(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › 2 Knights › refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
(Moderators: trw, Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? (Read 219290 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #341 - 02/23/09 at 13:21:43
Post Tools
TN wrote on 02/23/09 at 07:15:05:
Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 +=

Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them.  I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight.

Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round?  Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program.  

Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?


Are you serious or are you joking? 



He's joking.  Pretty funny, too.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #340 - 02/23/09 at 11:12:17
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04:
Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them.


Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #339 - 02/23/09 at 11:02:26
Post Tools


  
"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #338 - 02/23/09 at 07:15:05
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 +=

Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them.  I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight.

Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round?  Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program.  

Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?


Are you serious or are you joking? 

  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2342
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #337 - 02/23/09 at 05:24:31
Post Tools
Is he related to Derek Griffiths of Playaway and Playschool fame? 
Never saw him on any form of public transport though. Probably a cyclist.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IM Christoph Wisnewski
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 195
Location: Kiel
Joined: 04/03/05
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #336 - 02/23/09 at 05:21:33
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:19:18:
Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04:


Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?


I once sat next to Bob Hoskins on a bus in Clapham.


And I met the man who met Andy Griffith...
  
"Chess you don't learn, chess you understand!" (V. Korchnoi)
Back to top
WWWICQ  
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2342
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #335 - 02/23/09 at 05:19:18
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 02/23/09 at 05:04:04:


Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?


I once sat next to Bob Hoskins on a bus in Clapham.

Friendly fellow. Asked him whether Fridays were still long and good. 'Occasionally'.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Roger Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 114
Joined: 09/26/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #334 - 02/23/09 at 05:04:04
Post Tools
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Qd1 Qd8 +=

Black has been wasting time, as I understand it, and White has suffered developmental problems, as I define them.  I would elucidate, but I don't have a chess set at home, so I'll let fritz 8 mull it overnight.

Think you're stronger than fritz 8, TN? You might know how the pieces move, but the corollary is that you don't understand the game. Or is it the other way round?  Either way, I am a true polymath for daring to synergize both mind and chess program.  

Not good enough for you? I once shared a taxi with Nigel Short. How many of you can say that?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #333 - 02/23/09 at 04:52:49
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:38:45:
MNb wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:20:05:
Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26:
dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26:
TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25:
http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html

It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect.

It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews".


Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic.  Perhaps, dfan, you could read it.


As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable.


Oh dear. Oh dearie me. That is unfortunate if that could have been a serious review. 
Mind you, I have assumed that much of what is written here is tongue-in-cheek by people attempting a wind-up. Only for it to become apparent that the query was disturbingly genuine. 
'Has anyone read Reader's Digest?' my favourite, still tickles me a tad.


It is highly amusing to me that the subject of discussion has changed from an author who doesn't know what he's talking about to a reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 yet sloughter? Your 'book' claims that 3.Qe2 wins, but simply 3...Qe7 looks quite strong.
  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #332 - 02/23/09 at 02:06:32
Post Tools
Uruk wrote on 02/09/09 at 16:16:24:
sloughter wrote on 02/09/09 at 11:41:36:

8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qa6 O-O 12.Qe2


Not that it has any significance until you beat Arkhein's 11...Qc7, but I'd play 12...Ng4 for the fun of it.

13.Ne4 Rc8.
This still has some theoretical value because it could arise by Qf3-e2 instead of Qa6-e2.


Comes from page 15.
Sorry, didn't bother to mention a third route Qc4-e2.
Not exactly a new idea from our hero...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2342
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #331 - 02/23/09 at 01:38:45
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/23/09 at 01:20:05:
Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26:
dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26:
TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25:
http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html

It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect.

It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews".


Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic.  Perhaps, dfan, you could read it.


As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable.


Oh dear. Oh dearie me. That is unfortunate if that could have been a serious review. 
Mind you, I have assumed that much of what is written here is tongue-in-cheek by people attempting a wind-up. Only for it to become apparent that the query was disturbingly genuine. 
'Has anyone read Reader's Digest?' my favourite, still tickles me a tad.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #330 - 02/23/09 at 01:20:05
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 02/22/09 at 22:36:26:
dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26:
TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25:
http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html

It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect.

It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews".


Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic.  Perhaps, dfan, you could read it.


As a compatriot I can assure that Elburg's review is completely serious; the sarcasm is entirely Bibs' interpretation. That is very understandable.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #329 - 02/23/09 at 00:05:39
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26:
TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25:
http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html

It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect.

It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews".



The other linked review is a bone crusher, theory breaker, deal killer.


The book is a joke and the author should be criminalized for the killing of trees to produce a 90 grade sandpapery toilet tissue.

The people here egging him on to provide further proof of his insanity puzzle me.


Telling him he his an ardent student of chess is a mistake and so is any praise of his feeble efforts.  

An intervention should be done instead.

If someone spends so much time on something and cannot grasp even the points that 10 year-old beginners are able to gain they should be honesty told, ESPECIALLY BY THEIR INSTRUCTORS, that they may have a learning disability and they should seek some type of professional help to address the underlying issues they have as a human being instead allowing them to continue to waste other people's time, efforts and resources.


If someone cares about sloughter they should assist him in getting him the real help he needs, and not just a better chess coach.
  
I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #328 - 02/22/09 at 23:01:00
Post Tools
A rare exception: he didn't like Italian Game and Evans Gambit by Jan Pinski:
http://chessbooks.nl/elburg91.html
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2342
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #327 - 02/22/09 at 22:36:26
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 02/22/09 at 20:39:26:
TN wrote on 02/21/09 at 00:20:25:
http://chessbooks.nl/elburg123.html

It is amusing to read how the author sarcastically praises your book. Note that every single product in that link has been given a very positive review by him, e.g. he claims that 'Play 1.b4' is a very important reference work and that 'Chess for Scoundreds' is a must for every chess player, both of which are incorrect.

It's not sarcastic; as you noticed, Elburg praises every book he "reviews".


Yes he does. He is atrocious - pointless reviews. But clearly he really struggled to find anything good to say about this one - the review is obviously sarcastic.  Perhaps, dfan, you could read it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge