Let's not shun Moro on his creative play. In today's time, individuals are pressured into playing theoretically sound developments due to it's low percentage in error and criticism...However, this is probably why Fischer created FischerRandom chess. He probably didn't like following everyone's ideas and wanted to rely mainly on the creative aspects of the game...Just imagine if everyone played it safe and there were no veering from theory, it'll be dull as in the dogmatic and solid era that Tarrasch and many others led. So in essence, Moro could be looked UP to as a pioneer of ideas along with all other unorthodox players in the modern era. They're probably unconsciously leading to an era of differentiation, from what's now known as the <Modern Era>

Also, it's nice to see that there is error even in solid, sound play...Most of the ideas in theoretical soundness only apply to natural scenarios...If one attacks, then defend; To attack what is defended, attack the defender; However, in totally complex situations that are unreadable, or take a VERY LONG time to analyze, who is to say this approach of typicality is the way of doing so...I've seen games where things were so solid on both sides, that both in some cases, had to sac pieces to create dynamic opportunities within the position..So to say, honestly that the known ideas thus far are concrete is to be an overstatement.

There was this interesting book I read, that I was kinda thrown off by strictly by it's title...Chess For Zebras...I thought it was a book for little kids or something BUT do to my **known way of looking at things** If I hadn't opened up the book, I wouldn't have ever known of it's very in depth reading, or so I took it...In the book Rowson, I believe his name was, told of many stories and the such that are so vast with ideas that I can't tell you in one post. However, this one statement stood out with me stating, "In my teaching of adult players, they often come to me with means of improving. We go about teaching them the things they need to learn as they are developing as chess players...I'd think, referring to Rowson "Great, I'm done" And a week or two later they come back to me with the same problems..." He often figured the reasons to why they continued on with the same mistakes were their <solidified views>...And to make a long story short, any thing you've learned thus far from chess, unlearn it and relearn it with a fresh eye...This is what I got from his book ^_^

I play a little bit of chess for fun, nothing serious

about 21. can anyone tell me what's wrong with 21.Qf5? I didn't see anyone discuss this move so I'm not sure if it was overlooked or there's something wrong with it that I can't see. From what I can see, it's quite playable

You will have great difficulty walking.