Teyko wrote on 02/02/07 at 01:28:34:


No, of course it isn't plagiarism.  Chess analysis isn't subject to copyright, and even if it were, what you post here enters the public domain.   

You do deserve credit for this idea.  But you post under an alias.  Even if, like mine, your true identity were discernable from your profile, Mikalevski can hardly be blamed for failing to look for it.  Next time you want credit for a great idea, I suggest you write to the NIC Yearbook letters section.  They're quite accessible.  I had some analysis of the Wilkes Barre published there a while back.  Hell, they even published a long analysis of a miserable defeat of mine, after my rat of an opponent wrote in to brag about it (under the guise of an important innovation, which it was not).

But in the last analysis (ha ha), the chess world is not really very interested in who thought of an idea -- especially if it was the amateur likes of you and me, dear chessfriend.

Is this plagarism?????

This is Tommy J. Curry. I just recieved the New in Chess Yearbook number 78 with Mikalevski's article. He totally rips off the analysis that I both sent him and posted on the website. 

He says on page 174 of NIC 78

An Underestimated idea

After the game Cheparinov-Matamoros, Dos Hermanas 2005 it seemed that this continuation was bad for Black, but the latter has found new ways to deal with 10...ed4 11.Nd5 

A) 11...Qe4

This is one of the understimated ideas in this line, which was discussed on the forum of chesspublishing.com and had been sugggested by Cheparinov to Matamoros in the post-mortem. It seems that this brave move may revive 10...ed4. It turns out that after the moves 12. Ne7 (12. Bc also deserves attention, see Pilaj-Freitag from the Austrian championship, 2005) 12...Kh8 Whitle cannot play 13. Nc8 in view of 13...Nc5, and the c8 knight is trapped. So he has to continue 13.cd6 and now instead of 13...cd6?! suggested by Carlos, Black has a much better idea: Nc5!, with the threat of 14...d3. I believe that this is a critical line that deserves further attention.

the 10.c5!? line is recommended in Khalifman's Opening Accordning to Kramnik 1b. Almost Famous...

Meat wrote on 09/04/06 at 18:32:39:


Hey Meat,

I was not trying to use the fact that you used fritz as an ad hominem attack nor an indict of your claim that Black doesn't have equality. I will be happy to pursue this line of argumentation over this line if you would like. I am extremely busy at the moment with school work, dissertations don't write themselves, but if you wish, postthe exact point in the line you wish for us to discuss and I will get back to you., or you can email me at kyta_swan@yahoo.com if you wish to keep your analysis private.

Meat wrote on 08/29/06 at 10:27:35:



I certainly don't think that my poisoned pawn varation (the name given by the forum) is busted. I think that most of you analysis follows from fritz and that is fine, but Black is at least equal in all of these lines.

I personally don't think that 18...Qxb2 is the best move in this position but following your analysis 19.Bxd3 and 19...Ne6 seems fine for Black.

Looking at the position, without a board I also wondered if white might not play Bd3 instead of
Bc4. The Queen has not many good retreats. And white gets a rather active position out of this line.

As no one is is posting I take it that he 7...Na6 KID is refuted!!!

(Or maybe not and I just want to provoke some answers )