TalJechin wrote on 10/11/10 at 00:26:02:
"No ; Yes transposition chapter" could be another alternative.
Anyway, the reason I suggested it was that I was reading Palliser's book on the Czech Benoni, and got both confused and irritated at all the transposition notes within the commentary (otherwise, it's a good effort though!).
But what's the point of mentioning that a3 0-0, 0-0 Ne8, b4 transposes to 0-0 0-0, a3 Ne8, b4 and so on, and on. If "it just transposes" why mention it?
The important thing is if different move orders offer different alternatives on the way to the transpo or creates more choices or obstacles for the opponent, for example if one move order makes it important for the other part to suddenly play the standard moves in a certain order. Palliser has a good example of this, where Kh8 Rad1! Nf6 suddenly ran into Nxe5! dxe5 and d6.
Besides, knowledge and evaluation of transpo tricks are something where titled players are definitely better than an engine - so why hide that stuff in between all the "X is better than Y but not as strong as Z" variations? So, to my mind the only question is if transpos should be dealt with a chapter of their own or in a pre-chapter to every major variation, the 2nd option may be easier to do.
Quote:If you review it on your blog (what is your blog?), and find any errors, please feel free to let me know.
You can read it here:
http://borgchess.blogspot.com/2010/10/kg-newish-idea-in-modern-defence.htmlYou only missed one major thing, Bxe4! instead of Qxg6, and of course you should get a good corr-database for reference, it will save you a lot of work!
Anyway, thanks again for posting your analysis of 13.Qe1 - it was a long time since I last felt motivated to look at the KG, so it was nice to see that it's still more "unclear" than "easy equality"!
Yeah, I didn't refer to Corr for it (though I have Corr), mainly because it was KG material (and my intent was to show it was not as "dead" equals as others had insisted earlier in this forum thread) and not Petroff, and so I compiled it quickly, rather than thoroughly. Careless, and so noted for the future.
It's been a long time since I, myself, looked at the KG; it was something GM Har-Zvi and I looked at seriously a while back when I considered adding the KG to my repertoire.
On and in regards to your "fork" in the road of 13...Bd6. It's probably good to first consider the most thematic elements in the position.
Qg3 (as played in the Corr game you showed) seems the most principled. The reasoning is taking the bishop, although forcing cxd6, ends up leaving Black with two strong outposts on e5 and c5, and permanently locks the pawn on d5 limiting the scope of the b3 bishop.
While that position certainly seems playable, after 16...Nc8 that you recommend, 17. d6 (!?) should be the most principled move (because of the lack of development in Black's position and it increases the scope of White's bishop). If Qxd6 or cxd6, White can play Bxf7 and regain the pawn with the initiative, so the only critical response is 17...Nxd6. Upon which White should probably play 18. Nd5 Nc6 19. Rh3, it's really unclear how Black can survive this type of position. There should be some sacrifice at some point. Black has no way to contest the squares beyond the 6th rank. That should be better for White, though it'd take some time to investigate Black's choices and White's responses.
The reason I say that is because something like 19...Qd7 runs into mate after Nf6, and something like 19...h6 runs into problems after Rxh6, so maybe Black can survive with something like 19...Na5 20. Bc2 f5, but that position definitely favors White, and Black should be worse practically if not objectively.
Also, in regards to your comment about 15. Qxg4 (!?), it's not so relevant because of the fact that Black could have played Bxf3 first (before Bxf4) whereby it would transpose to the Corr game continuation.
Thanks for the feedback.