Latest Updates:
Normal Topic "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack? (Read 3341 times)
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #7 - 05/04/23 at 12:31:40
Post Tools
I wonder if the new line runs (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6) 12.Rf4. 

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

About six months ago I looked at the Møller Attack on Lichess, expecting to find nothing new, and was very surprised to see this sideline crop up, and to see that it was played in three master games (with White scoring 2.5/3, although Levon Aronian should have won his game against it with Black, as he blundered a rook in a won ending), and that Stockfish assesses it at around -0.5. 
The idea is 12...0-0 13.Rxf6 gxf6 14.Qd4, opening up the black king and generating attacking chances.  Although Black is still probably better here with best play, if White's an exchange and a pawn down but Stockfish only assesses Black's advantage at -0.5, there's clearly compensation.  I was very surprised by this, which makes me wonder if it was what Christian Braun picked up on.

I do see a practical issue with it, though: 12...Ng6, and if 13.Re4+, 13...Ne7 repeats the position if Black is happy with a draw.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MaxJudd
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 105
Joined: 12/09/09
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #6 - 12/30/20 at 18:14:44
Post Tools
Hale-Bopp wrote on 12/29/20 at 10:23:09:
8. ...Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 h6 14.Qe2 hxg5 15.Re1 Be6 16.h3!?, and then for example 16. ...c6 17.dxe6 f6 18.Bd3.

Honestly, that doesn't seem too exciting to me. Also, when you check it with an engine, Black seems to be absolutely fine (clearly better, actually). The position might be a bit tricky, but it's nothing too dangerous for Black and objectively it seems to be nothing at all for White.

He seems to be saying about the positions after 16. h3 that the neural network engines are less pessimistic than traditional engines (White is not losing or clearly worse as with Stockfish 12), and that anyway a human would rather play White because figuring out how to make progress (notwithstanding the engine evaluation) as Black is really difficult and Black has chances to go wrong.   He posted a blitz game with him against GM Tang where Tang couldn't find the right moves over the board.  To prepare to extract the theoretical Black computer advantage, he implicitly argues, you would need to prepare (e.g., play a few training games on both sides with a friend or computer to get the hang of how to make progress as Black) and who is going to do that for a line they will never see? 

For me, relying on his argument is not enough to go back to trying the Moeller as White, even for blitz.  Why bother?  White would have to do some work to understand the nuances of this position too and there are easier fish to fry.  In the US, even Class A players are totally booked up on the Moeller unlike some obscure but less sound line in say the Belgrade Gambit or the Vienna Game.  For an e4 player looking to pose problems after e5, why not put in your work elsewhere?

As Black, this may make me favor 9 ... Ne5 (and the 11 ... f5 line) over 9 ... Bf6 . . .  as there is less homework involved (and it is easy enough to not fall for the Ne5 Moeller traps published 75 years ago in an Irving Chernev book).

As a larger proposition, using the NN engines to reevaluate lines like this would make sense if there was a way to provide evaluations of human playability at different levels (holding the game stats to the side because those only come after the line has been played and studied).  Obviously, titled players are titled because they can understand this but I wonder if there is a role for engines here too (maybe there is and I don't know about it).
« Last Edit: 12/31/20 at 16:56:53 by MaxJudd »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1655
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #5 - 12/29/20 at 21:14:31
Post Tools
They're both right. I'm pretty sure the reason my strong opponent persisted with the Moeller Attack is because he was happy to see 11...f5. On the other hand, I was holding my own even in practical play, so I was also happy.

Reading Fine is where I got the idea to defend with 11...f5. Also Larry "A Pawn is a Pawn" Evans advocated for it in his Chess Life & Review column Evans on Chess. Old ideas can still be good ideas.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4897
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #4 - 12/29/20 at 18:20:06
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 12/29/20 at 17:29:49:
Hale-Bopp wrote on 12/29/20 at 10:23:09:
(11... f5 seems also good)

I used to play 11...f5 in blitz against a stronger player (not the IM from above), and would have played it "for real" if given the chance. Black is okay but the hole on e6 makes it really hard to play for a win.

