Also:  Sloughter, see a neurologist.

25 years being taught by Lev Alburt.  1700 rating.
Some may query whether that was money well spent. Could have had a few holidays in the sun. Eaten more heartily. Moved out of home.

Let the readers decide who looks ridiculous? You leave yourself rather open there I fear.

Best thing to do - get your rating up, get a few quick norms, get the titles. Then people may find it easier to respect whatever may be on offer. Until that time appearances may suggest a deluded duffer, alas. 

I suspect many of the above-named departed these shores as there is only so much fun one can have kicking a puppy. 

That's funny; I have spent 25 years being taught by probably the finest chess teacher in America, GM Lev Alburt. I just don't like being 'taught' by beginners.

Let me address the following post members who abandoned the post with what they thought was one final insult. Just like America who abandoned Vietnam and declared themselves the victor, they have abandoned this post and declared themselves the victors. Have you noticed how the focus has been on analysis not generalities now that the following post members have left---drkodos, micawber, markovich, nelson, Hgman, Antillian, MnB and schaakhamster. In particular, drkodos and schaakhamster left with an ad hominem attack and used an emoticom that strongly resembles jackasses braying. How appropriate!TN wrote on 02/06/09 at 09:34:27:

If those students fail a regents exam at the end of their studies it doesn't matter if they studied hard, got good grades in their homework and then consistently failed the regents exams; any teacher, now matter how good or bad, will be fired. Any teacher who "disciplines" their students for obnoxious behavior is apt to be fired. A teacher who gives good grades to their students just to encourage them, and then is royally disappointed when they fail when it really matters, will be fired. Any teacher who uses innovative teaching techniques and rocks the boat will be fired.

The basic assumption that you have made is that the starting material was of sufficiently high quality that they deserved to get good grades at the end of the semester just for working hard. If these were chess students who did their homework (read chess books), studied opening, middlegame and endgame theory religiously, practiced often and for long periods of time, and then went to local high school tournaments and lost every game, that chess teacher would be fired, too. 

When a "student" decides to 'give their teacher a lesson' by trying to humiliate them in public, it would not surprise me if that teacher, who responded in self defense, would be fired, too.TN wrote on 02/06/09 at 05:31:49:

He will not learn. 

Dear Mr. Arkheim,

In an earlier post, you indicated that you wanted to "learn everything I can from you" 

Then you stated, "So let's continue 'JUST FOR FUN'" (emphasis added). Then you stated, "and there Sloughter 'resigned'" (That was certainly news to me

Then you stated, "I hope you understand something new now." (Yes---never trust a stranger bearing gifts)

Well, Mr. Arkheim, if you want to learn from me, I guess that makes me Yoda and you are my trusty apprentice Luke Skywalker. In a student/teacher relationship, it is the job of the teacher to give a performance rating for his/her students on a regular basis e.g. a report card. Here is your first (and I hope your last!) report card. In terms of attendance, you get an "A" for showing up on the posts on a regular basis. For alacrity (cheerful readiness) "A", for effort, "A" for physical education (mental gymnastics) "A" for imagination "A" (It was a great scheme to make me look "bad"). 

Now for the critical grade, Mr. Arkheim, listen closely; I am only going to tell you this once: If you do not resign your theoretical position in the following move sequence immediately: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7??, then you get an "F" as a theoretician.

I'm am truly sorry that I inadvertently set you up when I listed the candidate moves. When I came up with candidate moves for this position in the span of about a minute (I did forget 8...h6), I made the fatal assumption that Black had compensation for two pawns in the 8...Be7 line, just like the 8...Rb8 lines. The two lines are as different as night and day. The only similarity is that Black is down two pawns in both variations; aside from that there are no similarities.

When White failed to get enough of an advantage with Bd3, Be2, or Bf1, I knew there was a gross error somewhere; White should be winning here. Then I challenged my original assumption: That the 8...Be7 line was "similar" to the 8...Rb8 line---a fatal assumption.Then the solution was obvious.

9.Bxc6ch! (of course in hindsight) Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 (The first major difference between this and the Rb8 variation. In that variation, the check is met with 10...Nd7. In this position, this hangs the exchange 10...Nd7?? 11.Nxf7! Kxf7 12.Qd5ch/Qxa8+- so Black is forced to play the inferior 10...Bd7 (Perhaps you would like me analyze the position after 10...Qd7 11.Qxa8)

Here are the seven moves that it takes to cook 8...Be7: 1.Bxc6ch, 2.Qxc6ch, 3.Qa6 4.Qe2, 5.Nc3, 6.d3, 7.O-O The order depends on what responses Black makes. This position is +- Why? Because White has a four to one pawn majority on the Queenside, a protected passed pawn and Black has no compensation for either one.

No competent theoretician would bother to analyze the position from this point onward. If you wish to pursue this farce beyond this point, then you will get a grade of "F" for competence as a theoretician.ArKheiN wrote on 02/05/09 at 14:15:02:

sloughter wrote on 02/05/09 at 12:57:52:


ArKhein did not tell you that you have lost a theoretical battle. Neither did Markovich or I. What we did tell you and you still refuse to accept are three points.

1. The goal of a theoretical battle is not to win or lose, but to get a better understanding of the opening that is discussed. In fact about all theoretical battles here end inconclusive; we don't know, we need practical tests, we disagree on the final evaluations etcetera.
2. Computers are helpful, but cannot replace human evaluations. ArKhein is not a 2500 GM but still evaluates certain positions better than the strongest computer.
3. When entering a battle you'd better be well prepared. You wrote that you know Estrin's book. Still you "refute" that Ulvestad-Fritz line with Bxb5+ by giving an irrelevant move for Black. I'll help you once again: after Bxb5+ Bd7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 0-0 Black should not play ...Nf4. If you had cared to look it up in Estrin or even in this thread (my game on page 1 or 2) you would have known it.

Look, your rating does not matter that much on this site. Mine is not that much higher than yours. But you can vastly improve your analytical methods. Believe me, then you will taken seriously even by the strongest contributors here. This improvement should begin with: 1) study available literature; 2) if you have found a line leading to a white advantage begin looking for better moves for black.
Anyone can do that, unregarding strength. It's only a matter of a systemetical approach.

Dear Arkheim and Uruk,

Both of you set an interesting trap i.e. if you could cook one or more of my lines of analysis that your job is done; you "beat" me. As indicated in a previous post, I rely on trial and error to determine best play for both sides. I have been relying on this type of analysis under the supervision of GM Lev Alburt for 25 years. Now I am being told that I've lost the theoretical battle. Ok, Arkeim and Uruk, let's play a "game" for real; you get just one try to draw or win with Black's miserable position after 8...Be7? 9.Bxc6ch!, to justify the blunder 8...Be7. I get just one try to checkmate each of you in your separate games or, perhaps, a consultation game between the two of you.

The position on the board is 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch. Your move. link=1230634273/120#130 date=1233835129]Sure we're doing analysis and it is no shame to go back at will.
But given that your analysis has not hold up until now, your bold claims at refutation are annoying.

The bolder the claim, the more justified it has to be.
If I said I found a counterexample to the laws of gravity, my proof had better be solid.
Otherwise you would say I just want some publicity.

I'd be happy to test your 9.Bc6:+ (just next week), but give up on the "I know White is winning".
It is not worth anything until you have gained some respect for your analytical skills. [/quote]