Indeed, when I saw that game I immediately remembered this thread and my contribution (post n°69) which allowed to win some great Kaissibers

Good memories back.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/13/14 at 21:42:28:

Henk Smout informs me that GM Dmitry Chuprov died in September 2012, only 33 years old: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/9357 . 

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/13/14 at 20:37:58:


It doesn't look like it, for instance he gives 13...Nxd5 14 Qxd5 without comment, and doesn't mention the stunning:

CaptainFuture wrote on 08/12/09 at 10:26:36:

It is a pleasure to see that research at the chesspub has real-life consequences. Issue 3 of New in Chess (the Magazine) has a five-page article by Jeroen Bosch on the Pomtow Attack 7.Nbd2!?. The article is titled "Giuoco Piano con fuoco", and it begins: 

Quote:

I understand why Jeroen mentions Jonny Hector rather than Dr. Pomtow from the 19th century. But when you are working on such an article, or as an editor of NIC who is going to publish the piece, shouldn't you at least google for the moves 1.e4 ... 7.Nbd2? The competition comes up in Google among the first ten entries.

My line was not evaluated as "=/+", it was evaluated as "=" and then i added that next Black is going to play ...d6 etc. Probably we didn't have too many contributions because that Pomtow line is not terribly popular. I imagine that a Dragon line, or a Najdorf for example would attract many more people, but it is just my impression, it doesn't mean that i am sure that this is the case! For example why not have a competition in a "cutting edge" position? Bg5 Najdorf in my opinion is a good place to look for fresh ideas or forgotten ones that have been abandoned in the pre-computer era but can be proven that are playable now. Or why not test a new set-up against the Berlin? (Of course i have specific examples in my mind!)

Checking this variation again after some time with the new engine Houdini i have to say that pleasant memories came back to my mind. I remember analysing this line for the Kaisiber competition and again finishing 2nd and i was thinking if it is time for another competition. Mr Buecker? 

OK, Houdini at depth 26 gives 7.Nbd2 (which is it's first choice!)  7...Nxe4 8.d5 Bxd2+ and now Black seems to be absolutely fine after both 9.Nxd2 Nxd2= and 10...Ne5 (with tempo on c4)+d6 etc and 9.Bxd2 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Ne7 11.d6 cxd6 12.Qxd6 O-O 13.O-O Nf5= +...d6 etc and if 10.Nxd2? Qe7+ or 10...Ne5 is even bad for White.

I think that it is nice to come back again on old threads and see what new things await to be discovered.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/27/09 at 03:09:05:


In our post when we nominated the move 13...Ng6 we writte: "Also 13.h4!? does not work now because of 13…Nf5! Also 13…Ng6 14.h5 Ne5 15.Be2 h6 16.Rc1 c5 seems good enough."

The idea of the h4 attack was Luzin's and is a typical move that wants to undermine the knight support. It reminds me what Rowson wrote in Chess for Zebras page 33 when he tells us a story about the game Te. Petersen- Rowson. Torshavn 2000 which was : 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bh4 d6 5.Nc3 g5 6.Bg3 Nh5 7.e3 Bg7 8.Nd2 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Nd7 and now white played 10.Qf3?! a6! 11.g4?! d5 12.e4?! O-O 13.O-O-O c5 14.dxc5 d4 etc whith Black coming on top

Rowson writtes : "In the post mortem we looked at the position before move 10 for a while and decided that if the position proceeded normally Black whould be very comfortable. For instance after ......
  Looking at it now, i think we generally overestimated Black's chances if the game proceeds as normal, but what bothered me at the time is that we couldn't see a convincing way for White to develop any ideas and get fully into the game. Tiger Hillarp Persson was watching the post-mortem and he was also perplexed until he hit upon 10.a4!? with the stated aim of "trying to grab some squares" "
And he continues to analyse this fantastic idea....

In our case also we thought that if the game continues normally Black will absorve the compensation slowly (please check the wonderfull ...Qf8! idea we discovered at the end of our analysis) and come on top. But as in the Rowson game the h4!-h5 idea (with the aim to grab some squares) seems powerfull to give White maybe enough compensation for equality but again i have to state that it was Luzin's idea and we commented on that with 2 proposals.

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.

That's very sad - my condolences.

I'm really sorry to hear about this, Ametanoitos -- you have my sincere condolences.

Not "four days", there is only the Wednesday left to nominate an idea. Very inventive, gewgaw...

gewgaw wrote on 08/11/09 at 15:39:06:

Maybe you are right. However, I still believe it is relatively easy to improve upon my analysis. Someone rated 1800 should perhaps need 15 minutes to detect a new idea. No spectacular refutation, but s.th. of interest. Why should it be necessary to play through all the games and analyses? One could concentrate on one of the files and check only one of the many loose ends. - In my opinion, linksspringer's 10.Bc1 or a similar "human" idea would be a good candidate for such a competition.

We have found some great ideas for Black and White while we were searching for this line. Some of the ideas are really strong and engines don't even smell them!  Luzin now is working some details because we put the ideas into a practical examination (we simply asked for some strong local chessplayers to defend the White side to see what they will come up!). 
    We cannot ofcourse analyse all the lines deaply because there is simply a massive amount of different continuations which are not forced in character but the general conclusion seems to be that even though White has some compensation it is not enough. He has just enough compensation to stop Black to put in use his material advantage immediatelly but it seems to us that he cannot use this compensation to cause weaknesses in Blacks camp, so if Black is carefull he will win or draw the game and only if he blunders he will lose. The strenght of our idea is that after Nbd2 the position in which we will nominate our move is forced for White, which means that White has not other interesting alternatives. Please wait a day or maybe two.... as it is difficult for us to switch our brains from holidays mode to Kaissiber Competition mode!

Great - so there is still hope for Black's cause.

There are 15 days left until the competition ends. Are there still any attempts on the way to prove an advantage for Black? Both Gary Kasparov in the predecessors series (vol. 1) and John Nunn in his "Secrets of GM..." had made it clear that they didn't believe in the Möller Attack 7.Nc3 ... 9.d5. The system later even earned a -/+ in "Nunn's Chess Openings". If the Möller Attack isn't taken serious anymore, I had expected that the members would try harder to prove the 7. Nbd2 gambit wrong. OK, it may be premature to draw conclusions. 

Another question. The character of this second topic is quite different from the first competition (French, 6.dxc5). It is simpler to choose an "already existing" topic, as in the first competition, e.g.: "Search for new ideas in the IZ of the Dutch Defence." For the 2nd competition I thought it would be more inspiring to start in the wilderness. Have you already formed an opinion which of the two models is better suited for you? - If you feel that my analyses spoiled the "unknown territory", I may add that it wouldn't be difficult to find a rare system for the 3rd competition and then give you nothing but a starting point.

I think the Scotch Gambit line 4...Bb4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.bxc3 Qf6 7.Bg5 is great for White, which is why I don't trust Watson's ...Qf6 here.  Also MNb mentioned in another thread that 6.0-0 Qf6 7.Nxc3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 transposes to a sub-optimal line of the Goring Gambit (4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Bc4 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qf6 [7...d6 is best here] 8.0-0).  4...Bb4+ is a playable move, but it is certainly risky.

I think 5.c3 d6 6.cxd4 is better for White than the standard lines of the Giuoco Piano and would not recommend it for Black.

Hello! I tried to find something to add to the analysis but it seems that mr Buecker has done a good work and nothing to add from me! Maybe you'll wait for an idea to pop out of my head at the last moment!

I have a question to make if you could help me that concerns the Scotch gambit after 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4. I used to play here 4...Bb4 and after 5.c3 dxc3 6.bxc3 Qf6!? as Watson has recomended but i discovered that white has some interesting tries like 7.cxb4 or even 7.Bg5 when the situation gets highly unclear. By the way, Watson doesn't consider these two moves.

So, my question is: what do you recomend? 4...Bc5 5.c3 d6!? is an idea that several Hungarian GMs have used.

Also after 4...d6 and we have a position i think Marin has analysed in CBM 128 3.Bc4 d6!? but i haen't seen his analysis after 4.d4 cxd4 5.c3

Any help?????? 

linksspringer must have read Horowitz' book "Point Count Chess": the value of your position is measured by counting the number of squares attacked by your pieces. The diagrammed position could have been taken from that work as an extreme example...

Thanks Stefan! When I was examining 10.Bc1 / 13.b4, I had in mind something like the following if Black would play the knight to d7 (via c5 or f6):
(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4 7.Nbd2
Bxd2 8.Bxd2 Nxe4 9.d5 Ne7 10.Bc1 O-O 11.O-O d6 12.Re1 Nc5 13.b4 Nd7)
15.a4 a5 (15...b6 16.a5) 16.b5 b6 17.Bb2 Bb7 18.Ra3 when I think that Black has a difficult defensive task.

To detract your attention from a topic that I should rather not have mentioned, here is a youtube video showing Dmitry Chuprov (right), the GM who used 7.Nbd2 twice in his tournament practice, playing blitz. I feel this belongs in the chat and not in the main thread, since they don't play the Pomtow Attack. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVYQuo0a5I

May be i must disappoint you, but i haven't found an advantage against 8...Qh5

Here is my summary:

9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 Bd6 

A) 11.Bf6? Bxh2+!! -+ Karaklajic-Jovanovic, Palic 1996.

B) 11.h4 h6 12.Nxd6+ cxd6 13.Bf4 Qd5 Aleksic-Pavlovic, Becici 1993.

C) 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 

     C1) 13.Ng5 0-0 14.Ne4 Rfd8! =+ with black advantage

     C2) 13.c3

           C21) 13...Kd7 (Nigel Davies gives this move a !) but i am not so sure after 
                   14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 and then if 15...g5 16.Bd2!?

           C22) 13...Rc8 14.b3 +=

           C23) 13...Qf5!? is best in my opinion, e.g. 
                 
                 a) 14.Bg3 dxc3 15.Qxd6 cxb2
                 b) 14.Bxd6 0-0-0 15.Nxd4 Rxd6
                 c) 14.Qd2 dxc3 15.bxc3 0-0
                 d) 14.cxd4 Qxf4 15.d5 Nd8 Black holds the position after 16.g3 Qb4 17.Ng5 h6 18.Nxf7 Nxf7.
                       Black can also try 14...0-0-0 or 14...0-0 with good counterplay.

MNb wrote on 07/17/09 at 12:41:15:


Sorry - this reply comes late, since I took a short holiday. - Hi, Robert. I think I've found something for White (different from MNb's line above) which avoids said stale equality. It leads to unbalanced positions with mutual chances. Some friends agreed that it looked interesting. But I won't discuss it here, it's a line with surprise value which might gain me a few points.

sorry gewgaw, your line is fine, but i think that if anything, it is actually White who needs an equalizing line in this system  

just grab the pawn and let white show us his stuff:


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 Nd2 10. Nd2 0-0 11. a3 

unfortunately white has to lose this tempo. I tried to make without this move, my most interesting effort being 11. Nb3 (denies another exchange, limits the Bb4 and heads for d4 to discourage the other bishop from developing naturally to f5) but black has the strong reply 11... Ng6 maintaining the options of Bd6 and Be7/Bf6

Some sample lines:
11.Nb3 Ng6
a)  12. a3
a1) 12... Bd6 may yield white enough counterplay to ... egualize, e.g.: 13.Nd4 Qf6 14. b4 a5 15. Bb2 ab4 (possibly not best but has fun) 16. ab4 Ra1 17. Ba1 (Qa1 fails due to 17...Nf4! 18. g3 Be5) ...b6 (Bb4 18. Ne6) 18. g3 (threatening Ne6) and now both Qg5 and Ne5 lead to complications but black seems to hold:
a1.1) 18... Qg5 19. Qc2 Bb7 20. Nf5 Ne7 21. Nd6 cd6 22. Qe4 Bd5 23. Bd5 Nd5 24. Rd1 Nf6 25. Qe7 Qh5 26. Qd6 Ne4 27. Qd7 Qe2 28. Qd4 f6 and black will draw easily with Qf3 and Ng5 to follow
a1.2) 18...Ne5 19. Be2 Re8 20.f4 Ng6 21. Ne6 Qe7 22. Ng7 Qe2 23. Ne8 Qe8 24. Re1 Qf8 25. f5 Bb4 26. fg6 fg6 27. Re3 (Rf1 does not work, 27... Qc5 28. Kg2 Bb7 and black wins) 27... Bc5 28. Bd4 Bb7 and this is at least equal for black.

a2) 12...Be7 looks stronger and simpler,e.g. 13. Be3 (13.Nd4 c5!) Re8 14. Re1 Bf6 15. Qd2 d6 16. Rac1 a6 17. Nd4 Nh4 18. Be2 (18. Bd3 Bh3) Nf5 =/+

b) 12. f4 this brutal attitude does not work either 12...Qf6 13. Be3 b6 [i was happy to lure Rybka into grabbing the pawn: 13...Qb2?! 14. Bd4 Bc3 15. Bc5 d6 (Re8 16. d6 and white is on top) 16. Rf2 Qa1 17. Na1 bc5 18. Nb3 Re8 19. Rf1 Bf5 20. Nc5 Rb8 21. d6 and white is better] 14. Bd4 (14. a3 Bd6 is better for black too) Qf5 15.Qf3 Bd6 16.g3 Bb7 and black's queen proves to be fine in f5, therefore black is just 1 pawn up

c) 12. Be3 may be best b6 13. Nd4 Bb7 14. Nf5 Qf6 15. Qc2 Ne7! (Ne5 16.Bd4 Bc5 17.Bc3 a5 18. Kh1 Bb4 19.Bd4 Bc5= )16. Ne7 Be7 but black still looks better


back to the "main line" 11. a3 Bd2 (natural and good IMO) 12. Bd2 d6 13. Re1 (Qb3 c5 also looks fine for black) ... Bf5
Ok, the engines see compensation here, mainly because of the bishop pair i guess, but i don't! Unless i can see a way for Bc4 to prove himself useful, i will not grant white any "bishop pair bonus". Even when black plays c5 (or c6) to relieve himself from pressure along the c file and white captures on c6, the white bishop does not become significantly active, while the mobile black center (pawns c6 and d6) looks fine.
If you compare this position with well known 7.Nc3 positions you will see that White's pressure succeeds most when he has got rid of the c4 bishop while black cannot develop his own on f5 but has to go for b6/Bb7...

play could continue 14. Qf3 Bg6 15.h4 h5 16.Bg5 f6 17. Bd2 Qd7 and if asked by his teenager son, White should not be able to explain why he is pawn down  

linksspringer wrote on 07/21/09 at 09:25:26:



You´re stubborn!
Maybe I need my other backup lines! 
How about 15. ...Bxd5!?
15. Bg5 Bxd5 16. Bxf6 Bxb3 17.
Bxe7 Bxd1 18. Bxd8 Bxf3 19. Bxc7 Bd5 20. Bxd6 Rfe8 =

Addition to equalizer-line Nomination#1: [10.Bc1]

[C54]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nbd2 Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2 Nxe4 9.d5 Ne7 10.Bc1 d6 11.0–0 0–0 12.Re1 Nf6 [12...Nc5 Of course possible, but White has more chances for compensation after this move 13.b4 Nd7 14.Qd2 b6 (14...Ng6 15.Bb2 Nde5 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Bxe5 (17.Bf1!? Bd7 (17...Bf5 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.Rxe5 Qd7 20.Qf4 g6 21.h3 Rae8 22.Rae1 Qd6 23.Qd4 Rxe5 24.Rxe5 Rd8 25.Bc4=) 18.Rac1 This is the kind of position White aims for.) 17...dxe5 18.Rxe5 Qd6 19.Rae1 Bd7=) 15.Bb2 a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4 Rxa1 18.Rxa1 Bb7 19.Bb3 Re8 20.Rc1 Ne5 21.Nxe5 dxe5 22.Bxe5 Nxd5 23.Bxc7 Qe7 24.Bxd5 Bxd5 25.f3 b5 26.Bb6 Bc4=] 13.b4 [13.Bg5 Ng6 14.Qd4 c5 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Bb3 (16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6³; 16.Rac1 h6 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.Qxf6 gxf6 19.Bb3 Bd7 20.Ba4 Rfc8 21.Red1 d5 22.Nd4 Rab8 23.Bxc6 Bxc6 24.Rxc6 Rxc6 25.Nxc6 Rxb2³) 16...c5 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.Qxf6 gxf6 19.Rad1 Rd8 20.Nd2 f5 21.Nc4 d5 22.Na5 d4 23.Rc1 Nf4 24.Nc6 Rf8 25.Bc4 Kg7 26.Bf1 Ne6 27.Bd3 Bb7 28.Ne5 Bd5 29.Bxf5 Bxa2 30.Nd7 Rfd8 31.Bxe6 Bxe6 32.Nxc5 Bf5 33.Red1 d3 34.Rd2] 13...b5 Seems the easiest line for = [13...Ng6 14.Bb2 c6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Rc1 d5 17.Bd3 Bd7 White´s compensation isn´t obvious, at least =, maybe even better for Black; 13...c6 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Bg5 Ng6 16.Qd4 h6 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.Qxf6 gxf6 =; Black can go for more;] 14.Bb3 [14.Bxb5 Rb8 15.Qd3 (15.a4 Nexd5 16.Nd4 Nxb4 17.Ba3 Nfd5 18.Nc6 Nxc6 19.Qxd5 Ne7µ; 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Bb2 Nexd5³) 15...Bd7 16.Bc4 Rxb4 17.Bg5 Bf5 18.Qd4 c5 19.dxc6 Nxc6 20.Qc3 (20.Bxf6 Nxd4 21.Bxd8 Nc2µ) 20...h6 21.a3 Rb8 22.Nh4 Bh7 23.Bxf6 Qxf6 24.Qxf6 gxf6³] 14...Bb7 15.Bg5 Nexd5 16.Bxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxf6 Bxf3 18.Bxd8 Bxd1 19.Bxc7 Bg4 20.f3 Be6 21.Bxd6 Rfd8 22.Bc5= 

CaptainFuture wrote on 07/16/09 at 11:14:45:


Ahoy Captain,

the reason that we don't debate 8...Qa5 is that the problem has been solved. As I'm at work you will have to wait a couple of hours, then I can look up the line.
There is one point though. Nobody claims an advantage, neither after 8...Qa5, nor after 8...Qd8 nor after 8...Qh5. The question is if White can avoid stale equality. Rook endgames with all four centre pawns removed and equal activity are not interesting. But after 8...Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0-0-0 11.Nxe6 we get positions with opposite castling, an asymmetrical pawn structure and mutual attacks. Above a certain level that won't be enough either to create winning chances but on my level still anything can happen.

Edit: 11...fxe6 12.Rxe6 Qf5 (Bd6 13.Bg5 and 14.Qe2 is fun - endgame, what endgame?) 13.Qe2 h6 14.Re4 g5 15.Bd2 Bg7 (Bc5 16.Re1 Rhf8 17.h3 Rg8 18.Ne5 Wecker-Hausman, corr 1964) 16.Re1 Bf6 17.h3 h5 18.h4 g4 19.Ng5 Engelbert-Kreutzkamp, 1993, is the kind of equality I don't mind at all, especially given my opinion that the Two Knights Game is equal anyway.

Hi all, Hi Stefan,

the main problem with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 is the move in the Two Knights 5...Nxe4. You have debated about 8...Qd8 and 8...Qh5. May be there are lines for white to get an advantage. But for 30 years i am searching for a reply against 8...Qa5. As has been pointed out Qa5 is the most played move. So we have to focus on this first.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 O-O-O 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Bd6 13.Bg5 i have analysed the position again and again. But nothing is promising. The endings are all equal.
And i do not trust 10.Bd2. Black has some possibilities to take over the initiative. I even think that black is =+ after 10.Bd2.

So what is your suggestion that gives white an edge?

with kind regards,
Robert

MNb wrote on 07/16/09 at 01:01:48:


Apparently 17...Qxg5 18.Nxg5 0-0 (18...Rc8 19.Bc5 Bb5 20.Ne6) 19.Nxc7 Rad8 is critical, and in the further course of events White is hampered by the unfortunate situation of his king: 20.Bxa7 Bc6 21.Bd4 Rd6 22.Nce6 Re8 23.f3 h6 24.Nxg7 Rxd4 25.Rxd4 Kxg7 26.Nh3 Re2 27.Rc4 Bd5 28.Rc7+ Kf6 29.a3 (29.Kf1 Rd2 30.Nf2 Bc6) 29...Bc6 30.b4 Re1+ 31.Kf2 Rc1 32.Ke3 Ra1 33.Kd4 (the "forced activity" of White's king, in contrast to his foregoing restriction on the first rank, is funny) 33...Ra2. Maybe 33.Kd2 offers better chances for a draw: 33...Rxa3 34.Rh7 Ra2 35.Rxh6 Kg7 36.Rh5 etc. 
 
I'll look at the exchange sacrifice again, when I have more time. In the 12.Bf4 line I also have the impression that the "worst case" scenario with active knights, but only a pawn for the exchange, isn't too bad for White - in 8 games out of ten he should get a draw. The problem with using chess software is that it lets too many things appear very easy. Fighting with rooks against these active knights can be an unpleasant experience in practice - so many forks... And in a game many players will prefer the "safe" 13...Kf8, instead of the correct 13...Qe7. 

Edit: An even bigger problem with chess software is that sometimes I forget to look at the screen. After your 17.Nd5 Qxg5, the continuation 18.Nxc7+! is stronger and was probably your intention. 18...Kd8 19.Ne6+ Ke7 20.Nexg5 Rhc8 and here we have several interesting possibilities, like 21.Nxh7 Rxc2 22.Nhg5 Rxb2 23.h4 Bc6 24.Bc5+ Ke8 25.Ne6 Kf7 26.Nfg5+ Kg8 27.h5 


27...Nh8 28.Bd4 Rb4 29.a3 Rc4 30.Bxg7 Rg4 31.h6 Rxg2+ 32.Kf1 Rh2, e.g. 33.h7+ or 33.Rd6!, about =. Chess is a fascinating game. No doubt that after your 17.Nd5 endless analyses are possible, hard to believe that it should not be a good weapon for OTB play!

I disagree - I have some ideas of my own, I just need to a) decide which novelty to nominate b) Analyse them in more detail.

I haven't looked at your 12...a5 idea yet, although 10.Be3 is probably the critical test.