sloughter wrote on 07/10/12 at 23:47:53:

Well, please don't change the right move order! In the game I posted it was 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.O-O g6 11.Re1 Nd5 12.Nh3 and now 12...Nb4 (and not 12...h5).
In your post #43 you say 13.Nc3 is better than 13.Rxe5 and give 13...Nxd3 or 13...Rb8 as possible black responses.
I told you once.. And I'll repeat it.. Don't rely on you Fritz 12 engine! It's an engine that is not appropriate for analyses (especially in the opening). It's a good engine for training...yes, but that's all. And it seems to me you rely too much on your Fritz evaluation of this position.
As for your (Fritz's) 13.Nc3.. May I cite Miles? Oh no, I won't.. I'll be more polite. 
Simply, a human move (and engine approved) 13...f6!
It's plain and simple - black defends the e5-pawn. Let's see now (and put your Fritz 12 aside if you please) - your knight on h3 (any prospects?), your knight on c3 (great prospects - to end on e4 and that's all...waiting to be chased), your rook on e1 (any prospects?), your queen on f3 (waiting for h7-h5 and Bc8-g4 after black defends well his g6-pawn), your bishop on d3 (  ), your bishop on c1 (it will develop on b2, yes...against the black e5-pawn) and your rook on a1 (pathetic!). And all this for just one pawn. 13.Rxe5 is a hell of a move compared to this...oh no I won't cite Miles - I promised to myself. 

barnaby wrote on 07/11/12 at 01:11:56:


I have been accused of not appreciating the value of the initiative. Here White has five pieces developed, lots of open files and diagonals but because Black has a universal position, has not developed a single piece, but is clearly better; all the development in the world doesn't help White.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e6 4.Bd3?! dxe4 5.fxe4 Qxd4 6.Nf3 Qd8. According to the overwhelming number of post members White is better due to the open f-file, lead in development and the inert nature of the Black Queenside. I tried two different plans here:

7.Nd2 Ngf6 8.Nc4 b5! 9.Ne3 Qb6 10.Kh1 Bd6 11.a4 O-O 12.axb5 cxb5 13.Bxb5 Qxb5 14.Qxd6 Nxe4 15.Qf4 Bb7 16.b3 f6 17.Bb2 e5 & the attack petered out.

Consider the following incredible position where material triumps because Black has a universal position. After snatching material try to return to a universal position.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e6 4.Bd3 dxe4 5.fxe4 Qxd4 6.Nf3 Qd8 7.Nc3 Nd7 8.Qe2 Qb6 9.Bd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Rb3 Qa5 12.e5 Nc5 13.Rb1 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Qd8! As I say White has developed five pieces, Black none. White has developed with all sorts of open lines and diagonals but Black has an impregnable fortress. Now do you see why I steer for universal positions when I play against the Two Knights' Defense?

15.Qe4 f5! 16.Qc4 Ne7 17.O-O Nd5 18.Nd4 Be7 19.Rf3 O-O 20.R1f1 Bd7 21.Rh3 b5 22.Qe2 Qb6 +-

I always thought chess 'theory' was what was known, accepted and shown to 'be' and this was accomplished through testing in real play among high level players as opposed to those ideas and variations that have yet to be proved and was being offered as speculation?

In that vein, I suspect 'theory' of the TKD Qf3 lines need not fear being overturned or tweaked by anything I have seen in this thread despite the passion and insistence brought to discussion by Sloughter.

Development (piece activity) and initiative are still concepts that are abstract enough for engines to have difficulty assigning accurate numerical values.

Higher level players seem aware of this but for some reason there are many other lesser players that seem troubled in accepting this.

It is interesting to see that when modern wheels are not deemed to be round enough for one they can always continue to try making them even rounder, regardless of what empirical evidence has demonstrated previously. 



I have yet to see an engine that reacts psychologically to moves the way a human might when faced with a surprise in a real game.

There is many ways to play this position as Black, and even my computer says it's equal position, that means even the machine understand that the development+space are worth a pawn here. 8..Rb8 is probably a good move but it's not the move I advocated. About your game beginning with 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.O-O h6 11.Ne4 Nd5 12.Qd1 f5 13.Nec3, the first 11 moves are ok for Black, with other possibilities like 10..g6.  12..f5 is really not forced at all, but I think it's ok. 13..Nf4, I don't like it much, I would rather play anything else like 13..Qc7, 13..Be6, or 13..Rb8. A development with theses 3 moves is possible, Black just continue to put pieces on actives squares, and White is suffocating. You have no space for your pieces, no good squares. How are you going to convert your pawn up? I don't say Black activity is winning, I say it's at least a play for 3 results! 

My vote is for 13..Qc7 because it seems pretty flexible.

Btw, it would be nice if Sloughter were to provide the full move list again. I know, we've discussed the moves several times, but it's a new page. Let's make it easier for players new to the discussion to follow.

Vass wrote on 07/10/12 at 20:54:30:


Would you provide me with a specific move order? A transient initiative in correspondence chess will be punished much more than in OTB chess. Just hitting the Queen drives her exactly where she wants to go. You want to play like Morphy; I would prefer to emulate Steinitz and Karpov. 

World Champion Karpov's play was so mysterious to GM Seirawan one of the top GM's in the US, he was prompted to exclaim, in effect, that White had all his pieces on the first and second rank but stood better!
This is exactly what I am saying here. What you have to recognize is that White has a universal position, the most difficult position to attack. That is why Steinitz felt that a player with more pawns on their original squares constituted a significant advantage. 

FM Alex Dunne was prompted to say that at first he was antagonistic to my theories but then indicated that he understood what I was doing and why I was doing it. In one issue of Inside Chess I counted over 50 universal attack positions in the middle games that GM's felt were desirable.

A universal position is one where there is only one open file or two half open files, no pieces in front of your pawns and no pieces beyond the farthest advanced pawn. Occasionally a universal position can be collapsed by tactics.

The best way to play against gambits is to snatch material and then return to a universal position and crawl out as I did in the 10...h6 variation.

Black must make progress after 8.Qf3; all White has to do is tread water and meet the obvious threats.

Since no one has improved on Fritz's play, I must assume no one sees any worthwhile tactics or would you have visitors to this column believe that Fritz overlooks tactical shots 3-4 moves ahead? If you answer no, what positional improvements would you recommend in a sharp opening where the tactics don't work?

I had to "force" the computer to occupy d4 in the Be7/O-O/h6 variation. It wanted me to play c4? at one point to drive the wrong Knight back. I simply wanted to evict the Knight on d4 so I played b3/Bb2/Bc3/Ba1/c3 Can you find a better square for the Knight?

After f5 Black cannot play e4 because it was over protected 5! times i.e. I had pawns on f3, d3, Knight on d2, Queen on c2 & a Rook on e1. If it played f4, then I just play Ne4 with a positional bind. The fact that Fritz could find nothing better than Kh7/Kg8/Kh7 means it had no way to improve its position. It tried to push both Rook pawns which led to nothing. 

I am still awaiting actual analysis rather than general principles. According to my general principles Black has some, but not full compensation for the pawn with 10...g6 & just stands worse after 10...h6 due to the simple sequence. Ne4/Qd1/Nec3/Be2 where there is no compensation for the pawn.

ArKheiN wrote on 07/10/12 at 20:21:01:

The reason I like this 10...g6!? line is the possibility for black to play h7-h5 with Bc8-g4 threat against the prematurely developped white queen.. It was demonstrated very well in the game I posted. And white was forced to play Qf3-d1 as a response giving black a tempo to develop his pieces. In high quality correspondence chess such things matter more than in any OTB game. Even a small inaccuracy can be punished in CC chess, you know..