What the hell was that gchess. Are you again wasting my time with that trash?
You dont have to play what Stockfish says, you have to guide him and even there I doubt you are playing Stockfish's top move.
Why the hell would White play Bg5 and next move Bh6? Are you joking with me?
Listen, it just took 2 things for me to come up with a better line.
1-5 minutes
2- A brain.
gchess, shut up about plys, just go trough the lines.
Listen dude, if you post another trash like the one you posted there that is just wasting my time and gives me hearts attacks Im gonna end the discussion and say the Qa5 dragon is busted. Seriously? You appear to be trying to find the worse moves for White.
Learn to use an engine for the love of god, and after it come back with something convincing.
I let Stockfish calculate 4 lines and Im constantly reading the output. It just takes for my computer about 5 minutes to get to 29 ply in those 4 lines.
However I find that stupid as usually when I go trough those 29 ply lines the computer easily find improvements.
What the hell was that gchess. Are you again wasting my time with that trash?
You dont have to play what Stockfish says, you have to guide him and even there I doubt you are playing Stockfish's top move.
Why the hell would White play Bg5 and next move Bh6? Are you joking with me?
Listen, it just took 2 things for me to come up with a better line.
1-5 minutes
2- A brain.
I always look at the computer's top choice first, then come up with my own ideas and analyze them. In a typical human vs. human game Black still has good practical chances since a human will not have the same accuracy as Stockfish. A second point: I seriously doubt your analyzing skills if you can't even spell the word 'through' and resort to ad hominem attacks on myself to try to support your point. Thirdly, I have spent an enormous amount of time out of today alone to analyze that position, whereas you present a speedily done analysis without much real support. Yes, when it comes to complex positions that require looking ahead a great deal you will need to use a computer to verify ideas. Fourthly, one mistake you keep making is the fact that you rely so heavily on one source of information (namely, ICCF games, which are not really an authoritative source when it comes to analyzing/refuting lines in openings), whereas I have been using multiple sources to get my information (books, games, and Stockfish to check ideas). You can ignore me all you want, but no one will believe you if you don't put in the effort to really search the options. One game just isn't enough to draw any conclusions about an opening line in terms of its soundness. Right now I am looking at the g4 line and will get back to you when I have the results.
Your idea was repeating the position as White in a position when you have an advantage and could play for a win? Interesting.
Now you resort to comparing human OTB vs centaur c hess? We are not talking about that kid, we are talking about theory, and right now the Qa5 dragon is refuted. And even if we talk about OTB, I already know by hard the moves and variations I analyzed so there is no such a problem in OTB for humans to also win against those stupid moves.
What the hell does ortography has to do with chess? Why dont you actually analyze? We are not talking about ortography here we are talking about CHESS.
Then you wasted your time, that position is trash, your moves are trash and as I just showed, I could find a better move in 5 minutes.
It is not a mistake, I couldnt care less about your stupid/retarded book, the analysis there is flawed. ICCF is the ground where the ideas come to the test, people there heavily analyze the positions so I would take the ICCF as a more reliable source than your stupid 20 dollars book (many books have flawed analysis why do you take them as holy bibles).
What matters when refuting the lines are the moves not the sources.
Again, are you retarded? That was not a game, that was my analysis.
Plz, dont get back to me. (just leave if you are going to keep posting the same trash over and over again) You just showed some retarded moves and didnt even find improvements for Black in my analysis which is what I asked.
How the hell is my analysis without support? I showed lines, and I showed some variations, I even wrote my thoughts, you just posted some crap moves without comments or variations.
I also dont care if people dont believe me, I would be happy to see people like you playing that trash against me OTB and even better, in centaur chess. They would be free-points.
Like seriously, your level of stupidity goes beyond borders, I thought about giving you the benefit of the doubt but you dont care, you are stupid enough to not listen me and post crap moves over and over again, you keep telling me how I am stupid and how my analysis is not serious where you cant even refute it.
Why dont we play a centaur chess game here on chess.com? The game will be unrated and the title will explicitly say computer use is allowed. You will play the Black side of the Qa5 line and I will play the White side. Chess.com allows this so we will not have a problem with the staff.
Your idea was repeating the position as White in a position when you have an advantage and could play for a win? Interesting.
Now you resort to comparing human OTB vs centaur c hess? We are not talking about that kid, we are talking about theory, and right now the Qa5 dragon is refuted. And even if we talk about OTB, I already know by hard the moves and variations I analyzed so there is no such a problem in OTB for humans to also win against those stupid moves.
What the hell does ortography has to do with chess? Why dont you actually analyze? We are not talking about ortography here we are talking about CHESS.
Then you wasted your time, that position is trash, your moves are trash and as I just showed, I could find a better move in 5 minutes.
It is not a mistake, I couldnt care less about your stupid/retarded book, the analysis there is flawed. ICCF is the ground where the ideas come to the test, people there heavily analyze the positions so I would take the ICCF as a more reliable source than your stupid 20 dollars book (many books have flawed analysis why do you take them as holy bibles).
What matters when refuting the lines are the moves not the sources.
Again, are you retarded? That was not a game, that was my analysis.
Plz, dont get back to me. (just leave if you are going to keep posting the same trash over and over again) You just showed some retarded moves and didnt even find improvements for Black in my analysis which is what I asked.
How the hell is my analysis without support? I showed lines, and I showed some variations, I even wrote my thoughts, you just posted some crap moves without comments or variations.
I also dont care if people dont believe me, I would be happy to see people like you playing that trash against me OTB and even better, in centaur chess. They would be free-points.
If the Qa5 Dragon is refuted then why is it so common, even at the GM level? I never said you were stupid in my posts, but you did so to me.
1- What the hell does the fact that GMs play the Qa5 dragon means its not refuted? GMs play the Morra, the Budapest and I am sure some others play other weird gambits, that does not mean they are sound.
2- You said my analysis is flawed, mistaken, not well researched etc... Yet you dont refute it and just ignore it.
3- I challenged you to a centaur chess game. Unrated. Accept and prove to me the Qa5 line is alive. The title in that game clearly says computers are ALLOWED. So feel free to use Stockfish (I will). If you reject the challenge the Qa5 lines will stay refuted.
1- What the hell does the fact that GMs play the Qa5 dragon means its not refuted? GMs play the Morra, the Budapest and I am sure some others play other weird gambits, that does not mean they are sound.
2- You said my analysis is flawed, mistaken, not well researched etc... Yet you dont refute it and just ignore it.
3- I challenged you to a centaur chess game. Unrated. Accept and prove to me the Qa5 line is alive. The title in that game clearly says computers are ALLOWED. So feel free to use Stockfish (I will). If you reject the challenge the Qa5 lines will stay refuted.
I'm sure the result of this game will have more to do with how much time each of us spends to analyze respectively than the actual position, but I will humor you. To answer your second point, I have been spending more time than you have to actually research that line. I'm still not sure what the most accurate response is after the start position in that line; I see several options that look about equally good to me and the computer evaluations are hopping back and forth.
For future reference to myself: the analyzed position as of today.
No dud, we have 2 days each other. If this line is refuted it will stay refuted even if you had 14 days to analyze.
13...b5 looks like trash to me.
14.g5 followed by 15.f4 seems good and killing Black.
Even Ncxb5 which does not win a pawn but enters a nice endgame for White looks good, altough I have my hopes more on 14.g5
Hey gchess, Im waiting for your refutation to my refutation
Is that like a trace buster buster?
Hey gchess, Im waiting for your refutation to my refutation
Is that like a trace buster buster?
Lol, probably it is. Seems like you just started reading this thing. Enjoy.
beretm9 wrote:
Getting the popcorn out
beretm9 wrote:
Getting the popcorn out
The movie ended on here. This dude responses gave me heart attacks and made me question humanity.
If you want to follow the movie click here:
https://www.chess.com/daily/game/148761522
@gchess33
only 25 ply? the deep blue computer could search up to 40 ply
25 ply is a good start to get a basic idea of what the critical options are, but I prefer 30-35 ply. Anything over 35 ply (with the exception of endgames), is really taxing on my computer and will take far too long in these positions.