"Nimzovich is the GM, I am the Patzer."
Fixed that for you.
Actually, I am much stronger than Nimzovich.
Much much stronger.
That is extremely clear even only comparing the contents of the 2 books: mine is much much more refined and advanced.
Lyudmil is fraud.
Not what Smerdon thinks: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess
And he is a GM.
OK, let's stop discussing me and concentrate on chess content/concrete variations instead.
Is it really that difficult to simply acknowledge a proof given in lines and variations?
OK, let go specific.
Show your skills on the chess board.
I accept challenges from anyone: how does black draw here?
I say white wins with perfect play, at the worst case scenario in 90% of lines.
And it makes much sense.
Why?
Because the Nimzo-Indian, 2...e6, is difficult for black.
Black is the second player and the Nimzo-Indian is not the best way to meet 1 d4.
How much worse should black be after playing a much inferior move like 2...e5?
Definitely, much worse.
Well well well I don't know what does engine say but indeed refutation of an opening is quite disappointing for chess fans.....
Why so?
One opening dies down and another is born.
That is the natural course of events.
On 1. d4, black has full equality with 1...c5 and then opting for the Check Benoni, with the inclusion of early g6 and Ne7 instead of Nf6, what I call the I-KID(Improved KID).
I am really very keen to get a suggestion from an IM concerning Budapest Gambit.
It's very playable, if you want to play it, then by all means do so.
Moskalenko's book on it is a very good one.
Have in mind that the Budapest is applicable only for 1.d4 and 2.c4, so you must have something handy for 2.Nf3.
Oh- and ignore what fictitious GM Tsvetkov says: it makes sense only to himself.
C'mon it's ok.....As long as there are confusions and controversies there's nothing to be worried..... Inference should be only drawn by those who really can hold to that.
OK, let go specific.
Show your skills on the chess board.
I accept challenges from anyone: how does black draw here?
I say white wins with perfect play, at the worst case scenario in 90% of lines.
And it makes much sense.
Why?
Because the Nimzo-Indian, 2...e6, is difficult for black.
Black is the second player and the Nimzo-Indian is not the best way to meet 1 d4.
How much worse should black be after playing a much inferior move like 2...e5?
Definitely, much worse.
I've gone on other forums you've written on, and you accept challenges from exactly no one.
On the contrary, we have analysed a lot.
"Nimzovich is the GM, I am the Patzer."
Fixed that for you.
Actually, I am much stronger than Nimzovich.
Much much stronger.
That is extremely clear even only comparing the contents of the 2 books: mine is much much more refined and advanced.
You not even as strong as me Mr Fraud. We play set match. I would win.
You will win in your dreams.
I warn you that if you continue calling me names, you will have to suffer later on.
Show what you can in analysis.
But you can't. Why?
Because you are weak.
The challenge stands, anyone going to tell me how black draws from here?
Look at above position again more carefully.
White has already 3 central pawns.
The black pawns have not even budged, all on their home positions.
When the black knight retreats, it is white's turn again.
So, white is 3-4 tempos up with NO observable weaknesses.
Certainly you can not imagine white is not MUCH MUCH better here, at least 70-80cps, so very close to a full pawn?
Look at above position again more carefully.
Certainly you can not imagine white is not MUCH MUCH better here, at least 70-80cps, so very close to a full pawn?
No, cant imagine it...now that Nimzo defense is REFUTED. Congrats on reaching a new record of idiocy.
My eyes still see 12...f5 in post#44 as a black advantage of -.5...it doesnt say white +1. But as we know from your refutation of Caro Kann, you know better than SF...so in that case it said black +1 and you said that means white had a clear advantage. So I suppose if SF says black +.5, white must be 5 moves from mating.
Lyudmil is fraud.
Exactly...just check his 'miracle' turnaounds closely where they change over. The computer has nothing to do with any of that garbage that is forced on the computer to play. The only one Ive looked at personally, in the secret chess thread, a move was supposedly played by SF that wasnt even in the top 7 at the depth indicated. It swung the eval from black +1 to black +.1
I dont know what it is these days...in the Leela thread of Leela vs SF, after 1 h4, SF9 supposedly goes for Scholars Mate? lol.
Look at above position again more carefully.
Certainly you can not imagine white is not MUCH MUCH better here, at least 70-80cps, so very close to a full pawn?
No, cant imagine it...now that Nimzo defense is REFUTED. Congrats on reaching a new record of idiocy.
My eyes still see 12...f5 in post#44 as a black advantage of -.5...it doesnt say white +1. But as we know from your refutation of Caro Kann, you know better than SF...so in that case it said black +1 and you said that means white had a clear advantage. So I suppose if SF says black +.5, white must be 5 moves from mating.
Repost the position on a par with SF analysis input, otherwise you are just talking trash.
Lyudmil is fraud.
Exactly...just check his 'miracle' turnaounds closely where they change over. The computer has nothing to do with any of that garbage that is forced on the computer to play. The only one Ive looked at personally, in the secret chess thread, a move was supposedly played by SF that wasnt even in the top 7 at the depth indicated. It swung the eval from black +1 to black +.1
I dont know what it is these days...in the Leela thread of Leela vs SF, after 1 h4, SF9 supposedly goes for Scholars Mate? lol.
Repost the position with analysis from SF.
If you don't, you are simply throwing mud.
Throwing mud is easy, analysis is DIFFICULT.
Before reaching my level, I have analysed 100 000 such positions, you have analysed 100.
Repost the position on a par with SF analysis input, otherwise you are just talking trash.
How to go from black +.5 SF9 to white advantage by messing with SF output.
Heres 12...f5 from chess.com SF8...which strangely favors black.
Compare to Nc5 at depth 18....which do you think SF thought was better for black? And yet it went with Nc5? Maybe you are now interested in buying a bridge?
But of course, the real SF knew Nc5 Qc2 was a total joke for black....shortly after.. here is a picture of depth 25.
Like pfren said, the Budapest is perfectly playable as black and makes for a nice surprise weapon at times. I've played it on and off for years and there's three main variations for white: the Alekhine - 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 Nxe5 5. f4, where white looks to build a strong center and try for a space advantage, but he'll have to protect that center as well. This allows black to develop comfortably with good prospects for counterplay. The Alder variation - 4. Nf3, white focuses on developing, often with the b1 knight going to d5 and Bc1-b2, again with a space advantage and possibly an attack in the center or on the queenside while black strives for piece activity and a kingside attack. And the Rubinstein variation - 4. Bf4 is the biggest test for black as the bishop on f4 is well placed to help repel blacks kingside attacks though it is vulnerable to attack and leaves b2 undefended. Play is much like the Alder with white having a space advantage and black striving for activity. A possible sideline is 4...g5?! which many authors consider dubious and many consider dangerous. It's somewhat double-edged and can go disastrously wrong if not well studied.
I am really very keen to get a suggestion from an IM concerning Budapest Gambit.