How do you refute this?

vaman11:

How about these games, in which I am only showing your side:

All it seems is that sometimes you don't bring out that final bishop to that place, or you start with a variation of this opening.

I can always find more games.

move 7

move 6

move 6

move 7

 move 7

if this opening was being played agiainst my zati system, (which i have recently developed to a level where i can win a few games off the chess.cm computer at 2000, 2200, 2400,  6 times at 2500, and twice at 2650 with 2 draws,) i would have, in my opinion, based on what i'm trying to achieve later on: here are your flaws, as i see them:

1) you're giving black as much time as he/she could ask for to set up his//her pieces any way they like.  this opening hasn't been thought out to the depth where it can be refuted or not.

2)the zati takes more time to set up, which you've giving me here, so i make all my opening moves to post my kn's, b's severa p's, and the k of course, on square where they are both coordinated and in situations, the right spot at the right time, to be used in a good situation for each type of piece. 

here, i see a bunch of material prematurely placed in the center. your p on e4 currently is serving no offensive purpose (as it might, were it potentially part of a centrail pawn mass / pawn chain,) and thus is a burden requiring other pieces' help now from counter-attack on that e4 pawn from 3 sides. protecting / building walls / defending in general, including more than at most 2 early moves = bad chess, what i calll "against th flow of chess," or [-eq]

so, in my opinion, by this point in the game, the kn's and b's in my zati are much better-placed than the center mass of pieces in the diagram here. (much better.) 

one more criticism, to which i know you'd reply "but those pieces are just on those squares temporarily. they'll be moving soon and you know it."

do i?  each player starts out with 16 pieces, each of which, by some point in the gams, should  at least be c,onsidered as having a role that the zati's initial attack on the opponent-occupied center or the second major conflict, "the cloud," which hopefuly will involve, however indirectly, HIS/HER king (and vuneralbe q and r's) and not your own. 

but the point that i had bee lleading up to, my last, is, RIGHT NOW, both of white's kn's instead f having taken 2 extra "set-up" moves to place pawns in front of the kn's, which they and the other pieces could have used as swords/shields/grendaes on their ascent (generally) up the board. instead, the kn's are lefft eposed , in danger of creating doubled pawns for white with any black zati b for a kn exchange, a tade-off of pieces of all equal value  the zati player will be able to decide  whether to make.  also, both kn's are currently blocking two of whites main pawns, at the only point in their time on the board where they will have the "1 or 2 move" option, the needeed advantage for the "defending side," to compensate for the attacker' en passant power.(i really have never thought about exactly why both rules exist. i just assumed that both rules allow the capture of more pawns so, perhaps if those rules didn't eist, a lot more glacier-[-p]aced "closed" games would result, perhaps with even irresolvable draws due somply to clutter...)

so, to sum up, i think every one of your pieces is poorly placed / posted. yes, i said "posted," which implies that, with threality of having 16 pieces to keep happy, one must not just "moveto" but, more descriptively, "post"a given piece, hopefullly in a good location. 

i mean, what's the pllan stan? maintaining your garden-variety, opening mass of pieces and wait for your opponent to come attack you? it seems like the position is more of a snapshot as, for it to be a good illustration of the opening, there would need to be a second diagram, depicting a possible potential for a position or two, say, 5 moves from now, when i doubt any of your pieces wil be on the squares they are now. 

what are the b's doing in the center, but way back on e2 and and e3? they can't be "posted," so you'll be moving them agains soon, right? usuallly you want to keep your opening b moves to a minimum as, later in the game, wihen theere is less "clutter,"  the b's wil gain their individual domnance over kn's, but kn's (and p's) both move incrementally, and will alway move  slowly relative to the other piecess.

so the pieces you want to be focussed on at this point are your kn's and p's: they should be alloted the lion's share of the first, say, 20 moves of the game, ironic(uuntil it makes sense) that the least valuable pieces get used by far the most in the all-important opening.

i say "all important," because so many of the top players today seem to HAVE no"opening," and definitely fewer endgames. these kids start attacking my king on move 1, and don't stop with the gambits, poisoned pieces, sharp, hidden, , counter intuitive (in terms of perepective or motion) tactics until checkmate. 

in the zati, despite its near- infinite manifestations/mutations, i can set up easily where my opponent can't even OFFER me a gambit, out of any of hte estabished ones i've seen. 

so, your b's are "parked," waiting to be moved again, i assume? see, your real problem as a novice/intermediate is that you want to find a "magic bullet" that will get you through al that boring interediate stuff(say, 1300---1700 rating) and get to work against the heavy competition, am i right? 

well, this diagram ain't going to get you there, desolee.  the real problem is that every player above 1200 (out of the 605 million regular players on earth) has seen something essentially the same as this set-up a million times.   you may make it into you own thing but, i think lou reed said it best: "between thought and expression, there lies a lifetime..."

ministerofmines88@gmail.com if you wish to know more about the zati players rated lower than 2000 shouldn't reply, because, unlike any other opening, you wouldn't wouldn't able to play it well for years, even if i i explained it to you. 

"so why did he write a book on it?"

because, one day, the world will need it, to prove to ourselves once and for all, that humans are more than cheap imitation knock-offs of computers,robots/AI.