MNb wrote on 05/20/21 at 05:12:37:

Just simply relative to an even higher score. I.e. white scores well but to an extent.
Sample would be recent correspondence games, although if black is doing ok in some lines otb that's definitely interesting.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

PatzerNoster wrote on 05/19/21 at 20:08:34:

9.h4 looks like the strongest line so very good. You are correct that I haven't looked at So.

PatzerNoster wrote on 05/19/21 at 20:08:34:

White can definitely try to apply pressure once he has played these 16 or so exact moves and he does have a more comfortable position at that point. At the same time the way people are going to play such a relatively long and aggressive sequence is basically prior preparation. So in my view it's to a large extent a question of how likely you are to face that. What makes the whole setup attractive for black is basically that you are playing very naturally and this tends to make life comfortable against imprecisions and more passive moves from white. That being said there are also some ok looking alternatives on the way and not just the So sequence.



I was curious and tried to understand how black plays the position once he has played 17...Kf7 and white goes for the calmer 18.Be2. 
First of all this can be tried via 17.Be2 Kf7!? and it's nice if that works since it's not clear if 17.Be2 or 17.0-0-0 is most threatening. The idea is that white shouldn't have anything better than 18.0-0-0 even though there are certainly options e.g.:

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 Bg7 6.f4 0-0 7.Nf3 b5 8.e5 Nfd7 9.h4 c5 10.h5 Nc6 11.hxg6 hxg6 12.d5 Nd4 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Qxd4 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nxe5 16.Qh4 f6 17.Be2 Kf7!?...

18.Qf4 Bf5 19.O-O-O Qd6 Here black has got his pieces out kinda naturally though.

18.Qb4 Rh8 19.O-O-O Rxh1 20.Rxh1 Bd7 21.Rd1!?
21.Bf4 Qb6! 22.Bxe5?! Qe3+ 23.Kb1 Qxe5
21...Rc8 22.d6 Be6 Black has centralised his pieces enough that it's hard to see white getting far here. 

18.Qd4 Rh8 19.Rxh8
19.O-O-O Rxh1 20.Rxh1 Bb7 Is kinda the line I thought you'd play against 17.0-0-0 anyway but via transposition.
19.Rf1!? Bf5 20.g4!? Rh4 21.d6 Nxg4! 22.Bf2 Qh8! And it seems hard for white to get anything.
19...Qxh8 20.O-O-O f5 21.Qf4 Bd7 22.Kb1
22.Ne4!? Rc8
22...Nc4 23.Bxc4 Bxb2+ 24.Kd2 bxc4!? 25.c3 Ba3 26.Bd4 Qh5 27.Rf1 and the game goes on but white has somewhat threatening centralisation.
23.Kb1 Nc4 24.Ng5+ Ke8
24...Kf8? Seems, bad but it takes some time for the computer to realise.
25.Bxc4 Be5 26.Qf2
26.Qf3 bxc4 27.d6 Bxb2 28.Qd5 e6 29.Qb7 Ba3 30.Bd4 could also be interesting.
26...Rxc4 27.b3 Qh5 28.Re1 Rh4 29.Nf3 Re4 30.Nxe5 Rxe5 31.Bc5!? White keeps a slight initiative.
22...Bf6 23.Bd4 Rc8!? 
23...g5 24.Qf2 Seems a bit dangeorus as white goes d5-d6 and it's not so easy to say how to meet this plan effectively.
24.d6 exd6 25.Ne4 fxe4 26.Bxe5 Qh4 27.Rxd6 Qxf4 28.Bxf4 Ke7! 29.Rxa6 Rh8! Probably black gets enough counterplay.

I suspect the idea after 18.Be2 (instead of 18.Qd4) would have been
17.0-0-0 Kf7 18.Be2 Rh8 19.Qd4 Rxh1 20.Rxh1 Bb7!? 21.Bf4 Qd6
When temporarily black looks somewhat stable but it's always a question how he creates play. Not placing the bishop on the natural f5 square is because g4 ideas look a bit scary.

PatzerNoster wrote on 05/19/21 at 20:08:34:

And Parimarjan Negi. I really have to recommend his Pirc and Modern chapters. He claims at least a small advantage in, as far as I can see, all lines after 5...c6 6.Nf3. I assume So does the same.

As for metatheoretical assessments I like to stay clear. White is scoring relatively well though.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

Just to say something about this whole 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 business (without knowing anything about Sielecki and whatever he thinks). This actually seems like a line that gets some high level correspondence attention.

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 Bg7 6.f4 0-0 7.Nf3 b5 8.e5 Nfd7
While computers like white somewhat... it is a bit of an open question how exactly to draw advantage from a position where it is likely that the center will collapse. In the years 2015-2017 white went 9.Bd3 in correspondence games and seemed to be happy enough with a 90% (+4 =1 -0) score. Black tried 9...Bb7 and got into problems after 10.e6. Black tried 9...Nb6 and didn't really manage to break down white's center. Even 9...e6 got a game and that is despite 10.a4 b4 11.Ne4 looking like white gets a lot of what he wants. In 2018 we didn't even see any takers for the presumably demoralised black side. Then in 2019 along came a guy who meets 1.e4 with 1.d6 like 88% of the time (i.e. he gets chess). It's the strong German corr player Uwe Mehlhorn. He simply went:
9.Bd3 c5
and held a quick draw after:
10.Be4 Ra7 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Bxc5 dxc5 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.a4 b4 15.Nd5 e6 16.Ne3 f6 17.exf6 Bxf6 18.Nc4 Bd7 19.Rf1 Rc7 20.Rf2 Nc6 21.g3 Nd4 22.Nfe5 Bxe5 23.Nxe5 Bc6 24.Nxc6 Nxc6 25.Rd2 Rxd2 26.Kxd2 Na5(D)
½-½ (Kazmin - Mehlhorn, ICCF 2019)



So white tried:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 Bg7 6.f4 0-0 7.Nf3 b5 8.e5 Nfd7 9.h4!?
In another Mehlhorn game in 2019 and in another game between strong players in 2020.
9...c5 10.h5 Nc6 11.hxg6 hxg6 12.d5 Nd4 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Qxd4 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nxe5 16.Qh4 f6
17.Be2 Bf5 18.0-0-0 Rc8 19.d6 g5 20.Qf2 e6 21.a3 Qd7 22.Bb6 Rc6 23.Bc7 Rc8 24.Kb1 R8xc7 25.dxc7 Qxc7 26.Qe3 g4 27.Rd2 Kf7 28.Ne4 Kg8 29.Rhd1 Kf7 30.c3 Rc4 31.Rd4 Rxd4 32.Rxd4 Bf8 33.Ka2 Qb7 34.Bd1 Nc6 35.Nd6+ Bxd6 36.Rxd6 Ne5 37.Rd8 Kg6 38.Qd2 Nf7 39.Rd7 Qc6 40.a4 e5 41.Bc2 Bxc2 42.Qxc2+ e4 43.Rd1 bxa4 44.c4 Ne5 45.Rd4 Nd3 46.c5 Qxc5 47.Qxc5 Nxc5 48.Rc4 ½-½ (Webbink - Guimera Manjon, ICCF 2020)
17.0-0-0 Kf7 18.Qd4 Bg4 19.Re1 Rc8 20.Bf4 Bf5 21.Kb1 Kg8 22.a3 Rf7 23.Qd1 Qb6 24.Bxe5 fxe5 25.Ne4 Rd8 26.Qd2 Qd4 27.Bd3 Qxd5 28.Qe3 Qd4 29.Qe2 Qb6 30.Rd1 Rd4 31.c3 Rd5 32.Ka1 Qc6 33.Rhe1 Qd7 34.Bb1 Rxd1 35.Rxd1 Bg4 36.Rxd7 Bxe2 37.Ba2 Bc4 38.Bxc4 bxc4 39.Rd8+ Rf8 40.Rxf8+ Kxf8 41.Kb1 Bh6 42.Nc5 Kf7 43.a4 Ke8 44.Nb7 Kd7 45.Na5 e4 46.Kc2 Kd6 47.Nxc4+ Kd5 48.Na3 a5 49.b3 ½-½ (Ivec - Mehlhorn, ICCF 2019)
But black held.

I have a suggestion for white that could potentially improve; although just looking at the limited amount of games so far black looks to be holding. With some preparation I don't see any problems playing this for black otb though.


On another branch of the 5.h3 tree some guys try 5...Nbd7. If I remember correctly this is also mentioned as a very clear alternative by Vigus. A small problem appears to be that
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 e5 7.g4
Is just basically looking quite pleasant for white. There is some point to having taken kingside territory in most situations and if we imagine a not to distant scenario like:
7...h6 8.a4
Actually not played in corr yet but seems simple enough
8...b6 9.Bc4!?
9.dxe5 also looks very attractive
9...Bb7 10.d5
This seems very improbably to be a good version of this structure for black. He has no pawn breaks coming up, white does have kingside space and white not having castled short seems good.

