BPaulsen wrote on 03/20/11 at 21:44:49:


I am on vacation right now, therefore don't have access to my books, but isn't this mentioned in a note by Vitiugov?

Cynima I want to ask you the same question I asked to MNb. Do you think black has serious winning chances against Salto Mortale variation. It seems to me that white can easily draw and play with a lot of chances to win without so much risk. This is keeping me away from 3...Nf6. Of course I am not a very good player and am scared to play with material deficit.

Thinking about it, maybe a non trivial distinction between over the board and correspondence. 

OTB you just need to prepare/use three or four of the potential lines to make whites task of 'bashing' you theoretically very tough indeed - and there are a lot more than that
(Even after say 7 Qg4 o-o there's comfortably scope for this, let alone all the other deviations!).

Correspondence though, you do lose a fair bit of the effect of this flexibility and do perhaps begin to face the fact that none of these lines are objectively all that easy vs very critical/accurate white play.

McCutheon slightly perhaps, simply because its a little bit less analysed. 

But the Winaver must be one of the better ways to generate winning (and of course losing ) chances thats out there. Black has an awful lot of choice, some lines of which (6 .. Qa5 say) are far too flexible to analyse out.

kylemeister wrote on 04/17/11 at 20:18:44:

You are right. I have seen the 7.Nb3 line attributed to Smagin but don't know if he was the inventor.
What I meant to say was, it was covered in a chapter in Watson's recent book. Its current popularity must have something to do with that (plus, of course, the fact that it's not a bad line though previously underestimated).

Don't know about that line with 7. Nb3 being "Watson's"; there was some stuff on it in Steffen Pedersen's 2005 book, and Watson's name didn't come up.  Also BTW, Pedersen says that Kosten attributes 15...e4 to (French GM) Gilles Mirallès.

Stigma wrote on 04/17/11 at 14:57:37:

I must admit that I haven't looked at this recently; McDonald had a few nice ideas for subscribers.

Stigma wrote on 04/16/11 at 14:18:17:


This is what Gary Kasparov wrote of Karpov-Uhlman, 1973 after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.ed5 ed5:

By present-day standards, it is hard for White to play for a win in this variation. And even Karpov, for all his amazing skill in accumulating small pluses and transforming them into a more substantial advantage, would hardly have achieved such successes without the 'help' of his opponents. (My Great Predecessors vol. V pages 227-228)

4.ed5 is the most common moves among masters, but Kasparov preferred 4.Nf3. 

Perhaps the entire Tarrasch isn't drawish, but the statistics rather suggest it is. Apparently, Black can play either 4.ed5 ed5 or 4.ed5 Qd5 and hope for equality out of the opening.

I never liked this option much as Black, and choose 3...Nf6 instead. I increase my losing chances dramatically, but I also improve my winning chances.

Hi all, Hi MNb: a question: Do you think the variation Salto Mortale gives white at the very least a draw? Do you feel confortable trying to win against it? What is the average oposition against whom you have such a wonderful perfomance and what is your ELO. Mine is 1875 and I struggle against salto Mortale

Stigma wrote on 04/16/11 at 14:18:17:

I'm not going to state that 3.Nd2 is easy to meet, but I have excellent results against it. I play 3...Nf6 exclusively because I love (half)open f-files.

Nobody seems to have mentioned the Guimard 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nc6 which I think is an excellent choice. Theoretically (and according to my analysis of the main lines) any white advantage (if it exists) is very small. You'll have to learn some theory due to the extremely sharp stuff but it is not that much and then you will have lots of chances to outplay your opponent.

And vs 3.Nd2 there is at least seven fully playable options:

3... Nf6
3... c5
3... Be7
3... Nc6
3... a6
3... h6
3... dxe4

The Advance also gives black many good systems to choose from, making 
Nc3 with the Qg4 plans the only real theoretical challenge. But as mentioned above , the PP seems currently in good shape.

So for example a repertoire with Winawer PP, Guimard and early Nh6 versus the Advance (3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Nh6 followed up by f6) is both sharp and entertaining as well as theoretically sound.

Of course, if white throws an undefended pawn into the centre just like that in the first move, it must be punished!

e6, d5 attacks the pawn and if white tries to keep the centre with e5 black continues attacking with f6 and c5... The other ways to challenge e4 are worse, both 1.. d5 and 1.. Nf6 lose a tempo.

Ametanoitos wrote on 03/20/11 at 17:45:20:


10...Bd7 has been my preference, with a lot of personal analysis there. 

I don't think 10...Be7 has deserved the neglect it's gotten, either. Apparently neither did Moskalenko in his "The Flexible French" book.

The line you mention looks fine for black, may even give it a punt myself.

I was glad to see MNb draw as Black with the French in a correspondence game. I've rather lost faith in it at the correspondence level. 

I agree that the Steinitz is one of the toughest challenges to Black, but the Classical Alekhin-Chatard Attack and MacCutcheon aren't exactly safe draws either. 

I know the Winawer is a good practical OTB challenge, but I never had much faith in that as a correspondence game either. Maybe one day I'll splurge on a Correspondence database and find some secret line in the French that gives Black hope. 

Or maybe someone can give a few good examples of how to play against these lines that holds up under correspondence and +2650 scrutiny.

Markovich wrote on 03/20/11 at 02:38:13:


Things look rosy right now from a theoretical perspective, so yeah. The only problems I can see at the moment are purely practical...

Not that I've abandoned the C-K. It was nice to see the Motylev-Alsina Leal, Moscow 2011 game in the Advance there.

Basically they're 1A/1B in my eyes for now. I welcome any problem lines to be brought up, of course.

BPaulsen wrote on 03/19/11 at 01:15:04:


11. ... a6?

Aren't you referring to 10. ... a6 as in:  1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. ed5 Qd5 5. Ngf3 cd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbd4 Nd4 10. Nd4 a6 ?

Ametanoitos wrote on 03/18/11 at 08:37:05:


Saw the Vitiugov analysis, and it's unrelated to the line I've developed for black that's heavily grounded in correspondence games.

11...a6 isn't my preference, despite it being the formal "main line" by number of games played.

I'd have to shoot myself afterwards though

In terms of OTB chess the o-o-o/Bd3 etc stuff actually gives a dangerous enough attack for Dreev to have suffered somewhat at times. I can well believe that it can be defused with a bit of care/knowledge though. 

But then 4 e5 is hardly terribly exciting. Maybe if you go 5 Nce2.

BPaulsen wrote on 03/17/11 at 20:25:57:


Actually Vitiugov in his book doesn't consider that Black gets full equality after c5+Qxd5. He actually gives the same line as Tzermiadianos with a slight improvement over his analysis where his conclusion is "the ending is slightly worse for him but defendable".

My preference is for Petrosian's old ...Be7 in place for the main line today ..a6

Stigma wrote on 03/16/11 at 17:59:23:


I have the book, I just didn't notice it covers that line, as I usually transpose by 4.Nf3 Nc6. But anyway I need to get a good database at last, to prepare better for this line as white plays Nf3, Bd3 and c3 quite often. Thanks for the info.

My perspective on current state of theory, and my personal preferences at the moment.

#1) Exchange: I prefer 4...Bd6 against 4. Nf3/4. Bd3. Still completely equal as the Exchange is supposed to be.

#2) Advance: 5...Nge7 has been my preference of late, owing mostly to the fact that it avoids any trappy gambit lines that I don't like having to remember, and I'm very fond of black's cause in 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nf5 8. Bxf5 exf5. Other fifth moves for black are fine too. 

#3) French KIA - I still use 2...c5 then just Nc6/g6/Bg7/Nge7/0-0/e5 etc. In spite of the lost tempo on e6-e5 black's easy to play. 

#4) Tarrasch - I don't know why white even bothers given 3...c5 with 4...Qxd5 essentially torpedos any hopes white may have of playing for an edge.

#5) 3. Nc3 Nf6 is my preference, having fallen behind on the Winawer given it's too much effort to keep up with various rook endgames that come out of it in the Poison Pawn, it simply ceased to be practical at a certain point.

4. Bg5 dxe4 is completely satisfactory for black, I'm not even sure why white players insist on playing this nowadays (it's not even that good in blitz).

MacCutcheon has high stock right now too.

3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 is the true battleground. I remain loyal to 7...cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bc5 9. Qd2 0-0 10. 0-0-0 a6. Against Khalifman's 11. Nb3 the preference is b6, Bb7, Rc8, then Bb4 (provoking a3 at which point Be7 is played, then b5-b4 uses the a3 weakness).

I'm not aware of a path to any white advantage in all this even with other 11th moves, correspondence results have supported this of late.

The French's stock is very high in my eyes right now. Of course, I welcome attempts to challenge it in a discussion.

Classical and Winaver very different beasts. 

The classical is a fairly rational, solid opening. Not sure if there's any specific issues with it. Suspect you'll get 4 e5 a lot actually (Khalifman went this way for instance.).

From my experience on the white side do pay a fair bit of attention to the Bxe7/Bd3/o-o stuff because you really can end up in a bad ending relatively easily if you're not careful. But other stuff to look at too.

The Winaver is very individual opening of course. 7 Qg4 very much critical then plenty of options. The 6 .. Qa5/7.. Qa4 stuff would probably be a very suitable second system as much less ciritical in terms of specific moves.

There's the McCutheon too of course. That seems to be the weapon of choice for some young rising Russian GMs in opens so could be good fun.  Entirely as random/individual as the Winaver but subtly different too.

Essentially there isn't a single wonderful answer to 3 Nc3 A huge choice of pretty sound and terribly fun stuff but, asides perhaps for some 4 Bg5 de based ideas, all fractionally scary.

MNb wrote on 03/17/11 at 00:34:44:


4.Nf3 Nc6 is not Watson's line, it's McDonald's from How to Play against 1.e4 (though I first read about it in Motwani's "C.O.O.L Chess"). Watson gives only 4...Bd6 and 4...Bg4.

I thought that 3.Nd2 c5! 4.exd5 Qxd5! is the "problem" for a White player of the Tarrasch variation today. So, why not try it for Black? The theory is much less than 3...Nf6 and the whole line is probably more sound (i have the feeling, that is backed up by some analysis, that the "Salto Mortale" variation gives White an edge after 3..Nf6)

And please don't play 3.exd5 Qxd5? because after c4 (now or after Nf3) White has a healthy +/= (close to +/-). After 3...exd5 Black's winning chances are not that bad.

If you have problems in the exchange against weaker players, try 3..Qxd5. It isnt that much worse than the Qxd5 line in the Tarrasch (the one with c5) and imo also not worse than the scandinavian as you have an immedate Bb4 available on Nc3, but that may be because I have little respect for that opening. 

Still I wouldnt recommend using it as your mainstay as 3..exd5 equalises on the spot.

rukh wrote on 03/16/11 at 10:18:40:

Not that I'm aware of. Playing through a dozen of games should be a good start though, assuming that you have a database.

MNb wrote on 03/15/11 at 17:42:20:


I've been playing online this queenside castling in the Exchange, starting like Uhlmann in his Winning with the French, but my attack is usually slower than white's unless he plays something bad like h3 or Bg5. Are there other good sources? There's also a game in The Flexible French on this line, but there black exchanges the light square bishops and the queens.

cf books - have you got either the Psakhis series (Batsford), or Pedersen for Gambit? Fractionally old now perhaps but useful comprehensive overviews. Especially if you're choosing lines.
(chesspub great to supplement of course.).

I think 3..Nf6 might be a tiny problem if you're really after winning chances vs very deep preparation. Think thats basically why stuff like 3..Be7 etc started to appear

Suspect that the really deep/random Qc7 stuff might be the best try. 10.. Bd6 might just about be analysed out.

As for 3 Nc3, I'd just try and have a few options for safeties sake. I don't really 'like' the classical much myself but thats feel based not anything concrete.
(Bxe7, f4 and an eventual o-o does seem fairly easy/safe for white to play and not utterly harmless.).

I'm taking up the French again after 10 years off or so, at least as a backup to the Sicilian but possibly as my main defence to 1.e4.  I have the following resources: Mastering the French by McDonald and that other guy, Play the French 3 by Watson, The Flexible French and Wonderful Winawer by Moskalenko, and Ziegler's DVD.  

I'm just hoping you experts can give me some advice for choosing lines.  I'll probably play the Winawer and am thinking of the Black Queen's Blues; a long time ago I played either 7...0-0 or the Poisoned Pawn.  I'm also open to playing the Classical along the lines of Ziegler's DVD; any opinions?

Against the Advance either 5...Bd7, 5...Nge7, or 5...Qb6 all seem perfectly viable to me; I'll just play each one and decide from there.

So far in casual and blitz games, I'm having the most trouble meeting the Tarrasch.  In the line with 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3, any pointers on which variation Black should choose?  10...Bd6, 10...Qc7, Watson's old early ...Qb6, something else?  Ziegler's lines all seem slightly better for White with not a lot of winning chances for Black.  Checking The Flexible French, I thought Moskalenko glossed over some of White's best moves that are recommended in the old Chess Advantage in Black and White by Kaufmann.  I know Simon Williams advocates this system as Black, maybe I'll get his DVDs.

Of course, against the Tarrasch there's also 3...c5, 3...Be7, etc., but I'd like to make 3...Nf6 work.  

The Exchange is a perennial problem against weaker players; maybe I'll just stick to the Sicilian when I face them...

Any other theoretical sources I should get (Vitiugov)?Thanks in advance!