winawer77 wrote on 08/09/09 at 09:34:52:


Well, I recommend that you check out Williams analysis. I think d3, e4 plan is no particular problem for black + there are some traps for white.

For example:

1. c4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. d3 0-0 6. e4?! fxe4 already =+ 7. dxe4 Nc6 8. Nge2 Ng4! 9.0-0? (9. Nf4 Nge5 =+ or =) Nxf2 -+

I played this quite a few times in blitz  

Another normal line is 6. Nf3 d6 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. e4 e5 9. Nd5 fxe4! 19. dxe4 Bg4 and black is fine. 

Of course, this is if you are ready to play either Be7 Stonewall or the Classical if white delays d3 with 5. Nf3!.

Quote:


It's quite possible that "not satisfied" or "unhappy" are more emotional loaded phrases than "very disappointed" which are the words actually used. In that case the difference is rather subtle - I would actually have thought the opposite was the case (i.e. "very disappointed" being the somewhat more emotional expression).

Quote:


Maybe you could offer an example of 'the tone' you don't like. It could be a question of his command of the English language. It is not always easy to hit just the right octave on a language that is not your mother's tongue.

Quote:


Ametanoitos' post seems to be inteded as something quite close to a review:

Quote:
.

Quote:


Isn't 'Ametanoitos' relatively anonymous? It may or may not be a family name. Anyway, that's the degree of anonymity the poster chose.

Schaakhamster wrote on 08/17/09 at 11:12:23:

I thought Sverre's response was pretty reasonable.

tafl wrote on 08/17/09 at 07:32:21:


A bit spiteful, isn't it?

winawer77 wrote on 08/09/09 at 09:34:52:

I've only superficially worked with that chapter so far, but knowing where Tony Kosten in The Dynamic English, Khalifman (Openings for white according to Kramnik) and Kindermann (Leningrad Dutch) saw the problems for black it was very interesting to see what they were proposing against those ideas. The discussion seems very well informed and discusses a lot of interesting move order questions. The conclusions after the theoretical sections on c4 and Nf3 in the book (which I really cannot verify one way or the other) is "[...] the ambitious [...] still needs testing. The more modest [...] should come close to equality. Quite possibly [...] is more testing*. [c4] [...] Provided that Black is well prepared and flexible in his approach, he should come quite close to equality in this line too. [Nf3]".
* on that section the subvariations seem to show a path to equaltiy with a back-up suggestion available.

I certainly found the structure of the book very interesting, hoping that the way it is set-up will help me understand the positions better (I am not even necessarily going to add the Stonewall to my repetoire, although I always found it difficult to play against, which tempts me to try playing it myself) and have been planning to work through it once I have a bit of spare time.

Bonsai wrote on 07/25/09 at 21:49:00:

Rybka indeed has quite some problems to find a solid continuation against the queensacrifice. However with some help of his friend Fritz I believe we found something quite convincing.
1. d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 d5 5. 0-0 Bd6 6. c4 c6 7. Qc2 0-0 8. Nc3 Ne4 9. Ne4: de4: 10. Bg5 ef3: 11. Bd8: fg2: 12. Kg2:, Rd8: 13. Rad1 (Probably the most precise move), Nd7!? 14. f3! (It is very important to prepare e4 with this move), Nf6 15. e4 with huge pressure. Whites heavy pieces can't clear the job on their own so help of the little pawns is necessary. Here there is time for some pawnmoves because of blacks lag in development.

brabo wrote on 07/14/09 at 21:22:22:

I was aiming to provide an example today against GM Ulibin, who according to my database recently mostly played the Stonewall (via the 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6 move order) and in the two most recent out of the three time he had the position with Qc2+Nc3 on the board played Ne4. However after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 he chose to head for a QGD/Nimzo/QID with 2...Nf6. Ah well, it would have been interesting to see what a Stonewall specialist GM would have done.

In terms of analysis, I checked a few extra lines before the game and one of the things I spotted was that the following queen sacrifice for black 1. d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 d5 5. 0-0 Bd6 6. c4 c6 7. Qc2 0-0 8. Nc3 Ne4 9. Ne4: de4: 10. Bg5 ef3: 11. Bd8: fg2: (I do not continue the line further, as the first interesting choice for white is here: 12. Rfe1 or 12. Kg2:) is potentially a serious option that nobody mentioned so far. Rybka at first evaluates the position very favourably for white, but analyzing around for a bit I certainly did not find any obvious advantage for white. 

Okay, so white has given 3 minor pieces for a queen and a pawn and black needs a moment to untangle his pieces, which gives white a bit of time to e.g. play e2-e4 and d4-d5 or the like in the meantime. However I am not sure whether I fully trust Rybka's evaluation function on this occasion and at least looking at it on the train Rybka did not find a quick tactical win. Can someone offer a more experienced human (or hybrid) evaluation of the resulting position?