ChessPub Forum - refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #101 - 02/03/09 at 19:38:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	For your information, I wrote a book on the Two Knights' Defense 10 years ago that was favorably reviewed by Grandmaster Andy Soltis in the New York Post. Most of the analysis was vetted by GM Lev Alburt. I am well aware of the work of Estrin and Williams in the Wilkes-Barre. Williams, for example, devoted the overwhelming majority of the book to 5.Nxf7? whereas he devoted only a very small part to 5.Bxf7ch. The reason why he did this was obvious; he didn't like the results that 5.Bxf7ch gave Black, saying that 6...Rf8 "led nowhere". Clearly, 6..d6 and 6...Qe8 are no better. Estrin was a weak theoretician and it would take me a very long time to list his analytical errors. Since both players missed the continuation 7.Bxc6 dxc6 or bxc6 8.Nf3, why should I care what transpired before my analysis/game? Just quote a bunch of meaningless analysis in the 5.Nxf7 line? The point of 8.Nf3 should be obvious. White seeks to defend f2. The tactics work 8...Nxe4 9.Qe2 which Fritz has as +/- (Perhaps you can improve on Mr. Fritz here). Then 8...Kf7 is met with 9.d3 with a positional plus, at least +/-. What is noticeably absent in your post is any attempt to dispute my analysis in the 5...Na5 line. Why is it the post members have never heard of the expression that a Knight on the rim is grim? In most variations, the best that Black can do is play c5/Nc6 which wastes a huge amount of time. Fritz doesn't like White's centralized Queen and typically tries to force its exchange, which always benefits White (When ahead in material, trade pieces, not pawns). Perhaps post members can find a saving resource(s) for Black in the 8.Qf3 line. If so, I would be happy to respond to them sloughter wrote on 02/03/09 at 17:45:01: All of these innovations were checked against a 2700+ level computer and most were played OTB with a time limit of 120/25 for the entire game; the actual time limit due to playing book out to move 9 was more like 120/16. Are we supposed to believe that a strong computer in the strongest part of its game, complex middlegames, is not as good as a couple of 2500 GM's in a similar situation, at 120/40? In a complex middlegame, Fritz 8 probably plays close to 2800. Computers typically play lousy endgames which is the primary reason they lose. When is the last time you saw a 2500 level GM outplay a strong computer in a very sharp middlegame?Markovich wrote on 02/03/09 at 16:18:44: I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already. I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant. Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated. That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context. From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight. Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.


	IP Logged

Nelson Junior Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 77 Joined: 04/12/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #100 - 02/03/09 at 19:16:03	Post Tools	Print Post
	Hi Guys, Why are you wasting time replying to each other in this lengthy prose when things have obviously run their course and serving no further constructive purpose.... I'm sure you could spend some time more constructively on some other topics rather than rising to Sloughters bait. Can we give DrKodos an award for the most amusingly sarcastic post on the forum to date? I'm not going to bother to read this thread any more let alone waste any typing time on it!! Nelson


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #99 - 02/03/09 at 17:45:01	Post Tools	Print Post
	All of these innovations were checked against a 2700+ level computer and most were played OTB with a time limit of 120/25 for the entire game; the actual time limit due to playing book out to move 9 was more like 120/16. Are we supposed to believe that a strong computer in the strongest part of its game, complex middlegames, is not as good as a couple of 2500 GM's in a similar situation, at 120/40? In a complex middlegame, Fritz 8 probably plays close to 2800. Computers typically play lousy endgames which is the primary reason they lose. When is the last time you saw a 2500 level GM outplay a strong computer in a very sharp middlegame?Markovich wrote on 02/03/09 at 16:18:44: I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already. I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant. Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated. That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context. From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight. Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.


	IP Logged

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 #98 - 02/03/09 at 16:18:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already. I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant. Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated. That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context. From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight. Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #97 - 02/03/09 at 14:52:57	Post Tools	Print Post
	In the 5...Na5 variation, it is abundantly clear that unless Black can punish White for his centralized Queen, the active Queen should be decisive in the ensuing complications. I have found no way for Black to even approach equality in any of the main lines. 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3! A) 8...cxb5 9.Qxa8 Qd7 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Qe2 Nc6 (e5 is hanging)12.c3 Be7 13.d3 O-O 14.O-O Rd8 15.Rd1 h6 16.Nf3 e4 17.Ne1 Ne5 18.d4 +/- B) 8...Qd5 9.Be2! e4 10.Qg3 Bd6 11.Qh4 h6 12.d3! exd3 13.Nc3 Qe5 14.Nf3 Qf5 15.Bxd3 +/- C) 8...Bd7 9.Be2 Bd6 10.Nc3 O-O 11.d3 Bb4 12.O-O Bxc3 13.bxc3 Bg4 14.Qe3 Nd5 15.Qd2 Qd7 16.Bxg4 Qxg4 17.h3 Qf5 18.Ne4 Nb7 19.c4 Nf4 20.Ng3 Qd7 21.Rb1 +/- D) 8...Rb8 9.Be2 h6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd5 12.d3 Be6 13.b3 Bc5 14.Bb2 Qxe4 15.dxe4 f6 16.Nd2 Ke7 17.Rd1 Nb7 18.Nc4 Rhd8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.h4 a5 21.a3 a4 22.b4 Bxc4 23.Bxc4 Bd4 24.Bc1 Nd6 25.Bd3 c5 26.bxc5 Bxc5 27.Ke2 Rb8 28.Be3 +/- E) 8...Be7 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Qd3 Qxd3 11.Bxd3 Nd5 12.f3! Bd7 13.Ne4 Nb4 14.Nf2 Nxd3 15.Nxd3 Bf5 16.Ke2 Rd8 17.Ne1! c5 18.d3 Nc6 19.c3 Bg6 20.Nd2 +/- Unless someone can find a dramatic improvement for Black, 8.Qf3 appears to be decisive.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.


	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:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #96 - 02/02/09 at 03:39:39	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Arkhein Thx for your additions and corrections. I think your comments are correct. Incidentely 10.Qf3 exd4 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.Bxa8,Bg4! 13.Qc6 Nd3+ 14.Kf1,Bd6! --/+ (iso of 14....Bc5) was a correction I had allready made in the TK-survey (e4e5 subscription area) and I should have corrected my old post as well With the additional lines you gave, I think we may conclude that 10.0-0,Nf4 is insufficient, and Black remains in trouble in the 10.0-0 line.


	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 #95 - 02/01/09 at 21:08:44	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sloughter: Thank you for these generous and wonderful contributions. I appreciate the time and effort you took to do this and share it with us. I am sure you had better things to do with your time, so we are extremely fortuitous for your magnanimous gesture (posts). Please continue the grace and hospitality of your host and allow us all time to digest this fine meal before serving any just desserts. Sincerely, 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.
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #94 - 02/01/09 at 21:04:29	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Micawber, in the line with 10.Qf3 exd4 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.Bxa8, 12..Bg4! seems stronger than 12..Ba6!? as you pointed out. Now I think that 10.Qf3 is unsound because of Bg4, which is about winning for Black, and 12..Ba6 about equal. I watched your old post in the other thread and you gave 12..Bg4 13.Qc6 Nd3+ 14.Kf1 Bc5 15.h4 Qf4 with a draw, but I try to give an improvment for Black here: 14..Bd6! 15.Qc4 Bf5! seems very strong for Black. But anyway, it is clear now that 10.0-0 is the good move and the improved version of 10.Qf3. I watched your "Variation 2" and I continue to say that after 12.d3 or 12.dxe5 may be good for White, for example you give 12.d3 Rb6 13.Bf3 exd4 14.Na3 as unclear but 14.Nd2 may be an improvment. I am ok with what you give after 12.dxe5 and I would add that 15.g3 is a possible improvment too, but practice is needed here...Many Black's pieces on the kingside, so imaginative play to attack the king strongly may be still possible. Theses positions need games!


	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #93 - 02/01/09 at 20:00:15	Post Tools	Print Post
	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.


	IP Logged

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 #92 - 02/01/09 at 17:25:08	Post Tools	Print Post
	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.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	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 #91 - 02/01/09 at 12:41:31

Post Tools

Print Post

@MNB (on your fun-variation)

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,d5 5.exd,Nd4 6.c3,b5 7.Bf1,Nxd5
8.cxd4,Qxg5 9.Bxb5,Kd8
10.Qf3,Rb8
11.Bc6,Nf4!
12.Bxa8

In this position I think 12...Bg4! is the strongest move.
For variations follow the link from my previous post.
So I was slightly surprised to see 12....Ba6 recommended.
This move is also quite good for Black, though I think white can escape.

12....Ba6!?
My guess is that your thoughts must run somewhat like this.
13.Be4!, Qe5! (13.Nc3?, Qe5 14.Ne2,Bxe2 -+)
14.g3!, Nd3+
15.Kf1! (it seems difficult for black to make use of the discovered check)
15........,Nc5+ (15....Nxc1? 16.Kg2 +/-)
16.Kg2,
16......., Qxe4 (16.....Nxe4? 17.Re1 +/-)
17.Qxe4,Nxe4
And Black probably has sufficient compensation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Arkhein

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,d5 5.exd,Nd4 6.c3,b5 7.Bf1,Nxd5
8.cxd4,Qxg5 9.Bxb5,Kd8
10.0-0,
10......Nf4!? (10....Rb8 11.Bc6,exd4 12.d3,Nf4 13.Na3 +/=)

Topnotch told us in a post from a previous thread he was studying this line, but unfortunately no follow-up with variations was posted.
This line might be playable though, so I present my own thougts on this one below:

variation 1:
11.Qf3, Rb8!=
12.dxe5 (12.Qg3?,Qh6 -+)
And now Durao-Rausis, 1994 continued with
12....Bg4 13.Qc6, Rxb5! 14.Qxb5?,Bxf3 -+ (Better is 14.d4,Rb6! unclear)

Variation 2

11.Bc6!, Rb8 is the critical test
12.dxe5
12.d3 was suggested by Cramer, though I believe black can generate sufficient counterplay:
12.d3,Rb6! 13.Bf3 (13.Be4,exd4 unclear),exd4 14.Na3,Bxa3 15.bxa3,Re8 (unclear)
12......, Rb6!
13.Bf3
13.Be4!?,Qxe5 14.Nc3,Rh6! (unclear) :: 15.g3,Qe6 16.h4,Qh3=
13......., Nd3!
14.Be4, Rh6!
15.Qf3 (15.Bxd3?,Bb7 -/+)
15.....Nxc1
The only game in this subvariation I could find continued
15....,Rh3 16.Qxf7?!,Nf4! 17.Qc4,Qxe5 18.gxh3?!,Bd6 -/+. Essegern-Sobeck, corr., 1974
But instead
15.....Rh3 16.g3!,Ng4 17.Qc3 +/- is much stronger
16.Rxc1, Qxe5
17.g3, (17.h3?, Bd6 -/+)
17.....Bc5 and Black is OK
For instance 18.Nc3,Rf6 19.Qd3+,Qd4!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
@TN
A remark on the video on the Ulvestad.
I dont agree with the implied judgement that Black is Ok after
1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.Bc4,Nf6 4.Ng5,d5 5.exd,b5 6.Bf1,h6
Black is in trouble in the variaton:
7.Nxf7, Kxf7 8.dxc6,Bc5 9.Be2!:
Vallejo Pons-Najditsch, Crete, 2007
J.Howell-Volzhin, Calcutta, 1996
Gretarsson-Hebden, Kopavogur, 1994.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Markovich and other posters in this line
My sincere appologies, as I accidentely caused the error that
closed this thread temporarily.

« Last Edit: 02/01/09 at 15:13:50 by micawber »

IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #90 - 02/01/09 at 08:48:11	Post Tools	Print Post
	http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-J71v3JkU The video highlights one of several holes in your childish attempt at refutation.
	« Last Edit: 02/01/09 at 12:05:29 by TN »
	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

sloughter God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 619 Location: schoharie Joined: 12/29/08 Gender:	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #89 - 02/01/09 at 05:39:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	1)My innovation in the Wilkes Barre/Traxler has received independent confirmation, 2)No one has claimed any refutation of my innovation in the main line of the Berliner Variation which is the main line of that ancient text, BCO 2, edited by that hack, Garry Kasparov, 3)No one has tried to prove that the Ulvestad has any independent significance so that if the Fritz falls, it falls, 4)No one has claimed that Black can equalize in the Fried Liver so here is the starting point for anyone who wishes to try, 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3ch Ke6 10.O-O! +/-(an idea of Pincus), 5)The best way to permanently weaken the f7 square is 1...e5. Or did you not notice this as it applies to the TKD? The WBT is the most violent attempt to exploit White's weakening of the f2 square with 1.e4. This resource, 4...Bc5, fails. Black quickly stands worse because of the fatal weakening of the f7 square. The weakening of the f2 square is quickly addressed with my logical/intuitive (internal harmony of chess!) innovation 8.Nf3. Yes, the first move advantage is important, 6)I see a lot of emotion in your last post, but poorly thought out logic e.g. your failure to address the highly specific move order, endorsed by that weakie, Fritz 8 (Noted by some as being a reasonable tactician), it could find no way to equalize for Black after 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch Qxd7 11.O-O Ndf4 12.d4 & now Fritz took 3 hours and could only find: 12...f5?! 13.Bxf4! Nxf4 14.Ned2 Qd5 15.Qa4ch c6 16.Nf3 e4 17.Ne5 +/- 7)The title of the original post is looking better all the time , 9)As indicated in my book, the TKD stands or falls on 5...Na5MNb wrote on 01/31/09 at 12:54:50: Time to slam sloughter again. 1. You don't listen to good, well-meant advise. 2. So you don't do any research (books etc.) before posting a few moves. 3. You don't store the information of this thread. 4. So you forget the game I posted. 5. You confuse intuition with silicon judgment. 6. You refer to Steinitz repeatedly but only when it suits you. 7. So you ignore Steinitz' judgment on the initial position: equal. 8. You use big words like internal harmony of chess but don't understand them. 9. So you are looking for a refutation of three moves by Black that fulfill all sound principles of opening play (1...e5; 2...Nc6; and 3...Nf6). 10. As a result you make yourself ridiculous. If you display these qualities in your book too it's a crime against natural environment - you'd rather have let stand all those trees were they stood. I am not gonna feed you like a chess baby. Take a look in a random book on the Two Knighs and you will find out how Black rather should play your line. Reread this thread and you will find the same. In the mean time I cannot help thinking of the old Dutch proverb: Spuit elf geeft ook modder. Yes, that's an insult.


	IP Logged

Schaakhamster God Member Offline I Love ChessPublishing! Posts: 650 Joined: 05/13/08	Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? Reply #88 - 01/31/09 at 21:29:31	Post Tools	Print Post
	"Spuit elf geeft ook modder." Didn't know that one.


	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 #87 - 01/31/09 at 20:37:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb: Vergeef alstublieft. Mijn nederlands is niet goed, maar ik zal enige proberen. Hij is echt gek. Het kan zijn plezier om een bijenkorf met een stok te slaan maar ook gevaarlijk. Waarschuwing!

	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.
	IP Logged