Keano wrote on 10/17/10 at 20:02:29:
I think you're fighting a losing argument trying to call it an old idea.
The idea of Bb4-d6 is even older than the Utasi games - it's been used in a slightly different move order going as far back as 1961 (black playing c6 before Bb4-Bd6).
The Utasi move order isn't new. The idea of Bb4-d6 isn't new. The position isn't new. The ideas in the positions from GM games aren't new.
All that's new is interest from GMs of late. If you actually take the time to study those GM games you'd quickly find
the ideas being used by both sides have been used many times before in the lines with Bd6 without Bb4+ with transpositions being extremely common.
Of course, I have a feeling you'll persist with your "it's new" nonsense, when you'd be better off with this:
Quote: Ultimately there is nothing new in chess but a couple of old games from 1985 and then nothing... we've seen this a million times over in other openings. Actually my database has only one not especially relevant game from Utasi in 1985, but I'll trust you there is another one - could you let me know the other Utasi game, like to add it to my database
Anyway, back to the subject, even the jokers in chessbase trying to flog us dodgy DVDs that dont play on the telly call it new. Anyway if its such an old idea how is that Avrukh missed it? In 2010 we have seen a flurry of high level games in this line, so I think you get my drift.
Avrukh missed the more common line with Bd6 at first until it was brought to his attention. He isn't infallible, so why are you going to act like that's an argument?
Chessbase is trying to sell a product, what do you think they're going to call it?
A line becoming suddenly popular doesn't make it new, either. It makes it popular. The difference is obvious.
Quote:As for the rest of the comments on the themes etc. I'm forced to disagree - too specific, the ideas are not as you say, although no doubt it could be one possibility. Anyway its not the way I play the line, and so far my method has stood up to the test against strong opposition.
I mentioned the critical ideas used in GM play against white's primary responses. You'd know this if you had studied the games.
Quote: Granted it could be an approach no doubt, in which case it is further evidence of my general impression so far - the whole line is full of rich possibilities for both sides at this moment.
Not really. Your mystery approach aside, the methods of play are well established in GM play.
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. d4 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bd6 6. Bg2 0-0 7. 0-0 Nbd7 (7...c6 7. Qc2 Nbd7 8. Nc3 dxc4 9. Bg5 ends up in Avrukh's analysis of ...Bd6 without Bb4+) 8. Qc2 is going to quickly end up back in normal waters.
Play only gets "rich" when white varies with Qb3, Qc2+Rd1, or Bf4.
Of course, there's always your mystery method unknown to the world that's worked against "strong opposition".
Oh my god. Are you really serious? This is like a Monthy Python sketch trying to create an argument. -its a new idea to me and I stand by it! I doubt very much you've much of a handle on this system at all from what I can make of your comments, and are probably quite a weak player - sorry but you asked for it. If you're looking for a fight you picked the wrong man! As for the ideas - you mentioned ....dxc4 is NOT a typical idea in the system at all. For what its worth in both my games the players picked the same continuation and both were reasonable players one an IM and one as good as:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bd6 6. Bg2 c6 7. O-O Nbd7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bxf6 Nxf6 11. Nbd2
This is one of the critical positions amongst many, and one you're very likely to get if you play the line. Now I've wasted enough time dealing with your rubbish, sorry I even tried to help the original poster out now will keep my ideas to myself in future to avoid abuse by cabbages with their head stuck in books who couldnt play a decent game of chess if their life depended on it.