Not that I have a horse in this race, but you honestly don't see the parallels between what you call socialism, and recommending everyone cripple their chess progress by immersing themselves in mediocre, antipositional openings that will cause everyone to stagnate at the same level, and for the same reasons?

so 6. d3, by that I meant, not trying to look from another perspective, I looked at d3 and thought it to slow for the goal(early attack, which needs a center)

that is what I was going for, you were just more elloquent

I just play the four knights. You can't go wrong getting the horsies out.

That's up to the player, not the opening.

Ah yes, the pieces seem to magic themselves to these passive positions don't they.

Fischer managed to crush plenty of GMs with the queen's gambit declined. Those games were pretty violent.

there is no such thing as a passive KG, even the declined is agressive, and the parham is agressive to the point of stupidity, its like one guy walks out claiming he can do a lot of damage, but when he finaly goes to the karate tournoment, he gets the crap kicked out of him.

You talk as if the openings play themselves...

I have played it a lot more than that, its just most of the games are beyond what either of us can find

thats how often my opponents play 1... e5, to that I only reply 2. f4

also why did you decline my challange, I wanted to give you a chance to prove that the KG is easy to stop

I don't have an engine genius. too strict with where I spend my money, I am a basic member, and since you looked at my games, that means that obviously I don't use an engine

no that is completely dishonest and would get me kicked off the site

yes there would, my play would be about 1000+ rating points better because of it, would deffinately look out of place in a 1300s bin of games

no I would play the way I play, the KG, plus ever consider that I would never cheat because it is just plain uncool. lets take this on ok, you just don't want to play me.

I would never use a computer to play my games. you are just to scared to accept an honest challange to a person who wants to see his play do better than the person who claims its aweful, why would I let some piece of silicon do that for me.

I say Qe7 because I want to push d5 on d6 and take the center.

but after your move it makes sence

I think I typed it confusingly, Qe7 has a purpose, but your moves make more sence

I don't know the specifics of it (other than the early queen move) but doesn't it just immediately yield equality?  What I mean is, it's not as bad as say, the latvian

Well, again I'm not sure what the move order calls for.  But for example if the light square bishop has moved, then whenever the queen is kicked from h5 it could conceivably go back to e2 and it wouldn't be a disaster or anything.

But just giving up a tempo like that probably isn't part of the idea of the system/attack or whatever it is.  So it might give black a small advantage against good play.