I love it when players claim that 1.e4 has been studied to death in comparison to 1.d4.

Have you studied the QGD or the King's Indian? There is barely anything there that has not already been scanned and studied by someone else.

It's not any less studied than the Ruy Lopez.

8.Qa4+ cannot be a logical move.

It's theory, as much as I love the idea of a 1300 questioning a super GM World Championship challenger.

It doesn't take a 2000+ rated player to realize that checking the king and then having to move the queen to a passive position is a mistake.

Actually, checking with Houdini it agree, so obviously this "theory" can be disregarded as a waste of time.

By the way, this Super GM gave up a pawn for nothing. Not even a lowly 1400+ rated player would make that kind of mistake.

By simply playing 9...Qc7 he has a nice position.

Such a nice position white wins 55% of games in the line on chessgames and loses 21%.

Scottrf, it's much better than giving up a pawn for nothing. 9...Qc7 is the best move in that position.

It can't really be argued.

You were saying Qa4 was the bad move for white...theory and a very successful line.

And that Qc7 would give black a nice position; winning 18% and losing 55% which is obviously a fantastic return.

You are focusing way too much on ratings and statistics. In that position 9...Qc7 saves the pawn. It's the only good move.

You seem to think that GM's are flawless. They are human. Try to remember that.

I didn't say it wasn't, but the results suggest it doesn't give black a nice position either.

I didn't say they were flawless but I do think that if a good number of GMs are playing 9...b5 giving up the pawn 'for nothing', that perhaps they see something the amazing Yereslov doesn't.

No, I just did a quick analysis with Houdini 1.5.

The early b pawn push cost black a pawn.

I don't see how you have to be a GM to notice a hanging pawn. 

It's not GM knowledge.

You know this could go on forever. Yereslov never yields: not to evidence & not to logic.

It's amusing that you think they didn't notice that they were hanging a pawn.

I hope your arrogance isn't genuine or you will never improve, nor will you by getting your engine to tell you the answers.

Hanging pieces is an art....

Once in an interview, Mikhail Tal was asked why he left so many pieces hanging at once... his reply " my opponent can only take them one at a time"...

Vasily Invachuk was second to Kasparov in the 90's and was the one to end his record-breaking winning streak at Linares 1991.

You keep forgetting that players do make mistakes. Even GM's are prone to major blunders. 

It's not planned everytime. Ivanchuk had a won position here, yet he succumbed to his nerves and lost due to this.

It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament. 

They were never very effective against Fischer.

Remember I said that hanging pieces is an art...imagine if Tal had the time to perfect his art ? It is sad that he left us so soon.

Though some of Tal's moves were unsound from a theory stand point, it is irrelevant. He was never required to live up to the standard of the theory, only to beat his opponents. If your opponent can't play what he has memorized and can't calculate as well as you, it is too your advantage to play this style. That is why Tal did. Besides, draws are boring.

This is the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. To sacrifice effectively, your opponent has to let himself be open to it. Fischer was probably onto the tactical shots that were coming his way and had a tendency to drive the games more than drift through positions awaiting his opponent's plans. Against the not-too-careful, Tal worked his magic in a way that you never will.