A couple of historical bits:  Fine gave 11...f5 as "!" and as leading to a slight advantage for Black.  50 years later, Nunn gave it as leading to a slight advantage for White (hmm).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1655
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #3 - 12/29/20 at 17:29:49
Post Tools
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 ed 6.cd Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.O-O Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5

Hale-Bopp wrote on 12/29/20 at 10:23:09:
13. ...O-O 14.Nxh7 is still a draw, even if this is really dangerous if Black doesn't know it.

The highlighted part is probably the point, and applies everywhere in the Moeller. Ages ago I knew an IM who put in quite a bit of work in both 13...O-O (some weird second-rate move where white can still draw if black finds the right moves) and 13...h6 (14.Qe2 if I recall correctly). Dangerous stuff.

Hale-Bopp wrote on 12/29/20 at 10:23:09:
(11... f5 seems also good)

I used to play 11...f5 in blitz against a stronger player (not the IM from above), and would have played it "for real" if given the chance. Black is okay but the hole on e6 makes it really hard to play for a win.

Hale-Bopp wrote on 12/29/20 at 10:23:09:
Nowadays, anyone can check this out quickly.

I think it's all about fast time controls, and/or counting on the opponent having checked the "theoretical" line but making a mistake against this "other" try. And there are many of them! My last rated game in the Giuoco Piano, my opponent played a "nothing" line with e4-e5. I played the correct moves and equalized (pawn up for black with opposite-colored-bishops). But he had used less than 5 minutes for 20 moves, and I had used an hour, looking for an advantage. And I used even more time trying too hard to win from an equal position. Maybe I could have drawn if the clocks had been more equal, but he had the extra time he needed after the time control to outplay me in a rook and opposite-colored-bishops endgame. Darn, I should have played the Philidor, then maybe he would have been suffering on the clock.

This sort of thing is more than good enough for youtube. Putting it in CBM is in my opinion also fine. Answers for black will be found, but still white can hope to know it better. There's a fine tradition of publishing one's analysis, it keeps chess going!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hale-Bopp
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/09/17
Gender: Male
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #2 - 12/29/20 at 10:23:09
Post Tools
I don't know the article, but in a recent YouTube video Braun recommends

8. ...Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 h6 14.Qe2 hxg5 15.Re1 Be6 16.h3!?, and then for example 16. ...c6 17.dxe6 f6 18.Bd3.

Honestly, that doesn't seem too exciting to me. Also, when you check it with an engine, Black seems to be absolutely fine (clearly better, actually). The position might be a bit tricky, but it's nothing too dangerous for Black and objectively it seems to be nothing at all for White.

It would also be kind of interesting if Braun has anything to show against the many other good options for Black:

11. ...0-0 12.d6 cxd6 seems to be absolutely fine for Black;

even 13. ...0-0 14.Nxh7 is still a draw, even if this is really dangerous if Black doesn't know it.

9. ...Ne5 is of course also more than fine,
10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 O-O (11... f5 seems also good) 12. Qxe4 Nd6 13.Qf4 Re8 14.Ba3 Re4 seems pretty forced and doesn't look too attractive for White, either.

Nowadays, anyone can check this out quickly. Does Braun have anything halfway convincing to show here?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1655
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: "Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
Reply #1 - 12/28/20 at 23:05:32
Post Tools
Reanimation - I love it. Next up from Rowson, Chess for Zombies.

Just to be clear, have you only just heard of this CBM 199 article? Or do you actually _have_ the article, and still want to know what it's about? Which is a whole other level of question.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4897
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
"Reanimation" of the Møller Attack?
12/28/20 at 19:25:12
Post Tools
In CBM 199 there is an article by Christian Braun (perhaps the German IM) about a new idea in the ancient Møller Attack (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 ed 6. cd Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. 0-0 Bxc3 9. d5).  I wonder if someone could give a basic indication of what that's about.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo