The whole post proves the "unlimited limit" of chess. So many replies to a move ignored by theory, it is interesting but in my personal feeling and how I understand chess is not correct. Such positions cannot be assesed only by calculating variations -computers cannot evaluate correctly the position-, this and all relevant positions are so stategical and needs deep positional undestanding in order to play it. Due not only to the great effort put by John but also  the good job he did, I will give it a try.

John wrote on 10/14/11 at 11:39:44:

You're welcome! I appreciate your approach..
As you can see I rely upon the ideas around a3-a4, Bc1-a3 and Ng1 (e2)-h3-f4.. If there is a way to find an advantage against the black setup with 6...f5!?, I think the first player has to be active on a3-f8 diagonal (with his bishop or even with his queen) and also trying to exploit the weakness of the e6-pawn with Nh3 (e2)-f4. The idea of Be2-h5 can be troublesome for black, too.. But I believe that a real analysis can find a "medicine" for my tries. This position is full of possibilities.. 

Stefanos,

You didn’t offend me at all nor did I feel threatened or attacked.
It was very late when I wrote that message so perhaps the lingering, half pessimistic half tired tone of voice may appear that way but I surely didn’t take anything personal nor have I ever meant for anything to be personal. My comments are always variation-based.

It’s just that… you have to understand that for me this is seriously starting to look pathetic and I don’t mean it as an attack on someone specific nor do I try to demean a specific idea. But you have to try to put yourself in my shoes for one day… that is if you want to understand where I’m coming from.

I would not feel that way had the discussion assume a different tone. To that I am partly blamed but so do everyone else.
Had people took the initial time to go through everything I wrote on my Blog and the other forum. Play over the ideas themselves and come up with interesting information – things would surely look different.
The only exception is Diduk, here is a strong player (stronger than me that’s for sure) who came up to me and said: I looked at your analysis, Black’s game truly seems troublesome yet after going through the lines and analyzing them myself I do think you have a point.
Since then we have been analyzing and playing the Hogwash basically on a daily basis and to quote Diduk: “I’m completely on your side of 6…f5 White doesn’t have anything decisive”
While most people (not everyone) kept on with the same approach of “ black is dead”, “black’s position is torture” and other things that truly don’t really mean much.

For me it’s starting to look like a bad joke, the sort of – “how many doctors does it take to screw in a light bulb”… here too I’m starting to tiredly laugh with myself – “how many failed masters does it take to prove a hogwash”… 15?.... maybe 25?... maybe 1000!!!?

Sooner or later it will have to appear as a very sad try to prove something that isn’t there.
That is why I said that any claims that white’s game is easy and that black’s game is torture and how very easy it is to destroy black and cut him into little pieces… and so on… honestly how serious can I take it if after weeks of analysis where I play the Hogwash every single day against literally a dozen masters and none of them can prove anything against it and still each time I come up with a plan the immediate reply is something in the sort of: “oh yeah, maybe you’re right, but in theory black is dead!”

Put yourself in my shoes, how would you look at it?

To paraphrase Jack Nicolson (from the departed): “if you coulda you woulda”.

You have to see the irony here… I hope…

On my part… I’m just trying to keep it real mate!
The over all consensus is something like: “Black is dead, I just can’t find a way or an idea or a variation to show you how very dead he is.”

However I will address it or whatever I’ll say will only draw more negative attention.
 
I will continue to reply to ideas because I feel obliged but to me the point has already been made and anyone who can’t see it is suffering from Amaurosis scacchistica

To conclude I will say it again, yes white is better; he has decent play and logical strateigical themes as well as many assets to build upon and against. Do I think he’s winning – no!

“Whenever I study an opening, White is always ok and Black is always worse” – Petrosian.

I don’t see how that should be any different here.


Stefanos said:
Quote:

I will look into this plan and get back to you.

Hummm. Most of what I've said has been pretty straightforward

'Torture' == a position where black can't hope to win but white has multiple potential breakthroughs and so can rearrange at will. Even when its objectively possible to mantain that sort of passive defense it tends to be very difficult in practice, and its obviously no fun at all either.

Mind you looking at that position after 17 .. o-o, I doubt if it qualifies. It looks awfully like the sort of position you can get from several respectable lines of the 7.. o-o Winaver Queens exchanged here really doesn't hurt!

Yes its hard for black to win, but white doesn't have a lot to go at either. The Q side is comfortably under blacks control while doing anything too much on the kingside is hard for either side.

In reply to Stefanos, from reply #90,

I have been debating, mainly with myself, if I should address your analysis and comments or simply stop posting analysis and messages on this thread.
The reason for this is that the very essence of the debate has begun with an impasse, continued with an impasse and is still at an impasse.
There seem to be a fundamental disagreement where most people either don’t like Black’s position or simply believe that Black is “suffering”. “miserable”, “schizophrenic” and other names I don’t really understand – if to be honest. 
I don’t think that I’m being overly analytical but I certainly don’t understand what a word like “miserable” captures in it. It simply doesn’t strike me as something that defines a position, especially one where the debate is mostly concentrated on structure.

My intention for 6… f5 was primarily analytical. From the experience I gathered over years of playing chess I defined Black’s structure as being full of structural holes and positional liabilities that for reasons I won’t even try to explain here simply cannot be translated into a win. This, to my mind, was a structure where white will always appear to be better yet somehow his better-ness isn’t decisive.
If I’ll be extra honest here I think that after so much analysis and practical game play (by myself and Diduk) even if a clear way will be found it almost makes no difference – to me. Why? Because to my mind my point was already proven, mainly because if it were that easy a clear method would have been easier to define.
Yesterday I have made a count of the amount of masters to come to me with something they found and they are here to make sure that I see their refutation of this obviously faulty line. Yet somehow after the game has been concluded and their thoughts have been discouraged by a draw they all say “ok, maybe you’re right”.
So how many?
12!
12 masters have tried to do-down the Hogwash line and 12 failed.
So to my mind even if something will be found by this point it no longer matters because any claim that it is easy, at this point will simply be slightly on the pathetic side.

So before I address your own thoughts I would like to say that unfortunately (whether people believe me or not I mean it in all honesty) I simply don’t understand what MartinC is saying probably 90% of the time.
It’s not meant to be a personal attack or me being full of myself or condescending. I’m actually really honest. I realize it’s my problem at day’s end but when people don’t really have good (or at least decent) writing style… especially if their English is not that great either I quite simply don’t really understand what they’re saying.
So in the case of MartinC, I’m sorry to say, I simply have no clue what he’s talking about and if he said something interesting I most likely missed it.
That being said, I do not redraw my consistency, talking about a position without putting your theories into variations, without having the necessary playing experience and without live analysis… can’t really reflect much.  

So, here’s my “problem”…

In the position reached after the following moves:

[Position: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 f5 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Qh3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Qa5 10. Bd2 Qa4 11. Bd3 c4 12. Be2 Qxc2 13. O-O Qe4 14. Rfe1 Qg4 15. Qxg4 fxg4 16. Nh4 Nge7 17. Bxg4 O-O]

You said:
Quote:


Again, this word: “torture”. Seriously, I don’t even know what that means. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This seems to me like a personal preference that has little if any to do with the actual position.
I seriously don’t see the relevance of what it will be like to play against Smyslov. I reckon it will be quite over my head and hard to play him in every position so in fact I might as well play him in an off-beat one where I know the opening far better than he does!
And again (probably for the 50th time) yes white is better, white is always better and his play is easier in most lines in most openings and in most variations of most defenses. What else is new???

So to address what you said about that position I would like to say that I simply don’t agree at all and that is why I feel that the discussion has reached an impasse that to me has become not very interesting.

Here are my points on the very position you described as a torture for black:

[Position reached after Black’s 17…0-0]



•      …Nc6-a5-b3 (with a powerful outpost. At some point Black may get the chance to play …Nb3-d2-e4)
•      … Ne7-f5 (with a good out post and in correlation to a Black Knight on b3 will allow a plausible …Nf5xd4 with the idea of cxd4 / …c4-c3-c2 etc. this idea may become more tangible with a Rook on c8 and fewer pieces on the board)
•      … b7-b6 (to stop b-file threats, release the LSB from its overworked guardian task and support the transfusion of the c6-Knight. in addition it also allows for a plausible … a5 / ….b5-b4 providing fewer pieces are on board)
•      … Bc8-d7 (to finish Black’s development and protect the e6-pawn. Plausible continuations with …Bd7-e8 or …Bd7-a4-c2-e4/d3)
•      …Kg8-g7 (with a plausible pawn advance of: …h7-h6 / …g6-g5 etc. and even a rook lift to the h-file)
•      Plausible Rook moves: …Rae8 or ….Rac8. …Rf8-f7 (with plausible doubling of Rooks on the b- and f-file(s))

Aside from this, the only thing I see for White is an attack on Black’s e7-pawn which is easily defended and a Rook lift to the King side with Re1-e3 which is easily defended with the Pawns , the e7-Knight (or f5-Knight) and a plausible …Rf8-f7 as well as the advancement of Black’s King side pawns.

I can’t see anything tangible for white aside from his slight extra space and perhaps better ease of play I think that any talk about an advantage is irrational when one considers Black’s many assets discussed in the notes above.

I would agree that white is better had Black did not have so many positional merits, then of course Black’s position would be deemed “worse” but with so much positional outposts, piece-play and manageable defensive task I think that any talk about a White advantage in this position is ludicrous.

Funny to point out that had White opted for another strategy (in the same structure) where he would trade off Black’s mincing Knights before committing to the King side then his game could hypothetically be called better but ironically if you could (simply on an imaginary basis) take off two sets from each side like… let’s say White’s h4-Knight and g4-Bishop and Black’s two Knights… still ironically whatever material would be left will simply be insufficient.
For that reason most of Black’s play beats (so to say) White’s tempi-take and stops him from being able to take any structural advantage.

If you can find a system (starting from the Diagram) where White can achieve anything even remotely decisive please do share… and as always… my offer of matches stand. I’m playing both on ICC and FICS. FICS being a free server stops no one from popping on line offering me a match on his favorite Hogwash line.    

On a critical basis I must add that 13… Qe4 is far less critical than other lines I can think of. The primary one is 13… h6 where already Black has threats (mainly …g6-g5) but more so future …Qc2-e4-g4 makes far more sense since White’s game has been threatened and his Knight-play has been narrowed:

[1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 f5 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Qh3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Qa5 10. Bd2 Qa4 11. Bd3 c4 12. Be2 Qxc2 13. O-O h6]

Now here, to continue your method of play I analyzed:

14. Rfc1 Qe4 15. Re1

(15. Bd1 will only lead to similar play and similar outcome) 

15... Qg4 16. Qxg4 fxg4 17. Nh4 g5 18. Ng6 Rh7 19. Bxg4 h5 20. Bd1 Kf7 21. Bxg5 Kxg6 22. Bc2+ Kxg5 23. Bxh7 Nce7 24. Re3 Kh6 25. Bc2 Bd7   

As unclear this position may seem (and it certainly is) if I had to assess it I would say it’s dynamically equal with slightly better chances for Black!

For all these reasons I simply feel that the discussion reached a dead impasse. 


Regarding the strategically incorrect 7. Bb5+:
I actually analyzed some lines with this move with my friend Diduk and nothing tangible was found.
The reason for that is that it’ll be completely illogical for White to allow Black to exchange off his bad Bishop, close down the game with … c5-c4 and play for Knight out posts.
The only thing I can think of that makes some tiny sense after 7… Bd7 is 8. a4 where I already showed several ideas including the …Ne7 lines as well as …a6 lines and of course …Qa5 lines with obvious threats.
But I’m an open mind, if you have something interesting after 7…Bd7 please do share.

Cheers.

Yes, queenless middlegames probably a little easier for black as less risk of getting mated but they're certainly not a guarantee of comfortable equality. If you've swapped/freed the black light squared bishop first then perhaps

cf that game, suspect the whole Bg5 - and especially x e7 - thing just wasn't right. Tempting of course! Especially at a quick time limit. (when playing white isn't going to be especially easy.). But that bishop really is terribly important and black king happy on e7. Qb1 might have messed with whites coordination anyway.

This is perhaps arguable but whenever the Queen goes to d2 Black can play ...cxd4 / ...QxQ which to my mind (after a Queen trade) any talk about a White advantage is surreal.
Maybe White can enjoy some meaningless plus in a Queenless middle game but he doesn't have any real play (as opposed to Queenless middle game positions in the Catalan for instance) aside from the structure itself which i'm still not convinced holds much.  
Even the doubling of the Rooks on the g- or h-files doesn't seem like much without the aid of a Queen as even ...Rf7 or ...Nc6-d8-f7 etc in combination with the Black King should provide enough defence.
Can't say I looked at it in depth so these assumptions may not be sound but in general I can't imagine a real advantage without a correlated attack to go with it.

My main criticism (if you can call it that) to FM Levin's "thinking process" (on the other forum) was that I don't actually see his approach as realistic within variations. It sounds lovely when you read it and as usual Dave is an amazing presenter and a chess genius but in this case I didn't see any real way to make it work. In most lines the strategy I found prevents White from obtaining any real post that has a real value (by that I means something that clearly alters the game's evaluation) where on the few lines where White does manage to get a Knight to c5 it is already an endgame where pretty  much each side is left with nothing but two minor pieces. In that respect even if the Knight gets the outpost on c5 it is completely meaningless and irrelevant by the time it gets there.

For these reasons I assume that any Queenless middle game plan can only improve Black's prospects.    

Oh a comparison for 6.. f5 7 Nf3: 6.. Ne7 7 Qg4 o-o 8 Bd3 Nc6 9 Nf3 f5 10 Qh3. Black is meant to be entirely OK there. 

The only real difference to 6.. f5 7 Nf3 Ne7 ^ 8.. o-o is that white gets to use his two tempi to do something other than Qd1 -> h3. 

That does certainly help white, because the Q is arguably as well placed on d1 as it is on h3 Still it does perhaps suggest that those positions will work better with o-o than o-o-o (when black badly misses his f6 break.).