Lol, subbed for Firebrand's response. This is just a stupid troll right? You give one move and say "Black is fine" - great analysis 
Wolff Morrow's Opening Analysis
Sort:
I'm a bit apprehensive of ...b5 lines myself because of the thematic knight sacs against b5.
Also if he used an engine to analyse he would have chosen 7.Bd3 over f3, and 7...e5 over 7...b5
Edit: flubbed the move order, even after 6...e6 instead of 6...b5 7.Qf3 is given as "best".
Engines aren't fit to analyse these positions anyway because they give priority to castling and other factors that take a back seat to not overcomitting and positioning. When something gives a clear over a pawn advantage for white in the Leningrad Dutch (so as bad as the Basman defense!) you know it isn't a reliable authority. I trust Bobby Fischer (why I gave up the dragon and king's gambit) and other top players' judgment regarding the opening.
FFS, the guy you're talking about is the US Correspondence Chess Champion, he didn't just turn on an engine and take it for gospel, far from it. Otherwise anyone could just do centaur chess, even someone who doesn't know how the pieces move.
Let's make it happen!
This thread seems to have brought all the idiots out 
sisu Anyone who does not use computers in correspondence chess does not understand today's correspondence chess.
It is NOT cheating to use computers in correspondence chess.
Calling someone a "cheat" because he uses computers in correspondence
is not only mean spirited it is beyond the pale.
[COMMENT DELETED]
anyway i just looked at the link, actually starting at 23 and beating a master at otb isnt too bad to be honest
i started pretty late too, actually that guy is a hope!!
i just hope the master was someone rated much higher than 2000
Let's make it happen!
I agree that today's correspondence chess is close to pure strategy with most of the tactics removed from the hands of the players. [not quite all]
Today's correspondence players do often come up with the very best lines in the openings. This is significant in my opinion. In other words they contribute much to theory of various openings.
I look at Centaur Chess as a search for the "truth". What is best play especially in the opening?. In some areas they have already found this "truth" and like it or not, it will eventually change chess as we know it.
There still are many correspondence players who enjoy this kind of chess, why do some who do not play correspondence have to be so mean-spirited?
Open challenge to Mr. Morrow: http://www.chess.com/tournament/nimzo-indian-1600
No engines allowed of course, this is chess.com. Next time think before being a blowhard and insisting despite being only 1700 USCF you haven't been using an engine and yet somehow have been beating masters on ICCF consistently. I too am a 1700 USCF player who, in pre-engine days, gained entrance into the US Correspondence Championship, but I hadn't played the Nimzo in decades until yesterday, so I have no opening preparation advantage.
Show me what you got, blow-hard engine boy.
Everything I have seen he has stated he uses an engine. It is part of correspondence chess to use an engine now. I have seen many of his posts where he says he uses an engine.
Let's make it happen!
If you guys want to challenge him wouldnt it be better if you played him USING an engine?, then he can show he that he will win anyway.
Challenging him to a normal game is like challenging an OTB IM to a game of lightning to prove who is better.
Let's make it happen!
Actually you can in unrated games if both sides agree, why not?
If he accepts and you win purely using an engine, then you will have proven your point.
Why on earth would uschess.org (http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12361/141/) feature a B-player with an engine, especially when he doesn't know what he's talking about?