We moved 16... Nb4 attacking his light bishop. Our expectations have been that he will attack our queen with a rook, but he could simply move the bishop, or even allow the trade and move something else.

So we are looking at

17. Rdc1

17. Rac1

17. Bb5

17. Bc4

17. something else

I have been out all yesterday, and will also be today, and for a good deal of tomorrow. If someone can sum up the current state of the analyses of the lines we have and identify what needs the most work, and post it here, and put a good summary in the main forum that would be great.

The current opinion is that Onischuck will play a rook to c1 (since it puts pressure on the c-file and doesn't lose any tempo because the black Queen is forced to move).

The real question though is: where will we move our Queen once Onischuck attacks it?

• 17...Qb8 - very safe but passive and takes the Queen out of the action.
• 17...Qd6 - active and keeps the Queen in the action, but riskier, as some are (for some reason) terrified of Ba3. But if we follow with 18.Ba3 a5 19.Rab1 Nd5 things seem fine to Teary. The Bishop on a3 taking the Knight could be interesting though...
• 17...Qd7 - doesn't seem good because of Bb5 or Ne5 (gaining double tempo off the Queen).
• 17...Qe7 - the Queen has less manueverability from this square than it does from d6 (since it is restricted to just a single diagonal).

As far as white's options go, he has the possible moves: Ne5, Bb5, Bc4, Ba3 that he can follow up his Rook move with. We should plan for one or all of those.

Thoughts, opinions and additions?

More natural to me seems the more direct route.

Not very much discussion here - I suspect this game is going downhill soon.

has anyone considered Bc6? It looks like it might be playable, but I haven't looked at it much as I'm at work. Apart from that, Qb8 or Qd6 look ok.

elroch - I have been thinking the same thing though with more optimism... i see two reasons for the lack of discussion here

1) there are not a lot of regular contributors in this forum... though I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing... our smaller group allows for faster discussion and preparation amongst each other for when we start posting our thoughts in the main forum..

2) the main forum does not seem overly cluttered with unnecessary posts... there are a lot of posts, but most are decent with real analysis (and ive learned how to quickly spot and skip the "who voted to resign???!!!???!!!" and "vote this move without explanation" , etc. posts)... because of that contributing in both forums seems a little redundant given the time it takes to construct a decent explanation and diagram, and that serious contributors like andymanchan, summerstorm, greggggi etc. are not reading this forum

given the small number of people who regularly contribute here, i think this forum will be best for early discussions and idea brainstorming, and when we want to talk specifically to a smaller group

also, minorly, ive been away for 3 days, so whatever contributions i make to the discussion here have been absent... i suspect things will pick up this week

Oh, andrewlong.  If only you knew what would transpire this night...

Sorry for insults I may have said.

If anyone feels insulted, please contact me directly so I can be more specific.

_Valentin_: I was disappointed over your contribution at last move. You being a high-rated player, I would have expected you to contribute with some analysis in the team discussion. Instead, you chose to contribute with non-substantial and manipulative arguments. Your two most influential comments were the following two, and they probably determined the outcome of the voting.

Right when the voting was closest, about half an hour before deadline you wrote:

"Clearly we have chosen Qb8 for the present move already."

Earlier you wrote:

"For what it's worth, I am rated over 2200 (in fact, over 2400), and I am inclined toward Qb8 too."

Sorry if this insults you Valentin, but that is what I feel.

I offer voluntarily to not post on this thread again, if that is what you want.

risto, (I will answer for my part because move #17 is a passé move), you pose your post as an accusation rather than an apology.  I think your issues are yours, and I think you probably see the board better than do I.  

The more the merrier, but I don't think anybody said "agree with me or leave."  That is what you imply.  Perhaps you are unused to consorting to people of various levels of attainment in the chess sphere.  Welcome to the world of chess.com, where you can, if you so choose, join a vote-chess game with people ranging from the 1000s and less.

Two important words I just used:  game, and people.  To my mind, you have begun to value the game over the people, and that makes you impervious to others' opinions.  Go ahead, challenge GM Onischuk to a straight game if you and only you ought to make the moves.  I urge you to try if you are ambitious.  I will not speak for whether the GM can spare the board-time right now.

One important phrase you use above:  "what I feel."  I ask that you not confuse your feelings with chess moves.  You just got done insulting valentin (although I am sure he will forbear) by attempting to conflate his reminder to civility with an attempt to stifle dissent.  

So:  apologize in a posting if you will, but please make it from the heart, then post something about something else later.  It will do you good.  (i.e., nobody called you a 'spammer').