MNb wrote on 08/06/07 at 20:07:35:


This is worth commenting on and is a very good question. I thought at the time of the game that Qe7 was weaker than Qf8. 
13.... Qe7 14. e5 Nd5 15. Qh5 and black has problems handling the threat of Ne4 followed by Nd6 

I will deal with 10...0-0 in a separate posting.

Note that 17. Qc1 is in my opinion not best. White should play 17. Bd4 



[Event "WRG2-2 theme corr"]
[Site "SEMI corr"]
[Date "2000.07.15"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Flude,David A"]
[Black "Viola,Matteo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C15"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Nh3 Nf6 8.Nf2 Nc6   
9.fxe4 cxd4 10.Bd3 Qa5 11.0-0 Qxc3 12.Rb1 Qc5 13.Rb5 Qf8 14.Bf4 e5 15.Rxe5+ Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Bd7   
17.Qc1 Qe7 18.Bxd4 0-0 19.Qe3 Qe6 20.h3 Bc6 21.Qg5 h6 22.Qg3 Nh5 23.Qf3 Qd6 24.c3 Ng3   
25.Re1 f5 26.Qe3 Qg6 27.Bc5 Rfe8 28.e5 b6 29.Bb4 Rad8 0-1

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/06/07 at 14:51:27:


Sound's like you're doing a great job both with history and with chess.  My kids also don't know about Alekhine's, and they won't find out from me!

MNb wrote on 07/06/07 at 02:26:17:


I do not disagree about the WRG, but in fairness, there are some gambits which are probably not entirely sound that are nevertheless fine to teach to a kid, for example, the Goering and Danish gambits, the Moeller Attack in the Italian, and the Smith-Morra.  Nobody at the kid's level, or even near it, will be able to refute play along these lines.  And the chess education the kid gets from studying and playing these lines is very good.  It's perfectly fine if, in two years, you say, "well this is not quite sound for play at your present level; time to switch to this other system."  I don't consider it deceitful, anyway. 

I teach the Ulvestad to my kids, suggesting that if 6. Bf1 is played (it essentially never is among children), 6...h6 in preference to the sounder and more memory-taxing 6...Nd4.  I don't think that the unsoundness of that move, which is rather difficult to prove OTB, is a reason for a kid not to play it.  Why prepare all sorts of variations given that 6. Bf1 is unlikely to come up anyway?  I tell the kids that this way of playing isn't 100% sound, but that it leads to sufficient practical chances for their purposes, and that the resulting positions are good for their education.

I don't think the WRG falls into that category, though, since both 7...e5 and 7...c5 appear immediately to be very straightforward challenges to White's whole conception.  So my objection to the WRG for a kid is not that it's unsound, but that it's too easy to prove that it is.

Anyway as you will know, I don't think that 3. Nc3 is the best way for a young and improving player to proceed against the French, but advise instead 3. exd5 exd5  4. c4.  If I did advise 3. Nc3 it would be to a kid who's come along pretty far and pretty well.  And of course, one thing you have to weigh into the balance is the opportunity cost of the WRG, which is that you don't get to play the deeply interesting and promising WPP.

I have to admit that I was pretty disgusted when I bought Winkelman's (or is it "Winckelman's"?) German-language book and then discovered that Black was just equal or better after 7...e5.

MNb seems quite angry about this entire thread.  I share his distaste for the opening, and my first impulse was to write "This opening is rubbish." and leave it at that.

I agree with almost everything that MNb has said about this opening (I disagree that we should confine ourselves to analysing only best moves here and not look at the practical side of chess).  There may be some pedagogical value to teaching an unsound gambit, but the cost in terms of the student's trust and even in terms of the student being able to give a proper evaluation of positions is too great.

The old Soviet School of chess has much to teach us about how to teach and learn chess.  The school focused on teaching the Spanish, QGD and classical openings first, and then on more dynamic positions as the players improved.  This theory of teaching chess openings is still producing some of the best players in the world.  That system allowed for a variety of players, ranging from Petrosian to Tal, Karpov to Kasparov to emerge.   

So, let me finish with my first impulse.

Unless you're playing blitz or bullet, this opening is rubbish.   

I love it when opponents give me a chance for instant equality as Black!

MNb wrote on 07/04/07 at 21:54:28:


I concur.  There is so much great chess and promise for White in the Winawer Poison Pawn, why avoid it?  If White wants to play in slash-and-burn fashion, there is plenty of opportunity to do it there, for example with his king going soon to d1.  White is White, for crying out loud!  There is no need to rely on problematic gambits.

If White has to rely on moves like 7.Nh3 (I know 7.Bb2 and 7.Qd2 have been tried as well), I grow suspicious. We are talking about a development gambit, aren't we? Then h3 is not really the ideal square for the knight. That Viola guy btw has done a lot of work to prove the strength of 6...c5. It is up to Knightmare yet, to prove it is playable.
I don't know if Flude-Everett is critical for the WRG. I do know it is critical for 7.Rb1 and I mentioned it only as a start for a debate. The final position is of course won for Black; are you sure the result was not 0-1 ? It seems that we agree about the inferiority of 7.Rb1 then.
Concerning 7.Bf4 I would like to remark, that this is not the ideal square for the queen's bishop. So 7...exf3 is to be considered, though very possibly not best, as Black simply can develop.

Meszaros,T - Benno,P (2275) [C15]
Zalakaros op (1), 1995
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Bf4 Qa5 8.Bd2 Nf6 9.Nh3 e3 10.Bxe3 Qxc3+ 11.Kf2 Nd5 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Bxd7+ Nxd7 14.Re1 Nxe3 15.Rxe3 Qxd4 16.Qxd4 cxd4 17.Re4 e5 18.Rae1 0–0 19.Rh4 Rac8 20.Re2 Rc3 21.Ng5 Rfc8 22.Nxh7 f6 0–1
Knightmare wants White to play 8.fxe4 here, but does not mention the safe Nf6 9.e5 Ne4, which is OK for Black. Not that I am entirely convinced by 8.fxe4 Qxc3+ 9.Bd2 Qxd4 10.Bd3 Nc6 11.Nf3 Qa4, but I have to admit, that Black has made a lot of queen moves.

Eiter,M (1840) - Mikulic,O [C15]
Wattens op 11th (5), 1996
1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Bf4 Nf6 8.fxe4 Nxe4 9.Qf3 Nf6 10.Bb5+ Nbd7 11.dxc5 Qa5 12.a4 a6 13.Bxd7+ Nxd7 14.c6 Ne5 15.Bxe5 Qxe5+ 16.Ne2 Qc7 17.Nd4 0–0 18.0–0 e5 19.Qg3 bxc6 20.Rf6 Qe7 21.Rxc6 exd4 22.cxd4 Re8 23.d5 Bf5 24.d6 Qe3+ 25.Qxe3 Rxe3 26.c4 Ree8 27.Rc7 Rec8 28.Rxc8+ Rxc8 29.Rc1 a5 30.c5 Bd7 31.Rc4 f5 32.Kf2 Kf7 33.Ke3 g5 34.Kd4 Bc6 35.Ke5 Kg6 36.g3 Re8+ 37.Kd4 Kf6 38.Kd3 Re4 39.d7 Ke7 0–1

Chouinard,S - Humphreys,S [C15]
corr 1972
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Bf4 Nf6 8.Rb1 0–0 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.Ne2 Qd5 11.Be3 exf3 12.Nf4 fxg2 13.Bxg2 Qf5 14.Rg1 Rd8 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Nd3 cxd4 17.Rxg7+ Kf8 18.Ne5 Ne4 19.Rg8+ Ke7 20.Bg5+ f6 21.Bxf6+ Nxf6 22.Rg7+ Kf8 23.Qh6 1–0
This last game is very easy to improve for Black of course (eg 10...exf3 at once). As Knightmare does not like x.Rb1 anyway, I haven't taken a closer look.

Black also has 7...Nc6 8.fxe4 cxd4 9.cxd4 Qxd4 10.Qxd4 Nxd4 11.0-0-0 Nc6 12.Nf3 f6 and White's lead in development does not fully compensate the pawn. The extra gambit 9.Nf3 dxc3 does not look correct to me, while 9.Nf3 Qa5 10.Bd3 e5 also looks good for Black. White's lead in development almost has disappeared.

So Knightmare may philosophize about principled refutations, possible improvements and vague attempts (like 7.Nh3), my conclusion is that White simply has to prove compensation after 7...c5. And I don't see it. At the other hand, looking at White's tries at his 7th move, it looks to me that collecting the relevant material takes more time than sorting out Black's correct defense.

The final remark about playing Bareev or Kortsjoj is irrelevant. This site about theoretical correctness; Knightmare's remark also applies to 1.a3 followed by 2.h3.
Let me put it in other words: quite a few contributors over here play corr chess. I dare to say, the WRG leads to big trouble for White in this kind of chess. I know what I am talking about; I have won two games in corr chess with the modification 6.Be3 (alas also unsound).

knightmare wrote on 07/04/07 at 19:51:17:

This looks like end of debate to me.   It means, that a well prepared player may prove a sound =+ at least. It means, that 6.f3 should be called "hope chess" (Dan Heisman). Such chess is recommendable for blitz or maybe rapid. But it is a very bad idea to teach children stuff like this.

For entering some food for thought on ...c5, this one


[Event "V0164"]
[Site "Corr DESC"]
[Date "2004.6.1"]
[Round ""]
[White "Schirmer Michael"]
[Black "Weber Achim"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C15"]

1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 c5 7.Bf4
{%04!?} ( 7.Rb1 {IMHO is not good enough} Nf6 8.Bb5+ Bd7
( 8...Nbd7 {%04!?} ) 9.Qe2 ( 9.fxe4 ) ) ( 7.Bb5+ {?! may be "refuted"}
) ( 7.Qd2 {?!, never understood that one} Nf6 ( 7...Nc6 ) ) Qa5
( 7...Nf6 8.fxe4 $14 ) ( 7...Nc6 8.fxe4 cxd4 9.Nf3 Qa5 10.Bd3
$13 ) 8.fxe4 Qxc3+ ( 8...cxd4 ) 9.Bd2 Qxd4 10.Bd3 Ne7
( 10...Nc6 11.Nf3 Qd6 ( 11...Qa4 ) 12.Bc3 $44 ) 11.Nf3 $44 Qa4
12.Qe2 O-O 13.O-O b6 14.Bc3 Ba6 15.Ng5 h6 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Qg4
Rxf1+ 18.Rxf1 Nf5 19.Rxf5 Qd7 20.Rf3 c4 21.Bxg7 1-0

Conclusion: If I look at these lines, there's so much space for improvement, I cannot see a principal refutation at all.
In practical (OTB) play there are lots of attacking chances for white.
From a "theoretical" view this line may be just not very good. But again: I simply do not see that white is lost in any way 
If your opponent is Bareev or Korchnoj he'll just kill you. But for most of us that will be the case in any opening