Le maître de céans de vient-il pas de nous donner sa bénédiction pour continuer en français ?!

Il faut bien sûr préférer 5...Db6 qui se voit accorder un point d'exclamation dans le livre de  Johnsen/Kovacevic avec pour suite critique :
6.Db3
(6.Dc2 Fg4! Miles-Fressinet 6...Ff5!? 7.dxc5 Fxc2 8.cxb6 axb6 9.Ca3 Txa3 10.bxa3 e6 pas clair; 6.Ca3 a6! 7.Db3 Da5 8.dxc5 e6= une autre partie de Miles)
6...c4 7.Dc2
J'ai consacré une update à 7.Dxb6 axb6 8.Ca3. Le livre explique pourquoi ils préfèrent le retrait de la Dame :
"White to some extent threatens 9.Nb5, but Black has many ways to parry that. One may suspect that 8...Rxa3 and 9...e5 are not quite correct. ( Practice suggests the contrary on 8...Rxa3) It also seems likely that White may achieve something against 8...Na7 (Knaak's choice) and 9...Ne4. However, both 8...e6 (?! I suppose the author meant 8...Bf5 9.Nh4 Bd7 10.Nf3 e6) and 8...Ra5 (my main recommendation) have proved fully satisfactory in practice play. Play often becomes complicated with White trying to create confusion in the black camp with his minor pieces. However, even if White should succeed in picking up the b6-pawn, his knight and bishop often end up in danger of being trapped or shut out of play. We therefore will not go into any detail on this."
7...Bf5(!) 8.Qc1 e6 9.Nbd2 Qd8 10.b3 b5 11.a4 a6 12.Be2 Be7
"White has not been able to prove anything here" based on Kharlov-Sadler Bern 96.

For me this is typically a dangerous equality for White, an easily obtained equality from where White can be outplayed by the opponent.
I prefer to be on that side of equality when I play the Prie for instance, or the Lemberger as Black against the BDG, for I completely agree with what you say, Arkhein, about its accepted version.

That is why the book advocates 5.Nd2 instead of 5.Nf3.
As for me, I see the radical Novelty 5.Qb3!? preventing Black's Queen's bishop to move out of the pawn chain as the only solution. Unfortunately the complications resulting from 1.d4 d5 2.Nf4 c5!? ( instead of 2...Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2) 3.e4! Nc6! are not much of my taste, so much to have dissuaded me from playing the London against 1...d5. But of course, if my opponent goes 2.Nf3 e6, I willingly play 3.Bf4 and not 3.a3!  

To loop the loop with that order of move, 3...c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.e3 transposing in your 5...e6 instead 5...Qb6(!) only aims at neutralizing the London bishop at the price of shuting in the queen bishop.
Then 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7.Bxd6 Qxd6, transposing into well known positions with the reversed colours, is just fine for White because it shall not be so easy for Black to liberate his play with a further e6-e5. Either after 8.Bb5 or 8.a3 ( exactly Bacrot-Svildler Linares 2006 with the reversed colour and an extra-tempo for White) intending b2-b4 or a combination of both; to finish on an ironical touch about the most innocent movement of the White's a-pawn    

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1150663394/45#59 date=1159911168]
P.S. I'd be grateful if you would share the meaning of your term "mullish"[/quote]

I assume that he's invented an adjective based on the intransitive verb "to mull" as in, say, mulled wine.  The word was originally used to describe wine that had gone bad and then was revived in order to be made drinkable by adding spices and sugar and then serving heated.  I imagine that some contributors imagine that you have soured and consequently become over-spiced and heated in an effort to compensate...

Seriously, Uberdeker, I would prefer if you would refrain from endless gratuitous attacks.  Actually, I'd prefer you didn't insult other forum members altogether, but if you must, at least clothe your [i]ad hominems[/i] with some chess.  Otherwise, it grows tiresome for the rest of us.

As for me, I shall now fade away...if you really feel the need to respond to this post, please start a new thread in the [b]Chit Chat[/b] section entitled "Flame Wars Involving Uberdeker."

Dear Eric,

  I was looking forward to another demented lecture on "Prié chess" written in the Prié-language.
  Instead, I must commend you on your newly-found honesty. Not only that, but your prose has almost become intelligeable! I completely agree with everything you wrote in your last post. I am a bit perplexed that it took you so long to admit these things, but better late than never...
Thank you for "putting me in my place".

                                                          Regards,
                                                                UD

P.S. I'd be grateful if you would share the meaning of your term "mullish"

Eric Prié je profite de te poser une question ici, légèrement hors sujet mais dont tu as déjà parlé dans ce topic. Dans un de tes articles sur le système de Londres, tu proposes 1.d4 d5 2.Ff4 Cf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Cc6 5.Cd2 Ff5, et la tu dis:

"and on 6.Qb3 Qd7 which "might be the toughest nut to crack" according to the book, and which should therefore have been worth more than a quarter of a page of sometimes curious analysis."

ou ceci sur ce topic:

"I now play the London 3.Bf4 on the KID 2...g6 and the Nimzo 2...e6 and I am very happy with it.
I would like to play it on 1.d4 d5 as well but it is alas impossible : 
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5! 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qc2 Bf5!
or 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5! 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2 Bf5 6.Qb3 Qd7! 7.Nf3 c4 and so on"

Mais 6.Cgf3 est une alternative courante et logique, et la je me demande quel est le plus précis pour les Noirs: 6..Db6!? ou 6..e6? Comment comparerais-tu ces 2 alternatives et lequel tu préconiserais pour les Noirs? Merci pour ta future réponse.

For Black, the best is for White to play 2.e4!? and Black to play 2...e6...

For White, the best is 2.d4-d2 and 3.e2-e4.   Sure, White will have lost a couple of moves, but it's just the opening...

<BIG cheesy grin>

Viceroy wrote on 08/11/06 at 14:07:15:

A lot of writing has survived from classical times and some of it has to do with the pronunciation, and mis-pronunciation, of words.  The following is quoted from askOxford.com:

"Well, pronunciation and history come together in a story told by Cicero which demonstrates that Latin v was pronounced like u in the first century BC. When the Roman politician and general Crassus was setting out on the ill-fated expedition against the Parthians in which he and his army were to be annihilated at Carrhae (53 BC), a seller of Caunean figs was crying out 'Cauneas!' Cicero observes that it would have been a good thing for Crassus if he had heeded the omen, i.e. 'Cave ne eas!' (= beware of going). This story makes no sense unless we presume that the v of cave was similar in sound to the u of Cauneas."

See also this source, which is very ample on this subject:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8rlat10.txt

Markovich wrote on 08/10/06 at 13:49:28:



"The same goes for me, chessfriend.  But it might be best always to speak Latin on this site, since it's the most universal language and one that no one speaks natively."

"So in Latin I say: I marvel that so many votes were cast for the Veressov system.  I consider that system weak, and I think the black pieces are outstanding after 3...c5."

There was a grammatical error in my post as quoted by Smyslov Fan, which I've since corrected.  Contrary to his supposition, my interest in Latin stems from no connection to the Catholic Church (credo in nullum deum, et sperno pontifices episcopesque), but from a longstanding interest in classical history and literature.  "Veni, vidi, vici" is properly pronounced not "vainy, veedy, veechy" as by the bishops, but "wainy, weedy, weeky" as Caesar would actually have said it.

All marvelously offtopic and rather obnoxiously self-indulgent, I know.  Sorry.