peefren I remember seeing you cleaning the mens room, at least I thought that was why you were there?!  what a putz!

Sorry to say that I have no more time to spare answering to morons. Please, don't take it personally, I'm just referring to your alter ego.

hehehe :-)

Too bad there is no GM named "Roman Vissw" har har har.

And not only did you recognize Smyslov's name you knew there was such a thing as databases and how to use them?  Like pfren I assumed you hardly knew how the pieces moved heh.  Maybe you will give yereslov a run for his money.

netzach, I suspect so, I wonderfully admire Smyslov chess ability and his chess playing well into the later years!!!

waffllemaster, please dont go goofy on me also.  I shorted Romans last name, its very difficult to remember the spelling, 

Roman Dzindzichashvili

guys, dont talk to this fishy fischerii. It is a waste of time.

what a join date!

Wait, you shortened Dzindzichashvili to Vissw?

fischeriii Bent Larsen (maybe you heard of him?) has played 1.b4 on a number of occasions and in every instance I've seen he has played 3.Bxe5 in the position we were previously referring to.

Unless he's not notable enough for you, in which case I can go through older bases.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but your initial argument was that White traded a b-pawn for Black's e-pawn to which you said 'not good' and since you have been arguing against 3.Bxe5.

But you haven't given a single alternative move! After hanging the b-pawn, what else should White play?

3.f4 has been tried a few times, but not by any GMs in my database. It's not a good line as long as Black doesn't try taking f4.

Also, generally speaking, a trade of a b-pawn for an e-pawn is favorable for the side that took the e-pawn as pawns in the center are typically more valued than pawns closer to the flank.

And for those who suggested stuff like 1.b4 e5 2.e4, why not just play 1.e4 on move 1 and save b4 for move two when it's more reasonable (as in Black has played 1...c5 and 2.b4 actually gives you some compensation)?

lmao... i was thinking of responding to fischeriii and i was like, "Why bother?" 

What if he shortens my name too??

chss31? 

talk about being a _______... sheesh fischeriii

Such garbage talk isnt appreciated by anyone... So unless you have something nice to say... take urself and ur abbreviations home...

Do u play chess on Chess.com at all? 

fischeriii, do us all a favour and get off what is otherwise an interesting thread.  Given that you have been a member since 2011 but not played any games on this site and have a Tactics Trainer rating lower than my dog, I call bs on your claim to have taken lessons from anyone, let alone to having any skill at this game.  You are a troll.  

As a further obervation, what is it about the internet that gives idiots the idea that they can insult people without consequence, when in real life they would very quickly find themselves getting a good swift kick in the ass?  You are an obsequious little dork, so piss off and let the adults talk.

Amens all around?

JasonSchlotter, if you read the previous threads, I hope you can read english, you should have seen the comments made by pfren against me.  Your "online" chess rating of under 1700 does not give you much status.  So please go back to your troll existence and let the real chess players comment.  

poor schletter55, give me good analysis and good game theory on 1.b4 based on current database theory and you wont have to talk to me.  and "thechessplayer31" your under 1500 "online" rating barely makes you a chess player.  you woodpushes move out of the way and let the real chess commentors do our thing.

1. you deliberately changed my name. 2. It is you who did not give any analysis. I did it several times. 'Database theory' I took from 'Opening tree mode' on the website 'chessOK'. You never gave any database.

This was the last time I talk to you, unless you apaologize.

My FIDE elo is 2240. I do not have to talk to people who have low knowledge and a narcissism problem.

Thank you for responding Expertise87.  I have searched the database for ANY games in which Bent Larsen opened with 1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 Bxb4, 3.Bxe5...so if you do not mind tell me which games of Bent's you are referring too.  My initial comment was this, if the game opens with 1.b4 e5,2.Bb2.......BLACK SHOULD NOT TRADE HIS E PAWN FOR BLACK'S B PAWN. I am in no way advocating playing 1.b4 as white, it is a horrible choice of opening and violates every opening theory principle.  But if Black is confronted with 1.b4 (what a blessing since white is already at a huge disadvantage!) Black should never trade his e pawn for White's b4 pawn. Huge mistake!  While Black's move 2....Bxb4 seems to gain a tempo by development of the Bishop coupled with taking a pawn, the trap White is supposedly setting is allowing White's qn bishop to further develop, take one of Black's center pawns ?!?, and further dominate the a1-h8 diagonal.  Further the problem with White opening with 1.b4 is that his rooks will have no play because his queen side pawns are in the way.  Black taking b4 with his king bishop only opens a file the b1-b8 file for counterplay by whites rooks!!!!!

Schlechter55, this was your comment, "guys, dont talk to this fishy fischerii. It is a waste of time."  You must apoligize first.  I have made several comments about the theory behind 1.b4.  Making comments like law knowledge and narcissism problem will not get you an apology.  

hmm i looked through that game and i would have to say that after seeing that game regardless of the fact white won i would never play this opening k.walters played brilliantley and could of won had he not made the blunder of Qxe4?? and instead played a4 fischer would have been easily defeated in the end fischer just got lucky since walters miscalculated but you cannot hope for that luck in all your games