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


That is some very fine analysis; too bad it isn't enough to resurrect Berliner's idea.  Somebody seems to have taken down his post that 14.Rxf3 also wins for White.  I looked at it and could find nothing against it.

That link about 12.Qe2 is pretty funny.  Talk about self-important.  In that he rivals our chessfriend Moody, whom ironically enough, he cites!  But he may well be right about 12.Qe2.

Stunning. Thanks.

MNb wrote on 04/04/11 at 21:28:54:

Tim Harding provided an earlier discussion of Berliner's line here:
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1301542783;action=post2
13.Qb3 also looks strong for White, leading with best play to an endgame with a piece for a pawn, although it's not entirely clear whether White can free the position without conceding one or two more pawns.  Harding doesn't consider 13.0-0 exf3 14.Rxf3 Rb8 15.a4 a6 16.Bf1 Re8 17.Nc3 Nf6 as critical.

However, in a later article one of Harding's readers sent in the suggestion 13.0-0 exf3 14.Rxf3 Rb8 15.Bf1 Rb4 (Berliner's latest suggestion, other tries have been refuted) 16.Na3!, attributed to Rybka.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz148.pdf
Thus, regardless of the strength of 15.a4, 15.Bf1 looks like a refutation of the line.

I don't think Berliner's line is completely irrelevant in a practical sense- I imagine that at lower levels Black could still pick up a fair number of points with it, if White doesn't know that 8.cxd4 is superior to 8.Ne4 (which is a relatively recent development in the theory of the Fritz) and loses his/her way in the complications.  Theoretically, though, it looks somewhat unsound.   

Another of Harding's articles discusses 9...Bb7!?, which was given in Batsford Chess Openings 2 as giving Black good compensation, but in the face of modern computer-assisted analysis it also falls short:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz114.pdf

Except that it's not obvious, as 14...Bxf3 is not obvious at all. There is no reason to take the Rook immediately, as every experienced attacking player knows.
The Berliner is still one of the most irrelevant variation in the entire opening theory, for the reasons I gave above.

I guess that it should be obvious again that you don't mean 15...Rb8 (after 16.Qxd5 Black can resign) but the correct move order 15...Qxd4+ 16.Kh1 Rb8 and only now your stunning novely 17.Bf1. Well, congratulations, pity that 17.Nc3 is even better and has been played twice. White won both games.

sloughter wrote on 04/04/11 at 11:12:17:

The burden is always on the gambiteer to prove sufficient compensation.

sloughter wrote on 04/04/11 at 13:52:57:

Because it's an illegal move. There is a rook on f1 thanks to White's 13th.
Moreover they are only interested in 12...Kd8 (to my amazement even 12...Kf8 has been played, but only in 2009, so we cannot really expect Berliner and Kasparov to address it - or perhaps they should have addressed 12...c6 as well, which isn't much worse) 13.0-0 exf3, which has been refuted by 14.Qb3 since Estrin-Nielsen, WCh corr ICCF 1972. This is to be found in Pachmann's Moderne Schachtheorie, 1.Offene Spiele, page 156.

So you probably mean 12 ...Kd8 13.0-0 exf3 14.Rxf3 Rb8 when actually 15.a4! is best (not 15.Bf1). This has been known at least since 1988, when Heyken and Fette released their Theorie der Schach-Eröffnungen, Teil XI/1. It's possible that all this has been known since Estrin (twice WCh corr chess and an expert on this stiff) wrote his book on the 2-Knights. I have read it, but alas I don't own it, so I can't check.
Both books (by Pachmann and H/F) certainly mention 15.Bf1, because they know a game from the USSR between Resorov and Reirich, 1975, which they probably also found in aforementioned Estrin book. The game went 15...Re8 16.Nc3 c6 17.d3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Rb5 and was eventually drawn. But already in 1981 (and that's not in my books) White improved with 19.d5 in Kroner-Schuhler, DDR.
So you are refuting something that has been refuted since 30 years at least. That's why nobody is interested to discuss 8...Qh4.
Moreover 8...Ne6 is simply better.
Moreover 8.cxd4 is simply better.
That's three reasons to ignore 8...Qh4, no matter what Berliner and Kasparov have to say. And that's exactly what I'm going to do from now. I'll react again if you have something on 8.cxd4 and keep your lines under 20 moves. Your argument why you provide it (with zero deviations) is (and here I'm afraid to get censored again).

sloughter wrote on 04/04/11 at 11:12:17:

Somehow I don't think Berliner consulted Fritz 12 back in 1965, when he surprised that same Estrin with it.

Markovich wrote on 04/01/11 at 03:13:55:


What is clear about my innovation is what I have referred to---"Long-term compensation" This, by definition means beyond 20 moves. If we were to look at the main lines of the Berliner Gambit, in the main line, 12.Bxb5ch, before move 15, Fritz 12 would tell you that White has a great game, by move 20, a lot poorer game and by move 25 it would be evident that Black is equal or better. This is why Berliner thought his gambit was so good. It took just one bad move by White for Black to have full compensation for the pawn--but not until move 25.

What you will find in my variation is that for White to make progress he is forced to simplify, and, as I said before, this frequently leads to Rook endgames that are clearly theoretical draws.

The burden is not on me to provide variations where Black is equal; the burden is on you to demonstrate advantage White beyond 20 moves.

CraigEvans wrote on 04/03/11 at 20:06:27:

Honesty forces me to admit that I was the one to show up with 14.a4. Then again - I wrote above that I don't trust my own positional judgment.


sloughter wrote on 04/03/11 at 18:06:30:

What did I tell you? No more than 20 moves. That's 28, my friend, and 28 is at least 8 too much.
14.a4 (when two pawns up you can permit yourself to give up square b4) a6 15.Be2. The idea is to get rook a1 into play via a3.
Instead 15.Bc4 can be answered with ...Nf4. 

[some pointed remarks redacted by Markovich]

I would submit that while it might well be the case that 5...d6 should lead to plus-over-equals, to give it a question mark and say that Black is in trouble is rather silly.  The same adjective might be applied to Black's "idea" of how to play such a MB position.