Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll Question: After 8.Qf3!? what is Black's best response.
bars   pie

8...cxb5    
  6 (11.5%)
8...Qc7    
  3 (5.8%)
8...h6    
  10 (19.2%)
8...Be7    
  14 (26.9%)
8...Rb8    
  17 (32.7%)
8...Bg4    
  0 (0.0%)
8...e4    
  2 (3.8%)




Total votes: 52
« Created by: TopNotch on: 09/22/06 at 19:32:24 »
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line (Read 25108 times)
rossia
Senior Member
****
Offline


Saw: "Game Over!"

Posts: 334
Location: Irkutsk
Joined: 09/17/07
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #39 - 08/10/08 at 20:28:30
Post Tools
(3025) Estimo,S - Balinas,R [C58]
Manila Manila, 1968
[Gligoric,S]
5/244  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 [8.Be2] 8...cxb5!? [8...Qc7] 9.Qxa8 h6 N [9...Bc5 10.0–0 0–0 11.b4 Bxb4 12.Nc3!] 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.Qb8 Nc6!µ 12.Qxb5 Ndb4 13.Na3 [13.Qa4 Bd7] 13...Ba6 14.Qa4 Qd4!–+ 15.Nc3 [15.d3? Nxd3+] 15...Bc5 16.d3 Qxf2+ 17.Kd1 0–0 18.Re1 Qxg2 19.Bd2 Bf2 20.Ne2 Bxe1 21.Bxe1 Bc8! 22.Bxb4 Bg4 23.Kd2 Qxe2+ 24.Kc3 Rc8 25.Nc4 Nd4 26.Be7 Be6 0–1

(13390) Taruffi,D - Rajna,Gy [C58]
Espana, 1974
[Keres,P]
19/(235)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 * 5...Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 N 10.Be2?! [10.Nbc3!?] 10...Be7 11.Qg3 0–0 12.d3 Bh4µ Line

(22310) Van der Wiel,J - Gligoric,S [C58]
Baden Baden, 1980
[Parma,B]
30/256  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Qc7 [8...Rb8 - 30/(256)] 9.Bd3 h6 [9...Bd6 - 30/(256)] 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.Nbc3 [11.Ng3 g6!²] 11...Nb4?! [11...Nf4 12.Bf1 f5²] 12.Ng3 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Nb7 14.0–0 Bc5 15.Nce4 Be7 16.Qf3² Qd7 17.Qh5 Qe6 18.d3 0–0 19.f4 f5 20.Nc3 Bd6 21.Kh1 Bd7 22.fxe5 Bxe5 23.Bf4 Bxf4 24.Rxf4 Nd6 25.Raf1 c5 26.R4f2 c4 27.Re2 Qf7 28.Qxf7+ Rxf7 29.dxc4 Nxc4 30.b3 Nb6 31.Rd2 Re8 32.a4?! [32.Kg1!?] 32...Re5 33.Nge2 g5 34.Nd4 Rfe7 35.Kg1 f4© 36.h3 Kg7 37.Rd3 Be8 38.Nf3 Rc5 39.b4 Rc4 40.Nd2 Rc8 [40...Rxb4? 41.a5 … ¤d5] 41.a5 Bg6 42.Rdf3 Nc4 43.Nxc4 Rxc4 44.g3 fxg3 [44...Bh5÷; 44...Re3!?] 45.Rxg3 Rec7? [45...Bxc2÷] 46.Nb5 Rd7 47.c3 Re4 48.Nd4+- a6 49.Kh2 Re5 50.Rf2 Re1 51.Rg1 Re3 [51...Re5] 52.h4! Rxc3 53.Ne6+ Kg8 54.hxg5 Rdd3 55.Nf4 Rd6 56.gxh6 Kh7 57.Nxg6 Rxg6 58.Rxg6 Kxg6 59.Rf4 Rc6 60.Rh4 Kh7 61.Kg3 Rf6 62.Kg4 1–0

(22852) Van der Wiel,J - Torre,E [C58]
Sochi Sochi, 1980
[Parma,B]
30/(256)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 * 8...Rb8 9.Bd3 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.b3?! g6 12.Qg3 Bg7 13.Ba3 Nb4 14.Ke2? 0–0 15.c3 Bg4+!–+ Line

(22853) Van der Wiel,J - Beliavsky,A [C58]
Baden Baden, 1980
30/(256)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.Bd3 * 9...Bd6 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Nb5 Bxf3 12.Nxc7+ Bxc7 13.gxf3 Nd5 14.h4 h6 15.Nh3 0–0 16.b3 Rad8 17.Ba3 Bd6 18.Bxd6 Rxd6 19.a3 ½–½

(24402) Van der Wiel,J - Timman,J [C58]
Nederland (ch), 1981
[Van der Wiel,J]
32/420  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3!? Rb8 [8...Be7!? 9.Bd3 0–0 10.Nc3 h6 11.Nge4 Nd5 12.Ng3 g6©] 9.Bd3 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.b3! g6 12.Qg3 Nf4 13.Bb2 Bg7 14.Ba3 [14.Qxf4?! exf4 15.Bxg7 Kd7! … f5µ] 14...Nb7 15.Nbc3?! [15.Ba6 c5 16.f3!²] 15...f5 16.Ne2 g5? [16...fxe4 17.Nxf4 Qg5 18.Nxg6 exd3 19.Nxh8 Bf5! 20.cxd3 Bxh8 21.Rc1÷; 16...Nxd3+! 17.cxd3 Kf7³] 17.Nxf4 exf4 18.Qf3 Qa5!? [18...Bxa1?? 19.Qh5++-; 18...Be6 19.Nc3±] 19.Nd6+ [19.Qh5+? Kd8 20.Qf7 Qe5!] 19...Nxd6 20.Qxc6+! [20.Bxd6 Kd7! 21.Bxb8 Re8+÷] 20...Kf7 21.Bxd6 Re8+ 22.Kd1 Bxa1 23.Bc4+? [23.Bxb8 Qxa2 24.Bc4+ Be6 25.Qd7+ Re7 26.Bxe6+ Kf6 27.Qd8! Qb1+ 28.Ke2 Qxh1 29.Bd6+-] 23...Be6 24.Re1? [24.Bxb8 Bxc4 25.Qxc4+ Kf6 26.Qc6+! Re6 27.Qa4±] 24...Bxc4! ™ 25.Qxc4+ [25.Qd7+? Kg6! 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Qxe8+ Bf7–+] 25...Kg6 26.Bxb8 Rxb8 27.c3 Qxa2! 28.Re6+! [28.Qe6+? Kh5 29.Qf7+ Kh4] 28...Kh5 29.Rxh6+ ½–½

