yes, buddy. you are a GM strength candidate master
How to play against Budapest Gambit
Sort:
Apr 14, 2018
0
#243
Well if he says he's GM strength then I am convinced. Anyone demanding proof is just a hater.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
dont get ahead of yourself. your book is unique. so is "the killer grob". dont go about translating some praise for your book to some universal endorsements by these players.Now you are being petty.
Most still have not understood the real value of the book.
When they do, the surprise will be TREMENDOUS.
Evaluation slowly evolves, they had doubled and isolated pawns at the beginning, passed pawns and couple of other factors.
Slowly, people are getting aware of more positional factors.
And this trend will only grow.
Of course, people are going to see more on the chess board then their predecessors.
The unique quality of chess is that it is a science, while being art and sport at the same time.
Most arts and literature already don't produce anything, simply because they rely more on the emotional world of humans, and this is exhausted, will not develop any more.
No new developments, no new art and literature.
With chess, the new developments will concern the brain, and here already there is vast room for improvement.
Thanks to engines, some have become aware of that.
Others are still not.
I used to be not FM strength 12 years ago.
Now I am GM+ strength.
Doing chess/chess investigations 16/7 in the last 5 years.
I HAVE defended my claims with concrete lines.
For example, in the Alekhine Variation of the Budapest, black has no defence, and I have posted many example games with SF reaching +200cps.
What more is necessary for you to know the opening is busted?
Given all those statements, beating a GM over the board on that line would be sufficient to me. In an anechoic chamber or under water if you want.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
yes, buddy. you are a GM strength candidate master
Fine with that too. 
Because there are some NM players, who are actually CM strength.
MrDodgy wrote:
Well if he says he's GM strength then I am convinced. Anyone demanding proof is just a hater.
You have a lofty rating.
So, your chess understanding should be good, if your OTB rating is similar.
Pulpofeira wrote:
I used to be not FM strength 12 years ago.
Now I am GM+ strength.
Doing chess/chess investigations 16/7 in the last 5 years.
I HAVE defended my claims with concrete lines.
For example, in the Alekhine Variation of the Budapest, black has no defence, and I have posted many example games with SF reaching +200cps.
What more is necessary for you to know the opening is busted?
Given all those statements, beating a GM over the board on that line would be sufficient to me. In an anechoic chamber or under water if you want.
In an anechoic chamber, I can beat SF 8-2.
I already posted this 10 times.
Anyone able to hold this with black?
Just a random game.
White on top.
Again, objectively, what is best.
I think those are about the optimal moves for both sides.
And, on move 10, white is obviously won.
Black certainly can not hold that, the central bind is enormous.
Any suggestions for improvement?
Again, looking at above diagram, some might not be certain what the outcome should be or even who is better, but refined evaluation easily tells you white is won.
- white has 2 pieces more developed, Nc3 and Rd1
- both have castled, king safety about equal
- c4+e4 pawns are central bind, very valuable, black can not counter in the center
- f4-f5 is a pawn push threat upon the g6-knight
So, cumulatively, white has 3 or 4 relative advantages.
That is too much for black to hold.
One or 2 can still hold, but 4?
Apr 14, 2018
0
#254
you know, just the fact both houdini and stockfish put nec6 instead of bb4 at very high depths as the best move AND the eval as high as *drumroll* 0.3 confirms to me you dont know what the hell you are talking about.
hell, i could have told that knight belongs on c6 more than g6 in this position.
i just realized the problem.you dont understand how "Depth" works in engines. anything below depth 20 is almost worthless in deep analysis of openings. best is depth 30 or more. most of the moves in these silly lines you suggest arent even depth 20!
Apr 14, 2018
0
#255
#282 is not even worth discussing lol. g6 and bc5 for no reason lmao. you doubled white's advantage with bc5 alone. bc5 was from stockfish at depth 15! 15!!! you and I can evaluate virtually any non-tactical position better than stockfish at depth 15
Apr 14, 2018
0
#258
Yes, g5 has been mentioned. It's often tried in fast time control games because there is a known path to a huge edge for White with best play.
Apr 14, 2018
0
#259
Btw, @ darkunorthodox88 , if you send in verification of your identity to chess.com, you can get free diamond membership along with a shiny "NM" next to your name.
show some of these lines. very dubious? really? dubious is the st, george defense, dubious is the elephant gambit. are you going to say, the alekhine and the pirc are "very dubious" too?
He'll need to check with Stockfish and then we'll have our answer.
SF is very useful indeed, but most of the better moves are suggested by me.
Top engines simply SAVE a lot of time, that is why I use them.
Besides, people will be in general more awed by a line outputted by SF than one suggested by me.
That is why I use engines.
Otherwise, it all boils down to concrete positional assessment.
When one side is much worse in terms of evaluation, like in the Alekhine or many lines of the Scandinavian, then of course you might reasonably suppose such lines are not playable.
As said, this is just the intermediate point.
You need someone to use SF intelligently to look into the future.
In 15 years' time, SF will distinguish the losing and other openings just by itself.
Btw., many people are making fun of me, but, note well, latest SF development at big depth gives what?
1. c4 as the best move.
So, laugh on.
I will keep the good knowledge for myself.
its hard to take seriously a man who claims to override both the opinion of much stronger practioniers of an opening AND chess engines, yet is not even an FM. all the good your secret knowledge has done for you.
you are the one making outlandish borderline crackpot assestment. you should be eager to show and defend such evals. not the other way around.
I used to be not FM strength 12 years ago.
Now I am GM+ strength.
Doing chess/chess investigations 16/7 in the last 5 years.
I HAVE defended my claims with concrete lines.
For example, in the Alekhine Variation of the Budapest, black has no defence, and I have posted many example games with SF reaching +200cps.
What more is necessary for you to know the opening is busted?