Quote:


Now, I clearly understand what you had to say!

Hello 8arms,
I think we mix our posts with photophore posts...
Yes 4....Qxd5 is an alternative, but it's more easy to remember as a system with Qxd5-b6-Bb7.

4..Qxd5 5.Nf3! (other moves are harmless, but one analysis bust be carefully done about 5.Qg4 attacking g7 pawn: 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 Kf8 7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 e5 9.Qh4 Bf5 10.c4 Qe4 11.Qxe4 Bxe4 12.d5 += Gelfer-Czerniak,Israel 1980 (Kuligowski)) b6 (5...Bd7!? Kuzmin with the idea to play Bb5 doesn't seems to be a good idea. Razuvayev-Kuzmin,Baku 1972 (Psakhis). I can only sum up with the idea that after Bxc3-bxc3 White has moving pawns in the center and Black can't stop the space advantage)  and I have only one referenced game Malbran-Gurevich,Philadelphie 1989 (Psakhis) where Black echanged dark-square bishop.

Here are the first moves of my game : after , it's a technical matter
1 e4 e6
2 d4 d5
3 Nc3 Bb4
4 Bd3 dxe4
5 Bxe4 c5
6 a3 Bxc3+
7 bxc3 Nf6
8 Bf3 Qa5
9 Ne2 cxd4
10 O-O e5
11 Qd3 dxc3
12 Bg5 e4
13 Qe3 Qb6
14 Nd4 O-O
15 Rfb1 Qd6
16 Nb5 Qc6
17 Bxf6 Qxf6
18 Bxe4 Nc6
19 Qxc3 Qe7
20 Bxc6 bxc6
21 Qxc6
And obviously W is better ; whether it's a win or a draw is still open

Quote:



Heh i actually prepared this line for the michigan open. My first thoughts were this:1st No one at my low class level would have even heard of the root game. This may be a harsh statement but  one which is largely plausible. 2nd i doubt it has recieved any awesome coverage in french book in the last 10 years. This is always a good idea. 3rd. Well it puts them on there own resources and I am still on my opening book. You can check chesslive.de for the latest games. My friend Phil played the winawer for a while and he was really my only sparring partner but the strategy of the 3 mentioned points above worked out well for me. This is why i like it and still play it given the chance.

Photophore,

Let us know how things turn out!  Maybe you'll come up with some interesting novelties for us.  Anyway, have fun, et bon chance!

Photophore,

My bad!  The Gipslis-Geller game from 1958 went 6.Bf3 (a typo, not a mistaken move.  Sorry!)0-0 7.Ne2 e5 (Petrosian played 7...Nbd7 and got quick equality against Pilnik in a 1954 game) 8.0-0 Bc3 9.Nc3 ed4 10.Nb5 c5 11.Bf4 a6 (a possible improvement in ECO is 11...Na6) 12.Nd6 Nc6 wiht equality.

Personally, I wonder about whether 9...ed4 was Black's best (is 9...a6 better?)  It turned out well enough, but I am a bit suspicious of the play in this game.

Earlier (1957), the same two combattants played
6.Bf3 Nbd7 7.Ne2 (as in the game below) e5! with instant equality according to EC0

Euwe-Alekhine(Aussee match, 1921-22), the model game for the system, went:  6.Bf3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Ne7 8.0-0 Ng6 9.Ne4 Ne4 10.Be4 0-0 11.Nf4 Bd6 12.Ng6 hg6 13.Qf3 c6 14.c3 Qc7 15.h4 e5 16.h5 ed4 17.cd4 gh5 18.Qh5 f5 with equality according to Byrne and Mednis.

To my modern eye, seeing top players trade off pieces like this seems a bit alien.  Perhaps they were both content for a draw, I don't know.

Again, I am not using a board or computer this time, so my analysis is based on ECO and my own (flawed) vision.  Please take that into account when reading my notes!

Photophore,

The immediate, superficial answer to why White doesn't play 4.Bd3 in the Winawer is that Black has a very simple way to equalise:  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd3? dxe4! 5.Bxe4 Nf6. (ECO C15)

I don't know all the MacCutcheon theory, but I think White's best is to go down that road if he hopes for any advantage, and 4.Bd3 is rarely played in the MacCutcheon.  (At least to my knowledge.)

I just looked it up in my old ECO and there are at least two paths to equality according to Robert Byrne and Mednis (the co-authors of the section.)

They agree that White's best is probably to transpose into an inferior form of the MacCutcheon (C12), but they also give a game between Gipslis and Geller, 1958 which led to equality in when White replied 6.Bd3!? instead of 6.Bg5.

They also mention that Black has a second way to equality:  4...c5!?  Glancing through the games they cite, it's White who's struggling for equality.

Probably these two different weapons are what make 4.Bd3 so bad.  But I do need to point out that my research is old-fangled and may be subject to some serious revision.  

Also, some interesting players have tried 4.Bd3 as White:  Euwe, Ljubovevic, Averbach, Gligorich, Tartakower, Scherbakov and other strong players were unable to prove an advantage.

Do you have a line for White that looks interesting?

About Tartakower/Larsen's move 5.Qf3: 5...Qe7+! (5... Nc6!? ; 5... Nf6 6.Bg5 Pillsbury) and now Black plays Nf6 versus Be3 and Nc6 otherwise.
Main books (Larsen's best games; Minev "New and forgotten ideas about the French" ; Zlotnik; Jovicic ; Psakhis) leads to "main" (?)  line given by ECO:  6.Be3 Nf6 7.Ne2 (7.h3  Lehmann-Farago,Kiev 1978 -Psakhis ; 7.Bd3?! or 7.a3 Mestrovic-Maric,Kraljevo 1967 - Zlotnik & Psakhis) Nc6 8.h3 (8.a3!? Bouaziz-Watson,Vancouver 1977 - Tiemann & Watson; 8.ooo?? loses queen by force) Bxc3 (8..Ne4 to avoid Minev's suggestion in main line. transposes to Lehman-Farago) 9.bxc3 Ne4 10.ooo (10.g3!? Minev) Qa3+ 11.Kb1 Nxc3+ (MCO) 12.Nxc3 Qb4+ 13.Kc1 Qxc3 14.Qxd5 Be6 and advantage to Black.