Maybe you should talk to some GMs and ask about me. The self-agrandizing comment was removed and I did not really think it mattered to credit myself since I am one of the only ones to have analysed it this intensely aside from Wind. Maybe you should have looked at the content rather than judging my personality. Wikipedia is about content and you are not the judge of that. You should look at my site. Look at the beautiful puzzles I created. You should look over the analysis with a computer. You should notice that I am not the only one that points out that the Pinski line is not a refutation. You are afraid of being wrong. The Halloween is sound in practical chess. If god was to play who knows and who cares. But Houdini vs Carlsen and Houdini has the white side and my analysis I will take my analysis any day. That is why coorespondence is usually a good citation. But really look over the puzzles and the analysis. It really is a work of art. If you care about chess you would do it. But I think you care more about not being wrong. You insert POV that it is refuted. This is a lie. A very very obvious lie. I would post this on their talk but I seriously dont care. I care about the beauty of chess and of my own work. If I wanted to be a GM I would have been but its not an ego thrill for me. All I care about is the beauty of the game and I believe my puzzles express just that.