I actually wondered if I should bothered adding anything more to the debate has I did have the other thread closed down for a reason (i.e. I found a resource of information thanks to the Maestro and I was not interested in further banal debates).
However [Edited] seems to want to continue to wave the red flag:
Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
For my part, I chose to mock the notion that chess played normally is "soporific," the OP's term.
And I think this is the point that Mr. Büecker and at least one other was trying to make, just who are you to mock anyone? As for myself, I really didn’t take I great deal of notice of your attempts at wit because no where did I say that either “chess played other than in gambit fashion is boring” or “that chess played normally is "soporific," I said that “soporific chess is not for me” and because I was also asking about Peter Fyfe’s gambit idea, you decided you would add 2 and 2 together and make it 5.
Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
The most pointed and confrontational remarks, I thought, were those of the O.P..
Pointed? My original posts in both forum threads are exactly that, pointed. Precise and to the point – Please does anyone have any old games and analysis on the Fyfe Gambit – Please do not tell me it is junk – and please I do not won’t chess engine analysis. A pointed and precise request followed with specific and concrete riders. If you compare the first thread (up until with the first of Mr. Büecker’s post on 5/18/11) with the second, it is not hard to see that the first thread is clearly the more sensible where the second lapses into stupidity as early as the second post.
Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
And he also chose not to air out any chess specifics..
Why do I need to “air out” any chess specifics, as you put it? As with both threads, I asked a simple question and while the first thread provided some reasonable leads as did the second but …..
Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
So far, it is fair to say, NO ONE has discussed this gambit.
…you are quite right. No one has discussed the gambit directly, what certain individuals have done however is either (1) done what I have asked of them and provided me with analysis from old sources (which Mr. Büecker did in a round about fashion) or (2) made attempts at banal if not flawed humour. So rather that howl about people being confrontational as you did in a paragraph above, why did you not attempt to actually discuss the gambit rather than attempt some poor Sigmund Freud impression? You had your chance to make a sensible contribution and you chose not to do so perhaps to point out that others also have not is a bit rich.
Markovich wrote on 06/30/12 at 01:25:02:
So perhaps someone should bring on some variations instead of striking a noble pose in favour of good and against evil.
What good and evil is, perhaps, purely subjective, just like what ‘normal chess’ is or just what ‘soporific’ chess might be.
All I wanted was so me old analysis on the Fyfe Gambit and look what I got. I will be writing to the forum moderator to close this thread as well, these troll bites are starting to itch. An esteemed thank you to the more sensible among you
HTH
Pages: [1] 
C25: Fyfe Gambit. (Read 24042 times)
