Hi Dragonslayer,

thanks again for giving some variations on the controversal Dutch Leningrad. I hope NIC will at least publish your analysis in the forum section and I look forward to any new information from you concerning the "ugly duckling"!

Best wishes,
Bentissimo

Dragonslayer,

last Sunday I had the Dutch opening on the board for the first time in an official game and without knowing anything of the theory I opted (after 7...Nc6) for 8.d5 Ne5 9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Qb3, but of course without the idea to play 11.e4 after eg 10...Kh8 (which in fact my opponent played). I've looked up a lot of the theory and ideas of this variation by now, but I am still wondering why 11.e4 after 10...Kh8 is so much stronger than immediately 10.e4. It seems to me that black can still play 11...f4 without too much trouble. Is it just the fact that Qb3 contributes more to white's position than Kh8 does to black's or is there some sort of refutation?

Thanks in advance,

Joris

Bentissimo, I think the idea behind 10...h6 is to play 11...g5. Since White has demonstrated his intention not to force the 10.e4 f4 sequence, Black cannot play ...g5. 10...h6 is preparation for this move to be followed by f5-f4, g5-g4 etc. but unfortunately 11.e4 f4 12.gxf4! throws a spanner in Black's face.

I am currently working on a reply to the editorial team of the NIC Yearbooks. The analysis is too long to be included in a letter so either I will convince them to print a part III of the Duckling or I will truncate the analysis to be included in an ordinary letter, which of course has the danger that people will question the missing detail.
A third option is to skip it totally and write a book on the ...Nc6 Leningrad instead (after I finish a KG project first). Any publishers on Chesspublishing.com ?? 
Since this variation is critical and I have met opponents that had read the Duckling articles, I am hesitant to give away all my analysis here (especially since there are a number of leeches lurking about, who never contribute anything worthwhile or a single new move but prefer to pontificate their "unique" understanding of the game - especially on gambits)
However I will reveal this much:
10.Qb3 e4 is the only convincing try. 10...e6 might be playable but needs more work.
After 10...e4 11.f3 exf3 Black equalizes with ...e5 at the correct moment (e.g. 12.exf3 e5!= equalizes immediately). White has one line that gives Black some trouble (but nothing too worrisome, Black should still draw) but I will leave it to the leeches to find it...
Another try is 11.c5 Kh8 12.Rd1 then Black needs to be careful not to transpose into a bad line (after 10.Qb3 Kh8 11.Rd1 and Black later plays ...e4, as in e.g. Gurevich-Miton; Cappelle la grande 1999, which was given by Sosonko in YB 71)
Some games continue 12...a6 which looks like tempo-loss, so does 12...h6. A better try is 12...b6 challenging White on the queenside.

I have recently changed from 8...Ne5 to 8...Na5. I think the Ne5 line is dubious after Nxe5 dse5 Qb3. I don't like Blacks position here, I had a painful experience where my opponent improved over one of my previous games on move 24!!! and I was left stuggling.
After 8...Na5 I must say that I think Black is doing fine, I have only played it once and I achieved a comfortable draw against GM Joe Gallagher. Dragonslayer, what is your/Kramnik's recommendation against Na5?

Quote:


Yes it is rather interesting...but not so interesting as your apparently 'innocent' comments.
I did not really want to respond this kind of comment but since there was a real question by feb I will reply to it (at the end, since I first have to deal with Wonderer's observations.)
Perhaps a few things can be appreciated:
1) I did not have any influence on the editorial part of the articles in CCN, e.g. publishing the whole Bishop's gambit in one big article, and I am well aware of the shortcomings of these articles, which were prepared under considerable time pressure. Quite unlike the article in CCN 45, which is considerably deifferent form the others.
2) The articles were primarily intended to be viewed in ChessBase and for a correspondence player audience, that I expect have their own databases. So the game quotations were simply intended to structure the games.
The .pdf version was offered for free to anyone that cared to download it. If you don't like it, then don't download it, don't read it, don't pass it on, don't save it to your hardisk, but don't put it down just because you did not want to pay the token amount to get the .cbv. file. I have had this kind of criticism before on this site and however you intended it to come out, it still feels like a kick in the face. 
3) I seem to remember an article, titled "Resurrecting the Kieseritzky" by M.Jensen (also for free on Thomas Stock's website) that did not contain so many game quotations and was not so easily refuted.
4) So maybe I am a bit touchy but the NIC Yearbook articles are obviously part of a professional product. This goes for:
presentation and editorial effort.
preparation of the final article before it goes to the editor.
Also, the NIC articles are in an entirely different format than the CCN articles. But since you have not read them how could you know? I don't care if you buy the NIC Yearbooks, but perhaps you might want to check the following links:

http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_periodical/nic_yearbook_66.asp?KATID=BO&Product...

http://seagaard.dk/review/eng/bo_periodical/nic_yearbook_68.asp?KATID=BO&Product...

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen52.pdf (page 17)

I don't understand posting like yours, why is it so hard to make your point without insulting people. You must know that I was going to read this post which makes your comments premeditated and leaves me wondering what the point is. Criticism based on lack of knowledge or ignorance is especially hard to accept, but since you have apparently looked at the CCN articles I suggest that maybe you also look at the end of the Bishop's gambit article, where you will find (seperated from the fog of game and analysis quotations) the theoretical overview/conclusions with references to relevant games.
(Perhaps if Henrik El-Kher had read this he would not have been so foolish to play 7.Qf3 in the main line against Beliavsky at the Copenhagen Open, and perhaps you can take some comfort that CCN has been discontinued so you will not be bothered with it in the future.)

Now for the real subject - the Leningrad Dutch articles in NIC 68 and 70 contain the conclusion that the line 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ne5 de5 10.e4 f4 11.b4 g5 is playable for Black. (That's why they are called the Ugly Duckling) The main lines are 12.Bb2 g4 and 12.Re1 a6 (or 12...Qe8)
11.gf4 ef4 12.e5 Ng4 13.e6 Ne5 was dealt with by A.C. van der Tak in a previous Yearbook.
Now there is only a problem with 10.Qb3! with the idea 10...Kh8 11.e4! or 10...h6 11.e4. So Black has to play 10...e6 or 10...e4. Perhaps, when I get time I will write the NIC people a letter on the critical line 10.Qb3 e4 11.f3.
Btw. the move-order Dragonplayer originally gave: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 g6 is a bit dodgy due to 3.h4. Better is 2...Nf6 and then 3...g6.

Hi again.

Just wanted to mention that I recently played in a tournament where I met the Leningrad Nc6 variation twice against mediocre opponents (Elo around 2150)! Once with d5 Na5 and the other with Ne5. Both times I played the recommended lines in Khalifmans book, the opponents went astray and They didn't stand a chance

In the Na5 variation I just won both the c-pawns without giving him a chance, in the Ne5 variation I played the recommended Qb3, and after h6 Nd4 a6 f4 Nf7 e3 Qe8 Bd2 Nd8 I soon forced through e4 and mated him shortly =)

I looked at these variations a long time ago but now I finally got to try them and now I feel secure in the Leningrad Dutch!!

Still no improvements on the Bykov-Tolush game? I am a bit disappointed.