MNb wrote on 06/10/11 at 20:14:53:


I think the whole 5 e5 complex is basically equal, and so it should be - what has either side done wrong? However, from the white point of view I find it more congenial than the greedy 4 Ng5 and it has much more strategic content (e.g. blockade themes) than the primitive 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 Nxe4 line. The successes of Dzindzi's young student Daniel Gurevich are perhaps evidence that 5 e5 might be a good choice for developing players, see for instance:
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10809/608

Which brings me on to ...there is some useful coverage of 5 e5 in Dzindzi's notorious book Chess Openings for White Explained but, as many others have noted, the analysis and assessments in this book should be checked very carefully.

Some of the best analysis that I have seen of the precise line in question (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Be3 Bxd4 9. Qxd4 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Nc3 Ng5) was here at Chess Publishing a few years ago by GM Olivier Renet, in connection  with the game Estrin-Brglez.

Renet criticised 12 Bxg5 Qxg5, since neither 13 f4 Qxg2! nor 13 h4 (COFWE page 162) Qh5! achieves anything other than to create difficulties for White himself.

The Estrin game went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Be3 Bxd4 9. Qxd4 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Nc3 Ng5 12. Qa4 Bd7 13. O-O-O Ne6 14.Qa3 and that is also the main line in COFWE., which claims an edge for White; Renet thought that with accurate play Black's counter-chances should be sufficient; its the old story of better structure vs activity. In other words, it's a game, and why should anyone complain about that? Remember Portisch's dictum: "Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame"; I would perhaps add "...that you understand and find congenial".

BTW Renet also gave some extensive home-analysis of the critical suggestion (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8.Be3 Bxd4 9. Qxd4 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Nc3 Ng5) 12. Qa4 Bd7 13. f4?! c5! (13...Ne6? 14 f5 c5 15 Qa3+=) 14. Qa5 d4.

Subscription recommended!

The great Sveshnikov did not prove that much, as Balashov did not play the critical 13...Qxg2 14.0-0-0 Bf5.
As far as I can see White is just a pawn down. See Krol-Socko, Nadole 1994.

urusov wrote on 06/10/11 at 05:54:04:


I was under the impression that after 8.Bd3!? Black gets good compensation for the pawn with 8... Ng4!? attacking the knight on g5 and freeing the f-pawn based on the game Stellwagen-L´Ami, Maastricht 2008. Admittedly I only know the comments by L´Ami in Chessbase and there has been the later game McShane-L´Ami, Remco Heite GM 2010 which continued the eccentricities with 9.Nh3.

Honestly I don´t know what to make of this and find it difficult to understand why White should be better here. Which move does Kritz recommend for White after 8... Ng4?

Cynima: you may find the resources in my 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Repertoire Webliography helpful:
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2010/02/1e4-e5-2nf3-white-repertoire.html
Having had long experience with all lines of the Two Knights, I can definitely say you will get best results and feel most confident long term playing the 4.Ng5 "Duffer's Attack" lines, especially the Gunsberg Variation after 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3!? popularized by Nakamura in winning the US Championship.  The recent CBM 142 (http://www.chessbase-shop.com/en/products/5991) piece by Kritz mentioned above makes a very compelling case and seems to cement theory's verdict in favor of White here.  You can find some good resources online to help you get started via my webliography.

As for books: there really are not any great books here, especially with theory swinging toward White so recently in these lines.  CBM 142 might be worth getting -- it also includes an article on the Evans.

If only I had covered the Evans Gambit, I'd have given you a complete repertoire.  Maybe it's time for an Evans Webliography?  Hmmm

MNb wrote on 06/07/11 at 10:05:44:


yes 10...Qe7! is the best move after 10.0-0?! but 10.Nd2! is best so you're not really disagreeing just adding.

7...Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 Bc5 10.f3 Ng5 11.f4 is the main line (though 11.f4 is not the only way). I wish your assesment "with decent prospects of an edge" was correct but at least its playable.

In the 10.Nd2 line ...Qh4 is the most respected as Hebden plays but White has improvements and I'd claim an edge there for him but admit its not much. ...Nxd2 is definitely what White wants though and he should get a decent advantage in that one, not sure about that old game you quote will check it later.

Like I said before this may not be the line that works best against GM opposition but lower down the ladder I think it'd score OK. Tend to agree with what Markovich said though, you'd need to be strong enough to know what you were up to in order to play it.

Don't think so. The difference is 7...Bc5 8.Be3 Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 Qe7! 11.f3?! Nd6 and Black has a very nice game. So White must play 11.Re1, which is almost a loss of one tempo.
After 7...Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 Bc5 White has the superior 10.f3 Ng5 11.f4 with decent prospects of an edge.
That's why White must play 10.Nd2 in the first line. Keano's belief that this is very pleasant is highly debatable after both Qh4 and Nxd2. The latter was completely equal in Weeramantry-Brooks, USA 1994.
There is also the interesting 7...Bd7 8.Be3 0-0 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc5 Nxc5 11.Bxc6 Rb8 and Black has active play for the pawn.

What is the difference between the move orders 7...Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 Bc5 10.Be3 and 7...Bc5 8.Be3 Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 ?