SWJediknight wrote on 03/17/11 at 18:15:33:


You really were not paying attention. Check what I say about 11...00 in post #166 on a previous page.
Thanks!

You are completely misreading what I wrote here, SWJediKnight. I said that after 9...c5 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 White gets counterplay. Your analyses is based on old stuff from your pgn, which has been superseded by my newer analyses. Actually, I have had that analyses for years, but kept it secret.

Here's a summary of how the critical lines seem to be looking after 9...Nc6 and 9...c5 (based on others' analysis and updates to the analysis contained in my PGN file).

A) 9...Nc6 10.Qe1

A1) 10...Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Bc4 (13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Qxe5 Ng4 -/+ Luppi-Svacek, corr. 2000, 13.Ne4!?) 13.Bc4 Ng4 14.Bg3 =+.

A2) 10...h6! 11.Qh4 (11.Be3 Bd6 -/+, 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Rd1 0-0 -/+, 11.Bf4 Bd6 12. Bg3 O-O 13. Rd1 Bxg3 14. Qxg3 Qe7 15.Ne4 Nd5 -/+) 11...Nd7! 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 0-0 14.Qxc7 Nc5 -/+ (Linksspringer), as I can't see a way for White to avoid the queen swap without passing the initative over to Black.  (White has a few hacking tries like 12.Qh5 as Craig Evans mentions, but they look clearly insufficient too).

I have yet to check the line 10...h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Rd1 0-0 14.Bb5, but I have doubts about it- may have a look later when I have time.

B) 9...c5

B1) 10.Bxf6 Bxf6

B11) 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh6 Bd7 14.Rae1 (14.Nb5 Bc6 15.Rae1 transposes) Bc6 15.Nb5 a6 -/+

B12) 11.Ne4 0-0! (rather than 11...Be7)

B121) 12.Nxc5 Nxf3 13.Qxf3 Qd4 14.Ne4 (14.Qh3 Qh4, 14.Nxb7 Bxb7 15.Qxb7 Rab8 16.Qf3 Rxb2) 14...Be7 -/+

B122) 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 13.c3 Be5 -/+ (some hacking chances for White, but as Markovich indicated, Black has many pleasant options against 14.Qc2, 14.Qe2, 14.Qf3 or 14.Qh5)

B123) 12.c3 Nxf3 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Rxf3 Qe7 15. Rh3 f5 16. Qh5 h6 -/+, as Black repels the attack.

B2) 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Bxf6 gxf6! (11...Bxf6 12. Ne4 Be7 13. Qh5 g6 14. Qh6 f5 15. Qg7 Rf8 16. Qxh7 and White has good compensation) 12.Ne4 f5 and now:

B21) 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Qh5 h6 (-/+ at least, maybe close to winning for Black as White has no way to maintain the pressure),

B22) 13.Qh5 Rf8 14.Ng3 Bd7 15.Rae1 Qb6 -/+ with Black looking set to take over the initiative on the kingside.

In my earlier analysis I did hold out some hope for White to be able to revise the assessment of the line to "=+", which isn't so bad, but after others' suggested improvements it seems rather less likely again.

Sorry Lev, you are still not off the hook. I repeat:
[1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 0-0 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Nc6 10 Qe1 h6]

11.Be3 Bd6 -/+ (Wollfelschneider - Behrendorf, corr 2003)
11.Bf4 Bd6 -/+ (see PGN by SWJediknight)
11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4 Be7 13 Rd1 O-O! -/+ ( CraigEvans)
11.Qh4 Nd7 (other moves were suggested, but this looks most clear to me) 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 O-O 14.Qxc7 Nc5 -/+

Furthermore, if 10.Qe1 Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Ne4 CraigEvans suggested 13...Nh5 followed by ...f5 when White still has to prove full compensation. Although at the moment I find 10...h6 easier to play for Black.

I haven't kept track of all provided analysis, so I apoligize if my question has been addressed since the times of Methusalem or so.

What about 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1 Nc6 10.Qe1 Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Ne4 ? The natural Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Bd6 seems to lead to a draw after 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Rxd6 cxd6 17.Qg3+ Kh8 18.Qf4.
This something I would call a major achievement for White, but still doesn't convince me that this as good as 7.Qd2.

I communicated with Tim Sawyer years ago and got his agreement to name the line after him. Meanwhile, here are a couple of other games that escaped noticing. They lay among my other folders.

Zilbermints - Anders Olsen
3 0 rated blitz
Internet Chess Club
15 July 2008

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Bb4 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Bxc3 10 bxc3 Nxf3 11 Qxf3 Qd5 12 Qe3 Ng4 13 Qf4 Ne5 14 Be4 Qa5 15 Rad1 Bd7 16 Bd5 f6 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 Qxf6 Ng6 19 Bxe6 Bxe6 20 Qxe6+ Ne7 21 Rf7 Qc5 22 Rd7 1-0

Zilbermints - IM Petar Popov
Internet Chess Club
5 0 rated blitz
July 2008

5...e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 00 8 00 Nc6 9 Qe1 Nb4 10 Bc4 e6 11 Qh4 Nbd5 12 Nxd5 cxd5 13 Bd3 g6 14 Ne5 1-0

Oh, and naming "hundreds of openings after myself" is a gross exaggeration. Any decent search on the Internet will show that is not the case.

But all your posts are on 9...c5 Lev. So you are not discussing it at present, and haven't been for five years!

Who named it that? Him? You? Is two games really enough to name an opening after yourself? Surely your database shows plenty of your lines which had been played before you discovered them? Wasn't it your analytical work and effort to bring them to widespread attention the reason you got to name hundreds of openings after yourself? I've played 1.e4 c6 2.d4 f5?! at least 20 times in blitz, so does that mean I get to name that after myself? I'm really unsure on the rules... there are lots of openings I've played twice, so I should by rights have a lot more things named after me...

Digression aside, I'm willing to go with 10...h6 rather than 10...Bd7 at the moment but I genuinely think both are just good for black. So please, Lev, let's discuss your improvements.

Finally, some discussion about chess, now that other people have become involved.

Firstly, my simple reason for staying away from 9...c5 - White does have open lines and a slight development edge, so I don't want to open the position. Not that I think white then gets enough, but why give him any play at all? 9...Nc6 just puts the knight back where it was originally and says "Okay, you've given me two pawns for an investment of my time - show me the mate."

I don't really know what to make of the lines after 9...c5 yet, other than to say that I still think black is better, but I think white is risking having some fun. I have no doubt that objectively 9...c5 may be strong, but it seems less simple to me.

With regards to the lines after 9...Nc6, which I am personally more interested and more invested in:

Firstly, I still propose 10...Bd7 to be a possibly correct move order, since after 11.Rd1 h6 we found 12.Qh4 to be incorrect and 12.Bh4 to also be insufficient, and therefore 12.Bf4 seemed the only try. As far as we could see there, white gets a pawn's worth of compensation, in rough terms, for two pawns' investment.

As for the line 10...h6 11.Qh4, I think black should try the move 11...Nh7!? - giving up castling is really not an issue for me when I can console myself with two pawns. Another set of pieces come off the board.

So, after 10...h6 11.Qh4 Nh7 (which gives a pawn back), white only has two tries that I can see:

a) 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Bxh7 Qxh4 14.Nxh4 Rxh7 15.Nb5 Rb8 16.Nxc7+ Ke7 and black is a pawn up. White's a bit more active. But black is a pawn up, with a bishop vs knight, in a near-endgame. If this is the best white can do, he is busted.

b) Instead white can try to muddy the waters with 12.Qh5!? Bxg5 13.Bxh7! Bf6! 14.Ne4!? Qe7! (Though 14...Rxh7 15.Nfg5!? hg 16.Qxh7 Ke7 may also be good for black, it again overly complicates things, and my gut feeling is that white is fine after 17.Nxf6 gf 18.Qg7 with chances) where white has nothing better than 15.Nxf6+ gf 16.Be4 Bd7 intending to castle long. Black is two pawns up, with two pairs of pieces off the board, a fully developed position and even a semi-open g-file. White is busted.

So I maintain that after 9...Nc6 white has no line whatsoever which demonstrates adequate compensation for the material. After 9...c5 I reckon white could cling to =/+, whereas 9...Nc6 really seems between -/+ and -+. For two pawns white really needs clear compensation and a guaranteed lasting initiative into the endgame with good chanes of regaining his material. He doesn't appear to have either in the 9...Nc6 variation.

Incidentally, should 9...Nc6 catch on, since I have been analysing it for several years I would like the naming rights. Though I will not tell you right now what I would call it.