For what it's worth, sloughter, that last line, as well as e.g. 9...cd 10. Nxd4 Nxe3, provides plenty of punishment.

     I do thank you for your concern for my mental health---it is much appreciated! By the way, your observations apply to your posts! But, for some reason, I too, thought this was a post on the KING'S INDIAN, not a slam Sloughter post. If you insist on feeding me high inside fast balls, I will continue to drive them out of the ballpark!

     Here is my feeble attempt at my initial exposure to the King's Indian. Based on my principles of development, I thought that the Saemisch (6.f3) was a great opening but it allows 6...c5! giving Black excellent opportunities to equalize. So White must improve on 6.f3. Since 6...c5 is a threat, why not play the following move order? 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 O-O 6.b4!? This is an anti-Bishop strategy and an attempt to discourage c5 i.e. White intends to play against both Black Bishops. After 5 minutes of computation, Fritz 8 coughed up 6...Nfd7?! I intended to meet this with 7.a4. For its spatial deficit, Black doesn't appear to have much in the way of an imposing lead in development. Perhaps someone can find a way to meet White's simple threat, Ra2/Rd2/Bb2. Of course Black can continue his "attack" with 7.a4 Nb6 hitting the c4 pawn (Recommended by Fritz 8). After 8.Qd3 can anyone see a tactical refutation of the White position? I do see a lot of controlled space.

     The concept of controlled space is epitomized by Anatoly Karpov---that is why he likes the Saemisch. His theories are so poorly understood that GM Seirawan made the following statement, "Karpov is the most confounding player I have ever known. Take a look at this position. All of White's pieces are on their first two ranks, but it is Black who has the problems!" What Karpov understands is that controlled space is disguised time i.e controlled space is time. When a player has more maneuvering room, he/she can rearrange their pieces more effectively compared to their opponent, hence they wind up with superior piece placement i.e. desirable development. This is how Karpov wins games. He grabs controlled space, rearranges his pieces, pushes a pawn, grabs more controlled space, eventually pushing his opponents off the edge of the board.

If Black doesn't react quickly here, he too, in this position, has to fight for space. The question is how to do this. Perhaps the reader can suggest a way. Somehow, I can't believe that Fritz's suggestion of Nfd7/Nb6 has much going for it. I could be wrong.

After an hour's computation, Fritz finds 6...c5! In my opinion, this is the only move to give White problems. Since the whole point of 6.b4 is to discourage c5, this concept may have theoretical significance. First of all both captures give Black the advantage i.e. 7.dxc5 dxc5 & it is a bad idea to play 8.Qxd8 because it pulls the Rook to the desirable square d8. The other capture, bxc5 gives White nothing. Lacking imagination, I asked Fritz what to do. It suggested 7.a3! simply anchoring the pawn on b4. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to play either 7...cxb4 or 7...cxd4. On the obvious 7...Nc6, White can play 8.Be3 Ng4 9.g3 Nxe3 10.fxe3 cxb4 11.axb4 Nxb4 12.Ra4 Nc6
13.Bg2 with compensation.

In summary, if White can "get away" with 6.b4 and not be punished quickly, how does Black make up his spatial deficit with tactics?drkodos wrote on 01/14/09 at 14:00:49:

mnb:  You have a serious flaw in your analysis.  Lucky I am here with Colossus & ENIAC to help.  

Where is the inclusion of the law of entropy?

If you look closely at enough games, you will see all positions degrade over time.  Given enough time, all the pieces could even disappear, with possible exception of Kings, because of the law of chess.

Thus, the obvious conclusion is the cycle of repeated Big Bang events must be true!  How else would the entropy of all games be reversed so as to have the pieces back to their starting sqaures?





I smell Nobel prize.

Signed,

Rupert Pupkin

@Fluffy
The refutation of the Sveshnikov is a no brainer. The way I understand development 1...c5 loses two tempi, one because it does not develop and one because Black has to move this pawn again making scope for Bf8. After following GM Shamkovich' advise and studying Morphy's games I understand how White must take benefit: with speedy development. Then White must organise an attack against f7.

1.e4
-wins by force; alas I haven't spend attention to the Caro-Kann yet, but there is no doubt in my mind that my method of trial and error will succeed in finding a refutation here as well. It is just a matter of time.

1...c5
-as explained, this loses two tempi. Moreover it seriously weakens square c7. White's strategy must be threatening this weakness and then suddenly switch pieces to the other side of the board. That must be decisive.

2.Nf3 Nc6
-protects square e5, the ultimate key to Black's defence.

