Two Knights' Defense 5.exd5 Na5 8.Bd3 =

@RogerOT 13. Nc3 has been played. 13...Qd4 14. O-O O-O 15. Qe1 hxg4 16. d3 exd3 I assume Sloughterchess wants to improve with 16...g3 since he gave 16.g3 as forced, but 17. Nxe4 gxf2+ 18. Rxf2 is not very good. The knight on e4 is hitting c5, defending f2 and blocking the queen's passage to the h file. If you want a computer line how about 18...Bb6 19. Bf1 Ba6 20. c3 Qd5 21. Be3 Bxd3 22. Bxd3 Qxd3 23. Bxb6 axb6 24. Re1 with about a full pawn advantage to White according to Fritz 8 on infinite analysis with its suggested line feed to it move by move untill I decided to stop.

So 16.d3 exd3 17. Bxd3 Rxf2 18. Qxf2 Qxf2+ 19. Rxf2 g3 20. Ne4 gxf2+ 21. Kf1 Nb7 frankly I would try to preserve the bishop when looking for an improvement. 22. Bc4+ Kh7 23. Nxc5 Nxc5 24. Kxf2 with equal material, but  White is left with the better pawn structure and a valuable bishop pair H, Poetsch-A, Mindlin Plovdiv 2012.

Edit no your not insane I orginally wrote 18...Bd6 when I ment 18...Bb6.

He's been told this numerous times on another site, Pfren. I think he's hoping to persuade people who are not so critical. But one of the hallmarks of strong players is that they tend to tear apart weak analysis, even if that analysis is computer-generated.

Anyway, if Black does not wish to enter this mess, he may play 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7, which is perfectly adequate.

Go w/ master,G.M. games....computers lead lower rated players into believing they can play chess.

We start with one side line before we get to the main line.The move order is: 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch Bd7, a relatively uncommon visitor; even though White can retain the extra pawn for a long time, it is difficult to convert the extra material.

4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch Bd7 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.Nc3 O-O 9.Bxd7 Qxd7 10.O-O c6 11.dxc6 Nxc6 12.d3 Nd4 13.Qd1 Rc8 14.Bd2 h6 15.Nf3 Qc6 16.Ne1 (Houdini doesn't approve; the idea is to try to get in the freeing move c3. To do this it is necessary to overprotect the c2 square) Rfe8 17.Kh1 e4 18.dxe4 Nxe4 19.Nxe4 Rxe4 20.c3 Qb5 21.Nf3 Nxf3 22.Qxf3 Qe2 23.Qxe2 Rxe2 24.Rad1 Bc5 25.f3 Rd8 26.Bc1 Rxd1 27.Rxd1 Rc2 =

6.Bb5ch Bd7 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.Nc3 O-O 9.Nge4 Nxe4 (Bf5 10.d3 Houdini has this at a depth of 27 as +/-)

10.Nxe4 Be7 (Bxb5 11.Qxb5 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.c3 Rb8 14.O-O +/=) 11.Bxd7 Qxd7 12.c4 (At a depth of 28, Houdini has c6 and Bb4 as +.66, +/=)

6.Bb5ch Bd7 7.Qe2 Be7 8.Nf3 O-O (Nxd5 9.Nxe5 Bxb5 10.Qxb5ch c6 11.Qe2 O-O 12.O-O Bd6 11.Nf3 Re8 12.Qd1 c5 13.c3 Nc6 14.d4 exd4 15.cxd4 Rc8 16.Nc3 Nxc3 17.bxc3 White still has his extra pawn but this pawn complex is tough to advance; Black can play Na5/Nc4. Houdini gives this a +.40 at a depth of 29) 9.Bxd7 Bxd7 10.Nxe5 Qxd5 11.Nf3 Rfe8 12.O-O Bc5 13.Qd1 Rad8 14.Nc3 Qf5 15.d3 [Depth =27, +.46, +/=]Black has some but not full compensation for the pawn. Any winning chances must involve advancing his Queen Bishop pawn without losing material or allowing other positional compensation.)

Houdini and I agree here---the extra pawn is very difficult to convert.

sloughter, I have absolutely no intention to bust your sort-of-analyses. I can waste my time in more productive ways.

OK, just a tip: In your last line Black has easy equality. Good luck finding it, I guess it won't take you more than a couple of months.

Also, in the first line you are missing 10.a3 (played no less than fourty times) after which Black is worse.

Is your Houdini drunk, or what?

I often run my ideas by an IM.

Pardon my skepticism about human theory. MCO 15 gives as best for Black in the following variation: 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 h6 as giving Black good compensation after 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.dxc6 Bc5 when White just plays 9.Be2/10.O-O +/- Here is what I have said elsewhere about the growth of theory:

Just as the internet was a watershed event in human communication, Houdini 3 is a watershed event in understanding chess theory. One of the authors (RM) has been studying chess theory for about 30 years and witnessed the entire chess computer revolution starting with the first really strong computer, Ken Thompson's Belle built in the 1970's and 1980's; this was the first computer to reach Master strength. It is hard to believe but state-of-the-art stand alone computers, Par Excellence and the Sphinx Legend, were rated at only 1700 in the 1980's. Mephisto Berlin, a stand alone computer increased in strength to Master Strength in the 1990's. Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in 1997 and it was the Fritz engines, programs for desk top computers, that hit GM strength. By the time Rybka 4 arrived, off-the-shelf-computers were playing beyond World Champion strength.

From my thirty years as a chess theoretician, I have seen theory by two Correspondence World Champions that is so bad that both men missed winning one move continuations. I have absolutely no confidence in the theory of World Correspondence Champion Yakov Estrin in his book on the Wilkes-Barre. It is incredibly bad.

If World Champions can't see ahead consistently even one move, why should I trust theory and play by lesser Masters? Much as you can try to convince me that analysis and play by a 2300 player is superior to analysis and play by a 3300 computer, trying to find nuggets of truth in the analysis is time-consuming particularly when you are talking about especially sharp openings when the tactical vision of even strong players shortens considerably. These are the kind  of positions where computers excel and almost exclusively the kind of positions I analyze. 

Wow I actually spent the last two days thinking this thread was about opening analyses propounded by a community of rational adults for peer review. Instead it is about sloughterchess' love of Houdini 3. I appear to have become the spokesman for studying mastergames because I put a position in a free online database and noticed that there was a clear mainline that his computer ignored. At some point titled players took over for me, however sloughterchess won't listen; he will apperently only accept forced wins as evidence that his computer is wrong. Alas the internet is the internet and I post this as a warning:

DON'T FEED TROLLS

Hey, this is IM pfren you're talking about!

How dare you, he is a chess.com legend, at least on a par with D.Pruess.

Ah, what does pfren know...he is only an IM!  He could stand to take a lesson from sloughter!  ;-)

sloughter, now I am convinced that you can't be THAT stupid. To put it simply, being an attention whore, you do it on purpose.

Regards.

Phren I can't believe that you really really believe that g4 gains a tempo. I leave it to post members to decide whether Be6 is "superior" to Bf5, because White "gains a tempo with g4". You are right! I can't believe you don't understand that there are a wide assortment of equivalent moves something that apparently eludes you.

I decided to feed the two positions into Houdini 3 for its evaluation: At a depth of 28 with 19... Bf5, it evaluates the positions as 0.00.

With 19...Be6 at a depth of 27 Houdini evaluates the position as 0.00. Do you still maintain that White "gains a tempo" with g4?

I recommend you take up checkers.

sloughterchess Do you even understand chess at all? You have 11 losses one win and 1 draw at online chess. You at least don't cheat..

By the same token I finished tied for first in the 2012 New York State Open (U1800) and second place finish in 2011. One published game in Inside Chess, three in Chess Life. Three awards from Chess Life for my theories, numerous GM's have published my theories in Chess Life, including World Champion Garry Kasparov, published dozens of articles and three critically acclaimed books. An IM is going to coauthor a book with me on the TKD and the Evans Gambit. When she was a teenager even GM Judit Polgar appreciated my ideas. Yes I understand chess, but on line discussions don't serve me particularly well. Rather than a discussion of ideas it degrades into a discussion of personalities.

Those who can do--those who can't teach

Ok your online rating still seems extremely low. You almost can't make one single move without an error with such a poor rating.

I agree with the those who can't teach, but then I think of players with at least 2000 rating themselves.. Anyway all I can say is good luck and enjoy your chess. I am sure you know a lot of things if I should trust your own decscription of your merit of chess experience. 

Thanks for following this thread. I feel I have done my part here and will now unfollow it.