Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/24/10 at 23:27:34:


I think time is ripe to replace the "?" after 6.Nxf7 with "!?" or maybe even "!" in particular in light of Sloughters convincing analysis of 9.0-0! on it's own thread elsewere on this forum. One important point is that the former assumption that 9...c6 10.d4 Qf6 should be favorable for Black seems to be totally overturned by Sloughters 11.Qd1!+=.

So, wheter to prefer the Lolli with 6.d4 or the Liver with 6.Nxf7 nowadays seem to be more a matter of taste than a matter of objective assessment of strenght. It may be, however that the slight white plus for both lines is easier to convert in practise in the Lolli than in the Liver.

SWJediknight wrote on 11/07/12 at 22:43:04:



What is clear is the White had to meet 11...Qh4 with 12.Nb6ch (Not Nxc7ch) but Black still seems somewhat better after 12...Ke7 13.Qf7ch Kd8 14.Nxa8 Bd7.

It can be predicted that 9.a3? will ultimately be regarded as a weak move bordering on a blunder especially because White had four better moves i.e. 9.d4?! Nxc2ch 10.Kd1 Nxd4 = or 9.Qe4, 9.O-O, or 9.Bb3.

SWJediknight wrote on 11/07/12 at 00:02:28:


9.a3?! Nxc2ch 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Nxd5 (I gave the wrong move order. I forgot to include this) Kd6 12.Re1 Qg5 13.d4 Qg4 14.dxe5ch Kc6 15.Ne7ch =

or 11...Kd6 12.Re1 c6 13.Rxe5 Bd7 14.Rxd5ch +/-

or 13.Rxe5 Qh4? 14.Re4 +/-

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/24/10 at 23:27:34:


I don't like a3 because this is an extremely sharp position where every tempo counts. Not surprisingly this leads to a quick draw.

5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3ch Ke6 8.Nc3 Nb4 9.a3?! (Both developing moves 9.O-O and 9.Bb3 are better while 9.d4 Nxc2ch 10.Kd1 Nxd4 looks equal---again because White focusses on the developing move d4, not the wasted tempo 9.a3. It turns out in this line that White has just enough attack to get a quick draw by repetition:

9.a3 Nxc2ch 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Re1 a6! (or Bd6 12.Bb5ch Ke6 13.Bc4) 12.Rxe5 Bd6 13.Bb5ch! axb5 14.Qh3ch Kc6 15.Qc3ch =

I think 13.Nxc8+ may well be White's best practical chance after the dubious 9.a3, but Black still stands better. 13...Rxc8 14.d3 may cause problems for Black if Black doesn't know the theory, but after 14...Kd8! (as correctly given by others) 15.Qd5+ Bd6 16.Be3, White is going to spend a bit of time picking up the knight on a1.   There are many alternatives for both sides in Master Om's long variations, but White should not get enough for the exchange.

Even if White can make 13.Nxc8+ work there's also 11...c6!? as suggested by both Master Om and Stefan Bücker, which is also better for Black, e.g. 12.Nc7+ Kd7 13.Nxa8 Qf6 14.Qe3 Qg6.

My current opinion of the critical lines is as follows:

A) 9.0-0 c6 10.d4 Qf6 (10...exd4!? 11.Bf4 Qf6 12.Ne4 Qf5 13.Ng3 with a very messy position, probably about equal) 11.Qe2 Ke7 12.f4 (12.dxe5 Qg6 13.Rd1 is roughly equal) 12...Kd8 13.fxe5 Qg6 and now 14.Nxd5 and the riskier 14.Qd2!? are highly unclear, with equal chances. 

B) 9.Qe4 c6 10.a3 Na6 11.d4 Nac7 12.f4 Kf7 13.fxe5 Be6 14.0-0+ Kg8, as previously mentioned, is probably the critical line after 9.Qe4.  I think chances are roughly equal here, as Black's h8-rook is shut out of play and White has two pawns and a strong centre in return for the piece.  The line 12.Bf4 Kf7 13.Bxe5 Be6 14.Qf3+ Kg8! is similar, though perhaps a slightly improved version for Black, e.g. 15.Ne4 Qh4 (15...h5!? 16.0-0 h4 17.h3) 16.Bd3 b5.  Nonetheless I would hesitate to take Black in an OTB game here too.

I also had another look at those 14.0-0 Nf6 lines, and concluded that after 15.Bxf6 gxf6 (or 15...Qxf6!? 16.d5 Nxd5) Black emerges with an edge, but not -+ as originally suggested.

Imho, Mr. Om has missed some points in his analysis of 6.Nxf7 variation. After his suggestion 11...Qh4 12.Nb6+ Ke7 13.Qf7+?! Kd8 14.Nxa8 Bd6? 15.Qxg7 Rf8 Black has a draw, but not more. 16.d3 Qg4+ (16...Bg4+ 17.f3 Qf2 18.Bg5+ Kc8 19.Be7! =) 17.Qxg4 Bxg4+ 18.f3 Rxf3 19.Bg5+ Kd7 20.gf Bxf3+ 21.Kc1 Bxh1 22.Kb1 =
But in this line the both sides have their improvements. 14...Bd7! is stronger and secures edge for Black, but White improves earlier. 13.Nxc8+! and game is far from clear. E.g. 13...Rxc8 14.d3 Kd8 15.Be3 or 15.Qd5+

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/31/10 at 00:14:24:

Is the move 8....Bb4+ a Zwischenschach ? . The Idea is beautiful now i understand. This moves threats c3 which shuts Nc3 as the best move in many lines!!.

Not based on the file Master Om provided.
I don't know the analysis by Wind in Kaissiber 29.

Another line that is not equal (sorry, only today I had the time to like at the second file) is 6.d4 Be6 7.Nxe6 fxe6 8.dxe5 Bc5 9.Qg4 Qd7 10.Nc3 0-0 11.f4 Ncb4 12.Bb3 Kh8 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Bd2 Nxf4 and now simply 15.0-0-0. All other features of the position being more or less in balance White is somewhat better (but not much, because the knight is well placed) due to the pair of bishops.

The fact that you evaluate 8...Nxe5 (iso 8...Bc5) 9.Qh5+ Ng6 10.0-0 Qd7 as equal as well indicates that you need something like Grooten's excellent Chess Stragety for Club Players. Without books like these I would not be able to find the weak spots in your lines.

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

Markovich wrote on 03/30/10 at 18:06:40:

Ok but still i have to say on what basis my analysis was on and this is forced.

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.

I am very sorry for encouraging the digression with one of my own posts, but I will permit no more in this thread that concerns the merits and limits of computerized analysis.  I have transferred to a new thread in "General Chess" all of the posts here that seemed chiefly to concern that.

Furthermore I am quite put off by argumentation of the form "my infallible computer sez...".  So put off, in fact, that I have gone back and deleted all argumentation of this form from Master Om's posts. He seems to be the only one arguing this way here.  Master Om, if you want to talk about chess positions, by all means do so here.  But talk about the actual chess; the piece activity, the pawn structure, the king safety, whatever the hell, but do not seek to justify your opinions by citing your infallible computer.  Any more posts containing that sort of argumentation will be summarily deleted.  If your computer is correct, then there is some actual chess behind it, and it is that, not your computer's opinion, that you should be supplying here.

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.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/28/10 at 06:06:38:

I should thank you rather as i am fan of yours the way you do your analysis. I have lots of my own analysis to share specially on sicilian and e4e5 systems. Thanks for kassiber 29 offer .I would definitely analyse on that

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/28/10 at 00:56:31:


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 ]

Master Om wrote on 03/27/10 at 20:47:03:

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. 

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.]

MNb wrote on 03/26/10 at 20:38:35:

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.

ArKheiN wrote on 03/26/10 at 08:53:46:

yes , i play corr games. 6.d4 is equal not enough for win.
just i know as my friend works for them.

MNb wrote on 03/25/10 at 20:32:35:



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.

AlanG wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:42:15:

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.

SWJediknight wrote on 03/25/10 at 17:04:32:


Correct. But i have assesed it. I have shared my 4 months work apart from my poison pawn analysis as i myself play it and have been playing since 6 years OTB. 

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

SWJediknight wrote on 03/25/10 at 01:50:04:


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

P.S - key to the position is black has to think that his pawn on e4 does not exist. If he tries to support he will surely loose it and this i am saying from my experience.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/25/10 at 12:59:00:


Ah, so 7.dxe5 must be more accurate.

I would play 6.d4 and be very happy that my opponent hadn't played 6...Na5.  I don't see why anyone would play 6.Nxf7 against a strong opponent, given that 6.d4 is there.  Who knows, perhaps Master Om is God's gift to the theory of the Two Knights, but I respectfully doubt his claim that Black is fine there.

I'm not an e4 player, and if I were I wouldn't be an Italian player.  But in general if I know my opponent has made a very deep study of some sharp variation when I have not, absolutely never will I give him the chance to practice it against me.

Markovich wrote on 03/24/10 at 18:43:31:

Yes. Just look at final position. That position will lead to draw if very accurate play is there from white side. I have beaten Two players having two IM norms OTB from that position after Bc5. Black saves the night then wins. there are lots of options for white to go wrong. Apart from that in most of the lines white is -+ .

Master Om claims a -/+ for 6.Nxf7?, because 8...Ncb4 is -/+, and that is certainly true, but not new. In the line 9.Qe4 his new move seems to be 14...Nf6! -+, when old theory was 14...Be7 15.f4 Nf6 16.Bxe6+ Nxe6 17.Qd3 Rf8 -/+, John Watson. 
In the main line 9.a3 Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 my analysis in Kaissiber 12 (1999) claimed an advantage for Black after 10...Nxa1! 11.Nxd5 c6! (a move mentioned by Master Om as !?) 12.Nc7+ Kd6 13.Nxa8 Qh4!, improving upon old analysis by Palau (1949). Black has an advantage, though I said "perhaps White can hold the ending with precise play". My analysis ended with 22...Bxh8 -/+. I am not sure whether Master Om's 11...Qh4 is better than 11...c6, maybe it is. But the observation that 6.Nxf7? is -/+ isn't new. 

6.d4 Be6!, recommended by De Zeeuw, is much more interesting. In Kaissiber 29 (2007) Maurits Wind studies it on 4 pp., and although he finds an advantage for White this line still deserves attention.

Just had a quick check of some of the lines (I don't have much time, but enough to have a little look, with the aid of Fritz 10).  The line given against (6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Ncb4) 9.a3 looks convincing, leading to -/+, but in the other two major continuations (9.Qe4 and 9.0-0) analysis frequently stops with an assessment of "-/+" or even "-+" when a quick glance at the position shows White with two or three pawns for the piece and continued attacking chances against the exposed black king, and probably no worse than equal.

I'll look at your analysis, for which I thank you, but I'm confused about your claim.  Which is it, Black wins after 6.Nxf7, or draw with best play after 6.Nxf7?

De Zeeuw, not De Leeuw, and Marteen, not Martin, sorry.

Master Om wrote on 03/24/10 at 12:35:18:


oh snap it's on like donkey kong

No i wont. So you need proof ?. I will post a pgn ASAP

Master Om wrote on 03/23/10 at 02:09:33:


Are we talking about the variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5? That sounds kind of...(sloughterish?)

kylemeister wrote on 03/22/10 at 17:59:15:

I have a whole complete analysis regarding this. And by the way Fried liver looses for white , if white plays Nf7 and i can prove that.

kylemeister wrote on 03/22/10 at 17:59:15:


You just have to plead with your opponent!

"Please no Lolli! No don't!"