QSFL Discussion
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
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
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.
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.
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).
This is the issue with most people on here. You just reject things because you've never seen them before. Take your "precious" little Ruy Lopez for example. The opening was first published in the 16th century. Most people overlooked it, and it wasn't seriously considered for over 300 years. How do you think those people would feel now? They overlooked what is now one of the most popular openings at the grandmaster level. They were probably people like you who thought that that opening was "silly". So please, rather than rejecting something because you've never seen it before, take openings seriously.
no, he pointed out the flaws most of us have shown the Waite-Harrison Attack has, though he never mentioned them, he just ambiguously pointed them out. any way, to the question about the stakes game, I never play odds games. and plus I would probably forget the purpose, and simply play 1. ... f5
Yes Gavinator you are right.The only reason I rejected it is because I have never seen it before.
And yes the story is repeated ,just like Ruy Lopez in 16th century and Tarrasch in 20th , you are also a misunderstood genious.Your opening will be the world champions choice after 5 centuries but bad people like me don't like the idea that you discovered an opening while others lost their time studying , let's say , Capablanca(who on earth is that guy with that weird name?).
Keep looking for the perfect opening kid(obviously you are a kid , if you are not , you need a shrink).Don't pay attention to fools like me.
I'm not calling this a perfect opening. My point on is that people on here will reject any opening just because they have not seen it before. You haven't given any reason it is bad, (exactly which I asked you not to do in the OP), but just reject this because you haven't seen it before. I bet most people talked to Ruy López de Segura the exact same way you talk to me now. If he was alive today, he would probably laugh at all of the people who criticized him.