Gambit wrote on 03/19/08 at 20:20:15:

Not true, I deleted a few of both, but one of your most recent posts was the worst (in terms of insults) I have seen for a while. I don't really have time to moderate this board, so please, if everyone could show some self restraint? Thanks

Hi,i think this will be great for me.Qd2, with idea 5 b3, 6 Bb2, 7 0-0-0
controlling the board

Very funny! I think there are enough chickens left in your posts, MNb, to feed a herd of elephants, three schools of orphans, and five pigs for a year.

Mmm... MNb has delicious chickens!

Hey, GM Kosten,

I'm curious as to your logic. As Mr. Spock would say, fascinating. You deleted some of my comments, but not that of MNb? What gives?

I have edited a few of the nastier comments from some of these posts, and if necessary I will start editing some of the 'posters' too!

Gambit wrote on 03/18/08 at 20:18:14:

Göring himself invariably played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 and not 5.Nxc3.
The move 4.Nxc3 first has been played at the first American Chess Congress by Meek against Morphy in the early 50's of the 19th century. Later it became Alekhine's choice. I am rather proud to be a chicken like this WCh.

Gambit wrote on 03/18/08 at 20:18:14:

No need to be sorry, it's my own choice. The parents of the kids here around cannot afford to pay me for chess lessons and certainly not in US-dollars. I earn enough to have a decent life, but cannot afford luxury like playing you at ICC or subscribing at Chesspub. I would not say these are the most important goals of my life.

Gambit wrote on 03/18/08 at 20:18:14:

No, but possibly in the near future (later this year). I will let you know. That will solve the telephone bill problem. But my two other conditions remain.

Gambit wrote on 03/18/08 at 20:18:14:

Yep, no matter how often you play the BDG against Kramnik, you suffer from siliconphobia. And phobia means fear. You are afraid, trembling from fear only by reading the c-word.

Sorry if my writing is a bit confusing, English is not my first language. Still, I repeat, you understood the ICCF time controls very well.

So long, annoying, funny, siliconphobian, long time control averse yellow chicken with a pighead! (I am pretty sure you're going to win this contest, but I am very curious how you are going to expand this.)

Sacrificing a pawn with a move such as 2.e4 is not la lachete, but instead sciocco, unless your opponent is rated under 2300, of course...

SWJediknight wrote on 03/18/08 at 20:52:48:


Hmm... Okay, thanks for the clarification, SWJediKnight! See, I always thought that 5 Bc4 cxb2 6 Bxb2 was the Danish Gambit! At least that is what the chess books I have say.

This is a response to MNb.

I never heard of such long time controls in ICCF. Does anyone know if ICCF  uses such long time controls? That is first.

Second, I am about to reply to your Danish Gambit. What was the move order, again? 1 e4 e5 2 d4 ed4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Nxc3 ? If I am not mistaken, that is the Goring Gambit, not the Danish Gambit. 
I thought I challenged you to the Danish Gambit proper, chicken?

Third, I disagree with using computers for assistance (other than store games). That is the fundamental difference between me and you. I do not think it is fair to let the computer do all the analytical work, and you just make the moves. Screw that! But you seem to think the opposite, depending on computers to help you.

Fourth, I am sorry to hear you do not earn more than $450  per month. Perhaps you could be a chess tutor and earn some more $$ ?
I have a friend, a chess master, who teaches kids chess. It is his job, one that he has been doing for years, with success.

Fifth, I recommend that you use, if possible, your college's computer lab. I happen to be an alumnus of Rutgers University, and therefore use the computer lab when playing chess. Costs me nothing, really.
Can you do the same with your school? 

Sixth, my brain is working just fine, thank you. I have invented more gambits -- just check the threads here! -- than you have. For example, 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 , the Zilbermints Gambit is played all over the world. The same applies to the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1.  There is also the Zilbermints Grob, 1 g4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 , which is played by Dutch players.  I trust I have made my point clear?

Finally, the way you write can be a bit confusing. This is why I have to ask for clarification in meaning. An example would be the ICCF  time controls, which I thought were strange  and drawn-out, to say the least. 10 moves/50 days? Like I said, pretty drawn-out and long. 

You say I lack courage? Hah! I would not be afraid to play Kramnik with the BDG! In fact, I saw a game played back in 1999.  Kramnik played Black in a simul, and chickened out with 4...e3 in the BDG. That game was drawn.

My objection is that my opponents would get assistance during the game. This is not possible in over-the-board tournament games, where I primarily play. I prefer man-to-man play, without any assistance, computer or human. This is Lev vs. MNb, not Lev vs. MNb
and the whole gamut of assistants. Mano-a-mano.

In OTB tournaments, openings get scrutinized, sure. But the point is that it is one opponent against another, without any outside help.
That is what I consider fair.

drkodos wrote on 03/17/08 at 16:41:17:


Oh, go suck on a grasshopper.

Wise grasshoppers must not argue with foolish grasshoppers.


Other grasshoppers will have trouble telling the difference.

DoubledPawns wrote on 03/16/08 at 23:01:07:


This is cheating, pure and simple.

MNb wrote on 03/16/08 at 20:26:06:


Firstly, I do not understand your first condition very well. Please elaborate in more detail regarding time controls. For a start, 60 days is okay, but 50 days /every 10 moves?? At this rate, it will take us months and months to play these games! Thus, if we reach move 20, it is going to be 100+  days for each player! Even the correspondence chess club Schemingmind.com does not use such time controls!

I think you need to refine the time controls some. While I do not see any Danish Gambit games going all the way to move 100, I do believe that the 50 days every 10 moves is too much and way too long.  Better, I think, would be 10 moves every 20 days.

Second, your telephone bill is none of my concern, as mine is none of yours. You are responsible for your own telephone bill. 

 Third, no problem, I will check all the Danish literature I have available.

So long, computer-using yellow gutless chicken!

Gambit wrote on 03/16/08 at 19:40:13:


All you need is to drop McFly name to complete your succesfull metamorphosis into the Bif Tannen of ChessPub.   

I like yellow:

Rice
Journalism
Curiousity
Babies

Gambit wrote on 03/15/08 at 17:59:11:

Maybe I have a problem counting, but I think after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 Black has accepted a pawn - and no returned. Of course is 5...d5 good against the Danish. So are 4...c6 and 5...c6 against the BDG. Chicken!

I agree that 5...d5 is a bit 'chicken', using Lev's definition!  I suppose there is the line 5...d5 6 Bxd5 Bb4+!?, accepting a one-pawn advantage (then I think 7 Nbd2 followed by 8 a3, an improvement suggested elsewhere on here over a John Watson analysis, gives decent compensation).

Surely a brave man would go for 5...Nc6 6 Nf3 Bb4+ or 6...d6, maintaining a two-pawn advantage for some compensation.   Again, I saw discussions on another thread (and associated analysis in Danish Dynamite) which suggests that objectively 6...Bb4+ might even give Black the edge with very precise play.

And yes, what about 4. Nxc3?  It seems that White can transpose straight to a Goring in most cases where Black has no easy way to give back the pawn for equality.

Talking of cowardice, it's amazing how many players answer 4 f3 with 4...e3.  A much better way of backing out would be to transpose to, say, the French or Caro-Kann.

I used to experiment with 4 Bg5 but I think Black has too many ways to return the pawn and reach equality in that line.  (In contrast to the Staunton Gambit, where 4 Bg5 is probably the better move).

Thus the standard move 4 f3 is probably best, with the idea 4...exf3 5 Nxf3 (not 5 Qxf3 Qxd4 6 Be3 Qg4 7 Qf2 e5 =+).  Objectively Black is at least equal, but in practice White's attack can be very dangerous IMO.

4. Resigns?  I always used to say people at a high level resigned too early lol!

alumbrado wrote on 03/14/08 at 14:21:34:


My thoughts exactly, but I voted for 4.f3 and the knight recapture, because it makes the best of a bad situation.

Why can't I vote for 4. g4! ? That would scare away all chicken lovers.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/08 at 03:14:59:


Something I already had figured out myself. So how is White going to play 6.0-0-0 as suggested in your poll? You don't win the Clarity Award here. As this option made the least sense to me, I voted for it.

MNb,

You cannot play 5 Be3 because your  Queen is blocking it.

I would claim that black cannot play dxe4 and would force him to play 1.d4 d6 2.e4 d5, because he touched his d-pawn. That way I'd definitely be better!

Same as MNb, but we differ in the sense that I am resolutely prepared to defend my right to resign by forceful means if necessary...

I would like to resign. If that is not allowed, I would play 4.Qd2, 5.Be3 and 6.0-0-0. This option reflects the level of this poll.