GMTonyKosten wrote on 07/15/07 at 11:38:18:


This is constantly happening in the university world, so i gave up studing to get points there. It is a dream of mankind that the one gets the credit who deserves itand earnd it. But maybe oneday the world and the chess world will change....

After reading this thread, even though it's a little off topic, I fully vote for Nataf to take over. Cmon Tony, he's French, you're kinda French! Should be easy, no!?

If we only could ask him to reveal what he had intended.
Has anything happened in this variation recently, or is the exchange sacrifice the way to play as black?

In my opinion this whole discourse has gotten extremely out of hand. The plagiarism issue is strictly between Tommy, Victor and Tony/the chesspub management and all this bantering and personal attacks in the forum merely serve to detract from the overally quality of discussion. While subscriber's satisfaction with Victor is certainly an issue for the forum, it can (and should) be discussed indepently of Tommy's grievance.

Teyko wrote on 07/15/07 at 23:18:41:


The sentiments expressed in that last paragraph are so true, as I can attest to from personal experience. Often the aggrieved person is villified and asked to forget about whatever the issue is and move on, funnily enough often time these same hypocrites, were they in the aggrieved parties shoes often sing a different tune. 

Sometime back there was a thread plugging Eddie Dearing's Dragon repertoire book soon after it came out and in fact it was getting rave reviews from just about everybody at the time save one reviewer, namely Sergei Tiviakov, who in effect flamed the book. Around about this time everybody was consoling Mr. Dearing and imploring him to stop harping and just ignore it, after all it was just one bad review among many excellent ones. Mr. Dearing however just could not get past it, and eventually wrote a long letter to New In Chess, which was published, in essence trying to justify and validate his work to Tiviakov, who incidentally remained unimpressed judging by his even more scathing reply about the quality of the book.

My point is this, when one feels slighted or wronged, regardless of how petty or serious others may view the matter, there must be closure before one can move on. To cma6, I say mocking and insulting the aggrieved party will hardly help resolve anything, while to Dink Heckler I say you are merely living up to your chosen nickname and succeeding admirably.

Toppy     

Quote:


Thanks for the concern, but your words are earnestly ignored. I hardly consider bringing up and issue twice in two years sufficient to warrant the your claim of being in "danger of completely losing the plot." You earlier claimed that I am biased, and somehow that my responses are unwarranted. Heres an idea: let's keep the debate textual and eliminate the personal attacks. 

It is interesting that it is the person who is wronged that is usually subjected to moral judgements when the one who makes creates the situation that yields the victim is protected from judgment. 

Amazing is it not?

Lwolf123 wrote on 07/15/07 at 19:54:29:


that's fascinating given that I never claim Bc4 to be a novelty. but I guess haters and people who can't read love to post. Now what's fascinating about your remarks, is that you are attacking ideas that have been published, debated, and applauded to be a GM's analysis, but somehow you claim that because they are my ideas they lose all that good ol' objectivity and novelty because they come from an amateur. If you claims are correct, then is it also not the case that Mikalevksi's analysis would be just as bad, if not worse as they are after my errant posts, yet seem to resemble them so closely.

And its amazing that you are claiming that this is all computer analysis, when I could have sworn I stated I thought "over the board" that 11...Qxe4 had promise, and checked the analysis with Fritz9 and Shredder before posting. So your ad homineum attack demonstrates what exactly.?

This idiot continues, 

Anyway, Tommy continues 13.Nxc8 Nxc5!!

I just about want to puke when I see two exclams after that move. It’s inappropriate and clearly indicates that Tommy is not an experienced player. So Black doesn't immediately capture the piece? Maybe the move deserves an one exclam. But at depth 13, even Fritz 6 has 13..Nxc5 as the best move. Even without a computer, it’s fairly obvious to a reasonable player that that is one of the candidates to be looked at also. Once again Tommy is spewing computer analysis at us.

It is interesting that the post from 7/7/05 says Mikalevski did not even consider this move given that he dismisses 11...Qxe4. Are you choosing not to read???? This is a demonstration that you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. If you took to time to follow the history of the debate, then you could perhaps speak as if you have some semblance of intellect. 

If this move is so obvious, why was in not in the Cheparinov vs. Matoros game that Mikalevksi uses to introduce the idea of 10. c5 to the chesspublishing community. I guess it is obvious to everyone a year later after the analysis is readily available, right? But I guess you are right, even GM's miss obvious analysis, and I despite choosing to look at 11...Qxe4 in depth only went with fritz. Come on man, you are trying to hard to get noticed.

I'm sure someone will flame me for this.. please.. go for it.

From the moment Tommy posted  his analysis, this thread became interesting too me. I can’t believe no one’s questioned the pathetic analysis, particularly in light of how proud Tommy appears to be of it. I can understand perhaps some restraint when an amateur posts analysis, but this guy actually thinks he’s done something magnificent.  Perhaps years ago, he posted the real stuff that should have garnered him some kind of claim to fame, but if it was anything like the bit of analysis he posted here, I think not.
 
At move 12, Tommy points out 12.Bc4!? as HIS novelty. Is this some kind of joke? It's the only other move the computers suggest as playable for White. Looking at Tommy's supposed 'analysis' it's obvious he's just done a computer dump. Every move he gives in the 12.Bc4 line is Fritz's top choice. Is this a coincidence? I think not. If there's any plagiarism going on here, it's Tommy taking credit for Fritz's moves. The only original analysis in the line is when he offers up a line against Smyslov Fan's 14.Ne7? To Smyslov Fan's credit, he was obviously not using a computer when he came up with that move. There, of course, Tommy lists the top engine choices for Black as the refutation, pausing even to give the obvious 16..f6 an inappropriate exclam when there are at least five other moves that also win. A reasonable player would have stopped analyzing 14.Ne7 after a couple moves when it was clear Black was winning a piece. At the end of the Smyslov refutation he has an evaluation of =+ in a position that is clearly winning for Black (-+).

Continuing on with the main line, he credits Mikalevski for the move 13.cxd6 in a sub variation. I'd always considered 13.cxd6 as the main line, but in this one instance, Tommy considers 13.Nxc8 (the computers 2nd or 3rd choice), the main line. In Tommy's mind, perhaps this makes the whole variation seem more like his Theoretical novelty? He can't call it his if the main line continues with 13.cxd6 and mostly Mikalevski's analysis after that.

Anyway, Tommy continues 13.Nxc8 Nxc5!!

I just about want to puke when I see two exclams after that move. It’s inappropriate and clearly indicates that Tommy is not an experienced player. So Black doesn't immediately capture the piece? Maybe the move deserves an one exclam. But at depth 13, even Fritz 6 has 13..Nxc5 as the best move. Even without a computer, it’s fairly obvious to a reasonable player that that is one of the candidates to be looked at also. Once again Tommy is spewing computer analysis at us.

At the end of the 'main line' Tommy indicates =, 'given Black has the initiative'. From a straight material point of view it's equal with black having two pawns for the exchange. He also fails to note that Black could repeat positions at move 15 with 15..Qe4. That would be enough to turn any White player from this line. Black has at least a draw and can play on to win if they want. No further analysis necessary.

Given that Tommy's main line of 13.Nxc8 is refuted by BLack two moves later, White has to find something else.. like Mikalevski's 13.cxd6.

None of Tommy's comments are meaningful in his analysis either. Things like 'as usual I found something better', '13..Nc5!! this is my novelty', are at best arrogant, but when seen in light of the actual position they just make Tommy look foolish. I think he uses the term 'initiative' for any position he doesn't understand where the computer has evaluated it favorable for one side or the other.

I could go on about this analysis by Tommy. It's entertaining to look at though, mainly because of the dichotomy of how bad it is, and how good Tommy thinks it is.

I took a cursory look at some of the links Tommy just posted.. it's all hokem. I see now why 13..Nc5 gets two exclams. Mikalevsky missed it in his own analysis according to one of the links. Yea.. that's what exclams are about.