2. Lots of ways to mate quickly, including the obvious ... Rxh2. Not much of a puzzle.

It's certainly confusing. I'm guessing he meant "nigh unsalvageable".>

Yeah, I did, my bad.

<Besrqe: reply to my post>

First of all, apologies on the name, it's with the underscoring; you copy something, shorten it and add the name again and mistype it.

As for the post: the gist of it seems to be that 1) you claim the position after 12....f5 is a Dutch Defense and 2) that Black wanted to play this in the first place.

Regardless of the very informative post, I still only agree with the former. Black started with an Indian, which is already weird if one intends a Dutch setup (as the f-pawn is immediately blocked). That, and Black is way too much dependent on White's choices to be able to play this. If he chooses to remove the f3-Knight and play f3-e4, it will be a while for Black to get f5 in and it's probably not recommended early on.

The first time you commented on my note in this fashion, I responded by helping.

However, for you to persist in doing so a second time strikes me as obtuse, if not downright belligerent.

(...) strikes me as obtuse, if not downright belligerent.>

Just stating what first comes to mind, this is unnecessary belittling, using words like "can't demonstrate a proper understanding" and "obtuse", up to a point where I don't really get what the added value is. In fact, it comes across as pretentious. I haven't posted anything out of the ordinary and have in fact given my backed-up viewpoint why I think Black didn't plan this in advance. That you consider that differently, that's fine; no need to become personal.

For what it's worth, I've gladly conversed with and helped out hundreds of chess players on the daily puzzle for 15 years, and I would like to continue doing so, but personal lashes like this make it ever slightly less rewarding. The fact that my posts sometimes come across as a bit sloppy is firstly, English is still not my native language despite 20 years of experience, and I sometimes post too fast. For this post, I took a bit more time.

For sake of chess knowledge, I'm going to give two more points as to why <I think>, not know, that Black played this setup out of opportunism, rather than planning, which in itself is an interesting observation if true.

First of all, player's setup experience. I went through some QP games of Antonio. In the 382 games on the site, he played exactly zero Dutch, White and Black. In QP as Black he often plays a Benoni or KID which pretty much rules out this setup straight away. From most Bogos, NIDs or QIDs I've checked, where this game arrives from, I haven't seen another f5: White usually opts for Nbd2 or Bd2 in the Bogo or goes with more mainstream options in the NID/QID. White simply surrendered e4 in this game and Black took it.

If this was a courtroom proceeding, opposing council would object on the grounds of speculation, which would be sustained, and since it represents the entirety of your case, your case would be thrown out.

The fact that you're not able able to see this makes you obtuse. The fact that youre still trying to force your speculation regardless (with three! successive posts) makes you belligerent and would get you placed in contempt of court.

Now that you're making a futile attempt at guilt tripping me for calling you out on this, we can now add you're a typical passive/aggressive as well.

I looked over this guy's games and you can see in just the 13 Bogo games substantiation of everything I've said. The first divisional grouping to make is whether he plays the Dutch classical variation small center of d6 and e6 or starts playing c, d, or e pawns to the 5th rank. Where he plays the classical center, he ROUTINELY attempts to get the N to e4. Games where White makes that N move undesirable, he varies. The fact you said you when through his games and were not able to see this verifies my claim that you have not demonstrated sufficient understanding to weigh in on my posts.

This one member made a series of assertions. I addressed several that were all discounted including, but not limited to,

1)he's playing a reversed dragon
2)Qside fianchetto is not typical in the dutch
3)"After ...f5 the game is well nigh salvageable" etc.

After all these were addressed and discounted, what did this member do?

He proceeded to desperately hang on to the only thing he had left, which was try to drive home a point that was nothing other than sheer speculation. "What Black intended to play after such and such a move"

This is why I brought up the court reference in my recent post because speculative points fall under the heading being belligerent since speculation can be argued ENDLESSLY.

Points that are based on speculation are, in fact, crap. And, the fact that this member fell back on this speculation as his last point to endlessly argue in reply to my posts makes it pathetic.

Why didn't you start the post with this? Point taken. Missed those games, wasn't intending to check every single one and didn't skip them willingly. On first glance I saw a wide variation to d-pawn opening and no f5 in the Bogos.

<(...) and were not able to see this verifies my claim that you have not demonstrated sufficient understanding to weigh in on my posts.>

But why add this and the rest of the post? This is the first time I've been called a troll on CG. If you've just posted that he played the f5 setup in 13 other games at least it's clear it's part of his somewhat regular repertoire (13/384 is still not incredibly regular but as it is a Black system, of course, depends on White, as I noted myself in my previous post).

I'm a tad bit worried about your last post. What on Earth happened to you to be so demeaning towards another person on a <chess website> whom's trying to have an otherwise friendly discussion about chess openings?

Besides the very clear personal jabs you're making now; talking about me in third person like I'm not here and thrashing pretty much every word I post, you also make an <incredibly big deal out of nothing>!

As for the three points you're listing which apparently make my posts oh so terrible: 1 and 3 were word misuses (reversed instead of mirrored and salvageable instead of unsalvageable) and the second I haven't said at all.

What the *bleep* do courtroom proceedings have to do with this? I'm not on trial. As an example, <"He proceeded to desperately hang on to the only thing he had left"> this is seriously messed up; I'm not hanging on to anything because I'm not defending anything in the first place!

Up till your second post I had fun in this interaction as I was learning new details about the opening system and was genuinely interested in Black's motives, and found it unlikely a NID or Bogo transposes into a Dutch. I felt a bit more uneasy because you made it unnecessarily personal and started demeaning me for sake of... yeah what exactly?

It looks like you consider instigating people minding their own business well after they've already addressed you and are asking you to stop shadowing their posts a "fun discussion", huh?!?!?! Well, I tried to help you out, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and let your "fun" go on more than enough to show you don't know when to stop. It has nothing to do with ratings or otherwise.

We've since concluded Black has indeed played this setup before, and White allowed him with the otherwise passive 6.a3. I'll definitely keep this mirrored Dragon position in mind for Black, and the possibility as White to block it off with Nd2-Pf3.