Also it is a neutral point of view to say something can be played. Playable means not winning losing or drawing. Just playable. The Krabbe site agrees. Its you that does not and you push your POV with a dusty old Kaufman line. He got awarded his GM title because he won a tournament for old people FYI. His line is dusty and old. You should actually sit down, look at the analysis and just undo your own revisions yourself. But I have a feeling you know me personally and I even think I know who you are. I have a few guesses. The non-neutral point of view is to insist something is traditionally refuted when I supplied evidence to the contrary. You insist that something is refuted in a way that it is not. This is not WP:NPOV it is very biased. It is YOUR point of view. You are not a grandmaster. If you were you would have looked at my revision in your head. Or if you were, you would have looked at my site. Krabbe himself says he would be interested in playing it. Winds analysis was improved on by me. If you look at the analysis you will see that Houdini thinks everything I came up with is sound. Its sad that you will miss out on analysis so beautiful just to push your POV especially when it drops a pawn read your link on the game. Someone else mentioned Qb4 as an obvious "DUH" sort of move. Its like casting pearl before swine. You will stubbornly keep a line on the page that is a lie. Until you look at the analysis on my site you will be blind to the truth and thus you will promote your own POV which itself is untrue. 166.137.88.42