|
I am not very convinced about the 8...d3 line. But there is more to this line than the games cited above: 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.c3,Nf6 4.d4,exd4 5.e5,Ne4 6.Qe2,f5 7.exf6,d5 8.Nbd2 The following line is less clear than preceding posts suggest: 8.....,Qxf6 9.Nxe4,dxe 10.Qxe4,Qe6 (10....Be7!?) 11.Bd3 doesnt give white much of an advantage IMHO: 11......dxc3 And now white has two replies: I.12.0-0 II.12.bxc I. 12.0-0, Qxe4 13.Bxe4, Bb4!? (14.Bxc6,bxc 15.bxc,Bxc unclear) 14.bxc,Bxc3 Schaeffer-vd.Doel 2000 By the way Velimirovic-Ree contains a flaw: 13......Bd7 14.Bxc6,Bxc6 15.Re1+,Kf7 16.Ne5+ Now Ree blundered with 16...Kf6 17.Nxc6, bxc6 18.bxc Black should play instead 16....Kg8! 17.Nxc6,cxb2! 18.Bxb2,bxc with equality. (Holthuis-Leeners, corr. 1985) II.12.bxc3!?, Bd7! 13.0-0,0-0-0 Nor is the following line exactly clear: 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.c3,Nf6 4.d4,exd4 5.e5,Ne4 6.Qe2,f5 7.exf6,d5 8.Nbd2, Bf5 9.Nxd4,Nxd4 10.cxd4,Kf7!? 11.Nxe4,Bxe4 12.fxg7,Bxg7 lead to a sharp and unclear position in Ohlzon-Mattala, Hallstahammer 1998 (Sweden) 9.Nxe4,dxe4 10.f7+,Kxf7 11.Ng5+ and now not 11....Kf6? 12.g4 +- Duckstein-Wittman 1976 but 11.....Ke8 12.Nxe4,Qe7 13.Ng3,Bg6= (Taylor-Andersson, USA 1981) Finally if some of you are trying to find some more theory on this line you should realize that some authors consider these variations as belonging to the scotch gambit: (1.e4,e5 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.d4,xd4 4.c3,Nf6 transposes)
|