brabo wrote on 08/09/11 at 05:42:20:
TalJechin wrote on 08/08/11 at 15:15:24:
Personally, I'm warming up to the Bartel lines, as it offer black more active chances. But it's certainly a kind of position one needs to play & analyse a lot to get comfortably in. So, alternating between both set-ups is probably advisable.
I play the Bartel-lines exclusively and I can tell you that they are very risky, maybe even unsound.
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 c6 (It has little sense now to play Nf6 if you didn't do it at move 2.) 4.e3 Be6 5.Bd3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.0-0 g6 8.Ne2 and I believe Volkov - Bartel shows things aren't easy for black as white can push in c4 without real problems.
1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bf4 a6 (A subtle move to avoid the possibility 3.. Nf6 4.Nb5 with a small but nagging advantage for white) 4.g4!?N (A very interesting novelty. Classical moves are e3 and Nf3 but then you really get in the active play black wants to achieve. Another interesting pawnsac is e4 but I find it less critical) fxg4 5.h3 Nf6 6.Qd2 c5! (Black needs to play very energetical to avoid standing worse) 7.dxc5 Nc6 8.Bg2 e5 9.Bg5 d4 10.Na4 and in this messy position, I believe both sides have chances.
Playing 2...d5 hoping for 3.Bf4 a6 etc but meeting 3.Bg5 with Nf6 doesn't make less sense than playing 2...Nf6 at once.
But why "1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5
c6"? I still like the quick development with 3...Be6, ...Qd7 and ...Nc6
Quote:1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bf4 a6 4.g4!?N
has that been played? It looks a lot like the other early g4-gambits, but 4...Nf6 feels like a safe reply to me.
Quote:I play the Bartel-lines exclusively and I can tell you that they are very risky, maybe even unsound.
That sentence doesn't make sense to me though. If I believed a line to be unsound I wouldn't play it, and certainly not exclusively.