barnaby wrote on 09/02/17 at 16:23:19:


Yes, I see. I am sorry to see of his passing. Almost 2 years ago to the day. 

trw wrote on 09/02/17 at 16:02:11:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1441470190/50

Hi.

TN wrote on 08/22/17 at 19:45:03:

Reply #265 is the latest PGN summary of all analysis. An up to date summary is always welcome of course but it is a lot of work.
I swiftly counted PGNs once (#463) but it gave mainly that there were quite few PGNs for a lot of lines.

TN wrote on 08/22/17 at 19:45:03:

Marshall summary in reply #525. Breyer not so much analysis yet.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/29/17 at 08:02:53:

Maybe going for analysis of a mainline is good at this point in the project. Might revitalise some interest.

Have a nice day.

I only flicked through McDonald's book in a bookstall, but I can share the same experience of having a much better understanding from his explanations.

Btw, is there an index of the variations analysed in this repertoire thread? I'm thinking of creating one in about a month if the members agree it will be useful. For instance - I am tempted to share some analysis on MVL's Marshall Gambit approach and also the Bxc5 idea in the Breyer but don't exactly want to spend half an hour to check whether someone already covered the same ground.

The repertoire itself is certainly still valid, you'd just have to do some updating using a database and an engine in some of the sharper lines.

Hello.

TN wrote on 02/18/17 at 09:15:16:

Personally I am holding of analysing Spanish (pretty much all lines) until Negi publishes his 1.e4 e5 volume. Also I am not a Berliner (so to speak)

Still. Vachier Lagrave Games :




Good results. Looked good as well. No idea if the games were theoretical (a4-a5-a6 in the Gupta game for example. I mean. is that a thing?).

Have a nice day.

Hey.

mn wrote on 12/17/16 at 15:50:59:

Probably the lack of replies is indicative of things.

Anyway. In practice I would say the following can be be seen:
- The nature of this kind of project is that progress is made in spurts.
- Reaching += with all or almost all black attempts covered is truly difficult and analysis intensive even against relatively non mainline black setups.
- Interest for lines comes and goes.

Have a nice day.

Hello.

Here is a summary of Marshall analysis done so far in the thread (se attached PGN). Character limitations prevent posting the PGN in a PGN window.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

Earlier today I put together analysis of (6...Bc5) and (6...d6) Jaenisch into the same PGN and added some analysis of reasonable replies against black sidelines between move 4 and 7. The result is a PGN to large to post in a PGN window due to character limitations. It is possible to attach the PGN-file though and this has been done below.

Anyone checking this PGN can see it as a Jaenisch repertoire suggestion. This repertoire suggestion is not carved in stone and can very much be modified and amended. If however, at some point a consensus is reached that the repertoire suggestion has reached a sufficient degree of maturity I move that it should be adopted as part of the so called Chesspub Spanish repertoire.

To start some discussion I can say that I'm not sure about what is best after:
(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.Qd3 Bd7)
As it is I'm not even convinced the main line given in the PGN is actually advantageous for white. Anyone have any nice ideas here?

Have a nice day.

The Jaenisch ideas look very nice, I'm keen to try them out in my next game! I'm not sure we covered an answer to the Marshall yet, but I think the following game would be a fairly practical recommendation where we can still challenge the opponent:

10. Na4 looks good, White has some edge there.

Here is some analysis on 6... d6 (8. Qd3) I refined it a bit since the last time I posted it.

Hi.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 04/01/16 at 11:28:20:
(Line from post #514)
Confused_by_Theory wrote on 04/01/16 at 11:28:20:

Here is some analysis on this:
To sum up. It seems like white gets little in the line. At best some very mild pressure.


About NR's 4.d3 Jaenisch lines. I have not taken a deeper look yet. An immediate observation though was that in the line with (6...d6) and (8...Bd7) maybe (14...Rd8) is more natural than (14...Qg6).

Have a nice day.

Hi,

I wasn't able to find much of an edge for White after 4. Nc3 and 8... Bg7. But maybe there is something that I just can't see.

Anyway, 4. d3 is in my opinion the best move and lately, it has been played the most and it seems like there is a slight advantage there for White. 6... Bc5 is the main move but it looks like White is easily better there. After 6... d6, I have 8. Qd3 here and if anyone can refute that, then I will post analysis on 8. Be3. Of course, there are sidelines also like 4... Nf6, but those aren't really serious and if no one has a problem with the analysis on the main lines, then I can post the sidelines also.

Hello.

Well. 12.Nxe5 looks like it should not lead to advantage. Good find (of 11...c6) Mr. Bücker.


This is sort of problematic because it leaves the continuation mentioned in the post before last one

(11.Bf4 c6 12.Bd3 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3)
or
not (11.Bf4)

As the ways forward in search of the advantage after 8.d4. I will probably check these a bit more, though I doubt there will be much of any advantage to be seen.

Edit: Actually have looked a bit at 8.d4 Bg7 9.c4!? as well which may be the next line to try and find advantage in.

Have a nice day.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 03/08/16 at 10:30:45:

Black can play 10...Ne5 11.Bf4 c6 (instead of your 11...Qd6), e.g. 12.Bd3 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 c5 14.b4 b6. After regaining the pawn e6, Black continues Rfe8, Qd7, maybe Bf8 (if necessary). Looks = to me.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 03/08/16 at 10:30:45:


The pgn link doesn't work for me; it throws up the message: "The requested URL's length exceeds the capacity limit for this server."

However, there is a work-around: compose a reply to the posting by selecting quote; then copy the notation that appears in the window, from "[Event..." to "...for white.} *" and paste it into e.g. a new game window in Chessbase, et voilà!

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 01/26/16 at 17:19:17:

Good knight vs bad bishop. I am the first to admit that objectively it isn't much, but humans don't defend flawlessly, and I guess in practice White would score nicely.

The key phrase is "in the practical sense". I don't want to propose a line which is objectively equal but Black has to defend with care and accidents can happen at f7 (as has happened twice in games of my students). Also, unfortunately I don't even think that after ...Be6 white can hope to find a reasonable idea which will increase considerably his chances in the opening.

The exchange variation or the various d3 systems are more of a serious field of study (where ideas to put black under pressure could potentially be found).

Btw, do we have something against 3...g6? It seems that Carlsen works very hard to give this little Spanish line a main line status since smyslov's times.

MartinC wrote on 01/19/16 at 13:35:35:

Btw, it is the same line which I originally suggested for White against my Bd6:

Stefan Buecker wrote on 01/12/16 at 12:07:28:

Now I believe that 13.c4 f5 14.Ng2 is more precise, e.g. 14...0-0 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.c5 Be7 17.Bh6 Re8 18.f3 Bg5 19.Bxg5 Qxg5 20.f4 Qh6 21.Qe3. White has a little something.

Hi.

MartinC wrote on 01/19/16 at 10:01:14:


My general practical considerations on the positions after 12.d4 would be the following:

After 12.d4 White has passive pieces for quite long. Black on the other has very active pieces and will probably have for a forseeable future.
On the other hand black has some problems creating truly dangerous pressure and in the long term white's extra piece means he should (minimum) never risk losing most of the more simplified positions that can arise.
There is a lot of perpetuals and repetitions (definitely more then in the pgn above) in these positions.

A simpler choice (mainly for the otb player) compared to 12.d4 would perhaps be 11.d4, briefly mentioned in the pgn. If I am correct then there are not that many good alternatives to the continuation given and the end position there looks fairly riskless.

Have a nice day.

Hello.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 01/14/16 at 19:27:21:

Must have completely blacked out here. Was in fact checking:
17.Be3 Rg3 18.Rae1 Rag8 19.Rg1 f5 20.Rxg3 Rxg3 21.Bd2 c5 (only now c5 as 17...c5 is ??). Sorry for any confusion.

Here is some analysis of the reasonable lines I could find after 8...Bg4. Sadly I haven't found much of an advantage for white anywhere.



Have a nice day.

Hi.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 01/14/16 at 15:22:49:

Indeed. I am checking 17.Be3 c5 atm.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 01/14/16 at 15:22:49:

Ok. The more options the better. Will check this also.

Have a nice day.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 01/14/16 at 06:16:44:


A classic mistake on the internet. "People" in this community haven't selected you as their representative. It is much fine to say "I am not convinced if i don't see some sample analysis", (i have said this type of thing several times in this foroum) but talking on behalf of others is usually not.

Ametanoitos wrote on 01/13/16 at 14:58:17:

No, sorry. I had mentioned the puzzle in another thread. That's why I was asking you. Two dates are given in the literature, 1910 and 1911, no source.

Ametanoitos wrote on 01/13/16 at 07:08:33:

This one?


Ametanoitos wrote on 01/13/16 at 07:08:33:

Have you been able to find the exact source where Breyer recommended Nc6-b8? 

kylemeister wrote on 01/13/16 at 06:30:23:

OK, but Tartakower was one of the pioneers of the Jaenisch, so his gut feeling regarding 4.d3 may be worth something. Others prefer the crystal ball of the databases, and then it's 51.7% for White in 4,000 games with 4.d3 vs 56.7% for White in 8,000 games with 4.Nc3. It tells you that 4.Nc3 works pretty well in practice. Just the same as Dr. T's intuition...

I've supported 4.d3 (see reply #356, for example), but CbT's proposal is simple, straightforward and could well be the way to go. If it works.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 01/12/16 at 17:52:01:

In your final position, Black plays 19...Rg3 20.Rf3 Re4 21.Rxg3 Qxg3 22.Rg1 Qxf4 23.Ng4 Ke6 24.Rg2 Qf5! 25.Kg1 (25.Nxe3? Qxh3+; 25.Nh2 Rxd4 =) 25...Bf4 =. Three pawns for the piece, Black has nothing to fear. If someone finds a source where Bd6! had already been mentioned, please share it with me. It's a logical move...

The following is what Tartakower said about 4.d3 in Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie (1925), p.29:

Quote:

Plain, simple German, so probably no translation necessary.  

Ametanoitos, what is the best line against the Breyer in your opinion? 17... Nc5 in them main line seems to be good for Black

Hello.

Maybe white can go for something like this. Didn't see any clear alternatives actually.



While positions reached are not entirely clear I think white is reasonably safe and also there is an extra piece to work with in the long run.

Have a nice day.

PatzerNoster wrote on 01/12/16 at 06:44:38:

8...Bg7 was the reply given by Varnusz in his Klassische Systeme oder Spanisch ohne 3...a6 (1995). His main line ran: 8.0-0!? Bg7 9.Nd4! Bd7 (9...Qd6) 10.Qh5+ Kf8 "unclear". However I believe we can agree that other lines are more critical than 8...Bg7.

For example this one: 8...Bg4! 9.h3 Bh5! 10.g4 Bd6! (not 10...Rg8? 11.Nxe5) which offers Black more than enough compensation for the piece. White can decline the sacrifice, but after 11.d4 e4 12.Nh4 Bg6 13.f3 Qd7 Black is hardly worse. - The position had occurred before, but in Kirk Sadler - Steve Law (2009), Black played the weak 10...Bf7? 11.Sxe5 and was crushed (1-0, 17). Could 10...Bd6! be new?

Is the repertoire for Corr. players or 2200+ OTB players?

I like Stefan's 16. Rf2! Should we move on to the next line now?

The treatment suggested by Confused_by_theory looks promising.

Quote:

In CbT's new sideline (just posted!) 15. Rb1 Bc5+ 16. Kh1 e3 17. Bb5 Rhe8 18. Be2 Rad8 19.g3 Nd4 (19...d4 20.Rd1) 20.Bd3 e2 21.Re1 Bb4 22.Bf4 c5 23.Kg2, Black has lots of possibilities, and I guess one of these must be good enough for a draw. More importantly, it is a complicated mess, and the risks for White in an OTB game would be about as big as for Black.

