What a move 11.a3!! Aronian-Carlsen_Norway Chess 2017

[whereagles]

Pretty sure Carlsen knew what he was getting into with Bxa3. Just like Capablanca vs. Marshall.

Some challenges are there to be accepted

[yanquis1972]

[d]r2k4/1R1n1pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3PP3/8/3B1PPP/5K2 w - -

ive spent some time trying different stockfish variations here (i'm terrible at chess, worse at endgames, & impatient w/ hardware, & lacking 6-man tablebaes, so this is nothing but throwing out scraps for thought) & the recurring theme is that black cannot stop the bishop parking on d6 & after this invariably ends up in zugzwang.

(trying komodo, it seems to recognize this theme very quickly & sacs the e-pawn, but i believe this loses too. another variation it sacs its knight & at first looks like it might just have a draw but continuing it i'm getting over +3 (my cutoff, as i lack the knowledge myself to know a won endgame & continuing manually from here in all variations would take ages. but it definitely seems komodo has some nice endgame knowledge SF is lacking)

from this deeply ignorant perspective, though, it certainly seems to me that if this position IS drawn, to be held OTB would require absolutely brilliant play...which i find as further support that a3 is a !! move. still i'm curious to see this latest position demonstrated concretely one way or the other, as i do think it's achievable.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

well, I got half an hour free to analyse the first position, after Kf3.

let me first say, that I did that fully out of politeness, but not to Mr. Possioto, but to the position itself, as he basically took any random position from a line where there are at least 20 possibilities to play a different move.

that certainly was not correct, as this was not even my line, but the line of SF.

my claim has never been that SF's line is fully correct, with no mistakes, but that the original position at the end of the forced line is a draw: those are 2 completely different things.

it might be the case that Kf3 is a stronger move than the one SF played, but the outcome is still not certain.

I myself would play Nd7, restricting the rook's activity and trying to build some fortress, whether this could be successful is a matter of deep investigation.

alternatively, black has a forced capturing line, why do not you look at forced lines first?

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "myself, owner"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3k4/2R5/r1p2p1p/2n5/4PB2/5K2/5PPP/8 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1... Nxe4 {0} 2. Kxe4 {1.37/25 2} Ra4+ {2} 3. Ke3 {1.34/29 0}
Rxf4 {2} 4. Rxc6 {1.31/31 0} Rf5 {2} 5. g4 {2.08/24 2} Rg5 {1} 6. f3 {2.41/24 0
} Ke7 {5} 7. Rc7+ {2.15/30 0} Kf8 {1} 8. Rh7 {2.63/30 2} Rg6 {2} 9. h4 {2.58/
32 0} f5 {4} 10. gxf5 {2.58/36 0} Ra6 {4} 11. h5 {2.66/38 0} *

[/pgn]

what is this, theoretical draw with f and h pawns?

no time to investigate now, you will tell me.

so that black has different possibilities to try drawing the game.

I however, in general, do not like that line at all, black ceded too much of its drawing assets.

now I have to go back to business again, but in couple of hours, provided I manage to log, I might be back with some more feedback on the main position, after Kd8.

that is, if I manage to log.

PS. I would kindly request some of the moderators to please check what is going on with my logging account.
I already tried 5 or 6 times to log unsuccessfully, finally managed by sheer chance.
I remember very clearly that the very same problem happened in the summer of 2015, the forum simply refuses to log me, or, logs me, but just ficticiously, as I can not post messages.
It claims my account is not valid.

Harm, Harvey, Robert, please do something.

obviously, someone has hacked my account, it is dangerous to mess with the Rybka gang...

[yanquis1972]

that position is in fact lost (or i have corrupted tablebase files...):

[d]5k2/7R/r6p/5P1P/8/4KP2/8/8 b - -

Engine: Komodo 11.01 MP (2048 MB)
by Don Dailey, Larry Kaufman, Mark Lefler

20.00 0:00 +5.27++ 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 (750.931) 24027 TB:846

20.00 0:00 +7.38 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kf4 Rh2 51.Rh8 Kg7
52.Rd8 Rh1 53.Rd7+ Kh6 54.Ke5 Re1+
55.Kf6 Re8 56.Kf7 Re5 57.f6 Re1
58.Rd6 Kg5 59.Rd8 Kf4 (789.852) 25272
TB:1.018

20.00 0:00 +6.84 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 Ra4 48.Rd4 Ra2
49.Kf4 Kf7 50.Rd7+ Kf6 51.Rd6+ Kf7
52.Rxh6 Rh2 53.Rh8 Kg7 54.Rd8 Rh1
55.Rd7+ Kh6 56.Ke5 Re1+ 57.Kf6 Re8
58.Kf7 Re5 59.f6 Re1 (809.236) 25892
TB:1.024

30.00 0:00 +11.89 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 Ra4 48.Rd4 Ra2
49.Kf4 Kf7 50.Rd7+ Kf6 51.Rd6+ Kf7
52.Rxh6 Rh2 53.Rh8 Kg7 54.Rd8 Rh1
55.Rd7+ Kh6 56.Ke5 Re1+ 57.Kf6 Rb1
58.Rd8 Rb6+ 59.Ke7 Rb7+ (12.585.916) 25169
TB:123.489

31.00 0:00 +11.95-- 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 (13.906.878) 24721
TB:133.379

31.00 0:00 +11.32++ 46...Ra4 47.Rb7 (14.330.357) 24785
TB:137.491

31.00 0:00 +12.05 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf4 Rh1
52.Rh8 Kg7 53.Rd8 Rh2 54.Rd7+ Kh6
55.Ke5 Re2+ 56.Kf6 Re8 57.Kf7 Re2
58.Rd6+ Kxh5 59.f6 Kh4 (14.841.719) 24994
TB:145.366

32.00 0:00 +12.11-- 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 (16.340.907) 24898
TB:163.838

32.00 0:01 +19.73 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf4 Rh1
52.Rh8 Kg7 53.Rd8 Rh2 54.Rd7+ Kh6
55.Ke5 Re2+ 56.Kf6 Re8 57.Kf7 Re3
58.f6 Rb3 59.Rd8 Kg5 (33.304.232) 25678
TB:385.901

33.00 0:01 +19.79-- 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 (35.716.379) 25681
TB:415.990

33.00 0:01 +250.00 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf4 Rh1
52.Rh8 Kg7 53.Rd8 Rh2 54.Rd7+ Kh6
55.Ke5 Rxh5 56.Kf6 Rh1 57.f4 Rb1
58.Ke7 Rb2 59.f6 Re2+ (44.940.118) 25671
TB:555.211

40.01 0:03 +250.00 46...Ra5 47.Ke4 Ra4+ 48.Ke5 Ra5+
49.Kf4 Ra4+ 50.Kg3 Ra6 51.Rd7 Ke8
52.Rg7 Kf8 53.Rh7 Ke8 54.Kf4 Kf8
55.Rd7 Ra5 56.Rd6 Kg7 57.Rg6+ Kf7
58.Rxh6 Kf8 59.Rf6+ Kg7 (101.696.560) 27176
TB:1.159.968

40.02 0:04 +250.00 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kh4 Rh1+
52.Kg5 Rg1+ 53.Kf4 Rh1 54.Rh8 Kg7
55.Rd8 Rxh5 56.Ke5 Rh1 57.Rd7+ Kg8
58.Ke6 Re1+ 59.Kf6 Rb1 (122.478.399) 26890
TB:1.419.257

40.12 0:04 +250.00 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 Ra4 48.Rd4 Ra2
49.Kf4 Kg7 50.Rd6 Rh2 51.Kg4 Rg2+
52.Kh3 Rf2 53.Rg6+ Kf7 54.Kg3 Rf1
55.Rxh6 Rg1+ 56.Kh4 Rh1+ 57.Kg5 Rg1+
58.Kf4 Rh1 59.Rh8 Kg7 (123.961.110) 26939
TB:1.432.031


(search was w/ full hash & output heavily abbreviated for simplicity)

[IQ]

let me first say, that I did that fully out of politeness, but not to Mr. Possioto, but to the position itself, as he basically took any random position from a line where there are at least 20 possibilities to play a different move.
that certainly was not correct, as this was not even my line, but the line of SF.
my claim has never been that SF's line is fully correct, with no mistakes,

And yet you claimed about this line:

so, we have a forced line, which ends in a draw.
...
still, they do not have definitive conclusions, but I have.
...
0.0 score, for sure, just one piece each side, the fact engines show bigger scores has exclusively to do with their stupidity
...
I was tolerating your bursts, until you already overdid it.
+200 cps was also the line posted by Andreas, but obvious fortress. the line is a very simple and obvious draw. everyone knows this.
...
if I want , and if spare the time, I can tottaly annihalate any possible claim by you, but I simply do not want to waste my time in pointless discussions.
...
in another 25 years of chess development, you will understand.
...
you envy me very much for the fact, my analysis was more correct than that of Svidler and Aronian, right?
but that is a fact.

What is more disturbing than all the false claims you made, is the tone of your language. So sad! I do not really understand why? Do you believe this will make you sound more competent or that somebody will mistake this for authority? It is sad to say that you achieved the exact opposite.

well, I got half an hour free to analyse the first position, after Kf3.
...
it might be the case that Kf3 is a stronger move than the one SF played, but the outcome is still not certain. I myself would play Nd7, restricting the rook's activity and trying to build some fortress, whether this could be successful is a matter of deep investigation.
...
alternatively, black has a forced capturing line [in regard to Nxe4], why do not you look at forced lines first?
...
what is this [in regard to Nxe4 line], theoretical draw with f and h pawns?

And this is what you came up with after half an hour of analysis. So sad!
1) Your "forcing" line Nxe4 looses on the spot - as shown by a fellow user in another post
2) Nd7 after Rf3 is no "matter of deep investigation". Black is almost in Zugzwang: after Nd7 g4 for example the rook ending after Ne5+ Bxe5 fxe5 Rf7 c5 Rf5 is lost and if black waits after g4 with Rb6 h4 Ra6 h5 sooner or later the black pawn on h6 falls.

obviously, someone has hacked my account, it is dangerous to mess with the Rybka gang...

Obviously.

almost all chess games I lost have been due to the fact that I disliked the noise people made around me..

I suspect this is not the only reason.

Also you might want to read this article very carefully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

[Jeroen]

LOL, you are one funny guy . When the going gets tough, you are starting to shout.

It is YOU who claims a lot of things, without backing them up with proper analysis. My conclusion is, that you are not interested in the truth, but only to prove 'you are right'. It doesn't matter how, you just post something, sometimes even without checking. The best example is your 11.a3 Bxa3 12.Rxa3 Qxa3 13.c5 a5??, which you claimed (after only ONE SECOND of SF analysis) was a "forced draw" and instead lost instantly.

Furthermore, in your first posting about this subject, you just claim that Aronian's 11.a3 is bad, 11.c5 is clearly better (without proper analysis, something Aronian surely has done) and thus, you know better than Aronian. Talking about arrogance. And when people show you that you are wrong, you suddenly refrain from answering, or discussing the variation that was shown to you.

I might as well give the readers a summary, as the thread becomes a little bit unreadable, especially regarding the analysis:

1. 11.a3! is surely the most clear cut move in the position, white gets an advantage in all lines. Best now is 11... Bd6, as shown by both Komodo and Stockfish, but then 12.e4 is pleasant for white.

2. 11.a3! Bxa3?! as played by Carlsen, is extremely risky. 12.Rxa3 Qxa3 13.c5 and now:

A) 13... a5?? ("draw", Lyudmil) loses instantly. SF quickly over +2.
B) 13... e5? ("draw", Lyudmil) is also bad. SF quickly over +1.
C) 13... b6 (played by Carlsen), also the top move of the engines, after a deep search. SF scores it at +0.82, d=45 on my quad. It might be the best practical chance to muddy in the waters.
D) 13... Ne4 (Lyudmil's next proposal), surely a good candidate move. But instead of analysing it until the end, we get the message "draw, not enough material left". Nonsense, there are two rooks, two minor pieces and 11 pawns left and it surely is not "an easy draw".

3. 11.c5 ("clearly better for white", Lyudmil, when he first posted it, this was repeated several times, later downgraded to "complicated" and/or "it is tricky"). So far nothing conclusive about this line yet, so why enter this unclear territory when 11.a3! gives the advantage, with a high chance of success? From a human standpoint the choice is 100% clear.

4. 11.c5 e5 12.a3 (?!) Bxc3 13.Bxc3 e4 14.Nd2 Nf8 15.Re1 Bg4 16.f3 exf3 17.gxf3 Bh3 ("white is better, SF will need some 10 moves to get the same conclusion", Lyudmil) is just better for black, many analysis given here. SF simply piles up the pressure on the K-side and white can only defend. On my request to give better variations on the ones I posted: no reply.

[Jeroen]

if I want , and if spare the time, I can tottaly annihalate any possible claim by you, but I simply do not want to waste my time in pointless discussions.

You cannot "annihilate" anything, because you aren't searching for the truth in these positions and you have great difficulty in accepting this.

You also don't want to "waste time on pointless discussions", because it is sure that you will lose them.

Dear Lyudmil, you are not superior to Aronian. You are not superior to the top engines. You are not superior to a forum with a lot of chess players and users with big hardware. If you make wrong claims, they will be uncovered. Accept the fact. You made a LOT of wrong claims.

Time to look into the mirror.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[d]r2k4/1R1n1pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3PP3/8/3B1PPP/5K2 w - -

ive spent some time trying different stockfish variations here (i'm terrible at chess, worse at endgames, & impatient w/ hardware, & lacking 6-man tablebaes, so this is nothing but throwing out scraps for thought) & the recurring theme is that black cannot stop the bishop parking on d6 & after this invariably ends up in zugzwang.

(trying komodo, it seems to recognize this theme very quickly & sacs the e-pawn, but i believe this loses too. another variation it sacs its knight & at first looks like it might just have a draw but continuing it i'm getting over +3 (my cutoff, as i lack the knowledge myself to know a won endgame & continuing manually from here in all variations would take ages. but it definitely seems komodo has some nice endgame knowledge SF is lacking)

from this deeply ignorant perspective, though, it certainly seems to me that if this position IS drawn, to be held OTB would require absolutely brilliant play...which i find as further support that a3 is a !! move. still i'm curious to see this latest position demonstrated concretely one way or the other, as i do think it's achievable.

ok, I have this one:

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r2k4/1R1n1pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3PP3/8/3B1PPP/5K2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "10"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. Bf4 {0} f5 {0} 2. exf5 {1.10/19 1} exf5 {1.32/18 0} 3. Bd6
{1.45/17 0} g5 {1.33/19 0} 4. g3 {1.50/18 0} g4 {3} 5. Rc7 {1.40/20 2} Ra4 {1.
31/19 0} (5... Ra4 {1.34/20 0} 6. Rxc6 {1.54/21 0} Rxd4 {1.66/21 0} 7. Ra6 {1.
71/20 0} Ke8 {1.34/18 0} 8. Kg2 {1.35/20 0} Kf7 {1.32/21 0} 9. c6 {1.36/23 0}
Rxd6 {1.30/26 0} 10. c7 {1.30/28 0} Rxa6 {1.30/28 0} 11. c8=Q {1.30/30 0} Rd6 {
1.30/30 0} 12. Qh8 {1.30/26 0} Nf8 {1.30/29 0} 13. Qe5 {1.30/26 0} Rf6 {1.30/
28 0} 14. Qd5+ {1.30/27 0} Ne6 {1.30/28 0} 15. Qd7+ {1.30/27 0} Kg6 {1.30/29 0}
16. Qe8+ {1.30/29 0} Kh7 {1.30/29 0} 17. h3 {1.30/29 0} Ng7 {1.30/29 0} 18. Qd7
{1.30/29 0} h5 {1.30/26 0} 19. f3 {1.30/29 0} Re6 {1.30/28 0} 20. Qd3 {1.30/30
0}) 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

draw, is not it?

any suggestions, improvements?

time to see your analysis.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

that position is in fact lost (or i have corrupted tablebase files...):

[d]5k2/7R/r6p/5P1P/8/4KP2/8/8 b - -

Engine: Komodo 11.01 MP (2048 MB)
by Don Dailey, Larry Kaufman, Mark Lefler

20.00 0:00 +5.27++ 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 (750.931) 24027 TB:846

20.00 0:00 +7.38 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kf4 Rh2 51.Rh8 Kg7
52.Rd8 Rh1 53.Rd7+ Kh6 54.Ke5 Re1+
55.Kf6 Re8 56.Kf7 Re5 57.f6 Re1
58.Rd6 Kg5 59.Rd8 Kf4 (789.852) 25272
TB:1.018

20.00 0:00 +6.84 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 Ra4 48.Rd4 Ra2
49.Kf4 Kf7 50.Rd7+ Kf6 51.Rd6+ Kf7
52.Rxh6 Rh2 53.Rh8 Kg7 54.Rd8 Rh1
55.Rd7+ Kh6 56.Ke5 Re1+ 57.Kf6 Re8
58.Kf7 Re5 59.f6 Re1 (809.236) 25892
TB:1.024

30.00 0:00 +11.89 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 Ra4 48.Rd4 Ra2
49.Kf4 Kf7 50.Rd7+ Kf6 51.Rd6+ Kf7
52.Rxh6 Rh2 53.Rh8 Kg7 54.Rd8 Rh1
55.Rd7+ Kh6 56.Ke5 Re1+ 57.Kf6 Rb1
58.Rd8 Rb6+ 59.Ke7 Rb7+ (12.585.916) 25169
TB:123.489

31.00 0:00 +11.95-- 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 (13.906.878) 24721
TB:133.379

31.00 0:00 +11.32++ 46...Ra4 47.Rb7 (14.330.357) 24785
TB:137.491

31.00 0:00 +12.05 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf4 Rh1
52.Rh8 Kg7 53.Rd8 Rh2 54.Rd7+ Kh6
55.Ke5 Re2+ 56.Kf6 Re8 57.Kf7 Re2
58.Rd6+ Kxh5 59.f6 Kh4 (14.841.719) 24994
TB:145.366

32.00 0:00 +12.11-- 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 (16.340.907) 24898
TB:163.838

32.00 0:01 +19.73 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf4 Rh1
52.Rh8 Kg7 53.Rd8 Rh2 54.Rd7+ Kh6
55.Ke5 Re2+ 56.Kf6 Re8 57.Kf7 Re3
58.f6 Rb3 59.Rd8 Kg5 (33.304.232) 25678
TB:385.901

33.00 0:01 +19.79-- 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 (35.716.379) 25681
TB:415.990

33.00 0:01 +250.00 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf4 Rh1
52.Rh8 Kg7 53.Rd8 Rh2 54.Rd7+ Kh6
55.Ke5 Rxh5 56.Kf6 Rh1 57.f4 Rb1
58.Ke7 Rb2 59.f6 Re2+ (44.940.118) 25671
TB:555.211

40.01 0:03 +250.00 46...Ra5 47.Ke4 Ra4+ 48.Ke5 Ra5+
49.Kf4 Ra4+ 50.Kg3 Ra6 51.Rd7 Ke8
52.Rg7 Kf8 53.Rh7 Ke8 54.Kf4 Kf8
55.Rd7 Ra5 56.Rd6 Kg7 57.Rg6+ Kf7
58.Rxh6 Kf8 59.Rf6+ Kg7 (101.696.560) 27176
TB:1.159.968

40.02 0:04 +250.00 46...Ra4 47.Rxh6 Rh4 48.Kf2 Kf7
49.Kg3 Rh1 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kh4 Rh1+
52.Kg5 Rg1+ 53.Kf4 Rh1 54.Rh8 Kg7
55.Rd8 Rxh5 56.Ke5 Rh1 57.Rd7+ Kg8
58.Ke6 Re1+ 59.Kf6 Rb1 (122.478.399) 26890
TB:1.419.257

40.12 0:04 +250.00 46...Kg8 47.Rd7 Ra4 48.Rd4 Ra2
49.Kf4 Kg7 50.Rd6 Rh2 51.Kg4 Rg2+
52.Kh3 Rf2 53.Rg6+ Kf7 54.Kg3 Rf1
55.Rxh6 Rg1+ 56.Kh4 Rh1+ 57.Kg5 Rg1+
58.Kf4 Rh1 59.Rh8 Kg7 (123.961.110) 26939
TB:1.432.031


(search was w/ full hash & output heavily abbreviated for simplicity)

that is indeed lost for white, I do not use tablebases, but I warned you I do not like this line.

the other one is certainly a draw, please see other post.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

let me first say, that I did that fully out of politeness, but not to Mr. Possioto, but to the position itself, as he basically took any random position from a line where there are at least 20 possibilities to play a different move.
that certainly was not correct, as this was not even my line, but the line of SF.
my claim has never been that SF's line is fully correct, with no mistakes,

And yet you claimed about this line:

so, we have a forced line, which ends in a draw.
...
still, they do not have definitive conclusions, but I have.
...
0.0 score, for sure, just one piece each side, the fact engines show bigger scores has exclusively to do with their stupidity
...
I was tolerating your bursts, until you already overdid it.
+200 cps was also the line posted by Andreas, but obvious fortress. the line is a very simple and obvious draw. everyone knows this.
...
if I want , and if spare the time, I can tottaly annihalate any possible claim by you, but I simply do not want to waste my time in pointless discussions.
...
in another 25 years of chess development, you will understand.
...
you envy me very much for the fact, my analysis was more correct than that of Svidler and Aronian, right?
but that is a fact.

What is more disturbing than all the false claims you made, is the tone of your language. So sad! I do not really understand why? Do you believe this will make you sound more competent or that somebody will mistake this for authority? It is sad to say that you achieved the exact opposite.

well, I got half an hour free to analyse the first position, after Kf3.
...
it might be the case that Kf3 is a stronger move than the one SF played, but the outcome is still not certain. I myself would play Nd7, restricting the rook's activity and trying to build some fortress, whether this could be successful is a matter of deep investigation.
...
alternatively, black has a forced capturing line [in regard to Nxe4], why do not you look at forced lines first?
...
what is this [in regard to Nxe4 line], theoretical draw with f and h pawns?

And this is what you came up with after half an hour of analysis. So sad!
1) Your "forcing" line Nxe4 looses on the spot - as shown by a fellow user in another post
2) Nd7 after Rf3 is no "matter of deep investigation". Black is almost in Zugzwang: after Nd7 g4 for example the rook ending after Ne5+ Bxe5 fxe5 Rf7 c5 Rf5 is lost and if black waits after g4 with Rb6 h4 Ra6 h5 sooner or later the black pawn on h6 falls.

obviously, someone has hacked my account, it is dangerous to mess with the Rybka gang...

Obviously.

almost all chess games I lost have been due to the fact that I disliked the noise people made around me..

I suspect this is not the only reason.

Also you might want to read this article very carefully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

anything else you could do apart from posting copy-paste SF output and offending people?

indeed, the position is a DRAW, see relevant post, and you should apologise for a lot of bigmouthing.