From my book, "We receive a steady stream of letters proposing rules changes, more than on any other subject. This one we almost dismissed right away until we saw the writer's name---when the idea comes from someone with a proven history of thinking of chess in a fresh way, it must be taken seriously. (Moody already came up with a new third move in the ancient King's Gambit, a move that Kasparov called, "Perfectly playable." Editor: Chess Life.
It is so nice of you to restrict yourself to just one or two subvariations of subvariations and promptly declare the analysis I present in other variations are not as important. Why don't you read the literature of the Wilkes Barre (I am aware of four books devoted exclusively to the Wilkes Barre)?
My move sequence 5.Bxf7ch/6.Bd5/7/Bxc6/8.Nf3 replaces all the theory and practical play in this opening because my move order is A) Best play by both sides, and B) Leads to an effortless White advantage. I defeated Fritz 8 in this opening. How many extremely complicated middlegames have you defeated Fritz?
White has to know no theory in the Wilkes Barre, one of the most complicated and meticulously analyzed openings in all of chess (Just read Williams' The Real American Wilkes Barre and count all the variations where he analyzes the "openings" well beyond move 20). My analysis replaces that entire book, the book by Estrin and the book by Cramer. NM Dan Heisman also wrote a book on the Wilkes Barre after analyzing it for two years. Since he published it as a full length book, I must assume he missed the highly favorable continuation given above.
Your obsession is pointless with respect to subvariations of subvariations as if the only lines anyone is going to play are your pet lines.
Dream on if you think your analytical skills are better than mine. It takes me years to "cook" various openings; in the interm, I just "try" various move orders and ideas until I find the correct ones. Why don't you read the earlier posts I published on this very topic? It will take me a few months working on the lines you give to cook them.
How many critically acclaimed books have you written? I was told by GM Andy Soltis in print how good my analysis was in the Evans Gambit. How many GM's have you got to validate your analysis?
My analysis is routined approved by GM Lev Alburt. Here is what he said about my book, "Magic", "I have been consulting Richard Moody on various chess openings for about 25 years. Today, Richard is an unrelenting opening researcher, well schooled in using all tools of the trade---books, data bases, Fritz. His book is another proof that one doesn't have to be a Master to make important discoveries. And making your own opening theory is one of the surest paths to success in chess." Lev Alburt (chess Grandmaster Three times U.S. Champion)
Chess4less indicated that my book had, "more major innovations than any book they have seen in the past several years"
My analysis in the King's Gambit has been vetted by World Champion Garry Kasparov. How much of your analysis has been approved by a World Champion? I have published over 20 articles including in the Canadian Magazine Check!, Rank and File Magazine (for which I was paid for my analysis), Empire Chess, Chess Life and Inside Chess
The overwhelming majority of the ideas presented in the 8.Nh3 variation are mine that were validated by GM Alburt. I notice how you warmed up to the quality of the analysis there. Were you aware at the time that most of the innovations and evaluations in this variation are mine?
MNb wrote on 02/19/09 at 11:04:52:
sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43:
And I suppose with your "great" analytical skills you have cooked something comparable to the Berliner Variation or the Wilkes-Barre Traxler?
My analytical skills are poor as well, but still better than yours. Please reread this thread and count how many times I refuted your lines. The fact that after 18 pages you finally showed up with something decent (8.Nh3 etc.) does not give you the right to have a big mouth, exactly because you needed 18 pages.
sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43:
It is easy to be critical and destructive.
It's even easier to consequently justify +- with bad moves by Black.
sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43:
What have you done in your analytical work that compares to my successes?
Which successes? You mean your refuted claim of 3...Nf6 +- in your initial post? You mean proving |+- in lines like the Berliner and the Traxler, which have been evaluated +- decades ago by eg Estrin?
sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43:
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?
Never and neither have you. You are not able to give references, where Kasparov recognizes your successes (whatever you mean with this).
sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43:
How many critically acclaimed books have you written?
As many as you: zero. That's because I know my chess books (yes, I have written a few) are not fit for publication, a knowledge you lack.
sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 04:26:43:
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.
Definite proof of your feeble logic. On the very first page I have explained why I restrict myself to the Fritz-Ulvestadt. Like Schaakhamster explained, my verdict on the 2-K does not depend on the three variations you mentioned here.
Looks like Matemax is right after all.
Pages: 
refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? (Read 219316 times)
