Let's see really, objectively---
"@BladezII,
First of all, I admit that my sardonic attack on you was not warranted. I'm sorry. " Smyslov, even though you apologized, you did attack me for no justifiable reason. I posted something which reflected my opinion and I was attacked. Did I get defensive? If I did, can you blame me?
Second, "You still make the same mistake of claiming that this single variation will undermine White's Bg5" -- I never made such a claim and that is clear, Smyslov. Another attack or accusation , if you will from you.
Third, "You made the same mistake in evaluating the Saemisch in another thread" That was about my line in the Saemisch Be3 c5 post. You say it was a mistake. There is no post and no supportive reasons at all, just an empty statement as to why you declare my line a mistake. Just the fact that you declare it a mistake imposes you got something to back it up wether right or wrong.
Fourth, "Toppy, BladezII doesn't see the transposition that would occur after 11.Bh6. That's his problem, not yours. " Is what you wrote earlier , to which I responded with: " You are totally right, Smyslov-Fan. I just read the moves and did not have it on board. "
I have no problem with noticing I can be wrong. I know I am human.
Fifth, "Castlerock, he claimed the same thing after Nd7 and gave the whole idea of Nc6 a question mark, then after my response rather than make an effort to save his line he simply flip flopped and is now promoting Nc6 with the same exaggerated bluster.
His analysis is too superficial to be taken seriously, its evident that he simply adds comments to fritz variations without any meaningful analytical effort of his own. This is a lazy practice and for this reason I will not waste anymore time pointing out why Nc6 does not give black an easy life either.
In short I will not reward laziness by doing peoples analysis for them. " (this was written by Toppy"
He called me lazy, he called the analysis too superficial, yet you say I went 20 moves DEEP. He says I made no analytical effort of my own, yet I made many candidate moves for white in accordance to his logical plans and tactical, defensive and offensive options and ideas.
He says I went back to ...Nc6 (he called it a flip flop). BUT, he is the one calling me superficial and says I make no analytical effort of his own. Yet, those of you who have made an analytical effert of your own, without being superficial have noticed that the ....Nc6 move made in the game he included is way way different than the ....Nc6 move I am promoting, and I have stated why.
Also part of this is the fact that I said BEFORE I delved into variation the following:
"I took some time to really evaluate the position here and to appreciate the trumps for Black since White's trumps were already clearly identified. Black has valuable trumps that are stong to counter White's. In fact, his trumps must be used immediately since they rely on the temporary weakness of White's position and his better placement.
The Weakness of White's King is just as real and exploitable as Black's Kingside. One of the immediate weakness is that it sits on the open file.
Other trumps for Black: The pinned White Knight, White's weakness on the Q side which is significant only because Black can infiltrate with the Queen and find avenues of approach to Black's Kingside after the Q has caused some wreck on the Q side.
The better placement of Black's pieces compared to
White's, and last but not least Black has a better control of the center.
There is no point really in elminating Black's well place Knight for the Nc3, so.... 14.... Nc6"
It is evident that I did follow Toppy's advice to look at the position and delve into it before I start making moves.
Sixth and lastly for this particular post, you say you or others accuse me of using a computer to do my analysis. Wait a minute, I have openly said I do. I use a computer to check over the lines I want to try to check my ideas and I use it exactly for what they are strong in... tactical melee. This is something normal. There is no accusing and no guilt trip. This is not an over the board game or an internet game this is a discussion forum, for good grief !
Now, can we get back to the subject of chess and of those lines ?
Please !
Pages: 
Averbakh without Bg5...?? (Read 29906 times)
