Bonsai wrote on 12/14/07 at 22:05:42:


This has nothing to do with online-bullet-ratings -- although that might indicate my blitz strength -- but OTB ratings.

I am always puzzled by statements of the type, "I can beat masters."  For instance, in USCF terms, a player rated about 2000 should score from about 9% to 25% -- or about 17% on the whole -- against masters (if he could do much better, he presumably wouldn't be a ~2000 player).  Assuming that the 17% doesn't consist entirely of draws, can it therefore be said that such a player "can beat masters"?  Maybe I'm just not logical enough to understand it   

Indeed, swindling capabilities do not equate to understanding, but hasn't Lev just conceded that he isn't a strong player ?
He says enough crazy things as it is, so we should give him some slack when he is actually being reasonable...

drkodos wrote on 12/05/07 at 00:15:56:


Sounds like fun! To respond:

(1) You definitely have bragging rights, since this was in an OTB tournament with regular time controls. As for the late Mr. Igor Ivanov, 
well, with all due respect, it was his responsibility to show up in a sober state!

(2) This gambit, the Milner-Barry being named, I don't see where you can attach your name. Unless you have played a move that was not seen earlier. Kodos Variation? Who knows...

(3) I don't think you are a patzer, but not of IM strength either. I never claimed to be of IM strength in OTB chess, just in blitz at ICC. FYI, my OTB rating fluctuates between 1900 and 2187. My peak ICC rating was 2400+. Currently it is 2087 - 2100+.

(4) I don't see why Mr. Ivanov should share the naming. You, not him, made the key move. FYI, there are openings with double names because two players analyzed and played them, e.g., Pirc-Ufimstev Defense, Jaenisch (aka Schliemann) Gambit in the Spanish Game, etc.

I hope this answers your questions. If not, contact me, and I will gladly respond.

Great thread.  By coincidence, I just happened to be passing by with a container of petrol and some matches.....

It is indeed warming to see the concept of a Jesuit Truth finding a home with regard to what it means to having had one's work "published."

I congratulate you for completing the onerous task of creating and living in your own world.  It is no easy task to keep facts and reality from creeping in through the cracks and crevices of your design and you are to be lauded for your resilient efforts in resisting erosion by rational processes.  

You've done a man's job, sir.

Markovich wrote on 11/20/07 at 20:32:38:


I'm afraid, my dear Markovich, that you lack the imagination required of the succesful gambiteer.  After 1.d4 e5 it is obvious that White has a choice of only two good moves - 2.Qd2!? with a wrong-side-of-the-board version of 1.e4 d5 2.Qe2, and - the best move in my view - 2.Kd2(!) when White's powerfully centralised king offers him good long-term compensation for the pawn should Black be foolish enough to accept it.

Quote:


Sure, that why that after 1.e4 d5, 2.Qe2 is the best move, trying to transpose to a reversed Englund with an extra move. That should be simply crushing!