While I think that Gambit persistently conflates theory and practice, often to the detriment of discussion here, I think we can afford to suffer his doing so from time to time.  Many others here do so as well.

I don't agree that this forum is about whatever anyone wants it to be about, but so long as anyone sticks to the chess openings, he is on fairly safe ground.

Having said that, Gambit, it would be quite useful if you would at last recognize that there exists such a thing as truth in chess, which is something different from what is sufficient to defeat 1950-rated players at speed on ICC.

That doesn't answer the question about 3...dxe4 4.f3?! Bb4, which I maintain is a poor way to try to transpose back to the Euwe.  Also I mentioned nothing about 3...Bb4 (I quoted a way of transposing back to the Euwe after 3...Nf6), after which, incidentally, 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 e5 is awkward, and I would prefer 6.Qg4 which is similarly aggressive and sounder.

What was the intention against 4.f3 Bb4?  That line (originally suggested by MNb some time ago) is what put me off 4.f3 in that position.  The line 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.f3 is alright though.

4.Ne4 is stronger.

Gambit wrote on 03/06/06 at 00:18:14:

You have to remember it _in practice_. In theory, you just look it up.

Theory doesn't need to have an immediate practical use, that's why it's theory!

That's the problem here.

This forum is about theory - the impossible idealistic search for The Truth. To find out the best moves in theory, you can use years to decide the value of one move; use computers, grandmaster friends, every game ever played, whatever. And if in all that there is one incredibly complex, implausible line that refutes a move, then the move is refuted and wrong. Completely regardless of whether any of it would ever be played at all. If you played a thousand games and won them all, it still wouldn't mean your opening was any good _theoretically_.

You, on the other hand, are looking for moves that give you good practical chances, in blitz, on the internet, against people your own level who don't know about your line, and that aren't hard to remember. Which is perfectly fine, and probably a good idea!

But it's just about the total opposite of what the forum is about.

Quote:


When you have a Queenside castle against a Kingside castle, you shouldn't speak about compensation for a pawn! Pure fight now, where the pawn down is useful to attack faster. Speaking in term of compensation for a pawn in that type of position is not very realistic to me, because it's more about attacking chances, that White have for sure!

Quote:


14.Bc3? impossible move, I don't know what you wanted to say. But after 13.Rb1 Qf6, 14.Re1+ Be6 15.Bb5+ Kf8 16.Qd6+ Kg8 17.Rxe6 fxe6 18.Qxe6 fxe6 19.Rxb2, I think there is a form of equality.

Just assume we all have very good memories. Although some refutations are easy enough to not require much of a memory.

Gambit wrote on 03/04/06 at 17:18:11:


That's fine, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that more preparation of an opening will improve your chances of gaining an advantage.  Our job on the forum is not to determine whether something is playable--everything's playable--but rather to reach some kind of consensus as to what lines are best or most problematic.

Given your espousal of the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense, it seems to me that you've worked hard on this line to make it effective.  You know what lines you think you ought to play and what lines you ought to avoid.  I'm not one to bandy about "truth," but surely the critical analysis in this thread can only benefit your own preparation. 

I don't think we "prove" anything on this forum.  What we do is investigate, question, and analyze.  Most refutations can themselves be refuted in time.  I am at this point exclusively a correspondence chess player, so perhaps I am overly prone to concentrating on analysis, but I take enormous enjoyment in digging deeper and deeper into various openings and into interesting middlegame positions.  I would prefer to lose an interesting game than win one that was uninspiring.  And I have several times: I feel no satisfaction when an opponent blunders, but am currently thrilled by a game that's slowly getting away from me (in correspondence chess, they're rarely buckling in time pressure).  What I like about this forum is the debate and the engagement.  In terms of providing analysis, I suspect that I've been wrong many more times than I've been right in these threads, but it's not about winning or losing...