Also after 5.e5 d5 (Ne4) 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 ? This line has given me excellent results as Black.

Ender wrote on 05/14/09 at 15:19:16:


Well, that's a good reason. Still you might keep in mind for later that there are some interesting lines to be found on this site after 8...Qh5 and 8...Qd8. After all Black is Ok as well after 5.e5 - and is said to be OK even after 4.Ng5. So it's just a matter of taste in the end.

The Hand wrote on 05/14/09 at 15:12:08:


Thirded, but it's worth observing that the Two Knights is regarded, and has been regarded since the dawn of chess time, as fully adequate.  That's the real reason why no one should fret over it's "current status."

MNb wrote on 05/14/09 at 14:17:54:

isn't 5...Nxe4 said to be OK here, hence the current preference for 5.e5 ?

Ender wrote on 05/14/09 at 07:29:40:


None of the books on the Two Knights will give you all the answers, and there is still much to be explored. The old books such as Keres, Euwe, Pachman and Estrin still contain much of relevance.

Much stronger players than any of us here have been debating the 5...Na5 line of the Two Knights for over 150 years, in theory, in correspondence chess and over the board. The fact that in all that time no clear route to a white advantage has been found should provide a broad hint that Black is OK and that the variation is just a typical chess struggle of material plus better structure vs. space plus activity.

I think all of Black's 10th move options are playable over the board, but 10...Bc5 is the current favourite of many strong players, as a search of any good database will soon reveal.

After 10...Bc5 11 0-0 Qd6 White can apparently play the safe option 12 d4, and hope for the tiniest of edges with his better structure. 12 Ng4 gives Black a very strong attack and might well lose by force. 11...0-0 probably also gives Black sufficient activity.

Micawber has provided some of the best material on 10...Bc5 that you will find anywhere, here on this very forum.

Non-masters should stop worrying about "current status" of the Two Knights and just have fun playing it, analyzing it and studying the wealth of fascinating games of the many great players who have been happy to play it.

Enders wrote:
Quote:


Imo 11.0-0? is more or less a mistake.
My reaction is that 11....Qc7 should be replaced by 11....Qd6!
Davies analysis of 11....Qd6 was based on Emms(2000). And both got it wrong, as I published in a thread on this forum.
A later thread which contains the relevant analysis on 11....Qd6
can be found by the link below:


http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1232531768 

micawber wrote on 05/14/09 at 06:05:30:

Some errors/misjudgments in Pinski have been debated on this site. Regarding Palkovi, I own his book on the Italian (3...Bc5) which has some flaws. Some sections are good indeed, but in some lines he is quite superficial. In one case he forgets to mention a relevant well known recommendation by Euwe ...
So I feel that when you use Palkovi's work on 3...Nf6 you still need to check it with other sources (Emms, Davies) and a decent database. Problem with Emms and Davies of course that you won't find recommendations against the Traxler and Fritz-Ulvestadt.

Ender, how do you inted to combat the Italian 3...Bc5 ?

micawber wrote on 05/14/09 at 06:05:30:


Hi!
Thanks for some interesting points. I have Davies book. He don't give nothing against 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3  Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5  5.exd5 Na5  6.Bb5+ c6  7.dxc6 bxc6  8.Be2 h6  9.Nf3 e4  10.Ne5 Bc5 11.O-O Qc7 12.d4 exd3 e.p. 13.Nxd3 and this is in my opinion critical line for this variation.
Maybe Palkovi book is good for white players.