MartinC wrote on 08/11/14 at 08:27:00:

I understand what you mean, whatever the 'objective' evaluation it's possible that OTB White has more 'attacking potential' so if you don't like that it's better to play something else, like the Reykjavik or the Karpov or 'the American' 4.e3 b6 5.Nge2 Ne4, those would be my suggestions anyway

update on the Khasin line:
I had assessed 10.Bb2 Na5 as leading to equality based on the exchange sac 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Ne5 Re8 13.a4 Rxe5
but now comes in Claridge-Monacell and this line looks very dubious now, Sokolov gives it a '!', but it should be rather '?(!)'

looking for a better line I found this very impressive attacking game (Houdini still gives a wrong evaluation):


but 12.Ne5 Re8 (or Be6) 13.a4 Be6 seems to hold up well, though never played OTB
another idea is 12.Ne5 Re8 13.a4 c4 14.Bc2 Nc6, the position is pretty double-edged after 15.f4 Ne7 16.g4 Ne4

My personal preference would be for the Khasin, as the ideas are pretty easy to understand for Black (the Light-Squared Strategy) and it's in quite good theoretical shape.  Of course it's all up to you!

I had a qucik look without board a board and the book and it also mention  Reykjavik and only gave mainline but did not mention Sokolovs suggested Nxd5 improvment
However the Khasin line is very well explained and looks interesting, I will analyse it later

ErictheRed wrote on 06/30/14 at 19:04:59:

critical for the Khasin line may be 10.cxd5 exd5 11.a4 Re8 12.Ba3 c4 13.Bc2 Bg4 14.Qe1 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Na5, a lot of correspondence draws here, I'd say both sides have their chances OTB (the bishops may be a practical advantage, but if black can get a knight on b3..., I'm reminded somewhat of Anand-Carlsen, game 9)

one of the points of 11...Qe7 is 12.dxc5 Rd8 13.Qc2 Qxc5 hitting the bishop so b4 doesn't work

About Khasin line do you know any good book or magazine where I can find more info about that line?

Thanks for the Qe7 tip, Sokolov does not cover it. He gave some other lines and with equal as conclusion or in some cases a symbolic White advantage..

Unfortuannly I have only access to a work computer right now so I can not create pgn and I hope I made not moves type errors.

Sokolovs conclusions about Reykavik was the

"The mainline and other lines after 9 cxd5! are critical to determine the viabilety of 8 .. Ba5. Other 9 moves by White are not dangeroeus for black"

Emms thougt that the variation after 9 cxd5 exd5 10 dxc5 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Bg4 12 c4 was the most critical line and after Ne5 13 cxd5 Bxf3 14 gxf3 Sokolovs suggests Nxd5 as competly equal and Emms thougt it might be the obectively best move to the covered games Qxd5.

Sokolov therefore gave 12 Rb1! when after the Emms suggested Qc8 Sokolov analysed it to a White edge after h3 but the funny thing is after the alternative and computer top line 12 .. Qe7 he gave 1 move Qc2 and the comment that blacks Queen can not reach h3 Square while computer wants to play Bxf3 here with the assesment as equal but the question is if computers understands these positions.

As far as I know, the "Old Main Line" with 8...Bxc3+ 9.bc dc is still alive and well.  Unless things have changed drastically in the last five or so years, the evaluation is the same it's been for about 60 years: White has a very slight edge if he plays precisely.  Same with 9...Qc7.

My problem with 8...Ba5!? has always been: "What should I do if White plays waiting moves instead of going after the pawn immediately?"  In other words, 9.h3!?.  Emms' Move by Move book is very good, but it doesn't answer that question adequately, in my opinion.  Emms recommends (and Adams twice played) 9...dc 10.Bxc4 h6 11.Qd3 cd 12.ed Bc7, which might be just fine for Black but which I don't immediately understand so well.  The bishop on c7 makes a somewhat strange impression to me in this IQP position (and of course the pawn on h6 doesn't exactly thrill me). 

Here's a PGN of the line I'm talking about:




I would have to satisfy myself that I knew how to play Black's position there before wanting to play this variation in a serious game.