MNb wrote on 10/30/11 at 22:44:02:


Probably more critical is 12.Qxc6, intending 12...Be6 13.dxe5 Bd5 14.Qc3 Qg6 15.Ne1

Very nice indeed. TP's analysis needs to be expanded a bit: 
16.Qg3 Qxg3 17.hxg3 d4 18.b3 Bd6 19.Nd5 Rf5 20.c4 dxc3 21.Nxc3 Be5 22.Bb2 c4 and Black is very active.
A move later: 16.Nd5 Bd6 17.Qg3 (the longer I look at 17.f4 the less I like it after Bb7!) Qe6 18.Qd3 c4 19.Qxc4 Rb4 20.Qd3 (too many moves with the Queen) Ba6 21.Nxb4 Bxd3 22.Nd3 with an unusual material balance; Black is active again.

MNb wrote on 10/30/11 at 18:08:02:

19.Qd4 may be more challenging.

Looks like Black has nice play after 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.O-O d6 10.Qe4 (10.d4 Qg6 transposes to a line above and 10.d3 Bg4 is good for Black) O-O 11.d4 (I don't see what White has after 11.d3) Qf7 (anticipates 12.Bg5) 12.dxe5 d5 because of the halfopen f-file, the d5-c5 centre and the pair of Bishops.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/30/11 at 12:44:34:
I hope you will forgive my scepticism, but I need a little more to be convinced. OK, it wouldn't surprise me if accepting the pawn provides compensation (although this needs to be proven yet) but I quite like 9.d4. Three sample lines:
a) 9...exd4 10.Bg5 Qe6 11.Qxe6 dxe6 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Nxd4 and White has a very nice and stable advantage, Janovsky-Tseshkovsky, Voskresensk 1992.
b) 9...O-O 10.Bg5 Qe6 (Qg6 11.Bxe7+ Re8 12.O-O Rxe7 13.Nxe5 is excellent for White as the pin always can be be resolved by Qc4+) 11.Bxe7 Qxe5 12.dxe5 and White is at least a bit better, Adorjan-Cortlever, Amsterdam 1970.
c) 9...Qg6 10.O-O d6 11.Qc4 d5 12.Qc3 exd4 13.Nxd4 Bd7 14.Re1 Qf6? (better Kf7 but 15.Bf4 remains nice for White; the Knight is not weaker than the Bishops, but Black's pawns are weaker than White's) 15.Nxc6 Qxc6 16.Qxg7 and White has the attack, Copar-Auzins, corr ICCF 1997.

An excellent rule of thumb is that if you're analyzing 3...f5 and your analysis doesn't lead to +=, either White has misplayed or your analysis is wrong. 3...f5 at best is a path to certain kinds of positions which, if Black understands them well and White doesn't, may be a basis for a good result. It is not a path to theoretical equality.

Is there equality somewhere in the endgame of our last discussed 5.. Nf6 line (replies 199-208):
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Nxf6 Qxf6 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Qxe5 d6 10.Qxf6 Bxf6 11.d3 0-0 12.Nd2N  after 12.. Rb8? 

I've spent a while looking at the positions with a computer and board (trying to practice my heavy pieces middle/endgames!!) and Black seems to achieve equality in each of the major lines:
13. Rb1 - This seems to play out into a fairly equal RB endgame after the sequence beginning with 13.. d5 14. f3 (14. b3 Bc3; 14. Nb3 c5 15. Nxc5 Bc3+) c5 15. Kd1 c4 16. dxc4 dxc4 17. Re1 Rd8 18. Ke2 c3

13. Ne4  - Black achieves counterplay on either the b-file (via a5-a4 push if b3) or e-file (if Re1) after lines following 13.. Bd4.

13. f3 -  Re8+ Kd1 followed by Rb5 looks to equalize, either regaining material equality via b2 or the d-pawn (if c3 --> Rd5).

Have looked at a few earlier move alternatives for White to 9. Qxe5 (Nxe5, d4) and 12. Nd2 (0-0) but black also seems to be doing okay. 
Huggy