Some of this is repetitive, probably:

"#1: I´d give 5. ...Bg4 a ?!, because the later trade of the light bishops favours white - FALSE or TRUE?!"

It isn't ?!, but it isn't ideal either.  ...Bg4 is probably premature here, as it doesn't really interfere with White's development (especially since White isn't yet committed to Bf1-e2).  The later trade of light square bishops favors White only if White knows how to follow it up!


"#2: After 10.f3, white plays a maroczy-structure, without the light bishop this structure is even better?! - F o T?"

It's only a Maroczy structure if Black plays ...c7-c5 and ...c5xd4.  10. f3 is premature because the e4 pawn is solidly defended and Black is not threatening any tricks with ...Nxe4, because the d2 square is open.  You can always answer ...f7-f5 with f2-f3.  Instead, 10. d5, possibly (but 0-0 first probably doesn't hurt, since Black has not yet blocked the center with ...e7-e5).

"#3: 12.Rb1 - After 25 minutes of thought, I finally played this move. An engine doesn´t help in this position, what would you play and why?"

I would play 12. d5, with the idea of exploiting the bad bishop on g7.  The rook probably belongs on c1 (it is destined for c7), but until the c-file opens, it's best to get on with things and leave it home.

"#4: 14.c5 - what would you play and why?"

14 d5 because you have to play this before c5.

"#5: After 15.Bf2 white has a strategical winning structure, do you agree?"

No.  White would have an advantage if his pawn were on d5, but Black can ruin everything by capturing in the center.

Thanks BP. Clearly the Bd3 stuff isn't in Khalifman, 'cos he doesn't discuss 6 h3 (0r 6 Bd3).

Re the other line, I see the confusion! Sorry, it's my fault. I see now that in mentioning 7 ...Nfd7 8 Rc1 you were referring to a position in which ...Nc6 hadn't been played. I however had been thinking of (in the KID move order) [b]6[/b] ...Nfd7 7 Be3 Nc6, which Khalifman might not discuss because he short-circuits this with 7 Bg5! as you mentioned before. In the somewhat zany -- but I think theoretically interesting! -- move order in which I reached the position (a KID via a Bogoljubow Defence via a Nimzowitsch Defence via 1 Nf3 Nc6!) White was already committed to Be3 -- hence the question became, could I, by playing 7 ...Nd7 in my game (see Reply #8 above) and meeting 8 d5 with the never-played(?) 8 ...Nce5!?, avoid the horrors of 7 ...0-0 8 d5! ? ...

Ah! I wondered why there seemed to be so many Foisors about! ...

Re 7 ...Nfd7, I just thought I'd better check we're talking about exactly the same position. (I was talking about that reached by 7 ...Nfd7 instead of 7 ...0-0 in my game quoted above.) I only mention it because there are no examples of 8 Rc1 in the ChessLive database. To me, 8 ...Bf3 9 Bf3 (I'm assuming 9 gf isn't so great here) e5 looks well playable (10 de de), but of course I stand to be corrected.

I'd be interested also to know if the Khalifman camp have any comment on the rare version with Bd3/h3 instead of Be2, reachable in the KID via say 6 h3 Nc6 7 d5 Nb8 8 Bd3 (but probably just as likely to be reached via other openings) ...

kylemeister wrote on 10/30/10 at 15:27:43:


Khalifman gives:

8...Nb8 9. 0-0 c6 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Bxf3 Nfd7 12. Qd2 a5 13. Rab1 Na6 14. Rfc1 Nac5 15. b3 a6 16. a3 +/-, Tukmakov-C. Foisor, Zaragoza 1993.

Thanks again, that's really helpful. (Haven't found the Petrosian game yet but I'm sure it's in one of the online databases.)

In the ...Nb8 stuff I was thinking that Black shouldn't play ...c5, but I can see why he might -- and why he might have to fear a White queenside advance in some cases -- after Rc1, an idea I'd overlooked/underestimated ...

Of course, a 1 ...Nc6!? player doesn't have to go there! In my game quoted above I think I should have played 6 ...e5, or even 4 ...e5!? as recommended a couple of years ago in another thread by [i]linksspringer[/i].

