Well, six days now. So it looks very much like they have conceded defeat and accepted that they can't come up with a line for black which is definitely better for black after playing 5. ...e5 in the O'Kelly.
Nope. We just adopted Mark Twain's advice.
Topic's closed for me at least. You know I won the discussion .... you couldn't find any lines to back up the rubbish you talk!
Topic closed by Mark Twain, sir.
Closed by me. You can continue to talk about other Sicilians here but you lost the right to mislead people about the O'Kelly due to your lack of knowledge of it.
Oh boy ...
You're blocked, by the way, mr Tsunami.
Whatever shall I do ...
Seriously though, you assert that Black is lost in a commonly played structure, get called out on it, and then assert you've won the "debate" and assert that the variation you like is obviously the most interesting? Wow .. just, wow.
I enjoy seeing you continue to refute much stronger players when they tell you that you are flat our wrong. If nothing else, it is entertaining.
@OP asked for Most Interesting variation. Kelly is a slow, boring sideline.
I see no point arguing with a woodpusher who is foolishly thinking he posesses real chess knowledge.
Two brief dismissals of Grandmasters over the move 3.d4?! in the O'Kelly in their respective books (Negi proposes 3.c3, and Shaw 3.c4):
GM P. Negi on the O'Kelly:
Often regarded as a minor sideline, this move actually demands some serious study, as it is used by some Kan players as a move-order trick. Everyone knows that 3.d4 is not the best idea here, but what is less obvious is that White cannot just pick whichever sensible-looking alternative he feels like.
GM John Shaw on his white repertoire book:
3.d4?! is well known to be inaccurate...
GM's Jesus de la Villa Garcia and Max Illingworth do not even bother to explain the common knowledge of 3.d4?! being not good in their 2nd edition of "Diusmantling the Sicilian", and suggest 3.Nc3 trying to transpose to other lines.
But well, guess what: GP Optimissed says that 3.d4 is a good move.
GP stands for Grand Patzer.
Probably too late, tbh. Attaining IM status is an achievement. Not so much, if one has been playing 200yrs or so. Buffoon... would be a more accurate title.
Oh and if that's your idea of following a conversation, I would worry for a defendant with you as a witness.
I love how you complain about ad hominem attacks, and yet resort to engaging in them yourself. There is a word for that ... what is it ... hmmm
At no point did I assert that 5. ...e5 loses for black. The reality is that it gives black a false sense of equality or advantage and the local ignorami have been using inferior lines for white to back up their prejudices against white's chances
Your entire argument is based about White playing a move that is known to be inferior (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. d4?!). Negi suggests going into an improved version of the Alapin with c3 and then d4 (leaving White with strong control over the center). Shaw recommends c4 to go into a Maroczy setup against a Hedgehog setup (where White scores well), de la Villa/Illingworth recommend Nc3 to transpose back into Open Sicilian setups. There is not a single modern repertoire recommendation against the O'Kelly that recommends 3. d4. So, your entire argument about Black playing 5... e5 or 5... e6 is pointless. You are playing against people who do not know what they are doing, so frankly, it will not matter much what you play at that point.
In reality, against a decent effort by white, black isn't comfortable. I get far better positions with more realistic chances of winning by playing e6 lines and I'll stick with them unless the position genuinely calls for ... e5.
You have been saying that something like this is bad for Black, have you not? That would make virtually every Najdorf line and every Sveshnikov line bad. Someone should tell Magnus and MVL this before they start playing those lines in a world championship match!
Pfren has probably never played these positions in his life and now he's resorting to insults.
#155
He needs to discuss concrete lines honestly and fairly but that isn't part of his character.
I get it, you like your line and think it is great. Hell, you may even score well with it at the ~150 ECF range. But justifying your entire approach based on bad moves by White is hardly worthwhile. Playing the O'Kelly against someone who is familiar with Negi's, Shaw's, or de la Villa/Illingworth's recommendations will leave you in a very tough situation (and that is not even touching on Kavutskiy's book since I'm not sure what he recommends there).
The move 2 ... a6, obviously contradicts the well-known opening principles; nevertheless White does not need to try to refute it immediately.
It is in fact an integral part of almost all Sicilian schemes for Black; meanwhile there is an important fine point in that position.
The most principled open Sicilian move for White here - 3.d4 suddenly loses the opening advantage for him after: 3 ... cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 (It is bad for White to play 5.e5, in view of 5...Qa5+.) 5... e5! Now, in case of 6.Nf5, Black follows with 6 ... d5, while after 6.Nf3, or 6.Nb3 - with 6...Bb4 and he has an excellent game.
Former FIDE and Junior U-20 World Champion Alexander Khalifman, "The Opening for White according to Anand", vol.8
Will you try to educate the WC, sir? No?
As in the last post he made: quotations and arguments from authority only and thinks he can prove his points by annotating them with exclamation marks but hasn't the balls to discuss concrete lines because he could lose the argument. As he already has done. I'm through with him.
Please go on- you are very amusing.
The fact that the author lists it first shows he is a weak analyst. Because he wants his ideas to seem credible.
Khalifman? Yeah, a weak analyst...
Plase keep going, but don't be angry when everybody will laugh at you. You will get what you deserve.
First there was burden of proof ... now straight to full on ad hominem. Oh, and let's not forget completely misunderstanding what the appeal to authority fallacy means. Lets march right on through the logical fallacies, shall we 
By the way, your blitz strength on here is 1729 or thereabouts. I think that is your true strength. My blitz rating was around 1890 before the covid thing and it's still higher than yours. I think you won't analyse lines with me because I'm the stronger player and you simply use your insults to try to win arguments where you are wrong.
chess rating does not care for whether or not you can spot logical fallacies
First there was burden of proof ... now straight to full on ad hominem. Oh, and let's not forget completely misunderstanding what the appeal to authority fallacy means. Lets march right on through the logical fallacies, shall we
You don't seem to understand proof or what argument from authority is. If you think Pfren is right, let him show it by analysing the lines as I asked him to. I know why he's resorted to this. I found a line for white he couldn't refute, a week ago. Don't be a hypocrite and try to be honest.
no no no... apparently pfren resort's to Khalifman's (I think I spelled it right) analysis... and K-man was World champion in 1999... You can see why your argument of. "it's not your own idea" doesn't line up very well here.
First there was burden of proof ... now straight to full on ad hominem. Oh, and let's not forget completely misunderstanding what the appeal to authority fallacy means. Lets march right on through the logical fallacies, shall we
You don't seem to understand proof or what argument from authority is. If you think Pfren is right, let him show it by analysing the lines as I asked him to. I know why he's resorted to this. I found a line for white he couldn't refute, a week ago. Don't be a hypocrite and try to be honest.
Why should I care analysing your nonsense for free? If you want expert analysis, pay for it.
For the record, my official blitz rating is a tad higher than that.
First there was burden of proof ... now straight to full on ad hominem. Oh, and let's not forget completely misunderstanding what the appeal to authority fallacy means. Lets march right on through the logical fallacies, shall we
You don't seem to understand proof or what argument from authority is. If you think Pfren is right, let him show it by analysing the lines as I asked him to. I know why he's resorted to this. I found a line for white he couldn't refute, a week ago. Don't be a hypocrite and try to be honest.
Why should I care analysing your nonsense for free? If you want expert analysis, pay for it.
For the record, my official blitz rating is a tad higher than that.
do you accept Monopoly money? I'll give you two five-hundreds.
Superb finish I must say with accurate and speedy tactics