Antillian wrote on 12/08/10 at 00:25:50:


14. Nf1 is an awkward move itself, so unconventional reply meets unconventional reply.

15...Qc7 intending 15. g4 c5 looks unclear intending to exploit the pin on the c-file after something like 16. g5 hxg5 17. Bxg5 Nbd5. 

c4 is, afterall, a target, the kind that is usually lacking in most of these 11. Bd2 lines. The game is unclear, from the lines I've looked over black is able to get good play against that c4 pawn, or forcing white to further loosen his king's shelter with b3.

In 2009, two Hungarian GMs played each other twice within 6 weeks in this line.

The first game went 9. N2f3 Be4 10. O-O Ng6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Ng5 Be7 13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. Qd4 Qd5 15. f4 exf3 16. Bxf3 Qxd4 17. Bxd4 O-O-O 18. Bxa7 Nxe5 {1/2-1/2 Almasi,Z (2684)-Berkes,F (2647)/Szeged 2009 (100)}

The second game was played six weeks later: 12. Nd4 Nxe5 13. f3 Bg6 14. f4 Nd7 15. f5 Bxf5 16. Rxf5 exf5 17. Nxc6 Qc7 etc. {1/2-1/2 Almasi,Z (2685)-Berkes,F (2663)/Paks 2009)

Thus, Almasi preferred not to give the 12. Ng5 plan a second try. So maybe it just isn't that dangerous, is it? (15.Qc3 0-0 also seems to hold.) And yet I have to admit that Black's pawn structure is not as solid in this line as usual.

Hello, this is my first post on this forum.

In a correspondance game i noticed a problem for black in the Short variation.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.Be3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Ne7 8.Nd2 Nc6 9.N2f3 Be4 10.0-0 Ng6
and now 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Ng5

White seems better after 12...Be7 (12...Nxe5 13.Qd4) 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Qd4

Any thoughts on this?

It appears that 13...0-0 is not busted due to 16...Nd5!, which draws, and BPaulsen's 14...Nb6 may offer more practical chances for Black if a draw is unacceptable.

Schandorff recommends 13.Qe2 c5, which has received a handful of recent OTB tests.  The question comes in on move 17, where White has a number of interesting options.  In particular, 17.g4 and 17.Kb1 seem to challenge Black most directly.

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.Bd2 Ngf6 12.0–0–0 Be7 13.Qe2 c5 14.Rhe1 0–0 15.Nf5 Re8 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 and now White has choices:

17.c4; 17.g4; 17.Kb1; 17.d5; 17.Rg1

I attach a .pgn file with analysis from Schandorff, Aagaard (in a QC newsletter) and Berg.  None of them treat 17.g4, so I have inserted some preliminary work on this line culled from OTB games.

I hope the forum finds this useful!

Forgive me if this has been covered in this thread previously.

13.Qe2 has become rather popular in the Classical 11.Bd2 lines proposed by Schandorff (and Houska).  There are two advances in theory that may force us to rethink Schandorff's preferred lines.  I offer the first here, and will post the second in a day or so.

Schandorff breaks with Houska in recommending 13.Qe2 c5, in no small part because of 14.Nf1 and the barbaric pushing of the g-pawn against the Black king.  Recent master practice, however, has provided a surprising antidote to this plan, and I attach it in .pgn format.  In short, the line runs as follows:

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.Bd2 Ngf6 12.0–0–0 Be7 13.Qe2 0–0 14.Nf1!? c5 15.g4 cxd4 16.g5 Nd5!? 

and watch the pyrotechics begin!

To the esteemed analysts here in the forum, I ask (1) does 16...Nd5 offer a sufficient response to 14.Nf1, and (2) does this mean that 13...0-0 is playable, or do other landmines remain?

Well, I couldn't find a solution to it, but here's the novelty: 9...Qd7 10. Bd3 Bxd3 11. Qxd3 g6 12. f5 gxf5 13. Bg5 Be7 14. Nxf5!? N gxf5 15. Ng3. White's attack appears sufficient to gain the material back with a slight edge as far as I can tell. Of course I welcome being proved wrong. 14. Nxf5 isn't in any database I have.

As for the main line I mentioned after 14. Bxf7 Rhf8 15. Be6 I was unable to find a route to equality for black if white uses the maneuver Bc4-e2 once black tries to kick the annoying Be6.

After 14...Nc5 the position is interesting, and needs analysis. It definitely looks promising so far.

Realistically if black's play stands up to 14. Bxf7 then the entire line can be considered good for him from a theoretical standpoint.

MNb wrote on 11/24/10 at 23:18:07:


9...Qd7 runs into a different piece sacrifice that has never been tried in practice, but fixes white's move order problem (similar to how 14. Qxf5 fixes white's move order in the line Hoember mentions). As of yet I can't even figure out how black is supposed to equalize against the novelty, but I'll post it if I find a solution to it.

Fichtl's continuation with 14. Qf1 in the game you mention is fine for black, which is why it hasn't been repeated despite its success. Black has more than 1 solution to it. 14. Bxf7 is the critical continuation, where I don't have any definitive evaluation yet other than that black might have sufficient counterplay to call it equal.