So some mad lads, don't know how else to put it, have tried:
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 b5!? 7.e5 b4! 8.exf6 bxc3 9.fxe7 Qxe7 10.bxc3 Bh6
and somehow scored 40% (+1 =4 -0). I don't exactly know how they do this, but if this continuation works it would also be a dent on 5.h3 as a critical try. White did however win one game and not against anybody. See:
11.Qd2 0-0 12.Be2 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 Qf6 14.0-0 Nb6 15.Qh6 Bb7 16.Nh2 Rae8 17.Rae1 Bc8 18.Ng4 Qg7 19.Qd2 f5 20.Ne3 Qf7 21.a3 h5 22.f4 Bb7 23.c4 Kh7 24.Bd3 Qg7 25.d5 Kg8 26.Rf3 Qd4 27.Kh2 Bc8 28.Qa5 Kg7 29.Re2 Bd7 30.Rd2 Rf7 31.Nf1 h4 32.Bxf5 Qxc4 33.Bd3 Qc5 34.Qxc5 dxc5 35.Ne3 Rfe7 36.Nc4 Nxc4 37.Bxc4 Re3 38.Rxe3 Rxe3 39.Rd3 Rxd3 40.Bxd3 a5 41.Kg1 Kf7 42.Kf2 Kf6 43.Kf3 Bc8 44.Be4 Kg7 45.Bd3 Kf6 46.Be2 Bf5 47.c3 Kg7 48.Ke3 Kf6 49.Bd3 Bd7 50.Kf3 Bc8 51.g4 hxg3 52.Bf1 Ke7 53.h4 Kf6 54.Kg2 Bf5 55.Kxg3 Be4 56.Bc4 Kf5 57.Bb3 Bd3 58.Kf3 Bb1 59.Bc4 Kf6 60.Ke3 Bf5 61.Ba6 Bh3 62.Bd3 Bd7 63.Be4 Ba4 64.Kd2 Bb5 65.Bd3 Ba4 66.Be4 Bb5 67.Kc2 Bc4 68.Kb2 Kg7 69.f5 gxf5 70.Bxf5 Bxd5 71.Kc2 Kf6 72.Bd3 Ke5 73.h5 Kf6 74.h6 Kf7 75.Kd2 Kf6 76.Bf5 Bb3 77.h7 1-0 (Muljadi - Mehlhorn, ICCF 2019)


If you don't like 5...Bg7 or 5...Nbd7 then Nepomniatchi's 5...e6 is very much an option. Very, very few games to go on though. Both Leela and Stockfish indicate 6.Qf3 as critical and having looked at it, it's a surprisingly insidious move.

Have a nice day.

Quote:

Good catch! ...sadly. Here I got my hopes up happily thinking TopNotch may have solved the big 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 problem for Black, but no such luck. 
Edit: I'm sure the linked post is still a useful piece of analysis though! I'm not ungrateful.

After 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7, instead of 5.h3 I guess 5.Qd2 c6 6.Bh6 is the biggest problem.

P. S.: It looks like several people here use Chessable but are unaware of the handy Analysis Board feature, which leats you peek at which moves different courses cover, even those you don't own yourself!

I've used it on the 4.Be3 a6 5.h3 Pirc and found that the new Pirc LTR managed to find a move order that's not directly covered in either of the White repertoires by So, Sielecki or Chessforlife (via his backup weapon 4.h3!? in the latter case). The question is whether it's any good though - it seems to be a passive-looking setup with an early ...e6 and ...Nc6. I'm skeptical on first impression, but maybe I will have to get the course to see the details and how they explain it.

Agreed. I have been very impressed by chessforlife stuff too.

Oh dear. Such a pity if the idea is being diluted. 

The higher level of the players and the depth and level of the repertoires are what *made it* the LTR series. Differing from the other more regular courses. Or perhaps I had just got too excited by these really strong players explaining stuff. Possible,

I have kinda liked the Kamil Plichta stuff. He comes across well as a presenter. Less so Bartholomew (IMHO, but good luck to him and to all). But will they produce at the same level as So, Svidler, l'Ami...? Hmmm. Perhaps LTR, as this punter saw it, is falling by the wayside. 

Anyway, people can judge what they want to buy, and buy. Or not. For me, I am keen to learn from people who are much better than me, and I think that is reasonable. So's course is fantastic btw. Wow.

Happy chessing, happy shopping. Be masked, be safe, be healthy and prosper.

B

Bibs wrote on 04/23/21 at 07:44:26:


IM John Bartholomew's LTR on the Scandinavian is due to be published shortly. FM Kamil Plichta has one on the KIA coming out soon too. IM Sopiko Guramishvili's LTR on the QGA has already been published (although criticised by some for not including a broad enough repertoire to justify the label) 

Bibs wrote on 04/22/21 at 23:50:20:

So now we are all supposed to dismiss the "typical IM", are we? And your 2600+ requirement leaves the universally respected author Marin, amongst others, rather out in the cold...

I thought you agreed to tone it down after your previous "random GM" comment. I'm imagining you're one of those types at the club who, when someone dares an opinion about your chess position, asks straight out "What's your rating?"

To which I say: Cut it out.