(Communicate in the forums productively and positively, don't message me privately in hiding. I have all messaging blocked.)

I have a funny and a serious side to me. I am not 100% going to learn chess so I can become the next Bobby Fischer. I enjoy chess, but at my pace. However far I get, I get. It doesn't matter.

Second, I think I should let those who are trying to help me learn more about chess know that in addition to chess I am also trying to find ways to connect chess with something else. This means I ask specific questions about chess, not because I want to learn about chess ONLY but because I want to see how higher level players explain moves or strategy that the basic learner may not consider. It's a research adventure, and at this point I am not going to disclose anything more.

If you are a computer programmer and want to combine Stockfish analysis (or other engines) with my side research you are more than welcome to contact me privately. If you are interested I can share more about what I am doing.

Some people who are higher level are devoting a lot of time to helping me and telling me other things that I either already know or am not interested in finding out about at that time. Trust me, it's not going to stick if you just tell me, that's not the kind of learner I am. I can't read a book and tell you what I read. I have to experiment with every sentence to remember that one sentence. That's why I learned languages like Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, so I could have something to draw while reading. I can't take in information like a sponge, it has to be one sip at a time. I hope you can understand.

GambitShift