Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann (Read 16454 times)
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 490
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #19 - 07/28/07 at 07:32:06
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/20/07 at 17:39:52:
9. Nxa7+! Bd7  10. Bxd7+ Nxd7 11. f4! Qc5 12. Nb5 Qxc2 13. d4! Bb4+  14. Kf2 Qxe2+  15. Kxe2 and White has a comfortable, pawn-up ending.


yes, this has been known for years.

I first came across it in 1993 when somebody (who knew very little against the Schliemann) played 9 Nxa7+ against me OTB. The game continued 9...Bd7 10 Bxd7+ Nxd7 11 Nb5 Qxg2. It was only studying it afterwards that I noticed 11 f4!.

John Anderson won a lot of games with this in the mid 90s as well.


Markovich wrote on 07/27/07 at 18:47:25:
I can say that to defend such an ending could never be among my reasons for playing 1...e5.

If I were certain of my ability to draw that ending with very little trouble, I would take up the Schliemann once again.  Whatever the drawing technique is, one can always learn it.  So the question of whether this ending is objectively drawn is interesting to me.


It's not straightforward to win as White against dogged defence, but really you need to be committed to the Schliemann to defend this sort of thing as Black. It's one of the lines you have to be prepared to suffer as a diehard. For that you get lots of other games where everything goes swimmingly.

Smiley
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #18 - 07/28/07 at 00:52:38
Post Tools
ArKheiN wrote on 07/27/07 at 20:24:31:
He is playing on remoteschach.de , a german server. I play here too. I regularly dowload his games (something like every 2 months), for the BDG mostly, but for the Schliemann too. For example according to my last file of his games, he finished 75 Ruy Lopez games, all are Schliemann. He lost 6 times, won 17 and 52 draws.

He faced 63 times 4.Nc3, 8 times 4.d3 and 4 times 4.d4.
In correspondance chess, it seems that most of people plays 4.Nc3 and 9.f4 followed by 10.Nxa7 (the computers like this line too, often giving +-, so this could be a reason) and masters OTB prefers 10.Ne5 which is more positionnal but I believe that Black equalize in both cases. So yes 9.Nxa7 is not very much played, not very much known and underrated. But Black's chances seems to be ok here too but you need technique and patience...

And he losts only 2 games/55 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 : it was when he tried 10..Kxd7?! after 9.Nxa7 Bd7 10.Bxd7+. He played 5 times 10..Nxd7! with 2 wins and 3 draws. I will probably give the two games drawns after the critical ending, it might be an interesting example of the way Black could handle the position. Mores games on this line are awaited!


This sparks my interest.  I would be very grateful if you would send me a pgn file of his games.  I'm at mmorss at columbus dot rr dot com.
  

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


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 718
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #17 - 07/27/07 at 20:24:31
Post Tools
He is playing on remoteschach.de , a german server. I play here too. I regularly dowload his games (something like every 2 months), for the BDG mostly, but for the Schliemann too. For example according to my last file of his games, he finished 75 Ruy Lopez games, all are Schliemann. He lost 6 times, won 17 and 52 draws.

He faced 63 times 4.Nc3, 8 times 4.d3 and 4 times 4.d4.
In correspondance chess, it seems that most of people plays 4.Nc3 and 9.f4 followed by 10.Nxa7 (the computers like this line too, often giving +-, so this could be a reason) and masters OTB prefers 10.Ne5 which is more positionnal but I believe that Black equalize in both cases. So yes 9.Nxa7 is not very much played, not very much known and underrated. But Black's chances seems to be ok here too but you need technique and patience...

And he losts only 2 games/55 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 : it was when he tried 10..Kxd7?! after 9.Nxa7 Bd7 10.Bxd7+. He played 5 times 10..Nxd7! with 2 wins and 3 draws. I will probably give the two games drawns after the critical ending, it might be an interesting example of the way Black could handle the position. Mores games on this line are awaited!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #16 - 07/27/07 at 18:47:25
Post Tools
ArKheiN wrote on 07/27/07 at 12:02:39:
Hello Markovich, I am just curious, do you think you would win with the White side of that ending +1 pawn against someone of your level at corr chess?

Leisebein is still playing the Schliemann against the Ruy Lopez, and here too he rarely faces 9.Nxa7! but mostly 9.f4. And in the famous ending, he faced it only 2 times, he managed to draw both games. But even if he would always manage to draw that in every game, it's sure that it would surely not be very fun for him to play that compared to the others lines of the Schliemann and could stop playing that if 2 games / 3 were based on that ending.


Well, that news interests me.  Where do you find these games? 

The many-piece ending, or late-middlegame/early-ending, or whatever one calls it, is perhaps the weakest part of my game.  So I can't say with much confidence that I think White's game is outright won.  I was surprised, though, that Ivanov and Kulagin put the evaluation at just +=.  If I had White, I would like to think that I could win, but perhaps I could only torture my opponent for a long time before splitting the point.  I have to admit that I often reach this phase of the game with something that seems won to me only to see my opponent discover a method of drawing (or perhaps, only to misplay somehow and let my opponet draw, I am never sure which).

