28 Oct 06
Originally posted by MerchantParkProIt's funny that you are ripping into for not understanding your posts, but I understand them very very well. I am not so pompous as to guarantee that 3. Nc3 is better than 3. Nd2. In everyone one of my posts, I state that I prefer 3. Nc3 and think it's a better move. I am not claiming that 3. Nc3 is a better move theoretically. I am saying that I prefer 3. Nc3, and deem it a better move according to my preferences. I never claimed that I know more about the French than an expert like Akopian, and I never will. These players choose 3. Nd2, but most also play 3. Nc3. I just play 3. Nc3. It's this simple. Read, comprehend, understand this. It's a tribute to your outstanding personality that to get your point across you need to insult the person that you are chatting with. It seems to me that if you get so aggravated with people as to insult them persistantly, you should just stay away from the chess forum, since it's quite common here for no one to agree with anyone else. That's what great about chess. No one has a snowballs chance in hell of understanding if 3. Nc3 is better than 3. Nd2, but everyone can state their opinion, and we can learn from this. I am actually getting alot of humor and enjoyment out of your posts, since clearly it is you who can't understand this fact. I never claimed that 3. Nd2 was the end all of the French. I stated I think this is the best move. I think you are seriously not understanding the deep, intellectual meaning of "I think". It means that I am stating my personal opinion on matters. It's what people do in the forums. I apologize that I don't have the time to keep up with lines I don't play. I am in the busiest year of schooling at a very challenging school, in a very challenging field. Playing two very sharp Sicilians, 1. e4, and the semi slav against 1. d4 don't give me alot of time to study French lines I don't play. There is more fuel for your personal attacks. Attack my college, my choice of major, my lack of time. I am also humored by your intelligent debate - Calling Sicilian Smaug everything under the sun, asking me if I was dropped on my head as a child, and all other kinds of daring do. My respect for you and your opinion grows post by post. I really enjoy this special time we share together here, futilely arguing over my personal opinion over a line in the French. I don't want to read your post over and over again, since each time I read it, I feel worse and worse for you. Enjoy the weekend, hope the weather wherever you habitate is better than the weather in Cleveland. 😀
"Your argument that Kasparov won with this move doesn't mean it's better than 3. Nc3."
Seriously Tony.....did you get dropped on your head alot as a baby? I just finished telling you that nowhere in any of my posts did I say that 3.Nd2 was better than 3.Nc3. I don't know how I can be any clearer than i've already been with you. Read, comprehend, ...[text shortened]... ad over this post a few times and make sure you understand it before replying.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by MerchantParkProI agree that there are lots of other factors involved besides the raw statistics. In the first part of my post I gave my opinion that the moves 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 and 3.e5 are equally strong. That's my subjective impression based on my own experiences playing all 3 moves in countless games over many years and from other player's games that I've seen (eg. in books and chess magazines).
Interesting post! But i'm not sure I agree that this data indicates that "Statistically 3.Nd2 is the strongest move". There are a plethora of factors involved, such as the rating differential of the players....ie; if a 2600 player is playing a 2200 player the result of the game will likely have less to do with the opening selection. Also, some games ...[text shortened]... or my database for that matter, is only a small sample of the total number of games played.
It doesn't really matter what the statistics say. Players should chose the openings that suit their style and they are comfortable with. I was just trying to bring some objectivity into the discussion.
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by BedlamBedlam, you're not even close to being in my league. I am 100% positive that I would win ten out of ten games against you if you had to think for yourself and play your own moves, such as in otb. You wouldn't understand a good game of chess if someone held your hand and explained it to you. Stop embarassing yourself.
MerchantParkPro id love to know your OTB rating, looking through your games....they dont seem that impressive. Given the fact that you cant understand that players will change the variation or opening depending on the result they need along with your pretty poor play id guess you're around maybe 1600-1700?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by MerchantParkProWhat an ejit. You cant even sit at a chess board without looking constipated.....not that you looked any better in the other photo. The Fischer fasination along with the other naff are a bit of a laugh, you probably think you're Fischer the second?
I simply stated a true fact. You've made it 100% clear that you're a know nothing patzer who doesn't understand chess, or anything else.
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by David TebbI don't have a problem with your subjective opinion/impression. What I said was that I don't agree that your data means that 3.Nd2 is statistically stronger.
I agree that there are lots of other factors involved besides the raw statistics. In the first part of my post I gave my opinion that the moves 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 and 3.e5 are equally strong. That's my subjective impression based on my own experiences playing all 3 moves in countless games over many years and from other player's games that I've seen (eg. in boo ...[text shortened]... they are comfortable with. I was just trying to bring some objectivity into the discussion.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by MerchantParkProSo thats a no, you dont want to tell people your great rating.......wow what a surprise.
Bedlam, you're not even close to being in my league. I am 100% positive that I would win ten out of ten games against you if you had to think for yourself and play your own moves, such as in otb. You wouldn't understand a good game of chess if someone held your hand and explained it to you. Stop embarassing yourself.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by MerchantParkProgiggles, you're a real prat.
You're a brainless little faggot troll and you're too dumb to understand even the most basic level of chess strategy. Without a program or database you're totally helpless. That's a fact. You're also a snivelling little coward that hides behind your computer because you know your life would be snuffed out if you talked that way in person.
28 Oct 06
4 edits
The idea that Bedlam is a patzer is actually extremely funny given his characteristic generosity in this forum and outstanding record as a player, but getting away from the personality clash I think it would be very instructive for the rest of us to see how MerchantParkPro's approach fares in practice against Bedlam's (albeit as an indicator, not a proof) - any chance of setting a two-game FD challenge up and then feeding back annotation to us all afterwards?
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
28 Oct 06
Originally posted by AmauroteHow about I just slap him around silly on playchess? 🙂
The idea that Bedlam is a patzer is actually extremely funny given his characteristic generosity in this forum and outstanding record as a player, but getting away from the personality clash I think it would be very instructive for the rest of us to see how MerchantParkPro's approach fares in practice against Bedlam's (albeit as an indicator, not a proof) - ...[text shortened]... e of setting a two-game FD challenge up and then feeding back annotation to us all afterwards?