11043 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
the loli attack is cosidered to give white practical advantage against this while the fried live does give white great game but with acurate play black can still hold on . you should analyse the loli but nice post :)
the fried liver is some beginner attempt at mate. beginners cant play through a whole game, so they hope to checkmate early and be done.
To show you how little you know about me Hadron, I had GM Lev Alburt look at the continuation 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 and 8.Nh3 for months. Do you think that GM Alburt can analyze as well as you?
I can hear the warning klaxons a sounding!! Must not answer...must not answer....must not answer....Bugger it
Know about you? I am sure you’re a wonderful chap. The problem is however i think that a good number of people can't get there head around is just what is the point? You calm you have studied the Two Knights for 30 years? Even if that where wholey true, the evidence that you have produced for peer review here (or the masses depending on your perspective) is little more than mass reproduced chess engine fodder. On top of this, you are now the ultimate name dropper with "Lev Alburt". The truthfulness of whether or not you HAD Mr. Alburt analyse the Two Knights Defence to me is irrelevant. The fact that you claim as such dents your own supposition that YOU have been analysing the Two Knights for 30 years and it should be that a team of chess engines and Mr. Alburt have largely been doing it for you.
90% of the ideas that I tested with Lev were mine; he merely responded to questions I posed to him. Since we worked through snail mail, it would take months to do analysis it is possible to do in a few hours with a computer.
The engines come up with "ideas" that is true, but the overwhelming majority of Novelties, both good and bad are mine (A mediocre one that was played successfully against a postal expert published in Inside Chess was 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Nc6 4.d4?! N, but Houdini 3 Pro cooked it with 4...exd4 5.e5 Ng8! 6.Qe4 Nge7/Ng6 =/+)
using engines? I avoid it at all costs. it is just like saying that im smart because a computed taught me how to be.
Even assuming it is true...
I have ideas. Try every move in every position.
Now I will let some GM test my ideas and claim credit for that.
Great idea! If someone had done that 30 years ago, the Berliner Gambit would have been refuted 30 years ago; instead it is the only choice of Deep Fritz 14 which came out in 2013 and is regarded as with compensation in ECO.
If I had followed your advice, I would have refuted the Berliner Gambit, the main line of an early edition of BCO 2 15 years ago.
Your suggestion is actual the only thorough way to do chess theory.
It is also the only thorough way to do plaigarism.
Which year were published those ECO and BCO 2 that you are quoting in some of your posts?
ECO is 2006, BCO was 1982 (This was the first edition and if my memory serves me correctly the Editors devoted an entire page of analysis to this one variation).
Think about it: Chess has been around for 500 years and BCO 2 is 400 pages long. In other words each page of analysis represents the distillation of a year's worth of theory by the entire chess community combined i.e. the Editors are saying that they thought the Berliner Gambit was so important that it deserved an entire page of analysis---and they got it completely wrong!
To show just how little the refutation is known, isn't it surprising that Deep Fritz 14 which came out in late 2013 plays the Berliner Gambit every time it plays the Fritz or against 6.Bf1 in the Ulvestad!
Since I've written article called, "Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century", I can speak to the definition of plagiarism. May I suggest you consult Noah Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language Second Edition, Unabridged, "To plagiarize: To use without credit, the ideas, expressions, or productions of another."
How does testing every idea in a position represent plagiarism?
Computers crunch moves; I try to crunch ideas. If there is an "idea" in a position, no matter how ridiculous I try to find it. This allows me to come up with more novelties earlier than anyone else several prior to move 4.
9/20/2014 - Going For The Touchdown
by ReyRambler1960 3 minutes ago
The Right moves for the wrong reasons!
by kleelof 5 minutes ago
Beat 1500+ (I'm under 900) ELO. What do you think?
by RodolfoOlympia 6 minutes ago
New Logic for Auto-pairing and Seek Graph!
by wanmokewan 13 minutes ago
8/23/2014 - Kupper - Olafsson, Zurich 1956
by WannabeGM1 22 minutes ago
Fun chess players game
by GuessWhoIAm 24 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by camberfoil 29 minutes ago
by GodIike 40 minutes ago
Playing selective opening with ARENA chess
by Crappov 45 minutes ago
Mid/low blitz 'gambling' play style
by jauhin 52 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!