Sevenviolets, there's no need to be so aggressive...

Firstly, I've not yet put this position on a board, much less analysed it with Fritz (I do the majority of my posting, and therefore my analysis, in work). My assessment is purely based on activity versus material - as I say I've not looked at it closely, but certainly white is a long way from winning, and he has no rooks on the 7th here. I will look at this properly this evening, but my gut feeling is that black's position should be defensible. If this should prove to be the case, then white needs to be able to win his material back. Still, I agree with all that's been previously said, 10...Nb4 is certainly not best, and if it were me playing black, I would have almost certainly chopped on d4 on move 8 (after working out how the hell I got into a BDG in the first place!). My sole point was that your label seemed a trifle dogmatic and unnecessary. Besides, isn't there a school of thought that when you're under attack, quite often it's better to defend with your developed forces rather than try to catch up in development? I'm unsure, but it's all a moot point since clearly 8...Qxd4 is critical for the survival of the 8.g4 line. It certainly needs to be looked at more deeply. 

My only observation was that it's coming across (perhaps inadvertantly) as though you're looking for arguments here, rather than just a discussion... I'm just trying to cool things down before things get out of hand - outside chess, prophylaxis is still a virtue... 

CraigEvans wrote on 03/23/06 at 09:58:55:


Maybe it is a bit harsh but it is my opinion. Take it or leave it. You can perhaps invent and apply thousands other chess principles to support this move but simply black is moving its only (!) developed piece trying to exchange it?! It is funny. It is a patzer move. The same idea and more fast is 10..Nxc3, now black successes in exchanging a piece, a knight which is often very dangerous in these lines when on e4. That´s not about "relieving the pressure against black´s kingside", black should seek ways to castle queenside, sometimes giving back f7-pawn, sometimes play simply Rf8. Equality in this position is what he is fighting for. 

Look at 1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4 e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3 Nb4 11.0–0 Qxd4+ 12.Be3 Qd7 13.Rad1 Qe7 14.g6 f6 15.Qh5 h6 16.a3 Nxd3 17.Rxd3 f5 18.Rfd1 Qf6 19.Bd4 Qg5+ 20.Qxg5 hxg5 21.Re1 and tell me what´s wrong with this endgame? White is simply better. 

O.K. black is two pawns up, but have no pieces developed! Activity of rooks is the most vital component of every endgame, sometimes this is worth a piece. See e.g. some lines in Marshall gambit where black is two pieces down, with his rooks on the second rank, yet white is fighting for draw. 

My assesement of the position after 21.Re1 is +/= and as far as I can see it is a correct assesement. Of course you need to look at this position a bit, not to look only on evaluation of your Fritz9 because it is 0.00 right now. Try 21..Nd7 22.Rxe6 and it is still 0.00, well, continue with 22..Kd8 23.Bxg7 still 0.00, then add 23..Bxg7 24.Red6 still 0.00, then 24..Ke7 25.Rxd7 still 0.00. It is hard to believe, well, the final try 25..Kf6 26.R3d6+ Ke5 27.Kg2 with a difficult position for black. White threatens with something like Nd1-f2-d3 and Fritz9 finally leaves his 0.00 evaluation.

And maybe even much better is 23.Kg2! leaving white with dream-like activity of all his pieces.

[quote author=Uberdeker(Guest) link=1064964543/60#70 date=1143038627]Dear SevenViolets,

I have no interest in a verbal feud with you. If you have anger or frustration to vent, for whatever reason, please direct it elsewhere. 
[u]+[/u] is the notation I have always come across when references were made to a large White advantage, and even if this is truly what you meant, it is still grossly optimistic for White.
I have already expressed my aknowledgement that 10. ...Ktb4 is doubtful, but the  positional basis of this "patzer move" (played without sight of the board) was the removal of the dangerous Bd3 and not merely to "exchange pieces" which is, I might add, the only motive of your suggestion 10. ...Ktxc3.
 
I don't mind other contributors sharing their thoughts on the game, but you simply took the matter into your own hands, which was rather disrespectful of Arkhein, who has obviously analysed this line rather thoroughly.

Feel free to "share knowledge" on 18. ...Qf6, but please no more abuse. 

                                                               Regards,
                                                                     UD[/quote]


O.K. You are right, but please, do not misinterpret me again. Don´t say I did say something what I didn´t (that white is winning). I don´t like this way of discussing.   

Hubert said: "but you simply took the matter into your own hands, which was rather disrespectful of Arkhein, who has obviously analysed this line rather thoroughly." No way. Please do not talk for ArkHein. If ArkHein analysed it thoroughly, it is great. How I can "disrespect" somebody by sending him additional analyses??? I respect him. I don´t respect those critics who are attacking BDG "without even looking properly on the board". A kind of critics like you. Sorry, no offense, but we are trying to do our best and you´re telling us only "Maybe it's time I put the position on the board!" or "played without sight of the board". This is ridiculous. I´m not disrespectful of ArkHein a tiny little bit. You´re disrespectfully wasting our time. Any other blindfold idea?

:-)

Dear Uberdeker,

When I analysed that position for the first time and gave my analysis somes months ago in this forum, I gave 18.Bf2 Qg5+ 19.Qxg5 hxg5 20.Re1 Ke7 21.Rde3 Kd7 22.Rxe6 Bd6 23.Bd4 with equality/unclear.

Now I think that 18.Bd4 is a little improvement over the previous line. But this is my move now which should transpose into 18.Bd4:

18.Rfd1 Qf6 (this is the move that SevenViolets could have missed) 19.Bd4! and I think it will follow like this : 19..Qg5+ 20.Qxg5 hxg5 21.Re1 and I think White is getting better and better (already equality to me, maybe +/=)

Edit: 21.Re3 is even better(I think White have a small advantage or more). Feel free to gives improvements for Black in theses lines if you think there are any, but we seems to agree that your research for a Black advantage failed with this line with 10..Nb5. Maybe you will begin to understand that having a "caro-kann" formation with 1 or 2 pawns up isn't sufficient to claim for an advantage, because in practice it's not so simple   

I am waiting for your others moves.

[quote author=Uberdeker(Guest) link=1064964543/60#68 date=1143023255] Dear Arkhein,

Now that I've had a proper look at the position, it does seem to me that the tactics work in White's favor, and I am forced to follow the line given by you and SevenViolets 14. g6 f6 15. Qh5 h6 16. a3 Nxd3 17. Rxd3 f5 18. Rfd1, but instead of 18. ...Kta6, I suggest 18. ...Qf6 when I agree with you and Craig that White probably has sufficient compensation for the pawns. On these grounds alone, the theoretical discussion on 10. ...Ktb4 may be resolved in your favor, since I was trying to prove a clear Black advantage.
However SevenViolets' assessment that White is winning is laughable and certainly doesn't justify his rude interruption of our game.
I must say all this tactical stuff is wearing me out a bit, but I'll try and give you my views on 10. ...Bb4/10. ...Be7/8. ...Qxd4 as soon as I have time. 

                                                                         Regards,
                                                                            Hubert[/quote]

Dear Uberdeker, 
    my assesement wasn´t "white is winning" but, if you read carefully, "white is better" and "white has compensation". Please, do not be upset by your misjudgement about your 10..Nb4? It is simply a patzer move,
often played by beginners who want to follow simple rule which says "if you have a pawn more - exchange pieces". 
Maybe you are not aware of an international chess notation? +/- means white has an advantage, not white is winning (+-). 
    And about my "rude interruption of our game". Well, it is a custom on this forum to share knowledge with others. Do not be totalitarian. We prefer finding best lines, if you want to win for any price, feel free to play blitz on playchess.com against some weaker opponents. It may satisfied you. Here you are not playing a game, but you are discussing a line. And everybody is free to express his/her attitude. 
Sincerely yours
SevenViolets
     

I've not put this position on a board yet (it would be difficult to do so in work), but I fail to believe that in an endgame two pawns down, which has the much better endgame. As far as I can calculate (and I could well have made an error, in which case ignore me), the queens are off, and while the Rf7 is active I don't believe white is better - he certainly has compensation for the pawns.
If I have time before my match tonight I may well look at all this properly - it doesn't seem clear to me that black doesn't have earlier improvements. Like the free second pawn after 8...Qxd4 

Regards,
Craig

Hello Sevenviolet, happy to see you back

To Uberdeker : Quote:


Game A) I follow the line gived by Sevenviolet(the same I took somes months ago in another thread) : 
             14.g6 f6 15. Qh5 h6 16. a3 Nxd3 17. Rxd3 (At this moment I don't totally agree with Sevenviolet, White will get equality or more  forcefuly by now according to my analysis, but +/- seems overrated. But I am sure about something: it is not that line for Black that will refute the BDG!)

If you think there were any improvement for Black in theses moves, give your move and I will change my line against it)

Game B) Still your turn (the line with 8.g4 Qxd4 9.Be3)