6.d4 Be6 7.Nxe6  [...] Conclusion: neither is 5...Nxd5 a refutation (even 6.Nxf7/9.Qe4 holds its own) nor does it guarantee equality.

Markovich wrote on 03/29/10 at 15:21:59:

I sometimes feel terrible when someone doesnot tend to understand and thinks like a Railway Track. As you are moderator here you cant still supress the truth do you ?
I said this to Bucker who (with kind regards ) tends to understand and also I am again saying to you. [ Text in all caps redacted by Markovich. ]
So he did with Chess in mind not CA in mind.I posted Chess and not 'My Infallible Comp says". You better ask him about these. I myself agree what marteen de zeeuw said whose perspective differs from what BPaulsen's otherwise Maarten de Zeeuw's Analysis was on NIC and not of BPaulsen's . That was Not my Analysis. I only Checked.

last but not the least:- As you wish! . Sorry i cant wake a Sleeping man who actually not sleeping acts like it. Sorry.

Markovich wrote on 03/29/10 at 15:21:59:


Actually, isn't this thread supposed to be about the Fritz variation ?
The whole Fried Liver discussion should have been split some pages ago.

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.

Perhaps we should move away from the defensiveness, dogmatism, and derailment of the thread. 

Instead of dismissing moves summarily, we should take them seriously and try to do so analytically. Is Black really equal after  13.Nxd5 exd5? What about after 14.Bd3 Qf7 15.Be3 Kb8 16.c4?

I might be missing something obvious, but it didn't seem as blatantly ridiculous at second glance.

Is there a specific engine which is supposed to be good in these Two Knights lines?  I note that Fritz tends to agree with most of the PGN's assessments in the 6.d4 lines, but regards some of the play as sub-optimal (e.g. Kaissiber 29's suggested improvement 12.Nc3! over the old 12.Na3 is given by Fritz as best after about five seconds' thought, assessing it as +=).  

But in contrast, Fritz goes further than my "roughly equal" assessment of the lines I gave after 9.Qe4 and 9.0-0 in the Fried Liver, often giving "+=" or even "+/-".