Then what have we been arguing about for 45 pages???

That it does not promise an active (which I think means good) game and can even leave white fighting for equality. With 1 d4 usually you have a long term edge you can nurture but even if you play too cautiously you're never worse than equal, but I really can't say the same for Na3, because you get that equality not if you slip.

I'm not trying to sound like a know it all, but I'm trying to make points by my analysis. I make sure I know what I'm talking about, though.

"Reuben Fine, one of the world's leading players from 1936 to 1951, explained that White's opening advantage is too intangible to be sufficient for a win without an error by Black."

Well yeah of course white can't win! He doesn't prefer black though, and I have actually read his books, he doesn't.

Would you like me to name GM's who prefer white? lol

Have we been arguing about completely different things?!!

You know the funny thing is, you hate chess principles, yet you follow the "white gets the initiative" rule religiously, insisting that 1 h4 is at least equal solely because of that rule, and you don't even look at the position...

"Here's a game I cut and pasted showing White trying to overrun Black and ending up disastrously..."

I hate how you completely miss my point. I don't disagree that a space advantage can be hard to use and countered, I just think that despite this possibility space is generally a good thing. And you know, the hedgehog is not going to help you think for yourself whether the side with more space or the side without is better in your Na3 positions. It depends! It's the same as assuming a center is bad because most people think it's good. It largely depends on position: sometimes it gives you an advantage, sometimes both have equally good play for and against it, and sometimes the center is weak and more of a target. Mentioning the hedgehog is not going to prove space is bad, or useless.

Also, if you want a GM who preferred Black, I'd advise looking at Efim Bogoljubov's games.  He was pretty into playing Black, saying "I win with White because I am White; I win with Black because I am Bogoljubov."

I agree with your poker anology, in the sense that I can at least get an idea of what White intends to set up.  In fact, a good example of that is in the World Champsionhip between Spassky and Fischer, the one where Fischer played 1.c4.

Making points by analysis is fine, but all of that must be tempered by reality. Checkers was solved in 2007. Seven-piece endgames in chess will be solved by 2015. But for anyone to make a claim based on his own analysis, there will always be holes in it. That's because even with advances in technology, it seems unlikely that chess will ever be solved. Make sure you know what you're talking about all you want -- it's still based on limited data.

My gut feeling (emotion, not analytical thinking) says that active pieces are not the key to winning at chess. Player A can reach the classical ideal position and still lose. The reason he loses is because he is still obliged to move. If Player B has a flexible position, he can move around infinitely, whereas Player A is weakened by any move he makes. A sudden pawn thrust can put Player B ahead.

For example, a typical position arises after 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.e4 a6.White has a spatial advantage, while Black often maneuvers his pieces on the last two ranks of the board, but White must keep a constant eye on the possible liberating pawn thrusts ...b5 and ...d5.

Get this: I agree with diabeditor again! Does this make black better? NO.

In fact I notice I agree with almost anything diabeditor says, except the conclusion he draws from it! He thinks that this one little thing above everything makes black preferable!

Oh, it's certainly not easy to handle white, but a good strategic player could slowly improve his position, maybe try a very slow K side pawn storm (which is what white often does in the hedgehog). However, white is at least equal in all of these positions. It's a slow manouvering game, and I think black is fine, but definitley not better, maybe equal. A great positional chess player could find some plans for white.

I don't like how you compare the hedgehog to the irrational positions you get with Na3. Just because the hedgehog is fine doesn't mean any weird thing you make up will be good. If you want to know why I think black is better in those positions, just look back 20 pages or so when I talked about this

 "White might have a spatial advantage, but by one move Black's activity can change everything." You said my point was vague, so I merely provided an example where this happens. If I post 200 games showing examples, I know this won't satisfy you. Yet you post 7 moves of a game and call it "irrefutable analysis." Whatever!

Wow, this was gonna be a long quote lol.

And hold up:  I'm arguing that this concept helps to make Black EQUAL to White.  And it does help sometimes.  I'll be honest, I barely pay attention to most of the posts in this thread now that its basically a troll thread with bits of actually usable knowledge(ie. your conversation with Diabeditor).

Black does have the advantage of seeing where wants to go, and deciding whether to continue developing against it or to play passively against it.  White has the advantage of initiative, giving it the ability to dictate in which direction the opening goes.  Really it comes down to preference; like with Bogoljubov.

