alumbrado wrote on 04/07/06 at 08:56:24:

Timman has a quote on that in one of his books. Cant remember who Karpov was playing (Vaganian??), but he got a lousy position. At some point he could have gone into a dead-drawn ending, but didnt. In the end he won the game. During the post-mortem Vaganian asked: "Why didnt you do into the ending, had you missed it?" Karpov:"No I had seen it, but why should I? If I keep the position like it is I cant see how I can lose either."

Which anti-Morra lines were involved here, MNb?

Does Black usually trade his light-squared Bishop in the Rubinstein?  I think the Rubinstein comparison is even more appropriate in the Euwe variation of 5...e6.  And yes I agree that White must use what advantages he has (space, time or whatever) to either win back material or create some favorable imbalance.  What is surprising is that in many of these variations he is successful in doing so.  I'm not one of those who get to a position where White optically looks good (but minus a pawn) and assumes White is doing well.  I've been looking at all of the major defences to BDG and so far haven't found anything that I would even call =+ for Black.  I'm beginning to doubt such a variation exists.  I think we may have already uncovered one of the most critical here on the forum (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 (Can't say I believe in 6.Bc4.) 6...c6!  I personally now am going to be satisfied with rough equality if I ever meet the BDG.  If my move order allows the Hubsch I'll play that.  If not then either 3...e5 or whichever accepted variation I think at the time will give me the best chances.

Apologies if this is also mentioned elsewhere, but I had intended to react to 8.Be3 with e6/Nbd7-b6-d5/Qc7/0-0-0 in some order.  I haven't thought too hard about this, though, other than to say that Black's apparently wasteful idea (Nbd7-b6-d5xf6) is aimed against Bf4 in conjunction with Ne4, which seems to be White's best continuation in general.  I have in mind something like:

8.Be3 e6 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.0-0 Nb6 11.Ne4 Nd5 12.Nxf6+ Nxf6, but this may very well be lunacy.  In either case, I think that 8.Be3 is more testing, but because of Arkhein's preference, never really looked at it.  Note that if the move-pair g4 and h6 is inserted, Black can respond to 12.Ne4 Nxe4! due to the weakness of White's king position caused by g4.

I agree with Glenn here -- part of White's compensation arises from the fact that he has the f-file along which to generate pressure; indeed it is the main feature of the position, and so these comparisons are somewhat misleading.

I already mentioned that move-orders are not important (see my 5th paragraph above). The position has crystallized.
The point is that Black answers g4 by h6, denying White his f-file target, and has a good Rubinstein (the material deficit will make itself felt).

If White castles kingside, Black castles queenside, and it appears that with g4 White started play on the wrong side (something like b2-b4 in a yugoslav attack).

Glenn Snow says : "I don't think White's only compensation in these variations comes only from his open f-file. He also usually has a lead in development and a space advantage."

We can reason by comparison with the Rubinstein, which is an OK structure for Black, albeit passive. How does the absence of the f-pawn modify the plans ?

Firstly, the absence of the f-pawn does not increase White's space advantage, which is the minimal 4 ranks to 3 we find in very respectable openings like Caro-kan. It's not an advantage by itself if Black has no weaknesses.

What about development ? Well, you know a lead in development is something ephemeral. It tends to vanish if we don't exploit it by energetic actions. Here if White simply lets Black catch up with Nbd7, Qc7 & castling, he'll be worse bacause of the material deficit. (Contrary to the Rubinstein where the equal material & 2 bishops give him hopes of a slow win.) That's why in the analyses conducted so far, White rushed forward like a bull with g4-g5-g6 or Nb5. Nb5 was an occasion that does not present itself twice, by missing it White gets gradually worse.

8.g4 is preferred precisely beacuse it's the most energetic. Other moves don't change White's menu : attack a weakness (f7) before Black is fully developed. So g4 will be played anyway. But by ...h6 Black frustrates the whole plan. So I don't see what White will do while Black develops by natural moves.

In my view, without f-file play the absence of the f-pawn is unjustified and, even if White can try to muddy waters, the position must be assessed as better for Black. I believe I have backed up my view enough, so the ball is in White's camp if he is to challenge it.
That being said, anyone is free to be satisfied with any position.


P.S. Of course, I agree with Scholar that if one wants to refute this gambit it's simpler (and more active) to play 'Caro-kan' with 5...Bf5, but here we're rather investigating the role of f2-pawn in Rubinstein system (quite a seminar!)

I respect that SevenViolets.  Thank you for sharing as much of your personal analysis as you have.  I'll probably still post my analysis soon to see if someone else can prove equality or better for White after 8.g4 h6.

I don't think White's only compensation in these variations comes only from his open f-file.  He also usually has a lead in development and a space advantage.  In remains to be seen if this is sufficient enough.  Personally I now think the main-line of 8.Be3 offers White better chances than 8.g4 but I'm waiting to see what "SevenViolets" has to offer for the White cause.  If someone doesn't beat me to it, Ill post what analysis I have which I believe indicates a Black advantage.