(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. e4 e5 - Non-Spanish › 2 Knights › C57: Is Traxler Refuted ?
(Moderators: Smyslov_Fan, Jupp53, trw)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C57: Is Traxler Refuted ? (Read 169157 times)
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #7 - 09/02/10 at 01:18:03
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/01/10 at 19:06:27:
Thanks micawber, for the clarification. In my July 2007 article I had credited these authors, with the exception of J. Jerz. Then he had already detected the strong [10.Nf7] Qe7!, an information which I added in the August 2007 column. 

Master Om wrote on 09/01/10 at 06:54:39:
Note - this line is probably White's best response to the Traxler.

[5.Bxf7+ Rf8 6.Bc4 Rf8]
1.   (0.72): 7.0-0 Qe8 8.c3 d6 9.Nf3 Bb6 10.d3 Qh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 g4 14.Nh4 Kd8 15.Qd2 Ne7 16.a4 a5 this line is 28-ply

It would be nice if 6.Bc4 could be proven superior to the traditional moves 6.Bd5 or 6.Bb3. As far as I know (micawber may be better informed), 6.Bc4 has only be seen sporadically. Instead of 9...Bb6 in your line, 9...Bg4 10.Be2 Nxe4 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bb6 may be playable (+=). One of the points behind 7.0-0 seems to be 7...d6 8.Nc3 Qe8 9.Nd5+ Kd8 10.d4! Nxd4 (10...exd4 11.Nf4) 11.c3 Ne6 12.b4 Bb6 13.a4. 

I will analyse that. Thanks.
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #6 - 09/02/10 at 01:16:59
Post Tools
@micawber. Hi this is analysis by John Lerz . Before analysing i needed some base and after thinking a lot i thought i will start on bueker's notes. John Lerz did on Rybka 3 and I am doing using top3 engines including Rybka 4 SSE42 the fastest one.Rybka 4 as some knowledge in it and evaluates diffrently. Weel 1 thing is i will not analyse the suboptimal lines and many many thanks for your response  and bueker both.
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #5 - 09/01/10 at 19:06:27
Post Tools
Thanks micawber, for the clarification. In my July 2007 article I had credited these authors, with the exception of J. Jerz. Then he had already detected the strong [10.Nf7] Qe7!, an information which I added in the August 2007 column. 

Master Om wrote on 09/01/10 at 06:54:39:
Note - this line is probably White's best response to the Traxler.

[5.Bxf7+ Rf8 6.Bc4 Rf8]
1.   (0.72): 7.0-0 Qe8 8.c3 d6 9.Nf3 Bb6 10.d3 Qh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 g4 14.Nh4 Kd8 15.Qd2 Ne7 16.a4 a5 this line is 28-ply

It would be nice if 6.Bc4 could be proven superior to the traditional moves 6.Bd5 or 6.Bb3. As far as I know (micawber may be better informed), 6.Bc4 has only be seen sporadically. Instead of 9...Bb6 in your line, 9...Bg4 10.Be2 Nxe4 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bb6 may be playable (+=). One of the points behind 7.0-0 seems to be 7...d6 8.Nc3 Qe8 9.Nd5+ Kd8 10.d4! Nxd4 (10...exd4 11.Nf4) 11.c3 Ne6 12.b4 Bb6 13.a4. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #4 - 09/01/10 at 17:25:01
Post Tools
I've anotated part of Master Om's analysis to highlight that important chuncks of his analysisare not new, but were discovered by other's. Notably John Jerz contributed heavily to the defusion of the refutation's


Traxler analysis
7-27-2006 JLJ
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5

de Zeeuw Refutation number 1:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.d3 dxc4 9.Kxf2 Bg4 10.Qe1 and now: Nb4 Already given by John Jerz(or Nd4, de Zeeuw considered only cxd3) 11.Na3 cxd3 allready in the Chesspub/survey 12.Kg1 Nxc2 13.Nxc2 dxc2 14.h3 Bd1 = 

Black may have better 8th moves (thanks Richard for pointing this out):

24-ply search:
1. (-0.56): 8...Bh4 9.Bb5 Bg4 10.Qd2 0-0-0 11.h3 Qc5 12.Qe3 d4 13.Qd2 Qxb5 14.Na3 Qa6 15.hxg4

Question: What does 8core think about 
13...Nxe4!? a typical tactical stroke in the Traxler:
14.dxe4,d3! and i dont see how white is going to cope with the threats Be2+ followed by Qf2 mate and with Rf8.

