TN wrote on 11/27/11 at 14:04:10:


Seems natural to me. Both 2 ...c5 and 2 ...Bf5 should be +=. The Chigorin could be tougher.

I still think that there is really no purpose in trying to avoid book lines just for the sake of it. We should find what we consider the best lines, be it a repertoire book line or something else.

TN wrote on 11/27/11 at 13:51:15:


This is a good idea. Two lines should be ok with some discipline. 

As far as copying somebody's lines - I think it will be pretty hard to construct a totally independent repertoire. The mainlines are based on lots of experience and analysis. If some lines in a given book is considered the best by us, so be it. Why reinvent the wheel?

I will have a look at the files later on, don't have time right now, have to work

After further thought, I am thinking that we should divide this project into two smaller chunks: The main lines and the sidelines. Basically the group will be looking at two different key positions simultaneously, one from a sideline (e.g. 2.c4 Bf5) and one from a main line (e.g. 16.Na4 Botvinnik). I think this solution could please almost everyone, as those who want to get the move two sidelines out of the way can work on that, and those that want to knock out a main line (the Botvinnik at the moment) can work on this. The risk is that it could become confusing to have a thread with more than one line being discussed simultaneously, but if everyone gives the starting moves at the beginning of their posts I don't think there will be any confusion. 

I've added a PGN file on D06, covering a White repertoire against 2...c5 and 2...Bf5. I apologise for copying some of Avrukh's lines in his book, but in a few variations I honestly couldn't find an equivalent or better approach than his recommendation. Improvements for either colour are welcomed. 

Edit: In terms of storing the analysis in database format, I want to divide them by ECO code; i.e. one database per relevant ECO code, titled 'D06', for instance.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 11/27/11 at 02:17:43:


I agree that it is nice to have a "watertight" repertoire, rather than just a "fast" one with focus on mainlines. There are some problems, though, with both approaches.

I think that there are two ways to do this. We agreed on mainlines and I guess Botvinnik counts as one. The first is to just start, like here, with a mainline. The problem is that if we discuss theory at move 20, yes, it may seem strange, and may not attract all players (even though there are not too many useful deviations in the Botvinnik. Those that do exist should be discussed, possibly before the "improvements" at move 20).

We could instead start at move two, after 1.d4 d5. But look at the Spanish thread which is still discussing non-mainlines in absurdum. I'd rather spend more time on alternatives that are more likely to be met OTB than to analyse sidelines that are rarely played. This is useful, though, to a certain extent. There needs to be a balance, which I think was missing in the Spanish thread and lead to a decrease in interest in that thread.

The Spanish Repertoire thread started with the following presupposition: The Spanish is +/=. So the repertoire should also be +/=. They agreed that in general, a line that shows a +.35 or better was "solved". Of course, for gambit variations, that may be a bit iffy. 

We could save some time if we agreed to begin on move 3, but we'd also leave some major holes that would need to be back-filled. So I would rather start on move 2 and go forward slowly. 

For me, there's no rush whatsoever. I would rather create a water-tight repertoire than a fast one.

I hope that people wishing to discuss the Botvinnik this early will consider going over to another thread. We can always add the analysis later.

I think this is where current theory stands; the question now is how we can advance it. If no one can prove an edge for White with 19.Bf4, then we can either look at an alternative such as 19.Be3 or put this line on hold and cover Black's other options on moves 16-18.   

@fling

See my reply to your post in the PGN file, where I address both the 20.Qd2 line and the novelty that TonyRo faced 2-3 years ago in correspondence. I have a feeling White can improve on 27.Ra6 in the 21...Qd6 line. 

Willempie wrote on 11/26/11 at 23:21:41:


I disagree; the number of games with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 are double that of the Spanish, but naturally this number rapidly decreases when only covering one line against each Black response. I want to want through the lines schematically, completing one line at a time. That said if anyone has some good ideas in other variations, don't hesitate to share them. 

Only a few months ago I thought 1.e4 was a better try for an advantage than 1.d4, but a combination of my own research and the recently completed Tal Memorial has made me change my mind - 1.d4 is just as good as 1.e4 in the fight for an advantage.