Okay Sloughter, this is getting silly. Why are you recommending the absurd 11...Nxe4?? for black? Allowing the queen to take at f7 makes no sense. 11...g6 looks much better and black is fine. Sloughter, for being "1700" your recommendation for black was terrible. And you like to point out my credibility while yours has long lost its luster. After 25 years of lessons you should be much better than that.
Two Knights' Defense 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3!
Sort:
It would be helpful if you publish diagrams when you send new material; I got the wrong starting position.
Now for the next cook of 11...g6
sloughterchess, pointing out that black can make bad moves is not an effective way to demonstrate the value of an opening. If you really think you have significant novel analysis of this opening, you should publish a book on it. A few forum posts by an anonymous class player are not going to overturn centuries of theory developed by dozens of grandmasters.
My thoughts on post #43
Instead of 11...Re8,
11...Bg4 could be tried.
Jan 5, 2010
0
#47
sloughterchess wrote:
The only reason that Black does well is that you require White to make weak moves. White is much better here easily +/- This is only the first draft; if you insist on coming up with "improvements" for Black, I can just as easily come up with improvements for White.
This is not the first time I've see you and conquiscedor arguing about what happened with analysis at some other chess site. I have an idea. Why don't that two of you shut up and just play some chess. Slaughter plays white, Conquis plays black, you agree to play that Qf3 line and fight it over the board and save the rest of us your little drama. Instead having pissing match, have a chess match. Duh.
Sloughter: In your line: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Be7 9. Nc3 O-O 10. Bd3 h6 11. Nh3 Re8 12. Be2 here I again 12..Bg4 is probably not the best, and I did not waste my energy to look for the nexts moves. 12..e4! with the idea of the last move, the next moves could be 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Bd6 15.Qf3 Rb8! with good pressure and Black is better. If you gave me money each time I give an improvment to yours pseudo analysis, I would be rich. Sloughterchess the 1700 in a tournament, playing against the 2 knights from a 1800,
In the beginning:
Sloughter : - oh the 2 knight, this is refuted!
1800 player: - really? so you will win I guess
In the end
Sloughter: - I resign, but your opening is refuted!
1800 player: - But you clearly lost.
Sloughter: - I have missed the winning move out of the opening, I will see that with fritz at home
1800 player: Come on I play sound chess and even if it was refuted, the subject is too complicated for your chess understanding, your ELO tells something.
And Sloughter never stopped to show his deep understanding after the game like every time but his rating never improved.
The reason that Re8/e4 works is that Black forces White to open the e-file & unless there is some way to keep the file closed (which I don't see) then Black is better. White must improve. To start I never liked the antipositional Bd3 and tried to justify it on tactical grounds; that is a bad idea. It is better to try the positional 10.Be2 in order to keep the e-file closed. I gave Fritz 8 a half hour to crunch the critical position, but it could find no equalizing resource for Black.
polydiatonic wrote:
sloughterchess wrote:
The only reason that Black does well is that you require White to make weak moves. White is much better here easily +/- This is only the first draft; if you insist on coming up with "improvements" for Black, I can just as easily come up with improvements for White.
This is not the first time I've see you and conquiscedor arguing about what happened with analysis at some other chess site. I have an idea. Why don't that two of you shut up and just play some chess. Slaughter plays white, Conquis plays black, you agree to play that Qf3 line and fight it over the board and save the rest of us your little drama. Instead having pissing match, have a chess match. Duh.
Sounds like a plan; to allow for improvements best out of 5? Chess.com participants can critique the games as they are in progress.
Hello Conquis!
Hi ArKhein,
Earlier I failed to find 9.Nc3 which seems to be best for White. A post member suggested we try a match. How about best out of 5?
If you want ok, and I might try 8..Be7 but other defenses too on move 8 because it's not the only playable move here... But I don't know what I will win in exchange of losing time and energy. So if I win you will calm down with your statements of refutations?
Speaking of Steinitz, I like his old line Two Knights' Defense 4.Ng5 Nxe4!?
Anyone here ever played with that one?
I know it's not the best, but it's a lot of fun!
Actually, this is covered in another post.
ArKheiN_ wrote:
If you want ok, and I might try 8..Be7 but other defenses too on move 8 because it's not the only playable move here... But I don't know what I will win in exchange of losing time and energy. So if I win you will calm down with your statements of refutations?
I will always believe that Black does not have adequate compensation for the pawn. This should not be called the Two Knights' Defense; it is correctly called the Two Knights' Gambit. Most GM's do not like to play gambit openings. Since I have apparently cooked both the Berliner Gambit and the Wilkes Barre, why should I stop now?
You seem unwilling to test your pet opening. Will you be too "tired" to contest a five game match? You can take as long as you like between moves. Since this is new theory validated by strong computers, it would be comparable to any high level test between GM's. Your move.
What if ...8.e4 ?
I have many running corr. games, so + 5 games is not nothing while I am still a student in a high scool. It's just that I don't know why I am playing theses games, to prove that I am right? I know I am: the two knight "gambit" (you are right, it could be named like this) gives full compensation for the pawn. But you can't compare Berliner's gambit (a piece sac) and the Traxler (f7 sac) with the main line of the two knights who is far more respected systems at GM level. About the Berliner gambit of the Fritz-UIvestad, we did not wait Mister Sloughterchess to know that it's unsound. But ..Ne6 is playable and if you insist I am ok to play the Black side of that too. About the Traxler: Bxf7 is becoming the "official refutation" (Bb3, Bc4 and Bd5 are 3 good moves and Bd5 may be the less powerful of them) but we did not wait you for that. We can only say that Bxf7 is so good that even with your own plan (for once, your novelty was quite good), White is still better (but for me, your "refutation" of the Traxler is "+/=" while other Bxf7 lines might be +/-).
So let's the fight begin.
ArKheiN_ wrote:
I have many running corr. games, so + 5 games is not nothing while I am still a student in a high scool. It's just that I don't know why I am playing theses games, to prove that I am right? I know I am: the two knight "gambit" (you are right, it could be named like this) gives full compensation for the pawn. But you can't compare Berliner's gambit (a piece sac) and the Traxler (f7 sac) with the main line of the two knights who is far more respected systems at GM level. About the Berliner gambit of the Fritz-UIvestad, we did not wait Mister Sloughterchess to know that it's unsound. But ..Ne6 is playable and if you insist I am ok to play the Black side of that too. About the Traxler: Bxf7 is becoming the "official refutation" (Bb3, Bc4 and Bd5 are 3 good moves and Bd5 may be the less powerful of them) but we did not wait you for that. We can only say that Bxf7 is so good that even with your own plan (for once, your novelty was quite good), White is still better (but for me, your "refutation" of the Traxler is "+/=" while other Bxf7 lines might be +/-).
So let's the fight begin.
8.Qf3 Be7 9.Nc3 Your move
Sloughterchess, I did not say 10..Re8 but 10..h6 11.Nh3 (this move is yours) and now instead of your 11..Bd6 I play 11..Re8!.