Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Shabalov line (Read 6008 times)
ManuelMo
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1
Joined: 07/11/19
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #25 - 07/11/19 at 18:48:47
Post Tools
I have registered just to state clearly that the person calling himself "Klaus Junge" is definitely NOT the author of the Article(s) mentioned, mbecause I am manuel Gerardo Monasterio and I never entered to say anything here.Therefore, please be aware that that onbe is not me, I never behave in such a pretentious manner, it is not my style. Thank you! Anyone wanting to really contact to Manuel Ger5ardo Monasterio may do it so going to Facebook, there they will see me in real face. You will recognize me because I have dozens of GM's and IM's as friends.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Strategy_Rules
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #24 - 06/13/07 at 23:56:01
Post Tools
to answer one question: my coach does not play the (anti-)meran, so he cannot say much about the shabalov line, so I asked here.
about this game Sasikiran-Dreev : I said Dreev did not repeat that line meaning following his game and thats true. You have nothing to complain. Its just true . Please read carfully. If he could repaet this or not is another question. The essential point is, that Dreev played this Bb4-line one time in his life (at least according to my database).

I do not want to argue with you if the position after 18...Nc5 19.Bxd5 is better for white or not, because you know everything better. But I doubt very much that you can prove the equality in an OTB game  because the position is just worse. Black has to play very accuratly in order to keep the position.

Quote:
Your phrase: A bluff ?  What would you play after Nxg4 Rg1 then ?  
Sounds undoubtedly denigrating about the line...


Huh YOU WROTE :

Quote:
I would rather call White plan a bluff and play immediately Nxg4


....and I asked you why you call it a bluff

You are really strange, not even knowing what you wrote yourself  Grin

Again :
[quote ]Most opening variations lead to complete equality (one of the exceptions might be some variations in the Najdorf where the position just stays dynamic and does not simplyfy, so unclear instaed of equal) if blacks chooses the best (or one of the best) variations [/quote]

Maybe you should just read this one more time in order to understand what I wrote. In order to help you understanding: "Most openings" .... "if blacks chooses the best (or one of the best) variations"
The statistics just do not have to do much with that statement  Grin
Why is the performance of most 2700+ GMs better with white ?? Think please ... !!
1. For lower rated oppoents (e.g. 200 points less) its easier to draw with white pieces
2. In the big majority of games, black did not show the clearest/ best way for equality. Nobody has the answer to all questions.
But the reason is not that its impossible to equalize (with black) in most openings ! Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klaus Junge
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 24
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #23 - 06/13/07 at 22:49:31
Post Tools
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4
e5 9. g5 Nd5 UP TO HERE THE GAME Shariyazdanov-Dreev  was equal to the previous Sasikiran-Dreev,
how do you know that Dreev is not goingto repeatr his play against Sasikiran????? It was Shariyazdanov that here did not allow Dreev to play the same line as in his game against Sasikiran, by playing A DIFFERENT 10th MOVE, namely   Bd2 (instead of Sasikiran's Ne4) How could a player repeat a line if his opponent diverges????????????? Your reasoning is impossible to follow.

You write:
"Anyway, believe me, Dreev will not play the same way again "

Why should I believe you?
The coach you mention is Dreev himself?
Or you are just quoting things that you hear from your coach? If you are so sure, it must be the case...

I said (and you quote me)
This is so unlikely that it os already on the verge of the hilarious, just see the statistics of every GREAT PLAYER (not you and me, please) of all times...If your statement could be true, the score for Black MUST be equal or so as the White score...Which OBVIOUSLY is not the case.

