chandrashekharkoravi wrote on 02/20/14 at 07:49:00:


You need to situate comments in existing theoretical literature. As indeed we all do here. Just like any research needs a literature review.

1. What is the theory? 
2. What is different in your game? 
3. What point are you making? (Can you kick off discussion with your own views for people to react to?)

Currently, some are reacting to your posts as plain trolling.

Using the wording refutation is clearly a way to get reactions. I used the same trick more than a decade ago so I give the guy some credit.

Update: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.chess.analysis/NvS3O9eZ5Hg At that time I still posted with my full name but realized afterwards that this was stupid. Also my style of writing has changed but I believe that is a normal evolution.

Anyway looking to the line I do have some questions.
1) What happens after the evident 8...Qxd4? Does white get enough compensation?
2) I studied this line last in 2006 and gave it up due to 21...Rd7, what has changed?

is this a joke?