Keano -  " It is perhaps a confusion in the use of language we are in disagreement over. "

Is this confusing to you ? -  "In any case the point is not really Watson, the point is anybody saying that every single line he covers (there are three!) against the Winawer exchange leads to complete equality and that they would put their hands in the fire to defend that. For anybody to say that about any opening book is staggering and frankly I'll admit it irritates me." (written to Smyslov_Fan )
That's plain language.  Nope, no confusion there about what you want to say.

Is this confusing to you ?  - "I just picked the first line I saw to demonstrate the case, and I believe its been a worthwhile exercise. "  

You "demonstrated the case"  and you believe it was a worthwhile exercise.

Yet but I come back and offer a much better line with its variations to "demonstrate the case" that Black, in the ...c6 just equalizes.   Yes, it was also a "worthwhile exercise".

Then you come back and say - "Bladez, I have no doubt these lines may all be well playable. "   So wait, you have no doubt these are all playable for black but you feel black just does not equalize in the ...c6 line ?   Believe me, if it ends up with White being clearly better, then to me, I don't want to play them as Black.   I play correspondence chess and there is no room in my repertoire for positions that are clearly better for White in any sense when I am Black.   If you mean playable as in White gets and edge but it's very tiny, then I understand that as playable for Black for my taste.   My claim, as is the claim of IM Watson is that in the exchange Winawer, Black equalizes in all those 3 lines.   I still put my hands to the fire on that assessment.

I just put my line in the ...c6 branch to demonstrate my point.


Also, is this use of the language confusing to you ?  -  " You are too quick to copy ideas from a book instead of investigating for yourself "

It is very clear you are being derrogative and with the inclination to throw a bit of an insult.  You don't know me, you don't know my history.  But you can say that I am quick to copy an idea from a book.  Oh, and you said that before we even exchanged concrete lines of analysis.

Then you say - " It is perhaps a confusion in the use of language we are in disagreement over. " 

I am not sure if you mean "my (keno's)  use of the language"  when you say  we are in disagreement of the language.

But now you say "I dont think this ...c6 line is actually the most interesting for a theoretical discussion."  You say that after I posted my lines to support the claim that ...c6 for black equalizes.

I am not sure if it's clear who is the one having problems being very clear with the use of language.

I look forward to your answer to my ...c6 analysis.

I do admit, Black has problems, severe problems, in the line I gave above after Keano brought up the f4-f5 idea.  I will grant that.

I will also add that I am going back to an old line mentioned already.  I do think after taking a very good look, that Black stands fine here.  Take a look.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bd3 c6 6.Nge2 Ne7 7.Ng3 Nd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bd2 [10.Bc1 f5 11.Nh5 Ng6 ]

10...f5 11.Nh5 [11.Re1 Bd6 12.Nh5 Ng6 13.g3 Nf6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.a3 Nxh5 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Qxh5 Ng6 18.Ne2 Qf6 19.h4 Bd7 20.Qg5 Rae8 21.Kf1 Re7 22.Qxf6 Rxf6]

11...Ng6 12.Qf3 Qb6 13.a3 [13.Qe3 Rf7]

13...Bd6 14.Ne2 Rf7 15.Rfe1 [15.a4 f4 (15...Ndf8 16.a5 Qc7) 16.Bxf4 Nxf4 17.Nhxf4 Nf6]

15...f4 16.Nhxf4 [16.Bxf4 Ndf8; 16.Nexf4 Qxb2 17.Rad1 Ndf8 18.c4 Qxd4]

16...Ndf8 17.Rad1 [17.Bxg6 Nxg6 18.Qc3 Bf5 19.Nxg6 (19.Nd3 Raf8) 19...Bxg6; 17.g3 Nxf4 18.gxf4 Bd7]

17...Qxb2 18.Bc1 [18.c4 dxc4 19.Bxc4 Be6 20.d5 cxd5; 18.Rb1 Qxa3]

18...Qb6 19.c4 dxc4 20.Bxc4 Be6 [Black is looking fine here.]

21.Qc3 Bxc4 22.Qxc4 Re8

If this holds true, then the ...c6 line is fine and, again, I would stand by the suggestion of ...c6 and the rest of the lines covered by Watson - my hands to the fire.

So, keano, I am very interested to see what you have for the above.  This is all great stuff.

Are there any discussions on 5...Nf6 for Black or White?  Does anyone claim White can get an advantage there?  I would also like to see White's best try.  Because that line has a long pedigree and a good test of time.  It is also covered by Watson.

It's possible that Watson was wrong in this case without it being because he was too optimistic about Black's resources. Watson didn't say that Black draws this position, he said Black has attained equality.

If you found a way to prove an advantage for white here, congratulations. Practically, I like f4, but I don't see why Black is really worse off. Black has several resources available to him. As Eric said, the position is complicated.

Keano wrote on 02/21/14 at 11:10:21:


Honestly I don't really want to analyze the position, but I did look at it.  Maybe we have a difference in chess thinking, but I thought that the f4-pawn and square looked a little weak and like White was a little over-extended if Black just plays calmly, and after 10...Qc7 11.f5 Nf4 I'm getting White's dangerous bishop, etc.  Maybe 12.Bxf4 is better for White, I dunno.  Then after 12...Bxf4 13.f6 White probably has something, so you're probably right.

I was mostly just curious whether you had analyzed this or whether it had been published somewhere.  And yeah, 8...Bd6?! does look like it's asking for it a bit, I'd think just 8...Nd7, but I don't know these positions at all.

Is 10.f4 really all that dangerous?  I'm not claiming full equality for Black here or anything, but it seems like there are a lot of complications you have to work through before giving any kind of verdict, and I don't necessarily think that Black is the one facing all the danger, i.e. 10...Qc7 11.f5 Nf4 12.Qg4 Nxd3 and we have to work out the consequences of 13.Nh5 f6 when the h2-pawn might be taken, etc.  Also the simple 14.cxd3 Rf7 doesn't look dangerous for Black to me.  For instance 15.Re1 Nd7 16.Re8+ Nf8 leads nowhere, as the attempt to bring the other rook to e1 with a bind on the back rank is met with 17.Bd2 Bxf5!

It just doesn't seem to scary to me at all.

Then there are the dubious looking moves: the immediate 10...f5 doesn't look so bad, though I doubt it leads to full compensation.  Of course there's also 10...Qb6 immediately hitting the d4-pawn (I guess White will ignore it with 11.f5!), 10...Nd7 intending to swing to f6, etc.  Apologies if this has been analyzed somewhere before, I just don't think that "10.f4! with a dangerous initiative" is at all apparent without some further analysis, so I'm curious.

Keano wrote on 02/20/14 at 09:02:07:


You don't understand what I mean.  For Watson to say that line for Black should equalize, it means, that Black should equalize.  It does not mean that if black cannot play ...Bf5 then he cannot equalize.  I don't think you understand the spirit of what Watson is saying.

Also, you don't know me.  You sure do not know I am one who does his own investigation.  

You don't subscribe to Chesspublishing.com in the French section, do you ?  
If you were a subscriber, you will see I take on Watson's ideas in his book PTF4, for Black AND for White.

If you were a subscriber, you would see my games and my contributions get published here because, if I may humbly say, I do not follow blindly, but I do my own research and I do have my own practice.  Both, my practice and my research get posted to chess publishing.com since at least 10 years ago.  I have my stuff in one section or another since that far back.

If you were a subscriber, you would see Watson took on your line and gave it a good look.

Yes, after 4.exd5, I still don't think nor believe White has a path to an advantage.

my contribution

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bd3 c6 6.Nge2 Ne7 7.Ng3 0ñ0 8.0ñ0 Bd6 9.Qh5 

[9.Bg5?! f6 10.Bd2 f5 11.Nge2 

a) 11.Qh5 Nd7 (11...Qb6 12.Nce2 Nd7) 12.Qh4 Nf6 (12...Qc7 13.Rae1 Nf6 With the idea of ...Bd7 with ...c5 soon to follow.) ; 

b) 11.Bg5? h6 12.Bxe7 Qxe7; 

c) 11.Qf3 f4 And I like Black all the way.; 

d) 11.Nh5 f4;

11...Qc7 With ...Nd7 then ...Ng6 to follow.]

9...Ng6 10.Nf5 Bxf5 11.Qxf5 Re8 12.Bd2 Nd7 13.Rfe1 Qc7 14.g3 Ngf8 [14...Nf6 15.Bg5 Be7 16.a3 h6 17.Be3 Nf8 18.Ne2 Ne6 19.h4]

15.Ne2 Nf6 

[Black has a good game.  There are ideas of ...Ne6, or ...Ne4, also ...b5 or ...a5, or both.  White has two bishops but the light squared bishop is very limited in scope.  Black has the two knights and in positions as these, where scope is limited to bishops because of pawns being in the way or are controlling squares where the bishops  could land., then the knights do shine.

***  [15...g6 this line is also good to equalize, in my opinion. 16.Qf3 Ne6 17.h4 (17.Rad1 Qd8 18.c3 (18.c4 dxc4 19.Bxc4 Qf6 20.Qb3 Nb6) 18...a5) 17...Qd8 With ...Qf6 to follow. 18.c3 Qf6 19.Qxf6 Nxf6 20.Kg2 Ne4 21.Bxe4 dxe4 22.Rad1 Rad8 23.c4 f5 24.Be3 Be7 25.Rd2 Rd7 26.d5 Red8 27.Red1]

Keano wrote on 02/16/14 at 14:51:04:


7.Ng3 does not lead to an edge for White, not to me.  For IM Watson to say ...Bf5 should equalize, it means from a very very long experience in the positions resulting from these structures and from his inner knowledge of the resources.

When I have  strong reason to believe White has good chances to get an edge in any French line covered in PTF4, I certainly send these matters to IM Watson for him to see.

IM Watson covered a couple of these in this month's update, as a matter of fact, which I have sent him, but they are not the only ones.  

In this subject, the Winawer exchange, I have no reason to believe White has a clear path to an edge in any of the lines IM Watson recommends.