@asherasator It is silly to refer to it as garbage. You give up some "objective" opening advantage from having the first move to gain a practical advantage of taking your opponent out of his preparation on move 1. What is it worth to make your opponent burn time off the clock to get his first moves out? In this game, Larsen played his opening poorly (or at least not optimally) and Spassky played amazing creative chess.
@karlg1965 Oh so the whole point is "You give up some "objective" opening advantage from having the first move to gain a practical advantage of taking your opponent out of his preparation on move 1. What is it worth to make your opponent burn time off the clock to get his first moves out?".
Maybe you don't get my point, to a strong player [top 20 in the world, or Houdini, Rybka program etc.] this garbage is worthless.
@asherasator I'll clarify it even more, to play this "against" the top players & programs nowadays would be ridiculous. A lot of this older chess & some things that players got away with cannot work now & would be refuted, capitalized upon & punished quickly. This game has nothing more than entertainment value & if anything shows how not to play chess.
@asherasator You win. You're much more of a chess god than I could ever hope to be. Thanks for enlightening me, a worthless worm. It's so great to hang out on the Internet. You never would suspect that so much incredible knowledge and wisdom would be found here. Thanks. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
@karlg1965 Why are you even keeping this up? You could have left my opinion alone. Why are you continuing? Like your opinion or mine really matter. & these statements you're making what's the point? Obviously I disagree with you, get over it. You're now displaying serious mental problems with this last comment. Whatever, grow up.
@asherasator This is not an opinion: "A lot of this older chess & some things that players got away with cannot work now & would be refuted, capitalized upon & punished quickly." That is a statement of fact. A casual review of a large database should be enough to show that statement is false. It's not a question of what I agree with; it's a question of what has some basis in reality.
@karlg1965 So you're hell bent to prove something, do you really think you can convince me out of my views? Does it really matter to you that much to prove something here? Or are you really trying to prove something to yourself?
& it doesn't matter what I write, I have the right to express whatever I think based on my own experience, you have the choice to respond or not & you commented on my post originally. Which mean you were looking for a debate or an argument.
@karlg1965 Sometimes you cant change peoples minds, so don't worry about it or waste your time, especially on trivial things like chess. But I think you're 1 of those ppl who is always wrong or made to feel wrong so you jump on trivial things like this page to try make yourself feel better. Well I hope you find whatever emotional gratification you're looking for or need somewhere else. But I still don't like Larson's opening & I think it sucks regardless of databases or what you think.
@asherasator You have the right to express your views, as I do. If you said "I don't like Larsen's opening" I never would have responded. It's clearly a way of playing as white that is not for everyone. But if you pretend to be an expert on something you clearly are not, and make inflammatory statements about something you clearly don't understand, then why should you be surprised that someone points that out?
@karlg1965 I never pretended to be anything [that's your interpretation]. I made a very simple statement, & you have no position to judge my statements or level of expertise on anything. I've been playing chess for over 35 years, I think I learned something along the way & have a right to my opinion.
@asherasator So your 35 years of chess experience has convinced you that 1b3 will be immediately refuted or punished by a strong program or top 20 player? That's the opinion you are trying to defend here? If your opinion is that you don't like this opening, then you're welcome to it. But let's not pretend that you said anything like that: you asserted it was garbage and quickly refuted.
@karlg1965 I don't think you can go more than 25 moves max against Houdini playing this opening. In other words "you have no chance" & that game sucks. Other openings allow you if played correctly a better & longer game. Maybe you should just try it yourself.
@asherasator Modern computer programs are showing positional truth in chess. & that's what I meant by the older games. A lot of things simply don't fly anymore & the programs demonstrate this very well. I don't know if ppl are learning from them or not. & some cling to things for many reasons but the bottom line is some openings are better than others in higher level play & that's why they are used.
@asherasator So you're abandoning the position that I criticized and trying to move on to something less inflammatory and more based in reality. Okay. You've just made my point for me, and there really is nothing more for me to say.
@karlg1965 "Abandoning"? I said it's garbage & sucks, defined by bad early positions against strong players, that's the whole point. I didn't write Larsen's opening allows fools mate 20 different ways. Its simply a bad opening. If it was that great you'd see it a lot more at the higher levels & top programs would play it more, & they don't unless humans set up the first couple of moves. I don't think you understand chess as much as you act like here.
@asherasator No. Let's recap what you said (again): "A lot of this older chess & some things that players got away with cannot work now & would be refuted, capitalized upon & punished quickly." That is what you've abandoned, as is now utterly clear from your attempt to redefine what you meant by "garbage." Nice try. (Well, not really a nice try. Pretty weak actually.) Your refusal to defend what you originally said, which is what I criticized, does my work for me.
@karlg1965 Once again I'm clarifying since you don't get it, BAD POSITIONS THAT LEAD QUICKLY [7-15 moves] TO LOST GAMES IS "THE PUNISHMENT". I've explained everything & my reasoning if I wasn't clear enough for you the first few times. That's right a lot of "throw em out of book or prepared line" openings are refuted & I still define "garbage" as openings & play the leads to short games & terrible positions right out of the opening with a pathetic middle game [if there is any].
@asherasator You'd be surprised how many times I have gotten an arrogant Internet bully into the same position: you apparently have a pathological need to have the last word, and I enjoy seeing you squirming around trying to wiggle out of the corner you've backed into. You've cycled through the inflammatory comments, through the ad hominem attacks, through the bluster and bully tactics. What has it gotten you: back to square one. Congrats. I look forward to your posts.
@karlg1965 You don't know me from Adam, & I'm not an "internet bully". You're just an asshole with nothing to do & I bet you suck at chess, obviously you do this all the time by your own admission.
"I enjoy seeing you squirming around trying to wiggle out of the corner you've backed into." - You're sick in the head & have an imaginary view on all this because this statement is so far from reality there no other words for it. You've got a delusional perspective on many things, & simply nuts.
@asherasator I really do enjoy seeing you unable to escape your pathological need to have the last word. I'm enjoying watching you flailing. You clearly are not enjoying it. Since you are not enjoying it, but cannot stop posting, I'd say the evidence is more in the direction that you have some problems. The ad hominems don't do anything except make my case for me. I look forward to your next post.
@karlg1965 "I'm enjoying watching you flailing" - For you to use this descriptive wishful thinking & delusions is a sign of pure insanity, you really are crazy, get some professional help. I have nothing left to discuss & done wasting my time here & don't care what you post further. Have a good day.
@asherasator You think I know nothing about you after observing your behavior over multiple days of posts? I'm not as obtuse as you imagine. And "I'm not an [I]nternet bully" is what all Internet bullies claim. Of course you are. Look at your behavior. It's obvious to anyone who is paying attention.
@karlg1965 You're the bully & acting like you're some how know how I feel about your posts etc. & posting more ludicrous comments. You know nothing. This is one big joke to me. Obviously you want the last word, everything you're writing about me is really what you're doing. You couldn't handle my opinions & then refused to accept them as opinion & labeled them "facts" to justify your comments by not accepting they way I wrote em & a bunch of goofy reasoning if it can even be called that.
@asherasator I can tell how much you think it is a joke by how you bluster and fluster. Every bully at heart is intensely insecure, and that has been clear throughout your posts. You're now just repeating yourself and flailing around, which really is the point at which watching your blustering has lost it's amusement for me. So your next post I won't respond to. Your pathological compulsion to have the last world will be satisfied. You can thank me later.
@asherasator When I fail to be intimidated by your bullying, it does not make me a bully. Although I'm sure you feel ill-used. So be it. It has been amazing to watch you. Almost like an animal in a cage banging its head on the bars. Really amazing.
I won't read your next post. You can thank me for letting you satisfy your compulsion to have the last word, but I won't read it. Knowing that, when you do post, it will be proof to yourself what a problem you have. Enjoy.
@asherasator "If it was that great you'd see it a lot more at the higher levels & top programs would play it more, & they don't unless humans set up the first couple of moves." Just a straw man you've set up to knock down. Jousting with straw men rather than addressing my points head on, again, does my work for me. I don't have to know anything about chess to know weak attempts to avoid arguments for which you have no response.
@asherasator You are clearly misguided in arguing that against a strong program 1b3 can be quickly refuted. In fact, 1b3 is the sort of opening that a program does not do great against. I suppose that is why, in 1992, Kasparov chose 1b3 in a game against Fritz. If you don't know, Kasparov was a top 20 player for quite a long time.
I'm not trying to change your mind. You can believe anything you want. I am just trying to be helpful to anyone who might be misled by your comments.
