Yep, the Berliner variation is dubious for black and thank you for the theory behind it.
May I suggest a better move for white with 8.cxd4 taking the money and running?
berliner variation fritz
Sort:
sloughterchess wrote:
The Ng5 variation of the TKD has not been analyzed with one caveat in mind: To justify a pawn sacrifice, it is necessary to have three tempos for the pawn in an open position. In the critical variations, the position is not open and Black doesn't have even three tempos for the pawn. Modern defensive technique has not caught up to this opening. Black has some, but not full, compensation for the pawn. Here is an example of modern defensive technique missed by all the opening manuals known to the author.
The move sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 is the Berliner Gambit. Theory now gives 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2! This is an idea of ICM Wlater Muir, and, if followed correctly is +- by move 23 in all variations.
Black can be down a whole lot of material after 12...O-O 13.fxg4 with two possibilites A)13...Bxg3ch which runs into 14.Kd1 Nb4 15.Qxb5 Bd6 16.a3 Nd3 17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 Qxg4ch 19.Qf3 Qxd4 20.Nc3+- or 13...Nb4 14.Nc3! Bxg3ch 15.Kd1 Rae8 16.Nxe4 f5 17.Qe3 Qxg4ch 18.Be2 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Rxe4 20.hxg3 Nc2 21.Rb1 Nxd4 22.Bf3+-
What is even worse is the book move 12.Qe2 Be6? The basic problem with the Berliner Gambit is that it is a tempo gambit, but Black, in the middle of the attack, makes a pawn move and repositions a developed piece to an inferior square. This loss of time suffers severe retribution.
White has two entirely different winning plans here. What is incomprehensible is why anyone would recommend 13.fxe4?? just driving the Knight right where it wants to go. If White had nothing better, then 13.Qf2 just holding the piece is theoretically correct, but too complex to play against a tactically gifted opponent either silicon or human.
The positional way to play the Berliner Gambit is just 13.Nc3!! Following standard gambit procedure, White gives back just enough material to stifle the attack and emerge with a completely winning middlegame. First of all, Black cannot avoid 13...Nxc3 e.g. if 13...Nb4? 14.Kd1+- But after 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 (Fritz 8 and IM Silman like bxc3, but I like straightening out my pawn structure.) Then 14...Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch: We now follow Sloughterchess-Fritz 8 for the next several moves played at 120/25 with Fritz taking at least 10 minutes/move. 16...Kf8 17.fxe4 (d5 is also playable) Rc8 18.Bf4 c6 (The horizon effect) 19.Qc5ch Kg8 20.O-O-O Qh2 21.Ba6 Rf8 22.d5 Qh5 23.Qxc6 You will note that White has Bishop and three pawns for the Rook (two passed), a safe King and the initiative +- I beat Fritz 8 by just advancing my passed pawns and pushing it off the board.
hai can you explain it by diagram
Conquiscador wrote:
This is a matter of taste. I actually like White after 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.exd5 & we have two possibilities: A)8...Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O Bc5 11.d4 +/- or, B) 8...Qxd5 9.exf6 Qxg5 10.Qf3 Rb8 11.Qe3 Qxe3ch 12.dxe3 gxf6 13.O-O In the Kibitzer column by Tim Harding, in this position, he said, "Black's pawns are terrible but his pawns are mighty." In a blitz game this is true, over the board at slow time limits less true, and at postal speeds, White is close to winning. The reason is this: For Black to make progress he needs pieces. Transient piece pressure alone is inadequate for equality. This is the one lesson we have learned from computers (Actually Steinitz said it long before computers were invented, "A pawn is worth a little trouble.") Black must deny White's Rooks access to his position for the next fifty moves i.e. if a Rook ever parachutes behind enemy lines, it is game over. Here is how to defuse the piece pressure. 13...Rg8 14.Re1 f5 15.f3 Bg7 16.Re2 Be6 17.Kf2 Ke7 18.Nc3 Rb7 19.Nd1 R8b8 20.Bd2 Be5 21.g3 a6 22.Bc3 Bxc3 23.bxc3 How does Black make progress? What if White tries something like Ke1/Kd2/Kc1/Rb2? This doesn't even include the strategy of opening a file on the Kingside and invading there. This position is +-
Yep, the Berliner variation is dubious for black and thank you for the theory behind it.
May I suggest a better move for white with 8.cxd4 taking the money and running?
sloughterchess wrote:
Conquiscador wrote:
This is a matter of taste. I actually like White after 6.c3 b5 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.exd5 & we have two possibilities: A)8...Nxd5 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.O-O Bc5 11.d4 +/- or, B) 8...Qxd5 9.exf6 Qxg5 10.Qf3 Rb8 11.Qe3 Qxe3ch 12.dxe3 gxf6 13.O-O In the Kibitzer column by Tim Harding, in this position, he said, "Black's pawns are terrible but his pawns are mighty." In a blitz game this is true, over the board at slow time limits less true, and at postal speeds, White is close to winning. The reason is this: For Black to make progress he needs pieces. Transient piece pressure alone is inadequate for equality. This is the one lesson we have learned from computers (Actually Steinitz said it long before computers were invented, "A pawn is worth a little trouble.") Black must deny White's Rooks access to his position for the next fifty moves i.e. if a Rook ever parachutes behind enemy lines, it is game over. Here is how to defuse the piece pressure. 13...Rg8 14.Re1 f5 15.f3 Bg7 16.Re2 Be6 17.Kf2 Ke7 18.Nc3 Rb7 19.Nd1 R8b8 20.Bd2 Be5 21.g3 a6 22.Bc3 Bxc3 23.bxc3 How does Black make progress? What if White tries something like Ke1/Kd2/Kc1/Rb2? This doesn't even include the strategy of opening a file on the Kingside and invading there. This position is +-
Yep, the Berliner variation is dubious for black and thank you for the theory behind it.
May I suggest a better move for white with 8.cxd4 taking the money and running? I misquoted Harding. He said (obviously) the PIECES not the pawns are mighty :)
I was looking at this line with Fritz, and well, Black's play is incorrect as hell and elite strength players wouldn't go near Black's 8...Qh4 and 9....Bg4 with a 10 foot pole... but for ordinary club strength players particularly in blitz I wouldn't bet against Black at all: There are LOTS of ways for White to go wrong.
But if I were playing White (I wouldn't be... 3.Bc4 is not in my repertoire!) it'd never get to 8...Qh4 anyway because in my opinion White has a simple strong continuation with 7.cxd4
*edit* Oh I see you actually touched on the 7.cxd4 line in an earlier post.. sorry, it was hard to read.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.cxd4! is critical.
8...Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8 10.0-0! and white has a very strong position.
Black has not recovered in this line.
Conquiscador wrote:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.cxd4! is critical.
8...Qxg5 9.Bxb5+ Kd8 10.0-0! and white has a very strong position.
Black has not recovered in this line. Here is a different way to attack: 8...Qxg5 9.Bxb5ch Kd8 10.O-O Rb8! 11.Bc6 exd4 12.d3 Nf4 13.Re1 Be6 14.Bf3 Bd6 15.g3 Nh3ch 16.Kg2 Qf6 17.Rxe6 Qxe6 18.Bg4 Nxf2 19.Kxf2 f5 20.Bf3 f4 21.g4 Re8 with a powerful initiative (How many pieces has White developed?)
Coool
JG27Pyth wrote:
I was looking at this line with Fritz, and well, Black's play is incorrect as hell and elite strength players wouldn't go near Black's 8...Qh4 and 9....Bg4 with a 10 foot pole... but for ordinary club strength players particularly in blitz I wouldn't bet against Black at all: There are LOTS of ways for White to go wrong.
But if I were playing White (I wouldn't be... 3.Bc4 is not in my repertoire!) it'd never get to 8...Qh4 anyway because in my opinion White has a simple strong continuation with 7.cxd4
*edit* Oh I see you actually touched on the 7.cxd4 line in an earlier post.. sorry, it was hard to read. A little history is in order. The Berliner Gambit is an idea of former Correspondence World Champion Dr. Hans Berliner. He defeated Yakov Estrin in a World Championship battle over this opening. Berliner analzyed this opening with the aid of the strongest computer at the time Hitech, and concluded that the opening was so good that it shut down Ng5 in the Two Knights' Defense as a way for White to achieve a plus. He even offered a $1000 reward to anyone who could beat him in this opening. His analysis so impressed World Champion Garry Kasparov that Kasparov devoted an entire page of analysis to the Berliner Gambit in Batsford Chess Openings 2.
I have been able to document that my innovation in the Berliner Gambit provides White with perhaps the fastest winning position by White (+-) of any major opening in chess in two entirely different ways as validated by three strong chess professionals. This is the direct opposite of the analysis of World Champions Berliner and Kasparov.
Sloughterchess: The Berliner Gambit is an idea of former Correspondence World Champion Dr. Hans Berliner. He defeated Yakov Estrin in a World Championship battle over this opening. Berliner analzyed this opening with the aid of the strongest computer at the time Hitech, and concluded that the opening was so good that it shut down Ng5 in the Two Knights' Defense as a way for White to achieve a plus.
Wow. I can't believe Black won a high level correspondence game with that opening... it looks so dubious to me (not that I'm an expert on openings.)
Hard to believe you've out-analyzed kasparov -- have you worked thru his analysis in BCO-2... you sure he doesn't have you covered?
Any chance you can post the Estrin v Berliner game/... I'd like to see where Estrin went wrong.
JG27Pyth wrote:
Sloughterchess: The Berliner Gambit is an idea of former Correspondence World Champion Dr. Hans Berliner. He defeated Yakov Estrin in a World Championship battle over this opening. Berliner analzyed this opening with the aid of the strongest computer at the time Hitech, and concluded that the opening was so good that it shut down Ng5 in the Two Knights' Defense as a way for White to achieve a plus.
The Estrin-Berliner game has minimal theoretical value in my opinion because White (Estrin) chose an inferior continuation (also endorsed by Berliner) i.e. 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Be6 & now both World Champion Estrin played 12.Bxb5ch and Berliner devoted most of his analysis to this line. I don't know how to add the game here, but you can find the score just by searching under (Estrin-Berliner World Championship)
It is very tempting when two world champions make the same oversight, not to make the comment in my writings, "Patzer sees a check---patzer gives a check." 12.Bxb5ch is a patzer move in my opinion simply because 12.Qe2 is just winning.
Theory in this opening was hijacked for thirty years to the great detriment to chess truth i.e. the idea that Berliner was so sure of himself that he not only said his opening was sound but that it refuted 4.Ng5 as a winning attempt.The truth is the direct opposite of the claims by Berliner; he steered the chess community to the boring and overanalyzed Ruy just because of his bad analysis. If Ruy players knew how they could play the TKD with an extra pawn and convert that material into positional gains, they would abandon the Ruy in a heartbeat. The other variations of the TKD will be offered on line in an attempt to provide a compelling narrative that 4.Ng5 is at least +/= at a practical level and +- at a theoretical level (Any advantage, no matter how small, can always be converted into a win, otherwise it is not an advantage.) There is no theoretical evaluation of almost winning at the end of a game.
Kasparov probably never looked at the analysis in detail. Why should he? It was analyzed by a World Champion i.e. the analysis was vetted by the World Champion, and the strongest computer at the time, HItech. On what possible basis would Kasparov,with enormous time constraints, even question "settled" theory?
Wow. I can't believe Black won a high level correspondence game with that opening... it looks so dubious to me (not that I'm an expert on openings.)
Hard to believe you've out-analyzed kasparov -- have you worked thru his analysis in BCO-2... you sure he doesn't have you covered?
Any chance you can post the Estrin v Berliner game/... I'd like to see where Estrin went wrong.
Sloughterchess: he steered the chess community to the boring and overanalyzed Ruy just because of his bad analysis.
Now you're getting silly. No individual "steered" the chess community to the Ruy Lopez.
If Ruy players knew how they could play the TKD (two knight's defense?) with an extra pawn and convert that material into positional gains, they would abandon the Ruy in a heartbeat.
What?! I can't follow what you're claiming -- is it something like: since the Berliner gambit is unsound (according to you -- I'm growing less and less convinced as this conversation continues) this somehow refutes the two knight's defense and thus White would never play (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) but instead play 3.Bc4 ... is that what you're saying?
Spanish players will never abandon their opening due to some questionable/bad gambit line in the two knights. Any decent player knows that 5...Na5 is the best response and scores better than 50% for black anyway.
JG27Pyth wrote:
Sloughterchess: he steered the chess community to the boring and overanalyzed Ruy just because of his bad analysis.
Now you're getting silly. No individual "steered" the chess community to the Ruy Lopez.
If Ruy players knew how they could play the TKD (two knight's defense?)
with an extra pawn and convert that material into positional gains, they would abandon the Ruy in a heartbeat.
What?! I can't follow what you're claiming -- is it something like: since the Berliner gambit is unsound (according to you -- I'm growing less and less convinced as this conversation continues) this somehow refutes the two knight's defense and thus White would never play (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) but instead play 3.Bc4 ... is that what you're saying?
"according to you" Actually, according to one International Master, one Senior Life Master, one International Correspondence Master, one FM and Fritz 8, so it is not just my opinion. If you think my ideas are so far out in left field, just plug my analysis into your typical search engine and I guarantee that White will be +- in every variation by move 23.
If you were familiar with the Berliner Variation you would know that the book move after 12.Qe2 Be6 is 13.fxe4?? I wouldn't even look at this move in a blitz game but it has been approved by two world champions, Berliner and Kasparov. 13.Nc3 or 13.Qf2 are simply winning. All 13.fxe4 does is drive the Knight exactly where it wants go (b4) and now we get the typical (unjustified) grotty Berliner compensation.
The Two Knights' Theory was developed during the phase of chess theory when the initiative was given excessive weight. It is now generally assumed that openings are sound in blitz chess, if you can complicate and lose your opponent in the complications. This has relegated chess to the status of whoever makes the next to last blunder wins. This trivializes chess truth i.e. the need to determine whether best play by both sides leads to a win, loss or draw. When you start defining chess truth by virtue of practical considerations, "Who wins most often, White or Black?", then you are changing chess from art to sport. If all that matters in chess is who wins, we have reverted to the mental equivalent of ultimate fighting.
Just as the sideline 12.Qe2 in the Berliner Variation was underanalyzed, so too, the 5...Na5 variation has been underanalyzed in the critical variation which occurs after 6.Bb5ch c6 7.bxc6 dxc6 8.Qf3! While exhaustive analysis will be offered on another thread, one observation should suffice. 8.Qf3 is superior to 8.Be2 because an active Queen in the middlegame is very important. The White Queen is incomparably more active on f3 than d1 (8.Be2). In none of the variations I've analyzed can Black attack the Queen with gain of tempo or drive her to an inferior square. Fritz 8 (I have beaten Fritz 8 in this variation and drawn three or four times) usually tries to force the exchange of Queens e.g. here is a variation that is an underanalyzed main line discovered by Fritz 8: 8.Qf3 Qd5!? Black reckons that after 9.Qxd5 that Nxd5 is good for Black due to the dual threats of Nf4 and Nb4, so I just retreat my Bishop to e2 i.e. 9.Be2! Now what does Black do? Clearly, 9...Qxf3 10.Bxf3 favors White and on 9...e4 10.Qg3 Bd6 11.Qh4 Bf5 (e4 is hanging) 12.Nc3 Qe5 13.f3! & White can drop the Queen back to f2, so 13...exf3 is met with 14.Nxf3 +/-.
I can demonstrate an advantage for White in the other variations as well. Those who like the "initiative" in the above variation will try 8.Qf3 cxb5 9.Qxa8 Qd7 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Qe2 & Black doesn't have adequate compensation for the exchange, but I am sure that in a blitz game, Black will win lots of games.
Isnt it wonderful that technology allows a B class player to talk and analyze like any GM ?! He can even question world champions ! 
