Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C44: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani (Read 21460 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #58 - 05/10/11 at 22:39:13
Post Tools
Well, this issue will be decided in games of chess.  But thinking as you do, you have your defense to the Ponziani.  Personally I prefer 3...d5, which seems to offer more of what I want from this game.  But that's another topic.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hehmer
Ex Member


Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #57 - 05/10/11 at 14:25:41
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/10/11 at 13:03:49:
Quote:
8...Nf6! is counterintuitive for a player like me but once you showed it I didn't need much time to see that it's really good and better than 8...Nxd2. Both plans 9...Bc5 and 9...b6/Bd6 seem OK to me. So far I have no explanation for the vague misgivings of the authorities.


Hey, I'm no authority!  Tony is an authority.  Black is Black, you see?  He is down by his customary tempo (instead of two tempi as after 8...Nxd2).  He has less space; due to problems on the e-file; he may have trouble uniting his rooks.  I simply don't understand how Black is supposed to be better after 8...Nf6; I could agree that he is O.K. in the usual way that Black is O.K.

We could debate whether White's pawn on d5 is good or bad; to me it looks annoying.  That's it, speaking only for myself and with an amateur's understanding of this game.



These were my first thoughts too, but White has to move his Nd2 again losing his lead in development. After 9.Nf3 both have the Knight developed and it's Black to move. The e-file is not easy to use anyway because the pawn d5 needs protection. Bc4 looks silly to me and if we play Bd3 we'll lose time with c3-c4. I didn't even look at the conventional 9...Bc5 because I have no idea how to punish the ambitious plan with b6 and Bd6. Simply fencing the Bb7 in by playing c4 seems useless in view of ...c6, dxc6, ...dxc6 and ...c5. So right now I think that 8...Nf6! renders 8.Nd2(!) harmless. I don't think that Black is better though and would play this with both colors.



  
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 #56 - 05/10/11 at 13:03:49
Post Tools
Quote:
8...Nf6! is counterintuitive for a player like me but once you showed it I didn't need much time to see that it's really good and better than 8...Nxd2. Both plans 9...Bc5 and 9...b6/Bd6 seem OK to me. So far I have no explanation for the vague misgivings of the authorities.


Hey, I'm no authority!  Tony is an authority.  Black is Black, you see?  He is down by his customary tempo (instead of two tempi as after 8...Nxd2).  He has less space; due to problems on the e-file; he may have trouble uniting his rooks.  I simply don't understand how Black is supposed to be better after 8...Nf6; I could agree that he is O.K. in the usual way that Black is O.K.

We could debate whether White's pawn on d5 is good or bad; to me it looks annoying.  That's it, speaking only for myself and with an amateur's understanding of this game.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hehmer
Ex Member


Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #55 - 05/10/11 at 12:05:02
Post Tools
8...Nf6! is counterintuitive for a player like me but once you showed it I didn't need much time to see that it's really good and better than 8...Nxd2. Both plans 9...Bc5 and 9...b6/Bd6 seem OK to me. So far I have no explanation for the vague misgivings of the authorities.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #54 - 05/10/11 at 11:20:13
Post Tools
Well, I seldom play 1...e5 so this topic is hardly worth spending time on. But 8...Nf6 9.Nf3 Bc5 looks extremely solid for black in my opinion.

I set up an engine blitz tournament, 7min +5sec, per engine and game, which resulted in 4 draws and 2 black wins from six games, and White was lucky to escape with -2.

