Positive to start with: 7 dc is logical enough but not a problem if flexible Just go Ne7/o-o and the pressure vs the queenside/e5 should mean you're fine.

Overall, while that strategy of yours is very logical white can - and should! - stop the important parts of it (certainly g5 and b5 to some degree) rather easily. 

A white knight on f4 is actually a good way to do that - if you follow it strictly I'll first take g6 and then e6 as you put the pawns en prise It really is a very logical thing for white to try for even if you're not getting crunched by g4/h4/h5 etc. Although that can certainly happen!

As it happens not totally trivial to achieve a knight on f4 after 7 Be2 Qc7. 8 Qd2 is a little odd but seems fairly effective.

Really though, the 7 h4 stuff seems more than unpleasant enough to give up on this line.
(and, being serious, there are some really stupid moves in B2 which does just lose by force.).

There's clearly a fundamental disagreement cf how horrible the positions after f5/c4 are. For me, in practice vs a rational, careful white you'll suffer horribly and I wouldn't be surprised if they were simply lost in principle. Presumingly them to be 'logically' drawn is daft.

Keep the Q side fluid and maybe more chances.

But its not something you can exhaustively analyse. Shrug.

Tp2205, in reply to your post #34,

Regarding the suggested summery, if giving a few ideas and specifying one or two main lines is a summery than I think what was posted in the blog can be considered just that. Anything more than that is expecting too much. I’m not writing a book for pete’s sake!

With all due respect I did ask that in the very first post that started the thread.
I put a lot of work in to this line and when someone posts something like Smyslov_Fan did in reply #16 saying: “I quite like the 7.Qh5 line that fling showed” it does clearly show that he didn’t take the time to read through anything before posting it and I do find it offensive.
It doesn’t mean I hold the grudge, since then I think he made a positive contribution.
Anyway, if you still don’t understand what I’m trying to say I suggest we leave it be because it’s getting off topic and totally futile.

BTW, I had more to say and tried to send it to you as a private message but for some reason I can’t … not sure why.

Regarding a plausible g2-g4:
I saw the line you gave 
(variation in reference: Khalifman in opening for white according to Anand (following a 50's correspondence game): 7 Be2!? Bd7 8 Rb1 b6 9 Nh3 Ba4 10 Bg5 Qc8 11 Nf4 c4 12 g4) 
But like I told you about your King – Depasquale I find it irrelevant since the development chosen in this line isn’t consistent with the strategy I believe is the major point.

For clearance and reminding it the strategy is shown in this line taken from my blog:
[1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 f5 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Qd1 Nc6 9. Nf3 Nge7 10. Bh6 Qa5 11. Qd2 Bd7 12. Be2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Qxd2+ 14. Bxd2 h6 15. h4]

Naming a few of black’s steps:
Play …b6 (to prevent Rb1 threats and the possibility of white posting a piece on c5)
Play …Kf7 (to connect the Rooks, defend king side pawns and the e-pawn thus giving more freedom to the d7 bishop)
Play …Kg7 (to defend the h-pawn and prepare the next step)
Play …Rb8 and …Rc8 (to activate the Rooks and defend the queen side. If possible double rooks on the b-file)
-Possibly Play … Na5!?

- prepare ...h6 / ...g5
- prepare ...b5 / ...a5 / ...Rb8 / ...Ba6
- possibly play ...Na5
- possibly play ... b4 or ...a4
- possibly play ...f5-f4

Intermezzo(s): ... Qa5-c7
Key theme: ...Qd8-c7-g6

So back to our position, since I obviously feel that the right strategy is more or less about an early …Qc7 and more or less follow the scheme of: Qc7-g6 / …h6 / …b6 / …Rb8 / …b5 / …a5 / ….Ba6 / …g5 
Therefore I don’t see the point of referring to a game that takes none of these steps and adopts others.

For me 7…Bd7 makes no sense and instead I would suggest 7…Qc7.
I don’t think that Rb1 or Nh3 makes any sense now so I therefore tried to go for an early g2-g4.

You could tell me your own thoughts and give white a proper variation after 7…Qc7. thanks


Tp22005 said:
Quote:

-      again, friend, I think you are expecting a bit too much of me. I don’t have the means to provide 20 pages of analysis with all the major and sub lines for every half hearted reply someone makes. Instead others can take part in it and build on top of what I started. If you feel that there is a need to show these “main lines” that’s great, do it. Or at least suggest it but to expect me to do everything is unrealistic.
-      My moves are pretty far from being random, they are attune to the strategy given above since so far I haven’t seen its refutation. The maneuver of …Qd8-a5-c7 seems only too natural to me after making it clear that the queen “belongs” on c7 and was merely going to a5 to “force” white into playing Bc1-d2 in order for …Qa5-c7 to be more effective and forcing. Perhaps I should explain my moves furthermore. I shall do that but they not random they are according to the development scheme I mentioned.

Tp2205 said: Quote:


-      again, mr. tp. If you had given the actual variation it would have been easier to address it instead of having to look for it now and reading all the three pages. Please, when providing or suggestion something, try to provide all the lines reaching this position starting from move 1.
-      No, you still misquote me; I did not first give the line with 8…Nh6! I provided it to prove a point. if you’ll go back to reply #6 you will see that the primary move I gave was 8…Qc7 and in reply #21 again made it clear that this line is only to prove a point that black can save skin by 0-0-0 or, if you will, by “allowing” Bxh6. but the main consideration is still …Qc7 oriented. 
-      I haven’t responded to your 9.g4 move because the whole line was meant to be an idea-variation to prove a point. it wasn’t meant to be bullet proof as 8…Qc7 (or …Qd8-a5-c7) is what I consider the main strategic theme. If you feel this should be looked at why don’t you provide some analysis of this line?? I prefer Qc7-lines.
-      In the update I have made on reply #23 I made the point that an early dxc5 is the closest thing I’ve seen to what we can call a proof for a white decisive edge. Therefore I am now rechecking all the lines and adjusting them according to that concept. In fact, it might just be the case that 7.dxc5!? as odd as it looks will be the end of 6…f5! For these reasons I opted not for an early …Qd8-c7 but rather …Qd8-a5-c7 and will soon release another update concerning that.


In reply #28 Smyslov_fan said: Quote:


-      so far this the smartest thing I’ve seen anyone saying on that line. My initial attempts were to prove that these positional problems are more visual than analytical and that is not to be taken lightly! I’ll explain what I mean: I do not believe that these weaknesses are enough for white to achieve anything decisive, therefore (if I am to support that feeling) it’s visualistic value is enormous since we can assume as Smyslov_Fan did that a lot of people will try to tactically break that fortress only to find their efforts misleading. Since in our age most players try to play ultra sharp and will happily take on that challenge it is sensible to assume that 90% of the time people will fall for that positional trick and base their game on the wrong assumptions! These assumptions as I see them are mainly A) white needs to exploit black’s king side weaknesses. B) white needs to develop classically (via Nf3 and/or f4 / a4 etc which from what I’ve seen so far and several people have agreed is completely futile and in some cases actually gives black a better game).
-      Surely, if white doesn’t try to take “advantage” of black’s “weaknesses” and will have the inner wisdom to instead follow an over all game control and stabilize his own game, possibly addressing the centre and queen side we can assume that with a very closed position (…f5 / ….c4) the result will likely to be a draw.

I would like to add the comment that so far I have played 6…f5 dozens of times on the interment and do you know how many times people have played 7. Qh5+ ???
None! 
Absolutely no one played it.
What does that mean?
That means that despite many people’s opinions this is not an easy line to understand if you see it for the first time. Most people end up playing something like 7.Nf3 or 7. f4 – both completely harmless moves and they certainly don’t fully understand how to play the game in its positional sense therefore my mentioned strategy worked and even FMs (as you have seem from the game I published on the blog) managed to completely misplay their game and find themselves in an utterly losing state.
That is not to be underestimated!!

Similarly a few people have made the remark that the “main line” reached after the following move:
[1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 f5 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Qd1 Nc6 9. Nf3 Nge7 10. Bh6 Qa5 11. Qd2 Bd7 12. Be2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Qxd2+ 14. Bxd2 h6 15. h4 b6]
Will be a disaster for black.

Like I said before, yet somehow people have decided to ignore it. I have played this line several times against friends (all above 2100 elo) and so far the results are 2 draws and 2 wins for black!!

If anyone is keen to prove that white is better and that black is dead on the water in correspondence chess – I’m willing to take that on and invite whoever that is to a correspondence game starting from the position reached after black’s 15th move.

That, tp2205, is regards to your comment that “I agree with MartinC's evaluation of your variation b. Neither position looks appealing for Black”
Basically what I’ve tried to say above is that the “appeal” you’re referring to is a visual illusion as far as I’m concern and so far I haven’t seen anything to prove otherwise.

Tp2205 said:
Quote:


-      if you had asked I would have addressed it. I have nothing against such conversation. In fact it’s a pretty good idea. 

Tp2205 said:
Quote:


-anything short of that is completely pointless. I don’t need other people in order to look at games in my database. I also have a database. The only reason I can think of for making my own analysis public is to give other inspired and creative people the ability to improve it. I’m certainly not interested in reviewing hundreds of games where black almost played something similar with something that almost resembles something I almost made. If I didn’t have something theoretical to offer I wouldn’t have posted this analysis. I have been analyzing systems with IMs and FMs for the last 10 years. I probably made 2% of them public because there is no reason for me to give up my secrets unless it is for a good reason.
In addition I would like to add that once a TN has established in the form of strategic and thematic development I find it absurd to continuously ignore it and look for answers in nonrelated games in almost variations.

John wrote on 10/02/11 at 13:40:22:

My remark that this line



is unattractive for Black in corr. chess is completely practical. I do play the Winawer as Black in corr. chess.
I cannot help comparing with Alsina-Moskalenko, Salou Open 2006:



This looks way more attractive to me. The weakness on g6 is nicely protected and Black gradually can initiate typical counterplay on the Queen's Wing. The game ended in a draw though.

In reply to MartinC from reply #31,

MartinC said: “Ummm, b2 there is surely just lost for black?! The knight on g4 is not happy   Nf7 instead perhaps.

10.. h6 much saner. Its not so much that white can prove anything hugely directly there, but what is black going to do? You're just going to get tortured.”

Wow, you are right!! I’m clearly going to get disintegrated shortly!
The knight is so unhappy and dear god I can feel the torture, ahh!

Friend, you have got to be joking!

Ummm, b2 there is surely just lost for black?! The knight on g4 is not happy Nf7 instead perhaps.

10.. h6 much saner. Its not so much that white can prove anything hugely directly there, but what is black going to do? You're just going to get tortured.

And indeed, sadly, that - being passive - is the main weakness of going c4 too. Its not about specific moves, or even white plans. Korchnoi certainly doesn't play it anything like all the time in the French  

It is a fairly normal move in some lines but black nearly always has some useful counterplay elsewhere.

eg the 7.. o-o Winaver where you retain f6 (and then e5) as pawn breaks. Or the 6 a3 Advance where black aims at fixing then occupying the b3 square.

The closest black comes to trying to defend it passively is maybe the McCutheon, but then black has at least removed whites dark squared bishop and harder for white to break through than it is with f5 to aim at.

Or maybe some of the 6 .. Qa5 lines, but having a blockader on a4 and no kingside weakness again both good.

Here I can't really see it leaving you doing anything other than suffering passively, and probably getting wiped out by an eventual g4. If you can time it so that you've got enough kingside play to keep white busy, maybe. But be very careful not to try and turtle, because it probably won't work.

In reply to MartinC from reply #24,

To make it short – points taken!
I believe you are right and I am now taking the time to direct my attentions towards 7. h4


In reply to MartinC from reply #25,

MartinC said: “No you just can't go c4 early. It leaves black with nothing at all to play with/hope for, so white just works you over for a period of time. 

He can play on both sides at once. No, its not easy to break that sort of thing down, but its utter misery to defend and eventually something will drop off.”

Again, I don’t see a constructive plan or anything that resembles a variation to support that claim.
However, I do see a few games I played and won as black, I do see a few draws against strong players and so far I do not see any loses I suffered when playing according to that strategy.


Do you know that comment that in chess most people feel the need to “defend” their claims by acts of faith rather than by cognition?

Here too I think that it’s more or less a mater of style than practicality. I don’t have a problem with a closed game, long term maneuvering and slow positional play.

And for general knowledge, Korchnoi is known to play …c5-c4 pretty much whenever playing the French!

Apologies for the double post

No you just can't go c4 early. It leaves black with nothing at all to play with/hope for, so white just works you over for a period of time. 

He can play on both sides at once. No, its not easy to break that sort of thing down, but its utter misery to defend and eventually something will drop off.