kylemeister wrote on 10/04/12 at 15:20:27:

After 10...Qa5 11.Qxa5 Nxa5 12.Bxc5, what is the idea? 12...Bxc4 13.Rfd1 Nc6 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Rxd4 Ba6 16.Bxe7 was 1-0, 41 in Esposito - Madeira de Ley, izt 1957, here 16.Rfd1! Rfe8 17.Rb4 +/- might be even stronger. 10...Nd4 11.Rad1 (11.Rac1 Khalifman) Bd7 12.Qa3 Nc2 13.Qxc5 b5 14.Qg5 h6 15.Qf4 Nxe3 16.fxe3 Qc7 "comp. Kasparov", says my (old) ECO, but 17.Qf4 looks good. When Black throws pawns at his opponent, why is this drawish?

kylemeister wrote on 10/04/12 at 14:39:38:

Symmetry - great! And if White plays 10.Qa4, the reply is Qa5?

TN wrote on 10/04/12 at 11:01:04:

13.Ne1 (or perhaps 13.Ne5 Nd7 14.Nd3) 13...Nd7 14.Nd3 intending a set-up like Qc1, Rd1. A flexible position where I slightly prefer White. - Readers might love a few hints about 8.dxc5, maybe a sample game illustrating the drawishness of this thing. Say, a 2200 drawing against a 2600. 

Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/04/12 at 09:36:39:


What if Black plays 12...Nd4, as in Goldbenberg-Cruz Gomez, Buenos Aires 1961?

In chess theory the only draws are in endgames with insufficient mating material, three fold repetition or by agreement. Everything else is not a draw.

"I am using the word drawn intentionally."
And incorrectly:)

"This isn't a complex position where "equal chances" is what I want to say."
So you could hold the black side against Kramnik? I keep asking, you keep not answering. I wonder why?

"...A player's abilities have nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position."
This must be the twilight zone or something!? So let me get this straight. You can make blanket statements about the precise evaluation of a position that many strong players have misevaluated and misplayed? But nobody can question your abilities? Boy, That's a heck of a sweet deal for you! I think your evaluation is not objective at all. You see a symmetrical position that the computer says is equal and then declare it drawn. You would have made a great arbiter back when they had to adjudicate games:)

"I can demonstrate, regardless of whichever line you choose in analysis, that black will draw"
You mean that with the help of a computer you can hold an equal position against a 2100 player. This is hardly front page stuff:)

"You've got this absurd idea that something is only drawn if an individual can prove it OTB. That's not how chess theory works."
You've got the even more absurd idea that you calling a position a draw on move 9 has any relation to chess or theory.

"We are discussing a very specific position. One which you have declined to actually analyze."
So now you know what I've done? Well, If you can call that position a draw you can probably read my mind too!

"I will back it up in analysis if someone actually wants to contribute something."
With analysis but not play. Hmm, I wonder why that is? You can show someone, who doesn't even know how to play chess, how to set up infinite analysis and then read the numbers.  And I'm not Nostradamus or anything but if you start from an equal position I would be willing to bet that the evaluation will be equal(I believe Steinitz had something to say about that). We could even teach that person to call the equal position a drawn position. Where would that get us?
"
"The difference between me and you is I'm here to discuss theory on a site dedicated to opening theory."
Your absolute statement that the position on move 9 with one pawn off each side is a draw is discussing theory? How much is everyman paying you to write that book? I might be interested in some of that action:)
Do you think you would be qualified to write an opening book if you couldn't use computer assistance? If not, What makes you think your qualified to dismiss the position as a draw on move 9. An evaluation that apparently only you have. Marin doesn't think so. Mikhalevski doesn't think so. The GMs that are going into this position don't seem to think so. Are they all wrong and you're right? What special powers do you have that they don't? The answer is simple.
To evaluate a position as drawn is to imply that you have the ability to draw it. Otherwise you're not qualified to make the evaluation. I'll repeat, Just because you can hold an equal position in analysis against yourself with the help of a computer does not mean that the position is a draw. Notice that I'm talking to you and not your computer. I'm sure that your computer does not call the position a draw. Hmm, I wonder why that is?

TNich wrote on 10/04/12 at 03:27:21:


I can demonstrate, regardless of whichever line you choose in analysis, that black will draw.

I am using the word drawn intentionally. This isn't a complex position where "equal chances" is what I want to say.

Quote:


...A player's abilities have nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position.

You've got this absurd idea that something is only drawn if an individual can prove it OTB. That's not how chess theory works.

Quote:


No, the same could not be said of any main line opening on move 9.

We are discussing a very specific position. One which you have declined to actually analyze.

I'll give you a hint as to how this works: I would never call the position after 8.d5 a draw, but I am calling this one a draw. I will back it up in analysis if someone actually wants to contribute something.

Quote:


No, actually, you still don't get it. Statistics tell you nothing about the position, they tell you about the performance of players.

The difference between me and you is I'm here to discuss theory on a site dedicated to opening theory. I am asserting that this line can be analyzed out to a draw regardless of what white tries.

I welcome attempts to prove me wrong. It'd do a great service to opening theory. I'm not holding my breath.

I think you don't understand the difference between an equal position and a drawn position.Your use of the word drawn is incorrect. I wonder if any GM would agree with your assessment that the position is a draw. I bet no. Strong players know the difference between equal and drawn. That's why they continue to play this line.
If the position is drawn you should be able to hold against any opposition, right? If you gave me a king and my opponent a rook pawn and wrong colored bishop I could draw anybody. If you give me a Philidor position, I will not lose. Can you say the same thing about the position after move 9 with only one pawn exchanged? Of course not. Kramnik would crush you(or me) over and over again. You(or me) could go home and prepare till your blue in the face, come back and he would crush you again. Do you know why? Because the position is not a draw, it is simply equal. The stronger player can still outplay the weaker player. In fact, In this position the weaker player has sometimes outplayed the stronger player!
Sure if you had access to a chess engine you could do better. In fact, You might never lose from that position. But the same could be said from any mainline opening on move 9. You(or me) and a computer would be a tough opponent for Kramnik from any position. Of course, If we took you(or me) out of the equation we could say the same thing about just the computer vs Kramnik:)
We are talking about a position in which players rated 2500+ have lost almost 1 in 3 times. Do you know how often they lose after 8.d5? About 1 in 3 times. I am beginning to understand why you don't like statistics:)
If the starting position is a draw with best play then what insight do we gain by you saying that some symmetrical position on move 9 is also a draw? The most we could learn from that is that nobody has 'grossly blundered' yet. I would argue that if even GMs can be outplayed from the position then it's more precise to call it an equal position. With all apologies to GM Marin:)
Using your logic an opening book should look something like this:
1.Nf3 e5 2.Nxe5+-
1.Nf3 any other move draw!
Do you see the absurdity of your statement?
This kind of reminds me of something I read a master say a few years ago. He said that if the Fischer of '72 came back and played him from the white side of the dragon he would crush Fischer because he wouldn't know the latest theory. Do you think he's right? I think at some point Fischer would deviate from the masters prep and shortly thereafter the master would resign. I think the same is true about our position. No matter how much preparation you do, sooner or later the stronger player will deviate from you lines and you will be faced with difficult decisions of both a strategic and tactical nature. If you could handle those perfectly your name might be Houdini:)
I know this has become a little heated and personal. Sorry for that. I am passionate about chess and I think you are too. However, I think you do a disservice to the forum when you make false(or at the very best superfluous) statements.