endali wrote on 10/31/09 at 08:22:31:



Well I've never lost in the 2N either as white or black however i've never played against a master either. The understanding for me as black comes that its not really a "defense" but an offense. Black is seeking open lines and the initiative whether at the cost of one two and sometimes three pawns. The knight on a5 can be a drawback true but not always... do not just falsely fall into the knight on the rim is dim theory. Without seeing specific lines you are having trouble with... I can only comment that the thematics of the N on a5 cover important white squares on c4 on b3... and the knight has potential future either on c4 or through the maneuver Nb7 Nc5. Sometimes the knight even calmly comes back to c6.

"I play both sides of the two knights and cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of b5... what is black even trying to get? There is no attack? No compensation? It seems hopeless."

trw, i feel the same way about ...Na5 and the resulting positions. i can't find the attack, the compensation, and often feel hopeless.

perhaps you could be more specific about where you find your attack and compensation in the ...Na5 lines, anything you can share to help me understand those positions would be greatly appreciated. i'd like to play those lines, but i don't understand them, and i've found that playing GM-approved openings that i don't personally understand is basically a suicidal policy.

katar wrote on 10/29/09 at 17:26:21:

A few times I have posted analysis on 11...Be7 which proves that Black can prove equality with this move. I also have tested in a corr game at ICCF. The game ran 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 0-0 14.Nbc3 Rad8 15.Re1 Nxc3 16.bxc3 c5.
The value of 11...f5 seems to depend on a game Ionescu-Olarasu, Bucaresti 1998.

Having seen the video, I must say that I'm starting to agree more with Markovich here and am seriously considering giving 5...b5 a shot in some of my own games.  Even at the 1800-level, most players know the theory up to move 12 after 5...Na5 and I have often struggled for decent compensation- whereas the Fritz/Ulvestad gives White more chances to go wrong.

The positions resulting from 8...Ne6 on the video look like they would offer decent winning chances at the 1800-level, even if with best play they may often peter out into dull equality.   I also agree that the mad 8...Qh4 line would be very hard to refute OTB- indeed this, together with the reliability of 8...Ne6, means that if I was White in the position after move 7 I would be tempted to try 8.cxd4 instead.

some schmuck made a video about the lines in question here
http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5953

Fllg wrote on 10/26/09 at 18:35:16:


That's right.  I've looked at it fairly recently, and I couldn't find enough after 7.Be2!.  Black has an enterprising try in 7...h5!?, but it's not enough.  I want to say that there has been a NIC Yearbook on this whole question; I think that's right.

If you search around here you'll find analysis mostly by MNB that shows that Black is O.K. in transposition to the Fritz after 8...Ne6.  You wind up in an ending where Black has a mostly nominal disadvantage, but should draw pretty easily.

Against strong opposition I think 5...Na5 is a much more enterprising move, less likely to peter out in dull equality.  But at the lower levels, especially scholastics, 5...b5 is a great winning try because it takes more sophistication than most players have to point out its disadvantages.  You can play this for years at the scholastic level and never even encounter 6.Bf1, and even then, it is not so easy for White to hold out against Black's attack, however unsound it may be, either with 6...h6 or with 6...Nd4 and Berliner's line.  I would think the same thing would be true at the lower rungs of the local club.

I taught 5...b5 to my chess kids without even bothering to mention 6.Bf1 to any but the strongest, and it produced countless wins for them.  About 90% of the time they encountered 6.Bxb5, the rest 6.dxc6.  

ok, i trust you about the 5...Nd4 lines. 8...Qh4 looks too crazy for me regardless of its objective strength, and i don't immediately see the compensation in the 8...Ne6 position.

after 5...b5 6.Bf1, 6...h6 looks like a move to me, instead of 6...Nd4 transposing.

i actually played 6...h6 in my first game in that position without knowing any theory, by some weird mental association with the similar ...h6 idea in the 5...Na5 lines. the guy played 7.Nxf7 and the position went nuts, but somehow i felt ok, very active pieces.

is there some serious problem with this 6...h6 line?