(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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? (Read 219258 times)
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 #371 - 02/24/09 at 06:35:00
Post Tools
Grin Grin

drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15:
I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's.


Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.



drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:54:09:
Slaughter: I will meet you face to face if you wish.


I will be at the World Open this year in Philadelphia and I would love to meet you or anyone else that want to tell me to my face what they think and allow me to do likewise and hopefully play some chess and settle the argument.

I assure you, and people that know me well will attest,  I am little rougher in person than I am here.   

You can also see me in an upcoming PBS American Experience video about American chess hustler Tom Murphy.  The crazy guy wearing the purple bathrobe while playing in the Blitz tournament and during the subsequent interviews...that will be me.

I will always be glad to say exactly what I write, and then write you a prescription for Depakote to help you cope with the problems you will have dealing with it.

Until then, I remain anonymously yours,

~ drkodos


drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:14:39:
MNb wrote on 02/24/09 at 02:05:10:
After all he is to GM's like Kasparov and Alburt what JC was to G*d: the Chess Messiah.




Using that form of the word god in a public forum is very offensive to some of us.


Those of us with a brain enough to realize that if there is a god he is a terrible one take absolute offense.

What parent would let their children behave thusly as we have here on this watery rock?  Only a negligent one or one that is utterly indifferent.

So, even if christians are correct, I really hope they keep their god to themselves because I find any mention or use of the word god and the atrocities the word represents to be most offensive in whatever guise it is used. 


I try to be egalitarian, so I make sure to always be equally offended by those I offend.

After all, I am a god member on this site.

  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
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 #370 - 02/24/09 at 06:32:05
Post Tools
Roger Williamson wrote on 02/24/09 at 00:43:51:
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


Smiley Grin
  
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 #369 - 02/24/09 at 04:17:53
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
You know my name since it has appeared on this site several  times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15:
I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's.


Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.




Peer reviewed? The first question to ask.

Otherwise, some may suspect that the output is of equal consequence to the efforts herein.

You may choose to take that as a compliment. Others however may be sceptical as to the value of your efforts in other fields. Which may be unfair, but is certainly 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 #368 - 02/24/09 at 04:09:00
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
You know my name since it has appeared on this site several  times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15:
I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's.


Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.






I am happy being an anomymous Lilliputian to your dazzling intellect.


And yes, me, my canary, and the frozen fish are all closely familiar with your "papers."


But please, tell me more.   Is there somewhere I could go to hear you speak or at least tell me what frequency to tune my hat so I can listen in.

Do you like Art Bell?   

He smart.
  
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
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #367 - 02/24/09 at 03:58:07
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics?


How much is the subscription?
I confess I haven't kept up with developments of 32nd century science.

  
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 #366 - 02/24/09 at 03:43:04
Post Tools
You know my name since it has appeared on this site several  times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:42:15:
I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's.


Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.


  
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 #365 - 02/24/09 at 03:31:51
Post Tools
4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nh7! Bc5 (Rxh7 8.dxc6 b4 9.Be2 Qd6 10.O-O Qxc6 11.d3 Be6 12.Bf3 Bd5 13.Bxd5 Qxd5 14.a3 +/-) 8.Nxf6ch Qxf6 9.d4 Bxd4 10.Qd2 Ne7 11.c3 Bc5 12.Bxb5ch c6 13.dxc6 O-O 14.O-O +/-

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 = to +/=.sloughter wrote on 02/22/09 at 10:48:19:

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 cxd5 9.Qxa8 Qd7
10.Qf3 Bd6 11.d3 Bb7 12.Qe2 Bxg2 13.Rg1 +/-

8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Qg3 Bxe2 11.Qxe5ch Be7 12.Qxe2 +/-

8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Qxe4 Qd6 11.Nc3 Rb8 12.Be2 Be6 13.O-O +/-

8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.d3 Nb4 12.Bd1 Be6 13.Nbc3 +/-

8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.a3 Nf4 12.d3 Nxe2 13.Qxe2 +/-

8.Qf3 Bd7 9.Be2 Bd6 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Qe3 Nd5 12.Nxd5 Bxe2 13.Nc3 Bg4 14.Nge4 O-O 15.Nxd6 Qxd6 16.Qg3 Be6 17.d3 f5 18.O-O f4 19.Ne4 +/-

8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bf1 Nb4 11.Na3 f6 12.Ne4 Be6 13.b3 Bf5 14.f3 Rd8 15.c3 Nd3ch (Nd5 16.Nc4 Nxc4 17.Bxc4 +/=) 16.Bxd3 Rxd3 17.Ke2 Rd7 18.d3 Nb7 19.Nc4 Nc5 20.Rd1 Ne6 21.Be3 +/=

8.Qf3 Qd5 9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.Bf1 Rb8 11.a3 Be7 12.Ne4 f5 13.Nec3 Nb7 14.d3 Nc5 15.Nd2 Bf6 16.Nc4 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Be6 18.Be3 Na4 19.d4 Bxc4 20.Bxc4 Nxc3 21.dxe5 Bxe5 22.O-O Kd7 (Rb7 Rae1 +/=) 23.Bxa7 Rb2 24.Bd3 g6 25.Be3 +/=

8.Qf3 Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.Nc3 Qxe4 13.Nxe4 Be6 (f5 14.Nc3 Be6 15.d3 g5 16.h4 g4 h5 +/=) 14.d3 f5 15.Nc3 g5 16.h4 g4 17.h5 Kd7 18.f3 gxf3 (g3 19.f4 Bd6 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Bf3 Be7 22.Nd1 +/=) 19.Bxf3 Nb7 20.Kd1 Bc5 21.Re1 Bd4 22.Be3 c5 23.Kc1 Nd8 24.Nd1 Bxe3ch 25.Rxe3 Nf7 unclear to +/=

8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 11.Qc4 O-O 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Nf3 e4 14.Ne5 Ba4 15.d3 Qa5ch 16.Nc3 Bb4 17.O-O +/=sloughter wrote on 02/19/09 at 23:43:16:
Here is the latest analysis of the Ulvestad and the Fritz:

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.cxd4 bxc4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.f4 e4 9.Nc3 Qxc6 10.Ngxe4 +/=

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O +/=

sloughter wrote on 02/10/09 at 12:43:27:
Here is the definitive analysis and practical play in the 8.Nh3 variation. From a book I published in 1999, 

"Theory pretty much ends with the move sequence 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Nh3 although the author and GM Alburt analyzed this variation in detail in EMPIRE CHESS, Winter 1988 p.6. We also recognize the contributions of ICM van der Tak, NM Alon Bochman, FM Craig Mar and the pretty tactical shot pointed out by Pete Tamburro (8...Bg4 9.Qxg4?? (Bb5ch!) Nc2ch 9.Kd1?? Nce3ch! -+), and minor computer-assessed analysis of 8.Nh3 Bxh3 by NM Eric Schiller."

"GM's Alburt's concept, first recognized in the game Alburt-Gulko, USSR Student Cham., Dubna, 1970 is a profound idea that places the onus on Black to equalize. The first point is that White prepares to exhange off a pair of Knights after say Ne6/Nef4. This is obviously not possible in the variation 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nef4 when Black has compensation. We now follow Alburt-Gulko: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch; we prefer 10.Qa4 see below: 10...Qd7 11.O-O Be7 12.Qe2 Bf6?! 13.d3 (d4 +/=) O-O 14,Ba3 Rfe8. Black has a variety of alternatives to 8...Ne6 e.g. 8...Nc6 9.Bxb5 +/- or 8...Bg4 9.Bxb5ch Nxb5 10.Qxg4 or 8...Nf5 which leaves the Knight on a peculiar square and, of course, 9.Bxb5ch wins a pawn. This narrows the choices to 8.Nh3 Bxh3!? and 8...Ne6.  If 8...Bxh3 9.cxd4 (gxh3 Qh4! with comp: ICM van der Tak) 9...Bd7 (To defend b5). If now 10.dxe5 +/= GM Alburt. Black only has partial compensation for the pawn, but, NM Eric Schiller maintains that Black is okay after 10...Qh4. This is difficult to accept after 10.Nc3! White hits d5 and bv5; if 11...Nxc3 12.dxc3 Qe4ch 13.Qe2 +/-. and on 11...c6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 Qg5 14.O-O Qxe5? 15.Re1 looks pretty good for White. Other tries like 10...Nb4 or Be7 don't promise Black very much either.

"Thus the stem game, Alburt-Gulko appears to have revealed the main line very early. The key continuation for White appears to be 8.Nh3 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4!. White either forces Black to accept an inferior middlegame or an inferior endgame: 10...Nb6 11.Bd7ch Nxd7 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 Be7 14.Nc3 O-O 15.d5 +/=. 

"Black avoids an endgame but is not out of the woods yet; with best play, White should win this. There are a host of similar endings Black can achieve a pawn down, with no real compensation for the pawn. Obviously, this is unacceptable to the majority of chess players.

Black can also try 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Nxd7 12.O-O Be7 13.d4 +/= Black is shy of equality. The decision to enter an endgame is only marginally better: 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 Nc5 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.Qxd7ch Kxd7 13.d4! (Ke2 e4 14.Na3 Nd3 15.Nc2 Nd5f4ch 16.Nxf4 Nxf4ch 17.Ke3 Nd3: and NM Bochman wonders if White can dig out) 13...exd4 14.cxd4 (O-O dxc3 =) 15.Nc3! Nxd4 (Nb4 16.d5 +/- or Nxc3 16.bxc3 +/- Evaluations by GM Alburt) 16.Nxd5 Nc2ch 17.Kd1 Nxa1 18.Bd2! +/= (GM Alburt)

"One final try is 10.Qa4 Bc5 but 11.d3 f5 +/= (GM Alburt)" There doesn't appear to be any simple pathway to equality for Black here.sloughter wrote on 02/08/09 at 21:10:54:
In order to keep the analyzed lines in one place, here is a way to avoid the complicatons of 8.Ne4 Ne6 i.e. 8.Nh3!? Bxh3 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Qa4 & White is better than the 8.Ne4 line because he can oppose Knights when one of them gets to f4) 9.cxd4! Bd7 10.dxe5 +/= (I'll have to check my analysis here; Black may have a draw by repetition in one of the subvariations). So far, not one menber of this post has tried to engage in an analytical battle over even one variation. Since many are controversial e.g. my latest attempt at an advantage against 8.Ne4 Ne6!sloughter wrote on 02/01/09 at 20:00:15:
In order for the post to have any impact on the development of theory, it is necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the analysis posted to date, as well as, original analysis not quoted to date. It is up to the members of the post, if they are so inclined, to accept, modify, or ignore this material in the hope of providing the basis for additional theory and practical play. 

Wilkes-Barre/Traxler

    4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 (or d6 or Qe8) 7.Bxc6 dxc6 (or bxc6) 8.Nf3 Kf7 (Nxe4 9.Qe2 +/-) 9.d3 +/-

Fried Liver from Pincus

    4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O!

A) 10...Na5 11.Bd3 Bf6 12.Re1 Nc6 13.Be4 g5?! 14.c4 Nxd4 15.cxd5ch Kf7 16.Qd3 Kg7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.Be3 Rc8 19.Rad1 a6 20.Rd2+/-

B) 10...b5 11.Bxb5 Bb7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.c4 Rf8 (Nb4 14.d5ch Nxd5 15.Rd1 +-) 14.cxd5ch Bxd5 15.Qe2 +-

C) 10...g6 11.Qe4 Rf8 12.f4 Rb8 13.Bb3 a5 14.fxe5 Rxf1ch 15.Kxf1 a4 16.Qg4ch Kf7 17.Qf3ch Kg7 18.Bxd5 +-

Berliner Variation (Ulvestad move order)

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 9.Be2 +/=
                                                           8.dxc6 Qd5 9.Qf3 +/=

5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 (Tentative) 9.d4 exd4 10.Bxb5ch Bd7 11.Bxd7ch Qxd7 12.O-O dxc3 13.Nbxc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 f5 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.Bxg5 Bd6 18.Rd5 O-O 19.Rad1+/=

Berliner Variation:

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 (12...O-O 13.fxg4 Bxg3ch 14.Kd1 +-; 12...Bxg3ch 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Qxb5ch Bd7 15.Qxd5 +/-) 13.Nc3 (13.Qf2+/-) 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch Kf8 17.fxe4 +-

The 5...Na5 material will be provided in a separate postMarkovich wrote on 02/01/09 at 17:25:08:
TN wrote on 02/01/09 at 08:48:11:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU

The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation.


May I suggest that we all remain civil?  Even chilldish, even obnoxious attempts are deserving of respect.  We all love chess.






  
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 #364 - 02/24/09 at 03:14:39
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/24/09 at 02:05:10:
After all he is to GM's like Kasparov and Alburt what JC was to G*d: the Chess Messiah.




Using that form of the word god in a public forum is very offensive to some of us.


Those of us with a brain enough to realize that if there is a god he is a terrible one take absolute offense.

What parent would let their children behave thusly as we have here on this watery rock?  Only a negligent one or one that is utterly indifferent.

So, even if christians are correct, I really hope they keep their god to themselves because I find any mention or use of the word god and the atrocities the word represents to be most offensive in whatever guise it is used. 


I try to be egalitarian, so I make sure to always be equally offended by those I offend.

After all, I am a god member on this site.
  
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
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #363 - 02/24/09 at 03:04:10
Post Tools

Funniest post ever ?

sloughter wrote on 01/03/09 at 15:04:09:


GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/01/09 at 20:11:22:

What's wrong with the obvious 13...exf3 here? White may be a piece up but Black certainly has an enormous lead in development.


Not the way I define development.

There is a certain internal harmony in chess. (...)
Without analyzing anything (I don't have a chess board here), my immediate reaction is to reject gxf3 (...)
The way I look at the position, I am going to try to give back the piece advantageously (...)
Obviously, the way I define time, 12...O-O is vastly superior to 12...Be6.
  
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 #362 - 02/24/09 at 02:05:10
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:07:31:
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I see a bunch of scared little boys who hide behind the anonymity of their screen names and pretend to dispense wisdom when, they are, just a bunch of pathetic little boys who always like to raise their hands to get attention from the teacher. I really feel sorry for you post members---what pathetic lives you must lead!


This is post-modern satire - Sloughter proves he understands Gulliver's Travels indeed. In the 21st Century an ELO-1600 player is the teacher and those with a higher rating the pathetic pupils who try to get Master Moody's attention ....
So lets all be silent and rejoice in Master Moody's analytical brilliancies. After all he is to GM's like Kasparov and Alburt what JC was to G*d: the Chess Messiah. 4.Ng5! +-! Master Moody has spoken. Who are we to doubt his word? Chess Lilliputians!
Please, Master Moody, forgive us, as we know not better.
  
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 #361 - 02/24/09 at 01:54:09
Post Tools
Slaughter: I will meet you face to face if you wish.


I will be at the World Open this year in Philadelphia and I would love to meet you or anyone else that want to tell me to my face what they think and allow me to do likewise and hopefully play some chess and settle the argument.

I assure you, and people that know me well will attest,  I am little rougher in person than I am here.   

You can also see me in an upcoming PBS American Experience video about American chess hustler Tom Murphy.  The crazy guy wearing the purple bathrobe while playing in the Blitz tournament and during the subsequent interviews...that will be me.

I will always be glad to say exactly what I write, and then write you a prescription for Depakote to help you cope with the problems you will have dealing with it.

Until then, I remain anonymously yours,

~ drkodos
  
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
 
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 #360 - 02/24/09 at 01:42:15
Post Tools
I am not sure how the user name "sloughter" is less anonymous than any other, but I am sure you will now share your FBI training with us on what exactly "anonymous" means to you and why your definition refutes Webster's.


Too many Scientologists are after me these days and low profile anonymous attacking of poorly crafted and fecal ideologies is the new black, sir.

  
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
 
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 #359 - 02/24/09 at 01:33:23
Post Tools
Anonymity?  Teacher (you?)? Lives?  Discretion being the better part of valour, I'll admit to being suitably chastened, and sit quietly at the front of the class  for the remainder of the semester.
  
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 #358 - 02/24/09 at 01:07:31
Post Tools
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I see a bunch of scared little boys who hide behind the anonymity of their screen names and pretend to dispense wisdom when, they are, just a bunch of pathetic little boys who always like to raise their hands to get attention from the teacher. I really feel sorry for you post members---what pathetic lives you must lead!Roger Williamson wrote on 02/24/09 at 00:43:51:
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
 
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 #357 - 02/24/09 at 00:59:57
Post Tools
Are you the Wicked Witch of the West or the flying monkey? From your lack of intellectual freight, I can assure you, that it is the latter.drkodos wrote on 02/23/09 at 20:20:48:
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.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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