Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:07:20 04/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 1999 at 08:03:32, Francois Bertin wrote: > >There's a review at the following site (British Chess Magazine): >http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/bcmrev9903.html I read this review, it mentions Berliner's _refutation_ to the Grunfeld: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nd5 5.e4 Nc3 6.bc Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 O-O 9.Be3 Nc6 10.Rc1 cd 11.cd Qa5+ 12.Kf1. The old move here (that Berliner gives) was 12...Bd7, allowing 13.h4! and a kingside attack. But the review of the book points out that 12...Qa3! was playing in Kamsky-Anand, Las Palmas 1995: 13.Qb3 Qb3 14.Bb3 Bd7 15.f4 Rfc8 16.Kf2 Na5 17.d5 Nb3 18.ab Bb2! with an equal position. Rebel 9 thinks that Bb2 is a mistake, simply because White picks up Black's a-pawn after the rook exchange on c8 (unless Black recaptures with the bishop, leading to a sucky position). Rebel 9 gives white roughly +0.50 in the position after 18.ab. Are there newer games in this line to change the theoretical verdict? I am not even convinced that Black equalizes after 18...Bb2, though Anand knows much more about chess than I do! :) It seems to me that white can capture on a7, play R(h)e1 and Kf3 or Ke3 (depending on the variation) and just be up a pawn. Sure, Black has the two bishops, but White's king seems to be safe enough. So maybe Berliner's assessment is still correct? Dave Gomboc
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.