Everyone (by know) should know just how far engines have advanced ... in a relatively short time. [When they first came out - they were useless. Later, they were interesting toys. I can remember - that for a long time - the "stand-alone" <tabletop> DMP's were vastly superior to all the engines. In 2003, humans could stil beat them. In 2006, Kramnik lost to Deep Fritz. Today, no human in the world would even want to try and play an engine, the last time a GM tried, <GM Michael Adams> ... the results were not pretty.]

I was trying to take the low road, but some people try to make a flame war out of a bucket of water.

So I am asking you - please stop. Otherwise, I will continue to report your behavior to the admins of this site ... sooner or later, they may grow tired of all this silliness ... and do something drastic.

(All in bold.) <<Please observe our posting guidelines.>>

#1.) No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

#2.) No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

# 3.) No personal attacks against other users.

It is quite common that players missed possible shortcuts or a mate in fewer moves in the old days. Today, it is easy to find mates in 6, 8 or ten moves in old games which the players or annotators may not have seen or not bothered about.

examples:

Charousek vs B Richter, 1897

<JoergWalter: Fritz is insisting that 29.Qxg5 is mate in 6. the others: if 32.Qg6+ instead of Qe5+ then mate in 1. And if 33.Nd6+ is replaced by Qg7+ it is mate in 2. quite a few oversights for a great attacker like Charousek.>

Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857

It is not really clear what you mean by <Just stick to chess> as you are claiming faults (without proof) in the work of others.

Example:

<15. Qe2!?, (Maybe - '!')
Is this the most aggressive here?

Kasparov questions this ... but his analysis is based on old analysis that was done by Igor Zaitzev. (But I have punched holes in that work.)>

Now, is this attacking Kasparov? Are you asking others not to question your work at the same time?

If you honestly ask a question - I shall answer it. However, any attempt at sarcasm or attempts to drag me down or start an argument are properly and correctly ignored.

I suppose Dr.Lasker was trying to explain such a result, and he thought he found the answer in a different approach to the game, different school of thought. After all, Steinitz's turned out to be superior to the preceding one, and enabled the progress of the game on new foundations. Or was Steinitz that much a superior player? Also, Lasker himself was a disciple of Steinitz.>

Lasker wrote in his "Lehrbuch des Schachspiels" (my free translation):

Reti in "Masters of the Chessboard" on Steinitz:

<Steinitz had rivals like Anderssen and later Blackburne and Zuckertort, all of whom probably surpassed him in natural ability for chess. His general theory was so profound, however, that he defeated all of them in their matches with him>>