Only advice I can give cf that position is to check all those Marshall gambit lines where black plays very calmly when a pawn down with bishops. I'm not sure quite how similar this is but maybe that sort of thing will work.

Mind, I do find the whole idea a gentle affront to the honour of the Lopez Doesn't mean it can't be sound of course! 
(like that delayed Marshall in the 8 h3 anti etc.).

(Bump). This whole 14.d3 line disturbs me. No mention of it in any of the theoretical literature (very little, anyway), and yet it poses some serious problems. My latest effort:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 d5 11.exd5 e4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Rxe4 Bb7 14.d3 Bxd5 15.Re1 Qd6 16.Nbd2 f5 17.a4 b4 18.Ne5 Bf6 19.d4 Rfe8

How is Black supposed to play this? Or, put another way, why hasn't this become White's main approach to countering the Gajewski? It seems to me that White has an easier time of subduing Black's counterplay. (Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons I am moving away from this line).

HgMan wrote on 12/11/09 at 21:16:49:


I was exactly wondering about this!
14.d3 has been played by Mamedov and Navara who both beat their GM opposition (Teterev and Stevic respectively). 
A little analisys which should be improvable:
14…Bxd5 (what else?!) 15.Re1 here the two GMs played 15…c5 where I feel that Navara’s 16.Bf4 is better than Mamedov’s  16.Nbd2  which should nonetheless give white a little plus (I feel that 23.Ne3 is an improvement over the game’s 23.b3). So I like 15…Qd6 (played in the first game in my database with 14.d3 by a 2163 player) which controls the f4 square. Now the engines like the idea of continuing to limit the white pieces on the q-side (the c1 bishop doesn’t have good squares): 16.Nbd2 f5!? 17.Cf1 f4 18.C1d2 c5 (it may seem natural to play 18…Nc6 as the knight wasn’t probably that happy on a5; 19.Ne4 Qg6, with some compensation;  but 19.a4 is logical and proposed by the engines Qg6 20.Qe2 Rae8 21.axb5 axb5 22.Ne4 doesn’t look that nice for black to me) 19.Ce4 Dg6 20.Cxc5? (after 20.Qe2 Rae8 I think black has enough for the pawn; 20.c4!? seems to be the best 20…bxc4 21.Nc3 Be6 22.Ne5 Qf5 23.dxc4 Bf6 24.Nd5 Nxc4 25.Bxf4 Nxb2 looks good for white but something we (black!) can manage) Axc5 21.b4 Axb4 (I guess the guy took the wrong pawn:  21…Bxf2 22.Kxf2 Qg3 23.Kf1 Nc6 is the kind of position black is looking for in the Gajewski I guess) 22.cxb4 Cc6 23.Ab2 Cxb4 24.Te7 Tf7 25.Txf7 Dxf7 26.Ce5 Df5 27.a4 Te8 28.axb5 axb5 29.Dg4 Txe5 ½–½, Daulyte-Kuchynka, Brno 2008;
17.Nb3!? Nxb3 18.axb3 Rae8, black has some compensation for the pawn.

In conclusion I’m not sure what to do as black! I like the Kuchynka game, 20.c4 looks dangerous as white should have a slight (at least!)  plus.

Hope somebody can improve 

A line I noticed wasn't mentioned in Brunello's new book:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 d5 11.exd5 e4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Rxe4 Bb7 14.d3

14.d3 strikes me as interesting and consistent with some plans in the Marshall, though I will need to study this more carefully.  Any thoughts on how Black should respond?

Against d4 yours truly would humbly recommend 11...exd4 12. e5 Ne4 13. cxd4 f6!? sacrificing the pawn.

I gave "16 Qe2! c6 17 a4 with a small edge." in my notes to Kotronias-Lie in the May '08 update - http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/1/may08.htm - but anyway 16...Qd6 looks wrong as apart from the loss of control of g5, this is also the knight's square when White plays b3.

Hello all, I think may be it is time again for a new update what is going on in this interesting line. If anyone has a good recent references showing what white/black has discovered it would be great. I tried to search myself and found some interesting games which i will bear in mind when analysing this. At least we can start a new discussion what is going on and to share/exchange some ideas.