Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C44: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani (Read 33371 times)
Hehmer
Ex Member


Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #43 - 05/09/11 at 09:21:19
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 08:59:02:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 6 Nxe5 Ng6 7 Nxg6 hxg6 8 Nd2!

<snip>

a) 8...Nxd2 9 Bxd2 now:

a1) 9...Bc5 10 Bd3 (Tony said "Maybe 10 Qf3 is even more accurate") 10...d6 11 Qf3 Qh4 12 0-0-0 Bg4 13 Qe4+ Kf8 14 f3 Bd7 Aagaard assesses this position = but I think White is slightly better, for example, 15 Qxh4 Rxh4 16 Rde1 Rh5 17 c4 c6 18 b4 Bf2 19 Re2 Bg3 20 dxc6 Bxc6 21 h3 d5 22 c5 d4 23 Kb2 Re8 24 Rxe8+ Kex8 25 Kb3 +=


In my opinion Aagard's evaluation is OK. It's approximately equal after 14...Bd7. In your line instead of 17...c6 Black can also try 17...b5. It's tactically OK after 18.cxb5 Rb8. Rybka 4 endorses this and continues with 18.b3 bxc4 which has its logic, but 18...b4!? comes into consideration too. If White has no better idea than exchanging all the rooks 17...Re8 may well be the most solid defence.

Things are a bit more difficult for Black after Kosten's 10.Qf3.

Black should probably try to exchange Queens, but after 10...Qf6 11.Qxf6 gxf6 12.f3 it looks like += indeed. Black's structure is softer than in the line above. The pawn f6 can become a target, White might create a passer on the h-file like in Aagard - Berg and when Black plays f5 to prevent this, the Bc8 becomes bad and the dark squares f6 and g5 become weak. Yesterday I tried to defend Black's position vs. Rybka with 12...Bd6 13.Kf2 Bc5+ 14.Kg3! (14.Be3 Bxe3+ 15.Kxe3 Ke7!? and Kd6) 14...Bd6+ 15.f4! b6 but White is better after 16.c4 Bb7 17.Bd3 (less clear is 17.Bc3 g5).

So Black should wish to exchange Queens on another square and try to follow Aagard's recipe with 10...d6 11.O-O-O Qh4 12.Re1+ Kf8 when 13.Bd3 transposes and 13.Bb5 works after 13...Bg4 14.Qe4 Kg8 15.f3 Bf5 16.Qxh4 Rxh4 17.g4 a6! += but 13...Bf5! looks good. These lines are not engine checked though.
« Last Edit: 05/09/11 at 12:48:54 by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #42 - 05/09/11 at 06:44:59
Post Tools
Likely A3 has a point. But perhaps this went askew from the off.
'You're wrong, I'm right'.
Forthright and combative, but not always the best way to proceed in a forum.
Rather than 'Let's try and work this thing out'.
+==

But I have too many kaftans in my wardrobe, eat too much yoghurt and am currently wearing a 'save whales, trees, the Cornish language etc' Tshirt.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alias
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1512
Location: East of the river Svartån
Joined: 11/19/04
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #41 - 05/09/11 at 06:34:56
Post Tools
+censor Anonymous3
  

Don't check me with no lightweight stuff.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 307
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #40 - 05/09/11 at 06:06:16
Post Tools
Maybe you are right that Black is = in these lines here but I don't feel like analyzing these positions anymore. However, I'm sure White has improvements earlier on and I still think this line is slightly better for White and GM Tony Kosten agress with me.

I noticed in the "Beating the Open Games 2nd Edition" thread that after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 6 Nxe5 Ng6 7 Nxf6 hxg6 8 Nd2(!) Nf6 9 Nc4 Qe7+ 10 Be2, 10...Qe4!? is suggested. However, I think 11 0-0! Qxd5 12 Qb3! is a strong gambit that is slightly better for White. For example, a cool line is 12...Be7 13 Re1 Qf5 14 Bf3 d5 15 Ne5 c6 16 g4! +=.

