Here's the opening of a slow OTB game that was played
a few days ago in the UK:

1 Nc3 d5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bg5 Nbd7 4 Nf3 Ne4 5 Nxe4 dxe4 6 Nd2 h6
7 Be3 Nf6 8 c4 Bf5 9 Qb3 Qc8 10 h3 e6 11 g4 Bg6 12 Bg2 Be7
13 O-O-O O-O

Does White or Black stand better after this opening? Why?

Some writers in rec.games.chess.* (particularly Ray Gordon)
seem to act as though they can usually infer a player's strength
based only on the opening. Would anyone (particularly Ray
Gordon) like to estimate the FIDE ratings or BCF grades of
these players after that opening (above)?

--Nick

On a quick look, I'd say that White is better. White's already poised
to start advancing his king-side pawns (14.g5) and I'm also not sure
that Black can hold the pawn on e4.

Just guessing,
Richard Stanz

I tried to analyze the position:
http://www.chess-lovers.org/palview4/parties/nick.htm
It looks like white has a small advantage (one pawn up, but with a bad
pawn structure).


Nick wrote :
Here's the opening of a slow OTB game that was played
a few days ago in the UK:

1 Nc3 d5 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bg5 Nbd7 4 Nf3 Ne4 5 Nxe4 dxe4 6 Nd2 h6
7 Be3 Nf6 8 c4 Bf5 9 Qb3 Qc8 10 h3 e6 11 g4 Bg6 12 Bg2 Be7
13 O-O-O O-O

Does White or Black stand better after this opening? Why?

Some writers in rec.games.chess.* (particularly Ray Gordon)
seem to act as though they can usually infer a player's strength
based only on the opening. Would anyone (particularly Ray
Gordon) like to estimate the FIDE ratings or BCF grades of
these players after that opening (above)?

--Nick

richard stanz wrote:
On a quick look, I'd say that White is better.

White stands better, after this non-theoretical opening.
Given the castling on opposite sides, the middlegame
should be (as it was) a race to attack each other's king,
and White starts ahead in that race.

White's already poised to start advancing his king-side
pawns (14.g5) and I'm also not sure that Black can hold
the pawn on e4.

Rather than attempt to hold it at all costs, Black should
give up the pawn on e4 if thereby one can gain active
counterplay.

The game continued with:
14 g5 hxg5 15 Bxg5 c5 16 Nxe4 Nxe4 17 Bxe7 Re8
18 Bh4 cxd4 19 Rxd4 Nc5

Later, both players overlooked an important tactical
possibility. Eventually, a GM resigned this game.
The winner (who has no FIDE title) was chuffed.

Regardless of what Ray Gordon may think, it's possible
to play a non-theoretical opening and defeat a GM.

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Regardless of what Ray Gordon may think, it's possible to play a
non-theoretical opening and defeat a GM.

That just proves that you, er, I mean the untitled player, were in
book longer. *cough*


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Goldfish (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but it's totally weird!

David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
Regardless of what Ray Gordon may think, it's possible
to play a non-theoretical opening and defeat a GM.

That just proves that you, er, I mean the untitled player,
were in book longer. *cough*

Thanks to David Richerby for his implied compliment,
but I really don't deserve it here, and I have no
reluctance to assign credit to its rightful place.

The game was won by a friend of mine, who sometimes
has written in rec.games.chess.* (He has supported me
against the many insults and lies written to attack me
personally by the several trolls, sometimes racists,
who seem obsessed in their hatred of me.)

My friend's about 200 BCF now. He probably could
have become at least a FM (a FIDE title that does
not impress him at all) if he had taken chess more
seriously. As a boy, he drew a game with Karpov
in a simultaneous exhibition, and he was stronger
at the same age than some future GMs.

The game was played in a team match, wherein
his GM opponent played as a member of a team
that included six GMs and four IMs. My friend
usually plays 1 e4, but he decided to avoid it
because he was afraid of his GM opponent's
greater expertise in the French Defence (1 e4 e6).
He believes that his GM opponent was the first
'to go out of book' with 4...Ne4. Later, both
players overlooked an important tactical
possibility that would have helped the GM.
My friend and I independently noticed
that tactical possibility after the game.
He knows more than I do about chess,
yet he respects my talent and usually
my judgments in chess analysis.

By the way, in rec.games.chess.misc some
white American writers (including Neil Brennen,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, and Mike Murray,
who all have written lies to attack me personally)
have apparently stereotyped me as a weak
player, though they have so far declined to be
too specific about how weak they consider me.
Those white American writers know nearly
nothing about me as a person or as a player,
but their ignorance has *not* stopped them
from writing much nonsense and many lies
to keep attacking me personally.

Apparently, some white Americans find it
about impossible to believe that an unknown
player (to them) who's not a white European
could be stronger in chess.

In rec.games.chess.misc, I have written that
I can play a dozen or so blitz games in an
evening and then be able to replay the moves
with complete accuracy. That's a true
statement. I have done it many times,
though sometimes I have been uncertain
about the move orders in a few games.
I expect that many players (FIDE 2000+)
should be able to do what I have done.

As far as I can tell, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
and Mike Murray have again jumped to their
conclusions that I must be boasting about
my chess memory and must be lying again.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and Mike Murray
have been writing more of their usual ****
to attack me personally. I would submit
that reveals far more about Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski and Mike Murray than it
could reveal about me.

I have had some differences, some of which seem
based on misunderstandings, with David Richerby.
I do hope that David Richerby can recall that I
wrote something to defend him against Raymond
Keene's allegation that he's a 'maniac'.

So I would like to express my appreciation here
that, notwithstanding our differences, David
Richerby seems to respect me as an honest
and intelligent writer and he does not believe
the **** written about me by the likes of
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and Mike Murray.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
Regardless of what Ray Gordon may think, it's possible
to play a non-theoretical opening and defeat a GM.

That just proves that you, er, I mean the untitled player,
were in book longer. *cough*

Thanks to David Richerby for his implied compliment,
but I really don't deserve it here, and I have no
reluctance to assign credit to its rightful place.
[ . . . ]
So I would like to express my appreciation here
that, notwithstanding our differences, David
Richerby seems to respect me as an honest
and intelligent writer and he does not believe
the **** written about me by the likes of
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and Mike Murray.

When I first started lurking here, I read everyone's posts. Having gotten
the measure of them, I read very few posters now, as I prefer to associate
myself with people who can carry on a civilized discussion. Granted that
when under personal ad hominum attack, a man must sometimes do what a man
must do and I will defend his right to do so.

Nick Bourbaki and David Richerby are among those few whose posts I read. I
don't always agree with everything they say, but I've found that they can
discuss differences of opinion courteously and, on occasion, gracefully.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
Regardless of what Ray Gordon may think, it's possible
to play a non-theoretical opening and defeat a GM.

That just proves that you, er, I mean the untitled player,
were in book longer. *cough*

Thanks to David Richerby for his implied compliment,
but I really don't deserve it here, and I have no
reluctance to assign credit to its rightful place.
[ . . . ]
So I would like to express my appreciation here
that, notwithstanding our differences, David
Richerby seems to respect me as an honest
and intelligent writer and he does not believe
the **** written about me by the likes of
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski and Mike Murray.

When I first started lurking here, I read everyone's posts. Having gotten
the measure of them, I read very few posters now, as I prefer to associate
myself with people who can carry on a civilized discussion. Granted that
when under personal ad hominum attack, a man must sometimes do what
a man must do and I will defend his right to do so.

In the rec.games.chess.misc thread, "Why I'm voting for Sam",
I just pointed out that John J. wrote this false statement:

"The first thing Hitler did was execute all the Polish military
leaders."
--John J. (6 May 2006)

In fact, many, if not most, 'Polish military leaders' were executed
by Stalin, not by Hitler. Hitler should be condemned on account
of his many crimes against Poland, but even Hitler should not
be condemned on account of someone else's crimes.

John J. refused to admit that he was wrong, and he began
writing more and more insults and lies in order to distract
attention from his errors. Eventually, John J. wrote that
I 'obviously' 'admire Hitler' (6 May 2006, in RGCM).

Given that I look far from Hitler's ideal of a racial 'superman',
I would submit that it's obvious that John J. is a liar.

Nick Bourbaki and David Richerby are among those few whose posts I read.
I don't always agree with everything they say, but I've found that they can
discuss differences of opinion courteously and, on occasion, gracefully.

Thanks very much to Nick Cramer for his kind words.
I always have attempted to communicate in civil terms
with anyone who writes civilly to me and honestly about me.

Matt Nemmers is a member of a US Navy, with whom I have
many strong differences about US foreign and military policies.

"Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree
on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been
discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to
communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither
has ever resorted to 'name-calling.'"
--Matt Nemmers (writing about me, rec.games.chess.politics)

--Nick

"Nick" wrote:
[ . . . ]
In the rec.games.chess.misc thread, "Why I'm voting for Sam",
I just pointed out that John J. wrote this false statement:

"The first thing Hitler did was execute all the Polish military
leaders."
--John J. (6 May 2006)

In fact, many, if not most, 'Polish military leaders' were executed
by Stalin, not by Hitler. Hitler should be condemned on account
of his many crimes against Poland, but even Hitler should not
be condemned on account of someone else's crimes.

To add a bit of levity,

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Shakespeare - Henry VI, part 2 (act 4, scene 2).

In the context of the scene, the true significance of this famous line is
revealed.

http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/killlawyers.php

Matt Nemmers is a member of a US Navy, with whom I have
many strong differences about US foreign and military policies.

"Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree
on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been
discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to
communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither
has ever resorted to 'name-calling.'"
--Matt Nemmers (writing about me, rec.games.chess.politics)

Matt sounds like a nice guy. I've just subscribed to
rec.games.chess.politics and will look for his posts. Thanks, Nick.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

wrote:
"Nick" wrote:
(snipped)
Matt Nemmers is a member of the US Navy, with whom I have
many strong differences about US foreign and military policies.

"Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree
on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been
discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to
communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither
has ever resorted to 'name-calling.'"
--Matt Nemmers (writing about me, rec.games.chess.politics)

Matt sounds like a nice guy.

Matt Nemmers usually is civil to most writers.

He has passionate feelings in support of the US-led war in Iraq,
however, and he has become involved in some bitter disputes
with some critics (particularly Jerome Bibuld) of that war.
Jerome Bibuld (who's a US veteran of the Second World War)
is a fierce critic of US foreign and military policies and American
racism. Unfortunately, the disputes between Jerome Bibuld
and Matt Nemmers escalated to much personal name-calling
by both men. As I was on cordial terms personally with both
men, I made an attempt to mediate an agreement whereby
both men would stop calling each other names, but I did
not succeed because neither man was too interested.

I've just subscribed to rec.games.chess.politics

Please be advised that rec.games.chess.politics is *worse*,
even more abusive and dishonest, than rec.games.chess.misc.
Many diverse writers have described rec.games.chess.politics
as a cesspit of Usenet. Rec.games.chess.politics is
a de facto US political newsgroup, wherein many of the
writers spend most of their time lying about one another.

As I recall, David Richerby (among others) has written that
he makes a point of *not* reading rec.games.chess.politics.

and will look for his posts.

As far as I know, Matt Nemmers has not been writing in
rec.games.chess.* for many months, so I suspect that
it would be a waste of time to look for his posts.

As I last heard of him, Matt Nemmers had moved from
Iowa to Texas and was settling his family in a house there.
Matt Nemmers has been a member of the US Navy's
chess team in interservice competitions.

--Nick