Second, others claim that you're a stickler for spelling and good form. That makes me wonder why you post articles on your website containing the word "(Diagram)" in random places. If you want to post a diagram, do it. If not, writing the word "Diagram" does not help the reader. Extraneous words demonstrate poor editing.

You claim that Black lost this game because he neglected the opening principle to develop before you attack. This is an interesting point for discussion. Five years ago, when I began studying chess from books, I really loved the style and attitude of Irving Chernev. I enjoyed his humorous collection, "Wonders and Curiosities of Chess." I learned some technical skills, especially opening principles, from "Logical Chess, Move by Move." I own a copy of "Practical Chess Endings,” and I admire Chernev's thorough treatment for each of the 300 examples he gives. (However, I wish he would have included draw studies, such as Reti's famous King walk, instead of only wins.)

Based on Chernev, I believed that anyone who violates opening principles must face the uncompromising wrath of Caissa. Although such principles can instruct a beginner, I now consider them a harmful oversimplification for a more advanced student.

For example, Chernev and many others say not to move a piece twice in the opening before moving other pieces at least once, except for tactical reasons. This would dissuade a beginner from trying 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 Bb5? However, there are so many exceptions that I no longer find the rule useful at my level of understanding. We continue to debate the soundness of 4 Ng5 against the Two Knights Defense. Chernev, to my knowledge, does not discourage it, although it ought to fail based on "principles."

After studying the opening in detail, Tim Harding came to this conclusion: "4 Ng5: This is the celebrated 'Duffer's move' or 'Bungler's move' as it was termed by Tarrasch.... Actually, 4 Ng5 is White's strongest move here, and the only one that can challenge the soundness of the Two Knights Defense." (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...)

It gets better. In one opening gambit, Black plays ...Ng4 on his <third> move. I refer to the Budapest/Fajarowicz Gambit, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5!? 3 dxe5 Ng4. I cannot find an authority to evaluate its soundness, although I personally prefer to avoid it as White by playing 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 and 3 c4.

That is not all. Have you ever seen a master play 3 Ng5 as <White>? Meet Georgy Lisitsin, who coined a weird gambit with 1 Nf3 f5 2 e4!? fxe4 3 Ng5 Nf6 4 d3. Botvinnik humiliated him in this game Lisitsin vs Botvinnik, 1933, but White can improve on move 7 and exit the opening with equality.

* Najdorf Sicilian: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6. Often Black plays …b5 and …Bb7, but sometimes he just wants to play …e5 or …Qc7 without fear of Nb5 in response. The O’Kelly variation (ECO B28), 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6, allows White more choices, but Taimanov earned a respectable +6 -5 =13 record with it. (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...(B28)+as+Black+). The Kan Sicilian, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 a6, is also common.

* Queen's Gambit Accepted: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dc 3 Nf3 a6!? Black usually plays this move at some point to prepare …b5 (e.g. 4 e3 Nf6 5 Bxc4 e6 6 O-O d5 7 Qe2 Nc6 8 Nc3 b5 in Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937). However, Alekhine sometimes used it to keep White’s bishop away from b5 before attacking with his light-squared bishop, as in Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1934.

* In the St. George Defense, 1 e4 a6 2 d4 b5, Black famously defeated a world champion: Karpov vs Miles, 1980.

How can such violations of opening principles lead to success? An early Ng5 or ...Ng4 wins a pawn in the Two Knights and disrupts White's development in the Budapest Gambit. Playing ...a6 usually prepares ...b5 in both the QGA and the Najdorf. It is worth taking an extra move to expand on the queenside and keep White's pieces away from b5. A player can delay development in order to gain space or material or to disrupt his opponent’s development. He can violate one principle to satisfy another.

The soundness of Berliner’s novelty has been disputed. 13 Qb3 or 14 Qb3 might win for White. However, we cannot refute Black’s attack on principle. We must present concrete variations explaining exactly why Qb3 wins for White. If the analysis holds water, then Black’s attack was unsound. If not, the attack was sound, despite being “unprincipled.”

Therefore, I must disagree with the introduction you give to this game, which you proceed to analyze in impressive detail. You write, “I tell my students all the time ... ‘It does not matter how brilliant your idea is, you simply must complete your development BEFORE trying anything like an attack.’ (Or any other middlegame idea, for that matter.)

“Here a player with a FIDE 2600 rating ignores this advice, launching a full-scale assault almost from the very first move. The end result is a predictable loss, a good object lesson, and my game for this month!”

Furthermore, on Black’s tenth move, you comment, “According to the laws of positional chess - as I understand them - an attack like this by the second player is ONLY feasible when the first has made some fundamental error. (I don't believe White has made any mistakes; his moves - according to all the principles that I teach all of my students - have been thoroughly sound.)

“In the meantime, it is hard to believe that a three-piece attack ... with the rest of Black's forces sitting on their original squares ... will refute White's entire opening set-up!!”

Basically, AJ, you work with a contradiction. On the one hand, you invoke “the laws of positional chess.” On the other, you spend endless days analyzing tactical possibilities with your computer. If Black’s attack is so unprincipled, why bother with Fritz to tell you what you already know?

In the grand truth of chess, there are no principles. There are only concrete variations. Most of them obey certain generalizations, but some do not. Consider yourself lucky that this game obeyed your generalization because Estrin-Berliner apparently violated it.

This is perfectly logical. However, a player might move his king to the corner because he needs access to the three adjacent squares, even though his overall mobility is reduced. Consider this beautiful study (by K. Ebersz, Magyar Sakkvilag 1930): White Kc3, pawns b6, d4, e3, h2; Black Kh7, pawns b7, d6, d5, e4, h4, h3; White to play and draw. The solution is 1 Kb2! Kg8 2 Ka1!! It may violate your principles, but it makes perfect sense, as Noam Elkies nicely explains (http://home.comcast.net/~joyner.dav...).

I seek two traits in an analyst of chess: humility and objectivity. Humility does not merely mean that you know your analysis is fallible. You should also know that your principles are fallible. You must stand in awe of the game that you have played for decades, and others have played for centuries, with ever-expanding horizons of possibility. Objectivity is understood, but some writers will allow their principles, or their personal preference for a certain opening variation or for one of the players, to color their analysis.

I am not asking you to change the way you understand chess. You already know about such oddities as the Budapest Gambit and the O’Kelly Sicilian. I am asking you to change the way you present and teach chess. Allow concrete analysis to do as much talking as possible. Don’t write off an attack as premature just because it happens to lose in one game.

Keep up the good work on your chess website. I have read some of the material there, and, aside from the foregoing criticism, I found it enjoyable.

...perhaps you should give it a rest?

Even <soberknight>'s post is more than 7 months old, and was directed at an AJ post that was 6 months old.

Are you actively involved in the tracking and beating of dead horses, or is this just a hobby for you?

Let me state that I am not interested in defending AJ. However, if you have such animosity towards him, just add him to your ignore list... that way you could forget he was there, and I wouldn't have to read the fairly constant barrage of posts that you (and others) direct towards him.

...just because I was curious, I went over the last 10 posts you contributed to chessgames.com - 4 out of the 10 were directed towards AJ. If the pattern is consistent, then 40% of your time on chessgames.com is directed towards AJ.

...just giving you a hard time...