FinnMcCool wrote on 07/27/06 at 15:54:27:

I agree about Black's prospects for equality, but the resulting positions seem unbalanced enough, IMO, to offer winning chances for either side.  Objectively, 9.Nxd4 certainly seems better.  My point was that 9.Bxf7 immediately sets Black with some problems to solve, and White seems to be no worse than equal against Black's best reply.  So 9.Bxf7 may have some practical value OTB.

Quote:

I'm not married to the idea of 13...Qe8 and wouldn't be surprised if Black could improve with 13...Qc7 (or indeed somewhere else in the line).  I was just quoting the notes I had taken done earlier in order to share this information with you.  I will look at 13...Qc7 when I get a chance.

Quote:

I have to spend some time looking over the 9.Nxd4 continuation before I can have something sensible to contribute here.

Quote:

I know this feeling all too well, I'm afraid.  It's difficult to predict which questions are going to generate interesting discussion - or even elicit a response.

My personal observation is that most people readily post their opinions on questions of conjecture, but getting such a response on a specific chess question is a much rarer thing (unless it's about a dodgy gambit - but then the answers are often conjecture rather than analysis anyway!).

MNb, for one, is very good about posting serious analysis if your chess question happens to relate to a line he is interested in.  And there are a few others like this.

Some observations:
As alluded to above, gambit questions often seem to get good responses, some of which can even pass for serious analysis.  For non-gambit questions, the Dragon and French sections seem to generate some very interesting opening theory threads.

FinnMcCool wrote on 07/19/06 at 18:05:48:

If I remember correctly, I encountered 9.Bxf7+ the first time anyone every played 8.d4 against me. I was sure I'd walked into some kind of trap (I mentally cursed myself for not playing 8...d6 and appended a big ? to 8...Nxd4).   Although 9.Bxf7+ might not be objectively best, it's a neat line where White seems to wind up no worse than equal (but with plenty of life left in the position so nothing wrong with that).  And it's easy for Black to go wrong.  When I discovered after my unpleasant Bxf7+ encounter that 8...Nxd4 was indeed playable (and probably best) I took a few notes on this variation.  

Nothing detailed here, but it might add a tiny bit to what you already know:

9.Bxf7+!? Rxf7 

[9...Kxf7 10.Nxe5+ Kg8 is another common move order, which transposes]

10.Nxe5 Rf8

[Never saw mention of 10...Nc6?, but indeed 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.e5! Ne8 13.Qd5+ Kf8 14.Re3 looks winning for White.  Nice line!]

[I did have a similar line 10...Ne6? 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.e5! Ne8 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qxa8 Sigurjonsson-Camilleri, Raach zt 1969/1–0 (17) which looks even worse for Black.]

11.Qxd4 c5 

[11...Bb7 12.Nc3 c5 (12...Qe8!?) 13.Qd1 transposes]

12.Qd1 

[I also have 12.Qd3?! c4 13.Qe2 Bb7 14.Nc3 Qc7 15.Ng4 b4 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 Rae8 18.Be3 Bxd5 19.Bd4 Qf4 20.Qe5 Qxe5 21.Rxe5 Be6 Belotti-Minasian, Eu-ch Ohrid 2001.  I haven't look at this in a while, but I guess Black is a little better here.  The game was eventually drawn, though.]

12...Bb7 13.Nc3 Qe8 (Diagram) seems to be OK for Black, maybe close to equal or leading to equality eventually.  I guess White's a little better structurally for the moment, but I wouldn't mind having Black here (e.g., the bishop pair should be worth something).

Thanks Ostap for this quick reply!

Quote:

Well, may be you´re right... First take a look to the sideline with 8...Nxd4 !?
Now there are the two main moves a) 9.Nxd4 and b) 9.Bxf7 (9.Nxe5 Nxb3 10.axb3 Bb7 =+)

Here are some possible moves:
a) 9.Nxd4 exd4 10.e5 (10.Qxd4? c5 -+) Ne8 well an here are the normal 11.Qxd4 or the pawn sacrifice  11.c3 dxc3 12.Nxc3 += (62% white wins in my Database)

[Event "Abihome op"]
[Site "Brussels"]
[Date "2000.10.07"]
[Round "5"]
[White "McShane, Luke J"]
[Black "Pedersen, Daniel Vesterbaek"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
Nxd4 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. e5 Ne8 11. c3 dxc3 12. Nxc3 d6 13. Qf3 Rb8 14. Bf4 dxe5
15. Bxe5 Bb7 16. Qh5 Bf6 17. Rad1 Qc8 18. Rd3 Bxe5 19. Rxe5 Nf6 20. Qg5 Qg4 21.
Qxg4 Nxg4 22. Re7 c5 23. Rdd7 c4 24. Bxc4 bxc4 25. Rxb7 g6 26. h3 Nh6 27. g4
Kg7 28. Ne4 Rfe8 29. Nd6 Rxe7 30. Rxb8 f6 31. Nxc4 Nf7 32. Rb6 Re4 33. Nd2 Re2
34. Nf3 a5 35. Kf1 Rc2 36. Nd4 Rc1+ 37. Kg2 Ne5 38. Ne6+ Kh6 39. Rb5 Nd3 40.
Rxa5 Rc2 41. Kg3 Rxf2 42. h4 Rxb2 43. g5+ fxg5 44. hxg5+ Kh5 45. Ng7# 1-0

[Event "NED-ch"]
[Site "Netherlands"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Nijboer, Friso"]
[Black "Sokolov, Ivan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
Nxd4 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. e5 Ne8 11. Qxd4 Bb7 12. c4 bxc4 13. Qxc4 d5 14. exd6 Nxd6
15. Qg4 Bf6 16. Nc3 Rb8 17. Bf4 Bc6 18. Rad1 Rb4 19. Qg3 Rd4 20. Be5 Rxd1 21.
Rxd1 Re8 22. f4 Qe7 23. Nd5 Bxd5 24. Rxd5 g6 25. Qc3 Bxe5 26. Rxe5 Qd7 27. Qd4
Rxe5 28. fxe5 Qe7 29. Qc5 Qg5 30. h4 Qxh4 31. exd6 1/2-1/2

[Event "Hastings 9293"]
[Site "Hastings"]
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Gurevich, Ilya"]
[Black "Nunn, John DM"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
Nxd4 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. e5 Ne8 11. c3 dxc3 12. Nxc3 d6 13. Nd5 Be6 14. Qf3 Rc8
15. Bf4 Bg5 16. Rad1 Kh8 17. Bc2 f5 18. Qh5 h6 19. Bxg5 Qxg5 20. Qxg5 hxg5 21.
Ne7 Kh7 22. exd6 cxd6 23. Nxc8 Bxc8 24. Re7 g4 25. Bb3 Kg6 26. Rc1 Nf6 27. Rcc7
d5 28. Rxg7+ Kh6 29. Rgf7 Re8 30. Rce7 1-0
[Event "Hoogovens"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Date "1988.01.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Van der Wiel, John TH"]
[Black "Georgiev, Kiril"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
Nxd4 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. e5 Ne8 11. Qxd4 c5 12. Qe4 Nc7 13. c4 bxc4 14. Bc2 g6 15.
Nc3 Rb8 16. Ba4 Rb6 17. Qxc4 d5 18. exd6 Bxd6 19. a3 Be6 20. Qe2 f5 21. b4 cxb4
22. Be3 bxc3 23. Bxb6 Qh4 24. f4 Qxf4 25. Bxc7 Qxh2+ 26. Kf1 Qh1+ 27. Kf2 Qh4+
28. Kf1 Bc4 29. Bb3 Bxb3 30. Bxd6 Bc4 31. Bxf8 Qf4+ 32. Kg1 Bxe2 0-1

[Event "URS-CupT"]
[Site "Ordzhonikidze"]
[Date "1978.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Romanishin, Oleg M"]
[Black "Tseshkovsky, Vitaly"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
Nxd4 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. e5 Ne8 11. c3 dxc3 12. Nxc3 Bb7 13. Qd3 c5 14. Bd5 Bxd5
15. Nxd5 Nc7 16. Nb6 Ra7 17. Be3 d5 18. exd6 Ne6 19. Rad1 Qxb6 20. dxe7 Rxe7
21. b4 Qc7 22. Qd6 c4 23. Qxa6 Qb7 24. Qd6 Ra8 25. Rd2 h6 26. Qb6 Qxb6 27. Bxb6
c3 28. Rde2 Rd7 29. g3 Nd4 30. Re8+ Rxe8 31. Rxe8+ Kh7 32. Rc8 Ne2+ 33. Kf1 Rd2
34. a3 Rb2 35. Be3 c2 36. h4 Nd4 37. Rc5 Nb3 38. Rc3 Rb1+ 39. Ke2 c1=Q 40. Bxc1
Nxc1+ 41. Kd2 Na2 42. Rc2 Nxb4 43. axb4 Rxb4 44. Rc7 Kg6 45. Rb7 Rd4+ 46. Ke3
Rd5 47. Ke4 Rc5 48. Kd4 Rf5 49. Ke4 h5 50. Rb6+ f6 51. Rb7 Rc5 52. Kd3 Kh6 53.
Rb6 Kh7 54. Rb8 g5 55. hxg5 Rxg5 56. Kd4 Kg6 57. f4 Rf5 58. Rg8+ Kf7 59. Rc8 b4
60. Rb8 Ra5 61. Rxb4 Ra3 62. Ke4 1/2-1/2

b) 9.Bxf7!? Rxf7 10.Nxe5 Rf8 (When i saw this position the first time i thought why not 10...Nc6 but 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.e5! Ne8 13.Qd5+ Kf8 14.Re3 +- JUHU  ) 11.Qxd4 c5 12.Qd1 (12.Qd3?!) Bb7 for example

Quote:


Let me add that I nomaly play 7...d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 . But for my playing style I am looking for a more active way to continue after 7...0-0 and even not 8.h3 or 8.a4

Hey Ostap: A big compliment to your discussion with Scholar an the others about the dragon!! I am a dragon player and I learned a lot of your discussion!

Finn

Hi at all,

i want to start a new discussion about the following line:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
d6 9. c3 Bg4 *

I think since two years this line has become a normal line in Ruy Lopez and there are games with ECO C91 in each TWIC Magazine...GM´s used it in serious chess tournaments... It was not ever like today!
In the old classical chessbooks about Ruy Lopez we can read things like "...black is equal..." "...d4 is not so good because Bg4!..." and end of discussion.
But things changed an the middlegames are deeper analysed; The result: White has tricky options and he is the one who decide which kind of middlegame will arise. And also its an active way to avoid the marshall attack.

So my questions are:
1. What do you think about the 8.d4 system
2. What is your favourit reply after 8. d4 d6 9. c3 Bg4
   a) d5
   b) Be3
   c) others
3. Do you think the middlegame has a more positional character or is it more tactical and combinative?

Post your opinions but please do not wonder if I don´t write back directly because I will see my PC the next time on monday!  

Read you
Finn