I select a path to my pgn-file, but nothing happens.
Can someone help?

14...Le7 looks like an not complicated equalizer.

[Event "12...Sd5!"]
[
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2
Qxb2 9. Rb1 h6 {0.00/0 0 '!?' Richard Palliser.} 11.
Bh4 {0.00/0 0} dxe5 {0.00/0 0} 12. fxe5 {0.00/0 0} Nd5 $5 {0.00/0 0  13. Nxd5 {
0.00/0 0} exd5 {0.00/0 0} 14. e6 (14. Bc4 Be7 $1 (14... Qc5 15. Bb3 Nc6 16. Bf2
Nxd4 17. Bxd4 Qc6 18. O-O Bc5 $11) 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. Bxd5 Qxe5+ 17. Qe2 (17.
Ne2 O-O 18. O-O Nc6 $11 19. Nf4 Ne7 20. Bxb7 (20. Rbe1 Qg5 21. Bb3 Ng6 22. Bd5
Rb8 23. Rf2 Nxf4 24. Rxf4 Be6 25. Bxe6 fxe6 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Qxg5 (27. Qd7
Qc5+ 28. Kh1 Qd5 $15) 27... hxg5 28. Rxe6 Rc8 29. Re2 b5 30. Kf1 Rc3 $15 31.
Ke1 Ra3 32. Re5 Rxa2 33. Kd2 g4 34. Re4 g3 (34... Ra4 35. Rxa4 bxa4 36. Kc3 Kf7
37. Kb4 Ke6 38. Kxa4 Kd5 39. Ka5 Kd4 40. Kxa6 Kc3 41. Kb7 Kxc2 42. Kc6 Kd2 43.
Kd7 Ke2 44. Ke6 Kf2 45. Kf5 Kxg2 46. Kxg4 Kxh2 47. Kg5) 35. hxg3 Kf7 $15) 20...
Rb8 21. Bxc8 Rxb1 22. Rxb1 Rxc8 $11) 17... Qxe2+ 18. Kxe2 Ra7 19. Rhe1 O-O 20.
Kf2 Rd8 21. c4 Kf8 $11 22. Rb6 Nd7 23. Rd6 Re8 24. Rb1 Nc5 $11) (14. Bd3) (14.
Be2 Be7 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. O-O O-O 17. c4 Nc6 18. Nxc6 bxc6 19. cxd5 cxd5 20.
Qxd5 Be6 21. Qd6 Qg5 22. Bf3 (22. Bxa6 Rfd8 23. Qb6 Rd2 24. Bb7 Raxa2 25. Qc6
Qxe5 $17) 22... Rac8 (22... Rfd8 23. Bxa8 Rxd6 24. exd6 Qc5+ 25. Kh1 Qxd6 $11)
23. Rf2 (23. Qxa6 Bc4 $17) 23... a5 $15) 14... Bxe6 {0.00/0 0} (14... Qxa2) 15.
Rxb7 {0.00/0 0} (15. Nxe6 fxe6 16. Bd3 Be7 17. Bxe7 (17. Bg6+ Kd8 18. Bxe7+
Qxe7 19. O-O Nd7 (19... b5 20. c4 Qc5+ {1/2-1/2 Caissalou-Etaoin Shrdlu (2501)/
playchess.com INT 2008/Mega2009 Update 06}) 20. Rxb7 (20. Rf7 Qc5+ 21. Kh1 (21.
Qf2 Qxf2+ 22. Kxf2 Rf8 23. Rxf8+ Nxf8 24. Bd3 b5 25. a4 bxa4 26. Ra1 Nd7 27.
Rxa4 a5 $17) 21... Rc8 22. Rxg7 Rc7 23. Qf4 (23. Bd3 Qd4 24. Rf7 (24. Rg3 e5
$15) 24... Nc5 (24... Ne5 25. Rxc7 Kxc7 26. Rxb7+ Kd6 $11) 25. Rf4 Qg7 26. Rbf1
Kc8 27. Rf6 (27. Be2 Ne4 28. Qe3 Kb8 29. Bf3 Qc3 30. Qe2 Ng5 $17) 27... Kb8 $15
) 23... Kc8 24. h3 Qa3 25. Bd3 Qa5 26. c4 Nc5 27. Rxc7+ Qxc7 28. Qd4 Rd8 $15)
20... Qc5+ 21. Kh1 Rf8 22. Rxf8+ Nxf8 23. Rxg7 Rb8 24. Qc1 (24. h3 Rb1+ 25. Kh2
Qd6+ 26. g3 Qc5 27. Qg2 Nxg6 28. Rxg6 Kd7 29. Rf6 (29. Rxh6 Rb2 $19) 29... Rb2
30. Rf2 Rxa2 $17) 24... Qb5 25. h3 Qb1 26. Qg1 Qxg1+ 27. Kxg1 Rb2 28. a4 Nxg6
29. Rxg6 Ke7 30. c3 Ra2) 17... Qxe7 18. O-O Nd7 (18... b5 19. Kh1 Rf8 20. Qc3
Kd8 21. Qa5+ Kc8 22. Rxf8+ Qxf8 23. Qb6 Qd8 24. Qxe6+ Qd7 25. Qg6 Qe7 26. Rf1
Ra7 27. Qb6 Rb7 28. Bf5+ Nd7 29. Qxa6 Kb8 30. Bxd7 Qxd7 31. Rf8+ Kc7 32. Qa5+
Kc6 33. Rd8 Qg4 34. Qa6+ Kc5 35. Qd6+ Kc4 36. Qxd5+ {1-0 Vydeslaver,A (2399)
-Raznikov,D (2251)/Haifa 2008/Mega2009 Update 01}) 19. Rxb7 (19. Bg6+ Kd8 20.
Rxb7 Qc5+ 21. Kh1 Rf8 22. Rxf8+ Nxf8 23. Rxg7 Rb8 $11 {ZU zu 17.Lg6+}) 19...
Qc5+ 20. Kh1 Rf8 21. Rxf8+ Qxf8 22. c4 d4 23. Bg6+ Kd8 24. Qxd4 Qf1+ 25. Qg1
Qxg1+ 26. Kxg1 Rc8 27. Ra7 Rxc4 28. Rxa6 Ke7 29. Ra7 Kf6 30. Rxd7 Kxg6 $11)
15... Nd7 {0.00/0 0} 16. Nxe6 {0.00/0 0} (16. Bb5 axb5 17. Nxb5 Be7 18. Nxa3
Bxh4+ 19. g3 Bg5 20. Qb4 Be7 21. Qb5 Bxa3 22. O-O Rd8 23. Re1 h5 24. Qc6 Bc5+
$11 25. Kg2 Be7 26. Rxe6 fxe6 27. Qxe6 h4 28. a4 Rh6 29. Qg8+ Bf8 30. Qxd5 h3+
31. Kg1 Bc5+ 32. Kh1 Be7 33. a5 Nf8 34. Qb5+ Kf7 35. Qc4+ Re6 36. Rb1 Rdd6 37.
Re1 Bd8 38. Qf1+ Rf6 39. Qxh3 g6 40. Rf1 Bxa5 41. Rxf6+ Rxf6 42. Qg2 Ne6 43.
Qb7+ Bc7 44. Kg2 Rf5 45. h4 Re5 46. Qf3+ Kg7 47. c4 Nd4 48. Qb7 Re2+ 49. Kh3
Re7 50. Qb2 Be5 51. Qa3 Rc7 52. Qa8 Bf6 53. c5 Re7 54. Qa3 Re2 55. Qa7+ Re7 56.
Qa5 Re3 57. Qc7+ Kg8 58. Qb6 {Williamson, Harvey: '1/2-1/2 Thamover, R (2737)
-Zombik, R (2772)/playchess.com'} Kg7 59. Qc7+ Kg8 60. Qb6 {1/2-1/2 Thamover,
R (2737)-Zombik, R (2772)/playchess.com}) 16... fxe6 {0.00/0 0} 17. Bd3 {0.00/
0 0} g5 {0.00/0 0} 18. Bg3 {0.00/0 0} Bd6 {0.00/0 0} 19. Bxd6 {0} Qxd6 {0.00/0
0} 20. O-O {0.00/0 0} Rf8 {0.00/0 0} 21. Rxf8+ {0.00/0 0} Kxf8 {0.00/0 0} 22.
h4 {0.00/0 0} Qc6 {0.00/0 0} 23. Rb1 {0.00/0 0} Qc5+ {0.00/0 0} 24. Kh1 {0.00/
0 0} d4 {0.00/0 0} 25. Qe2 {0.00/0 0} Ke7 {0.00/0 0  26. Qe4 {-0.01/0 3} Rf8 {-0.33/0 8}
27. Qh7+ {-0.12/0 0} Kd6 {-0.14/0 2} 28. Rb7 {-0.20/0 0} Qc8 {-0.25/0 5} 29.
Ra7 {-0.16/0 0} Nc5 {-0.27/0 20} 30. hxg5 {-0.17/0 0} hxg5 {-0.19/0 6} 31. Qg7
{-0.10/0 21} Kd5 {-0.19/0 0 (Kc6)} 32. Rc7 {-0.10/0 23 (Be2)} Qd8 {-0.32/0 3}
33. Bxa6 {-0.27/0 1} Qd6 {-0.37/0 1} 34. Bb5 {-0.15/0 4 (Be2)} Qf4 {-0.51/0 3 
(g4)} (34... g4 35. g3 Qxg3 36. Rxc5+ Kxc5 37. Qxf8+ Kxb5 $11) 35. Be2 {0.00/0
2 (Bc6+)} Qh4+ {-0.08/0 3} 36. Kg1 {0.00/0 0} Qf2+ {-0.15/0 6} 37. Kh2 {0.00/0
0} Rf5 {-0.15/0 5} 38. Qe7 {0.00/0 0} Qh4+ {-0.07/0 4} 39. Kg1 {0.00/0 0} Ne4 {
0.00/0 3} 40. Ra7 {0.00/0 1} Qf2+ {-0.05/0 3 (Qe1+)} 41. Kh1 {0.00/0 2 (Kh2)}
Nc5 {0.00/0 3 (Qh4+)} 42. Rc7 {0.00/0 3} Qh4+ {0.00/0 0 (Qe1+)} 43. Kg1 {0.00/
0 0} Ne4 {0.00/0 1 (Qh5)} 44. Ra7 {0.00/0 2} Qf2+ {0.00/0 1} 45. Kh1 {0.00/0 0
(Kh2)} Ng3+ {0.00/0 2 (Qxe2)} 46. Kh2 {0.00/0 0} Qxe2 {0.00/0 3 1/2-1/2 ABT
tuning,R (2696)-Mscpoker,R (2520)/[Williamson, Harvey]} *

B97: Sicilian Najdorf: Poisoned Pawn 
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nfd7 13.Ne4 Qxa2 14.Rd1 Qd5 15.Qe3 Qxe5 16.Be2 Bc5 17.Bg3 Bxd4 18.Rxd4 Qa5+ 19.Rd2 0–0 20.Bd6 Re8 21.0–0 f5 22.Qg3 fxe4 23.Qg6 Rd8 24.Rf7 Qc3 25.Bb4 Qe5 26.Bg4 Re8 27.Rxg7+ Qxg7 28.Qxe8+ Kh7 29.Qxe6 Nf8 30.Qxc8 Ng6 31.Bf5 Qa1+ 32.Kf2 e3+ 33.Kxe3 Qe5+ 34.Kf2 1–0

Help with the game analysis. Where there was an error at black? There are experts on this variant for the black?

Attached is a correspondence game completed today. In the final position neither side has any realistic winning chances.

Is one section not enough for you Dragoneers?

Well, to prove this you have tu refute : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 
10.h4 h5 11.O-O-O Rc8 12.Bb3 Ne5 13.Bg5 Rc5 14.g4 hxg4 15.f4 Nc4 16.Qe2 (A/Na5) Qc8 17.h5 Nxh5 18.f5 B/Nxb2 C/Na5. Good work !

Rybka 3 opening is totally overrated. I think that the version that came with Rybka 2 is better in many ways, it did cover many lines better, especially  in my favorit defences (Dragon and Dutch defences).

Rybka 3 opening books only advatange over Rybka 2 book are that there are several new ideas in for example the Dragon. But many old lines are unmentioned. When I played a practise game agianst computer, Fritz open variation randomizer (Fritz plays different variation every time) seleted a important line in Dragon that the opening book had no cover at all That line goes 

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 h5 11. O-O-O Rc8
12. Bb3 Ne5 13. Bg5 Rc5 14. g4 hxg4 15. f4 Nc4 16. Qe2

White performance is high after both Qc8 (main line in Play the Sicilian Dragon that I have a vauge memory of that we analsyed at Dragon forum some years ago coming to the conclusion that white was better after a novelty) and b5. But the book did not have the move that I always played , Ivanchuks Na5 and after 17. e5 Nxb3+ 18. Nxb3 Rxc3 19. bxc3 Bc6 whites postion stinks but Ryba 3 managed to draw!

And today when I analysed a game I played at the interent (Staunton gambit) the book had not Nc6 at all, only the dubios move pawn c6....

1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nc6
(4... c6 {only move mentioned}) *

I don't give two whoops in a hollow what Rybka "thinks" about 14.e6, nor do I appreciate anyone's stuffing an engine vs. engine game onto this board, burdened after every move by the machine's numerical idea of Truth.  And why would anyone be interested in the time the machines take to find their moves?

What I do think would be constructive would be anyone's posting actual analysis of 14.e6 here, expanding upon and improving for either side the provisional analysis that I posted above.  14...Bxe6 is a good try; maybe someone would care to comment further upon that.  Use a machine by all means; I usually do when analyzing sharp variations; but apply some judgement of your own, and for God's sake spare us mechanized evaluations, which are worth less than nothing.   


P.S. I might well be wrong, but my intuition would be that 15.Rxb7 is probably not the best answer to 14...Bxe6.  The important thing is to keep Black from castling, and I don't see how 15.Rxb7 facilitates that.

parisestmagique wrote on 09/01/08 at 07:25:52:


To me, this looks like a good idea.  At least after 14...fxe6 15.Bd3, White appears to have plenty of compensation.  For example 15...Be7 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Bg6+ Kd8 18.0-0 Qc5 19.Qe3 Qd6 20.Rbe1, or 15...Bc5 16.Bg6+ Kd7 17.Rf1, or 15...g5 16.Rb3 Qc5 (16...Qa4 17.Qc3) 17.Bf2.   

I also looked at 14...Qxa7 15.exf7+ Kxf7 16.Rd1 Nc6 (maybe Black can improve here, but for example, 16...Kg8 17.Bd3 Nc6 18.Nxc6 bxc6 19.0-0 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 and White's attack is worth much more than two pawns, I opine) 17.Bd3 Nxd4 18.0-0+ Nf5 (18...Bf5 19.Ra1 is even better for White) 19.Ra1 Qxa1 20.Rxa1 Nxh4 21.Rf1+ Kg8 22.Qe1, which again looks quite good for White.

So it would seem, provisionally, that 14.Bc4"!" is not the best move after all and that your 14.e6 idea is the way to go.  If this is true, then 12...Nd5 looks like a bad idea.   

[I think that in general, a lot fewer exclamation points and question marks should be sprinkled into any given analysis.  The terminal evaluations tell the story; the purpose of exclamation points frequently is for the annotator to congratulate himself, and their main effect is to discourage critical thinking.  10.e5"!!" indeed (know that's not your punctuation).]

Q wrote on 08/30/08 at 15:54:33:


This idea fails to 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.0-0+ Kg8 (19...Ke7 20.Qd2) 20.Qc4+ Kh7 21.Qd3+ Kg8 22.Rbe1.  Of course Black should play 19...Ke7 20.Bd5 Qxe2+ 21.Kxe2 but it seems that White's better development more than makes up for his worse pawns.  E.g. 21...Nc5 22.Kf2.

However, after 17...Qxe2 18.Kxe2 Ra7 19.c4 0-0, I'm not sure that White has all that much advantage.  In fact I might prefer Black and his extra pawn.  Nor does 18.Nxe7 look much better.

So for the time being, I will agree that 14...Be7 is both correct and adequate.

Hmm, thinking about this further, could it be that White should block the other way on e2?  17.Ne7 0-0 18.0-0 Nc6 19.Nf4 or 18...Nd7 19.Nf4 perhaps is a way to try to play for the win, but I would think that Black is O.K.

Willempie wrote on 08/29/08 at 09:30:02:


After 16. ... Qxe5+ 17. Qe2 Nd7 Black has a pawn and a forced exchange of the queens to compensate for his misery.

White at best has a slight advantage.

Boomie wrote on 08/26/08 at 20:52:01:

I did and I dont see it. 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Bxd5 and I really don't like black. Material is equal, but he is as developed as a 3rd world country, that has been hit by an eruption, earthquake, tsunami and a civil war.

My point was that theory moves on, either by human ideas or computer moves. And sometimes human answers to computer moves. 

I agree that Kasparov is probably the world’s strongest player ever (he or Fischer) , but even his recommendations can run out of date because of new ideas in a sharp position.

About Rybka3 book, it bought as soon as it get out but was little disappointed by it.

Quote:


I never claimed Kasparovs analysis being 100% perfect, only much better then these rather engine dominated analysis coming from these engine matches.
Quote:
And my statement was related to the Kasparov now , not the "1980-Kasparov", e.g. Of course engines helped him to improve his analysis.
And what do you mean with correct ... Not losing by force or black achieves equality in all lines (after a certain maximal move number) or .... ?
Your statement does not make really sense.

Boomie wrote on 08/26/08 at 20:52:01:

So it appears that white's best try is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5!? h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nd5! *13 Nxd5 exd5 14 e6! Bxe6

However this seems to peter out to a draw without either side having any winning chances.  Perhaps lines like these are why super GMs don't play the PP anymore.

Strategy_Rules wrote on 08/22/08 at 10:28:56:


Well I cannot make any comments on this as I have a correspondence game featuring this line. I wonder whether my opponent reads this forum.

you are probably correct, but they are way ahead of published theory.

(about the exchange sac  I don't really know, haven't analisded.)

computer and human analysis, but by now many engine games have  been played in it 


what are your thoughts on an immidiate 12...g5 ? It seems to work much better than 12...Nd5  I don't have much analysis on it yet and am working on other lines at the moment so I don't have a clue 

I looked at it a little more later, what about 12...g5 ?
I don't have a refutation in my opening book, anyone?

Kopperhed wrote on 08/14/08 at 00:28:41:


After 10..h6, I prefer 11.Bxf6 gf 12.ed6 which side steps Black's move order. If Black plays 10..de, then 11.fe h6 12.Bf4! gives White a nice attacking position.

With the release of the Rybka 3 Opening Book, this was posted on the Rybka website in the section concerning the new Rybka 3 Opening Book.

"In 2007 the Poison Pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf was experiencing a crisis due to 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10. e5!?.  The Rybka 3 book shows you a fairly easy solution to black's problems:
10....h6 11. Bh4 dxe5 12. fxe5 and now instead of the usual 12. ...Nfd7:
12. ...Nd5!"  Computer programs on very fast hardware have failed to show even an edge for white after this surprising continuation."

What do you all think about this continuation?  I couldn't find any games with 12. ...Nd5 in either Megabase or Hugebase.  I'm definitely not an analyst, but I'm a big fan of the Poison Pawn variation.  I'm interested in what some of the analyst here come up with!