Thank you Grandmaster Khachiyan.

Very good, thanks!

GM'S by definition beat up on IM's....

Very interesting video. I especially liked your idea of not castling at first, but playing an older line with Nc6 - discouraging and/or preventing Bg4: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nc3 Bg4 8.h3 - losing the bishop pair, unless it's possible to retreat the bishop and somehow achieve equality as Black.

Thank you.

@ IM Nezhmet - Thanks for the link. Outstanding site and highly entertaining and instructive annotations. Altounian is a creative beast. Dang! How can one possibly prepare for his opening stunts? That first bishop move by Black in the QGA would have caused me to burn 5 minutes on the clock as White.  Guys that do this: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Be6??!!  drive me bananas!

I like the idea of Nihilistic chess. Let the other guy make a mistake first, then punish him. It worked recently when I played the Hedgehog defense as Black. I didn't do much of anything but shuffle pieces around until my opponent opened a door that led to his ultimate demise. A lazy man's way to play chess. 

I analyzed the opening of Khachiyan-Taylor in the Altounian-Shankland game.  I don't think it should be anything (it's very nihilistic, moving the white knight backward just to get an ending.).   The trick is, how can black get anything?  In the Altounian game black indeed had a good game for a while. I think ...Be6 in the opening is quite good as is ...Bd7 as played in this video lesson and the Altounian game.  

Thank you very instructive

i would to play with Melik Khachiyan

I was struck by this quotation:  " In 2004 he wrote "How to Beat a Grandmaster" in which he laments customarily losing a "slow boring death" to grandmasters and offers his solution: "I say ATTACK!" This may explain his inaccuracies on the kingside late in the game. Maybe someone can comment on an IM's mindset versus GMs. "

I totally disagree.   Every game is unique and in some games attack is not the right thing to do.  As Fischer said, just play strong moves!  These are not always attacking moves.

I didn't know Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor played chess. I use to watch his show. ;)

That is a really good question -- 10sfriend. Here are my thoughts...

In general, what IM Taylor is saying is true. Most players, especially in the range of strong expert up to strong master (but before being a titled player -- either IM or GM) will never beat a GM. IMs are beatable, but GMs are just that much better. However, the main reason players almost never even "get in the situation" to beat a GM is because they think "OK, I am playing a GM. Let's just try for a solid game"... Or they say "Man, I lasted 60 moves with a GM, awesome!"

Both of those mindsets show that the player thought his best chances against a GM were to be "solid", try "not to stir it up", and "hope for a draw" or something. Even players of Master Level think this way.

So, what Taylor is saying is absolutely the truth: You can't beat strong chess players without putting pressure on them to calculate -- aka Attack. Think about it this way: If you last 60 moves, but the game comes down to experience and positional understanding, who do you think has the better chances? Maybe the 60 moves sound good on paper, but that is EXACTLY how a GM wants to beat you. NO RISK. He has more experience, he will not blunder, and even if you play well, he will grind you.

Now, if you throw caution to the wind (just a little though, as I am not saying that you now have a "get out of jail free card" to go crazy and sac your pieces) and attack, your chances will increase. What if the game becomes crazy, which is basically calculation, and whomever calculates better and applies more focus over the board will win the game??? What just happened? You leveled the playing field. The game is now complex, original, and nothing to do with experience. So, the GM may still win a lot (most the time) -- but the percentages go way down...

I watched this video of course, and I completely agree with Melik though. Taylor's play was overly agressive and at times, absurd. Perhaps his correct assesment of how to beat GMs from an equal position jaded his perspective here, because he was black, slightly worse, and had no grounds to play that way. Well, Melik took care of him right?

My thoughts...

  Thanks, Melik. I looked up IM Tim Taylor on-line. In 2004 he wrote "How to Beat a Grandmaster" in which he laments customarily losing a "slow boring death" to grandmasters and offers his solution: "I say ATTACK!" This may explain his inaccuracies on the kingside late in the game. Maybe someone can comment on an IM's mindset versus GMs.

wonderful instructive video!

Very very instructive - thank you and well played!

Great to watch a comparatively simple game, with GM Melikset explaining, very clearly, how ignoring fundemental principles leads, along with very accurate play by White, to a near automatic loss for Black. Thank you!

Very interesting,

Good lesson.  

I guess Taylor wanted a free activity loan but did'nt check the sur-charge on it.