2. (-0.25): 8...Bg4 9.Qd2 Bc5 10.exd5 Nh5 11.Qg5 Qf8+ 12.Bf4 Nxf4 13.Qxg4 Nxd5+ 14.Qf3 Ne3+ 15.Ke1



de Zeeuw Refutation number 2:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bh4 10.d6 Qxd6 11.Nf7 Qc5 12.Na3 (de Zeeuw thinks white is winning) and now we continue e4  Moncobeig 2004white has:
2A 13.g4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Nxe6 -0.35
2B 13.g3 Bxg3 14.Kg2 b5 Black advantage; Variation by John Jerz

de Zeeuw Refutation number 3:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.Be2 Bh4 10.c3 Nxe2 11.Qxe2 Bg4 12.Qb5 Nd7 13.Kg1 Qf6 (or 13...0-0-0 14.h3 Qf6 15.Qf1 Bf5 Line by John Jerz = instead of 15...Qxf1) 14.Qf1 and now: Qb6+ 15.d4 (forced) 0-0-0 scored -0.36/26 with attack

Note - what is being questioned here is de Zeeuw's 13.Kg1 line.

de Zeeuw Refutation number 4 has 4 lines 4A 4B 4C and 4D:
Refutation 4A
4A 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.d3 Bg4 11.Nf7 and now Qb6! 12. Qd2 Be2+ 13. Kxf2 Ng4+ 14. Ke1 Qf6 15. Qxe2 Nxe2 16. Kxe2 (16. Rf1 Nf4 Schiller-Uhlig,1996) 16... Qf2+ 17. Kd1 Qxg2= John Jerz 18. Re1 Nf2+ 19. Kd2 (19. Ke2 draw by perpetual check) 19...Ne4+ 20.Ke3 Qf2+ 21.Kxe4 Qxe1+ 22.Be3 Qh4+ amazing draw by perpetual check where the Black Queen takes on 4 minor pieces

Refutation 4B
4B 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Nf7 and now Qd7 12.Nxe5 Qf5 13.Be6 (13.Bd3 Qf4 14.Nf3 Nxf3 15.Qe2+ Kf8 16.Qxf2 Rd8 17.g2 (17.Be2 Ne4 -2.40) Bh3+ 18.Ke2 Ng1+ -2.06) Qxe6 14.Nxg4 Nxg4 15.cxd4 0-0-0 16.Qe2 Qd7 17.Nc3 Rf8 18.d5 Bb6+ 19.Ke1 Re8 20.Ne4 Nf6 21.d3 Qxd5 22.Be3 Nxe4 23.Bxb6 axb6 24.Kd1 Nc3+ 25.bxc3 Rxe2 26.Kxe2 Qxg2+ -1.40

Note: if 11.Qa4+ Nd7 12.Kxf2 Qf6+ 13.Ke1 0-0-0 is scored 0.00 after a deep search, for example: a) 14.Nf7 Nb6 15.Nxd8 Nxa4 or b) 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.Rf2 Qxh2
Note 10....Bg4 is indeed an important addition to known theory.


Refutation 4C
4C 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9. d6 Qxd6 10. Nf7 and now Qe7 John Jerz's discovery who worked out the most important lines
7 white responses are examined:
4C1. 11. d3 Bg4 (11... Bh4 12. Nc3 b5 <<12..Bg4! 13.Qd2,b5 transposes to John Jerzes variation>> 13. Nxb5 Bg4 14. Nxd4 Bxd1
15. Nf5) (11... Ng4 12. Nc3) 12. Qd2 Bh4 (12... Be2+) 13. Nc3 (13. Qe3 Be2+ 14.
Qxe2 Nxe2 15. Kxe2 b5 {-0.27}) 13... b5 (13... Nd5 14. Nxd5 Qxf7+ 15. Nf4 Qxf4+
16. Qxf4 exf4) 14. Nxe5 O-O-O Main line worked out by John Jerz 15. Nf3 Nxf3 16. Qe3 Re8 (16... Qxe3 17. Bxe3
bxc4 18. h3) 17. Qxe7 Rxe7 18. Bf4 bxc4 {0.00} 19. h3 Bh5 (19... g5) 20. gxf3)

