Guessing wether or not someone is a chess authority does not make any analysis. And the general remarks, 'b4 does not serve an influence in the center' or even 'it is against all rules' are superficial. And WRONG!
Unless I'm terribly mistaken, random opening analysis on-demand is not included in the chess.com services for free members. Factly, not even for paid ones.
RANDOM ? I am asking for a serious, scientific analysis. Otherwise this forum is meaningless.
I am here to learn and to give.
I did not ask for a 'service'. In fact, I am one of the few in this thread who tried to contribute seriously. All I am asking is that all try the same.
RANDOM ? I am asking for a serious, scientific analysis.
I can offer you some, if the reward is acceptable.
Of course you can also have the same thing for free: Put your arse down on your chair, and study.
Pfren, you are arrogant, and therefore probably not as good as you believe.
There's a medieval concept that may be of interest:
If a person is an excellent knight, false modesty is a sin. If a person has poor knightly skills (especially jousting), boasting is a sin.
There's a medieval concept that may be of interest:
If a person is an excellent knight, false modesty is a sin. If a person has poor knightly skills (especially jousting), boasting is a sin.
well it depends on the culture, have you seen 7 Samurai??
My personal favorite is were Toshiro Mifune said to the Samurai: You alone just killed 3 bandits and you just sit there like nothing happened!.
The samurai just said let me sleep. It depends, i know pfren knows a lot thats without a doubt, but its of greater value if you do it the Samurai way. The strongest warriors arent the biggest boasters.
Also there is the saying : Those who talk dont know, those who know dont talk.
I know it doesnt apply here because he is an International Master, but still.....
sometimes its better to be japanese!!!
In other words Pfren knows a lot and Smyslov is trolling again!!!
Saying I know more than you, and not showing it whatsoever, is poor education.
In other words Pfren knows a lot and Smyslov is trolling again!!!
Let's put our last 100 posts next to each other. Which one has more chess content?
In other words Pfren knows a lot and Smyslov is trolling again!!!
Let's put our last 100 posts next to each other. Which one has more chess content?
Smyslov: in MOST postions a 1800 player can calculate 10 moves ahead
Pfren might be the real deal but Schlechter still has a point.
i mean with proving the claim, even though i think there is no way b4 can be good.
In other words Pfren knows a lot and Smyslov is trolling again!!!
Let's put our last 100 posts next to each other. Which one has more chess content?
Smyslov: in MOST postions a 1800 player can calculate 10 moves ahead
This may be why you think I was trolling, you don't actually read what I wrote. Then again, you emphasized a word I didn't even use. I also gave examples of positions where it's relatively simple to calculate 10 moves ahead.
The exact quote was:
Oh, and Tetsuo, in many positions, 1800 rated players can easily think 10 moves ahead!
One rooster, and some obedient claqueurs.
And still no profound analysis.
I am wrong here. Ciao.
yes Smyslov.
Schlechter, there is no single refutation of 1.b4. It can be used successfully in correspondence games, but it is suboptimal.
There is no way to provide enough concrete examples to prove this, so it makes sense to explain why the opening is suboptimal. How's this, why don't you show us the refutation of the opening. The Gligoric game was no refutation.
You did not read my inputs. I never said in the slightest way that there would be a refutation.
You are a troll, indeed.
I meant YOU, Smyslov are a troll. You are infinitely many times off the discussion.
Guessing wether or not someone is a chess authority does not make any analysis. And the general remarks, 'b4 does not serve an influence in the center' or even 'it is against all rules' are superficial. And WRONG!