Lev, I'm a little confused by what your line B is. I assume you mean 13...gxf6, for starters. Then, if I'm following this correctly, you offer A) 14.Ne4 f5 15.Nf6+ and B) 14.Rxf6. Sadly, both these lines can be improved for black on the first move you give.

A) 14.Ne4! f5! 15.Nf6+ is met by 15...Kf8 and white has a lost position. 

B) 14.Rxf6?! is not met with a capture (although this is still viable for black), nor with 14...Qe5 (when 15.Ne4 gives counterplay), but with 14...Qg5!, when white is forced to exchange queens a pawn down and with black having the bishop pair. Call me crazy, but that looks -+ to me.

As much as I admire Stefan's attempt to rehabiilitate the line with 12.Bh4, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. My first thought is that black might even be able to play 12...e5 here, since I an sceptical that white has anywhere near enough after 13.Rd1 Be6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Ne4 Qe7 - he can probably win back a pawn on f6 where he remains a pawn down in an endgame. I'll take black.

If this has improvements for white, then the simple 12...Bd7 looks even stronger, simply threatening to castle queenside whilst white is in no position to attack there. Maybe white has Rb1 or a3 intending b4, but again I am not convinced.

Even further, playing into Stefan's line after 12...Qh5 13.Qg3 Qg4 14.Qe1, I consider castling to be an error which justifies white's play somewhat - since the only thing he has going is the open play on the kingside, I see no reason to offer him these chances. 14...h6 would be my choice, covering g5 and possibly allowing the ...g5 thrust in some circumstances. One of the main points in the BDG is that black shouldn't be hasty to commit his king - the player of the white pieces is usually a knife-weilding maniac who will take any opportunity to hack open the position at any cost. I know this because I am one of these said maniacs.

That being said, even after 14...O-O 15.h3 Qh5 (15...Qb4 again looks a possible improvement) 16.Ne4 Nd5 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.Nd6, both 

A) 18...e5 19.Rd1 Be6! 20.Nxb7 (what else) Bd5 threatening Qxh3+ and intending Rab8, and;

B) 18...Nf5 19.Bxf5 gxf5 20.Rd1 Be6 

appear to leave white with very questionable compensation. At the moment I like line A especially, though it might well be that ...e5 is a little ambitious - but ambition is a good thing when two pawns up.

Re. the 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1 c6 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Qe1 Qc5:

A) Stefan Bucker's suggestion of 12.Bh4 Qh5 13.Qg3 Qg4 14.Qe1 0-0 15.h3 Qh5 16.Ne4 Nd5 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.Nd6 looks like it gives some compensation for two pawns- quite a good blitz try, though objectively it looks -/+ to me.

B) 12.Qh4 h6 13.Bxf6 does indeed look refuted by 13...gxf6!.  An alternative is 13.Bd2 Qh5 14.Qg3 which again looks -/+.

C) Perhaps the alternative 10.Qe1 (instead of 10.Nxd4) is worthy of consideration.  10...Nxf3 11.Rxf3 Nd5 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qe5 gives White a bit of play.  However, I think all lines lead to =+ at best for White, and probably worse.

As for 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5, I think Stefan Bucker's suggestion of 7.Bg5, with the idea 7...e6 8.Nh4, and meeting other moves with Qe2 and 0-0-0, looks good enough for dynamic equality.

Agreed - and good to have you on board Markovich - I find myself sometimes unsure where the line should be drawn, and perhaps I am a bit too lenient with some people. But, in future, there should be no need for off-topic comments or chest-beating. Let's discuss the merits, or otherwise, of the opening in question, whatever the thread.

I have deleted a post by Gambit consisting entirely of an agumentum ad hominem, and a rejoinder from Bonsai, which became irrelevant.

Gambit, please stick to chess in this part of the forum.

I have also changed the topic header to incorporate proper use of capitalization.

Future posts with excessive use of capitalization, particularly in the subject, will be summarily deleted.

Gambit wrote on 04/29/09 at 03:33:19:

Actually, I dare. But I am good team player and the moderator has spoken! We should stick to the subject....
[Event "corr"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Fechner, Joachim"]
[Black "Schneider, Walter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D00"]
1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 Nc6 8.O-O Nxd4 9. Kh1! (as marked by Lev) Nxf3 10. Qxf3 c6 11. Rad1 Bd7 12. Ne4 O-O 13. Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Qe4 g6 15. Bxf6 Qe8 16. Qf4 1-0
Here...hang on...1968?!?!   I didn't think you where that old?!?!  
Looks like you didn't invent this one too....
have a nice day!
HTH

CraigEvans wrote on 04/27/09 at 18:08:13:


9.Kh1 is too risky, but apparently LDZ likes open lines and perhaps a knight on d6 in his rapid games: 12.Bh4 Qh5 13.Qg3 Qg4 14.Qe1 0-0 15.h3 Qh5 16.Ne4 Nd5 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.Nd6 and White has some play for the pawns. Maybe not correct, HTH, but you can't deny that LDZ has original ideas.

That NMs, whatever they may be, are low-rated and not to be believed.

Indeed my inclination regarding the claim of compensation in the Hartmann-Stein position is to think, "can he be serious?".