As I mentioned earlier I like the ideas with ...Bd6 and ...b6 which is how I would like to play it, if I ever get this position in a game. This was also how black got the two wins. Not perfect play of course (blitz is blitz), but the games illustrate two things at least, 1) Black is rock solid and 2) pawn d5 is more weak than strong.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier is that white's king has been slightly compromised already, if 0-0 there's the h-file and 0-0-0 doesn't offer full king safety either due to the c-pawn being on c3.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.05.10"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ponz - The ...b6 set-up"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C44"]
[PlyCount "144"]
[EventDate "2011.03.21"]
[SourceDate "2011.05.10"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8.
Nd2 Nf6 $1 9. Nf3 b6 (9... Bd6 10. Be2 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Bc4 Rh5 13. h3 Bxd5
14. Bxd5 Rxd5 15. Qb3 a5 16. a4 Rf5 17. Re1+ Kf8 18. Be3 Nd5 19. Bd2 c6 20. c4
Nf4 21. Rad1 Qc7 22. g4 Nxh3+ 23. Kg2 Nf4+ 24. Kf1 Rc5 25. Be3 Rd8 26. Nd2 Ne6
27. Ne4 Bf4 28. Nxc5 bxc5 29. Rd3 Bxe3 30. Rexe3 f6 31. Re1 Kf7 32. Qc3 Qf4 33.
b3 g5 34. Rg3 Rh8 35. Kg1 Nd4 36. Qe3 Qxe3 37. Rgxe3 Rb8 38. Kg2 Rd8 39. Rc3
Ne6 40. Rce3 Rb8 41. Kg1 Kg6 42. Rd1 Nd4 43. f3 Kf7 44. Kf2 Rb7 45. Rc1 d6 46.
Rd1 f5 47. gxf5 Rb8 48. Rdd3 Kf6 49. Re1 Nxf5 50. Rg1 Nd4 51. Rgd1 Kf5 52. Re3
Rh8 53. Kg2 Kf6 54. Kf2 Rh2+ 55. Kg3 Rb2 56. Red3 Ke5 57. Re1+ Kf5 58. Rde3
Rxb3 59. Rxb3 Nxb3 60. Re2 d5 61. Kf2 Nd4 62. Re3 dxc4 63. Kf1 Kf6 64. Kf2 g6
65. Rc3 Ke5 66. Rxc4 Kd5 67. Rc3 c4 68. Ke3 Nf5+ 69. Kd2 Kd4 70. Rc1 Ne3 71.
Rg1 c3+ 72. Kc1 g4 73. fxg4 Kc4 74. Rg3 Nd5 75. g5 Kb3 76. Rf3 c5 77. Kb1 Nb4
78. Re3 Nc6 79. Rf3 Ne5 80. Rg3 Nc4 81. Kc1 Ne5 82. Kb1 Nf7 83. Kc1 Kxa4 84.
Rxc3 Kb4 85. Kc2 Nxg5 86. Rb3+ Kc4 87. Rg3 Ne6 88. Rxg6 Nd4+ 89. Kb2 a4 90. Rg3
Kb4 91. Rg4 Kc4 92. Ka3 Kb5 93. Rg2 Ka5 94. Rg4 Nb5+ 95. Kb2 Nd4 96. Ka3 Nb5+ {
adjud. 1/2-1/2 Houdini 1.5 x64-Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit/Ponz 2011.}) 10. Bc4 (10.
Be2 Bb7 11. Bg5 Be7 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. O-O Kf8 14. Bc4 Kg7 15. Re1 Rh5 16. Qd3
a5 17. a3 Bd6 18. h3 Qf8 19. Rad1 a4 20. Qe4 Ra5 21. Qg4 f5 22. Qd4+ f6 23. Ba2
Rh8 24. Re2 Bc5 25. Qd3 Ba6 26. c4 Bd6 27. Qc2 Bb7 28. Rde1 Qf7 29. Nd4 Ba6 30.
Kh1 Rh5 31. Re8 Rh8 32. Rxh8 Kxh8 33. Kg1 Be5 34. Nf3 d6 35. g3 Bc8 36. h4 Ra8
37. Qd2 Bd7 38. Nh2 g5 39. hxg5 Re8 40. Nf3 Kg7 41. Bb1 Rh8 42. Nh4 Qh5 43. f4
Qg4 44. Ng2 Qxg3 45. fxe5 fxe5 46. Qc3 Qh2+ 47. Kf2 f4 48. Qd3 Be8 49. Kf1 f3
50. Qxf3 Rf8 51. Bf5 Bh5 52. Qe4 Qh3 53. Kg1 Rxf5 54. Qh4 Qxh4 55. Nxh4 Rf4 56.
Ng2 Rxc4 57. Ne3 Rc5 58. Rf1 Kg6 59. Rf8 Kxg5 60. Rf5+ Kg6 61. Rf1 Rb5 62. Rf2
e4 63. Rc2 Rb3 64. Ng2 Kf6 65. Rc4 b5 66. Rc2 Ke5 67. Rf2 e3 68. Rc2 Kd4 69.
Ne1 Kxd5 70. Kf1 Bd1 71. Rh2 e2+ 72. Kf2 Rxb2 73. Rh5+ Ke4 74. Rh4+ Kf5 {
0-1 DeepSaros-G ver.2.3f-Houdini 1.5 x64/Ponz 2011.}) 10... Qe7+ 11. Be3 Qe4 (
11... Ng4 $5 12. d6 cxd6 (12... Qxd6 $2 13. Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. Ng5+) 13. O-O Nxe3
14. fxe3 Bb7) 12. Qb3 Bd6 13. O-O-O Bb7 (13... O-O 14. Rd4 Qe7 15. Re1 a5) 14.
Rd4 (14. Rhe1 O-O 15. Bxb6 $6 Qg4 16. Be3 Qxg2 17. Nh4 Qh3 18. Nxg6 Rfb8) 14...
Qe7 15. Re1 O-O-O 16. Rdd1 Qf8 17. Kb1 Kb8 18. Bd4 Bc5 19. h3 Bxd4 20. cxd4 d6
21. Ng5 a6 22. Be2 Rd7 23. Bf3 Ka7 24. Rd2 Qa8 25. Rde2 Bxd5 26. Qa4 Bxf3 27.
Nxf3 Qd5 28. Ka1 Kb7 29. Qc2 Qf5 30. Qc1 Nd5 31. Re4 Rc8 32. Nh4 Qf6 33. Nf3
Re7 34. Rxe7 Nxe7 35. Qd2 Nd5 36. Ng5 Qf5 37. g4 Qd7 38. Qe2 c6 39. Qf3 f6 40.
Ne4 Nc7 41. Ng3 Re8 42. Rc1 d5 43. Qd3 g5 44. Kb1 Rh8 45. Nh5 Ne6 46. a3 Re8
47. Qd2 a5 48. Ka2 Qf7 49. Kb1 f5 50. Ng3 f4 51. Ne2 Qf6 52. Rd1 Nc7 53. Qd3
Nb5 54. Nc3 Nxc3+ 55. Qxc3 a4 56. Qd3 f3 57. Kc2 Qf4 58. Rd2 Re1 59. Rd1 Re2+
60. Rd2 Rxd2+ 61. Qxd2 Qh2 62. b4 Qxh3 63. Qxg5 Qg2 64. Qe7+ Ka6 65. Qe3 Qxg4
66. Kc3 Qe4 67. Qd2 Qb1 68. Qc2 Qxc2+ 69. Kxc2 Kb5 70. Kd3 g6 71. Ke3 Kc4 72.
Kxf3 Kb3 {0-1 Houdini 1.5 x64-Houdini 1.5a x64/Ponz 2011.} *
[/pgn]
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3068
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #53 - 05/10/11 at 10:05:41
Post Tools
[quote author=55796A73776E717B70180 link=1304672342/50#50 date=1304969282]

