CaptainFuture's impressive novelty has deservedly won the competition. The combination is brutally forcing and refutes my -apparently plausible - continuation 11...Bb4: (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nbd2 Nxe4 8. d5 Ne7 9. 0-0 Nxd2 10. Bxd2 Bxd2 11. d6 Bb4) 12.Ng5 cxd6 13.Qh5!! +-. 

Before this idea was posted, I had seen only a minor improvement on my 13.Nxf7 Qc7 14.Qb3 d5 15.Bxd5, namely 15.Nxh8!?. The move at least avoids the stale equality after 15.Bxd5, but White can't claim an advantage: 15.Nxh8 Qxc4 16.Qf3 Qh4 17.Qf7+ Kd8 18.Qxg7 Nc6 19.Nf7+ Kc7 20.Rac1, unclear. Of course after CaptainFuture's 13.Qh5!! +- such attempts have become irrelevant.  

gewgaw's 12...a5, which punished the "parking excursion" of the bishop to b4, has already been discussed in this thread. It was very nice and encouraging that he published the idea early, which led to some discussions. 

Last, but not least there was (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nbd2 Nxe4 8. d5 Ne7 9. 0-0 Nxd2 10. Nxd2 0-0 11.a3 Bxd2 12.Bxd2 d6 13.Re1) 13...Ng6!, carefully studied by Ametanoitos/Luzin. What I liked very much: They tackled White's gambit in the most principled way, by discussing whether White's intended attack with his two bishops isn't only sheer bluff. Obviously it isn't easy to analyze a position in which both sides have already developed most of their pieces - the position has more the character of a middlegame than of an opening.  

The proposed solution, the nominated 13...Ng6, leads to a situation where Black's pieces are well coordinated. I've checked it for some hours, but didn't find anything what I really liked for White. - In the chat thread, reply #33, I had given an analysis which included the move 13.Re1 for White. Nevertheless it slowly became clear that 13....Ng6! is strong and should better be avoided. Therefore I'd now recommend another continuation (instead of 13.Re1). This is not to diminish the merits of the nominated 13...Ng6. But if 13...Ng6 is strong, we have to draw our conclusions and search for possible improvements at an earlier moment: 13.h4!?. 


The new move may or may not offer sufficient attacking chances. At least it seems to fit into the intended attack on the kingside, and it does something against Ametanoitos'/Luzin's concept of Ne7-g6, when the knight controls so many important squares. Now 13...Ng6?! 14.h5 seemed to be just what White wants, so I checked another knight move: 13...Nf5 14.h5 Qh4 
Or 14...Re8 15.Bd3 h6 16.Re1 Rxe1+ 17.Bxe1 Bd7 18.Rc1 Rc8, and now perhaps 19.Ba5!?. It isn't obvious how Black can get rid of the annoying attack on c7.  
15.Rc1 Re8 16.Bb5 Re5 17.Bc3 Re7 18.Re1 Bd7 19.Rxe7 Qxe7 20.Bf6


For example 20...Qxf6 21.Bxd7 Ne7 22.Qb3 Qe5 23.Qxb7 Rf8 24.Bc6 (24.h6 =) 24...Nf5 25.Qb4 Nh6 26.g3 Qxh5 27.Bd7 Qxd5 28.Rxc7 a5 29.Qf4, and I'd prefer White. I have no doubts, however, that my sample line will not be the last word in a sharp struggle.

I am still searching for the best formula, so I am open for any suggestions. In the first competition we have had a topic which I hoped would attract many, as a good weapon against the French. If you build a repertoire around, say, 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3, this key position would probably be reached in at least 50% of your games. Your Nimzoindian line can also play an important role in a repertoire, so I'd guess the basic situation is similar, and I'd not expect significantly more participation. Or am I overlooking something? 

However, you may be right that choosing a SHARP variation makes a topic attractive for some people, who like all kinds of hair-rising complications. So the Marshall Gambit in the Slaw makes some sense. On the other side I avoided topics like Traxler, King's Gambit etc., which require a vast knowledge of theory, and non-experts would feel excluded by such a choice. 

That's why I tried the Pomtow: (a) not much theory; (b) can be very tactical; (c) no one is an expert...  

An important hint, thank you very much! I overlooked the transposition, although 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Nxe4 was prominently played by Fischer, Rubinstein, Rotlewi, Honfi and others (87 games are in the database). The "full" transposition 12.0-0 was reached in 2 of these games, both drawn. The very similar situation after 11...cxd6, when White can also try 12.0-0-0 or 12.Qxd6, also showed a level score of 4.5 out of 9 games.

A few remarks on this different move-order:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Nxe4 9.d5 

Recommended by Ritzen (1924), Pinski (2005) still regards the text move as the main line: "8...Nxe4 looks tempting, but White reacts energetically with 9.d5! ..."

While 9.Bxf7+? (a long time ago it was given a ! in the Bilguer) 9...Kxf7 10.Nxe4 Re8 is incorrect, e.g. 11.0-0 Rxe4 12.d5 Ne5 13.d6 Kf8!, other alternatives are playable:

(a) 9.Nxe4 d5 10.Bd3 dxe4 11.Bxe4 0-0 12.0-0 Bg4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 [=, 41] Leonhardt - Rotlewi, Hamburg 1911; 14.b3 with a slight plus, but it should still become a draw. 

(b) 9.Qe2 d5 10.Nxe4 0-0 11.0-0-0 Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 dxc4 (dxe4) 14.Qxc4 Qh4 and Black was somewhat better in Mednis - Fischer, New York 1963. 

9...Nxd2 10.Qxd2

10.Kxd2!? Ne7 11.Ng5 is interesting, but after 11...d6 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh4 h5 14.Ne4 Ng8 15.Bb5+ Bd7 16.Bxd7+ Qxd7 White is lacking a strong continuation: 17.Rhe1 (or perhaps 17.Nf6+ Nxf6 18.Rhe1+ Kf8 19.Qxf6 Rh7 =+; 17.Rac1 Kf8 18.Qh3!? Qa4 19.Qd3 Nf6! 20.Nxf6 Qf4+ etc.) 17...Kf8 18.Rac1 Rc8 19.Rc4 (19.Qf4 Qa4 20.b3 Qxa2+ 21.Kc3 b5) 19...Qb5 20.Nc3 Qxb2+ 21.Kd3 Qb6 22.Rb1 (22.Qh3 Rd8) 22...Qa6 23.Qd4 Rh7 24.Nb5 f5 25.a4, and White may have sufficient compensation, but not more.

10...Ne7 

10...Nb8? 11.d6 0-0 12.Rc1 Nc6 13.dxc7 Qxc7 14.0-0 Qa5 15.Qd6 Qb4 16.Bxf7+ Rxf7 17.Rxc6 Qxb2 18.Re1 Qf6 19.Qd5 1-0, Traxler - Duras, Wiener Schachzeitung 1915, p. 208.

11.d6 cxd6 12.0-0

If 12.Qxd6, the reply 12...0-0 is probably best. (12...b5 Tzermiadianos - Kotronias, Athens 1998, seems slightly better for White) 13.0-0 (White might try 13.00-0 Nf5 14.Qf4 d6!? [or 14...Ne7 15.Bd5 Nxd5 16.Rxd5 d6 17.Qxd6 draw, Engelbert - Budzyn, Kiel Open 2006] 15.g4, but both 15...Ne7 and 15...Nh6 seem to be acceptable for Black) 13...Nf5, about =.

12...0-0.

12...d5 13.Bxd5 0-0 14.Rfe1 d6 and soon a draw was agreed in Berlinsky - Estrada Nieto, Istanbul 2001.

13.Qxd6 Nf5 14.Qf4 d5 15.Rad1 Ne7 16.Rfe1 h6 17.Qe3 Be6 18.Nd4 Bg4! 19.Be2 Bxe2 20.Rxe2 Re8 =+, Satici (2354) - Cerqueira Filho (2428), Dr. Maia Vinagre Memorial 2007. The game later ended in a draw. - Instead of 13.Qxd6, the cautious 13.b3 may be more precise, to avoid later attacks on the weak pawn b2, e. g. 13...d5 14.Bxd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 d6 16.Rad1 Qb6 and so on; the position is equal.  

Quote:

I agree.

CraigEvans wrote on 08/14/09 at 15:41:12:

Because this has no connection to the nominations and the poll, I can perhaps comment on your idea. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nbd2 Nxe4 8.d5 Na5?! 9.Bd3, your suggestion 9...Nc5 is new. I fully agree with the moves given in your analysis, your last line "c" seems critical: 10.0-0 Nxd3 11.Qe2+ Be7 12.Qxd3 0-0 13.Ne4.


However, the resulting position looks very promising for White. The attack on the kingside, combined with the misplacement of the knight a5, which has to go a very long way to get back into civilization, is clearly worth more than the sacrificed pawn. The main line is probably: 13...b6 (sooner or later the knight has to retreat to b7) 14.Re1 Nb7 (after 14...Bb7 15.Bg5 f5 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Ng3 +/- White threatens both Nxf5 and b4; 14...d6 15.b4 f5 16.Ng3 or 15...Nb7 16.Nd4 are also bad) 15.Nfg5 (threatens a quick mate by Nf6+) 15...g6 16.Qh3 h5 (forced) 17.Qc3.


For example:
(a) 17...f5 18.d6 Nxd6 (18...cxd6 19.Qc4+ Kg7 20.Qd4+ Kg8 21.Bd2 fxe4 22.Qxe4! +/-) 19.Nxd6 cxd6 20.Qg3 Bb7 (20...Kg7 21.Nh3 +/-) 21.Ne6! dxe6 22.Qxg6+ Kh8 23.Qxh5+ Kg8 24.Qg6+ Kh8 25.Re3 Bh4 26.Rh3 Qf6 24.Qg3! Rf7 25.Bg5 +-.
(b) 17...Nd6 18.Nxd6 Bf6 19.Qb3 Bxg5 20.Ne4 Bxc1 21.Raxc1. Black cannot easily develop, e.g. 21...Ba6 22.Qe3 Kg7 23.Qc3+ f6 24.Qxc7 +/-. 
(c) 17...f6 18.Nh3 Rf7 19.Nf4 Kh7 20.Qh3 d6 (20...Qh8 21.Bd2; 20...Nd6 21.g4) 21.Qe3 Rg7 22.Bd2 +/-, with lasting pressure. 

I have to agree with Ametanoitos - the position after 15...d6 16.h3 Qb6 looks dead equal. Really dead. Bishop v Knight and blah blah... but I mean, if your opponent turned down a draw when you offered it with either colour, you'd want to hit him with a pitchfork.

Shame I hadn't gotten around to going through every line before I voted... I don't believe in voting for my own nomination, as I'm guessing others might  ... I doubt it would have changed my mind anyway, as a lot of the analysis is very fun and original.

I am currently analysing 8...Na5 for my own fun - too late for the competition obviously, but I think this move might be just as strong as 8...Ne7 if followed up correctly. The idea I am considering is:

8...Na5 9.Bd3 Nc5!?, again giving some tempi and making a few concessions in order to get rid of that Bd3. White cannot really hold onto the bishop now, here are the options:

a) 10.Bc2 Qe7+! 11.Kf1 (11.Qe2 b6! 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.O-O Bb7 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.a3 Bxd2 16.Bxd2 Bxd5! 17.b4 Bxf3! 18.bxc5 Bd5 and black is better) b6! (Stefan's favourite move in this gambit, so much more powerful here!) 12.g3 Ba6+ 13.Kg2 Be2 14.Qe1 O-O and -/+ at least.
b)10.Be2 is weird, after 10...O-O any future a3 will allow black ...Nb3 ideas, but this might be not so bad 11.a3 Bxd2+ 12.Nxd2 (any other capture allows both Ne4 and/or Nb3 with trouble) Re8! 13.O-O d6!? 14.b4 Nab3!? 15.Bb2 Nxa1 16.bxc5 dxc5 is very double edged - materially black should be up, but white has definite play and unclear is the best I can do - I'd rather be white maybe, but that's more my temperament than an objective assessment
c)10.O-O seems most sensible, but after 10...Nxd3 11.Qe2+ Be7 12.Qxd3 O-O I highly doubt black has any worries. Maybe 13.Ne4 is a try for an edge, but black is still a pawn up and white will have to work hard to ensure his compensation is lasting.

Nowhere near conclusive, but all interesting stuff and an idea I think has been a little neglected.

I don't know if i have the right to make comments about the nominations after the poll started but i'd like to make this observation (i cant help!)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nbd2 Nxe4 8. d5 Ne7 9. O-O Nxd2 10. Bxd2 Bxd2 11. d6 and now 11... cxd6 12. Qxd2  and the analysis of Captain Future continues 12.... O-O  13. Rad1 d5 14. Bxd5 Nxd5 15. Qxd5 with a slight advantage for White which seems at least a little misleading to me. After 15...d6 the position is completelly equal with chances to win only at the Black side. Black has a pawn up (at present, which means that to recapture this White will invest a tempo or worse allow the exchange of the Queens which favours Black!) and all the endings with rooks and bishop Vs rooks and knight are potentially better for Black. It seems that White has no sign of initiative!

I have to admit that after we showed that White has nothing after 10.Nxd2 then 10.Bxd2 may be a best attempt for White to fight for a draw!

Craig, thanks for participating! I won't comment on any chess details in your analysis. But I am surprised by your logic. Isn't there a contradiction in what you wrote in your nomination (main thread)?

Quote:

If I understand everything correctly, this is what you say about the final position in your main line:

(a) The chess software wants to make you believe that it's equal. 
(b) But you recognize that in fact it's +/=. 
(c) Then you continue: "but it is clear that the extra material should win out eventually." 
This seems to be a contradiction, since in my view a winning position would be called +-, not += (as you did, in the same line). In most theoretical works, even a +/- is used for situations of the "grey zone", where Black still has drawing chances, e.g. if White has an extra pawn in an ending. 
(d) Your sentence "The evaluation of 11...O-O-O is not so much a question of =/+, = or +/=, but +/- or +-" repeats the assessment in (c), but at the same time makes the contradiction even clearer. It seems that you have changed your first assessment of your main line gradually from += (which some might see as acceptable for Black) to +/- and then even to the claim that White should win. 

So I am not sure... are you saying that Black's gambit leads to a += situation, but this concrete += situation is in fact much worse, even +-?

This is the last day of the competition. The key question remains whether 7.Nbd2 is better or worse than the Möller Attack 7.Nc3...9.d5, the quiet old main line 7.Bd2 and the Krakov Variation 7.Kf1.  

Regarding the Möller Attack, Tim Harding had written in his ChessCafe column in 2002: "I do not think that 7.Nc3 is viable any more at high levels." In the same article, he said this about 7.Bd2: "The bottom line seems to be that 7.Bd2 is dead as a winning try for White in master chess or high-level correspondence play although the right plan for Black [7...Nxe4!] will probably take a few more years to become general knowledge at club and Internet player level." 

Which leaves the Krakov Variation 7.Kf1, in my opinion a very reasonable alternative. To give you something for comparisons, here is the main line: 7. Kf1 d5! 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nc3 Be6. In this critical position, I believe the following is relatively best for both sides: 10.Nxd5 Bxd5 11.Qb3 Bxc4+ 12.Qxc4 Qd6 13.Bg5 


13...0-0 (13...h6 14.d5) 14.g3 Na5 15.Qb5 c6 16.Qf5 f6 (or 16...Qd5) 17.Bd2 Bxd2 18.Nxd2 Qb4 19.Rad1 Qb5+ 20.Qxb5 cxb5 21.Kg2 Rfe8 22.Kf3 Rad8 23.Ne4 with an equal position (analysis). 

In short: all three traditional moves 7.Nc3, 7.Bd2 and 7.Kf1 are not much fun to play against opponents familiar with present theory. White may get equal chances, but it is more or less established that he can't get more, and after initial tactics the positions often become boring. On the other side this thread has shown that Pomtow's 7.Nbd2, in spite of its amateurish appearance, leads to lively play, and in the resulting gambit positions it is not yet clear (at least to me) whether White or Black has the advantage.