The level on which all this is nonsense is not that the moves are unintelligible (though in one of sloughter's posts, they are) but that the ensemble is not a legitimate conversation about the Traxler.  It is just sloughter tossing out this line and that, with no thread of argument.  Wierd allegations like, (I paraphase) "Black is OK after 6.Bb3 because he eventually pushes his queenside pawns."   Also sloughter gives lines where very strange moves are played, while suggesting that they are somehow dispositive.

I don't propose that these posts be deleted or that sloughter be banned or anything, but it is not incorrect or unuseful to say that this is all nonsense.

Sloughter's latest line was actually played in Nava - Schneider, LSS 2003:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3 d6 7.d3 Qe8 8.Be3 

But here the game continued not with sloughter's proposed 8...Bg4, but 8...Qg6 9.Nf3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Bg4 11.Nbd2 Raf8 12.Qe2 Kd8 13.O-O-O Kc8 14.Rhf1 Kb8 15.a3 Bd7 16.Kb1 h6 17.Nh4 Qe8 18.h3 Na5 19.Ba2 Nc6 20.Rf2 Nh5 21.Rdf1 Ng3 22.Rxf8 Rxf8 23.Rxf8 Qxf8 24.Qf3 Qxf3 25.Nhxf3 Kc8 26.d4 Kd8 27.Bd5 Ke7 28.dxe5 dxe5 29.Bxc6 Bxc6 30.Nxe5 Bxe4 and the game was eventually drawn.

The result demonstrates, perhaps, that is not always so easy to win with a clear extra pawn.  5.Bxf7+ scores "only" 60%, so it is possible for someone, sloughter for example, to make a case that by some series of moves Black is O.K.  Maybe he is, for all I know.  But my belief is that Black has insufficient comp and that if White plays well, Black looks forward to a dreary ending at best.

For example in Nava - Schneider, 26.h3 and 11.Nc3 were respectively better than 26.a3 and 11.Nbd2 as played, I opine.  Smyslov_Fan has already addressed sloughter's line, though by itself 8...Bg4 seems to be a reasonable idea.

Bibs wrote on 07/17/13 at 06:20:29:


I went through the game and checked it out with my engine. 

I have no clue why this is "nonsense". Sloughter's game was a complete game played between two engines. But I do not see why the whole post is considered nonsense. 

This feels like an attack on someone because of his past posts, not his current comment. 

Here is the game in pgn so that others may judge whether his post was nonsense. There were moves in this game that did not make sense, but the opening made sense to me.

proustiskeen wrote on 07/17/13 at 03:16:44:


Agree. This is nonsense. 

sloughter wrote on 07/16/13 at 22:59:40:


However, a slight improvement for White and we have the following game:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Qe8 7. d3 d6 8.Be3 Bg4 9. Nf3 Qh5 10. Nbd2 Bxe3 11. fxe3 Bd7 12. Qe2 Rhb8 13. O-O-O b5 14. h3a5 15. g4 Qe8 16. g5 Nh5 17. Qg2 a4 18. Bd5 a3 19. Rhf1 Kd8 20. Nh4 Nb4 21. Bf7 Qe7 22. bxa3 Rxa3 23. Nb1 Rxa2 24. Bxa2 Nxa2+ 25. Kd2 g6 26. Nc3 Nxc3 27. Kxc3 b4+ 28. Kd2 Ng7 29. Rb1 Ne6 30. Nf3 Nc5 31. Kc1 Be6 32. Nd2 Ba2 33. Ra1 b3 34.Kd1 bxc2+ 35. Kxc2 Be6 36. Qf3 Nd7 37. h4 d5 38. exd5 Qc5+ 39. Kd1 Rb2 40. Rf2 Bxd5 41. e4 Be6 42. Ke1 Qc3 43. d4 exd4 44. Qxc3 dxc3 45. Nb1 c2 46. Na3 Ne5 47. Rd2+ Kc8 48. Rxc2 Rb3 49. Nb1 Re3+ 50. Kf2 Ng4+ 51. Kg2 Rxe4 52. Ra7 Kb8 53. Rcxc7 Rb4 54. Nd2 h5 55. Kf1 Ne3+ * =

Markovich wrote on 07/15/13 at 21:46:18:


6.Bb3 requires White to know the need to connect his Knights. I decided to take the Black side of the 6.Bb3 variation against Houdini 3. As you can see at a critical juncture White has to  find the temporary pawn sacrifice to win; failure to play it and Black is better, so the Wilkes-Barre is still a good practical choice since it takes a 3000+ rated computer to find the win. 

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Qe8 7. Nc3 d6 8.d3 h6 9. Nf3 Bg4 10. Ne2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Na5 12. Be3 Nxb3 13. axb3 Bb6 14. Rg1 g5 15. d4 Nd7 16. Ng3 Bxd4 17. Bxd4 exd4 18. Qxd4 Kd8 19. Nf5 Qe5 20. Ke2 Qxd4 21.Nxd4 Ne5 22. h4! Nf7 23. f4 gxf4 24. Rg7 Ke7 25. Rag1 Rae8 26. Nf5+ Kf8 27. Kf3 d5 28. exd5 Re5 29. Kxf4 Rxd5 30. f3 Rb5 31. R7g6 Rb4+ 32. Ke3 Rb5 33. Rf6 Rb6 34. Rxb6 axb6 35. h5 Ke8 36. Rg7 Kf8 37. Kf4 Ke8 38. b4 Rf8 39. Kg3 Rh8 40. f4 Kf8 41. Rg6 Ke8 42. Rf6 Rg8+ 43. Kf2 Rh8 44. Kf3 b5 45. Ke3 Rh7 46. Re6+ Kd8
47. Re7 Rg7 48. Rxc7 Kxc7 49. Nxg7 Kd6 50. Ke4 *1-0

I would not dream of playing 5.Nxf7, not even in a corr game.  If someone would hand me an 800-page analysis proving that 5.Nxf7 wins, I still wouldn't trust it.  Anyway, why risk so much when 5.Bxf7+ is there?

For whatever it's worth, in my data base, after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7, I have:

I. 6.Bd5 - 81 games, White scores 58%
II. 6.Bb3 - 72, 64%
III. 6.Bc4 - 4, 40%

So I think, sloughter, that you need more that just bald assertions to convince many people that 6.Bb3 is =.

But I would appreciate your answering my question in #61 below.  I could not make sense of the moves you gave.