(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › 2 Knights › C57: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
(Moderators: trw, Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C57: Two Knights 5...Nxd5 (Read 78878 times)
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #40 - 03/28/10 at 06:06:38
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/28/10 at 03:27:23:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/28/10 at 00:56:31:
Master Om wrote on 03/27/10 at 20:47:03:
Jedi knight missed some subtle manouvures which cant be found from crap engine + crap hardware. So i have updated the pgn with solid answer to MNB

Even your impressive hardware cannot produce miracles, it seems. Your main line, with several ! marks and even a "Rybka Dynamic 30 depth" hint, only reproduces the analysis by Maarten de Zeeuw, until 16...Qf7. You don't mention this fact. Then you overlook the improvement 17.Re1 (with an advantage for White) given by Maurits Wind in Kaissiber 29, three years ago, using much weaker equipment. What's the point of analyzing openings, if you ignore older analyses? The stronger moves 8...Qh4 and 8...Bb4+ are missing in your pgn. While your first pgn had the nice idea Qh4, I fear your 2nd pgn offers nothing of interest.


1. First thing is 95% of the analysis is of Maarteen de Zeeuw's.  Etc., etc.


Thank you very much for the explanation regarding your source. I am glad that you are willing to share your analysis. If you are interested to receive a free copy of Kaissiber #29, just send me a PM with your address. I believe the line 6.d4 is well chosen for a thorough checking with a multicore, since most of its lines don't require the deep positional understanding of a GM.
« Last Edit: 03/29/10 at 15:45:45 by Markovich »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #39 - 03/28/10 at 03:27:23
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/28/10 at 00:56:31:
Master Om wrote on 03/27/10 at 20:47:03:
Jedi knight missed some subtle manouvures which cant be found from crap engine + crap hardware. So i have updated the pgn with solid answer to MNB

Even your impressive hardware cannot produce miracles, it seems. Your main line, with several ! marks and even a "Rybka Dynamic 30 depth" hint, only reproduces the analysis by Maarten de Zeeuw, until 16...Qf7. You don't mention this fact. Then you overlook the improvement 17.Re1 (with an advantage for White) given by Maurits Wind in Kaissiber 29, three years ago, using much weaker equipment. What's the point of analyzing openings, if you ignore older analyses? The stronger moves 8...Qh4 and 8...Bb4+ are missing in your pgn. While your first pgn had the nice idea Qh4, I fear your 2nd pgn offers nothing of interest.


1. First thing is 95% of the analysis is of Maarteen de Zeeuw's. 

[ "My infallible computer sez..." redacted by Markovich ]
(Not at all places assuming Zeeuw's lines are correct)
2. I dont have all the old Analysis. So not checked.
3. 8....Qh4  and 8....Bb4+ was missed by Zeeuw and i didnt try to find them. For that I need the old Analysis which i dont have now.
4. My first pgn was my own work on Maarten's Analysis. I myself Proof checked  so i got those ideas  Qh4!! on your suggested move. There i didn't take granted what he suggested. 2nd pgn is something i have showed what Maarten has to say on 6.d4= but 1st pgn was what i had to say on 5....Nd5!!. Further Research is needed on this. thats why i posted and i have written Maarten's name on it on 2nd pgn for that only and not in 1st pgn. ideas are welcomed. But 17.Re1 does make +- Interesting and i will work on it. I didnt checked it as i didnt had those old analysis.  8....Qh4 and 8....Bb4+ are also suggested by many ,which i will check and post ASAP.
[ "My infallible computer sez..." redacted by Markovich ]
« Last Edit: 03/29/10 at 15:44:38 by Markovich »  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #38 - 03/28/10 at 03:13:05
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 03/27/10 at 21:27:04:
With all due respect, some of the evaluations make zero sense positionally (and they wouldn't to any master level player, I suspect), I'll give one example from Om's analysis (and there are more from what I can already tell, but this is for starters to highlight the problem - there's a number of similar positions where black has the isolated Pe6 and white has the bishop pair that he calls equal):

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4 Be6 7. Nxe6 fxe6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Qh5 Ng6 10. 0-0 Qd7 

This position is not equal no matter what angle you look at it from even though he already calls it that, white has the B pair and black has a  chronic weakness sitting on e6. Black doesn't have any significant dynamic factor that off-sets these.

However, if you continue further into what Om gives you get this horrific continuation - 11. Nc3 0-0-0 12. Rd1 c6 13. Nxd5 (deserves an "?!") exd5 - of course black's equal, white for some unknown reason as decided to fix black's structure and blunt his bishop pair in the process. Why is this move the main one given? Computers like it even though it's questionable strategically.

Computer analysis is great, but they suck at long term positional issues. This is why humans have to direct them.

First of all most of the lines were from Maarten de Zeuw Analysis. [ "My infallible computer sez..." redacted by Markovich.  Some argumentation on value of computerized analysis also redacted. ]
« Last Edit: 03/29/10 at 15:41:52 by Markovich »  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #37 - 03/28/10 at 00:56:31
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/27/10 at 20:47:03:
Jedi knight missed some subtle manouvures which cant be found from crap engine + crap hardware. So i have updated the pgn with solid answer to MNB

Even your impressive hardware cannot produce miracles, it seems. Your main line, with several ! marks and even a "Rybka Dynamic 30 depth" hint, only reproduces the analysis by Maarten de Zeeuw, until 16...Qf7. You don't mention this fact. Then you overlook the improvement 17.Re1 (with an advantage for White) given by Maurits Wind in Kaissiber 29, three years ago, using much weaker equipment. What's the point of analyzing openings, if you ignore older analyses? The stronger moves 8...Qh4 and 8...Bb4+ are missing in your pgn. While your first pgn had the nice idea Qh4, I fear your 2nd pgn offers nothing of interest. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #36 - 03/27/10 at 22:11:06
Post Tools
Having a quick look at some of the answers in the Fried Liver Attack, there seems to be some hasty backtracking in the 9.0-0 line (9...c6 "-/+" 10.d4 Qf6 "-+" 11.Qe2 Ke7 12.dxe5 Qg6 "-+" 13.Ne4 Bf5 14.f3 when 14...Kf7 and 14...Nb6 are assessed as a rather more circumspect "=+").  

There's quite a few plausible lines in there which are given as leading to =+, which strikes me as quite believable, but also open to question as the positions are all highly unclear and double-edged.  White has continuing compensation in the form of two pawns, a strong centre and attacking chances.  I thus conclude that 9.0-0 gives White decent practical chances, at least for OTB games.

In the 9.Qe4 line, the positions after 12.f4 are not addressed, while after 12.Bf4 Kf7 13.Bxe5 Be6 14.Qf3+ Kg8 (which may well improve upon my 14...Nf6) 15.Ne4 (15.0-0!?) I think the assessment of "-/+" after 15...h5, 15...Qh4 and 15...Ne8 is rather optimistic for Black.  White still has a lot of pressure through the centre and the rook on h8 is shut out of the game (much as in the situation in the 12.f4 lines). 

I thus have to conclude that while 9.a3 is refuted, 9.Qe4 and 9.0-0 look quite playable for White, on a par with the risky 10.e5 line of the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, though 6.d4 remains a better bet for serious games, especially in correspondence play.  On that note, in the 6.d4 Be6 line, Kaissiber 29 improves on 7.0-0 and 12.Na3 as given with 12.Nc3!, with some advantage for White, if Black continues 12...Nxc2 the pawn can be regained with interest (and Fritz, btw, spots this almost instantly).  12.Bd3 (an alternative not mentioned by either source) is also preferable to 12.Na3.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #35 - 03/27/10 at 21:27:04
Post Tools
With all due respect, some of the evaluations make zero sense positionally (and they wouldn't to any master level player, I suspect), I'll give one example from Om's analysis (and there are more from what I can already tell, but this is for starters to highlight the problem - there's a number of similar positions where black has the isolated Pe6 and white has the bishop pair that he calls equal):

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4 Be6 7. Nxe6 fxe6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Qh5 Ng6 10. 0-0 Qd7 

This position is not equal no matter what angle you look at it from even though he already calls it that, white has the B pair and black has a  chronic weakness sitting on e6. Black doesn't have any significant dynamic factor that off-sets these.

However, if you continue further into what Om gives you get this horrific continuation - 11. Nc3 0-0-0 12. Rd1 c6 13. Nxd5 (deserves an "?!") exd5 - of course black's equal, white for some unknown reason as decided to fix black's structure and blunt his bishop pair in the process. Why is this move the main one given? Computers like it even though it's questionable strategically.

[Remark about computerized analysis redacted by Markovich.  Normally this would stand, but since here it formed a key part of a huge off-topic digression, I've cut it.]
« Last Edit: 03/29/10 at 15:40:03 by Markovich »  
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #34 - 03/27/10 at 20:47:03
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/26/10 at 20:38:35:
Master Om wrote on 03/26/10 at 03:15:50:

First you were not taking granted about 5...Nd5! now you think 6.d4 is there so i have to add another pgn i think.


Wrong. First I was not taking 5...Nxd5! for granted and first I also thought there was 6.d4. The reason that I did not mention it is that 6.d4 so well known. If you didn't know about it you should consult some book on 4.Ng5. If you did it is an insult implying I am so dumb I didn't.

You should have added a pgn on 6.d4 right at the start. You also should react on JediKnight's suggestions after 9.Qe4 as it is absolutely not clear why you evaluate some positions as -+. In fact I wanted to give the same suggestions but then noticed that JediKnight had beat me. You deserve credit for 11...Qh4 but the lines after 9.Qe4 are not that convincing.


[ "My infallible computer sez..." redacted by Markovich ] 

i have updated the pgn with solid answer to MNB
« Last Edit: 03/29/10 at 15:26:49 by Markovich »  
How_to_Refute_5___Nd5__001.pgn ( 13 KB | Downloads )
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #33 - 03/27/10 at 03:14:11
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/26/10 at 20:38:35:
Master Om wrote on 03/26/10 at 03:15:50:

First you were not taking granted about 5...Nd5! now you think 6.d4 is there so i have to add another pgn i think.


Wrong. First I was not taking 5...Nxd5! for granted and first I also thought there was 6.d4. The reason that I did not mention it is that 6.d4 so well known. If you didn't know about it you should consult some book on 4.Ng5. If you did it is an insult implying I am so dumb I didn't.

You should have added a pgn on 6.d4 right at the start. You also should react on JediKnight's suggestions after 9.Qe4 as it is absolutely not clear why you evaluate some positions as -+. In fact I wanted to give the same suggestions but then noticed that JediKnight had beat me. You deserve credit for 11...Qh4 but the lines after 9.Qe4 are not that convincing.

Thats what i am saying,. You were not taking granted about 5....Nd5!. But you asked me about proof and i gave my analysis . I do these things slowly. First i showed there is no problem in 5....Nd5! and its better to play it!!. Second I will show you  6.d4 is equal. Regarding jediknights argument i need time as i am busy with my correspondence games.









  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #32 - 03/26/10 at 20:38:35
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 03/26/10 at 03:15:50:

First you were not taking granted about 5...Nd5! now you think 6.d4 is there so i have to add another pgn i think.


Wrong. First I was not taking 5...Nxd5! for granted and first I also thought there was 6.d4. The reason that I did not mention it is that 6.d4 so well known. If you didn't know about it you should consult some book on 4.Ng5. If you did it is an insult implying I am so dumb I didn't.

You should have added a pgn on 6.d4 right at the start. You also should react on JediKnight's suggestions after 9.Qe4 as it is absolutely not clear why you evaluate some positions as -+. In fact I wanted to give the same suggestions but then noticed that JediKnight had beat me. You deserve credit for 11...Qh4 but the lines after 9.Qe4 are not that convincing.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #31 - 03/26/10 at 14:07:11
Post Tools
ArKheiN wrote on 03/26/10 at 08:53:46:
Thank you Master Om for your contributions, I am waiting your next pgn! if 6.d4 is only "equal" in your analysis I will try to get more for White, if it's possible!

Im just curious, how are you aware of champions' computers and databases? Another question, are you a corr player (and what's your ELO) and where do you play?

yes , i play corr games. 6.d4 is equal not enough for win.
just i know as my friend works for them. Cheesy
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #30 - 03/26/10 at 08:53:46
Post Tools
Thank you Master Om for your contributions, I am waiting your next pgn! if 6.d4 is only "equal" in your analysis I will try to get more for White, if it's possible!

Im just curious, how are you aware of champions' computers and databases? Another question, are you a corr player (and what's your ELO) and where do you play?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #29 - 03/26/10 at 03:15:50
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/25/10 at 20:32:35:
ChevyBanginStyle wrote on 03/25/10 at 12:07:40:
I was previously under the impression that 6.d4! was almost a refutation while 6.Nxf7!? (now really "?" I suppose!) led to very unclear play with good chances for White.


I have also looked at MO's lines. It's my impression that 9.a3 can be put in the dustbin thanks to Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Nxd5 Qh4 (a nice shot indeed), but the lines after 9.Qe4 are way too short to draw any definite conclusion, as JediKnight already indicates on the previous page.

And before 5...Nxd5 gets an exclam there is of course still 6.d4.



First you were not taking granted about 5...Nd5! now you think 6.d4 is there so i have to add another pgn i think.
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10775
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #28 - 03/25/10 at 20:32:35
Post Tools
ChevyBanginStyle wrote on 03/25/10 at 12:07:40:
I was previously under the impression that 6.d4! was almost a refutation while 6.Nxf7!? (now really "?" I suppose!) led to very unclear play with good chances for White.


I have also looked at MO's lines. It's my impression that 9.a3 can be put in the dustbin thanks to Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Nxd5 Qh4 (a nice shot indeed), but the lines after 9.Qe4 are way too short to draw any definite conclusion, as JediKnight already indicates on the previous page.

And before 5...Nxd5 gets an exclam there is of course still 6.d4.
  
The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #27 - 03/25/10 at 18:33:21
Post Tools
AlanG wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:42:15:
SWJediknight wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:04:32:
I've been using Fritz's infinite analysis for guidance on the variations, but not analysis running for the whole day.  However, I, too, am sceptical of many of Fritz's evaluations- I think it places too much emphasis on the black king being stuck in the centre in the Fried Liver.  For instance, Fritz's assessment of the position at the end of your 14.0-0 Nf6 line, "=", is laughable, as even I can't see any compensation for White there.

If you mean the position after 18...Qd6 which is given as -+, I think it's closer to = than it is to -+.  I wouldn't like to try and win that with Fritz playing White. At the very least there should be some chances of a draw by perpetual check or repetition.

Maybe there is a win for Black after 18...Qd6, but I'd like to see a few more moves to prove it.

I did indeed mean the position after 18...Qd6, but you have a point- this is by no means an easy win for Black, so I doubt it could be more than -/+.  Master Om is right to say that different engines have different strengths and weaknesses- maybe certain engines may be underestimating White's chances?

Edit: the same issue arises in the analysis of the line 12.dxe5 (ending 18.Qxd5 Be6 "-+")- it may be a legitimate refutation of 12.dxe5 in the sense that White is the one fighting for a draw, but since White now has three pawns for the piece, it's probably a stretch to say White is lost.

Personally I would be tempted to assess the positions at the end of the lines I mention (A, B1, B2) as unclear/equal, or at worst slightly better for Black.  I may be a relative patzer but I've seen much worse positions merely assessed as better for the side with the extra material.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AlanG
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 159
Joined: 10/16/08
Re: Two Knights 5...Nxd5
Reply #26 - 03/25/10 at 17:42:15
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:04:32:
I've been using Fritz's infinite analysis for guidance on the variations, but not analysis running for the whole day.  However, I, too, am sceptical of many of Fritz's evaluations- I think it places too much emphasis on the black king being stuck in the centre in the Fried Liver.  For instance, Fritz's assessment of the position at the end of your 14.0-0 Nf6 line, "=", is laughable, as even I can't see any compensation for White there.

If you mean the position after 18...Qd6 which is given as -+, I think it's closer to = than it is to -+.  I wouldn't like to try and win that with Fritz playing White. At the very least there should be some chances of a draw by perpetual check or repetition.

Maybe there is a win for Black after 18...Qd6, but I'd like to see a few more moves to prove it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge