Quote:


Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I missed that! I understand the exchange sacrifice comment now. The exchange sacrifice actually seems somewhat promising though, but I'd say it's a complicated game now. Maybe both Black and White have reason to be happy.

18.Bh2 Bc4 19.Qxf5 Bxf1 20.Rxf1

Maybe White has chances through mobilizing the e-pawn, but it doesn't look clear.

Quote:


I don't see anything incisive yet for White here, so indeed it appears Black has sufficient defensive resources. I admit that 13.Ng5 looks artificial, but it has its points. The 15.Ndb5 line still looks interesting, but seems to lead to a complicated game and it appears the exchange sacrifice is critical for evaluation. Thanks, I think I have a much better appreciation for Black's resources now; however, I get the feeling though that I've just touched the surface of the possibilities in the initial position. Maybe I'll see more clearly after some rest. The Classical is sometimes a headache.

MNb wrote on 05/04/10 at 20:50:10:


The threat of 16.Nxc7 was the main idea behind the move 15.Ndb5. Is there something I'm missing?

Quote:


13.Ng5 is disruptive of Black's development more than anything else, so that White can better exploit his development lead. Compared to 13.Nd4, the d-file is not blocked and White does not have the congestion problem with his queen that he had earlier.

17..c5 weakens d6 though, so I am not sure this solves Black's problems. I think I would consider a move like 18.Bd6 followed by Rd1 to exploit the development lead and also Black would lose the bishop pair.

Quote:


I appreciate you sharing your experience here with me, since I started learning both the IZ (synonymous with Classical, correct?) and the Stonewall in recent months. I like the concept of this approach against the "lesser" lines, but I also want to be careful. Of course, an ambitious approach entails greater risk and often takes more study.

I realize the long-term benefits of the bishop pair, but opening the position is designed to exploit White's temporary lead in development. This happens, for instance, quite often in some lines of the c3 Sicilian. My sense of danger is on red alert, and I want to be sure before entering lines like these. In some lines, White forces Black to relinquish his bishop pair, thus consolidating White's temporary advantages.

MNb wrote on 05/04/10 at 16:12:38:


I agree with 15.Qc4+ Qf7. I think Black has solved his problems here.

I think c5 is an important resource to consider, because it is perhaps White's most direct approach. You give 14.c5 dxc5 15.Nxf5 Qf7 16.Ng3 and seem to be very optimistic about Black's chances. I'm not sure I agree, but after looking more closely at Black's options, I don't see a good response to 15..Nh5.

So neither of those look good to me now. Maybe I jumped on those two a little too quickly without considering all of Black's options...

But did you consider 14.c5 dxc5 15.Ndb5? This idea occurred to me earlier, but maybe I should have pursued it further: 15.Nbd5 Bxb5 16.Nxb5 Rf7 (16..Qf7 17.Qxf5, edit: here also 16..Qc6 deserves consideration) 17.Qc4 b6?! (edit: Qc6 looks better, but White seems to have decent compensation) 18.Bxc7

Any ideas for Black here? (see edit)

Maybe I have missed something again, but I hope this at least provokes some thought. Thanks.

(Edit: I also think the c5 idea with 13.Ng5 deserves consideration. Actually this was my first intuition, and I am not so sure it's easy to counter: 13.Ng5 Bd7 14.c5 dxc5 15.Qc4+ Kh8 16.Qxc5 b6 17.Qc4 h6 [dubious perhaps- maybe there is something better? My feeling is that Black will have some difficulty with development while White can easily activate the rooks.] 18.Nf3 Be6 19.Qd3 and I like White's development. I think the attempt to regain the pawn immediately with Qc4+ here is much better than the analogous line with 13.Nd4, so I think 13.Ng5 is important to consider.)

MNb wrote on 05/04/10 at 11:37:54:


Actually I'm interested in this line from both sides as I think it might be slightly underrated.

In your line, I am concerned about ideas with c5 when it seems difficult for Black to untangle:

8.c4 Bd8 9.Nc3 Nc6 10.d5 Nb4 11.dxe6 Nxd3 12.Qxd3 Bxe6 13.Nd4 Bd7

Here 14.c5 dxc5 15.Qc4+ Kh8 16.Qxc5 looks annoying and it seems like 15.Nxf5 may even be stronger: 15..Qg6 16.Qc4+ Kh8 17.Ng3 b6 18.Nb5 looks difficult to meet.

MNb wrote on 05/04/10 at 10:24:32:


I think White is able to exert central pressure with 11.dxe6. This is the line that would concern me most as Black. However, maybe 10.d5 e5 11.dxc6 exf4 12.cxb7 Bxb7 13.exf4 Ne4 offers Black decent compensation for the pawn.

Well, I wrote nothing about 8...b6 and 8...Ne4, did I? Both moves look misplaced to me.

MNb wrote on 05/02/10 at 13:46:58:


If you rather rely on the positional insight of your engines than on the human one I can't help you I am afraid. At beforehand I will tell you that I won't give a dime for silicon evaluations after 8.c4 Bd8 9.Nc3 Nc6.
Eg after 10.d5 (or Black will play 10...e5) Nb4 11.Bb1 e5 12.Bh2 Na6 13.a3 Nc5 14.b4 Nce4 Black is fine. All his/her pieces can be brought into an all out attack against White's king. Typical ideas are f5-f4 and g7-g5-g4.

4...d6 is one option. Bf4 is notoriously badly placed against an Iljin-Zjenevsky setup (f5, Nf6, e6, d6, Be7, 0-0). For the sake of convenience I change the move order somewhat:

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 Be7 5.Bd3 0-0 6.0-0

a) 6...d6 7.h3 Qe8 followed by ...Bd8 and ...Nc6. The simple plan is e6-e5-e4 winning a piece. To avoid this White has to make a concession.
b) 6...b6 7.h3 Bb7 8.c4 Ne4 9.Nfd2 and why the cooperative ...Nxd2 ? Black can play in QID-style with ...Bf6. Once again ...e5 looks inviting.

Stigma wrote on 04/30/10 at 22:12:25:

After 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 I think the Stonewall 4...d5 is better than 4...Bb4. White's setup with Bd3, f3, Qc2 and Nge2 is promising against the latter. As a result 4.Qc2 is a transpositional trick: d5 5.Nf3 and 6.Bf4 or 4.Qc2 Bb4 5.e3. Black's best is probably 4.Qc2 b6 and only if White plays Nf3 then Bb4.

Stigma wrote on 04/30/10 at 22:12:25:

The same for me if you replace Leningrad by IZ. As a result I have met 1.d4 e6 2.d4 quite more often than BPaulsen.