Anonymous3 wrote on 10/08/10 at 02:21:54:
Quote:any lines we suggest against Cult-like variations (gambits), etc, we would steer away from any accepted variations.
Some lines like 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4, etc would fall quite in line with Petroff themes
Or 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3, where I reckon 3...Bb4+ would be the "Petroff" answer (or again 3...Bc5!?).
The modern variation is actually slightly better for White as well in the KG.
Even though accepting gambits doesn't fit in with the Petroff I think you should recommend them because they are generally the strongest lines to go for. Accepting the gambits usually leads to a Black advantage but declining allows White equality. I don't think you should recommend a weaker move just because it fits in better with the rest of the repertoire.
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 would only fit with the Petroff if after 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3, you recommend 5...Be7 instead of 5...Nc6 which leads to huge complications.
I agree with MNb that 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3 Bc5?! 4 c3! dxc3 5 Nxc3 is an improved version of the Goring Gambit and is slightly better for White.
I don't see how the Modern variation in the King's Gambit is slightly better for White. I would be very interested to see your analysis.
Just want to clarify something; this is not a 1. e4 repertoire book. It is a Petroff book. Any "Anti-Petroff" material will not be of equal depth to the rest of the material. That said, we do not want to diminish the quality of the book, by slapping random analysis into an extra section.
For us to recommend an accepted variation of the gambit, and not go into adequate depth to such, would be an injustice to a reader. And the positions that arise from the accepted KG, etc, are very complicated and standard plans are not easy to explain briefly. More so, it's the wrong approach for us, as authors, to tell a player to just turn on a computer (Rybka) and analyze a [very complicated] position in more depth themselves, reads its evaluation and assume that the evaluation is correct (because we're going to suggest a very complicated line and only touch on its basics).
I'm going to give an [famous] example of a random instance of drawback's of computer analysis. (I realize this is from a totally different opening).
[Event "World Championship"]
[Site "Brissago"]
[Date "2004.10.07"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Leko, Peter"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "2004.09.25"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "14"]
[EventCountry "SUI"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.11.11"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3
d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15.
Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6
22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3 26. Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+
28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4 0-1
If you go to the position after 24. Qxe2, before 24...Bxe2, then start Rybka, it will take several minutes before the evaluation shifts from advantage White to advantage Black. In a well-known post-mortem interview, Kramnik stated that he had trusted engine analysis too much in that position, and lost due to faulty preparation.
The King's Gambit accepted positions are far more complicated than that position, and often the result Rybka, etc, gives immediately, will not be accurate.
I was just throwing out the 3...Bb4/Bc5; not lines we are selecting per say. I'm kind of intrigued that you would feel that variation of the Goring Gambit is slight edge for White, but that the Modern Variation of the King's Gambit is simply equals in all variations.
I also wanted to share a statement from author John Cox in his book,
Dealing with d4 Deviations. In his Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Chapter, he wrote,
"The BDG is one of those things you have to be practical about. There's no doubt it is objectively weak, and that 4...exf3 is the best move. However, for some reason the BDG attracts the most fanatical followers of any opening, bar none. If you've ever felt that wounded tigresses can be a little overprotective of their cubs, hop over to one of the numerous BDG websites and venture the view that you've always wondered whether perhaps the gambit is unsound and that maybe the Catalan is a better bet for long-term pressure.
You aren't going to face it more than once or twice in a chess lifetime, you are – unlike your opponent – hardly likely to have more than a dim recollection of the theory, and sod's law dictates that this happy event will probably occur in the third Saturday game of a weekender, when few of us are at our sharpest tactically. In these circumstances, if you run into some knife-wielding maniac with a glint in his eye and a yard of BDG workbooks on his shelf at home, then by all means take his pawn, but don't blame me if one slip sees you getting torched" (John Cox).That same mentality can be said for gambits like the King's Gambit.
In regards to your comment about the Modern Variation, it's actually not so easy to get equality in several lines.
If you look at the following recent game:
[Event "4th Kings Tournament"]
[Site "Medias ROU"]
[Date "2010.06.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Wang Yue"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C36"]
[WhiteElo "2813"]
[BlackElo "2752"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "2010.06.14"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 exf4 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6. O-O Be7 7. Bxd5 Qxd5
8. Nc3 Qd8 9. d4 O-O 10. Bxf4 Bf5 11. Qe2 Bd6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Nb5 Qd8 14. c4
a6 15. Nc3 Nd7 16. Rad1 Bg6 17. Qf2 Re8 18. h3 Rc8 19. Rfe1 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1 c6
21. d5 Nf6 22. Qd4 cxd5 23. Nxd5 Nxd5 24. cxd5 Qd6 25. Ne5 Re8 26. Re3 Rd8 27.
Nc4 Qf6 28. Re5 h6 29. d6 Bf5 30. Nb6 Be6 31. d7 Kh8 32. a4 g6 33. Qc3 Kg7 34.
a5 h5 35. h4 Rxd7 36. Nxd7 Bxd7 37. Qd4 Bc6 38. b4 Bb5 39. Kh2 Ba4 40. Rd5 Bc6
41. Qxf6+ Kxf6 42. Rc5 Ke6 43. Kg3 f6 44. Kf2 Bd5 45. g3 g5 46. g4 hxg4 47. h5
Be4 48. Rc7 f5 49. h6 f4 50. h7 g3+ 51. Ke1 f3 52. h8=Q f2+ 53. Ke2 Bd3+ 54.
Ke3 1-0
After Black played 9...0-0, White had a slight advantage due to the extra space and development lead. Of course, Black has the two bishops, but the position is certainly easier to play for White. No one can say and justify that that position is just completely equals.
Now, if someone with a computer says 9...g5 is possible and gives Black an edge of -0.5 or something; the fact is that move would simply result in positions similar to mainline accepted variations except White has even more open lines than usual to attack with.
Sure, there's a lot of ways for Black to deviate earlier, but none of the resulting positions are all that simple.
Moreover, White can even play something like 5. c4 and "force" Black to play an IQP (Isolated Queen's Pawn) position. Is that position advantageous for White? No. But White is at least equals and the IQP is one of the most highly complicated pawn structures in chess.
Does this mean, if we do a brief "Anti-Petroff" section we won't at all consider suggesting the Modern Variation? Of course not; it's a legitimate line and a legitimate possibility. All I'm saying is there is a lot to consider for us before we would choose any line for such complicated openings --- and something that looks equalish at first may not necessarily be completely equals.