TalJechin wrote on 06/12/11 at 21:54:01:


True, White is lost. This result proves (more or less) that 21.Nxe4? is too risky. So White has to be content with 21.Nf3 which I had given in reply #36 as an alternative.

TalJechin wrote on 06/11/11 at 13:25:04:

Here 30.Qe2 seems forced, and then Black can play:

(a) 30...gxh4 31.Bxh4 Rf7 32.Kh2 Be6 33.Rd1 Qe5 34.Rd8+ Kg7 35.Qf3 with many drawing chances, e.g. 35...Rc7 36.Rb8 Bd5 37.Qg4+ Kh7 38.Rd8 Be6 39.Qf3 Rc1 40.Rb8!?.

(b) 30...g4 could be stronger, but again 31.a4 Qe4 32.Rc3 Qxa4 33.g3 isn't hopeless.

TalJechin wrote on 06/11/11 at 13:25:04:

I am more familiar with the kind of Greco-Philidor, where White plays h4 with his king still on e1, often the rooks are exchanged on the h-file. Anderssen-style... Yoos - Hjartarsson is interesting, but there is also the "old" 8...Qe7 instead of H.'s 8...Nf6. And in this concrete situation (with c3 already played and White's king on g1) Black could well play 8...Qf6 and go into an improved "Nordwalde Variation". None of these seems, from White's perspective, fully reliable to me, but it is not a field in which I have put much time.

Quote:


Well, I'd still assume that black should be able to convert his two extra pawns in the long run even in that line, but following the rule of thumb for advancing pawns with different coloured bishops, i.e: 26...Qe6 27.d5 Qxd5 28.Be1 Rxf2 29.Qxf2 e3 seems like an easier win.

Quote:


I don't think I've seen him since that party, so he has probably moved back to Iceland.

Btw, how bad is the Greco Philidor, 8.h4, these days? In the comments on Yoos-Hjartarsson they give some alternative moves as improvements "with compensation" but no one seems to have tried those improvements, so is white's king just too exposed in the long run?

TalJechin wrote on 06/08/11 at 13:11:37:

There is no contradiction in saying that 11.Qxc7?! "has no theoretical merits" and still wondering whether Black must win. Nobody is eager to play for a draw only (I guess 80% draw, losses: 20%), but there is a "Remiszone" in chess.

You are probably right to criticize 26.Qa6?, after 26...Qe6! it seems lost for White. More precise: 26.h4 f3 27.d5 Qxd5 28.Qe3 Rf5 29.hxg5 hxg5 30.Be1 Rxa2 31.Rxa2 Qxa2 32.Bf2 and I don't think that Black can win.

Gambiteer wrote on 06/11/11 at 04:00:33:

In the first post of mine in this thread you'll see a link to an earlier "Hanstein Gambit" thread. We had already discussed 9...Na5 in some detail. Here I was refering to the line which formerly deemed critical to us. My present view about Na5 is something like: White's position looks a bit strange, but capturing the pawn f7 is probably worth the trouble. The Hanstein Gambit is all about pawn breaks: White gives a pawn for the better long-term prospects. And taking the pawn break f7-f5 out of the position is, in this respect, not a small achievement.

Sorry, TalJechin, I forgot to reply on this one:
Quote:

No contact so far. If you have, by coincidence, his address, please give it to me via PM. I'd gladly send him Kaissiber issue #13 with Dr. Stock's large article on the Muzio.

In the 8. Qa4 line isn't 9...Na5 more critical than 9...Qe7?  According to my database, white scores over 60% against the latter and only 39% against the former.  9...Na5 seems to be the move of choice in correspondence games (i.e. the engine's preferred move!)

"might indeed be good" Hmm, as we say around here, "you were sane recently"   -- frankly, I don't see how you can possibly still defend 11...Qc7?!

For example, in the line you give as equal, just replace the 'I hope Black gives me a tempo with 26...Kh7' with 26...Qe6.

In the main line your 23.Rb1 Ng3 24.c4 does seem to equalise eventually, despite weakening pawn-d4.

Practically, 11...Nf6 is still =+, motivated, as you say, by "I'd rather have Black", but to prove a theoretical edge one may need a line that doesn't allow so many exchanges - on the other hand, if there is such a line, then black may be playing for more than =+.

So, - I might be back...

[quote author=6764482A0 link=1305856339/34#34 date=1306758744][quote author=0134391F30363D3C3B550 link=1305856339/33#33 date=1306749960][i]If[/i] the Hanstein ideas with an early g3 and/or h4 would work, liberating Bc1, then the variation would be viable, but advancing on the queenside while behind in development is not how I want to play the KG.[/quote]
Pretty much my feeling as well. I happen to disagree with RJ Fischer here: if Black plays ...g4 and ...f3 White is fine. It's Alapin's ...Bh3 that troubles me. Hence the idea of playing g2-g3 with the Bishop still on f1 - so either 4.Nc3 or 4.d4.
[/quote]
MNb, Taljechin, I can feel your pain. But sometimes the good moves are not where we think they are.

@Paddy Jesse and Tony are working on the chessflash to get an automatic pgn generation and to get folks to test it properly when it arrives I think it's better to refrain from adding pgn-files. If you can't wait - do it yourself!

As for who's an expert, surely Stefan is more qualified than me as he has also written two books on the KG one advocating the Muzio/Hanstein for white and one advocating a new defence for black! In addition he runs a magazine that specialises in creative openings and chess history.

A few years ago someone suggested (or rather 'demanded' actually...) that I should write a book on the full history of the KG from Greco to Now. I like the idea but I won't do it as I hardly know Hanstein from Beerstein ;) but Stefan should be the ideal author for such a book!

It's true that you can get into the Hanstein via 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 which was the old remedy, but personally I think 4.d4 is more or less the only move. And as in the paradox you mention, I much prefer to play the Bishop's Gambit as nowadays I'm suspicious of the Kieseritzky. It's better than the Hanstein but probably not good enough to rely on vs preppies. So the set-up Shirov used in the game that started off this thread is probably the new mainline. Though I'm not so keen on giving up a piece so early, even if the compensation is probably adequate.

Wanting more KG-style options is a good idea, but why not look for newer ideas instead of trying to resuscitate abandoned old ideas?

Compared to the QG there's two differences that strikes me - many QGs start with 1. or 2. Nf3 while the Vienna is supposedly a completely different opening...

And in the QG white can often block in Bc1 with e3 early on and still get reasonable chances of an advantage, while an early d3 is scuffed upon in the KG. But one could think of it as a Balogh with a free e4... It won't give a theoretical edge but I think it has more potential and less risk for white than what we're debating.

[i]If[/i] the Hanstein ideas with an early g3 and/or h4 would work, liberating Bc1, then the variation would be viable, but advancing on the queenside while behind in development is not how I want to play the KG.

[pgn][Event "re:"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.05.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Macdonell's 8.Qa4"]
[Black "13.h3 -- 17....dxe4"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C38"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. O-O g5 6. d4 Bg7 7. c3 Nc6 8. Qa4
Bd7 9. Qb3 Qe7 10. Qxb7 Rb8 11. Qa6 (11. Qxc7 $6 {is something white can get
away with on the board, but against the Borg Collective resistance is indeed
futile! Funny enough it's not the sacrificied piece that decides, but, as
usual, white's dormant queenside:} Rc8 12. Qb7 Na5 13. Bxf7+ Qxf7 14. Qa6 Nc6
15. Na3 Nf6 {instead of the unnatural Qe7.} 16. Nb5 (16. Nc4 Nxe4 17. Nfd2 O-O
18. Nxe4 d5 19. Nxg5 hxg5 20. Nd6 Qg6 21. Nxc8 Bxc8 22. Qa4 Bf5 $17) 16... Nxe4
$1 17. Nd2 (17. Re1 O-O 18. Rxe4 Qd5) 17... Nxd4 18. Nxd4 d5 19. Qa3 {
as black even has more than one choice here, he's probably been winning for a
while, but just as illustration of the carnage:} Bxd4+ (19... Qe7 20. Qxa7 O-O
21. Qb7 Bxd4+ 22. cxd4 Qe6 23. Nxe4 dxe4 24. d5 Qe8 $19) 20. cxd4 Qg7 21. Nf3
Bb5 22. Rd1 g4 23. Ne5 f3 24. Qb3 f2+ 25. Kh1 Qb7 26. a4 O-O 27. Be3 Ba6 28.
Qxb7 Bxb7 29. Ng6 Ba6 30. Ne7+ Kg7 31. Nxc8 Rxc8 32. g3 Rc2 33. Rf1 Bxf1 34.
Rxf1 Rxb2 35. Kg2 Kg6 36. a5 Ra2 37. Kh1 Kg7 38. Kg2 Rxa5 39. Bc1 Ra2 40. Bf4
a5 41. Bc7 a4 42. Bb6 Ra3 43. Bc7 Rf3 44. h3 a3 45. hxg4 Nd2 {0-1}) 11... Nf6
12. Nbd2 {Divanbaigyzand,M (2445)-Ledford,S (2072)/ICCF 2005} O-O 13. h3 {
Diagram #} Rb6 $5 {The following forcing sequence looks best, as e4-e5 is
white's only way to get any play so why not remove pawn-e4?} 14. Qa3 Nxe4 15.
Re1 d5 16. Qxe7 Nxe7 17. Nxe4 dxe4 {
The natural and safe capture seems most promising after all.} (17... dxc4 18.
Nexg5 Re8 19. Ne4 Nd5 20. Nc5 {is a draw offer hard to refuse, so the ugly
variation didn't work out to more than complete equality. A pity, but not too
surprising when you think about it.}) 18. Rxe4 Nf5 19. Re1 Rd8 $5 {
is my improvement on Stefan's line below.} (19... Re8 20. Rxe8+ Bxe8 21. b3 $5
Bb5 22. Bxb5 Rxb5 23. Rb1 Rb6 24. Bd2 $11) 20. b3 (20. Ne5 Be6 21. Bd3 (21.
Bxe6 Rxe6 $17) 21... Nh4 22. Kf2 Bd5 $15) 20... Be6 21. Bxe6 fxe6 {
Keep the pieces on the board when you got a space advantage...} 22. h4 Rd5 23.
Bd2 (23. hxg5 hxg5 24. Nxg5 $2 Nxd4 $1) (23. Rb1 Ng3 24. Kh2 Bf6 25. b4 Kf7 26.
a4 Rb8 27. Rb2 Rg8 28. Kg1 {Stockfish 2.1.1 JA 64bit:} c6 $15 29. Kh2 Re8 30.
Rb3 Nf5 31. Rb2 a5 32. b5 cxb5 33. axb5 Rb8 34. b6 Rd6 35. b7 Rd7 36. Ra2 Rdxb7
37. hxg5 hxg5 38. Rxa5 Rb6 39. Bd2 Rb1 40. Rxb1 Rxb1 $19 41. g4 fxg3+ 42. Kg2
g4 43. Ne5+ {[%eval -60,27]} Bxe5 $19) 23... Ra6 24. hxg5 (24. b4 g4 25. Ne5
Bxe5 26. Rxe5 Rxe5 27. dxe5 Ra3 $17) 24... hxg5 25. b4 Bf6 26. a4 Kf7 $15 27.
b5 Rad6 28. Rab1 g4 29. Bxf4 (29. Nh2 $2 Rxd4 $1 $19 30. cxd4 Bxd4+) 29... gxf3
30. Bxd6 Nxd6 $15

[/pgn]