Division of labour

I propose the following:

1. That each major line we're discussing have an "owner", who updates what the most critical lines are, preferably in forum post #1 for the forum topic
2. That clearly we cannot investigate everything at the same time - that it makes sense to have many people looking at a single branch, then we can focus on another if we like, but if we try to look at everything at the same time by divide & conquer then we will have a very disjointed analysis
3. That there is very likely an optimum number of investigators per branch. Clearly there must be an owner. There must also be at least one person with a high level engine + good hardware + the time + inclination to help out. And if we have some high rated players as well, along with someone with a Traxler book, this would be an excellent mix.
4. Unfortunately - there is no way to respond to a specific forum post, the way it is implemented on some websites. For example, if there are 10 posts, sometimes you can respond to post #6, and have it appear in-line when people read it later. This would help immensely when discussing sub-branches within a specific main branch.

1.That seems like a reasonable idea, although it is a somewhat vulnerable construction. If we wish to update line in the first post (I think that's a very good idea), then I think that can only be done by the person who started the topic. That means that when I take a holiday from the Traxler for say a week, the Ke3 line, for instance, can´t be updated. Do you know a way around that?

2/3. If this were a professional research project, such a division would be best, perhaps, but since most people will be here for fun, I expect most people will want to look at everything that takes their fancy and weigh in if they feel like it. I don't think we should go beyond assigning an owner.

I agree it would be nice to have a strong computer, a strong player and a well researched book for every topic, but I'm not sure we can manage that. For the record, I work with the lowly Fritz 8, have no books on the Traxler and a sadly accurate rating here on chess.com.

4.That's true. To circumvent that as much as possible, we have to be very clear in naming variations.

Finally, what is a sticky forum?

Ozzie wrote:  

That there is very likely an optimum number of investigators per branch. Clearly there must be an owner. There must also be at least one person with a high level engine + good hardware + the time + inclination to help out. And if we have some high rated players as well, along with someone with a Traxler book, this would be an excellent mix.

FWIW, I've got Rybka 3 multi-processor running on quad core processor with 8 GB memory -- it can hit over 300K nodes per second -- but no Traxler book.

Plus, I'm just a lowly patzer... 

We're well on our way now. We've started a topic on all but these lines:

- 5.Nxf7,6.Kf1, white doesn't play d6

- 5.Bxf7+, 6.Bb3

- 5.Bxf7+, 6.Bd5

- 5.d4

I may get round to doing the first of these tomorrow.  I don't think we've discussed the others in the original forum yet, so I'm not sure how to proceed there. Perhaps just post some main lines and take it from there.

Discussion on the other lines could liven up a little, or does everybody agree with what is posted so far?

It has been a while since I posted here, so I am going to update you on my progress.

I was trying to tackle the lines after 9.d6 cxd6 10.c3 which SirDavid analysed to a draw.  Apparently he did not go far enough because I have black winning in ALL lines after 10...Bg4 11.Qa4+ Kf8.  I found several surprising novelties which have basically cooked white's goose.  The computer's evaluations were often wrong in this variation, I had to find the novelties myself.  You will see them when I post my analysis for you guys to test.

Another update, I have nearly completed the 10.h3 variation and I shall move onto the 10.Kxf2 variation to complete my analysis.

I have finally completed my analysis and I will post it tonight.

At this point, we only have three more topics to complete.

5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bd5

5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3

5.d4

In addition, I think that two other lines should be addressed.  These lines are uncommon, but black needs to know how to face them.

5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bc4

5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.b4!? the Schmidt Attack

Oh, I will post the pseudo-Evans Gambit or the Evans Gambit deferred, whatever you wish it named.  This occurs after 5.b4?

How should we start the Bxf7+ variation?

I have no idea. It seems that there aren't really lines here; these variations are more about ideas and dynamic imbalances. I know for a fact my rating is far too low to pretend to know much about dynamic imbalances, so I don't think I can handle those threads. Sorry!

Well, I just struck a treasure trove of 5.Bxf7+ analysis so I will go to work on that variation.  First glance at it suggests that black is just fine and in some cases has the advantage.  In addition, it is not near as complex as the 5.Nxf7 variation.  I can post the 6.Bb3 variation and the 6.Bd5 variation.  The 6.Bd5 variation will take a little longer.

Once we complete these last few variations, maybe we can challenge the community to a vote chess game.  I think it would be a great test for the theory.

Definitely. We can do it from the Traxler starting position, right?

Would we allow the use of computers in the vote match? (For that it would have to be an unrated match, is that even possible?)

I am not sure about the use of computers.  I would lean towards not using them, but how would we keep that under control?

Personally, I would like to have a rated match.  Who would we play?

I believe we can do it from the Traxler starting position if we setup the beginning I think.  I have not done this before so I could not verify.

Another option (not mutually exclusive) would be a Traxler theme tournament, rated, no computers.  That might appeal to a lot of people who don't care that much for vote chess.

I like the sound of a tournament.

Hopefully it will not start next week because I will be on vacation for that week.