Reverse wrote on 12/02/11 at 15:01:38:


A "terrific" wait-and-see move is 13..g6  ... aiming for a poker-bluff style of play. 14.Re1 Ng4 ; 14.Ne2 Qb6 ; 14.Qd2 Qd6 15.g3 Nh5 ; 14.Rc1 Qb6 ; 14.Qe2 Qd6 ; 14.Qc2 Qb6 

Interesting, this 14..Ng5 idea seems to score pretty well. On chesstempo.com database 4 games between 2400+, all draws. Obviously not a big enough sample size, but it is still somewhat encouraging. GM Sergei Rublevsky (2700) - Marc Simonet (2270) was drawn. I haven't analyzed the game yet, but the result is rather surprising. 

Mikhail Ulibin (long time french player) played this line against Zoltan Almasi in 2000, Svidler -Volkov was in 1999, 
and Gelashivili - Mchedishvili was from 2001. All games were drawn.

bragesjo wrote on 11/10/11 at 12:32:00:


Fair enough. Ziegler's DVD was produced in 2006, when 14.g3 was the trendy move. Then again I don't think 14.Qc1 is enough for an edge either, but if someone proves me wrong I might start playing this line again.

Reverse wrote on 09/30/11 at 17:01:02:


If you are a reasonable player, very little. But of course additional theoretical knowledge is an advantage. Even when I play openings which either have very little theory or very little theory that I know, my theoretical knowledge of other openings help me to find good moves over the board. For instance, I have beaten many players in blitz with a rare variation of the St George, based on an idea in the French Defence (finally got back on topic =P ).

By the way, you shouldn't be afraid of your opponent's theoretical knowledge. If they are higher rated than you, usually they will be trying to get you out of book early (i.e. play a sideline). 

Re bragesjo's analysis on 14.Qc1 (which is more testing than 14.g3 in my opinion), I don't second the recommendation of 14...Qf6. Instead of 19.Nc3, White has a slight edge after both 19.Qc3 and 19.Nc3. White has won five games and drawn ten from the position after 18...dxe4, which is not a good advertisement for Black; better is 14...Ng5.

I should point out that Ziegler mentioned that his 15..Rd8 may have been an inaccuracy. He gave alternatives, which I posted. 

Thanks, for the advice.

Well you've almost 'got' to investigate them anyway, to see if you like the feel of the play or not. 

New moves not so important, the key is that you've investigated/thought about the position. Hopefully some of that will then stick in long term memory

In terms of what he's going to show in a DVD: its really not practical to show genuinely dense theory in those. Also authors (books too) do have a tendency to try and show secure lines rather than very tactical things which might just get busted. Very sensible of them really.

Reverse wrote on 09/30/11 at 17:01:02:


I know at least three 2200+ players that don't know that much theory. They just play lines they know well, even if they are not considered the very "best". Of course they know the basic plans, but I am surprised they don't know more theory.   

Where did Ziegler say that Black needs more theory (since there is nothing about it in the annotations)? The CB DVD?

How much theory does one need to know to have a real fighting chance against 2200+ players?  

In this game below IM Ari Ziegler says that after 14..g5 black needs to know ten more moves of theory in several different lines and that much of it is unpublished. Instead recommends 14..Qf6, which is safer but leaves it structurally dificult for black to play for a win.  

Do most 2200+ players analyze their own openings and come up with new ideas or do they follow book reccomendations? 

Also, is 14...g5 really better 14..Qf6?  Maybe i should play a different line altogether if playing for a win?

[Event "Elitserien 01/02"]
[Site "Goteborg"]
[Date "2001.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Carlsson, Pontus"]
[Black "Ziegler, Ari"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C06"]
[Annotator "Ziegler,Ari"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[EventDate "1999.01.07"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. O-O Bd6 11. Nf3 O-O (11... Qc7 12. g3 O-O 13. Bf4) 12. Bf4
Bxf4 13. Nxf4 Ne4 14. g3 (14. Qc1 Qf6 15. Ne2 e5 16. dxe5 Nxe5 17. Nxe5 Qxe5
18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Nc3 Bf5) 14... Qf6 (14... g5) 15. h4 Rd8 $6 (15... h6) (15...
g5 16. Bxe4 (16. Nxg5 Nxg5 17. hxg5 Qxg5 18. Ne2 h5) 16... gxf4 17. Bc2 Qg7 {
John Shaw} 18. g4 {Shredder 8} e5 19. Nxe5 f3 {Oklart/bättre för svart.}) 16.
Re1 Nxd4 17. Nxd4 Qxd4 18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Qb3 $1 {Ett starkt drag som
garanterar vit en liten fördel. En av poängerna är att svart har så genuint
svårt at utveckla sin löpare.} Qb6 (19... Qe5 20. Rad1 Rf8 (20... Rxd1 21. Rxd1
(21. Qxd1 {Ger svart problem med utvecklingen av löparen.})) 21. Qc2 Qf6 22.
Rxe4 e5 23. Nd5 Qf7 24. Rxe5 {Kan vara ett sätt att hoppas på att uppnå remi i
slutspelet med bonde under tack vare att löparen på sikt är starkare än
springaren.}) 20. Qc3 (20. Qxb6 axb6 21. Rxe4 Rd2 22. Re2 Rxe2 23. Nxe2 Bd7 24.
Nc3 Bc6 25. f4 Rd8 26. Rd1 {Vit står bättre enligt Fritz.}) 20... Rd4 21. Rad1
e5 22. Rxd4 exd4 23. Qc4+ Kh8 (23... Kf8 24. Rxe4 Bf5 25. Re7 $1) 24. Qf7 (24.
Rxe4 Bf5 25. Re7 {Ger vit överlägset spel enligt Fritz.} (25. Rxd4 Qxb2 26. Qd5
h6) 25... Rg8) 24... Bg4 25. Rxe4 Qc6 26. Nd5 (26. Re7 Rg8) 26... Bh3 (26... h5
27. f3 Qc1+ 28. Kf2 Qc2+ (28... Qh1 29. Re8+ Rxe8 30. Qxe8+ Kh7 31. fxg4 Qxd5
32. Qxh5+ {Hade jag missat.}) 29. Re2 Qf5 30. Qxf5 Bxf5 31. Re5) 27. Kh2 Bf1
28. Re7 Rg8 29. Re1 Rd8 30. Rxf1 Qxd5 31. Qxd5 Rxd5 32. Kg2 Kg8 (32... Ra5 33.
a3 Rb5 {Ger remi.} 34. b4 a5 35. Rd1 {Eller kanske ändå inte.}) 33. Rd1 Kf7 34.
Kf3 Ke6 35. Ke4 Re5+ (35... Rc5 36. Rd2 Re5+) 36. Kd3 Rf5 (36... Rb5) (36...
Kd5 37. Rc1 Re7 38. Rc4 Re1 39. Rxd4+ Kc6 {Är bättre än det spelade.}) 37. f4
Ra5 38. a3 Rb5 39. b4 Rb6 40. Re1+ Kd6 41. Kxd4 Ra6 42. Re3 Kd7 {Och vit vann.}
(42... b5 43. f5 Ra4 44. g4 a5 45. Re6+ Kd7 46. Ra6) 1-0