whats the most interesting variation of the sicilian?

Sort:
ChessChainlinks1
Optimissed wrote:

What you're doing is that you are involving yourself at random in a dispute about which you know nothing. I probably shouldn't say this but shortly after I reported a player I received word from chess.com that they had taken action. I don't know what action but some kind of action was necessary because when you have a bully who is backed up by people who know nothing about the origins of a disagreement, things can get out of hand and those involving themselves in such a way are not going to be very popular. So it's avoided. I might point out that if this was a tiddly-winks forum and there was a disagreement between two players, wouldn't it be a bit mindless to back up the better tiddly-winks player simply because he was the better player? This is what you're doing. Don't escalate unpleasant states of affairs.

After you reported pfren, did you recieve any notice that action was taken? Seriously, everyone is laughing at you right now.

Lion_kingkiller

@ChessChain... hey, my winky is larger than yours... nana nah... other stuff in life means we can't train 6 or 9 hours a d, mn day like master players can. And you are joining the party to troll up some trouble and escalate stuff. So don't bother. 

Lion_kingkiller

@ChessChain... joined this week. Surprise.

ChessChainlinks1
LionWillCrush wrote:

@ChessChain... hey, my winky is larger than yours... nana nah... other stuff in life means we can't train 6 or 9 hours a d, mn day like master players can. And you are joining the party to troll up some trouble and escalate stuff. So don't bother. 

I am just trying to instill some common sense. Pfren is higher ranked than you guys. I would just take his word over yours.

ChessChainlinks1
LionWillCrush wrote:

@ChessChain... joined this week. Surprise.

I joined on May 5. You guys are so full of it. I am going to stop posting here. I have more important things to do.

ChessChainlinks1
Optimissed wrote:

It's true. Everyone was saying, including certified chess trainers, that my son would be an IM, when he was twelve and he was beating club players graded about 1700. A year later he told me he was giving up chess and taking up BMXing. I think he was worried I'd get annoyed but chess had already done its job .... I could see that, so I said fine and pretended not to be scared when I saw him careering down the mile long main road hill towards our house without proper brakes. Now he has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and a Masters in Mathematics. From good universities. And his beautiful wife's a doctor. Lion is right.

Is pfren supposed to kiss your son's arse or something? Pfren is an IM and certified FIDE trainer. Your son is not.

ChessChainlinks1
Optimissed wrote:

Thought you'd gone away. No, he does have a much better life than that. You're pretty stupid aren't you, saying you'll report me because I had a little squabble with your hero. I would comfort your hero because he doesn't like it if anyone disagrees with him. Does being an IM and a certified trainer make someone right whenever they get into an argument that they have caused? Now please do go away, like you said you would.

pfren is not my hero. But, I would trust his chess advice than yours.

ChessChainlinks1
Optimissed wrote:

Thought you'd gone away. No, he does have a much better life than that. You're pretty stupid aren't you, saying you'll report me because I had a little squabble with your hero. I would comfort your hero because he doesn't like it if anyone disagrees with him. Does being an IM and a certified trainer make someone right whenever they get into an argument that they have caused? Now please do go away, like you said you would.

I believe it

 

4 hrs ago
PawnTsunami έγραψε:

you are a class A player,

 

His highest rating ever was 172ECF, which is under 2000 FIDE. In other words, not even CM level at his best, and he claims that he can analyse better than Khalifman, or every GM-patzer-in-disguise- go figure...

KetoOn1963
Optimissed wrote:

Oh by the way, I'm glad you made another silly comment because I'd forgotten to point out that sometimes it's good to give someone enough rope to see what they do with it, so I told you about my son in all honesty.

And you made a crude and disrespectful comment about him, so in case you were worried that you hadn't shown us exactly what kind of person you are, I can assure you that you have managed to do so.

Isn't it interesting how extremely unpleasant people often support other extremely unpleasant people. OK so a lot of extremely unpleasant people are such because they have personality disorders, are mentally ill and so forth. I hope that doesn't apply to you. All the best. 

ts called being anonymous on the web. 

ChessChainlinks1
Optimissed wrote:

I suppose. There are some funny people around, all the same.

Anonymous or not, you are making yourself look like a fool.

KetoOn1963
ChessChainlinks1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I suppose. There are some funny people around, all the same.

Anonymous or not, you are making yourself look like a fool.

Pot meet kettle.  Kettle meet pot.

ChessChainlinks1
KetoOn1963 wrote:
ChessChainlinks1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I suppose. There are some funny people around, all the same.

Anonymous or not, you are making yourself look like a fool.

Pot meet kettle.  Kettle meet pot.

Troll

KetoOn1963
ChessChainlinks1 wrote:
KetoOn1963 wrote:
ChessChainlinks1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I suppose. There are some funny people around, all the same.

Anonymous or not, you are making yourself look like a fool.

Pot meet kettle.  Kettle meet pot.

Troll

I understand this will not make an impact, and it wont be listened to but...

You are not good at this trolling thing.  Some are...some like you arent.  Some actually offer something new every once in awhile.  You?  You just rehash what you see others post.

KetoOn1963
Optimissed wrote:
KetoOn1963 wrote:
ChessChainlinks1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

I suppose. There are some funny people around, all the same.

Anonymous or not, you are making yourself look like a fool.

Pot meet kettle.  Kettle meet pot.

That's a bit insulting isn't it? There's only one fool here, or perhaps two!

His level of unoriginality is off the charts.  Hes like a child that hears his first knock knock joke. 

KetoOn1963
Optimissed wrote:

Glad we're all friends again.

PawnTsunami

An_asparagusic_acid
Optimissed wrote:

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.

I could crush in a 3|0 game, that doesn't mean I am stronger than you. @rychessmaster1 has a 2500 blitz rating, his fide is ~2000.

dpnorman

I’ve never seen more moving of the goalposts in one thread than I’ve seen in this one

Lion_kingkiller

Well... back to the question then? Lion will vote Najdorf v English Attack as the best interesting Sicilian. Sharp and exciting play... one inaccurate move can make the difference. 

An_asparagusic_acid
Optimissed wrote:
An_asparagusic_acid wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

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.

I could crush in a 3|0 game, that doesn't mean I am stronger than you. @rychessmaster1 has a 2500 blitz rating, his fide is ~2000.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post? What could you crush? A turnip if you like turnip juice? Good for the brain, I expect.

I regret doing this in a way but I've been trying to show my discoveries in the O'Kelly to chess.com members, if they're interested, for a couple of years or more now, and my efforts have been sabotaged by Pfren, so he's hardly acting in the interest of members, who should be encouraged to think and judge for themselves.

His latest attempt was to show some fake analysis by Khalifman. Now, there was no reference, deliberately making it hard to check it. It looked to me like analysis from the 1960s or 70s at the latest. Khalifman did write a book on Karpov from black's p.o.v. but Karpov wasn't a Sicilian expert and in any case the "analysis" contained no analysis at all but just a series of assertions.

Because Pfren systematically tries to make points by insults and bullying, which I consider dishonest,  I basically don't believe him when he pretends to give a source without giving a propr reference and of course, it isn't analysis. He pretends it's analysis but there isn't any and it's always the same.

So I just looked at his games. He has a low blitz rating and would have had a low rapid rating but it looks like he was given a free present of 500 points somewhere around the 5th December 2017. He always plays weaker players at blitz and rapid. He's a decent enough 3-day player but nothing special and not what should be expected from an IM, given the inflationary nature of 3-day ratings. I reached a similar level, around 2250 at three-day, last time I was a member here. He simply refuses to compare analysis and I believe that is because he's now a weak player. No stronger than me at the most and quite probably very much weaker.

As I say, I regret making this clear and I'm genuinely sorry that I've found it necessary, but in my opinion he has made a concerted attack against all the membership of chess.com by his attitude towards anybody who ever dares to disagree with him.

I am pretty sure that my findings regarding the O'Kelly are correct and realistically, the only people who are going to disagree and get nasty about it are much weaker players than me.

Once again, I wish no harm towards Pfren but in view of his recent behaviour I believe that this statement has been necessary. Thanks and best wishes to all, from the U.K.

The O'Kelly variation bad for black: