I hate opening theory!!!

Originally posted by Pacifique
"Confession" LOL. I`ve never denied that pawn structure is [b]one of the factors, taken into account in evaluation, but I`ll never agree with idiotic theories about evaluation based solely on pawn structure, without taking into account other pieces.[/b]

The idea is not idiotic, it was concerned solely with the opening and the placement of the pieces,
after all, a knight on g1 has to go somewhere. BV said it was an excellent post.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but we are referring to Karpov play, not the choice of opening, it was based upon the pawn
structure, twas it not? he played Bf4 to provoke e5, this is a common theme in the Sicilian, to
provoke e5 in some way.

If it was so "common theme in Sicilian", why did you claim that bishop is never placed on f4?

Originally posted by Pacifique
If it was so "common theme in Sicilian", why did you claim that bishop is never placed on f4?

I am referring to the thematic fight for the d5 square, why because after 1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 d6, 3.d4
cxd5 and Nxd4 (the open Sicilian), it is clear that the bishop does not belong on f4 in the opening
stage, that is why. Are you having trouble understanding that my comments were made with
reference to the opening stage of the game?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The idea is not idiotic, it was concerned solely with the opening and the placement of the pieces,
after all, a knight on g1 has to go somewhere. BV said it was an excellent post.

BV may say what he wants, but I say that your post is pseudo-scientific crap. Fantasies about where each piece must be placed, without taking into account finest distinctions of each position, have nothing common with real chess.

Originally posted by Pacifique
BV may say what he wants, but I say that your post is pseudo-scientific crap. Fantasies about where each piece must be placed, without taking into account finest distinctions of each position, have nothing common with real chess.

well don't hold back or anything, just come right out with it, why don't you! Are you having trouble
that it was made with reference only to the opening or is your appraisal still the same?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
A brick wall. I'm arguing with a brick wall.

You are.

But so is Robbie.

Richard

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am referring to the thematic fight for the d5 square, why because after 1.e4 c5, 2.Nf3 d6, 3.d4
cxd5 and Nxd4 (the open Sicilian), it is clear that the bishop does not belong on f4 [b]in the opening
stage, that is why. Are you having trouble understanding that my comments were made with
reference to the opening stage of the game?[/b]

OK. Now I will know that 7th move is not "opening stage". 😀

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
You are.

But so is Robbie.

Richard

never play tennis with a brick wall, its relentless! 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well don't hold back or anything, just come right out with it, why don't you! Are you having trouble
that it was made with reference only to the opening or is your appraisal still the same?

I have trouble with your ignorance. I repeat what I already stated - Fantasies about where each piece must be placed, without taking into account finest distinctions of each position, have nothing common with real chess. It applies to all stages of the game.

Originally posted by Pacifique
OK. Now I will know that 7th move is not "opening stage". 😀

ok, can you post a master game, a single master game ,where after 1.e4, c5, 2.Nf3 d6, 3.d4 cxd4
and Nxd4 where white played the bishop to f4, no neither can I.

Originally posted by Pacifique
I have trouble with your ignorance. I repeat what I already stated - Fantasies about where each piece must be placed, without taking into account finest distinctions of each position, have nothing common with real chess. It applies to all stages of the game.

its not ignorance, its sound and simply stating your opinion is not a substantiating factor, in fact, its
irrelevant to anyone but you, fine learn opening theory and let those people that want to
understand where the pieces and placed and why, do so, after an evaluation with their own minds!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, can you post a master game, a single master game ,where after 1.e4, c5, 2.Nf3 d6, 3.d4 cxd4
and Nxd4 where white played the bishop to f4, no neither can I.

I already posted grandmaster game in which Bf4 was played against Scheveningen pawn structure, presented in your diagram.

Originally posted by Pacifique
I have trouble with your ignorance. I repeat what I already stated - Fantasies about where each piece must be placed, without taking into account finest distinctions of each position, have nothing common with real chess. It applies to all stages of the game.

so lets get this, after this position, there are numerous fine distinctions that we need to take into
consideration, what are they and on what are they based?

Originally posted by Pacifique
If strong players evaluate opening taking into account only pawn structure, then can you tell me why Ruy Lopez Exchange (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bc6) are played not so often as 4.Ba4 ? Pawn ending with such a pawn structure should be win for White.

1. He didn't say "only".
2. Black's pawn structure is not inherently inferior to White's in the Spanish Exchange - get with the times, mate, doubled pawns are not the bogeyman Steinitz believed them to be.

Richard

Originally posted by tvochess
I don't understand why this discussion is so heated up

It's because both(!!!!!) robbie and greenpawn have a bee in their Scotch Bonnets about the way chess ought to, has to, must be played by Real Scottish Men.

Both are wrong, if not in their ideas, then certainly in the intensity with which they hold them.

Edit: And please stop showing games to prove a point about a specific move/idea, because the final result is hardly determined by those things, but rather by the overall strength of the players. (Also, it takes a lot of time to read, so I hardly look at them 😉)

Yes, but it takes a reasonable man (and therefore not a Scot, be he import or native) to see those points. And robbie and greenpawn are both Scots, one native, one import, but Scots both.


What should happen in this thread is to put one hand in the scruff of Glasgea's neck, the other hand in Embra's, and then smash their foreheads together until their skulls crack and their brains finally start bleeding some plain sense. But that won't happen, because all said brains contain is Principles and Important Issues, not sense.

Richard