Enter the Omega Reti Gambit - Chess Forums - Page 3

Dec 3, 2015

0

#41

It's not any harder to beat than a regular opening you never seen before. G4 is a bad move, therefore it should be easier to play against than a good move.

drawingdroidfish

Dec 3, 2015

0

#42

DarthMusashi wrote:

drawingdroidfish

DarthMusashi wrote:

drawingdroidfish

Well if you believe they are refutable then show me the refutation. You are

just making statements without any proof. I would like to see your refutation

to both my Gibbins Weidenhagen Gambit 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 and my Ulysses Gambit
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3.

Best Regards

DarthMusashi

The first one is exceedingly easy: 2...Nxg4, Black wins. I play engines-on correspondence chess over at FICGS (my performance rating in one tournament section is about 2450 right now, the section where somebody trotted out 1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 f5? against me -- a completely original TN, but, unfortunately, losing) and I would be quite happy to prove this, or, perhaps more correctly, me, Komodo 9.2 and Stockfish6 would.

The second one might take a more positional rather than brute force approach. As somebody who wasted three decades playing the Budapest though, I don't trust anything that remotely looks like it, and as White you're probably throwing away any opening advantage at the very least.

Anybody can use a chess engine. But can you bust it over the board if you
see it for the first time? Using a chess engine in a tournament is like
cheating, which means your real strength is not real becaue thes engine

played the game for you.You could not use a chess engine in a regularr
tournament game with time controls. If you do that that would also

be cheating. One of my chess students on chess.com had said that some

players over 2000 are using chess engines to play their game against him and that is alos cheating. Do you have any morals? Have you actually put any work into

improving your game by studying opening theory and middlegame theory?

Best Regards
DartMusashi

You are a fvcking idiot. I told you it's on FICGS, a correspondence server where engines are fvcking allowed. Where by the way I'm finding real opening innovations in actual useful lines like the Sicilian/Najdorf/English variation, that will be able to be used by subsequent players, once they make their way into chessbase, unlike your garbage.

Trust me I didn't get a performance rating of 2450 in one of their tournament sections by not knowing opening/middlegame theory. Anybody with a clue about centaur chess knows its not a matter of simply plugging a position into the engine and playing its top choice.

Go fvck yourself.

Hadron

Dec 3, 2015

0

#43

Well, you’re an angry person are you not? But while I disagree with your outburst, I understand why you did it.

I have been down this road with Clyde before and he is not the first person to claim to have invented this, that and the next thing. Clyde is no different from other chess playing fundamentalists that exist in chess. If you have heard of a Mr. Lev Zilbermintz you will know what I mean. They are the sort of player who will "invent" something and then defend it to the death despite said opening really only being fit for blitz.

This year thanks to be diagnosed with a rare genetic condition I had a lot of time on my hands and I came to the conclusion it is pointless debating the worth of his 'inventions' let alone even bothering to talking to such individual simply because they caught in the afterglow of their hubris. Nothing you can say will matter one little bit.

But in saying as such I also came to the conclusion that chess needs the like of Clyde and Lev, not because they are always right because their passion for chess is to be admired.

Hadron

Dec 3, 2015

0

#44

And one other thing, those inviduals who claim they have "invented" a new chess opening...

A simple history lesson. Chess in its current form has been around since approximately the 15th century. Thats about 600 years of chess play, analysis and trail & error....Do you honestly think that anything you attach your name to has not been used, tried before and long since forgotten long before you came along? if yes....your a realist....if no then maybe Drawingdriodfish is right in one respect....

IM pfren

Dec 3, 2015

0

#45

DarthMusashi wrote:

IM pfren

This player makes ridiculous comments. i do not believe he is an actual IM.
He only says he is an IM but I do not think so. He has been on my case for
a long time in other chess opening topics. Reveal you name and I will check
the FIDE rating listings.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

...says a category A USCF player, who has not played a single rated game since... ummm, let's check, 1998. A true master of nothing, that is.

A stupid person could just clicky on the player's handle, and see the actual name. Come on, do it! If you find it hard, I can teach you how it's done... Oh wait, that would be too complex for your skills.

Go here where it gives some useless info like International Master and FIDE trainer. Yours says you are a formidable Hoola Hoop dancer.

Regards.

DarthMusashi

Dec 3, 2015

0

#46

Hadron

And one other thing, those inviduals who claim they have "invented" a new chess opening...

A simple history lesson. Chess in its current form has been around since approximately the 15th century. Thats about 600 years of chess play, analysis and trail & error....Do you honestly think that anything you attach your name to has not been used, tried before and long since forgotten long before you came along? if yes....your a realist....if no then maybe Drawingdriodfish is right in one respect..

I do know Lev Zilbermints and he named all of his opeings after himself. I feel

really quesy naming any opening after my own name.

One question is who are you ? Do I know you ?
I recently checked my chess databases for the moves 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e4 and found
a number of games dating back to 1912. And I forgot that I had already
played a number of other games prior to this last game with the same opening
moves. I played Fritz 5 and lost that game. Played IM Ignacio (2450) from the

ICC but I was dead won with Igancio left with the king but I forgot to check
whether his king should have any move to make. I also lost to IM Ling Fong
(2400) from ICC. Did beat GM Martin in the game shown. And drew another

game against GM Martin, however Martin played an improved line against
my Omega Reti Gambit. But After analyzing the position close to the

end of the game with Deep Rybka 4, I actually had a dead won game but

did not believe I had a won game.

And yes I do have a passion for my chess openings. Thank you.

Note: Some of the lines from the 19th century are really dangerous. I
did buy the book called "Bilguers Manual" and that book is full
of tricks and traps and lines that have been forgotten by modern
chess players. GM Hikaru Nakamura's second found a forgotten
line from the 19th century and used it on a GM opponent

who got chrushed by the opening in under 20 moves.

The late Bobby Fischer did study chess players from the 19th

century and had said that Paul Morphy was the most accurate

player who ever lived. He said that if Morphy were resurrected

from the dead and given 6 months preparation time on modern
opening theory he would defeat the worlds best players. Fischer

also said that Morphy did not take more than 5 minutes for any
of his moves. Fischer took a lot longer than 5 minutes to
find the correct reply to some of Morphy's moves.
Fischer also studied the games of Howard Staunton and said
that Staunton was thoroughly modern because he played
fianchettoed openings and other modern chess openings.

However at the time of Morphy Staunton had a heart condition
and could not play Morphy a match. Which is why he

attacked Morphy with his writings and refused to play Morphy

to a match.

Best Regards

DarthMusashi

JuergenWerner

Dec 3, 2015

0

#47

DarthMusashi wrote:

Enter the Omega Reti Gambit

Recently I was on the ICC (Internet Chess Club) and I was in a restless mood.

I wanted to create a new chess opening on the board in an actual game. I therefore

created the Omega Reti Gambit over the board against chess engine GM Martin

(2600). See my win against GM Martin (2600) below:

Best Regards

Clyde Nakamura

Omega Reti Gambit

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e4 gambiting the e pawn

[Event "ICC Game 15 min"]

[Site "Internet Chess Club"]

[Date "2015.11.29"]

[Round "?"]

[White "DarthMusashi"]

[Black "GM_Martin"]

[Result "1-0"]

[ECO "A05"]

[WhiteElo "2100"]

[BlackElo "2600"]

[Annotator "Omega Reti Gambit"]

[PlyCount "119"]

[EventDate "2015.??.??"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. e4 {the Omega Reti Gambit} Nxe4 3. Nc3 d5 4. d3 Nxc3 5. bxc3 e6

6. d4 Nc6 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 {this is the ideal setup for an Omega