And you add in regard to my comment:

Well, I should ask other people who are activ in this forum, to comment this. Maybe they can convince you rather than me. I can just say that my chess coach, a GM  and certainly an opening expert among the grandmasters, has the same opinion like me

Yes, I repeat once more, White results are statistically significantly higher than Black's with the same player...
I will not try to challenge your Coach's competence and high stature, but not even Capablanca reincarnated
could be able to change the simple mathematical facts:

Kasparov statistics with White 80%
Kasparov statistics with Black 64%

Topalov with White 66%
Topalov with Black 53%

Anand with White 70%
Anand with Black 57%

Botvinnik with White 71%
Botvinnik with Black 63%

Karpov with White  72%
Karpov with Black   57%

Tal with White 70%
Tal with Black 59%

Petrosian with White 71%
Petrosian with Black 58%

Kortschnoj with White 68%
Kortschnoj with Black 58%

Should I continue?

Ti be fair, thre are some big exceptions, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, but these found themselves in an exceptional niche of time and strength among their contemporaries.

Ask your coach if he would play a match against a fellow GM at 10 games he playing all with Black..If the theoretical outcome is equal between White and Black he should have no problems...

And last, if you have a GM coach, why don't you ask him about the line against the Shabalov???? Are you kidding me???? Having that kind of help, you are asking us???? What are you? A masochist????

YOU WROTE; I dont consider that Black has an inferior game Your "improvement" 18...Sc5 "!" cannot be convincing, after 18.Rxd4 Nc5 19.Bxd5 d5x white's advantage is beyond any doubt due to black's bad bishop. 

As far as I can see you are direceted by an old frame of interpretation in these positions, I do not consider Black Bishop bad at all, and Black's position has enough potential strength....I could prove to you any time....But if you are going to play with your coach, I perhaps resign!

To contradict your
"I really feel sorry for you if you cannot bear criticism. Other people would be thankful for hints, e.g. the hint I gave you about the Bareev-Vallejo game.
Bot no word about that from your side .... "


You make me so dizzy with so many rave that I forgot to acknowledge that you have a point here, White seems to be better (even much better) indeed.

And about your suggested Bc7, it is indeed playable, I just don't like the attacking positions White may get there. I am not obliged to analyze any legal move in every position.

Your phrase: A bluff ?  What would you play after Nxg4 Rg1 then ?

Sounds undoubtedly denigrating about the line...

Bye









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


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #22 - 06/13/07 at 20:11:53
Post Tools
Remember, YOU suggested the line bxc4,Bxc4,e5 and recommended your own article Smiley I repeatedly asked for (solid) alternatives. And now, after saying what I think about that line and about your article ........

I really feel sorry for you if you cannot bear criticism. Other people would be thankful for hints, e.g. the hint I gave you about the Bareev-Vallejo game.
Bot no word about that from your side ....  

Quote:
But you throw unsubstantiated propositions such as the preposteous: "By the way, Dreev did not repeat this line in the last two years, probably not without reason"


You should read carefully, Dreev indeed did not repeat this line I was talking about. I was talking about your second article (Ne4,Bb4) and about the game Sasikiran-Dreev quoted there. Anyway, believe me, Dreev will not play the same way again (I mean just following his own game against Sasikiran). Yes, he played 7...Nxg4 recently.
Your "improvement" 18...Sc5 "!" cannot be convincing, after 18.Rxd4 Nc5 19.Bxd5 d5x white's advantage is beyond any doubt due to black's bad bishop.
I think MNb will agree, too. I remember he suggested a very intersting idea in the bishops opening some time ago. Thanks for this inspiring discussion by the way.

Quote:
To end this comedy, in 2007, Dreev -who (being such an ass) must have arrived to his level just by chance, DID also play the line that -again-according to your   ALLKNOWING WISDOM, is almost ridiculous, and this againt one of the experts in the Shabalov:

Quote:
Nxg4 (the move you condemn so much...)


Grin You seem to have a very strange way of perception  Grin
Instead of this, I wrote :
Quote:
7...Nxg4 8.Rg1 f5 is very solid, but it could be slightly better for white.

I wrote that @ page 1 here, you can check that.

