tony37 wrote on 08/31/14 at 17:12:45:

We begin to turn in circles. As I said: "Shall they show proof". I think +/- is wrong even if given by Bronznik. It turned out more then once that GMs may err. That's all.


tony37 wrote on 08/31/14 at 15:41:04:


Yes, 5.g3 is good, and +/= or +/- at least.

I only fear 5.e3 more as it disturbs any natural development of Black that may suite to a normal attacking pattern. If I remember it right Stefan Buecker once wrote sth like Black in the Soller is giving a pawn for being able to develop his pieces more or less in a typical attacking sense (of course with a pawn down but with the typical halfopen f-file and some sort of minority attack g-h against e-f-g-h - okay, he postulated that to the variations after 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 g5 etc). 

That is not possible here, I think. Black does not get into the usual tracks. And I don't see unusual tracks available. 

Well, 5. g3 will presumably become another reversed version of a major BDG line -- e.g., Glenn Flear (reviewing Christoph Scheerer's BDG book) proposed that White has difficulty equalizing against it.  I noticed that SWJediknight had the Englund version as leading to "some advantage" for White, but as is often the case I would think he might be being too kind to the pawn-down side.

tony37 wrote on 08/31/14 at 09:26:33:


Well, yes. I pointed out the other thread concerning the Soller, where quite a lot of work was done showing White to be superior in nearly all variations.
But as a result I have done some new analysis on the position after 5.Bc4 and came to the conclusion that Black isn't worse than =/+ if he handles it right. 

But I simply wasn't willing to show up my cards as I did it yet with proposing 4.exf6 Nxf6 and now the only seldomly played 5.e3 as an all too ugly way to deal with from Black's side. 
When I played the Soller, I only got 5.Bg5 or 5.Bf4 so far with a not all too bad share of play for Black.

I think it is usefull to keep secrets to some extend and not to coach those who praise single moves like 5.Bc4 with a big hello like an undeserved +/-. Shall they show proof...
But as you gave 5... Qf6 now I can sign to it too. I think this is the way to play and keep White to a minimal advantage if an advantage at all (which to my data ist not so easy).
There may be some extravagant manouvres to be played by Black and he has to be in touch with some strange specifics, but if he gets it right, most of White's threats to f7 can be fenced off.

I wouldn't fear to play with Black against this "refutation" 4.e4 fxe5 5.Bc4.

On the other hand one thing is clear. If White finds sth against this last resort 5... Qf6 then the whole Soller is refuted in an open and aggressive style...

SWJediknight wrote on 08/28/14 at 15:55:28:


Thx for the game but correctly spoken it is only one of those White-plays-lamb-to-the-slaugther-games (and wouldn't we be happy to take the point like this? But the theoretical value is close to zero).
MNb points out one main drawback for Black
MNb wrote on 08/28/14 at 22:04:42:

This is it. If you look at the position it is a simple Euwe Defence colours reverse and so a tempo up for White. Alas he can chose at his will from all the plans of Black's in the original Defence that work sufficiently a tempo down. One being the idea Sb8-c6-b4 longing for the Bd3 which MNb showed with his Nb1-c3-b5 a tempo up. Other ideas can deal with c2-c4, a main Black idea in the colours reversed (c7-c5).
But what disturbs me the most is the fact that in the Soller accepted with the modest 5.e3 Black lacks a normal path of natural development at all.
I think any idea with the direct d7-d5 must fail as it is simply the Euwe reversed and a tempo down. You're even on step further away from the starting tracks... And this too much burdon for Black as the Euwe is too respectable. So if White plays its cousin (5.e3) halfways correctly (e.g. without an early 0-0) and concentrates on his own plans (e.g. timely a c2-c4 or Nc3-b5) he must be up a very save pawn as Black's attack, compared with the BDG, is one more tempo away.
Well, once Diemer blurbed enthusiastically sth like the Soller being even better than the BDG as Black hasn't comitted the weakness (d7-)d5 yet. There may be some truth in it...
But Black having given away a pawn can not keep back d7-d5 and other developing moves too. The position after 5.e3 is some sort of a developmental bottle neck he  has to pass. I only found 5... Bc5 as a playable alternative. But that is surely not the best square for the bishop, only viewing the granite block e3. What after 6.Be2? Now d7-d5 is no better than in move 5. And after 6... d6 (Somehow in line with Diemer's enthusiam, a more restricted placement of the d-pawn, now not vulerable but too with lesser central influence) White may play 7.Nc3, idea Nc3-a4, hunting down the Bc5. 7... a6 may make a way back for him but that is not exactly an attacking play for Black...
Only compare this with the much more often played (even by skilled [Grand]Masters in simuls) 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 g5 7.Bg3 Bc5 (or your 7... Ne4 which I too had a look at), where Black at least has sth to do...

SWJediknight wrote on 08/28/14 at 15:55:28:


Ahh, well. You know, we had that before in the thread
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1301253811/39#39
And CraigEvans and Fllg did good work against the line you give...

But nevertheless barnabys post
barnaby wrote on 08/29/14 at 13:32:35:

is too short even if we analyse like Larsen. I think it is only +/= with best play. 


And for all those contentless posters here, picking like chickens on another: What a pure waste of time

1.d4 g5...is most definetly garbage, but what tard would play something like that? I don't get your point.

gauss wrote on 08/17/14 at 15:58:11:

Grobmeister wrote on 08/29/14 at 18:58:52:

the problem is when white plays 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bg5
or something like 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nb5 O-O 6.Nxd6 grabbing your active bishop

Quite the lead in development Black has after e.g. 2...d6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Bg5 Qd7 5. Nbd2 ...