Yes, so long as we understand that the game will be played here and be open for everyone's comment -- just like Schoupal's games.  Just open a thread and post the moves as far as 5...Bf5.  Let's use bold to denote the actual game thread.  I await your post.  My actual name is Mark Morss, by the way.

Quote:


Sorry, these days I play only CC.

I am not quite sure what difference it would make if one of us were using a computer.  This particular inquiry is about the search for BDG truth, isn't it?  Perhaps it is me personally you want to defeat?  But there are many players in this world who are stronger than I am, and it would hardly improve my opinion of the BDG to discover that you were among them.

I like Hgman's suggestion that we play here.  If you want to open a thread, I am willing to take the Black side of 1. d4 d5  2. e4 dxe4  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. f3 exf3  5. Nxf3 Bf5

Quote:


As an interested outsider in the three games Patrik is playing here--and he's played both admirably and graciously--I get the impression that Lev has missed the point of these games.  Patrik was playing not for ego, but rather to take advantage of a golden opportunity to advance BDG theory.  Markovich's comments through the games have been valuable, and I don't doubt that Lev has numerous good ideas in these lines.  So why take the game to ICC, when you have a perfectly good forum here and the opportunity to contribute to an already growing body of BDG knowledge.  The time controls should be irrelevant; play here to develop the line...

Quote:


Dear friend,
  thank you very much for the game and for the opportunity to play with you. It has been honour for me. You were strong opponent and I´m happy you played so well. I don´t know what things might have happened if you choose some other line to play (there were a lot of playable possibilities), but there was really just one line which I was aware of and where I have had simply nothing. And you chose right this line! I think I might have had enough compensation in other lines (at least I believe so). On the other hand it is very probable that they are some other draw-lines for black. 
For me the move 5..Bf5 6.Ne5 c6!=, for the time being, deserves an exclamation mark because it leads to equality.

  After I will finish my other two games I will decide about one more game (with Markovich). To give anti-BDGeers one more chance to finally rest the opening to peace

I'll accept the draw offer, there's really nothing much to do about it. 
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Nd5 9.Ne4 Nd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.Nc5 Qd6 12.Bg2 Nf4 13.Be4 Bd5 14.Qf3 e5 15.Bxf4 exf4 16.Bxd5 Qxd5 17.Qxd5 cxd5 18.0-0 ½-½

Maybe we'll see the Patrick against Markovich match? Or do you prefer 6.Bc4 now, too, Patrick? I suppose the move makes sense if white is hoping for that Alchemy variation - but even that cannot be that good for white, e.g. that so-called sun variation is highly suspicious to me, I wouldn't be surprised at all if black could easily fend off all threats there with a few precise moves. 

However I think that if white is angling for a transposition with 6.Bc4, I don't really see that black ought to play c6, at all. In fact after
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Be7 (Maybe one could even develop the bishop more actively? But 7...Be7 is definitely a good solid move.) 8.Ng5!? 0-0 I have the feeling (and the computer seems to agree) that black should be okay. After 9.d5 I'd rather suggest 9...exd5 the idea being that one lets white take with the knight on d5 (i.e. either 10.Nxd5 or 10.Bxd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5) and then plays Bg6 obtaining a super-safe position. How good can white's compensation possibly be in that position? No real attacking ideas available, nothing like a serious space advantage and no clearly better development.

What do five minute games resolve?  What's been fascinating about Patrik's three games here is the opportunity to get under the skin of the opening.  Play here and get the analysis out in the open...

Quote:


When this game is over, I hope you will play me here.  I certainly do not consider the BDG to be a viable weapon in correspondence chess, or in any other form of chess with relatively long time limits.  From my perspective Black is =+ in more than one of his defenses.  I only wish I faced this opening more often.  Therefore I very much look forward to a clash between our respective ideas.