Schaakhamster wrote on 04/15/10 at 12:48:58:


I agree with you that transposing to a quirky Alapin line with 3...d5 is Black's best chance of equalising. I have the DW book myself, and indeed White still has to know the theory to secure an edge, which most White players won't know. 4.ed5 Nf6!? can be a very annoying line for an unprepared White, although I don't trust it.

I personally feel that the 5.c4 Kan is a solid += for White although most theoretical works feel Black should equalise. The idea of delaying d4 is interesting, since it means that White could play as in the 7.a3 lines against ...Qc7 ideas but with an extra tempo (Be3 instead of a3). Black could try to exploit this with 3...e6 4.Nc3 Qc7 5.Be2 Nf6 6.0-0 b6 7.d4 cd4 8.Nd4 Bb4, but then 9.Bg5 looks rather nice for White in spite of the doubled c-pawns.

It will be interesting to see how Martin intends to prove Black can equalise after 3.c3; perhaps Black can achieve equality with precise play but Black's attempts to justify ...a6 haven't swayed my view that White is a bit better.

Personally I sometimes play 3.c4 and transpose to a 5.c4 Kan, since Black's independent try 3...Nc6 4.d4 cd4 5.Nd4 e5 is a stable +=.

http://chessbase.com/shop/product.asp?pid=498

ghenghisclown wrote on 01/19/09 at 09:50:36:



In recent times it seems to be the most common state of affairs for the best-play lines of major openings to be considered equal or unclear, rather than slightly better for White.  I'm talking about the assessments expressed in, for example, opening encyclopedias and Informant annotations.  For example, of the last seven relevant encyclopedias I know of, I don't think any of them indicated a "path to +=" against the Najdorf or Sveshnikov.  Most of the ones I can recall had the same view with regard to the French, though the most recent one (MCO from 2008) was in the "+=" camp (which seems in part to reflect that the Winawer, as it seems to me, has been under some pressure since about 2006.)  Some defenses, though, such as the O'Kelly, are basically "always and everywhere" considered "+=". (Some of Black's paths after 2...a6 -- such as sticking with the ...e5 stuff after 3. c4 -- have been considered by some sources as "±".  The sort of pure Maroczy positions that can arise with Black instead playing ...e6 and ...d6 there were probably considered clearly better for White before the "revolution in the '70s" -- I think of e.g. a "desperately cramped" comment by Fischer in My 60 Memorable Games -- but no doubt "+=" is the general assessment these days.).  Although these categories aren't perfect, the principle is surely that "+=" is playable for Black, while "±" isn't.      

Schaakhamster wrote on 01/19/09 at 14:54:34:

Well it seems that all the Qxd5 variations in similar lines (eg the French Tarrasch) are currently quite popular (in particular with writers). Personally I am not too fond of them, though they are interesting.

I discovered recently that all the strong juniors are playing 1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3.Bb5 against me because of my results with the dragon in correspondence. This thread has been really usefull. Maybe I will switch to the Kan or O'Kelly/Kan for over the board play. I have not played a serious game since New Year's Day so it could be my new years resolution.

Of course White gets a small advantage. As Petrosian famously remarked though, that's every opening from the Black side. Does this justify Moro, Radjabov, and Moskalenko playing the French (where White can get an advantage) and far fewer people playing the O'Kelly? Did anybody imply 2...c5 was e4's refutation?

A major improvement?  I wish I could see so clearly ...   

This reminds me of Timoschenko's Informant notes to his win against Kasparov three decades ago; after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c3 d5 4. ed ed 5. d4 he gave Kasparov's 5...a6 a "dubious" mark, indicating that it should lead to a slight advantage for White, while 5...Nc6 should equalize.  Most other sources I know of agree with that "+=" assessment, just as most sources I know of think that 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 d5 4. ed Qxd5 and 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 e6 4. d4 d5 5. e5 should be "+=".