Perhaps the "chaos theory" discussion wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to chime in just a little bit.

Seldom as a chess teacher have I offered advice in this manner. I inform my students that a move is good because it has various qualities and the resulting position has various qualities.

While this may seem plausible, there are equally convincing arguments against such duplicitous behavior. I agree that professional chess is an extremely competitive sport; however, I believe your (valid) conclusion is unsound for various reasons. Even were it sound, I don't believe it would be a useful theory; it's not especially useful to distrust all experts simply because they are experts.

This is a theory, and it appears to be based in your assumptions about human behavior.

Conclusion: There are no experts in conspiracy theory.
P1) There is an expert in conspiracy theory.
P2) The expert in conspiracy theory tells us that experts cannot be trusted.

Anyway, that's my two cents.
- Dan

Oh, yes

absolutely

but it's over now

momus
I am new to this site, and I was just browsing when I came across the comments you have made about the Berlin video.
I have had a look at the video and I think that it is indeed a little odd that Mr Monokroussos should use such a game in such a manner. I wonder if that game should have been used to point out how easy it is to miss something in a position that has possibly been many times before in games.

I think you have a point momus.

gone

momus
You have taken down your posts?

Tony
Because there are people here who talk about how good their position is without understanding that good positions require good moves, these people fail in analysis and believe that it doesn’t matter.
They would argue that without error there can be no brilliancy (Lasker) but fail to understand the circumstance of the statement.
It has been said that chess can lead to madness, we may all be teetering upon the precipice of our own insanity curves, and I don’t want to be the one who pushes someone over the edge.
Momus

momus,
Yes, I see your point.
Tony

I was wondering if it was possible after (I don't know the number of the move) 1. e6 f5 2. Kf3 to play g5, instead of your fxe4. After for example 3. Nd2 Rxf4+ 4. Rxf4 gxf4 5. Kxf4 Kd6 you win a second pawn.

Hi Peter91:

Yes, 39...g5 is possible and a good move, and after 40.Nd2 we can make your idea even stronger by playing 40...Kd6 immediately.

Hello

My chess engine agrees, in fact it thinks all these moves from, and including 39;...g5 are the best continuations.

Tony

Dennis
I am unable to find the Berlin game anywhere?
Could you please spell your opponents name for me?
Also what year was this game played and in what tournament?

It would be nice to have the moves, this would make it easier for me to follow the game and the alternative moves.
Tony

Tony:

You have found the game somewhere - here. You won't find it in the databases, however, because it, like most games played in American Swiss system events, isn't recorded on DGT boards nor manually entered.

Dennis,

That's a pity, and are you not allowed to name the tournament, the year it was held and spell the name of your opponent for me?

Tony