To Wink's question of how to play when you are feeling more frisky, I agree with Edgy...you can play ...e6, Be7 without a huge degree of prep if you have a reasonable feel for IQP positions. It may not be to everyone's taste, but the advantage of playing this way is that you are putting the onus on White. He can't just shift wood. 

Or you can investigate one of the sidelines of the endgame variation such as ...exd5 iso ...Qxd5.

Good points man. I've just taken out my copy pf Khalifman's Karpov book last night...I'll probably look a little more closely on the suggested lines...

By the way Dink, what Caro Line do you play when you're in the mood to fight against the opponent of equal strength who plays 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.ed cd 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3?

Sylvester wrote on 12/16/08 at 01:16:22:


I don't think so.  I play 5...e6 because I feel it's less work than the much sharper 5...Nc6 lines.  I think Houska advocates ...Nc6 more because she really likes active piece play than to avoid theoretical work.

Quote:


11.000 is another option that the text has no trouble describing as okay for Black. The issue seems to be over the coverage of 11.Rg1 (ie. 11...Qc7 is suspect).

By the way, the question (analogy aside) was avoided by a trite remark. That's understood Dink. Do you have a little more depth that we might appreciate (no pun intended)?

I remember I looked at Martin's Caro DVD and nearly fell asleep during the Panov parts. It seems in order to play it you have to know one endgame backwards and forwards. It is probably a constructive use of your time, if you play the Caro exclusively and if you face the Panov a lot. To my mind, though, Houska's repertoire seems to give more winning chances. That's important, because amateurs (like me) have trouble motivating ourselves to study drawish lines that would otherwise not be a problem when earning norms. 

I already made my Patzer norms, thanks. 

I've read a great deal of stuff on here since the book came out but I think we ought not (if I can rely on cliches)  to throw the baby out with the bath water.  If Rybka has busted Qc7 in the 11.Rg1 line, what about 11. 0-0-0? For example, that chapter has A2 (page 83) covering that although Cheparinov took on b6 with a pawn rather than his Queen as advanced by Houska :  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1477285 ;

I think the book is a fantastic effort for a non GM. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the criticism has been centered here on 6.Nf3. That means that the Bg5 section is still good, nez pas?

And that chapter contains alternatives, so it's not like your forced into something.

Dink Heckler wrote on 12/09/08 at 09:36:16:


What's the issue with that? In particular A) and B) can be helpful if you want to read the book and if most people's first thought would be "So, Why can I not play that move?", it does help in those cases if the author points out that the move simply looses. As for C), well, of course some lines are simply unclear and there may not be much to say on them (i.e. it's just a tactical mess that's unclear - or it's an unclear position of a type that is discussed elsewhere in the book, thus the reader will vaguely know what to do). It really depends on how well and appropriately these options are used.