He said that he considered that it was equal, but he didn't say why. His last analysis on the subject pointed to the opposite conclusion. He has no obligation to speak further, but it would be useful if he did.

So this 3..f5 thing continues to annoy. I'm not sure if any of us alone is up to the task of reaching a convincing conclusion about ...bxc6, but maybe in concert we can achieve something. It would be nice to hear from Stefan, who may be the best analyst to work on our project so far, concerning some of the ideas recently developed here.

I do declare that if our work continues to support the Jaenisch, I'll take it up again myself.

I must have missed that.

Apologies for the late update.



I will incorporate the last two pages later, if necessary.
At this moment I just remind that the debate is about 8...bxc6 and that FM Bücker on page 13-15 after 12...d5 also suggested the plan with Rb1 and b3. Maybe I haven't paid enough attention, but I am under the impression that this suggestion has been forgotten.

[quote]In your first paragraph, 20...c5 21.Be3 d4 22.Bg5 Rf2 23.Re2 Rf1+ 24.Kd2 Rxa8 25.Nxa8 Bd7 26.b3 is a likely continuation.  [/quote]
Maybe 22 ...Bb7 here is an improvement? (My Houdini surprised me by giving, instead of 21 Be3, the wacky line 21 c4!? Bf5 22 Ra3!? dc 23 dc Bg6 24 Be3 Bc7, with big comp.! No prejudices, these things ...)

But 13 ...Bd7 and the kingside blast also looks interesting. Has White got time for d4/c3, I wonder?

All in all the Schliemann is a most intriguing creature. If - [i]if[/i] - it can be shown that these Tartakover Variation endings are drawn then maybe emphasis shifts back to the 4 d3 lines, but I'm not aware that White has anything better there than the perhaps tedious, but presumably drawn Queen and Rook ending of Topalov-Radjabov. Maybe something like this is R.'s thinking? -- at any rate I find it fascinating that he is prepared to play the Schliemann repeatedly against super-GM opposition!

[quote]In your first line I looked at 16.Kd1 Bd4 17.Nb3 Bxf2 18.h3, which appears to be good for White.[/quote]
I [i]wondered[/i] why the PC didn't go 16 Kd1 ... But here after 18 ...Rf8 19 Bd2 Bb6 20 Re1 c5 Black still seems very active? How do you think White should make progress?

In this line there's [u]15 ...Bd4[/u] as well as 15 ...Re8!?. After 16 Be3 Bb2 17 Rb1 Bc3 18 Ke2 d4 19 Bc1 Re8 20 Kd1 Bb4 21 Ne4 Bd7 22 f3 Bc6 23 Ra1 White has hugely improved his Knight, but can he make progress after say 23 ...Re6 idea ...Rg6 (or 23 ...Rf8 then ...Rf5, ...Rh5)?

Maybe [u]12 ...Bf5 [/u]is worth analysing as well ...

[quote]I think Black's best after 14.Nb3 is 14...Bd7 15.f3 Rae8+ 16.Kd1 and now the same old idea of 17...g5 and blasting away at White's kingside. It's interesting that the immedediate 15.Nc5 runs into 15...Rae8+ 16.Kd1 Bg4+ 17.f3 Bd4 and White is in some difficulty, since 18.Nb3 loses to 18...Rxf3. [/quote]
Sorry, am I being thick? Which position is this?


Q: In the 4 d3/7 Qd3 variation, I notice ChessPub doesn't mention 7 ...Qe7. Is there a serious problem with it? 

[quote]Does White really have anything to brag about after 12...d5 13.0-0 Re8?[/quote]
Maybe not. I guess 14 Nb3 must be the move -- could be quite a critical line?

[quote]12...d5 13.Nb3 needs to be investigated.[/quote]
I was going to go 13 ...c5 here till a computer pointed out 13 ...a5!?. It continued rather interestingly!: 14 a4 c5 15 Nc5 Re8!? 16 Kf1 Rb8 17 h3 (17 Nb3? Bf5; 17 Rb1? Bd4 18 Be3 [18 Nb3 Rb3!] Re3; 17 Ra2? Rb6 threat ...Rc6) Bb2, with, presumably, rough equality ...

PS. Sorry! I've only just now seen the earlier parts of this thread, and noticed that Stefan had already (#199) considered [u]12 ...d5[/u] 13 Rb1 c5 14 b3, giving here [u]14 ...Bd7[/u] 15 Kd1 Rae8 16 f3 as good for White. I guess [u]14 ...Bf5[/u] 15 f3 Rae8 16 Kd1 Be5 is a logical enough attempt to improve ...