<Patterson Sasquatch film> You can watch an excellent quality video of the whole thing, slowed down frame by frame, on the Net. It's quite something. I'll post the link for you tomorrow in case you want to look at it.

<Analysis> You've done a great deal of work here, thank you from me, and from one and all, I'm certain. I will carefully play through everything you've posted in your profile and on this forum page tomorrow when I get up.

See all of you anon then.

<Why Zebras make good chess analysts>

They are cautious, always alert, can run very fast, have fantastic endurance, and, when need be, they can cut you to pieces with their hooves or kick your freaking face off.

About the game you submitted: in fact the caption reads "Scheveningen" and not Najdorf. I took some time to have a look at all diagrams in the excellent "Easy guide to Najdorf", with two conclusions:

1. Black main line is always ...e5 except against Bg5 or Bc4, this echoes what I already posted after Sam Collins: "there are only a few situations in the Najdorf where 6...e5 isn't a good idea, and these generally occur when White has tried to seize control over d5 (with 6 Bc4 or 6 Bg5, for instance)"

2. When Black plays ...e5, she/he never combines that with ...Nc6. The only exceptions I found are when White has already played a4 and therefore a knight on c6 is useful to control a5 and b4.

On the other hand, ...e6 and ...Nc6 appear often together.

I'm afraid our urge to avoid a repetition made us play a move that is actually very committal. I now agree to enter a Scheveningen with ...Nf6 and ...e6 against 8.Be2 and 8.h3, while ...Qb6 is to be tried against 8.f3.

I would never vote a Najdorf if I knew it had to end like that!

Opinion, however: I don't see any particular problem with playing a <Schveningen>, way back on the first pages I noted that the <Schven> is really a version of the <Naj> anyways, I think they are both sound for black.

Our Ng4 can't be considered a waste of time, since we didn't lose a tempo and we also found something out with this Knightly Probe- the other team is more apt to be cautious.

Be3 was cautious (avoiding sharp kingside lines where we might develop g and h pawns while chasing their bishop (ie: Topalov, Kasparov with black)

Bc1 (although Anand won with it) is even more cautious.

So Ng4 gave us valuable information about MGO psychology. I think we should continue to probe and challenge when safe-- and I think we can continue to do that from a <Schven>.

Enhanced frame by frame video of the <Patterson Sasquatch>:

They did a before and after test. The idea is that you are blindfolded and you have to try and predict when your would-be enemy was attacking you. You were scored on how accurately you did this.

After taking the initial test and then under going a grueling training regime the test was taken again. In all case there was a substantial improvement.

<Marco>S Wagman vs B Gruzmann, 2005

I prefer this line for 8.h3

V Laznicka vs A Czebe, 2005
The game looks dry..

10...Qd1 is dubious.
He moved the queen three times in the opening only to exchange it at d1 - loss of tempo.

How about 10...h5
11.Bh5 Qe5 pseudo threat on h2.

11.Qd4 Nd4 12.Bd1 e6 13.Be3 Nc6
Black's idea is to castle(since h5 will be hanging we first need to play g6) on the king side and operate on the Qeen side by carrying out a minority attack. Our dark square Bishop is very important. Once we place it on f6, we can own the diagonal but for this to happen we need to guard d6. I dont see a good plan for white after the queens are off.

<Hitman> food for thought!!!

Agreed- I don't like Qb6 after Be2-- They can initiate exchange with Bxg4 that leads to Queens coming off and a very drawish position... I played through the game without knowing the result, thought <draw> as soon as the Queens came off, and lo and behold-- Draw.

I don't want to draw against MFO.