MNb wrote on 02/19/08 at 02:33:11:
-
OK Don Quixote, it would save you a lot of trouble, if you at least tried to absorb the context, before battling.
Background:
1) I have defended the
Black side of this after 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 in previous post, and therefore I’m not even one of your windmills, in the first place. We’re on the same side in the judgment of this position, however I might be a little more open minded about other variations after 4.f3, if that’s what disturbs your black and white view.
2) David posts a file of games, and says 5... c6 looks worrying.
3) I reply to that message, saying that as I trust one of the players in that file, who happens to pick 7.Bg5, and the fact that
he does makes me interested in the value of that move.
(Note that I do not claim a thesis that this move saves White’s position or something, so I do not have anything to prove, I just say that this may be the best alternative in a bad position, as it was chosen by a strong BDG-expert in a recent and important game,
still skeptical about 6.Bc4.)
I also post some trivia about that position, with the idea of mentioning other masters who have chosen the same alternative, 7.Bg5.
4) You swing your sword at me in person, trying to imply that I’m representing an evil sect who tries to destroy innocent minds with biased messages, and therefore can’t be taken seriously.
Jee..! Wake up!
What you’re battling isn’t even there.
Your sword isn’t even drawn, as you haven’t mentioned one single argument about what is wrong with what you
thought I said, only whining about
me being “typical” and “one of those”, and that is a direct personal insult.
Ciocaltea
was a master strength player, regardless of his age, and so was his opponent, and this was before the FIDE GM title was introduced. No one was a FIDE-GM until then you see. The meaning of master existed before FIDE though, if it has anything to do with however I find the move 7.Bg5 interesting or not at all, and you just can’t be serious about that age crap either.
He also
did repeat BDG-ideas at least until 1954, so you’re not only of topic, you’re wrong in fact.
You are trying to claim that I put words in your mouth you never used?
Now, who’s talking? You’re trying to bias the whole subject, making me sound that I claim 7.Bg5 to be a rescue for White, and that GM´s supports that statement. Why?
And if you think I did, why don’t you argue with facts then if it upsets you that much if someone would think 7.Bg5 is good enough to save White after 6.Bc4 Bf5? (Which
I don´t if you missed that again)
Your remarks are emotional and pathetic per se, as they lack logical or referential substance. A reference to anything has a higher arguing value than just a belief. You
believe someone is manipulating, and you
feel that is wrong. Not a single fact, thus pathetic.
Do you really need to go that low to find anything to say that sound like the opinion you’ve decided to have is indisputable? With such confidence in that opinion it shouldn’t be that difficult to find a valid argument.
You are wrong in making me one of those BDG-enthusiasts you’ve come to dislike, just because.
You are wrong in thinking that I tried to prove something at all with my post.
You are wrong in saying that I stated that the game presented proves 7.Bg5 to be good.
Lack of objectivity seems to be a problem to the both sides of this game. I know Sawyer is a useless reference, but as I said, I haven’t referred to
anything to claim an evaluation, so objectivity is not even on the agenda.
"Next time I expect concrete analysis again, I already have spend too much time on this junk subject" you say.
Well, next time I find an alternative interesting based on who played it, I’ll put an MNb-remark at the bottom saying; "MNb: Interest based on who played it". If I need to analyze and prove something I’ll remark; "MNb: Analysis".
On your second statement I can only agree, even if I haven’t found any suggestions of yours to why the subject is junk. Why exactly is the subject junk to you? And if so, why do you feel an urge to tell those who like it what you have decided to think about it, no matter what? I think the closed defences sucks, but I wouldn’t dream of going to their thread and say that they are boring persons who doesn’t understand the art and beauty of attack, due to basic manners. And that goes for others as well – we’ve heard the clichés, now; be specific and show it.
So, why don’t you present concrete analysis, as you tell me to do?
I haven’t seen a single move in this fury on what you thought I claimed.
You also claimed to have a refutation of the whole BDG last week, with;
4... c5 5.d5 exf3 6.Nxf3 a6 7.Bg5 e6
to which I replied with concrete analysis;
8.Qd2 Be7 9.0-0-0 exd5 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxd5 0-0 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.Nxf6 Qxf6 14.Ng5 and Rhf1 +/-, without response.
Who stopped the research there, as you say is “typical for BDG:ers to do”?
Or to anyone else of those three (!?) who have voted that Black is better, show it to us!
I’ve come across people with less reading ability in this forum, but this time surprises me the most yet, and by the way, rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered. Only children do that. But on the other hand; it takes a certain level of cognitive capacity to understand sarcasm as well, so never mind.
Good Luck on your crusade!
Pages: [1] 
How to beat the BDG (Read 129619 times)