No 8.Be2 is much better than 8.Qf3 which is based on a trick.
8.Qf3 h6! 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Nbc3 cxb5 11.Nxd5 Bb7 12.Ne3 Qd7 13.0-0 Nc6 14.d3 0-0-0 and black has excellent compensation for the pawn. Estrin-Taimanov 1955
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 looks very nice for white. This is what I would play.
Conquiscador wrote:
No 8.Be2 is much better than 8.Qf3 which is based on a trick.
8.Qf3 h6! 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Nbc3 cxb5 11.Nxd5 Bb7 12.Ne3 Qd7 13.0-0 Nc6 14.d3 0-0-0 and black has excellent compensation for the pawn. Estrin-Taimanov 1955
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 looks very nice for white. This is what I would play.
8.Qf3? huh? was someone recommending that?
at any rate, here's estrin v berliner
Conquiscador wrote:
No 8.Be2 is much better than 8.Qf3 which is based on a trick.
8.Qf3 h6! 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Nbc3 cxb5 11.Nxd5 Bb7 12.Ne3 Qd7 13.0-0 Nc6 14.d3 0-0-0 and black has excellent compensation for the pawn. Estrin-Taimanov 1955
8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 looks very nice for white. This is what I would play. I don't like White's play in Estrin-Taimanov. I would play 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 in order to meet Nb4 with 11.Bd1 & White keeps his pawn and the better pawn structure.
The Ng5 variation of the TKD has not been analyzed with one caveat in mind: To justify a pawn sacrifice, it is necessary to have three tempos for the pawn in an open position. In the critical variations, the position is not open and Black doesn't have even three tempos for the pawn. Modern defensive technique has not caught up to this opening. Black has some, but not full, compensation for the pawn. Here is an example of modern defensive technique missed by all the opening manuals known to the author.
The move sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 is the Berliner Gambit. Theory now gives 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2! This is an idea of ICM Wlater Muir, and, if followed correctly is +- by move 23 in all variations.
Black can be down a whole lot of material after 12...O-O 13.fxg4 with two possibilites A)13...Bxg3ch which runs into 14.Kd1 Nb4 15.Qxb5 Bd6 16.a3 Nd3 17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 Qxg4ch 19.Qf3 Qxd4 20.Nc3+- or 13...Nb4 14.Nc3! Bxg3ch 15.Kd1 Rae8 16.Nxe4 f5 17.Qe3 Qxg4ch 18.Be2 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Rxe4 20.hxg3 Nc2 21.Rb1 Nxd4 22.Bf3+-
What is even worse is the book move 12.Qe2 Be6? The basic problem with the Berliner Gambit is that it is a tempo gambit, but Black, in the middle of the attack, makes a pawn move and repositions a developed piece to an inferior square. This loss of time suffers severe retribution.
White has two entirely different winning plans here. What is incomprehensible is why anyone would recommend 13.fxe4?? just driving the Knight right where it wants to go. If White had nothing better, then 13.Qf2 just holding the piece is theoretically correct, but too complex to play against a tactically gifted opponent either silicon or human.
The positional way to play the Berliner Gambit is just 13.Nc3!! Following standard gambit procedure, White gives back just enough material to stifle the attack and emerge with a completely winning middlegame. First of all, Black cannot avoid 13...Nxc3 e.g. if 13...Nb4? 14.Kd1+- But after 13...Nxc3 14.dxc3 (Fritz 8 and IM Silman like bxc3, but I like straightening out my pawn structure.) Then 14...Bxg3ch 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Qxb5ch: We now follow Sloughterchess-Fritz 8 for the next several moves played at 120/25 with Fritz taking at least 10 minutes/move. 16...Kf8 17.fxe4 (d5 is also playable) Rc8 18.Bf4 c6 (The horizon effect) 19.Qc5ch Kg8 20.O-O-O Qh2 21.Ba6 Rf8 22.d5 Qh5 23.Qxc6 You will note that White has Bishop and three pawns for the Rook (two passed), a safe King and the initiative +- I beat Fritz 8 by just advancing my passed pawns and pushing it off the board.