Alekhine Defence

I think this opening has an bad name to it,because weak engines play and they don't play agressive enough.

while pratically this all may be true. Theoretically Lisa is right. There is no limit on the elo ratings since it is a relative scale. It's actually extremely easy to create ratings above 3300(which seems like an arbritary number to me but fine) if you just create artificial matches. 

No it isn't. Artificially raising rating in this manner will see you removed from FIDE and your rating will no longer exist at all.

So you started with a theoretical argument, then went to a practical argument, and ended with a political argument. Nice.

I'll give you an example which is simple to understand.

What if I beat Magnus 20 times in a row with super chess, then he beat Anand  20 times, then I beat Magnus 20 times, and he beat some other GM, and we kept doing this for many many years.

Lets say 6 billion years, (because someone discovered immortality) and lets say God gave me such a chess gift that no one on earth could even get a single win or draw in all that time .. and the only thing I did was play bullet chess against the worlds top million players in rotation for 16 hours a day.

I will have a very astonishing Elo rating when I finally retire, and it would be higher than your "impossible" 3300

its pretty simple to understand, and Elo has nothing at all to do with FIDE.
Elo is a rating system which is used across the planet in millions of venues aside from chess .. and 3300 has already been beat like a brown ping pong ball I'm afraid.

its not Impossible, its not improbable, and its a mathematical fact which can not be argued by you :P

Game_of_Pawns, This girl thought soda only had 33 bubbles total per bottle.

So don't feel bad ... you are both still cute, and England is still Jolly.

Real Life """SACRIFICE"""of a Rabbit and Mongoose to Win The Game Of Life
http://goo.gl/r14S2x

An obvious move is 2.Nc3 which just avoids it. Then 2...e5 leads into open games and 2...d5 can lead to other things. 2.Nc3 is probably the easiest way to just pick something simple so you can move on to other things. It's a really rare opening and some people just prefer to play into other positions which somewhat defeats the purpose of playing 1...Nf6. 

2.d3 is possible too but not ambitious. White usually plays some kind of reversed Philidor w/ Be2, Nbd2, Nf3 e.t.c; It's not the best move obviously but if you want to attempt to outplay your opponent in classical positions it's worth a go and again it saves time. Jobava has played into these positions a few times from other move orders. 

If you want more then 2.e5 Nd5 leaves White with A LOT of options and they're all really playable although some are better than others. It depends on what you want to do really and honesty you should probably just play something you'd like. 

Do you want to attack? Then 3.Nc3 or 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5, or the four pawns attack might be worth looking at. Ivanchuk has a nice lecture about one of his games in the four pawns here: https://youtu.be/coq5yfq61dk

Do you want to play slowly and squeeze Black? You can do it with pawns in the exchange with 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 or try to limit Black's play before moving your pawns with 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3. 

Do you want something more simple and straightforward? Then 3.d4 might be what you want to play instead with ideas like 3...d6 4.Bc4 dxe5 5.Qh5/Qf3. 

Do you want to create complications early? Maybe you want to play 3.d4 d6 4.f4 with the idea of getting a Queen on e4 or g3 like Sokolov sometimes tries in other openings. 

There are plenty of other things as well.

You're such a retard that I shouldn't even bother... I could write for 5 pages about how wrong you are; I think the main culpret in this post is the relevance of your arguments. Most of what you're saying doesn't even slightly apply to what was said previously and I don't see how it isn't possible for you to see that. I'll keep this as brief as possible. If I leave something out it most likely means that I don't even know where to begin correcting it and CBA with the whole thing.

"What if I beat Magnus 20 times in a row with super chess, then he beat Anand  20 times, then I beat Magnus 20 times, and he beat some other GM, and we kept doing this for many many years.

Lets say 6 billion years, (because someone discovered immortality) and lets say God gave me such a chess gift that no one on earth could even get a single win or draw in all that time..."

Sooooo...I could write about 3 pages just on what is wrong with this. Clearly this has nothing at all to do with whether or not 3.3k FIDE is theoretically possible as inflation currently stands, which is what the conversation was about. I had so little faith in the intelligence of humanity though, that I knew you would use this argument would be used if I didn't prevent it. So... I did. Twice in fact. The first "With the rating system as it currently stands, 3.3k is an impossible rating." and the second "On the human FIDE Elo scale 3.3k remains completely and utterly impossible as current inflation stands...". Yet somehow you manage to still use the argument that would have made no sense had I not said either of those. Just how stupid is it possible to be? Also, at the end you say that nobody can draw with you, which doesn't make any sense. A lot of GMs could fairly regularly draw against even perfect play when they had White.

Okay, next retarded passage, guess what? It's the next thing you said:

"...and the only thing I did was play bullet chess against the worlds top million players in rotation for 16 hours a day."

This conversation is about long time control chess. Despite not being directly stated, litterally everything said so far strongly implies that, whilst nothing said would hint at anything different. Just in case that isn't enough, how about just the fact that unless stated otherwise, when talking about chess, you are talking about long time controls. If you're stupid enough to try to argue this point I won't even bother replying.

Next quote:

"its pretty simple to understand, and Elo has nothing at all to do with FIDE.

Elo is a rating system which is used across the planet in millions of venues aside from chess .. and 3300 has already been beat like a brown ping pong ball I'm afraid."

You're right. FIDE and Elo are not one and the same. This might be relevant if we were talking about Elo is general. We weren't. I could probably prvide about 6 quotes from earlier in the conversation that make that abundantly clear. We were talking very specifically about the current day FIDE Elo classical ratings. I don't know why I said very specifically...That isn't very specific at all. This is a chess forum...

A rating of 3.3k is impossible. That is all but fact. I have made myself as clear as I know how. I don't know what else I can say. If you or anybody else replies to this I probably won't post back unless I can think of something that I haven't already said. I refuse to repeat myself any more. It's so simple... So so simple. I can't understand how you have managed to be so wrong.

@Game_of_Prawns

It actually is, theorectically, possible to have a 3300 rating... It requires true skill though, much more than anyone has at the moment.

Whaddya mean "chess is a drawn game"? Yes, It is practically impossible to get 0 draws in 100 games, but this isn't a practical argument. 

"How stupid is it possible to get?" Please tell me what she said that doesn't make theoretical sense. And, theoretically, it is possible to be infinitely stupid. 

What is a culpret, by the way? 
END THEORY DISCUSSION

ANYWAY, the Alekhine is an opening based on luring white's pawns out into the centre, and murdering them, one by one, so it is crucial to strengthen your pawn base before you enter the middle-game.

If you know so little about chess then why would you make such a post? What I meant by "chess is a drawn game", is that a perfectly played game is a draw. I know that at your low rating this means nothing to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it's virtually proven and everybody (but apparently you) knows it. Even if it isn't true, my arguments all still stand. Top players could easily draw more games as White than required against "perfect chess" to refute any possibility of a 3.3k rating.

Thanks for playing!!!

CCRL 40/40 - Index 

Their ratings are just about the 3300 mark...

maybe the OP should change the title :p

Yeah, maybe so.

Nice. Komodo Elo 3344, Stockfish 3312

I would feel so Silly-Willy now if I had said Elo 3300 was Impossible.

After reflecting on how that would feel, I came to realize that this conversation was never about Elo. It was about math, and you can't argue math, unless! its in relation to emotional inadequacy.

Some people want two inches to be six inches, and every ruler on earth will always be incorrect.

The mind is a funny thing.

I think it was Gandhi who said, "A donkey-clown is still a clown, but it looks like a donkey"  he was so wise.

I'm well past the frustration phase. Now I'm just loving every minute of this. Knowing how superior my intelligence is...

Such a good feeling... About something so simple too...

Not trolling. Not even slightly. Highly amusing myself, but that was never my intention and I'm not trolling.

Interesting... Why haven't you anwered our questions, then?

I said that I am not going to repeat myself. All the answers are already there. I have a single adjustment that I should make to one of my "arguments" but I didn't feel it was worth posting. This is it:

The reason why my arguments still stand if the game isn't theoretically drawn is because the same is still one sided, not somebody wins - White wins. Perhaps no human could force a win with White versus perfect play, but they sure could force many draws. Therefore all my arguments still stand, EVEN if the HIGHLY HIGHLY improbably is true.

Anyway, whilst we're on the topic of not answering questions... I have basically just got one argument. Top players could all score well enough versus perfect play to restrict it's theoretical elo to well below 3.3k. That is my sole argument. It is comepletely water tight and not a single person of all of you idiots have even tried to dispute it. Yet you somehow all think that you are right.

I cannot believe just how stupid you all are. I am honestly struggling to come to terms with that.