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.
|