4C2. 11. Ng5 Bg4 12. Nf3 e4 (12... Bh4) 13. Kxf2 (13. h3 exf3 14. hxg4 fxg2+ 15. Kxg2 Qe4+ 16. Kxf2 Nxg4+ 17. Kg1 Nf3+ 18. Kf1Nfh2+ 19. Kg1 0.00 perpetual check) (13. Be2 exf3 14. gxf3 Bh4 15. fxg4 O-O-O 16. d3 -2.07) 13... O-O-O -0.19 (13... exf3 14. Re1 Ne4+ 15. Rxe4 Qxe4) 14. Re1 (14. Nxd4 Bxd1 15. c3 0.00) 14... Qd6 15. Re3 Bxf3 -1.58

4C3. 11. Nxe5 Qxe5 12. c3 (12. d3 Bh4 13. Qd2 -1.26) 12... Bg4 13. cxd4 Qf5 14. Be2 Bh4+ 15. Bf3 O-O-O 16. Kg1 -2.16 (16. h3 Qd3+ -3.06)

4C4. 11. c3 Bg4 12. Qa4+ Nd7 13. cxd4 (13. Kxf2 Qh4+ John Jerz{white has Kf1, Ke3 both lead to p.chk 0.00}) 13... Bxd4 (13... Qf6 14. Nd6+ cxd6 15. dxe5 Qxe5 p.ch 0.00 John Jerz) 14. Ke1 Qf6 15. Rf1 Qh4+ 16. g3 Qxh2 17. Qa3 Qg2 18. Ng5 O-O-O 19. Nf3 -0.38

4C5. 11. h3 Bh4 (11... Qc5 12. Na3 Nf5 13. g4 Ng3+ 14.Kg2 Nxh1 15. Qf3 e4) 12. c3 (12. g3 Bxg3 13. Ng5 Qd7 0.00) (12. Nc3 Nh5 0.00) 12... Nf5 13. Nxe5 (13. Qb3 Qc5 14. Qb5+ Qxb5 15. Bxb5+ Kxf7 16. Rg1 0.08) (13. Na3 Ne4 14. d3 Qf6 0.00) 13... Qxe5 14. d4 Qe7 0.00

4C6. 11. Kxf2 Ng4+ =John Jerz12. Ke1 Qf6 13. Rf1 Qh4+ 14. g3 Qxh2 15. d3 0.00

4C7. 11. b3 Bg4 12. Ba3 Qd7 13. Nxe5 Qf5 -1.54

Refutation 4D
4D 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9. d6 cxd6 10.Kxf2 d5 11.Be2 Ne4+ 12.Kg1 Qc5 and now de Zeeuw has 2 lines:
4D1. 13.Kf1 Qf8+ 14.Bf3 Bg4 15.d3 Nxf3 16.gxf3 Bxf3 17.Qe1 Bxh1+ 18.Kg1 Pastore 2004Qf3 19.Qf1 Qxf1 20.Kxf1 Nd6 0.00 equal, the white knight falls
4D2. 13.Bh5+ Ke7 14.Kf1 Be6 15.b4 (15.Nf7 or 15.b3 don't work either) Rf8+ 16.Bf7 or Nf7 and now Qb6 with Black advantage

Note - it is only de Zeeuw's 11.Be2 line that is questioned here. It looks like white gets a nice position after 11.c3.