What I do think is that after 8...Nxd2, White is a tempo up if one credits that d2 is a good station for the QB, and it may well be.  White enjoys a space advantage and has the obvious plan of trying to exploit the e-file.  I don't see how anyone can claim perfect equality for Black in that position, but perhaps one could argue that Black can hold.  I could believe that readily enough, but to hold a slightly worse position, and with scant counterplay, isn't why I sit down at a chess board.

I'm not really persuaded that Black is equal after 8...Nf6, though it looks better because White's extra tempo is in the form of a knight on d2, which must move again to achieve a decent station.  Even then Black is very slightly worse, it seems to me.  After 9.Nf3 Black is still Black tempo-wise, and White has more space.  Black can say, "See, my KR is active already," but I like to unite my rooks.  I don't think White's d-pawn is weak so much as cramping Black's position.

So I guess I just plain like White here, although I am prepared to believe that Black is O.K. with good play.
[/quote]
I have to say I completely agree with this, and no machine is likely to convince me otherwise! :)
  
Back to top
WWW  
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 #52 - 05/10/11 at 01:04:49
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 05/09/11 at 19:52:09:
In the past I've been struck by the diversity of some published opinion regarding this doubled g-pawn line.  In the 1940s Reuben Fine thought 7. Nxg6 "refuted" Black's play (after 8...hg he continued with 8. Qf3), while decades later Edmar Mednis wrote rather glowingly of Black's position with its half-open h-file and all.


Interesting.  Your scholarship is most impressive.  So what is your view?
  

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



Posts: 4519
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #51 - 05/09/11 at 19:52:09
Post Tools
In the past I've been struck by the diversity of some published opinion regarding this doubled g-pawn line.  In the 1940s Reuben Fine thought 7. Nxg6 "refuted" Black's play (after 8...hg he continued with 8. Qf3), while decades later Edmar Mednis wrote rather glowingly of Black's position with its half-open h-file and all.
  
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 #50 - 05/09/11 at 19:28:02
Post Tools
[quote author=7144496F40464D4C4B250 link=1304672342/49#49 date=1304954468]

Anyway, it would be more productive to focus on the analysis instead of quarrelling with or about A3.
[/quote]

Amen to that.  Too many pointed remarks so far.

[quote author=7144496F40464D4C4B250 link=1304672342/49#49 date=1304954468]
Am I the only one who prefers 8...Nf6 over the exchange on d2? The pawn on d5 is something to latch on to for for Black and in several different ways too, b6+Bb7; c6; Rh5; answering c3-c4 with b5, etc.

Black has easier development, a d5-pawn to pressure and no weaknesses, so the verdict "=" should probably be "at least = for black". Or does White have something in return? He might claim to have a space advantage, but as far as I can see that's only visible if Black shuts in Bf8 with an early ...d6?![/quote]

I don't know that I agree with that.  What I do think is that after 8...Nxd2, White is a tempo up if one credits that d2 is a good station for the QB, and it may well be.  White enjoys a space advantage and has the obvious plan of trying to exploit the e-file.  I don't see how anyone can claim perfect equality for Black in that position, but perhaps one could argue that Black can hold.  I could believe that readily enough, but to hold a slightly worse position, and with scant counterplay, isn't why I sit down at a chess board.

I'm not really persuaded that Black is equal after 8...Nf6, though it looks better because White's extra tempo is in the form of a knight on d2, which must move again to achieve a decent station.  Even then Black is very slightly worse, it seems to me.  After 9.Nf3 Black is still Black tempo-wise, and White has more space.  Black can say, "See, my KR is active already," but I like to unite my rooks.  I don't think White's d-pawn is weak so much as cramping Black's position.

So I guess I just plain like White here, although I am prepared to believe that Black is O.K. with good play.
  

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


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #49 - 05/09/11 at 15:21:08
Post Tools
[quote author=022538363C30510 link=1304672342/47#47 date=1304950480][quote author=36030E2807010A0B0C620 link=1304672342/45#45 date=1304935792]A3, what Aagaard and others wrote a couple of years ago is water under the bridge long ago so stop rambling on about it.

As for the speculations about the game with Berg; playing the Ponz against a player who usually plays 1...e6 and occasionally 1...c5 is probably a fun gamble as it's hard to imagine it was what black had prepared against...
[/quote]
If you remember the old thread on 8.Nd2, it was clear that Aagaard played it against Berg more or less as a joke, after he had already discussed it with "Anonymous" and others on this forum.

See http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/all[/quote]

Yeah, I know. Though some here tried to make it into something more, if you read A3's quotes. All I'm saying is that it's more likely that he didn't expect 1...e5 in that game and thus gambled that Berg hadn't read that thread.

Anyway, it would be more productive to focus on the analysis instead of quarrelling with or about A3.

Am I the only one who prefers 8...Nf6 over the exchange on d2? The pawn on d5 is something to latch on to for for Black and in several different ways too, b6+Bb7; c6; Rh5; answering c3-c4 with b5, etc.

Black has easier development, a d5-pawn to pressure and no weaknesses, so the verdict "=" should probably be "at least = for black". Or does White have something in return? He might claim to have a space advantage, but as far as I can see that's only visible if Black shuts in Bf8 with an early ...d6?!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 477
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #48 - 05/09/11 at 14:52:17
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 05/09/11 at 14:14:40:
If you remember the old thread on 8.Nd2, it was clear that Aagaard played it against Berg more or less as a joke, after he had already discussed it with "Anonymous" and others on this forum.

See http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/all


Ah, internet drama. Why do we all get so worked up about these things?!  Grin
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3042
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #47 - 05/09/11 at 14:14:40
Post Tools
[quote author=36030E2807010A0B0C620 link=1304672342/45#45 date=1304935792]A3, what Aagaard and others wrote a couple of years ago is water under the bridge long ago so stop rambling on about it.

As for the speculations about the game with Berg; playing the Ponz against a player who usually plays 1...e6 and occasionally 1...c5 is probably a fun gamble as it's hard to imagine it was what black had prepared against...
[/quote]
If you remember the old thread on 8.Nd2, it was clear that Aagaard played it against Berg more or less as a joke, after he had already discussed it with "Anonymous" and others on this forum.

See http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/all
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Oblonskij
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 10/27/10
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #46 - 05/09/11 at 10:15:07
Post Tools
Anonymous, can you please enlighten me about how you can hate so much on Marin's decision to give us an excellent treatise on the Max Lange instead of copying Kaufman's 5. ...Bxd4 line? I mean really wtf can be wrong with that?! Now anyone interested in the line has a choice.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #45 - 05/09/11 at 10:09:52
Post Tools
A3, what Aagaard and others wrote a couple of years ago is water under the bridge long ago so stop rambling on about it.

As for the speculations about the game with Berg; playing the Ponz against a player who usually plays 1...e6 and occasionally 1...c5 is probably a fun gamble as it's hard to imagine it was what black had prepared against...

On to the analysis.

Isn't ...Nxd2 a bit co-operative? Black seems to score well with Ne4-f6 followed for example by Bc5 and d6 activating the darkfielder, after ...hxg6 Black hardly needs to worry about doubled f-pawns and if the king has to move to f8 it doesn't bother Rh8 as it has already an open file.
Houdini even suggests a development scheme of Bd6, b6, Bb7 which looks harmonious though I didn't find any games with it.

Personally, I'd prefer White after ...Nxd2 but Black after ...Nf6, though both may be equal...

[pgn][Event "corr Scotland - Rest of the World"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2008.05.12"]
[Round "?.6"]
[White "Mackintosh, Iain (SCO)"]
[Black "Reichgeld, Manfred(GER)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C44"]
[WhiteElo "2272"]
[BlackElo "2279"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "2008.??.??"]
[EventType "match (corr)"]
[Source "Opening Master"]
[SourceDate "2011.01.03"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Ne7 6. Nxe5 Ng6 7. Nxg6 hxg6 8.
Nd2 Nf6 9. Nf3 Bc5 (9... Bd6 10. Be2 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Bg5 Bxd5 13. Bxf6 Bxf3
14. Bxd8 Bxh2+ 15. Kh1 Bg3+ 16. Kg1 $11) 10. Be2 d6 11. O-O O-O 12. Bg5 Re8 13.
Bd3 Bg4 14. h3 Bd7 15. Qd2 c6 16. b4 Bb6 17. c4 a5 18. a3 axb4 19. axb4 Rxa1
20. Rxa1 cxd5 21. cxd5 Qc8 22. Rc1 Qa8 23. Bf4 Bf5 24. Bxf5 gxf5 25. Ng5 Qa6
1/2-1/2
[/pgn]
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #44 - 05/09/11 at 09:43:50
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 06:06:16:
This implies to me that he knows this line is slightly better for White but tried to hide it with these comments.


Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 17:40:56:
You need  to make sure your criticism is valid before you criticize

You apparently don't have to.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/09/11 at 06:06:16:
However, I'm sure White has improvements earlier on and I still think this line is slightly better for White.

Sure.  Lips Sealed
  

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
 
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: 2113
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: 1503
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: 305
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: 10383
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: 10383
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: 305
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: 10383
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: 305
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: 10383
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: 305
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: 10383
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: 305
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: 10383
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
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #28 - 05/08/11 at 19:48:36
Post Tools
ErictheRed, I was only banned once as Anonymous but I don't think it was fully warranted. When I created a new account, Anonymous2 was already taken so that's why I chose Anonymous3.

MNb, my comment about your Kc1 was just one cyncial response that was warranted due to your constant abuse.

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.
« Last Edit: 05/08/11 at 20:50:45 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #27 - 05/08/11 at 19:10:00
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 17:26:31:
I meant 31 Bd4. I already told you to stop this childish stuff so now you leave me no choice but to put in a complaint to Tony!

Have you also quoted yourself? Because I don't see why your remark on my Kc1 is any better than mine on yours Be4.

Or did you mean my remark about "trying"? Well, that's serious, because in no way you are succeeding in proving an advantage for White. 31.Bd4 f6 32.a4 (the pawn endgame is dead equal too) Bg3 33.b5 Be1 with the same idea. Black draws without much effort.

@Eric: I have promised not to exaggerate.
  

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
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2455
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #26 - 05/08/11 at 17:49:33
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 17:26:31:
I meant 31 Bd4. I already told you to stop this childish stuff so now you leave me no choice but to put in a complaint to Tony!


Awesome, let us know how that works out for you.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, really I'm not, but...haven't you already been banned twice?  I mean, as Anonymous and Anonymous2? 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #25 - 05/08/11 at 17:26:31
Post Tools
I meant 31 Bd4. I already told you to stop this childish stuff so now you leave me no choice but to put in a complaint to Tony!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #24 - 05/08/11 at 14:16:33
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 20:41:13:
your 18 Kc1 is illegal! (A piece can't move to the square it's currently on! I'm not sure if you knew that.)

Very possibly you don't know such rules yourself:

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

A Bishop can't go from f2 to e4, especially not if there is a pawn on that square. Please check the Chess Laws of FIDE.

31.Be3 Ke6 doesn't make sense. 31...Bg3 idea 32...Be1 maintains equality. Black's strategy is to prevent White from invading his position.
For this reason 31.Be1 Ke6 32.b5 f6 33.a4 Bb2 23.a5 Ba3 and the Bishop will return to c5.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/08/11 at 03:30:37:
Flig, the point I am trying to make  is 8 Nd2! gives White a slight advantage.

With emphasis on the word trying.
  

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
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 897
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #23 - 05/08/11 at 10:47:50
Post Tools
3...d5 cannot be dubious.  Tim Harding's latest article mentions that "Play the Ponziani" gives 4.Bb5 as dubious due to 4...dxe4! 5.Nxe5 Qg5!.  4.Qa4 is the most critical test but is probably equal after 4...f6 or 4...Qd6 while the gambit 4...Bd7 is also still holding up quite well.  There was a recent discussion of the queenless middlegame 4.d3 dxe4 5.dxe4 Qxd1+, but Black can also play 4...Nf6 or even 4...Nge7 with a perfectly adequate sort of reversed Hanham Philidor position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #22 - 05/08/11 at 06:41:28
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 05/08/11 at 03:44:30:
3...d5 might be better than the other traditional main move (though some, including Karpov, have regarded it as dubious), but I don't know on what grounds anyone can be sure of that.


Analysis!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4519
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #21 - 05/08/11 at 03:44:30
Post Tools
3...d5 might be better than the other traditional main move (though some, including Karpov, have regarded it as dubious), but I don't know on what grounds anyone can be sure of that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #20 - 05/08/11 at 03:30:37
Post Tools
3...Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 can be considered a main line in terms of popularity but what I think Quality Chess means by "main line" is the best move and that, as Aagaard says, is 3...d5(!).

I noticed that after 3...Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 6 Nxe5 Ng6, the book "Play the Ponziani" gives the move 7 Nxg6 a "?!" but do they consider 7...hxg6 8 Nd2(!)?. The book came out after Tony analyzed 8 Nd2! so their is no reason for them to miss this just like there was no reason for the 2nd edition of "Beating the Open Games" to miss this.

Flig, the point I am trying to make is 8 Nd2! gives White a slight advantage.

I agree that there are more attractive ways to play against the Ponziani but the following books recommend the line. "Beating the Open Games", "Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings", and "Play the Open Games as Black" (as a secondary recommendation). They all recommend this line to avoid the complications of 3...d5 (which can be massive after 4 Bb5). However, 3...Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 e5 Nd5 (4...Ne4!?, recommended in "Dangerous Weapons: 1 e4 e5", might be ok as well but more complicated) is a solid way to play that gives Black more play and I don't think gives White the slight advantage like 3...Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 does. "Play the Open Games as Black" analyzes 4...exd4 5 e5 Nd5 and shows that it's fine for Black but since general theory considered it to be bette for White at the time, you can't fault the book, or "Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings" for giving 4...Nxe4 as the main line. However, "Play 1 e4 e5! recommends 3...Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 e5 Nd5 so I don't see any reason why "Beating the open Games" would want to choose 4...Nxe4 over 4...exd4. The book gives 4...exd4 a "?!" with no supporting analysis but I think it's better than 4...Nxe4.

I think it is easy to understand why White is better. He has more space, more active pieces, and the better structure. I think your comment "White only has the better side of a draw but no way to force a substantial advantage" doesn't mean you don't understand why White is better here but means you think the position is a tiny bit better for White but may be not enough to win. However, I think it is a little bit better for White than that.

When I used the word "refutation", it meant I was showing that Aagard's analysis and assessments were wrong. Maybe the use of the word "refutation" was a bit harsh.
« Last Edit: 05/08/11 at 17:30:20 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4519
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #19 - 05/08/11 at 03:24:04
Post Tools
Er, I have always thought of 3...Nf6 4. d4 Nxe4 5. d5 Ne7 as one of the main lines of the Ponziani.  If that is no longer the case perhaps I missed the memo.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #18 - 05/08/11 at 02:14:10
Post Tools
We already discussed Aagaard playing 8 Nd2(!) in the thread "Beating the Open Games 2nd Edition" (http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/120).

GM Tony Kosten, according to Aagaard he didn't play 8 Nd2(!) because he thought it was better for White after all but still called it a random move and said, "I just thought it was a really funny thing to try out. I am Danish by birth and thus prone to irony. I am sorry if anyone missed the joke". However, I have a hard time believing that a GM wouldn't see how this move is better for White and that he would play a move he called normal and random in a pretty serious tournament game.

I also agree that 11 Qf3 is probably the best move in Aagaard's game.

MNb, 26...b6 27 Be4! Bxe4 28 fxe4 Ke8 29 Kd3 Be5 30 Bf2 Kd7 31 Be4 Ke6 32 b5 f6 33 a4 +=.

Marin recommendation against the Ponziani, and most of his recommendations in "Beating the Open Games, goes against the philosophy of Quality Chess which is "Tired of bad positions? Try the main lines!". Aagaard says in the "Beating the Open Games 2nd Edition" thread says that 3...d5 is probably the best move.
« Last Edit: 05/08/11 at 23:55:12 by Anonymous3 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #17 - 05/07/11 at 15:07:18
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! Nxd2 9 Bxd2 Bc5 10 Bd3 (Tony said "Maybe 10 Qf3 is even more accurate") d6 11 Qf3 Qh4 12 0-0-0 Bg4 13 Qe4+ Kf8 14 f3 Bd7 15 Qxh4 Rxh4 16 Rde1


16... Re8 17 Rxe8+ Bxe8 18 Kc2 Bd7 19 h3 Rh5 20 c4 Re5 21 Bc3 Re8 22 Re1 Rxe1 23 Bxe1

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/07/11 at 00:56:46:
23...Bd4 24 Bh4 +=. if 24...c5, then 25 dxc6 Bxc6 26 b4 and White is slightly better due to Black's weak d6-pawn, slightly more active king, and clear plan of advancing the queenside pawns.

26...b6. One weakness, especially one that is hard to get by, is not enough for an advantage. Advancing the queenside pawns only will lead to exchanges. A sample line is 27.Kb3 Ke8 28.a4 Kd7 29.a5 d5.
  

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
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 477
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #16 - 05/07/11 at 14:19:03
Post Tools
[quote author=19130A31302715312D2A3B305E0 link=1304672342/14#14 date=1304766887]I suppose most members are simply not aware of the possibilty. ::)[/quote]

that was correct, yes :)
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3068
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #15 - 05/07/11 at 11:39:19
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 05/07/11 at 07:29:26:
The opening seemed quite good for White anyway.

Indeed, is there anything wrong with 11.Qf3, stopping Black from exchanging the light-squared bishops? White has much more space and the better structure.
The fact that Jacob decided to play this as White against a strong GM suggests that he may not believe that Black can equalise after all.
Certainly I wouldn't play this line as Black again!
Incidentally, I'm not quite sure why this thread has so many acrimonious posts, let's stick to analysis please!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3068
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #14 - 05/07/11 at 11:14:47
Post Tools
[quote author=36030E2807010A0B0C620 link=1304672342/13#13 date=1304759278]How come no one uses the chessflash tags anymore? (pgn /pgn) Maybe we need a board symbol to click for inserting games / analysis?[/quote]
I added them to the original post - I suppose most members are simply not aware of the possibilty. ::)
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #13 - 05/07/11 at 09:07:58
Post Tools
How come no one uses the chessflash tags anymore? (pgn /pgn) Maybe we need a board symbol to click for inserting games / analysis?
« Last Edit: 05/07/11 at 12:22:11 by TalJechin »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 477
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #12 - 05/07/11 at 07:29:26
Post Tools
As it happens Aagaard got the chance to test this out a few months later:



The opening seemed quite good for White anyway. Fritz suggests 18 Rd3 or 18 Rd4 as possible improvements (intending to switch to the h-file).
« Last Edit: 05/07/11 at 11:12:37 by GMTonyKosten »  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #11 - 05/07/11 at 00:56:46
Post Tools
23...Bd4 24 Bh4 +=. if 24...c5, then 25 dxc6 Bxc6 26 b4 and White is slightly better due to Black's weak d6-pawn, slightly more active king, and clear plan of advancing the queenside pawns.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #10 - 05/06/11 at 21:19:28
Post Tools
Typo, I meant 18.Kc2 indeed.

Bd7 is not bad as only one black pawn is fixated - on a black square. Anyhow Black will play 23...Bd4 after which White cannot advance the queenside pawns properly and Black is ready for ...c5. Capturing ep will activate Bd7 while not capturing it will stifle all white ambitions on the queenside. As soon Black plays Ke7 this King is just as active. White has nothing.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 20:41:13:
MNb, please stop all this childish stuff! If not, I will put in a complaint to Tony.

Go ahead, make my day. Just repeating doesn't make something true. I don't withdraw any of my words above.

Having written that, the quality of your last reaction is much better, even if it contains much less moves.
  

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: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #9 - 05/06/11 at 20:41:13
Post Tools
MNb, I think 16...Rh5 is probably the best move and slightly bette than 16...Re8 because your usually going to have to move the h4 rook to h5 at some point to be able to get it back into play and 16...Rh5 prevents Black from making any other committal move like 16...Re8 which  allows White to simplify the position into a slightly better endgame than 16...Rh5 allows.

After 16... Re8 17 Rxe8+ Bxe8, your 18 Kc1 is illegal! (A piece can't move to the square it's currently on! I'm not sure if you knew that.) I'm assuming you meant 18 Kc2 and after 18...Bd7 19 h3 Rh5 20 c4 Re5 (This may not be the strongest line for either color but is the line you gave. Anyway, I think this line is better for White) 21 Bc3 Re8 22 Re1 Rxe1 23 Bxe1 White has a slightly better endgame due to Black's bad d7-bishop, slightly more active king, and a clear plan of advancing the queenside pawns.

All the moves I gave weren't originally on top of Rybka's list and the assessments weren't exactly the same.

I actually have been criticised just for using computer evaluations. I'm not using computers to "Attack GM Evaluations" but using them to help analyze positions and assist me in why I disagree with others evlaluations. 

MNb, please stop all this childish stuff! If not, I will put in a complaint to Tony. I would like this thread to be a serious thread about 8 Nd2!.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fromper
Senior Member
****
Offline


GrandPatzer

Posts: 372
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 03/12/10
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #8 - 05/06/11 at 20:27:38
Post Tools
Fllg wrote on 05/06/11 at 18:40:12:
This is a minor line in a very minor opening. I have never ever faced the Ponziani in 27 years of tournament practice and this is unlikely to change since there are far more attractive ways to play for White.

Ironically, I've faced it 3 times as black, all against the same much higher rated opponent (around 350 rating points, USCF), and I scored 2.5/3 against it, with no opening preparation whatsoever. I think I'm the reason that guy gave up playing the Ponz. Grin

FYI, I played 3. ... d5 the first time, without knowing that it was one of the two main book moves. I've since decided that line is lots of fun, so I'll stick with it if it ever comes up again in the future.
  

GrandPatzer!!!

1777 peak USCF rating - currently 1642 from coming back rusty, so trying to get back to that level
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #7 - 05/06/11 at 20:06:46
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 17:40:56:
I'm not sure what line you are referring to with your 16...Rh5 and 16...Re8 analysis.

There are a lot of 16...Rh5 moves in your opening post indeed which can be replaced by 16...Re8.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 17:40:56:
MNb, I didn't simply copy Rybka (3) (and Fritz 11's) analysis.

OK, then it's just your genius which caused the remarkable fact that every single move you gave in your OP was on top of Rybka's list - plus that the assessments are exactly the same.

Anonymous3 wrote on 05/06/11 at 17:40:56:
I've gotten criticized before about using a computer to help my analysis

No, you've got criticized before about the way you use your computers - and use them to attack GM-evaluations. But now I understand that your genius has not been recognized yet.

Alas I am neither a GM nor a chessgenius, so you still will have to explain why 16...Rh5 in line a1 is better than 16...Re8 and how White will refute the latter move, to use the word in the title of this thread.
  

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
 
Fllg
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 630
Joined: 05/30/09
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #6 - 05/06/11 at 18:40:12
Post Tools
Frankly, I don´t understand what point you are trying to make here.

Surely there are more attractive ways to play for Black against the Ponziani but even if White has a very small plus in the lines you suggested the positions are fully playable for Black.

Also I don´t think it is "easy to understand why White is better" since at best White only has the better side of a draw but no way to force a substantial advantage. This hardly qualifies as a refutation. Perhaps you can enlighten us here?

This is a minor line in a very minor opening. I have never ever faced the Ponziani in 27 years of tournament practice and this is unlikely to change since there are far more attractive ways to play for White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #5 - 05/06/11 at 17:40:56
Post Tools
I've gotten criticized before about using a computer to help my analysis which is funny since as you say Markovich it's the only way to do things nowadays. MNb just seems to constantly criticize me for no good reason.

MNb, I didn't simply copy Rybka (3) (and Fritz 11's) analysis. If I had done that, it would have been a fair criticism since the analysis and evaluations would most likely have been poor. I worked with the computers to find the best moves and true assessment of the positions. You need  to make sure your criticism is valid before you criticizel
I wasn't giving complete analysis of 8 Nd2! but was mainly trying to refute Aagaard's analysis. This is why I didn't mention 10 Qf3 Qf6 and 11...Qe7+ 12 Kf1 (which was played by Tony, as Black, in his own game he analyzed and Aagaard admitted that this might give White a slight advantage) Also, I'm not sure what line you are referring to with your 16...Rh5 and 16...Re8 analysis.

Hacker, I agree with you that sometimes it is nice to have an explanation that explains the evaluation of the position but here if you look at the lines, I think it is easy to understand why White is better. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 451
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #4 - 05/06/11 at 17:05:10
Post Tools
I think it is great that people publish analysis they have carried out with help of Fritz or Rybka. That's how we work today.

It would also be great if ”White is better” or ”=” after these analysis could be replaced by verbal judgement telling why I (and Rybka) think ”White is better” or why ”=”. In that case human is adding value to the machine and there is a statement that really could be discussed. (It also goes for a lot of opening books, I think.)
  

What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #3 - 05/06/11 at 15:19:24
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 05/06/11 at 14:35:31:
I hope this last does not imply that someone shouldn't use silicon to help his analysis.

You know better than that. I just object merely copying silicon lines and assessments without scrutinizing them. And I suspect that's the case here.
  

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 #2 - 05/06/11 at 14:35:31
Post Tools
I hope this last does not imply that someone shouldn't use silicon to help his analysis. It's a tricky business, but nowadays it's really the only way just about everyone does home analysis.
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10383
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani analysis
Reply #1 - 05/06/11 at 12:01:11
Post Tools
Nice, but incomplete copy of Rybka's analysis. In line a1) you forgot to let Rybka check 11...Qe7+ though. You also forgot to mention Rybka's proposal 10.Qf3 Qf6.
Iso Rybka's proposal 16...Rh5 there is 16...Re8. I know Rybka rates it as third best move at this point, but after 17.Rxe8+ Bxe8 18.Kc1 Bd7 19.h3 Rh5 idea 20...Re5 you may tell the chessworld how White should make progress.
  

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: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
C44: Refutation of Aagaard's 8 Nd2(!) Ponziani
05/06/11 at 08:59:02
Post Tools
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Ne7 6 Nxe5 Ng6 7 Nxg6 hxg6 8 Nd2! GM Tony Kosten analyzed this move in his June 2007 Chesspub. update. The move might not look like anything special at first but once you see the variations you'll hopefully appreciate the subtleties of this move and agree with me that it's actually a great move that gives White a slight advantage. Black's position is passive and has to worry about the safety of his king. Even if it's not better for White, White has the easier position to play and it's actaully very tricky for Black to meet correctly if he's unprepared.

In the thread "Beating the Open Games 2nd Edition" (http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214079417/15) (which is locked and is why I can't post this there) GM Jacob Aagaard said it was just a random move in response to why Mihail Marin didn't adress this in the 2nd edition of "Beating the Open Games". He tried to give improvements to Tony's analysis to support his claim but Tony said "I don't think it is as easy for Black as Jacob seems to think" and I don't think his analysis is very strong.

I'm not a subsriber to Chesspub. anymore so I don't have Tony's analysis but most of the following is my attempt to refute Aagaard's analysis and I think most of the moves he gave are moves that Tony didn't mention so it doesn't matter that I don't have Tony's analysis.

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 +=
a2) 9...Bd6 10 Qg4! +=
a3) 9...b6 10 Qf3! Bd6 (10...Qf6 11 Qxf6 gxf6 12 Bf4 +=) 11 0-0-0 Bb7 (Black's last 2 moves can be reversed) 12 h4! Qf6 (12...Rxh4 Bb5!) 13 Qxf6 (13 Qe4+ Qe7 14 Qa4 Bxd5 is an interesting gambit that is unclear but at least = for White. 15 Re1 Be6 16 Bd3) 13...gxf6 14 Be3 +=

b) 8...Nc5 9 Nf3 +=

c) 8...Nf6 9 Nc4 Qe7+ (9...d6 10 Be2 Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Re1 Re8 Aagaard says this position "is not giving White anything to speak about. Fritz is wrong here, for once. But yes, it does look a bit passive." However, Rybka 3 also likes White and I think Black's passivity is exactly what White a small advantage) 10 Be2 b5 11 Ne3 Bb7 (11...Qe5 12 g3! Bb7 13 0-0 Bc5 14 Bf3 0-0 15 a4 +=) 12 0-0 Qc5 Aagaard says this position "looks very unclear to me, and in no way worse for Black". It's a very interesting position but I think it's slightly better for White after 13 h3! Bd6 14 a4 a6 15 Bf3 0-0 16 Qd3 Be5 17 Re1 +=
« Last Edit: 07/17/11 at 19:01:20 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo