Originally posted by Shinidoki
what I meant was, white must prove he has compensation --- "win" was the wrong word to use.

the point is, If fritz and I can only play it out to a draw then the gambit must be of "reasonable soundness"

Statement "If fritz and I can only play it out to a draw then the gambit must be of "reasonable soundness" is real BS.

If black cant exploit their extra pawn it means that white have compensation enough and that gambit is sound enough to be played.

Originally posted by Korch
Statement [b]"If fritz and I can only play it out to a draw then the gambit must be of "reasonable soundness" is real BS.

If black cant exploit their extra pawn it means that white have compensation enough and that gambit is sound enough to be played.[/b]

As I read it, playing to a draw implies that white has compensation and is playable, which led to him saying it was reasonably sound.

Korch, your style of rude forum bullying is getting pretty old. From now on I won't be bothering with any threads you are involved in.

Originally posted by wargamer66
As I read it, playing to a draw implies that white has compensation and is playable, which led to him saying it was reasonably sound.

Korch, your style of rude forum bullying is getting pretty old. From now on I won't be bothering with any threads you are involved in.

"As I read it, playing to a draw implies that white has compensation and is playable, which led to him saying it was reasonably sound."

Right you are - seems like I did not wake up yet. My excuses to Shinidoki - I`m taking back my words about BS.

"Korch, your style of rude forum bullying is getting pretty old. From now on I won't be bothering with any threads you are involved in."

I dont care about it.

Originally posted by Korch

"Korch, your style of rude forum bullying is getting pretty old. From now on I won't be bothering with any threads you are involved in."

I dont care about it.

More of the usual arrogance from Kroch. 🙁

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
More of the usual arrogance from Kroch. 🙁

I disagree. Korch is a strong chess player who, unlike many other strong players, appears happy to contribute constructively to the forums.

We might not always agree with him (such is the nature of any debate) but his reasoning is reasonable and sound.

In my opinion Korch is prepared to give any opening a chance and quite prepared to change his mind. I remember earlier threads where Korch suggested the Grob was unsound and perhaps unplayable so I played him a game which to date is the only Grob I have lost as white. Subsequent to that game Korch has played a number of Grobs as white, very successfully and now concedes that the Grob is indeed playable as white and cannot just be dismissed as a "Mickey Mouse" opening. In fact the lack of large numbers of games on any DB makes it a potent weapon in CC as you can rapidly get out of the book (which I have managed in playable lines as early as move 2). It is not as popular as 1. e4 or 1. d4 just as 2. d4 is not the most popular response to 1. e4 .. c5 and 2. f4 is not the favorite response to 1. e4 .. e5 but not being popular and being unsound are not the same thing.

Originally posted by Korch
"As I read it, playing to a draw implies that white has compensation and is playable, which led to him saying it was reasonably sound."

Right you are - seems like I did not wake up yet. My excuses to Shinidoki - I`m taking back my words about BS.

"Korch, your style of rude forum bullying is getting pretty old. From now on I won't be bothering with any threads you are involved in."

I dont care about it.

accepted 🙂

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
More of the usual arrogance from Kroch. 🙁

Agreed. Korch arguments are self-serving - ignore the opinions of weak players and also ignore the opinions of GMs when they contradict yours (Korch's).

Originally posted by z00t
Agreed. Korch arguments are self-serving - ignore the opinions of weak players and also ignore the opinions of GMs when they contradict yours (Korch's).

Show me particular example which proves your statement.

P.S. I dont feel guilty that you can refute none of "Mikey mouse openings", with particular lines.

Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
I agree with z00t. I mean we can all agree that the first tempo as white is almost irrelevant in games, and that all games should, technically, be drawn, since having the first move is like drawing first in a card game, it's not decisive.

So then, in the Morra Gambit, you automatically sacrifice a pawn, a central pawn. For what, if not just another ex ...[text shortened]... scores a surprising 68% for white. Maybe we should all be playing that.

GAMBITS ARE NOT JUST FOR TEMPI!!!

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
[b]The contents of a series of PMs on z00ts claim the Morra Gambit is a mikey mouse opening.

DF > Then why did I win Game 3676033 against a player rated above 2000?

z00t > Because your opponent does not know how to play against the Smith Morra. I was playing it against a player now removed for 3(a) and black should not allow what ...[text shortened]... shed source to back your claims up?

Do I really need to comment further on this c***?[/b]

Why are you publishing Private Messages? Did he agree with this?

Originally posted by exigentsky
Why are you publishing Private Messages? Did he agree with this?

You don't know the history of z00t so are not in a position to comment, unless of course you are him!