Two Knights' Defense 5.exd5 Na5 8.Bd3 =

Go w/ master,G.M. games....computers lead lower rated players into believing they can play chess.

This is the way to think of theory today---Masters are elementary school students. The World Champion is about a middle schooler and Houdini 3 is a high school student. While the elementary school student can occasionally come up with pearls of wisdom, I'm more inclined to believe the high school student's opinion in sharp positions.

19...Bf5 begs for 20.g4 Be6 21.Ba3, when you have granted white a useful extra move (g2-g4) over the more natural (and better) 19...Be6.

Either your Houdini is broken, or you have no clue how to use your rig.

If you really believe that "you have granted white a useful extra move g2-g4 over the natural (and better) 19...Be6", you apparently don't understand basic endgame principles. This is not a "squeeze", nor are you trying to triangulate, this is a simple endgame where time is irrelevant i.e. there are a host of moves that either side could make that are equivalent and don't move the game away from equality.

To suggest that g2-g4 gains a tempo shows a surprising lack of basic chess knowledge. According to you White stands better after g2-g4 if the Bishop is on f5. The fact that you honestly believe bumping the Bishop with g4 accomplishes something good for White shows an amazing  lack of familiarity with basic chess principles. Chess apparently confuses you.

sloughter, now I am convinced that you can't be THAT stupid. To put it simply, being an attention whore, you do it on purpose.

Regards.

19...Bf5 begs for 20.g4 Be6 21.Ba3, when you have granted white a useful extra move (g2-g4) over the more natural (and better) 19...Be6.

Either your Houdini is broken, or you have no clue how to use your rig.

sloughterchess Do you even understand chess at all? You have 11 losses one win and 1 draw at online chess. You at least don't cheat..

I didn't know neither that Garrik has issued three books on standup comedy, nor that Jutka is interested in acey-deucey.

Your only title that I'm aware of is that of the official Chesspub forum clown.

For three years I have promoted the idea that 8.Qf3 should be the main line of the 5...Na5 line of the Two Knights' Defense. That belief has been validated by a recent post by a member that 8.Be2 scores poorly even though on a theoretical level it is okay. As indicated in this post 8.Bd3 confers no advantage to White.

For over 20 years I have promoted 4.Ng5 in the Two Knights' Defense, and, with the aid of Houdini pretty much established my goal of demonstrating advantage White in all the key variations except 8.Qf3 Be7 which appears equal.

When I am wrong I will admit it. Are you willing to admit you are wrong that 16...Be6 is a "useful" move or should we believe that your understanding of chess is so poor, you don't understand the basics of endgame play?

By the same token I finished tied for first in the 2012 New York State Open (U1800) and second place finish in 2011. One published game in Inside Chess, three in Chess Life. Three awards from Chess Life for my theories, numerous GM's have published my theories in Chess Life, including World Champion Garry Kasparov, published dozens of articles and three critically acclaimed books. An IM is going to coauthor a book with me on the TKD and the Evans Gambit. When she was a teenager even GM Judit Polgar appreciated my ideas. Yes I understand chess, but on line discussions don't serve me particularly well. Rather than a discussion of ideas it degrades into a discussion of personalities.

Those who can do--those who can't teach

Or more likely that entire rant was complete and utter bullshit.  It's pretty clear this guy is on some kind of ego trip or he's just given up on ever being a decent player and makes himself feel better by pretending to know far more about theory than he actually does.  I wonder if it ever occured to him that masters also have access to Houdini...

You have provided the rant; I provided the facts. Just google my name and the New York State Open and you can verify my finishes in those events. If you go online check out the reviews of my books. Some are positive others are negative. If you have access to Chess Life  over the  past 30 years, you will find ample evidence that all I have said is true. Can you actually document a single false statement I have made in this "rant"?

Or more likely that entire rant was complete and utter bullshit.  It's pretty clear this guy is on some kind of ego trip or he's just given up on ever being a decent player and makes himself feel better by pretending to know far more about theory than he actually does.  I wonder if it ever occured to him that masters also have access to Houdini...

Here are the facts: My book The Evans Gambit Revolution was published by Ken Smith of Chess Digest in 1995. GM Andy Soltis in the New York Post called it, "An original analysis of an old opening". Ken devoted more advertising space to my book than any books written by World Champions. This included half the outside back cover of the Winter 1995 Catalog and the entire inside back cover of his catalog. He was a NM and  clearly liked my ideas.

GM Larry Evans awarded me the "Best Question" in his column for this innovation in the Two Knights Defense: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.O-O The earliest novelty in the 500 year old history of the Fried Liver.

My innovation 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qe2?! N was the subject of a contest I sponsored in FM Alex Dunne's column in Chess Life and the subject of analysis by World Champion Garry Kasparov. The co-winners were Rigby and Green.

My innovation in the Petroff against Klein, Corr. 1994,  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Nc6 4.d4 N was published in its entirety in Inside Chess, v.10,  issue 3, page 3

GM Lev Alburt published a game of mine against Fritz 12 where I almost beat it, but missed a key attacking concept. The game was published in the February 2011 issue of Chess Life.

ICM John Elburg gave a good review of my book Magic called it "Amazing!" and I got a good review from Rick Kennedy (Just google this on line). Other reviewers were far more critical.

When she was a teenager I sent GM Judit Polgar some of my ideas in the Kings's Indian and the Richter-Rauzer (an early g4; I didn't realize at the time but according to Susan Polgar this is her trademark move). Did you know that she signs her letters with a smiley face?

Sloughter, put your money where your mouth is and play OTB blitz against pfren and prove your point.

In the subject position after 8...Ng4 I would be willing to play correspondence games. I lost a half dozen on line games when my dial up connection did not allow me to play in a timely fashion (it would crash) and routinely was forfeited. Correspondence games are the best way to test the variation. I sent off the 8...Ng4 variation to GM Lev Alburt and will have more information on the variation in a couple of weeks.