I admit that I did think your repertoire was based on Khalifman or at least, umm, was highly cognizant of him.  That isn't true?  But I certainly didn't mean to give offense, and I don't really think it's very fair to characterize my posts as B.S.  I don't deliberately say untruths here.  

Apparently though, you're one step ahead of Khalifman, so I salute you.

But on one point, aren't you contradicting yourself?  Before, you said that 3.d4 "allows Black to equalize regardless of what path White chooses on move 5."  Now you say, "this line still favors White."  What am I missing?  Wasn't 3.d4 your repertoire move when we were conversing before?  I had the impression that it was.

You may be right about the merits of the case (though I don't concede that), but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the latest version of Chess Truth that it replaces a slightly older version of Chess Truth that turns out not to be true.  It has a funny smell, you know?  "Theory has moved on," indeed, but how trustworthy can this theory be?  Does it reflect Chess Truth or merely White's latest hopes?

"Less talk, more analysis" is a bit unfair, don't you think, since neither of our posts is exactly brimming with analysis?  

But as to the actual chess, what about 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. 0-0 d6 7. a3 Be6, a question I asked before?

Also, what about 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. 0-0 Nge2 7.a3 0-0 8.b4 e4, or 8...d5, which are lines considered by Palliser (p. 26)?   Do you have his work?  I'd be very interested to know where he's mistaken in this line.  I could quote his analysis here if you don't have him.  It must be that P. is wrong about something, since the Great K. now says this is White's One True Path. 

I'm not making fun of you, just of Khalifman's project, which strikes me as both sysiphean and ridiculous.  My idea of Hell on Earth would be continually reworking the same five or six volumes of dense chess theory in an attempt to prove +=, especially after 1.Nf3.  God, I can't imagine the nightmares I would have while trying to do that -- if I took it seriously, anyway.

BPaulsen, 

Pardon me, but weren't you here just about 12-18 months ago, arguing for 3.d4 "+=" and telling me that after 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black wasn't O.K.?  Further, am I mistaken, but wasn't 3.d4 the basis of the vaunted Khalifman repertoire?  It certainly was in the 2001 edition, Volume 3,  which I have right here in front of me (page 81).

Now it would seem that 3.Nc3 is the magic path to White's advantage?!  Tut, has Khalifman changed his tune, or is he no longer the Font of All Chess Wisdom?  How malleable this version of Chess Truth turns out to be.

I don't know what you mean by "a good Botvinnik."  It's a Botvinnik with one tempo less, right?  You really think White's tempo is worth so much in a position with 16 pawns?  I would be happy to see your variations, if you'd care to share them. Oh wait, I see that you have given something specific; I'll come back later with my thoughts about it.  In advance I will say that my own experience has been that the less open the position, the less an advantage in time is worth.

Truly dear chessfriend, I have the greatest respect for your opinions and your talent in this game, and I value all your contributions here quite highly.  Moreover, I fully agree that after 3...e5 it's still a game of chess and that White, having made no mistakes, must still be White.  But I just recoil from the idea that anyone has Timeless Chess Truth in a set of notes right in front of him, still less in a repertoire book.  And, though not wishing to nauseate you, I think Black's O.K. after 3...e5.  Not only that, but that he has a good basis for outplaying his opponent and taking the whole point.

Somewhat offtopic but still relatedly, my view is that 1.d4! for all its faults, is a better basis for White's potential win than 1.Nf3 c5!, unless perhaps White is a Sicilian-killer and proceeds with 2.e4.

P.S. Just a question, but what about 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e5 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. 0-0 d6 7. a3 Be6?

Anyone wishing to play 1.Nf3 c5, or fight against it, would do well to consult Palliser's excellent Beating Unusual Chess Openings (quite useful review here: http://www.chessville.com/reviews/BeatingUnusualChessOpenings.htm).  It's becoming a bit out of date I suppose, but that's what data bases are for.  BPaulsen and I probably differ, but I regard 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 as good for Black.  3.d4 is the main challenge, I opine.

I don't think it makes much sense, though, to say that White should necessarily avoid the 3...e5 line just because he chose to prevent 1...e5 with his first move.  It's a different kettle of fish altogether.  White is still White after 3...e5.  For that matter, he is still White after 1.c4 e5.

I think it's nice to have the same defense to 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, but you must have the Sicilian in your repertoire.

Well, after 3...e5 Black can play a good version of botvinnik formation, maybe he's a bit late in development, but the statistics show that black's winning percentage is better than white's, and I think that is connected with the fact that Black has more space.

I'm sticking with 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.d4 following a line with Nc2, careless of the new edition.
What's the point of playing 1.Nf3 instead of 1.c4 if you allow your opponent to play e5?

12. e4 (instead of Daly's 12. g4), given by ECO as leading to a clear advantage for White, looks rather dangerous for Black.

TicklyTim wrote on 12/17/10 at 13:01:53:


Waste of time. White has better things to do the majority of the time. It can come later when it's actually necessary.