Position after 13.Re1,c6.

White can evade complications with Kd7/Rae8 in two ways:

14.h4  (Bernasek game, thx MNB)

14.Bf1 (at once),Kd7 (setting up the threat Re8 again)
15.Qf3 (here 15.h4 might be good again).
and now
15....Rae8 runs into 16.Qxf7+ +- (Lelenko - Findiur, 1995)
15....f5 (to preserve f7) 16.d3 +/- attacking the queen
(Schroeder-van den Bergh, 2009)
and white following up with Nc3 will be in time to join rooks.

I fully understand the point you guys are making. Pinski mentions 13.Re1, and it looks as if black is busted. That's what I thought at first, but now I'm not so sure. What about 13. ... c6 14.Bc4 (or some other square) 14. ... Kd7, threatening Re8? I suppose white will then need to remove his Queen after which Re8 will probably follow anyway. Swapping rooks then introduces the threat Re1+, so white will need to go back to f1 with the rook after which black has won three tempi and seems to be doing very well - or did I miss something maybe?
c6 blocks out the Bb7 but that may be only temporary since a later ... c5 may come.

NeverGiveUp wrote on 05/19/11 at 13:07:08:

Well sorry for the of topic.
In your line 13.Re1 is much stronger.

Kritz(in chessbase141 ) affirm black is busted after 8.cd4 and give 2 games Winants - Ferguson and  Merleshko - Terletsky

I wonder guys - a lot of discussions have taken place here on my original question - going back to the main theme, I wonder if the Fritz is really busted?

after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed5: Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nd5: 8.cd4: Qg5: 9.Bb5:+ Kd8 10.0-0 Bb7 11.Qf3 can't black go 11. ... e4!?, e.g. 12.Qe4: Bd6 13.d3 Bh2:+! 14.Kh2: Nf4 and black wins.

Conquistador wrote on 03/08/11 at 22:20:38:


After 6.Bb3 Qe8 7.d3 d6 8.Be3 I prefer Qg6 In similar position,Pinski in his book (two knights) and stefan Bucker(Over the horizon 2007) don't exchange on e3. The reason is simple Achille's heel (case f2 and f3) disappear.
8...Qg6 9.Nf3 bg4 10.Bc5 dc5 11.Nbd2 Raf8 12.0-0 Nd4 and here i'ven't found a theorical problem for black yet.
i 've tried 13.Kh1 and 13.Ne5 but maybe i'ven't tried too hard 

micawber wrote on 04/10/11 at 07:17:13:

Right you are. I was falling asleep and missed a little bit.

@Craigevans

After 
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.cxd4 Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8 10.O-O (Agreed - stronger than 10.Qf3 - the Ra8 sac is a powerful idea indeed!) exd4 11.Bc6 Rb8 12.d3 Qf5 13.Nd2! Rb6 14.Qa4! Nb4 (Black's last chance as the alternatives look unpalatable) 15.Be4 Qb5 16.Qxb5 Rxb5 17.a3! Na6 18.Nf3.

Your line 
18...c5! 19.Ng5,Be6 20.Nxe6,fxe6 looks defensible for Black.



But White can still make blacks life a bit difficult perhaps with 
21.b4!?

The point being that Black cant very well take on b4
since after 21...xb4 22.xb4,Nxb4 23.Rxa7 looks disasterous.

21.....Bd6
22.Bd2 +/=
Still not the end of the world for Black, but at least white has solved the problem of his backward b-pawn and is better imo.

This deserves attention. Of course it's not enough yet to revive the Berliner, but I don't think this has been widely known.

8.Ne4 (8.cxd4) Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Bxb5+ Kd8 13.0-0 exf3 14.Qb3

g2-g4 wrote on 04/09/11 at 21:14:46:

MNb wrote on 02/23/11 at 20:45:56:


I am still a little unsure if white wins a safe pawn in that line.

To bring everyone up to date on what I'm looking at (since expecting you to read my mind or research everything is not fair), I am currently examining the line:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.cxd4 Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8 10.O-O (Agreed - stronger than 10.Qf3 - the Ra8 sac is a powerful idea indeed!) exd4 11.Bc6 Rb8 12.d3 Qf5 13.Nd2! Rb6 14.Qa4! Nb4 (Black's last chance as the alternatives look unpalateable) 15.Be4 Qb5 16.Qxb5 Rxb5 17.a3! Na6 18.Nf3. 

Why can black not play the simple 18...c5 here? 19.Ng5 looks like the standard follow-up, but 19...Be6 20.Nxe6+ fxe6 doesn't look like the end of the world for black. I'd suggest white is probably a little better, but material is equal and a manoeuvre like Nc7-e8-f6 should yield a fairly solid and defensible position, even against the two bishops.

Am I missing something hideously obvious here that crushes black earlier? Or did you just evaluate this position as hopeless I wonder? Maybe white instead plays 19.b4? But then 19..f6 and it's still a game - again maybe white has a pull but having spent years defending far worse positions, I don't think it's hopeless yet...

Conquistador wrote on 03/08/11 at 22:20:38:


Has there been any further discussion of 6...Qf8!? since my last post several weeks ago?

Conquistador wrote on 03/08/11 at 22:20:38:


I just noticed this.  Thanks very much for these ideas.  I'll look at them and let you know what I think.  It'd be much fun if the Traxler actually were playable.

Fllg wrote on 02/26/11 at 18:03:34:


Gustafsson has now annotated this game:
Bulski - Gustafsson
http://www.jan-gustafsson.de/partieanalysen/partieanalyse/match/43/

MNb wrote on 03/06/11 at 21:35:35:

sloughter wrote on 03/07/11 at 02:31:50:

We are not at the end of the game. If you around move 15 were capable of calculating everything until the end of the game you would be WCh. So your argument is flawed.

MNb wrote on 03/06/11 at 21:35:35:


That is a practical evaluation. It is either a win, loss or draw theoretically. There is nothing in between. If it is +/= it is a win. If it is equal it is a draw. To be an advantage it must be convertible with best play by both sides always to a win. We don't have a theoretical category called "almost winning" at the end of the game.

[quote author=7F75757E390 link=1297695057/86#86 date=1299427170]In this line the position after 15.Qe3 looks quite disorganized for White an instead of taking on g2 Black may do better to keep the initiative with 15... f5 intending to push forward against the poor king on e1. Black has at least decent compensation if not more.

To play moves like 12.a3 and 13. b4 while underdeveloped is surely asking for punishment 




As for 13.b4; here is how I intend to meet f5

13.b4 Nb7 14.O-O f5 15.Bc4! e4 16.Qe2 Bf6 17.Rb1 Qd7 18.Bb2 Nd6 19.Bb3 f4 20.Nxd5 Bxd5 21.f3 = to +/=

MNb wrote on 03/05/11 at 15:57:08:


Here is a way for White to seize the initiative:

8.Qf3 Be7
9.Be2 O-O
10.Nc3 Nd5
11.Nh3 Rb8
12.a3 Be6
13.b4 Nb7
14.Nxd5 Bxd5
15.Qe3 Bxg2
16.Rg1 Bd5
17.Bb2 Bf6
18.O-O-O Re8
19.c4 with a complicated game but I'd prefer to play White

@NMb, Slaughter 

After 9...Rb8 ..... 12.a3
In an OTB-game I would probably go for NMb's 12....Be6 with the intention to follow up with c5 and contain any White activity on the Q-side, before resuming any operations on the K-side.

This would also be my first line of investigation in a corr.game, but in that case I would probably research the tactical motives after 12...Bb7 (the Q on f3 is not invulnerable.

My point is not that Black has some hidden forced way to recapture material, but that the position is sufficient unclear, because White probably has to do some concessions to free himself. In other words that Black has a playable position after 12...Be6 and perhaps can use the a3-tempo and allow himself 12...Bb7 but that line requires concrete research.

