I guess I esteem White's chances in the English Four Knights a little more than you do, but fine.

BPaulsen wrote on 06/17/09 at 19:56:53:


Well, that's big news to me.  I had had the impression that this line was still being fairly avidly entered into by strong Whites intent on taking the full point.  If this appeared on the board and I was Black, I certainly would not congratulate myself on my draw in hand.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.  My claim would be that White is += here in the same sense that he is += after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5.  When someone says "=" I presume he means it as in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6.  The way I think, White has to play something suboptimal, like 3.Nc3 here, to enable "=" to be adjudged at move four.  

You think White's chances in the English Four Knights are no better than in the actual Four Knights?  What was White's suboptimal move, 1.c4?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you're saying.

kylemeister wrote on 06/17/09 at 22:50:48:


A) The popularity of 4...Nd4 in GM play is mostly recent, indicating that theory has changed in it fairly recently. Old evaluations are always overturned.

B) It also does much better in competition between 2500+ than 4...Bc5, and is significantly more popular between the two. If 4...Bc5 were that great it'd be played more frequently and with better results.

C) I don't think it, or 4...Bc5 actually suffices for equality, as that is reserved to the more theoretical 4...Bb4/4...d5. White should always be happy when less critical lines are played.

Quote:


The positions after 4...Bb4 aren't really sharp, but I guess it depends on what you're used to. Maybe I've been playing them too long, and take it for granted.

The theory was 20 moves after 4...d5 in the early '90s, and has only gotten deeper. Afterall, 4...d5 was the main line for many years before 4...Bb4 rose in popularity. 4...Bb4 doesn't have nearly the same number of lines going that deep. There's a couple, but not many in comparison.

kylemeister wrote on 06/17/09 at 21:08:01:


No, 4...Nd4 is in better theoretical standing than 4...Bc5. That's evident in both practical results at GM level, and number of times it gets played between GMs.

4...d5's theory regularly stretches past move 20. Not so much for 4...Bb4.

kylemeister wrote on 06/17/09 at 20:36:52:


Black's equality comes easier after 4...Bb4 than 4...d5, with less theory to boot.

4...d5 is perfectly okay as well (which is just a feather in black's cap).

Edit: Almost forgot to mention 4...Nd4 may be good enough as well!

Markovich wrote on 06/17/09 at 12:05:32:


I'm not going to lay out the entire theory of the variation, but it is equal even in the most critical variations (namely 4. g3 Bb4), and black equalizes even easier after 4. e3, 4. d4, 4. d3, 4. a3. That's been the verdict for many years now.

I put it that way because that's what he's going to find when he works it out for himself.

BPaulsen wrote on 06/16/09 at 23:26:07:


It's a bit glib, isn't it, to call the position at move three equal?  This quite major branch of the English has had a lot of sweat and blood spilled over it.  

Thanks for your reply!

Definitely food for thought! 

Quite a nice trick to play 3...c6! only against 3.Bg2, which is fine for Black. I awarded the Keres System += because of 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3! e4 5.Nd4 d5 6.x x 7.d3! which doesn't look very attractive for Black.
So 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Nc3!? allows Bb4 which scores good for Black.
I guess your solution is good enough for me, although it idemands some work from the black player too 

I am just curious - do you actually employ that scheme in practice or do you know of a strong player who does?