I agree that we cant be dogmatic about anything in chess. So I agree w/ much of what you say.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that B are better than N? If you believe this, then it is redundant to say that the B pair is an advantage. Agreed? After all the person w/ the B pair already has the B v N advantage.

Or do you believe B = N and it is only w/ 2 B that you see an advantage?

Me, I think a B = N = 3. That is all my little brain can handle.

On the line above: I will say this, I did not have to sack the B w/ 17 Bxb5 but let's try to play it out and see if I can put something together. Obviously you can vary from the line if you can find something better for black.

Moroever, on move 18 Smyslov trades B for N. So what gives there? I guess Smyslove didn't read the book either.

But what do you think of the possibl line above:

Yeah its all so interesting, but if you go 12 moves deep and there is still no overwhelming advantage what does it mean? Well Lasker leaves that for the reader to figure out.

Basically at this stage we are playing out this game as a correspodence game, I have got Sursock at least alive for 19 moves and perhaps I can do more. Perhaps I made a mistake in there but Honza is gracious and we can pick it up on move 19.

Frankly, I think this guy Sursock was a quitter, who fell behind by one pt in material and got all afraid and gave up.

Every game white must give up material in order to go on the attack. Unless black makes a mistake of course. Every gambit is based on this idea.

ARe gambits sound? of course, they are for white, as long as its only one pt. of material they are.

Have you ever seen a fantastic finish in chess? Some unbelievable final save? If you play hard core you will see that kind of stuff every night. Almost every game really. Because the game is that close if you dont make many mistakes.

But let's put it this way: do I only show you lines that go on forever? or do I try to find both lines that are forcing and lines that go on forever.

Agreed? I don't only pop up here to demonstrate a line that goes onto infinity.

IF I think a game is won, I will propose a forcing line.

If I think a game is still in the balance I will respond to every move you propose.

Here's a question have you ever seen white lose a pawn at the beginning of the game and have a lost position? Assuming the rest of the material is even, he just lost one pawn. Have you ever seen it be a forced loss? I never have.

Here's something else to think about. Have you ever played symmetrical q-side opening as white and somehow were backed into a corner. IT happens all the tiem if you play symm. openings. What did you have to do?

It only makes sense. There are three factors, TIME/MATERIAL/POSITION. WHite is given tempo to start the game, but tempo alone does not win, he to have an advatage in one other category maybe both. So to have an advtangage in one of these categories will not win, white drops a pawn, say, but he gains his tempo back and the game remains ongoing. THen black sacs his N in order to gain position, but still no win. Then white sees he is in trouble and gives back material in order to save his position. THen black has all this position, e.g. a pin, but he does not have material.

Back and forth we go, you just keep trading from one aspect to another. Until someone makes an error, in which case someon loses both tempo and material in a single bad move. Or both material and position e.g. a pin or whatever.

They say that all successful attacks are based on a double attack.

Okay maybe. I say that all successful wins are based on dominating in at least two categories out of the three POSITION/MATERIAL/TEMPO.

TO dominate in only one is not enuf. YOu will see I will explain it as we go.

Let me ask you another thing? Have you studied Lakser what did it mean to "Laskerize?"

Larsen was pretty good. SOmeday we will have go over the French in game 1 vs Fisher in 1971. Now that was great. You can spend a great deal of time on that oen.

Okay but my pt is: have you ever seen a forced win given by an analyst that was more than 5 or 6 moves? I really never have.

Oh yeah, they say they did. Tal says he saw this mate in ten, or Lasker says he saw this mater in eleven.

For Lasker ok maybe he did see it. But if you study closely all these books by the masters I cannot recall ever seeing a forced win that you couldn't tell was forced in 5 or 6 moves.

I never calculate anything beyond five usually. That is my limit.

OKay one time, I was playing black in a budapest vs computer and it said "mate in 11" (I was going to lose) My buddy and I almost freaked out.

But look how long I've been playing Sursocks position here, I am now 7 moves beyond were he gave up and I bet I can get to 40.

I am critical of a lot of moves in this game anyways. Starting w/ black, at the beginning of the middle game, black is ahead in material and refuses to exchange. After white isolates the b pawn, black is ahead in connected pawns. Black refuses to exchange on move 17....RxR. Also move 18....Bxf4 would have been nice. Also on move 20 she should exchange.

Having failed to exchange pieces when ahead, black now feels that she should exchange pieces when behind! (this is after black blows up her q side pawns she is behind if you count connectd pawns)

THus, on black's 24th, she exchanges. Why? On blacks 27th again an exchange. this also sets up a fork that hurts. Again on move 30 black simply facilitates an exchange. Then again on move 31.

You can argue each of these moves out one by one and argue that that was the only move she had, blah blah blah, but its funny that every time after move 21 (when white goes ahead in material) when white is presented with the oppurtunity to exchange she takes her up on it.

Coincidence? Perhaps.

All these exchanges favor white because white is ahead in material.

Finally why 36...Na2? Placing a N that far away is always going to mess you up unless you get something else from it. For most of the remaining end game, this N cannot move and black is playing down a piece, w/ very little else on the board.

If you look at the situation on move 36, black is down material so she should think about attacking the K. 36...Ne5+ (I think, I dont have it front of me) would do this as well as put the N in a good spot.

My guess is if you plug in your computer from there the game can be held. But there are lots of dubious moves, probably a few more in the remaining 50 moves.

You pick a good game to argue the concept though, I have to admit the B pair does last for a long time, But I think the black simply misplaces the N on move 36.

Sursock vs Larsen, 1970.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF LARSEN.
Your score: 18 (par = 11)