Here are some things from the "Beating the Open Games 2nd edition" thread,

I like what TopNotch said about Aagaard's game in response to Aagaard saying he played 8 Nd2(!) as a joke: "Methinks not, more plausible is you tried it because like Tony and others you must have concluded after a closer look that it was a risk free way to play for the edge with the added bonus of being little known and studied. That's chess as Bibs says, its a move you played it, and why not."

I think Aagaard's 13 Bxf5 was the best move but 13 h4 Qd7 4 h5 was suggested as an improvement in Aagaard's game. However, I think 13...Bxd3 is best. After 13...Qd7, I agree with trw that 14 Bxf5 gxf5 15 h5 ± is White's best response.

Aagaard-"Also, Other publishers reprint and translate books with plenty of mistakes knowingly. Some authors say that "he(re) you will have to find something" when there is nothing to be found. It is often seen that the entire repertoire cannot be defended."

"Beating the Open Games" was reprinted with plenty of mistakes but I guess they didn't know this because there research was very poor. Some missing lines were filled in and it was called a 2nd edition but I don't consider this a 2nd edition. It's misleading as a 2nd edition should update all lines that needed updating but that wasn't the case at all. Also, I can't think of many books that say "he(re) you will have to find something".

Aagaard-"Though I still see absolutely no advantage for White after analysing it, it does appear to be a little tricky in practice. If I even come across a situation like this again, I will make sure that 8.Nd2 is mentioned - if nothing else then to get one of my own games in a book, hehehe."

It seems to me that Aagaard knows that 8 Nd2(!) is slightly better for White, even more so with his comments "White could not prove anything ove the board" and hinting several times that White doesn't have any way to improve on the game. This implies to me that he knows this line is slightly better for White but tried to hide it with these comments. The fact is that Aagaard missed many chances in this game. He knows this line would need to be mentioned in the future but didn't want to admit he was wrong and simply used the "a little tricky in practice" as an excuse.

Aagard-"Would I have made all the same choices as Mihail - no. I probably would take on f4 in the King's Gambit. I would also choose 5...Bxd4 over 5...exd4 in this Italian gambit. But I don't want to publish 15 times my opinion a year. When I publish Marin, I want to publish his opinions."

It's not about publishing Marin's opinion vs. anyone elses opinion but it's about recommending the best moves since your company's montra is ''Tired of bad positions? Try the main lines!". I don't think 2...Bc5 vs. the King's Gambit and 5...exd4 in the Koltanowski Gambitor Max Lange Gambit (not Italian Gambit which is 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 d4!?) are the best moves.

Zaphod Beeblebrox-"I'm too lazy to look it up now, but doesn't the Scotch gambit transpose to the Max Lange? After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 I think Marin suggests Bc5 entering the Italian game, whereafter 5.0-0 there is a choice between d6 and Nf6, the latter giving us the Max Lange. Probably this is the second mover-order to reach the Max Lange, unless Marin recommends d6, which he doesn't. Of course that line is (also?) good for black and probably even a safer way to reach equality than the Max Lange. However, I just wanted to point out that there are two distinct move-orders to take care of, not just one."

Marin doesn't consider the position after 5 0-0 at all but given the repertoire you can play 5...Nf6, transposing to the Max Lange Attack. I think the reason 5 0-0 is not considered in the book isn't because you can play 5...Nf6, transposing to the Max Lange Attack, but because Marin either didn't know about the move at all or just kind of knew about 5 0-0 but thought it wasn't important enough to include in the book because it's a rare move in a very minor sideline. However, he should have included it to show it's at least = for Black due to 5...d6.
« Last Edit: 05/09/11 at 07:13:23 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #39 - 05/09/11 at 00:57:39
Post Tools
So do I, but the problem is that Anon.3 judges += and I =.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #38 - 05/09/11 at 00:54:44
Post Tools
Somehow I doubt that analysis out to move 34 is going to decide this question.  Sometime before then, judgment has to come into play.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #37 - 05/09/11 at 00:46:50
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 00:33:57:
32 b5 g5 33 Bf3 Bf2 34 Bd4 Bxd4 35 Kxd4 g6 36 g3 +=

Doesn't make any difference after 36...Ke7.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 00:33:57:
32...Kxe5 33 h4 f5 34 exf5 gxf5 35 g3 f4 36 gxf4+ Kxf4 37 Kd4 Kg4 38 Kd5 Kxh4 39 Kxd6 g5 40 c5 bxc5 41 bxc5 g4 42 c6 g3 43 c7 g2 44 c8=Q g1=Q 45 Qh8+ Kg3 46.Qg7+ Kh2 47 Qxg1+ Kxg1 48 Kc6 +-

I have adressed that one already.
33...a5.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 00:33:57:
32...dxe5 34 h4 +=

Assuming you meant 33.h4 you'll have to analyze Black's answers first: 33...a6; 33...Kd6; 33...Kd7; 33...f5. Just attaching += after one move is too easy.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 307
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #36 - 05/09/11 at 00:33:57
Post Tools
32 b5 g5 33 Bf2 Bd2 34 Bd4 Bxd4 35 Kxd4 g6 36 g3 +=

A) 32...Kxe5 33 h4 34 exf5 gxf5 35 g3 f4 36 gxf4+ Kxf4 37 Kd4 Kg4 38 Kd5 Kxh4 39 Kxd6 g5 40 c5 bxc5 41 bxc5 g4 42 c6 g3 43 c7 g2 44 c8=Q g1=Q 45 Qh8+ Kg3 46.Qg7+ Kh2 47 Qxg1+ Kxg1 48 Kc6 +-

B) 32...dxe5 34 h4 +=
« Last Edit: 05/09/11 at 03:41:15 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #35 - 05/09/11 at 00:12:57
Post Tools
32.b5 g5 33.Bf2 Bb2 34.Bd4 Bxd4 35.Kxd4 g6 36.g4 Kd7 is equal.

32.Bxe5 (iso 32.b5) Kxe5 33.h4 f5 34.exf5 gxf5 35.g3 f4 36.gxf4+ Kxf4 37.Kd4 Kg4 38.Kd5 Kxh4 39.Kxd6 g5 40.c5 bxc5 41.bxc5 g4 42.c6 g3 43.c7 g2 44.c8Q g1Q 45.Qh8+ Kg3 46.Qg8+ Kh2 47.Qxg1+ Kxg1 48.Kc7 wins. So 33...a5 34.a3 axb4 35.axb4 f5 is the way to go.

32...dxe5 looks playable - the King has an extra tempo to go to the Queenside.

I admit that these endgames are tricky, but they always are.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 307
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #34 - 05/08/11 at 22:22:13
Post Tools
32...g5 33 Bf2 Bb2 34 Bd4 += but I do think you are correct that 32...f6 is = and after 33 a4 Bxd4 34 Kxd4 f5 35 g3, you can't play 35...g6. I'm assuming you meant 35 exf5 gxf5 36 g3 g6.

However, instead of 32 b5, 32 Bxe5 is +=.


Just to make it easier for everyone, here is the line me and MNb are currently debating:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 6 Nxe5 Ng6 7 Nxg6 hxg6 8 Nd2! Nxd2 9 Bxd2 Bc5 10 Bd3 d6 11 Qf3 Qh4 12 0-0-0 Bg4 13 Qe4+ Kf8 14 f3 Bd7 15 Qxh4 Rxh4 16 Rde1 Re8 17 Rxe8+ Bxe8 18 Kc2 Bd7 19 h3 Rh5 20 c4 Re5 21 Bc3 Re8 22 Re1 Rxe1 23 Bxe1 Bd4 24 Bh4 c5 25 dxc6 Bxc6 26 b4 26...b6 27 Be4! Bxe4 28 fxe4 Ke8 29 Kd3 Be5 30 Bf2 Kd7 31 Bd4 Ke6 32 Bxe5 
« Last Edit: 05/09/11 at 00:02:46 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #33 - 05/08/11 at 21:41:12
Post Tools
Sorry, I meant 32...f6 33.a4 Bxd4 34.Kxd4 f5 35.exf5+ gxf5 36.h4 g6.

Now we have two main lines:

A) 32...f6 33.a4 (33.Bf2 Bb2) Bxd4 (g5 34.Bf2 Kd7 35.Be1 Bh2 also looks sufficient) 34.Kxd4 f5 (or g5) 35.g3 g6 36.g4 Ke7 37.Kd5 Kd7

B) 32...g5 33.a4 (33.Bf2 Bb2 and White can't break through for similar reasons as in the previous line) Bxd4 (f6 34.Bf2 Kd7 35.Be1 Bh2 also looks sufficient) 34.Kxd4 f6 35.g3 g6.

33...Bb2 is meant to transfer the Bishop to c5, taking the sting out of a4-a5.

Dead equal, far before the first time control.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 307
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #32 - 05/08/11 at 21:20:56
Post Tools
You're right in that 34 Ke3 is =. However, Rybka doesn't suggest 36 h4(??) since it's simply bad due to 36...gxh4.

Instead of 33 Bxe5(?!), 33 Bf2 +=.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #31 - 05/08/11 at 20:55:44
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 20:47:24:
One cynical response is fine but your comment was a bit harsher than mine.

I know, by definition comments directed to you are always a bit harsher than the comments you make yourself.  I have learned already that you only like your own cynism. Deal with it: I like both.

Do you know what a transposition is? It's a different move sequence leading to the same position. Example:
32...g5 33.a4 f6 is the same as
32...f6 33.a4 g5.

This transposition is important, because it means that your 33.Bxe5 can't be an improvement.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 02:14:10:
MNb, 26...b6 27 Be4! Bxe4 28 fxe4 Ke8 29 Kd3 Be5 30 Bf2 Kd7 31 Be4 Ke6 32 b5 f6 33 a4 +=.


Moreover your 34.Ke3 += is overoptimistic. 34...f5 35.exf5 Kxf5 36.Kd4 (36.g3 Kd5) Kf4 37.Kd5 Kg3 is as equal as this game has been since move 3. Perhaps you have, like Rybka (of course sheer coincidence) 36.h4 in mind. After g6 White still won't be able to invade.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 307
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #30 - 05/08/11 at 20:47:24
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 05/08/11 at 20:24:23:
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 19:48:36:
MNb, my comment about your Kc1 was just one response to your ongoing abuse.

Of course such a response should be allowed then, while a similar reaction should not when it's directed to you.
Right.


One cynical response is fine but your comment was a bit harsher than minw. What I don't like is your ongoing abuse.

31...Ke6 32 b5 g5 33 Bxe5 Kxe5 34 Ke3 +=

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #29 - 05/08/11 at 20:24:23
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 19:48:36:
MNb, my comment about your Kc1 was just one response to your ongoing abuse.

Of course such a response should be allowed then, while a similar reaction should not when it's directed to you.
Right.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 19:48:36:
31...f6 32 Bxe5 dxe5 33 g4 +- White has a winning endgame due to a 3-2 majority on the queenside and Black can't create an offsetting majority on the kingside.

You are right; apologies for not paying enough attention. I was distracted by FC Twente defeating Ajax.
31.Bd4 Ke6 32.b5 g5 33.a4 Bxd4 (or f6 34.Bf2 Kd7 35.Ke1 Bh2) 34.Kxd4 f6 35.g3 g6 and White's King won't get any further than d5 (Kd5 has to be answered with Kd7).
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo