Thin line went out of fasion long before the event of computers. It's no wonder that Kortchnoi preferred 11... Bf5 in his games against Karpov. Strong players avoid critical  and potentially dangerous lines with obscure evaluation if there are good alternatives.

Most black's these days prefer the Dilworth or Kortchnoi's 11...Bf5 and most white players go with 9. Be3 or 9. Nbd2 so "La Grande Variante" is a rare bird indeed in contemporary grandmaster practice.

I imagine many of our readers will not know I'm talking about !?. The "pseudo-called" Great variation is a serie of moves characterized as follows: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 f5 12.Nb3 ( or 12..Ba7 ) 12..Bb6 13.Nbd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd4 15.cxd4 f4 16.f3 Ng3!. This leads to a well-known piece sacrifice and to exiciting complications - first played in Fleissig vs. McKenzie, Vienna, 1882 -.
In the forties, this position was a real object of pride for chess theorists and was the first to be subjected to a theoretical debate on a 30 moves length!.
Usual move continue 17.fxg3 ( also 17.Rf2 is reasonable ) 17..fxg3 18.Qd3 Bf5 19.Qf5 Rxf5 20.Bxf5 Qh4 21.Bh3 Qxd4+ 22.Kh1 Qxe5 and we are in an intriguing position, which are stronger?: White has rook and two bishops vs. queen and three passed pawns.
I know at present 9.Nbd2 is choosen, or even many books give a possible "refutation" with the stronger 15.Qxd4! but it is not still clear after 15..c5 16.Qd1 and now 16..h6 of Short-Timman, El Escorial, 1993 when 17.f3 Ng5 18.Be3 ( 18.a4 Qc7 19.Re1/Bf4 d4!? ) 18..Rc8 and now both 19.Bf2 or 19.Qd2 are replied by 19..d4!.
It's a pity that "The Great variation" has lost its popularity, I would like to see how would play a Super-GM the position from 16th. Black's move, ans so he would demonstrate his judgement with his own head ( here theory is empty ! ).
What's your oppinion about ?

Alejandro Melchor