For the case that a chronical 1.b3 player is visiting this page, we are talking about: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3. 

MNb wrote on 07/14/09 at 20:39:41:


Lev Gutman's (it was his article) assessment was that (8...Qd8 9.Rxe4+ Be7 10.Nxd4 f5) 11.Rf4 is slightly better for White (yes, 11.Bh6 Kf8! is a pity - not my fault, it was Gutman's idea)... hmm, I admit that a well-prepared Black player can probably hold that ending. In this sense you are right to be unimpressed. But are you not too perfectionistic? To have a slightly better ending is quite normal. Even more important is what SWJediknight writes. For every 8...Qd8 game that you'll face with White, you'll get four games with 8...Qh5 and ten(!) games with 8...Qa5 (says MegaBase 2008). Under these circumstances, should you worry about 8...Qd8 being only +0.15? 

In Kais. 34 (mailed today) part I of Gutman's article on 7.Nc3!? (Canal Variation) appears. Again you'll say that this doesn't give White an edge, and from the perspective of "objective theory" you would be right. Nevertheless it contains many opportunities to go wrong and doubles Black's preparation work. Later I intend to write a third article on 8...Qa5 and 8...Qh5, a kind of surprise weapon. In my opinion Black's task to prepare for one of these systems is manageable, but if there are various white set-ups to be prepared for, the situation becomes much more unpleasant for Black.  

You are absolutely right. As you probably already know I find the question "can we build a repertoire in old-fashioned style around the Italian and its relatives?" very intriguing. And like you I haven't played most of the stuff myself. I have only experience with 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 and that is a long time ago.
Btw I think 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 dxc3 6.Nxc3 not inferior to 6.Bxf7+. I think White can prove full compensation with chances of more.
For the moment we seem to disagree about 5...Nxe4/8...Qd8/11.Rf4 which you rated as slightly better for White. I am not impressed. And you were not a nice guy for pointing out 11.Bh6 Kf8!  

Later edit in answer to JDKnight: hadn't we solved 8...Qh5 ? Not in terms of advantage, but in terms of dynamic play? I am thinking of Yuksel-Yargici, Antalya 2007 and Chan Yi Ren-Hasenohr, Vung Tau City 2008. O wait, the latter is exactly the line you propose.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/14/09 at 06:10:17:


Alas this is not part of the competition as I have done some analysis in the past on 4...Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.0-0 (not a Göring Gambit) and 6.bxc3 (neither, though both are obviously closely related).
By the way 4...Bc5 5.c3 dxc3 does not deserve a question-mark as White's advantage after 6.Bxf7+ is far from proven. See Müller/Vogt's excellent Danish Dynamite.
Taking your argument one step further, White may also opt for 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 and now either 3.Bc4 or 3.Nf3. White avoids the Petrov but is willing to play the Urussov (Nf6 4.Nf3 or 4.Bc4).

For comparison, the diagram after 29.Bc1 may be of interest: 

@Matemax: The position after 6...Bb4+ can also be reached after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4, which is of interest for those who hope for a Max Lange Attack after 4...Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 (5...Nxe4 is more popular) 6.e5. In the case of 4...Bc5 5.c3 Nf6 (5...dxc3? 6.Bxf7+) 6.cxd4 Bb4+ we are back in the old Italian Game, when the move of the competition is 7.Nbd2. In this move-order also 4...Bb4+ has to be considered, but that's not necessarily better than the alternatives (instead of a Goering Gambit 5.c3, which results in equality, I'd prefer 5.Bd2). A more usual Max Lange move order is 3.Bc4 Bc5 and only now 4.d4, but while I believe that the Max Lange Attack is advantageous for White (+= in my analyses), I don't think that the Max Lange Gambit 4...Bxd4 5.Nxd4 Nxd4 6.Bg5 etc. gives White more than compensation. (Yes, I know the new Dzindzi DVD idea Rg8, and no, it certainly isn't advantageous for Black.)

Back to the Italian Game. I fully agree with you that the classical 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 also deserves attention. If you leaf through pre-1900 chess magazines, there are so many fascinating analyses on this position, with all the big names... I had thought that 10...Na5 11.Qa4+ Nc6 (Tarrasch) was = (I even checked the latest analysis in the subscriber section!), but had never looked at 12.Qa3!?. The reply 12...Qe7+ could give White a slight advantage in the ending. More ambitious seems 12...Ndb4 13.Qb3 0-0 14.a3 Na6 15.Qc3 Re8+ 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.dxe5 Qg5 18.Nf3 Qf4 19.0-0 Bg4, about =, but in this line there are many loose ends.

hi all,

don´t hate me, but I just sent an equalizer line.

Perhaps I should explain my mysterious hint in another thread, that the new topic would be mainly based on pre-WWII analyses. I had originally intended that this new competition should include both 7. Kf1 (Krakov Variation) and 7.Nbd2 (Pomtow). The pre-WWII remark refers to the corr. tournament held in Krakov (Poland) in 1909, where 7.Kf1 earned its name. Only later I thought that the Pomtow Attack 7.Nbd2 was complicated enough for the new competition, and so I decided to drop 7.Kf1. 

This doesn't mean that 7.Kf1 had a defect or something. With best play, Black only equalizes, and there are several risky side-lines into which he may fall. - When I compare the "value" of the classical moves 7.Nc3 and 7.Bd2 on the one side, played in approximately 5800 games in the database, and the two "dark twins" 7.Kf1 and 7.Nbd2 on the other side, with less than 80 databased games, I see more chances for White on the underdog side. Yes, Möller's Attack was a phantastic concept, and in ECO Unzicker was so fond of 7.Bd2 (two main lines were +=, only in Rossolimo - Unzicker, 1949, Black was able to equalize)! But today most Black players know what to do against 7.Nc3 and 7.Bd2. Which makes both 7.Kf1 and 7.Nbd2 quite attractive, at least for the moment.