Then I wrote:
Quote:
Most opening variations lead to complete equality (one of the exceptions might be some variations in the Najdorf where the position just stays dynamic and does not simplyfy, so unclear instaed of equal) if blacks chooses the best (or one of the best) variations


Your comment to that :
Quote:
This is so unlikely that it os already on the verge of the hilarious, just see the statistics of every GREAT PLAYER (not you and me, please) of all times...If your statement could be true, the score for Black MUST be equal or so as the White score...Which OBVIOUSLY is not the case.


Well, I should ask other people who are activ in this forum, to comment this. Maybe they can convince you rather than me. I can just say that my chess coach, a GM  and certainly an opening expert among the grandmasters, has the same opinion like me

Maybe somebody else in this forum is willing to discuss some alternatives for black in the shabalov line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klaus Junge
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 24
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #21 - 06/13/07 at 16:33:20
Post Tools
The amount of conceitness packed in your answer is just too much for me.

As I see, you seem to be the greatest world leading specialist in the Shabalov variation. Therefore, I just apologized! I was mistakenly driven because of your first emails asking for advice, As it is, your asked advice was for the world elite...Far, very far and out of my league.

Your only interest in on bragging about your own "drumms".
But you throw unsubstantiated propositions such as the preposteous: "By the way, Dreev did not repeat this line in the last two years, probably not without reason"

Refuting your lousy comment, Dreev DID play again the variation, but his opponent was the first one to change (yes, indeed, "huge databases" are useless if one does not research them properly...)

[Event "Aeroflot Open"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2006.02.12"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Shariyazdanov, A."]
[Black "Dreev, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2583"]
[BlackElo "2697"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[EventDate "2006.02.08"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2006.02.13"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4
e5 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd2 ( instead of Sasikiran's 10.Ne4) O-O 11. O-O-O exd4 12. Nxd4 Nb4 13. Qb1 Ne5 14. Be2 c5 15.
Nf5 c4 16. Nxd6 Ned3+ 17. Bxd3 Nxd3+ 18. Kc2 Qxd6 19. Be1 Bg4 20. Rd2 Bf3 0-1

Not only Mr.Dreev (according to your OPINION and ANALYSIS) is dumb enough to play the "risky" and perhaps "inferior" dxc4 line, his opponent (the low ranked Shariyazdanov... Grin) is an idiot enough to avoid the advantageous line that you proposed as an improvement in Sasokiran-Dreev...Perhaps they both have to read what you have to say about it...

To end this comedy, in 2007, Dreev -who (being such an ass) must have arrived to his level just by chance, DID also play the line that -again-according to your   ALLKNOWING WISDOM, is almost ridiculous, and this againt one of the experts in the Shabalov:

[Event "Chess Classic GM"]
[Site "Gausdal NOR"]
[Date "2007.04.20"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Krasenkow, M."]
[Black "Dreev, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2661"]
[BlackElo "2633"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "2007.04.18"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "NOR"]
[EventCategory "12"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2007.04.23"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Nxg4 (the move you condemn so much...) 8. Rg1
Qf6 9. Rxg4 Qxf3 10. Rxg7 Nf6 11. Rg5 Ne4 12. Nxe4 Qxe4 13. Qxe4 dxe4 14. Rh5
f6 15. Bg2 f5 16. f3 exf3 17. Bxf3 Bd7 18. Bd2 O-O-O 19. Bc3 Be8 20. Rh3 Rg8
21. Kf2 Bg6 22. Rg1 f4 23. exf4 Rgf8 24. Ke2 Rxf4 25. Bg4 Rdf8 26. Bxe6+ Kd8
27. Rg2 Re8 28. Re3 c5 29. dxc5 Bxc5 30. Re5 Bd6 31. Re3 Bc5 32. Re5 Bd6 33.
Re3 1/2-1/2

Now, I don't want to finish without pointing out that your "improvement" 18.Rxd4 (a "wonderful postional shot" that poor devil Sasikiran -another patzer- Grin did also miss) does not, of course, lead to a better game for White that the one got in the game, because Black is not obliged to play your passive 18...Nb6, but the far more active 18...Nc5!