(93171) Van der Wiel,J (2490) - Ernst,S (2520) [C58]
Groningen Groningen, 2004
[Van der Wiel,J]
92/319  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Rb8?! [8...Be7; 8...Bg4!?] 9.Bd3 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.b3 g6 12.Qg3 [12.0–0 f5 13.Re1 Bg7 (13...fxe4 14.Qxe4‚) 14.Ba3 fxe4 15.Bxe4 Be6! 16.Bxg6+ Kd7÷; 12.Bb2!?] 12...Bg7 13.Bb2 [13.Ba3?! Nb4©] 13...Nf4 [13...0–0?! 14.Bxe5 Bxe5 15.Qxe5 Bf5 16.0–0 Re8 17.Qd4 Bxe4 (17...Rb4 18.c4 Nf4 19.Nf6+) 18.Bxe4 Nb4 19.Qxd8 Rbxd8 20.a3!+-; 13...Qc7 14.Ba3! Bf8 (14...Nb4 15.c3) 15.0–0±] 14.Qxf4! [14.Ba3?! - 32/420] 14...exf4 15.Bxg7 Kd7 [15...Rg8 16.Nf6+ Ke7 17.Nxg8+ Qxg8 18.Be5±; 15...Rf8 16.Nf6+ Ke7 17.Nh7! Re8 18.0–0 Qb6 19.Bxh6±; 15...f5 16.Bxh8 fxe4 17.Bxe4 Qe7 18.Nc3±] 16.Bf6!± [16.Bxh8? Qxh8„] 16...Qe8N [16...Qf8 17.Nbc3] 17.0–0 [17.Kd1!?] 17...Kc7 18.Re1 Bf5 [18...Be6? 19.Be5+ Kb6 20.Nbc3‚ …Rd8 21.b4+-] 19.Na3! [19.Nbc3? Qe6! 20.Bg7 Rbe8 21.Bxh8 Rxh8 22.Ng3 Qf6 23.Nxf5 gxf5²; 19.Bc3 Nb7 20.Na3 Rd8±] 19...Qe6?! [19...Rd8?! 20.Nc5+-; 19...Nb7!? 20.Nc4 Rd8!±] 20.Bc3 Qd5 [20...Nb7 21.Nf6+- … ¥e5] 21.Nc4+- [… ¥e5] 21...Nxc4 22.bxc4! [22.Bxc4?! Qxe4±] 22...Qd8?! [22...Qd7?! 23.Be5+; 22...Qe6™ 23.Nc5! (23.Nf6?! Qc8 24.Re7+ Kd6! 25.Bxf5 gxf5 26.Rd7+ Qxd7 27.c5+ Ke7 28.Nxd7 Kxd7 29.Bxh8 Rxh8 30.Rb1±) 23...Qc8 24.Be5+ (24.Bxh8!?) 24...Kb6 25.Bd6! Ka5 26.Reb1!] 23.Ba5+ [23.Ba5+ Rb6 24.c5]  1–0

(95760) Van der Wiel,J (2500) - Van Leent,D (2305) [C58]
Hoogeveen (open) Hoogeveen, 2005
[Van der Wiel,J]
95/231  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Ba4!? [10.Be2 Ü 19/(235); 10.Nbc3 cxb5 11.Nxd5 Bb7 12.Ne3 Qd7© (12...Qd4?! 13.d3 Bb4+ 14.Ke2!²) ] 10...Be7 [10...g6 11.Nbc3; 10...Nb6!?] 11.d3 [11.Nbc3?! 0–0 12.Bxc6 Nxc6 13.Nxd5 Nd4 14.Nxe7+ Qxe7© …15.Qd1 (15.Qd3? Ba6) 15...Bb7] 11...0–0 12.0–0 f5 13.Ng3!?N Be6 [13...f4 (… g5ƒ») 14.Ne4 Bf5 (14...g5 15.Qh5) 15.Nbc3 Nb6 16.Re1²] 14.Bd2 [14.Re1 Nb6 (14...Bd6!?) 15.Bb3² (15.Rxe5?! Bd5÷) ] 14...Rb8 [14...Qb6 15.Nc3 (15.Bxa5!?) 15...Qxb2 16.Nxd5! Bxd5 17.Qh5± פa5, f5; 14...Qc7!? … ¤b7] 15.Re1! [15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.axb3 Qd7÷ … f4] 15...Bd6 [15...Bf6 16.Nh5] 16.Na3² Nb4 [16...Rxb2 17.Bxa5 Qxa5 18.Nc4 Qxa4 19.Nxb2 (19.Nxd6!?) 19...Qxc2 20.Nc4 e4 21.Qd1!±] 17.c3 Nd5 18.b4 Qh4! 19.Qh5 [19.Nc2? f4 20.Qh5 Qxh5 21.Nxh5µ Ü 21.¤c2] 19...Qxh5 20.Nxh5 f4! [פh5] 21.bxa5 [21.Nc2? Nb6! (21...Bg4 22.bxa5 Bxh5 23.Bxc6 Ne7 24.Ba4 Bg6 25.Nb4!±) 22.Nxf4 Bf5 23.bxa5 Nxa4µ פc2, ¥d2; 21.Nc4 Nxc4 22.dxc4 Nb6 23.c5! Nxa4 24.cxd6 Bg4 25.Rxe5 g5!÷] 21...Bxa3 22.Rxe5 Bb2 [22...Bf7 23.Bxc6! a) 23.Bb3? Bd6! 24.Rf5 g6 25.Nf6+ Kg7³; b) 23.Nxf4!? Bb2 (23...Nxf4 24.Bxf4 Bb2 25.Rf1±; 23...Rb2 24.Bc1 Nxf4 25.Bxf4±) 24.Nxd5! Bxa1 25.Bxc6²; 23...Bb2 24.Rae1 Nxc3 25.Rc5± (25.Nxf4? Nb1?³) ] 23.Rae1 Bxc3 [23...Bf7 24.Bxc6!± Ü 22...¥f7] 24.Bxc3 Nxc3 25.Rxe6 Nxa4 26.Re7ƒ Rf7 [26...Rb5 27.Nxg7 Rf7 28.Rxf7 Kxf7 29.Ne6±] 27.Rxf7 Kxf7 28.Nxf4 Rb2“ [28...Rb5!?] 29.h4 Rxa2 30.Rb1 Nb2? [30...Rb2! 31.Rxb2 (31.Rc1 c5²) 31...Nxb2 32.Kf1 g5 33.hxg5 hxg5 34.Nh3 Kf6²] 31.d4 [¹31.h5±] 31...g5! 32.hxg5 hxg5 33.Nh3 Kf6 34.Rc1 Rxa5 35.Rxc6+ Kf5 36.f3 Nd3?? [36...g4™ 37.fxg4+ Kxg4 38.Rg6+ Kh4 39.Kf2! (39.Nf4?! Rg5 40.d5 Nc4 41.d6 Nb6²) 39...Ra3 (39...Rf5+ 40.Ke3 Nc4+ 41.Ke4 Rf8 42.d5±) 40.d5!±] 37.g4# # 1–0

(95761) Shanava,K (2490) - Gaprindashvili,V (2440) [C58]
Baku Baku, 2005
[RR]
95/(231)  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Ba4!? Be7 11.d3 0–0 12.0–0 f5 * 13.Nec3 Be6!?N [13...Bb7; 13...Kh7!?; 13...Nb6!? …14.Bxc6? e4 Van der Wiel,J] 14.Re1 Bf6 15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.axb3 Nb4 17.Na3 Re8© ©

(98502) Short,N (2676) - Hebden,M (2532) [C00]
Liverpool Liverpool, 2006
[Short,N]
Inf 98/236 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Ba4 Be7 11.d3 0–0 12.0–0 f5 13.Ng3 Be6 14.Re1!?N [14.Bd2 — 95/231] 14...Bd6 [14...Nb6 15.Bb3 Nxb3 16.axb3 Bd6 17.Nd2±; 14...Qd7!? 15.Nd2!? a) a) 15.Rxe5 Bf6 16.Re1 (16.Rxf5 Bd4!µ) 16...f4 17.Ne4 Bg4 18.Nc5 (18.Nxf6+? Rxf6 19.Qe4 Re6–+) 18...Qf5 19.Qe4 Qh5‚; b) b) 15.c4 Nb6 (15...Nb4? 16.Rxe5 f4 17.Ne4± …Bg4? 18.Rxe7+-) 16.Bd1 Rad8 17.Nc3 f4 18.Nge4 Qxd3 19.Qxd3 Rxd3 20.b3²; ] 15.c4 [15.Bd2²] 15...Ne7 16.Bd2 c5 17.Nc3 a6 [17...e4 18.dxe4! Bxg3 19.Qxg3 Qxd2 20.Qe5! Rf6 21.Qxc5 Nxc4 22.Qxe7 Nxb2 23.Bc6+-] 18.Nd5 [¹18.Nh5 Ng6 (18...f4 19.Nxf4) 19.Qh3 (… ¤g7) 19...Rf7 20.Rad1±] 18...Nac6 19.Bxc6?! [19.Nh5! e4 (a) 19...Nd4 20.Qg3 Rf7 21.Be8!!+- (*) 21.Bxh6? Nxd5 22.cxd5 (22.Bxg7 Kh7!) 22...f4µ) ) 20.Qh3 (20.dxe4 Nd4 21.Qd3 fxe4 22.Qxe4 Nxd5 23.cxd5 Bf5 24.Qe3 Bg4 25.Ng3 Bf4 26.Qd3 Bxd2 27.Qxd2 Qxd5 28.Qc3!±) 20...Nd4 21.Nxg7 Kxg7 22.Bxh6+ Kg8 23.Qh5 Rf7 24.dxe4±] 19...Nxc6 20.Bc3² Qe8 21.h3 [21.Ne2 f4!; 21.Re2!?] 21...Rd8 22.Re2 Bb8 23.Rae1 a5 24.a3 [24.Nh5 Qf7 25.Ne7+!? Nxe7 26.Bxe5 Bxe5 27.Rxe5 Rd6! 28.Rxc5÷ (28.Nf4 Nc6! …29.Rxe6 Nd4³) ] 24...Nd4 25.Bxd4 cxd4 26.Nb6 [26.Rxe5 Bxe5 27.Rxe5 Bxd5 28.Rxd5 f4 29.Rxd8 (29.Nf5 Rxd5 30.Qxd5+ Kh7 31.Nxd4 Qe1+ 32.Kh2 Qxf2„) 29...Qe1+! (29...Qxd8 30.Ne2 a4²) 30.Nf1 Rxd8 31.Qxf4 Qb1„] 26...e4 27.dxe4 [27.Nxe4!? fxe4 28.Qxe4 Bd7™ (28...Bf7? 29.Qb7+-) 29.Qxd4 Qf7 30.Re7 Rde8! (30...Bf5 31.Nd5 Qg6 32.Rb7 Kh8 33.Ree7²) 31.Rxe8 (31.Nd5 Bd6!) 31...Rxe8 (31...Bxe8 32.Nd5 Kh7 33.b4±) 32.Rxe8+ Qxe8 33.Kf1 Bc6 34.b4 axb4 35.axb4 Qh5!„] 27...f4 28.Nf1 Qc6 29.Nd5 Qxc4 30.Nd2 [30.Ne7+! Kh7 (30...Kf7 31.Nf5 d3 32.Rd2) 31.Nd2 Qc5 32.Nd5 Bxd5 33.exd5 Qxd5 34.Qd3+ Qf5 35.Re4²] 30...Qb5 31.Qb3 Qxb3 32.Nxb3 Bxd5 33.exd5 Rxd5 34.Rd2 Be5 35.Nc1 a4? [× a4] [35...Rc8! 36.Nd3 Bd6 37.Kf1 Kf7÷] 36.Nd3 Bd6 37.Rc2² f3 [37...g5! 38.Rc4 Ra8 39.Re4 Bf8!² …40.Rexd4 Rxd4 41.Rxd4 Bg7„] 38.g3 h5? [38...Rb8] 39.Rc4± h4 40.g4 Ra5 41.Rxd4 [¹41.Re4] 41...Rf6 42.Ree4 Bc7 43.Kf1! Rc6 [43...Bb6 44.Rd7!± (44.Rxa4? Rxa4 45.Rxa4 Rd6 46.Ne1 Rd2–+) ] 44.Rxa4 Rxa4 45.Rxa4 Rd6 46.Ne1 Rd1 47.Re4+- Rb1 48.Re8+ [48.b4!?] 48...Kh7 [48...Kf7 49.Re3] 49.Rf8 Bd6 50.Rxf3 Rxb2 51.Rc3! Be5 [51...Ra2 52.Nc2 Kg8 53.Kg2 Kf7 54.Kf3] 52.Rd3 Bb8 53.Nf3 Ba7 54.Rd2 Rb3 55.Kg2 Rxa3 56.Nxh4 Bb8 57.Nf3 Bf4 58.Rd4 g5?! 59.h4 1–0


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kgwm
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 51
Joined: 05/30/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #38 - 08/10/08 at 13:29:30
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 08/09/08 at 20:59:48:
I don't play this, but after 8..Rb8 9.Bd3 the line 9..h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.b3 seems to favor White.  Maybe 9..h6 just kicks the Ng5 where it wants to go. Why not simply 9..Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nc3 and only now 11..h6 since  12.Nh3 allows 12..Bg4 and 12.Ne4 Nd5 seems OK for Black?


For a long time, this line with b3 was considered to be the refutation of 8..Rb8. This was the famous stem game of this variation (and I believed was covered in chesspub before):

[Event "Groningen Harmonie"]
[Site "Groningen"]
[Date "2004.12.24"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Van der Wiel, John TH"]
[Black "Ernst, Sipke"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C58"]
[WhiteElo "2493"]
[BlackElo "2521"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "2004.12.21"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[EventCategory "10"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2005.04.11"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8.
Qf3 Rb8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Ne4 Nd5 11. b3 g6 12. Qg3 Bg7 13. Bb2 Nf4 14. Qxf4!! (A fine positional sacrifice that can only be illustrated and explained clearly by going through the next few moves. White's pieces work harmoniously while Black's pieces are in disarray) exf4
15. Bxg7 Kd7 16. Bf6 Qe8 17. O-O Kc7 18. Re1 Bf5 19. Na3 Qe6 20. Bc3 Qd5 21.
Nc4 Nxc4 22. bxc4 Qd8 23. Ba5+ 1-0

However, I think things are not so simple and Black does have sufficient modes of play. For example, 9..Bd6, preparing a quick castling followed by Nd5 and f5 is an aggressive way to go and not at all easy to meet. Take a look at how a 2389 player went down without a fight:

[Event "Tadeusz Gniota mem 22nd"]
[Site "Police"]
[Date "2007.07.12"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Owczarzak, Jerzy"]
[Black "Malaniuk, Vladimir P"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C58"]
[WhiteElo "2389"]
[BlackElo "2522"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "2007.07.11"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "POL"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2007.09.04"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Rb8 9. Bd3 Bd6 10. Bf5 h6 11. Bxc8 hxg5 12. Bf5 g6 13. Be4 g4 14. Qe2 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 f5 16. Qe2 Rb7 17. d4 Kf7 18. dxe5 Bxe5 19. c3 Re7 20. Be3 f4 21. Nd2 fxe3 22. fxe3 Kg7 23. O-O-O Qb6 24. Kc2 Rb8 25. Rb1 Qc5 26. Qxg4 Rxb2+ 0-1




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #37 - 08/10/08 at 03:46:10
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 08/09/08 at 21:57:10:
Quote:
Nigel Davies recommends 8...Rb8 in his book, Play 1 e4 e5!


Actually, he doesn't.  He recommends 8..h6, which he says seems like the most reliable continuation.


Oops, sorry! I thought Davies recommended 8...Rb8 but you are right, it is 8...h6.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #36 - 08/09/08 at 22:16:16
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 08/09/08 at 21:57:10:
Quote:
Nigel Davies recommends 8...Rb8 in his book, Play 1 e4 e5!


Actually, he doesn't.  He recommends 8..h6, which he says seems like the most reliable continuation.



I've always considered 8... h6 to be busted. Either Be7 or Rb8 (rb8 if you're adventurous or Be7 is you prefer reliability) H6 is if you're ready to lose.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #35 - 08/09/08 at 21:57:10
Post Tools
Quote:
Nigel Davies recommends 8...Rb8 in his book, Play 1 e4 e5!


