[b]1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bd4 Bxd4 13.Qxd4 Qb6 14.Na4 Qa5 15. b3 Qc7 16.h4 h5 17.c4[/b]
[img]http://www.france-echecs.com/diagramme/imgboard.php?fen=r1b2rk1/p1q1pp2/2p3p1/3n3p/N1PQ3P/1P3P2/P5P1/2KR1B1R[/img]

[quote author=Scholar link=1151879306/75#84 date=1153118161]I meant no disrespect.  Certainly I posted the analysis after you had already indicated that you were favoring 17.c4.[/quote]
No disrespect inferred, at any point.

[quote]I face an awkward burden here: on the one hand, I'd like for you to play the moves that I think are most critical, so that I can determine whether I want to incorporate this line into my repertoire, and from that perspective, losing would not be so bad.  On the other hand, I don't want to lose :-)[/quote]
Yes, I understand this burden very well.  The will to win is very strong even in a game whose main purpose - collaboratively discovering the truth about the line in play - has little to do with winning.  However, this will to win is also an important aspect of the game - it propels us to find better moves, take certain risks or precautions, and put in a certain level of effort that we might never put in if this were just dry analysis (without anything hanging on the line).

I like to think we've both done an excellent job at aiming to find the truth by thinking "out loud" while considering our next move.  On more than one occasion I've found myself hoping for you to play down a path which falls right in with my plans - but have tried to state my plans and opinions about the position as clearly as possible - as you have.

The way I see the current situation (albeit expressed in rather vague terms as there are so many concrete possibilities at this point):

Right now I have the initiative, and I dearly hope to convert this into something tangible.  If I can maintain the initiative, my queenside weaknesses will be harder to exploit.  With this initiative, there seem to be decent prospects of generating dangerous kingside play or perhaps forcing Black's pieces to adopt awkward posts to prevent this.  There are some prospects of provoking a queen exchange if the kingside play becomes too threatening, or even forcing a queen exchange in other lines.  (I also agree with Scholar that there is a lot of work to do even if this highly desirable queen exchange is achieved)

If Scholar is able to neutralize my initiative without making any significant concessions, he will not only equalize but may even turn the tables as my queenside vulnerability will become much more significant.

In short, I see good prospects for White and am guardedly optimistic - but I stlll fear the worst - a fear amplified in no small way by the respect I have for my opponent (I have followed analysis Scholar has contributed to other threads in this section: see, for example [url]http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1122802309/45#57[/url] and previous posts which elicited this praise from Markovich).

A very challenging game ensues - for both sides - and the outcome is still very much in the air.

Yes, it does seem that we agree on the generalities, now it it just a matter of details: where do our pieces belong.  I imagine you will have to choose places for your queen and king's rook, while I will have to determine where to put my knight and my rooks.  It may take a few moves, but I imagine those choices will largely shape the next phase of the middlegame.

I think it's unlikely that 17...e5 will turn out to be best.  It does make some space for Black, and e5-e4 is a decent try, but I just feel like Black is just giving White a chance to move his pieces to better squares while cutting down on his own options.

17...Nb6 works if Black can play a5-a4 and doesn't work otherwise (what good is it to chase White's knight to c5?).  It doesn't work.

17...Nf6 would be a fine move (a natural square for the knight, prevents g4 etc.) if it weren't so passive.  Since Ostap and I agree that a queen trade would be a victory for White at this stage -- a moral victory -- I think it would require quite a bit of technique to bring home the point -- the main drawback is that White can go about trying to arrange a trade of queens, and there's not a lot Black can do about it.

Let's say that 17...Nb4 is the dark horse -- a seemingly pointless move which seeks to immediately exploit White's weakened queenside.  Black must take care that the knight does not end up out of play.    But this move cuts through all of White's plans.

That leaves 17...Nf4.

It will probably take a few days for me to make a decision, so I invite those sympathetic to Black's cause to weigh in and (if needed!) correct my understanding of the position.

[quote author=OstapBender link=1151879306/75#76 date=1153068982][quote author=Scholar link=1151879306/60#74 date=1153031056] Well, had 17.g4 been played, I would certainly have played 17...Qg3 which seems significantly stronger than the alternative that I had originally considered (assuming I have checked the tactics correctly).  So I may have tipped my hand a bit early...[/quote]
I wouldn't go so far as to say that (17.g4) 17...Qg3 (a very nice find - congrats!) convinced me to play 17.c4 since I was already starting to lean that way for other reasons.  But 17...Qg3 certainly gave me one more reason to strongly question White's winning prospects after 17.g4 - making 17.c4 a bit easier to choose.
[/quote]

I meant no disrespect.  Certainly I posted the analysis after you had already indicated that you were favoring 17.c4.  I face an awkward burden here: on the one hand, I'd like for you to play the moves that I think are most critical, so that I can determine whether I want to incorporate this line into my repertoire, and from that perspective, losing would not be so bad.  On the other hand, I don't want to lose :-)

In the current position (after 17.c4) I think that Qf4+ is a mistake for Black; my reasons mostly apply to similar positions.

In general, White has three reasons to prefer his position: kingside attack, the weakness of c6, freer development.  Black will attempt to attack on the queenside, and try to exploit White's attempts to move his kingside pawns.  Trading queens doesn't slow White down at all (the kingside attack is still potent, especially if White gets to play g4xh5), but it does make Black's plans of a an attack on White's king much more fanciful, since Black lacks an effective way to exploit the dark squares without his queen.  So the queens stay on.

Black's best now?  I'm open to suggestions.  I am considering all six knight moves, as well as e5 and Qf4+.  Playing Nc3 or Ne3 seems...premature, and I believe my reasoning about Qf4+, but this still leaves five candidates for Black.  Nf4 and Nf6 seem like the best of the bunch at the moment, but there are many different plans that Black can pursue here.

Since you haven't yet mentioned my main complaint with 17...Qf4+ (after 17.c4), I'll do it.

17....Qf4+ 18.Qf4 Nf4 19.g3 Ne6 20.Rhe1 And Black's pieces are still stuck, White is threatening f4-f5 as well as Be4-d5 (or c6 in some lines).

In other words, even after the Queens come off, White has some serious play due to Black's dark square weaknesses.  It may still be best for Black (I don't trust Qg3 very much) because the N retreats are all so dismal and 17...e5 looks completely out of place.  I may be painting the picture in too-dark hues, but Black's position is a bit bleak.

After 17. g4  I think after Qf4 black is slightly better at least equal. I haven't looked at Qg3 but looks dangerous to me but of course more ambitious. 

Cheers,
Tom

Scholar wrote on 07/16/06 at 06:24:16:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that (17.g4) 17...Qg3 (a very nice find - congrats!) convinced me to play 17.c4 since I was already starting to lean that way for other reasons.  But 17...Qg3 certainly gave me one more reason to strongly question White's winning prospects after 17.g4 - making 17.c4 a bit easier to choose.

Quote:

Indeed, I think the myriad of possibilities and the nonforcing nature of the lines arising from 17.c4 will make it 'difficult to play optimally' for both sides.  Kind of a blessing and a curse.

OstapBender wrote on 07/16/06 at 01:48:31:


Well, had 17.g4 been played, I would certainly have played 17...Qg3 which seems significantly stronger than the alternative that I had originally considered (assuming I have checked the tactics correctly).  So I may have tipped my hand a bit early and convinced you to play the more critical 17.c4, against which I do not have a detailed line worked out -- rather I have a menagerie of ideas which can be strung together in many possible ways, and it remains to be seen which minimizes White's advantage.

Since forcing lines are harder to come by, it will be difficult to play optimally, but hopefully I will avoid any obvious blunders.