Bonsai wrote on 08/19/05 at 12:57:53:


Time to rehabiliate an old thread.

Been looking at the following recently: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qe2 Bd6!? 11.O-O-O 0-0 [Alternatively 11...Bg4 may also be playable] Khalifman does not consider either of these fairly natural continuations in his otherwise thorough Opening According to Anand series, and they both seem perfectly viable to me.

Am I missing something?

Tops

Bobby - forgive me! But in fairness as I recall you said this line was "busted" which is strong words indeed and calls for a defence - the line is perfectly playable for Black. 

what were the comments from GM Fontaine? Something along the lines of centre counter is rubbish and violates the general principles??

I could not remember my analysis as it more or less transposes in Smirin-Prie mentionned in the January update.
11...Qxc2 is the mistake opening the c file with fatal consequences eventually. 11...Nd7! waiting for 12.Rab1 Qxc2 now! is what I had in the computer giving both camps a headache
Similarly to Anand-Lautier refuted by Moriuchi-Prié 7 years later, I know I will get another chance to defend 8...Qb6...before possibly switching to 8...Qc7...

It is a nice attack but all the comments, with a special mention for GM Fontaine in the Europe-Echecs magazine, I have read on it, until that critical moment, are complete rubbish.    

Paddy wrote on 05/01/06 at 12:46:37:


Well not a position for the faint of heart, but I think with 12. ...Ba3, developing a piece and stopping Rac1 harrassing the Black Queen, Black is still in the game.

Paul123 wrote on 02/14/06 at 13:37:14:


"Today will be a day long remembered.  It has seen the end of Kenobi; it will soon see the end of the rebellion."  Darth Vader

Yes thats an idea - the systems for White where he plays d3 I classify as the "Mickey Mouse" systems. If Black plays weakly they work great, but theoretically I dont think White can hope for anything with this approach

Hello, I am new here.  I really enjoyed GM Prie's analysis in NIC 77 on one of the main lines of the scandinavian.
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bd2 e6 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qe2

Particularly the lines with 10... Bd6 11.0-0-0 Bg4 12. d5 Bf3 13. gf3 cd5 14.Bd5 Bc6 15. Bc3 Bf4 16. KB1 e5 17. Bc6 bxc6 18.Be5 Be5 19. Rhe1 0-0 20.Qe5 Qf3 21. Rg1 g6 =

<GM Prie> I noted your comments about your preference for the early Nf6 instead of the "konigsspringerzuruckhaltungspolitik" idea of delaying the early Nf6.  I reviewed some of the games from NIC 68 where the "konigsspringerzuruckhaltungspolitik" lines were analyzed, and I agree (for what it's worth - I am far from a titled player) that black can be very uncomfortable when white delays Nf6 and instead gets harassed by moves such as g4 harassing black's bishop on f5.

Am I being too greedy by hoping to still employ this idea of delaying Nf6 to avoid having my f pawns doubled. While I would gladly enter into the 9. Qxf6 line above, I am a little concerned about very early Bd2 by white (such as move 5 or 6).  I have lost a lot of blitz games when white doubles my f pawns, and later sacs a bishop or rook at e6 leaving my king in danger in the center.  Also, <GM Prie> were you saying that  black's position in Kramnick-Malakhov French Cup 2004 was bad (early on in the opening phase).  If so, why is black weaker (I didnt appreciate any difference, it seemed pretty much even)?  

I was hoping to avoid some of those situations with doubled f pawn by bailing out with Qb6 as suggested by Martin in his book.  i.e. 1.e4 d5 2.xd5 Qxd5 3.Nf6 Qa4 4.d4 Nf6 5. Bd2 Qb6 7.Bc4 Bf5 (! by Martin and ?! by Emms) where Emms argues that 8.Qe2 is strong for white (8...e6 9.0-0-0 Bd7).

Appreciate anyone's thoughts.  Thank you much.  Enjoying this great site!