Normal Topic Panov-Botvinnik Attack (Read 5393 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Reply #6 - 04/04/06 at 18:34:37
Post Tools
lnn2 wrote on 04/02/06 at 09:14:19:


with respect to Markovich, i have seen Aagaards book, but am not convinced (Aagaard is presumably writing for the white cause!?).  if White wants to squeeze anything out of the ending, perhaps should go for line with 15. Bg5+: 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 e6 10. Qxb7 Nxd4 11. Bb5+ Nxb5 12. Qc6+ Ke7 13. Qxb5 Qd7 14. Nxd5+ Qxd5 15. Bg5+ f6 16. Qxd5 exd5 17. Be3 Ke6 18. O-O-O, but as Karpov-Kramnik Linares 1993 shows, the Black king is nicely active in the centre, and even the great master of the Caro-Kann failed to beat his own defence!


Yes, I am quite sure that Karpov could draw that with the Black pieces against a well-informed White; I am just not sure that most of my opponents, or yours, could.  As for Aagaard (right, four a's), he is not known for excessive partisanship.  But neither he nor I claim a White win, only that White has winning chances and that the position is not easy for Black to play.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Reply #5 - 04/02/06 at 09:14:19
Post Tools
Quote:
see inn2 good focus on games what did u think about memenderov-smeets and do u see any improvement for white it is a critical line


afraid not..Mamedyarov-Smeets is a dead drawn endgame if Black returns the exchange and takes abit of care, there is some (unexceptional) analysis by Smeets in NIC yb 77 which comes to same conclusion. Perhaps thats why you don't see the Panov nowadays!~ 

with respect to Markovich, i have seen Aagaards book, but am not convinced (Aagaard is presumably writing for the white cause!?).  if White wants to squeeze anything out of the ending, perhaps should go for line with 15. Bg5+: 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 e6 10. Qxb7 Nxd4 11. Bb5+ Nxb5 12. Qc6+ Ke7 13. Qxb5 Qd7 14. Nxd5+ Qxd5 15. Bg5+ f6 16. Qxd5 exd5 17. Be3 Ke6 18. O-O-O, but as Karpov-Kramnik Linares 1993 shows, the Black king is nicely active in the centre, and even the great master of the Caro-Kann failed to beat his own defence!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Reply #4 - 03/28/06 at 19:27:51
Post Tools
lnn2 wrote on 03/16/06 at 01:53:48:

After 5... Nc6, White can force a drawish ending with 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. cd5 Nd5 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 e6 10. Qb7 Nd4 11. Bb5 etc, but this is theoretically acceptable for Black.


That ending is probably drawn theoretically, but it is by no means "drawish."  There is quite a lot of play in that position, particularly for White.   There is an excellent discussion of it in Aagard's Panov-Botvinnik book.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
emoskow(Guest)
Guest


Re: Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Reply #3 - 03/27/06 at 13:16:11
Post Tools
see inn2 good focus on games what did u think about memenderov-smeets and do u see any improvement for white it is a critical line
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Reply #2 - 03/17/06 at 09:07:27
Post Tools
I dont like 5 .. Nc6 and I think 5 .. e6 is better anyway as long as you play the line with Bb4 and not Be7.

Be aware that after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 nf6 5.nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Bb4 you are also in the Nimzo, so you may be able to find a lot of references there as well. Karpov often reached these positions from both the CK and the Nimzo for example.
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Panov-Botvinnik Attack
Reply #1 - 03/16/06 at 01:53:48
Post Tools
Hello, i think 5... Nc6 should be studied by every Caro-Kann player, even if you prefer playing against the IQP with 5... e6 (Emms' Scandinavian book 2nd ed covers 5... e6 by transposition and is excellent). I have played both moves, usually prefer 5... Nc6 against a stronger player, and 5... e6 against a weaker player. 

After 5... Nc6, White can force a drawish ending with 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. cd5 Nd5 8. Qb3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 e6 10. Qb7 Nd4 11. Bb5 etc, but this is theoretically acceptable for Black. So now White players go for 6. Bg5 and after dc4 7. Bc4 (a critical pawn sac) Qd4 8. Qd4 Nd4 9. 0-0-0 e5 10. f4 Bg4 11. Nf3, White has some compensation, see Grischuk-Bareev and Mamedyarov-Smeets (Smeet's 14... h6 is probably an improvement over Bareev's 14... Rc8).

its a matter of taste and occasion, 5... Nc6 liquidates pieces quickly so you can go home fast if you don't have much ambitions with Black, while 5... e6 gives more chances for both sides.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sterling(Guest)
Guest


Panov-Botvinnik Attack
03/15/06 at 21:55:05
Post Tools
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 nf6 5.nc3

What is the recommended line at this point.  I do not have good results with the gambit line 4.g6.  Is it recommended to play 5...nc6 or 5...e6

Another variation I have been analysing myself is 5...e5?! in true Albin-Counter style.  The position is identical to the Albin, except white's E pawn is traded for black's C pawn.  Anything to say about this?

Thanks
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo