Willempie wrote on 01/18/09 at 10:53:14:


I'm not sure what the significance of that particular game is; it doesn't look to me as though it casts doubt on the usual view of this line ("+=").  (By the way, ECO seems to prefer 10...Qd6 -- which looks more plausible to me offhand -- though the Russian "Modern Chess Opening Encyclopedia" doesn't.)

ghenghisclown wrote on 01/17/09 at 04:09:11:


I'm only 2100 FIDE, so I certainly don't have the answer. But come on people, the O'Kelly is obviously not a great opening. 3. c3 will lead to a good c3 Sicilian, with a normal advantage for white. 3. c4 will lead to some sort of maroczy bind, with a similar assessment. There is a reason the elite aren't playing 2...a6 all the time!

@ ghenghisclown
I'm tempted to agree with this. But maybe Willempie would care to say which lines he's most suspicious of and why? He might be thinking especially of 3 Nc3 b5!?, the 'On the edge' variation? Not having [i]Dangerous Weapons[/i] I don't have any analysis here, but in the end of course it's concrete moves that will uphold or refute the O'Kelly!

@ Willempie
[quote]MNb wrote on 15. Jan 2009 at 00:03:
If a black defence needs that many recommendations for White it often means that that defence is sound ....

Hmm methinks the error lies in the implicit assumption. Who says White needs them? [/quote]
I feel I must deliver a palinode here. Logically you're quite right, and indeed I was thinking of the Damiano analogy myself before you mentioned it! I guess, having failed to engage brain, I was confusing the case with another situation, one where the existence of multiple reasonable-looking lines [i]in a Black defence[/i] suggests (as I think it often does) that the defence may be sound. Of course, it [i]may[/i] still be that the differential White recommendations on move 3 here simply indicate the challenge to White ...

@ MartinC
Yes, 3 ...d6 of course -- late-night clerical error! And yes, after 5 d5 Csom goes 5 ...g6 with a Schmidt Benoni.

I guess you mean 3 Nc3 d6 (not e6!) 4 d4 Nd7? It doesn't seem especially silly at first sight. Presumably it transposes to some sort of Schimdt benoni after 5 d5.

Actually 3 Nc3 d6 4 d4 cd 5 Nxd4 e6 might have it's attractions as a move order toy. It's not normally all that easy for black to get to that position without allowing a 'free' Marozcy bind.

Willempie wrote on 01/16/09 at 13:05:56:


It might be that MNb has used the wrong phrasing. If that many moves have been recommended it might be that there is no clearcut way for white to gain a decisive advantage thus making the variation "sound". 

edit: as I think about it, MNb post can only be interpreted this way because the game of chess doesn't allow white to use more then one variation during a game  . 

[quote]If a black defence needs that many recommendations for White it often means that that defence is sound ....[/quote]

Sounds spot-on to me!

I've recently noted some other options. After 3 c4 there's also 3 ...Nc6!?, e.g. d4 cd 5 Nd4 e5 6 Nf5 and now either 6 ...Nf6 7 Nc3 d5!? or 6 ...d6!? 7 Bd3 g6 (with a Sveshnikov-like position). And after 3 Nc3 e6 4 d4, I notice Csom plays 4 ...Nd7 with success ...

Anyone got any thoughts on these? Or further thoughts on 3 Nc3 b5? 'On the edge' sure, but dubious ...? Kurajica and Mohr have been willing to try here 4 d4 e6!? 5 d5 Bb7 (6 d6 f6), while there's also the (safer?) 4 ...cd 5 Nd4 Bb7 (also 5 ...d6!? --?) ...

bragesjo wrote on 01/14/09 at 16:03:50:


If a black defence needs that many recommendations for White it often means that that defence is sound ....