LuckIsMySkill wrote on 05/06/21 at 05:57:22:


True to his word, the May 2021 update contains analysis of the game Piorun, Kacper (2615) - Markowski, Tomasz (2546) which begins 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Na6!? 7. O-O c5 8. d5.

As Daniel's excellent analysis shows, even 2500-2600 players are challenged by this complex variation (and each other of course).

Hi all,

I've taken note of this thread and will post some updated analysis of the line in the June column- I have already picked games for the May one!

Daniel F

Hi.

Well. Establishing that is a bit of a gradual process to my mind. Analysts (Tiger and Fernandez) have relatively clearly laid out one problem line and neither appears to have a totally equalising answer inside the actual line. Now players, if they've caught on, will get to play the position and refine in either direction.

It should be said though that Fernandez goes for an alternative and doesn't actually recommend going in to the line that seemed hard to equalise in. At least judging by the book the other line is giving black decent play.

Have a nice day.

MW wrote on 09/21/20 at 19:25:42:

The beautiful thing is that this is all computer generated . Np.

Hi.

Can't get PGN function to work. See attachment instead. Here is textform. It's correspondence games in the line:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.h3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qa4

[Event "WSTT/3/19/2"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2019.04.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mozelius, Peter"]
[Black "Whaley, Michael"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2303"]
[BlackElo "2389"]
[ECO "B09"]
[EventDate "2019.??.??"]
[PlyCount "93"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bxd7+
Qxd7 9.h3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qa4 Nh6 12.Bd2 Nf5 ( 12...O-O 13.O-O-O b5
14.Qe4 Nf5 15.Rhe1 Ng3 16.Qd3 Rfc8 17.Kb1 b4 18.Nd5 e6 19.Nxb4 Nxb4 20.
Bxb4 d5 21.Bd6 Qb7 22.Nd2 Nf5 23.Ba3 a5 24.g4 Ne7 25.Qb3 Qc7 26.Bd6 a4 27.
Qd3 Qb7 28.a3 Bf8 29.Ka1 Nc6 30.c4 Na5 31.cxd5 Qxd5 32.Qxd5 exd5 33.Nb1
Rc4 34.Nc3 d4 35.Nd5 Rc6 36.Be7 Nb3+ 37.Ka2 Kh8 38.Bf6+ Bg7 39.g5 Rc2 40.
e6 fxe6 41.Nb6 Rb8 42.Rxe6 Bxf6 43.gxf6 Kg8 44.Nxa4 d3 45.Re7 Rcc8 46.Nc3
Rf8 47.Rg7+ Kh8 48.Rd7 Rxf6 49.R7xd3 {1-0 (49) Cantelli,A (2249)
-Montgomery,R (2251) ICCF 2019} ) 13.O-O-O ( 13.g4 Ncd4 14.Qxd7+ Kxd7 15.
Nxd4 Nxd4 16.O-O-O dxe5 17.fxe5 Ke8 18.Nd5 Rd8 19.Nc7+ Kd7 20.Be3 Kxc7 {
1/2-1/2 (20) Röckendorf,P (2285)-Mehlhorn,U (2355) ICCF 2017} ) 13...dxe5
14.g4 ( 14.Rhe1 Nfd4 15.Be3 Rd8 16.fxe5 b5 17.Qa6 Nb4 18.Qa3 Nbxc2 19.Rxd4
Nxa3 20.Rxd7 Rxd7 21.bxa3 a6 22.Rd1 ( 22.Ne4 Rc7+ 23.Kb1 O-O 24.Nc5 Rc6
25.Nd3 a5 26.Bd2 Rd8 27.Nc1 Ra6 28.Re4 a4 29.Bb4 e6 30.Ne2 Rc6 31.Nc3 Rdc8
32.Kb2 Bf8 33.Re3 Rc4 34.Bd6 f5 35.Rd3 Bxd6 36.exd6 Rd8 37.Nxb5 Rc5 38.Nc3
e5 39.Nxa4 Ra5 40.Nb6 e4 41.Rb3 exf3 42.gxf3 f4 43.d7 Rh5 44.a4 Kf7 45.Rc3
Rxh3 46.Kb3 g5 47.a5 g4 48.fxg4 f3 49.Rc1 Ke7 {1/2-1/2 (49) Tapia,A
(2342)-Jones,R ICCF 2019} ) 22...Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Kd7 24.a4 Rc8 ( 24...Kc6
25.axb5+ axb5 26.Kc2 b4 27.Na4 Rd8 28.Nb6 Bh6 29.Bf2 Bf4 30.Kb3 Rd1 31.
Kxb4 Rb1+ 32.Kc3 Rxb6 33.Bxb6 Kxb6 34.e6 f6 35.Kc4 Kc6 36.a4 Kd6 37.a5
Kxe6 38.a6 Bb8 39.Nd4+ Kd7 40.Nb5 Kc6 41.a7 Bxa7 42.Nxa7+ Kd6 43.Kd3 Ke5
44.Ke3 f5 45.Nc6+ Kd6 46.Nd4 e5 47.Nf3 e4 48.Ng5 Ke5 49.Nxh7 f4+ 50.Kf2
Kf5 51.Nf8 g5 52.Nd7 g4 53.hxg4+ Kxg4 54.g3 fxg3+ 55.Kg1 e3 56.Ne5+ Kf5
57.Nc6 Ke4 58.Nb4 g2 59.Nc2 e2 60.Ne1 Ke3 61.Nxg2+ {1/2-1/2 (61) Latypov,M
(2145)-Mehlhorn,U (2353) ICCF 2017} ) 25.Kd2 bxa4 26.Nxa4 Ke6 27.Ng5+ Kxe5
28.Nxf7+ Kf6 29.Ng5 h5 30.Ne4+ Kf5 31.Ng3+ Ke5 {1/2-1/2 (31) Szerlak,A
(2357)-Mehlhorn,U (2376) ICCF 2018} ) 14...Nfd4 ( 14...Nd6 15.Rhe1 f6 16.
Kb1 O-O-O 17.fxe5 fxe5 18.Be3 b6 19.Ng5 Nd4 20.Qa6+ Kb8 21.Nd5 Nc6 22.Rd3
e4 23.Rb3 Qb7 24.Qxb7+ Nxb7 25.Nb4 Rc8 26.Nxe4 {adjudication 1/2-1/ 2 (26)
Trzcinski,I (2333)-Coope,D (1777) ICCF 2017} ) 15.Be3 b5 16.Nxb5 Ne2+ 17.
Kb1 Qb7 18.Rhe1 a6 19.Nxe5 ( 19.Nd6+ exd6 20.Rxe2 O-O 21.Bc1 Rad8 22.Qb3
Qxb3 23.cxb3 Rfe8 24.Rc2 Ne7 25.Be3 e4 26.Nd4 Nd5 27.Nf5 Nb4 28.Nxg7 Kxg7
29.Rc7 Nd3 {1/2-1/2 (29) Sánchez Carol,J (2219)-Moujan,P (1905) ICCF 2019
} ) 19...axb5 20.Qb3 O-O 21.Rxe2 Nxe5 22.fxe5 Qf3 23.Qxb5 Qxh3 24.Rg1 Qf3
25.Bc1 Rfb8 26.Qd3 Qxd3 27.cxd3 Rd8 28.e6 Rxd3 29.exf7+ Kxf7 30.Rf1+ Ke8
31.Rh1 h6 32.Bxh6 Bxh6 33.Rxh6 Kf7 34.Rh1 Kf6 35.Re4 Kg5 36.a4 e5 37.Ka2
Rg3 38.Rhe1 Kf6 39.b3 g5 40.Rb4 Ra6 41.Ka3 Ke6 42.Rb5 Rxg4 43.Rbxe5+ Kf6
44.a5 Rg2 45.b4 g4 46.R5e2 Rg3+ 47.Ka4 1-0

