After my previous post, I researched this line and found two games played since the publication of 'Play 1...Nc6', and in both cases Black was an IM. In one of these games (2007), Black lost to a player rated 200 points below him - not a good advertisement for the line, although to judge 6...f5 on one game would be unfair. In J.Peters-Taylor, 2008, Black did not have any real problems in the opening.
Even so, I stand by my opinion that I don't really trust 6...f5 as being equal in strength to 6...Bb4. I think that the e5-square and backward e6-pawn combined with Black's difficulty in playing a rapid ...c5 or ...e5 secure White a slight advantage. That is the primary reason why I intuitively discarded it as being slightly inferior to 6...Bb4.
I took your advice and analysed this line, finding a novelty that (according to my analysis) offers White a slight and stable advantage, where it is not easy for Black to create serious counterplay. Unfortunately, my laptop crashed when I tried to save my analysis, but I can still remember the main lines of my analysis, which is presented below:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e5 Ne4 6.Bd3 f5 7.ef6 Nf6 8.0-0 Bd6 (8...a6 is an untried option to prevent Bb5 and Nb5, but then 9.Bf4 Bd6 10.Bg3 is slightly better for White.) and now I propose the following novelty: 9.Nb5(!). White has two ideas - to either exchange Black's dark-squared bishop to secure the bishop pair, or to bolster the centre with c3; more often than not White adopts the former choice. If Black moves his d6-bishop to e7, then White can pressure the c7-pawn with Bf4, exploiting the fact that the c-pawn is blocked.
Now the main move in my analysis was 9...0-0. My alternative line was 9...Nb4, but I have forgotten which line gives White the edge. It may have been 10.Be2 0-0 11.Re1 or 10.Re1, but I honestly cannot remember which.
After 9...0-0, I recommend 10.Re1, bolstering the e5-square and pressuring the backward e-pawn. 10...Be7 (10...Nb4 to prepare ...c5 looks natural, but after 11.Bf1 c5 12.c3 Nc6 13.Nd6 Qd6 14.dc5 Qc5 15.Bf4 White has a promising advantage.)
At first, I looked at 11.Bf4, but I came to the conclusion that White does better to play 11.c3 a6 12.Na3, as now White's f3-knight is no longer tied to the defence of d4. Now the best move seems to be 12...Bd6 (12...h6 13.Nc2 Qe8 14.h3 looked a bit passive for Black; 12...Bd7 13.Nc2 Qe8 14.Qe2 favours White) 13.Nc2 Qe8 14.Qe2 (14.Bd2 Qh5 15.b3 Bd7 16.c4 also seems slightly better for White. But not 16.Qe2 e5!).
Returning to 14.Qe2: 14...Qh5 15.h3 Bd7, and now White has two main choices, 16.b3 or 16.Ne5. I couldn't remember why I discarded 16.b3, but I do recall that 16.Ne5 Qe2 17.Re2 was slightly better for White, and also not easy for Black to create strong counterplay.
For example, trying to liquidate the e5-outpost with 17...Be5 18.de5 Nh5 19.g3 simply leaves the h5-knight misplaced. Of course Black doesn't have to take on e5, but then White retains full control of e5, and it is quite difficult for Black to create serious counterplay.
Wisnewski offers several highly interesting ideas in his ...Nc6 repertoire book, but if my analysis is correct, then this is not one of the most promising ideas.
I would like to conclude on a positive note that I am pleased with my purchase of his book. It taught me to play murky, unorthodox positions and it encouraged me to try new openings - something that has benefited me. The analytical imperfections (which are unavoidable in such a complex opening) are more than made up for by the original, creative ideas.
|