TopNotch wrote on 09/27/08 at 04:29:44:


And what about testing analytical and evaluation skills in opening theory?
It must be a comfort that at least one regular contributor approves your message.  

Hmmm the RL book would be good if the subject was not iffy. 5.Qe2 is just not good enough, and however well explained, the positions are a bit like those 2.c3 Sicilian books. That may be the problem with the Lopez, black always chooses the variation and white should play main lines...

Andrew, only 2 words: Greaaaat Boooook

Many thanks

Please write one about a defence against 1d4

Cheers

-- Richard

Quote:


In fact, I only faced this line once OTB (and for the moment, my only loss OTB in about 10 Accelerated Dragon OTB) in December 2007 against a young and strong French IM, it seems to be his "speciality", he played the whole theory at tempo, I did too until my knowledge ended in a still very forced and very sharp position that lead into a draw with best play. Unfortunately, I missed the good move, hard to find OTB where I was losing but he needed to think by himself then and needed to be precise to win, or even to not lose. So he played that against me because he tought I would not know the whole line, and it worked but he could have fail, I would have been happy to draw with that IM but he would'nt. He recognized the risk at the end of the game and was afraid I would find the right path after my long thinking, and said that he will now look another line against the AC.

So against a stronger player, 8..Nd5 may be indeed strong. And about a weaker opponent, he may manage to draw if he knows the theory well,but how many "weak" player knows that far? But the risk is there... In fact against a lower opponent I would be much afraid to face the Maroczy because I play the Gurgenidze, and the lines with Whit'es Be3...Nd5 with the queen's exchange is more drawish than anything else. That may be a reason to have 2 openings, for example the accelerated Dragon against a stronger opponent and Najdorf against weaker  

Swiss_Dragon, does Greet cover the important and my favourite alternative 8..Nd5?

Sorry for the late reply - haven't checked this thread for a while.

This looks like a reasonable try for White, although I see it has only been played those few games. I would suggest 15...axb4 16.axb4 and now perhaps 16...Nf6 (Alonso exchanged on a1 first, but clearly this can only help White). White is probably a little better here, but the black position is playable enough; two pairs of minor pieces have been exchanged (including the dark squared bishops - a definite boon!) and the open a-file will constantly distract White from a central or kingside build-up. White should definitely play 17.Qe3 or 17.Qd4 next, in order to prevent ...Qb6 and control the dark squares generally. Black might then put the queen on c7 followed perhaps by ...Rfc8, ...Qd8 to challenge the a-file, or alternatively ...Bd7-e6 to target c4.

Hope this helps. As I said I think White has a modest edge here, but I certainly wouldn't let this line put me off the 9...Nxd4 move order.

What do you mean by "new"? If I knew what was the supposed problematic line for Black I could respond what  I would play.
I don't have NIC yearbook 72.

MNb wrote on 04/30/08 at 23:28:09:



I think so !  but you must be ready for the Schmidt benoni, although not a lot of 1.e4 want to play it...

You can think also about the "Mega-hyper-acc"  1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5!?