Gambit because I control the e5 square} h6 10. Ne5 Nxe5 11. dxe5 Be7 12. Qh5 Bg5

{trading off Bishops is bad because it could result in the exchange of Queens}

13. f4 Be7 14. Kh1 Qe8 15. Qh3 {again preventing the exchange of Queens after f6}

f6 16. Bd2 {reaching full development by connecting the 2 Rooks} fxe5 17. fxe5 Bc5

18. Rf1 {playing for control of the f file, trading Rooks by Black will give me full

control of the f file} Bd7 19. Bxh6 gxh6 20. Qxh6 Qe7 21. Rf6 Rf7 22. Raf1

{locking down control of the f file} 23. Qh3 Rg7 23. Qh3 {I had planned to play Rh6

threatening checkmate on the back rank} Be3 24. Qxe3 Bc6 25. R1f2 {to prevent any

kind of tactics on my g2 pawn with both the R at g7 and B pointing at my K} Bd7

26. Qh3 Qa3 27. Rh6 Qc1+ 28. Bf1 Qxh6 {forced to prevent checkmate at Rh8 + mate}

29. Qxh6 a6 30. Bd3 Bb5 31. Qxe6+ Kh8 32. Rf3 Bxd3 33. cxd3 Rag8 34. Rh3+ Rh7

35. Qf6+ Rgg7 36. Rxh7+ Kxh7 37. h3 {to prevent any kind of back rank mate}

Rg8 38. e6 a5 39. e7 d4 40. e8=Q Rxe8 41. Qf7+ Kh6 42. Qxe8 dxc3 43. Qe3+ Kg7

44. Qe5+ Kg6 45. Qxc3 a4 46. Qxc7 b5 47. d4 a3 48. d5 b4 49. Qb6+ Kf7 50. Qxb4

Kf6 51. g4 Ke5 52. Qc4 Kd6 53. Kg2 Kd7 54. Qc6+ Ke7 55. Kf3 {the game is practically

over, all i have to do is march my K up to assist my Q to force checkmate}

Kf7 56. Kf4 Ke7 57. Kf5 Kd8 58. Qb7 Ke8 59. Ke6 Kd8 60. Qb8# 1-0

22... Qh3??

DarthMusashi

Dec 3, 2015

0

#48

Hadron

And one other thing, those inviduals who claim they have "invented" a new chess opening...

A simple history lesson. Chess in its current form has been around since approximately the 15th century. Thats about 600 years of chess play, analysis and trail & error....Do you honestly think that anything you attach your name to has not been used, tried before and long since forgotten long before you came along? if yes....your a realist....if no then maybe Drawingdriodfish is right in one respect....

You are Earl Roberts from New Zealand and we have been at odds many
times in the past and currently on the Yahoo Unorthodox Chess Openings
Newsgroup. Like myself you were also a subscriber of Myers Openings
Bulletin. However I did not know you were from New Zealand. I did

see the name Earl connected with the handle Hadron and suspected
it might have been you so I checked the internet for Earl Roberts

chess and found that you did come from New Zealand.

Best Regards
DarthMuaashi

DarthMusashi

Dec 4, 2015

0

#49

Hadron

At least your comments on this post are civil. There are others
on this post who resort to "name calling" and calling anything
that drops a pawn "garbage" and a player that uses the "f" word.
And I do not admire a player who has to use a chess engine
even if it is legal on a particular server. That is not your real game.
And how do you know that your opening innovatition has not
been played before if you did not check your chess databases.
I have a regular chess database of 80 million games and another
FICS chess database of 200 million games. It is best that I not
even reply to any of their comments because i will only get
upset. They do not deserve my attention.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

Hadron

Dec 4, 2015

0

#50

DarthMusashi wrote:

Hadron

And one other thing, those inviduals who claim they have "invented" a new chess opening...

A simple history lesson. Chess in its current form has been around since approximately the 15th century. Thats about 600 years of chess play, analysis and trail & error....Do you honestly think that anything you attach your name to has not been used, tried before and long since forgotten long before you came along? if yes....your a realist....if no then maybe Drawingdriodfish is right in one respect....

You are Earl Roberts from New Zealand and we have been at odds many
times in the past and currently on the Yahoo Unorthodox Chess Openings
Newsgroup. Like myself you were also a subscriber of Myers Openings
Bulletin. However I did not know you were from New Zealand. I did

see the name Earl connected with the handle Hadron and suspected
it might have been you so I checked the internet for Earl Roberts

chess and found that you did come from New Zealand.

Best Regards
DarthMuaashi

I had posted -> "Ah the joys of being popular.....LOLZ" and was going to let it go but I would point out that while you are indeed correct in that it is a name attached to a number of my accounts everywhere, it is not "my" name...I guess the moral of the story is: don't beleive everything you read on the internet

And speaking of which, Clyde v Pfren and who has the biggest grapefruits. All I got to say is 'really'? The height of any discussion as to an opening is 'my rating is bigger than yours so your opinion does account for squat'? Although Pfren has fronted up with his FIDE card I wonder what Clyde's is like?

Chess is not an exact science/art...as much as people would like it to be, something they can break down with their databases and chess engines to find the answer to life, the universe and everything....It just doesn't work that way

IM pfren

Dec 4, 2015

0

#51

DarthMusashi wrote:

It is best that I not even reply to any of their comments because i will only get

upset. They do not deserve my attention.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

Sigh... this means that Hawaiian wannabe master, self-proclaimed chessplayer and chess.com entertainer DarkMoussaka won't reveal any more of his ultra deep secrets... this is a very sad day for humanity.

lolurspammed

Dec 4, 2015

0

#52

Shirov once crushed someone with the Muzio gambit. This means the Muzio gambit is a good opening right?

False logic.

Hadron

Dec 4, 2015

0

#53

DarthMusashi wrote:

Hadron

And one other thing, those inviduals who claim they have "invented" a new chess opening...

A simple history lesson. Chess in its current form has been around since approximately the 15th century. Thats about 600 years of chess play, analysis and trail & error....Do you honestly think that anything you attach your name to has not been used, tried before and long since forgotten long before you came along? if yes....your a realist....if no then maybe Drawingdriodfish is right in one respect..

I do know Lev Zilbermints and he named all of his opeings after himself. I feel

really quesy naming any opening after my own name.

One question is who are you ? Do I know you ?
I recently checked my chess databases for the moves 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e4 and found
a number of games dating back to 1912. And I forgot that I had already
played a number of other games prior to this last game with the same opening
moves. I played Fritz 5 and lost that game. Played IM Ignacio (2450) from the

ICC but I was dead won with Igancio left with the king but I forgot to check
whether his king should have any move to make. I also lost to IM Ling Fong
(2400) from ICC. Did beat GM Martin in the game shown. And drew another

game against GM Martin, however Martin played an improved line against
my Omega Reti Gambit. But After analyzing the position close to the

end of the game with Deep Rybka 4, I actually had a dead won game but

did not believe I had a won game.

And yes I do have a passion for my chess openings. Thank you.

.....

Best Regards

DarthMusashi

I really did not expect any sort of an answer to my question because it was rather rhetorical in nature.

But the answer(s) you did give I found to be somewhat enlightening. First and perhaps foremost, you avoided answering the actual question. Thats no biggy, thats entirely your prerogative to do so.

A slight digression. I will leave aside refering to the nature of asking such questions in a tone as "who am you" and "Do I know you" and ones subsequent (bad) attemp to expose my idenity to the masses. To stoop to such a level makes one no better than those who you claim have abused you on this thread.

Back to your answer. You then proceed to provide evidence that "your" gambit has existed sinced 1912. (It is much like one refering to the Gibbins-Weidenhagen gambit has "my" gambit elsewhere in this thread).

As i have said I think chess needs people like you and Lev (and anyone else such like) because your passion for chess is something that should be admired. However I can also see how people can be become irratated when that passion drives one just to take a step too far with some of the rheteric that I have seen you produce.

Passion is one thing....only if it is controlled.