MNb wrote on 05/12/09 at 15:33:24:

13.Rf4 (instead of 13.Rae1) 13...Qxe5 14.Rxg4 Qxe2 15.Bxe2 Bxg4 16.Bxg4. This may be slightly better for Black. But I still believe that 9...0-0 10.Bxf6 gxf6 is more critical.  

I think they are still harmless.

My objection to 4...c6 is 5.Ne4, closer to  =  than  =+

But anyway, better analyse openings above the sea level of =

MNb wrote on 05/12/09 at 03:14:00:


That's certainly the first time I hear all this.
Nobody expressed real interest when ArkheiN mentioned that game in the other thread.
If you thought it had theoretical significance, you should have said so.

There were many alternatives to the moves played in that game.
12...g6 seemed good for example.
In my view one sample game cannot reverse the =+ eval.

MNb wrote on 05/12/09 at 03:14:00:


Sorry, I never said 5...c6 is 0k for White.
I said 5...Bf5 should be even better (more flexible), because Black can play ...c6 or not.

Finally, I agree with Stefan B. that 6.Bd3 is better than 6.Ne5
(stop the prettyness, get out your bishop!!)

TonyRo wrote on 05/11/09 at 15:03:21:


b) 10...Nbd7 11.Ne5 0-0 (iso 11...Nxe5) 12.g4 Bg6 13.h4 - I admit it's kind of desperado/kamikaze, but as Black already has castled, who knows?
c) 11...Qd8 (iso 11...Qh6) is also met with Bückers idea 12.c3 Be7 13.Ng3 Bg6 14.Ne5 with active pieceplay.
a) 9...Nbd7 10.d5 Qb6+ 11.Kh1 cxd5 poses a problem though.

Now what I really would like if some BDG-expert like ArkHein or even Bücker himself could comment. And JediKnight's ideas are very welcome as well. Wouldn't it be nice if White could prove sufficient compensation after 5...c6 6.Bc4 after all? I still have doubts of course.

Uruk wrote on 05/11/09 at 11:26:17:

My enthusiasm about that line waned when ArkHein reminded me of the Schoupal-Bonsai game. Until now you have brought up nothing to revive it, especially as you don't address my main point: the strength of the move Nc5, which was not possible in both Karpov games.
For the sake of clarity: I would love to see 5...Bf5 proven the refutation of the BDG and 5...c6 6.Bc4 playable (gambiting the Caro-Kann! Ha!). I even tend to agree that on general grounds 5...Bf5 should be better than 5...c6. But I want empirical evidence in the form of moves as well. As a result I suffer from cognitive dissonance. In such cases I always give priority to the moves and their evaluation.
So again: give an improvement on Bonsai's play and show that White has enough compensation after 5...c6 6.Bc4 and I will be a happy man again. Until then I can't back your statements. So I return the "come on".

Uruk, White is worse materially, that's a fact, and even if it's only a pawn, it may be important. But chess is complicate enough to say that White can't compensate for the pawn. Based from experience it seems that White often has compensation, and here too, experience is needed in that line, it's for that Iam challenging you. Oh and 5..e6 is not a mistake, Black isn't worse, but I agree that the lines are generally fun to play as White where I am about sure that the compensation is clearly sufficient.

Bother to justify? I explained why 6...e6 is a mistake.

Let's play the line if you want but what's the purpose exactly,
don't you agree White is worse?

6..e6 is far from being a mistake, sorry... Do you want to accept my challenge?

I will speak from memory, dear Uruk.

I agreed that 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 c6!? 7.g4 Be6 was interesting and White's compensation nos as clear here as 6..e6 for example. I didn't say it was =/+, I think White can keep the balance but that's just less clear here.

But no, I don't play hope chess because I used it 100 times and continue to play that at corr play against good opposition. If I remember correctly I even gave you a challenge in this line where I would try to play the White's side at best. 

So I am ready to play that line against you, on the forum for example...