brabo wrote on 07/09/09 at 05:15:02:


Wow, there's so much verbiage in the foregoing posts that it's almost possible to miss the very interesting chess that's there also.  I should talk, I suppose, since I often ramble on myself.

But is it really necessary to consider how anyone does chess analysis, or to make broad generalizations of the quality of the analysis that they put up here?  To me this seems somewhat beside the point, which is the chess itself.  If someone's analysis has a hole in it, it should be sufficient to point that out in a constructive spirit, and not drag in the whole question of whether he is also a good analyst in general.

Further I don't think that being a superb analyst or having a row of chess servers running multiple instances of top chess engines or having spent 10,000 hours on the analysis of a given variation should be a qualification for posting here.  Personally I am very happy to see anyone's definite chess ideas here -- there is little enough "hard" chess here and we can always use more of it.  Specifically about Ametanoitos, he is one of those who does bother to post specific chess ideas at length, often quite original ones, and I very much appreciate this.

In any case, one of the very last things I would consider doing would be to deprecate the chess ideas of another player because I didn't consider him to be as good a player as I am, or as good an analyst.  Someone did that to me once when I was about 16 years old, and it was quite wounding.

brabo wrote on 07/09/09 at 19:48:18:

Fortunately that is not up to you (nor me) to decide. If Ametanoitos' comments annoy you you can do two things: contradict him or neglect him. I am not aware that A. is scared of his (non-?)superficial analysis being countered, on the contrary. Concerning this complaint I am afraid that 90% of my analysis does not meet your high standards either. If you think only thorough analysis should be allowed this forum is alas not for you.
My point is, if you try to stop A. the way you have done now in a few posts you are ridiculing yourself. I find that a pity, as I found your debate until then quite interesting - even if the subject is a waste of time for me (I don't play that with either colour).

brabo wrote on 07/09/09 at 11:18:19:


Well then we can throw away about 99% of opening theory (perhaps the petroff can stay). You can critique the guy for not going as deep as you but honestly, he only did say he didn't like certain moves. 

You can defend the book and the authors but scaring off people who bought the book and read it criticaly is just weird and counter productive, whatever the value of the book and/or the comments of the reader.

brabo wrote on 07/09/09 at 05:16:30:


No. For one thing it's a sign of having an open mind and the ability to overcome your prejudices (I don't like this move at first sight for these reasons, but I need analysis before I agree with myself).

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/08/09 at 11:40:08:


Yes, I admit my last posts are a bit insulting and if this wasn't a forum then I would've gone further. Why? I don't feel you put the same effort in your analysis as I do. You spend an hour analysing on the beach or with the engine or with the coach while I've spent more than hundred hours myself on this variation already not taking into account the 2 heavy modern computers that I am using on which 24h/24h the top engines Rybka 3 and Fritz 11 are running. I feel particulary unhappy about the fact that you put some false claims after some superficial analysis. Referring to Tarkatower, Kotov, Karpov, Rubenstein shows only that you are still dreaming of analysing in a pre-engine era. Wake up we are in the 21st century where engines rule and where concrete analysis prevail over plans and dogmas. It is not a coincidence that nowadays gladiators like Carlssen, Topalov, ... are playing systems which were considered only a few years ago as totally unplayable. It is good to know your classics but chess has evolved enormously the last couple of years demanding extreme precision if you want to achieve the highest level. For our mortal boardplay a playable position as you often refer to, is sufficient. However if you want to play e.g. correspondence then the slightest disadvantage is punished with an impeccable technique.

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, Qe8 9. b3, b6 10. Ne5, Bb7 11. Bf4, Nh5 12. e3, Nbd7 13. Nd3, Ne4 is here an illegal move. Such kind of lapsus really disturbs me because it brings noise on the correct evalulation.
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, Qe8 9. b3, b6 10. Ne5, Bb7 11. Bf4, Nh5 12. e3, Nbd7 13. Nd7:, Qd7: 14. Bd6:, Qd6: 15. cd5:, ed5:  16. Rfb1, g6  17. b4 White isn't planning an immediate b5 so Tarkatower can peacefully rest. No,white can continue with a4-a5 and/or redeploy the knight via e2 with very strong pressure.
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, Qe8 9. b3, b6 10. Ne5, Bb7 11. Bf4, Nh5 12. e3, Nbd7 13. Ng6, Nf4: 14. Nf8:, Ng2: 15. Nd7:, Ne3: 16. Nf6+, gf6: 17. fe3:, c5 18. cd5:, Rc8 19. Qd3 must be better for white. Messy yes but if you aren't sitting next to a ticking clock and you are armed with the best programs then white should be able to control the situation.
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, Qe8 9. b3, b6 10. Ne5, Bb7 11. Bf4, Nh5 12. e3, Nbd7 13. Ng6, Nf4: 14. Nf8:, Ng2: 15. Nd7:, Ne3: 16. Nf6+, gf6: 17. fe3:, dc4: 18. bc4:, c5 19. d5, ed5: 20. Nd5:, Bd5: 21. cd5:, Qe3+: 22. Kg2, Be5 23. Rad1, Qe4+ 24. Qe4:, fe4: 25. Rfe1, Kf7 26. Re4:, Bd4 27. d6 +/- It is absolutely insufficient to give a general plan here. This endgame needs very concrete play and I strongly believe white has all the chances. Anyway it stays more a hypothetical debate because black hasn't a fully equalising answer on the other white promising alternatives.

Making plans is nice for over the board play or to get a quick first evaluation of the position. However I am not satisfied with just plans and therefore concrete analysis are needed. Relying on engines is living in todays world for the serious analyst. This doesn't mean that all lines that I have published are from an engine. Making such statement is a lie. 90% till 95% yes but not 100%. It is exactly these 5 to 10% which make the difference in e.g. correspondence chess. 
B.t.w. as said in my first post, I've been reviewing some chapters before the book was published so I know the materials very well. So or you forgot or simply don't bother to read my posts in detail.
Referring to similar positions can be handy to obtain some ideas but it can never be the purpose that we should just copy. As I said before today it is all about concrete analysis: move by move. One pawn can stand one square further and the old plans can be suddenly invalid.

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, Qe8 11. Ne5, c5 12. Be3, Nc6 13. Nc6: , Qc6: 14. Qc3, b6 15. f3 This playable on the board, likely yes. Playable in a high class correspondence game, not so sure. I am only interested in the last situation.

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, Qe8 11. Ne5, c5 12. Be3, Be5: (Interesting idea but I have doubts that it fully equalises) 13. de5:, b6 14. f3!? (Maybe white can do without this move.), ef3: 15. Bf3:, Nc6 16. Qc3, Bb7 17. Rad1, Rd8 18. a3, Qe7 19. b4 and white keeps some pressure.

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: This is indeed a new move so not played earlier by strong players. However at contrary with your novelties I've first spent more than 100 hours to check if it really worked before making any statement on the web.

I continue the discussion (or more the lessons) on the forum because I know from the hits and other mail which I receive that people are interested in our heated discussion.

Don't you think that your last post is a bit insulting? I'll answer to some statements of yours but i will not continue this discussion because i agree with you that the quality is not of high standards.

First of all after 8. Nc3, Qe8 9. b3, b6 10. Ne5, Bb7 11. Bf4, Nh5 12. e3 Nbd7 13.Nd3 is not an advantage for White i think because my Bd6 bishop is on the board and i have the Ne4 move that closes the e file and f3 is not a good move to play for White. 13.Nxd7 is the move i said was good but the plan with b4-b5 can be met with c5 as in Tartakower variation of the QGD and the f5 move is an improvement here providing extra hold to the e4 square. Maybe White has some advantage but as in the Tartakower variations the position can be seen as unclear. After 13.Ng6 i think that there are other ideas for Black after 17.fxe3 such as 17...c5 18.cxd5 Rc8 for example which make Black;s position playable. After all he has two bischops and a pawn for a knight and a rook with a solid pawn structure. After my initial idea 17...dxc4 i gave the PLAN with that Black can make a draw, not the VARIATION! After 25.Rfe1 im not stupid to allow the rook entrance. I'll put later my Bd4 after something like Kf7 and if White plays something like Ra4 then Rd7. Maybe it is difficult for you to understand the difference between a plan and a variation. Maybe if you take yous eyes away from your PC you will understand what i say (i mean that it is sometimes very difficult to see a plan when you analyse with an engine). And every line you have proposed is the proposal of an engine!

In the same variation it would have helped to study the book first! For example after 8.Nc3 Qe8 9.b3 b6?! according to the book to page 59 we read that the plans with b6 are not as good when the bischop can come out to f4. After Bf4 Black choses Bd7-Be8 plans. So, if you have read the book you could try to make cxd5 immediatelly or Bf4 ideas work and not to rely only to the Ne5 idea given by Rybka!

After the last line with 11...Na6 my coach proposed (who is a big head not because he found the move in milliseconds but because he is a man with great experience and rare quality in chess understanding. He is also an expert in Bf4 variations in the Stonewall and has a win against Nadanian with White there) i would again have helped to check the book! In page 46 the game Kunin-Adgestein is given when the position is very similar to this line (12.Rac1 Rc8 13.Qd2 Qe7 etc) and it is given as (dynamically) equal!

As for the last line i proposed with 8. Nc3, Ne4 9. Ne4:, de4: 10. Bg5, Qe8 11. Ne5, c5 12. Be3, Nc6 13. Nc6: , Qc6: 14. Qc3! was a problem i found out after checking the lines with my PC but i think that after 15.f3 you give the position is playable also. I had an idea here and my coach agrees that maybe Black should try the interesting 12...Bxe5!? 13.dxe5 b6 which is typical again (see f.e lesson 2 in the book) and makes Be3 "bad". If f3 exf3 (now or later) Black can exchange lightsquared bishops with Nd8-Nd4 or Na5 and the exchanges of the rooks at the d file (with or without a passed pawn on d6) will result in a favourable ending with Queen+Knight Vs Queen+ Bishop. I continue to use your own arguments that 9.Nxe4 is not used by a strong player but i agree that Black has to know what to do.

Please don't misunderstand me. I think that our discussion has helped me to find out some usefull things about Stonewall but i was a little bit upset about the comments in your last answer. I'd prefer to continue this discussion (if you want it to be continued) with IM's instead of posting them here.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/06/09 at 10:08:46:


There is no consistency in your statements.
First you say that you always trust your coach but a few lines lower you still recommend the line with Nh5 while your coach finds it a silly move.
You state chess is simple but a few lines lower you write things aren't so simple.
In the lines with Na6 you give exclamationmarks to Qe7 while on my Qe7 moves you give questionmarks. Analysis should be made objectively and not depending on the person who made it.
You say that your last proposal is adequate but simply ignore my earlier given improvements (13.Nd3, 13.cd5 and 13.Nd7).
You state the endgame is a clear draw but don't give concrete analysis. Without moves this is just spam.
You state 8...,Ne4 is a good solution but only a few posts ago you state that you don't like the move.
Finally the typeerrors (e.g. 14. ed5: which should be 14. cd5: ) and the often difficult to read analysis could easily be improved if you would use complete written lines so starting from move 1 as I do.