I can say that to defend such an ending could never be among my reasons for playing 1...e5.

If I were certain of my ability to draw that ending with very little trouble, I would take up the Schliemann once again.  Whatever the drawing technique is, one can always learn it.  So the question of whether this ending is objectively drawn is interesting to me.
  

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


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 718
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #15 - 07/27/07 at 12:02:39
Post Tools
Hello Markovich, I am just curious, do you think you would win with the White side of that ending +1 pawn against someone of your level at corr chess?

Leisebein is still playing the Schliemann against the Ruy Lopez, and here too he rarely faces 9.Nxa7! but mostly 9.f4. And in the famous ending, he faced it only 2 times, he managed to draw both games. But even if he would always manage to draw that in every game, it's sure that it would surely not be very fun for him to play that compared to the others lines of the Schliemann and could stop playing that if 2 games / 3 were based on that ending.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dji
Full Member
***
Offline


Just a Spirit in this
material World

Posts: 169
Joined: 07/16/06
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #14 - 07/25/07 at 12:30:50
Post Tools
Quote:
Whilst we're on topic- anyone know what is best against 4.....Nd4

Emms suggests 5 Bc4; Khalifman - 5 ef.

Any thoughts ( and analysis if possible)


As always khalifman 's job is impressive but there some holes with in move order.

    After 5.ef5 Qf6 6.0-0 c6 Khalifman's move is 7.Nd4
But in the line 5.ef5 c6 6.Ba4 Black can play Qf6 and it's a question if white have better than 7.0-0  ?
  

Eternity it's very long especially towards the end!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 622
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #13 - 07/25/07 at 09:29:35
Post Tools
Whilst we're on topic- anyone know what is best against 4.....Nd4

Emms suggests 5 Bc4; Khalifman - 5 ef.

Any thoughts ( and analysis if possible)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #12 - 07/24/07 at 15:04:01
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 07/22/07 at 00:04:46:
Markovich wrote on 07/21/07 at 19:27:08:
No offense intended, but I thought that that was just what you did, here.

Amongst the two old links you willl find 8 new games! Smiley
I only added the links to emphasise a couple of points I was making, so that you wouldn't have to go searching through the previous updates to find them.
Looking through the update I notice that I did actually write 'previous ChessPublishing updates', to (unsuccessfully) try to avoid confusion. Roll Eyes

OK, my confusion.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FirebrandX
Junior Member
**
Offline


What would Houdini do?

Posts: 83
Location: North of Dallas, Texas, USA
Joined: 05/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #11 - 07/22/07 at 18:30:34
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/20/07 at 17:39:52:
Well, I must say that it's exasperating to have posted here many times how, after 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bb4 f5  4. Nc3 fxe4  5. Nxe4 d5  6. Nxe5 dxe4  7. Nxc6 Qg5 (some call this the "Classical" Schliemann) 8. Qe2 Nf6, White's strongest and best is not the highly reputed and often-exclam-adorned 9. f4, but 9. Nxa7+! when 9...Bd7  10. Bxd7+ Nxd7 (10...Kxd7  11. Qb5+ is better for White) 11. f4! and to see this line repeatedly ignored when the Schliemann is taken up in the updates!  One key observation is that 11...Qxf4 transposes into a version of 9. f4 Qxf4  10. Nxa7 where Black has captured on d7 with the wrong piece.  Another is that Black's better 11...Qc5 12. Nb5 Qxc2 (useless is 12...0-0-0  13. Nc3 Nf6  14. a4! intending to run the a-pawn) 13. d4! Bb4+  14. Kf2 Qxe2+  15. Kxe2 and White has a comfortable, pawn-up ending.

 


It pretty cleanly shows 5... d5 is not black's best hope. I'm thinking 5... Nf6 is much more solid for black in the Schliemann.


  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3100
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #10 - 07/22/07 at 00:04:46
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/21/07 at 19:27:08:
No offense intended, but I thought that that was just what you did, here.

Amongst the two old links you willl find 8 new games! Smiley
I only added the links to emphasise a couple of points I was making, so that you wouldn't have to go searching through the previous updates to find them.
Looking through the update I notice that I did actually write 'previous ChessPublishing updates', to (unsuccessfully) try to avoid confusion. Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #9 - 07/21/07 at 19:27:08
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 07/21/07 at 07:41:23:
Hmm, interesting, does that mean that ChessPublishing could stop paying the GMs and simply link to old games each month without anyone noticing? What a great idea, why didn't I think of it before!! Huh


No offense intended, but I thought that that was just what you did, here.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3100
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #8 - 07/21/07 at 10:28:11
Post Tools
Quote:
Something like that. I think it is up to some of the subscribers to email the theoretically interesting lines/analysis from the forum with the proper link, preferable attaching a pgn/cbh file that the GM-writer can store for reference and use when he analyses a game.


I think that this could work, but it relies on someone putting the analysis into a 'usable' form, i.e. a pgn/cbh file, as you point out. If anyone is willing to actually do this work and email it to me (for the 1 e4 e5 section, at least) then I am wiilling to look at the analysis and put it onto an update in due course. Smiley
  
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: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #7 - 07/21/07 at 09:05:28
Post Tools
quote from GM Tony Kosten Quote:
If I see some interesting analysis in a thread, and it is relevant for a game I am analysing (that is: theoretically important, between strong players, and played in the last month) then I will incorporate it, but I don't see all the threads by any means, or check all the analysis. For those GM writers who don't look at the Forum at all (the vast majority, I would say) how would they get hold of the important analysis? We would need a strong player to check all the threads and find all the important material, I suppose? Or do you have a better idea?


Something like that. I think it is up to some of the subscribers to email the theoretically interesting lines/analysis from the forum with the proper link, preferable attaching a pgn/cbh file that the GM-writer can store for reference and use when he analyses a game.
I could provide pgn/cbv-files for some interesting topics, but certainly not for the whole 1.e4,e5
forum content  Roll Eyes

As an alternative the GM-writer could PM some of the stronger forum-members asking them to provide a synopsis of of relevant forum-material on topics he is planning to adress in the months ahead.

Interesting analysis on 1.e4,e5 games need not necessarily be confined to last month games I think.
As an example there is a thread in this forum that refutes analysis in both Emms and Davies repertoire books. Interestingly the first part of this analysis is not new, it was published by Keres some 60 years back. But unfortunately these days quite a few authors seem to rely on chessbase and computeranalysis and ignore the 'old' masters.

Quote:
Hmm, interesting, does that mean that ChessPublishing could stop paying the GMs and simply link to old games each month without anyone noticing? What a great idea, why didn't I think of it before!!


Dont you dare  Wink
My memory is quite long: A few weeks ago I exposed someone <Chwileulotne85> on this forum
who claimed a 157 years old game by Morphy as his own recent accomplishment Smiley
« Last Edit: 07/21/07 at 10:15:02 by micawber »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3100
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #6 - 07/21/07 at 07:41:23
Post Tools
Quote:
But I would suggest, that it would be nice, if the subscription section could take into account the
more interesting contributions from the forum.


If I see some interesting analysis in a thread, and it is relevant for a game I am analysing (that is: theoretically important, between strong players, and played in the last month) then I will incorporate it, but I don't see all the threads by any means, or check all the analysis. For those GM writers who don't look at the Forum at all (the vast majority, I would say) how would they get hold of the important analysis? We would need a strong player to check all the threads and find all the important material, I suppose? Or do you have a better idea?

Markovich wrote on 07/21/07 at 03:56:23:
No, sorry, it wasn't obvious to me that these were "old" notes.


Hmm, interesting, does that mean that ChessPublishing could stop paying the GMs and simply link to old games each month without anyone noticing? What a great idea, why didn't I think of it before!! Huh
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refuting the "Classical" Schliemann
Reply #5 - 07/21/07 at 04:03:54
Post Tools
Dji wrote on 07/20/07 at 18:42:23:
[Event "Strasbourg Ch-FRA"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Koch, Jean René"]
[Black "Marciano, David"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C63"]
[WhiteElo "2460"]
[BlackElo "2450"]
[Annotator "Koch"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[EventDate "1992.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. Nc3 fxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 6. Nxe5 dxe4 7. Nxc6 Qg5
8. Qe2 Nf6 9. Nxa7+!? Bd7 10. Bxd7+ Nxd7 11. f4  Qh4+  (11... Qa5! 12. Nb5
Bc5 13. Qxe4+ Kd8 14. Qxb7 Re8+ 15. Kd1 Rb8 16. Qxc7+ Qxc7 17. Nxc7 Kxc7 18. c3
unclear) 12. g3 Qh3 13. Nb5 O-O-O 14. b3 e3 15. dxe3 Nf6 16. Bb2 Bc5 17. Bxf6 gxf6
18. Rd1 Rhe8 19. Rxd8+ Kxd8 20. e4 c6 21. b4 Bxb4+ 22. c3 Ba5 23. Qd2+ Qd7 24.
Nd6 Bxc3 25. Nxb7+ Kc8 26. Qxc3 Rxe4+ 27. Kf2 Kxb7 28. Rb1+ Kc8 29. Qxf6 Qd2+
30. Kg1 Qc2 31. Qh8+ Kc7 32. Qxh7+ Kd6 33. Qg6+ Kc5 34. Qf5+ Kc4 35. Qf7+ Kc5
36. Qb3 Qd2 37. Qb6+ Kc4 38. Qxc6+ Kd3 39. Rb3+ 1-0

Probably Olivier know well this line because he was playing in the same tournemant than Jean René Koch and David Marciano at Strasbourg in 1992. Maybe he have a different opignon.


All this and more was given years ago in Ivanov and Kulagin.  I doubt 11...Qa5  12. Nb5 Bc5  is any good.  For one thing, White has 13. c3.  Whatever 9. Nxa7+ deserves, it doesn't deserve to be flat-out ignored by every GM who writes about the Schliemann.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
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