Actually, he doesn't.  He recommends 8..h6, which he says seems like the most reliable continuation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #34 - 08/09/08 at 20:59:48
Post Tools
I don't play this, but after 8..Rb8 9.Bd3 the line 9..h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.b3 seems to favor White.  Maybe 9..h6 just kicks the Ng5 where it wants to go. Why not simply 9..Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nc3 and only now 11..h6 since  12.Nh3 allows 12..Bg4 and 12.Ne4 Nd5 seems OK for Black?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #33 - 08/09/08 at 19:17:39
Post Tools
Nigel Davies recommends 8...Rb8 in his book, Play 1 e4 e5!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kgwm
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 51
Joined: 05/30/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #32 - 08/09/08 at 07:44:14
Post Tools
Actually, I wasn't expecting nor starting a discussion but was just bewildered at the lack of interest in a variation as dynamic as 8..Rb8 when it's the most popular option on the poll. Hopefully I can raise the level of interest with the August updates.  Smiley

Wei Ming
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #31 - 08/09/08 at 02:24:10
Post Tools
what line of rb8 would you like us to be discussing? Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kgwm
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 51
Joined: 05/30/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #30 - 08/08/08 at 20:51:05
Post Tools
I am currently working on the Colman Variation (8..Rb8!) for August's updates and going through the thread, despite apparent interest from many of the chesspub users, there seems to be very little discussed here with regards to this little known line.

It is interesting to note that it is the most popular retort against 8.Qf3 in this poll!

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
wcywing
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 176
Joined: 01/04/08
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #29 - 06/24/08 at 22:37:27
Post Tools
why play 2 knights when you can play 3... Bc5!!  Grin  seriously though, wasn't Qf3 a favorite of Morphy? 

i know Ng5 was not popular was popular for a while because Black can have initiative and had to defend a lot.  but if Short revives Ng5 with Qf3 we will probaly see this a lot more and less 4. d4 or 4. O-O  i doubt that the 2 knights will be refuted, it looks too sound to  be refuted.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #28 - 06/24/08 at 00:45:27
Post Tools
actually I recently encountered another weird move after 8. Qf3 Rb8 9. Ba4?! I can only find one example of this where an amateur played it against Arthur Bisguier. Anyone have comments on this?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #27 - 06/12/08 at 21:36:47
Post Tools
trw wrote on 06/10/08 at 01:25:32:
I personally have always liked Rb8 but I play cxb5 in blitz sometimes Smiley Be7 is definitely playable but I have always regarded 8.... h6 as awful and perhaps Short's comment is not out of place in response to 8... h6



I like Rb8 as well, but I believe it inferior to Be7.


So, is Qf3 really !? or ?!
or just a chess move?
  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #26 - 06/12/08 at 21:26:54
Post Tools
also kinda off topic but in the line 8... Rb8 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Nd7

I have recently seen 11. d4?! played.... anyone think this is a good novelty? I thought it horrible in the game because he creates another weakness... with the pawn on d4 it was easily scooped up without losing my initiative... so very strong attack at the cost of one pawn. But he wasn't particularly the best player so maybe it was not the idea that was unsound.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #25 - 06/10/08 at 01:25:32
Post Tools
I personally have always liked Rb8 but I play cxb5 in blitz sometimes Smiley Be7 is definitely playable but I have always regarded 8.... h6 as awful and perhaps Short's comment is not out of place in response to 8... h6
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #24 - 06/07/08 at 17:43:44
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 09/27/06 at 22:47:18:
Markovich wrote on 09/27/06 at 12:39:48:
TopNotch wrote on 09/26/06 at 23:19:57:
So far 8...Rb8 is the poll favorite, what's your vote Markovich?

Toppy Smiley


I'd like to say that I voted for 8...cxb5! and that I have private notes that justify it.

But in fact, I voted for 8...Rb8, only for the reason that I have played it often.  As a CC player I don't have to be totally up on all my theory (there are CC players who take a very different approach, but I not infrequently book up only after the game goes in some specific direction).  Looking at it again quite recently however, I'm not sure what Black has against Van der Wiel's idea which, I know, has been around for awhile.

I like my students to play the Two Knights, so I'll have to come up with something.  Since the inception of this thread, I've taken some time to look at 8...Be7, which appears to hold some promise.  One funny idea I looked at was 8...Be7  9. Bxc6+ Nxc6  10. Qxc6+ Bd7  11. Qf3!? (silicon likes this; Emms mentions 11. Qc4, which appears to have been played in a few games) 11...0-0  12. Nc3 Ng4  13. Nh3!?  (perhaps 13. h4 is better) 13...Nh6!? intending ...Nf5, ..Nd4.  


I tend to agree with you about 8...Be7, as it actually seems to give Black an extra tempo on all the other lines.

Despite Short's rather efficient win and cryptic remarks, I doubt 8.Qf3 will catch on among the rank and file or even with his GM colleagues, as White seems to be taking his life in his hands just as much as Black is in this line. However I would add the caveat, that if paired as Black against Nigel it would be prudent to choose another defence.

Topster Smiley  


Two years on I can report that in addition to myself: Julio Becerra; Joel Benjamin and Alexander Onischuk all consider 8...Be7 to be black's most promising line here, despite it only scoring 19% in this poll.

Does anyone have anything new to add or would anyone like to revise their position?

Toppy 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
 
Justinhorton
Full Member
***
Offline


Kingpinista

Posts: 237
Joined: 10/27/06
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #23 - 11/03/06 at 19:18:53
Post Tools
But I did, and it's in the March '04 update.

You want the Sokolov-Kunte game: the line Davies finds is 6...Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Nc3 O-O 9.Bd7 Qd7 10.O-O Rfe8 11.Qe5  because 11..Ng4 12.Qg3 Bg5 13.h3 gets the piece back. (Or 12...Bd6 13.Qd3 Bh2 14.Kh1 "and Black is in serious trouble".) Black is a pawn down without enough to show for it.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Justinhorton
Full Member
***
Offline


Kingpinista

Posts: 237
Joined: 10/27/06
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #22 - 11/03/06 at 09:31:57
Post Tools
[quote author=Michael Ayton link=1158953544/0#5 date=1159225078]If I may be forgiven an off-topic thought, does anyone know the current status of 6 ...Bd7!?. [/quote]

If I recall correctly, Nigel Davies covered the move some time ago on the 1.e4 e5 page - and there was one line which looked iffy for Black. I can't remember how long ago this was, though, and I'm not sure I want to trawl through several years' worth of archives to check...
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #21 - 10/23/06 at 14:51:26
Post Tools
[Event "Baden"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Date "1980.??.??"]
[Round "14"]
[White "Van der Wiel,John TH"]
[Black "Gligoric,Svetozar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C58"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Qc7
9.Bd3 h6 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.Nbc3 Nb4 12.Ng3 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Nb7 14.0-0 Bc5 15.Nce4 Be7 16.Qf3 Qd7
17.Qh5 Qe6 18.d3 0-0 19.f4 f5 20.Nc3 Bd6 21.Kh1 Bd7 22.fxe5 Bxe5 23.Bf4 Bxf4 24.Rxf4 Nd6
25.Raf1 c5 26.R4f2 c4 27.Re2 Qf7 28.Qxf7+ Rxf7 29.dxc4 Nxc4 30.b3 Nb6 31.Rd2 Re8 32.a4 Re5
33.Nge2 g5 34.Nd4 Rfe7 35.Kg1 f4 36.h3 Kg7 37.Rd3 Be8 38.Nf3 Rc5 39.b4 Rc4 40.Nd2 Rc8
41.a5 Bg6 42.Rdf3 Nc4 43.Nxc4 Rxc4 44.g3 fxg3 45.Rxg3 Rec7 46.Nb5 Rd7 47.c3 Re4 48.Nd4 a6
49.Kh2 Re5 50.Rf2 Re1 51.Rg1 Re3 52.h4 Rxc3 53.Ne6+ Kg8 54.hxg5 Rcd3 55.Nf4 R3d6 56.gxh6 Kh7
57.Nxg6 Rxg6 58.Rxg6 Kxg6 59.Rf4 Rd6 60.Rh4 Kh7 61.Kg3 Rf6 62.Kg4  1-0

  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #20 - 10/23/06 at 14:30:49
Post Tools
I think van der Wiel started playing Qf3 earlier than the nineties. If I remember well in one of his first outings, Spasski (an experienced 1..e5 player) wasnt impressed by "the cold light of day" and won convincingly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2891
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #19 - 10/23/06 at 11:21:00
Post Tools
what is "depth 20" ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
photophore
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 203
Location: Montesson
Joined: 09/25/04
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #18 - 10/21/06 at 20:02:16
Post Tools
To depth 20 , Rybka 2.1c gives variation
8...Be7 9 Bxc6+ Nxc6 10 Qxc6+ Bd7 11 Qf3 O-O 12 O-O Ng4 13 Ne4 f5 14 Ng3 e4 15 Qb3+
with an evaluation of +0.01 that means complete equality : Black compensation is worth the invested material , but not more
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
glsix
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 18
Location: Mons
Joined: 02/23/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #17 - 10/20/06 at 12:44:45
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 09/25/06 at 20:21:41:
Here is the game, with notes by FM Steve Giddins. I also understand the game was analysed in Chess Today, an online magazine run by GM Alex Baburin.

Short,Nigel (2676) - Hebden,Mark (2532) [C58]
EU Championship Liverpool (10.1), 15.09.2006
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Qf3. This old move has for years been regarded as giving Black a strong initiative, but in recent times, the cold reality of computer analysis has made people realise that Black may just be a pawn down for not enough. John van der Wiel has been at the forefront of rehabilitating the move.


If I remember well, John Van der Wiel started playing this move in the early 90's, long before computers where strong enough to give a "definite" truth about this variation (will they ever be able to ?)
wich makes mr Giddins first comment a little out of place.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Tater_Salad
Junior Member
**
Offline


the only prescription
is more cowbell

Posts: 95
Location: Squalor
Joined: 10/28/05
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #16 - 10/18/06 at 10:15:36
Post Tools
i like 8...Bb7 9.Be2 Bd6 10. Nc3 0-0 11. d3 c5

frits doesn't like 8...Bb7, but actually scores much better with black than white when playing it out. its very hard to hold back black's play if he is patient, although the position is complex enough that both sides have good chances. i certainly wouldn't call it just giving up a pawn for nothing, even with other 8th moves.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fancies
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Win with grace , lose
with dignity

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/09/06
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #15 - 10/14/06 at 09:23:29
Post Tools
Is 8 ...Qb6 considered as refuted ? I didnt see it in the poll ... Nonetheless , it's not my favourite at all
8 ...Bb7 should be the one since I never beat it !
Could anyone show me the way ? Thanks
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #14 - 09/27/06 at 22:47:18
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 09/27/06 at 12:39:48:
TopNotch wrote on 09/26/06 at 23:19:57:
So far 8...Rb8 is the poll favorite, what's your vote Markovich?

Toppy Smiley


I'd like to say that I voted for 8...cxb5! and that I have private notes that justify it.

But in fact, I voted for 8...Rb8, only for the reason that I have played it often.  As a CC player I don't have to be totally up on all my theory (there are CC players who take a very different approach, but I not infrequently book up only after the game goes in some specific direction).  Looking at it again quite recently however, I'm not sure what Black has against Van der Wiel's idea which, I know, has been around for awhile.

I like my students to play the Two Knights, so I'll have to come up with something.  Since the inception of this thread, I've taken some time to look at 8...Be7, which appears to hold some promise.  One funny idea I looked at was 8...Be7  9. Bxc6+ Nxc6  10. Qxc6+ Bd7  11. Qf3!? (silicon likes this; Emms mentions 11. Qc4, which appears to have been played in a few games) 11...0-0  12. Nc3 Ng4  13. Nh3!?  (perhaps 13. h4 is better) 13...Nh6!? intending ...Nf5, ..Nd4.  


I tend to agree with you about 8...Be7, as it actually seems to give Black an extra tempo on all the other lines.

Despite Short's rather efficient win and cryptic remarks, I doubt 8.Qf3 will catch on among the rank and file or even with his GM colleagues, as White seems to be taking his life in his hands just as much as Black is in this line. However I would add the caveat, that if paired as Black against Nigel it would be prudent to choose another defence.

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: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #13 - 09/27/06 at 12:39:48
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 09/26/06 at 23:19:57:
So far 8...Rb8 is the poll favorite, what's your vote Markovich?

Toppy Smiley


I'd like to say that I voted for 8...cxb5! and that I have private notes that justify it.

But in fact, I voted for 8...Rb8, only for the reason that I have played it often.  As a CC player I don't have to be totally up on all my theory (there are CC players who take a very different approach, but I not infrequently book up only after the game goes in some specific direction).  Looking at it again quite recently however, I'm not sure what Black has against Van der Wiel's idea which, I know, has been around for awhile.

I like my students to play the Two Knights, so I'll have to come up with something.  Since the inception of this thread, I've taken some time to look at 8...Be7, which appears to hold some promise.  One funny idea I looked at was 8...Be7  9. Bxc6+ Nxc6  10. Qxc6+ Bd7  11. Qf3!? (silicon likes this; Emms mentions 11. Qc4, which appears to have been played in a few games) 11...0-0  12. Nc3 Ng4  13. Nh3!?  (perhaps 13. h4 is better) 13...Nh6!? intending ...Nf5, ..Nd4.
  

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


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #12 - 09/26/06 at 23:19:57
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 09/26/06 at 18:39:39:
Quote:
Markovich wrote on 09/26/06 at 12:13:13:
8...Rb8  9. Bd3 h6  10. Ne4 Nd5  11. b3 is regarded as good for White.  


11. b3 g6 12. Bb2 Bg7 13. Qg3 Nf4 14. Qxf4 exf4
15. Bxg7 f5 16. Bxh8 Kf7 17. Bc3 fxe4 18. Bxe4 Bf5 19. Bxf5 Qe7+ 20. Kd1 gxf5
21. Bxa5 Qc5 22. Bc3 Qxf2 23. Kc1 Qxg2 24. Rd1 f3 25. Na3 f2 26. Kb2 Qxh2 27.
Nc4 Re8 28. Bd4 Re2 29. Bxa7 h5 30. a4 Qg2 31. a5 1-0




What, is that queen sac sound?  Whose game is that?  Also 13. Ba3!? is an awkward move to meet.


Van der Wiel has played this Queen Sac, but he was not the first. Van der Wiel has also tested 13.Ba3 but considers it dubious.

So far 8...Rb8 is the poll favorite, what's your vote Markovich?

Toppy 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: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #11 - 09/26/06 at 18:39:39
Post Tools
Quote:
Markovich wrote on 09/26/06 at 12:13:13:
8...Rb8  9. Bd3 h6  10. Ne4 Nd5  11. b3 is regarded as good for White. 


11. b3 g6 12. Bb2 Bg7 13. Qg3 Nf4 14. Qxf4 exf4
15. Bxg7 f5 16. Bxh8 Kf7 17. Bc3 fxe4 18. Bxe4 Bf5 19. Bxf5 Qe7+ 20. Kd1 gxf5
21. Bxa5 Qc5 22. Bc3 Qxf2 23. Kc1 Qxg2 24. Rd1 f3 25. Na3 f2 26. Kb2 Qxh2 27.
Nc4 Re8 28. Bd4 Re2 29. Bxa7 h5 30. a4 Qg2 31. a5 1-0




What, is that queen sac sound?  Whose game is that?  Also 13. Ba3!? is an awkward move to meet.
  

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #10 - 09/26/06 at 18:38:44
Post Tools
[quote author=Michael Ayton link=1158953544/0#9 date=1159285290]I also thought 6 ...Bd7!? was OK when last I looked (mainly at some games of Skembris if memory serves). Maybe the mistake's on move six!?[/quote]

Or five.
  

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


‘You’re never alone with
a doppelgänger.’

Posts: 1856
Location: durham
Joined: 04/19/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #9 - 09/26/06 at 15:41:30
Post Tools
I also thought 6 ...Bd7!? was OK when last I looked (mainly at some games of Skembris if memory serves). Maybe the mistake's on move six!?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zulu144
Ex Member


Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #8 - 09/26/06 at 15:18:17
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 09/26/06 at 12:13:13:
8...Rb8  9. Bd3 h6  10. Ne4 Nd5  11. b3 is regarded as good for White. 


11. b3 g6 12. Bb2 Bg7 13. Qg3 Nf4 14. Qxf4 exf4
15. Bxg7 f5 16. Bxh8 Kf7 17. Bc3 fxe4 18. Bxe4 Bf5 19. Bxf5 Qe7+ 20. Kd1 gxf5
21. Bxa5 Qc5 22. Bc3 Qxf2 23. Kc1 Qxg2 24. Rd1 f3 25. Na3 f2 26. Kb2 Qxh2 27.
Nc4 Re8 28. Bd4 Re2 29. Bxa7 h5 30. a4 Qg2 31. a5 1-0


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #7 - 09/26/06 at 12:13:13
Post Tools
That game is quite impressive.  It isn't clear, after 8...h6, where Black made a mistake.  8...h6 is the theoretical move right now, since 8...Rb8  9. Bd3 h6  10. Ne4 Nd5  11. b3 is regarded as good for White.  Can it be that 5...Na5 is unsound?!  That would be a big change in chess theory. 

I imagine that considerable attention will turn to 8...Be7 now.
  

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


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #6 - 09/25/06 at 23:02:36
Post Tools
Quote:
If I may be forgiven an off-topic thought, does anyone know the current status of 6 ...Bd7!?. Possibly not an easy nut to crack? ...


Still playable to my knowledge, haven't checked the theory in awhile.

Only eleven votes so far? Didn't realise the Two Knights was so unpopular.

Tops 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
 
Michael Ayton
God Member
*****
Offline


‘You’re never alone with
a doppelgänger.’

Posts: 1856
Location: durham
Joined: 04/19/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #5 - 09/25/06 at 22:57:58
Post Tools
If I may be forgiven an off-topic thought, does anyone know the current status of 6 ...Bd7!?. Possibly not an easy nut to crack? ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #4 - 09/25/06 at 20:21:41
Post Tools
Here is the game, with notes by FM Steve Giddins. I also understand the game was analysed in Chess Today, an online magazine run by GM Alex Baburin.

Short,Nigel (2676) - Hebden,Mark (2532) [C58]
EU Championship Liverpool (10.1), 15.09.2006
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8 Qf3. This old move has for years been regarded as giving Black a strong initiative, but in recent times, the cold reality of computer analysis has made people realise that Black may just be a pawn down for not enough. John van der Wiel has been at the forefront of rehabilitating the move. 8...h6 9 Ne4 Nd5 10 Ba4. Van der Wiel prefers [10 Nbc3] here, but Short was following some analysis that he had done a couple of years ago, with the Ukrainian teenage super-talent, Sergey Kariakin. 10...Be7 11 d3 0–0 12 0–0 f5 13 Ng3 Be6 14 Re1 Bd6 15 c4 Ne7 16 Bd2 c5 17 Nc3 a6 18 Nd5 Nac6 19 Bxc6. This is the logical follow-up to White’s plan, which is to pressurise e5, but Fritz 9 is hot to trot with the strange move [19 Nh5!?]. Looking more closely, it does seem surprisingly strong. The knight will drop into f4 at some stage, exploiting the loose Black bishop on e6. 19...Nxc6 20 Bc3 Qe8 21 h3 Rd8 22 Re2 Bb8 23 Rae1 a5 24 a3 Nd4 25 Bxd4 cxd4 26 Nb6?! Here, the exchange sacrifice [26 Rxe5] comes strongly into consideration. 26...e4 27 dxe4 f4 28 Nf1 Qc6 29 Nd5 Qxc4 30 Nd2 Qb5 31 Qb3 Qxb3. Over the past few moves, White has lost most of his advantage. At this point, Black offered a draw, but this was declined. 32 Nxb3 Bxd5 33 exd5 Rxd5 34 Rd2 Be5 35 Nc1 a4 36 Nd3 Bd6 37 Rc2. Thanks to the knight on d3, White retains a small advantage. Black’s pawn on a4 is more vulnerable that White’s on b2, which is defended by the knight-blockader. 37...f3 38 g3 h5 39 Rc4 h4 40 g4 Ra5? Losing without much fight. A better try was [40...Rb8 41 Rxa4 Rb3] when White still has significant technical problems to solve. 41 Rxd4 Rf6 42 Ree4. Now a4 goes as well, and the rest is silence. 42...Bc7 43 Kf1 Rc6 44 Rxa4 Rxa4 45 Rxa4 Rd6 46 Ne1 Rd1 47 Re4 Rb1 48 Re8+ Kh7 49 Rf8 Bd6 50 Rxf3 Rxb2 51 Rc3 Be5 52 Rd3 Bb8 53 Nf3 Ba7 54 Rd2 Rb3 55 Kg2 Rxa3 56 Nxh4 Bb8 57 Nf3 Bf4 58 Rd4 g5 59 h4 1–0.

Hope the above sheds some light.

Tops 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: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #3 - 09/25/06 at 17:56:51
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 09/22/06 at 19:32:24:
Recently Super GM Nigel Short has used the following line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dc6 bc6 8.Qf3!? to crush life long Two Knights Defence expert GM Mark Hebden. A very smooth and impressive technical game by Nigel indeed.

Short was later quoted as saying that the Two Knights defence just loses a pawn!, and that anybody who played the line regularly as Black is taking their life in their hands. A powerful proclamation indeed.

On researching the theory of this line I discovered there is no clear consensus as to the most effective way to meet the hitherto underrated 8.Qf3!?.

Now the burning question is, could Nigel be correct or is this simply a case of winners Bravado. 

Thoughts?

Toppy Smiley


[url]http://www.france-echecs.com/diagramme/imgboard.php?fen=r1bqkb1r/p4ppp/2p2n2/nB2p1N1/8/5Q2/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K2R w KQkq - 0 1[/url]


It is a sure sign that a system is good when the recommended method of playing against it keeps changing.  Not too long ago, 8. Be2 h6  9. Nf3 e4  10. Ne4 Bd3  11. d4 exd3  12. Nxd3 0-0  13. b3 was supposed to be the refutation of the Two Knights (at least it was according to Harding and some others).  Now it turns out that it's really 8. Qf3 that does the job.  Yeah, right. 

I haven't seen Short-Hebden, but if this particular move is evidence that Black "just loses a pawn," that is a little bit surprising, since White's side of this is risky and demanding.  If Black "just loses" a pawn, I would think there would be a simpler way of proving it.  I'll have to look at the game before I say anything more, but that is my first impression. 

Since it's supposed to be so critical, it would be nice if someone would post it.
  

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


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #2 - 09/23/06 at 06:51:00
Post Tools
Ohh yes I love these diagram thingies Smiley

They seem to visually enhance certain kinds of post quite nicely and allows the reader to quickly and painlessly zoom in on the essence of what is being discussed.

The Short-Hebden game must surely be included among the latest twic downloads.

Hebden chose 8...h6.

Wow, I noticed someone voted for 8...e4 - hmmm, perhaps that person won't mind elaborating a bit.

Tops 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
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
Reply #1 - 09/23/06 at 03:18:55
Post Tools
I haven't had a chance to look over the line, but one thing is clear.

TN is getting hooked on diagrams! Grin

It's not a bad addiction, though (if anyone wants the unbiased Wink opinion of a fellow addict).

Do you have a link to the game?  Is it in one of the recent issues of TWIC?  (or maybe you'd prefer not to bias the voting)
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 2050
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Two Knights Defence - 8.Qf3!? Line
09/22/06 at 19:32:24
Post Tools
Recently Super GM Nigel Short has used the following line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dc6 bc6 8.Qf3!? to crush life long Two Knights Defence expert GM Mark Hebden. A very smooth and impressive technical game by Nigel indeed.

Short was later quoted as saying that the Two Knights defence just loses a pawn!, and that anybody who played the line regularly as Black is taking their life in their hands. A powerful proclamation indeed.

On researching the theory of this line I discovered there is no clear consensus as to the most effective way to meet the hitherto underrated 8.Qf3!?.

Now the burning question is, could Nigel be correct or is this simply a case of winners Bravado.  

Thoughts?

Toppy 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
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo