. This is why the Berliner Variation is a bust and 8...Ne6 is better. Does your data base include the following move orders that appear to lead to a slight practical edge for White? Here, for example, White could try 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.cxd4 Bb4ch 13.Nbc3 O-O 14.O-O Rad8 (Rab8 15.Qd3 or 14...f5 15.Nxd5 +/=)15.Re1 +/= or 12.cxd4 Nb4 13.O-O Nxd4 (Qxd4 14.Qf3 +/=) 14.Nbc3 Rd8 (Nbc2 15.Rb1 f5 16.Ng3 +/=) 15.a3 Nbc2 (15...Nc6 16.b4 +/=) 16.Ra2 +/= Do you see lines where Black can equalize here? MNb wrote on 02/18/09 at 01:35:56: First of all a slight plus is something else than a refutation. You began this thread with 4.Ng5 +-; after 8.Nh3 Ne6 you have toned down to +=. So you make progress. But I even dispute that += after 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.0-0 Bd6 12.d3 0-0 as White's pieces are awkwardly placed, pawn d3 is weak and Black has a firm grip on the centre. Still this line is a typical example of more tests are needed plus don't trust silicon evaluation. Concerning 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 you have forgotten two important lessons once again: 1) do some research first. You could have found Ciocaltea-Minev, Zonal Tournament Prague 1954. Black had an easy draw. 2) when you have found a line leading to an advantage for White, start looking for improvements for Black. You should have questioned 15...f5? which is a pointless move. Quote: Simply providing one move sequence as being the subject of a revision is hardly a routine refutation of the analysis in general. Very right. Now just apply this to your own posts (15...f5?) and we are getting somewhere. Quote: If equalizing resources are found in this line, it is up to post members to equalize after the Alburt Variation. Very wrong. It is up to every serious analyst to search for look for equalizing options. Only if you have exhausted them you are ready to conclude += (and we are not talking +- anymore). Finally if you really had done your research well you would have known that "Alburt's idea" 8.Nh3 first was played in Klages-Rhodin, Solingen 1964, so ten years before your Russo-American GM showed up.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #275 - 02/18/09 at 01:35:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	First of all a slight plus is something else than a refutation. You began this thread with 4.Ng5 +-; after 8.Nh3 Ne6 you have toned down to +=. So you make progress. But I even dispute that += after 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.0-0 Bd6 12.d3 0-0 as White's pieces are awkwardly placed, pawn d3 is weak and Black has a firm grip on the centre. Still this line is a typical example of more tests are needed plus don't trust silicon evaluation. Concerning 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 you have forgotten two important lessons once again: 1) do some research first. You could have found Ciocaltea-Minev, Zonal Tournament Prague 1954. Black had an easy draw. 2) when you have found a line leading to an advantage for White, start looking for improvements for Black. You should have questioned 15...f5? which is a pointless move. Quote: Simply providing one move sequence as being the subject of a revision is hardly a routine refutation of the analysis in general. Very right. Now just apply this to your own posts (15...f5?) and we are getting somewhere. Quote: If equalizing resources are found in this line, it is up to post members to equalize after the Alburt Variation. Very wrong. It is up to every serious analyst to search for look for equalizing options. Only if you have exhausted them you are ready to conclude += (and we are not talking +- anymore). Finally if you really had done your research well you would have known that "Alburt's idea" 8.Nh3 first was played in Klages-Rhodin, Solingen 1964, so ten years before your Russo-American GM showed up.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #274 - 02/18/09 at 00:13:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch Qxd7 11.O-O Ndf4 12.Nxf4 Nxf4 13.d4 +/= or 11.O-O Bd6 12.d3 +/= There is no need to play 10.Qa4 here. Just 10.Bxd7ch gives White a slight plus after either 10.O-O Bd6 or Ndf4. As far as 8.Ne4 Ne6 I gave a tentative improvement for this on page 13: 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 (Rd8 15.Qg4+/=) 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1 +/=. If equalizing resources are found in this line, it is up to post members to equalize after the Alburt Variation, 8.Nh3. Omitting 10.Qa4 gives White a slight plus as indicated above. You can talk all you care to about the "bad analysis" and "bad evalutations". Isn't it surprising that the members are extremely vocal when they can prove me wrong, but are strangely quiet, when I profess to being right? Your post is a notable exception. 8.Ne4 Ne6 is one subvariation of a variation. It would not be surprising to me if it PROVED to be equal. This might compel the reader to try the Alburt Variation which appears to favor White. This is one of the first posts that actually addresses the analysis. We can continue to extend the analysis all the way to checkmate if you like. Simply providing one move sequence as being the subject of a revision is hardly a routine refutation of the analysis in general. Not everyone is going to play the Fritz in response to 5.exd5; thus the remaining analysis has independent significance. MNb wrote on 02/17/09 at 13:44:14: sloughter wrote on 02/17/09 at 12:27:31: Have the post members noticed that my critics consistently engage in arm waving with no attempt to dispute my analysis? This is significant because they were very vocal when they thought my analysis was wrong. As far as I am concerned this is nonsense. If you had read my posts better you would have known that I was not able to respond for two weeks, as my computers were in repair. So in a previous post I asked and I ask again: what was your latest (non-)refutation of 8.Ne4 Ne6 again? Moreover I gave an antidote to 8.Nh3 namely Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 Bxb5 11.Qxb5+ Qd7 12.Qxd7 Kxd7 with sufficient compensation. Good-natured as I am I assume you are a bad reader. Other conclusions are less nice. Answer these two points and you will be sure to get a reaction again. On 18 or 19 pages I have seen no single reason yet to change my opinion on the Fritz-Ulvestad: equal. Not only has your analysis (the stuff contributed to GM Alburt was better) been proven feeble, your evaluations were quite bad as well. And I will keep on shouting all this as loud as you please.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #273 - 02/17/09 at 13:44:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/17/09 at 12:27:31: Have the post members noticed that my critics consistently engage in arm waving with no attempt to dispute my analysis? This is significant because they were very vocal when they thought my analysis was wrong. As far as I am concerned this is nonsense. If you had read my posts better you would have known that I was not able to respond for two weeks, as my computers were in repair. So in a previous post I asked and I ask again: what was your latest (non-)refutation of 8.Ne4 Ne6 again? Moreover I gave an antidote to 8.Nh3 namely Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 Bxb5 11.Qxb5+ Qd7 12.Qxd7 Kxd7 with sufficient compensation. Good-natured as I am I assume you are a bad reader. Other conclusions are less nice. Answer these two points and you will be sure to get a reaction again. On 18 or 19 pages I have seen no single reason yet to change my opinion on the Fritz-Ulvestad: equal. Not only has your analysis (the stuff contributed to GM Alburt was better) been proven feeble, your evaluations were quite bad as well. And I will keep on shouting all this as loud as you please.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #272 - 02/17/09 at 12:27:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Have the post members noticed that my critics consistently engage in arm waving with no attempt to dispute my analysis? This is significant because they were very vocal when they thought my analysis was wrong. Now, instead of a fact-driven response i.e giving me a target to dispute their analysis, we instead get a whole lot of drivel from them. I must assume that their lack of ability to find even one mistake in my one page of analysis demolishes the fact-starved posts of my critics.MNb wrote on 02/17/09 at 03:11:42: Markovich wrote on 02/16/09 at 17:23:56: It seems relevant to all of this that 3...Nf6 is seen quite often at high levels. On those high levels concepts like development, harmony and intuition are not understood the way Sloughter does.


	IP Logged

sloughter

God Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #271 - 02/17/09 at 12:19:24

Post Tools

Print Post

As I indicated in a previous post, sometimes my intuition takes months to kick in, so that I don't make the same mistakes I made in the opening. It will take a very long time to find White's best move in this position.MUBAs Opponent wrote on 02/16/09 at 21:21:33:

I've lost track as well and I want Sloughter and Arkhein to get back to their game! Wink

White to move....

IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #270 - 02/17/09 at 03:11:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 02/16/09 at 17:23:56: It seems relevant to all of this that 3...Nf6 is seen quite often at high levels. On those high levels concepts like development, harmony and intuition are not understood the way Sloughter does.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent

Junior Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 70
Joined: 02/06/07

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #269 - 02/16/09 at 21:21:33

Post Tools

Print Post

I've lost track as well and I want Sloughter and Arkhein to get back to their game! Wink

White to move....

IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #268 - 02/16/09 at 20:36:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	I've lost track as well... Is it White or Black who has compensation for the pawn?


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #267 - 02/16/09 at 18:15:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	...Rb8 was my first reaction but looking at it I came to prefer ...Be7. ...Rb8 looks more active when actually, quickest castling is. Ok, both moves may be adequate; but I'll sleep well until something serious comes up against ...Be7. Hey, I said something serious.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #266 - 02/16/09 at 17:23:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	It seems relevant to all of this that 3...Nf6 is seen quite often at high levels, but that 8.Qf3, while it is seen, isn't seen nearly as often. Personally I think that Coleman's 8...Rb8 is the best way for Black to go, but I'm not about to debate it here.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #265 - 02/16/09 at 15:15:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Kramnikaze You should continue your variation a little longer: 8.Qf3, Be7 9.Bxc6,Nxc6 10.Qxc6, Bd7 11.Qc4, 0-0 12.Nc3,Rc8 13.Qe2 And now Black should play 13....h6! with suficient compensation A) 14.Nge4, Nxe4 15.Qxe4,Bc6= (Vouldis-Sheram, 2006) B) 14.Nf3, e4! B1) 15.Ne4,Nxe4 16.Qxe4,Bb5! with (17...Re8 to follow) =/+ (Mas-Iuldachev, 2008) B2) 15.Ne5, Be6!= 16.b3?,Rxc3 -/+ (Sacharov-Bakhmatov, 1960)


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #264 - 02/16/09 at 13:58:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	S*@t, I once again confused the modify button with the quote button. Never mind, this thread is a mess anyway. sloughter wrote on 02/10/09 at 12:43:27: 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4! Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4! exd4 14.cxd4 Ne6 15.Nc3 Nxd4 (Nb4 16.d5 +/- Evaluations by GM Alburt) 16.Nxd5 Nc2ch 17.Kd1 Nxa1 18.Bd2! +/= (GM Alburt) I will only believe that these evaluations are Alburt's when you have given a written source, like a magazine or a book. Instead of 18.Bd2 18.Bf4 might be stronger; critical is the idea Rb8 combined with Bf8-c5-d4. In general if Black gets one or even two pawns for the minor exchange he is OK. But I think Black can improve earlier. If Black's Knight is awkardly placed after 5...Na5, then what must we say about White's Knight after 8.Nh3 ? Even according the way Sloughter understands development this one does nothing but denying square f4. 8.Nh3 Ne6 (Bg4 is ridiculous -10.Bxb5+ Nxb5 11.Qxg4 +-; must we really believe GM Alburt missed this?) 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 and exactly because of that knight of h3 Black can afford Bxb5 11.Qxb5+ Qd7 12.Qxd7+ Kxd7. This is not an endgame yet, but a Queenless middle game. Black has superior activity, controls the centre and has a nice target in square (pawn) d3. Verdict: sufficient compensation. Still I would like to know: what was Sloughter's lates (non-)refutation after 8.Ne4 Ne6 again? I kinda lost track.
	« Last Edit: 02/17/09 at 03:06:11 by MNb »
	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #263 - 02/16/09 at 11:27:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	This appears to be the correct move saving a defensive tempo because of the mate threat. It is tough be believe that Black has equality here e.g. 13.Qe2 Bc6 14.O-O Nd5 15.Nf3 Bd6 (e4 16.Nd4 Nf4 17.Qe3 Nd5 18.Qe1 +/-) 16.Re1 Nxc3 17.dxc3 Qf6 18.Be3! Rb8 19.b3 a5 20.a4 Rfc8 21.Rad1 e4 22.Nd2 Qxc3 23.Nc4 +- Kramnikaze wrote on 02/16/09 at 10:12:45: Please, you can't refute Bd7 that quick.You first need a torough study what options white and black has. For example 9...c6!? is still a viable option in the database.So 9...Bb5 is not your only option,as you said. Furthermore in your analysis from 8 Qf3, if you want to play "Qe2 and Nc3"why don't you look at the line: 8 Qf3 Be7 9 Bc6 Nc6 10 Qc6 Bd7 11 Qc4!? 0-0 12 Nc3 Rc8 13 Qe2. Black didn't had Qc7,because after Qc4 white threatens first. Good luck with the game you are playing!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #262 - 02/16/09 at 10:49:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	This is one tricky new variation in the 8.Qf3 line: 8.Qf3 Qd5?! 9.Be2! (Qxd5? 9.Nxd5 with comp.) 9...e4 10.Qg3 h6 11.Nh3 Nb7 12.Nc3 Qd4 13.d3 Bd6 14.Qe3 Qe5 15.dxe4 Bxh3 16.Qxh3 Bb4 17.Bd2 Rd8 18.O-O-O +- 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be6 11.d3 Nb4 12.Bd1 c5 13.O-O Nxa2? 14.c4! Nxc1 15.Ba4ch Bd7 16.Bxd7ch Kxd7 17.Qxf7ch Be7 18.Nxc5ch Kc6 19.Rxa5 Ne2ch 20.Kh1 Bxc5 21.Qf3ch Kd6 22.Qd5ch Ke7 23.Qxe5ch Kf6 24.Rxc5 +- or 10...Be7 11.d3 O-O 12.Qg3 Nf4 13.Nec3 Qd4 14.O-O Nb7 15.Re1 Nd6 16.Bf1 Re8 17.Qf3 Be6 18.Nd2 Nd5 19.Nce4 Nf5 20.c3 Qb6 21.Nc4 +/-sloughter wrote on 02/15/09 at 20:28:47: Black faces the same problem here as many other variations i.e. Black has some, but not full compensation for the pawn e.g. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Nc3 O-O 9.O-O & Black has to untrack his Queenside, so he has nothing better than 9...Bxb5 10.Qxb5 c6 11.dxc6 Nxc6 12.Qe2 Nd4 13.Qd1 Nd5 14.Nxd5 Bxg5 15.Ne3 Re8 16.d3 & Black has some but not full compensation for the pawn. Clearly there are a lot of other variations, but the problem facing Black is the traffic jam on the Queenside which more or less compels an exchange on b5, transposing to a variation favorable to White +/=Ametanoitos wrote on 02/15/09 at 19:25:59: This thread has become very difficult to follow.....I think that there is no refutation of 3...Nf6 of course! None has mentioned 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bb5+ 6.Bd7! which equalises easily imho


	IP Logged

Kramnikaze YaBB Newbies Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 26 Joined: 03/09/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #261 - 02/16/09 at 10:12:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Please, you can't refute Bd7 that quick.You first need a torough study what options white and black has. For example 9...c6!? is still a viable option in the database.So 9...Bb5 is not your only option,as you said. Furthermore in your analysis from 8 Qf3, if you want to play "Qe2 and Nc3"why don't you look at the line: 8 Qf3 Be7 9 Bc6 Nc6 10 Qc6 Bd7 11 Qc4!? 0-0 12 Nc3 Rc8 13 Qe2. Black didn't had Qc7,because after Qc4 white threatens first. Good luck with the game you are playing!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #260 - 02/15/09 at 20:28:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	Black faces the same problem here as many other variations i.e. Black has some, but not full compensation for the pawn e.g. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Nc3 O-O 9.O-O & Black has to untrack his Queenside, so he has nothing better than 9...Bxb5 10.Qxb5 c6 11.dxc6 Nxc6 12.Qe2 Nd4 13.Qd1 Nd5 14.Nxd5 Bxg5 15.Ne3 Re8 16.d3 & Black has some but not full compensation for the pawn. Clearly there are a lot of other variations, but the problem facing Black is the traffic jam on the Queenside which more or less compels an exchange on b5, transposing to a variation favorable to White +/=Ametanoitos wrote on 02/15/09 at 19:25:59: This thread has become very difficult to follow.....I think that there is no refutation of 3...Nf6 of course! None has mentioned 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bb5+ 6.Bd7! which equalises easily imho


	IP Logged

Ametanoitos God Member Offline The road to success is under construction Posts: 1429 Location: Patras Joined: 01/04/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #259 - 02/15/09 at 19:25:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	This thread has become very difficult to follow.....I think that there is no refutation of 3...Nf6 of course! None has mentioned 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bb5+ 6.Bd7! which equalises easily imho


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #258 - 02/15/09 at 11:21:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	It is highly unlikely that the outcome of these position is dynamic balance. In many critical variations, just one move means the difference between winning and losing and I don't mean crass blunders. In one variation, for example, if Black can capture a piece on d3 doubling the White d-pawns, Black is better. If White can keep his extra pawn without allowing his pawn structure to be compromised, then White is better. The TKD, is perhaps the last major frontier in chess where modern defensive technique has not caught up in theory or in practice. Black must demonstrate he has enough play for the gambit pawn. Just think about it: In the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation, White is willing to give up the Bishop pair just to get the advantage of pawn structure. In the TKD, Na5 variation, White always gets a Queenside pawn majority and usually an extra pawn in both the 8.Be2 & 8.Qf3 variations. Why is that the proponents of the TKD, just ignore the fact White that routinely gets a Queenside pawn majority in the opening? Somehow, we are led to believe that Black has just enough play to regain the pawn, yet not get the initiative. GM Lev Alburt validated my impression of a critical ending arising from the Na5/Bc5 main line of the 8.Be2 variation. White succeeds in chopping wood but is forced to give up his extra pawn to relieve Black's piece pressure. Just like that, we wind up in an endgame where only White has winning chances based on this superior pawn structure and Queenside pawn majority. I predict that thousands of games will be played in the future where Black's fate depends on his being able to defend a poorer endgame. Even in one of the better variations for Black, 8.Qf3 Be7, the fundamental problem facing Black long term, is that he cannot afford to enter an endgame without making major progress e.g. suppose in a King and pawn endgame we "give Black" White's c- & d-pawns which Black wins with piece pressure; unfortunately, he loses the initiative in the bargain. Put the White King on d3 and the Black King on d6 with White to move. White is much better because he has the Queenside pawn majority which is desired by most players What is not fully appreciated is that most Na5-TKD's in the future are going to revolve around the fact that White has the better endgame prospects based on his Queenside pawn majority, and his fewer pawn islands. The point being---Black must make progress in the middlegame; he cannot just afford to swap piece for piece, so White has a crystal clear long term plan---contest the center ASAP with the idea of chopping wood at every opportunity, PROVIDED, that White not lose time to do so. For example, if Black opposes Queens in the middlegame as Fritz 8 does routinely against me in the 8.Qf3 variation (Isn't it surprising that Fritz 8 regards my active Queen as enough of a threat that it routinely opposes Queens just to force simplification into an inferior middlegame?), it does so with the idea that if I capture the Queen say on d5, the computer will simply capture with a piece with gain of time. What I do in response is to anchor my Queen so that if Fritz grabs it, Black's Queen can be captured advantageously with either a pawn or a piece. Once I get done tying up the loose ends in the Wilkes Barre, I will begin to tackle the thicket of variations in the Na5 TKD, and, as a "safety" measure, provide a clear pathway to a White advantage in both the 8.Qf3 & 8.Be2 variations.SWJediknight wrote on 02/14/09 at 21:58:30: If the candidate lines aren't dynamically balanced, it doesn't necessarily illustrate that the position isn't dynamically balanced with best play. Rather, it might be that there are only a limited number of ways (maybe even just one way) to dynamic equality. If most of the subvariations lead to less than equality, it suggests that the opening has what Tim McGrew describes as a "high caltrop coefficient", i.e. there is plenty of scope for Black to go wrong, giving White good practical chances. Indeed, this is probably why many of the top GMs, when facing 3.Bc4 Nf6, have preferred 4.Ng5- at high levels it is probably White's best winning try. But it doesn't make the objective assessment of the line any different.


	IP Logged

SWJediknight God Member Offline Alert... opponent out of book! Posts: 916 Joined: 03/14/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #257 - 02/14/09 at 21:58:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	If the candidate lines aren't dynamically balanced, it doesn't necessarily illustrate that the position isn't dynamically balanced with best play. Rather, it might be that there are only a limited number of ways (maybe even just one way) to dynamic equality. If most of the subvariations lead to less than equality, it suggests that the opening has what Tim McGrew describes as a "high caltrop coefficient", i.e. there is plenty of scope for Black to go wrong, giving White good practical chances. Indeed, this is probably why many of the top GMs, when facing 3.Bc4 Nf6, have preferred 4.Ng5- at high levels it is probably White's best winning try. But it doesn't make the objective assessment of the line any different.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #256 - 02/14/09 at 20:50:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	While some might argue that the positions are dynamically balanced, why is it they are not balanced in most of the candidate variations? I don't see anyone claiming that Black can equalize in the Berliner Variation. Then I was told that my failure to consider the sequence 8.Ne4 Ne6 was a fatal flaw. True, Black has good chances to equalize, but when my analysis was capable of being challenged, it was so vigorously. Then when I posted my lastest move order indicating that White could achieve a pull in this variation---silence. Then I published the Alburt Variation 8.Nh3 whose analysis and evaluation was done by three time U.S. Open Champion, GM Lev Alburt. Nobody has disputed either the analysis or the evaluations. Another candidate move, 5...Nxd5 is clearly favorable to White. The Wilkes Barre/Traxler also appears to favor White and will be the subject of a continuing article in that opening. Can anyone prove equality Black in the variation 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7? If the positions are so obviously equal, then why am I able to consistently gain the upper hand against a 2800 level computer in the 8.Qf3 variations? Black must hang his hat on the 5...Na5 variation. Objectively, this should be the weakest choice. The Knight is on the rim, and it takes it two tempos to get to c6 or c5. Where are those attacking tempos needed to justify a pawn sacrifice? It is generally accepted that in order for the attack to be justified, the attacking side is supposed to have three tempos for the pawn in an open position. Because this is not an open position, Black should need even more time to justify the pawn. That is why White can win in the Steinitz Variation even though down four or five tempos. For those post members with an open mind, I will post dozens of subvariations in the 5...Na5 lines where White can achieve a plus. It is up to the post members at that point to accept, reject, modify or ignore this analysis. I think the observation that, "Sloughter isn't getting anywhere with his analysis", ignores the obvious: I suppose you mean by not getting anywhere, refuting most of the candidate moves.SWJediknight wrote on 02/14/09 at 14:38:27: I don't like the "grown-ups play the Ruy Lopez and discard the objectively inferior alternatives which the kiddies use" idea itself. After all, a lot of grandmasters meet 1.d4 with 1...d5, and I have little doubt that it is inferior to 1...Nf6 in view of the strength of the Queen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4), no less so than 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 is to 3.Bb5. But I don't think Sloughter is getting anywhere with this analysis. I look at the resulting positions and one glance tells me, "Black has enough compensation- easy". It's a bit rich arguing that Black doesn't have enough compensation in these Two Knights lines, yet arguing that White has enough compensation in the line 3...Bc5 is 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 d5 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Kg8 11.Bb3 Be6, when try as I might, I can't see how this position is any better than -/+. I do believe in White's chances in the Evans (e.g. 7.Qb3 or 9.exd5 in the above line are at least equal for White), but not in that particular variation. There's certainly room for improvement in the 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 lines, but considering that decades of GM analysis have generally returned an assessment of "dynamically equal", you'd do well to prove an edge for White let alone a forced win.


	IP Logged

SWJediknight God Member Offline Alert... opponent out of book! Posts: 916 Joined: 03/14/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #255 - 02/14/09 at 14:38:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	I don't like the "grown-ups play the Ruy Lopez and discard the objectively inferior alternatives which the kiddies use" idea itself. After all, a lot of grandmasters meet 1.d4 with 1...d5, and I have little doubt that it is inferior to 1...Nf6 in view of the strength of the Queen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4), no less so than 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 is to 3.Bb5. But I don't think Sloughter is getting anywhere with this analysis. I look at the resulting positions and one glance tells me, "Black has enough compensation- easy". It's a bit rich arguing that Black doesn't have enough compensation in these Two Knights lines, yet arguing that White has enough compensation in the line 3...Bc5 is 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 d5 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Kg8 11.Bb3 Be6, when try as I might, I can't see how this position is any better than -/+. I do believe in White's chances in the Evans (e.g. 7.Qb3 or 9.exd5 in the above line are at least equal for White), but not in that particular variation. There's certainly room for improvement in the 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 lines, but considering that decades of GM analysis have generally returned an assessment of "dynamically equal", you'd do well to prove an edge for White let alone a forced win.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #254 - 02/14/09 at 12:33:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	You overlook one minor detail. No one has been able to get beyond the Marshall Gambit i.e. demonstrate a clear advantage White. Grown ups usually engage in civility, something most notable by its absence here. Your's is a typical post i.e. insult rather than edify. Apparently you are unaware that the "children" who have played and studied the Two Knights' Defense from White's standpoint include World Champions Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Berliner and Estrin. Apparently to you, these World Champions are naive little children.Uruk wrote on 02/14/09 at 10:56:03: sloughter wrote on 02/13/09 at 23:10:18: Agreed---the point of this post is to test the hypothesis whether White is winning as of 3...Nf6. You did provide some evidence than White is losing. Don't worry, Columbus looked for the Indies and got to America. Now if you really want some white advantage, move on and analyse the Ruy like all the grown-ups.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #253 - 02/14/09 at 10:56:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/13/09 at 23:10:18: Agreed---the point of this post is to test the hypothesis whether White is winning as of 3...Nf6. You did provide some evidence than White is losing. Don't worry, Columbus looked for the Indies and got to America. Now if you really want some white advantage, move on and analyse the Ruy like all the grown-ups.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #252 - 02/14/09 at 02:39:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	Black scores well in NM Eric Schiller's data base when White castles Kingside. What is clear is that White must walk a tightrope to an advantage. What is needed is a simple move order that leads to a clear advantage without allowing counterplay. Some of the complications are evident when Zaitsev maintained in Informant 36 that White could improve on Karpov-Beliavsky with 6.Bd5 d6 7.c3 Qe8 8.d4 exd4 9.Bxc6 Qxc6 10.cxd4. At this point I departed from Zaitsev's analysis in an article I wrote called Early Innovations 1.e4. He gives 10...Bb4ch whereas I gave 10...Bxd4. If now 11.O-O Qb6 12.Nc3 Bxc3 "when Black may survive" IM John Donaldson, Inside Chess v.4, Issue 13, p. 19, Death Knell for the Wilkes Barre? extended the analysis and claimed that after 13.bxc3 Bg4 14.Qd3 h6 15.e5! hxg5 16.exf6ch gxf6 17.Re1ch Kd7 "promises the second player plenty of suffering" . But is it so clear after 14.Qd3 Nd7 instead of 14.h6? William's claim that 6...Rf8 is not good for Black is a good indication that Black is busted. Black must put immediate pressure on f2 to have any hope of an advantage. But we see a good illustration of this concept in action with Losev-Isaev, Trades Union, 1990 6.Bd5 Rf8 7.Bxc6! dxc6 8.Qe2? . Now Black missed the simple drawing variation 8...Ng4 9.f3 Bf2ch! (not Nf2) 10.Kf1 Bb6 when the only way for White to make progress is to play 11.Nh3/Nc3/Nd1/Nhf2. Even though the author got a big advantage with this move order against Fritz 8, it is equal. This is why I recommended 8.Nf3 instead. One side variation addressed by Williams is the attempt by Black to avoid 7.Bxc6 with 6.Bd5 Nb4 7.d4! (Estrin) exd4 8.O-O Nbxd5 9.exd5 Qg8 "Estrin claims to refute 6...Nb4...9.Qg8, the refutation appears doubtful. " But what about the simple 10.c4! and White's advantage is obvious? Interested readers should consult Cramer's Traxler-Gegenangriff Fritz-Variante Ulvestad-Variante, p. 44 for move orders that appear to refute the concept of 6...Nb4. "So theoreticians Estrin, Cramer and Moody all believe that White is clearly better after 6...Nb4 7.d4!" The move order that Black should avoid is Anand-Beliavsky, Linares, 1991: 6.Bd5 Qe8 7.d3 (Bxc6?) d6 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Be3 Qg6 10.Nf3 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Qxg2 12.Rg1 Qh3 13.Rxg7ch +/-. An idea of Fine according to Estrin's The Two Knights' Defence is to try 6.Bb3 Rf8 7.O-O Qe8 8.c3 Qg6 9.d4. "and the Black King is exposed." This variation is one of the critical ones because it looks like White gets away with castling Kingside without allowing counterplay. About the only try for equality is 6.Bb3 Rf8 7.O-O d6. It gets complicated after 8.d3 Bg4 9.Qd2 h6 10.h3 hxg5 11.hxg4 Qc8 unclear to +/= The next post will deal with the proposed new main line of the Wilkes Barre, Bd5/Bxc6/Nf3. quote author=richard_moody_jr. link=1230634273/240#250 date=1234566618]Agreed---the point of this post is to test the hypothesis whether White is winning as of 3...Nf6. The next attempt is to determine whether White has a clear advantage in the Wilkes Barre. So far, it looks like the Alburt Variation 8.Nh3 gives White good chances to achieve a plus in the Fritz. It should also be pointed out that no one has been able to refute the latest move order I gave in the 8.Ne4 Ne6 variation. The independent lines in the Ulvestad don't seem to promise equality i.e. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= or 8...Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= The Lolli favors White, so I will attempt to show that the Wilkes Barre/Traxler leads to a simple technical advantage. In the hands of say a Korchnoi easily +/-. 4.Ng5 Bxc5 5.Bxe7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8; Beliavsky was allowed this move order in Karpov-Beliavsky & then Karpov followed with Bxc6 which allowed Qxc6; Karpov gave away three tempos i.e. he made four Bishop moves just to exchange it off and got only one useless move from Black, 5...Ke7. No wonder Black got a strong attack!) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (bxc6 will be dealt with separately) 7...Bxf2ch? 8.Kxf2 Nxe4ch 9.Ke1+- 7...dxc6 8.Nf3 Nxe4 9.Qe2 Nxf2 10.Rf1 Rf5 11.d3+-. To be continuedmicawber wrote on 02/13/09 at 22:20:02: I think this game is no longer of interest, Black is by now far superior. As it is I dont think this is the forum is the place for playing email or correspondence games. @Sloughter, In chess it is not unusual to do some thinking before you move.... [/quote]


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #251 - 02/13/09 at 23:29:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5 23.Nxb5 Qxb5 24.c4 Qxb4 25.a3 Qa4 26.Be3 Qa6 I don't care about your dreams of refuting the main line of the 2 knights, because it will never be true. So I am just finishing the deal I had with you: sloughter said the 5 february: Quote: Dear Arkheim and Uruk, Both of you set an interesting trap i.e. if you could cook one or more of my lines of analysis that your job is done; you "beat" me. As indicated in a previous post, I rely on trial and error to determine best play for both sides. I have been relying on this type of analysis under the supervision of GM Lev Alburt for 25 years. Now I am being told that I've lost the theoretical battle. Ok, Arkeim and Uruk, let's play a "game" for real; you get just one try to draw or win with Black's miserable position after 8...Be7? 9.Bxc6ch!, to justify the blunder 8...Be7. I get just one try to checkmate each of you in your separate games or, perhaps, a consultation game between the two of you. When the game will be finished I will stop to lose my time and energy with you here, and everyone is bored about that false theoretical battle. Just a word about 12.Qe2, I could indeed play 12..Qxc2 but I see nothing wrong with 12..h6 again, and if 13.Nf3, 13..e4 again and if 14.Nd4, 14..0-0 where 15.Nc3 Bc5 would transpose into our game, and it's not clear that you have better alternative in that sub-line. But as I told you know, I will only play in our game.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #250 - 02/13/09 at 23:10:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Agreed---the point of this post is to test the hypothesis whether White is winning as of 3...Nf6. The next attempt is to determine whether White has a clear advantage in the Wilkes Barre. So far, it looks like the Alburt Variation 8.Nh3 gives White good chances to achieve a plus in the Fritz. It should also be pointed out that no one has been able to refute the latest move order I gave in the 8.Ne4 Ne6 variation. The independent lines in the Ulvestad don't seem to promise equality i.e. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= or 8...Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= The Lolli favors White, so I will attempt to show that the Wilkes Barre/Traxler leads to a simple technical advantage. In the hands of say a Korchnoi easily +/-. 4.Ng5 Bxc5 5.Bxe7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8; Beliavsky was allowed this move order in Karpov-Beliavsky & then Karpov followed with Bxc6 which allowed Qxc6; Karpov gave away three tempos i.e. he made four Bishop moves just to exchange it off and got only one useless move from Black, 5...Ke7. No wonder Black got a strong attack!) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (bxc6 will be dealt with separately) 7...Bxf2ch? 8.Kxf2 Nxe4ch 9.Ke1+- 7...dxc6 8.Nf3 Nxe4 9.Qe2 Nxf2 10.Rf1 Rf5 11.d3+-. To be continuedmicawber wrote on 02/13/09 at 22:20:02: I think this game is no longer of interest, Black is by now far superior. As it is I dont think this is the forum is the place for playing email or correspondence games. @Sloughter, In chess it is not unusual to do some thinking before you move....


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #249 - 02/13/09 at 22:20:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	I think this game is no longer of interest, Black is by now far superior. As it is I dont think this is the forum is the place for playing email or correspondence games. @Sloughter, In chess it is not unusual to do some thinking before you move....


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #248 - 02/13/09 at 21:58:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	The point of this post is to establish whether or not 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 favors White. Thus I will start a new move string with 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Qe2---Here is my proposition to you. For every move I make in the existing game, you have to make a move with the correct move order; otherwise my intuition sometimes takes months to kick in (see my previous posts in this matter). I promised you a refutation of 8...Be7, but as you already know, this is done with trial and error. In the first game, if 12...Qxc2, then 13.Nc3 & in tho other game, 26.Be3ArKheiN wrote on 02/13/09 at 20:58:06: But if you think that 12.Qe2 is the correct move and that lead to equality, then you would get a correct evaluation maybe, but that's not the refutation you promised. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5 23.Nxb5 Qxb5 24.c4 Qxb4 25.a3 Qa4


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #247 - 02/13/09 at 20:58:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	But if you think that 12.Qe2 is the correct move and that lead to equality, then you would get a correct evaluation maybe, but that's not the refutation you promised. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5 23.Nxb5 Qxb5 24.c4 Qxb4 25.a3 Qa4


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #246 - 02/13/09 at 20:23:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	White got too greedy. Correct was 12.Qe2 & if Qxc2 13.Nc3 with about an equal game. 25.a3ArKheiN wrote on 02/13/09 at 17:19:49: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5 23.Nxb5 Qxb5 24.c4 Qxb4 The right played move has been corrected.


	IP Logged

proustiskeen God Member Offline Hello from Omaha! Posts: 681 Joined: 08/11/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #245 - 02/13/09 at 19:54:38	Post Tools	Print Post
	Again, a problem with the game. This is the correct score, I think: [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result ""] [PlyCount "48"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12. Nc3 h6 13. Nf3 O-O 14. Qe2 e4 15. Nd4 Bc5 16. Ndb5 Qc6 17. O-O Bg4 18. Qe1 Rfe8 19. h3 Bd7 20. b4 Bb6 21. Qe2 Re5 22. d4 Rxb5 23. Nxb5 Qxb5 24. c4 Qxb4


	WWW IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #244 - 02/13/09 at 17:19:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5 23.Nxb5 Qxb5 24.c4 Qxb4 The right played move has been corrected.
	« Last Edit: 02/13/09 at 19:56:57 by ArKheiN »

	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #243 - 02/13/09 at 12:41:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	24.c4ArKheiN wrote on 02/13/09 at 06:20:48: Ok I play 22..Rxb5 and if 23.Nxb5, I play 23..Qxb5. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #242 - 02/13/09 at 06:20:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ok I play 22..Rxb5 and if 23.Nxb5, I play 23..Qxb5. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #241 - 02/13/09 at 03:58:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sorry, I was waiting for your reply. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4ArKheiN wrote on 02/12/09 at 13:55:14: Hey sloughter, are you still alive? Just in the case you did forgot our game: I have played 21..Re5 some days ago. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #240 - 02/13/09 at 02:51:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	White's two pawns up, and mate is not in view. White therefore wins, right?

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #239 - 02/12/09 at 21:33:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	Yes MUBAs, that's the position. Thank you for the diagramm. So we are waiting for sloughter's reply since a few days now


	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent

Junior Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 70
Joined: 02/06/07

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #238 - 02/12/09 at 20:50:02

Post Tools

Print Post

For the benefit of the kibitzers, I believe this is the current position:

IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #237 - 02/12/09 at 16:41:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	Thank you proustiskeen, indeed, I meant 18..Rfe8 and not Rfb8 sorry, I edited it.


	IP Logged

proustiskeen God Member Offline Hello from Omaha! Posts: 681 Joined: 08/11/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #236 - 02/12/09 at 16:30:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	Re5 is impossible in the game as quoted. Rfe8 instead of Rfb8?


	WWW IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #235 - 02/12/09 at 13:55:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hey sloughter, are you still alive? Just in the case you did forgot our game: I have played 21..Re5 some days ago. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5
	« Last Edit: 02/12/09 at 16:40:15 by ArKheiN »

	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #234 - 02/10/09 at 12:43:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	Here is the definitive analysis and practical play in the 8.Nh3 variation. From a book I published in 1999, "Theory pretty much ends with the move sequence 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nh3 although the author and GM Alburt analyzed this variation in detail in EMPIRE CHESS, Winter 1988 p.6. We also recognize the contributions of ICM van der Tak, NM Alon Bochman, FM Craig Mar and the pretty tactical shot pointed out by Pete Tamburro (8...Bg4 9.Qxg4?? (Bb5ch!) Nc2ch 9.Kd1?? Nce3ch! -+), and minor computer-assessed analysis of 8.Nh3 Bxh3 by NM Eric Schiller." "GM's Alburt's concept, first recognized in the game Alburt-Gulko, USSR Student Cham., Dubna, 1970 is a profound idea that places the onus on Black to equalize. The first point is that White prepares to exhange off a pair of Knights after say Ne6/Nef4. This is obviously not possible in the variation 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nef4 when Black has compensation. We now follow Alburt-Gulko: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch; we prefer 10.Qa4 see below: 10...Qd7 11.O-O Be7 12.Qe2 Bf6?! 13.d3 (d4 +/=) O-O 14,Ba3 Rfe8. Black has a variety of alternatives to 8...Ne6 e.g. 8...Nc6 9.Bxb5 +/- or 8...Bg4 9.Bxb5ch Nxb5 10.Qxg4 or 8...Nf5 which leaves the Knight on a peculiar square and, of course, 9.Bxb5ch wins a pawn. This narrows the choices to 8.Nh3 Bxh3!? and 8...Ne6. If 8...Bxh3 9.cxd4 (gxh3 Qh4! with comp: ICM van der Tak) 9...Bd7 (To defend b5). If now 10.dxe5 +/= GM Alburt. Black only has partial compensation for the pawn, but, NM Eric Schiller maintains that Black is okay after 10...Qh4. This is difficult to accept after 10.Nc3! White hits d5 and bv5; if 11...Nxc3 12.dxc3 Qe4ch 13.Qe2 +/-. and on 11...c6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 Qg5 14.O-O Qxe5? 15.Re1 looks pretty good for White. Other tries like 10...Nb4 or Be7 don't promise Black very much either. "Thus the stem game, Alburt-Gulko appears to have revealed the main line very early. The key continuation for White appears to be 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4!. White either forces Black to accept an inferior middlegame or an inferior endgame: 10...Nb6 11.Bd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 Be7 14.Nc3 O-O 15.d5 +/=. "Black avoids an endgame but is not out of the woods yet; with best play, White should win this. There are a host of similar endings Black can achieve a pawn down, with no real compensation for the pawn. Obviously, this is unacceptable to the majority of chess players. Black can also try 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.O-O Be7 13.d4 +/= Black is shy of equality. The decision to enter an endgame is only marginally better: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4! (Ke2 e4 14.Na3 Nd3 15.Nc2 Nd5f4ch 16.Nxf4 Nxf4ch 17.Ke3 Nd3: and NM Bochman wonders if White can dig out) 13...exd4 14.cxd4 (O-O dxc3 =) 15.Nc3! Nxd4 (Nb4 16.d5 +/- or Nxc3 16.bxc3 +/- Evaluations by GM Alburt) 16.Nxd5 Nc2ch 17.Kd1 Nxa1 18.Bd2! +/= (GM Alburt) "One final try is 10.Qa4 Bc5 but 11.d3 f5 +/= (GM Alburt)" There doesn't appear to be any simple pathway to equality for Black here.sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:10:54: In order to keep the analyzed lines in one place, here is a way to avoid the complicatons of 8.Ne4 Ne6 i.e. 8.Nh3!? Bxh3 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & White is better than the 8.Ne4 line because he can oppose Knights when one of them gets to f4) 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/= (I'll have to check my analysis here; Black may have a draw by repetition in one of the subvariations). So far, not one menber of this post has tried to engage in an analytical battle over even one variation. Since many are controversial e.g. my latest attempt at an advantage against 8.Ne4 Ne6!sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15: In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #233 - 02/09/09 at 19:11:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	Indeed Uruk the c3 pawn will fall and Black has an equal but dull game. But Fritz8 would not have been ouplayed in that line


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #232 - 02/09/09 at 18:27:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	Interesting, still after 16...Qc7 17.0-0 h6 18.Nf3 Nd5 19.Bb2 Bf6, the pawn will disappear. I also like the ...Ng4 idea. Overall 8.Qf3 does not seem dangerous.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #231 - 02/09/09 at 18:06:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	Yes Uruk but the point is 13.Qe2! anyway, and if you take that pawn on c2 White play 14.d4! where after 14..exd4 15.Qxc2 dxc3 16.bxc3 White has not big problems now, their position is quite safe and White has still a pawn. Not very strong but still alive and can be protected. I didn't want to play that as Black even if that may still be playable. Against 11.Qf3 there is 11..0-0 12.Nc3 Ng4!? with an attack.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #230 - 02/09/09 at 18:01:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	ArKheiN wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:38:23: @Uruk, 11..0-0 was indeed one of my candidate move, but what would you have played against 12.Nc3? I want to see if we got the sames ideas. With the Queen on a6, 12...Bf5 is a problem. d3 would shut her way back. Overall, I can't see any advantages of 11.Qa6 over Macieja's 11.Qf3. Only disadvantages.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #229 - 02/09/09 at 18:00:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	Please stop


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #228 - 02/09/09 at 17:58:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:58:12: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:57:13: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:56:28: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:35: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:02: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:53:42: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases. But that's ok! Life befor CPub, life after! The circle (jerk) of life! All here in one flame-out thread! For all you train wreck gawkers. But first, some more ad-hominem attacks! Stay tuned! Goctha! I won't go there! The Onion is getting bigger. Life is like an onion. You peel away all the layers and stand there with nothing, leaning over the sink, crying. So long, thanks for all the fish, see you in the funny papers! Compelling proof that I am indeed my favorite author.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #227 - 02/09/09 at 17:58:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:57:13: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:56:28: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:35: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:02: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:53:42: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases. But that's ok! Life befor CPub, life after! The circle (jerk) of life! All here in one flame-out thread! For all you train wreck gawkers. But first, some more ad-hominem attacks! Stay tuned! Goctha! I won't go there! The Onion is getting bigger. Life is like an onion. You peel away all the layers and stand there with nothing, leaning over the sink, crying. So long, thanks for all the fish, see you in the funny papers!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #226 - 02/09/09 at 17:57:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:56:28: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:35: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:02: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:53:42: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases. But that's ok! Life befor CPub, life after! The circle (jerk) of life! All here in one flame-out thread! For all you train wreck gawkers. But first, some more ad-hominem attacks! Stay tuned! Goctha! I won't go there! The Onion is getting bigger. Life is like an onion. You peel away all the layers and stand there with nothing, leaning over the sink, crying.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #225 - 02/09/09 at 17:56:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:35: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:02: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:53:42: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases. But that's ok! Life befor CPub, life after! The circle (jerk) of life! All here in one flame-out thread! For all you train wreck gawkers. But first, some more ad-hominem attacks! Stay tuned! Goctha! I won't go there! The Onion is getting bigger.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #224 - 02/09/09 at 17:55:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:55:02: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:53:42: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases. But that's ok! Life befor CPub, life after! The circle (jerk) of life! All here in one flame-out thread! For all you train wreck gawkers. But first, some more ad-hominem attacks! Stay tuned! Goctha! I won't go there!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #223 - 02/09/09 at 17:55:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:53:42: drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases. But that's ok! Life befor CPub, life after! The circle (jerk) of life! All here in one flame-out thread! For all you train wreck gawkers. But first, some more ad-hominem attacks! Stay tuned!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #222 - 02/09/09 at 17:53:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:52:49: I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic! I bet I do. Life tends to be somewhat ironic and cruel in these cases.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #221 - 02/09/09 at 17:52:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	I'll take it to Cuba if I have to. Place bets who gets banned first!! Me or Sloughter. I'm willing to lose! In public. Or pubic!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #220 - 02/09/09 at 17:50:48	Post Tools	Print Post


	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #219 - 02/09/09 at 17:44:36	Post Tools	Print Post


	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #218 - 02/09/09 at 17:43:18	Post Tools	Print Post


	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #217 - 02/09/09 at 17:38:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Uruk, 11..0-0 was indeed one of my candidate move, but what would you have played against 12.Nc3? I want to see if we got the sames ideas.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #216 - 02/09/09 at 17:34:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter, if you are so sure that your position is "+/= or +/- or +-", why not accepting the offer right now and not in a few moves? For sure in a few moves you will see that your position collapse and you won't accept, but in a superior position with your "2800 partner" you shouldn't lose, right? 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfb8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #215 - 02/09/09 at 17:32:10	Post Tools	Print Post
	13.Ne4 Rc8. This still has some theoretical value because it could arise by Qf3-e2 instead of Qa6-e2. But since people think going further is irrelevant, I'll stop there unless someone else than sloughter is interested. The point has been made anyway.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #214 - 02/09/09 at 17:28:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	Got to like your attitude. Don't like my explanations---I talk too much. Don't like my evaluations---unsupported. Don't accept theory from a 2800 computer---not as good as human play. Don't want to waste space on tests of the theory which would tend to support or refute my theories. I do notice quite a few players anticipating my being crushed by ArheiN. At least Uruk had the courage to accept the challenge. I see you are afraid to be beaten in public.drkodos wrote on 02/09/09 at 17:10:46: Seth_Xoma wrote on 02/09/09 at 03:21:05: Markovich wrote on 02/09/09 at 02:01:40: Would someone please close this godforsaken, barren thread, and also ban sloughter from this forum? I don't see why. So far, the weirdness is staying in one place. This is not quite like Anonymous, where he was posting something inane everyday on every forum. I suspect this thread will die of inactivity of its own accord as soon as ArKheiN wins his game. Of course, I could be wrong. At this point, I am thinking you cloud be wrong. I believe there is real jeopardy that this drivel will chase away the strongest players, make them less inclined to participate, and ultimately be a bad thing for the site in general. There are plenty of free sites for people to play chess. Good chess, lousy chess, sloughter chess. This is really not the venue to waste server space over such asinine pursuits as this has become insult to most everyone here, save those that enjoy train wrecks and the carnage, human and inanimate, that they consume. I have always been in favor of euthanasia, and this is a strong case for a state sanctioned version (CPub Mods pulling the life support). I hope the site gets back to chess theory, at whatever pace it may move, glacial or otherwise, and that this carnival is closed by the Board of Health and the people of PETA for reason of inhumane cruelty to animals.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #213 - 02/09/09 at 17:10:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	Seth_Xoma wrote on 02/09/09 at 03:21:05: Markovich wrote on 02/09/09 at 02:01:40: Would someone please close this godforsaken, barren thread, and also ban sloughter from this forum? I don't see why. So far, the weirdness is staying in one place. This is not quite like Anonymous, where he was posting something inane everyday on every forum. I suspect this thread will die of inactivity of its own accord as soon as ArKheiN wins his game. Of course, I could be wrong. At this point, I am thinking you cloud be wrong. I believe there is real jeopardy that this drivel will chase away the strongest players, make them less inclined to participate, and ultimately be a bad thing for the site in general. There are plenty of free sites for people to play chess. Good chess, lousy chess, sloughter chess. This is really not the venue to waste server space over such asinine pursuits as this has become insult to most everyone here, save those that enjoy train wrecks and the carnage, human and inanimate, that they consume. I have always been in favor of euthanasia, and this is a strong case for a state sanctioned version (CPub Mods pulling the life support). I hope the site gets back to chess theory, at whatever pace it may move, glacial or otherwise, and that this carnival is closed by the Board of Health and the people of PETA for reason of inhumane cruelty to animals.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #212 - 02/09/09 at 16:32:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 12.Qa6 O-O 13.Qe2 Ng4 14.Ne4Uruk wrote on 02/09/09 at 16:16:24: sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 11:41:36: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 O-O 12.Qe2 Not that it has any significance until you beat Arkhein's 11...Qc7, but I'd play 12...Ng4 for the fun of it.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #211 - 02/09/09 at 16:16:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 11:41:36: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 O-O 12.Qe2 Not that it has any significance until you beat Arkhein's 11...Qc7, but I'd play 12...Ng4 for the fun of it.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #210 - 02/09/09 at 12:03:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	I am a 1600 player and lost 12 games(!) in a row at the last World Open including blitz games. So your task should be easy.MUBAs Opponent wrote on 02/09/09 at 01:51:11: sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 18:07:30: Clever reparte, no substance. Please be more specific. What analysis are you contesting? Just one or two examples would suffice. I published an entire summary of my theories and the contributions of the other post members, yet you do not cite a single example of faulty analysis. Keep flapping your arms; you may start flying, too. It's ironic that you should say that, because the point of my post was to try to get you to realise that your "When you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law" waffle was "clever" repartee with no substance. You want me to cite an example of your faulty analysis. The problem is that analysis is subjective. (Just for example) if you say "1. a4 is good" and I say "No, it's bad because I can play 1... a5 and that's good for Black", you can still disagree with my evaluation of the position. The only worthwhile evaluation of analysis is the test of time: go away and play it in games, get it noticed by other people, and hope that eventually it will be played enough for the statistics to give you at least a rough idea of how good it is. Because it's inevitable that analysis produced by one person is biased by their own preferences. At every move you have decisions to make, and if you're analysing, you have to make decisions for both sides. Even if the Two Knights is unsound, proving it is too big a task for one person. In order for your analysis to be convincing, you'd have to find the best moves for Black at every juncture, and prove they were best -- which means considering alternatives in equal depth. And the problem is that -- often subconsciously -- you reject better moves because they look or feel worse to you. This isn't a criticism of you; it's true of all players. (Indeed, the Two Knights provides my own favourite example. After 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 the best move 6. Bf1 is almost impossible to "see" unless you know about it beforehand, which is why 5... b5 was a favourite weapon of mine in the days when I used to play OTB chess regularly.) But equally, the opposite task, the task you're asking me to do, the task of proving that Black can equalise against White's best play, is too big a task for one person, because I would have to find White's best move at every juncture, and I'm not a good enough player or analyst to think I could achieve that. So I'm not going to flap my arms just to give you the pleasure of watching me make mistakes. Instead, I'll sit back and watch you make mistakes, which you will do if you keep on insisting you can prove the assertions you're making. Anyway, I don't really care if you refute the Two Knights, and why should I? I'm still going to play it and I'm still going to win with it. And lose, sometimes, but then I win some and lose some with any opening. I don't know what the result would be if I were to play the Two Knights against you, but that's because I don't know what your overall strength as a player compared to mine is. (I'm very interested in watching your game against Arkhein, though. I still think you're missing the main point of the game, which is not to refute one subvariation of a subvariation, but to bring home the lesson that you attach too much importance to material advantage, and therefore the lines where you bring the analysis to a halt and say "White is simply better" may bear further study.)


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #209 - 02/09/09 at 11:50:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	I'd like to play a few more moves. I don't think that the moderator of the post would want "betting" to take place on line. If it were, it would be my retirement plan . For now I am curious to see if you have the technique to checkmate me in the middlegame. For the post members. I am going to set up an account at the sales department of Chess Life. As the wins or draws come in, I'll have them send me a confirmation # on line which I will relay to the winner or drawer. Honor system guys i.e. no claiming to be someone on line you are not. Just send the confirmation # in, and you will receive $10 off of any item, and I will pay shipping and handling to anywhere in the world. I will find out whether this is acceptable to the USCF, and, if it is, set up an account there.ArKheiN wrote on 02/09/09 at 10:51:23: You are crazy...Would you play our actual game and give me 100 dollars or more if I win the game, and if I would do the same if you win? Just to know. You know, I am needing cash at the moment so it would become interesting to me to lose my time for crashing you in 5 other games.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #208 - 02/09/09 at 11:41:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	I accept your challenge. Actually, ArkheiN's move is much better. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 O-O 12.Qe2Uruk wrote on 02/09/09 at 01:48:42: ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 22:09:18: But I understand that many of us here doesn't want to lose their time proving what they already know: Black is ok after 5..Na5. If sloughter wishes, I can give more evidence that his line is trash by going for 11...0-0 instead.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #207 - 02/09/09 at 11:40:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 09:52:35: I notice a whole lot of frustration in the fact that I have not been crushed easily in the subject game. Sure. You're just getting mated in 20 moves as White.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #206 - 02/09/09 at 10:51:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	You are crazy...Would you play our actual game and give me 100 dollars or more if I win the game, and if I would do the same if you win? Just to know. You know, I am needing cash at the moment so it would become interesting to me to lose my time for crashing you in 5 other games.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #205 - 02/09/09 at 09:57:38	Post Tools	Print Post
	that's +/=, +/- or +-sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 09:52:35: You have been gracious as an opponent some of the time, so I would like to issue the following challenge to the post members: The chronic complaint seems to be that my ideas are just opinions, even though they are tested routinely at tournament time limits against an opponent rated 2800 in complex middlegames. If you can win or draw in any of the variations which I have as +/-, +/- or +- in the page of analysis, I will send you a $10 gift certificate plus paying S & H for the purchase of the chess item of your choice. The only catch is this, you and my present opponent must play this game on line for the whole world to see. Only one try for a win or draw and each variation will be tested only once. If the line is clearly a bust i.e. an obvious win or draw for Black, it will not be tested again. If it is ambiguous, I reserve the right, as the exhibitor, to try a second time. Only 10 opponents at a time; I will set up a waiting list for those who wish to give it a shot. Play in consultation, with as many computers as you like, and take all the time you like. I am willing to put my "money where my mouth is" Are you? I notice a whole lot of frustration in the fact that I have not been crushed easily in the subject game. So far, the c-pawn lives. Now for the game: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 (Not Rfb8) 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2ArKheiN wrote on 02/09/09 at 07:56:07: Ok after 20.b4 (let's see your struggle for life here), I could take the pawn and still have enough activity. But the great lesson of the game is activity against 2 or even 3 pawns at first. Chess is like physic sometimes. There is material and energy. By giving pawns (gambits in general), you generate energy, the same as a nuclear bomb. With 20.b4 it seems that you want some energy back And for the lesson of the game I will continue with activity against material for the moment. So: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfb8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #204 - 02/09/09 at 09:52:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	You have been gracious as an opponent some of the time, so I would like to issue the following challenge to the post members: The chronic complaint seems to be that my ideas are just opinions, even though they are tested routinely at tournament time limits against an opponent rated 2800 in complex middlegames. If you can win or draw in any of the variations which I have as +/-, +/- or +- in the page of analysis, I will send you a $10 gift certificate plus paying S & H for the purchase of the chess item of your choice. The only catch is this, you and my present opponent must play this game on line for the whole world to see. Only one try for a win or draw and each variation will be tested only once. If the line is clearly a bust i.e. an obvious win or draw for Black, it will not be tested again. If it is ambiguous, I reserve the right, as the exhibitor, to try a second time. Only 10 opponents at a time; I will set up a waiting list for those who wish to give it a shot. Play in consultation, with as many computers as you like, and take all the time you like. I am willing to put my "money where my mouth is" Are you? I notice a whole lot of frustration in the fact that I have not been crushed easily in the subject game. So far, the c-pawn lives. Now for the game: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 (Not Rfb8) 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2ArKheiN wrote on 02/09/09 at 07:56:07: Ok after 20.b4 (let's see your struggle for life here), I could take the pawn and still have enough activity. But the great lesson of the game is activity against 2 or even 3 pawns at first. Chess is like physic sometimes. There is material and energy. By giving pawns (gambits in general), you generate energy, the same as a nuclear bomb. With 20.b4 it seems that you want some energy back And for the lesson of the game I will continue with activity against material for the moment. So: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfb8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #203 - 02/09/09 at 07:56:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ok after 20.b4 (let's see your struggle for life here), I could take the pawn and still have enough activity. But the great lesson of the game is activity against 2 or even 3 pawns at first. Chess is like physic sometimes. There is material and energy. By giving pawns (gambits in general), you generate energy, the same as a nuclear bomb. With 20.b4 it seems that you want some energy back And for the lesson of the game I will continue with activity against material for the moment. So: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfb8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #202 - 02/09/09 at 05:59:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 02:02:50: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 22:09:18: Most of your analysis just doesn't work, even in your entire page. But I understand that many of us here doesn't want to lose their time proving what they already know: Black is ok after 5..Na5. I am kind enough to show you in 2-3 variations, but I hope it will be the last attempt with our game, because it was the deal. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nbd5 Qc6 16.O-O Bg4 17.Qe1 Rhe8 18.h3 Bd7 When White has to play moves like 20.b4 to avoid getting mated and Rybka prefers Black in spite of the material deficit, White's position really smacks of desperation. It will take a first-class swindle for White to get out of the mess he has created.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Seth_Xoma God Member Offline FM with 2 IM Norms - (2381) Posts: 558 Location: Lansing Joined: 11/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #201 - 02/09/09 at 03:21:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	Markovich wrote on 02/09/09 at 02:01:40: Would someone please close this godforsaken, barren thread, and also ban sloughter from this forum? I don't see why. So far, the weirdness is staying in one place. This is not quite like Anonymous, where he was posting something inane everyday on every forum. I suspect this thread will die of inactivity of its own accord as soon as ArKheiN wins his game. Of course, I could be wrong.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #200 - 02/09/09 at 03:08:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Anyway, the upcoming mate on h2 is a fitting end.


