Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:22:03 02/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2004 at 10:50:05, Bigler wrote: >On February 10, 2004 at 10:30:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 10, 2004 at 09:16:25, Bigler wrote: >> >>>On February 10, 2004 at 07:51:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 10, 2004 at 06:30:09, Kim Roper Jensen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 09, 2004 at 14:21:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 09, 2004 at 05:20:48, Bigler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Could you please help me by analysing EXHAUSTIVELY this position and find the >>>>>>>best way for black to play. (not just say i.e. Shredder 8 says +0.6 for white >>>>>>>after 17…Rb8) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>POSITION: >>>>>>>1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 >>>>>>>9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.Qf3 Qb7 >>> >>>I nevertheless still have a question in this line. If 15...Qb7 is not good for >>>black. there is an issue in for black in this line as 15...bxc4 is lost and >>>15...Re8 is also lost. The only remaining line is 15...f4 >>> >>>If you think that either 15...bxc4 or Re8 are not lost would you agree that we >>>play it. >>> >>>Let me know !! >> >>You know my judgement 15.Qf3 +- >> >>So basically it doesn't matter what you try to find at move 15 or 16 or 17. It's >>IMHO 1-0 when white doesn't make serious mistakes. >> >>You can try and fiddle and try, but if something is lost, it is a lost position >>then. >> >>Which by the way is not always so easy to proof at a 40 in 2 game. However >>compare it to for example benko gambit which i play myself sometimes too. No >>hair at my body doubts that this is a lost opening for black, yet the tactical >>complications are so big for white that there is many opponents i do not fear >>trying it against. >> >>In fact i see several IMs lose it with white. >> >>In this Sveshnikov line this is not the case however. White has after some hard >>work the past 14 years from many players, found the way to win these lines in >>convincing ways. >> >>So i wish you good luck but advice you to look to lines that are more >>interesting. >> >>You should really look to what Kramnik plays with black against strong human >>opponents. That's in general giving white at most a very slight advantage, if >>there is any advantage at all. >> >>>Best regards >>>>>>>16.exf5 Qxf3 17.gxf3... and now ???? >>>>>> >>>>>>My judgement after playing this line for years is: >>>>>> >>>>>>15. Qf3 +- >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh by the way, many GM's agree here with me. Please read for example GM Jacob >>>>>>Aagaards' book : "easy guide to the sveshnikov sicilian". >>>>> >>>>>Well Jacon is only an IM, although he got a norm in the rilton cup(where he >>>>>played a nice french from the whites side against stellan brynell) i know this >>>>>because i have known Jacob for some years ( 10+ ) >>>> >>>>I didn't check FIDE list. He sure wrote a book above IM level! >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The few 'unclear' lines you can find easily improvements to +- not seldom ++--. >>>>>> >>>>>>Just like certain mainlines French this is another mainline that's completely >>>>>>refuted. >>>>>> >>>>>>>on >>>>>>>17...... Rb8 18.Be4 +/- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>17….. bxc4 18.Be4 d5 19.Bxd5 Rb8 20.Nxc4 +/- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When looking at the position after 17.gxf3 it seems difficult to believe that >>>>>>>black is unable to equalise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Many thanks in advance for your help ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Best regards > >So according to your statement the line 11...Ne7 is already lost for black ?! This is your conclusion, not mine yet. >Which variation do you recomend ? what was interesting with the line 10...Bg7 is >that there is less variation to lurn than 10...f5 which is actually the most >played line. 10..f5 looks sound to me. >By the way, what is your comments and/or improvement of the game that Kramnik >lost against Anand. Did he play according to your assumption the best line ? > >Thanks for your help and sharing idees. > >Best regards I have not analysed that game and if i would i would not emit opinions either. In fact i lack the time to play myself even which would be first priority. Been busy improving evaluation of DIEP a lot. Today i cannot do much though except compile both an intel c++ P4 optimized executable and a visual c++ version from the latest stable diep and pray it plays ok. Let's see how it does do in Paderborn!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.