What's wrong with 1.b4?

HE spits on me, I was polite: I just asked him to behave. I BEG YOU ALL, TO READ WHAT I WROTE AND NOT TO FOLLOW THE RUMOURS ABOUT ME. CHECK YOURSELF !!!! This is odd. I cannot stand being accused for NOTHING. If this does not change immediately, i will have to leave. because nobody can defend himself against witchhunt.

Does anyone see the oddness to ask for money ?

Does anyone confirm that I have not asked Pfren for advice ever ???

I have asked the COMMUNITY here to reach a higher level of discussion, to switch from repetition of statements like 'the other must be wrong because I feel the other way' to analysis, to evaluation based on logic and not supewrficial views like 'exchanging the pawns e5 against b4 must be wrong'.

And one other thing, Pfren has

1. not opened this thread

2. is not theowner of chess.com

3. there is equality of vote here.

4. the equality of vote will prevail only if mutual  respect rules.

The last one is terribly missing now...

for all we know he could be number 1 or 2

Don't you understand that when you have spend so many years of your life studying something, no matter what, math, music, chess... you've seen it, you've been there... And then someone just says, shut up, you fool. I know it better  Well, It is possible of course, but the chances are very small...

Where would we be, as humans? I'm not saying you can't doubt the advice of another person. But in a polite way, please.

More Analysis of me ?

Just count the number of games and and variants , threads  #6, 10, 92, 178, 314, and some others (once again, evaluations were confirmed by the only authority that you respect, by Pfren, in #183). Then you see that your claim that my analysis would be too short or unsubstancial cannot be supported: nobody has put more analysis here.

Note, if you doubt any of my evaluations of resulting positions, you will also doubt the evaluation of Pfren.

If you doubt one variant, you are free to say which one here.

I read that, again and again. It cannot be meant for me. I never told anyone he should shut up.

I was not possibly meant here, too. I just begged Pfren to confirm that he confirmed my views of 1.b4, in his thread # 183. And that he should stop belittling me. I did it in a polite way. 

@ schlechter55: You are not worth a free answer- let alone a free analysis.

If you desperately need one, PM me to define you the bill.

Regards.

No, I was talking in general. Sorry.

I'm way too polite 

ok, Pfren. I am sad you have so little strength.

Again, you accuse me of asking you for an analysis.

I did NOT do that. Shall i show the 502 threads of this forum as proof ?

I asked for a discussion that is based on variants and knowledge, not on feelings, I asked everyone, I did not name you in that call.

After all this dishonesty from your side i stopped thinking that I can obtain new insights from you about chess. i think few others will do only.

--------------

FIDE elo 2240,

age: 57.

name: I am not stupid, too many bad people here.

After a quick search at the FIDE rating list there are noone rated 2240 born 1955-1956 from Estonia. Before this post I don't think you made any stupid comments. Also you have a name on your profile.

I can bet you will find many idiots from Estonia, or any other country, with a fictitious 2240 FIDE rating.

Nothing against the Estonians, factly Jaan Ehlvest is a good friend of mine.

Wow...

Apart from a bit of aggressivity, schlechter did try to have valuable input in that thread.

Fantastic how the trolling atmosphere made things degenerate without any clear culprit.

You claimed you never asked for analysis, schlecter. Or am I just reading this wrong again?

I really like the games of Carl Schlechter. He was known as the "drawing master", but he actually played a very attractive, complex style of chess. His name is associated with several openings that are still being discussed at the highest levels, including the Schelchter Slav.

I thought Schlecter was arguing both sides of a non-existent argument and I tried to point that out. 

At one point he said that white had at least equality, and later he said that Black had an easy game and the very best White could hope for is a draw. 

I see that as two different evaluations. In the first case, white has posed interesting problems for Black and can comfortably play for the win (+/= to =, or in computer terminology, +0.20-0.00) and in the other =/+ to =, 0.00 - -0.20). That isn't a large difference, but it is a critical difference. I pointed that out, and he accused me of being a weak player because I couldn't see that they are the same thing.

Ok, I am a weak player. I still don't see that they are the same.

In a book I have titled The Dark Knight System the author (FM Schuyler)  explains the evaluation assessments used in his book  He prefers to apply narrow ranges.

He considers equal to correspond to an advantage of no more than 0.09 for one player.

Comfortably equal is the half of that range.

Slightly better or tiny edge is an advantage of 0.10 to 0.17 while 'nearly equal' would be a similiar disadvantage. He says that in most chess works such positions are simply labeled as equal, but he believes there is far too much difference between +0.15 and -0.15 to let it go without mention. 

Edge or small advantage is between 0.18 and 0.25. He says in other books such positions are often called approximately equal, or given a plus over equal and an equal sign together.

He considers 0.26 to 0.39 to mean "advantage" and "better", and 0.40 to 0.60 is a "comfortable advantage", and more than that is "clearly better". 

Over 1.00 is nearly winning.

He uses Houdini. 

He says he realises that the style of assessment he is using implies a degree of precision difficult to attain, but he'd rather risk falling short than strive for vagueness in the hopes of evading criticism.

That is really computerized evaluation. It has a high face validity, but I would say that 'Evaluation is in the eye of the beholder'.

The strength of a computer evaluation depends at least on the hardware, the program version, depth of analysis, time to think, type of position and phase of the game. If a writer uses those kind of numbers, then should he point how that relates to different settings of different engines in different situations. An example: any chess engine will give an evaluation after 1.e4 or 1. d4. Likewise after the first move of black. How realistic is that?

I think that an evaluation of +-, += etc. is very practical and better standardized then a number from a computer engine.