Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

Aggressive Opening Suggestions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
    I agree with you there. I learn tons quicker via video than I ever would using a chess book.
    I find that books offer higher bandwidth. I do use both. Sometimes you are in the mood for videos and sometimes you're not.

    Vladimir Drkulec

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
      Or, is there some vast underground conspiracy at chessgames.com to promote the KG as being resolutely un-busted when, in fact, it is busted?

      For once, I'll opt for common-sense, and suppose that the KG is, indeed, "un-busted", and always has been.
      I get a warm fuzzy feeling when people play the King's Gambit against me. I did lose to an IM a couple of years ago and even an A player when getting back into chess six or seven years ago after a long layoff but other than that it seems to me I have won most of these encounters as black. I have employed Fischer's bust, the declined, the modern involving a pawn sacrifice and recently lines with Nf6. The biggest problem for a player facing the King's Gambit is that there are many, many pleasant lines to choose from.

      Vladimir Drkulec

      Comment


      • #93
        I know that warm fuzzy feeling! I got it a couple weeks ago when I was playing Black and forgot I was playing Black, despite the evidence clearly on the board beneath my nose. I'd intended, beforehand, to play the Sicilian, but, instead, boldly pushed my King out to e5 when the moment came, totally forgetting my good intentions, the color of the pieces, and the fact that the other guy had moved first.

        Fuzzy feelings aside, Crash--is the KG busted for White? I don't believe it is; what's your take?
        Last edited by Celadonite; 12-14-2013, 09:14 PM.
        "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
          White frequently finds himself in very uncomfortable situations, regardless of opening or variation chosen. As will Black. NO opening is immune from that fact, and its in no way exclusive to the KG. I'd go so far as to say it's not even particularly applicable to the KG, as the KG tends more towards being an active & tactical opening, rather than a grindingly positional opening.

          3...d5 wasn't Fischer's bust, you do realize that?

          And a quick investigation will show you that White still gets a-plenty when 3...d5 is played.
          Again I disagree with what are you telling. I will rather be black playing d5 facing KG rather than face a sicilian, french or caro. There are many variation with d5 were black gains the upper hand, it should not be the case, white should be the one getting the advantage most of the time from the opening. I know that d5 is not Fixcher's bust. D5 is the modern treatment against KG, I think d5 gain popularity around 2005(not exactly sure). Quick investigation? No you did not do that. I will believe that if you can provide a stats of d5 against KG from 2000 to the present with no rapid and blitz game.

          Looking at Federov's game most of the win are again g5/Be7/Nf6 line by black and he loses two games against d5!!. Federov has a win against d5 in 2001. But black made an improvement. Instead of 7...Qf5, black play's 7.Qe6+.

          1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6. Bxd5
          Qxd5 7. Nc3 Qe6+ 8.Qf2 Qb6+ 9.d4 Be6. Federov vs Godena. 2002.

          In the database, you will see Federov's last KG game is 2004. He stop playing it. If the leading player of KG stops playing it, it means there is something wrong with it.

          Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
          That's the natural ratio of chess, exactly! A game is a contest, wherein victory isn't assurred to either side--there's play.
          Not assured not because theory is wrong(in this case the KG), but because a player with advantage can still make positional or tactical blunder(a GM is not exempted from this sin).

          NIC: You secured the GM title in Dubai with a draw as black against Fedorov when you were a bit better.

          Magnus: Yes, that was my tactic. If I have a better position and I am sure that he will not play on. Of course, I was a little bit nervous before that game. But I also expected to get a better position if he played the King's Gambit (laughs!).

          According to Carlsen KG is a bust. But according to Celadonite it is not.
          Last edited by Celadonite; 12-14-2013, 10:16 PM.
          " Deep calculation is not what distinguishes the champions. It does not matter how far ahead you see if you don't understand what you are looking at. When I contemplate my move, I first must consider all the elements in the position so that i can develop a strategy and develop intermediate objectives"

          -- Garry Kasparov--

          "Tactics must be guided by strategy"

          --- Garry Kasparov--

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
            Again I disagree with what are you telling..
            Of course you do! And that's ok, entirely fit and proper.

            But, what are you disagreeing with that I'm telling?

            The stats?

            I didn't create them, did I?

            Are you disagreeing with the fact that Fedorov has a great score playing the KG?

            I didnt' say a thing about what lines of the KG he was playing, did I?

            Shucks, no, I see that I didn't. Only that he was playing the KG--what's to disagree with regarding fact?

            Read my posts again, and perhaps don't interpolate what they mean, but consider the actual wording to determine what was said.

            It's very unclear to me what you disagree with, unless it's just everything, on the general principle that I said it? Because, facts are facts.


            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
            I will rather be black playing d5 facing KG rather than face a sicilian, french or caro.
            Personal preferences are good, and who can argue with another man's preferences? Preferences aren't like stats--many things besides raw-fact goes into a person's preferences.

            To be truthful, I kinda like playing Black in the French Defense. It's such an exhilhirating feeling when that Bad Bishop is finally freed and begins kicking White's butt. That makes it all worthwhile to me--personal preference.

            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
            I will believe that if you can provide a stats of d5 against KG from 2000 to the present with no rapid and blitz game..
            I doubt you'd believe it then.

            Besides, you owe it to yourself and to your side of this argument to do this research, since you're the one demanding it. I've done my bit, refute it with more than disagreement and demands--find your stats, find the evidence you seek yourself--it's not necessary for me to do that. If you present the stats, and they favor your side of the argument, I'd look like a fool arguing with them, wouldn't I? Make your case!

            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
            In the database, you will see Federov's last KG game is 2004. He stop playing it. If the leading player of KG stops playing it, it means there is something wrong with it..
            If Fedorov speaks English, we could email him and ask him about this, perhaps--it's an interesting fact, he did stop playing it after so many wins, and so few losses using it--I wonder, seeing he'd had such good play with it, what his reasons for dropping it were? An opening that wins alot for a person is rarely discarded as "busted", is it?

            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
            Not assured not because theory is wrong(in this case the KG), but because a player with advantage can still make positional or tactical blunder(a GM is not exempted from this sin).
            The Emperor has no clothes, until he has no clothes. The theory's right, except when it isn't, then we blame human error?
            .

            Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
            NIC: You secured the GM title in Dubai with a draw as black against Fedorov when you were a bit better.

            Magnus: Yes, that was my tactic. If I have a better position and I am sure that he will not play on. Of course, I was a little bit nervous before that game. But I also expected to get a better position if he played the King's Gambit (laughs!)..


            According to Carlsen KG is a bust. But according to Celadonite it is not.
            Carlesen didn't say the KG was a bust, unless he said it in a portion of the interview you failed to append? I read the words you posted, and there's nothing in it saying anything about the KG being busted.

            He said he expected to get a better position if Federov played the King's Gambit. That sounds to me like he'd studied Fed's useage of that gambit, done his home-preparations, and was confident in his preps if Federov used the KG.

            Also, implying I'm not Carlsen in the way that you have is but an simple rhetorical device intended to deny authority to anything I might say on this situation, and thus "win" an "argument" for which there is no prize for either of us.

            Such tactics are insufficient to deny the stats or deny their implications related to the non-busted character of the KG, just as any cruder personal attack upon me would be . Moreso, in this instance, as Carlsen did in no way say that the KG was busted in that article.

            I maintain that the KG isn't busted, and for evidence beyond personal opinion say that the stats seem to confirm this opinion.

            You disagree with what I've said, but are unclear regarding precisely what you disagree with of what I've said.

            However, if either would deign communicate with us, let's ask Carlsen his take on the situation of the KG, and let's ask Federov why he quit playing the KG. I for one would like to know their master-opinion, if they've time and interest to communicate on the subject.

            Now, sir--I issue a counter demand: you prove to me that 3.d6 has busted the King's Gambit.

            Perhaps one, or both of us, will learn something from this disagreement, yet.
            Last edited by Celadonite; 12-14-2013, 11:53 PM.
            "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ryan_c View Post
              According to Carlsen KG is a bust. But according to Celadonite it is not.
              Celadonite isn't entering the candidates cycle to challenge Carlsen for the title. Don't think he's playing any GM soon.

              So maybe then for Carlsen the KG is a bust, but for Celadonite it isn't?

              That's the only point I've tried to make about this discussion.

              (Quietly hopes the snippy tone will ease down a bit)
              Have you read the Forum rules?

              Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
              Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
              Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
              Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
              Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
              Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
              Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
              --Red Dwarf

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Perseus View Post
                Celadonite isn't entering the candidates cycle to challenge Carlsen for the title. Don't think he's playing any GM soon.

                So maybe then for Carlsen the KG is a bust, but for Celadonite it isn't?

                That's the only point I've tried to make about this discussion.
                Doggone! That Skwerly told you about the drunken episode that got me kicked out of the Cycle? LOL

                Fully as pertinent to this wretched discussion, since we're stooping to such levels, was RyanC invited to play in the candidates cycle, and will he be playing any GM soon?

                It's all well and good to question my authority to have an opinion (backed by stats?), but...by what authority does the Worthy Gentleman profess his opinion?

                Again--Carlsen didn't say the KG was busted, only expressing he was confident he'd get the better position in it against Federov, should it be played.

                We really need to ask him, and Federov. Any ideas how to contact them?
                Last edited by Celadonite; 12-15-2013, 12:29 AM.
                "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

                Comment


                • #98
                  Statistics mean nothing. They account for neither the positions reached, nor the players.

                  All these other words mean very little too. (Frankly, I don't even know what "busted" means. If white is still equal, is he busted? If not, then for the King's Gambit to be busted it must be winning for black...seems absurd.)

                  But when someone shows some serious analysis then we can have a discussion as to the theoretical (to say nothing of practical--perhaps even Black is practically winning but theoretically lost, or vice versa) fate of the King's Gambit.


                  On another note, why didn't Kramnik write an article "A Bust to the Ruy Lopez?"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
                    Fuzzy feelings aside, Crash--is the KG busted for White? I don't believe it is; what's your take?
                    I wouldn't say that it is busted but it is not something that you can expect to claim an advantage with as white. There are half a dozen lines that I have played that give black a good playable game. Most of the repertoire books like the positional approach of the declined. English GM Mark Hebden who played the King's Gambit for many years was asked what the best line against the King's Gambit said, "All of them." This is according to John Shaw who wrote the latest opening manual on the King's Gambit for Quality Chess.

                    It is a playable opening which will yield many fast victories against poor defense. The issue is that you will usually encounter people who are ready and booked up on at least one of the lines that give White little joy which is pretty much most of the major variations.

                    Even in the game where I played the IM it wasn't the opening that beat me. He said that he had nothing out of the opening though he was able to outplay me later which you expect when there is a 500 point rating difference.

                    Even if you forget your lines and mess up you usually can survive as black if you play carefully and play strong defense.

                    Vladimir Drkulec

                    Comment


                    • Celadonite you bringing out things that is not related with what I am pointing. If you don't understand, I will repeat. White will gain nothing if Black plays the d5 line(and many lines gives Black the advantage)..From the beginning of my post in this thread, I am already pertaining to the d5 line by black.

                      What could be the reason Federov stopped playing it. The logical assumption is that he feels it's no longer good already. You can't say Federov's wife does not like KG,the KG will bring harm to his dog right? So the only logical answer is KG is no good. Other answer does not make any sense.

                      Originally posted by Celadonite
                      I maintain that the KG isn't busted, and for evidence beyond personal opinion say that the stats seem to confirm this opinion.
                      Nope not true and that is only an opinion of yours. Stats favor black. Stats should have been break down to give a clear picture.

                      Even if we look at d6 line(d5 is the modern line), stats favor black!!. Lets look at sample stats of 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6

                      Black wins 88 games, white wins 52 games only.
                      1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6

                      Originally posted by Persus
                      Celadonite isn't entering the candidates cycle to challenge Carlsen for the title. Don't think he's playing any GM soon.

                      So maybe then for Carlsen the KG is a bust, but for Celadonite it isn't?
                      I already mentioned this, even if you get the advantage you can still lose if you make positional or tactical blunders(GM are not exempted from this sin) or forget a critical line, it does not mean theory is wrong(in regards to KG).
                      Last edited by ryan_c; 12-15-2013, 04:36 AM.
                      " Deep calculation is not what distinguishes the champions. It does not matter how far ahead you see if you don't understand what you are looking at. When I contemplate my move, I first must consider all the elements in the position so that i can develop a strategy and develop intermediate objectives"

                      -- Garry Kasparov--

                      "Tactics must be guided by strategy"

                      --- Garry Kasparov--

                      Comment


                      • thanks for your input, Crash. Sane, sober, and practical assessment.

                        To Others: I'm perfectly content with Crash's assessment. What do you disagree with about it?
                        "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
                          thanks for your input, Crash. Sane, sober, and practical assessment.

                          To Others: I'm perfectly content with Crash's assessment. What do you disagree with about it?
                          In case you missed this, I edited my post.

                          Even if we look at d6 line(d5 is the modern line), stats favor black!!. Lets look at sample stats of 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6

                          Black wins 88 games, white wins 52 games only.
                          1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6

                          My point from the start, white gains nothing(and will find him at disadvantage in most lines) if black plays d5. And as I told you can still lose even if you have the advantage if you make position/tactical blunders. Does not mean theory is wrong(in regards to KG).

                          White has more practical chances with g5 lines by black. But even in this line stats favor black, as what I have shown.
                          Last edited by ryan_c; 12-15-2013, 04:48 AM.
                          " Deep calculation is not what distinguishes the champions. It does not matter how far ahead you see if you don't understand what you are looking at. When I contemplate my move, I first must consider all the elements in the position so that i can develop a strategy and develop intermediate objectives"

                          -- Garry Kasparov--

                          "Tactics must be guided by strategy"

                          --- Garry Kasparov--

                          Comment


                          • Hmm, a thought occurred to me:
                            How much are tactical and positional blunders the error of one side and how much are they the effort of (provoked by) the other?

                            Since the recent Carlsen-Anand match has been mentioned.. Anand committed some blunders to chess history and Carlsen won the match. Anand and Carlsen both seemed to agree that while Anand made critical errors it was Carlsen's strategy that pushed Anand into doing so.
                            I found that to be an intruiging revelation of sorts, that a grandmaster of Anand's level can be manoeuvred into terrible mistakes.

                            Returning to the KG: if Anand can be thus set up/swindled/manipulated/played, then anyone can. I don't remember who it was but someone that lost a battle to a French force said, when asked why he lost that battle: "Well I always thought the French had something to do with it."
                            Have you read the Forum rules?

                            Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
                            Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
                            Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
                            Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
                            Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
                            Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
                            Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
                            --Red Dwarf

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Perseus View Post
                              Hmm, a thought occurred to me:
                              How much are tactical and positional blunders the error of one side and how much are they the effort of (provoked by) the other?

                              Since the recent Carlsen-Anand match has been mentioned.. Anand committed some blunders to chess history and Carlsen won the match. Anand and Carlsen both seemed to agree that while Anand made critical errors it was Carlsen's strategy that pushed Anand into doing so.
                              I found that to be an intruiging revelation of sorts, that a grandmaster of Anand's level can be manoeuvred into terrible mistakes.

                              Returning to the KG: if Anand can be thus set up/swindled/manipulated/played, then anyone can. I don't remember who it was but someone that lost a battle to a French force said, when asked why he lost that battle: "Well I always thought the French had something to do with it."
                              True even a GM on the caliber of Anand is not immune on such occurrences(specially older players.)In fairness many thinks Anand is past his prime, and many thinks prior to the match that Anand's chess is not as good as it used to be. Chances of swindle is high in a sharp position(specially when you factor time trouble).
                              Last edited by ryan_c; 12-15-2013, 01:14 PM.
                              " Deep calculation is not what distinguishes the champions. It does not matter how far ahead you see if you don't understand what you are looking at. When I contemplate my move, I first must consider all the elements in the position so that i can develop a strategy and develop intermediate objectives"

                              -- Garry Kasparov--

                              "Tactics must be guided by strategy"

                              --- Garry Kasparov--

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Perseus View Post
                                Hmm, a thought occurred to me:
                                How much are tactical and positional blunders the error of one side and how much are they the effort of (provoked by) the other?
                                This seems a much subtler inversion of my question of a year or so ago, when I was wondering if it were possible that one might push "too-hard", thereby inspiring the opponent to levels of achievement he'd not otherwise have attained to in a particular game.

                                It truly bears further consideration and reflection, this thought of your's.

                                I've a feeling that the activity which it might imply would run a spectrum, with the "low-end" being a sort of simple "hypnosis", such as Bronstein's 6 moves of the same knight in Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian vs David Bronstein (1956) which led, on the 7th move of the "sequence" to Petrosian hanging his Queen to this same Knight.

                                Anatoly Karpov vs Anthony Miles (1980) "The 'Incorrect' Opening" where Tony Miles purposefully employed the St. George Defense (quite non-standard in tournament play) against Karpov, and won, would seem to be another "low-end" example of the spectrum of activity which perhaps you might be indicating?

                                We must assume a "higher-end" of this possible spectrum of effect being employed to produce Anand's knight blunder on move 28 of Game 9--something quite as "spectral" as "the Butterfly Effect".

                                If it occurred, was it conscious and deliberate, semi-conscious/deliberate, or entirely intuitive or unconscious? How to tell?

                                Semi-conscious, probably, as it appears both Anand and Carlsen noticed something was occurring.

                                If conscious, we're dealing with a perception of chess far subtler than our usual mechanistic approach to the game.

                                Originally posted by Perseus View Post
                                Returning to the KG: if Anand can be thus set up/swindled/manipulated/played, then anyone can. I don't remember who it was but someone that lost a battle to a French force said, when asked why he lost that battle: "Well I always thought the French had something to do with it."
                                Move 28 of Game 9's interesting--what subtlty of play might have caused Anand to produce that knight blunder? Nothing in the position suggested a blunder was imminent...it obviously was possible, as it occurred, but surely nothing specifically preceeding it produced it, as far as moves which had occurred.

                                Could it be that an intensity of the simple urge to win produces an effect we as yet refuse to contemplate? If we consider some of Fischer's "impossible" tournament results, perhaps we should not dismiss this thought too quickly.
                                Last edited by Celadonite; 12-15-2013, 03:08 PM.
                                "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X