Uberdecker wrote on 05/10/06 at 16:32:13:


A bishop at c8 or d7 gives you the delightful privilege of having a bad piece, enfoiré. That means, breaks with c5 or e5 can only make it better, instead of weakening your light squares. The worse are your pieces, the more active you have to be...
In a fortress, all your pieces are good & complementary, so you keep the statu-quo like a bloody bureaucrat. You really can't build socialism with one bishop. 
 
The Paleolithic Attack with Ne5 & g4 must wait for e7-e6, since 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.g4 ?! is not impressive, as is not 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4 4.Ne4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Nf6 Nf6 7.Ne5 ?! 
In Sokolov-Karpov 1987, Black answered 7...Be6! showing the pachyderm that, instead of threatening g4, he just walked into the Exchange Circus. 
 
Uberdecker wrote on 05/10/06 at 16:32:13:


Plus, ou moins... Chess could well be utter crap and unable to punish d4 d5 e4. This is due to the fact the game has been constructed by primitive accumulation of arbitrary rules (castling & en passant were designed by medieval peasants to speed up the boring thing).
As a result, we have chaotic behaviour. For example, 2 Knights draw Queen but 2 Bishops lose, many endings are turned upside down by a minor modification (position of one pawn, translation of one file...) 
We can explain these oddities afterwards by calling them "inner logic of the game", but it all remains illogical to us since we can't predict anything with that. 
 
But Uber must be right. If chess was permeable enough to allow d4 d5 e4, our medieval fellows would have probably fixed the leak with another sauce in the sandwich. 
 
                                                                                                      El 'Sugar Rey', J.H. Tart.

Bien vu

En fait, je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord avec mon ami J.H. TarteAuSucre. La structure Rubinstein est moins passive et forteressesque si les noirs ont échangé le Fou de cases blanches que s'il était resté en -c8 ou -d7. En -f5 il paraît bien placé, mais il y a toujours cette foutue attaque cro-magnon avec Ce5 et g4.
[b]Je sais [/b]que j'ai raison et que le BDG est perdant, car les échecs demeurent malgré tout un jeu plus ou moins logique. Mais prouver de telles choses contre un fin tacticien comme vous, mon cher Arkhein,est une pratique fatigante. Je préfère me coucher et laisser cette tâche au grand Sugar "Ray" Tart.

Dear Sugartart,

  I think Ziegler and Teichmann's electoral programs are exactly the same : they promise to rid us of the ignoble BDG beast. Now we all know that once one of them gets elected, there is no guarantee that they will keep their word. It is the people's lot to continually get it up their rear end...

                                                                   Regards,
                                                                      Hubert "the Black" N. Deker
    
P.S. Alors enfoiré, tu boudes ou quoi ? Quand est-ce que tu passes pour que nous nous fassions une bouffe ou une analyse existencielle? (obligéééé)

Quote:


12.0-0 (or Rf1!?) 0-0 13.Qe4 g6 14.h4 Nd7 15.h5 Qe7 16.Rb1 Rab8 17.hxg6 fxg6 18.Rxf8 Kxf8 19.c4 e5 20.c5 Bc7 21.c3 Qe6 22.Rb2 Ba5 23.Bf1 Kg7 24.Rb3 Bc7 25.Rb2 Qf5 26.Qg2 and draw was a game played between Leisebein against Liebsch, corr 2005.

Sugartort, it seems to me you are running away from our topical line. Just a post ago you were arguin for three lines (as a good way for black) then I have sent an additional material here and right now, you´are already voting for Ziegler. I like it as it shows that we may somehow find good ways for white in all three lines (Nb4?, g4 h6 and g4 Qxd4 with Qd6). Leisebein´s games are very exciting.

I think we finally got to the core of the subject. Let me share my thoughts :

In a "normal" position, the disappearance of White's f-pawn would be playing with fire, because like Uberdeker said, the price for f-file pressure is too high : slow development (h3), dark-square weakness... 

So *why do we see Black unable to use these trumps* ?
The answer is clear to me : because Black is in a FORTRESS position.

Indeed, the chosen Rubinstein formation has one philosophy : give up the light-squared bishop and put the pawns on light squares, and wait. It's a middlegame fortress. You should hold and White can overpress, but YOU SHOULD NOT GO ACTIVE, because you will break your own fortress and the 2 bishops will speak.

So, White removes his f-pawn from the board, and plays slow moves like h3. But YOU CANNOT EXPLOIT IT BY ACTIVE PLAY, because you're hiding in your fortress. White can afford to slowly build f-file play beacuse you're passive, you simply watch the events from your castle.
That said, the absence of the f-pawn cuts many white options against the fortress (he can't rush the f-pawn, he can't exchange too much...) so Black should be confident in his defence (but must still wait an overpress to win).

In conclusion : in this Rubinstein position, the punishment for giving up the f-pawn is not a quick Morphy massacre by Black (he needs 2 bishops to do that). The punishment is that White's long term prospects against the Black Bunker are perhaps less rosy, in any case he has put all his eggs in the "f-file pressure basket" (hence the pair g4-h6). That's why the onus is on White to find breakthrus, his moves are harder and require imagination. He can be tempted if he sees a draw. 

Like I already said, I like active chess and playing for the win with Black, so I'd definitely prefer 5...Bf5 over this fortress stuff. But Uberdeker's way puts some practical questions to White's concept.