You are crazy...Would you play our actual game and give me 100 dollars or more if I win the game, and if I would do the same if you win? Just to know. You know, I am needing cash at the moment so it would become interesting to me to lose my time for crashing you in 5 other games.

You have been gracious as an opponent some of the time, so I would like to issue the following challenge to the post members: The chronic complaint seems to be that my ideas are just opinions, even though they are tested routinely at tournament time limits against an opponent rated 2800 in complex middlegames.

If you can win or draw in any of the variations which I have as +/-, +/- or +- in the page of analysis, I will send you a $10 gift certificate plus paying S & H for the purchase of the chess item of your choice. The only catch is this, you and my present opponent must play this game on line for the whole world to see. Only one try for a win or draw and each variation will be tested only once. If the line is clearly a bust i.e. an obvious win or draw for Black, it will not be tested again. If it is ambiguous, I reserve the right, as the exhibitor, to try a second time. Only 10 opponents at a time; I will set up a waiting list for those who wish to give it a  shot. Play in consultation, with as many computers as you like, and take all the time you like.

I am willing to put my "money where my mouth is" Are you? I notice a whole lot of frustration in the fact that I have not been crushed easily in the subject game. So far, the c-pawn lives.

Now for the game: 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 (Not Rfb8) 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2ArKheiN wrote on 02/09/09 at 07:56:07:

sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 02:02:50:


When White has to play moves like 20.b4 to avoid getting mated and Rybka prefers Black in spite of the material deficit, White's position really smacks of desperation. It will take a first-class swindle for White to get out of the mess he has created.

Anyway, the upcoming mate on h2 is a fitting end.

8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.O-O Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4ArKheiN wrote on 02/08/09 at 22:09:18:

sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 18:07:30:

It's ironic that you should say that, because the point of my post was to try to get you to realise that your "When you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law" waffle was "clever" repartee with no substance.

You want me to cite an example of your faulty analysis. The problem is that analysis is subjective. (Just for example) if you say "1. a4 is good" and I say "No, it's bad because I can play 1... a5 and that's good for Black", you can still disagree with my evaluation of the position. The only worthwhile evaluation of analysis is the test of time: go away and play it in games, get it noticed by other people, and hope that eventually it will be played enough for the statistics to give you at least a rough idea of how good it is.

Because it's inevitable that analysis produced by one person is biased by their own preferences. At every move you have decisions to make, and if you're analysing, you have to make decisions for both sides. Even if the Two Knights is unsound, proving it is too big a task for one person. In order for your analysis to be convincing, you'd have to find the best moves for Black at every juncture, and prove they were best -- which means considering alternatives in equal depth. And the problem is that -- often subconsciously -- you reject better moves because they look or feel worse to you. This isn't a criticism of you; it's true of all players. (Indeed, the Two Knights provides my own favourite example. After 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 the best move 6. Bf1 is almost impossible to "see" unless you know about it beforehand, which is why 5... b5 was a favourite weapon of mine in the days when I used to play OTB chess regularly.)

But equally, the opposite task, the task you're asking me to do, the task of proving that Black can equalise against White's best play, is too big a task for one person, because I would have to find White's best move at every juncture, and I'm not a good enough player or analyst to think I could achieve that. So I'm not going to flap my arms just to give you the pleasure of watching me make mistakes. Instead, I'll sit back and watch you make mistakes, which you will do if you keep on insisting you can prove the assertions you're making.

Anyway, I don't really care if you refute the Two Knights, and why should I? I'm still going to play it and I'm still going to win with it. And lose, sometimes, but then I win some and lose some with any opening. I don't know what the result would be if I were to play the Two Knights against you, but that's because I don't know what your overall strength as a player compared to mine is. (I'm very interested in watching your game against Arkhein, though. I still think you're missing the main point of the game, which is not to refute one subvariation of a subvariation, but to bring home the lesson that you attach too much importance to material advantage, and therefore the lines where you bring the analysis to a halt and say "White is simply better" may bear further study.)

Most of your analysis just doesn't work, even in your entire page. But I understand that many of us here doesn't want to lose their time proving what they already know: Black is ok after 5..Na5. I am kind enough to show you in 2-3 variations, but I hope it will be the last attempt with our game, because it was the deal.

8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 O-O 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nbd5 Qc6 16.O-O Bg4 17.Qe1 Rhe8 18.h3 Bd7

No one here have ever said that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 was sound. No, everyone knows from many years that the Fagatello (Fried liver) 6.Nxf7 is strong and the Lolli attack (6.d4!) even stronger. So, yes, 5..Nxd5 may be refuted, but you are not the refutator, and nobody would defend that line for Black seriously. About the Traxler, it's a very complex and sharp line but everyone feel that the sacrifice may be refuted with best play by White. Ok you gave a novelty against the Traxler for White, that's one of the only good variations you gave in 13 pages.  The Traxler may be a good practical choice but that's not what we could call a sound  and reliable defense playable at every level, that, we know for a long time, we didn't need you to know that. About the Berliner variation (with 8..Qh4), I know that good improvments have been find since the game Estrin-Berliner, so, here too you didn't came with a suprise for us. The true surprise is when you come here and say "8..Ne6 is refuted, 5..Na5 is refuted". If you manage to refute 5..Na5 you manage to half of the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 chessworld. No you won't manage to do that.