I think it's clear what the nonsense is. When you give something like 'Pawn and move' for example, the stronger player takes black, and removes his f pawn. White only gets to make the first move, not make 2 moves in a row like you say!

How in the world does a '2300' guy like you make such statements?

I already admitted on that page that I was wrong about the details of "pawn and move" odds... just as you were wrong about all the myths you wove regarding this game. I confused "pawn and move odds" with "pawn and two move odds," and have already admitted this. It is a detail which is irrelevant to the main point of my comments, and you are well aware of this.

How does a 2300 player mix-up these things? Very simple. In case you hadn't noticed, pawn-and-move odds haven't been popular since the century before last. I have never played a game with those odds before, and I would venture to say that most other modern players haven't either.

It's typical of you to hone in on the one thing that you've been right about, while completely ignoring the main point altogether. You view debates as a contest, and instead of focusing on the main topic, you ignore all relevant points except the one or two details where you think you can "win."

I have already admitted that I was wrong about my definition of "pawn and move odds." Does it change the main point, viz., that you have fabricated a wild story which has no basis in fact? Not at all.

Quite different from not knowing, for example, that Karpov was well known for his modern exchange sacrifices (RookFile: <Karpov didn't play for messy positions when he was champ (1975-1985). Anybody got a lot of Karpov examples of exchange sacs where he didn't get at least one pawn or a mating attack? If not, I guess Plato can explain to Karpov that he didn't have a modern understanding of the issue.>), or that Euwe became the FIDE president (<Rookfile: Wow, Euwe became FIDE president - I never knew he did this.>), or that the ...Bg7-h8 concept has become a typical exchange sacrifice idea in the Dragon Sicilian, or who thinks that the position Black gets out of the opening in this game is <"comparable to Morphy's giving masters of his day the odds of knight!">, or equivalent to <"the odds of exchange and move">, and who has denied that the modern conception of the exchange sacrifice has evolved at all since Capablanca's time.

My confusion was regarding semantics; <RookFile's> confusion is regarding the history and the understanding of chess. I, for one, would much rather be caught confusing the terms "pawn and move" and "pawn and two move."

The match will have to take place over-the-board and not over the internet, as you have already demonstrated that you substitute Fritz for a brain ... (anybody in doubt should just see the difference between his variations in the Panov-Simagin game, which he "miraculously" was able to produce in less than five minutes and which "coincidentally" were the same variations that Fritz provided, and his "verbal analysis," if you want to call it that, of Black's exchange sacrifice in that game. He demonstrates the comprehension of a 1400 player, and that's being too generous. Just look at his initial comments on this game!!).

If you live in or around the New York area, such a match can be easily arranged Otherwise, tell me the next major tournament you'll be attending, and we can arrange a match there or maybe play in the tournament itself.

It is overkill. I won't deny it. <RookFile> has never missed an opportunity to escalate things, even after I suggested that we both try to tone things down a little bit. And when he escalated, I admit that I responded in kind. At this point he is arguing out of spite rather than logic, though. I'm not even sure that he himself believes that Capablanca had a wholly modern understanding of the positional exchange sacrifice ... he has vacillated on this point <many> times already. He's just out to contradict me and to make me look stupid any way he can. It no longer even concerns him to examine the matter objectively; that's why he focuses on side topics like the semantics of "pawn and move odds" rather than the main issue we have been debating all along.

I would like to apologize to the frequenters of this thread for carrying on far too long on a point which most people probably recognize as self-evident. I also apologize to <RookFile> if I have offended him; we both have escalated things, we have both carried a negative tone too much of the time, and this is not conducive to a pleasant environment, which is what this site should be about. Chess is a game, after all.

There is no reason why it shouldn't be possible to have friendly disagreements.

Regarding the main point of this argument, I feel that I could not have made the case any more plain. It appears that what I thought was a disagreement with <paladin> was merely a misunderstanding. <RookFile> has indicated that he still disagrees with my main point, but I'm willing to let that go.

<RookFile>, I realize that I can't persuade everybody on everything, no matter how obvious something seems to me. You are entitled to your opinions.

I offer not a "draw," but a truce.

(I could imagine poor Euwe thinking "Is this man trying to prove the Monticelli trap is playable, or is he just amusing himself at my expense?")

There have been discussions if the idea of the exchange sacrifice was well understood in the 1930s. Of course it was. So were such stuff as pawn sacrifices for the initiative and piece activity. Any perusal of the games of Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and the rest of the chess masters of this era shows that they understood what they were doing when they were making these types of sacs. Perhaps they didn't word it too clearly, but they clearly knew what they were doing.

This very line has been played for Black by such Grandmasters such as Kortchnoi, Andersson, Larsen, Azmaiparashvili, Seirawan, Christiansen and others ... including Postny, used it in his game at Aeroflot just last year against Aronian!>