Two Knights' Defense 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3!

There are two major reasons why 8.Qf3 is superior to 8.Be2:

1)An active Queen (8.Qf3) is better than a passive Queen (8.Be2). White's Queen can never be driven to a square where it is a permanent target; in fact, the typical response of Fritz 8 is to try to exchange the White Queen knowing that to allow it to remain in the center or influence the center favors White.

2)In the 8.Qf3 variation, Black has one less open file at his disposal i.e. without the need to play either f4 or d4 (8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 or Bc5, 11.d4 exd3 e.p. or 11.f4 exf3 e.p.), White can slow down the Black initiative by limiting the open files.

Two positional considerations for White in either variation:

1)White must never repair Black's Queenside pawn structure by capturing a piece on a square where Black can reduce the number of pawn islands. It is especially bad, long term to allow Black to have two contiguous open files on the Queenside e.g. the open b, and c, files in the event that Black plays c x something o

n the d-file.

2)White should never capture a piece in such a way as to allow Black to replace the captured piece with another piece.

Black's only counter play is to play the c5/c4 advance or a general advance of his Queenside pawns beginning with f5.

In the next variation, Black plays a new major variation discovered by Fritz 8 that gives White some trouble. However, with accurate play, it is +/-

a useful surprise

My dusty old copy of "Two Knights defence" (Yakov Estrin, 1970) gives 8 Qf3 Rb8!

is this move outdated now? What does White play against it?

p.s. Here's a game of "skittles"  featuring 8 Qf3 Rb8, that I played here recently against one of my oldest friends (we grew up together) and still play for the same club (take no notice of the ending... I was trash talking, so he refused to accept my draw offers! Thirty years later and we're still squabbling like kids )

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=29614428

Sloughterchess, you make such grandiose statements about the Italian!  Your evaluations have been way overexaggerated.  We told you on chesspub that your lines have already been proven wrong.  We even give you analysis which you proceed to ignore or dismiss. 

You cannot beat an opening by spending an hour on fritz!

8.Qf3 is not very good for white.  Simply 8...h6 and black equalizes.

Here is the analysis of the 8...Rb8 variation.

Second variation in the 8...Rb8 line.

Now for the 8...h6 variation.

The second 8...h6 variation.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 h6 9.Ne4 Nd5 10.Be2 Be7 11.Qg3 0-0 12.d3 Bh4 13.Qxe5 f5 14.Nec3 Re8 15.Qd4 Bf6 16.Qa4 Rb8 and black has an advantage due to white's uncoordinated pieces.

Now I have given you the correct line.  Why you brought this line up again I do not know.  In chesspub, we found rather large holes in your lines so you bring it here?  Again, don't analyse openings with fritz! 

The only reason that Black does well is that you require White to make weak moves. White is much better here easily +/- This is only the first draft; if you insist on coming up with "improvements" for Black, I can just as easily come up with improvements for White.

Black gets good compensation if he continues with g6 and Bg7 in that line, not Be7?!

To quote a fellow chesspub member...

Time to slam sloughter again.

1. You don't listen to good, well-meant advise.
2. So you don't do any research (books etc.) before posting a few moves.
3. You don't store the information of this thread.
4. So you forget the game I posted.
5. You confuse intuition with silicon judgment.
6. You refer to Steinitz repeatedly but only when it suits you.
7. So you ignore Steinitz' judgment on the initial position: equal.
8. You use big words like internal harmony of chess but don't understand them.
9. So you are looking for a refutation of three moves by Black that fulfill all sound principles of opening play (1...e5; 2...Nc6; and 3...Nf6).
10. As a result you make yourself ridiculous.

If you display these qualities in your book too it's a crime against natural environment - you'd rather have let stand all those trees were they stood.

I am not gonna feed you like a chess baby. Take a look in a random book on the Two Knighs and you will find out how Black rather should play your line. Reread this thread and you will find the same. In the mean time I cannot help thinking of the old Dutch proverb: Spuit elf geeft ook modder. Yes, that's an insult.

And for another quote...

I must say in all frankness that I'm not interested in "refutations" of well-established lines presented ex nihilo, as if an expansive theory of these lines did not exist already.  I really can't be bothered to do here the work that should've been done by the would-be refuter, which is to go to the main sources and quote the established theory, and point to recent games where relevant.  Only in context of all that is a suggested improvement able to be evaluated.  That is, these alleged refutations should be presented in context.

From my point of view, it is somewhat less than interesting if there is an under-educated autodidact out there, not having bothered to learn anything about the theory of these ancient and complicated variations, and with very little evident expertise in chess, suddenly claiming here some sort of superior insight.

Particularly when someone's limited understanding of this game is expressed in a not very humble way, and even with the most grandiose assertions of supposedly universal chess truth, my inclination is less to try to supply the particular points of chess education that the poster seems to be in want of, than simply not to listen.

I think this thread on chesspub is all the community needs to know.  In addition, you might find some more improvements to answer.  You explained that you have been taught for 25 years under a GM, yet you are only 1700.  I am at that level or higher without any training whatsoever. 

I question your lines as they do not make sense to me as a positional player.  I have played these openings for years without any problems.  You have black playing weak moves that are somewhat cooperative with white.

I find it hard to believe in someone who tried to lecture two GMs when they are only 1700.

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1230634273/0

Who are you talking to? I cannot remember exchanging ideas with you before.

Anyway, how am I supposed to take your lines seriously if you let black make dubious moves like Nb7 and Ne7 and even help white finish his development with exf4 ?

Perhaps this crusade of yours would be more productive if you would clearly explain white's and black's ideas in this opening and why you consider certain moves above others, instead of merely giving a random variation and stating "black has no compensation for the pawn".