"... [9 h3] turns out to be a golden investment. White's position is like a sleeping giant. ... once the giant awakens, it is very difficult for Black to hold him in check ... Notwithstanding all this, the immediate 9 d4 is a perfectly legitimate alternative to 9 h3, especially for those with a dynamic and aggressive style and with little patience for the subtleties involved in 9 h3. ..." - GM Paul van der Sterren (2009)
If I remember correctly, GM Soltis once wrote that he never played 9 h3 in a serious tournament game, describing himself as having chickened out at the key moment in a game against Reshevsky.
You are twisting my second statement implying that I'm saying 9.d4 is refuted by 9...Bg4. I never said that. It has of course been played, but is still considered to be far inferior compared to 9.h3. Also, "Not Good For White" and "-0.50" are NOT synonomous! If White has the opportunity to get an advantage, let's say 0.3, and plays a move that has no advantage, like 0.0, then the move is not good for White. If you look in any book, not all "??", "?", or "?!" are "losing" for the offending player. If you go from +3.5 to +0.1, you've blundered, like it or not! Blunder and lost are also not synonomous!
Hilarious understanding.
Do you think that the average Joe should care abut that -0.60 or +0.30? You can also add a non-average Joe, like Jose Raul - here meeting the man who gave his name to the 9.d4 variation:
Capablanca was very lucky: Yates missed 25.Qxd1 Qxg5 26.Nf3 Qe7 27.Rh4 with an easy win for white.
Ruy Lopez/ Breyer expert, super-GM Pavel Eljanov, met 9.d4 two times the last 3 years. Guess what? He lost both games!
I get it that all of you guys have more respect for the 9.d4 line than I do.
That said, to use Capablanca as the victim to show how scary the line may be compared to games played today is like comparing a Standard Def 13-inch color TV with no remote control and the lack of color quality in 1965 to a High Def, 70 inch plasma TV with remote control and on-demand programming!