Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Yugoslav with 8.dxc5 (Read 37780 times)
TD
Senior Member
****
Offline


Feyenoord forever!

Posts: 404
Location: Rotterdam, NLD
Joined: 02/12/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #64 - 10/11/16 at 15:31:48
Post Tools
Any comments on Lemos' coverage of 9.Be3?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #63 - 10/09/12 at 19:40:16
Post Tools
Vass wrote on 10/09/12 at 06:38:54:
Yes, 8.d5 is the right way to go, imho..
And I don't understand why after 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.Be3 I have to play 9....Ng4 when 9...Qa5 is leading to equality.
I play this as a second player since 1978 and my approach is refined through all these years. It's easy to remember OTB.. 9.Be3 or 9.Bf4 - no worry, 9...Qa5 is my answer! The ideas behind are easy to understand - attacking c4-pawn with Qa6, exchanging queens if Qd1-a4 followed by b7-b6..., Bd7 on Qb3..., Nf6-d7 in case of Nc3-d5...and Nc6-d4 if white stands still..  Wink
Never lost a game as a second player after 8.dxc5..
And never met this setup in my correspondence chess tries. Everyone goes for 8.d5, you know..


9...Ng4 is just what I went with to kill the thread due to how cut and dry it is. 9.Be3 Qa5 has some question marks remaining.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #62 - 10/09/12 at 14:02:09
Post Tools
TN wrote on 10/09/12 at 07:14:03:
One shouldn't forget the possibility of 7.d5, which will transpose to the Fianchetto Modern Benoni after 7...e6 8.Nc3 exd5 9.cxd5.


As far as I know, 8. de (intending 8...Bxe6 9. Ng5) has long been considered good for White -- better than the version with Nc3 in lieu of 0-0 (it involves the availability of Na3 versus Black's exchange sac).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #61 - 10/09/12 at 07:14:03
Post Tools
One shouldn't forget the possibility of 7.d5, which will transpose to the Fianchetto Modern Benoni after 7...e6 8.Nc3 exd5 9.cxd5. There's also 7.Nc3 cxd4 of course, but let's not drift too much from the thread subject.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #60 - 10/09/12 at 06:38:54
Post Tools
Yes, 8.d5 is the right way to go, imho..
And I don't understand why after 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.Be3 I have to play 9....Ng4 when 9...Qa5 is leading to equality.
I play this as a second player since 1978 and my approach is refined through all these years. It's easy to remember OTB.. 9.Be3 or 9.Bf4 - no worry, 9...Qa5 is my answer! The ideas behind are easy to understand - attacking c4-pawn with Qa6, exchanging queens if Qd1-a4 followed by b7-b6..., Bd7 on Qb3..., Nf6-d7 in case of Nc3-d5...and Nc6-d4 if white stands still..  Wink
Never lost a game as a second player after 8.dxc5..
And never met this setup in my correspondence chess tries. Everyone goes for 8.d5, you know..
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #59 - 10/09/12 at 01:02:13
Post Tools
I don't mind a +0.20 ending if white's going somewhere.

But he's not in this case.

Anyway, hopefully someone gets something out of this thread as black. I stand by 8.d5 as the better try for an edge, but that analysis I will not post regardless of the forum banter. Wink
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #58 - 10/08/12 at 16:11:54
Post Tools
I notice that the late Bob Wade gave 9...Ng4 as weak, citing Darga-Barendregt (and mentioning 10. Qxd8 as "!?").  Looks none too plausible, I'd say.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #57 - 10/08/12 at 15:41:02
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 10/08/12 at 14:56:47:
11...f5 just looks too cooperative. 11...Bxb2 and... how's white justifying the pawn sacrifice? 12. Rb1 Bg7 just looks fine for black. Maybe you could argue some kind of compensation, but no advantage at all that I can see.

You are right. And while 11.Na4 offers more practical chances, it seems that Black is alive. Rybka's +0.20 doesn't mean much in an ending.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #56 - 10/08/12 at 14:56:47
Post Tools
11...f5 just looks too cooperative. 11...Bxb2 and... how's white justifying the pawn sacrifice? 12. Rb1 Bg7 just looks fine for black. Maybe you could argue some kind of compensation, but no advantage at all that I can see.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #55 - 10/08/12 at 13:37:28
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 10/06/12 at 00:43:06:
I'd admit defeat if someone can just come up with a small pull for white that could reasonably turn into something. As of now...I don't see it. I feel like forcing an advantage for white here is like finding one in the Exchange French. Cheesy

True, a repertoire book for White recommending the Exchange French would be a surprise. Nevertheless 11.Ne4 might give White something. White's king, at least, is very safe at g1, while the same cannot be said about Black's. Not the worst case if an author wants to make 1.Nf3 attractive.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pantu
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 298
Joined: 12/30/06
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #54 - 10/06/12 at 10:38:12
Post Tools
gewgaw wrote on 02/27/11 at 19:38:09:
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 c5 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nc3 Nc6

Who knows a good source to this line? Actually I don´t wanna play 8.d5, because I don´t play against the KID this way. What about 8.dc5 dc5 9.Be3 ? It seems Avrukh doesn´t cover this line in his Vol. 2.


Since things have calmed down I'll attempt to answer the original question:

1) Avrukh would have white play d4-d5 as soon as ...c7-c5 hit the board, which is why he doesn't cover it.
2) If white is careful with his move order - delaying Nc3 and playing d2-d4 as soon as black plays ...c7-c5 or ...d7-d6

Then the line 7 dxc5 dxc5 8 Ne5!? can be played.  This is analysed in Wojo's Weapons vol 2.  White has a tremendous score in practice (77% on my database of TWIC games) even if black can equalise.  I haven't looked at this in depth though, so can't offer much more than this.  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #53 - 10/06/12 at 00:43:06
Post Tools
We can move on to 9.Bf4 if we all have an agreement that 9.Be3 Ng4 is nothing for white.

For what it's worth, Vass' analysis looks like nothing for white, and even 9.Bf4 Nd4 (notice the similarity to 9.Be3 Ng4 10.Bf4 Nd4 that TN proposed) is depressing for white if he wants to win.

I'd admit defeat if someone can just come up with a small pull for white that could reasonably turn into something. As of now...I don't see it. I feel like forcing an advantage for white here is like finding one in the Exchange French. Cheesy
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #52 - 10/05/12 at 16:06:27
Post Tools
OK. Enough from me. Sorry everybody:)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2101
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #51 - 10/05/12 at 12:21:12
Post Tools
[quote author=7F7C7670110 link=1298835491/50#50 date=1349431596]Bibs #29 and GabrielGale #47 – great posts. Bewildering to me that quarrels (which, as here, are usually over something utterly pettifogging) can get to this pass. Thread-pruning surely long overdue. Do moderators, or feuders, ever stop to consider what thoughts this puerile stuff could be provoking among chessplayers at large? (As in: ‘If this is the famous ChessPublishing, maybe I won’t bother.’)[/quote]

Moderator hat...ON.

Fair point re: pruning and moderating.
Prefer a light, whimsical touch, but have to get out the shears if there is any more arguing. Any more bickering and the whole Paulsen-TNich "It's pretty equal"/"no, it's a draw" nonsense will be deleted wholesale.
No more attacks from either please. Many here can't be bothered with the playground stuff. Thanks both of you.

Some chess analysis has broken out (particular thanks to GabrielGale), yeah, let's see some moves people.
Enjoy your chess, and have a jolly weekend there you good people.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Michael Ayton
God Member
*****
Offline


‘You’re never alone with
a doppelgänger.’

Posts: 1810
Location: durham
Joined: 04/19/03
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #50 - 10/05/12 at 10:06:36
Post Tools
Bibs #29 and GabrielGale #47 – great posts. Bewildering to me that quarrels (which, as here, are usually over something utterly pettifogging) can get to this pass. Thread-pruning surely long overdue. Do moderators, or feuders, ever stop to consider what thoughts this puerile stuff could be provoking among chessplayers at large? (As in: ‘If this is the famous ChessPublishing, maybe I won’t bother.’)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #49 - 10/05/12 at 07:36:40
Post Tools
I was just thinking that 9.Bf4 might be a better try for an edge than 9.Be3, but Jangjava thinks Black has completely equalised after 9...Bd7.

@BPaulsen

I agree on both counts.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #48 - 10/05/12 at 07:09:42
Post Tools
My contribution:

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 466
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #47 - 10/05/12 at 03:32:47
Post Tools
For those who has been following this mind-numbing exchange would have been happy to see some concrete moves on the Forum. To help those who are not as good at visualising, here it is in glorious replayable format up to and including TN's post at 13:27:14 (not including BPaulsen's reply.

Let's have more concrete moves and analysis and less talk, perhaps?

  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #46 - 10/05/12 at 03:20:46
Post Tools
Shut up and analyze, TNich. Your act is getting old.

9...Ng4 10.Bf4 is not analysis. Identify what you think the critical lines are, argue an advantage, and we'll go from there. TN already said he thought black was okay after 10...Nd4. I'm withholding until you actually contribute something.

Stefan and kylemeister contributed, I tossed my analysis in. If you want to be productive, then I'll repeat the process. Get to work.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #45 - 10/05/12 at 03:13:36
Post Tools
You call a position on move 9 a draw and I'm trolling:) Are you familiar with doublespeak?
'harp on utterly fallacious'
That's poetry man!
The day we have tablebases that cover the position on move 9 is the day you can climb to the top of the tallest hill and scream DRAW!
Until then  Lips Sealed
I hope that this post isn't too long for you and you read the whole thing.
By the way, Did you resign after 10.Bf4 or are you still thinking?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #44 - 10/05/12 at 03:11:04
Post Tools
TN wrote on 10/05/12 at 02:27:14:
I rather like this 9...Ng4 move, but I'm not convinced that 9.Be3 Ng4 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Bxc5 Be6 12.Rfd1 Bxc4 13.Nd2 Ba6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Nb3 is dead equal. It's still a draw, of course, but White has the better placed knight and bishop, so Black would be the side playing for the draw. Obviously in this Tasic-Marculescu game Black should have played ...Bxc3, but the opposite coloured bishops give White the meagre chances that are in the position as his pieces are a bit more active.


Flick in ...Bxc3 and black can go down a pawn and still hold an easy draw. Black obviously did not play well in that game towards the end.

Quote:
10.Bf4 is another idea, but after 10...Nd4 I'd be very happy playing Black.


Black has more than one solution to 10.Bf4.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #43 - 10/05/12 at 03:02:41
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/05/12 at 02:51:00:
Ah, Software to the rescue! What do the tablebases say about our position? That's a rhetorical question:) Tablebases don't have anything to do with opening theory.


Actually, they do. A significant number of opening variations are analyzed out to endgames that are in tablebases. Lasker's Defense of the QGD is one dominant example.

Quote:
Well, Those pieces aren't going to move themselves. So who's moving them?
This is what happens when the tool becomes too powerful for the person using it. You're misinterpreting what you're computer is telling you.


Oh look, back to the "you're only listening to the engine" line of logic that I disabused previously. Your ability to harp on utterly fallacious points is mind-numbing.

9...Ng4 10.Bf4 is all you've got? Wow, great analysis. Way to prove me wrong.

Heh... You did a good job trolling me. Now I know not to take you seriously.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #42 - 10/05/12 at 02:51:00
Post Tools
"Wrong. Say hello to tablebases."
Ah, Software to the rescue! What do the tablebases say about our position? That's a rhetorical question:) Tablebases don't have anything to do with opening theory.

"The black side can hold the white side."
Well, Those pieces aren't going to move themselves. So who's moving them?
This is what happens when the tool becomes too powerful for the person using it. You're misinterpreting what you're computer is telling you.

Here is another position after white's 9th move. My computer says =. Should we call this a draw too?
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

And another one. Guess what the evaluation is?
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Oh yeah, Theory. After 9...Ng4 I might play 10.Bf4.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #41 - 10/05/12 at 02:27:14
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 10/05/12 at 01:27:40:
First of all, thanks to kylemeister and Stefan Buecker for joining the fray. I had a feeling the latter would. Wink

9. Be3 Ng4!? 10. Qxd8 [a) 10.Bxc5 Qa5 11.Na4 Bxb2 12.Bxe7!? (12.Rb1 Bg7 slightly favored black despite the final result in K. Darga-J. Barendregt, Utrecht 1954) Bxa1 13.Bxf8 Kxf8 14.Qxa1 Qxa4 15.h3 Kg8 16.hxg4 Qxc4= b)10.Bc1 Nf6 is a draw offer] Rxd8 11.Bxc5 Be6 12.h3 [a)12. Rfd1 Bxc4=, V. Tasic-G. Marculescu, E-Mail 2008. b)12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.cxd5 Rxd5 14.Ba3 Rad8= D. Kononenko-A. Vovk, Alushta 2009] Nf6 13.Rfd1 (13.Rad1!? Nd7 13.Bd4 Bxc4 14.Bg7 Kxg7=), S. Skembris-A. Vragoteris, Athens 1992, Bxc4=

Any takers? Maybe Stefan can squeeze some blood from this turnip. Smiley


I rather like this 9...Ng4 move, but I'm not convinced that 9.Be3 Ng4 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Bxc5 Be6 12.Rfd1 Bxc4 13.Nd2 Ba6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Nb3 is dead equal. It's still a draw, of course, but White has the better placed knight and bishop, so Black would be the side playing for the draw. Obviously in this Tasic-Marculescu game Black should have played ...Bxc3, but the opposite coloured bishops give White the meagre chances that are in the position as his pieces are a bit more active.

10.Bf4 is another idea, but after 10...Nd4 I'd be very happy playing Black.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #40 - 10/05/12 at 01:43:24
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/04/12 at 06:37:09:
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.


Wrong. Say hello to tablebases.

Quote:
So you could hold the black side against Kramnik? I keep asking, you keep not answering. I wonder why?


The black side can hold the white side. The players are irrelevant. This is about chess theory, not the players, get it through your skull.

I snipped the rest of your drivel for its general irrelevance.

Feel free to contribute to the analysis, or Lips Sealed
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #39 - 10/05/12 at 01:31:45
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 10/04/12 at 13:09:43:
A grand claim of DRAW! from BPaulsen, never a forumite shy of making grand claims and some provocative laddish banter.

A position worthy of a push for white which explains why many have played it. Equal, likely, probably, but white has a barest sniff OTB, and there are plenty of lumps on. And that wee sniff is enough for many.

CC with PC hardcore whoppers, draw one would wager, but against a human below 2300 I'd fancy a bash. I would fancy it, just as I like playing d4 d6 c4 e5 de5 de5 qd8 as black. White is equal but I have 100% there over many games. 
Lots of players are just quite rubbish with queens off.

Let's not bicker. Chill, be happy all, enjoy your chess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU


Over the board just about everything qualifies as a winning try to due the emphasis on the human element. It's not really an argument.

