Main Line Two Knights' Defense 8.Qf3 Rb8

While recent analysis suggests that the Fritz may allow Black to equalize with perfect play, practical play favors White. Here in the main line, 5...Na5/8.Qf3 Rb8,

 I tried a new idea in the main line; Deep Fritz 14 could not equalize. Once I achieved an advantage of +.5 I turned the position over to the computer to play both sides; when the advantage got to +1.2 I allowed the computer to blitz out the winning moves.

The Fritz variation is 5...Nd4.

That is correct. That is not the main line. 5...Na5, the line in question here, is the one being tested. The Fritz variation, 5...Nd4 is on the Fried Liver Thread. Black might have theoretical equality, but it is a tough game to hold over the board.

Not only do I not buy this "no compensation" stuff in the 8...Rb8 line, I still don't see what's wrong with 8...h6.

Why are you telling me what I already know? You are the one who said that "...the Fritz may allow Black to equalize with perfect play...", not me.

I don't understand what you are talking about anyway, the position after move 8 is far easier for Black to play, not White. Also, 11.Qd1? What kind of a move is that??

The "no compensation" comment does not appear until move 24.Nb3 when White has blocked the b-file allowing White's Queen Bishop to enter the game. You have to remember that not only is Black playing the middlegame a pawn down, he has a compromised pawn structure that White was able to exploit later in the game.

The critical variaiton may well be that Black has to play 11...Nf4, not 11...Be6. This will be the subject of the next test against Deep Fritz 14 at tournament level.

I will demonstrate the winning procedure against 8...h6 in a later game.

White seeks to achieve a universal position, the most difficult to attack. The White Queen has done her job; she has won a pawn and now seeks to consolidate. The point is that the Queen is a target in the center of the board. One of my theories in gambit play is to snatch a pawn and then return to a universal position to weather the attack. White cannot possibly win this position with aggressive play with his Queen. He must drop back and consolidate his extra pawn.

"Of course Black could have captured the Bishop but that is an awful lot of tempos to win the minor exchange."

This makes no sense at all. Firstly, you believe Black's powerful Knight to be worse than White's LSB? That is obviously not true. You also believe that even though the Knight is worse (which it isn't) that it shouldn't exchange itself off for White's LSB because of how many times it has had to move to get to it's current position? What? That doesn't even factor into the decision. You should also note that White's LSB has moved 4 times whereas Black's Knight has moved 3 times...

Since I appear to be having a rant anyway I might as well throw the obvious in there too. You are not nearly good enough to be making any sort of claims to even fully understand an opening, let alone refute it.

btw what's the point of 13...Qc7? I'd probably prefer something like an immediate 13...f5, and I'm pretty sure Black has more than enough comp for the pawn...

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I'll look at Nxe2 to prevent Bf3.

Not a good one. Black can improve. He should play the obvious 11...Nf4! when 12.Bf1 is forced. If 12...Be7 13.g3 Ne6 14.Bg2. Black has equality due to the control of the d4 square and the unstoppable ability to play f5/f4 at some point. White has enough to hold the half point but no more.

The magic word here being "Understand". This paragraph sez it all.

The "exotic" Qd1 was only good for equality; Deep Fritz 14 played its "book" and promptly simplified into a +/- endgame so someone is going to have to improve on Fritz's play.

Since Black doesn't equalize with Deep Fritz's book, I tried a different variation. The Fritz engine plays a resource here that is brilliant and stifles Black's Kingside attack giving White a comfortable plus. 14.g4!! would require courage to play over-the-board.

There is always the more aggressive 9...h6 10. Ne4 Nd5 11. b3 g5 when Van Wissen-Ernst, 2008 countinued 12. Bb2 Bg7 13. h4 g4 14. Qg3 f6 15. Ba3 Nb4 16. Qe3 O-O 17. Bxb4 Rxb4, Black's position is ugly, but White has still not finished his devolpment. This game was played after Ernst was on the wrong side of 11...g6 12. Qg3 Bb7 13. Bb2 Nf4 14. Qxf4!? exf4 15. Bxg7 Kd7 (15...f5 16. Bxh8 fxe4 17. Bxe4 Kf7 is unclear, unless someone higher rated then me wants to offer an opinion) 16. Bf6 Qe8 17. O-O Kc7 18. Re1 Bf5 19. Na3 Qe6 20. Bc3 Qd5 21. Nc4 Nxc4 22. bxc4 Qd8 23. Ba5+ 1-0 Van Der Wiel-Ernst 2004.

Anyway its me again pointing to database use rather then trying to reinvent the wheel.

It's hard for me to understand why practical results by relatively weak players should be given such high regard; you overlook the obvious---

13.Ba3 & Black can't castle! Black is left with a position where he is a pawn down and his position looks like Swiss cheese!