Have a nice day.

Hi.

Whole line is tricky otb. I'll post the three 14.g4 corr games when I've slept. You can make up your own mind.

Fernandez gives 14.Rhe1! but if I'd guess it's probably mostly because it seems to require precision from black (14...Rd8) and not because it confers any real advantage.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

Ok, so. First it can be noted that the last three games in this line on ICCF have been draws after:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.h3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nh6
Fernandez ends the line after 11.Qf2, with a += and just notes that McDonald concluded on chesspublishing that the knight on h6 is a problem that can't easily be solved. There is of course some truth to this statement but the results of the corr games indicates this may be a solvable problem.

In the line with 10...Nc6 we can easily conclude that if the queen goes 11.Qf2 then 11...Nxf2. It has to find somewhere else (many options) and this means there is a true branching of the line between 10...Nc6/10...Nh6. Realistically they could merge again if say 10...Nh6 11.Bd2!? Nc6 12.Qa4; however 11...dxe5 looks OK and keeps from transposing.

The reasoning behind 10...Nh6 appears to be that the knight will probably end up on h6 anyway so it may be more flexible to go there right away. For example it could quickly jump out to attack a bishop on e3 if white puts it there. The immediate point of 11.Qf2 should be that with g3 guarded 11...Nf5 can be met by 12.g4 and white is doing very well. The point of 10...Nc6 appears to be forcing the play while allowing more squares for the queen, but not specifically the f2 square. If not I basically don't see why allowing white more options would be desirable.

Quick reads through some Pirc books does not give the impression anyone has systematically put down in writing solutions for all major continuations after 8.Bxd7+ and 9.h3. Some work may be needed.

As far as I can tell Fernandez does the best job so far and imo. in below line gives:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.h3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6

A good continuation against 11.Qe4
A really strange one against 11.Qd3 (14.Ng5!? instead of 14.Kb1)
A good, probably  best, one against 11.Qa4. The attempt to complicate with 14.g4 is not covered despite three correspondence games. Also the corr players (three again) go 21...a6, but at that point it should not matter to much.

Have a nice day.

Thanks Isolani much appreciated..I did look at a couple of positions with similar endgames to the ones you describe above but chickened out as they were hard to evaluate and lost!! Looks like if I want to play the 5...c5 line against the Austrian I'm going to have to have another look at them!