"

 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  "