Supranormal Acitivity in Chess

I´m not sure what the OP is trying to prove, that God somehow entered him and played the games through him, or that he is better than what his 1400 rating?

ouachita, is that you?

Can you give us a link to your book please?

As soon as I scan that page in an old Chess Digest catalog, you'll see it.

Related

Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible, for example, someone who thinks he or she is under police surveillance.

The following features are found:

1. It is a primary disorder.
2. It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
3. The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
4. The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
5. The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
6. The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.

No but seriously, he reminds me a lot of ouachita. Maybe he misses the feeling of being worshipped and has returned to try some different tactics

Guess I haven't been around long enough to know the guy -- seriously though I think many trolls on the internet aren't so clever and crafty as we tend to think... many are kids who are too young to know anything or adults who are unbalanced.

Maybe something like 1 out of 5 are actually people who know better and are trying to get responses because they're board... but that's just imo.

Risking to increase/hurt one ego or the other unfortunatly, but ouachita was clever and crafty. I haven't read this entire thread but I immediatly got an "ouachita" feeling. I just thought I'd mention it to see if anyone feels the same.

'chita clever and crafty? I suppose, in a way, but he overplayed his hand so obviously in some ways that many of us had him tagged as a fraud for many months.

In a way, that's the right way to put it, he could present himself very well. I found it for example a very good trick that he presented his profile page as a puzzle for others to solve, as to find out the real identity of this really strong mystery player. He had many crafty little tricks like that, but he definetly overplayed his hand ultimatly.

Computers are considered "monsters" in the middlegame. For Fritz 8 to achieve an overall rating of 2700+ means it plays complex middlegames at or above 2800 to balance its overall rating when it plays simple King and Pawn endings at a level of about 2300-2400. If you can demonstrate that Rybka or Fritz 12 played the middlegame against a 2700+ opponent better than I did, just post the game at 120/30 as I have done on the thread on the Wilkes Barre. I'll bet neither Rybka or Fritz 12 will find many of the concepts I found and will not achieve a winning position (+-) as quickly as I did.

It's real easy to prove me wrong guys, so just prove me wrong.

For months I have been told that my contribution in the Berliner Gambit was not important because Black could improve over Berliner's play. The key move sequence of the Berliner Gambit (see game I played against Fritz 8 on the Berliner thread) is 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 (The Berliner Gambit) 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2! Be6? (book). This move was endorsed by Dr. Hans Berliner former World Correspondence Champion and recommended by him for decades as the desisive refutation of 4.Ng5 in the Two Knights Defense.

When I showed my innovation for White, 13.Nc3!, to IM Jeremy Silman, he said, "This sucks for Black." The position is already +- & Fritz 8, playing both sides of the position, Queens a pawn and wins a Rook by move 40. It took me 30 moves longer to win two Rooks for Bishop and pawn. See the thread.

I was then told by numerous post members for months that Black could improve with 8.Ne4 Ne6!? with equality, and, indeed, after "normal" moves by White such as 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bxd7ch Qxd7 11.d4 exd4 12.O-O c5! GM Lev Alburt thinks that Black has good prospects for equality.

After months of looking (and I will post a diagram of the key position at the end of this analysis), I think I have found the Achilles Heel of 8...Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7---10.Ba6!! (White maintains control of the d3 square keeping the Knights out of that square and prepares to be able to guard the g2 square so that a hit there can be met with Bf1).

Here is what doesn't work: 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Ba6 Nef4 11.O-O Bc6 12.Re1 Nd3 13.Rf3 Ndf4 14.Qf3! Nxc1 15.Qxf4! The point being that exf4?? is met with 16.Nf6 double check mate! so White is better.

Black could also try: 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Ba6 f5 11.Ng3 Nc5 12.Bc4 Nb6 13.Bf1 e4 (f4 14.Qh5ch +/-) 14.d4 exd3 e.p. 15.Bxd3 Nxd3 16.Qxd3 Qe7ch (f5 is hit twice) 17.Ne2 +/-.

Finally, here is an idea of GM Lev Alburt: (see diagram below)

8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Ba6 f5 11.Ng3 Nc5 12.Bc4 Nb6 13.Bf1 Qe7 (An idea of Lev's) 14.b4 Nb7 (Nc5a4 looks awful) 15.Ba6! (hitting the undefended Knight) 15...Nd6 16.O-O f4 17.Nh1 Qg5 18.d4 Bc6 19.f3 +/- (Fritz's evaluation).

So despite my critics, 8...Ne6 doesn't app

ear to equalize. (see diagram below)

I'm afraid that you probably did not find the key ideas Otb but in prep.

Sorry.

What's the big deal annyway?

Annybody who study one opeing variation for years, with computer help, could remember the best lines.

Then when you play that line against others, people or computer, you should get a good score.

Nothing super-duper-paranormal about that.

not even supranormal?

Some members of other threads try to maintain that I should do more research to be current with existing theory. This is not the point of the threads. The purpose is to provide state-of-the-art analysis and play, not regurgitate everything about the openings.

In order to satisfy my critics that I really do research on occasion, I will cover the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler in considerable detail here to provide the novice reader (and professionals!) with the necessary background for this opening.

Let's start with Ken Williams The Real American Wilkes-Barre Variation Two Knights' Defense p.55. He never stated what scared him about 6.Bd5, but he stated, "...that Black's other choice was 6...Rf8 which got nowhere." He gives instead, 6...Qe8 which is no improvement after the same idea with 6...Rf8 i.e. 7.Bxc6 +/-

When you factor in that the Wilkes-Barre Chess Club had played many thematic tournaments with this opening, it is a dead giveaway that Williams must have known there were serious problems in the 5.Bxf7 variation because the overwhelming play and analysis in his book focussed on the sharp 5.Nxf7 variation. He would routinely go into complex variations 20 moves deep, but when it came to the quiet 5.Bxf7 variations, he is strangely silent.

The Game Karpov-Beliavsky  USSR 1983 is instructive and shows the true nature of the game at a practical level i.e. it is sound practically, but not theoretically. If Karpov can't win with White, it shows you that the game is sound in practice.

Here is the score of that game: 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 d6? (Rf8 is better) 7.c3? (Just Bxc6 is +/-) Qe8 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Nc3 Qh5 11.Qd3 Rf8 (& in my unpublished book, I evaluate this as = to =/+) 12.b4 Bb6 13.Na4 Nc6 14.Nxb6 axb6 1/2-1/2:34.

In Informant 36 Zaitsev maintained that White could improve with 6.Bd5 d6 7.c3 Qe8 8.d4 exd4 9.Bxc6 Qxc6 10.cxd4 Bb4ch, but in my book, I recommended 10...Bxd4 11.O-O Qb6 12.Nc3 Bxc3 when Black may survive although IM John Donaldson (Inside Chess v.4 issue 13, p.19, "Death Knell for the Wilkes Barre?")claimed that 13.bxc3 Bg4 14.Qd3 h6 is better for White, but I am not so sure about that after 14...Nd7 instead of h6.

Anand-Beliavsky, Linares, 1991, featured a key idea of Anand's that doesn't look very promising. 6.Bd5 Qe8 7.d3? (Better, again is just 7.Bxc6) d6 8.Bxc6 bxc6? This makes no sense; the obvious choice is just 8...Qxc6 when 9.O-O allows 9...Bg4 with at least equality.

The dangers of castling Kingside prematurely are evidenced by the fact that in my data base from Eric Schiller, White scored +32-41 with a smattering of draws.

Here is a real crush showing the practical difficulties castling Kingside: Baer-Augustat, Postal, 1971, 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 d6 7.O-O Bg4 8.Qe1 Nd4 9.Bb3 h6 10.Nf7? Qd7 11.h3 Bxh3! 0-1

A critical variation covered by Estrin in his book, "The Two Knights Defense" 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bb3 Rf8 7.O-O (A suggestion of Reuben Fine but clearly played by the Wilkes-Barre Chess Club) & after either 7...d6 or 7...Qe8, White should probably try 8.c3 Qg6 9.d4 with a complicated game.

Readers are encouraged to look at Estrin's monograph on the Wilkes-Barre and the book by Cramer "Traxler-Gegeneanfriff Fritz-Variante Ulvestad-Variante" p. 44 for move orders to refute 6...Nb4.

I haven't read the book by Dan Heisman called, "The Traxler Counterattack", but if he does not include 6.Bd5/7.Bxc6/8.Nf3, then his book is incomplete.

I hope this provides an adequate background for the opening.

"I'm afraid that you probably did not find the key ideas OTB, but in prep."

On another website, when I tried to present analysis that White was better in the Two Knights' Defense, a member of the thread said that I would have to have an ELO rating of 3600 (Why 3600 is a mystery. Why not 3500 or 3700?) to achieve this.

Since one of my innovations appears to cook the Wilkes-Barre, another cooks the Berliner Gambit, I can demonstrate a plus against 4.Ng5 Nxe4, the 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 variation are +/- or +-, and the Fritz/Ulvestad is +/-; this leaves only the main line, 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 where I have demonstrated an advantage for White in most variations. Just check the thread on the variation 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3.

Would an ELO rating of 3600 qualify as supranormal?

I don't think you qualify as normal, but that don't make you supranormal, just weird. But join the club, there is many strange chessplayers.

Except Ne6 does equalize -- and regardless you're not going to find anyone playing 5...Nd5 in fact I had to check to see if that was even a move I've only ever seen 5...Na5 and indeed that's the main line.  So even if black couldn't equalize on move 8 he should be looking at move 5.

But if you're really worried about lines with 5...Nd5 try an improvement and replace 13...Qe7 with 13...f4

Opening theory is always advancing -- if you're taking games and book from 10+ years ago and finding improvements it's far from supranormal.  If you're curious how a 1400 (or whatever you say you are) player could do this it's obvious and not hard to figure out -- as to why you're asking all of us and posting lines without responding to anyone's posts (eg what's the ISBN of your book) that answer is also obvious.