trw wrote on 09/07/12 at 00:42:51:


In my opinion Gajewski is not 100% correct but fine in practice. I agree with PFREN. I cannot understand the comparison with the Tarrasch at all. The Tarrasch Defence is here for 150 years, has been played by many world champions and elite players and has survived world championship matches. Also i didn't wrote a book where Black's primary way to get an active play is to sacrifice a pawn. Please help me understand your argument.

Ametanoitos wrote on 08/11/12 at 10:01:39:



I am amazed that someone who wrote a book on the Tarrasch would somehow insinuate that the Gajewski is incorrect.

Ametanoitos wrote on 08/11/12 at 10:01:39:


I fail to see why Black isn't in good shape after 19.c4 Bf7, and anyway, if you want a bulletproof draw, then simply play the Marshall proper... 
The Gajewski 2 is for slightly ambitious players, who don't mind taking some risk to create unbalanced positions. I wouldn't bother much about computer's evaluations here- Black has fair practical chances, even if he isn't objectively 100% equal.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/19/12 at 21:24:15:


I am gonna go out on a limb and say as a regular Gajewski player that the d4 move did not scare me. I haven't lost a game yet in 30 correspondence games with the Gajewski... but now I might start trying this 2.0 just for fun.

Cool line guys, I'll throw my hat in the fun. I like the try for black.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 d5 11.exd5 e4 12.Ng5
Now here I played in a blitz game,

12...Bg4 13.f3 ex3 14.d4 f5 (14...c5!? 15.a4 c4 unclear-Rybka) and I obtained an interesting and complicated game akin to Marshall/Gajewski Spanish. My opponent played 15.Nbd2 and Rybka likes the line 15...Bh4 16.Re2 c6 17.Nb3 Bxf3 18.gxf3 and reads (-0.23). Improvements can be made for each side, but already I prefer to take the black pieces.

Brabo, I am happy to see your interest in this interesting new line, and yes noticed later that 11...Ng4! is an improvement. I suppose the 11...Bg4 line might still prove to have some use in the future. I look forward to more analysis with you here.

~Merovingian

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/19/12 at 12:30:59:

If you look to the game Kotronias - Halkias black got extra possibilities thanks to no h3.
See 20. Nxc4 Bxc4 21. dxc4 Qxd1 22.Rxd1 Ra1 23.Re1 Na5 24.Rxe7 Rxc1+ and now white doesn't have 25.Kh2 Rxc4? 26.Ne5 winning. I am sure that there are tricks in other variations also existing based on the backrank.

As mentioned by Girkassa, in the game Gopal - Karavade, white has after 19....c5 20.Bf4 g5 21.Bh2 which is regarded as promising by Houdini. This possibility doesn't exist in the Gajewski 2.0 and the evaluation is much closer to equal therefore.

Anyway I believe more grandmastergames are needed to find out more about the real value of the new variation. Today I believe it is an improvement, certainly because after 11.d4 (the chose of most top grandmasters today) it looks like white is in different variations having a big advantage which is certainly not the case in the 2.0

I looked at the line a bit. Look at this game:



The move 17.Ne5 seems promising to me. I analysed also 13...Bf5 Re1 14.Re8 d4 15.Qxd5 Nbd2 with the idea Nf1-Ne3 and i think that White is better. Also after 15.Re1 in the above game Black shouldn't play 15...c5 due to 16.Bf4! and if he goes with 15...Bd6 then Houdini likes 16.Nbd2! with the idea of playing b3-Bb2. In this case i am not convinced by the evaluation of the engine, s maybe Black is close to having enough compensation, but in any case i think that this is a critical position where White can play for an edge.

I don't see the reason why not having the move h3 does harm to White! So, according to what i believe now, this is the way forward for White against both versions of the Gajewski line.