My Opening Invention

I know more about opening theory than you. 

Please don't mock someone who has a better understanding.

Learning the opening is about as helpful as playing on Chess.com, which is very pointless, by the way.

I have read all the books I can on opening theory. They have nothing to do with my games.

Games are lost in the middle game.

I can tell you didn't learn one crucial thing about opening theory from your studies. When you go from the level that you play at to the one I do, if you open poorly, you will lose any advantage you might have been able to gain from opening properly and most likely the game. This is the first piece of evidence that you aren't on my level.

If you aren't rated better than me and you don't play well in the opening, you probably aren't going to beat me. As for the rating you are at, maybe you can come back against those at your level. BTW, I only lose games in the end game. If you are losing in the middle game, you should try a better opening...

Also you misinterpreted my comments earlier. I don't like either line because I don't like to play that style, that is why I said they are bad(bad for me).

If you knew so much about opening theory, you would have already thought ahead of time,about what I clearly pointed out to you, as to why you won't be having that opening named after you, and would avoided the idea of trying, as well as, the ridicule of those you wish you were contemporaries with.

I play a variation of both an offense and a defense I can't find names for yet. That doesn't mean I am trying to claim them. I don't think I should because I am not a well rated GM, who should be recognized as a contributor to opening theory. You will find that all of the major contributors to opening theory are prominently GM's.

Are you a prominent GM who should be recognized for contributing to opening theory, because people have been awed at your prowess in beating great players, with your fabulous opening? I think you should have needed to buy yourself a new pair of shoes by now, if you had any idea how much you should have put your foot in your mouth.

If you are so good compared to me, why of all of the ratings the we have in common, do mine exceed yours? Is it because the system is flawed or maybe the rest of us aren't understanding them? I'm confused. I still don't know what your basing your logic on.

BTW, I am untracking this thread. So replying to this will go unnoticed by me. So if you want to waste your time trying to reprove me or goading me into a game, I am not going to waste my time. Good luck with your opening.

You do realize this thread is a joke, right?

You do realize taking a Russian nickname won't make you play like one, even if you have your opponent thinking you are one for a few seconds? Right?

You do realize my name is not Russian, right?

If you are trying to convince me that you either don't understand what you read or that you are getting desperate for material, its working.

also the King's Gambit is completely sound. I want you to dump that Fischer Article out of your head because most of the lines in there have been proven to not be the best play by white. His Article is BS by today's theory. which I safely ignore with 3. Bc4

dued thats like  .5 % its negligable. plus It was completely BS because he only dealt with 3. Nf3. he didn't even mention a line with 3. Bc4 in it. also He played it himself proving that he didn't believe his own article that if white plays something different he just looses differently. plus Modern theory has completely disproven that 3. ... d6 is inefectual.

I was going off of what Pfren Gave me since I don't do statistics.

how come you are using the GE here when you said it was BS.

I don't normally check statistics I guess its true that 46.467523% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

anyway I should have checked. but since the only other database I even consider using would be chessgames.com's because its the only other free one. and I don't even use them much because I don't really focus on 3 or 4 percent. I consider anything less than 10 % negligable.  but I get where you are coming from.

statistics is a legitiment but people need to understand the math that goes behind it. Its based on information limited information  limited ability to make assumtions. Chess.com database is very limited both in quality and quanity so I wouldnt make any predictions based on it.

they are about equal because you failed to include the amount of vairability into the percentages. eg it would be 55% plus or minus 5% due to incompleteness same with the 45% one. so they are about equal. neither is clearly winning or clearly loosing unless we are talking parlimentary procedures.

statisitics say that white has a slight advantage. something like 5%(rough I can look it up but thats about right) so if something is 50 50 then black has gained ground. why when people say a position has given equal chances its not good for white.

yep i have multple times. I have chessbase 2012 opening book , megabase blah blah blah. king's gambit a player is often playing for all 3 results. 
it is a "good' opening in that it fits into a logical struture that can be utilized later in other openings where white plays f4 later. it teaches development and logical attacks.
Blacks wins are also a bit skewed due to the number of lower rated players trying to play it against higher rated ones who arent fooled by it due to the forcing lines that are easy to remember.
if it is so bad for white do you really think Carlsen and Nakamura would play it in serious touraments and events against serious players 

BIG BIG BIG difference when nakamura played it

he was 2657 playing someone who was 2642 it was 2005 oh and he LOST!! so he was 17 and his  self confidence bordered on arrogance. he was not close to wher ehe is now and actually after this and another embarrassment he decided to get serious about openings study and well. he is top 10...

When your playing the top players in the world you do NOT mess around. The risk is too great and the cost too much from a rating perspective. drop below 10 and your invites drop and your income as well.

this is also 2012! so when was the last time he played it since he was 2700 or ANY 2700 played the patzer opening in a serious tournament? dont worry I will wait.....

I can point at multiple times GMS have played the kings gambit in serious events at 2700 level in 2012 alone.... 

The results tell the tail Nakamura LOST (::I was better but lost because I tried to hard to win from an EQUAL POSITION!!::) and he drew against players he was clearly more talented than and just a better player than. 
Has he attempted this openings since his 2005 debacle?
Has Nakramura played it in any event?

Has ANY titled master played it in ANY serious event since 2012?

I have games of GM Kamsky played 1 Na3 2. Nh3 against everything black played on ICC blitz. 

Your support of this based on TWO!!!!!! games played by a young GM where he lost and drew and using this as the crux of an argument is just absurd. Can you expect anyone to take you or anyone that supports the Patzer opening seriously based on this? National masters , International Masters, Grandmasters have said the samething about 2. Qh5 and they are just told by class players they are wrong... It reminds me of a scene in the movie "the waterboy" Where adam sandler got in an argument with the teacher saying "but momma said,...!"

No, it has to do with the fact my name isn't Russian.

I think it would be great to take lessons from an IM.  You go on later to trash him more and then say he's not even a GM, but you're not a titled player at all.  IM pfren seems to be offering debate, not just slinging insults.

On the original subject, here is the opening I created.  I call it the Scared Chicken Defense:

Bobby Fischer would never think like this. It was all about imgination for him. The risks were worth it.

Most major GM's consider the KG unsound. This includes Garry Kasparov.