I'm being provocative, but I'm looking to be proven wrong. There is a very obvious, self-serving reason for wanting to be wrong about this position. Wink

Now, back to proving the draw. Wink
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #38 - 10/05/12 at 01:27:40
Post Tools
First of all, thanks to kylemeister and Stefan Buecker for joining the fray. I had a feeling the latter would. Wink

9. Be3 Ng4!? 10. Qxd8 [a) 10.Bxc5 Qa5 11.Na4 Bxb2 12.Bxe7!? (12.Rb1 Bg7 slightly favored black despite the final result in K. Darga-J. Barendregt, Utrecht 1954) Bxa1 13.Bxf8 Kxf8 14.Qxa1 Qxa4 15.h3 Kg8 16.hxg4 Qxc4= b)10.Bc1 Nf6 is a draw offer] Rxd8 11.Bxc5 Be6 12.h3 [a)12. Rfd1 Bxc4=, V. Tasic-G. Marculescu, E-Mail 2008. b)12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.cxd5 Rxd5 14.Ba3 Rad8= D. Kononenko-A. Vovk, Alushta 2009] Nf6 13.Rfd1 (13.Rad1!? Nd7 13.Bd4 Bxc4 14.Bg7 Kxg7=), S. Skembris-A. Vragoteris, Athens 1992, Bxc4=

Any takers? Maybe Stefan can squeeze some blood from this turnip. Smiley
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #37 - 10/04/12 at 17:40:23
Post Tools
Looking at Stefan's analysis has convinced me of one thing. I could lose the position from either side:)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #36 - 10/04/12 at 17:19:24
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 10/04/12 at 16:37:36:
Regarding 10...Nd4 11. Rad1 (I have the impression that 11. Rac1 could be the more recent preference; I notice that Janjgava gave 11...Nd7 but didn't mention 12. b3) Bd7 12. Qa3 Nc2 13.Qxc5 b6 14.Qg5 h6 15.Qh4 (15. Qf4 is also considered in the books) Nxe3 16.fxe3 Qc7, Janjgava basically said "compensation" and cited Baburin-Ponomariov (17. Qf4 Rac8 ...drawn in 30).

The latter game continued 18.Qxc7 Rxc7 19.b3 a6 20.a4, when Rybka suggests 20...b5!. However, it seems that 20.Ne5 Be6 21.Rc1 would be more accurate. - Black may well "have enough" for the pawn, but I guess the dead-drawn line must be elsewhere.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #35 - 10/04/12 at 16:37:36
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/04/12 at 15:57:06:
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?


On 10...Qa5 11. Qxa5 Nxa5 12. Bxc5 Nxc4 (12...Bxc4 13. Ne5 ± Janjgava), Nunn gave 13. Nd4, while Janjgava had 13. Ng5 Nd7 14. Nxe6 fe 15. Bxe7 Rf7 16. Bg5 Nxb2 17. Rac1 h6 18. Bf4 g5 19. Bd6.

Regarding 10...Nd4 11. Rad1 (I have the impression that 11. Rac1 could be the more recent preference; I notice that Janjgava gave 11...Nd7 but didn't mention 12. b3) Bd7 12. Qa3 Nc2 13.Qxc5 b6 14.Qg5 h6 15.Qh4 (15. Qf4 is also considered in the books) Nxe3 16.fxe3 Qc7, Janjgava basically said "compensation" and cited Baburin-Ponomariov (17. Qf4 Rac8 ...drawn in 30).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #34 - 10/04/12 at 15:57:06
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 10/04/12 at 15:20:27:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/04/12 at 15:09:15:
Symmetry - great! And if White plays 10.Qa4, the reply is Qa5?

I see that 10...Qa5 has been given as leading to equality in ECO.  Nunn and Janjgava both thought it should lead to +=, and treated 10...Nd4 as the main line.

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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #33 - 10/04/12 at 15:20:27
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/04/12 at 15:09:15:
Symmetry - great! And if White plays 10.Qa4, the reply is Qa5?


I see that 10...Qa5 has been given as leading to equality in ECO.  Nunn and Janjgava both thought it should lead to +=, and treated 10...Nd4 as the main line.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #32 - 10/04/12 at 15:09:15
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 10/04/12 at 14:39:38:
I notice that Janjgava thought 9...Be6 was probably best; his main line ended with Black having compensation.  A few years earlier Nunn had 9. Be3 overall leading to +=.

Symmetry - great! And if White plays 10.Qa4, the reply is Qa5?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #31 - 10/04/12 at 14:39:38
Post Tools
I notice that Janjgava thought 9...Be6 was probably best; his main line ended with Black having compensation.  A few years earlier Nunn had 9. Be3 overall leading to +=.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #30 - 10/04/12 at 14:21:03
Post Tools
TN wrote on 10/04/12 at 11:01:04:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/04/12 at 09:36:39:
9.Be3 Qa5 10.Nd5 e6 11.Bd2 Qd8 12.Nc3 Qe7 (Byrne - Evans, 1961) 13.Qc1 += gives White a plus. 1.Nf3 h6 is better.


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

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.  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 2101
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #29 - 10/04/12 at 13:09:43
Post Tools
A grand claim of DRAW! from BPaulsen, never a forumite shy of making grand claims and some provocative laddish banter.

A position worthy of a push for white which explains why many have played it. Equal, likely, probably, but white has a barest sniff OTB, and there are plenty of lumps on. And that wee sniff is enough for many.

CC with PC hardcore whoppers, draw one would wager, but against a human below 2300 I'd fancy a bash. I would fancy it, just as I like playing d4 d6 c4 e5 de5 de5 qd8 as black. White is equal but I have 100% there over many games. 
Lots of players are just quite rubbish with queens off.

Let's not bicker. Chill, be happy all, enjoy your chess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #28 - 10/04/12 at 11:01:04
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/04/12 at 09:36:39:
9.Be3 Qa5 10.Nd5 e6 11.Bd2 Qd8 12.Nc3 Qe7 (Byrne - Evans, 1961) 13.Qc1 += gives White a plus. 1.Nf3 h6 is better.


