I guess the drawing line is this: 

TalJechin wrote on 05/15/13 at 08:31:50:


Convincing as in +/-, or some other big edge for white? No.

I have identified what I believe to be the critical lines, and feel it tilts white's way only in those (for the book I lean quite heavily on correspondence games, ie: a key game I analyze is an e-mail game from 2004 in what I perceive to be a critical continuation, where white won). Making definitive statements on such an irrational opening is just asking for it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are numerous players (correspondence and GM) that have more extensive private analysis that beats anything I mention, so in that regard what I believe to be white's best path may just end up also being a draw with best play. 

That's chess for you. Fischer Random, anyone?

On a more serious note: I regard the Moscow/Anti-Moscow complex as closer to a drawing weapon than the Botvinnik. Maybe your opponent has just done a ton of homework there, and found all sorts of new goodies for black? I'd be open to changing my opinions if I saw something of note.

BPaulsen wrote on 04/08/13 at 00:29:03:


Did you find anything convincing for White vs the Botvinnik? In the CL corr I'm up against a corr-GM who seems to have honed it into a very reliable drawing weapon. After a long look at all his draws in the ML I went for Schandorff's Bg3 suggestion, but soon regretted that choice...

Black is spoiled with equalizing options in the Moscow. Quite sad for white players, really. The Anti-Moscow still has some fuzzy areas, but none that have black teetering on the brink of disaster unless he screws up. He does have to know specifics, though. 16 games left to analyze for the book, and it is moving along smoothly.

Lauri Torni wrote on 04/09/13 at 13:05:05:


Not yet. Right now I am trying to finish analyzing the last major opening for "Play 1.Nf3!" and then all that will be left is various sidelines to wrap up. Sidelines often take more time to go through than you anticipate, hence the lack of a timeline.

The book this thread is about will finish first. That much is certain.

belgian & BPaulsen: thanks guys. I don't mind hard work if there's a light at the end of the tunnel but the fact is that, lately, every GM semi-slav player seem to deviate to Cambridge-Springs waters so there must be some problem with the Moscow/Anti-Moscow and the Botwinnik.

gramsci wrote on 04/07/13 at 10:03:35:


What's wrong with the Moscow/Anti-Moscow? While it may be too much work for some, IMO it's theoretical status is fine.

ANDREW BRETT wrote on 01/07/13 at 20:01:41:


They are both in progress. 

Lately I've been bogged down in Semi-Slav analysis in general - for both books.