3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
-not so much to attack pawn e4, but to prevent White's potentially deadly attack against c7 via d5. White's strategy already bears fruits. Now White has to change his strategical goal.

5.Nc3 e5
-the consequence of Black's second move, so there is no need to look at other options. Note the similarity of the pawn structure with the Dutch Stonewall. There the attack on the queen's wing is mandatory, so here the kingside ultimately will decide.

6.Nf3
-This is not a retreat, it is the introduction to a grand scale attack.

6...Bb4
-more protection of the weakness on c7; Nc3-b5 is prevented.

7.Qe2
-the strenght of this concept is discovered by R.Moody, who uses it to refute the Petrov.

7...Bxc3+
-or White might castle and revive the threats against c7.

8.bxc3 a6
-following Sveshnikov's concept of the extended fianchetto is the only consequent plan for Black.

9.a4 b6
-because of White's last move Black prefers the small fianchetto instead.

10.Qc4!
-limits Black's development of the Queen's Bishop to one square, as 10...d6 loses a piece.

10...Bb7 11.Ng5 h6
-White's dominating knight cannot be tolerated.

12.Qxf7
mate.

Anand certainly will abandon the Sveshnikov as I have send him this straightforward winning line. It shows the poor sportmanship of all GM's that he hasn't given me the credit I deserve. Those who do not fully grasp the strategical intricacies must wait until my book is published. It's titled The meaning of Newton's Third Law for Modern Chess Theory. My revolutionary theory is based on a simple empirically verified fact: White acts, Black reacts. I am still contemplating if I must include a chapter on Hegel's Dialectics applied to Chess or present my ideas in a seperate volume. The conclusion is a no-brainer: the goal of history is to play the ultimate chess game. How this game will go is unknown yet, but we can have an idea by applying Newton's Third Law.

In their review of my book Magic, here is what Chess4less had to say, "If you are looking for a book with the patina of professionalism, this is not the book for you. If you are looking for 260 pages of new ideas this is the book for you. With over 300 diagrams, you can read it in a car, on a train, plane or subway and learn more theoretical novelites while you relax without needing a board or a computer. In terms of shear quantity, this book has more major TN's than any book we have seen in the past several years." Is this what you mean by snake oil? I do thank my critics for their shameless attempts to serve as shills for my book!sloughter wrote on 01/14/09 at 13:14:05:

sloughter wrote on 01/14/09 at 13:14:05:


Clearly you have not yet been recognized for your great wisdom. Take heart, my friend, many of the great prophets were insulted and even killed. Sometimes feeble man cannot acknowledge great seers. Fear, not, I am sure history will vindicate you. In the next century, we will all be quoting from the great Sloughter.

sorry, but a 1600 player claiming the KID is "refuted" is not going to carry much weight. he gets way too much attention banging on his drum. sorry dude, you just don't understand chess well enough. this would be like me trying to tell Anand that the Sveshnikov is refuted. uh huh.

     Shamkovich slammed me with incredibly bad analysis and evalutation (anyone know the analysis in Chess Life?; it is published maybe 15 years ago?) Why did he slam me? Because he overcharged me by doing analysis in the Marshall Gambit I neither requested nor wanted. When I refused to pay him, he decided to get even in print. Chess Life never gave me the opportunity to provide a rebuttal as far as the analysis and evaluation are concerned. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to Shamkovich's ridiculous analysis and evaluation!

     If memory serves, it was something like this. I played the innovation f4 in the Center Counter with the idea of restraining e5. If Black played e6, one of the lines quoted by Shamkovich, the Black Queen Bishop was hemmed in. When Black castled he was simply in a losing middlegame a pawn down with no compensation. Shamkovich came from the school of chess that the initiative, no matter how fleeting, was worth a pawn. We learned long ago that a pawn is worth a little trouble. Steintitz could have beaten Shamkovich 8 games out of ten with the White position. Shamkovich's evaluations in the critical positions are laughable they are so bad.
     His analysis of the subject postion was amateurish. At a critical juncture, he had White playing the incredibly weak Nf3 and then "proved" Black's attack would win. The correct move was to meet a hit on f2 after the impending Bc5 with Nc3 so that after Bc5, white has the resource Ne4, hitting the Bishop on c5 and protecting the f2 square (A Black Knight was on g4). Shamkovich missed this obvious and forced reply.
     Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to Shamkovich's agenda driven, ridiculous and amateurish analysis and evaluation after 15 years! Perhaps if the reader had known the back story that Shamkovich "had an axe to grind", the writer would be advised to know our history.
     By the way. What is your agenda? You seem awfully determined to discredit me. Why?ghenghisclown wrote on 01/14/09 at 10:06:39: