Quote:


It seems you don't appreciate my point.  I do not say that there is anything wrong with playing speed chess; merely that these considerations of what kind of chess is being played are irrelevant to the truth of given positions.  Likewise irrelevant are the scores that you, or anyone, have had playing any particular variation.

Do you see that?

Quote:


It is not a question of correspondence chess versus speed chess, but rather,  cc vs. OTB chess.  I have always maintained that in OTB you have far less time to make decisions than in correspondence.

As far as speed chess is concerned, I use it as a testing ground.  You should know that GMs often test out an idea in casual blitz (or so it was 20 years ago) before taking it it a tournament level.  ICC is a great testing ground for new ideas. 

Back in 1999, before I played on ICC, I used chess.net to test my ideas. The results allowed me  to understand what lines were playable and which were not. That was how the Zilbermints Gambit in the Grob, 1 g4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3! was invented in June 1999.

Objectively speaking,  there is nothing wrong with  testing ideas in blitz and then taking it to regular time controls.
What do I have to do to get you to understand my point? Invite you to watch one of my ideas first in blitz games and then its application in regular tournament play?

Quote:


Ouch, that hurt MnB. In the lines that I have followed on this post since the beginning these positions have only questioned the compensation and remain unclear at best. TopNotch's statement argued that this line was clearly in Black's favor and I don't think that is true. 

He argues that:
1.You have only supported my point, that the viability of the entire BDG rests on 8.Ng5 (The so called alchemy line) and any time the playability of an entire Opening hangs on one move, then that system for want of a better word, is junk.

2.
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.O-O e6 8.Ng5.   
 
So after six very long pages what is the final verdict on the above line. White seems to be losing at best and already dead lost at worse

My response was directed at these two statements, and while I believe that Markovich and Bonsai statements are valid they lack practical tests, and can only be interpreted as unclear positions. Markovich and I had this debate in his line where white had a draw with Bd3. I believe Patrik's statement best summarized the position of this line when he says.


"I think you are not fair. Alchemy Variation is an extremely difficult line with great complications. There is no IM on the earth who can evaluate it correctly simply by looking on it for three second. No chance.   
And be sure, I´m not a kind of guy who thinks that a gambit is ok when you have an equality. It is true, when you´re black but not when you´re white.   
Of course, nowadays chess is full of "equalities". See ECO books, there are almost some say 60% full of =, 30% unclear, some 10% with compensation and just 10% are other possibilities. It seems that today´s chess is leading to equality whatever opening you´re playing. Don´t you see this? Ruy Lopez is =, King´s Indian is =, I can draw even all my corresp. games in Benoni and Rajmund can play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6!? without any worry at high-level corr. chess. This is the reality.   
I don´t think black is better in BDG. Rajmund Emanuel proved =/+ in so-called Martin´s Refutation line long time before Martin even started to write the article. Then he has proposed the Alchemy Variant because (yes!) BDG was in trouble. Ziegler Variation is (according to me) the best choice for black and the most difficult for white, therefore we picked it up for our Experimentum Crucis 2004 Project on Rajmund´s website. Result is (for me) still not clear. All attempts to refute Alchemy were succesfully passed but... position (as in so-called Sun Variant) looks very, very suspicious even for those (like me) who believe in this line. But no concrete line is available.   
I´m not fan of 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 as black is at least equal here. As far as I remember I sent some analysis somewhere on a forum.   
On the other hand, this move is perfectly playable in OTB chess. 
You´re also reffering to "BDG fanatics".. Frankly, based on my experience here, I know more people here who are fanatically opposed to BDG than those who vote for the another cause. 

The point is that there is not a convincing line that amply demonstrates that Black is better.

I think that in the game ArKheiN-Markovich  White did not play the best moves. More to the point, as I always pointed out, correspondence chess is different from over-the-board chess in the time you get to analyze.

Recently I completed a Ziegler Defense game on Internet Chess Club... and I won in good style with White! I will post the game shortly.

Every year it is the same thing. At least one person says that the opening is junk and is refuted, but guess what there is not a single line that shows this refutation, imagine that.

Quote:


You have only supported my point, that the viability of the entire BDG rests on 8.Ng5 (The so called alchemy line) and any time the playability of an entire Opening hangs on one move, then that system for want of a better word, is junk.

There is equality and then there is equality. There is dead, or static equality like that found in many symmetrical postions where unless one side does something stupid the likely outcome is a draw and then we have dynamic equality where various pros and cons of a position are weighed carefully and found to be in balance.

This second kind of equality is vague and can change in an instant, sensible annotators in this type of situation prefer to use  =/unclear symbol. In the BDG the material disadvantage is often permanent, which means that if White fails to land a knockout blow then he is lost or struggling to draw a pawn down ending. 

For a Gambit or Sacrifice to have true merit, then it must force some concrete concession from black other than just a couple tempi and or a half open file. The reason why a BDG player can never accept this, is simply because often they are already too vested and the thought of have to learn proven chess stratgey and openings from scratch is simply too daunting a task for most.

Yes I am often quite humorous, but behind humor often lies the most telling truths. 

Am I fanatically opposed to the BDG, in principle yes.
The gambit is objectively too dependant on unforced errors by Black, and it is only when such carelss errors are committed that White's compensation becomes real. 

I'm getting a deja vu vibe here.

Tops        

Quote:


Oh I fully agree, but what you have to understand is that for these BDG fanatics, any compensation is always enough compensation.  Almost never do they look at a BDG position where white has some compensation and say other than "White is at least equal!"

Over and over again I have said, "White has some compensation, but Black is better," and over and over again they say, "White is at least equal."  Apparently there does not exist a BDG position where White is not at least equal.

I don't consider the BDG to be an automatic point for Black, but it does offer Black very good prospect of a point, and I share your preference for scoring.   

The last time I looked, to score, and not to play in a certain style, was the object of this game.

As far as I know, Alchemy Variant is o.k. TopNotch is a fine chap, but a little too rush in his conclusions, anyway his posts are funny.