i wouldnt rely on that line as a main variation for white, seeing as there are not many pirc defense players who know what they are doing that will play a weakening move such as e6/ when their kings bishop is fin.
later
Is the Monkey's Bum (And the Monkey's Bum Deferred) Decent?
Sort:
A persecution complex with a public display. Poor fellow, @ChessHolyWater.
By the way Bresando, I am about to show you what 'I'm done with this' means
I am done posting here. If someone comes up with a clever insult or post about me then good for you. If you are lucky it will look like you came up with a post so clever that I couldn't figure out a way to respond to it. I suggest that in preparing this post that you do not take advice from the IM, whose advice will be along the lines of saying 'You're stupid.'
See Bresando, this is what it means to be a man of your word. This is my last post. End of Story.
Good luck people, as the Human Torch would say 'Flame ON!'. Have a good day.
Forget the chill pill. @ChessHolyWater needs something much stronger. 
Who knew such a lame opening gimmick would provoke such hostility.
Tomorrow will be another nice mindless day am sure.
pfren wrote:
I gotta give up. Human stupidity is unbeatable, and chesshole is the living proof.
Critical thinking, as a school subject, disappeared several decades ago in North America. We should apologize to the rest of the world for this, but we're too stupid now to understand what we did to ourselves.
Um, gosh. I wasn't actually going to play it. I don't even play 1. e4 ;; I play 1. d4. I was just interested in knowing if it was playable or not. I post this thread and come back to a big argument D=
chesshole wrote:
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
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you feed a troll.
Have a nice day. :)
I might just be a lonely forest squirrel... but only having a sample size of 10 is probably proof enough this is a terrible opening.
However, I totally support trying out new inventive creations, especially when I feel many chess players rely too much on memorized lines and ideas. It's good to see some innovation, even if it unsound sometimes.
TIP: Never argue with someone with a name like chesshole. It rhymes with a certain word for a certain reason.
No one reads these mindlessly long quotations. Give it up.
Just fix your typos, and be done with it. As I do.
P.S. Spell check is (apparently) still not working, and the Monkey's Bum remains playable, albeit not recommended. End of Story.
the quotations wouldn't be so long if people didn't type that much. You obviously feel compelled to keep responding. We haven't been talking about the opening for the last several posts, I have been responding to personal attacks. I am not sure what you want me to 'give up' when you write me a post saying my own posts are 'mindless' and I don't have 'perspective' Do you think I will take your condescension like a little boy?
I know you will feel compelled to respond and get the last word but:
Give it up.
I also have one piece of advice for you: Lead to read concisely (sic)
End of Story.
Here is what you are going to do because I can predict the future: you will write a response that tries to make you seem like the authority or the good guy, then you will pretend to be the 'bigger man' by saying 'good day' or 'I'm done posting,' but when I respond back to you, you will keep trying to be the authority and be condescending toward me. A backup strategy for you would be to call me stupid just like the esteemed IM in this topic has already done.
Good luck, I hope you will find the correct response that will soothe your ego and make you feel like you one-upped me.