@karlg1965 Yes I remember the game, how about when Kasparov blundered in a simple blackside to the Caro-Kann in a well known sacrifice? Those games today don't mean anything. The programs today are much stronger than anything he played then. & Karparov normally does not play 1.B3 or F4. Yes back then he was trying to take the program out of book moves & studied games. Realistically just playing basic opening principles gives black a fair game & equality.
@asherasator Now you've completely back-tracked: you claimed that a top 20 player or strong program would immediately refute or punish 1b3. Now you've run away from that untenable position. Now you just say that that black gets equality and a fair game. Who could argue with that? Contradicting yourself is not a great way to defend your initial position.
@karlg1965 Your average schmo can get a good game & advantage if they know what they're doing & understand basic principles playing another of equal strength. A top player or program would get a better position within 7-15 moves as black. You have no chance.
@karlg1965 & this: "That is a statement of fact" is you keeping it serious so you can continue, you're judging & making it "fact" as opposed to "opinion" so you can justify your own arrogance. Doesn't matter if its fact or opinion on my part. But by doing this you're revealing to me you really do have mental problems, seek some professional help. Venting & trolling on youtube only goes so far. You have to learn ppl think different than you & have different experiences & understanding.
@karlg1965 & the bottom line is I don't like playing it as white [which I've done off & on for years] & won with it, & I've crushed every player who's played it against me as white. It's that simple. My own experience doesn't like it or prefer to play it. & that "fact" is based on my reality. Whatever your reality is I don't care. So your attempts are worthless to me & maybe you're the only one getting something out of this. I've already wasted enough time here. Find a different crusade.
@asherasator So now you've played 1b3 for years?!? If that is true, then -- which, of course I have no basis for believing -- then all your prior comments are even more difficult to understand. Why would someone who has always crushed white players who open with 1b3 have to resort to claims of authority based on top players and programs (which, as pointed out, are not accurate)? Why would you not just say "I've always crushed this opening"? Hard to understand.
@karlg1965 I've beaten players playing 1.B4, A3, H3, G4, & also those types of openings for the blackside as well, that doesn't mean anything. I simply prefer what I prefer. Look I'm not here to prove anything to you nor do I really care what you have to say. If you have enjoy B3 then stick with it. To me it's a waste of time especially against a very strong opponent. Positions that arise out of Larsons opening in my opinion favor black if opponents are equal & playing correct.
@asherasator It's still Larsen's Opening. At least give the man the courtesy of spelling his name right.
You've really run very far away from your initial inflammatory comment. Since even you won't defend the comments that I criticized, what more is there for me to say?
@karlg1965 & for you to compare what Kasparov played against to what is available now shows you don't know the strength level of these newer programs which are much much stronger. Your point of taking an opponent out "prepared moves" is obsolete. The top players are so experienced with the openings that you can't really take them out of anything. & for the programs there is nothing you can take Houdini out of, there is no special unknowns to it, it understands & calculates better than any human.
@karlg1965 & for you to compare what Kasparov played against to what is available now shows you don't know the strength level of these newer programs which are much much stronger. Your point of taking an opponent out "prepared moves" is obsolete. The top players are so experienced with the openings that you can't really take them out of anything. & for the programs there is nothing you can take Houdini out of, there is no special unknowns to it, it understands & calculates better than any human.
Lol, 'English gentlemen'. Laurel and Hardy is more like it.; except not funny. Nothing personal, I'm sure they're fine people, but that English stick-up-the-arse demeanor and diction is really annoying.
And what is it with the clueless dude getting the STFU every other move. As in, STFU I'm telling you what's going on, so pipe down, dumbass, and just pick up the pearls, ya nitwit.
3:10 after Qf2 there is Rxg2 and white should be ok
caskinfg 1 month ago
@caskinfg Indeed, but this was just a mistake of the commentator. Stronger than Qf2 is Qh2 to answer Rxg2 with Qh1+ and mate in a few moves.
janschessclub 2 weeks ago
Larson's opening is garbage.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator It is silly to refer to it as garbage. You give up some "objective" opening advantage from having the first move to gain a practical advantage of taking your opponent out of his preparation on move 1. What is it worth to make your opponent burn time off the clock to get his first moves out? In this game, Larsen played his opening poorly (or at least not optimally) and Spassky played amazing creative chess.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 It's still garbage & a bad example for aspiring chess players. Maybe this game should be put into a strong program & get its analysis.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator Your suggestion that the game be put into a strong program shows that you did not understand my comment.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 Oh so the whole point is "You give up some "objective" opening advantage from having the first move to gain a practical advantage of taking your opponent out of his preparation on move 1. What is it worth to make your opponent burn time off the clock to get his first moves out?".
