1. Only an idiot would take on d5 after 3.Qe2 Nf6.
2. Only another idiot would take back on d5 with the Queen.
Other than that, your analyses are remarkably brilliant. Keep them going! 
You got to be joking.
While 1.a3 is pretty certainly better than 95% of the crappy gambits some white players are employing, you'd better try something more ambitious.
Seriously, you think cause you're an IM you are some sort of God among us, and go mocking everyone? Get a life...
Seriously, you think cause you're an IM you are some sort of God among us, and go mocking everyone? Get a life...
I was referrring to an idiot in general- nothing personal against you, although you seem fitting the gap perfectly.
It's pretty clear that if you look at pfren's post history, he devotes most of his time to calling people names. He comes off as very insecure. Probably because we live in an era when kids who could be his grandchildren have made it to GM, while pfren, in a lifetime of trying, hasn't amounted to anything.
You can see the desperation when he tries to claim he taught junior champions, only to have it revealed later they moved on from him pretty young, because he wasn't actually able to help them achieve their goals.
And it takes only a brief look at his game history, together with a little analysis from any decent engine, to realize his move matchup rate is about 5x what you'd expect from a correspondence master.
He needs to feel like he's accomplished something with his wasted life, so he pretends to be better and more knowledgeable and more successful than he is, and he cheats when he plays.
Sad, really. But pretty typical for a Greek.
Pretty typical for a Greek... huh.
Very clever comment from a typical idiot, who never, ever contibuted anything to this site- apart from cryptoracist comments, that is.
You idiot, my OTB rating (where I obviously cannot use an engine) is some 120+ points higher than my cc rating at chess.com. You will probably assume that this is sheer coincidence, but... OK, I will let you assume whatever your retarded brain pops up.
Wow, looks like some people are reacting very poorly when chess fantasy meets hard reality. Just take a look at the standard chess ratings of his detractors, tells a nice story
Hedgehog, pfren was accused of cheating, and you agreed with the post.
which post?
Good night, sir.
RifkaViveka hinted that the average rating of my cc opponents is actually quite poor, which is certainly the case: Most of them are/were weak players, which challenged me (I never, ever challenged anyone here), they played poorly, and... I won. What's weird about that? Huh?
...
And it takes only a brief look at his game history, together with a little analysis from any decent engine, to realize his move matchup rate is about 5x what you'd expect from a correspondence master.
He needs to feel like he's accomplished something with his wasted life, so he pretends to be better and more knowledgeable and more successful than he is, and he cheats when he plays.
Sad, really. But pretty typical for a Greek.
Last part is steriotypical but I agree with the rest
Which post? Really?
Wow, 3 in a row by thehedgehog2000, 2 of which are about the same post. It looks like someone just seems angry and wants a fight. I'm taking all bets!
which post?
Good night, sir.
RifkaViveka hinted that the average rating of my cc opponents is actually quite poor, which is certainly the case: Most of them are/were weak players, which challenged me (I never, ever challenged anyone here), they played poorly, and... I won. What's weird about that? Huh?
So you don't mind the occasional challenge from a patzer like me?
which post?
Good night, sir.
RifkaViveka hinted that the average rating of my cc opponents is actually quite poor, which is certainly the case: Most of them are/were weak players, which challenged me (I never, ever challenged anyone here), they played poorly, and... I won. What's weird about that? Huh?
So you don't mind the occasional challenge from a patzer like me?
I accept all challenges, but currently I have a vacation flag (leaving tomorrow morning to participate in an open tournament).
Send the challenge say at August sixth.
Oh dear, arguments and abuse, what a 
surprise.
IM pfren may not have been diplomatic about it, but he was accurate. Perhaps English is a second language to him and he does not appreciate the difference between saying "only an idiot would move X-y7" and saying "X-y7 is an idiotic move."
But it remains a fact that his comments are completely true. If you do not wish to be described as stupid, perhaps you should not suggest stupid moves.
To attack pfren as being mean is ridiculous and false. His posting here reflects a very friendly and helpful spirit, and he is without doubt the most informed on current opening theory on the site.
Get real, people.
I think IM pfren is gruff, but hateful/mean isn't something I associate with him.
I think we should be happy that a IM is giving constructive comments and ideas on various openings. And about the rudeness .. it does get tiring that every other day some 1200 players suggests to move a queen out on move 3 to get a instant win or finds a massive improvement by moving a rook pawn twice within the first 5 moves.
It is not for the first time that the principles of decent opening play are explained in this forum.
Back to the main topic on 1.a3, I have an otb tournament this tuesday. Is it a bad idea or fine to play 1.a3, if I'm given White?
I kind of believe that the first move advantage is a myth. It's kind of racist that when you're white, achieving equality is bad. That's like saying, black shouldn't be equal with white, which sounds really racist.
I don't see the problem with equality as white?
Why are you so obsessed with connecting racism to chess? As i said before, instead of combating actual racism, you are merely maintaining a facade by avoid all appearence of racism, instead of avoiding actual racism. If your trying to make a joke, its already been done many times before and its not really that funny.
Why are you so obsessed with connecting racism to chess? As i said before, instead of combating actual racism, you are merely maintaining a facade by avoid all appearence of racism, instead of avoiding actual racism. If your trying to make a joke, its already been done many times before and its not really that funny.
I'm not but you make it sound racist when you say, "Equality is not good when you're White." Of course it is. If it is good enough for black it should be good enough for white. What makes white so special all of a sudden?
That's why I keep connecting racism to chess because you guys make it sound so racist when you say, "Equality is not good enough for White."
OF COURSE IT IS!
First move advantage is a myth. Even computers believe in this myth by saying that the score is +0.35 because of this nonsense.
Serious analysts should consider the moves suggested by engines, but they should NEVER take their evaluations for real.
+0.35 most of the times is nothing significant: It can be total equality, or totally winning position. Engines are still not good enough to give fair evaluations.
You DO have to understand though, that fortifying your e4 by Qe2, no matter if this move is good, or bad, and on the very next move destroying this strongold by ed5, is not just inconsistent: It is utterly ridiculous, and bad chess. Ufff...
Agreed.
On a side note, this is legal, right? You haven't read or heard of a rule saying that en passant can't be use if the pawn that moves 2 gives "checkmate," have you? I ask because this guy on this poll keeps posting that this would be checkmate: http://www.chess.com/survey/ever-taken-a-pawn-en-passant-before
EDIT: Diagram fixed!