	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #199 - 02/09/09 at 02:42:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	Perhaps the participants might like to continue this privately and share their conclusions after the game has been concluded? Some consider such acts as defecating in public to be art, but, equally, many do not.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #198 - 02/09/09 at 02:02:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 22:09:18: Most of your analysis just doesn't work, even in your entire page. But I understand that many of us here doesn't want to lose their time proving what they already know: Black is ok after 5..Na5. I am kind enough to show you in 2-3 variations, but I hope it will be the last attempt with our game, because it was the deal. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nbd5 Qc6 16.O-O Bg4 17.Qe1 Rhe8 18.h3 Bd7


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #197 - 02/09/09 at 02:01:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Would someone please close this godforsaken, barren thread, and also ban sloughter from this forum?

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 70 Joined: 02/06/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #196 - 02/09/09 at 01:51:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 18:07:30: Clever reparte, no substance. Please be more specific. What analysis are you contesting? Just one or two examples would suffice. I published an entire summary of my theories and the contributions of the other post members, yet you do not cite a single example of faulty analysis. Keep flapping your arms; you may start flying, too. It's ironic that you should say that, because the point of my post was to try to get you to realise that your "When you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law" waffle was "clever" repartee with no substance. You want me to cite an example of your faulty analysis. The problem is that analysis is subjective. (Just for example) if you say "1. a4 is good" and I say "No, it's bad because I can play 1... a5 and that's good for Black", you can still disagree with my evaluation of the position. The only worthwhile evaluation of analysis is the test of time: go away and play it in games, get it noticed by other people, and hope that eventually it will be played enough for the statistics to give you at least a rough idea of how good it is. Because it's inevitable that analysis produced by one person is biased by their own preferences. At every move you have decisions to make, and if you're analysing, you have to make decisions for both sides. Even if the Two Knights is unsound, proving it is too big a task for one person. In order for your analysis to be convincing, you'd have to find the best moves for Black at every juncture, and prove they were best -- which means considering alternatives in equal depth. And the problem is that -- often subconsciously -- you reject better moves because they look or feel worse to you. This isn't a criticism of you; it's true of all players. (Indeed, the Two Knights provides my own favourite example. After 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 the best move 6. Bf1 is almost impossible to "see" unless you know about it beforehand, which is why 5... b5 was a favourite weapon of mine in the days when I used to play OTB chess regularly.) But equally, the opposite task, the task you're asking me to do, the task of proving that Black can equalise against White's best play, is too big a task for one person, because I would have to find White's best move at every juncture, and I'm not a good enough player or analyst to think I could achieve that. So I'm not going to flap my arms just to give you the pleasure of watching me make mistakes. Instead, I'll sit back and watch you make mistakes, which you will do if you keep on insisting you can prove the assertions you're making. Anyway, I don't really care if you refute the Two Knights, and why should I? I'm still going to play it and I'm still going to win with it. And lose, sometimes, but then I win some and lose some with any opening. I don't know what the result would be if I were to play the Two Knights against you, but that's because I don't know what your overall strength as a player compared to mine is. (I'm very interested in watching your game against Arkhein, though. I still think you're missing the main point of the game, which is not to refute one subvariation of a subvariation, but to bring home the lesson that you attach too much importance to material advantage, and therefore the lines where you bring the analysis to a halt and say "White is simply better" may bear further study.)


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #195 - 02/09/09 at 01:48:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 22:09:18: But I understand that many of us here doesn't want to lose their time proving what they already know: Black is ok after 5..Na5. If sloughter wishes, I can give more evidence that his line is trash by going for 11...0-0 instead.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #194 - 02/08/09 at 22:09:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Most of your analysis just doesn't work, even in your entire page. But I understand that many of us here doesn't want to lose their time proving what they already know: Black is ok after 5..Na5. I am kind enough to show you in 2-3 variations, but I hope it will be the last attempt with our game, because it was the deal. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nbd5 Qc6 16.O-O Bg4 17.Qe1 Rhe8 18.h3 Bd7


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #193 - 02/08/09 at 22:02:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	I have posted an entire page of analysis with all lines favoring White. So far, you are the only one brave enough to try to refute just one subvariation of one subvariation. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nbd5 Qc6 16.O-O Bg4 17.Qe1 Rhe8 18.h3ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:43:25: No one here have ever said that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 was sound. No, everyone knows from many years that the Fagatello (Fried liver) 6.Nxf7 is strong and the Lolli attack (6.d4!) even stronger. So, yes, 5..Nxd5 may be refuted, but you are not the refutator, and nobody would defend that line for Black seriously. About the Traxler, it's a very complex and sharp line but everyone feel that the sacrifice may be refuted with best play by White. Ok you gave a novelty against the Traxler for White, that's one of the only good variations you gave in 13 pages. The Traxler may be a good practical choice but that's not what we could call a sound and reliable defense playable at every level, that, we know for a long time, we didn't need you to know that. About the Berliner variation (with 8..Qh4), I know that good improvments have been find since the game Estrin-Berliner, so, here too you didn't came with a suprise for us. The true surprise is when you come here and say "8..Ne6 is refuted, 5..Na5 is refuted". If you manage to refute 5..Na5 you manage to half of the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 chessworld. No you won't manage to do that.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #192 - 02/08/09 at 21:43:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	No one here have ever said that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 was sound. No, everyone knows from many years that the Fagatello (Fried liver) 6.Nxf7 is strong and the Lolli attack (6.d4!) even stronger. So, yes, 5..Nxd5 may be refuted, but you are not the refutator, and nobody would defend that line for Black seriously. About the Traxler, it's a very complex and sharp line but everyone feel that the sacrifice may be refuted with best play by White. Ok you gave a novelty against the Traxler for White, that's one of the only good variations you gave in 13 pages. The Traxler may be a good practical choice but that's not what we could call a sound and reliable defense playable at every level, that, we know for a long time, we didn't need you to know that. About the Berliner variation (with 8..Qh4), I know that good improvments have been find since the game Estrin-Berliner, so, here too you didn't came with a suprise for us. The true surprise is when you come here and say "8..Ne6 is refuted, 5..Na5 is refuted". If you manage to refute 5..Na5 you manage to half of the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 chessworld. No you won't manage to do that.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #191 - 02/08/09 at 21:33:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	AgreedArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:25:35: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 If 18.Qe1, then I play 18..Rfe8.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #190 - 02/08/09 at 21:31:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	I really like your version of nothing: Wilkes Barre (cooked) Berliner Variation (cooked) Fried Liver (cooked). But to you this is nothing. Did you notice how one post member hung the entire fate of the Ng5 variation, just like Berliner did with his gambit, with 8.Ne4 Ne6, never even considering the candidate move 8.Nh3 which completely neutralizes the effectiveness of 8...Ne6. Now you, like the other post member, think that just because you might demonstrate equality or better, this invalidates everything I have done. So you, like those before you couldn't resist getting in a dig. As I said about you earlier. Never trust a stranger. ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:22:33: You remind me of a chess student I had, he was 6 years old, he told me "after 1.e4 e5, f7 is permanently weakened", he always try to win with 2.Qh5 and 3.Bc4 but despite the fact that he thinks he is winning, he never wins. I prefer to talk at the end when I know what I am talking about. You are the opposite, you talk first "that is refuted that is refuted" and in the end there is nothing.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #189 - 02/08/09 at 21:25:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 If 18.Qe1, then I play 18..Rfe8.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #188 - 02/08/09 at 21:23:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-Osloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:16:30: You remind me of a chess student I had; when he was unsure or losing, he would remain quiet. I notice that just as soon as he felt like he had a chance to win, he started trash talking, just like you.ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:05:32: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 If your intuitons is that strong you should play something like Go. Your intuition seems to not help your chess.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #187 - 02/08/09 at 21:22:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	You remind me of a chess student I had, he was 6 years old, he told me "after 1.e4 e5, f7 is permanently weakened", he always try to win with 2.Qh5 and 3.Bc4 but despite the fact that he thinks he is winning, he never wins. I prefer to talk at the end when I know what I am talking about. You are the opposite, you talk first "that is refuted that is refuted" and in the end there is nothing.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #186 - 02/08/09 at 21:16:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	You remind me of a chess student I had; when he was unsure or losing, he would remain quiet. I notice that just as soon as he felt like he had a chance to win, he started trash talking, just like you.ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:05:32: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 If your intuitons is that strong you should play something like Go. Your intuition seems to not help your chess.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #185 - 02/08/09 at 21:10:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	In order to keep the analyzed lines in one place, here is a way to avoid the complicatons of 8.Ne4 Ne6 i.e. 8.Nh3!? Bxh3 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & White is better than the 8.Ne4 line because he can oppose Knights when one of them gets to f4) 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/= (I'll have to check my analysis here; Black may have a draw by repetition in one of the subvariations). So far, not one menber of this post has tried to engage in an analytical battle over even one variation. Since many are controversial e.g. my latest attempt at an advantage against 8.Ne4 Ne6!sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15: In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #184 - 02/08/09 at 21:05:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 If your intuitons is that strong you should play something like Go. Your intuition seems to not help your chess.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #183 - 02/08/09 at 21:01:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	This may be a bust for White either kicking it backwards to 8.Be2 or I'll have to find some other way to get the advantage. 8...Be7 appears to be the critical test of 8.Qf3. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 (I'll start looking at the other 8...Be7 lines again. As I indicated long ago, sometimes it takes months for my intuition to kick in)ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 20:12:54: Quote: Do you really want to continue the game? Pay attention Luke, the Jedi Master, Yoda is about to give you a chess lesson. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 +- Quote: May the farce be with you! 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 Mate in 62! Etc Etc. All that and 3 moves later you seems to begin to understand my compensations, you come with a "now doubt are aware, 8...Be7 is closer to equality rather than a clear win for White" etc. 8..Rb8 is probably fine too, your victory against Fritz doesn't means nothing about the fact that the line may be equal. Interesting that you did not eat the pawn with 15.Nxe4, telling me that you will win with 3 pawns up. Now the game. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #182 - 02/08/09 at 20:12:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: Do you really want to continue the game? Pay attention Luke, the Jedi Master, Yoda is about to give you a chess lesson. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 +- Quote: May the farce be with you! 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 Mate in 62! Etc Etc. All that and 3 moves later you seems to begin to understand my compensations, you come with a "now doubt are aware, 8...Be7 is closer to equality rather than a clear win for White" etc. 8..Rb8 is probably fine too, your victory against Fritz doesn't means nothing about the fact that the line may be equal. Interesting that you did not eat the pawn with 15.Nxe4, telling me that you will win with 3 pawns up. Now the game. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5


	IP Logged

Meat Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 184 Joined: 06/27/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #181 - 02/08/09 at 19:43:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 18:44:02: The real question is White's c-pawn; if it is still there and passed in 10 moves, Black has a problem. If you get enough counterplay to stifle it, you will have good chances to equalize. I'm not so sure that 14...e4 equalizes, though. I'll try 15.Nd4 Seems like you're misjudging the position. Black is not trying to equalize. He's playing for a win, and in your game I'd say black is already much better. You'll see soon.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #180 - 02/08/09 at 18:45:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	Clever reparte; no substance.The Hand wrote on 02/08/09 at 18:37:35: Hire attorney for your "failure to perform" lawsuit against GM Alburt.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #179 - 02/08/09 at 18:44:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	As you now doubt are aware, 8...Be7 is closer to equality rather than a clear win for White---it was an exaggeration just to make a point. 8...Be7 may be +/= but 8...Rb8 is closer to +/- (I have beaten Fritz 8 in this variation). The real question is White's c-pawn; if it is still there and passed in 10 moves, Black has a problem. If you get enough counterplay to stifle it, you will have good chances to equalize. I'm not so sure that 14...e4 equalizes, though. I'll try 15.Nd4 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 12:35:30: It would take too much time to me to play 13..e4 too, because there is a lot of ideas here. I will stay with 13..0-0 alone yet because I believe it's good enough to "keep" equality. [quoteHere are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. ] You played 5 of your "key moves for win", but I won't let the time to play d3 now, I play 14..e4! now. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 [/quote]


	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #178 - 02/08/09 at 18:37:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hire attorney for your "failure to perform" lawsuit against GM Alburt.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #177 - 02/08/09 at 18:07:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	Clever reparte, no substance. Please be more specific. What analysis are you contesting? Just one or two examples would suffice. I published an entire summary of my theories and the contributions of the other post members, yet you do not cite a single example of faulty analysis. Keep flapping your arms; you may start flying, too.MUBAs Opponent wrote on 02/08/09 at 13:29:57: sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 02:38:29: There is a standard adage in the law. When you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law. When you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have either on your side, wave your arms. And when you don't have the chess analysis on your side, argue the adages.....


	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 70 Joined: 02/06/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #176 - 02/08/09 at 13:29:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 02:38:29: There is a standard adage in the law. When you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law. When you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have either on your side, wave your arms. And when you don't have the chess analysis on your side, argue the adages.....


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #175 - 02/08/09 at 12:35:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	It would take too much time to me to play 13..e4 too, because there is a lot of ideas here. I will stay with 13..0-0 alone yet because I believe it's good enough to "keep" equality. [quoteHere are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. ] [/quote] You played 5 of your "key moves for win", but I won't let the time to play d3 now, I play 14..e4! now. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #174 - 02/08/09 at 12:28:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	White can avoid the main lines of the Berliner and the strong reply 8...Ne6 with the following line I spent months analyzing with GM Lev Alburt: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nh3!? (This fights for the f4 square and makes 8...Ne6 far less desirable because of the resource 9.Bxb7ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & that Knight on h3 is great.) The best I can find for Black is 8...Bxh3! 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/=sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 02:55:34: I intended to meet 13...e4 with 14.Nd4. On 13...O-O 14.Qe2 Do you want to start a second variation with 13...e4 14.Nd4?ArKheiN wrote on 02/07/09 at 22:09:31: @Sloughter: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 13..e4 was of course possible, interesting and logical move, I have hesitated to play that.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #173 - 02/08/09 at 10:51:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	I didn't know you had any personality.TN wrote on 02/07/09 at 20:31:41: sloughter wrote on 02/07/09 at 11:05:47: This must be my lucky day at the slot machine---three jackasses and a pirate!Nelson wrote on 02/07/09 at 08:25:06: Nelson I didn't know you had multiple personalities. Edit: This post is also easily read.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #172 - 02/08/09 at 02:55:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	I intended to meet 13...e4 with 14.Nd4. On 13...O-O 14.Qe2 Do you want to start a second variation with 13...e4 14.Nd4?ArKheiN wrote on 02/07/09 at 22:09:31: @Sloughter: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 13..e4 was of course possible, interesting and logical move, I have hesitated to play that.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #171 - 02/08/09 at 02:38:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sounds like sour grapes to me. I have corroboration that the Wilkes Barre is practically cooked (My one innovation and supporting practical results, invalidate at least three BOOKS, not three articles, and should replace opening theory in the main reference texts e.g MCO, BCO and ECO), the Fried Liver is toast (Despite attempts at salvation, Pincus has shown it is a bust. How many texts still think it is playable?), and the Berliner is buried (This and Chessposter.com are the first publications to the general chess community that the Berliner Gambit is refuted). Right now, chesspub.com has the best theory on the TKD Ng5 variation of any chess source anywhere. This analysis is being read by chess players all over the world. If the post is so bad, why are so many readers reading it? Any one of these three innovations validate the entire post. There is a standard adage in the law. When you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law. When you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have either on your side, wave your arms. Good luck flying! drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 18:52:29: Meat wrote on 02/07/09 at 11:24:25: Could everybody here please stop quoting all these long posts when making a reply? It makes the thread unreadable. No. It is the lousy ideas, poor analysis, sophomoric insults, and general overall inability of the original poster to understand things that are obvious and fully comprehensible to everyone else. That is what makes this thread unreadable.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #170 - 02/07/09 at 22:09:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Sloughter: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 13..e4 was of course possible, interesting and logical move, I have hesitated to play that.


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #169 - 02/07/09 at 20:31:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/07/09 at 11:05:47: This must be my lucky day at the slot machine---three jackasses and a pirate!Nelson wrote on 02/07/09 at 08:25:06: Nelson I didn't know you had multiple personalities. Edit: This post is also easily read.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #168 - 02/07/09 at 18:54:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 18:53:48: drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 18:52:29: Meat wrote on 02/07/09 at 11:24:25: Could everybody here please stop quoting all these long posts when making a reply? It makes the thread unreadable. No. It is the lousy ideas, poor analysis, sophomoric insults, and general overall inability of the original poster to understand things that are obvious and fully comprehensible to everyone else. That is what makes this thread unreadable. See? This is eminently readable. HINT: Skip over the part you've already read! No charge. I argue this is still easily read.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #167 - 02/07/09 at 18:53:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 18:52:29: Meat wrote on 02/07/09 at 11:24:25: Could everybody here please stop quoting all these long posts when making a reply? It makes the thread unreadable. No. It is the lousy ideas, poor analysis, sophomoric insults, and general overall inability of the original poster to understand things that are obvious and fully comprehensible to everyone else. That is what makes this thread unreadable. See? This is eminently readable. HINT: Skip over the part you've already read! No charge.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #166 - 02/07/09 at 18:52:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	Meat wrote on 02/07/09 at 11:24:25: Could everybody here please stop quoting all these long posts when making a reply? It makes the thread unreadable. No. It is the lousy ideas, poor analysis, sophomoric insults, and general overall inability of the original poster to understand things that are obvious and fully comprehensible to everyone else. That is what makes this thread unreadable.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Meat Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 184 Joined: 06/27/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #165 - 02/07/09 at 11:24:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	Could everybody here please stop quoting all these long posts when making a reply? It makes the thread unreadable.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #164 - 02/07/09 at 11:17:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	Is the youtube anything related to the boob tube? As you can see on these posts the information is a mile wide and an inch deep! Would you see if you can get me broadband here? I only have dial-up so I can't down load the site. Perhaps you can summarize it for me?TN wrote on 02/07/09 at 07:18:32: sloughter wrote on 02/07/09 at 06:38:57: Hi ArkheiN! Do you have any other pseudonames? I have a tough time figuring out which personality I am dealing with! Have you ever watched the film, "The Three Faces of Eve."? Perhaps you can watch and learn something from it. The post responses from various members is well known and predictable. I recommend every post member check out the website called, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics: The Big Bang Scandal". Here is what Brian Martin had to say in his introduction, "Textbooks present science as a noble pursuit for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth." "They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous---especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent." "The usual pattern is that some one does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or critic personally---by censuring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors..." May I suggest one additional hat for you to wear? How about the hat of the Grand Inquisitor so I can play the role of Galileo? Yes, I can be forced to recant, but I would prefer to be permitted to tell the truth. Do you really want to continue the game? Pay attention Luke, the Jedi Master, Yoda is about to give you a chess lesson. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 +- ... Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. Hi Richard, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #163 - 02/07/09 at 11:11:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	May the farce be with you! 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 Mate in 62!ArKheiN wrote on 02/07/09 at 09:58:52: Please Sloughter, don't ask me again if I want to resign after each predictables moves. When I decided to continue with 11..Qc7 I have of course anticipated 12.Nc3. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #162 - 02/07/09 at 11:05:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	This must be my lucky day at the slot machine---three jackasses and a pirate!Nelson wrote on 02/07/09 at 08:25:06: Nelson


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #161 - 02/07/09 at 09:58:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Please Sloughter, don't ask me again if I want to resign after each predictables moves. When I decided to continue with 11..Qc7 I have of course anticipated 12.Nc3. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6


	IP Logged

Nelson Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 77 Joined: 04/12/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #160 - 02/07/09 at 08:25:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	Nelson


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #159 - 02/07/09 at 07:18:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/07/09 at 06:38:57: Hi ArkheiN! Do you have any other pseudonames? I have a tough time figuring out which personality I am dealing with! Have you ever watched the film, "The Three Faces of Eve."? Perhaps you can watch and learn something from it. The post responses from various members is well known and predictable. I recommend every post member check out the website called, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics: The Big Bang Scandal". Here is what Brian Martin had to say in his introduction, "Textbooks present science as a noble pursuit for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth." "They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous---especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent." "The usual pattern is that some one does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or critic personally---by censuring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors..." May I suggest one additional hat for you to wear? How about the hat of the Grand Inquisitor so I can play the role of Galileo? Yes, I can be forced to recant, but I would prefer to be permitted to tell the truth. Do you really want to continue the game? Pay attention Luke, the Jedi Master, Yoda is about to give you a chess lesson. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 +- ... Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. Hi Richard, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #158 - 02/07/09 at 06:38:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hi ArkheiN! Do you have any other pseudonames? I have a tough time figuring out which personality I am dealing with! Have you ever watched the film, "The Three Faces of Eve."? Perhaps you can watch and learn something from it. The post responses from various members is well known and predictable. I recommend every post member check out the website called, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics: The Big Bang Scandal". Here is what Brian Martin had to say in his introduction, "Textbooks present science as a noble pursuit for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth." "They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous---especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent." "The usual pattern is that some one does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or critic personally---by censuring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors..." May I suggest one additional hat for you to wear? How about the hat of the Grand Inquisitor so I can play the role of Galileo? Yes, I can be forced to recant, but I would prefer to be permitted to tell the truth. Do you really want to continue the game? Pay attention Luke, the Jedi Master, Yoda is about to give you a chess lesson. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 +-ArKheiN wrote on 02/07/09 at 01:40:12: Quote: Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. Sorry but I really don't consider you as my chess teacher. I don't want to be seen as your student and you the master. I prefer to be seen as a psychologist and you the patient with mental disorder, where I want to know everything from you to learn more about strange psychology, and to help you at the same time if I can. The day you will clearly refute the 2 Knights defense (at least 7..Be7, 7..Rb8, 7..h6, 8..Ne6 of the Fritz/Ulvestad), I will call you Ultimate Grand Master and will ask everybody to do the same. But fortunately, that day is not for soon (even if the 2 Knights is refutable, that would be in many many years, with many many analysis, or by a 3600 rated player alone maybe, so I don't believe an amateur like you will make that chess revolution). About the "Sloughter resigned", I say that because at the end of my joke with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bg4?! 6.Nxf7 Qc8?! (yes, that line is refuted, that's why I say "for fun" because I wanted to laugh and see you struggle to draw or even lose in that true refuted line with the only one big trap for computers). After a few moves (6.Nxf7 Qc8?! 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Nxf3 9.Bb5+ c6 10.gxf3 Qh3) you saw that I got you, and came back at move 8, so I considered you "resigned" the White position from the position after 10..Qh3. But anyway, my serious defense was the another one with 8.Qf3 h6 where you quickly stopped to analyse because you saw you couldn't find anything for White here (and you didn't say anything), and still now you don't give anything to show that 8..h6 is refuted. Now you switched your attention to 8.Qf3 Be7, fine. You say White is winning, Black has no compensation, and that I should resign here immediately. Just a quick look at chesslive and statistics after 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Bd7: 26 games. Even Masters played that "miserable" position as Black with 2 pawns down because they wanted to give 2 pawns for nothing. And the score? 18,5 for Black, 7,5 for White, 71% for Black 29% for White. The strongest ELO with White was GM Macieja, 2633, against GM Sulskis, 2570, draw. But Macieja is lucky, he will see the path by the 25 years student from GM Alburt. Macieja played 11.Qf3?! but Sloughter show us 11.Qa6, only 1 game/26 played like this according to chesslive (0-1), but honestly, I agree that 11.Qa6 might be a real improvment for White (and it can't do worse than 11.Qc4 and 11.Qf3). So after 11.Qa6, I hesitated a long time. No, I didn't hesitate about resigning. In fact I had already 4 reasonables moves for Black right now, I had in mind 11..Rc8, 11..h6, 11..0-0 and 11..Qc7. And I took a decision, the best objectively? I don't know, that move is good enough for me, let's the fight begin. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #157 - 02/07/09 at 06:17:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	Actually, as my brother would say, it is like boxing with a one-armed man. More! More!Seth_Xoma wrote on 02/07/09 at 03:14:22: So begins the most highly anticipated match since Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik 1972...


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #156 - 02/07/09 at 06:15:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	The only thing I hope to win is an open mind.sloughter wrote on 02/07/09 at 06:10:13: Ahh---My my favorite primate has returned!drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 03:41:34: I wager 400 Quatloos on ArKheiN.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #155 - 02/07/09 at 06:13:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	Actually, it is a tribute. If I can survive having my ideas dissected by one of the nicest, most patient teachers and individuals I have ever met, it makes dealing with the post members fun and easy. Keep sending me those high, inside fast balls. I need batting practice so that I can hit a grand slam home run when it counts!Sacapawn wrote on 02/06/09 at 20:28:44: Quote: I have spent 25 years being taught by probably the finest chess teacher in America, GM Lev Alburt. Scathing criticism of American chess teachers!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #154 - 02/07/09 at 06:10:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ahh---My my favorite primate has returned!drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 03:41:34: I wager 400 Quatloos on ArKheiN.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #153 - 02/07/09 at 03:41:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	I wager 400 Quatloos on ArKheiN.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Seth_Xoma God Member Offline FM with 2 IM Norms - (2381) Posts: 558 Location: Lansing Joined: 11/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #152 - 02/07/09 at 03:14:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	So begins the most highly anticipated match since Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik 1972...


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #151 - 02/07/09 at 01:40:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. Sorry but I really don't consider you as my chess teacher. I don't want to be seen as your student and you the master. I prefer to be seen as a psychologist and you the patient with mental disorder, where I want to know everything from you to learn more about strange psychology, and to help you at the same time if I can. The day you will clearly refute the 2 Knights defense (at least 7..Be7, 7..Rb8, 7..h6, 8..Ne6 of the Fritz/Ulvestad), I will call you Ultimate Grand Master and will ask everybody to do the same. But fortunately, that day is not for soon (even if the 2 Knights is refutable, that would be in many many years, with many many analysis, or by a 3600 rated player alone maybe, so I don't believe an amateur like you will make that chess revolution). About the "Sloughter resigned", I say that because at the end of my joke with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bg4?! 6.Nxf7 Qc8?! (yes, that line is refuted, that's why I say "for fun" because I wanted to laugh and see you struggle to draw or even lose in that true refuted line with the only one big trap for computers). After a few moves (6.Nxf7 Qc8?! 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Nxf3 9.Bb5+ c6 10.gxf3 Qh3) you saw that I got you, and came back at move 8, so I considered you "resigned" the White position from the position after 10..Qh3. But anyway, my serious defense was the another one with 8.Qf3 h6 where you quickly stopped to analyse because you saw you couldn't find anything for White here (and you didn't say anything), and still now you don't give anything to show that 8..h6 is refuted. Now you switched your attention to 8.Qf3 Be7, fine. You say White is winning, Black has no compensation, and that I should resign here immediately. Just a quick look at chesslive and statistics after 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Bd7: 26 games. Even Masters played that "miserable" position as Black with 2 pawns down because they wanted to give 2 pawns for nothing. And the score? 18,5 for Black, 7,5 for White, 71% for Black 29% for White. The strongest ELO with White was GM Macieja, 2633, against GM Sulskis, 2570, draw. But Macieja is lucky, he will see the path by the 25 years student from GM Alburt. Macieja played 11.Qf3?! but Sloughter show us 11.Qa6, only 1 game/26 played like this according to chesslive (0-1), but honestly, I agree that 11.Qa6 might be a real improvment for White (and it can't do worse than 11.Qc4 and 11.Qf3). So after 11.Qa6, I hesitated a long time. No, I didn't hesitate about resigning. In fact I had already 4 reasonables moves for Black right now, I had in mind 11..Rc8, 11..h6, 11..0-0 and 11..Qc7. And I took a decision, the best objectively? I don't know, that move is good enough for me, let's the fight begin. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7


	IP Logged

Sacapawn Full Member Offline International Master Posts: 119 Location: Stockholm Joined: 05/27/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #150 - 02/06/09 at 20:28:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: I have spent 25 years being taught by probably the finest chess teacher in America, GM Lev Alburt. Scathing criticism of American chess teachers!


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #149 - 02/06/09 at 19:16:02	Post Tools	Print Post


	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #148 - 02/06/09 at 19:11:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/2345654223_1c2f2dcdc3.jpgv=0

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #147 - 02/06/09 at 19:07:17	Post Tools	Print Post


	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #146 - 02/06/09 at 17:26:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	Also: Sloughter, see a neurologist.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

proustiskeen God Member Offline Hello from Omaha! Posts: 681 Joined: 08/11/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #145 - 02/06/09 at 15:21:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	It's getting to be nearly time to ban this clown, isn't it? Anonymous was kicked out for less egregious posts.


	WWW IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #144 - 02/06/09 at 13:50:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	25 years being taught by Lev Alburt. 1700 rating. Some may query whether that was money well spent. Could have had a few holidays in the sun. Eaten more heartily. Moved out of home. Let the readers decide who looks ridiculous? You leave yourself rather open there I fear. Best thing to do - get your rating up, get a few quick norms, get the titles. Then people may find it easier to respect whatever may be on offer. Until that time appearances may suggest a deluded duffer, alas. I suspect many of the above-named departed these shores as there is only so much fun one can have kicking a puppy.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #143 - 02/06/09 at 13:03:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	Let me respond to a previous post by another critic. It seemed pointless to respond to it at the time, because it was so offbase. By failing to respond to the post, some readers might mistake this for tacit approval. Let me correct that misimpression. Here are 10 things I have done "wrong" on this thread according to MNb 1) "You don't listen to good, well meant advice." "Good" advice by MNb's standards, but not by my standards. It looks like hackneyed old thinking, not good advice. "Well" meant advice? Interesting when you consider the fact that MNb proceeded to end the post with an insult., 2) "So you don't do any research (books) etc. before printing a few moves." When GM Andy Soltis reviewed my book on the Evans Gambit, here is a quote from his review. "This is a well-researched original analysis of an old opening.Quote: The Hand wrote on 02/06/09 at 05:06:39: He will not learn. His misconstruing of my post shows that this comment is not limited to chess. [/quote]


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #142 - 02/06/09 at 10:28:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	That's funny; I have spent 25 years being taught by probably the finest chess teacher in America, GM Lev Alburt. I just don't like being 'taught' by beginners. Let me address the following post members who abandoned the post with what they thought was one final insult. Just like America who abandoned Vietnam and declared themselves the victor, they have abandoned this post and declared themselves the victors. Have you noticed how the focus has been on analysis not generalities now that the following post members have left---drkodos, micawber, markovich, nelson, Hgman, Antillian, MnB and schaakhamster. In particular, drkodos and schaakhamster left with an ad hominem attack and used an emoticom that strongly resembles jackasses braying. How appropriate!TN wrote on 02/06/09 at 09:34:27: The Hand wrote on 02/06/09 at 05:06:39: He will not learn. His misconstruing of my post shows that this comment is not limited to chess.


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #141 - 02/06/09 at 09:34:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	The Hand wrote on 02/06/09 at 05:06:39: He will not learn. His misconstruing of my post shows that this comment is not limited to chess.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #140 - 02/06/09 at 09:18:19	Post Tools	Print Post
	If those students fail a regents exam at the end of their studies it doesn't matter if they studied hard, got good grades in their homework and then consistently failed the regents exams; any teacher, now matter how good or bad, will be fired. Any teacher who "disciplines" their students for obnoxious behavior is apt to be fired. A teacher who gives good grades to their students just to encourage them, and then is royally disappointed when they fail when it really matters, will be fired. Any teacher who uses innovative teaching techniques and rocks the boat will be fired. The basic assumption that you have made is that the starting material was of sufficiently high quality that they deserved to get good grades at the end of the semester just for working hard. If these were chess students who did their homework (read chess books), studied opening, middlegame and endgame theory religiously, practiced often and for long periods of time, and then went to local high school tournaments and lost every game, that chess teacher would be fired, too. When a "student" decides to 'give their teacher a lesson' by trying to humiliate them in public, it would not surprise me if that teacher, who responded in self defense, would be fired, too.TN wrote on 02/06/09 at 05:31:49: sloughter wrote on 02/06/09 at 02:20:40: Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. No competent theoretician would bother to analyze the position from this point onward. If you wish to pursue this farce beyond this point, then you will get a grade of "F" for competence as a theoretician. You remind me of a particular teacher from when I was at high school ages ago. In the school's half-yearly reports, every student in her class (including a few of my school mates at the time) received 'F's' for their grades even though most of the class scored A's and B's in their assignments, completed their homework and behaved competently in classs. She was sacked shortly afterwards.


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #139 - 02/06/09 at 05:31:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/06/09 at 02:20:40: Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. No competent theoretician would bother to analyze the position from this point onward. If you wish to pursue this farce beyond this point, then you will get a grade of "F" for competence as a theoretician. You remind me of a particular teacher from when I was at high school ages ago. In the school's half-yearly reports, every student in her class (including a few of my school mates at the time) received 'F's' for their grades even though most of the class scored A's and B's in their assignments, completed their homework and behaved competently in classs. She was sacked shortly afterwards.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

The Hand Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 55 Joined: 01/02/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #138 - 02/06/09 at 05:06:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	He will not learn.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #137 - 02/06/09 at 02:34:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter, I think you're about to learn something about the most important thing in chess. Piece activity. Good luck


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #136 - 02/06/09 at 02:20:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	Dear Mr. Arkheim, In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts) Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician. I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities. When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious. 9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8) Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one. No competent theoretician would bother to analyze the position from this point onward. If you wish to pursue this farce beyond this point, then you will get a grade of "F" for competence as a theoretician.ArKheiN wrote on 02/05/09 at 14:15:02: Sloughter, I accept your deal. Even if I didn't say that 8.Qf3 Be7 was my choice, I believe I can hold that against yours refutations. If I get a draw or if I win, I hope you will change your words about the 2 Knights and you won't use so easily the word "refutation" anymore. I am ok to play 8..Be7 alone without Uruk, maybe he will just agree with my move, if he find better, he will do a parallel game/analysis. Let's start now: 8.Qf3!? (really, I am myself interested about that move from White point of view, but it's impossible by now to tell if that wins.), 8..Be7 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Bd7 and now it's your turn. If 11.Qc4 or 11.Qf3, I play 11..0-0.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #135 - 02/06/09 at 02:14:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	The trial and error method is fine, it just doesn't start with conclusions. I admit though, strong opinions can be useful in analysis. I accept your challenge on 9.Bc6:+, but I'll have only casual access to computer until next week. So let ArkheiN start the hostilities. A precious teammate he is, I have seen analysing on this forum and another one. I may connect briefly in the next few days to see how it is going. I encourage all contestants to share their thoughts. For mine, I'm pretty confident. 9.Bc6:+ gives up on chances of a positional bind. With all these files open Black will display some raw power.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #134 - 02/05/09 at 14:18:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/05/09 at 12:57:52: I rely on trial and error to determine best play for both sides. I have been relying on this type of analysis under the supervision of GM Lev Alburt for 25 years. Now I am being told that I've lost the theoretical battle. ArKhein did not tell you that you have lost a theoretical battle. Neither did Markovich or I. What we did tell you and you still refuse to accept are three points. 1. The goal of a theoretical battle is not to win or lose, but to get a better understanding of the opening that is discussed. In fact about all theoretical battles here end inconclusive; we don't know, we need practical tests, we disagree on the final evaluations etcetera. 2. Computers are helpful, but cannot replace human evaluations. ArKhein is not a 2500 GM but still evaluates certain positions better than the strongest computer. 3. When entering a battle you'd better be well prepared. You wrote that you know Estrin's book. Still you "refute" that Ulvestad-Fritz line with Bxb5+ by giving an irrelevant move for Black. I'll help you once again: after Bxb5+ Bd7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 0-0 Black should not play ...Nf4. If you had cared to look it up in Estrin or even in this thread (my game on page 1 or 2) you would have known it. Look, your rating does not matter that much on this site. Mine is not that much higher than yours. But you can vastly improve your analytical methods. Believe me, then you will taken seriously even by the strongest contributors here. This improvement should begin with: 1) study available literature; 2) if you have found a line leading to a white advantage begin looking for better moves for black. Anyone can do that, unregarding strength. It's only a matter of a systemetical approach.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #133 - 02/05/09 at 14:15:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter, I accept your deal. Even if I didn't say that 8.Qf3 Be7 was my choice, I believe I can hold that against yours refutations. If I get a draw or if I win, I hope you will change your words about the 2 Knights and you won't use so easily the word "refutation" anymore. I am ok to play 8..Be7 alone without Uruk, maybe he will just agree with my move, if he find better, he will do a parallel game/analysis. Let's start now: 8.Qf3!? (really, I am myself interested about that move from White point of view, but it's impossible by now to tell if that wins.), 8..Be7 9.Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Bd7 and now it's your turn. If 11.Qc4 or 11.Qf3, I play 11..0-0.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #132 - 02/05/09 at 12:57:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Dear Arkheim and Uruk, Both of you set an interesting trap i.e. if you could cook one or more of my lines of analysis that your job is done; you "beat" me. As indicated in a previous post, I rely on trial and error to determine best play for both sides. I have been relying on this type of analysis under the supervision of GM Lev Alburt for 25 years. Now I am being told that I've lost the theoretical battle. Ok, Arkeim and Uruk, let's play a "game" for real; you get just one try to draw or win with Black's miserable position after 8...Be7? 9.Bxc6ch!, to justify the blunder 8...Be7. I get just one try to checkmate each of you in your separate games or, perhaps, a consultation game between the two of you. The position on the board is 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch. Your move. link=1230634273/120#130 date=1233835129]Sure we're doing analysis and it is no shame to go back at will. But given that your analysis has not hold up until now, your bold claims at refutation are annoying. The bolder the claim, the more justified it has to be. If I said I found a counterexample to the laws of gravity, my proof had better be solid. Otherwise you would say I just want some publicity. I'd be happy to test your 9.Bc6:+ (just next week), but give up on the "I know White is winning". It is not worth anything until you have gained some respect for your analytical skills. [/quote]


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #131 - 02/05/09 at 12:08:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter knows that the 2Knights is refuted, and he knows that God exists, but he can't prove anything, but still, he knows I will stop spending my time to reply to his 80%wrong analysis by now, my lesson is finished, I don't know if it helped him to learn something.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #130 - 02/05/09 at 11:58:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sure we're doing analysis and it is no shame to go back at will. But given that your analysis has not hold up until now, your bold claims at refutation are annoying. The bolder the claim, the more justified it has to be. If I said I found a counterexample to the laws of gravity, my proof had better be solid. Otherwise you would say I just want some publicity. I'd be happy to test your 9.Bc6:+ (just next week), but give up on the "I know White is winning". It is not worth anything until you have gained some respect for your analytical skills.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #129 - 02/05/09 at 11:20:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	Dear Uruk, You seem to feel in analysis, if one line is a bust, that this refutes the opening. I know White is winning here, so it is just a question of stringing together the right concepts I had a lapse in pattern recognition at the start of the sequence, which was a huge mistake i.e. thinking that there was not a substantial difference between the 8...Rb8 lines and the 8...Be7 lines. The differences are huge. White should just grab the second pawn with a clearly better position. If you wish to believe that we are playing a "game" please let me know because I was under the impression that this was a discussion of theory. If you really want to play an analysis game let's now call this a "game" so I know we are on the same page. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch! Your move.Uruk wrote on 02/05/09 at 03:39:04: Summing up: - you claimed an edge with 9.Be2, there was none; - you claimed an edge with 9.Bd3, there was none; - now you want to try 9.Bf1... Give me a break. The line you give is cooperative, Black won't play these aimless Queen moves. Not that you proved anything against Arkhein either. Sorry, your "refutation of the Two Knights" is really hot air.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #128 - 02/05/09 at 03:39:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	Summing up: - you claimed an edge with 9.Be2, there was none; - you claimed an edge with 9.Bd3, there was none; - now you want to try 9.Bf1... Give me a break. The line you give is cooperative, Black won't play these aimless Queen moves. Not that you proved anything against Arkhein either. Sorry, your "refutation of the Two Knights" is really hot air.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #127 - 02/05/09 at 02:36:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bf1!? (A Berliner Idea) O-O 10.d3 Ng4 11.Nh3 Qd4 12.c3 Qd5 13.Nd2 Rd8 14.Be2 Nb7 15.O-O Nc5 16.Ne4 Nxd3?! 17.Bg5! +/=Uruk wrote on 02/04/09 at 23:21:07: In the variation 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 0-0, you suggest 10.Nc3, which is fine. Now ...g6 is risky because of h4. So I play 10...h6 11.Nge4 Nd5, which is similar to your game with ArkheiN, but the Bishop is a more serious test on d3. After 12.Ng3 Nb4 13.Nf5 Bg5 (idea g6) 14.h4 Nd3: 15.cd3: Be7, can you prove an advantage ?


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #126 - 02/04/09 at 23:21:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	In the variation 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 0-0, you suggest 10.Nc3, which is fine. Now ...g6 is risky because of h4. So I play 10...h6 11.Nge4 Nd5, which is similar to your game with ArkheiN, but the Bishop is a more serious test on d3. After 12.Ng3 Nb4 13.Nf5 Bg5 (idea g6) 14.h4 Nd3: 15.cd3: Be7, can you prove an advantage ?


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #125 - 02/04/09 at 22:50:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Meat and spectators of "game 1", you can see my point now. I played a dubious line (5..Bg4?! 6..Qc8?!) and I knew it, but I strongly felt that sloughter would fall into the big anti-computer trap ( 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3 9.Fb5+ c6 10.gxf3 Qh3 which is in fact strong for Black despite computer say for a long time, and there sloughter "resigned" and then want to take back again), and that worked. Your suggestion of 8.fxg4, more human, is also stronger, and stronger than is last mentionned move, 8.Nxe5. @sloughter, "game 1" is finished now, I saw what I wanted to see, you and your computed falled into the only real trap (8.Nxh8 Bxf3 9.Fb5+ c6 10.gxf3 etc). Even simple human move as 6.f3 followed by 7.Qe2 is strong to White without letting any complication to Black. I hope you learned something from that little lesson. Now Iam waiting the refutation of the "game 2", where I believe you won't because this time I chose a serious defense. Chess is not always easy, you can't refute in one hour what has been played for 100 years, even with fritz 8. I hope you begin to understand something new now.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #124 - 02/04/09 at 16:35:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	Let's say I stepped into a small trap without thinking i.e. that anything wins. It's trickier than it looks, but just 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxe5 takes the wind out of Black's sails.ArKheiN wrote on 02/04/09 at 15:15:55: Game 1: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3 9.Fb5+ c6 10.gxf3 Qh3 let's continue. Sloughter, why do you always want to play bad moves for Black? After 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6! 13.Qg3, Why would I play that bad move 13..Bg5 when I say I would play something like castle or Nd4? So: Game 2: 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6! 13.Qg3 Nd4 and my next move will be 14..0-0 after most of your moves. 13.Qg3 Nd4 14.Bd1 O-O 15.h3 Bh4 16.Qh2 Re8 17.O-O Bg5 18.Nd2 Bf4 19.g3 Bg5 20.Nce4 Be7 21.g4 Qd5 22.Nf3 f5 23.gxf5 Bxf5 24.Re1


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #123 - 02/04/09 at 15:15:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	Game 1: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3 9.Fb5+ c6 10.gxf3 Qh3 let's continue. Sloughter, why do you always want to play bad moves for Black? After 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6! 13.Qg3, Why would I play that bad move 13..Bg5 when I say I would play something like castle or Nd4? So: Game 2: 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6! 13.Qg3 Nd4 and my next move will be 14..0-0 after most of your moves.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #122 - 02/04/09 at 12:58:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	Uruk wrote on 02/04/09 at 12:40:29: sloughter wrote on 02/04/09 at 10:57:37: White must improve earlier. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 Bg4 10.Qe3 Nd7 11.Nf3 Bc5 12.Qg5 Bxf3 13.Qxd8ch Rxd8 14.gxf3 g6 15.Be2 f5 16.d3 Ok, 9.Bd3 should be better than Be2. But what a strange line do you offer... don't you know I want to castle ? 9.Bd3 0-0, and if you also castle, I propose ...g6, which could serve a later ...f5. 10.Nc3 Qd4 11.Be2 Bg4 12.Qe3 Nb7 13.d3 Bb4 14.Bd2 Rae8 15.Bxg4 Qxg4 16.Qg3 e4 17.Ncxe4 Bxd2ch 18.Kxd2


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #121 - 02/04/09 at 12:40:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 02/04/09 at 10:57:37: White must improve earlier. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 Bg4 10.Qe3 Nd7 11.Nf3 Bc5 12.Qg5 Bxf3 13.Qxd8ch Rxd8 14.gxf3 g6 15.Be2 f5 16.d3 Ok, 9.Bd3 should be better than Be2. But what a strange line do you offer... don't you know I want to castle ? 9.Bd3 0-0, and if you also castle, I propose ...g6, which could serve a later ...f5.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #120 - 02/04/09 at 12:39:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3 9.Bb5ch c6 10.gxf3 ArKheiN wrote on 02/04/09 at 11:29:11: @Meat, you may understand my point later, we will speak about it, for the moment, we will just look at sloughter's refutations because it's for the first interest of the whole theory of the 2Knights defense, because now it seems in great danger. 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6 13.@sloughter, warning, long variation= wrong variation. I think it's from Tartakower, and it's still right when the variation isn't any forced. Now let's look to your refutations here: Quote: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Nxe2 O-O 14.O-O Qd6 15.b3 Re8 16.Bb2 Now my response, 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8, nice, you reached the test 2 with success, congratulation. Now I play: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3. Let's continue the refutation, I want to learn everything I can from you. Now the more serious line for Black. "8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Nxe2 O-O 14.O-O Qd6 15.b3 Re8 16.Bb2", long variation, wrong variation, isn't it? First, 11.Nec3 looks really strange for someone who speak about "knight tango", tempo and development. 11.Nbc3, more natural, looks stronger too. Now let's look at Black's improvments, 11..0-0 a natural move and probably a good move, but ok, 11..Nf4 still looks ok. 12.d3 and no, I won't take that bishop e2, that's not very good, my "tango knight" has something better to do, I play 12..Ne6 aiming for the d4-square. Now I want to castle and to put my knight on d4 and continue my development/attack, and I wait your improvments. So, let's continue "just for fun" both: Game1: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3 Game2: 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6! 13.Qg3 Bg5 14.Bxg5 Qxg5 15.Nd2 Nd4 16.O-O-O Be6 17.Rde1


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #119 - 02/04/09 at 11:29:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Meat, you may understand my point later, we will speak about it, for the moment, we will just look at sloughter's refutations because it's for the first interest of the whole theory of the 2Knights defense, because now it seems in great danger. @sloughter, warning, long variation= wrong variation. I think it's from Tartakower, and it's still right when the variation isn't any forced. Now let's look to your refutations here: Quote: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Nxe2 O-O 14.O-O Qd6 15.b3 Re8 16.Bb2 Now my response, 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8, nice, you reached the test 2 with success, congratulation. Now I play: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3. Let's continue the refutation, I want to learn everything I can from you. Now the more serious line for Black. "8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Nxe2 O-O 14.O-O Qd6 15.b3 Re8 16.Bb2", long variation, wrong variation, isn't it? First, 11.Nec3 looks really strange for someone who speak about "knight tango", tempo and development. 11.Nbc3, more natural, looks stronger too. Now let's look at Black's improvments, 11..0-0 a natural move and probably a good move, but ok, 11..Nf4 still looks ok. 12.d3 and no, I won't take that bishop e2, that's not very good, my "tango knight" has something better to do, I play 12..Ne6 aiming for the d4-square. Now I want to castle and to put my knight on d4 and continue my development/attack, and I wait your improvments. So, let's continue "just for fun" both: Game1: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 Bxf3 Game2: 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #118 - 02/04/09 at 10:57:37	Post Tools	Print Post
	White must improve earlier. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 Bg4 10.Qe3 Nd7 11.Nf3 Bc5 12.Qg5 Bxf3 13.Qxd8ch Rxd8 14.gxf3 g6 15.Be2 f5 16.d3 Uruk wrote on 02/04/09 at 07:17:21: Phew, this line is too long! No surprise there is an early improvement. 16...Bg5! instead of Bf6. Giving a piece, but asking if you also like your King in the middle! 17.Bg5: Qg5: 18.Qa5: Qg2: 19.Rf1 Rbe8 20.Nd5: Re2:+! 21.Ke2: Bg4+ and White is probably fried chicken.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #117 - 02/04/09 at 07:17:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	Phew, this line is too long! No surprise there is an early improvement. 16...Bg5! instead of Bf6. Giving a piece, but asking if you also like your King in the middle! 17.Bg5: Qg5: 18.Qa5: Qg2: 19.Rf1 Rbe8 20.Nd5: Re2:+! 21.Ke2: Bg4+ and White is probably fried chicken.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #116 - 02/04/09 at 06:21:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hi Uruk! This is unforced, but Mr. Fritz plays a very pretty tactical shot to win the game. Yes, I still like my Queen in the center or driven to a good square 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 O-O 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.d3 f5 12.Nec3 e4 13.dxe4 fxe4 14.Qxe4 Bf5 15.Qa4 Rb8 16.a3 Bf6 17.O-O Re8 18.Bf3 Be5 19.Bd2 Nxc3 20.Bxc3 Bxc3 21.Nxc3 Rxb2 22.Rac1 Re6 23.Nd1 Rb5 24.Ne3 Qc7 25.Rcd1 Rh6 26.g3 Be6 27.Nd5!!Uruk wrote on 02/04/09 at 04:17:44: It is not my intention to exchange the knights. After 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.d3 f5, I'm a tempo up on ArkheiN, because I did not play ...h6. Now you must decide where the knight goes. c3 or g3 ? On 12.Nec3, e4 may even be possible. In any case, I can't believe you're too proud of your Queen in the middle of the board.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #115 - 02/04/09 at 04:17:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	It is not my intention to exchange the knights. After 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.d3 f5, I'm a tempo up on ArkheiN, because I did not play ...h6. Now you must decide where the knight goes. c3 or g3 ? On 12.Nec3, e4 may even be possible. In any case, I can't believe you're too proud of your Queen in the middle of the board.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #114 - 02/04/09 at 03:11:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	It is difficult for Black to make progress without moving his Kingside pawns, but this may lead them to be overextended and weak e.g. 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 O-O 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd6 12.d3 f5 13.Qe3 Be6 14.Nc3 f4 15.Qf3 Bd5 16.Ne4 Qg6 17.O-O Nb7 18.Qg4 Qxg4 19.Bxg4 Nc5 20.Nc3 Rab8 21.Rb1 g5 22.Re1 Uruk wrote on 02/04/09 at 02:22:22: Looking at it, Rb8 isn't particularly useful. I prefer the quickest castling 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 0-0 I intend to attack the knight not by ...h6, but something more active like ...Ng4. Let me know if this is the least bit refuted.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #113 - 02/04/09 at 03:04:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	I'm skipping Rb8, look at my previous post.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #112 - 02/04/09 at 02:46:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	Excellent idea, but--- 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 Be7 10.Ne4 Be6 11.b3 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Qd4 13.Nc3 f5 14.Qe3 Bf6 15.Bb2 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Bxc4 17.Nd1! Qxe3 18.Nxe3 There are obviously a lot of other variations, but none of them equalize.Uruk wrote on 02/03/09 at 22:03:14: Well, for one thing, what do you play against 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 Be7 (development!) Occasion to salute everyone, this is my first post here.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #111 - 02/04/09 at 02:22:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Looking at it, Rb8 isn't particularly useful. I prefer the quickest castling 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 0-0 I intend to attack the knight not by ...h6, but something more active like ...Ng4. Let me know if this is the least bit refuted.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #110 - 02/04/09 at 01:55:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 8.Nxh8 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Nxe2 O-O 14.O-O Qd6 15.b3 Re8 16.Bb2 ArKheiN wrote on 02/03/09 at 21:27:40: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 let's continue until I completly agree with you. 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 (10.Nbc3 seems stronger to me) 10..Be7 (10..Be6 followed by 11..Nb4 is clearly weak). And now?


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #109 - 02/03/09 at 22:03:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	Well, for one thing, what do you play against 8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 Be7 (development!) Occasion to salute everyone, this is my first post here.


	IP Logged

Meat Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 184 Joined: 06/27/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #108 - 02/03/09 at 21:46:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	ArKheiN wrote on 02/03/09 at 21:27:40: 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 Now 5...Bg4 strikes me as really weird. What on earth is black going to do after 8. fxg4 ? I'm not taking sloughters laughable side here, but that just looks a tad too crazy.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #107 - 02/03/09 at 21:27:40	Post Tools	Print Post
	5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 Nd4 let's continue until I completly agree with you. 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 (10.Nbc3 seems stronger to me) 10..Be7 (10..Be6 followed by 11..Nb4 is clearly weak). And now?


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #106 - 02/03/09 at 20:47:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 Qc8 7.f3 +- 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be6 11.d3 Nb4 12.Bd1 Nxa2 13.Be3 Rb8 14.b3 Nb4 15.O-O Nd5 16.Qg3 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Qc7 18.d4 Nb7 19.Rxa7 +-ArKheiN wrote on 02/03/09 at 20:27:36: Let's continue in the recommanded line for Black. 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5. 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7, that was the first test, let's continue a few moves, just to see. 6..Qc8!?


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #105 - 02/03/09 at 20:27:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	Let's continue in the recommanded line for Black. 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5. 5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7, that was the first test, let's continue a few moves, just to see. 6..Qc8!?


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #104 - 02/03/09 at 20:22:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	5.exd5 Bg4 6.Nxf7 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Qf6 11.Bd3 e.g. g6 12.O-O Bf5 13.Qf3 +/- White can always play the Kopec maneuver at some point i.e. c3/Bc2/Qa4 (if necessary) Unless you can demonstrate that Black gets a sustained initiative or regains the pawn, White is better.ArKheiN wrote on 02/03/09 at 19:42:08: sloughter, you did forgot to refute Qf3 8..h6, a move recommanded by some sources. I have a question for you too, how do you refute 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bg4? Just a naive question because Iam curious. Improvments for Black will probably come everywhere


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #103 - 02/03/09 at 19:57:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	Nelson wrote on 02/03/09 at 19:16:03: Hi Guys, Why are you wasting time replying to each other in this lengthy prose when things have obviously run their course and serving no further constructive purpose.... I'm sure you could spend some time more constructively on some other topics rather than rising to Sloughters bait. Can we give DrKodos an award for the most amusingly sarcastic post on the forum to date? I'm not going to bother to read this thread any more let alone waste any typing time on it!! Nelson Oh, because I like to hear myself talk. Any objections?

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #102 - 02/03/09 at 19:42:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter, you did forgot to refute Qf3 8..h6, a move recommanded by some sources. I have a question for you too, how do you refute 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Bg4? Just a naive question because Iam curious. Improvments for Black will probably come everywhere


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #101 - 02/03/09 at 19:38:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	For your information, I wrote a book on the Two Knights' Defense 10 years ago that was favorably reviewed by Grandmaster Andy Soltis in the New York Post. Most of the analysis was vetted by GM Lev Alburt. I am well aware of the work of Estrin and Williams in the Wilkes-Barre. Williams, for example, devoted the overwhelming majority of the book to 5.Nxf7? whereas he devoted only a very small part to 5.Bxf7ch. The reason why he did this was obvious; he didn't like the results that 5.Bxf7ch gave Black, saying that 6...Rf8 "led nowhere". Clearly, 6..d6 and 6...Qe8 are no better. Estrin was a weak theoretician and it would take me a very long time to list his analytical errors. Since both players missed the continuation 7.Bxc6 dxc6 or bxc6 8.Nf3, why should I care what transpired before my analysis/game? Just quote a bunch of meaningless analysis in the 5.Nxf7 line? The point of 8.Nf3 should be obvious. White seeks to defend f2. The tactics work 8...Nxe4 9.Qe2 which Fritz has as +/- (Perhaps you can improve on Mr. Fritz here). Then 8...Kf7 is met with 9.d3 with a positional plus, at least +/-. What is noticeably absent in your post is any attempt to dispute my analysis in the 5...Na5 line. Why is it the post members have never heard of the expression that a Knight on the rim is grim? In most variations, the best that Black can do is play c5/Nc6 which wastes a huge amount of time. Fritz doesn't like White's centralized Queen and typically tries to force its exchange, which always benefits White (When ahead in material, trade pieces, not pawns). Perhaps post members can find a saving resource(s) for Black in the 8.Qf3 line. If so, I would be happy to respond to them sloughter wrote on 02/03/09 at 17:45:01: All of these innovations were checked against a 2700+ level computer and most were played OTB with a time limit of 120/25 for the entire game; the actual time limit due to playing book out to move 9 was more like 120/16. Are we supposed to believe that a strong computer in the strongest part of its game, complex middlegames, is not as good as a couple of 2500 GM's in a similar situation, at 120/40? In a complex middlegame, Fritz 8 probably plays close to 2800. Computers typically play lousy endgames which is the primary reason they lose. When is the last time you saw a 2500 level GM outplay a strong computer in a very sharp middlegame?Markovich wrote on 02/03/09 at 16:18:44: I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already. I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant. Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated. That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context. From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight. Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.


	IP Logged

Nelson Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 77 Joined: 04/12/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #100 - 02/03/09 at 19:16:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hi Guys, Why are you wasting time replying to each other in this lengthy prose when things have obviously run their course and serving no further constructive purpose.... I'm sure you could spend some time more constructively on some other topics rather than rising to Sloughters bait. Can we give DrKodos an award for the most amusingly sarcastic post on the forum to date? I'm not going to bother to read this thread any more let alone waste any typing time on it!! Nelson


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #99 - 02/03/09 at 17:45:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	All of these innovations were checked against a 2700+ level computer and most were played OTB with a time limit of 120/25 for the entire game; the actual time limit due to playing book out to move 9 was more like 120/16. Are we supposed to believe that a strong computer in the strongest part of its game, complex middlegames, is not as good as a couple of 2500 GM's in a similar situation, at 120/40? In a complex middlegame, Fritz 8 probably plays close to 2800. Computers typically play lousy endgames which is the primary reason they lose. When is the last time you saw a 2500 level GM outplay a strong computer in a very sharp middlegame?Markovich wrote on 02/03/09 at 16:18:44: I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already. I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant. Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated. That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context. From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight. Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #98 - 02/03/09 at 16:18:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already. I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant. Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated. That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context. From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight. Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #97 - 02/03/09 at 14:52:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	In the 5...Na5 variation, it is abundantly clear that unless Black can punish White for his centralized Queen, the active Queen should be decisive in the ensuing complications. I have found no way for Black to even approach equality in any of the main lines. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3! A) 8...cxb5 9.Qxa8 Qd7 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Qe2 Nc6 (e5 is hanging)12.c3 Be7 13.d3 O-O 14.O-O Rd8 15.Rd1 h6 16.Nf3 e4 17.Ne1 Ne5 18.d4 +/- B) 8...Qd5 9.Be2! e4 10.Qg3 Bd6 11.Qh4 h6 12.d3! exd3 13.Nc3 Qe5 14.Nf3 Qf5 15.Bxd3 +/- C) 8...Bd7 9.Be2 Bd6 10.Nc3 O-O 11.d3 Bb4 12.O-O Bxc3 13.bxc3 Bg4 14.Qe3 Nd5 15.Qd2 Qd7 16.Bxg4 Qxg4 17.h3 Qf5 18.Ne4 Nb7 19.c4 Nf4 20.Ng3 Qd7 21.Rb1 +/- D) 8...Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.d3 Be6 13.b3 Bc5 14.Bb2 Qxe4 15.dxe4 f6 16.Nd2 Ke7 17.Rd1 Nb7 18.Nc4 Rhd8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.h4 a5 21.a3 a4 22.b4 Bxc4 23.Bxc4 Bd4 24.Bc1 Nd6 25.Bd3 c5 26.bxc5 Bxc5 27.Ke2 Rb8 28.Be3 +/- E) 8...Be7 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Qd3 Qxd3 11.Bxd3 Nd5 12.f3! Bd7 13.Ne4 Nb4 14.Nf2 Nxd3 15.Nxd3 Bf5 16.Ke2 Rd8 17.Ne1! c5 18.d3 Nc6 19.c3 Bg6 20.Nd2 +/- Unless someone can find a dramatic improvement for Black, 8.Qf3 appears to be decisive.sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15: In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #96 - 02/02/09 at 03:39:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Arkhein Thx for your additions and corrections. I think your comments are correct. Incidentely 10.Qf3 exd4 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.Bxa8,Bg4! 13.Qc6 Nd3+ 14.Kf1,Bd6! --/+ (iso of 14....Bc5) was a correction I had allready made in the TK-survey (e4e5 subscription area) and I should have corrected my old post as well With the additional lines you gave, I think we may conclude that 10.0-0,Nf4 is insufficient, and Black remains in trouble in the 10.0-0 line.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #95 - 02/01/09 at 21:08:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter: Thank you for these generous and wonderful contributions. I appreciate the time and effort you took to do this and share it with us. I am sure you had better things to do with your time, so we are extremely fortuitous for your magnanimous gesture (posts). Please continue the grace and hospitality of your host and allow us all time to digest this fine meal before serving any just desserts. Sincerely, drkodos

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #94 - 02/01/09 at 21:04:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Micawber, in the line with 10.Qf3 exd4 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.Bxa8, 12..Bg4! seems stronger than 12..Ba6!? as you pointed out. Now I think that 10.Qf3 is unsound because of Bg4, which is about winning for Black, and 12..Ba6 about equal. I watched your old post in the other thread and you gave 12..Bg4 13.Qc6 Nd3+ 14.Kf1 Bc5 15.h4 Qf4 with a draw, but I try to give an improvment for Black here: 14..Bd6! 15.Qc4 Bf5! seems very strong for Black. But anyway, it is clear now that 10.0-0 is the good move and the improved version of 10.Qf3. I watched your "Variation 2" and I continue to say that after 12.d3 or 12.dxe5 may be good for White, for example you give 12.d3 Rb6 13.Bf3 exd4 14.Na3 as unclear but 14.Nd2 may be an improvment. I am ok with what you give after 12.dxe5 and I would add that 15.g3 is a possible improvment too, but practice is needed here...Many Black's pieces on the kingside, so imaginative play to attack the king strongly may be still possible. Theses positions need games!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #93 - 02/01/09 at 20:00:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. Wilkes-Barre/Traxler 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Fried Liver from Pincus 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/- B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +- C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +- Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/= 8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/= 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/= Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +- The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08: TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #92 - 02/01/09 at 17:25:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation. May I suggest that we all remain civil? Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect. We all love chess.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

micawber

God Member

Offline

like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #91 - 02/01/09 at 12:41:31

Post Tools

Print Post

@MNB (on your fun-variation)

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,d5 5.exd,Nd4 6.c3,b5 7.Bf1,Nxd5
8.cxd4,Qxg5 9.Bxb5,Kd8
10.Qf3,Rb8
11.Bc6,Nf4!
12.Bxa8

In this position I think 12...Bg4! is the strongest move.
For variations follow the link from my previous post.
So I was slightly surprised to see 12....Ba6 recommended.
This move is also quite good for Black, though I think white can escape.

12....Ba6!?
My guess is that your thoughts must run somewhat like this.
13.Be4!, Qe5! (13.Nc3?, Qe5 14.Ne2,Bxe2 -+)
14.g3!, Nd3+
15.Kf1! (it seems difficult for black to make use of the discovered check)
15........,Nc5+ (15....Nxc1? 16.Kg2 +/-)
16.Kg2,
16......., Qxe4 (16.....Nxe4? 17.Re1 +/-)
17.Qxe4,Nxe4
And Black probably has sufficient compensation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Arkhein

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,d5 5.exd,Nd4 6.c3,b5 7.Bf1,Nxd5
8.cxd4,Qxg5 9.Bxb5,Kd8
10.0-0,
10......Nf4!? (10....Rb8 11.Bc6,exd4 12.d3,Nf4 13.Na3 +/=)

Topnotch told us in a post from a previous thread he was studying this line, but unfortunately no follow-up with variations was posted.
This line might be playable though, so I present my own thougts on this one below:

variation 1:
11.Qf3, Rb8!=
12.dxe5 (12.Qg3?,Qh6 -+)
And now Durao-Rausis, 1994 continued with
12....Bg4 13.Qc6, Rxb5! 14.Qxb5?,Bxf3 -+ (Better is 14.d4,Rb6! unclear)

Variation 2

11.Bc6!, Rb8 is the critical test
12.dxe5
12.d3 was suggested by Cramer, though I believe black can generate sufficient counterplay:
12.d3,Rb6! 13.Bf3 (13.Be4,exd4 unclear),exd4 14.Na3,Bxa3 15.bxa3,Re8 (unclear)
12......, Rb6!
13.Bf3
13.Be4!?,Qxe5 14.Nc3,Rh6! (unclear) :: 15.g3,Qe6 16.h4,Qh3=
13......., Nd3!
14.Be4, Rh6!
15.Qf3 (15.Bxd3?,Bb7 -/+)
15.....Nxc1
The only game in this subvariation I could find continued
15....,Rh3 16.Qxf7?!,Nf4! 17.Qc4,Qxe5 18.gxh3?!,Bd6 -/+. Essegern-Sobeck, corr., 1974
But instead
15.....Rh3 16.g3!,Ng4 17.Qc3 +/- is much stronger
16.Rxc1, Qxe5
17.g3, (17.h3?, Bd6 -/+)
17.....Bc5 and Black is OK
For instance 18.Nc3,Rf6 19.Qd3+,Qd4!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
@TN
A remark on the video on the Ulvestad.
I dont agree with the implied judgement that Black is Ok after
1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,d5 5.exd,b5 6.Bf1,h6
Black is in trouble in the variaton:
7.Nxf7, Kxf7 8.dxc6,Bc5 9.Be2!:
Vallejo Pons-Najditsch, Crete, 2007
J.Howell-Volzhin, Calcutta, 1996
Gretarsson-Hebden, Kopavogur, 1994.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Markovich and other posters in this line
My sincere appologies, as I accidentely caused the error that
closed this thread temporarily.

« Last Edit: 02/01/09 at 15:13:50 by micawber »

IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #90 - 02/01/09 at 08:48:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation.
	« Last Edit: 02/01/09 at 12:05:29 by TN »
	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #89 - 02/01/09 at 05:39:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	1)My innovation in the Wilkes Barre/Traxler has received independent confirmation, 2)No one has claimed any refutation of my innovation in the main line of the Berliner Variation which is the main line of that ancient text, BCO 2, edited by that hack, Garry Kasparov, 3)No one has tried to prove that the Ulvestad has any independent significance so that if the Fritz falls, it falls, 4)No one has claimed that Black can equalize in the Fried Liver so here is the starting point for anyone who wishes to try, 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! +/-(an idea of Pincus), 5)The best way to permanently weaken the f7 square is 1...e5. Or did you not notice this as it applies to the TKD? The WBT is the most violent attempt to exploit White's weakening of the f2 square with 1.e4. This resource, 4...Bc5, fails. Black quickly stands worse because of the fatal weakening of the f7 square. The weakening of the f2 square is quickly addressed with my logical/intuitive (internal harmony of chess!) innovation 8.Nf3. Yes, the first move advantage is important, 6)I see a lot of emotion in your last post, but poorly thought out logic e.g. your failure to address the highly specific move order, endorsed by that weakie, Fritz 8 (Noted by some as being a reasonable tactician), it could find no way to equalize for Black after 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch Qxd7 11.O-O Ndf4 12.d4 & now Fritz took 3 hours and could only find: 12...f5?! 13.Bxf4! Nxf4 14.Ned2 Qd5 15.Qa4ch c6 16.Nf3 e4 17.Ne5 +/- 7)The title of the original post is looking better all the time , 9)As indicated in my book, the TKD stands or falls on 5...Na5MNb wrote on 01/31/09 at 12:54:50: Time to slam sloughter again. 1. You don't listen to good, well-meant advise. 2. So you don't do any research (books etc.) before posting a few moves. 3. You don't store the information of this thread. 4. So you forget the game I posted. 5. You confuse intuition with silicon judgment. 6. You refer to Steinitz repeatedly but only when it suits you. 7. So you ignore Steinitz' judgment on the initial position: equal. 8. You use big words like internal harmony of chess but don't understand them. 9. So you are looking for a refutation of three moves by Black that fulfill all sound principles of opening play (1...e5; 2...Nc6; and 3...Nf6). 10. As a result you make yourself ridiculous. If you display these qualities in your book too it's a crime against natural environment - you'd rather have let stand all those trees were they stood. I am not gonna feed you like a chess baby. Take a look in a random book on the Two Knighs and you will find out how Black rather should play your line. Reread this thread and you will find the same. In the mean time I cannot help thinking of the old Dutch proverb: Spuit elf geeft ook modder. Yes, that's an insult.


	IP Logged

Schaakhamster God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 650 Joined: 05/13/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #88 - 01/31/09 at 21:29:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	"Spuit elf geeft ook modder." Didn't know that one.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #87 - 01/31/09 at 20:37:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb: Vergeef alstublieft. Mijn nederlands is niet goed, maar ik zal enige proberen. Hij is echt gek. Het kan zijn plezier om een bijenkorf met een stok te slaan maar ook gevaarlijk. Waarschuwing!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Roger Williamson Full Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 114 Joined: 09/26/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #86 - 01/31/09 at 20:14:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	'Time', as he understands it. 'Development', as he defines it. You'll rue your words, MNb, when Sloughter refines his unified theory of chess.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #85 - 01/31/09 at 12:54:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	Time to slam sloughter again. 1. You don't listen to good, well-meant advise. 2. So you don't do any research (books etc.) before posting a few moves. 3. You don't store the information of this thread. 4. So you forget the game I posted. 5. You confuse intuition with silicon judgment. 6. You refer to Steinitz repeatedly but only when it suits you. 7. So you ignore Steinitz' judgment on the initial position: equal. 8. You use big words like internal harmony of chess but don't understand them. 9. So you are looking for a refutation of three moves by Black that fulfill all sound principles of opening play (1...e5; 2...Nc6; and 3...Nf6). 10. As a result you make yourself ridiculous. If you display these qualities in your book too it's a crime against natural environment - you'd rather have let stand all those trees were they stood. I am not gonna feed you like a chess baby. Take a look in a random book on the Two Knighs and you will find out how Black rather should play your line. Reread this thread and you will find the same. In the mean time I cannot help thinking of the old Dutch proverb: Spuit elf geeft ook modder. Yes, that's an insult.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #84 - 01/31/09 at 08:28:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	In the internal harmony of chess, the Berliner Variation gives White too much of an advantage, 8...Ne6, too little. Using intuitive iteration, the process of starting over, here is my latest try against 8...Ne6---4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch! Qxd7 11.O-O! Ndf4 12.d4! f5 +/- (according to Fritz 8)MNb wrote on 01/30/09 at 00:55:28: I hope you will have some patience, as my two computers will go in repair next week. And that takes a while here in Suriname.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #83 - 01/30/09 at 00:55:28	Post Tools	Print Post
	I hope you will have some patience, as my two computers will go in repair next week. And that takes a while here in Suriname.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #82 - 01/29/09 at 18:42:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: Posted by: MNb Posted on: 01/17/09 at 15:41:56 I don't like Black's position after 12.dxe5 Ne3 etcetera, even though Black has done quite well in practice. So I prefer 10...exd4 and a fun line is 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.Bxa8 Ba6. If White plays 10.0-0 instead there is again 10...exd4. Indeend, I couldn't find anything for White after 10.Qf3 exd4! 11.Bc6 Nf4 etc. But I switched back with 10.0-0 because I don't see any drawback of playing 10.0-0 withe my previous idea. And the advantage now after 10..exd4 is that White's king doesn't stay in the center. So : 10.0-0! Fb7 11.Qf3 Rb8 12.dxe5 is what I wanted. 10.0-0! Rb8 11.Bc6 exd4 12.d3 Qf5 (or 12..Nf4 13.Na3!) 13.Re1 seems better for White (but Black may have attacking chances in the long run in White's king) 10.0-0! exd4 11.Bc6 Rb8 12.d3 and see my previous line. 10.0-0! Nf4 11.Bc6 Rb8 12.d3 (12.dxe5!? Rb6 13.Bf3 Nd3 14.Be4 Rh6 and improvments for White are probably possible over the game Essegern-Sobeck 0-1, corr 1974) 12..Rb8 (12..exd4 13.Na3!) 13.Be4 where White seems to be better again. Any improvment/other evaluation somewhere? MNb Iam interested by your toughts because you seemed to advocate 10..exd4 after 10.0-0 too.


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #81 - 01/22/09 at 01:10:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	The Two Knights Tango must be stopped. White has a simple reply that shuts down the dance. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Be2! Ndf4 11.O-O Nxe2ch 12.Nxe2 Nf4 13.Qf3+/-sloughter wrote on 01/11/09 at 03:20:21: I am convinced with your analysis that White gains nothing with 8.Ne4 because the Two Knights' Tango all are developing moves as I define development. No wonder 8...Ne6 works so well! However, I am going to check with GM Alburt about 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 & get his take on the positions. Amazingly enough, in the Steinitz variation, 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3?! Bd6 10.d3 Qc7 11.Ng1! O-O, Black has nothing unless someone can find a way for Black to get in e4 with advantage. White has a Universal Position, the most difficult kind of position to attack. According to Kasparov (If you want a textbook case of what a Universal position is, just check out the World Championship games between Kasparov and Short with Garry on the Black side of the Sicilian.) it is necessary to advance your own pawns to break up a pristine pawn position. The King's Indian Saemisch is probably favorable to White, because it is, to the best of my knowledge, the only major opening by White where White stays in Universal mode in the opening. Has anyone tried the following strategy c4/d4/Nc3/e4/f3/g3/Bg2/Nh3/Nf2 & then just push the Queenside pawns, rearrange your pieces behind the pawn wall and then break through? In the Steinitz variation, a huge lead in development dissipates by pushing the Kingside pawns and permits White to catch up in development and push the Queenside pawns. Qb8 is an attempt to stop that strategy. The main problem is that White can play Nbd2 & Nc4 or Ne4 & the Black Bishop must move off the d6 square (Bxh2 is never a threat as long as White hasn't castled; all it does is "develop" White's King Rook by giving it an open file, and, even worse, stops the Kingside pawn roller). This then permits the King to step out of the center with Kf1 or O-O-O) Correct against the Steinitz is 9...Bd6 10.d3 Bd7! (To keep the e6 square for the Knight on a5) 11.Ng1 Qb8!! so that a Knight hit on d6 can be met with Bc7. More importantly, Black forces White to deal with the hit on the b-pawn. If Black plays b3, then he has to be concerned about ideas like a5/a4. However, Nbd2/Nb3 is bad because it slows down the pawn roller on the Queenside, so Black wins on the Kingside. The Rook isn't trapped because it has a Rook lift on the seventh or sixth. In the Steininz, White only wins when Black rushes in; the correct way to beat White is to stay in Universal mode on the Kingside (i.e. all of your pieces are behind your pawn wall, push them forward in a coordinated manner until you win something big) and Classical mode on the Queenside (active piece play), deny White space, and then use Karpov's boa constrictor style. MNb wrote on 01/10/09 at 19:50:58: micawber wrote on 01/10/09 at 12:08:14: Congrats Sloughter, After a great many tries, you did produce a small innovation. In fact he produced another one. The advantage of the trial and error method is that it sometimes delivers something useful, even if the inventor does not realize it himself. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.c3 Nd4 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 is a small improvement on 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 12.d4. By far not enough to justify "8...Ne6" +-, but it is something. 8...Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 (but Black might have better) 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 Rb8 (FM Dikkie), but this is probably not the last word.


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #80 - 01/18/09 at 14:56:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1122121981/30#30 It seems that the post on the Fritz-variation is now repeated. To sum up 10.Qf3 doenst cause black any problems, but 10.0-0 probably does.


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #79 - 01/18/09 at 14:55:43	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1122121981/30#30 It seems that the post on the Fritz-variation is now repeated. To sum up 10.Qf3 doenst cause black any problems, but 10.0-0 probably does.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #78 - 01/17/09 at 15:41:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	I don't like Black's position after 12.dxe5 Ne3 etcetera, even though Black has done quite well in practice. So I prefer 10...exd4 and a fun line is 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.Bxa8 Ba6. If White plays 10.0-0 instead there is again 10...exd4. The point is that Black's King is badly placed, but White will suffer from an undeveloped Queen's wing for a while. So 8.cxd4 indeed is not as bad as some sources want us to believe, but it's too early to conclude that White has "a quite superior game". "Unclear" and "needs more testing" seem more appropriate, despite Black's fantastic results.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #77 - 01/17/09 at 12:17:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hello, I am studying the subject Fritz-Ulvestad and this is maybe not a true refutation, but the intuitive (for human and computer) line with 5..b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.cxd4 seems good to have a quite superior game, let's say a += at least. For example: 8..Qxg5 9.Bxf5+ Kd8 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.0-0 Rb8 12.dxe5!? Ne3(!) (it seems to me that 12..Nb4 is almost refuted) 13.Qh3 Qxg2+ 14.Qxg2 Nxg2 15.d4 where it's a middle game without Queens where White is a pawn up but Black have somes compensations for the pawn, they may have the bishop pair too, and the few games on the subject seems to confirm a balance, 4,5/9. But that's probably easier to play for White and may be a good practical choice for White, maybe a +/= that may tend to =, but who knows?


	IP Logged

Antillian God Member Offline Brilliance without dazzle! Posts: 1757 Joined: 01/05/03 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #76 - 01/16/09 at 13:20:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	HgMan wrote on 01/16/09 at 12:23:16: A question, perhaps, for another board and thread, but is chess really so logical? I appreciate that in many situations there are "right" squares and "wrong" squares for our pieces, but the statement above seems to take that to the extreme. Surely, achieving chaos on the board is one of chess' great joys and beauties--that you can take a symmetrical board and introduce anti-positional ideas that are still good?! To play the devil's advocate, actually, yes, chess is perfectly logical. out. In "Questions of Modern Chess Theory", Isaac Lipnitsky wrote “In any particular position, the rejection of some laws (directives) merely makes way for the affirmation and success of others.” I tend to agree with this. It just so happens that the truths of chess are so elusive that we have not figured them, and when we do, it will probably be so complicated that no one will probably be able to remember it all on the board.

	"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #75 - 01/16/09 at 12:23:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/16/09 at 02:22:35: "Logically" your variation makes sense, but it is antipositional to me. I can't calculate very well in antipositional positions since I rely solely on intuition. When I play computers, I don't calculate; I only place the pieces and pawns where they belong. It would be impossible for me to analyze this variation. The silicone monster in antipositional variations can calculate 7-8 moves ahead. With luck, I can only look two or three moves ahead. When I played the computer in a variation that IM Silman analyzed as favorable to White, I lost 80 games in a row to Fritz just because it was antipositional. I'd trust the 'beast's' wisdom on this one. OTB it's a nightmare. In postal, with no takebacks of moves, it's a minefield. As a dry theoretical exercise, have Fritz 11 or another strong computer look at it. I'll give it a try, and I do thank you for asking. If I can convert the position into something I recognize as positional, I'll be a lot happier than just crunching "moves".luskifuski wrote on 01/15/09 at 17:32:46: what was your conclusion on 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 ( 5... Nd4 6. c3 b5) 6. Bf1 6... Nd4 7. c3 Nxd5 8. cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qf3 A question, perhaps, for another board and thread, but is chess really so logical? I appreciate that in many situations there are "right" squares and "wrong" squares for our pieces, but the statement above seems to take that to the extreme. Surely, achieving chaos on the board is one of chess' great joys and beauties--that you can take a symmetrical board and introduce anti-positional ideas that are still good?!

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #74 - 01/16/09 at 04:33:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	The only two moves that seem forced are: 10.Qf3 Bd6 11.Nc3 e4. there are a lot of candidate moves here. We can start pruning branches of the thicket of variations. By bypassing 8...Ne6, this is more important than the Berliner Variation. I think you are right; there probably is a win for White here somewhere. Just as in the Berliner Variation, there ought to be someway for White to punish this forced loss of time in a sharp position. This looks like fun!sloughter wrote on 01/16/09 at 02:22:35: "Logically" your variation makes sense, but it is antipositional to me. I can't calculate very well in antipositional positions since I rely solely on intuition. When I play computers, I don't calculate; I only place the pieces and pawns where they belong. It would be impossible for me to analyze this variation. The silicone monster in antipositional variations can calculate 7-8 moves ahead. With luck, I can only look two or three moves ahead. When I played the computer in a variation that IM Silman analyzed as favorable to White, I lost 80 games in a row to Fritz just because it was antipositional. I'd trust the 'beast's' wisdom on this one. OTB it's a nightmare. In postal, with no takebacks of moves, it's a minefield. As a dry theoretical exercise, have Fritz 11 or another strong computer look at it. I'll give it a try, and I do thank you for asking. If I can convert the position into something I recognize as positional, I'll be a lot happier than just crunching "moves".luskifuski wrote on 01/15/09 at 17:32:46: what was your conclusion on 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 ( 5... Nd4 6. c3 b5) 6. Bf1 6... Nd4 7. c3 Nxd5 8. cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qf3


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #73 - 01/16/09 at 02:22:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	"Logically" your variation makes sense, but it is antipositional to me. I can't calculate very well in antipositional positions since I rely solely on intuition. When I play computers, I don't calculate; I only place the pieces and pawns where they belong. It would be impossible for me to analyze this variation. The silicone monster in antipositional variations can calculate 7-8 moves ahead. With luck, I can only look two or three moves ahead. When I played the computer in a variation that IM Silman analyzed as favorable to White, I lost 80 games in a row to Fritz just because it was antipositional. I'd trust the 'beast's' wisdom on this one. OTB it's a nightmare. In postal, with no takebacks of moves, it's a minefield. As a dry theoretical exercise, have Fritz 11 or another strong computer look at it. I'll give it a try, and I do thank you for asking. If I can convert the position into something I recognize as positional, I'll be a lot happier than just crunching "moves".luskifuski wrote on 01/15/09 at 17:32:46: what was your conclusion on 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 ( 5... Nd4 6. c3 b5) 6. Bf1 6... Nd4 7. c3 Nxd5 8. cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qf3


	IP Logged

luskifuski YaBB Newbies Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 8 Joined: 09/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #72 - 01/15/09 at 17:32:46	Post Tools	Print Post
	what was your conclusion on 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 ( 5... Nd4 6. c3 b5) 6. Bf1 6... Nd4 7. c3 Nxd5 8. cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qf3


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #71 - 01/13/09 at 15:07:50	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/13/09 at 01:24:13: Perhaps there is a consensus growing that the Wilkes Barre/Traxler is unsound. The true test may be 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Nxd5. Personally I am very happy with White's game after 6.Bb3. Also, I mean no disrespect, but I don't think that anyone is very interested in your experiments versus Fritz. I'm sure you will find these educational, but no one here or elsewhere will think that they signify much for theory -- not unless something interesting comes up that's worthy of further investigation, anyway.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #70 - 01/13/09 at 14:09:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	Fritz 8??

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

sloughter

God Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #69 - 01/13/09 at 01:24:13

Post Tools

Print Post

Greetings Ladies and Gentlement. For the record, I hate emails; they get you to say and do things you would never say and do in the presence of a person. They are anonymous and destructive. To that end, I will refrain from commentary and provide you just with score of annotated games. For the next year, I will be playing against Fritz 8 at the rate of one move per hour in the endgame produced after the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4. I will also try the idea of 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Be2. I will also try what may be the true main line, 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 Nf5

Perhaps there is a consensus growing that the Wilkes Barre/Traxler is unsound. The true test may be 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Nxd5. I will also play this against Fritz 8 at an hour per move. I will provide the score of these games when completed. Again i apologize for my grandiose and thoughtless emails.micawber wrote on 01/10/09 at 12:08:14:

Congrats Sloughter,
After a great many tries, you did produce a small innovation.
Indeed. 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,Bc5 5.Bxf7+,Ke7
6.Bd5,Rf8 7.Bxc6,dxc6 8.Nf3! is indeed new and sensible, and should provide White whith an advantage (+=; +/-), although I would not bet on the probability of Black following your further analysis.

You should have considered 7...bxc6 as well as it leads by transposition to a variation also known to be better for white:
7...bxc6 8.0-0,d6 9.Nf3!,Bg4 10.d3,Qe8 11.Be3,Qh5

And now not
12.Bxc5?,Nxe4! 13.dxe,Rxf3 14.Nd2,Rh3! 15.f3,Rxh2 16.Bxe3,Rf8
17.Qe1 (Black threatened to increase the preasure with Rf6), Bxf3
18.Rxf3,Rh1 0-1 (Noble-Sharma, Frankfurt,2006)
But
12.Nbd2!,Bb6 13.a4,Bxf3 (..Bxe3 was the lesser evil but white is better anyway; even though it will not be as easy as it seems to convert the extra pawn) 14.Qxf3,Qh4 15.Bxb6,axb6 16.Qg3 (+/-)
(Asrian-Minasian, Yerevan, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.M. after 7...dxc6 8.Qe2,Ng4 9.f3 neither Bf2 nor Nf2 appeal to me. After the modest 9...Nf6 chances seem roughly equal.White will probably regret having to play f3 as his knight has few prospects)

IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #68 - 01/11/09 at 12:03:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNB Quote: In fact he produced another one. The advantage of the trial and error method is that it sometimes delivers something useful, even if the inventor does not realize it himself. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.c3 Nd4 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4?! 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 is a small improvement on 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 12.d4. By far not enough to justify "8...Ne6" +-, but it is something. 8...Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 (but Black might have better) 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 Rb8 (FM Dikkie), but this is probably not the last word. I think the innovation is more or less yours MNB To clarify (and correct a typo in MNb's post): Sloughter's line: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5+,Bd7 10.Qa4,Ndf4 11.d4,exd4?! (when we both agreed that 11...Nxg2+ is superior) MNb has taken a different line and applied Sloughter's idea: 8....Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Qa4 (the new move Which improves over 11.Bxd7+,Qxd7+ 12.cxd4) Now 11....Ndf4 transposes back to "Sloughter's variation" But as MNb allready indicated Black has probably a better move here I propose 11...Rb8!? 12.Bxd7+,Qxd7 13.Qxa7,Rd8 is probably allready better for Black (who threatens now ...Qc6 followed by Ra8 trapping white's Q) 12.Bxd7,Qxd7 13.Qxd7,Kxd7 seem OK for Black as well


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #67 - 01/11/09 at 11:10:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 20:47:26: The way I count development, you have made ten moves with your Knights in this opening and made one useful move, Nxd7 with your Knights. With the other 9 moves, you have won the minor exchange. sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 00:15:22: When you people don't realize that White invested ten tempos just to compromise Black's Queenside structure in the endgame, while all the Two Knights' Tango does is to dance around and accomplish nothing useful. sloughter wrote on 01/11/09 at 03:20:21: I am convinced with your analysis that White gains nothing with 8.Ne4 because the Two Knights' Tango all are developing moves as I define development. No wonder 8...Ne6 works so well! sloughter wrote on 01/06/09 at 07:37:02: Time is on my side. sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 13:40:30: I am so certain my theories are correct sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 13:40:30: I found two winning plans for White which I would have found in a blitz game, that were missed by two World Champions for decades! MNb wrote on 01/06/09 at 00:16:06: sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 14:04:27: There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that 8...Ne6 is +-. Doubt is a source of knowledge, as we know since Descartes. And the fact that some pretty strong players have chosen 3...Nf6 is a good reason for doubt. Antillian wrote on 01/08/09 at 12:58:58: I have not seen such an entertaining thread since ..... 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Be2 and not surprisingly some books of 20 years ago - or more - recommend Nd4. It's not clear to me why 6.Be2 should be better than 6.Bf1, but I'll see what I can find.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #66 - 01/11/09 at 03:42:37	Post Tools	Print Post
	9. ...g5 may have some merit in the Nh3 line. Run it through your Star Bellied Sneetch Machine and let me know if I should be wearing one or not. Wait.....is this like a free copy of the book we are getting here? Or just an extended preview?

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter

God Member

Offline

I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #65 - 01/11/09 at 03:30:24

Post Tools

Print Post

My inclination in the Lolli is to play cxd4/O-Og2-g4 wrote on 01/10/09 at 19:34:06:

Well, since Fritz variation is already refuted Wink

, let's refute, say, Lolli attack!
I would like to ask the experts, if there exist any refutation of 6.d4 Kxd4 7.c3 b5!? counterattack?

Heisman in his "Fried Liver/Lolli" suggests 8.Bd3 h6 9.Qh5 as winning line for White. He proceeds with 9...hg 10.Qxh8 e4 11.Bxe4 Qe7 12.Nd2 Nc2+ 13.Kd1 and here he misses 13...Bf5! after which rather Black seems to have decisive attack. Also I've tried to look at 9.Nxf7 and 9.Ne4, but could see no edge for White. Is Black's compensation for his knight in 8.Bxd5 Qxd5 9.cd or 9.f3!? variations sufficient (at least for draw)?

IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #64 - 01/11/09 at 03:20:21	Post Tools	Print Post
	I am convinced with your analysis that White gains nothing with 8.Ne4 because the Two Knights' Tango all are developing moves as I define development. No wonder 8...Ne6 works so well! However, I am going to check with GM Alburt about 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 & get his take on the positions. Amazingly enough, in the Steinitz variation, 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3?! Bd6 10.d3 Qc7 11.Ng1! O-O, Black has nothing unless someone can find a way for Black to get in e4 with advantage. White has a Universal Position, the most difficult kind of position to attack. According to Kasparov (If you want a textbook case of what a Universal position is, just check out the World Championship games between Kasparov and Short with Garry on the Black side of the Sicilian.) it is necessary to advance your own pawns to break up a pristine pawn position. The King's Indian Saemisch is probably favorable to White, because it is, to the best of my knowledge, the only major opening by White where White stays in Universal mode in the opening. Has anyone tried the following strategy c4/d4/Nc3/e4/f3/g3/Bg2/Nh3/Nf2 & then just push the Queenside pawns, rearrange your pieces behind the pawn wall and then break through? In the Steinitz variation, a huge lead in development dissipates by pushing the Kingside pawns and permits White to catch up in development and push the Queenside pawns. Qb8 is an attempt to stop that strategy. The main problem is that White can play Nbd2 & Nc4 or Ne4 & the Black Bishop must move off the d6 square (Bxh2 is never a threat as long as White hasn't castled; all it does is "develop" White's King Rook by giving it an open file, and, even worse, stops the Kingside pawn roller). This then permits the King to step out of the center with Kf1 or O-O-O) Correct against the Steinitz is 9...Bd6 10.d3 Bd7! (To keep the e6 square for the Knight on a5) 11.Ng1 Qb8!! so that a Knight hit on d6 can be met with Bc7. More importantly, Black forces White to deal with the hit on the b-pawn. If Black plays b3, then he has to be concerned about ideas like a5/a4. However, Nbd2/Nb3 is bad because it slows down the pawn roller on the Queenside, so Black wins on the Kingside. The Rook isn't trapped because it has a Rook lift on the seventh or sixth. In the Steininz, White only wins when Black rushes in; the correct way to beat White is to stay in Universal mode on the Kingside (i.e. all of your pieces are behind your pawn wall, push them forward in a coordinated manner until you win something big) and Classical mode on the Queenside (active piece play), deny White space, and then use Karpov's boa constrictor style. MNb wrote on 01/10/09 at 19:50:58: micawber wrote on 01/10/09 at 12:08:14: Congrats Sloughter, After a great many tries, you did produce a small innovation. In fact he produced another one. The advantage of the trial and error method is that it sometimes delivers something useful, even if the inventor does not realize it himself. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.c3 Nd4 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 is a small improvement on 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 12.d4. By far not enough to justify "8...Ne6" +-, but it is something. 8...Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 (but Black might have better) 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 Rb8 (FM Dikkie), but this is probably not the last word.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #63 - 01/10/09 at 19:50:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	micawber wrote on 01/10/09 at 12:08:14: Congrats Sloughter, After a great many tries, you did produce a small innovation. In fact he produced another one. The advantage of the trial and error method is that it sometimes delivers something useful, even if the inventor does not realize it himself. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.c3 Nd4 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 is a small improvement on 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 12.d4. By far not enough to justify "8...Ne6" +-, but it is something. 8...Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Qxd7 11.Qa4 Ndf4 (but Black might have better) 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 Rb8 (FM Dikkie), but this is probably not the last word.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

g2-g4

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Posts: 38
Location: Moscow
Joined: 11/01/08
Gender: Male

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #62 - 01/10/09 at 19:34:06

Post Tools

Print Post

Well, since Fritz variation is already refuted Wink

, let's refute, say, Lolli attack!
I would like to ask the experts, if there exist any refutation of 6.d4 Kxd4 7.c3 b5!? counterattack?

Heisman in his "Fried Liver/Lolli" suggests 8.Bd3 h6 9.Qh5 as winning line for White. He proceeds with 9...hg 10.Qxh8 e4 11.Bxe4 Qe7 12.Nd2 Nc2+ 13.Kd1 and here he misses 13...Bf5! after which rather Black seems to have decisive attack. Also I've tried to look at 9.Nxf7 and 9.Ne4, but could see no edge for White. Is Black's compensation for his knight in 8.Bxd5 Qxd5 9.cd or 9.f3!? variations sufficient (at least for draw)?

Skype/VoIP

Facebook

IP Logged

micawber

God Member

Offline

like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male

Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #61 - 01/10/09 at 12:08:14

Post Tools

Print Post

Congrats Sloughter,
After a great many tries, you did produce a small innovation.
Indeed. 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,Bc5 5.Bxf7+,Ke7
6.Bd5,Rf8 7.Bxc6,dxc6 8.Nf3! is indeed new and sensible, and should provide White whith an advantage (+=; +/-), although I would not bet on the probability of Black following your further analysis.

You should have considered 7...bxc6 as well as it leads by transposition to a variation also known to be better for white:
7...bxc6 8.0-0,d6 9.Nf3!,Bg4 10.d3,Qe8 11.Be3,Qh5

And now not
12.Bxc5?,Nxe4! 13.dxe,Rxf3 14.Nd2,Rh3! 15.f3,Rxh2 16.Bxe3,Rf8
17.Qe1 (Black threatened to increase the preasure with Rf6), Bxf3
18.Rxf3,Rh1 0-1 (Noble-Sharma, Frankfurt,2006)
But
12.Nbd2!,Bb6 13.a4,Bxf3 (..Bxe3 was the lesser evil but white is better anyway; even though it will not be as easy as it seems to convert the extra pawn) 14.Qxf3,Qh4 15.Bxb6,axb6 16.Qg3 (+/-)
(Asrian-Minasian, Yerevan, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.M. after 7...dxc6 8.Qe2,Ng4 9.f3 neither Bf2 nor Nf2 appeal to me. After the modest 9...Nf6 chances seem roughly equal.White will probably regret having to play f3 as his knight has few prospects)

IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #60 - 01/10/09 at 04:48:25	Post Tools	Print Post
	One request for a practical test versus theoretical evaluation of one of my innovations is provided here: Moody-Fritz 8, Wilkes Barre/Traxler 120/30. Fritz's average rating i.e. its rating in all positions, averages out around 2700. In sharp, tactical middlegames, like this one, its strength increases, so this is a valid test of my innovation. Since there are several books written on the Traxler, my innovation, if correct, would supersede those books. Perhaps someone can find an improvement in Fritz's play. 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8, Bxc6) 7.Bxc6! dxc6 8.Nf3! N (Qe2? Ng4 9.f3 Bf2ch! 10.Kf1 Bb6 = I got a better position against Fritz here with 11.Nh3/Nc3/Nd1/Nhf2, but it is equal) Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 Nxf2 10.Rf1/Rxf2/Qxf2 +/-) 9.d3 +/- Kg8 10.Be3! (To be able to chop on the f-file after 10...Bxe3 11.fxe3) 10...Bd4?! (A practical error as opposed to a theoretical error. Considering my playing strength 10...Bd6, avoiding simplification is a better choice) 11.Nxd4 exd4 (Improving its pawn structure) 12.Bg5! Qd6 13.Bxf6 Rxf6 14.O-O Be6 15.f3 Raf8 16.Rf2 a6 17.a4 (If White can shut down the Queenside, he can win in the center and on the Kingside) 17...Rh6 18.g3 Rg6 19.Nd2 c5 20.b3 Qf4! (A cute tactical trick to improve the position of the Queen) 21.Kh1 Qh6 22.Qg1 Rf4?! 23.Re1 a5? (Black must improve here) This is pretty much a trial and error position where it is just necessary not to make mistakes and allow the computer to allow me to make spatial inroads. 24.Rg2 Bh3 25.Rf2 (So much for that idea!) Be6 26.Rfe2 Rf8 27.Rf2 (To see if Fritz repeats the position) 27...Rgf6 28.f4 Bg4 29.h4 (Starting to crawl into Black's position) Qh5 30.Qg2 b6 31.Kg1 Qf7 (All dressed up and no place to go!) 32.Nf1? (unnecessarily cautious, Nf3 is correct) Qe6 33.Nd2 Qf7 34.Nf3 Qe6 35.f5 Qe7 36.Ref1 Bxf3 37.Rxf3 c6 38.g4 Rh6 39.g5 Rxh4 40.Qg3 Rh5 41.f6 +- 4.Ng5 SWJediknight wrote on 01/09/09 at 22:03:47: Also bear in mind that you can't always trust Fritz in gambit lines. For example, Fritz thinks White has equality in the Moller Attack line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d5, when in reality Black is better. Meanwhile, it thinks Black is significantly better in the King's Bishop's Gambit, a line which in reality gives equal chances. I remember the last time I fed the Two Knights into Fritz with 5...Na5, it thought White was +0.55 of a pawn up. Try inserting alternative moves for Black and watch that evaluation drop after a couple of extra ply! At least it's better than the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 d5 9.Nxf7 "!" Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Kg8 11.Bb3 Be6, when even I can't find anywhere near enough compensation.


	IP Logged

SWJediknight God Member Offline Alert... opponent out of book! Posts: 916 Joined: 03/14/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #59 - 01/09/09 at 22:03:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	Also bear in mind that you can't always trust Fritz in gambit lines. For example, Fritz thinks White has equality in the Moller Attack line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d5, when in reality Black is better. Meanwhile, it thinks Black is significantly better in the King's Bishop's Gambit, a line which in reality gives equal chances. I remember the last time I fed the Two Knights into Fritz with 5...Na5, it thought White was +0.55 of a pawn up. Try inserting alternative moves for Black and watch that evaluation drop after a couple of extra ply! At least it's better than the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Ng5 d5 9.Nxf7 "!" Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Kg8 11.Bb3 Be6, when even I can't find anywhere near enough compensation.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #58 - 01/09/09 at 21:39:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	Come on guys, let's get serious. We should be grateful that Sloughter has provided us with no less than 4 (or is it 5? I lost track a bit) refutations of the Fritz-Ulvestadt. If they don't work it's because our monkey brains can't grasp them. It doesn't mean that Sloughter's brilliant theories on development are wrong. It proves beyond any doubt that his method of trial and error is infallible! And if it takes him several days to suggest no-brainers like 6.Be2 that can be found in theoriebooks from a few decades ago this only proves that his brains ....... ooops, something went wrong. Blame it on my monkey brains.. Of course 4...Na5 must also lead to nothing if Black has nothing better than 10...Bc5! and 11...Bd6. If Sloughter says Black must lose a tempo like than that, then there is no need to find out what the forced win is after 10...Bd6?? That must be just another no-brainer.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #57 - 01/09/09 at 20:38:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/09/09 at 13:01:18: The only equalizing try I can for Black after after 5...Na5 is 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bc5! 11.c3 Bd6 12.f4 Qc7* 13.d4! exd3 14.Qxd3! O-O 15.O-O Rd8 16.Qc2 Nd5 17.b4 Nb7 18.Na3 Nxf4 19.Bxf4 Bxe5 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 21.Nc4 Qg5 22.Qc1! (More or less forcing an endgame due to the threat of Qf4) 22...Qxc1 23.Rfxc1 I asked GM Alburt his opinion of this endgame. He thought that White was slightly better due to his three to pawn majority on the Queenside and his superior pawn structure. This probably can be ground out to either a forced win or a forced draw. If its a draw, then White has to play 8.Qf3. This appears to be the best that Black can do after 3...Nf6 Highlight/emphasis mine. My sincere and (mostly) serious reply:* 1. Other move 12 possibilites for Black include 12. ....exf3 and 12. ...0-0. Lately I have been playing exf with success and like it. If we ever were to play OTB am I forced to play 12. Qc7 here? 2. 13. b4! may better for White than 13. d4. As Black, I might find it more uncomfortable otb. 3. 18. ...f6 looks like a playable alternative for Black with good play and equality as does the move 18. ...a5. I give 18. ...Nxf4 a question mark because I consider it dubious and I think I can demonstrate that the alternatives given here offer Black better play. 4. I agree GM Alburt is spot on w/analysis of position after 23. Rfc1, but I think this position is completely holdable for Black, especially if players are close in strength. I believe I could hold this draw against players stronger than me. I suspect if we took this position and gave it to GM Alburt as Black he would win it against a lot of players, certainly players <2200. There is still some "chess" to be played, no? Too many pieces on the board coupled with pawn structure imbalance makes me think the stronger player has chances here, regardless of color. I would certainly be happy with this position as Black and do not feel it is a bust whatsoever and would most likely play on w/ 23. ...f6. There is a huge and seemingly unjustified gap in your statement: "This probably can be ground out to either a forced win or a forced draw." I have trouble understanding statements that read very poorly because they hold an inherent and internal contradiction to which the author does nothing to address in subsequent missives, It seems you have even softend up on your previous stance with your choosen inclusion of the modifying word "probably." Is it or isn't it? As a lousy analogy I offer this: I would say that OJ either did or did not commit murder and that the difference between the two is most significant, could even be called the CRUX and is worth further investigation before pontificating that one has "solved the case." So, if you woud consider deciding which argument you are actually making, I will continue to play along, even trying to follow along with your set of rules about posting length, layout & formatting. I think I should be able to do it....monkeys are good at aping behaviour, no? All this while trying to actually make some sense of it because I love this line with either color and believe the Two Knights is a great example of chess at its very finest. What is your back-up strategery w/Bogoljubov line? ~ drkodos Edited 3,491 times.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #56 - 01/09/09 at 14:02:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/09/09 at 02:38:56: The response of White to 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5, 6.Be2 is a no brainer. This, according to how I define development, gains a tempo over 6.Bf1. Analysis and play with Fritz 8, now gives: 6...Nd4 7.O-O Bf5 8.d3 Qxd5 9.Nc3 Qd6 10.a4 +/= sloughter wrote on 01/09/09 at 13:01:18: Time for 5...Na5---This is straight out of Fritz 8's book: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 (Nh3?? Even though Fischer played this, it is a terrible concept. Steinitz thought that because all his pawns were on their original squares, that this was desirable! As Chigorin said in this position, White has no better move in this position than Ng1! returning the Knight to its original square. How does Black win? (Bisguier wound up playing Bxh3 at some point. This is pointless. Why exchange off a great Bishop for a poorly placed Knight??) This forum is frequented by some rather strong players and, among those who are not so very strong, some players who are at least very serious and well-informed. You really do risk being laughed at, or worse, systematically ignored, when you post doubtful ideas with such an air of authority. Your posts really beg for chess lessons, which I suspect not too many here are willing to hand out for free. I applaud your sincerity and enthusiasm, but it's a little too much, really, to brand such a notable concept (of Steinitz and Fischer, no less!) with double question marks; or to claim that 6.Be2 refutes the Ulvestad based on six moves from Fritz. I expect you'll learn soon enough that chess isn't the easy game that you seem to think it is.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #55 - 01/09/09 at 13:01:18	Post Tools	Print Post
	Time for 5...Na5---This is straight out of Fritz 8's book: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 (Nh3?? Even though Fischer played this, it is a terrible concept. Steinitz thought that because all his pawns were on their original squares, that this was desirable! As Chigorin said in this position, White has no better move in this position than Ng1! returning the Knight to its original square. How does Black win? (Bisguier wound up playing Bxh3 at some point. This is pointless. Why exchange off a great Bishop for a poorly placed Knight??) Black should ignore the Knight on h3 and just make any ten developing moves in a row in no particular order e.g. Bd6/O-O/Qc7/Nb7/Nc5/Bb7/Rfe8/Re7/Rae8, etc.) After 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 (White loses a tempo by retreating his Knight) e4 10.Ne5 (Gaining a tempo) Bd6 11.d4! exd3 e.p (no tempo gain) 12.Nxd3 (gaining a tempo) Qc7 13.h3 (Difficult to say---is luft gaining a tempo?) We now see mostly tempo gaining moves by both sides, but just observe how little time advantage Black has a pawn down. With accurate play by White this should be winning for White, and Fritz 8 says it is.13...O-O 14.O-O Re8 15.Nd2 c5 (If this is bad, Black has real problems; the only real alternative seems to be Nb7/Nc5) 16.b3 Be5! 17.Bb2 Bxb2 18.Nxb2 (gaining three tempos as I define development) Bb7 19.Bf3 (gaining a tempo) Rae8 20.Bxb7 Nxb7 (gaining three tempos) 21.Re1 Rxe1ch 22.Qxe1 Qe8 23.Qf1 Qf4 24.Ndc4 +/- (Fritz 8) Black has no compensation for the pawn. The only equalizing try I can for Black after after 5...Na5 is 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bc5! 11.c3 Bd6 12.f4 Qc7 13.d4! exd3 14.Qxd3! O-O 15.O-O Rd8 16.Qc2 Nd5 17.b4 Nb7 18.Na3 Nxf4 19.Bxf4 Bxe5 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 21.Nc4 Qg5 22.Qc1! (More or less forcing an endgame due to the threat of Qf4) 22...Qxc1 23.Rfxc1 I asked GM Alburt his opinion of this endgame. He thought that White was slightly better due to his three to pawn majority on the Queenside and his superior pawn structure. This probably can be ground out to either a forced win or a forced draw. If its a draw, then White has to play 8.Qf3. This appears to be the best that Black can do after 3...Nf6 HgMan wrote on 01/09/09 at 00:57:33: The monkey in me says that we should track down Anonymous and get him to review the book!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #54 - 01/09/09 at 02:38:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	The response of White to 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5, 6.Be2 is a no brainer. This, according to how I define development, gains a tempo over 6.Bf1. Analysis and play with Fritz 8, now gives: 6...Nd4 7.O-O Bf5 8.d3 Qxd5 9.Nc3 Qd6 10.a4 +/=Antillian wrote on 01/08/09 at 12:58:58: I have not seen such an entertaining thread since the days of Anonymous


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #53 - 01/09/09 at 02:01:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	The basic assumption is that I will find nothing better than 5...b5 6.Bf1. As far as the main line and the subsequent endgame. This has to be the correct move order because almost all of White's moves gain time as I define time. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 (as we will see, this is actually a developing move; the only way it isn't is if Black plays, for example, 6...Nf5, which is probably best) b5 (a non-developing move) 7.cxd4! (You will note that White made two moves to capture a piece that had moved TWICE, thus c3 and cxd4 can be considered developing moves as I define development) 7...bxc4 (a developing move because Black captures a developed piece) 8.dxe5 (A non-developing move but justified tactically) two choices A) Nxd5 (A developing move) 9.d4! (A developing move that also threatens to protect the pawn on e5. Black cannot allow White to anchor the Knight on e5) 9...exd3 e.p. White gains a tempo with 10.Qxd3 & you will note how much better White stands compared to the incredibly bad choice 7.Bf1?? Black simply cannot allow White to reinforce the e-pawn at no cost so he must waste a tempo to capture the d-pawn B) 8...Qxd5 (A developing move) 9.exf6 (A developing move because White captured the piece) 9...Qxg5 (This gains only two tempos because the Queen accesses a square it can access in one move from d8; it has won a piece that took two moves to get to g5) 10.Qf3 (A developing move) 10...Rb8 (A developing move) 11.Qe3ch (A developing move because the Queen cannot access e3 in less than two moves) 11...Qxe3ch (A developing move because the Queen cannot get to e3 in less than two moves) 12.dxe3 (This gains three tempos because the Queen, which took two tempos to get to e3 disappears after two tempos and White freed the diagonal of his Queen Bishop.) Now lets do a tempo count A)Bc4/Bf1 just loses two tempos. In a tactical middlegame, this is incredibly bad. Now lets look at tempo count. White makes four developing moves to get to 4.Ng5 i.e. 1.e4/2.Nf3/3.Bc4/4.Ng5 (You will note how silly it is say, "Don't move the same piece twice in the opening." If it gains time, why not?) Black responds by making four developing moves (1...e5/2...Nc6/3...Nf6/4...d5 White now picks up a pawn at the cost of only one tempo (This is why I thought that 3...Nf6 was good for White; it only costs White one tempo to win a pawn. Granted, Black can avoid losing time with 5...Nxd5 i.e. Black can make five developing moves in a row, but this loses to tactics. 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7ch Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! According to the analysis of Pincus and me, this is +-) White has four tempo moves with 4.Ng5, two more with c3/cxd4, one more with d4 either defending e5 or forcing Black to waste a tempo to capture it and one more with Qxd3. So White, starting out with the first move advantage, wastes only one tempo to get to the final position. Black makes five tempo moves with his first five moves, but does not gain a tempo with b5. He gains one tempo with bxc4, but does not gain time with cxd3. So in terms of tempo count alone, Black has problems i.e. White starts out with the first move advantage and picks up a tempo in the ensuing play. All other factors being equal, a two tempo lead in development in an open position should be considered at least +/= or more likely +/- practically and +- theoretically. In the variation 7...Qxd5, only White has winning chances. This is an endgame that every Grandmaster with White would love to play. +/- practically and +- theoretically. In other words, White has converted his first move advantage into a sizeable plus in terms of pawn structure in the endgame. As far as 5...Na5, according to book in Fritz 8's memory, White has a clear edge in the Bd6 variation i.e. White winds up a pawn up, has the better pawn structure and a three to two pawn majority on the Queenside. Fritz 8 has this as +/-. The main line should be 8...Bc5. In the ensuing endgame, GM Alburt favors White slightly i.e. equal material, but White has the Queenside pawn majority and the better pawn structure. If this endgame is analyzed to a win with computer/human analysis, then 3...Nf6 4.Ng5 looks very close to +-. If Black can draw here then the following move order is suggested: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 cxb5! 9.Qxa8 Qd7 10.Qf3 Bb7 with compensation/unclear The Black minors are extremely active; it is not what comes off the board, it is what stays on the board. The better player will win this position, thus tactical players like Kasparov and Judit should be happy with either side of this position; Karpov, not so happy. (I have beaten and drawn Fritz 8 in the variation with Rb8). Time to look at 5.exd5 b5Markovich wrote on 01/08/09 at 13:34:29: sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 04:27:41: One last improvement for White and it's time to call it a Knight. Here is the refutation of the Fritz (?) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 6.cxd4! bxc4 7.dxe5 Qxd5 8.exf6! Qxg5 9.Qf3! (Not O-O) Rb8 10.Qe3ch! Qxe3 11.dxe3 & I'll let you evaluate the endgame. This point is debatable, but it hardly refutes the Fritz, which can be reached by 5...b5 6.Bb1 Nd4 7.c3 and so forth. This indeed was Berliner's preferred move order.


	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #52 - 01/09/09 at 00:57:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	The monkey in me says that we should track down Anonymous and get him to review the book!

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

Dragan Glas Senior Member Offline "If I, like Solomon, ... could have my wish - " Posts: 424 Location: Ireland Joined: 06/25/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #51 - 01/08/09 at 19:47:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	Greetings, drkodos wrote on 01/08/09 at 14:36:30: Sloughter: What is your final move order? And please, less lugubriously this time. Just the moves would be fine. Your prose is really stilted grammatically and it's just too tough for a lower order primate like myself to plough through the slush pile of words you insist on tacking on superfluously like so many rain drops falling from the sky that add up to little puddles of water sitting on the side of the road waiting for some innocent person with a hole in their shoe to step into and get their socks wet on the way to an important meeting on the second thursday of a January with five tuesdays during the last leap year of the millenium. I do enjoy reading your posts, Doctor! Kindest regards, Dragan Glas


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #50 - 01/08/09 at 18:15:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 13:40:30: Gentlement--I got off on the wrong foot. For that I apologize. I am so certain my theories are correct e.g. when I saw 12...Be6 for the first time, I almost fainted it was so bad. Within a minute, using nothing but my theories, I came up with two winning plans for White 13.Nc3 and 13.Qf2. So if you think my theories have no value, just consider that I found two winning plans for White which I would have found in a blitz game, that were missed by two World Champions for decades! Just participate here with a little more humility, and no one will object. Stop bragging, modestly post to the point, and you'll wind up having a good time here. If you actually are God's gift to chess, it will be revealed soon enough in your tournament results.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #49 - 01/08/09 at 14:36:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter: What is your final move order? And please, less lugubriously this time. Just the moves would be fine. Your prose is really stilted grammatically and it's just too tough for a lower order primate like myself to plough through the slush pile of words you insist on tacking on superfluously like so many rain drops falling from the sky that add up to little puddles of water sitting on the side of the road waiting for some innocent person with a hole in their shoe to step into and get their socks wet on the way to an important meeting on the second thursday of a January with five tuesdays during the last leap year of the millenium.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #48 - 01/08/09 at 13:40:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	Gentlement--I got off on the wrong foot. For that I apologize. I am so certain my theories are correct e.g. when I saw 12...Be6 for the first time, I almost fainted it was so bad. Within a minute, using nothing but my theories, I came up with two winning plans for White 13.Nc3 and 13.Qf2. So if you think my theories have no value, just consider that I found two winning plans for White which I would have found in a blitz game, that were missed by two World Champions for decades! Why does the Berliner Variation lose? Because Black is required to lose two tempos in development during the course of the attack i.e e4 and the maneuver Bg4/Be6. After 12...Be6, I never even looked at book, 13.fxe4 because it loses a tempo in the middle of the attack. However, 12...O-O doesn't gain a tempo here because White keeps his extra piece, and, 13.fxe4 Bxg3 14.Kd1 gains White what can be described as a latent tempo. Sooner or later, White is going to connect his Rooks, which means that the Bishop on g3 is hanging. The only way for Black not to lose time is to win a piece on the b8/h2 diagonal (but, of course, not on the e7 square) . Thus it is just a question of how to punish Black for this waste of time. It took me half an hour to realize that White cannot allow a Knight in the 8...Ne6 (I should have known that this was superior to the Berliner Variation, because all of Black's moves gain time. If a Knight gets to d3, it is game over, hence the need to play 11.d4 which fails tactically) The positional bind after Nd3 cannot be broken.), variation to gain time so easily. Thus, my move Qa4 loses because, position forces me to play d4, which allows the shot Nxgech. Ke2 over Kf1 gains time but tactics here are more important than time. White may not even have equality here. Another example of why time/tactics are important is in the variation 9.d4 exd4! This costs Black a tempo, but regains the pawn. Here are a couple of examples of time/tactics and why my theories should be deadly against a computer. If a computer blindly follows my theories, it might play 9...Bd6, so that 10.dxe5 can be met with 10...Bxe5, not realizing that the Bishop does nothing on that diagonal because of the pawn link b2/c3 completely neutralizing the power of the Bishop. The computer then might think that it can restrict White's development after Bxb5ch/Qa4/Bxd7ch/Qxd7ch/ by playing Rb8, not realizing that White has the simple refutation, b3/Bb2/Na3/Nc2/Nd4. On the other hand, Black can gain a tempo by the following maneuver: 8.d4 exd4 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bc4 Bc6! You will note, according to my theories (and no one else's?), Bc6 gains a tempo because the Bishop gets to a square it cannot access in less than two move. So this makes sense both in terms of time and tactics. Going back to the beginning, in hindsight, 7.Bf1?? is incredibly bad. It wastes two tempos, absolutely guaranteeing that Black has a very powerful initiative for the pawn. Black cannot play 6.b5 here, because the tactics result in a bad position for his pawn structure i.e. if 6...b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 (Qxd5 is even worse) 9.d4 gaining a tempo which either permits White to keep his pawn or gain more time after cxd4 e.p. 9.Qxd3 gaining a tempo. It is clear that Black is going be stuck with too many pawn islands in the endgame. Based on this observation, Black's best move probably is to meet 6.c3 with Nf5 to avoid the loss of time. You will note that Tony wired me after 12...O-O, because 13.Qf2 is correct positionally i.e. it gains a tempo, but loses to tactics. I was blindly following my theories, not realizing that tactics trump position after 8...Ne6. or 12...O-O.sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 04:27:41: One last improvement for White and it's time to call it a Knight. Here is the refutation of the Fritz (?) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 6.cxd4! bxc4 7.dxe5 Qxd5 8.exf6! Qxg5 9.Qf3! (Not O-O) Rb8 10.Qe3ch! Qxe3 11.dxe3 & I'll let you evaluate the endgame.HgMan wrote on 01/08/09 at 03:32:31: Do I get to be head monkey? I'm sure an infinite number of us, working on an infinite of chessboard, could ultimately... oh, never mind. Must go find that opposable thumb. I know I left it around here somewhere...


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #47 - 01/08/09 at 13:34:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 04:27:41: One last improvement for White and it's time to call it a Knight. Here is the refutation of the Fritz (?) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 6.cxd4! bxc4 7.dxe5 Qxd5 8.exf6! Qxg5 9.Qf3! (Not O-O) Rb8 10.Qe3ch! Qxe3 11.dxe3 & I'll let you evaluate the endgame. This point is debatable, but it hardly refutes the Fritz, which can be reached by 5...b5 6.Bb1 Nd4 7.c3 and so forth. This indeed was Berliner's preferred move order.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Antillian God Member Offline Brilliance without dazzle! Posts: 1757 Joined: 01/05/03 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #46 - 01/08/09 at 12:58:58	Post Tools	Print Post
	I have not seen such an entertaining thread since the days of Anonymous

	"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #45 - 01/08/09 at 04:27:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	One last improvement for White and it's time to call it a Knight. Here is the refutation of the Fritz (?) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 6.cxd4! bxc4 7.dxe5 Qxd5 8.exf6! Qxg5 9.Qf3! (Not O-O) Rb8 10.Qe3ch! Qxe3 11.dxe3 & I'll let you evaluate the endgame.HgMan wrote on 01/08/09 at 03:32:31: Do I get to be head monkey? I'm sure an infinite number of us, working on an infinite of chessboard, could ultimately... oh, never mind. Must go find that opposable thumb. I know I left it around here somewhere...


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #44 - 01/08/09 at 03:52:00	Post Tools	Print Post
	By the way---the Berliner Variation has to be a blunder because White gets way too much advantage i.e. there is no way this is best play for Black. Your 8...Ne6 is a vast improvement over the Berliner Variation (which silly me I thought was best for Black because Kasparov devotes so much analysis to it) and one that would probably take a 100 moves to win with best play by both sides. If this doesn't work, I'll have to go back to the line quoted earlier i.e. 8.cxd4 It may be necessary to strip this variation back move by move until the truth emerges. HgMan wrote on 01/08/09 at 03:32:31: Do I get to be head monkey? I'm sure an infinite number of us, working on an infinite of chessboard, could ultimately... oh, never mind. Must go find that opposable thumb. I know I left it around here somewhere...


	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #43 - 01/08/09 at 03:32:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	Do I get to be head monkey? I'm sure an infinite number of us, working on an infinite of chessboard, could ultimately... oh, never mind. Must go find that opposable thumb. I know I left it around here somewhere...

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #42 - 01/08/09 at 02:52:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	Fair enough. I apologize to the monkeys Here is what I mean by 8...Ne6 being a trial and error position for me. Clearly, in hindsight, 9.Bxb5ch is a blunder because a Knight winds up on d3 so White must improve earlier. In hindsight White's correct move is "obvious" 8...Ne6 9.d4! The ball is in your court.MNb wrote on 01/08/09 at 02:02:47: Let's make a deal. You take back that monkey brain nonsense - the modify button is very handy - and I'll delete my last post and give you a serious reaction on 11.0-0/12.b3. You have 22 hours.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #41 - 01/08/09 at 02:02:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	Let's make a deal. You take back that monkey brain nonsense - the modify button is very handy - and I'll delete my last post and give you a serious reaction on 11.0-0/12.b3. You have 22 hours.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #40 - 01/08/09 at 01:48:30	Post Tools	Print Post
	What I mean by 8...Ne6 being +-, that this is a trial and error position for me. It just means trying out various possibilities until I find the win for White. In the case of 12.Qe2, it took me years of trying to prove that 8.Nh3, a move I examined for months with Lev Alburt was only a draw after 8.Nh3 Bxh3! 9.cxd4 Bd7 10.dxe5 =, so I returned to 12.Qe2 & within minutes learned it was +- against 12...Be6?? You may not think this is important, but Berliner, after 30 years never found either 13.Nc3 or 13.Qf2 in response to 12...Be6. He only gives 13.fxe4?? Back to 8...Ne6 +- You are right that I need to rethink; now it is time to try ways to just hold the pawn. So, 11.O-O Nd3 12.b3! with the idea of meeting an eventual Rb8 in some variations and preparing Ba3 in others. Now I have the best of both worlds, a Queenless endgame/middlegame, an extra pawn and no pawn weaknesses. The ball is in your court. Fritz 8 likes to play 12...f5, but after 13.Ng3 it plays 13...f4 allowing 14.Ne4 and now it plays 14...f3! After 15.g3, I kind of like White.kylemeister wrote on 01/08/09 at 00:51:12: MNb has seen the light! Oops, now he's backsliding ...


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #39 - 01/08/09 at 01:38:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	No no no, my dearest Kylemeister, I just have seen the light! Master Moody has shown me! It's you who hasn't realized (yet? I hope so much for your well-being!) that all our monkey brains have been mislead by the examples of Timman, Shirov, Beliavsky, Spassky, Van der Sterren, Malaniuk and others, who all have faced the forced win 4.Ng5!! and still dared to score points as Black! The blasphemists! They must have bribed their opponents! They are not as honorable as Naiditsch, who was foolish enough to chose 3...Nf6??, but still had the good taste to lose a few games! Let's all repent and throw us at the feet of Master Moody, the only one in the entire Universe whom we should set our hopes on to cure us from our monkey brains. Let's all revel in his Masterly Teachings of Development, Endgame and Middlegame, then after a long and painful therapy there is a chance that we may call ourselves human again.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

kylemeister God Member Offline Posts: 4989 Location: USA Joined: 10/24/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #38 - 01/08/09 at 00:51:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb has seen the light! Oops, now he's backsliding ...


	IP Logged

Stigma God Member Offline There is a crack in everything. Posts: 3277 Joined: 11/07/06 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #37 - 01/08/09 at 00:49:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter, consider that when your opponents' arguments seem silly to you, maybe that's because you have not really understood what they're saying. If you really think any of the posters on this thread don't know what a pawn island is, think again. I don't have a clue about the Berliner variation, but all your strategic considerations and discussions of middlegame versus endgame sound to me like the kind of thinking you do BEFORE you get down to concrete analysis (with a brain, computer or both), not INSTEAD of it. Now MNb, Micawber and Markovich have been trying to tell you, with impressive composure, that they and others have already done quite a bit of analysis on these lines, and your bold statements (with scant evidence) don't impress them. Can you deal with that and join in an objective analysis without assuming everyone else is an idiot?

	Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #36 - 01/08/09 at 00:41:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/08/09 at 00:15:22: I feel I am working with a bunch of monkeys who know what the chess pieces can do without understanding the game. We monkeys obviously are not qualified to contradict the logic of an ELO 1600 chess genius. Still I hope to be permitted to ask two questions. It's about the position resulting from 10.Qa4 Ndf4 11.d4 Nxg2+ 12.Ke2 Nf4+ 13.Kf3 f5 14.Bxd7+ Qxd7 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 16.Ng3 e4+ 17.Ke3 g6. 1) How many pieces does White have in play and how many Black? 2) How many pawn islands does White have and how many Black? Please help me Master Moody, because my monkey brain keeps on telling me that this endgame favours Black .... Drkodos: I need more abusing of this thread, please!

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #35 - 01/08/09 at 00:15:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	Muir came up with the correct refutation of the Berliner Variation which was obvious once I plugged it into Fritz 8 i.e my 13.Qf2 was a positional treatment when I should have opted for tactics; obviously, once I could actually see 13.Qf2 on a chessboard, it was clearly a blunder. Here is the simple refutation of one line of the Berliner Variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 (The Muir Variation) O-O (No better or worse than 12...Be6) 13.fxg4 (Not so much win material, which it does, but more importantly keeping the e-file closed) 13...Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 & Fritz 8 has this as +- after an eventual Qxb5. Anyone care to equalize? What the wonderful members of this post don't seem to understand is that after 10.Qa4, this is an ENDGAME not a MIDDLEGAME. In other words all your suggestions that apply in a MIDDLEGAME don't apply in an ENDGAME. The only reason I suggested 10...Nc5 was to avoid a losing endgame by staying in an inferior middlegame a pawn down with better practical chances than an endgame where a strong Grandmaster has 30-40 moves to grind out the win in what is known as a "cat and mouse" position i.e. excellent winning chances and no losing chances, just the kind grandmasters love. Here is what I mean by middlegame strategies. When you castle in response to 10...Ndf4, getting the King out of the center in the middlegame makes sense in the middlegame, makes no sense in the endgame. In the endgame, the King should be moving towards the center, not the edge of the board. So you can scrap any ideas like Kf1 (in the endgame), ideas like meeting Ndf4 with Bxf4?? or playing f5, which gives the King an invasion route on e6 in the endgame. When you people don't realize that White invested ten tempos just to compromise Black's Queenside structure in the endgame, while all the Two Knights' Tango does is to dance around and accomplish nothing useful. Do any of you know what a pawn island is? When you people don't recognize that 11.d4 is forced or that 11...Nxg2ch is forced. When you don't realize that 11...Nxg2ch 12.Ke2 gains a tempo over 12.Kf1 or that 13.Kf3 gains a second tempo in the endgame. When you people don't know that by some strange coincidence that after Rc2, White defends b2 in case of Rb8 without losing time, but that after Nxg2, Black must eventually spend a tempo to protect the pawn on g7 after White plays Rg1. You people don't have a clue what chess strategy is; all you know is how to plug a chess position into a computer and spit out results. I am reminded of the comment made by Steinitz when a kibitzer said to him, "Herr Steinitz. I do not understand your style of play!" Steinitz responded, "That's easy. Did you ever see a monkey play with a watch?" I feel I am working with a bunch of monkeys who know what the chess pieces can do without understanding the game. HgMan wrote on 01/04/09 at 22:55:55: sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 15:06:16: My innovation in the Berliner Variation (Gambit) replaces an entire page of BCO 2. This is, what? Almost twenty years old, now? I'm not sure I remember the last time I even consulted it...


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #34 - 01/07/09 at 01:32:24	Post Tools	Print Post
	I am going to abuse this thread to share my own crack-pot chess theory: White's first move advantage (which is the only advantage inherent in the game) is wholly neutralized by the fact/rule that kings can never attack each other. I am shopping publishers.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 70 Joined: 02/06/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #33 - 01/07/09 at 00:06:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ah, less off-topic than I thought then. It was the pseudo move-numbering that misled me


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #32 - 01/07/09 at 00:00:35	Post Tools	Print Post
	He did not mean the Black Knight's Tango, but the Two Knight's version. sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 20:47:26: In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Ndf4 11.d4 exd4 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 dxc3 15.Nxc3 Nc5 16.Bxd7ch Nxd7 17.Kf1 +- So what Sloughter meant was that Black made 10 moves from 16 with his two knights. What he forgot was to ask himself which of those moves were useful/justified and which not. Why spend two moves to exchange a well placed knight on f4 for an undeveloped bishop on c1? Why transfer a well placed knight on e6 to d7? GM Lev Alburt probably would have asked this same question.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

MUBAs Opponent Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 70 Joined: 02/06/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #31 - 01/06/09 at 23:51:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: Let's count the Two Knights' Tango: 1...Nc6, 2...Nf6, 3...Nd4, 4...Nxd5 5...Ne6, 6...Ndf4, 7...Nd3, 8...Nxc1, 9...Nc5, 10...Nxd7. OK, I bite. Sorry for the off-topic but I am curious. What on earth are White's moves in this sequence??? I can see 1. d4, 2. c4, 3. d5, but does White play 4. c5 to make Nxd5 a plausible move, and if so, why on earth does he do that? Beyond that I have less and less idea as the moves progress.


	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #30 - 01/06/09 at 12:21:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/06/09 at 07:37:02: Time is on my side. It often takes me years to develop and test ideas, not a matter of a few hours without a computer, chessboard or literature. Usually when I am interested in a critique of my ideas, I rely on GM Lev Alburt. I think I'll stick with him. Good bye Sloughter Can't wait for the book!

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #29 - 01/06/09 at 07:37:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:34:27: sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:00:48: In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White? Not as long as you fail to consult the right sources and don't read the posts of that member. MNb wrote on 01/01/09 at 18:07:05: After both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2 Black gets excellent play with ...Ndf4! With this easy save the ball is back in your court again. As a warning I tell you that I have done some work on both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2. Time is on my side. It often takes me years to develop and test ideas, not a matter of a few hours without a computer, chessboard or literature. Usually when I am interested in a critique of my ideas, I rely on GM Lev Alburt. I think I'll stick with him. Good bye Sloughter


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #28 - 01/06/09 at 02:50:49	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 01/06/09 at 00:16:06: Doubt is a source of knowledge, as we know since Descartes. And the fact that some pretty strong players have chosen 3...Nf6 is a good reason for doubt. No doubt about that. Only the most confident are comfortable with their own doubt.* In other Two Knight news, I really like the recent developments for Black in the Colman lines, having finally recieved my copy of NIC yb89. Looking at the game Emelin - Tomashevsky gives me confidence to move away from 8. ...Be7 and give Rb8 some more play. *Humility is the greatest form of conceit.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #27 - 01/06/09 at 00:16:06	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 14:04:27: Again, I am doing this in my head, which is tough as a 1600 player, but my immediate reaction to 10...Ndf4 is to ignore the hit on the g-pawn, give it back for positional plusses and just play 11.d4. If you insist on playing 11...Nxg2ch 12.Ke2 Nf4ch 13.Kf3. Don't do this in your head. 13...f5 is another obvious improvement. Retreating a nicely centralized knight to a rather useless square (13...Ng6?) will not even be considered by any experienced gambit player, no matter his/her strength. Of course White should play 12.Kf1 instead of 12.Ke2/f3, but again Black is slightly better developed (just count how many move both players need to activate all their pieces). Your claim +- misses a solid foundation. sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 14:04:27: There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that 8...Ne6 is +-. Doubt is a source of knowledge, as we know since Descartes. And the fact that some pretty strong players have chosen 3...Nf6 is a good reason for doubt. If you count how many moves the black knights have made, then also count White's useless ones. Or easier, just count in the final positions how many active pieces both players have. Eg after FM Dikkie's 14...Rb8 Black has three pieces in play, White two. Then it does not matter how many times some pieces have moved - a chess position does not have a memory. The reason nobody's interested in your refutations of Berliner's ...Qh4, the Traxler and 4...Nxd5 is that it suffices to find one equalizer for Black. At the moment we have two: 4...b5/8...Ne6 and 4...Na5. sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 20:47:26: The way to meet any gambit is to give back just enough material to squelch the initiative and emerge with a positional plus and a lead in development as we see here. Now we are getting somewhere. You know, gambit players know this advise as well, so they usually refuse the returning of material. You could have read that in a more than 70 years old book. Rudolf Spielmann wrote in Richtig Opfern (The art of Attack) that the attacking player only should take back material if it falls in his/her lap. The first, the second and the third goal of the attacker is to maintain his initiative, create threats and keep his/her attack going (in a random order). It's also often put this way: the typical goal of a gambit is not, I repeat not getting back the material at the first opportunity (and usually not on the second either). That's why 14...dxc3?? deserves two questionmarks indeed.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #26 - 01/05/09 at 23:25:12	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/03/09 at 15:04:09: GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:11:22: sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 10:51:13: Is the Two Knights' Defense, Ng5 variation, the first opening that is winning for White? Let's start with the Berliner Variation (Gambit) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6? (12...O-O 13.Qf2 +- What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development, and I wouldn't fancy having White in an OTB game. Black has an enormous lead in development. Not the way I define development. There is a certain internal harmony in chess. To the average chess player, there is no difference in terms of time between the move sequence. Qe2/Qf3 and Qe2/Qe3. The way I define time, Qe2/Qf3 only gains one tempo because the Queen has access to f3 in one move, but took two moves to get there. By contrast, the White Queen takes two moves to get to e3 and thus the maneuver Qe2/Qe3 gains a tempo compared to Qe2/Qf3, because White cannot access the e3 square with his Queen in less than two moves. What this means as a practical matter is that, usually, except in certain endgames, gaining time without effort is usually good, so, if one has a choice in two moves of playing Qe2/Qe3 or Qe2/Qf3, all other factors being equal, Qe2/Qe3 is the superior choice because it gains a tempo. As far as the position in question, here is how I define time. Black has freed both Bishops, that is two tempos (If you think this is trivial and obvious, consider that Nimzovich regards the following move sequence as giving Black a lead in development: 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 Nf6, whereas I look at freeing the Bishops as developing moves. Thus, unlike Nimzovich, I maintain that White still has his first move advantage.), he has played Bg4 (one tempo) Qh4 (one tempo) O-O (one tempo). (Bd6 (one tempo) The Knight has gained two tempos for a grand total of 8 tempos. White's Knight can access the g3 square in two moves, so the path in this case doesn't count; it only matters how many tempos it takes for the Knight to get to the g3 square from g1. White has made two developing moves with his Queen and freed the King Bishop for a grand total of five moves of development, but after exf3, it is White on move. Without analyzing anything ( I don't have a chess board here), my immediate reaction is to reject gxf3 because it loses a tempo to Bh5 i.e. Black cannot access h5 in less than two moves. The way I look at the position, I am going to try to give back the piece advantageously with something like 13.Bxb5 with a four to two pawn majority on the Queenside i.e. if this position ever goes into an endgame, White should have an advantage because of his Queenside pawn majority. Unless White is mated here or loses a lot more than a piece, my immediate reaction is to play 13.Bxb5; this gains a tempo and chops up the Queenside for a big plus in the endgame. Don't get me wrong---If Muir is right, it is because Black has to waste too much time to regain the material. It's just that as I define time 13.fxg4 is a pawn move that doesn't gain or lose time i.e. he swaps a pawn move for a developed piece, but 13.Qf2 gains a tempo. My idea is not to worry about the material here, but force Black to justify the attack by gaining back enough material to justify his Queenside situation. If he just regains the piece but loses the initiative, then the White Queenside pawn majority should be decisive. In the subject position, when I get home, I will just look for ways to give back the piece advantageously. By the way, I am well aware that 12.Qe2 is not a Novelty. I never said it was. All I said is that Berliner, a World Champion and Kasparov, a World Champion both give 12...Be6 as best and favorable to Black whereas I am the first person to say it leads to the fastest win by White of any major opening in chess. (By the way, When IM Jeremy Silman looked at the position after 12...Be6, Book, he couldn't believe it was book because it was so bad!) Obviously, the way I define time, 12...O-O is vastly superior to 12...Be6; I was just under the impression that if two World Champions thought that if 12...Be6 was best, it was best. You can tell a real chess idiot when he lectures to a GM.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #25 - 01/05/09 at 22:49:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 20:47:26: MNb wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:34:27: sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:00:48: In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White? Not as long as you fail to consult the right sources and don't read the posts of that member. MNb wrote on 01/01/09 at 18:07:05: After both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2 Black gets excellent play with ...Ndf4! With this easy save the ball is back in your court again. As a warning I tell you that I have done some work on both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2. 10.Qa4 Ndf4 11.d4 exd4 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 dxc3 15.Nxc3 & You will note that I have the better pawn structure, I can double with Rc2, and, if you now play Nc5, this is met with 16.Bxd7ch Nxd7 17.Kf1 +- Now you've lost the option of 16.Bxd7ch Qxd7? 17.Qxd7ch Kxd7 18.Kf3, because White has the superior pawn structure, threatens to double on a central file, and has a lead in development. +- Let's count the Two Knights' Tango: 1...Nc6, 2...Nf6, 3...Nd4, 4...Nxd5 5...Ne6, 6...Ndf4, 7...Nd3, 8...Nxc1, 9...Nc5, 10...Nxd7. The way I count development, you have made ten moves with your Knights in this opening and made one useful move, Nxd7 with your Knights. With the other 9 moves, you have won the minor exchange. The way to meet any gambit is to give back just enough material to squelch the initiative and emerge with a positional plus and a lead in development as we see here. 8...Ne6 +- 12...Be6 +- So far no one seems interested in contesting the fact that I pruned a major branch with 12...Be6 13.Nc3 on my way to my desired goal, 3...Nf6 4.Ng5+- Anyone care to try to equalize after either 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (Qe8 or d6, Bxc6) 7.Bxc6! dxc6 8.Nf3!! N (Qe2 Ng4 9.f3 Bf2ch 10.Kf1 Bb6 =)e.g. 8...Nxe4 9.Qe2 +- or 8...Kf7 9.d3 +-? Or Black can try 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O +- This is an idea of Pincus. If you think that Black can survive, just plug it into any 2700+ computer. 1. You make too many moves for your opponent and seem to refuse to consider one may not play the moves you choose for them. 2. You are all over the map with your Tango! rant. I'm not sure how that fits into any concrete analysis being offered. 3. I sense that arguing any further is like living with a broken pencil: pointless. Good luck in your pursuits!

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #24 - 01/05/09 at 22:32:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Sloughter, First let me tell you that I think you would do well to moderate your language a bit. Your not writing for newbies, and your big words dont impress. Now to your variation: Although I am certainly interested in what MNb has to say, just two remarks: 10.Qa4, Ndf4 (Besides this black has another proven option 10...f5) 11.d4........ 11....., Nxg2+! (11...exd4 is weaker, although black is by no means lost after for instance 12.g3,Nd3 13.Ke2,Nxc1 14.Rxc1,f5 15.Ned2,Rb8! and it would surprise me very much if you could win this endgame from me) 12.Kf1, Ng4 = This is a well known variation: Kopylov- Ravinsky, USSR ch 1949 (0,5-0,5) Laglan - Samarian, ICCF corr., 1962 (0-1) Sloughter, you might take MNb's advice and study some sources and games, before making rather wild claims.


	IP Logged

FM Dikkie Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 75 Location: Veenendaal Joined: 02/20/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #23 - 01/05/09 at 22:25:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	Is it forbidden to do good moves with black?? 14..dxc3?? After 14...Rb8 black is very happy for instance. Also 13..Ne5 is perfectly playable, another tango Talkin bout white's tango: Bf1-c4-f1-b5, Ng1-f3-g5-e4 After 13 moves white has Ra1-Nb1-Bc1 undeveloped, king in the centre. You may have your desired goal but your not objective by any standards. So far we are not convinced in any way. It looks like "Anonymous" is back...


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #22 - 01/05/09 at 20:47:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:34:27: sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:00:48: In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White? Not as long as you fail to consult the right sources and don't read the posts of that member. MNb wrote on 01/01/09 at 18:07:05: After both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2 Black gets excellent play with ...Ndf4! With this easy save the ball is back in your court again. As a warning I tell you that I have done some work on both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2. 10.Qa4 Ndf4 11.d4 exd4 12.g3 Nd3ch 13.Ke2 Nxc1ch 14.Rxc1 dxc3 15.Nxc3 & You will note that I have the better pawn structure, I can double with Rc2, and, if you now play Nc5, this is met with 16.Bxd7ch Nxd7 17.Kf1 +- Now you've lost the option of 16.Bxd7ch Qxd7? 17.Qxd7ch Kxd7 18.Kf3, because White has the superior pawn structure, threatens to double on a central file, and has a lead in development. +- Let's count the Two Knights' Tango: 1...Nc6, 2...Nf6, 3...Nd4, 4...Nxd5 5...Ne6, 6...Ndf4, 7...Nd3, 8...Nxc1, 9...Nc5, 10...Nxd7. The way I count development, you have made ten moves with your Knights in this opening and made one useful move, Nxd7 with your Knights. With the other 9 moves, you have won the minor exchange. The way to meet any gambit is to give back just enough material to squelch the initiative and emerge with a positional plus and a lead in development as we see here. 8...Ne6 +- 12...Be6 +- So far no one seems interested in contesting the fact that I pruned a major branch with 12...Be6 13.Nc3 on my way to my desired goal, 3...Nf6 4.Ng5+- Anyone care to try to equalize after either 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (Qe8 or d6, Bxc6) 7.Bxc6! dxc6 8.Nf3!! N (Qe2 Ng4 9.f3 Bf2ch 10.Kf1 Bb6 =)e.g. 8...Nxe4 9.Qe2 +- or 8...Kf7 9.d3 +-? Or Black can try 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O +- This is an idea of Pincus. If you think that Black can survive, just plug it into any 2700+ computer.


	IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #21 - 01/05/09 at 14:52:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	If I am white, my next move after 10. ...Ndf4 is 11.0-0. But then 11. ....Nd3 and Black is equal or better. After 11. d4, Black equalizes with 11. ...f5 or ...ed sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 14:04:27: There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that 8...Ne6 is +-. Never let facts get in the way of a strong opinion. 11. d4 ed 12. Bxf4 Nxf4 13, cd Nd3+ 14 Kd2 Nxb2 = Edit to add: Checked and both Rybka and Hiarcs have 10. ...Ndf4 as their "book" moves in this position.

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #20 - 01/05/09 at 14:04:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:34:27: sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:00:48: In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White? Not as long as you fail to consult the right sources and don't read the posts of that member. MNb wrote on 01/01/09 at 18:07:05: After both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2 Black gets excellent play with ...Ndf4! With this easy save the ball is back in your court again. As a warning I tell you that I have done some work on both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2. Again, I am doing this in my head, which is tough as a 1600 player, but my immediate reaction to 10...Ndf4 is to ignore the hit on the g-pawn, give it back for positional plusses and just play 11.d4. If you insist on playing 11...Nxg2ch 12.Ke2 Nf4ch 13.Kf3 Ng6 14.Bxd7ch Qxd7 16.Qxd7ch Kxd7 17.Rg1 (Now what? I have a developmental edge after 17.Rg1. Don't you think that the Rook on the open file is worth something?). After such standard move as Be3/Nd2/Rad1 White completes his development; you will note that Black has to either shield, protect, or advance his g-pawn to avoid an eventual Rxg7. White should pick up a second tempo here. You will note in the endgame that my King is one tempo closer to the center than the Black King, i.e. White just gives back the extra material that he converted into a lead in development, which ten moves down the road will be converted back into a material plus. You will note that White is going to be the only side with a center pawn should Black play exd4. When I get home, I'll check the variations on my computer. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that 8...Ne6 is +-.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #19 - 01/05/09 at 12:34:27	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:00:48: In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White? Not as long as you fail to consult the right sources and don't read the posts of that member. MNb wrote on 01/01/09 at 18:07:05: After both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2 Black gets excellent play with ...Ndf4! With this easy save the ball is back in your court again. As a warning I tell you that I have done some work on both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

FM Dikkie Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 75 Location: Veenendaal Joined: 02/20/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #18 - 01/05/09 at 12:21:36	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/05/09 at 12:00:48: GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:11:22: sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 10:51:13: Is the Two Knights' Defense, Ng5 variation, the first opening that is winning for White? Let's start with the Berliner Variation (Gambit) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6? (12...O-O 13.Qf2 +- What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development, and I wouldn't fancy having White in an OTB game. Let's start pruning the analytical tree. Do any of you see improvements on 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Nc3 Nxc3 (Nb4 14.Kd1+-) 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4+- (According to IM Silman, White may try 17.d5 here). Does anyone think that Black can equalize here or improve after 13.Nc3, or are we in agreement that 12...Be6 leads to a forced win for White? In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. It is always useful to make developing moves in a sharp position instead of making the non-developing move sequence 10.Bxd7ch?? Qxd7 Black has two dismal choices: 1)Stay in a middlegame a pawn down, or 2)Go into an endgame a pawn down. First: 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 +- Does anyone want to make the case that the Knight walk is good for Black i.e. Nc6/Nd4/Ne6/Nc5/Nxd7 is a good idea for Black? Returning the Knight to a square it has access to on one of its very first legal moves leaving the b8 square i.e. Nc6, Na6 or Nd7, means that Black simply loses four tempos in a sharp position. As I define development, Black just lost four tempos.+- Lets try an even more exorbitant Knight walk i.e. 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4 Nd3ch 14.Ke2 Nxc1ch (Can anyone find anything stronger?) 15.Rxc1 & Black has spent six tempos to win the minor exchance.+- Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White? No way. After 8..Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 Ndf4! (why Nc5??, 10...Ndf4! was already mentioned by Mnb!) there is no way to an advantage for white. White scored only 0.5 out of 3 in my database, not that that says anything, but is an indication. But analysing the position after Ndf4 gives a bad feeling for gaining an advantage with white. Black seems to have no problems at all. Also the line Tony mentions, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 0-0 13.Qf2 exf3 14.Bxb5?? the move you propose instead of gxf3 its immediately curtains for white after Rae8+


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #17 - 01/05/09 at 12:00:48	Post Tools	Print Post
	GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:11:22: sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 10:51:13: Is the Two Knights' Defense, Ng5 variation, the first opening that is winning for White? Let's start with the Berliner Variation (Gambit) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6? (12...O-O 13.Qf2 +- What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development, and I wouldn't fancy having White in an OTB game. Let's start pruning the analytical tree. Do any of you see improvements on 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Nc3 Nxc3 (Nb4 14.Kd1+-) 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4+- (According to IM Silman, White may try 17.d5 here). Does anyone think that Black can equalize here or improve after 13.Nc3, or are we in agreement that 12...Be6 leads to a forced win for White? In the move sequence 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6? (Contrary to other posts about the excellent analysis by a member out to move 19), White is simply better here i.e. 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 is a no brainer; even 10.Qe2 is better than 10.Bxd7ch. It is always useful to make developing moves in a sharp position instead of making the non-developing move sequence 10.Bxd7ch?? Qxd7 Black has two dismal choices: 1)Stay in a middlegame a pawn down, or 2)Go into an endgame a pawn down. First: 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 +- Does anyone want to make the case that the Knight walk is good for Black i.e. Nc6/Nd4/Ne6/Nc5/Nxd7 is a good idea for Black? Returning the Knight to a square it has access to on one of its very first legal moves leaving the b8 square i.e. Nc6, Na6 or Nd7, means that Black simply loses four tempos in a sharp position. As I define development, Black just lost four tempos.+- Lets try an even more exorbitant Knight walk i.e. 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4 Nd3ch 14.Ke2 Nxc1ch (Can anyone find anything stronger?) 15.Rxc1 & Black has spent six tempos to win the minor exchance.+- Are we in agreement that 8...Ne6 is a win for White?


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #16 - 01/05/09 at 03:55:20	Post Tools	Print Post
	micawber wrote on 01/01/09 at 23:49:07: (1) I agree with MNB that 8....Ne6! is correct. Actually NMB is too modest. On the forumn - in a previous thread - he gave variations up till move 19, showing Black can reach approximate equality. (2) 12.Qe2 is by no means a new move. If my memory is correct, this move was invented and played by the corr. player Walter Muir. The variation was also discussed in Correspondence Chess Mail. I think that Berliner has reacted, and proposed some variations, but I will have to look that up. (3) I can agree that 12.Qe2 poses severe difficulties for Black But I dont agree with the variations presented above. For instance after 12.Qe2,0-0 13.Qf2,exf 14.gxf,Bh5 I think Black has sufficient compensation (If white wants to refute this line he must risk 13.fxg4.) (4) There is an even nastier problem for Black in the Fritz, also discussed on this Forum. Topnotch made a good case that 8.cxd4,Qxg5 9.Bxb5+,Kd8 10.0-0!, Rb8 11.Bc6!,exd4 12.d3,Nf4 13.Na3 (Pirrot-Daeubler, Bad Worrishofen, 2008) leaves white with an advantage. (5) The question who is the strongest Correspondence World Champion is as meaningfull as the question who is the strongest World Champion of all time. (6) That being said Hans Berliner certainly is one of the great correspondence champions. At least we can say that he had an original style to which his variation in the Fritz - correct or not- testistifies. If you replay his games, you will see his expert handling of endgames.


	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #15 - 01/04/09 at 22:55:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 15:06:16: My innovation in the Berliner Variation (Gambit) replaces an entire page of BCO 2. This is, what? Almost twenty years old, now? I'm not sure I remember the last time I even consulted it...

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

GMTonyKosten YaBB Administrator Offline Mr Dynamic? Posts: 3192 Location: Clermont-Ferrand Joined: 12/19/02 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #14 - 01/04/09 at 22:36:04	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 01/03/09 at 15:04:09: , but after exf3, it is White on move. Without analyzing anything ( I don't have a chess board here), my immediate reaction is to reject gxf3 because it loses a tempo to Bh5 i.e. Black cannot access h5 in less than two moves. The way I look at the position, I am going to try to give back the piece advantageously with something like 13.Bxb5 with a four to two pawn majority on the Queenside i.e. if this position ever goes into an endgame, White should have an advantage because of his Queenside pawn majority. Unless White is mated here or loses a lot more than a piece, my immediate reaction is to play 13.Bxb5; this gains a tempo and chops up the Queenside for a big plus in the endgame. I'm confused! Do you mean 14 Bxb5 (after 12...0-0 13 Qf2 exf3)? If so, it loses immediately in any number of ways. By the way, the reason I thought Black had a lead in development is because he has developed all his minor pieces and castled, while White hasn't developed his queenside at all, his kingside hardly at all and his king is stuck in the centre!


	WWW Facebook Twitter IP Logged

drkodos God Member Offline I see....stars. Posts: 778 Location: Jupiter, and beyond Joined: 03/29/07	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #13 - 01/04/09 at 20:28:26	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter: After reading (several times) your latest entry and trying to wrap my brain around it, I continue to labor over some points of confusion. I am hoping you could explain further. With regard to this statement: sloughter wrote on 01/03/09 at 15:04:09: By the way, I am well aware that 12.Qe2 is not a Novelty. I never said it was. All I said is that Berliner, a World Champion and Kasparov, a World Champion both give 12...Be6 as best and favorable to Black whereas I am the first person to say it leads to the fastest win by White of any major opening in chess. (By the way, When IM Jeremy Silman looked at the position after 12...Be6, Book, he couldn't believe it was book because it was so bad!) I am confused because in a previous post in this thread you made claim of an "innovation": sloughter wrote on 01/03/09 at 15:04:09: My innovation in the Berliner Variation (Gambit) replaces an entire page of BCO 2. Question #1: What is the innovation? Also, your thread title tease makes claim that Two Knight defense is refuted. Intriguing. Question #2: What is your bust of 5. ....Na5? Along tangential lanes, I opine further: Whenever a partner always makes claim a move is "book" the begging question is always to ask: Which book and by whom? Last barb on the wire: I never realized that Jeremy Silman was the Holy Grail of opening theory....

	I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #12 - 01/03/09 at 15:04:09	Post Tools	Print Post
	GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:11:22: sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 10:51:13: Is the Two Knights' Defense, Ng5 variation, the first opening that is winning for White? Let's start with the Berliner Variation (Gambit) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6? (12...O-O 13.Qf2 +- What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development, and I wouldn't fancy having White in an OTB game. Black has an enormous lead in development. Not the way I define development. There is a certain internal harmony in chess. To the average chess player, there is no difference in terms of time between the move sequence. Qe2/Qf3 and Qe2/Qe3. The way I define time, Qe2/Qf3 only gains one tempo because the Queen has access to f3 in one move, but took two moves to get there. By contrast, the White Queen takes two moves to get to e3 and thus the maneuver Qe2/Qe3 gains a tempo compared to Qe2/Qf3, because White cannot access the e3 square with his Queen in less than two moves. What this means as a practical matter is that, usually, except in certain endgames, gaining time without effort is usually good, so, if one has a choice in two moves of playing Qe2/Qe3 or Qe2/Qf3, all other factors being equal, Qe2/Qe3 is the superior choice because it gains a tempo. As far as the position in question, here is how I define time. Black has freed both Bishops, that is two tempos (If you think this is trivial and obvious, consider that Nimzovich regards the following move sequence as giving Black a lead in development: 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 Nf6, whereas I look at freeing the Bishops as developing moves. Thus, unlike Nimzovich, I maintain that White still has his first move advantage.), he has played Bg4 (one tempo) Qh4 (one tempo) O-O (one tempo). (Bd6 (one tempo) The Knight has gained two tempos for a grand total of 8 tempos. White's Knight can access the g3 square in two moves, so the path in this case doesn't count; it only matters how many tempos it takes for the Knight to get to the g3 square from g1. White has made two developing moves with his Queen and freed the King Bishop for a grand total of five moves of development, but after exf3, it is White on move. Without analyzing anything ( I don't have a chess board here), my immediate reaction is to reject gxf3 because it loses a tempo to Bh5 i.e. Black cannot access h5 in less than two moves. The way I look at the position, I am going to try to give back the piece advantageously with something like 13.Bxb5 with a four to two pawn majority on the Queenside i.e. if this position ever goes into an endgame, White should have an advantage because of his Queenside pawn majority. Unless White is mated here or loses a lot more than a piece, my immediate reaction is to play 13.Bxb5; this gains a tempo and chops up the Queenside for a big plus in the endgame. Don't get me wrong---If Muir is right, it is because Black has to waste too much time to regain the material. It's just that as I define time 13.fxg4 is a pawn move that doesn't gain or lose time i.e. he swaps a pawn move for a developed piece, but 13.Qf2 gains a tempo. My idea is not to worry about the material here, but force Black to justify the attack by gaining back enough material to justify his Queenside situation. If he just regains the piece but loses the initiative, then the White Queenside pawn majority should be decisive. In the subject position, when I get home, I will just look for ways to give back the piece advantageously. By the way, I am well aware that 12.Qe2 is not a Novelty. I never said it was. All I said is that Berliner, a World Champion and Kasparov, a World Champion both give 12...Be6 as best and favorable to Black whereas I am the first person to say it leads to the fastest win by White of any major opening in chess. (By the way, When IM Jeremy Silman looked at the position after 12...Be6, Book, he couldn't believe it was book because it was so bad!) Obviously, the way I define time, 12...O-O is vastly superior to 12...Be6; I was just under the impression that if two World Champions thought that if 12...Be6 was best, it was best.


	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #11 - 01/02/09 at 09:02:17	Post Tools	Print Post
	Just had a quick look. Havent found Berliner's analysis yet. But I was right about Walter Muir: Muir-Svensson correspondence game 1971/1973 continued: 12.Qe2, 0-0 13.fxg4, Bxg3+ 14.Kd1,Nf6 So much for 12.Qe2 being a novelty!


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #10 - 01/02/09 at 01:13:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	In any case, the soundness of the Two Knights hardly depends on the Fritz Variation.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

micawber God Member Offline like many sneaks and skunks in history he's a poet Posts: 852 Location: Netherlands Joined: 09/07/05 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #9 - 01/01/09 at 23:49:07	Post Tools	Print Post
	(1) I agree with MNB that 8....Ne6! is correct. Actually NMB is too modest. On the forumn - in a previous thread - he gave variations up till move 19, showing Black can reach approximate equality. (2) 12.Qe2 is by no means a new move. If my memory is correct, this move was invented and played by the corr. player Walter Muir. The variation was also discussed in Correspondence Chess Mail. I think that Berliner has reacted, and proposed some variations, but I will have to look that up. (3) I can agree that 12.Qe2 poses severe difficulties for Black But I dont agree with the variations presented above. For instance after 12.Qe2,0-0 13.Qf2,exf 14.gxf,Bh5 I think Black has sufficient compensation (If white wants to refute this line he must risk 13.fxg4.) (4) There is an even nastier problem for Black in the Fritz, also discussed on this Forum. Topnotch made a good case that 8.cxd4,Qxg5 9.Bxb5+,Kd8 10.0-0!, Rb8 11.Bc6!,exd4 12.d3,Nf4 13.Na3 (Pirrot-Daeubler, Bad Worrishofen, 2008) leaves white with an advantage. (5) The question who is the strongest Correspondence World Champion is as meaningfull as the question who is the strongest World Champion of all time. (6) That being said Hans Berliner certainly is one of the great correspondence champions. At least we can say that he had an original style to which his variation in the Fritz - correct or not- testistifies. If you replay his games, you will see his expert handling of endgames.


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #8 - 01/01/09 at 22:25:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	HgMan wrote on 01/01/09 at 22:03:57: A book, apparently. Am I the only one getting riddled with messages? Maybe Sloughter and Zukertort could open their own section on Chesspub... Do you have a suspicious mind. I hadn't thought that far yet. Still you might be right. Sloughter, say it's not true. One Zukertort is enough.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #7 - 01/01/09 at 22:03:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	HgMan wrote on 12/30/08 at 18:28:23: You're in the wrong section. Please post under 1.e4 e5. And what makes Hans Berliner the strongest cc world champion? His book is absolute lunacy. HITECH was a very impressive piece of machinery, but it wasn't that strong by today's standards. Bibs was bang on re. writing style, though. What are you selling? A book, apparently. Am I the only one getting riddled with messages? Maybe Sloughter and Zukertort could open their own section on Chesspub...

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

GMTonyKosten YaBB Administrator Offline Mr Dynamic? Posts: 3192 Location: Clermont-Ferrand Joined: 12/19/02 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #6 - 01/01/09 at 20:11:22	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 10:51:13: Is the Two Knights' Defense, Ng5 variation, the first opening that is winning for White? Let's start with the Berliner Variation (Gambit) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6? (12...O-O 13.Qf2 +- What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development, and I wouldn't fancy having White in an OTB game.


	WWW Facebook Twitter IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10778 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #5 - 01/01/09 at 18:07:05	Post Tools	Print Post
	sloughter wrote on 12/30/08 at 15:06:16: Dr. Hans Berliner, the strongest Correspondence World Champion who ever lived. This is nonsense. In the first place I think higher of Estrin's play and in the second place ICCF has produced some excellent WCh's since Berliner: Baumbach, a few Russians whose name I can't remember and some Dutchies. Anyhow, according to my analysis and practice 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 offers enough compensation to maintain equality. After 10.Bxd7 Qxd7 White is slightly behind in development and suffers from a vulnerable d-pawn. After both 10.Qa4+ and 10.Qe2 Black gets excellent play with ...Ndf4! According to most GM's Black also gets sufficiently play after 5...Na5, but I will leave it to others to defend this variation. Btw 5...b5 and 6...Nd4 is considered more precise since many years. This makes me suspect that you don't have done enough book research. My well meant advise is to book up before making daring claims. Emms has excellent stuff on 5...Na5. For the Fritz-Ulvestadt you will probably have to turn to older soucres. In fact I think Estrin's old work on the Two Knights Game still the best on 8...Ne6. It inspired me to find Black's most precise play in the only line that is thought to end with +=, ie 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7.

	The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged. GC Lichtenberg
	IP Logged

kylemeister God Member Offline Posts: 4989 Location: USA Joined: 10/24/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #4 - 12/30/08 at 18:44:55	Post Tools	Print Post
	Subsequent editions of BCO may not be forthcoming, since the last one was about 20 years ago ...


	IP Logged

HgMan God Member Offline Demand me nothing: What you know, you know Posts: 2330 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Joined: 11/09/04 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #3 - 12/30/08 at 18:28:23	Post Tools	Print Post
	You're in the wrong section. Please post under 1.e4 e5. And what makes Hans Berliner the strongest cc world champion? His book is absolute lunacy. HITECH was a very impressive piece of machinery, but it wasn't that strong by today's standards. Bibs was bang on re. writing style, though. What are you selling?

	"Luck favours the prepared mind." --Louis Pasteur
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #2 - 12/30/08 at 15:06:16	Post Tools	Print Post
	My innovation in the Berliner Variation (Gambit) replaces an entire page of BCO 2. The move 12...Be6 has been recommended by Dr. Hans Berliner, the strongest Correspondence World Champion who ever lived, analyzed by HITECH, the strongest computer at the time, and Garry Kasparov the strongest over-the-board World Champion. 12...Be6 is so bad that IM Jeremy Silman couldn't believe that it was book. After 12...O-O, 13.Qf2 is +- and after 12...Be6, 13.Nc3 or 13.Qf2 +-. The Berliner Variation was viewed by Dr. Berliner and endorsed by Garry Kasparov as the definitive refutation of 4.Ng5. Now it turns out that Dr. Berliner and Garry Kasparov both missed two winning plans for White after 12...Be6. Both 13.Qf2 and 13.Nc3 refute the Berliner Gambit. The Berliner Gambit leads to the fastest win by White of any major opening in chess, the direct opposite of What Berliner and Kasparov claim.The entire variation will be condensed in subsequent editions of BCO, MCO and ECO as 12.Qe2 +/-. Once this analysis is well known, the Berliner Variation will never again be played in serious competition. Is this what you mean by spam?


	IP Logged

Bibs God Member Offline Posts: 2342 Joined: 10/24/06	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #1 - 12/30/08 at 11:41:47	Post Tools	Print Post
	Commendable enthusiasm, but spamming all sections until you get attention may not make you too many friends. Sure a reply will come if you wait in the e4 e5 section. Love the writing style btw - very Raymond Keene. Same English teacher? festive wishes, Bibs


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? 12/30/08 at 10:51:13	Post Tools	Print Post
	Is the Two Knights' Defense, Ng5 variation, the first opening that is winning for White? Let's start with the Berliner Variation (Gambit) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6? (12...O-O 13.Qf2 +- or 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch +/-) 13.Qf2 +- or 13.Nc3!! +- Both of these continuations were missed by World Champions Berliner and Kasparov. Can anyone find a way for Black to equalize in the Fritz? Richard -(my home email address is slmrea@aol.com)


	IP Logged