Two Knights trap

He's redacting his posts anyway (and then claiming I edited them) so I give up.  Apparently with him you have to take screenshots of his posts -- boy won't that make the thread even more readable ;)

oh wait ... I did say that GMs don't play it because it's worked out to a draw. I have to scroll up too far to see that. You misquoted me on another occasion, causing confusion.

Anyway, it's very clear that your agenda is to attack me and not establish any truth.

When I cited a book that I referrenced, you told me that I'm 1500 and don't know anything. This was a totally idiotic action. When I pointed out to you that my rating is irrelevant because I am citing a book and not giving my own opionion, you again told me that I'm 1500 and that you're higher rated blah blah blah - more idiotic behavior. When I clarified something I had mistakenly said earlier and then cited opening statistics in a databae, I was attacked more. Now I'm being accused of giving my opinion on the matter.

According to my source, and let me state that this is NOT my opinion, 4.Nxf7 is a draw. See "two knights defense" by Jan Pinski page 60, chapter 5 is on the Traxler. As I already stated and I will state again, my copy was published in 2003 and in the bibliography, Fritz 8 (obsolete software) is listed.

I own two more books, but I haven't been through them as much.

I believe that 4.Nxf7 is a draw. I think that Fritz 8 is adequate to work out most forced lines. I am sure that most of Jan Pinski's book would hold up to modern software analysis. However, I did say earlier than it probably should be checked with a more up to date engine.

I was merely trying to get him to stop acting stupid. The fact that I'm less than 2000 doesn't undermine a FIDE masters book or Fritz 8. He never should have attacked me or insulted me while ignoring the sources I listed. He did this at every turn.

This guy repeatedly twisted and distorted things I said and made gigantic leaping assumptions.

I think this discussion could be enlightening (I play the Traxler a lot) if everyone worked together towards finding some truths and quit being so devisively concerned over what anyone said or didn't say (putting the focus on who is "right").  

Well I've mentioned using Komodo 9.2 at this very moment but rather than recognize this as attempting to "establish truth", or using a "more up to date engine", you dismissed this as something any 800-player could do.  You state opinions, then you say you aren't stating opinions.  You make other suggestions, but then criticize people when they actually take you up on your suggestions.

I'm not apologizing.  Whenever any 1500-player says something completely un-founded such as (and maybe this is a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, so don't get your panties in a wad, accuse me of attacking you, or otherwise just being a baby) some crappy opening isn't played by GMs because it's worked out to a draw, I'm going to call them out on it, which includes bringing up how utterly unqualified they are to make such a statement.  I own the Pinski book, and he definitely didn't say something so inane.

More fiction.

When you mentioned Komodo 9.2, you did so while attacking me, claiming to be the superior player, and with total disregard to anything that I actually said. Now instead you're claiming that I said this that and the other and acted in a manner that I didn't.

You went all out to refute anything I posted and attack me.

I don't believe you own Pinski's book.

The entire time all I was saying was don't attack me; check my sources. But no, this is too civilized and decent for you. Now you're still trying to distort everything.

I'm not coming back to this message board. Don't bother to reply.

It doesn't matter if Pinski used Fritz 8 or even Fritz 5. First of all, a master's position understanding and tactical prowess is miles ahead of any class player, be it 1500, 1900 or even 2000.

Second, authors like him use engines only to double-check tactical lines for blunders and explore alternatives a human wouldn't normally consider. Only a clueless patzer with no idea how chess engines work would believe that running Komodo (or any other engine) on a single position for a whole day would disclose the essence of the position.

Some reading material to clue you in:

"Pitfalls of Computer Analysis"

"My trusty engine tells me Chess Truth"

Apart from that, NS4U's shown himself as a rude, obnoxious, arrogant moron and takes full credit for subverting this thread.

As for the Traxxler with 5.Bxf7+, the debate has raged for many years and AFAIK has still not been settled conclusively despite reams of analysis, e.g.

After you study the numerous lines posted on the eight pages of that thread alone, it's really amusing to see some knucklehead announce he will solve the Traxxler with Komodo in one day.

Believe it or not it's true, plus I own Estrin's book.

Good work posting a 5-year old thread from chesspub.com and dismissing computer analysis when it is obvious that's what they were relying on, but the engine(s) were so much weaker then.

The whole thing about masters only using engines to check for tactical errors needs re-thinking as engines push past 3300.  Recently I was using an engine to help analyze the Perenyi attack, where White sacrifices two pieces.  For the first 5 minutes or so it gave Black a big advantage based on this.  Pretty quickly however it was able to better determine White's chances.

As opposed to 5 minutes however this hasn't happened in 4 hours yet in the Traxler, it still has White at +1.5 in the line 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 at depth 37.

I don't rely strictly on engines but engines have found some strange and remarkable moves under my guidance (what you called "alternatives a human wouldn't normally consider" -- so strange I was able to do this and I'm not a master).  A few years ago using CBLite and Fritz6 after 1.e4 e5  2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Be6 6.Nc3 it found the paradoxical 6...Bg4!? and I can explain why Black can afford to move this bishop twice in a row but will leave it to you as an exercise.

As for the Traxler, I'm just going to post what Komodo spits out in one day, and then drill down a bit further in one line and post what it spits out overnight, without saying anything definitive and idiotic like GMs avoid the Traxler because it's a forced draw.

Not sure who the clueless patzer is you are referring to.  Is it somebody who got a 2000+ USCF correspondence rating 30 years ago when engines weren't a factor, and who is now drawing/beating experts/masters on FICGS?  With a performance rating of 2450 in one of his tournament sections?

So I've read this one and a good deal of it doesn't apply:

• "Only looking at a single visible line of analysis (the engine's top choice) can therefore be misleading when trying to understand a position" -- the Tarrasch GUI I'm using shows 4 lines
• "Trusting the initially displayed engine move evaluations can be counterproductive to analysis and misleading.  Engines need time" -- I'm allowing plenty of time, several hours on one move in fact
• "Computers are of less practical help in objectively evaluating best opening play, due to the sheer number of possibilities and lack of forcing tactics" -- the Traxler is ALL ABOUT "forcing tactics"

NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT!

How about you insulting me?  Complaining about it and doing it yourself ("clueless patzer", "knucklehead") makes you a hypocrite to boot.

Anyway I've posted the first pass at depth 39 and my methodology for digging a little deeper, but that's as far as I'm going.  It's really moot to me, I play 4...d5 and 5...Na5.  In those lines, and despite having "no idea how chess engines work" I've discovered a piece sacrifice for Black and posted it above, not once, but twice.

As for "mindless engine lines dumping", when the engine is Komodo 9.2, and the depth is 35 give or take, I'll take that over a 1500-player claiming the Traxler is a forced draw any day.

I read the chesspub.com thread in the link provided by nebber_agin.  Somebody over there recommends the system with Bxf7+, Bb3 and d3.  I'm pretty sure it's one of the guys over there that knows what they're talking about (and there was at least one Traxler player who acknowledged they disliked facing this setup).

I played the 4.Ng5 line for fun yesterday lol.

I guess this thread inspired me lol.

I got crushed ha ha.

So on game explorer, 4. Ng5, and it says that black wins 40% of the time compared to 39% or so that white wins. However, after the move 4. Bc5!, white wins 29% of the time, but black wins 55% of the time.

Does black get a serious disadvantage in the Alekhine Defense? In my opinion yes. In 1. e4, Nf6?!, 2. e5, Nd5, 3. d4, d6, and then 4. c4!, White has easily taken over the center. Without paying attention, some people miss a4, and then a5 wins the knight.