Ametanoitos wrote on 02/24/10 at 08:51:34:
@BPaulsen
You are guessing that this lines are computer generated but you never checked it or actually play them to see if what i'm saying makes any sense. 21...Ng5 doesn't make it obvious because my engine doesn't recommend this move! (at least not the first 3 choices) It's a human move with the intention to make a real progress by weakening some light squares around rhe White King. Please don't speculate if you don't check for yourself. Also there were many many many times in this foroum that i was against evaluating a position only with computer's help (at least Shaakhamster can confirm this) and i was the one who mentioned first in this thread that i don't trust the computers evaluation and you agreed with me.
It was my Fritz's top choice, so spare me the gyrations.
Aside from that, the preceeding moves are also all computer recommendations.
It matters little if you don't trust computers in
other positions, because what matters is that you quite clearly do
here in
this variation regardless of what GM Sokolov says.
Quote:
Also you seem to underestimate the IQP positions and it is a classical view that modern chess amended. VERY FEW IQP positions actually loose! And to bring the point you need to play like Karpov-Spassky, 1979 (a techique shown by Botvinik in a game of his i don't remember now), or in general show a very high quality of technique. I think Sokolov makes it clear in his book that modern GM's preffer playing with the IQP than against it..
Nobody ever said IQPs necessarily
lose, and it's been known for a long time they often hold for a draw. You're not saying anything new, because this isn't a "modern" development - the Karpov/Korchnoi matches confirmed this, and that happened essentially 30 years ago.
Being potentially sufficient to suffer a draw doesn't change it from being a += evaluation in a given variation.
GMs prefer playing
with the IQP when they have a
clear initiative. They don't just accept it at random, as that would indicate a level of thoughtlessness unbefitting GMs.
Quote:
So, why Tarrasch is not so popular among top Gms you may ask. I think that this has to do with practicality.
Sure, why playing something you think is inferior to other altneratives? That would be the very definition of impractical.
Quote:
Sokolov claimed a slight advantage for White but then played the move himself! Why did he do that? Maybe because he wanted to surprize his opponent and thought that the chances his opponent will play his improvement against him is slim. Maybe he changed his mind and found out that 18.h3 Ne5 or Ne4 is actually not so bad for Black. Maybe he thinks that it is actually worse for Black but who cares?
Just because a GM evaluates an opening as being better for one side doesn't mean they won't use it as a surprise weapon. One needs no further proof than Khalifman playing just about
everything against 1. e4, even things he (rightly) condemns at a theoretical level.
Sokolov evaluated it as +=, and unless another GM comes along to contend that it isn't so, it's safe to say it's += unless we're going to assume he's lying.
Quote:Isn't the Slav worse for Black? Actually this kind of tiny advantage is smaller than any typical advantage White will gain against major openings like KID or Nimzo and again this advantafe is of a differnt nature: really difficult to make it a full point even for a top Gm, even if Black just sit passively and wait.
Apparently GMs aren't sharing your opinion judging by the popularity of the Slav/KID/NID versus the Tarrasch. If the advantage were really so similar, then I'm sure every GM would be willing to wheel it out on a regular basis.
But they don't. It appears sporadically, which puts it on the level of a surprise weapon at the GM level - very, very, very few make it a constant staple.
Quote:
Spassky had 4 draws and a win with Tarrasch against Petrosian in their 1969 match. This is a fantastic result against such a giant of strategy in a field he excelled, technical positions. This is enough for me (an ordinary club player with love for the game) to respect this opening as a fantastic practical weapon.
The bolded word essentially is where the split is.
A lot of openings and opening variations make for great
practical weapons, but that is entirely different from great theoretical weapons.
Great for Spassky in his match against Petrosian, not so great for those that would attempt to play it against Karpov.
Pages: 
The Tarrasch in Black and White (Read 51006 times)
