(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: Smyslov_Fan, trw, Jupp53)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 27
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? (Read 219249 times)
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 #356 - 02/24/09 at 00:43:51
Post Tools
This thread has caused the majority of posters to lose faith in their own perception of reality.  TN, Markovich, Uruk and myself can no longer discern whether someone is being sarcastic or enthusiastic, facetious or facile, serious or silly.  Sloughter has, effectively, destroyed reality itself.

Kodos continues to cling desperately to the last vestiges of his sanity, but the only thing I can be sure of any more is that I will never, ever purchase a book by Lev Alburt. 

In fact, e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Qe2 Qe7 Nc3 Nc6 Qd1 Qd8 is now looking so interesting to me that I intend to publish my analysis of the 'Cuban Missile Crisis' variation in pamphlet form.  'With apocalyptic violence overdue, both White and Black agree to climb down in the face of armageddon.  However, whilst Black is genuine in his desire to avoid mutual d-pawn advances, White merely feigns the permanent removal of his Queen from its optimum launch site, returning it the next move with 6. Qe2!' Bazam! neeeeeeeyowwww, ack-ack-ack, vroom vroom, gibber gibber
  
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 #355 - 02/24/09 at 00:03:54
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:17:27:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 dxe4 6.exf6 exf3 7.fxe7 exf2 8.exf8ch +-


I see, he's been kidding all along  Roll Eyes
Or could it be...
  
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 #354 - 02/23/09 at 20:36:01
Post Tools
And slaughter, learn how to post.  

Stop wasting so much space with those asinine lengthy quotes in which you do not even properly use that function.

Even a seven year old can hit the button and type in the space it provides, but somehow you over complicate even that, and in so doing, make your ridiculous points even more clunky, unwieldy and just plain nasty to look at.



Form Follows Function, slaughter.

Ask Lev.  I am sure he can explain it to you for the low-low cost of a chess lesson by phone.
  
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
 
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 #353 - 02/23/09 at 20:31:59
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:17:27:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 dxe4 6.exf6 exf3 7.fxe7 exf2 8.exf8ch +-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?



1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.de5 Ne4 is equal for Black.
  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
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 #352 - 02/23/09 at 20:20:48
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/23/09 at 19:38:38:
I feel like Gulliver in Gulliver's travels with all the Lilliputians trying to tie me down! Notice how it takes 100 Lilliputians to tie down one Gulliver? drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 00:05:39:
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.




That book is satire, something for which you have not demonstrated intelligence enough to distinguish from other forms of literature.   

There is hierarchy of understanding in literature as well as understanding chess.  You cannot possible hope to comprehend what exists on the upper rungs until you have at least surmounted the lower.


Stop posting.
Start climbing.

  
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
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #351 - 02/23/09 at 19:38:38
Post Tools
I feel like Gulliver in Gulliver's travels with all the Lilliputians trying to tie me down! Notice how it takes 100 Lilliputians to tie down one Gulliver? drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 00:05:39:
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #350 - 02/23/09 at 19:27:54
Post Tools
Grabbing the second is a gourmand approach. A more restrained approach is to play 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bf1 (With an idea borrowed from the Fritz. See my analysis on the last analysis post). This allows White to regroup with Qe2.Uruk wrote on 02/23/09 at 02:06:32:
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
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #349 - 02/23/09 at 19:22:31
Post Tools
Funny you should mention the "sarcastic" nature of his review, particularly when we have been playing a half dozen games in the Latvian Gambit in the past several months, where John is one of the World's leading experts. I drew two of the first four games (one of the ones I lost, John said I was clearly winning by move 11). (We never finished the fifth and I have an equal position in the sixth). If it was a sarcastic review, then why does John like to play the Latvian Gambit against me month after month? 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.

  
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 #348 - 02/23/09 at 19:22:02
Post Tools
slaughter
  
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
 
sloughter
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 619
Location: schoharie
Joined: 12/29/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #347 - 02/23/09 at 19:17:27
Post Tools
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Qe7 4.d4 d5 5.dxe5 dxe4 6.exf6 exf3 7.fxe7 exf2 8.exf8ch +-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?

  
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 #346 - 02/23/09 at 18:02:03
Post Tools
Three chess players walk into a bar.   



All three now have a lump on their foreheads.
  
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
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #345 - 02/23/09 at 17:54:09
Post Tools
Quote:
I once sat at a bar when Timman, Hubner and Miles joined me and sat next to me.  Friendly fellows,..........
especially after I provided a round of drinks.

Let me guess  Wink:

Timman: a glas of wine, another glas of wine and a third one
Miles: some green tea
Hubner: milk ("What else?")
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #344 - 02/23/09 at 17:01:24
Post Tools
@Roger Williamson
(quote: I once shared a cab with Nigel Short)
@Bibs:
(quote: I once met Bob Hoskin on the bus)
============================================
Something similar:
I once sat at a bar when Timman, Hubner and Miles joined me and sat next to me.  Friendly fellows,..........
especially after I provided a round of drinks.  Roll Eyes
This happened during one of the Tilburg/Interpolis tournaments at a pub not far from the players hotel.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1757
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #343 - 02/23/09 at 15:58:07
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 02/23/09 at 15:30:22:
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.

I did, of course, and I still thought it was serious.  Elburg is so relentlessly positive about everything that it's hard to imagine he's being sarcastic in this one review.  I happily admit the possibility of being wrong, though.


Agree. He was not being sarcastic. But it is meaninglessness nonetheless. It is like getting a recommendation from your mom.
  
"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #342 - 02/23/09 at 15:30:22
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.

I did, of course, and I still thought it was serious.  Elburg is so relentlessly positive about everything that it's hard to imagine he's being sarcastic in this one review.  I happily admit the possibility of being wrong, though.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 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