I play both 7...Ne5 and 7...Na5 as Black. According to my understanding (and analysis) both are perfectly sound and sufficient for full equality. Imo 7...Ne5 is sharper and both sides must know some theory, in the end it´s even more drawish than 7...Na5.

Bad statistics usually derives from the fact that many white wins were played before Seirawan´s novelty. 
There´s also a strong influence from old Botvinnik games who strongly preferred white.
And, Caro-Kann is a "less theoretical opening", on club level many black players try to play C-K almost without preparation and get punished in some sharp Panov (or Advance) lines which are theoretically definitely okay for black ... 

tracke 

PS: In a perfect chess game I would consider 4c4 to be a draw offer ...

slates wrote on 05/19/09 at 17:52:21:


Its not strange at all once one looks at the board without a computer engine running in the background to numb one's senses. Strong chessplayers tend to view such moves/positions with suspicion, and the fact the move has hardly been played in a line that has been around forever should make one think long and hard.

Ok it's mentioned in Podgaets and Karpov's book with the interesting tag attached, but in chess lingo this !? is a rather vague annotation that doesn't reveal much, for instance it could mean 'Interesting and deserves further attention' or it could mean 'Interesting but weak', in this case I would tend to plump for the latter.

I have said it before on the forum, but it bares repeating, pay a bit more attention to what the Masters play moreso than what they say. 

Toppy

To expand: after Qd4 Ng6, it takes a special sensibility to play Black. The canonical game, IIRC, is Anand - Seirawan. It's an oldie, but I don't know if Black has unearthed anything shattering since. Certainly results are overwhelmingly in White's favour when anyone has the temerity to play this line.

Thanks Scott for checking - I think you're right, there's not much to choose between either of these moves, although the more I explore the Panov the more I am inclined to move away from 6...dxc4 anyway....

Thanks Scott. I too prefer 7...Na5 and in games against my computers (Mephisto Master and Novag Emerald Classic Plus - haven't used Fritz et al, so the opening books are very old in this case) I do better than when using 7...Ne5, although I've not had the line against another person yet.  I can't see anything wrong with it and Karpov/Podgaets award it '!?' as opposed to the 'dubious' status they suggest for 7...Ne5, so unless personal preference comes into it or there's been a problem in this line recently I was just surprised not to see it in Wells' book, my favourite of the Caro books I have for it's tendency to get to the heart of things in most lines.

I had a quick look in a couple of online databases (Chesslab and Shredder's) and 7...Na5 has hardly been played at all in comparison to 7...Ne5, although to be fair 6...dxc4 isn't very common to begin with, compared to, say, 6...Be6.  

In the Panov Botvinnik I'm curious about a move in this line; 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd4 cxd4 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 dxc4 7.d5 and now Karpov's Panov book gives 7...Ne5 a '?!' and instead recommends 7...Na5!? as strongest. 

Both Joe Gallagher and Peter Wells have brief coverage of 7...Ne5 in their Caro books, but no mention of this supposedly superior move, despite it having been played in a number of games prior to the publication of either of these books.  Karpov's book gives a game from 1944 with it in, for example.  Is this simply a case of the move being unpopular for some reason of fashion, or because it looks unorthodox, or is there something wrong with it that wasn't known at the time Karpov's book was written? 

I can understand Gallagher's Starting Out title missing this move due to the necessarily curtailed coverage it could offer, but Wells in particular appears to have written an excellent book which seems to have highlighted many nuances and important details of Caro lines and I find it hard to imagine that he'd have overlooked the move if it were regarded as the best by a renowned source he would most likely have had access to.

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.