You changed the line again. This is getting annoying. If you choose that move order, then white has 10.Qc3 Rd8 11.Nbd2 and he went on to win in D. Talos-S. Vatansever, E-Mail 2011.

And in the other continuation with 9.Na3 e5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.Nxc4 Qe7 13.0-0 0-0 14.b3 was eventually 1-0 in G. Guattrocchi-M. Palladino, E-Mail 2011.

This is a far cry from your assertion of 
"If this is the largest edge White has, presumably Black will have no trouble drawing all correspondence games and equalizing in all human games even against grandmasters."

He's having some problems. The position isn't as easy as you think it is, and that small edge has some bite. Feel free to play the black side as you wish, but I don't expect white players to be discouraged from 7.e3.

I'm done with this conversation. Getting one long line doesn't qualify as analysis, nor are the games actually played in this line being discussed. It's pointless. 

Now back to analyzing the Botvinnik Semi-Slav.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 04/19/13 at 05:03:28:

If black were doing that great, then it would have been a trivial draw in the correspondence game to reach the line. Instead he lost, and in a very typical manner for this pawn structure. The problem for black stems entirely from his easily restrained majority, while white's can advance more easily later on. Engines are bad at evaluating these structures as equal early on, and human input can do much to guide them if the person knows what they are aiming towards.

Bryan: I agree that in the 9.Na3 line, White looks somewhere between += and =; see my suggested improvement over BobbyDigital80's long variation.  As a practical over the board player, I would prefer the White side after the line I gave ending in 11.Qd4, but it's possible that White has nothing better than equality/compensation/unclear here and my preference for the White pieces is entirely subjective.   

BobbyDigital80: I'm not sure what you want.  You asked an initial question that gave absolutely no indication about the way you intended to continue.  That question was answered.   

You then suggested that Black should reply with ...d5 and ...Nc6, when White has nothing.  That's it, no indication of the order of moves (you seemed to mean that you'd start with ...d5 as you wrote that first), no lines that you've looked at, nothing.  Pantu made good points in his response, I think.

Later you said "1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Qe7 5.g3 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2 Nc6 looks really good. Black will follow up with ...d5. I don't see how White has anything at all in this."  Now you've seemingly changed the order of moves: you want Black to start with ...Nc6.  (That wasn't clear from your previous post).  You also gave absolutely no chess content, not a single line that you've looked at or considered following ...Nc6, no indication of which lines you think are the most important, etc.   

I asked how you were planning on following up and you took a condescending jab at the "so-called" stronger players on the forum.   

Tony37 posted a suggestion for a way forward with White, and you finally did post one long variation.  I suggested a more aggressive setup for White and also a possible improvement in the line you responded to Tony37 with.   

So Tony37 and I (also Bryan) suggested places to start investigating, and you haven't responded with any more chess content.  You accuse some people of trolling (I'm sorry if my "Rybdini" post seemed rude), yet don't seem interested in carrying on a chess discussion outlining how you think Black should play.  Others have suggested ways for White to proceed.

So at this point...what is it that you want from the other members of the forum??

ErictheRed wrote on 04/18/13 at 01:59:48:


One of the posters suggested 7.e3 as having a great score in correspondence play, so that's why I pasted the line.

The truth is that you're not necessarily going to see the idea of dxc4 and e5. Just because an idea occurs in other openings doesn't mean you will automatically recognize it in other lines. I think some people on this forum just like to be skeptical of people's ideas for no specific reason than to troll.

You said "Many players (Kramnik, Topalov...) have shown that in these kinds of positions White can get excellent long-term compensation for the pawn with a Knight on c3." What are you referring to with this? Can you give an example? This position isn't directly analogous to a Catalan line.

"More branches and less trunk, please."
What do you want? Ten equalizing lines for Black or what? Why don't you just give a logical explanation for why White is better?

ErictheRed wrote on 04/16/13 at 06:57:30:


1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. g3 Bxd2+ 6. Qxd2 Nc6 7. e3 d5 8.
Bg2 dxc4 9. O-O e5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. dxe5 Qxe5 12. Na3 c3 13. Qxc3 Qxc3 14.
bxc3 c6 15. e4 Kd8 16. Rfe1 Kc7 17. e5 Ng4 18. Nc4 Be6 =
I got the idea from an IM and a GM I know personally. The idea of taking on c4 and playing e5 to equalize has been played by Carlsen in Bxd2+ Bogo Indian positions before and is quite basic and standard. If these 'so-called' stronger players can't figure out this standard idea, you have to question if they're even strong players.

That looks odd.  So who played that way with White?

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 04/15/13 at 02:11:21:


Bobby, I'm sure that what you're suggesting is playable.  But if you want people to respond, please supply more than 1 ply of analysis.  Are you planning on playing ...dxc4?  What's the idea?  The stronger posters aren't responding to you because they don't know what you're getting at.