Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Refutation of a line in the Classical (Read 6217 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10423
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #8 - 11/14/06 at 20:16:34
Post Tools
Would be fun. The guy who played Black was really called Aronin btw - Lev Solomonovich to be precise. There is no relationship with Levon Aronian as far as I know.
Thanks for mentioning Wedberg-Piket; I will make a note.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 1968
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #7 - 11/14/06 at 01:55:46
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 11/14/06 at 01:07:48:
According to old theory (1980-85) 5...Nxe5 6.d4 c6 in the end is good for White, based on a game Shamkovich-Aronin,1962. But who knows in 2006?
In that ending Pachmann (1980) gives 9...Kxe7 10.Ne4 Bb6 11.b3 d6 12.Re1 a6 13.Bf1 Kf8, Juchtman-Estrin, Moscow 1959, "and White is only minimally better. Even better according to Schwarz is 11...a6."
Should this also be avoided?


The ending after 9...Kxe7 is a bit better than the one I gave after 10.Re1 but nevertheless still rather uninspiring and difficult for Black. The ending you quoted was tested in Wedberg - Piket 2001, and although Piket eventually won that game, the annotations revealed how White could have maintained a steady advantage.

Returning to 6...c6, yes there must certainly have been important developments since Shamkovich-Aronian 1962, nevertheless I suspect that White still must have some advantage here, but I rather prefer this position to the endings we just discussed, and considering that 6...a6 is looking distinctly suspect these days it could be that 6...c6 is ripe for revival...............hopefully

Topalot Smiley
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10423
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #6 - 11/14/06 at 01:07:48
Post Tools
According to old theory (1980-85) 5...Nxe5 6.d4 c6 in the end is good for White, based on a game Shamkovich-Aronin,1962. But who knows in 2006?
In that ending Pachmann (1980) gives 9...Kxe7 10.Ne4 Bb6 11.b3 d6 12.Re1 a6 13.Bf1 Kf8, Juchtman-Estrin, Moscow 1959, "and White is only minimally better. Even better according to Schwarz is 11...a6."
Should this also be avoided?
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 1968
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #5 - 11/14/06 at 00:49:09
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/13/06 at 12:16:08:
MNb wrote on 06/13/06 at 03:17:11:
Yes, you are right. The rook on h3 is necessary to prevent the bishop coming to e3.
The queen goes to h5, to make a check on d5 available. This is prevented by 19.f5, after which White can strive for a won endgame of a knight versus two pawns.
What's worse, even 17.Qg1 at once looks good: no tripling on the h-file here.

I suppose you don't trust 5...Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxe5 7.Qxe4 Qe7 8.d4 Nc6 9.Qg4 h5 ? It has been a long time since I looked at this one.


Well, I'm not saying that the whole Berlin Classical is bad, just 7...Nxe4.  There is also 7...Ba7.  Too bad though, since 7...Nxe4 seemed rather promising.  My impression is that Black can survive after 5...Nxe4, but I wouldn't want to play that way against a weaker player.


I am thinking of taking up the Classical again or should I say 1..e5, as a way of allowing more Kings Gambits Wink, anywho in all seriousness 5...Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxe5 7.Qxe4 Qe7 8.Nc3! Ng6 9.Qxe7 Ne7 10.Re1! is a very unpleasant ending for Black, and should be avoided in my opinion.

I don't like 7...Ba7 all that much, but what about 5...Nxe5 6.d4 c6!? is this a viable possibility? 

Topster Smiley

  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #4 - 06/13/06 at 12:16:08
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 06/13/06 at 03:17:11:
Yes, you are right. The rook on h3 is necessary to prevent the bishop coming to e3.
The queen goes to h5, to make a check on d5 available. This is prevented by 19.f5, after which White can strive for a won endgame of a knight versus two pawns.
What's worse, even 17.Qg1 at once looks good: no tripling on the h-file here.

I suppose you don't trust 5...Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxe5 7.Qxe4 Qe7 8.d4 Nc6 9.Qg4 h5 ? It has been a long time since I looked at this one.


Well, I'm not saying that the whole Berlin Classical is bad, just 7...Nxe4.  There is also 7...Ba7.  Too bad though, since 7...Nxe4 seemed rather promising.  My impression is that Black can survive after 5...Nxe4, but I wouldn't want to play that way against a weaker player.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10423
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #3 - 06/13/06 at 03:17:11
Post Tools
Yes, you are right. The rook on h3 is necessary to prevent the bishop coming to e3.
The queen goes to h5, to make a check on d5 available. This is prevented by 19.f5, after which White can strive for a won endgame of a knight versus two pawns.
What's worse, even 17.Qg1 at once looks good: no tripling on the h-file here.

I suppose you don't trust 5...Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxe5 7.Qxe4 Qe7 8.d4 Nc6 9.Qg4 h5 ? It has been a long time since I looked at this one.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #2 - 06/12/06 at 01:25:16
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 06/02/06 at 21:46:24:
Is there something wrong with 18...Qh5 19.f5 Rh8 20.Bf4 (20.Rf2 gxf5) g5 21.Bg3 Qg4 ?
What about 18...Qh4 19.Rf2 Rh8 20.Bd2 Ne6 21.Raf1 Nd4 22.Rg2 Qh5 ?
Just my initial impression.


Sorry, I should've mentioned 18. Qh5 19. f4 Rh8  20. Rf2 gxf5  21. Bf4 and both now 21...Ne6  22. Ne2 and 21...Ne4  22. Nxe4 look much better for White.

And 18...Qh4  19. Rf2 Rh8  20. Bd2 Ne6 runs into 21. Rae1 Rg3  22. Rg2 Rxg2  23. Kxg2 Nxf4+  24. Bxf4 Qxf4  25. Rf1.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10423
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of a line in the Classical
Reply #1 - 06/02/06 at 21:46:24
Post Tools
Is there something wrong with 18...Qh5 19.f5 Rh8 20.Bf4 (20.Rf2 gxf5) g5 21.Bg3 Qg4 ?
What about 18...Qh4 19.Rf2 Rh8 20.Bd2 Ne6 21.Raf1 Nd4 22.Rg2 Qh5 ?
Just my initial impression.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Refutation of a line in the Classical
06/02/06 at 20:45:49
Post Tools
I will now be generous and share what I believe to be the refutation of a major line of the Berlin Classical:  1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bb5 Nf6  4. 0-0 Bc5  5. Nxe5 (this may be White's best, I opine) 5...Nxe5 6. d4 a6!  7. Be2! Nxe4?.  I say "?" because I believe I have the refutation:  8. dxc5 Nxc5  9. Qd4 d6  10. f4 Ng6  11. Qxg7 Bf5 and now 12. g4!  Some time ago in Hard Chess I wrote that 12...Qe7!  13. gxf5 Qxe2  14. fxg6 Qg4+  15. Kh1 0-0-0 appeared to give Black reasonable chances for his piece.  For example, 16. Nc3? Ne6! and White is in a lot of trouble (this was actually played in a high-level game, but I forget by whom and where).  White instead should play 16. Qd4! hxg6  17. Nc3 and now 17...Rh3 (does anyone see anything better? -- I don't) reaches a position I considered in Hard Chess, where I thought White would continue with 18. Be3, and I showed that by hurrying his knight to f5, Black could get good play.  But White has instead 18. Qg1! proposing simplification.

If 18...Qh5 then 19. f5! (this move is my major point) 19...gxf4  20. Bf4 and White is fine after 20...Ne4  21. Nxe4 or 20...Ne6  21. Ne2.

If 18...Qf5 then 19. Qg5 Qxc2  20. Qg4+ Qf5  21. Qxf5 and Black has too little for his piece.

If 18...Qh4 then 19. Rf2 (I think this is even stronger than 19. Qf2; 19. f5? doesn't work because of 19...Ne4) 19...Rh8  20. Bd2 and here again, I don't think that Black can justify his sacrificed piece.  White's king is surprisingly safe and he has play with moves like Raf1 and Rg2.

My conclusion is that Black can't play 7...Nxe4 but must instead try 7...Ba7 8. dxe5 Nxe4
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo