And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler? It is easy to be critical and destructive. What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes? How often do you revise the theories of World Champions successfully or have your work reviewed and approved by greats like Garry Kasparov? I have. Have you? How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I have published two. Have you published any?

Tunnel vision applies to posts like yours when you systematically ignore my posts on the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, the Berliner Variation and The Fried Liver. This is roughly half of all the major variations in the Two Knights' Defense and they all lead to either an advantage of +/- or +- a fact you conveniently ignore. One way to be a lousy teacher is to systematically ignore the contributions of your students. With you I am certain the students are better and wiser than their teacher.

It is complete nonsense to compare practical and theoretical results. In theory, the TKD is either a win for White, a win for Black, or a draw. There is nothing in between. Practical results are different i.e. we allow for small advantages or disadvantages in OTB or postal chess. What means "everything" is your inability to comprehend the difference between theoretical results and practical results.quote author=MNb link=1230634273/270#280 date=1234966771]sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18:

Sounds nice, but means nothing. 3...Nf6 +- means that you can prove a huge advantage, ie a forced win or close to it.

sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18:

And this means that White is by far not winning yet. So you are contradicting yourself.

sloughter wrote on 02/18/09 at 06:11:18:

And have you done your best?

MNb wrote on 02/18/09 at 01:35:56:


At some time I intend to dig up the interesting stuff on the Fritz-Ulvestadt and post it in another thread on the Two Knights.

Matemax wrote on 02/18/09 at 09:28:51:

1. Otherwise he can't prove a forced win. It's called tunnel-vision.
2. Because 95% garbage still means 2% useful stuff. Until recently I had not been aware of the 8.Nh3 idea and I do think that 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ is worth a try for White. Black may have enough for the pawn, but faces the problem of converting his compensation into something concrete. White at the other hand has to acticate his pieces, keep Black's initiative under control and may hope to convert his extra pawn. So I learned something, even though this does not justify 19 pages.

And, of course, being a teacher in an area that has suffered from a civil war 20-25 years ago, I am used to stubborn problem childs. So I keep on hoping that Sloughter may improve his analytical skills.
[/quote]

Good question Matemax,

But as you can see at the top of this post,
I directed my post at MNB, and the post before that at
Kramnikaze.
I too have grown tired of this thread, and stopped applying to Sloughters good sense.

There are some interesting variations in this thread, but by now they
are hard to find, as they have been burried beneath a mountain of 
inconsequential posts.

@MNB:
Quote:


8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7
12.cxd4 Be7!   (why does sloughter always give the worst moves for Black?)
13.Nbc3 O-O  (13.0-0,0-0 14.Nbc3 transposes)
14.O-O Rad8  (14.....Rfd8 15.Be3,Nxc3 is OK for Black as well: Narciso-Kuzmin, 1997)
15.Nxd5         (15.Be3,Nxc3 16.Nxc3,Nxd4 or 16.bxc3,f5=;15.Re1,Nxc3 16.bxc3,c5=)
15......., Qxd5
16.Nc3 , Qxd4
17.Be3,  Qe5  (17....Qh4= Richter-Schulz, corr.,1996)
18.Qa4,  Bc5=  (Bohak-Norevall, corr., 1967)

First of all a slight plus is something else than a refutation. You began this thread with 4.Ng5 +-; after 8.Nh3 Ne6 you have toned down to +=. So you make progress. But I even dispute that += after 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.0-0 Bd6 12.d3 0-0 as White's pieces are awkwardly placed, pawn d3 is weak and Black has a firm grip on the centre. Still this line is a typical example of more tests are needed plus don't trust silicon evaluation.
Concerning 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 you have forgotten two important lessons once again:
1) do some research first. You could have found Ciocaltea-Minev, Zonal Tournament Prague 1954. Black had an easy draw.
2) when you have found a line leading to an advantage for White, start looking for improvements for Black. You should have questioned 15...f5? which is a pointless move.

Quote:

Very right. Now just apply this to your own posts (15...f5?) and we are getting somewhere.

Quote:

Very wrong. It is up to every serious analyst to search for look for equalizing options. Only if you have exhausted them you are ready to conclude += (and we are not talking +- anymore).

Finally if you really had done your research well you would have known that "Alburt's idea" 8.Nh3 first was played in Klages-Rhodin, Solingen 1964, so ten years before your Russo-American GM showed up.

sloughter wrote on 02/17/09 at 12:27:31:


As far as I am concerned this is nonsense. If you had read my posts better you would have known that I was not able to respond for two weeks, as my computers were in repair. So in a previous post I asked and I ask again: what was your latest (non-)refutation of 8.Ne4 Ne6 again? Moreover I gave an antidote to 8.Nh3 namely Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Qa4 Bxb5 11.Qxb5+ Qd7 12.Qxd7 Kxd7 with sufficient compensation.

Good-natured as I am I assume you are a bad reader. Other conclusions are less nice. Answer these two points and you will be sure to get a reaction again.

On 18 or 19 pages I have seen no single reason yet to change my opinion on the Fritz-Ulvestad: equal. Not only has your analysis (the stuff contributed to GM Alburt was better) been proven feeble, your evaluations were quite bad as well. And I will keep on shouting all this as loud as you please.

As I indicated in a previous post, sometimes my intuition takes months to kick in, so that I don't make the same mistakes I made in the opening. It will take a very long time to find White's best move in this position.MUBAs Opponent wrote on 02/16/09 at 21:21:33:

I've lost track as well and I want Sloughter and Arkhein to get back to their game!  



White to move....

...Rb8 was my first reaction but looking at it I came to prefer ...Be7.
...Rb8 looks more active when actually, quickest castling is.

Ok, both moves may be adequate;
but I'll sleep well until something serious comes up against ...Be7.

Hey, I said something serious.