05 Nov 08
Originally posted by tomtom232dont get stressed by him tomtom, its not worth it, he took offense because i dared to term him a dude, went on a rant, like his personal preferences were all important and gave me a lecture about proper etiquette etc etc little did he realize that it was a compliment, all things having been considered, some people have just got hangups about almost anything, oh well, never mind!
I understand and care for the content of the thread just fine. It's arrogant pricks like you who I neither understand nor care for. People who decide to cast a bad light on others AFTER they have declared they will partake no longer in the discussion.
My point had no ill intent but you seemed to have taken it that way. It never ceases to amaze me how s ...[text shortened]... phrase nor even at that particular post. I, as I said before, made a simple measly request.
05 Nov 08
I've had a few interesting games with the latvian, and a few games where I've absolutely been annhialated. I'm guessing this is an opening where knowing all the specific "book" lines is pretty important to avoid having your inherent kingside weakness taken advantage of?
05 Nov 08
Originally posted by tomtom232I think "arrogant prick" just about sums you up. If you look back at the posts, I didn't take any offence at all until you called me "stubborn". To be honest, I really couldn't quite understood the point you were orginally trying to make. I just used the expression "I much prefer white's position here", the sort of expression that will have been used hundreds of times in theoretical articles on chess openings.
I understand and care for the content of the thread just fine. It's arrogant pricks like you who I neither understand nor care for. People who decide to cast a bad light on others AFTER they have declared they will partake no longer in the discussion.
My point had no ill intent but you seemed to have taken it that way. It never ceases to amaze me how s ...[text shortened]... phrase nor even at that particular post. I, as I said before, made a simple measly request.
For your information I have had a number of chess articles published in a variety of chess magazines including New in Chess. For your further information I have spent many hours on the analysis (a fair amount of it original) I have provided on this thread for users of this forum who are interested in the Latvian Gambit. You have contributed absolutely nothing, except a silly little whinge. So why don't you either make a chess-based contribution to a forum called "Only Chess" or take yourself off to another forum where you can indulge your pettinesses to your heart's content?
05 Nov 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34I agree. The Latvian is not something I would ever consider playing myself, but I have played through the lines given by Northern Lad and Korch in this thread because of their very interesting analysis. I may even risk a Latvian blitz game or two on playchess.com!
If it's one opening where you need to have eyes all over the
board and take your time it's the Black side of a Latvian.
This turned out to be quite a thread.
05 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Fat LadyIn fast tome controls this opening has given me good results, even against strong opponents - even better than in long time controls as better opening knowledge is becoming more important in faster time control.
I agree. The Latvian is not something I would ever consider playing myself, but I have played through the lines given by Northern Lad and Korch in this thread because of their very interesting analysis. I may even risk a Latvian blitz game or two on playchess.com!
P.S. Should apologize to Northern Lad, for not continuing our interesting analysis dispute, but in latest days I have time only to analyse my games in progress.
But I`ll be back to continue 😉
05 Nov 08
Originally posted by Northern Laddo you see perhaps a patter emerging, notice the emphasis throughout this post on 'I', it is rather telling, don't you think? How can i break this to you gently, i know, how about, 'its not all about you'.
I think "arrogant prick" just about sums you up. If you look back at the posts, I didn't take any offence at all until you called me "stubborn". To be honest, I really couldn't quite understood the point you were orginally trying to make. I just used the expression "I much prefer white's position here", the sort of expression that will have been used hu ...[text shortened]... ff to another forum where you can indulge your pettinesses to your heart's content?
06 Nov 08
Originally posted by Northern LadWhy don't you two just play a few games and settle it?
Well, I think white has a definite advantage after 12.f4, but obviously everyone can make their own minds up. I would certainly never claim that 3.Nxe5 is a 'refutation' of the Latvian, merely a strong, fairly risk-free, positional approach, which makes life difficult for black. If there is a refutation of the Latvian, it'll be one of the sharp ...[text shortened]... they tend to lead to pretty wild and obscure positions in which gambiteers will feel at home.
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by Northern LadFor your information I have had a number of chess articles published in a variety of chess magazines including New in Chess. For your further information I have spent many hours on the analysis (a fair amount of it original) I have provided on this thread for users of this forum who are interested in the Latvian Gambit. You have contributed absolutely nothing, except a silly little whinge. So why don't you either make a chess-based contribution to a forum called "Only Chess" or take yourself off to another forum where you can indulge your pettinesses to your heart's content?
I think "arrogant prick" just about sums you up. If you look back at the posts, I didn't take any offence at all until you called me "stubborn". To be honest, I really couldn't quite understood the point you were orginally trying to make. I just used the expression "I much prefer white's position here", the sort of expression that will have been used hu ...[text shortened]... ff to another forum where you can indulge your pettinesses to your heart's content?
I, I, I. I have done this. I have done that. You are the epicenter of arrogance. I do not see where I have portrayed any arrogance. I also don't see how you can disagree with my conclusion that you are stubborn. I made a simple request and you had to keep coming back with snarky comments. I am done here though, my time is wasted on someone such as you.
07 Nov 08
I don't really have anything constructive to add to the thread.
I was/am enjoying the debate (with actual variations).
Thanks a lot guys (Korch/Northern Lad).
I can see all the effort and truly appreciate it.
Most people have to pay money and buy the book to get what you guys are giving here.
Handshake
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsYeap; and it would be fine if Korch and NL could play a game annotated by both of them. In this case I would expect a dynamic approach over their well backed up theory.
I don't really have anything constructive to add to the thread.
I was/am enjoying the debate (with actual variations).
Thanks a lot guys (Korch/Northern Lad).
I can see all the effort and truly appreciate it.
Most people have to pay money and buy the book to get what you guys are giving here.
Handshake
Anyway both of you, NL and Korch, you gave us very deep analyses. Congrats🙂
07 Nov 08
Originally posted by tomtom232Lol - the 1500 takes on the FIDE Master.
[b]For your information I have had a number of chess articles published in a variety of chess magazines including New in Chess. For your further information I have spent many hours on the analysis (a fair amount of it original) I have provided on this thread for users of this forum who are interested in the Latvian Gambit. You have contributed absolutely n ...[text shortened]... back with snarky comments. I am done here though, my time is wasted on someone such as you.
How pathetic.