I have to offer my sincerest apologies to Uhohspaghettio. Without any intention to do so I have removed his post. I hope he won't take it too hard and that he will be so kind to repost it here.



My only comfort is that it has happened to other moderators as well.

Do you know where it's possible to download Houdini?Could you post me the link,please?

Stigma wrote on 03/16/11 at 03:15:34:


This possibility has indeed been discussed for sometime in the forum (particularly by bragesjo I think) and of course on the Dragon chesspub site itself by GM Ward.

Did you read anything in the forum before posting? Glenn Snow mentioned 12...exf6 in this very thread 6 months ago. I'm sure it has been discussed in other threads here too, but I don't follow Dragon theory that closely.

At any rate, don't expect anyone here to be surprised by your big revelation...

[quote author=7D4D465C414B4A4B5C2E0 link=1284001550/26#26 date=1299096305][quote author=447C7D607D7D767F74130 link=1284001550/17#17 date=1289194428] I've also wondered about Korchnoi's suggestion that after 10.Kb1 Nxd4 11.e5 Nxf3 12.gxf3 Nh5 13.Nxd5 e6 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.exf6 Qxd2 16.Rxd2 b6 17.Bh6 Bb7 18.Bxf8 Kxf8 19.Be2 Nxf6 20.Rhd1 Ke7.  Korchnoi suggested that Black had compensation for the exchange while Dearing thought it wasn't an endgame he'd want to play as Black (if memory serves correctly).[/quote]

Dearing gives 13.-Be6 as the main line, but also mentions Korchnoi's line starting with 13.-e6. But can't Black better avoid the loss of the exchange by 13.-e6 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.exf6 Qxd2 16.Rxd2 16.-a6 instead of 16.-b6?
[/quote]

That's a very good question.  White has some tries that attempt to keep Black from finishing his development but so far I don't see anything too clear.  It looks a easier to play for White but this should be looked into further.

Interesting idea, Nc6 is unmentioned in all my books.
However instead of 14 Bc4 , white has 14 Bb5 playing to get the better endgame by exchanging at c6 at the right moment and the idea of Bc5 can be problematic in some lines.

Greetings,

[quote author=370F0E130E0E050C07600 link=1284001550/17#17 date=1289194428][quote author=74585041545B5A5C415A46350 link=1284001550/16#16 date=1289170824]I was talking about 12...exf6 and 10...Rb8 11.h4 variation [/quote]

As far as the 12...exf6 variation goes I've just been following the threads here on the forum which is still fairly unclear but looking like it's favoring White.  

[b]10.Kb1 Rb8 11.h4 e5[/b] (I've also looked at 11...Re8; 11...dxe4: 11...Nxd4; 11...e6; and 11...h5) [b]12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.exd5 cxd5[/b] (13...Nxd5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Qxd5 Qxd5, transposes to 13...cxd5; 13...Qa5 14.dxc6 Be6 15.b3 Rfd8 16.Bd3 with the idea of Ne4 and if 16...Qc7 then 17.h5 seems strong for White.) [b]14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Qxd5 16.Rxd5 e4 17.Rb5[/b], is my main line which favors White after [b]17...Bd7 18.Rb3 or 18.Rxb8.[/b]

I'd love to be proven wrong on any of this.  I've also wondered about Korchnoi's suggestion that after 10.Kb1 Nxd4 11.e5 Nxf3 12.gxf3 Nh5 13.Nxd5 e6 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.exf6 Qxd2 16.Rxd2 b6 17.Bh6 Bb7 18.Bxf8 Kxf8 19.Be2 Nxf6 20.Rhd1 Ke7.  Korchnoi suggested that Black had compensation for the exchange while Dearing thought it wasn't an endgame he'd want to play as Black (if memory serves correctly).[/quote]
Was there a "bust" of the 10.Kb1 Nxd4 line given in Sapi/Schneider's book, where they gave Moro-Rigo, Milan 1982 as a example?

Also the 11.h4 de line of Kopel-Sapi, Budapest 1983?

I grant you that these are old examples and there may well have been improvements for both sides since then...

Kindest regards,

James

Glenn Snow wrote on 11/09/10 at 18:21:59:


Yeah. You got that right. I added one more move. I am not sure if you have to play 17...a6 necessarily. It looks to me that if black can build up a blockade position, he will be fine. Unfortunately, I can't trust just suggestions, even from GMs. Deep analysis is required. I still remember since I was a kid that you had to be cautions with books. Any GM or good coach recommended. I play correspondence as well, and I know that through analysis I discovered bad ideas suggested in books by some GMs. The feeling that I have nowadays is that without deep analysis you can't evaluate a position.