1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6 Bd7 11. Qa6 Qc7 12.Nc3 h6 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Qe2 e4 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.Ndb5 Qc6 17.0-0 Bg4 18.Qe1 Rfe8 19.h3 Bd7 20.b4 Bb6 21.Qe2 Re5 22.d4 Rxb5 23.Nxb5 Qxb5 24.c4 Qxb4 25.a3 Qa4 26.Be3 Qa6 I don't care about your dreams of refuting the main line of the 2 knights, because it will never be true. So I am just finishing the deal I had with you:
sloughter said the 5 february:
Quote: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.
When the game will be finished I will stop to lose my time and energy with you here, and everyone is bored about that false theoretical battle.
Just a word about 12.Qe2, I could indeed play 12..Qxc2 but I see nothing wrong with 12..h6 again, and if 13.Nf3, 13..e4 again and if 14.Nd4, 14..0-0 where 15.Nc3 Bc5 would transpose into our game, and it's not clear that you have better alternative in that sub-line. But as I told you know, I will only play in our game.