"irrefutable analysis": fake quote... but it's fairly accurate anyways. I'm not trying to analyze the najdorf but Na3 has positions that are simply easier to show black is better, that's just how it is.

Your example doesn't prove black has a forced win however. If white prevents those breaks then black may indeed look like he's trapped in a cage (not necessarily bad if white's not doing anything but certainly not giving him an edge). Black's winning moves aren't forced, so he's not better. My problem is that since you can't analyze these lines yourself you just copy a game from the internet (and I saw this website before, where you got it from). At least I was thoughtful and took an unbiased look. Yeah, I concluded black was better (in that line, I don't claim it's proof of the whole opening), but that's after I looked at both sides' best moves and analyzed the position once the tactics cleared. Your counter to this? Recomending instead 4 Ng1 and assuming after 1 ply of analysis that white was at least equal, now how vague is that?

Grandmasters seem to have their own individual style, yet few ever recommend players try finding their own style. I bet if people analyzed their games based on winning percentages with White/Black, particular openings, time controls, etc., they would find what works best for them and what doesn't.

My winning percentage OTB, for example, is higher vs. players >2000 than it is against players 1700-2000. I'm sure there must be some explanation why. My guess is that I try harder vs. the stronger players and undersetimate the 1700 guys.

As well, I have way more confidence with Black. It doesn't mean having the Black pieces is preferable theoretically, but it sure seems to help me in practical play.

Posting the game wasn't meant to prove that Black has a forced win. It's simply an example, nothing more. Since I'm only on this forum at work, where I don't have a chessboard handy, since you asked me to post an example, I did.

I was assuming you were implying that black is better when you could only say bad things about white's position. But don't mock my analysis that you lie about me calling "irrefutable" when comparing my analysis which I put effort in to you copying a game.

You keep scoresheets of tournament games, right? Could you at least show me a few games? I'm sorry, this is something you just have to prove.

Sure, I am willing to post a few of my best games, but not if you are just going to poke holes in my play. Any fool can do that in retrospect. If I post my wins and draws over masters, it's not really conclusive of anything, but if you're requesting this for curiosity's sake, I can oblige.

No, I just want proof. Because from a guess I doubt you would even get to play many 2000 players most of the time. But if you have the games where you play and beat them OTB, post them. If you beat these people they must be pretty good. I do think beating a master more than once or even just once proves something, unless maybe it was 1 0. It's hard to get too lucky against a master, you probably need some, but you have to play very well.

With Swiss pairings, the top half of the field plays the bottom half in the first round. Since I'm usually in the bottom half, in round 1 I play a guy over 2000 pretty much every tournament I play in. Even as the underdog I tend to draw or win my first game. Then the rest of the tournament, things turn sour for me.

My assumptions for why this happens are twofold: 1) I have more energy in the first round, but tire out as the tournament progresses. 2) I know my openings well, so if I play titled players we both stick to the books where I know my stuff, whereas weaker players will play odd openings that are unfamiliar to me and I screw up against them and/or fall into their traps.

Alberta has many masters and a couple of GMs, so there's no shortage of strong competition here. I don't play in enough OTB tourneys, unfortunately, to keep up with them. Playing in 2 or 3 tournaments a year, it's not enough to keep the mind sharp.

If you're losing to odd moves by a weaker player, then you should simply improe your playing ability instead of your openings, so that this odd move will be severely punished (I'm not saying always, but often a weaker player will go out of book with no idea what he's doing or a desperate trap, both often big mistakes). What I've always said about unorthodox openings is that you have to play well, but you're greatly rewarded for doing so.

Yeah, I play the Latvian Gambit for that very reason. If my opponent is totally unfamiliar with it, I can win early on. If he plays well, it still leads to a fun clash.

When I lose to weaker players, it's usually due to a blunder, not that I was outplayed from start to finish. I have a horrible habit of getting a strong position, controlling space, winning a pawn or 2, developing my pieeces, getting my king to safety, etc., and then WHAM! ... I leave my queen hanging. It sucks when that happens.

The game is a horrible example. Tell me how the a6 knight helped the attack in any way. It didn't!!! Black playe poorly. He should have taken the knight with 2.Bxa3 and after 2...bxa3, Black is equal or better