Trump, REFUTED THE PRINS VARIATION

The prins is OK if white knows what he is doing.

That's a funny joke.

A Trump supporter calls me "dogmatic" and my analysis "flawed".

Your main line is garbage. It's this simple: I have the e4-square, and you have nothing.

Besides, a refutation would mean that Black is winning, not that White is winning.

You're absolutely right about refuting a variation of the Sicilian.

You refuted your own line.

Loser.

Even the 17. Bxd5 move that you didn't want me to suggest is completely winning after 17... Nc7 18. Bxe6 Nxe6 19. Rad1.

I love how the clown that wrote the original post thinks that White is forced to move the light-squared Bishop on move 9.

Also, you'd never reach your position after move 8.  White should play 8.Be3!, and with your stupid 7...Be7 and 8...Nfd7, White can now play 9.Nc3 without even giving up a pawn!

Try again Trump Clown!  I'm Hilary Clinton and I approve this message!

Lol Chesster, are you retarded?

17.Bxd5 Nb4 is busted.

Plz, get better at chess before posting trash.

Look, I know you think it's funny, but we don't need people using a Donald Trump parody profile as an excuse to flame people on the chess.com forums. Pointing out a good variation against the Prins is one thing, but the fact that you're a parody account for Donald Trump doesn't mean you have to act like Trump on steroids. Because trust me, no one wants to see that.

I was going to cream your ThrillerFan but because you seem to know about forks I will be open to discussing about my refutation.

It is always good to have someone trying to refute your engine checked refutations.

What move do you suggest for White on move 9? I have analyzed 9.Nd5-9.Be3-9.Bd3 etc...

Do you suggest to never move your light square bishop?

Regarding your Be3 thing. Do you think you refuted it? Of course that move was in Stockfish top moves (not the best one, at depth 23 it suggests Be2 with a +.12 advantage, meaning that I have actually refuted the Prins, no more calmed things for you baby, only Aguilar systems, time to show Sergei about chess) meaning that I analyzed it.

How does a +.12 advantage according to Stockfish indicate a refutation? At all

You're like a politically-motivated version of X_PLAYER_JX

I love this comment. Btw, what happened to that guy? He disappeared completely.

Really? Engine checked? I'm coming at you guys like Mimi Soltysik. Don't know who that is? Type his name @ Google.

Your 11. Nxe7+ reeks of amateurness Donaldo. Why on earth would you exchange your beautiful d5 Knight against that weak Bishop on e7? No computer would have been afraid of Bg5, since after Bf2 your Bg5 suddenly seems awkward. I don't need Stockfish to evaluate that, your claims are based upon poor play by white, and even then the position is roughly equal.

Now, how's this for a change: White should play 1. Nf3! as you should have guessed from my name. And then black should never worry about refuting Prins variation at all. How's that for an answer?

Bg5 doesnt seem awkard at all, it is avoiding any Rc1 stuff, so I control the c-file, kiddo.

Nxe7+ is not amateur (yet it is not the best move for White, but when analyzing your opening you have to analyze everything), it aims to exchange the only minor piece that can easily defend d6, trying to prove d6 as a losing weakness.

In this case if I came to exchange the DSQ bishop for bishop I would get the d4 square or at least some counterplay by threatening to get it with a5-a4, kicking the b3 knight.

In the case it is exchanged by a knight then my d6-pawn is weakened, and I don't have the d6 square, so Nxe7+ should be considered like an attempt to:

1. Get the bishop pair

2.Weaken d6.

Not so hard to understand right?

My understanding in life goes to another level dear friend.

I am trying to improve chess quality lives.

I am trying to promote this brand new Aguilar system.

I am trying to help all my dear human fellows that have problems with the Prins.

But in an internet when most users are from Murica you can't expect them to pay attention if you don't have a name like DonaldoTrump.

How many useful chess threads have been left unanswered because this forums are full of trolls that can't even name the pieces' names?

This is the sad reality, I also took steroids when I was a body builder, so don't expect me to leave them.

Still, thanks for recognizing that my variation which I didnt find in chess365 database is a good one, a creative brain like me may produce trash most of the time, but when it comes to chess all of my opening inventions are extraordinary.

Do you know Sergei's Kasparov twitter? I think Im going to begin an online fight to get my book on the Aguilar System to be featured by Every Man Chess

Dear dpnorman,

Refutation is a very subjective theme, and the use of this word in this thread was mostly a marketing strategy to get my book to be sponsored by some chess editorial.

It would be like asking any opening book to actually make sense and be objective, it is impossible.

Some will say that there are killer Nd5 sacs in the Sicilian, when in reality they are not killer, just playing 10 book moves after the sac will leave you OK.

Some will also sell you "Crushing white with the dragon" in which case the author won't explain you that you will probably get mated in move 25 of the Soltis lines after forgetting to give back the exchange on d5 for being greedy and playing hxg4.

Maybe I should make a serious blog, change my name and my profile pic and start promoting this killer line against the Prins, I refer to it as killer cause it is a deep strategical opening with juicy pawn breaks that will give the Black player a not easy to learn or understand antidote against Maroczy setups, in this case Maroczy setups arising from the Prins.

I heard of that under the name of Najdorf variation of the Sicilian! Good job nevertheless!

13.Bd3 looks like an attempt at a cheap trick. Just finish developing with 13.Be3 If a natural move like ...Nc6 then 14.Bd3 and now when the exchange happens black will be forced to retake on d5 with the bishop allowing the Bxh7+ idea.