Talk:Halloween Gambit

Naming -> Halloween Gambit
Looking at the references the Halloween Gambit seems more appropriate to me. Especially in light of it's naming and the German Wikipedia calls it the Halloween-Gambit http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween-Gambit SunCreator (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the opening is today far more commonly known as the Halloween Gambit, and we wouldn't be dissing Müller and Schulze (who are not actual players, as the article explains) by changing the name, I agree. Krakatoa (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So... why hasn't it been moved yet? 91.107.178.94 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's moved now, required admin move as Halloween Gambit page already existed as a redirect. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why has this article been moved back to Müller-Schulze Gambit? Krakatoa (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure, but I think it may have to do with the lead highlighting the "Müller-Schulze" name first, and then offering "Halloween" as an alternative, instead of the other way round. The person who moved the page, Rossen4 looks like a sporadic but good-faith editor. He has made a few edits to the chess articles in the past days, mostly minor grammar corrections and formatting changes, you may want to ask him. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved it again. Hope it's now sorted. SunCreator (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it called the Halloween Gambit? Do any of the sources give an answer? It would seem a pretty basic thing for the article to mention. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Best I've found is a couple of pieces in Tim Krabbe's website, entry #197 and the article A Breeze in the Sleepy 4 Knights Game. The name was given by the German player Steffen Jakob, who wrote that ""Many players are shocked, the way they would be frightened by a Halloween mask, when they are mentally prepared for a boring Four Knight's, and then they are faced with Nxe5." Even though it's self-published and essentially a blog, Tim Krabbe is a well regarded chess writer so it can probably be used as a source. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This page has been hijacked ONE MOVE TACTIC LISTED AS REFUTATION
There is a user Ihardlythinkso who has hijacked this page. He refuses to see that the Pinski line featured and boasted a "refutation" actually drops a pawn in both sample games. One he has chosen was played by two players who are untitled class players. In one game the player plays Qf4 instead of Qb4 which saves the pawn. The page incorrectly states that black has a better structure when in fact, he is just up a pawn. An error only a BEGINNER would make. Not WP "reliable". Qb4 however does not lose a pawn and is almost dead even according to Houdini. The other featured game has white playing cxd7+ which just gives black a dead won game. The actually theory by Wind, Zimbeck and anyone who specializes in this line shows that Bd3 is the correct move after f5. Bd3 after f5 is equal according to Houdini. Ihardlythinkso has hijacked the page and refuses to allow any changes. I tried to site www.zimbeckchess.com but the guy says that David Zimbeck is not qualified as a source. This is clearly because he hails from Ohio and does not like me for some reason or another. I said the opening was playable, I did not say it was sound. I believe its sound. I did not put that belief in the article only the fact that it is playable. To all chess players who have a brain, please look at the one move tactic that this guy Ihardlythinkso wants to keep on the page. The Kaufamn statement was taken out of context and the entire entry for pinski should be removed. Also, Euwes analysis is 100 years old. Zimbecks lines were proofed with a computer running 16 processors which have the ability to outcalculate Euwe any day of the week. Or Carlsen for that matter. Also David with his background in proofing high grade chess puzzles a community outside of chess tournament circuits which has more in common with correspondence, gives him an extra edge when analyzing Gambits or any line where exactness is imperative. It makes no sense to say a 100 year old line is the current consensus of an opening when Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge not with-holding it. Also I know that the withholding of www.zimbeckchess.com is clearly a personal issue. It was called a WP Non reliable source because it is a website. There are MANY websites listed as sources including Krabbes which is just a blog. Zimbeck actually sells databases. IM Wind is not credited for his hard work. He should be. Neither in Gregor Minchev who defeared IM Tim Taylor in the Euwe line. This is all because Ihardlythinkso wants to hog the page for himself. So now the chess world is deprived of advancement and this page is almost naked because some very weak player cannot cope with the fact that Nxe5 may actually be harder to defeat than previously expected. That is a trademark of a weak player and is trademark of one who cannot see the beauty in chess. Until this is corrected this page will just lie. I would publish a book if I had the time. For those that know me they know I am usually very busy and my chess has taken a back seat for now. For those that know who David Zimbeck is including Grandmasters would not call him an unreliable source. Any GM that thinks so can chime in here. But if you do first read the fact that this dumb Pinski line contains two MAJOR ONE MOVE TACTIC BLUNDERS!!!!! Its a lie.

Best, David Zimbeck

EDIT: Would like to add Toccata and Double Sharp to this list. Society will always stay at the pace of the lowest common denominator while those ahead have no choice but to wait for them to catch up. Quality of wikipedia articles is evidence of that. Chess does not belong on wikipedia. Its to cast pearl before swine. Its like having a work of art where any fool can add to the canvas. Of course only fools are first in line to chime in. Anybody who is actually reliable may get met with a Confederacy of Dunces who miss ONE MOVE TACTICS. This is a very good analogy to why society lags so much. Because the naive are born every minute and they form a confederacy of dunces that usually inhibit progress among those who are not.

166.137.88.42 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see I have collected another fair pearl in my slowly accumulating collection of accusations from people who don't understand WP policy. What a shame I didn't notice when it appeared! Double sharp (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * David, the article history shows (I'm pretty sure) I've never added any content to this article! (I've only busied myself formatting it, and doing other secretarial-type stuff.) So how could I be guilty of all the awful and numerous things you've accused? It isn't my fault you don't understand WP. You can't add stuff unless it is WP:Verifiable and from WP:Reliable sources, if challenged/challengable. The claims you've added to the article were reverted on that basis. For you to go hogwild and accuse me of lies, and insult me in all sorts of ways that you have, is without any basis whatever. For example you've accused me of planting in the article certain bad moves or continuations which lose material etc., however I am not the editor who added those materials/content. And if you would ask my opinion on those previously added contents, I would tell you that I don't know my opinion because I've never evaluated those issues to form one. If you want to further ask me the consistency of allowing references to some authors' websites but not to yours, I would tell you that your assumptions that I've been gatekeeper of those consistencies is wrong. Just because I have never reverted those other references, doesn't mean I think they are reliable (or unreliable), I have not undertaken any evaluation regarding same, and again, I've neither added more removed content from this article prior to reverting you. The reason I reverted your add, is because, it didn't take any evaluation or analysis to see, there was blatant POV behind it. It was screaming blatant POV. Namely, the context of this add (boldened below) implied that the Halloween Gambit is a sound opening:"The theoretician Oskar Cordel reported in 1888 that Leipzig club players used the opening to dangerous effect, but he did not believe it was sound. [...] [...] After 4...Nxe5, White usually plays 5.d4 (5.f4 does nothing for his development), after which Black can retreat the attacked knight to either g6 or c6. Recent analysis by internationally renowned puzzle maker and master, David Zimbeck, has breathed new life into the opening showing that it is playable for white."Your add was a distinct implication that new discoveries and theory has changed/altered/replaced the view that 4.Nxe5 in the Four Knights Game is unsound, to that it is now viewed as sound. That is wrong and misleading and blatant POV on your part. So I stopped you (challenged the new material by reverting it and several times requesting WP:BRD from you), unless you can provide RS(s) for that view. Instead of discussion here on Talk to back up your adds, I've gotten insulted and accused in every which way. You need to settle down and withdraw all your imaginations of evil and discuss with other editors about what you want to add, and I suggest you do that one point at a time. WP content is driven by WP:Consensus, and if other editors think differently from me about the POV going on here, I'm fine with that. Your background and my background are immaterial to the matters here. Your personalizations are unnecessary and off-point. There is nothing personal here except what you are manufacturing between your ears. Settle down and defend what material you want to add based on what RS(s), or what material you like to see removed based on existing bad RS(s). (Again I suggest one point at a time, and I also suggest you pick them in descending order of importance to you, i.e., the point that bugs you the most, first.) Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You have decided to judge my source based on a self advertisement that you did not like. Thus you have ignored the quality of my post UON for example which is now a dead link does not even feature the terrible cxd7 after f5. It features Bd3!!! That was my add. I REMOVED the self advertising immediately after your edit which showed my enthusiasm to reach a consensus with you. Therefore the slew of "insults" is the truth and I am not at all sorry to bruise your ego. You dont want the self-advertising edit THAT. But don't insert you OPINION that I am no longer a reliable source. Krabbe SAID ITS PLAYABLE. SO DID I. SO DID UON. EVERYTHING YOU SOURCE SAYS THE CONTRARY LEARN TO READ. LEARN TO PLAY CHESS FOR HEAVENS SAKE. Instead you JUDGED me based on ONE comment I made about myself being renowned which is actually TRUE anyway. I realized it was self-aggrandizing although I AM VERY PROUD OF MY WORK. I removed the offensive comment BEFORE you called me on it realizing that you were somehow annoyed by it. It is playable. Every current resource on it so far says so. You site resources which are old. Kaufmans source is not specifically a Halloween book. It is a general information book. Nobody goes to Schillers UCO either for actual information on specific lines because he himself is not a speciailist in those lines. Krabbe, Myself, Wind, Minchev ARE specialists in this exact line. Do not ignore the resources that are trying to improve this page. If you make an edit, then take out my own self-advertising. Fine. Whatever. But for you to inhibit developement in an area where you have no business editing and you have less authority then leave these gambit pages alone. You are not strong enough to even participate. That is why my truthful comment that you are part of a Confederacy of Dunces stands to be true. Wether or not you realize you are a fool or not. You are unwittingly part of the Sheep, the masses, etc. You are not a reliable source and have no business playing chess. This is a direct blockade to players such as myself who actually gave a crap and tried their best to ADVANCE theory NOT TO HINDER IT. Your entire decision was based off one comment I made saying it was playable. And to be honest this opening is sound. Thats why so many gambits are played in correspondence chess. If chess was so easy, every corr game would start 1.d4 d5 2.e4?????? pxp RESIGNS ... Oh I'm down a pawn what the hell was I thinking. Because no GM every has gambit-ted. You are the lowest common denominator a sheep and society only successfully decieves people like you because they count on it. Just watch the news and look how badly the opinion is of the public norm. You are that norm. And you just brush me off and tell me I'm not a reliable source. I did't get to MASTER on fluffy clouds and delusion. I got there with hard work. Gambits were my life's work and I am very well known to that fact and respected despite the fact that you had a grudge with me from one self-advertising comment. You should look at my puzzles. Really. It may show you how beautiful chess can be. Or would it be "casting pearl before swine?" Do you actually even understand this post? Or are my metaphors too alienated and difficult for you to understand? You are hogging the page and inhibiting progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.42 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think David needs to appreciate that Wikipedia is not a manual for chess moves. It is not an up-to-date 'best move guide' or a specialized source of knowledge on obscure chess openings. Neither is it a marketing tool to promote people or personal websites, or a meeting place to strive to find the absolute truth in what may amount to original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; so please consider what that entails. There are no short cuts to changing the world’s view of established chess opening theory; the only realistic course of action is to publish a book expounding your analysis and theories, expose it to the opinion of experts, and finally, observe whether your moves become adopted by titled players and accepted into modern practice. Inclusion in manuals such as the New In Chess Yearbook, or Sahovski Informator will be useful indications of what changes are occurring, as they will examine lines played at the top level and reflect whether actual results justify claims of soundness or playability. Eventually, play-tested theory, if sound, will appear in more authoritative guides, such as Nunn’s Chess Openings or Modern Chess Openings, or in specialized opening books. Conversely, someone who is not a top grade player or a renowned author of reliable books will not be in a good position to dictate modern chess theory, no matter what Houdini thinks. Wikipedia editors need good citations from reliable sources and are not here to argue the merits of individual game positions which are often pervaded by complex concepts, such as piece mobility or long term positional gain versus material inequality. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No I do not appreciate this. I have sold databases. The lines have been adopted by IM Minchev and IM Wind. This is an entry about a niche line in chess and contains a one move error. I corrected it and was told I'm not a WP:RS. I have been published in Strategems, Chess Life For Kids, Chess Life, Problemist etc including my own self-published book. The website should count. Krabbes site is here and his site is a blog and its listed as a Source. How can he be a source but I cannot?! I have a website with excellent content. Its the only site on the web with this content. Your REFUTATION is NOT WP:RS EITHER!!! It is a feature of two games played by AMATUERS. You should AT LEAST CITE WIND or myself who actually are titled. The content already here is not WP:RS so can I remove what you already have??!?!?! Because its not a reliable source. This is like referring to Schiller for information. its bogus. This article contains a tactical error. How is that WP:RS??!? Many many times wikipedia cites websites. That is a published source. My website has clout and gets a fair share of popularity so it is a WP:RS 166.137.88.42 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I am a titled player I am a National Master with a rating of 2350. Master is a title. My work was published as a database. These lines HAVE been adopted by Wind, Minchev, corr, etc. The source you have in not WP:RS either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.42 (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You mention POV pushing from my source. However on the contrary you cherry pick Euwes 100 year old comment where the actual Krabbe article STATES THE CONTRARY. You are misquoting the source you cite. Furthermore, the blunder you feature, you say that black has a better pawn structure. If you insisit on being accurate you should actually say "BLACK IS UP A CLEAR PAWN" Also, you state some weird line where I QUOTE:"After 6...Ne5, White chases again with 7.f4. Then after 7...Ng6 the game usually continues 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6, completing the most commonly seen sequence in the Gambit (see diagram). In this position White is on the attack, and his attack will generally persevere (with tactics such as Nb5 after a pawn trade at d6). However, Black can return the piece with a slightly better endgame after making White overextend his pawns, by 7...Neg4 8.e5 Bc5 9.exf6 Nxf6, and now White's best followup is to head for an uninspiring endgame with 10.Qe2+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7." THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR THIS CLAIM!!!! SOURCE IT THEN!!! HOLD YOUR OWN ARTICLE TO THE SAME STANDARD YOU ARE HOLDING ME TO FOR NOT REASON JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE THE WAY I TALK. Wikipedia as you have so eloquently stated is not for anyone! An analogy which so strikingly represents the world. 166.137.88.42 (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also to say my content was contested as unreliable because of POV does not show that my source was unrealiable it just show that I did not understand how to use wikipedia. I am one of the only experts on this line aside from Wind. Krabbe only cited Wind and Brause. To date, I'm the other source. Kaufmans book is not on this topic specifically. So my lack of understanding of how wikipedia works is ihardlythinkso's pejorative for judging my source as unreliable. That does not make my source unreliable it just means i did not know how to use wikipedia so I inserted POV. You already clearly imply POV here even though your source on Krabbe states the contrary on a line you say has a decisive advantage. Then you have some things here that are UNSOURCED and UON article is a dead link now so you should perform your secretarial task and remove it and then remove anything that attempts to source it because your NEON GOD states it must not be WP:RS or maybe you are just specifically discriminating against me and now my persona is judged despite the quality of my work and the quality of my name in the chess community. I should not have to worry about being called reliable. I am a well known master analyst author player who has been published in over at least 5 different magazines texts cited in books. Should I list IM Scheerers Diemer book where he cites me as his primary credit?!? Even though it has nothing to do with this content?! You dont hold your own aricle to the same standard so instead you are being hypocritical perjorative ihardlythinkso 166.137.88.42 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong and misjudging again. Yes the same standard applies to any current content in the article. My secretarial contibutions never went in that direction (weeding out content, etc.). That type effort takes a dedicated go-thru of the article, often done too as part of article review (e.g. WP:GAC). (I simply haven't been interested enough in this article to invest that kind of work into it. Articles evolve and at different rates and sometimes unevenly. See WP:NOTFINISHED. Notice at top of this Talk page the Halloween article is a "Start-Class" article rated at "Low importance". Please see WP:CLASSES. Start-Class means it lacks a LOT and takes someone who loves the topic to make it something better, or just lots of time with so-so inspired editors over a period of years to get it in shape.) Taking things personally is mistaken and like swatting at ghosts. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "My website has clout and gets a fair share of popularity so it is a WP:RS"—see WP:BIG. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is the Krabbe site sourced then? His site is only a blog where my site has the full database much like UON. Also why is the line with Nc6 d5 Ne5 f4 Neg4 e5 metioned and NOT sourced? There is no source for that line and then it states an opinion that the pawns are overextended where Houdini considers it to be 0.00... so why is there an unsourced biased opinion here? Where is the source for that line? You said the article is unimportant to you but then you spend tremendous amounts of energy to war with me and keep my work off the page. I can give sample games from Minchev or Wind which would imply the lines playability but you seem to be under the opinion that it is refuted so you are pushing your POV on the page. HENCE unsourced line with Ng4 and added opinion (whose opinion... yours?)166.137.88.15 (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned elsewhere, not all claims in articles require sourcing only challenged/challengable ones (and I think you're the first to challenge Neg4 material). And chess engine analysis isn't applicable to WP articles unless published in a WP:RS. Reverting takes a decision and click on keyboard, not "tremendous amounts of energy", please stop your hyperbole I told you my role on the article has been secretarial (formatting) only. And as already mentioned I have not added or restored any content to this article, including Ng4, so there's no basis accusing me of pushing any POV with that move. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

An except of analysis from the "supposed" unreliable source
www.zimbeckchess.com IT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE. Here is the analysis which I was simply trying to source from the page itself. Some of this is already in UON could I source that instead for the EXACT SAME CHANGE? My site, which is my lifes work as a master was deemed unreliable by non-chess players. Here is the analysis in regards to the pinksi line. These guys wont understand it because chess is too complicated for them but lets us hope that some other strong player who cares about how low quality wikipedia chess articles are will come by and confirm that my add was reliable instead of these random non-chess players burying it in revisions. This is a public outcry for any sign of intelligent life.

Here is the analysis of the Pinski line which even a beginner should understand. This is FROM THE SITE Zimbeckchess.com which was called unreliable. Will someone please get rid of this dusty Pinksi line already?

Here it is with HOUDINI annotations and evaluations. Or is Houdini not WP:RS?

6... Bb4 7. dxc6 Nxe4 8. Qd4 Qe7 9. Be3 (9. Qxg7?? Nxc3+ 10. Be3 Ne4+ 11. c3 Rf8 12. cxb4 Qxb4+ 13. Kd1 dxc6 14. f3 Be6! -+) 9... f5     (9... Nxc3 10. a3 Nd5+ (10... Bd6 11. cxd7+ Bxd7 12. Qxc3 Be5 13. Qb3 O-O-O 14. O-O-O Bc6 15. Re1= {-0.09}) 11. axb4 Nxe3 (11... Qxb4+ 12. Qxb4 Nxb4 13. cxb7 Bxb7 14. O-O-O= {-0.02}) 12. cxd7+ Bxd7 13. Qxe3 Qxe3+ 14.    fxe3= {0.00}) (9... O-O 10. Bd3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bd6 (11... Ba5 12. O-O Bb6 (12... dxc6 13. Rae1 Bb6 14. Bxh7+ Kxh7 15. Qd3+ Kg8 16. Bxb6 Qd6 17. Bd4) 13.Qb4! the 1 move impossible to find improvement Qxb4 14. cxb7!! Wow a tactic... g-d forbid) 12. cxd7 Bxd7 13. Qe4!! Qxe4 14. Bxe4 Rab8 15. O-O-O     {-0.15 Whites king activates quickly and he has an attack against queenside pawns in all games tested.  Houdini 3 16 processors}) 10. Bd3! (DUH! not cxd7 which only a weak player would play UON,Zimeckchess,Wind etc) Bc5 (10... dxc6 11.Bxe4= {0.00}) 11. Qc4 Bxe3 12. Bxe4 Bxf2+= {+0.05}

(not 12... Bg5? 13. O-O! {black is in trouble there according to Houdini})

Thus, the analysis on this page is a lie with one players opinion inserted. www.zimbeckchess.com is where this was sourced. It was deemed unreliable because the random guy that edited wanted to war with me because he did not like what I said when I said I felt the Halloween was "Playable". Don't dare play this line anyone! Someone will play this dusty Kaufman line and win a pawn by force!!! Kaufman the all knowing all seeing eye atop the pyramid and Euwe and 100 year old player who would not even be able to beat my laptop in chess. Beware the innocuous PINSKI REFUTATION THAT IS NOT REALLY A REFUTATION

Maybe if I was Carlsen this guy would stop undoing my edits and saying my "personal website" was unreliable. Or maybe not! Maybe Carlsen can not edit Wikipedia. Maybe this is Carlsen in disguise!! Think of how many people RELY on wikipedia. People RELY on experts in their fiedls. But what happens when the experts get ignored?! I guess my master title in chess is toilet paper. So are my chess puzzles. My "self-published" book is probably garbage. Maybe I should delete my "personal" website because its not Krabbes site which this guy likes better because he likes Krabbe better than Zimbeck. In his eyes, judging Zimbeck by one comment made about the opening being playable. What this guy does not know, is theory changes and thats why they call it theory. OR ELSE WE SHOULD JUST CLOSE THIS PAGE AND ALLOW NOBODY TO EDIT IT BECAUSE IT MUST BE FACT!!! AFTER ALL SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO PLAY CHESS THINKS A DUSTY PINSKI LINE REFUTES THE ENTIRE OPENING AND IT DOES NOT EVEN ENGAGE IN THE SACRIFICE. IT JUST GIVES THE PIECE BACK LIKE A COWARD AND GETS THE WORLDS MOST BORING POSITIONS THAT ARE ALL 0.00 ACCORDING TO HOUDINI.

166.137.88.42 (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * David, WP:CHESS has decided via consensus that analyses from chess engines aren't WP:Verifiable so don't qualify for inclusion in chess articles ipso facto unless said analyses is published in a WP:RS. Clearly inclusion of your stuff hinges on whether your website qualifies as WP:RS, or doesn't. (I've already stated my opinion re that, other editors may think different and form consensus your material qualifies. You may be confusing the dictionary definition of "reliable" with what it means in WP when applying to articles, explained at WP:RS. I think you should take a look at WP:OR too if you haven't; it might clear up another miscomprehension.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. BTW your recent sarcastic article adds violated WP:POINT. WP has a bunch of rules you'll need to familiarize with if you like to be serious content contributor to articles.


 * There is a noticeboard to help determine a reliable source. WP:RSN. Seems a good place to start resolving this issue. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent. David s/ open a section there, perhaps simply linking to this thread(!?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The WP:RSN page does not look decent for posting chess related sources. How do I address the double standard of Krabbes site being used as a source but mine is not? Or unsourced claims like Ng4 line on the page with POV pushing? I feel like I am getting a runaround... 166.137.88.15 (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For one thing, Krabbe is not editing Wikipedia and putting up his own original research. Rather that is two things. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Claims in WP articles don't all need to be cited, only those challenged or likely to be. (See WP:Verifiability.) It is probably you're the first editor challenging that material. (I am not the editor who added or restored that material.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no real issue to resolve concerning Houdini analysis. Unpublished analysis from a chess engine is clearly not a WP:RS reliable source by definition since it is unpublished.  Whether or not zimbekchess.com is a reliable source is something that could be worth discussion.  I think it doesn't meet the criteria, but I would consider arguments to the contrary.  The simplest solution might be for Zimbeck to get his analysis published in a source that Wikipedia considers reliable, either by writing an article in published Chess Life or New in Chess or the like, or by getting someone like Krabbé to write about it in one of their articles.  Zimbeck's site seems fine for the external links section, and if he can suggest better sample games we could consider using them in the article in addition to or in place of the samples the articles use now.  Quale (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My puzzles were in Strategems, Die Schwable, Chess life for kids, Problemist, EG and I won 1st prize for several puzzles. Those magazines are the top magazines for puzzlemaking. I have set world records for puzzles 5 bishops which won a prize in Die Schwable, 7 Rooks, 8 Queens where 6 get sacrificed 3rd longest puzzle etc. My analysis on Diemer Gambit was used almost exclusively for IM Scheerers book which is almost 100% sourced in the Wikipedia Diemer page. Almost everything he had in the book was in my analysis before he published to which he kindly credited me in his book. My analysis is linked to all over the internet and there are people that employ my lines in games many of them are masters. I could cite those games my analysis has been online for almost 8 years. I also am a US Master and Houdini was not the one that found the moves. In almost every line Houdini misplays the line and I personally found every single move necessary to vindicate the soundness of the opening. I can actually beat Houdini in blitz because I know some of the lines by heart and the computer misplays them. I am an analyst and puzzle maker in addition to a master and my work gets cited for correspondence. So some of the analysis is original but my site itself is reliable because of the fact that I have been published before and my analysis is constantly cited. Does that not qualify?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.15 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's your best argument. Blog-like publishing is sometimes allowed when the author is a recognized expert in the field.  I don't recognize you as an expert in chess opening theory, which is not intended as an insult although your attitude here so far suggests that you may take offense anyway.  (Your world rank is currently 15564.  This may be higher than any other Wikipedia editor, but you still have no FIDE title.)  Wikipedia is not about what I recognize, however, so instead you have to do is convince enough editors to reach a consensus. Keep in mind that even if it is decided that your analysis can go into the articles, it will be edited by others and it will not remain exactly as you originally wrote it.  Your opinion would be given alongside others that you dispute including Euwe, Kaufman and Pinski.  Even though you (think) you know The Truth, Wikipedia has important considerations such as undue weight.  Also consider WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  Quale (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I guess I understand now how wikipedia works and am somewhat less insulted than originally although I still think its absurd and still think I was challenged unnecessarily on a low priority article. I think its odd that I got challenged but the unsourced Nc6 stuff with the Ng4 unsourced line did not, but the Euwe comment was taken out of context from Krabbes article which only mentions Euwe in a blurb. Kaufman just like Schiller contains many flat out errors in his analysis. Just like NCO or MCO being references for beginners (not serious corr players or masters). On the other hand, correspondence and chess puzzles (like what I create) are held at a much higher standard which is why my analysis is so efficient. Not POV pushing, just saying that corr games and puzzles are held to a standard in which no errors are allowed. The majority of Scheerers book was in my analysis before engines were even this strong. I just proofed it all out using Fritz 4 almost 10 years ago and lots of hours of brainstorming. To this day, I hardly had to update it because Houdini agreed with my old work. And even after Scheerer included my work he still had some major errors in the book. The problem with FIDE is I live in the USA... my rank in the country is very high. My rating here, 2350, is not really my peak since I simply quit OTB almost 5 years ago and since then have hardly even played although a title would be easy to get if I had time to go to europe (I work so its not happening anytime soon). They practically sell titles in Europes its so damn easy. My FIDE rating is very low compared to USCF because we hardly have FIDE tournaments and I was a puzzlemaker and analyst. I never really cared about OTB but I still had a reputation high enough for guys like Scheerer to hear about me despite the fact than I never advertised my site. Anyways, I get how it works around here now it may seem like I am making a big deal out of this but I was just shocked that my lifes work in gambits was met so obtusely in the first place. (I still think the person who challenged me has a personal issue with me). And I still think wikipedias system favors followers. Another option I was thinking is to site games in coorespondence? Why are games sourcable? I see a game between two novices cited here but I'm not sure why. I could easily cite games where white played much better. 166.137.88.45 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand WP yet as much as you might, since "Importance-low" ChessProj rating of the article does not mean WP drops the ball regarding new material adds re citation policy. There was nothing personal regarding you, just behavior as IP attempting to bully-in changes ignoring WP:BRD pointed out to you several times. There is of course the possibility of unsourcable material existing in the current article however that is not a justification for letting more of same in. (Your "consistency" argument. [BTW any editor is permitted to remove any material from the current article at any time if they believe said material is not valid WP:RS.]) I've always felt too the illustrative games section was pretty schlocky, but again my relation to this article has been to not remove or add material but to just do formatting. (I actually wanted to add a line concluded by Schiller in UCO as "the most logical", 5...Ng6 6.e5 Bb4 7.exf6 Qxf6 "Black is clearly better", but I withheld doing so at this time in deference to you since I knew it would set you off, and you've already demonstrated remarkable tendency to be set off even without provocation of something like a Schiller opinion which you'd have no doubt immediately and vociferously protested.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The sad part is how unreliable Schiller is. For example, 5...Ng6 6.e5 Bb4 7.exf6 Qxf6 Houdini says white is +.11 so I do not see how Schiller thinks black is clearly better. Its that type of self-righteous commentary analysts need to avoid. Always leave the possibility open that you are incorrect. I said playable. Only Caissa the godess of chess knows if its refuted. All it takes is common sense and to actually be open minded and realize that nothing gets refuted so easily. Besides, whites opening has some logic behind it. He gives up a piece for central pawn rollers and black is faced with giving it back or severely undeveloping his game. If this opening loses it probably takes 10,000 moves. For example Bourzutschky and Konovals 7 man endgame tablebases that were solved by using retrograde from mated positions. Has shown that the endgame Q+N vs R+B+N wins for white in 517 moves mating close to 600. So thats a 600 move mate there. This should show humility to players who make grandiose claims that things are refuted with ease. Here Schiller gives some dumb line where the piece is given back (its from UCO I believe) and yet Houdini thinks Bd3, Bc4 and Qe2+ are all slightly better for white. I used to draw Grandmasters in blitz on ICC in that line. I personally played Qe2+ there. I had a blitz mach with Sevillano and he played that move. It ended in a draw and Houdini could beat us in that position with 30 seconds on his clock. So the whole idea that this is refuted is untrue. The best line I found was actually 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d5 8.Bxd5 Nge7 9.Bg5 c6! this was my secret line... 10.Bb3 h6 11.Be3 Nd5! 12.O-O! (Non-engine move white avoids a tricky transposition with Ne7... the computer does not see at first that the sacrifice after Nxc3 bxc3 Ba3 is actually a bit better for white) 12...Be6 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Ba4+ Bd7 15.c4!Ne7 16.Bc2!! so far the line is not what Houdini sees it requires very deep understanding of the position. For example, here white gained almost 2 tempi with his moves compared to if he had not castled before nxd5. He will have a queenside and kingside majority with extra space. After Be6 white can just push c5 where things get to take on a very positional nature. Test games houdini vs houdini clone 30 minute time controls has show white to get close to about 50%. This was my favorite line for black though because its very solid and required white to play very accurately. Other lines Black is in danger especially the super tactical ones. The opening is far from refuted. To be honest, I am not being opinionated I am simply keeping my mind open. I have analysed in depth these positions and probably know them better than anyone in the world but thats a guess. I did it to vindicate gambits because the general novice players are sheeple and just believe whatever they are told or whatever is in fashion. 7 man tablebases, correspondence and puzzles illustrate the opposite. Thats why I vindicated the gambits. Anyone who truly loves the game would never be so dismissive of the vast possibilities in the ocean of chess. Especially when tablebases for 7 man endings are now exceeding 500 moves. the complexity is maddening and beyond human capacity. 166.137.88.38 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've centered on countering "refuted" several times, but "refuted" hasn't been in the discussion previous to this, and the only place the word occurs is in the article from a source quoting Kaufman. Here's what Schiller says (in UCO, First Edition 1998, I don't have the newer edition): "In general, I find the opening to be well short of sound, but that should hardly be surprising, since all White gets for the piece is a pawn and the center." 5...Ng6 6.e5 Bb4 7.exf6 Qxf6 Houdini says white is +.11 so I do not see how Schiller thinks black is clearly better. Okay this is why Schiller thinks that (from p. 163): "Black is clearly better, with a significant lead in development and pressure in the center. Jakob [Steffen Jakob] relies heavily on computer analysis, and the machines tend to evaluate a posiion like this as about even. In my opinion, Black has such a comfortable game that there is no reason to avoid this poisition." Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Quoting Schiller is really pathetic in my opinion. I even beat Schiller in classical time controls down a rook. His opinion is not very credible. I do not know a single master who relies on Schiller for anything. Also that comment in itself it completely untrue. White will get the 2 bishops there after Bd3 since after castling he has Nd5... or alternatively Bc4 he controls d5 or alternatively Qe2 he forces an ending so Schillers comment is only proof of him inserting his incorrect biased opinion almost 10 years ago which has no bearing on the truth. I am sitting here talking about mates in 600 and you are talking about Schiller and whatnot. Its really the difference between chess and checkers. You do not understand how complex this game is. 166.137.88.18 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered your question re how Schiller thought Black was better by quoting him. That doesn't make quoting him pathetic, and it also doesn't equate to *me* not understanding how complex chess is. The line is not represented in the article currently, the Schiller book is a WP:RS, and if added the line would not be WP:UNDUE. Your continued insults (while blocked for making WP:personal attacks!) is and has been totally unwarranted. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont care if I get blocked. I dont care if I get my analysis on here. I dont care what you think of me either. If you feel insulted sorry but I think you were splitting hairs and there still remains a line on here that says it refutes an opening when it does not. I'm done chatting, from here on you guys can add Schiller or any other source. It does not do anything for people who come to wikipedia and read it in fact it works against chess and against progress. (its the principal of the thing) splitting hairs at the detriment of chess which is already way too unpopular as it is. 166.137.88.16 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article does not say the Halloween Gambit is refuted. The article reports that *Larry Kaufman* wrote in 2004 that it is refuted. (Big difference.) WP is editors reporting what is in WP:Reliable sources in balanced (not WP:UNDUE) manner. That is different than your research endeavor (for ultimate truth re the Gambit). You apparently still do not get the difference. Please read again User:Brittle heaven and User:Quale valuable comments above. Also User:Sun Creator's suggestion to open a case at WP:RSN to qualify your stuff. (That is the positive way forward, short of getting your stuff published in suggested RSs as per Quale.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Would just like to add (please correct me if wrong) material from the Scheerer book in the Diemer Gambit article is WP-okay since that book is considered WP:RS for that article. But WP:RS status isn't inherited (Scheerer's sources aren't conveyed WP:RS status automatically on material they might generate independently on a different topic [or even on the same topic if the material isn't already in the book]). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Diagram
Does the diagram to the right of Pinski's 6...Bb4 have 3 black knights (on IE10) ? 68.231.216.50 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There were indeed. Thanks for pointing this out; the diagram should be correct now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Link To Virus?
I clicked on the annotation at the end of the article and after redirecting seemed to link me to a site which told me I had a CryptoLocker virus and had to face multiple difficulties in getting out of the site. Help???

173.76.103.48 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and remove any links which don't point where they're supposed to. Which link was it? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)