??? - is this guy for real?

The Luther-Senf game given in Experts is convenient as Black just crumbles with some weak moves, but actually the endgame seems fully playable.

Instead of 16...Rf8?! 16...b5 going active is better:

Gormally,D (2478) - Collins,S (2381) [B96]
Hilton Premier Blackpool ENG (8), 08.08.2003

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nc6 8.e5 h6 9.Bh4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.fxe5 g5 13.Bg3 Nd7 14.0-0-0 Bg7 15.Be2 Ke7 16.Bh5 b5 17.Ne4 Nxe5 18.Rhe1 Rd8 19.Rxd8 Kxd8 20.Nd6 f6 21.Ne8 Bh8 22.Nxf6 Bxf6 23.Bxe5 Bxe5 24.Rxe5 Ra7 25.Bf3 Rf7 26.Kd2 Rf5 27.Re3 Rc5 28.Rc3 Rxc3 29.Kxc3 Kc7 30.Kd4 Kd6 31.b4 e5+ 32.Ke3 Be6 33.a3 Bd5 34.Bg4 Be6 35.Be2 Bd5 36.g3 Be6 37.Ke4 Bg8 38.Ke3 Bf7 39.Bg4 Be6 40.Bd1 Bg8 41.c3 Bf7 42.a4 Bd5 43.axb5 axb5 44.Be2 Kc6 45.h4 gxh4 46.gxh4 Kb6 47.Bd3 Bc6 48.Be4 ½-½

I think Black is actually fully equal here, which kind of puts me off the whole 6.Bg5 repertoire of Luther

While being an excellent theoretical work, Luther's article in Experts vs. the Sicilians misses some explanations which would be benefittal for weaker players or newcomers to Bg5 (like me). First I misunderstood the post and thought you were talking about 14. ... Bb4+, when 15.c3!? is strong. Then play should transpose to the Adams-Anand game.
After 15. ... Bb4+, 16.Ke2 seems illogical because it hampers white's development.
So I looked at 16.Kf2 0-0, and now 17.Be2 to complete the development looks better. Then after 17. ... f5?! 18.ef6: Nf6: 19.Nf6: Rf6:+ white has the option to block the f-line with the bishop, with an edge.
About french fan's  post: I think Luther-Senff is convinving for white. Are there any improvements I don't know?

The big idea is that after the natural 16.Kf2, black has 16...0-0 17.c4 f5!? which seems to give black good play. White must then play the critical 18.ef, as everything else loses - 18.cd ef+ 19.Ke3 ed and black is a pawn up with a great position; 18.Nd2/Nd6 Nc3 19.Rany f4 20.Bh4 g5 and black wins a piece.

However, after 18.ef Nxf6! things get very complicated. White has two options, the first of which is to just take the rook. But after 19.Bxb8 Nxe4+ 20.Ke3 Nf2! 21.Be2 Nxh1 22.Rxh1 c5! intending ...Bb7 against any white reply, black ought to hold the ending without too much trouble. I think that the alternative 19.Ke3 (19.Nd6? Ne4+ {...Nd5+ seems to win as well} 20.Ke3 Nxg3 21.hg Rd8-+) is more promising, but black still has a lot of options - arguably the most interesting is 19...Nxe4 20.Kxe4 e5!? after which black's more active pieces and tactics against the white king give him good play - indeed, if the pawn is captured black gets a winning attack.

The other move is 16.Ke2, but after either ...0-0 or ...Nc3+ black should be ok. White's lack of development is quite significant - it will take a further three moves for his king's rook to become active, which ought to give black enough time to organise some counterplay along the d-file. A sample line is 16...0-0 17.Kf3 (17.c4 Ne7 18.Nd6 f5!? is fine for black, I feel - 17.Kf3 keeps some pressure on the a6-pawn) f5!? (black is going to need some counterplay) 18.ef (18.Nd6 Bxd6 19.ed f4! 20.Be1!? {probably the best square, as it controls a5 and c3 - on f2 the bishop allows some tactics with ...e5 and ...e4} and now ...Ne3 is unclear, but other moves are certainly possible such as the blunt 20...Rd8 ) and now 18...Ra8!? may be best, when the position remains unlear. Purists would say that white is better, but I think that black's activity will compensate for his worse structure.

Does this analysis hold water?

Tom

As this has been my defense to 1.e4 since Tony's book came out, I'd like to try to keep this going if possible.

A starting point can be taken from Luther's section from 'Experts,' in which he cites the game Adams-Anand, Linares 1997, which goes as follows:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nc6 8.e5! h6 9.Bh4 de 10.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 11.Rxd1 bc 12.fe Nd5 13.Ne4 Rb8 14.b3 Be7 15.Bg3! and now 15...0-0 was played. The note to move 14 was that "14...g5?! making the check on b4 happen is not worth weakening the structure." However, what if it can be played without? 15...Bb4+!? is an annoying move for white to meet, and most lines seem to leave black in a perfectly good position - indeed, one with decent chances if only because e5 is slightly weak. What are peoples' immediate reaction to this?

Analysis to follow when I've got more time - must be off for the moment!

Tom

Why, if you take this attitude, do you contribute to the Forum at all? How do you think it benefits yourself or others to do so?

It's up to us, you say, whether we believe you or not. Well quite! -- but how COULD we believe you when you don't even suggest any themes or ideas, let alone give any supporting analysis! I'm confused!

Would you care to provide some supporting analysis, or do you expect us to take your statement on faith alone?   ???