for those too lazy to go to page 1 here is the analysis
whatup, you ruined a great forum in that entirely dry, unreasonable, uneducated, and uncooth responce to me replying with sound and sane moves, and calling someone garbage only makes you garbage especially if you are unwilling to bend.
Jetfighter my little brother got on sorry about that but thanks for the insults.
Btw qb3 followed by a3 stops everyting you did right there
sorry I know how little brothers can be, atleast mine doesn't know my password, sorry bout that, had no clue about that.
After your lines ive decided parham is the way to go.
actually I think cxb4 is less threatening
here is why cxb4 doesn't work
There's no point to 5...e5 if the b4 square is blocked...
5...Na6 should be fine.
no they do na6 first after nb5 and white has nothing cxd4 is easily winable for white. cxb4 is why im switching to parham.
Yeah, jetfighter I'd rather just play an immediate Na6 then sack my pawn advantage.
There's nothing wrong with playing this way. 4.b4 is just a blunder.
b4 was the aggressive try. e3 is probably more sound, with positionoal advantage.
yes there is white may easily gain material after cxd4 but cxb4 isnt very good for white, thats why the parham is the way to go
Paul, read OP. Don't just call it bad, give a move order/board.
Maybe you should just try 3.Bg5.
The Gavinator, whatupyodog, please give concrete variations as to why 4. ... cxd4 does not work, because a lot of strong people have advocated that move
if 4. e3, than that's irrelevant. We didn't consider the soundness of b4, but it seemed like an aggressive try. e3 is a little more sound, and wins position.
cxb4 and cxd4 both win pawns, but cxd4 is stronger by a lot. cxb4 just plays like a gambit.
Instead of studying middle game with your friend , you try to discover an opening.The result is that you say nonsense(at least).A move that is a nonsense and obviously a mistake is characterized:
"Winning attack for white"
A position that is a nonsense and obviously very bad for white is characterized:
"White is obviously dominating"
A "normal" 1.d4 opening is characterized :
"Reversed Italian Game" !?!?!?!?!?
And after only 3 moves and without Black making any mistake:
"White's development dominates"(in a position where Black has already equalise)
The most funny of all is that you want .....
"to discuss this opening in complete seriousness"
.......and you don't mind to be criticized if it is done....
"in a professional manner."
We were all beginners at some point.To be beginner is not bad , on the contrary , it is exciting.What is bad is not knowing that you are beginner or not acting like beginner.
Beginners first try to understand the basic principles and then "create" their own openings.You have complete ignorance of every basic principle and that results in having no evaluation skills at all and not even the slightest understanding of what is happening on the board , rr of what is good and what is bad.The worst(again) is that you don't know it and you continue saying nonsense , losing your time and , beleving that you do something serious.
You said you need a "professional opinion".Here is one:
"Stop the nonsense and start studying chess seriously"
The others tried to be polite , I tried to be sincere and if you put aside your "ego" you will realise that I actually try to help you(although I am quite sure I can't , nobody can, you will keep losing your time with your friend instead of taking a GOOD book and trying to study GOOD games).