MNb wrote on 03/05/11 at 12:02:53:

 
My point is that 12.a3 keeps a Rook out of h4. How can it be good to allow the Queen Rook to participate in the attack? White missed a forced move (unless there is some better way to keep the Rook out of h4). 

To suggest that a poorly played postal game should be used is no better than undo reliance on Fritz 12.

sloughter wrote on 03/05/11 at 04:51:22:


As for 11...Rb8 what is wrong with the obvious 12.a3?

Markovich wrote on 03/04/11 at 17:53:03:

There aren't that many Dutch GM's called Van der Whatses. Moreover Micawber already mentioned his name in the last line of his last post, just above yours. 
Van der Wiel. You may pronounce it Vanderwheel. Writes for NIC, wrote an excellent book on the Sveshnikov, was one of the first practicioners of that one and likes to dabble in some non-Spanish Open Games.
Beat Gligoric back in 1980 with 8.Qf3.

Sloughter
Apparently it is not enough that Arkhein beat the crap out of you 4 or five times with Be7 two years back.
Before you overload us with Fritxxx variations, you should do a little research and look at what is really going on in the position. And what reasonably strong players think about it.

For your benefit i will give you two gamecontinuations by 2200+ rated players in this line for you to think about. And no, i am not going to argue with Fritzxxxxxxx by proxy.

8.Qf3,Be7 9.Be2 0-0 10.Nc3,Nd5 11.Nh3
[1] 11....Rb8 12.0-0,Rb4 13.a3, Rh4 (Sidenko-Markus, corr.,2008)
[2] 11....Nb4 12.Bd1,Rb8 13.a3,Nd5 14.0-0,Be6 Miettinen-Sidenko, corr., 2008)
Black actually won the first game and drew the second.
In both cases unclear positions resulted, but anyway Black was by no means as cooperative as you constantly assume he will be.

8...h6 and 8...Rb8 are indeed under a bit of a cloud.
Short played a very interesting game against Hebden in the 8...h6 variation proving at least some advantage.
If I remember correctly Short remarked that he has analysed 8.Qf3 with either Karjakin or Radjobov in some depth in the months prior to that game.
Both the strong correspondence player Muir and especially van der Wiel have shown that 8...Rb8 is no longer very reliable.

trw wrote on 03/04/11 at 08:29:49:


I think Short wrote a very positive remark on Qf3 some years ago in NiC mag. I don't think he was fully serious though.

Do any strong players actually think white has a clear advantage after 8. Qf3? I have never seen this advocated anywhere else... most of my 2N books remark is unclear or plus for black thus stating why white should prefer different lines like Be2 Bd3 stuff.

I wouldn't recommend placing too much trust in Fritz's evaluations in such a gambit line.  Quite often in unbalanced positions Fritz assesses the position as being strongly in favour of one side, only for the assessment to drop towards equal when you push it into the recommended lines.

Against 8.Qf3 you also have 8...Rb8 and 8...Be7.

Fromper wrote on 03/02/11 at 18:44:00:


On page one I gave a game where I got an advantage against Fritz12; whether Black can improve is unclear. Well into the middlegame, White still has his pawn and Fritz 12 couldn't demonstrate any initiative for the pawn. White appears to have a slight plus against 8.Qf3 h6.

TN wrote on 02/27/11 at 13:21:36:


8.Qf3 or 8.Be2 are possible ways. As far as 8.Qf3 cxb5, look at earlier posts where I was able to document advantage White. It takes time and exhaustive analysis to prove each branch is favorable to White. The 6.Bb5ch Bd7 line, for instance, is very difficult to analyze to a clear plus just because Black has no pawn weaknesses after c6 & can restrain any ability of White to create a passed pawn for a long time. To "prove" a win would take dozens of additional precise moves.

Other lines of the TKD will be covered on other posts.

TN wrote on 02/27/11 at 13:21:36:


There is 'theoretical' refutation and there is practical refutation. A theoretical refutation is one where any advantage, no matter how small, with best play can be converted into a win even if it takes a 1000 moves of best play by both sides. A refutation by a Class D player may be finding checkmate in one move. All other practical wins lie in the middle.

A good illustration of a refutation of a Queen and pawn versus Queen ending is when I think it was IM Jerermy Silman (?) was a pawn up in a Queen and pawn versus Queen ending. The computer claimed that he had a checkmate in 83 moves. Silman made a move and the computer promptly claimed checkmate in 87 moves. Thus a theoretical win for a computer in a Queen and pawn ending is always favorable to a computer over a human and what constitutes a refutation depends entirely on whether you are referring to a computer refutation or a human refutation.

When you hear the phrase that White is on the better side of the draw, this has no meaning in a theoretical sense, but does so in a practical sense.

I think in the future that it will be generally regarded that White has a slight theoretical plus in the TKD (The first move advantage) but that the wins will take over 100 moves to prove in many examples. For example to prove a win in the line 5...Na5 6.Bb5ch Bd7, the line that it will take an extremely long time to win, White will win the heavy piece ending (the minors will oppose one another and they will eventually all be chopped off), but then White has to try to demonstrate in a heavy piece ending that the extra pawn matters.

The winnning procedure will consist of pushing the Queenside pawns slowly, rearranging the majors, eventually creating a passed pawn and then create a target on the Kingside. Then using threats on both sides of the board White will be able maybe 60-80 moves ahead to Queen a pawn.

The extra pawn is a theoretical win in this opening but an incredibly difficult win for a human player in the heavy piece ending but a simple practical win for a World Class computer.

sloughter wrote on 02/27/11 at 10:00:03:


I've always played 8...Nd4!? there; e.g.

[Event "corr ICCF thematic"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[White "Haas, B."]
[Black "Tait, J."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C57"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Qf8 7. O-O d6 8. Nc3 Nd4 9. h3 c6 10. d3 Nd7 11. Ne2 Nxb3 12. axb3 Qf6 13. Nf3 Kf7 14. c3 Rf8 15. d4 Bb6 16. dxe5 dxe5 17. Ng3 Kg8 18. Nf5 Nc5 19. Bg5 Qe6 20. Be7 Nxe4 21. Bxf8 Qxf5 22. Bb4 Be6 23. Qc2 Qf4 24. Ba5 Bxh3 25. Ne1 Nd2 26. Bxb6 Bxg2 27. Ra4 e4 28. Bc7 Qg4 29. Qxd2 Bf3+ 1/2-1/2

A strange but interesting game.

Jan Gustafsson has played 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 with Black today in the German Bundesliga and won the game. 

Perhaps in the training session with Svidler last week (see his blog) he has been convinced about Blacks chances, since on his DVD he had expressed some doubts if Black gets enough compensation.

Or he simply wanted to avoid the opponents preparation.

walkingterrapin wrote on 02/25/11 at 18:58:17:

Conversely I was under the impression that 4.Ng5! was doing pretty well at high levels- see the serious problems Black faces in the line 4...d5 5.exd5 Nd4.

sloughter wrote on 02/19/11 at 12:50:55:


do you have some analysis for that?

(since my score as Black in all forms of chess is P10 W8, D2, L0)

You basically just win after 4. Ng5.  That line is awful for white.  they should try the max lange or transpose to the scotch gambit.

MNb wrote on 02/23/11 at 09:54:17:


Here 17.a3 may improve Whites chances since 17... Nc2? 18.Ra2 traps the knight, so black seems forced to play 17... Na6 when both 18.Nc4 or 18.Nf3 look promising for White.

micawber wrote on 02/23/11 at 06:59:20:

14...Nb4 15.Be4 Qb5 16.Qxb5 Rxb5 17.Nf3 Nc2 18.Rb1 Bd6 and again: how big is White's advantage?
I don't like 14...Qe6 15.Ba8! Nb4 (what else?) 16.Nc4.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6. c3 b5 7. Bf1 Nxd5 8. cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O,Rb8
11.Bc6,exd4 12.d3,

12....Qf5!?

13.Nd2        seems more logical to me than Re1
[13].........Rb6
a)13....Nf4 14.Nf3! +/- and the pawn on d3 is invulnerable
b)13....Bd6 14.Nc4 +/-
Are both much more pleasant for White
[14]Qa4, Ra6?!
a) 14....Bd6 15.Nc4 +/-
b) 14....Qe6 deserves attention
Although after 15.Bb5,Nf4 16.Ne4 I havent found an equalizer for Black
15.Qc4![b] And imo White is clearly better.
[b]Szava-Canizares Cuadra, corr., 2010

Thank you papageno for the intersting idea of 16..g5!?, according to chesslive, this idea is really untested, there is something like one game only with a draw in the same line you gave. For this reason, White may consider 16.f4!? instead of 16.Be2. A normal sequence is 16.f4 Nh4 17.Be2 Nf5 18.Nc3 Nxd4 19.Rd1 c5 20.Be3 Ke8 21.Bxd4 cxd4 22.Nb5 etc with probably enough counterplay for Black.

But even after 16.Be2 g5!? (or also 16..Nh4!? where White may transpose into the previous note with 17.f4, or play something else like 17.Rd1), it seems to be a few interesting way for White to play, for example 17.Nc3 Nf4 18.Bg4!? with control on h3. So it seems that objectively in this important line, 15..Be7 may be better than 15..Nh4. There is also 15..f6 but Iam not sure it's better than 15..Be7 or 15..Nh4. Oh and despite of my rather pessimistic views about the Fritz-Ulvestad, I like it very much and I agree in practice, there is many pitfalls for White to avoid. But if they do, they should have the easier game. Despite of that, I could use it as Black OTB, and who knows, on corr game as well.

I'm not yet entirely convinced that Black is busted in this line after 12.dxe5, say:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6. c3 b5 7. Bf1 Nxd5 8. cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O (or 10. Qf3 Bb7 11. O-O Rb8) Bb7 11. Qf3 Rb8 12. dxe5 Ne3 13. Qh3 Qxg2+ 14. Qxg2 Nxg2 15. d4 Be7 16. Be2 g5 17. f3 Nf4 18.  Bxf4 gxf4 19. Kh1 f6 20. Nc3 fxe5

White can play for something in the endgame but the white advantage (if there is much of it) doesn't seem to me to be decisive.

Yes micawber, I remember perfectly, because I couldn't find anything for White. Maybe 11.Bc6 Nf4 12.g3 is equal, but of course White has to play 10.0-0 instead of 10.Qf3 as pointed in my previous posts.

Actually the move-order given in the ginsburg article is inaccurate:
What follows below was posted all posted on this forum two or three years back.

10.Qf3,exd4! (iso 10...Bb7)
And now two lines:

Line I.
11.Bc6,Nf4!
12.Bxa8,Bg4! -/+

Line II
11.0-0, Rb8! unclear

===================================
[b]The correct move order is:
10.0-0!

And now again two lines:
line A
10.        Bb7
11.Qf3!   +/- And we are back in the line from Matemax
and the Ginsburg article.

line B
10.    Rb8
11.Bc6   exd4
12.d3!    Nf4
13.Na3   Rb6
Following Pirrot-Daeubler, Bad Woerishofen, 2008
And now 14.Qf3! +/- (rather than Pirrots 14.Qa4?!)

For Matemax: http://nezhmet.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/the-fabulous-00s-death-of-the-main-line-...

NeverGiveUp, what changed since 100 years? Maybe strong computers has come no? You are optimist about Black after 8.cxd4 but you don't give any line for Black to continue. What would you play after 8..Qxg5 9.Fxb5 Kd8 10.0-0?