Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense (Read 4278 times)
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 915
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
Reply #6 - 08/08/08 at 11:51:10
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/08/08 at 00:59:02:
Paddy wrote on 08/07/08 at 22:15:59:
the more recent Palkovi (2001)

I have been trying to obtain this source for quite sometime... any advice on where to get it?


REPLY
I assume you've tried major European suppliers, e.g. BCM, Chess & Bridge, Chess Direct, Niggermann, New in Chess...
END

trw wrote on Today at 01:59:02:
Thanks for those games Perhaps I have underestimated Nd5 here but b4 still seems white's best chance.
[/quote]

REPLY: Well, obviously b4 ideas are critical, since b4 gains material and forces Black to justify his sacrifices, but 14 b4 is definitely bad and based on what I've looked at with Fritz I suspect 15 b4 loses by force.
END

trw wrote on Today at 01:59:02:
However Geller notes 13 d4 to be a mistake... gives a ton of analysis but his main line goes like this 13. d4 Bb6 14. b4 Nd5 15 bxa5 Qh4+  16 g3 Bxa5+ 17. Bd2 Qxh2 18 Bxa5 Qxg3+ =
[/quote]

REPLY: No, there is no way that 13 d4 can be a mistake; it is a normal, logical move and is possibly the safest way for White to achieve a clear advantage, unless you can find a significant improvement after Mednis's 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd8 13. d4 Bb6 14. c3! [Instead of 14 Be3?! or 14 b4?!] 14...Nd5 15. Kf2! O-O 16. Kg1. Black is just a pawn down with the worse structure and considerably less play than he gets in the main lines of the Two Knights with 10...Bc5, 10...Qc7 or 10...Bd6.

Some confusion may have arisen because some sources (e.g. Keres 1968, Estrin 1983) give Van Oosterom's 13th move as 13...Bd6, but in his book "King Power in Chess" Mednis gives it as 13...Bb6, the same move as in Megabase.

Let's examine some lines after 13 d4:

a) 13....Bxd4 14 c3. and
b) 13...Qxd4 14 Qxd4 Bxd4 15 c3 "in both cases with big endgame advantages for White." Mednis
c) 13...exd3!? 14 Qxd3 Qc7 "the best practical chance (...) to keep the position as open as possible." Mednis.
This might be the way to go. There has been very little experience with this; many Two Knights players might well consider this position acceptable for Black. Estrin (1966) and ECO2 gave 15 Bd2! Rb8 16 Bxa5 Qxa5+ 17 Nd2, Paoli-Pogats, Kecskemet 1962 as better for White but, as with all such sharp theory from the pre-computer age, this should be re-examined.
END

trw wrote on Today at 01:59:02:
What do people think though of 13... Bb6 14. b4 Nb7   I like black's chances alot here still....
[/quote]

REPLY: 13 c3 Bb6 14 b4 Nb7 15 Nxc6 Qc7 16 Ne5 0-0 17 Na3 is given in most sources as better for White (Rodkin-Shakhov, USSR 1962) with the verdict that Black has insufficient compensation for two pawns, but perhaps some work with Fritz can unearth resources for Black.
END

It would great if you could make 10...Qd4 work, but for now I'm sticking with 10...Bc5!

It is a pleasure to me to re-examine some of these old ideas in one of my favourite openings - thank you for raising this topic and good luck in your investigations!


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
Reply #5 - 08/08/08 at 00:59:02
Post Tools
Paddy wrote on 08/07/08 at 22:15:59:
the more recent Palkovi (2001)

I have been trying to obtain this source for quite sometime... any advice on where to get it?

Paddy wrote on 08/07/08 at 22:15:59:
But I always feared the simple line 13 d4 advocated by Mednis (a world expert on 3 Bc4 in his youth). Here he plays it against a future milllionaire and generous chess sponsor
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd8 13. d4 Bb6 14. c3 Nd5 15. Kf2 O-O 16. Kg1 c5 17. dxc5 Bxc5+ 18. Kh1 Be3 19. b4 Nb7 20. Nc6 Qc7 21. Qxd5 Bxc1 22. Rxc1 Nd6 23. Rd1 Nf5 24. Qxe4 g6 25. b5 Bb7 26. c4 Rfe8 27. Qf3 Re3 28. Qf2 Rae8 29. Bg4 R3e4 30. Bxf5 Rxf4 31. Qg3 Bxc6 32. bxc6 Qe5 33. Nc3 Qxf5
34. Nd5 Rxc4 35. Ne3 1-0


Thanks for those games Perhaps I have underestimated Nd5 here but b4 still seems white's best chance.

However Geller notes 13 d4 to be a mistake... gives a ton of analysis but his main line goes like this 13. d4 Bb6 14. b4 Nd5 15 bxa5 Qh4+  16 g3 Bxa5+ 17. Bd2 Qxh2 18 Bxa5 Qxg3+ =

What do people think though of 13... Bb6 14. b4 Nb7   I like black's chances alot here still....

Paddy wrote on 08/07/08 at 22:15:59:
Over the board I've always preferred 10...Bc5, which was advocated in my first opening book, A Guide to Chess Openings by Leonard Barden (1957!).


Well I play both 10... Bc5 10... Bd6 and 10... Qc7 but I was thinking 10... Qd4 has been unfairly relegated to the dustbin by Pinski.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 915
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
Reply #4 - 08/07/08 at 22:15:59
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 08/07/08 at 20:33:53:
After 13...Nd5 14.Qa4 (14.b4? Qh4 -+) 0-0 15.b4 I think the way to go is the same as after 14.b4: 15...Qh4 - now if 16.Kd1 perhaps Rd8 with a nice mating threat on e3.

Its time vs material - Black has to attack very fast not fearing material investment - I think feeding an engine with some attacking ideas should show the drawbacks of b4.


Matemax has more or less anticipated what I was going to say, after spending an hour or so with Fritz and the old but still relevant source Estrin (1983) and the more recent Palkovi (2001)

Estrin quotes

[Event "USSR"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1965.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Romanov, Isaak Zalmanovich"]
[Black "Baturinsky, Viktor Davidovich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C59"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[EventDate "1965.??.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd8 13. c3 Nd5 14. Qa4 O-O 15. b4 Qh4+ 16. Kd1 Rd8 17. Kc2 Qxh2 18. bxc5 Qxg2 19. Re1 Qf2 20. Nxf7 (20. Qxa5 Bf5) 20... Qxe1 21. Qxe4 Ne3+ 0-1

My engines find no good way for White after the cool 17...Qxh2.

15 Qxe4 is a harder nut to crack but a good attackig player should still have decent practical chances over the board against White's weak king and uncoordinated army, and even the engines seem to think that Black has a lot of compensation. Another Baturinsky game went

[Event "Sovjetska zveza-Jugoslavija"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bohak, IvanBozidar (Janko)"]
[Black "Baturinski, V."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C59"]
[PlyCount "66"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd8 13. c3 Nd5 14. Qa4 O-O 15. Qxe4 f6 16. Bd3 f5 17. Qf3 Bd6 18. Be2 Be6 19. d3 Qc7 20. Nc4 Nxc4 21. dxc4 Nf6 22. Kd1 Bf7 23. Kc2 Bh5 24. Qd3 Bxe2 25. Qxe2 Rfe8 26. Qd3 Rad8 27. c5 Bxc5 28. Qc4+ Rd5 29. Nd2 Ng4 30. Nf3 Re4 31. Qa6 Qe7 32. Qc8+ Kh7 33. Rd1 Re2+ 0-1

But I always feared the simple line 13 d4 advocated by Mednis (a world expert on 3 Bc4 in his youth). Here he plays it against a future milllionaire and generous chess sponsor

[Event "Wch U20 final-A"]
[Site "Antwerp"]
[Date "1955.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Mednis, Edmar John"]
[Black "Van Oosterom, Joop"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C59"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "1955.07.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "BEL"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd8 13. d4 Bb6 14. c3 Nd5 15. Kf2 O-O 16. Kg1 c5 17. dxc5 Bxc5+ 18. Kh1 Be3 19. b4 Nb7 20. Nc6 Qc7 21. Qxd5 Bxc1 22. Rxc1 Nd6 23. Rd1 Nf5 24. Qxe4 g6 25. b5 Bb7 26. c4 Rfe8 27. Qf3 Re3 28. Qf2 Rae8 29. Bg4 R3e4 30. Bxf5 Rxf4 31. Qg3 Bxc6 32. bxc6 Qe5 33. Nc3 Qxf5
34. Nd5 Rxc4 35. Ne3 1-0

In the 1955 World Junior Mednis finished second behind Spassky and ahead of Portisch. Spassky by the way chose 10...Qc7 and they drew in 25.

Over the board I've always preferred 10...Bc5, which was advocated in my first opening book, A Guide to Chess Openings by Leonard Barden (1957!).

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
Reply #3 - 08/07/08 at 21:45:27
Post Tools
Matemax wrote on 08/07/08 at 20:33:53:
After 13...Nd5 14.Qa4 (14.b4? Qh4 -+) 0-0 15.b4 I think the way to go is the same as after 14.b4: 15...Qh4 - now if 16.Kd1 perhaps Rd8 with a nice mating threat on e3.

Its time vs material - Black has to attack very fast not fearing material investment - I think feeding an engine with some attacking ideas should show the drawbacks of b4.



* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* well I think it works like this 15. b4 Qh4+ 16. Kd1 Rd8 17. Kc2 Bf5 18. bxc5 e3+ 19. d3 and while black has the attacking chances it already feels like his attack has fizzled.

does 13... Bb6 14. b4 Nb7 look so bad? I like black's chances here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
Reply #2 - 08/07/08 at 20:33:53
Post Tools
After 13...Nd5 14.Qa4 (14.b4? Qh4 -+) 0-0 15.b4 I think the way to go is the same as after 14.b4: 15...Qh4 - now if 16.Kd1 perhaps Rd8 with a nice mating threat on e3.

Its time vs material - Black has to attack very fast not fearing material investment - I think feeding an engine with some attacking ideas should show the drawbacks of b4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
Reply #1 - 08/07/08 at 19:34:25
Post Tools
Adding diagram in hopes of getting some responses Smiley

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1364
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Two Knights Polerio Defense Suhle Defense
08/06/08 at 17:41:02
Post Tools
okay... my two knights experts please come out of the woodwork and lend your aid! (toppy Smiley )

Polerio Defense Suhle Defense: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Ba5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ne5 Qd4 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 Qd8 13. c3

The computer likes the ideas of 13... Bd6 or 13... Nb7

here I like the idea of 13... Bb6 14. b4 Nb7

However theory confounds me by continuing 13... Nd5?! I don't get it... I see Beliavsky, Mikhalchishin, Keres, Nick De Firmian and Geller argue this as the move of choice for black saying he gains sufficient compensation for the lost material... but what is it?! The rest of the line goes 13.... Nd5 14 Qa4 0-0 15. Qxe4 Re8 16. d4 Bb6 (some judge this = some +=) Is there some reason that 15. b4 or 16 b4 doesn't just win on the spot? None of the 5 strong players addresses b4 and all cut their analysis immediately at 16 Bb6 except for Beliavsky who continues on with a few theoretical lines where it feels like black is almost resignable!

Beliavsky continues with 17 Bd3 Nf6 18 Qe3 Ng4 19 Qg3 f6 20 Na3 fxe5 21. fxe5 counterplay for black) - while I agree with the assement here, it still feels white has a slight edge unless (my analysis) 21... Bxd4 22. cxd4 Qxd4 23 Rf4 Rxe5+ 24 Kd2 Qd6 = (25 Rxg4?? Bxg4 26 Qxg4 Rad8 -+) makes sense but still this seems to skip over the question entirely of white playing 20 h3 which seems to be an improvement from my analysis: 20... Bxd4 21. cxd4 Qxd4 22. hxg4 Rxe5+ 23. Kd1 Nc4 24. Rf4 Nxb2+ 25. Kd2 +- Beliavsky incorrectly dismisses 20 h3 because of 20... fxe5 21 fxe5 Nf6?? 22 Bxh6 (in fact Qg6 is probably even better) but in any case black is resignable! And yet he uses this as a reason why white should avoid 20 h3!? There must be something to this analysis i'm missing... Beliavsky also gives 17 g3!? and 17 Na3!? with no analysis

I think that regardless after 13.... Nd5?! that white should retain a large edge. This move makes no sense in my mind unless there is a large amount of unpublished analysis floating around there to support this Re8 idea.

The whole 10... Qd4 idea is condemned by Jan Pinski as +- after 11. f4 Bc5 12. Rf1 but he also endorses the move i'm questioning 13... Nd5 and he endorses a horrible flaw as well that after 14. Qa4 Qh4+??  so as he doesn't even consider either 15 ... Re8 Is this because b4 stops the whole idea cold?
I have trouble here because it seems unlikely that soooo many great players could be wrong as they are all in full agreement. Would someone care to point out what i'm missing?
« Last Edit: 08/07/08 at 00:03:03 by trw »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo