fling wrote on 08/10/14 at 19:45:05:


7.b4 is basically =+ despite the big score; if White equalizes he is fortunate. It just doesn't work well against 6...d6. 

Khalifman may have a point in the Overton-Pirs game, and a tip of the hat to Anders for the contribution. I had discarded the continuation due to coming up with bishops of opposite colors scenarios, but that was just bad due diligence - White doesn't have to allow them.

I'd be interested in how you think Black can improve on the 12...Nde7 continuations. Those simply do not look pleasant for Black; White is the only one playing for anything and Black's position on the light squares usually resembles swiss cheese.

In the interest of full disclosure, this thread is pertaining to what I'd like to be able to recommend as a back-up variation in "Play 1.Nf3!". I am endeavoring to briefly point out other paths I also approve of along the way in the book without doing exhaustive analysis for those; usually just highlighting a critical line or two will suffice. 

I'm in the process of developing an almost entirely new approach to the position that is looking promising.

Anders wrote on 08/10/14 at 20:59:27:


Post no. 100 

Even if this is good for White, I actually think that the "former" main line, following 12 ...Nde7, as in Murin-Kukla, can be improved upon for Black (both Marin's and Khalifman's lines). But this might be a separate topic.

Khalifman discusses 12....Nb6 a bit in the second edition (from 2011) of volume 3 (pages 281, 282) in the "Opening for White according to Kramnik" series.

He comments on the move with "...still it would not be so easy for White to counter the new idea 12...Nb6!?.
He goes on to give black anitidotes to 13.Bd2, 13.b3, 13.Ne4, 13.Rb1 and finally concludes that "Whites most principled reaction would be 13.Lxc6!? bxc6 ..." and then mentions Overton-Pirs, 2009 given below and suggests s 20.c5 Nd5 21.Nxd5 Rxd5 22. Ra2 with a small White plus as "... he has good chances to realize the extra pawn in a competetive game".
Engines give a small edge to White following 23.Rb2 e4 24.Nxe4 Lb3 but it seems to me Black seems OK after for example 25.Rd2 Re8 where an ending with opposite coloured bishops may occur after 26.Nd6 Rxd2 27.Nxe8 Rxe2 28. Nxg7 Kxg7.  

topandkas wrote on 08/10/14 at 19:22:43:


I think Vass has commented on this before, giving the game Pereverzev-Gatterer, 2011. The idea is mainly that Black can play e.g. ...a6 an ...Rb8, or just go for the reverse sac with ...a6 and ...b5. If White meets this with a4, Black gets b4, and can that way control d5. Another idea is to set up the battery ...Be6 and ...Qd7, play ...Bh3 to swap the light-squared bishop and after that remove any piece that lands on d5.

BPaulsen wrote on 08/09/14 at 21:19:31:


The obvious question to me is what happens after 7. b4 e4? White has a plus score in the line, but on the other hand, it has only been played a couple of times. It seems like the game Xhao Jue-Duda, 2014, might be good enough for Black, or what do you think?

Regarding the idea in your main line after 13 ...Nd4!, I am pretty sure I have looked at a very similar idea in these lines, but at an earlier stage. I discussed it with a former but I can't remember where I recorded the analysis, lol!

Anyway, the idea with 12 ...Nb6 looks very interesting indeed. I have always played the move order of waiting with ...d6 before castling, but in that case the knight manouevre looks stronger.

ErictheRed wrote on 08/10/14 at 16:44:58:


In my role as the forum's historian (or so I was once dubbed by BPaulsen) I'll mention that this reminds me of Evans-Karpov 1972, which saw 10. Bd2, and I seem to recall John Watson being inclined toward Bg5 in such positions in the 1980s incarnation of his 1. c4 c5 book ...

topandkas wrote on 08/10/14 at 10:06:59:

The idea of playing a3 is to threaten various b4 ideas and to basically force the inclusion of ...a5 from Black, weakening b5. Without the inclusion his task is simpler, and if done too late it accomplishes nothing.