That's an interesting insight, BPaulsen -- thanks. But could you say a bit more? -- I'm a bit confused. I was under the impression that after both 8 d5 Nb8 and 8 d5 Bf3 9 Bf3 [but, I think 9 gf looks really dangerous!], Black had to fear a possible White central advance more than White playing on the queenside? -- I'm assuming Black will play ...c6 + ...a5 (and possibly ...cxd5). How big do you think White's advantage is in these positions, which appear to be quite controversial? (Stefan Buecker for instance in another thread suggested they're OK for Black.)

Anyone got any comments on my 7 ...Nfd7 (8 d5 Nce5) idea above?

Thanks kylemeister -- I should have mentioned 8 ...Bf3 9 Bf3 Ne5, and only didn't because I casually assumed this was good for White (foolishly, since it's an interesting line which may be Black's best?) so was interested in 'another' idea. Whatever the value of the ...Nb8 idea I think I prefer it after 8 ...Bf3 9 Bf3 -- on 8 ...Nb8 maybe 9 Nd4 is a good option for White? But I hadn't realised 9 gf was a serious possibility and would like to know more! As for 8 ...Bf3 9 Bf3 Na5, I assume this is inferior to the similar line with ...Na5 given in [i]NCO[/i] (525/3) because there Black's KB is unobstructed thus allowing ...Bxc3.

There aren't a lot of games with ...Bf3 and ...Nb8. Can White hope to slowly squeeze Black to death here or should Black be OK? I confess I find it hard to evaluate this (sort of) position. But in the Pirc version with the pawn on c2 Black seems to be OK ...

Meanwhile does my ...Nfd7/...Nc6/...Ne5 idea without castling have a future? The KID move order would be 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Be2 Nfd7 7 Be3 (7 Ng1 is given in [i]NCO[/i] at 523/1/n1 as a bit better for White but maybe this is not too frightening?) Nc6!?. I'm assuming that after 8 d5 Nce5 9 Ne5 Be2 10 Qe2 Ne5 the exchange of two minor pieces helps Black, and that 10 Nf7 Bd1 11 Nd8 Bg4 is nothing.

[quote]Just because something doesn't equalize doesn't make it dubious.[/quote]

A very good point I think. There’s not much sense in getting hung up on the idea that Black hasn’t ‘equalised’ an opening position if it appears that s/he ought to be able to do so over a reasonable span of following moves. The question I guess is how many moves, and what sort of necessary suffering/care, counts as ‘reasonable’. Obviously too one shouldn’t reject an opening line just because [i]NCO[/i] or whatever calls it ‘+/=’: so much depends on what this ‘advantage’ is like and whether it’s likely to be increased, or eliminated. I know Watson used to use terms like ‘lightly +/=’ to indicate (I suppose) the latter case.

Personally I’m rather attracted by these …Bg4 lines (which I reach with an early …Nc6) and I wonder how great White’s advantage is. They’re also great for discombobulating opponents! I possibly managed this on Wednesday, when (with a cold coming on) I was happy with a quick draw. After 1 Nf3 Nc6 2 e4 g6 3 d4 Bg7 4 c4 d6 5 Nc3 Bg4 6 Be3 I transposed to a KID with 6 …Nf6 and soon achieved my objective after 7 Be2 0-0 8 0-0?! Nd7 9 h3 (9 d5 =; 9 Ne1 =) Bf3 10 Bf3 e5 11 d5 Nd4.

There doesn’t seem to be much theory on these positions. I guess [u]8 d5![/u] must be the move, and I was going to play 8 …Nb8 then …a5, …Na6 etc. – but how big is White’s edge then I wonder? (The position is quite like a Classical Pirc line but with White’s c-pawn on c4 not c2.) I also remember thinking about [u]7 …Nd7!?[/u] 8 d5 [u]Nce5!?[/u] (obviously …Nb8 is possible too) but I couldn’t work out what happened in the complications after 9 Ne5 Be2. I suppose White can borrow an idea from TN and go 9 Qd2 instead but maybe Black’s QB will be OK on h5? -- put me right if I’m talking bull!