Markovich wrote on 06/01/11 at 18:42:48:
TalJechin wrote on 06/01/11 at 15:29:35:
I don't understand Markovich's reasoning either. 3.-Bc5 and 3.-Nf6 are two different commonly played defences. One could just as well state that the "problem" with the Ruy Lopez is the Petroff, which is rather irrelevant once Black has played 2...Nc6. Or that the problem with 1.e4 is 1.d4! With that line of reasoning you'll just end up like Buridan's donkey...
The emphasized statement certainly is not analogous to what I said, since 1.d4 isn't an opponent's move.
Pardon my imprecision, though. It seems that I invited quibbles by not spelling my point out in A, B, C fashion. So let me say,
A significant problem for a repertoire founded on the Evans Gambit is that you will very often see 3...Nf6, which is fully adequate for Black and which completely frustrates your desire to play in gambit fashion. That is what I thought I implied by my saying "from a repertoire standpoint" and by my implicit recommendation of the Two Knights.
If I considered the Petroff to be fully adequate for Black I would agree that that defense is an analogous problem for a repertoire founded on the Spanish, but I do not. But there are many who think that the Petroff is indeed a problem for would-be Spanish players, so that claim must at least be arguable.
So I modestly claim that I actually did say something. Maybe it wasn't quite on-topic, but since it was in response to a post in the vein of "Hmm, should I take up the Evans?" it seemed appropriate.
If someone wants to base his repertoire on the Evans I wish him well. If he tries 3.Bc4 against me, though, he will see 3...Nf6.
There is a vast amount of literature on line in Chesspub and chess.com in the 3...Nf6 variation and White can practically "force" Black to play a gambit after 3...Nf6 4.Ng5---the Wilkes Barre is dead after 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bb3+/-
4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6! (Qh4?---the Berliner Gambit---9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2! Be6 13.Nc3! +/-) 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bc4! is incredibly complicated where the better player will win.
The Ulvestad (5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1) has minimal independent significance because it usually transposes to the Fritz,
The Fried Liver is the only way for Black to avoid being down material yet this exposes Black to a GAMBIT that most players don't like to meet.
The variation 4.Ng5 Nxe4 5.Bxf7ch is +/=
Black has maybe drawing chances in the main line after 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 is the only real try for equality; all the other variations favor White (the analysis is on line) & finally after 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch Bd7! gives White only the first move advantage i.e. a tiny plus.
One reader indicated that because Black can equalize in the main line in the 8.Qf3 variation that I hadn't proven that White had an advantage against 3...Nf6 i.e. he apparently believed that White had the advantage in all other variations!
For Markovich to suggest that Black is fine after 3...Nf6 ignores analysis known to him.
Pages: [1] 
C51-C52: Evans Gambit maybe better than thought? (Read 42857 times)