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

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #27 - 10/04/12 at 09:36:39
Post Tools
9.Be3 Qa5 10.Nd5 e6 11.Bd2 Qd8 12.Nc3 Qe7 (Byrne - Evans, 1961) 13.Qc1 += gives White a plus. 1.Nf3 h6 is better.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #26 - 10/04/12 at 06:37:09
Post Tools
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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 345
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #25 - 10/04/12 at 05:29:43
Post Tools
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #24 - 10/04/12 at 05:19:53
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/04/12 at 03:27:21:
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.


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:
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?


...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:
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.


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:
I am beginning to understand why you don't like statistics:)


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #23 - 10/04/12 at 04:12:40
Post Tools
This Topic was moved here from Flank Openings [move by] TN.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #22 - 10/04/12 at 03:27:21
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seth_Xoma
God Member
*****
Offline


FM with 2 IM Norms - (2381)

Posts: 558
Location: Lansing
Joined: 11/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #21 - 10/03/12 at 20:24:22
Post Tools
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:54 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #20 - 10/03/12 at 20:05:48
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 19:54:31:
If GMs can lose from both sides on a regular basis then we can clearly state that we have a position that can be played for a win by anyone(barring 'high level correspondence if it makes you feel better).


It doesn't even take high level correspondence play, truthfully. The position just isn't that complex.

The fact GMs will occasionally drop games in it doesn't mean anything. It's a stupid argument.

Quote:
You are a 2100 player over the board(based on 27 games). But with a computer you suddenly know more than GM Marin? Tell me what has changed.


Knowledge of the position, and hours spent on it. There is nothing about this particular position that only GMs are privy to, although you seem keen on pretending there is.

Quote:
Uh, A sell played game of chess?


Try again.

Quote:
I thought you didn't like statistics? Maybe only when you can use them for your arugment?


I don't like statistics, they are close to useless. I am making the point that even your statistical argument is junk.

Your entire argument is worthless from top to bottom.

Quote:
Definitions prove you wrong. GM practice proves you wrong. Logic proves you wrong. What else do you want. Just because you can draw the position with best play does not make the position a draw. It means it's equal.


Grin

Check out the bolded. You wrote it. Which one of us is having the problem with logic?

Maybe we should argue about some tablebase rook endings. The tablebase will claim it's a draw, you can tell me all about how it's not because some GM managed to lose it. We can even do the opposite! Tablebase rook endings that are a win, and you can tell me it's not winning because a GM drew it!

Grin

Thanks for the laugh.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:44 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #19 - 10/03/12 at 19:54:31
Post Tools
"...People can lose from completely winning positions. It has nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position."

If GMs can lose from both sides on a regular basis then we can clearly state that we have a position that can be played for a win by anyone(barring 'high level correspondence if it makes you feel better).

" Yeah, it's the engines. Not the hours of work put into it. No, just engines. I just flip the switch, check a database, and go to bed. I wake up knowing the theory. It's amazing"
You are a 2100 player over the board(based on 27 games). But with a computer you suddenly know more than GM Marin? Tell me what has changed.

"An entirely symmetrical position that follows good moves for both sides results in a... *fill in the blank*."
Uh, A sell played game of chess?

"A GM losing from X position does not have anything to do with the merits of X position. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. That said, practice leans towards draws, and away from decisive results."

I thought you didn't like statistics? Maybe only when you can use them for your arugment?

"Prove. Me. Wrong."
Definitions prove you wrong. GM practice proves you wrong. Logic proves you wrong. What else do you want. Just because you can draw the position with best play does not make the position a draw. It means it's equal.


« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:35 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #18 - 10/03/12 at 19:17:21
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 19:08:11:
"For them to get outplayed requires them to blunder... Duh."
We could extend this to include every single game of chess.


There are numerous games where no gross blunders are necessary to cause a decisive result, but rather the entire opening variation is called into question as being strategically questionable.

It just doesn't apply to this variation.

Quote:
"...white has nothing against good play."
White has a position in which even GMs can lose. I think that means more then your willing to admit.


...People can lose from completely winning positions. It has nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position.

It's a stupid argument.

Quote:
"The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play"
I am arguing against the fact the you call this position a draw. There is the whole game yet to be played. Just because on move 9 the position is symmetrical does not mean that it's an easy draw. I think it's a balanced position. That means that without mistakes it will be a draw. When was the last time you played a game without mistakes?


Prove. Me. Wrong.

Without game-altering mistakes? I've played quite a few. Just not as many as GMs have. It still doesn't matter concerning the appraisal of this position.

Quote:
"Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw."
Engines are the reason why you think you know more about the position than GMs:)


Face-palm. Yeah, it's the engines. Not the hours of work put into it. No, just engines. I just flip the switch, check a database, and go to bed. I wake up knowing the theory. It's amazing.

This is the person I'm arguing with. Good God.

Quote:
"Find me ONE game with a decisive result where black lost as a result of playing good moves."
It would hard to find a game from any balanced position that one side lost after making 'good' moves. If you lose, then somewhere along the line you made a bad move. Isn't this obvious?


Come on. Follow the trail of bread crumbs. An entirely symmetrical position that follows good moves for both sides results in a... *fill in the blank*.

Quote:
"Any white player that chooses this continuation is hoping, praying, and wishing that black screws up, else it is going to be a prospectless draw."
You are not qualified to make that statement. That would require you to be able read other peoples minds!


I am qualified to make that statement, unless an individual believes they are going to achieve a tangible advantage out of the opening from this entirely symmetrical position.

Again. Prove. Me. Wrong.

Quote:
"Marin's statement flies in the face of current theory, and practice."
Wrong. Current practice shows GMs losing from both sides of the position.


You still don't get it, and frankly I'm wondering if you ever will.

A GM losing from X position does not have anything to do with the merits of X position. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. That said, practice leans towards draws, and away from decisive results.

Quote:
I have an interest in this position. That's why I was following the thread. You made a ludicrous statement and have spent the rest of this thread trying to defend it. Words have meaning. If you misuse them, be prepared for someone to call you on it. GMs apparently do not agree with your opinion about the position. Nor do I. Just because you can't find ways to pose problems from the position doesn't mean that no one can.


Prove. Me. Wrong.

Pose me some problems. You have white to move after 8...dxc5.

Let's do this. Either theory will advance as a result of this disagreement, or I get to laugh at you for trodding paths I've already looked at. Let's go.

Get GM help if you've got it. Use a supercomputer to help your analysis. It won't save you.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:25 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #17 - 10/03/12 at 19:08:11
Post Tools
"For them to get outplayed requires them to blunder... Duh."
We could extend this to include every single game of chess.

"...white has nothing against good play."
White has a position in which even GMs can lose. I think that means more then your willing to admit.


"The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play"
I am arguing against the fact the you call this position a draw. There is the whole game yet to be played. Just because on move 9 the position is symmetrical does not mean that it's an easy draw. I think it's a balanced position. That means that without mistakes it will be a draw. When was the last time you played a game without mistakes?

"Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw."
Engines are the reason why you think you know more about the position than GMs:)

"Find me ONE game with a decisive result where black lost as a result of playing good moves."
It would hard to find a game from any balanced position that one side lost after making 'good' moves. If you lose, then somewhere along the line you made a bad move. Isn't this obvious?

"Any white player that chooses this continuation is hoping, praying, and wishing that black screws up, else it is going to be a prospectless draw."
You are not qualified to make that statement. That would require you to be able read other peoples minds!

"Marin's statement flies in the face of current theory, and practice."
Wrong. Current practice shows GMs losing from both sides of the position.

"I'm trying to figure out if you're serious, or just trolling at this point."
I have an interest in this position. That's why I was following the thread. You made a ludicrous statement and have spent the rest of this thread trying to defend it. Words have meaning. If you misuse them, be prepared for someone to call you on it. GMs apparently do not agree with your opinion about the position. Nor do I. Just because you can't find ways to pose problems from the position doesn't mean that no one can.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:16 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #16 - 10/03/12 at 18:41:53
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 17:17:31:
This is getting funny. You think it takes gross blunders to change the evaluation? Really? Have you looked at some high level games from that position? I see people getting outplayed.


I checked all of the lines thoroughly as part of the book I'm writing, because it would have made an easy fix compared to dealing with the Yugoslav proper. When you do that you'll quickly discover the sobering reality that white has nothing against good play, and that all decisive results stem from very poor play.

Period.

The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play (not even perfect play - it just has to be good!), you're arguing that black can mess up over the board which doesn't matter at all when it comes to the objective appraisal of the position.

Quote:
The reason it wouldn't take much effort to draw in correspondence chess is because engines play really strong chess:)


Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw. It will ultimately conclude in a draw because it is completely symmetrical, and impossible to pose concrete, or long-term problems in.

Engines just make sure black doesn't commit any gross blunders. You know, the kind required to actually obtain a real advantage with either side from this position.

The rest of your post was snipped due to being entirely irrelevant. I'm tired of arguing with someone that thinks that elite GMs trotting out a dead equal line in the hopes of catching a napping opponent is going to change things.

Or better yet, you can one-up me if you want. Find an advantage in any line from that position. Show me the error of my ways.

If you can't, then do this: Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:07 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #15 - 10/03/12 at 17:17:31
Post Tools
This is getting funny. You think it takes gross blunders to change the evaluation? Really? Have you looked at some high level games from that position? I see people getting outplayed.
The reason it wouldn't take much effort to draw in correspondence chess is because engines play really strong chess:)
You say "Elite GMs try to win objectively drawn endgames against each other as a routine matter". Yet, from the position we are discussing you say "Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left."? Maybe, What's left is a position that elite GMs can try to win against each other. 
I hope that you put more thought into your book than you did into this debate. I can only imagine how you assess opening positions?!
"It's a draw in correspondence play."
Like I said, Chess is a draw. What's the point?

Marin - The main drawback of this variation is that White can retain a tiny edge without any risk by means of 8.dxc5.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:59 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #14 - 10/03/12 at 17:03:30
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 16:57:22:
I agree that zoo hit the nail on the head. The position is equal. The position is not a draw! That's what I've been saying the whole time.
I also agree with Vass's comment that players will try to win from equal positions against weaker opposition. I will go one farther and say that strong GMs try to win from the position on move 9 against other strong GMs and even succeed sometimes:)
Comparing that position to drawn endgames misses the point. A drawn endgame can usually be held by knowing a particular technique. You have a whole game of chess ahead of you from that position.
My hypothetical draw offer is still out there BPaulsen. Are you accepting or declining?


It's a draw in correspondence play. You can hold the draw by playing in a particular technique against all white attempts. It's no different at all from the drawn endgame analogy. If we're playing correspondence, then I'd accept the draw. If not, then no, I'd sit around and pray for a blunder - there is a reason I called the entire continuation "hope chess" earlier.

And it wouldn't even take much effort to draw it in correspondence. The only thing that changes the evaluation of the line is gross blunders...just like with the endgame analogy.

Elite GMs try to win objectively drawn endgames against eachother as a routine matter - your argument isn't getting any better.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:49 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #13 - 10/03/12 at 16:57:22
Post Tools
I agree that zoo hit the nail on the head. The position is equal. The position is not a draw! That's what I've been saying the whole time.
I also agree with Vass's comment that players will try to win from equal positions against weaker opposition. I will go one farther and say that strong GMs try to win from the position on move 9 against other strong GMs and even succeed sometimes:)
Comparing that position to drawn endgames misses the point. A drawn endgame can usually be held by knowing a particular technique. You have a whole game of chess ahead of you from that position.
My hypothetical draw offer is still out there BPaulsen. Are you accepting or declining?
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:40 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #12 - 10/03/12 at 16:16:32
Post Tools
zoo pretty much hit the nail on the head... and Vass' response to TNich hopefully made him see the light.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:26 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #11 - 10/03/12 at 08:17:48
Post Tools
Quote:
so, perhaps it's less controversial to call the position "dead equal" rather than "a draw", since everybody agrees that the position is dead equal, yet such positions are not always drawn in practice (see also the finish of the recent Nakamura-Giri d3-Qe2 Petrov).

As for why dead-equal positions make more draws in corr chess, my feeling is that the players are often trapped in some "local optimum", ie none can eject the opponent out of the drawing zone. This is what we saw when the top GMs played the Petrov for a draw : Black could concede a small disadvantadge, but White had no promising strategy (meaning he couldn't win by himself) and Black's technique was strong enough to avoid blundering to White's feeble threats (meaning he couldn't lose by himself). In corr chess this looks the same for many more positions, not just the dead-equal ones : for the players, the computer is an angel who protects them from blundering in equal or inferior positions, making it more difficult to win by provoking your opponent's mistakes. This is where the "local optimum" comes in : the (defensive) tactical power of the computer tends to reduce the strategic (aggressive) gap between players, as the use of computers make most of us strategic dwarfs and tacticals giants.


Fully agree with you!  Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:18 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zoo
Ex Member


Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #10 - 10/03/12 at 07:43:47
Post Tools
so, perhaps it's less controversial to call the position "dead equal" rather than "a draw", since everybody agrees that the position is dead equal, yet such positions are not always drawn in practice (see also the finish of the recent Nakamura-Giri d3-Qe2 Petrov).

As for why dead-equal positions make more draws in corr chess, my feeling is that the players are often trapped in some "local optimum", ie none can eject the opponent out of the drawing zone. This is what we saw when the top GMs played the Petrov for a draw : Black could concede a small disadvantadge, but White had no promising strategy (meaning he couldn't win by himself) and Black's technique was strong enough to avoid blundering to White's feeble threats (meaning he couldn't lose by himself). In corr chess this looks the same for many more positions, not just the dead-equal ones : for the players, the computer is an angel who protects them from blundering in equal or inferior positions, making it more difficult to win by provoking your opponent's mistakes. This is where the "local optimum" comes in : the (defensive) tactical power of the computer tends to reduce the strategic (aggressive) gap between players, as the use of computers make most of us strategic dwarfs and tacticals giants.

« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:10 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #9 - 10/03/12 at 06:27:31
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 02:05:12:
.... If you and I ever play against each other and we reached this position would you accept my draw offer? Why not? If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless:)

The strength and abilities of the players in OTB games don't have a thing in common with the objectivity that the position is dead equal. A better player will try to win even a dead drawn pawn ending against a weaker opposition.  Wink
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:59 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #8 - 10/03/12 at 02:05:12
Post Tools
We're being objective now? OK.
"Forgetting theory or playing poorly isn't unheard of. It is never, I repeat never, a matter concerning the objective merits of the position."
Of course it concerns the objective merits of the position. If the position is losable by some of the best players in the world, then we can say that your statement 'Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left.' does not reflect reality.
"Try getting away with decisive results in high level correspondence play."
You mean when you have many days to analyze with an engine? You could say the same thing about any mainstream opening on move 9.
"If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless."
I know why it's hard to win in correspondence chess. People have more time and can use engines and tablebases. That doesn't explain why you think a position is drawn on move 9. It also doesn't explain why strong players still lose from both sides from that position. There are many main line openings that lead to equal positions. Are those drawn too? I think that the starting position is probably drawn with best play. Should we not play chess? If you and I ever play against each other and we reached this position would you accept my draw offer? Why not? If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless:)
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:50 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #7 - 10/03/12 at 01:23:29
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 00:07:35:
Well, Apparently quite a few 2600+ GMs don't know the theory because they have lost from this 'drawn' position. And one 2800+ GM lost as white. Why don't you address that in your post?


Forgetting theory or playing poorly isn't unheard of. It is never, I repeat never, a matter concerning the objective merits of the position.

Try getting away with decisive results in high level correspondence play.

Hint: you won't.

If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:34 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #6 - 10/03/12 at 00:07:35
Post Tools
"No, it's not harsh to call it a draw. Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left. I repeat - white is hoping black doesn't know the theory to whatever sideline he chooses. If he does, he gets nothing in the purest sense of the term "nothing"."

Well, Apparently quite a few 2600+ GMs don't know the theory because they have lost from this 'drawn' position. And one 2800+ GM lost as white. Why don't you address that in your post?
There is a big difference between equality and a drawn position. Perhaps, You could defend the black side better than some of these 2600+ guys? No disrespect intended but I don't think so.
To call the position after 9 moves with only one pawn exchanged drawn is premature in the purest sense of the term "premature"Smiley
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:25 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #5 - 10/02/12 at 23:10:30
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/02/12 at 18:01:09:
I think it's a little harsh to call the position after 9.Be3 a draw.
White's score is pretty good(57.2% vs 57.3% after 8.d5). In the database we see people like Tkachiev, Mamedyarov, Jobava and Wang Hao losing with the black pieces.
Aronian has even lost it with the white pieces!
Most of these games were rapids but if GMs can lose it, then I'm pretty sure that at my <2200 level I can too:)


No, it's not harsh to call it a draw. Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left. I repeat - white is hoping black doesn't know the theory to whatever sideline he chooses. If he does, he gets nothing in the purest sense of the term "nothing".

Under 2200 OTB just about anything is playable. It doesn't make the objective merits of the positions good.

I don't like statistics much, either. Misleading to the say the least.

@Pantu:

1.Nf3 g6 should be met with 2.e4 and heading towards a Bind if possible. The Bind forms the backbone of 1.Nf3 repertoires to a pretty significant extent (Symmetrical English, Modern, and KID can all transpose to it).

As for why white may play the pure Symmetrical - 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.e3 doesn't lead to as easy an edge as it used to be thought. As a recent Aronian game attests white is better, and I have a novelty in mind for black's other critical continuation, but the resulting positions can be quite complex and sharp.

That said, Fischer's Defense isn't the end of the world, so... white has options if he's playing for the full point. That is all.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:17 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 53
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #4 - 10/02/12 at 18:01:09
Post Tools
I think it's a little harsh to call the position after 9.Be3 a draw.
White's score is pretty good(57.2% vs 57.3% after 8.d5). In the database we see people like Tkachiev, Mamedyarov, Jobava and Wang Hao losing with the black pieces.
Aronian has even lost it with the white pieces!
Most of these games were rapids but if GMs can lose it, then I'm pretty sure that at my <2200 level I can too:)
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:08:52 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #3 - 10/02/12 at 17:19:37
Post Tools
gewgaw wrote on 02/27/11 at 19:38:09:
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 c5 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nc3 Nc6

Who knows a good source to this line? Actually I don´t wanna play 8.d5, because I don´t play against the KID this way. What about 8.dc5 dc5 9.Be3 ? It seems Avrukh doesn´t cover this line in his Vol. 2.



8.dxc5 dxc5 9.Be3 is the equivalent of hope chess (I hope my opponent has never seen this before, otherwise this is a draw).

Enter the Yugoslav proper with 8.d5. There are promising ways to handle the white side, the general pessimism surrounding his cause lately be damned. It also simplifies what white needs to know should he face a Panno via a Fianchetto KID move order.

I was surprised to find the Yugoslav's theoretical reputation is grossly exaggerated.

Maybe in some kind of addendum I'll release my analysis on that and the aforementioned Fischer's Defense.

As things stand right now, they're not the repertoire choice for the book, but I can guarantee Fianchetto KID advocates would be licking their chops over something new for white in the Yugoslav.

(Strong language, yes I know, but this is serious)
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:08:44 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 657
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #2 - 03/01/11 at 19:59:34
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 02/28/11 at 21:46:39:
Well, of course you can find something about it in non-repertoire books like ECO and Janjgava.  Way back in '99, NCO (Nunn) thought 9. Be3 should lead to an edge for White.


ah, thx! I just remember I´ve the NCO in my library:
NCO p-500/501 (notes)
I) 9.Be3! Be6 10.Qa4 Nd4 11.Rad1 +/-
II) 9.Be3! Qa5 10.Qb3! yields to a slight advantage.

p.s.
to II) I´´d prefer 10.Qa4, because 10. ...Ng4 looks like a plausible move, but black gets under pressure after 11.Qa5 Na5 12.Bc5 Nc4 13.Nd5 or Tac1
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:08:23 by TN »  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4488
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #1 - 02/28/11 at 21:46:39
Post Tools
Well, of course you can find something about it in non-repertoire books like ECO and Janjgava.  Way back in '99, NCO (Nunn) thought 9. Be3 should lead to an edge for White.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:07:58 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 657
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
02/27/11 at 19:38:09
Post Tools
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 c5 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nc3 Nc6

Who knows a good source to this line? Actually I don´t wanna play 8.d5, because I don´t play against the KID this way. What about 8.dc5 dc5 9.Be3 ? It seems Avrukh doesn´t cover this line in his Vol. 2.

Edited:
Moderator's Note: Changed the OP title.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:07:36 by TN »  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo