Hello,

I like to comment on Tony's comment regarding Najdorf with the dubious Nc6?! line and the big busts that are possible to just completely crush black.

In computerchess the professionals, without too much preparement yet, have already found some sidelines such as Qd3, and will find even more in future, if it would get played at a professional level.

In fact if you are lucky with black, you transpose of course with the Nc6 line to richter rauzer with black 1 tempo down because of playing a dubious a6 move.

If you look in current existing theory books, of course in richter rauzer playing a6 too quickly usually is leading to a +- path.

Qd3 might not be the best move for white, but it sure is enough to get a solid advantage with white against the Nc6?! line.

If you play Qd3 in richter rauzer like happened in Shredder-Diep, then black has serious kingsafety problems. Somehow in the game diep survived this. Shredder for sure missed better opportunities there. 

Later on of course in the game Shredder still won it, though that's not relevant. 

Relevant is the opening, in that black plays najdorf with a6, then later on transposes to richter rauzer with a tempo down for black. Only if utmost lucky, black can get into one of the richter rauzer mainlines.

I remember a game Diepeveen-Jeroen Piket. Jeroen was trembling entire game from nerves when playing me in the richter rauzer. IMHO even the normal mainlines in richter rauzer already are +-

Just completely over that mainline. Some big GM's have played it, sure, but at correspondence level or any serious computerchesslevel white simply wins exchange runs with king forward at the queenside and wins.

Qd3 is an obvious move that gives a solid advantage as it seems. I'm convinced however there is better lines possible for white. Because of course we secretly prepared this at world champs level computerchess, which is a far higher level than most GM's prepare themselves, i will of course not publicly publish here the 'bigger' busts that are possible against the dubious Nc6? line in najdorf.

For now already Qd3 as played by shredder first needs to get refuted by black, and so far i haven't seen any analysis here that makes any impression.

(4) Shredder - Diep   
12th WCCC, Rabat Gan, 2004   
  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Nc6 8.   
Qd3 Bd7 9. O-O-O Rc8 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. f5 Be7 12. fxe6 fxe6 13. Kb1 O-O 14.   
Qh3 Bd7 15. e5 dxe5 16. Bd3 h6 17. Bd2 Qb6 18. Ka1 Bc5 19. Ne4 Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Rf6 21.   
Bg5 Bd4 22. c3 hxg5 23. Qh7+ Kf8 24. cxd4 exd4 25. Rhf1 Be8 26. Bg6 Bxg6 27.   
Qh8+ Ke7 28. Qxc8 Be8 29. Qc2 Bb5 30. Rfe1 d3 31. Qc3 Kf7 32. g4 Rf2 33. a4   
Bxa4 34. Rxd3 Bb5 35. Rf3+ Rxf3 36. Qxf3+ Kg8 37. Kb1 Qd6 38. Rd1 Qe7 39.   
Qb3 Be2 40. Rd4 Bb5 41. Qe3 Bc6 42. Rd2 e5 43. Kc1 Qe6 44. b3 Qe7 45. Kb2 e4 46.   
Rf2 Qd6 47. h3 Kh7 48. Rf5 Qh2+ 49. Kc3 Qc7 50. Rxg5 Bd5+ 51. Kb2 Qh2+ 52.   
Kb1  Qh1+ 53. Qc1 Qxc1+ 54. Kxc1 Bxb3 55. Re5 Kg6 56. Kb2 Ba4 57. Rxe4 Bc6   
58. Re5  Kf6 59. Rf5+ Ke7 60. h4 Bd7 61. Rf4 Be6 62. h5 Bf7 63. Kc3 Be8 64. Rc4 Kd6   
65.  Rc8 Bf7 66. Rh8 Be6 67. g5 b5 68. h6 gxh6 69. gxh6 Bf5 70. Kb4 Kd5 71.   
Ra8 Ke5  72. Rxa6 Bh7 73. Ra7 Bd3 74. h7 Bxh7 75. Rxh7 Kf5 76. Kxb5 1-0 

FM Vincent Diepeveen
diep@xs4all.nl

What about 8. Qd2 trying to transpose into the Rauzer. Can black profit from white's early f4 commitment? I mean white often plays f4 at move 9 anyway in the Rauzer. If it turns out that all sharp refutation tries like e5 and Nxc6 simply fails to give any advantage then white should perhaps try a solid move instead.

CheckMate

Quote:

Well, I've had several games go 14...Qe3+ 15.Qe2 Qxe2+ 15.Bxe2 dxe5 16.Bxe5 Rh4 17.Nf6+ Nxf6 18.Bxf6 Be7, after which an ending is reached where black is not really any worse. Seems like as good a line as any, at any rate.

Tom

Hello:

I present myself: I was the responsible of the Diep Book for 3 years. Diep is a chess program by Vincent Diepeveen.

It is interesting GM Tony Kosten doesn´t mention the move 8. Qd3, which transpose to B62. He mentions two games played by Diep against Quark and Movei in different Computer Tournaments in his updated material about this variation.

However, I don´t see clear how Black can save the problems after 8. Qd3!?

Next, I will point out two games lost by Diep against Shredder in 2 different Computer Tournaments:


(4) Shredder - Diep
12th WCCC, Rabat Gan, 2004
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Nc6 8.
Qd3 Bd7 9. O-O-O Rc8 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. f5 Be7 12. fxe6 fxe6 13. Kb1 O-O 14.
Qh3 Bd7 15. e5 dxe5 16. Bd3 h6 17. Bd2 Qb6 18. Ka1 Bc5 19. Ne4 Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Rf6 21. 
Bg5 Bd4 22. c3 hxg5 23. Qh7+ Kf8 24. cxd4 exd4 25. Rhf1 Be8 26. Bg6 Bxg6 27. 
Qh8+ Ke7 28. Qxc8 Be8 29. Qc2 Bb5 30. Rfe1 d3 31. Qc3 Kf7 32. g4 Rf2 33. a4 
Bxa4 34. Rxd3 Bb5 35. Rf3+ Rxf3 36. Qxf3+ Kg8 37. Kb1 Qd6 38. Rd1 Qe7 39.
Qb3 Be2 40. Rd4 Bb5 41. Qe3 Bc6 42. Rd2 e5 43. Kc1 Qe6 44. b3 Qe7 45. Kb2 e4 46. 
Rf2 Qd6 47. h3 Kh7 48. Rf5 Qh2+ 49. Kc3 Qc7 50. Rxg5 Bd5+ 51. Kb2 Qh2+ 52.
Kb1  Qh1+ 53. Qc1 Qxc1+ 54. Kxc1 Bxb3 55. Re5 Kg6 56. Kb2 Ba4 57. Rxe4 Bc6
58. Re5  Kf6 59. Rf5+ Ke7 60. h4 Bd7 61. Rf4 Be6 62. h5 Bf7 63. Kc3 Be8 64. Rc4 Kd6
65.  Rc8 Bf7 66. Rh8 Be6 67. g5 b5 68. h6 gxh6 69. gxh6 Bf5 70. Kb4 Kd5 71.
Ra8 Ke5  72. Rxa6 Bh7 73. Ra7 Bd3 74. h7 Bxh7 75. Rxh7 Kf5 76. Kxb5 1-0

I must also mention Diep got the 3rd. place in Rabat Gan, 2004.

Though diep in 2003 ran at a 1024 processor machine, it was a lot weaker by those days. 512 processors don't help much then:

(6) Shredder - Diep [B96]   
WCCC 2003 Graz (2), 23.11.2003   
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Nc6 8.Qd3
Bd7 9.0-0-0 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.Bg3 Qc7 13.Be2 gxf4 14.Bxf4 0-0-0
15.Rhf1 Be7 16.Kb1 h5 17.g3 Ng4 18.h3 Ne5 19.Qd4 f6 20.Qa7 Rh7 21.Qf2 Rdh8
22.Qd4 Be8 23.Qa7 Rg8 24.Kc1 Bc6 25.Rd2 h4 26.g4 Rf8 27.Rfd1 Rhf7 28.g5 Qb8
29.Qxb8+ Kxb8 30.Rxd6 Bxd6 31.Rxd6 Kc8 32.gxf6 Ng6 33.Bh6 Rxf6 34.Bxf8 Nxf8
35.e5 Rf4 36.Bg4 Rxg4 37.hxg4 h3 38.Rd2 Bg2 39.Ne2 Nh7 40.Ng3 Ng5 41.Rf2
Nf3 42.Kd1 Nxe5 43.g5 Kd7 44.b3 Bf3+ 45.Kd2 Bg2 46.Ke2 Ke7 47.c4 a5 48.Nf1
a4 49.bxa4 b6 50.Nh2 Bc6 51.Rf4 Bxa4 52.Nf3 Ng6 53.Rf6 Bc2 54.Kf2 Nf8
55.Nd4 Be4 56.Kg3 Bg2 57.a4 Be4 58.Kxh3 Bb7 59.Kg4 Be4 60.Kh5 e5 61.Nf5+
Bxf5 62.Rxf5 e4 63.Rxf8 Kxf8 64.Kg4 e3 65.Kf3 e2 66.Kxe2 Kf7 67.c5 bxc5
68.a5 Kg6 69.Kd3 1-0 

Vincent Diepeveen and me emailed GM. Tony Kosten about his opinion on this move. We appreciate your feedback as an expert of the move 7. .... Nc6.

Kind regards, Arturo Ochoa.

yes this is a nice sequence - looks like 20.Nc5!! is actually the new suggestion by Tony, as the whole thing was played before in a game Reeh(2420)-Jensen, Hamburg 1999 - In that game Reeh could find nothing more that 20.Bg3 Ne5 21.Bf2 Nd7 22.Bg3 repeating moves and agreeing to a draw against his lower rated opponent.

I think it shows the influence of computers more and more that these things are becoming more and more worked out.  I still think the choice of 6.Bg5 is quite a stylistic one as for example this was a very minor sideline but White really has to have a concrete sequence memorised as proved by the games played.
I agree with TopNotch that 6.Bg5 is a dangerous choice, but provided White really knows his stuff backwards - other repertoire choices like the popular 6.Be3 go for a bit more controlled agression. whereas I think 6.Bg5 is very much the brute force memorisation approach - not that I have anything against that if you can do it!

French Fan, I did not mean to offend you, its just that I have grown so tired of Lazy players who dismiss an authors work without really having done the neccessary due diligence of their own.  

Thomas Luther is one of the World's foremost 6.Bg5 specialists, and while that does not mean that his analysis is beyond reproach, it would certainly give me cause for pause before I start spouting things like "I think Black is actually fully equal here, which kind of puts me off the whole 6.Bg5 repertoire of Luther" and "His analysis does not stand up".

As I said in another thread, I forget which one now, as there are so many dealing with the 'Experts vs The Sicilian' book, Thomas Luther's chapter on the Najdorf featuring 6.Bg5 is one of the best in the entire work. If you find the appropriate thread you will see my reasons for this assesment.

Furthermore, the game you cite, namely Gormally vs Collins is certainly not the final word in this ending. In fact the ending that you so loudly proclaim to be fully equal, is actually extremely dangerous for Black. Here is the proof:

Gormally D [2478] - Collins S [2381] [B96] 
Hilton Premier Blackpool ENG (, 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 dxe511.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.fxe5 g5 13.Bg3 Nd7 14.0-0-0 Bg7 15.Be2 Ke7 16.Bh5 b5 17.Ne4?! (Much stronger was 17.Rhf1!, see analysis below for details) 17...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 

According to Tony Kosten White could have set black some far more serious problems in the above game with: 

17.Rhf1! Rf8 18.Ne4!TN (Threatening 19.Nf6) 18...Nxe5 19.Bf2 Nd7 20.Nc5 Ne5 21.Nd3 Nd7 22.Bf3 Rb8 23.Nb4 Winning for White! What is worse is that Black's moves seem virtually forced after 18.Ne4! 

I must say that I have checked Tony's analysis, and I totally agree with his verdict. Quite frankly 'Serious problems for Black' may well be an understatement. So for French fan to comment that "The Luther-Senf game given in Experts is convenient as Black just crumbles with some weak moves, but actually the endgame seems fully playable" is wholly unjustified and does not do credit to either player. I hope that you can see now that black has some genuine and very difficult problems to solve in this line. 

In future French fan, I would caution against blindly citing games and drawing difinitive conclusions from them, without first doing a careful analysis.

I hope this post has been 'Real' and 'Uncluttered' enough for you.

Top  

You are not for real as you have nothing constructive to say! This is a forum for analysis and ideas - you have nothing to contribute.

7...Nc6 may be a minor sideline, but the point is it is played by a lot of top players, and the recommendation by Luther does not stand up.

Incidentally I fully agree that Experts v Sicilian is an excellent book and I would recommend anybody to get it - but lets try and concentrate on something concrete and less of the opinionated stuff with nothing to back it up.

As for the French, well you really show your ignorance there! I suggest the moderator look more closely at your posts as they seem to be just causing clutter.