Ok, in the game Bacrot v. Vaisser analyzed on chesspub, it says that white found new move 22. 0-0-0 that gives them large advantage. However, If move 24 black play Rf5 instead of b4, it appears that fritz gives black +1.5... Is there a mistake in analysis??

There is also the related idea to 11 .. Nce7 of 10 .. Nce7. This suffices to defend vs Ng5 and can turn independent if black doesn't put his queen on c7. It's certainly tempting to keep the option of Qe8/Qa5 in one move if possible.
(Although there then isn't a bishop on e3 to hit with Nf5!).

Eg:
11 h4 Qa5 12 Bd2 c4 13 Bxg6 fg 14 Qg4 Qa4 ^ 15 h5 Qxc2/ Qe8 if white defends c2. (or maybe Qxa3 - might be too risky).
The sacrifice known from 10 .. Qc7 11 h4 c4 doesn't seem to work here with black defending g6.
Kindermann and Dirr give another line here for black which they also think is fine.

11 Bg5 is both logical and annoying for black since he has to defend the e7 knight with his queen & unpin. So Qc7 or Qe8 I suppose.

11 dxc5 is the main line if anything is. Black then seems to depend on 11 .. b6 working. 

12 Be3 Qc7 is back to the 11 .. Nce7 lines (and meant to be OK) so white's got 12 c6 or 12 cxb6.

c6 was what happened in the only GM game I know of which reached this (Lutz - Pelletier, Zurich 2002) which turned very random indeed after 12 .. Qc7 13 o-o f5 14 ef gf 15 c4 etc.
Psahkis suggests 13 .. Qxc6 14 c4 Bb7 which seems a little calmer

After 12 cb Psahkis just says Black has an easy game. 
I assume that black goes Ba6 swaps on d3, provokes d4 by hitting e5 and pummels away at a3 & c3.

This certainly looks to be enough to make it hard for white to do anything with his extra pawn. One question to ask is whether black has any realistic winning chances here. He's got to keep some bits defending the kingside. White might also be able to avoid playing d4 when life is harder.

Still this seems interesting to play and I think 11 Bg5 might be most worrying. Unless I've missed something this line does look interesting though.

What about:
 
1. e4 e6 
2. d4 d5 
3. Nc3 Bb4 
4. e5 c5 
5. a3 Bc3 
6. bc Ne7 
7. Qg4 0-0 
8. Bd3 Nbc6 
9. Qh5 Ng6 
10. Nf3 Qc7 
11. Be3 c4 
12. Bg6 fg 
13. Qg4 Bd7 
14. h4 Rf5 
15. h5 gh 
16. Rh5 Raf8! Watson says that this is 'dicey' but i disagree 
 
This seems solid enough and Nh4 ideas stopping Be8-g6 ideas seem to be met by Rf2. Does anyone have any white responses that lead to any advantage?

Had I already posted following variation ? (don't know)...

Hull Chess Club web site gives 17..Rf8 (instead of Watson's Be8!? ... sorry for Watson, my current page for his book  is 51) and I have game reference: Ionov-Seglenko 1999.

18.Qh3 Rxf3!? 19.Qxf3 Be8 20.Qh3 Qd7 21.a4 Bg6 22.Kd1 Na5 23.Bc1 Bf5 and so on

or

18.Kd2 Be8 19.Qg4 Qe7 20.Rh1 Bg6 and draw for Heer,B-Kipper,J/Crailsheimer op 1998 game and HullChessClub and I prefer Black

HullChessClub idea 18...Rxf3!? to give the exchange is a good idea. 

To add one more note: for recent game look at Bacrot-Apicella,Belfort 2004 with 15.Ng1!?

One task I found practically IMPOSSIBLE is to learn all the sidelines of the Winawer to prepare for OTB. White has so many different attempts to avoid the main hertneck line and they all require a different/switch of plans from Black. Some of these sidelines are dangerous. I actually lost a few games to harmless (?)positional continuations like 7. Nf3/ 7. a4, and even earlier deviations like 5. Bd2 is not easy to meet. 

I prefer to play moves that are largely the same regardless of what White does.. my brain is not a hard disk!  Hence 3.. Nf6 is more palatable.

Quote:


will look at this and reply later... I like analysing the winawer but hate playing it!! After trying winawer for years i've had nothing but suffering over the board   

I found watson's recommendations in the Winawer not very suitable for me. The Hertneck line suffers from all the problems raised in this forum, and the alternative line with 8... f5 is so loosening imho. It's uncomfortable with so many seemingly weak squares around my king. Furthermore black is frequently expected to play ...e5. My king feels naked.

Therefore i am using Watson's Nf6/dxe4 burn lines instead, more solid and suitable for a caro player.

When Watson's 3rd ed came out I analysed the hertneck variation fairly deeply with his book, and around that time the New in Chess yearbooks happen to cover that line too. I also read Antti's post here and remember agreeing with him. 

One conclusion is for sure though: White's position is always much easier to play than Black's, regardless of "thereotical" equality.

Hi!

Unfortunately not. I used this time the old-fashioned board and 
brains(?) method.   

Antti

Hi!

Well, I indeed tried even this  h6-g5 idea, but obviously I'm
reluctant to play such moves.

Your Bg8-h7-idea eacaped my eye, but it indeed seems too
slow.

One line goes 19.Bg5 Bf7 20.Kd2 Qd7 21. Nh4  Nc6 22.Rf1 Rf8 23.g4 Ne7 24.f4 h6 (24.-Ng6 might hold, but 25.Nf3 Ne7 26.Bxe7 Qxe7 27. Ng5 h6 28.Nxf7 must be somewhat better for white) 25.Bxe7 Qxe7 26.a4! with an attack, or 23.-Qe8 24.Be3 (23.f4!? h6 24.Bxh6 gh 25.f5 with attack) Ne7 25.f4
Ng6 26.Nf3 Ne7 and black seems ok.

Your  23.Qh3 seems very interesting too, so I think black has
considerable problems to solve in this line.

Antti Koponen

In the recent book by Watson the Hertneck variation
has been suggested in the Winawer. 

1.e4 e6 ....7.Qg4 0-0 8.Bd3 Nbc6 9.Nf3 Qc7 the main line
goes 10.Be3 c4 11.Bxg6 fg 12.Qg4 Bd7 13.h4 Rf5 
14.h5 gh 15.Rxh5 

Here Watson suggests
15.-Rxh5 16.Qxh5 Be8!? 17.Qh3 Nd8 claiming 
relatively easy equality (or better) against 
18. Ng5 or 18.Kd2 

The best might be 18.Bg5! Bf7 (forced) 19. Kd2 Qd7
(Watson), and now I think a big improvement is
20.Nh4! preventing Bg6.

After some five hours of analysis I have to say 
that black has absolutely no changes of winning but
he migth hold on. White has easy plan: g4,Rf1,Be3,f4
f4-f5 being threatened.    

What do you think?


Antti Koponen

P.S. I'm indeed the guy mentioned in the Introduction
of this book!