There are a couple of other threads where the main line is discussed at some length. After 14.Kxh2 Be6, I advocate Tarrasch's 15.c3, preserving the two bishops. After that, I much prefer White, though it remains a game of chess. For example, 15...f5 16.Bg5+ Kc8 17.Nd2 h6 18.Be3.

Apparently our chessfriend Matemax has refuted the Riga with his brilliant analysis in the NIC Yearbook, for which I salute him. Fine for corr chess or for those who want to book up on a complex line versus a system rarely encountered OTB.

But it's nice to know that White can obtain excellent play with the apparenty suboptimal but much simpler main line. That's why I say, the Riga is crap from top to bottom.

Way too much engine, not enough chess judgement in the frequently-expressed opinion that Black is OK in the Riga main line, with the rook and pawns versus the minor pieces.  Engines have their uses, but evaluating material imbalances isn't one of them. I'm not saying that we all have play chess the same way. I'm saying that the minor pieces are much better than the rook and pawns in the Riga main line. If you don't believe me, play the Riga; I could care less. I just don't like so see chess innocents misled by foolish posts here.

There has been at least one very long debate about this on this board, but I haven't the time to search it out and link it.

Markovich wrote on 06/26/13 at 02:36:01:



Sad?   

Not sure that's the appropriate adjective here.

In a era in which engines (sometimes with some human guidance) are finding all sorts of improvements in old lines that have been shelved and left for dead one can easily argue it is legitimate to bring up old 'crap' lines if someone thinks they have some new insights.

In that regard, this thread should be fine as the OP addresses a sub line that published by a high profile player which was claimed to be lost for White but now appears to be just fine.

Not everyone needs to play chess the same way with the same methods or openings as those you have anointed worthy.

Ah yes, that line (continuing a few moves past 22. Bxa8 and ending with a decisive advantage for White) was part of Matemax's analysis in YB 86 ("Refutation of the Riga?").  One of the authors of the article I mentioned (which was in YB 85) replied and differed with Matemax about a rook ending arising after 19...Qg6 20. Bxd5 ...

I notice that a Yearbook article on the Riga in 2007 leaned toward 8...f6 as the best reply to 8. Bg5, but had it coming out as += (with some "!?" alternatives for White along the way).

12.Nd4 (instead of 12.Rxe4) is the move here.. 

Edit: Correspondence practice here is one-sided: 100%

GabrielGale wrote on 06/25/13 at 01:15:37:

http://www.youtube.com/user/STLChessClub

kylemeister wrote on 06/24/13 at 21:18:04:


I think the lecture was intended for intermediate level players, and as an example of how one should go about preparing a surprise weapon: deviate as early as possible, give the opponent multiple natural-looking continuations that turn out disastrously, etc.  Not intended as a theoretical overview.

It would have been nice if Yasser had mentioned, even in passing, that 8.c4!? and 8.Bg5!? were alternatives that Black needed to look at, even if he only focused on 8.Nxc6 in his lecture.  Or perhaps the video was only a part of the entire lecture.   

There are a lot of great videos on that channel that I recommend people take a look at.  You can't present much theory in an hour long lecture, and the best videos I've seen are the ones that just go over interesting GM games.