And, going back to another of your ill-founded affirmations, when you said before, trying to confront my:

"it is absolutely NORMAL for White to retain a small advantage in most openings" and your pedantic answer: 
"I must completely disagree with that statement. Most opening variations lead to complete equality"

This is so unlikely that it os already on the verge of the hilarious, just see the statistics of every GREAT PLAYER (not you and me, please) of all times...If your statement could be true, the score for Black MUST be equal or so as the White score...Which OBVIOUSLY is not the case.

I must finished now and for good. It is a sad thing to try to get some "ego busting" from abusing your fellow-"forumites". I do not have to tolerate more abuse from you.

If you consider my articles SO DAMN LOUSY, all you have to do is to stay away from the. Anyway, it is obvious that I cannot offer you nothing of use, why bother to answer to a patzer like me, anyway?

Have a good time.




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


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #20 - 06/13/07 at 12:52:32
Post Tools
Well, I already told you that in your article there are a lot of critical lines missing and also some mistakes. The essential point is, that white simply does not have to follow any played game. It is legal to play just something else Smiley
Its not suprising for me that there exist many serious improvements for white in the lines that you recommend for black, because 7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 e5 is a very very risky line for black where white has many possibities to pose black problems that are really very hard to solve over the board (even for top GMs).

Ok ok , some examples Smiley

Quote:
Supporting Pedersen’s assessment, it seems that White can interpose the zwischenzug 11.Qe4!?+ here, which according to him (and to several played games!) may give White a slight advantage.
But now I have to disagree as I really don’t believe that Black is worse in this line. In order to prove this, of course, he must know what is doing! Here, both natural looking moves (11…Ne7 and 11…Qe7) seem playable:


Well, lets have a look at your proof ! Smiley

Quote:
11…Ne7 (by far the safer move here) 12.Qxd4 Nf5 13.Qe4+Ne7 (“draw?”) 14.Qc2 (“not yet”) 14…b6 15.Be2 Bf5 16.Ne4 Bc7 17.Nd4 Bg6 18.h4 h5 19.Bd3 “slightly better for White, Malaniuk-Ivanovic, Yugoslav Ch. 1993” according to Pedersen. But I just cannot thing “slightly” anything after the very same move of the quoted game 19…Qd5. In fact, White blundered immediately here with 20.O-O-O? (better 20.Bb4, after which I still do not see any real danger for Black) 20…Qxa2 and Black was clearly better.


Here you just ignore all white alternatives: 11.Qd3,16.e4,17.Nh4. You cannot prove 11...Ne7 as completely playable if you do not consider white's alternatives.

Quote:
11…Qe7 More complex  and risky than 11…Ne7, but perfectly playable


Ok, lets check your proof here Smiley

Quote:
German GM Lutz gives 11…Qe7 a “?” in his notes to Krasenkow-Volkmann, Calvia Ol. 2004. But after the long and seemingly more or less forced line: 12.Qxd4 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Bb5 Kf8 16.Qxd5 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Be6 18.Qe4 Ba3 19.Bc4 Bxc4 20.Qxc4 b6! (a new move found by Spanish GM Vallejo Pons in his game against Bareev at the Monaco Rapid 2005.) 21.Rg1 Re8 22.Rg4 and now instead of 22…h5? -- after which Vallejo still got a draw, but only because Bareev blundered in a completely won position -- Vallejo suggested the strong 22…Qb7! 23.Bb4+ Bxb4 24.Qxb4+ Kg8 25.Qa4 Rc8 26.Rd1 with a complex and very unclear position.


So you really recommend to play like this ?

After the "strong" 22....Qb7 "!" white can play 23.Rd1 ! and now its quite easy to see that white's adavantage is huge, because the Rh8 is just out of the game. White's position is probably even winning.

Quote:
Here, if Black plays 11…N7b6!?, 12.Be2 takes us into the aforementioned transposition that Pedersen suggested in his analysis. This line is completely playable, as far as you do not go 12…Nxc3? as in Bagirov-Kleeschaetszky, Giessen 1993, which ended horribly for Black. Instead, you must play as Pedersen himself suggests 12…Nb4 and if 13.Qe4+ Qe7 chances look equal


After 14.Qxe7 white has a lead in development and a space advantage. I really would not call this an equal position.

Similar in your second article:

Quote:
1.e.) 13.Bb3!? This seems the most testing, but lately the strongest specialist in the Semi-Slav showed the way 13...0-0 14.0-0-0 exd4! 15.Qxd4 Re8! 16.Ng3 Qc5+ 17.Kb1 Qxd4 18.Nxd4 N7b6 19.h4 Bg4 20.Rc1 a5 21.a3 a4 22.Ba2 Rad8 23.h5 Kf8 24.Rh4 Bc8 25.Ka1 Ne7 26.Nf3 Ned5 27.Ne4 h6 28.gxh6 gxh6 29.Nc5 Rd6 30.Nd4 Nf6 31.Nd3 Re4 32.Rhh1 Re8 33.Rh4 Re4 34.Rhh1 Re8 35.Rh2 Nbd7 36.Rh4 Re4 37.Rhh1 Re8 38.Rh4 Re4, 1/2-1/2, Sasikiran (2652) - Dreev (2698), Spain 2005.


Yes, Dreev showed a way here, but a way to a worse position: 18.Rxd4! Nb6 19.Bc2! with the idea Ng3-e4-c5. I thinks white's advantage should not be underestimated here.  By the way, Dreev did not repeat this line in the last two years, probably not without reason.

Well, thats far not all I could criticise... But enough for now. I hope you understand now, why I really dislike the variation with 7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 e5 for black in OTB chess. I do not say this line is bad (black can also play other moves than you suggested * ) but the line is very risky anyway. I would always have to fear a good opponent's preparation in an OTB game in such a risky line, because white has so much space to improve the theorie here and in many of theses lines black has to find a sequence of only moves.
But I understand now that you are mainly interested in corr chess (I am focused on OTB chess) and do not have to worry about such things. You have time to analyse the variations when they appear on your board in corr chess. That maybe also explains that you do not care too much about the question if a position is equal or slightly worse.

* In the beginning of your second article you say : Quote:
After 10.Ne4 Black must play 10...Bb4+ 11.Bd2
Why ? Is 10...Bc7 not playable ? Have a look at the game Xakru-Flying Saucers at http://www.rybkachess.com/docs/4rdFreestlefinal/Dagh.PGN/dagh.htm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klaus Junge
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 24
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #19 - 06/12/07 at 21:30:01
Post Tools
Hi MNb, why don't you suggest some line that is of your interest, I would try to write something about it, according to Correspondence/email current practice.
It would be very interesting to get out of the route!
best wishes
PD:thank you very much for your kind words, it is not easy to please chess readers!!!
Of course, we have more questions than answers in chess, I least in my case! It is a matter of proposing interesing questions to keep going just an interesting research!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10343
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #18 - 06/12/07 at 20:53:45
Post Tools
Strategy_Rules wrote on 06/12/07 at 15:01:30:
Quote:
if you follow my article you shall see my games

Huh .... Smiley ... Ah, you seem to be the author of this article, so you are Manuel Gerardo Monasterio ? I really could not know this.



Neither could I. When will your next article be published on Silman's site? They belong to the best there. I always read them closely, even though they are usually on openings, which do not interest me very much.
Now I have to read them again, just to see if I can show up with some smart questions.  Wink
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
blueguitar322
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 138
Joined: 07/27/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #17 - 06/12/07 at 20:42:42
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/12/07 at 20:30:29:
[quote author=Strategy_Rules link=1180174689/0#6 date=1181395824] [quote]
Well obviously, all chess positions are either won, drawn or lost.  In that sense "+=" is not a strictly objective evaluation.  "+=" means not that White is winning, but that White's game is more pleasant and his problems are easier to solve than Black's.  "=" means that the respective games are equally pleasant and the respective problems of about the same difficulty.  In that sense, which is quite important I think, it is definitely not the case that "most opening variations lead to complete equality [to '=', that is]."  Most opening variations lead instead to "+=," and I maintain that if White plays well, he can ensure that "+=" is the result of the opening phase of the game.

The question for Black is, what sort of disadantage he wants.  E.g. if you play IQP very well, by all means play the Tarrasch.  Objectively it is +=, but in many practical settings you'll be facing problems that are perhaps not too difficult for you.


I'm not sure this is always true, exhibit A being the Najdorf, where I'm certainly not aware of any objective += for White. I would certainly say that the path to "=" is much narrower for Black in White's trying lines (6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 in particular) but that's about it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #16 - 06/12/07 at 20:30:29
Post Tools
Strategy_Rules wrote on 06/09/07 at 13:30:24:
Quote:
[quote]And in third place, it is abolsutely NORMAL for White to tretain a small advantage in most openings,

I must completely disagree with that statement. Most opening variations lead to complete equality (one of the exceptions might be some variations in the Najdorf where the position just stays dynamic and does not simplyfy, so unclear instaed of equal) if blacks chooses the best (or one of the best) variations. Of course I do not say that its always easy to find out (even not at home with the help of databases and engines) which is the best line for black for equality.


Well obviously, all chess positions are either won, drawn or lost.  In that sense "+=" is not a strictly objective evaluation.  "+=" means not that White is winning, but that White's game is more pleasant and his problems are easier to solve than Black's.  "=" means that the respective games are equally pleasant and the respective problems of about the same difficulty.  In that sense, which is quite important I think, it is definitely not the case that "most opening variations lead to complete equality [to '=', that is]."  Most opening variations lead instead to "+=," and I maintain that if White plays well, he can ensure that "+=" is the result of the opening phase of the game.

The question for Black is, what sort of disadantage he wants.  E.g. if you play IQP very well, by all means play the Tarrasch.  Objectively (ha ha) it is +=, but in many practical settings you'll be facing problems that are perhaps not too difficult for you.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klaus Junge
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 24
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #15 - 06/12/07 at 15:21:17
Post Tools
Yes, I am. I just cannot help it!  Kiss
Sorry to have been unable to offer something useful for you.... Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Strategy_Rules
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #14 - 06/12/07 at 15:01:30
Post Tools
Quote:
if you follow my article you shall see my games

Huh .... Smiley ... Ah, you seem to be the author of this article, so you are Manuel Gerardo Monasterio ? I really could not know this.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klaus Junge
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 24
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #13 - 06/11/07 at 21:26:26
Post Tools
Sir, I have told you that I have played these lines. chess is about concrete aplications, if you follow my article you shall see my games, that is all that I can offer. Sorry if it is not enough for you. Perhaps somebody else cares enough to answer you something else, I am done.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Strategy_Rules
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/05/06
Gender: Male
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #12 - 06/11/07 at 20:26:51
Post Tools
Quote:
I would rather call White plan a bluff and play immediately Nxg4

Quote:
What should I play? Nothing, because I only play dxc4 and Bb4...


Sometimes I really dont understand you Smiley

But one question: Did you ever analyse one of the variations (dxc4 or Bb4) systemetically ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Klaus Junge
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 24
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Shabalov line
Reply #11 - 06/11/07 at 19:32:12
Post Tools
What should I play? Nothing, because I only play dxc4 and Bb4... Grin
Of course, Black must go for f5 and the plan with Nf8...But I don't like such positions, as I already said.
Why don't you come with something? Apparently you have everything very clear on tyour head, enough "to refute" anything that appears from your coleagues here.... Roll Eyes

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo