Markovich wrote on 05/18/13 at 01:00:37:


I didn't get anything out of his posts either, but really--are we to delete posts because we didn't find the contents interesting?  Why not just ignore them?  He didn't advertise a product or website, and he didn't engage in any personal attacks.  He's floundering around in his mind, trying to make sense of this line of the Winawer in his own way--well, let him.   

Why the constant talk of deleting posts (of Gambit's, etc.,), banning people, and the like?  Can't we just choose not to post in a thread that has no interesting content to us but otherwise doesn't break any forum rules?

I don't think the OP knows what the meaning of the word "theoretical" is in chess--almost the opposite of what it means in science. In the scientific sense, Steinitz had a theory of chess, but there is no theory of what's going on in the Botvinnik Semi-Slav.

Look, it's socially clueless, and he has no idea how he in fact sounds to experienced players; but it's not offensive. Such posts are like weeds: if too much of this sort of thing grew it would choke the normal ecology of the forum, but some can be tolerated. Probably the best weapon against it is exactly what is happening--reactions that make clear a  faux pas was made, but no censorship.

Honestly, carefully read Plyo's long first post, which is in two sections. I dare anyone strong in chess to do that, and then say that it is not just so much puffed-up pedantry. Just read the headings, for crying out loud!But since this counts for valid discourse here, I will say no more.

"Refutation" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - I. M.

I can't say about my "tone" because it's just... my tone but I certainly didn't mean anything by it. Perhaps my desire to sound more "critical" failed because I ended up sounding "obnoxious". Nothing I can do about it now though, I'm not going to re-write the entire thread and I'm not sure I can make myself sound differently anyway but again, nothing was meant to be "obnoxious".

As for the rest... unfortunately, I don't think anyone (here) understood the point I was trying to make. I wasn't claiming that black is better or that I found a tactical refutation, in fact I clearly stated otherwise, several times.
The entire perspective here was to look at things differently (via the structure) so to blame it as being one sided or putting too much emphasis on the structure is rather silly... when this is the whole point to begin with!?

So just to clarify again, it's not meant to supply a move-to-move repertoire for black... nothing like that.
It's supposed to offer a different perspective by looking at the structure and omitting and adding pieces as though they were variables... to my mind, yes, it is beneficial and whether a WC agrees with it or not is to some degree irrelevant because it's not meant to be "theory" in the sense of a novelty, it's theory in the sense of themes.

BTW, in general, my opinion on modern chess is that players should play off beat lines with limited amount of themes so to begin with if a WC is playing a line or opening I try not to play it for this very reason! It may resonate with some people and thought of as nonsense by others, that's just fine.

My point (in terms of critical lines now) was that I read Watson's book and other books too and I still haven't found a line I would consider a technical win for white. Maybe it's out there, I wasn't claiming it isn't, what I did claim is that black has resources and that in my experience (playing OTB) if you know the themes well enough it is quite playable and black can even have the better endgame and if this is the case and all you can reach is a strategic stand off (which is different to "equal" lines in the Gruenfeld where activity and positional imbalances are different) then what justifies it?

It reminds me of lines in the Catalan where authors claim that white is better on move 34 (for those who can remember it) and when you actually set it up on the board you can find that 4 moves later the position is a clear draw of 0.00 where even a 1200 player would see it and if this was white's "only" attempt of an edge then what justifies it?

To my mind it raises important questions.

---

As a side note... please think of it as an allegory...
Lets assume your understanding of chess is high but your talent/skill/practical abilities don't allow you to exercise it to the same degree, does it still make sense for you to play lines where you are forced into scenarios where your skill keeps failing?

John Watson may know a lot more on the French than Short does (which was clear from their 2 interviews) yet in practical games one was just another IM and the other was a world championship contender.

Nakmaurra's trainer (for many years) was rated quite low and when he was asked he said the same thing... that just because he doesn't have the ability to find it OTB it doesn't mean he doesn't have the analytical understanding.

If you don't have the honest skill (which is mostly biological) how helpful will it be for you to follow such lines?

My point here is that it's not illogical to look for thematic play rather than leaning on memorisation and brute skill.

Why are these pretentious, pedantic and, above all, verbose posts by Plyo allowed to stand? Before anyone else can reply, he answers his own original post with another equally obnoxious one. This really is a terrible abuse of this forum.