11...c5 is well-regarded by Sokolov.

Keano wrote on 01/24/10 at 14:33:05:


It's in my database on the QGD, and I don't keep bibliographies of my personal files on openings. You see, there's an invention called Chessbase, you should try it some time.

If that's who it originated with, so be it.

Quote:


Apparently you haven't caught on to the fact that the Tartakower hasn't been appearing at GM level as much due to the Catalan, and prevalence of 5. Bf4 QGDs in GM play of late. The drawishness of Lasker's Defense is another reason for 5. Bg5's dip in popularity.

And aside from that, 11. 0-0's popularity is further hurt by the fact ...c5 is equal. Wow, what a concept! White's not playing into a line where black has a known equalizer, amazing!

If I were simply taking from Khalifman I wouldn't have posted corrected evaluations in the 11. 0-0 c5 line. Maybe you should try finding something else to scapegoat.

Quote:


Don't attach a "!?" to the first recommendation a computer spits out. It's also obvious you're basing your moves and evaluation on what the computer is giving, too. Seriously, mentioning something "simple" like 18...a5, when it's just the second choice listed.

Quote:


The original post you responded to was about 11. 0-0. 11. b4 is irrelevant to anything I have posted.

And 11. 0-0 c5 is a completely easy equalizer for black, and is the argument against 11. 0-0. Unless you care to demonstrate how white can improve. And please don't give me a Rybka suggestion attached to a "!?", I can do that myself, thanks. I can also list the second move it gives as interesting to go along with it.

Quote:


Because it was irrelevant, and Bh3 isn't necessarily the best move on the following turn, whereas Qa3 is actually a critical idea (instead of Qc2). My QGD database has taken from Khalifman, Rizzutano, and others (various annotated games, even Sadler's old book, etc.). No big surprise in this particular variation Khalifman's analysis pops up here since few theoretical works place any emphasis on 11. 0-0 these days, and due to good reason - 11...c5 kills its theoretical importance.

MNb wrote on 01/24/10 at 12:52:40:


My claim is that black either has to accept drawish equality, or a slightly worse position in order to preserve winning chances in the line with 11. 0-0. That's markedly different from "forcing" black to accept it.

Black's winning chances in the Tartakower are markedly less than sharper openings, because he takes considerably fewer risks. I'd put the winning chances of the Tartakower on par with the Queen's Indian Defense. A lot of dull equality in the most critical lines, and black suffering with a slightly worse position when he tries to play it for a win.

Quote:


16...c5 is not good enough for equality, sorry. 17. dxc5 Nxc5 18. Qa3 is enough for an edge. It's a textbook example of a premature ...c5 break.

16...Qc7 17. Bg2 Rad8 18. Rd2, and black has no active play. He sits, he waits for white's e4, because his own ...c5 is restrained. Black is solid, and passive - that means he requires a white mistake for winning chances, because he's not actually doing anything himself.

That leaves your 16...g6 - it does nothing to stop white from playing the same ideas as against 16...Qc7. 17. Bg2, ...c5 is restrained (black's source of counterplay), and white can once again time e4.

You obviously really like the Tartakower, so obviously that's not going to dissuade you from playing it regardless of the theoretical standing of it, judging by your comment about theory earlier.

The 11. 0-0 line is not exciting in the slightest, but 11...c6 (or your 11...Re8 move order - same exact thing) is not the hardest theoretical test. 11...c5 is a simple and easy equalizer, but boring. That's just how it is some times.

Sorry Keano, I am not interested in your explanation either. What I want to know more about is this.
You claim that Black can maintain winning chances.
BP claims that White can force Black to accept a highly drawish position.

Now how much has Black to compromise to play for a win? More than in the Slav Meran or the KID for instance? You both already have provided some sample lines, but I would not mind seeing more.

BPaulsen wrote on 01/24/10 at 05:48:04:


Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:32:04:
[/quote]

Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:32:04:


Could you guys stop bickering about this trivial subject? BP is formally right - Keano has edited his post. The content hasn't basically changed though. Keano's explanation sounds acceptible, it has happened to me as well.
Get back to chess, will you?

kylemeister wrote on 01/24/10 at 01:11:12:


Interesting - 19...Qf4 looks better alright, I`ll have to look at this whole line with Ne5 again. Since the practical results were so bad I had given up on it, but as you say yourself another question is if its worth the hassle allowing it.

Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 19:35:24:


You editted it, as witnessed by the fact that what I quoted is markedly different from what's now posted.

Your premise is that you can play for a win in the Tartakower by maintaining tension in a theoretically slightly worse position, instead of trying to equalize. That can be done from any opening, and the Tartakower is not unique in this regard - that is a practical issue, not theoretical.

Hardly anything for white to fear from a theoretical standpoint, at any rate. White should fear equalizers he can't avoid (ie: 11. 0-0 c5) if he's seeking an edge, but my goal was to point out that white can play a line in which black's equalizer leads to dull equality. White players are definitely not going to fear black playing lines that give him a slight advantage.

Your Re8 isn't critical theoretically after 11. 0-0 Re8 12. Qb3 c6 13. Re1, because it transposes directly into another line that's evaluated as giving white a slight advantage (namely: 11...c6 12. Qb3 Re8 13. Re1).

That's the point. Black's choice is dull equality, or a slightly worse position with practical chances. If you think it's rich enough that you can play for a win from there, fine, but that's not a theoretical issue. You're confused because you entered a theoretical discussion trying to talk about practical issues (ie: playing for a win).

In that line Krasenkov suggests 19.exd4"!?"  Qd6 20.Ne3 and this looks more awkward for Black to me. I'm not sure who is right about the other position after 19.e4, it honestly looks very murky to me.