Any comments on Lemos' coverage of 9.Be3?

TN wrote on 10/09/12 at 07:14:03:


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).

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.. 
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..

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.

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.

gewgaw wrote on 02/27/11 at 19:38:09:


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. 

OK. Enough from me. Sorry everybody:)

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.’)

My contribution:

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.

TN wrote on 10/05/12 at 02:27:14:


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:


Black has more than one solution to 10.Bf4.

"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.

TNich wrote on 10/04/12 at 06:37:09:


Wrong. Say hello to tablebases.

Quote:


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

First of all, thanks to kylemeister and Stefan Buecker for joining the fray. I had a feeling the latter would.

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.

kylemeister wrote on 10/04/12 at 16:37:36:

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. 

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.

TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 19:54:31:


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:


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:


Try again.

Quote:


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:




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!



Thanks for the laugh.

TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 19:08:11:


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:


...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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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.

TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 17:17:31:


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:


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:

TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 16:57:22:


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.

zoo pretty much hit the nail on the head... and Vass' response to TNich hopefully made him see the light.

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.

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:)

"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"

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:)

kylemeister wrote on 02/28/11 at 21:46:39:


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

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: