sloughter wrote on 11/15/10 at 02:38:29:


1700 vs. 1900 games are truth these days?

To thibdb13:

You write "You are certainly right about Bb5 but Bc4 does not require such a heavy investment in learning as Bb5 does."

On the contrary, I would argue that it is far easier to get a viable, healthy position as White in the Ruy Lopez than in say the Evans or the Two Knights with Ng5. That's one reason for its enduring popularity. Far less detailed knowledge is required, and you don't need to play the latest cutting-edge stuff to get into a decent position with chances of an edge. Mostly White just castles early and tries to take the centre with c3 and d4. There are only a few sharp early deviations by Black which require some knowledge to refute or avoid. The only real rival in this respect is the "Slow Italian" with c3 an d3. (Perhaps it is no accident that John Emms has written very good books on both.)

[quote author=7F5340595D445B515A320 link=1282333110/7#7 date=1282657501
The first argument against the 3.Bc4 is really based on opporunity cost: 3.Bb5, a significantly better move, is foregone.

The second argument is the Two Knights Defense.  I am sure the Evans would be in more people's repertoires if the Two Knights did not exist.
[/quote]

You are certainly right about Bb5 but Bc4 does not require such a heavy investment in learning as Bb5 does. After years of d4, I wanted to switch to e4 and there were two reasons I chose Bc4:
- I wanted to get familiarized with the basics of e4-e5
- I do not have the time now to study Bb5 a bit seriously.

Concerning the Two Knights Defense, I was also a bit afraid of it but after some experiences on the internet, I must say I find it quite nice to play against it. In particuarly, I like the Fischer/Steinitz variation (9.Nh3): it seems that white will be smashed but white has really a lot of resources. Really fun and interesting to play!

I find it strange that Marin didn't mention my notes published in 2007: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1174123573/2#2
They clearly contradict some of his statements in the Evanschapter.

Further I don't agree with his statement in one of the mainlines:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.cxd4 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Ba3 Be6 11.Qb3 Qd7 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Qxb7 Qc8 14.Bxd5 Qxb7 15.Bxb5 Rb8 16.Be4 and now f5 making air for the king looks ok for black contrary to Nc4 what Marin gives.

I also find his comment in the following line very superficial while at my opinion this concerns again an important mainline.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.0-0 Bb6 9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Nc3 Nf6 12.Nb5 and here Marin stops saying white has a strong initiative. However I think white really has to do his best not to run out of steam and fall in a bad position. 12... d5 13.exd5 Bxa1 14.Ba3 Qe5 15.f4 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Qe3 17.Nxd4 Qxb3 18.Re1+ Kd8 19.Be7+ Kd7 and i prefer to play with the extra exchange.

Some weeks ago I started to look at the Evans Gambit and up to now, I'd say the following:
- it does not really offer an advantage to white vut you cannot say black stands better after, let's say, the first ten moves
- nevertheless, black has a lot of opportunities to go (badly) wrong
- white has to know the principles and some theory but black must absolutely know what he is doing.

At my level and on the internet, I find it a good weapon but my feeling is that really good players shouldn't have any problem with black.

So my conclusion is: it is an opening where the best one should win and there is no real refutation of the gambit, just some good ways to get out of it.

kylemeister wrote on 08/20/10 at 22:14:30:


Marin didn't consider that line bad for White, he concludes that it leads to equality.

A claim that 5...Bd6 is a refutation would be interesting, since Andrei Volokitin opined in a Yearbook article last year that it should not even equalize.

Surely the mainstream view is that there is no "true refutation" of the Evans.  For instance, Mihail Marin (writing from a Black standpoint a couple of years ago) thought it should be equal with best play (he considered 5...Ba5 6. d4 ed 7. 0-0 Nge7 8. Ng5 bad for White, however).