After 11.c3, Richard suggests:
11.c3 Ng4+ 12.Ke1 Qf6 13.Bb5+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh2 16.Rf7+ Kd6
17.cxd4 Qxg3+ 18.Ke2 Nf6 Pastore 2004 19.Bd7 Bxd7 20.Rxd7+ In Chespub survey with the continuation 20...Kxd7 [color=#0000ff]Nxd7 21.Nf7+ Ke7 22.Qb3
(on 22.Qh1 Black can play 22...Rf8 and force perpetual check or play 22...exd4 +0.38/21) Qg2+ unclear
[/color]
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #3 - 09/01/10 at 12:16:02
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/01/10 at 08:37:50:
Master Om wrote on 09/01/10 at 06:54:39:

5.d4 d5 6.Bxd5 Nd4 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 (07-25-2007 7...Kf8 is another try here) 8.Bc4 b5 9.Be2 (de Zeeuw) Rybka scores this position as roughly +0.10. I just don't see 9.Be2 refuting the Traxler Gambit with a score of +0.10.
 
07-25-2007 However, 9.Bd3! h6 10.Nf3 Ng4 11.Be3 gives white a slight advantage. Can Black improve in this line?

An interesting analysis. Your result regarding 5 d4, recommended by Reuben Fine in 1948, confirms what I wrote 2007 in the ChessCafe article: "If there is a refutation of the Traxler, it may well start with 5 d4." The line 9.Bd3! h6 10.Nf3 Ng4 11.Be3 += still seems to be best. It is not a refutation of the Traxler, but not too pleasant for Black either.

Hi stefan . How are you.
I was actually waiting your response. Its since 3 long days of analysis by my part and the results I am getting is astonishing. The base of my analysis is your article in chess cafe in which i have found many improvements.
Initially i was also thinking that 5.d4 may be the best move but after deep positional analysis its not true.Black has ample of resources.
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #2 - 09/01/10 at 08:37:50
Post Tools
Master Om wrote on 09/01/10 at 06:54:39:

5.d4 d5 6.Bxd5 Nd4 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 (07-25-2007 7...Kf8 is another try here) 8.Bc4 b5 9.Be2 (de Zeeuw) Rybka scores this position as roughly +0.10. I just don't see 9.Be2 refuting the Traxler Gambit with a score of +0.10.
 
07-25-2007 However, 9.Bd3! h6 10.Nf3 Ng4 11.Be3 gives white a slight advantage. Can Black improve in this line?

An interesting analysis. Your result regarding 5 d4, recommended by Reuben Fine in 1948, confirms what I wrote 2007 in the ChessCafe article: "If there is a refutation of the Traxler, it may well start with 5 d4." The line 9.Bd3! h6 10.Nf3 Ng4 11.Be3 += still seems to be best. It is not a refutation of the Traxler, but not too pleasant for Black either.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
Re: Is Traxler Refuted ?
Reply #1 - 09/01/10 at 06:54:39
Post Tools
This is what i got from my friend am going to analyse this with Stefan's lines.
I have the highest respect for Mr. de Zeeuw. Here is my take on his 6 refutations. In all cases, I think that he needs to re-examine his analysis after considering the following:
 
Traxler analysis
7-27-2006 JLJ
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5
 
de Zeeuw Refutation number 1:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.d3 dxc4 9.Kxf2 Bg4 10.Qe1 and now: Nb4 (or Nd4, de Zeeuw considered only cxd3) 11.Na3 cxd3 12.Kg1 Nxc2 13.Nxc2 dxc2 14.h3 Bd1 =
 
Black may have better 8th moves (thanks Richard for pointing this out):
 
24-ply search:
1. (-0.56): 8...Bh4 9.Bb5 Bg4 10.Qd2 0-0-0 11.h3 Qc5 12.Qe3 d4 13.Qd2 Qxb5 14.Na3 Qa6 15.hxg4

2. (-0.25): 8...Bg4 9.Qd2 Bc5 10.exd5 Nh5 11.Qg5 Qf8+ 12.Bf4 Nxf4 13.Qxg4 Nxd5+ 14.Qf3 Ne3+ 15.Ke1

 
de Zeeuw Refutation number 2:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Bh4 10.d6 Qxd6 11.Nf7 Qc5 12.Na3 (de Zeeuw thinks white is winning) and now we continue e4  white has:
2A 13.g4 Be6 14.Bxe6 Nxe6 -0.35
2B 13.g3 Bxg3 14.Kg2 b5 Black advantage
 
de Zeeuw Refutation number 3:
5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.Be2 Bh4 10.c3 Nxe2 11.Qxe2 Bg4 12.Qb5 Nd7 13.Kg1 Qf6 (or 13...0-0-0 14.h3 Qf6 15.Qf1 Bf5 = instead of 15...Qxf1) 14.Qf1 and now: Qb6+ 15.d4 (forced) 0-0-0 scored -0.36/26 with attack
 
Note - what is being questioned here is de Zeeuw's 13.Kg1 line.
 
de Zeeuw Refutation number 4 has 4 lines 4A 4B 4C and 4D:
Refutation 4A
4A 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.d3 Bg4 11.Nf7 and now Qb6! 12. Qd2 Be2+ 13. Kxf2 Ng4+ 14. Ke1 Qf6 15. Qxe2 Nxe2 16. Kxe2 (16. Rf1 Nf4) 16... Qf2+ 17. Kd1 Qxg2 18. Re1 Nf2+ 19. Kd2 (19. Ke2 draw by perpetual check) 19...Ne4+ 20.Ke3 Qf2+ 21.Kxe4 Qxe1+ 22.Be3 Qh4+ amazing draw by perpetual check where the Black Queen takes on 4 minor pieces
 
Refutation 4B
4B 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.c3 Bg4 11.Nf7 and now Qd7 12.Nxe5 Qf5 13.Be6 (13.Bd3 Qf4 14.Nf3 Nxf3 15.Qe2+ Kf8 16.Qxf2 Rd8 17.g2 (17.Be2 Ne4 -2.40) Bh3+ 18.Ke2 Ng1+ -2.06) Qxe6 14.Nxg4 Nxg4 15.cxd4 0-0-0 16.Qe2 Qd7 17.Nc3 Rf8 18.d5 Bb6+ 19.Ke1 Re8 20.Ne4 Nf6 21.d3 Qxd5 22.Be3 Nxe4 23.Bxb6 axb6 24.Kd1 Nc3+ 25.bxc3 Rxe2 26.Kxe2 Qxg2+ -1.40
 
Note: if 11.Qa4+ Nd7 12.Kxf2 Qf6+ 13.Ke1 0-0-0 is scored 0.00 after a deep search, for example: a) 14.Nf7 Nb6 15.Nxd8 Nxa4 or b) 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.Rf2 Qxh2
 
Refutation 4C
4C 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9. d6 Qxd6 10. Nf7 and now Qe7 
7 white responses are examined:
4C1. 11. d3 Bg4 (11... Bh4 12. Nc3 b5 13. Nxb5 Bg4 14. Nxd4 Bxd1
15. Nf5) (11... Ng4 12. Nc3) 12. Qd2 Bh4 (12... Be2+) 13. Nc3 (13. Qe3 Be2+ 14.
Qxe2 Nxe2 15. Kxe2 b5 {-0.27}) 13... b5 (13... Nd5 14. Nxd5 Qxf7+ 15. Nf4 Qxf4+
16. Qxf4 exf4) 14. Nxe5 O-O-O 15. Nf3 Nxf3 16. Qe3 Re8 (16... Qxe3 17. Bxe3
bxc4 18. h3) 17. Qxe7 Rxe7 18. Bf4 bxc4 {0.00} 19. h3 Bh5 (19... g5) 20. gxf3)

4C2. 11. Ng5 Bg4 12. Nf3 e4 (12... Bh4) 13. Kxf2 (13. h3 exf3 14. hxg4 fxg2+ 15. Kxg2 Qe4+ 16. Kxf2 Nxg4+ 17. Kg1 Nf3+ 18. Kf1Nfh2+ 19. Kg1 0.00 perpetual check) (13. Be2 exf3 14. gxf3 Bh4 15. fxg4 O-O-O 16. d3 -2.07) 13... O-O-O -0.19 (13... exf3 14. Re1 Ne4+ 15. Rxe4 Qxe4) 14. Re1 (14. Nxd4 Bxd1 15. c3 0.00) 14... Qd6 15. Re3 Bxf3 -1.58
 
4C3. 11. Nxe5 Qxe5 12. c3 (12. d3 Bh4 13. Qd2 -1.26) 12... Bg4 13. cxd4 Qf5 14. Be2 Bh4+ 15. Bf3 O-O-O 16. Kg1 -2.16 (16. h3 Qd3+ -3.06)
 
4C4. 11. c3 Bg4 12. Qa4+ Nd7 13. cxd4 (13. Kxf2 Qh4+ {white has Kf1, Ke3 both lead to p.chk 0.00}) 13... Bxd4 (13... Qf6 14. Nd6+ cxd6 15. dxe5 Qxe5 p.ch 0.00) 14. Ke1 Qf6 15. Rf1 Qh4+ 16. g3 Qxh2 17. Qa3 Qg2 18. Ng5 O-O-O 19. Nf3 -0.38
 
4C5. 11. h3 Bh4 (11... Qc5 12. Na3 Nf5 13. g4 Ng3+ 14.Kg2 Nxh1 15. Qf3 e4) 12. c3 (12. g3 Bxg3 13. Ng5 Qd7 0.00) (12. Nc3 Nh5 0.00) 12... Nf5 13. Nxe5 (13. Qb3 Qc5 14. Qb5+ Qxb5 15. Bxb5+ Kxf7 16. Rg1 0.08) (13. Na3 Ne4 14. d3 Qf6 0.00) 13... Qxe5 14. d4 Qe7 0.00
 
4C6. 11. Kxf2 Ng4+ 12. Ke1 Qf6 13. Rf1 Qh4+ 14. g3 Qxh2 15. d3 0.00

4C7. 11. b3 Bg4 12. Ba3 Qd7 13. Nxe5 Qf5 -1.54
 
Refutation 4D
4D 5.Nf7 Bf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9. d6 cxd6 10.Kxf2 d5 11.Be2 Ne4+ 12.Kg1 Qc5 and now de Zeeuw has 2 lines:
4D1. 13.Kf1 Qf8+ 14.Bf3 Bg4 15.d3 Nxf3 16.gxf3 Bxf3 17.Qe1 Bxh1+ 18.Kg1 Qf3 19.Qf1 Qxf1 20.Kxf1 Nd6 0.00 equal, the white knight falls
4D2. 13.Bh5+ Ke7 14.Kf1 Be6 15.b4 (15.Nf7 or 15.b3 don't work either) Rf8+ 16.Bf7 or Nf7 and now Qb6 with Black advantage
 
Note - it is only de Zeeuw's 11.Be2 line that is questioned here. It looks like white gets a nice position after 11.c3.
 
After 11.c3, Richard suggests:
11.c3 Ng4+ 12.Ke1 Qf6 13.Bb5+ Ke7 14.Rf1 Qh4+ 15.g3 Qxh2 16.Rf7+ Kd6
17.cxd4 Qxg3+ 18.Ke2 Nf6 19.Bd7 Bxd7 20.Rxd7+ Nxd7 21.Nf7+ Ke7 22.Qb3
(on 22.Qh1 Black can play 22...Rf8 and force perpetual check or play 22...exd4 +0.38/21) Qg2+ unclear

de Zeeuw Refutation number 5:
5.Bxf7 Ke7 6.Bb3 and now Qe8, which scores the best in the computer for Black, is not looked at, other than to say that it might transpose back into the main line. 5...Kf8 is actually playable, but not analyzed.
 
Note - this line is probably White's best response to the Traxler.
23March2010 - After 5.Bxf7+ (Rybka3)

[+0.69] d=31 5...Ke7 6.Bc4** Qe8* 7.O–O d6 8.c3 Bb6 9.Nf3 Rf8 10.d3 h6 (443:09.04) 398576191kN

[+0.91] d=31 5...Kf8 6.Bb3 Qe8 7.d3 h6 8.Nf3 d6 9.O–O g6 10.Nc3 Kg7 11.Na4 Bb6 12.h3 g5 13.c3 Rf8 14.Qe2 Qh5 (575:24.50) 504120338kN

*If 6...Rf8: (27-ply)

1.   (0.72): 7.0-0 Qe8 8.c3 d6 9.Nf3 Bb6 10.d3 Qh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 g4 14.Nh4 Kd8 15.Qd2 Ne7 16.a4 a5 this line is 28-ply

1.   (0.67): 7.0-0 h6 8.Nf3 Nxe4 9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.dxc3 d6 11.a4 a5 12.Be3 Ba7 13.Bxa7 Rxa7 14.Qd3 Qd7 15.Rae1 Qf5 16.Qd1 Kd8 17.Re3 this line is 27-ply

2.   (0.65): 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.0-0 h6 9.Nf3 d6 10.Be2 this line is 28-ply

2.   (0.65): 7.Nc3 Qe8 8.0-0 h6 9.Nf3 d6 10.Be2 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Bf3 Qg6 13.d3 Bd7 14.Nd5+ Nxd5 15.exd5 Rf6 16.Kh1 Raf8 17.Be4 Bf5 18.f3 Kf7 19.Qe2 Kg8 20.Be3 Bxe4 21.dxe4 Bxe3 this line is 27-ply

3.   (0.63): 7.d3 d6 8.Nf3 Na5 9.Bb3 Qe8 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Be3 Nxb3 12.axb3 Bxe3 13.fxe3 Qg6 14.c4 Kf7 15.Nc3 Kg8 16.Nb5 a6

**other white 6th moves:

[+0.68]  d=27  6.Bb3 d6 7.d3 Qe8 8.c3 Rf8 9.Nf3 h6 10.Nbd2 (425:13.49) 54251499kN

[+0.62]  d=27  6.Bd5 Qe8 7.c3 d6 8.Bxc6 Qxc6 9.d3 h6 10.Nf3 Kf7 11.O–O Bb6 12.Nbd2 Be6 13.Re1 Rhe8 14.Nf1 Kg8 15.h3 a5 16.Be3 a4 17.Qc2 Ba5 (532:34.17) 66714233kN

de Zeeuw Refutation number 6:
5.d4 d5 6.Bxd5 Nd4 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 (07-25-2007 7...Kf8 is another try here) 8.Bc4 b5 9.Be2 (de Zeeuw) Rybka scores this position as roughly +0.10. I just don't see 9.Be2 refuting the Traxler Gambit with a score of +0.10.
 
07-25-2007 However, 9.Bd3! h6 10.Nf3 Ng4 11.Be3 gives white a slight advantage. Can Black improve in this line?
 
It seems clear that with such a large volume that some may contain errors. 
 
Traxler 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 line
 
Rybka 3
 
[+0.13]  d=25  6...Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 0-0 11.Rh4 e4+ 12.Kg2 d5 13.Nc3 dxc4 14.Qh5 Ne7 15.Rxe4 Qf6 16.Rf4 Qc6+ 17.Rf3 Qe8 18.Nh6+ gxh6 19.Rxf8+ Qxf8 20.d3 b6 21.Bxh6 Bb7+
 
[+0.05]  d=24  6...Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 0-0 11.Rh4 e4+ 12.Kg2 d5 13.Bb3 Rxf7 14.Qg1 Qf6 15.Rf4 Qe6 16.d3 exd3 17.Nc3 Qh3+ 18.Kf2 Be6 19.Qg2 Qxg2+ 20.Kxg2 dxc2 21.Bxc2 d4
  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Master Om
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Joined: 02/20/10
C57: Is Traxler Refuted ?
09/01/10 at 04:37:19
Post Tools
Now I am in a project of Analysing The Traxler Lines with several computer aided anlysis on a Hexacore. I read the analysis of Marten de Zeuw in NIC 63,65,66,67,68 and Dan Heismans CD and  truth is I am not convinced and refuting Traxler is far from truth. I read the seven ways of refuting Traxler by Stefan Bucker who also thinks the same. Before  I start analysing the the positions I need some base to start with. First of All i should analyse all available lines. So a mild help or pgns will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
Om Prakash
« Last Edit: 12/03/11 at 02:19:44 by Smyslov_Fan »  
ICCF IM
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 
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