A chessboard is NO PLACE to solve off the board disputes.

A chessboard is a Palette-- for an artist.

And a good wooden one can double as a <Frisbee>!!

Or even a <boomerang> if you're hunting Marsupials or something.

Their <grudge match> should be called

i talk with <JESS> on the <DOM> forum...

and answering to <DOM> on the <JESS> one

My -- entirely subjective -- feeling is that the most dangerous, and also interesting, line is the Neo-Chigorin, 1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Qe2!

The thinking goes roughly like this on White's part: 'Chigorin's 2.Qe2 prevents an immediate ...d5 by <coup de main>... the drawback is that Black can transpose into other openings (2.Qe2 c5; 2...e5; 2...Nc6; 2...b6; 2...g6, etc). Why not let Black play 2...d5, then hit it with the centralized Queen?'

This idea has been quite popular in recent years -- more so, I think, than the original Chigorin 2.Qe2, or the standard King's Indian Attack that tends to follow 2.d3.

In tournaments, I've noticed that 2.Qe2/2.d3 is often played by people who themselves play the French as black. Maybe they genuinely regard it as strong, but I usually take it as an act of psychological warfare. But my record vs Qe2 is not great.

I've also tried the... hmm, another invention I don't have a name for... it's basically a French, transposing into an irregular king-pawn thing, and becoming a sort of Meta-Spanish: the Queen's Lopez? The Nun's Priest's Opening? It goes:

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 4.Qb5!?
Try your Berlin or Archangelsk on that... but the exchange variation, 4...a6 5.Qxc6, is NOT recommended.

BTW, I wouldn't like to admit how many books on the French I've got. I recently acquired four more, all by Lev Psakhis -- despite the fact that I don't really *use* opening books anymore. I have my systems, my databases, and I play/work on them without really needing books.

But Psakhis is a very good writer. You might imagine, having written one book, The Complete French in 1994, then ten years later having seen fit to divide the same material into four vols (Tarrasch, Winawer, Classical, & Advance + miscellaneous) that he might aspire to some kind of completeness?

Not a bit. He writes things like "despite the fact that I have 250 games in my database with 12.Bg5, I don't like this move, and I see no purpose in it. Therefore we will not examine it here..."

Thing is, I trust his choices. The moves he chooses to zero in on really are the important ones. And he covers many of the more interesting eccentricities in depth -- while being capable of totally ignoring a line he has no sympathy for.

Lev Psakhis is hereby elected an honorary member of Frogspawn for services to the French.

It has few games in the database here, but It's looking quite good for me against <Elixir> in our present game.

Why do you think <c4> has gone out of style (if it ever was in style)? I actually came up with this move "myself" before looking at the <Opening Explorer>, since i wanted to avoid <exchange variation> and above all <Winawer>. When I play white <Winawer>, I know black's LS Bish is locked in, but as White I feel like I just put on a strait-jacket every time I push that dang <e> pawn forward...

Will novelties in Classical Chess openings really become played out, in a finite mathematical way, as <Fischer> predicted?

I need answers...

(interesting stuff there on the <Chigorin>)

How strange that since <FROGSPAWN> was incorporated, two opponents have gone <Gallic> on me.

Coincidence? Or something more ominous, like the <lot> in the <Crying of>?

Dag nabbit I need answers!! I'm just a pup, require guidance etc. etc.

2.c4 is actually not a bad move -- yet it's much less commonly seen than other nonstandard 2nd moves like 2.Qe2, 2.d3, 2.Nf3, etc. I don't think it was ever played against me in a serious game. I used to try it sometimes as White in blitz games, to avoid the usual French positions, because they make me <think>,ie <lose on time>.

A few games worth looking at, in some of the lines we've mentioned [all 1.e4 e6 unless otherwise stated]:

Morozevich-Lputian, Corus Wijk aan Zee, 2000: 2.d3 d5 3.Qe2, and 1-0, 36.

Bednarsky-Korchnoi, Bucharest 1966: 2.d3 c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6, and 0-1, 33 -- the Franco-Dragon approach: an amazing game.

Morozevich-Pushkov, Elista 1995: 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6, 1-0, 34. Another crushing win by Moro as White; he played 6.Be2, so it's neither a Chigorin nor a KIA.

Levenfish (or Loewenfisch)- Nimzowitsch, Vilna (or Wilna) 1912: 1.e4 c6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 -- ah, this is the game I had in mind. For some reason my computer had it classified as [B10], a Caro-Kann. Black wins beautifully. Nimzo called it "A jolly little game".

I trust these are in the CG database, for anyone who's interested. If not, pls let me know and I'll *do something* about it...

<Jess> -- <woman tries to push man to be a 'goer'...> -- hmm, sounds interesting, if somewhat complicated, like relationships between sadists and masochists ("That hurt!" -- "I thought it might, that's why I refused to give it to you earlier!" -- "You vicious evil twisted little..." -- "Mmm, yes" -- and so on...), or handshakes between consenting adults. Sort of thing.

Sigh. You're right, you know. I've been staying up too late. Think I'll exit early this evening and interface with a print module, or read a book, or whatever... unfinished Faulkner and Pynchon, and I'm prattling about Frogs? <Who is this person using my body?>

Wheeee... gimme a lever quick before the mood passes.

I'll have to think about it. Karpov popularized the Tarrasch variation in the 70s, often scoring well -- but he didn't manage to win against the French in his 1974 match vs Korchnoi, though he won against the Petrov and Dragon.

Kasparov scored heavily too against the French. There are some nice exceptions, Like Kasparov-Ivanchuk, Horgen 1995: it starts 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6 5.a3 Bf8 -- and black won in 31 moves. The winning move is actually 31...0-0.

G'day, g'day-- was woken up by you and <Niels> giggling together at my flat...

Coffee... must.... get.....

I prefer to play friends than enemies myself.

Or try to play the pieces on the board. That's hard enough as it is, and the psychological strain of chess <fear, loathing, overexcitemet, various other mental distortions> interfere with finding strong moves.

Or so <Josh Waitzkin> tells me.

It is Laskereshevsky. "Stop", he shouts. "Halt. Cease. Desist. Arretez. It is not necessaire, this violence..."

<BTW im always a little proud, when i convince two opponents to solve theyre disputes OTB, and not toward any kind of phisical and verbal "violence">

It's just that kind of thinking that would have prevented our victory over the Frog at <Agincourt>!!!

From <Fawlty Towers>

Basil has remembered his wedding anniversery, but he is concealing this fact from his Wife in order to get "one up on her."

Sybil: <Basil, you do know what March 18th is, don't you>?

Basil: <Agincourt>?

Sybil: <What>?

Basil: <Anniversery of the Battle of Agincourt>?

Sybil: Hits Basil over head with cast iron frying pan.

Possible rejoinder during OTB grudge match:

Isn't it possible that an engine could be built that "solved" every possible legal move in every possible game?

And wouldn't this mean the end of Chess as we know it?

Kind of like <tic tac toe> is Busted:

Every <tic tac toe> game is a Draw if you know the right move, whether you move first or second.

Then again, perhaps it's actually optimal. Takes me all day to accelerate to the point where you start...

Engaging warp drive now.