My recommendation would be 16.Rf2!, e.g. Rad8 17.Bg4 Nb4 18.Kf1 Bxf2 19.Kxf2 Nd3+ 20.Ke3. Black has a small numerical advantage, but over the board I'd prefer White - it is simply easier to play, often White regains a pawn and can then try to win with 2 pieces vs R + P. 

Hello.

Interesting try. Of course I had missed looking at 13...Nxd4.

Will take a look after I've finished watching the american football game Im enjoying atm.

Somehow I doubt though that black has some forced line to a safe position.

Have a nice day.

@NegiRefutes: in the final position of your analysis, I am curious how white will hold the draw.
Can he avoid a rook exchange? If not it seems dead lost as the pieces are inferior to a rook and the (soon to be) two connected passed pawns on the queenside.

Hello.

I have now looked a bit at something after (5...Nf6) in the Jaenisch.

Given the for me uninspiring nature of the pawn up white positions in either:

(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) or
(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.Nxe5 Qe6)

I did not look at these lines. Instead I took a step back and investigated:

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Qe2)

With the major benefit of this line being that stuff is not exchanged. Initially, after the principled reply to 6.Qe2 of 6...d5, I was planning on going for the line:

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Qe2 d5 7.Nxf6+ gxf6 8.d4)

Mentioned in the thread previously, though not as far as I can see analysed. Realising that an alternative to 8.d4 exists in 8.0-0 I started looking at this and I must say I was quite pleased with the positions reached. I bring you a short pgn of roughly how a repertoire in this line could look like:



Basically I thought I'd ask if anyone sees any drawbacks to this 6.Qe2, 8.0-0 line or if it is something that can be recommended in the Spanish repertoire?

Have a nice day.

Hi.

Besides reading through the thread I have looked a fair bit at all the non (5...Nf6) lines. Using the Jaenisch analysis found in the analysis summary from post #265 as base I've been trying to find small refinements and the simple ways to the += when I think I've seen them.

I present to you a non (5...Nf6) Jaenisch repertoire outline suggestion.



Needless to say a plan would be to make something similar about the (5...Nf6) lines and then maybe fuse that with the file above. That should produce a reasonable Jaenisch repertoire.

Have a nice day.

Edit: attached the file in the pgn window

Here is some very brief analysis that needs much more work:

Hello.

To get an overview of what has been analyzed i took to counting the pgn:s that have been produced so far in this thread, while also noting which line they were about.

#number indicates posts in this thread. For example #60 means there is a PGN in post number 60.

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5)
#60, #144, #191, #308, #348, #351, #362, #447

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a5)
#99

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5)
#189

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7)
#209

Summaries
#217, #222, #265

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0)
#229

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5)
#396, #400, #404, #413, #417, #427

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.h3)
#439

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f6)
#452

It seems the Jaenisch is what has been getting the most attention, while actually the mainline-esque Marshall has been getting som decent coverage also.
Which lines have reached a point where they can be deemed to have been analyzed sufficiently I don't know.
I think I will look into if the Jaenisch coverage is sufficient and post a Jaenisch specific PGN.

Have a nice day.

TonyRo wrote on 01/02/16 at 18:46:46:

Your belief (a very reasonable belief, imo) isn't necessarily a contradiction to Markovich's approach. In reply #19 he said the following:

Markovich wrote on 07/24/11 at 20:32:44:

If += isn't realistic, call it as you prefer. Initiative? A little something?

I would be happy to trot on (I did little to nothing in the first wave, but I was working on my book), but perhaps someone needs to organize an update on the status of the lines examined?

Also, what is the actual goal? I mean, at least for me, if you analyze anything deeply in enough, you'll likely find equality for Black in every line of the Ruy Lopez - I doubt 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5! is a forced win for White!

Hi.

Quote:

Basically, for better or worse, because no one has pushed through rules preventing discussion and analysis of highly offbeat tries.

Quote:

No.

Quote:

This...
or
Continuing with analysing black's various 3rd moves...
or
Checking lines already looked at.

Either way I think consolidation of results before moving on is very important (I don't think baking a mega PGN is enough on its own here).

Have a nice day.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 12/24/15 at 12:31:11:


Yes that is the point of Steinitz' artistic, irritating, sometimes ridiculous approaches on his strongpoint e5 concept. He had quite some tries on that very subject, the one or the other even ending in complete reocupation of his back rank with his pieces...

But in fact f7-f6 takes at the earliest possibility the sting out of the spanish concept - the weakness e5 is covered.

This idea reurns in the Modern Steinitz Defence, Alapin Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.Bxc6 bxc6 6.d4 f6 (C73). Is it to bad?!

I'm a bit confused why to first save e5 with f7-f6 and than to surrender that strengthened point with e5xd4 (your suggestion 14...exd4). Well yes, Nimzovich's "Sägestellung" against pawn e4...

Stefan Buecker wrote on 12/24/15 at 12:31:11:


Pragmatic, yes. After f7-f6, the Bb5 has played his mayor role, or am i wrong? Yes, due to the pin of the Nc6 he further put's a question to the ideal d7-d6 (but more than once that never the less may work as there are a7-a6 and b7-b5 to break the pin). Returning to c4 is natural, but a tempo down to the Italian (but a weakness up on a2-g8 - but is this too relevant?!). a2-a3 saves the italian like bishop (against Nc6-a5) and h2-h3 is... normal Lopez, isn't it.
The pragmatism bases on the work of the strongpoint e5. I don't see how this can be overruned. What are those challenging moves?! 
Browsing through Steintz' games with the strongpoint e5 concept he more than once ended in a sort of king's indian structure.
He had not too much luck with it, which may have its reasons in the exhaustive backward tended play - as for example Tarrasch - Steinitz shows.
At the end he surrendered the exaggerated attempts on it. May be a sign...
But as you Stefan showed with your 14...Nef4 idea there are more active concepts - which in return give white some prospects for play. "White has a ton of possibilities", well that is a bit much of it...

Stefan Buecker wrote on 12/24/15 at 12:31:11:


No, no that is not you Stefan.That is perhaps Max Euwe of the 1950s. Not only some selected main variations count... Not today.
Shall we really confine ourselfs to search for novelties in move 38 or later??

Remeber after all: Even Magnus Carlsen once played the North Sea Defence (1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 - okay that's another topic but quite offside as well) against Aronian if I am right. He got his share of played, but lost, but not due to the opening.

Actually, I do not see the point behind f6 in the relatively simple line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f6 4. d4 and no matter wether Black takes to times or only one time (as let White get d5 in would trouble Black a bit) White should have a comfortable edge due to the weakening of the Black kingside and the lead in development.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 12/24/15 at 09:22:59:



Write it as you like.

I tried to avoid that the move 3...f6 gets the question mark that is simply given as the normal mark at the end of a question...

As pointed out I'm at least not sure about this move. But Stefan had it in a quite positive conotation in the given source...

As Stefan ist back on the scene, I take the opportunity to just repeat my last post, which was directed to him and stands unanswered.

What about 3...f6!??! in the Lopez?!
See previous post for details.

Thx and merry christmas.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/30/11 at 14:21:00:

While preparing for yesterdays cupmatch, I bumbed on a very interesting new idea: 12.Qb3

Black can surely improve with 12. ... e4 but even then after 13.Ne5 Qe6 14.Qa4 Bb7 15.f4 0-0 16.Be3 Bd6 17.Rac1 and still a small pull. It is just a quick analysis more than sufficient for a rapid OTB game. Still it is worth a closer look especially as the other critical lines were not convincing either.

I also checked who the white player is and found out to my surprise that he is also from Belgium. He has no official rating and I've never heard about him but he does have on ficgs a remarkable record: http://www.ficgs.com/player_3862.html so 136 games without a loss !