Baati,
thanks for the king's gambit challenge but sorry, no I don't actually play king side openings! I just studied the King's gambit years ago. So no thanks.
Queen's Gambit Accepted
Sort:
alexlaw wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
alexlaw wrote:
... more examples
i want what the overall evaluation is of the position, not what a few notable world champion(s) or writers say.
nakamura said the parham is fine and so is the dutch.
he also played the king's gambit quite a few times.
i'm just a random fool wasting his time if I played against him in real life, but I don't agree with his opinions on such openings.
What`s the point of your "overall evaluation" without being able to back it up with particular lines? And face the facts - your evaluation does not match with opinion of stronger players, able to prove in practice that White is better.
hm what do those 267 games mean then.
Evaluation based on statistics is crap. It has been discussed before, many times.
BTW alexlaw, about statistics : check out chess.com database. The best-scoring first move for White is 1.Na3 with 60% wins and no losses.
Take a guess : is that the best move everyone looked down upon except a few genii, or is that that the only case where it is played is when a master want to have some fun against someone rated 200 under him ?
rujka : is that 'analysis', or a game you've seen played between two monkeys ?
Almost every move from either side is inferior past the second...
alexlaw wrote:
your evaluation does not match with opinion of stronger players, able to prove in practice that White is better.
i wonder what you mean by stronger players. top players, or you and pfren.
1) Both of us - me and pfren play and understand chess better than you.
2) I did mean top players actually - take a look at these games I`ve posted.
What`s unfair in posting games which illustrates ways how White can have advantage? Find improvements for Black in these games or shut up.
alexlaw wrote:
i already said your case wasn't fair when the average rating of the players of white was like 60 points ahead of black.
Then we could reverse the argument : if the database for QGA features only games where White's rating was higher, it's because strong players know (by the occulte rituals that brought them at the top ratings) that's inferior and don't play the QGA as Black.
(Aarg ! My hair is growing ! I have become a troll !)
alexlaw wrote:
nope but i can't be bothered to post improvements since
1. you keep insulting me
2. you endlessly criticize my lines
3. you refuse to admit your mistakes and accept criticism
funny how you can't accept criticism yourself when you kept criticizing my moves on 2 ... bd6 when there was a line it was factly equal (or near equal) after be5 and d5 some moves later. You've also criticized my posts in other topics as well such as the colle.
i'm not posting evidence to the three points i've made.
this is my last response to you.
So you are unable to back up your claims about position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Bxc4 Nc6 6.0-0 Be6 being "equal" or "better for black". Like you were not able to back up your claim about 2...Bd6 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3) as "good" and "playable", before.
alexlaw wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
alexlaw wrote:
i already said your case wasn't fair when the average rating of the players of white was like 60 points ahead of black.
Then we could reverse the argument : if the database for QGA features only games where White's rating was higher, it's because strong players know (by the occulte rituals that brought them at the top ratings) that's inferior and don't play the QGA as Black.
(Aarg ! My hair is growing ! I have become a troll !)
that's definitely not true. He just chose a few games where white won. I will post a few games where black won (and was higher rated) if you immediately accept once seeing those games that the rating difference contributed heavily to better player's win.
But then it's obvious that :
-when black wins, it's because he is higher rated
-when white wins, it's because the opening is poor for black.
(irony)
Yes, my argument was obviously flawed. Wasn't the last sentence strong enough for a hint ?
alexlaw wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
alexlaw wrote:
i already said your case wasn't fair when the average rating of the players of white was like 60 points ahead of black.
Then we could reverse the argument : if the database for QGA features only games where White's rating was higher, it's because strong players know (by the occulte rituals that brought them at the top ratings) that's inferior and don't play the QGA as Black.
(Aarg ! My hair is growing ! I have become a troll !)
that's definitely not true. He just chose a few games where white won. I will post a few games where black won (and was higher rated) if you immediately accept once seeing those games that the rating difference contributed heavily to better player's win.
Feel free to post games in which White played the same lines as in games posted by me, but Black found improvement and won. That would be much more convincing instead of your excuses.
Pacifique wrote:
alexlaw wrote:
nope but i can't be bothered to post improvements since
1. you keep insulting me
2. you endlessly criticize my lines
3. you refuse to admit your mistakes and accept criticism
funny how you can't accept criticism yourself when you kept criticizing my moves on 2 ... bd6 when there was a line it was factly equal (or near equal) after be5 and d5 some moves later. You've also criticized my posts in other topics as well such as the colle.
i'm not posting evidence to the three points i've made.
this is my last response to you.
So you are unable to back up your claims about position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Bxc4 Nc6 6.0-0 Be6 being "equal" or "better for black". Like you were not able to back up your claim about 2...Bd6 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3) as "good" and "playable", before.
Maybe that line of the QGA is equal, but e4 e5 Nf3 Bd6 is certainly not. If you call it 'playable', then you have to call the Latvian (2...f5) 'playable' too. In fact any legal move in any position is 'playable' in the meaning 'the corresponding piece could be moved on the specified square without infringement of the rules'.
Oh, and in fact I'm not tracking anymore, my troll costume needs washing.
Alexlaw, GM Konstantin Sakaev is one of the very best opening experts on planent earth... and on some openings (Petroff, Grunfeld, QGA) he is far and out THE expert. If you don't agree with his judgement, then it's your bloody problem- not ours. We don't believe blindly in anything, but we are not stupid enough to challenge an opening theoretician's expert judgement (where he has devoted many days of very hard work) by nonsense (in a systematical base).
Just follow your instict, and don't flood us with undocumented bullshit. Please?
pfren wrote:
Alexlaw, GM Konstantin Sakaev is one of the very best opening experts on planent earth... and on some openings (Petroff, Grunfeld, QGA) he is far and out THE expert. If you don't agree with his judgement, then it's your bloody problem- not ours. We don't believe blindly in anything, but we are not stupid enough to challenge an opening theoretician's expert judgement (where he has devoted many days of very hard work) by nonsense (in a systematical base).
Just follow your instict, and don't flood us with undocumented bullshit. Please?
Is there anybody whose first language is English who can translate this from the original Gibberish?
pfren wrote:
Alexlaw, GM Konstantin Sakaev is one of the very best opening experts on planent earth... and on some openings (Petroff, Grunfeld, QGA) he is far and out THE expert. If you don't agree with his judgement, then it's your bloody problem- not ours. We don't believe blindly in anything, but we are not stupid enough to challenge an opening theoretician's expert judgement (where he has devoted many days of very hard work) by nonsense (in a systematical base).
Just follow your instict, and don't flood us with undocumented bullshit. Please?
Well, experts are also humans and may made mistakes, but these mistakes should be pointed out, showing the lines which proves expert to be wrong. Alexlaw is obviously unable to do it.
BrettGoodrich wrote:
Is there anybody whose first language is English who can translate this from the original Gibberish?
I can translate this to English, no problem (I have a Cambridge Proficiency in English), but quite unfortunately not to American- sorry for that.
... more examples
i want what the overall evaluation is of the position, not what a few notable world champion(s) or writers say.
nakamura said the parham is fine and so is the dutch.
he also played the king's gambit quite a few times.
i'm just a random fool wasting his time if I played against him in real life, but I don't agree with his opinions on such openings.
What`s the point of your "overall evaluation" without being able to back it up with particular lines? And face the facts - your evaluation does not match with opinion of stronger players, able to prove in practice that White is better.