Continuing the discussion on this line by myself I suppose, since the above one is likely += and not everyone's cup of tea.

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Bc4 e6 7. N1e2 Nf6 8. 0-0 Bd6 (position can also be reached via 8...Nbd7 9. f4 Bd6 10. f5 exf5 11. Nxf5 Bxf5 12. Rxf5 Qc7) 9. f4 Qc7 10. f5 exf5 11. Nxf5 Bxf5 12. Rxf5 Nbd7.

The idea is black wants to play 0-0-0, sacrificing the f-pawn if necessary, and obtaining active play versus the white king that suddenly feels more airy with black's king well sheltered on the Q-side.

This appears to be the most ambitious way to handle the line as black without allowing the different piece sacrifice lines white can try to peter out to draws where black is tight-rope walking. It has done alright in practice, but whether it's bulletproof theoretically is another matter. So far in my testing it seems unclear.

Despite Schandorff's and Houska's attempts to defend the Caro-Kann as a dynamic winning try, I think it's still fair to say that Black should be happy with a draw to play it. Some of Schandorff's lines against the Panov-Botvinnik and the Two Knights' look very drawish to me, though not exactly forced draws.

HoemberChess wrote on 11/09/10 at 18:01:15:


You could try 1...a6 - no forced draws that I am aware of...

That a book repetition leads to a forced draw is only a practical problem if it is early, well known and you are playing someone you don't really want to draw with.  The danger of someone whipping out a novelty on move 19 that their computer found to force a draw seems fairly remote to me.  How likely are you really to have this in any of your games?  For me the answer is "extremely low" and there are more important things to worry about.

If the novelty yielded a forced win for white, that would be a different matter...

HoemberChess wrote on 11/09/10 at 09:58:35:


Perhaps you know that computers will head for a 0.00 line instead of a 0.10 line as the 0.00 is "better" but for all practical purposes otb there is no difference?

The position is very rare - played in how many games? - and  I really don't think any Caro-Kann sources will have this.  Covering every single game ever played is a bit much!

Try looking at 18 Qxf6 Rxf6 19 Rxf6 Kf8 without the computer and see how you like the position - the material balance is a bit weird so I'm not sure I'd trust the computer evaluation exactly.  Then in the unlikely event that you ever reach it otb, you can either take the draw or play on if you are happy.

How can it be a beginners question if you can't find the answer in several recent books or by using an engine?

In Chapter 5. 11.Bd2 (13.Ne4 sideline) Schandorf thinks that Black shoud play 13...Nxe4 instead of castling. He reasons that 13...0-0 doesn't work in view of 14.g4! He goes on to claim that 14...Nxe4 15.Qxe4 Nf6 16. Qe2 Qd5 17.g5! is good for White. While I do agree that 17...Qxa2 18.c4! looks good for White he does not mention how White is better after 17...hxg5. Ive looked at several lines but think Black is fine. For instance:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bd3 Ngf6 12.0-0-0 Be7 13.Ne4 0-0!? 14. g4 Nxe4 15.Qxe4 Nf6 16.Qe2 Qd5 17.g5 hxg5!? 18.h6 Qe4 19.Be3 Nd5 and Black seems to be OK.

Well, Schandorff covers of course this Caro-Kann Advance system but his recommended setup is different to Jobava's play. Instead, his approach can be seen in the game Leko - Le Quang Liem, Dortmund 2010.
(1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. Be3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Ne7 etc.)

Now, there is also the following : "Shirov: The Advance Caro-Kann 2nd Edition"
I would like to see the contents, I only read that "material added concentrated on 1.e4,c6 2.d4,d5 3.e5,Bf5 4.Nf3 & 5.Be2
But I wonder if the 7,5 hours are only about this one (system) or not ? 
If anayone can answer ... much appreciated !