Sloughter's persistent misevaluations arise from a lack of understanding. Few of us here are able to claim really deep understanding of chess, but the general level of chess knowledge here far exceeds poor sloughter's.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone's being at any particular level in this game, so I'm not about to denegrate sloughter for his 1700 rating or whatever it is. What is wrong, though, is to keep coming back here with poorly reasoned analysis and to insist tiresomely on its correctness. It's a waste of time at best. This is not a site devoted to delivering free chess instruction, but sloughter doesn't listen when good instruction is nevertheless given.

Sloughter will never be a strong player so long as he persists in his evident view that chess is an easy game. The path to improvement lies through playing
many games; but sloughter seems to want to demonstrate what he imagines to be his innate genius. Instead he repeatedly demonstrates his ignorance. It's sad, really.

sloughter wrote on 07/11/12 at 22:44:30:

sloughter wrote on 07/31/12 at 16:27:12:

When we are wrong you provide us with analysis in great detail. When we are right there is no analysis.

Don't forget that in your quote Steinitz was commenting on the variation he played as White against Chigorin in their correspondence match, and that Chigorin quickly proved him wrong, winning in brutal and spectacular fashion. But if historical figures speak to you more deeply, consider these words by Chigorin, made in the context of the same match. I don't have the original source so I'll make do by quoting from Kasparov's My Great Predecessors I, p. 81:

"The geniuses Morphy and Anderssen did not require any abstract understandings. [I] was not guided by abstract theoretical understandings about the comparative strength of the pieces etc., but solely by those facts which seem correct... after a detailed and if possible accurate analysis. Each move of mine is a feasible continuation from a number of variations, in the analysis of which theoretical 'principles of play' may have only a limited significance."

I have read about the Popcorn Opening and the Influenza Gambit, but this one is new for me.

kylemeister wrote on 07/16/12 at 19:47:45:


Science connects the known to the known. Yasser Seirawan Editor of Inside Chess called Karpov the most "confounding" player he had ever seen. "His pieces are only on the first and second rank but White is better!"

Steinitz and Karpov understand universal positions. My theories are fully consistent with those of Steinitz. 

Here is a quote from Steinitz published by Estrin, appearing in Correspondence World Champion Estrin’s book, The Two Knights’ Defense page 117, 1983 Edition, “Take a look at the board now, after my awkward retreat 13.Ng1. I have six pawns on their original squares, which, according to my theory…is a great advantage." I recommend post members consider this quote of Steinitz when looking at the positions I recommend.

I'm guessing that sloughter's suggestion for an improvement on move 10 means that he agrees with my analysis posted on July 12.

Sloughter, please, get yourself a modern computer and check your ideas.

8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.Qd1? Qd5 at least =/+

sloughter wrote on 07/12/12 at 15:53:53:


I disagree with your definition of "development". And now I think I understand what you mean by a "universal position". You really mean that a piece will often go to the same square in different variations. The common term for that is a "key square" or a "thematic move". An outpost is a key square, not a "universal position". A position refers to the position of all the pieces!


I agree that f6 isn't a developing move. It does shore up an important central pawn tho. I disagree completely that this is a "sharp position". White is threatening almost nothing at all. Black's advantage is long-term, despite the material investment. It's in large part because the position isn't rife with tactics that the computer evaluation is so untrustworthy. 

Here's a sample line that I worked out with the aid of Fritz (mostly to guess what moves you will look at) and Houdini:



Edited: