The line in question is at least 30 years old, within the Modern Defense. It's (already) been beat to death. On balance, white can't expect much from that line.
End of story. Duh??
Is the Monkey's Bum (And the Monkey's Bum Deferred) Decent?
Sort:
I don't know what's the big problem here. Just look at the situation on the board and realize that it just sucks something awful. Material loss for nothing. A cheap f7 attack with no point. If you want to play it, go ahead.
The "deffered" is actually a decent attempt for an advantage, however.
White's first move is a decent attempt for an advantage. Q.E.D.
chesshole wrote:
pfren wrote:
chesshole wrote:
you use an example of a player beating a player 400 points rated below him. Thanks for proving my point about game databases.
Actually, it's not just one game, but five. I expected you could somehow figure this out, but alas... no such luck.
Good one, i hope you are proud of that one. I would expect an international master to be a bit more professional than looking up a ten game database and advising an aspiring chess player about an opening using only that pathetic piece of meta-analysis without analyzing the position himself nor using computer analysis. But alas...no such luck.
It is almost as if you were compelled to give an opinion about something you know nothing about. It was a glib comment, pure and simple. You are wrong about that point and your ego will not admit you are wrong because you are an international master and I am but a lowly unranked player. I look forward to see you foaming at the mouth voraciously defending your position in the most illogical way possible. Feel free to point out any grammatical errors you find or boast about using a 5 game sample instead of 1. That'll show me
Oh, god. Of course, the fact that he posted only the stats surely means that he didn't even look at the moves. It can't mean that he considers the sac dubious for chess related reasons, and the fact that only 10 or so games have been played in 40 years was added as a proof that this feeling is widespead; that would be too complicated.
Hint: insulting an IM without a reason doesn't make you look like you're teaching him something.
bresando wrote:
chesshole wrote:
pfren wrote:
chesshole wrote:
you use an example of a player beating a player 400 points rated below him. Thanks for proving my point about game databases.
Actually, it's not just one game, but five. I expected you could somehow figure this out, but alas... no such luck.
Good one, i hope you are proud of that one. I would expect an international master to be a bit more professional than looking up a ten game database and advising an aspiring chess player about an opening using only that pathetic piece of meta-analysis without analyzing the position himself nor using computer analysis. But alas...no such luck.
It is almost as if you were compelled to give an opinion about something you know nothing about. It was a glib comment, pure and simple. You are wrong about that point and your ego will not admit you are wrong because you are an international master and I am but a lowly unranked player. I look forward to see you foaming at the mouth voraciously defending your position in the most illogical way possible. Feel free to point out any grammatical errors you find or boast about using a 5 game sample instead of 1. That'll show me
Oh, god. Of course, the fact that he posted only the stats surely means that he didn't even look at the moves. It can't mean that he considers the sac dubious for chess related reasons, and the fact that only 10 or so games have been played in 40 years was added as a proof that this feeling is widespead; that would be too complicated.
Hint: insulting an IM without a reason doesn't make you look like you're teaching him something.
you are combining 2 different statements. if he thinks the sac is dubious he should say so. Bringing up a sample set of ten games shouldn't have been mentioned by him for the reasons I already stated. I feel I have explained my logic perfectly and am tired of repeating myself.
I am pretty sure there has been more than 10 games played of this opening in 40 years. You saying that the small sample set is indicative of a widespread feeling that the opening is dubious is pure conjecture.
You also mention the fact that he is an IM. This is part of the reason why I disagreed strongly with his example that he used, and I already wrote the reasons why. This may have come across as 'insulting' but it wasn't without a reason as you claim. It should be obvious the reason why I responded to his comment, I have explained it several times. I wouldn't worry about the IM's feelings by the way, as he responded to me with the smarmy comment, ' I expected you could somehow figure this out, but alas... no such luck.' If you are referring to something 'insulting' I said to him after his post, well his quote explains why.
By the way, the IM said that he didn't analyze the opening himself nor does he plan to. I feel like the only reason you are responding to me is because he is an IM and you feel important 'defending' him. If the IM wants to continue to debate the point with me that's up to him.
Hint:If you want to challenge one of the points I made, it will be more effective and constructive to talk about the point frankly and clearly and not write a sarcastic post that pretends to know the IM's point of view without reading all the posts and that makes a wild conjecture about the small sample set of the opening and its relationship to the widespread feeling of its dubiousness in the chess community.
tl;dr
-This is an A and B conversation, so why don't you C your way out
He didn't say "there are 10 games, white scored miserably and so the opening is bad", as you are pretending he did. He merely posted some numbers, which may hint at the opeining extreme impopularity (without being a conclusive demostration of course). As you are foundamentally admitting yourself, the only reason you're reacting like this is that he is an IM. You probably tought that disagreeing with a strong player would have made you look cool, but if you do so without any reason, the effect is really quite the opposite. Nevertheless, he was good enough to come back and post 5 selected games for you to look at, as an example of black defensive resources (just as an example; he didn't say "look at how black wins by force in this line"). This was a good moment to start a discussion, but since you just wanted to disagree with him, you ignored his feedback by pointing out that one of the games was played between players with a very different rating, and ignored the rest. He is the only one who provided actual moves in all the discussion, yet according to you he's the one being "unprofessional". Curious isn't it?
I can't read the mind of the world best chessplayers, but I don't think my conjecture is that "wild". We're not talking about some difficult to reach positionat move 16. After 1.e4 g6, the Monkey bum can arise basically by force in 4 moves if white wants, and yet it has been played an handful of times since the sixties; and the pawn sac does effectivety look clumsy. With this in mind It seems to me an educated guess (rather than a wild conjecture) to say that the general consensus seems to be that the line is dubious.
You're right, however, in saying that i shouldn't have stepped into the discussion and let this thread die on its own; sorry for that. I will not post again.
bresando wrote:
He didn't say "there are 10 games, white scored miserably and so the opening is bad", as you are pretending he did. He merely posted some numbers, which may hint at the opeining extreme impopularity (without being a conclusive demostration of course). As you are foundamentally admitting yourself, the only reason you're reacting like this is that he is an IM. You probably tought that disagreeing with a strong player would have made you look cool, but if you do so without any reason, the effect is really quite the opposite. Nevertheless, he was good enough to come back and post 5 selected games for you to look at, as an example of black defensive resources (just as an example; he didn't say "look at how black wins by force in this line"). This was a good moment to start a discussion, but since you just wanted to disagree with him, you ignored his feedback by pointing out that one of the games was played between players with a very different rating, and ignored the rest. He is the only one who provided actual moves in all the discussion, yet according to you he's the one being "unprofessional". Curious isn't it?
I can't read the mind of the world best chessplayers, but I don't think my conjecture is that "wild". We're not talking about some difficult to reach positionat move 16. After 1.e4 g6, the Monkey bum can arise basically by force in 4 moves if white wants, and yet it has been played an handful of times since the sixties; and the pawn sac does effectivety look clumsy. With this in mind It seems to me an educated guess (rather than a wild conjecture) to say that the general consensus seems to be that the line is dubious.
You're right, however, in saying that i shouldn't have stepped into the discussion and let this thread die on its own; sorry for that. I will not post again.
Good, be a good boy and not post again. Your points make no sense and you are right, the thread was dead. I disagreed with a strong player about a particular point and the issue was about the point, not the fact that he was a strong player.
Your points are unsound, you keep combining your points as if they all make sense together. No, you cannot combine bringing up a sample of 10 games and use that as a conjecture about the widespread feeling that it is dubious and then analyze the position yourself and pretend that it still make sense to bring up a 10 game sample.
You keep saying I am disagreeing without reason against an IM. I have stated many times in this thread what the reason is so I do not understand what you are talking about. I am saying it is unprofessional to bring up a 10 game sample set as an analysis of the opening. You change points by bringing up the fact that he posted moves. Or perhaps the IM was being professional when he insulted my intelligence.
My whole point was him bringing up the sample set of 10 games. It looked to me like his sample of 5 games was really one game played between a high ranked player and a lower ranked player, but I guess I was mistaken. That is when the IM responded with his smarmy comment, so that is why I went back at him a little. Regardless, my point about him bringing up the 10 game sample still stands.
Hint:I am pretty sure that you will not find a good comeback after this comment 
speaking in some very general terms... some people are just looking for some reason to hold on to play garbage. if you want to play garbage, don't try to convince yourself that it might be somehow "acceptable", because it is not.
then, if you REALLY still want to play garbage, just accept the fact that your opponent might get a good position with some good moves, then go ahead and play it. it's your choice, whatever, even i play garbage for funzies sometimes.
Playing an early Qf3 is a "reasonable" way to play against the Modern Defense. Just not one of the strongest ways for white to play.
Originally, the move was a delibrate attempt to refute that defense (which, incidentally, was developed by the Soviets in the 1950-60's), since so many GM's thought the Modern Defense was BS. Like Fischer, who complained that the King-side fianchetto by Black was basically "a rats nest of annoying complications," that shouldn't be played by any self-respecting GM.
To each his own. These nutty threads prove that maxim, again and again. 
Thanks for the breath of sanity above, by @Bresando. Much appreciated.
zborg wrote:
Playing an early Qf3 is a "reasonable" way to play against the Modern Defense. Just not one of the strongest ways for white to play.
Originally, the move was a delibrate attempt to refute the defense (developed by the Soviets in the 1960's), since so many GM's thought the Modern Defense was BS. Like Fischer, who complained that the King-side fianchetto by Black was basically "a rats nest of annoying complications," that shouldn't be played by any self-respecting GM.
To each his own. These nutty threads prove that maxim, again and again.
Thanks for the breath of sanity above, by @Bresando. Much appreciated.
how is his post sanity lol? his points make no sense. i have basically limited myself to talking about the IM bringing up the 10 game sample database and I get this response that skirts the isssue and makes a conjecture about the 10 game sample meaning that the opening is dubious.
It is not, 'to each his own' I made a very specific point about using a 10 game sample to judge an opening. I believe this is a valid point and an issue where one person is right and one person is wrong. You made no comments about the use of the 10 game sample set, probably because you can't defend it or have no opinion about it, but that was basically the only point I was making. I will keep defending this point even if people do not agree precisely because I do not think it is a case of 'to each his own'
pfren wrote:
I gotta give up. Human stupidity is unbeatable, and chesshole is the living proof.
Glad you finally gave up.
Summary of your final post: You make no points, add nothing to the discussion, and just call me stupid. Professional IM level behavior, glad you are part of the chess community
Take a chill pill, @ChessHole. Any nominally intelligent reader can see through your mindless invective.
And fix that narcissistic avatar, too. 
mindless invective? don't know what that means and I don't really care. I just got called stupid by an IM so of course I say something back.
All I was talking about was one issue (chess database use) and so far the responses I received back were: sarcastic response about what the IM really thinks about the position and my supposed insulting him, being called stupid by an IM, and now 'mindless invective'.
You obviously just want to keep posting to get some kind of one-up on me. I've made all my points and am tired of responding to off-topic things like: 'you feel important by insulting an IM' 'you are an example of stupidity' and now 'this is mindless invective' People here haven't really responded directly to the points I have made and it is annoying. But don't worry, with this latest post you will have another opportunity to make fun of me 
Learn to write concisely. And take a chill pill.
You've lost perspective. It happens to the best (and worst) of us.
Have a Nice Day, too.
zborg wrote:
Lead to write concisely. And take a chill pill.
You've lost perspective. It happens to the best (and worst) of us.
Have a Nice Day, too.
Lead to write concisely? Oh, the irony. I don't think I will be taking writing lessons from you any time soon. Take a chill pill? If someone calls me stupid, I am saying something back to him. I will also say something back to someone that calls my posts mindless.
Have a nice day yourself.
chesshole wrote:
zborg wrote:
Lead to write concisely. And take a chill pill.
You've lost perspective. It happens to the best (and worst) of us.
Have a Nice Day, too.
If someone calls me stupid, I am saying something back to him. I will also say something back to someone that calls my posts mindless.
Have a nice day yourself.
Oh, poor chesshole, he was behaving perfectly but then the mean, mean IM called him stupid, so he was forced to fight back.
It's not like the IM posted politely and was called improfessional, posted politely again and was called the one who writes glib comments, and then he finally called him stupid in view of the overwhelming evidence, oh no, not at all. chesshole was the victim.
I'm done with this, have a nice day eveyone.
bresando wrote:
He didn't say "there are 10 games, white scored miserably and so the opening is bad", as you are pretending he did. He merely posted some numbers, which may hint at the opeining extreme impopularity (without being a conclusive demostration of course). As you are foundamentally admitting yourself, the only reason you're reacting like this is that he is an IM. You probably tought that disagreeing with a strong player would have made you look cool, but if you do so without any reason, the effect is really quite the opposite. Nevertheless, he was good enough to come back and post 5 selected games for you to look at, as an example of black defensive resources (just as an example; he didn't say "look at how black wins by force in this line"). This was a good moment to start a discussion, but since you just wanted to disagree with him, you ignored his feedback by pointing out that one of the games was played between players with a very different rating, and ignored the rest. He is the only one who provided actual moves in all the discussion, yet according to you he's the one being "unprofessional". Curious isn't it?
I can't read the mind of the world best chessplayers, but I don't think my conjecture is that "wild". We're not talking about some difficult to reach positionat move 16. After 1.e4 g6, the Monkey bum can arise basically by force in 4 moves if white wants, and yet it has been played an handful of times since the sixties; and the pawn sac does effectivety look clumsy. With this in mind It seems to me an educated guess (rather than a wild conjecture) to say that the general consensus seems to be that the line is dubious.
You're right, however, in saying that i shouldn't have stepped into the discussion and let this thread die on its own; sorry for that. I will not post again.
That is cute that you felt compelled to respond to me after saying that you were done posting. I knew you couldn't help yourself could you? 
You have to have the last word don't you You write again that you will not post again, let's see what you do.
I called the IM's act of mentioning the 10 game database unprofessional. I called his comment 'glib' because that is what is was. I didn't say I was behaving perfect did I? I said if someone calls me 'stupid' then I will say something back to him. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
I did word my argument rather strongly at first but then he insulted my intelligence when he said, 'I thought you could figure it out...Alas, I was wrong' and basically 'You are stupid' All I said was if someone calls me stupid I will say something back.
Now as for you, let's see if you will have the self-control to be true to your word by refraining from posting and not trying to one-up me again
P.S. the word is 'unprofessional'
Look he's giving you his IM-level advice on the opening.. take it or not. I'm only 1900 and it pretty much looks like nonsense to me too. If you want to change that, then come up with some novelty and score some nice wins or something.
his first post about 10 game databases is what I'm talking about. There is nothing IM-level about looking up an opening database with 10 games and giving advicce based on that. His second post about looking at the opening position and giving his brief impressions was more constructive, but then he says he hasn't analyzed the position and doesn't plan to.
I never said anything about the opening because I haven't analyzed it. I prefer different openings so there is nothing I want to change. I just don't like databases being using as opening evaluators and I especially don't like it when this advice is being given by an IM using a sample size of 10 games. He claims white should won at least one of the games.
That is not how statistics about openings work. Opening databases don't control for variables such as player strengths and weaknesses, endgame play, blunders, etc. I'm sure he can evaluate the position better than I can, him being an IM, but that evaluation is what is useful, not mentioning a 10 game database