Why play the Dutch?

Computer says that Latvian Gambit is a great opening ...but i don't belive in it anyway)

When I first put it in the computer, it comes up as +0.8, a clear advantage for White.  However, when I play against it with the moves I recommend, it goes down to +.13 within around 8 moves.  I let the computer analyze its moves for 5 minutes 

FYI, I have Fritz and not Rybka.

Excellent, KB, thanks.

If there is some sort of a thematic game which ms can come up with, that would be great. It's always good to have a mix of super-computer with some Kramnik for good measure.

Definitely.  Kramnik would be the perfect compliment to a computer

I am talking about an analysis of H. Berliner (former World champion in correspondance chess). He gave that line, with analysis, I also analysed it myself, and I don't see counterplay of black.

KillaBeez: What is the line that you are talking about, where black reduces white's advantage in 8 moves to +.13?

mandelshtam: Can you find this Kramnik game? I searched in game explorer and couldn't.

Look, both sides have their own ideas on how to put pressure on the other side. Generally I side with Mr. Kramnik and Mr. Berliner in these types of matters - but (for example) do you think that Mr. Kramnik would beat Rybka in this position?

Really, nobody has Rybka? :-(

I'm not a fan of the French Defense, and I particularly dislike the 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5!? variation.

That is why I don't play the Dutch.

As far as 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5, you can simply play 2...g6, going for a Leningrad Dutch, or ...c6 like Steinitz, or even ...d5.  These are all good ideas for Black.

This is my game in the dutch.  Hope you enjoy!

Great game!  You did awesome with the Dutch.  Glad to see you have a new weapon at your disposal.

Here is the Budapest line you asked for ozzie

Thanks BirdBrain!  I am going to start using the Dutch when I need to win.

KillaBeez: Thanks for posting. It seems like that line might be one of the "critical" lines in the Budapest. Unfortunately, we're still waiting on analysis from a non-crafty engine (a better one), and also Mr. Kramnik's game.

Instead of Qe3, White can play Bxc6 and give Black doubled pawns, but this appears to be an error because it gives the position one of opposite coloured bishops and it allows Black another open file on which to contest the rooks.  I am not sure Kramnik even played a game.  My line is independent; there are no games in the line I posted.  I know it is solid and think it gives Black good play for the pawn and in many lines, wins the pawn back with active pieces to compensate for the loss of the bishop pair. 

Well easy there, we are still waiting on white's counter-argument. I do my best to be impartial, but I suspect that white does indeed have an advantage (and I believe it would be borne out by a Rybka analysis).

Toga II 1.4B5c outputs the same line you gave, starting from 4. Bf4 up to 13. Qe3. Toga II recommends 13...Ne6 with an evaluation of +0.40. If 13...Na5?!, 14. Qxe7+ with an evaluation of +0.74.

Nope.  Qxe7+ is harmless.  White's pieces are hardly in position to attack the enemy king and the queen is one of the intergral defenders of c4.  Black can pile up immediately with Be6 and win the c4 pawn outright.  I think the computer tends to be too materialistic in its calculation judgments unless it sees a concrete line down the road that wins material or gets an attack.  It is just the way it is programmed.

14. Qxe7 Kxe7 15. Bg2 Be6 16. Be3 17. Nxc4 Bxc5 18. Nb3 and White will be up a pawn, since the b7 pawn is pinned to the Rook. (eval=+0.76)

If 14. Qd4?!, you are correct, Black begins to equalize. (eval=+0.15)

That line makes no sense.  White cannot play Bg2.  While I do agree that White has a slight edge in that line, Black can play the moves I have earlier suggested followed by Na4 if necessary to tie up another piece.  The ending is not necessarily lost for Black even in the worst of conditions in that line.  Can you repeat the line you mentioned?  I am pretty sure this is not bad at all for Black.