MetalRatel wrote:
The best line of play is to play d6, e6 and a6, getting to some kind of a hedgehog position, so the white pieces can not make use of their better development to penetrate, and then develop, retaining a full central d pawn more, which is a lot.
My lines are good, very good indeed, in the opening and everywhere, it is a pity people treat me in that way.
This is a very solid line for Black, but I could not find any advantage against 13.Na4:
I don't know.
I looked into it very carefully, and it is a very complicated tactical play in almost all variations, but black gets on top almost always.
One possible line after Na4 is this one, Nh4, to displace the bishop, followed by Bd8, guarding the b6 square.
SF reaches 50-60cps black edge.
A pawn more is a pawn more.
I don't know if that is sufficient for a win though.
As said, very complicated tactically, you need days to analyse it, but black will always retain a clear edge.
Thanks for the response. This looks interesting, but couldn't White also try to force a perpetual with 21.Bf4? 21...e5 looks a bit risky to play on.
This is just a sample line.
I would hate to see what happens after e5, as this is too tactical, certainly white can not get an advantage.
The move played by SF before that, 20...h6, is more or less meaningless.
Black has better with 20...Nf6.
That is what SF gives: clear advantage for black.
Black has 2 central connected pawns for the rook, more than a comfortable advantage.
Again, I can not check each and every move, but the point is black wins or gest large advantage in some 80% of cases I have tried.
Statistically, that means a lot.
Thanks for clarifying. Honestly, I did not understand 21...h6, but the repetition stood out to me on first impression. Of course, you can't include everything and I agree Black seems to get strong compensation in the center with that line, but I'm stuck at 17.cxd5 when White breaks the center first. I agree that Black is not worse after 13.Na4, but now it looks very dangerous for Black to me.
I also found an interesting alternative 9...Nh5!? in another move order (Taylor Defense) that has been tested by three strong grandmasters in the last year:
As a human player, I often feel I need to content myself with a draw against best play in these sharp positions to keep my sanity.
No strong attack for white here, if black plays the right moves.
Instead of Ng4, d5-d4 is the obvious alternative, and on Rxc6, as you suggest, black has Bg4, and then bxc6.
I still guessed black has some advantage, but this seems to peter out into a draw.
Not a rare occurence for a line, where one side could have 40-50cps advantage.
Deeper down the road, this could simply evaporate, if the position is not winning.
Seemingly, in the particular position, white has sufficient compensation in terms of activity/better placement/centralisation.
My point is not for the particular position, however, I have not analysed it deeply, my point is that black is winning or being better in the majority of lines, 60-70% and more, which is statistically relevant.
I am certain both sides could have improved on their play in this line, especially black.
For example, already on move 9, black has much better with b5 instead of Be7, which is too passive.
Almost everybody is ignorant wrt omniscient DeirdreSkye.
Everybody no , everybody who looks for best first or second move , yes.
Fischer has played 1. c4 actually very much.
In his later years.
As someone pointed out on a thread, 2 of Fischer's 3 wins as white in the WC match versus Spassky featured 1. c4.
What is the Fischer-Larsen Attack?
Basically, 1. c4, coupled with 1. f4 - both semi-central pawns attacking the center.
carlsen WILL PLAY 1. c4 in his later years, this is a very positional move and requires some distance.
In the same way, Botvinnik and Kasparov - 2 of the 3 or 5 best theoreticians - switched to regular 1. c4 only in their later careers.
1. c4 requires wisdom.
I have it, Fischer had it, but you?