@oldegeezer It's not called game theory, it's called not understanding what that number really means. I explained it to you, but instead you chose to ignore it and continue to assume you were right and that nobody else understood anything.
It hurts reading some postings, noobs coach noobs.
Lopez Exchange is considered a decent variation up to the world class, Kasimdzhanov once became Wch using it. A wonderful opening to play quietly for an edge especially amongst amateurs. The K-pawn endgame is won, a clear aim. Easy to understand, isn’t it?
One model game of mine, I had white in this otb classical encounter:
Well, it was >10 years ago. I remember that I tried a few things out in order to win without any effort at all. I just shuffled the pieces, it turned out that one could have won quicker indeed.
By the way, I recommend you to study the game/chapter Fischer-Gligoric, „My memorable 60 games.“ There he elaborates on 5.0-0 and comments on the alternatives for Black („Let‘s have a look at the lemons first.“). I will never forget, I translated that game 30 years ago with descriptive notation on an Amiga 500...
A chunk worth remembering: in the Ruy Lopez exchange as above you will often see a breaking of the rule „candidate ahead“ (e4-e5). It happens quite often that the counter-intuitive f4-f5 is played first and then e4-e5. See Lasker! :D
Mr. oldegeezer. I am no grandmaster, or something like that. I train/practice almost every day, trying t get a better understanding on things, and getting new idears. The only thing I use a chess program to, is to analyse new idears, and the game when it is over.I dont think, that you find many chess player, that dosen do this. I have never use a program to play a game for me. And as far as I know, it is not against the law, in chess, to analyse new idears and the game, when it is over. And to me, this is what a chess program is for.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.