Technically, Scott's play is considered above average, while Yereslov's is considered about average according to Chess.com's statistics.
1.d4 is better!!!
Both of you don't stand a chance against me today. This is one of my "good" days where I play at the level of an IM.
OK dude, have fun with that.
I am. How about a game?
Sure, send me an online game.
Actually just seen your rating, bit of a waste of my time.
Seriously, if you are considering a career in comedy, or think using subtle cheating tactics will work for you, I understand, but you aren't going to sucker me with that...
If I used engines, I would have never lost to Conquistador.
Just because you haven't in the past doesn't prevent you from doing so to someone...
And just because you haven't murdered anyone today doesn't mean that you won't murder someone tommorow.
How does that tie in with our original topic ?
It's sarcasm. The whole argument about what can and what can't happen is absurd.
One would think, based on your statement, that you are confused, considering you started the hypothetical talk about Tal's play...
All that fascinating rot aside, as black, I'll tell you that I tend to have the most fun against e4.
I've always found 1. e4 offered a better game as white. It gets the KB out quickly which facilitates castling, and while it invites the Sicilian, I'd rather face that defense than the Kings Indian or Grunfeld. But it's mostly a matter of taste.
Nameno, what I stated is a fact. Most of his sacrifices are refuted by modern chess theory and analysis.
Don't you ever let anything just go, Yereslov? Always one more go at saying some inane point again instead of clamming up and slinking offstage.
Uh-oh. He may be sending you a challenge, Doc. You know, since he is playing at Master level now.
If he's playing at master level, he's using a computer, since he seems to be a 900 player in the flesh. We won't have to worry about him bothering us for much longer, if that's the case.