Maybe you don't get my point, to a strong player [top 20 in the world, or Houdini, Rybka program etc.] this garbage is worthless.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator I'll clarify it even more, to play this "against" the top players & programs nowadays would be ridiculous. A lot of this older chess & some things that players got away with cannot work now & would be refuted, capitalized upon & punished quickly. This game has nothing more than entertainment value & if anything shows how not to play chess.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator You win. You're much more of a chess god than I could ever hope to be. Thanks for enlightening me, a worthless worm. It's so great to hang out on the Internet. You never would suspect that so much incredible knowledge and wisdom would be found here. Thanks. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 Why are you even keeping this up? You could have left my opinion alone. Why are you continuing? Like your opinion or mine really matter. & these statements you're making what's the point? Obviously I disagree with you, get over it. You're now displaying serious mental problems with this last comment. Whatever, grow up.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator This is not an opinion: "A lot of this older chess & some things that players got away with cannot work now & would be refuted, capitalized upon & punished quickly." That is a statement of fact. A casual review of a large database should be enough to show that statement is false. It's not a question of what I agree with; it's a question of what has some basis in reality.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 So you're hell bent to prove something, do you really think you can convince me out of my views? Does it really matter to you that much to prove something here? Or are you really trying to prove something to yourself?
& it doesn't matter what I write, I have the right to express whatever I think based on my own experience, you have the choice to respond or not & you commented on my post originally. Which mean you were looking for a debate or an argument.
asherasator 2 months ago
@karlg1965 Sometimes you cant change peoples minds, so don't worry about it or waste your time, especially on trivial things like chess. But I think you're 1 of those ppl who is always wrong or made to feel wrong so you jump on trivial things like this page to try make yourself feel better. Well I hope you find whatever emotional gratification you're looking for or need somewhere else. But I still don't like Larson's opening & I think it sucks regardless of databases or what you think.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator You have the right to express your views, as I do. If you said "I don't like Larsen's opening" I never would have responded. It's clearly a way of playing as white that is not for everyone. But if you pretend to be an expert on something you clearly are not, and make inflammatory statements about something you clearly don't understand, then why should you be surprised that someone points that out?
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 I never pretended to be anything [that's your interpretation]. I made a very simple statement, & you have no position to judge my statements or level of expertise on anything. I've been playing chess for over 35 years, I think I learned something along the way & have a right to my opinion.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator So your 35 years of chess experience has convinced you that 1b3 will be immediately refuted or punished by a strong program or top 20 player? That's the opinion you are trying to defend here? If your opinion is that you don't like this opening, then you're welcome to it. But let's not pretend that you said anything like that: you asserted it was garbage and quickly refuted.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 I don't think you can go more than 25 moves max against Houdini playing this opening. In other words "you have no chance" & that game sucks. Other openings allow you if played correctly a better & longer game. Maybe you should just try it yourself.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator Modern computer programs are showing positional truth in chess. & that's what I meant by the older games. A lot of things simply don't fly anymore & the programs demonstrate this very well. I don't know if ppl are learning from them or not. & some cling to things for many reasons but the bottom line is some openings are better than others in higher level play & that's why they are used.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator So you're abandoning the position that I criticized and trying to move on to something less inflammatory and more based in reality. Okay. You've just made my point for me, and there really is nothing more for me to say.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 "Abandoning"? I said it's garbage & sucks, defined by bad early positions against strong players, that's the whole point. I didn't write Larsen's opening allows fools mate 20 different ways. Its simply a bad opening. If it was that great you'd see it a lot more at the higher levels & top programs would play it more, & they don't unless humans set up the first couple of moves. I don't think you understand chess as much as you act like here.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator No. Let's recap what you said (again): "A lot of this older chess & some things that players got away with cannot work now & would be refuted, capitalized upon & punished quickly." That is what you've abandoned, as is now utterly clear from your attempt to redefine what you meant by "garbage." Nice try. (Well, not really a nice try. Pretty weak actually.) Your refusal to defend what you originally said, which is what I criticized, does my work for me.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 Once again I'm clarifying since you don't get it, BAD POSITIONS THAT LEAD QUICKLY [7-15 moves] TO LOST GAMES IS "THE PUNISHMENT". I've explained everything & my reasoning if I wasn't clear enough for you the first few times. That's right a lot of "throw em out of book or prepared line" openings are refuted & I still define "garbage" as openings & play the leads to short games & terrible positions right out of the opening with a pathetic middle game [if there is any].
asherasator 2 months ago
@karlg1965 I'll write it again: Larsen's opening is garbage.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator You'd be surprised how many times I have gotten an arrogant Internet bully into the same position: you apparently have a pathological need to have the last word, and I enjoy seeing you squirming around trying to wiggle out of the corner you've backed into. You've cycled through the inflammatory comments, through the ad hominem attacks, through the bluster and bully tactics. What has it gotten you: back to square one. Congrats. I look forward to your posts.
karlg1965 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlg1965 You don't know me from Adam, & I'm not an "internet bully". You're just an asshole with nothing to do & I bet you suck at chess, obviously you do this all the time by your own admission.
"I enjoy seeing you squirming around trying to wiggle out of the corner you've backed into." - You're sick in the head & have an imaginary view on all this because this statement is so far from reality there no other words for it. You've got a delusional perspective on many things, & simply nuts.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator I really do enjoy seeing you unable to escape your pathological need to have the last word. I'm enjoying watching you flailing. You clearly are not enjoying it. Since you are not enjoying it, but cannot stop posting, I'd say the evidence is more in the direction that you have some problems. The ad hominems don't do anything except make my case for me. I look forward to your next post.
karlg1965 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlg1965 "I'm enjoying watching you flailing" - For you to use this descriptive wishful thinking & delusions is a sign of pure insanity, you really are crazy, get some professional help. I have nothing left to discuss & done wasting my time here & don't care what you post further. Have a good day.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator You think I know nothing about you after observing your behavior over multiple days of posts? I'm not as obtuse as you imagine. And "I'm not an [I]nternet bully" is what all Internet bullies claim. Of course you are. Look at your behavior. It's obvious to anyone who is paying attention.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 You're the bully & acting like you're some how know how I feel about your posts etc. & posting more ludicrous comments. You know nothing. This is one big joke to me. Obviously you want the last word, everything you're writing about me is really what you're doing. You couldn't handle my opinions & then refused to accept them as opinion & labeled them "facts" to justify your comments by not accepting they way I wrote em & a bunch of goofy reasoning if it can even be called that.
asherasator 2 months ago
Comment removed
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator I can tell how much you think it is a joke by how you bluster and fluster. Every bully at heart is intensely insecure, and that has been clear throughout your posts. You're now just repeating yourself and flailing around, which really is the point at which watching your blustering has lost it's amusement for me. So your next post I won't respond to. Your pathological compulsion to have the last world will be satisfied. You can thank me later.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@asherasator When I fail to be intimidated by your bullying, it does not make me a bully. Although I'm sure you feel ill-used. So be it. It has been amazing to watch you. Almost like an animal in a cage banging its head on the bars. Really amazing.
I won't read your next post. You can thank me for letting you satisfy your compulsion to have the last word, but I won't read it. Knowing that, when you do post, it will be proof to yourself what a problem you have. Enjoy.
karlg1965 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@asherasator "If it was that great you'd see it a lot more at the higher levels & top programs would play it more, & they don't unless humans set up the first couple of moves." Just a straw man you've set up to knock down. Jousting with straw men rather than addressing my points head on, again, does my work for me. I don't have to know anything about chess to know weak attempts to avoid arguments for which you have no response.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@asherasator How is this relevant at all to any of the things I said? So I could not survive playing 1b3 against Houdini? Duh. So what?
Since you've abandoned the assertions that I was criticizing, there's really nothing more for me to say. You've made my point for me.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@asherasator You are clearly misguided in arguing that against a strong program 1b3 can be quickly refuted. In fact, 1b3 is the sort of opening that a program does not do great against. I suppose that is why, in 1992, Kasparov chose 1b3 in a game against Fritz. If you don't know, Kasparov was a top 20 player for quite a long time.
I'm not trying to change your mind. You can believe anything you want. I am just trying to be helpful to anyone who might be misled by your comments.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 Yes I remember the game, how about when Kasparov blundered in a simple blackside to the Caro-Kann in a well known sacrifice? Those games today don't mean anything. The programs today are much stronger than anything he played then. & Karparov normally does not play 1.B3 or F4. Yes back then he was trying to take the program out of book moves & studied games. Realistically just playing basic opening principles gives black a fair game & equality.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator Now you've completely back-tracked: you claimed that a top 20 player or strong program would immediately refute or punish 1b3. Now you've run away from that untenable position. Now you just say that that black gets equality and a fair game. Who could argue with that? Contradicting yourself is not a great way to defend your initial position.
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 Your average schmo can get a good game & advantage if they know what they're doing & understand basic principles playing another of equal strength. A top player or program would get a better position within 7-15 moves as black. You have no chance.
asherasator 2 months ago
@karlg1965 & this: "That is a statement of fact" is you keeping it serious so you can continue, you're judging & making it "fact" as opposed to "opinion" so you can justify your own arrogance. Doesn't matter if its fact or opinion on my part. But by doing this you're revealing to me you really do have mental problems, seek some professional help. Venting & trolling on youtube only goes so far. You have to learn ppl think different than you & have different experiences & understanding.
asherasator 2 months ago
@karlg1965 & the bottom line is I don't like playing it as white [which I've done off & on for years] & won with it, & I've crushed every player who's played it against me as white. It's that simple. My own experience doesn't like it or prefer to play it. & that "fact" is based on my reality. Whatever your reality is I don't care. So your attempts are worthless to me & maybe you're the only one getting something out of this. I've already wasted enough time here. Find a different crusade.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator So now you've played 1b3 for years?!? If that is true, then -- which, of course I have no basis for believing -- then all your prior comments are even more difficult to understand. Why would someone who has always crushed white players who open with 1b3 have to resort to claims of authority based on top players and programs (which, as pointed out, are not accurate)? Why would you not just say "I've always crushed this opening"? Hard to understand.
karlg1965 2 months ago
Comment removed
asherasator 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlg1965 I've beaten players playing 1.B4, A3, H3, G4, & also those types of openings for the blackside as well, that doesn't mean anything. I simply prefer what I prefer. Look I'm not here to prove anything to you nor do I really care what you have to say. If you have enjoy B3 then stick with it. To me it's a waste of time especially against a very strong opponent. Positions that arise out of Larsons opening in my opinion favor black if opponents are equal & playing correct.
asherasator 2 months ago
@asherasator It's still Larsen's Opening. At least give the man the courtesy of spelling his name right.
You've really run very far away from your initial inflammatory comment. Since even you won't defend the comments that I criticized, what more is there for me to say?
karlg1965 2 months ago
@karlg1965 & for you to compare what Kasparov played against to what is available now shows you don't know the strength level of these newer programs which are much much stronger. Your point of taking an opponent out "prepared moves" is obsolete. The top players are so experienced with the openings that you can't really take them out of anything. & for the programs there is nothing you can take Houdini out of, there is no special unknowns to it, it understands & calculates better than any human.
asherasator 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlg1965 & for you to compare what Kasparov played against to what is available now shows you don't know the strength level of these newer programs which are much much stronger. Your point of taking an opponent out "prepared moves" is obsolete. The top players are so experienced with the openings that you can't really take them out of anything. & for the programs there is nothing you can take Houdini out of, there is no special unknowns to it, it understands & calculates better than any human.
asherasator 2 months ago
Nice run-thru of a classic Spassky win
kaewonf8 5 months ago
fantastic game
chessi091 5 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von ChessNoir
Lol, 'English gentlemen'. Laurel and Hardy is more like it.; except not funny. Nothing personal, I'm sure they're fine people, but that English stick-up-the-arse demeanor and diction is really annoying.
And what is it with the clueless dude getting the STFU every other move. As in, STFU I'm telling you what's going on, so pipe down, dumbass, and just pick up the pearls, ya nitwit.
JFleuvier 5 months ago
@JFleuvier "just" pick up the pearls?
i'll pick up the pearls AND show my respects. You STFU you backstreet c**t
AlanWattParrot 5 months ago
PLease mention that the knight since arriving in g4 has a potential fork in f2. Thank you for posting.
intrinsicrauss 6 months ago
Massacre!
Donald's so smoooooth. Beautiful diction, impeccable manners, embodies the English gentleman.
Raymond's a pro. Always does a fine job.
Really enjoy these, thx.
AlanWattParrot 6 months ago
ahh thanks
guy92239 6 months ago