I dont understand some of the Akobian's moves.

9.Qd2 controls more squares = better piece activity.

10.c4 limits the scope of the bishop, and gains space.

I guess it's also to do with both white and black not having castled yet so there's no need to place Qe2 with the idea of the rooks occupying the open d-file.

I think that the queen controls equal amount of squares on blacks territory with both Qd2 and Qe2. The squares the queen controls most of the opponent's territory is actually ON the opponents territory -- d5;e5;f6;c6;d6;e6;d7 and e7 -- place the queen on any of these squares and it will control 16 of black's squares -- (50% of blacks territory)

The idea of Qd2 is twofold: one is to prepare Bf4 and kick the queen from the perfect square on c7 (a5 is not available, on b6 it stops ...b6 and ...Bb7, anywhere on the d-file can be hit by a white rook on d1, and on e7 the coordination is not very good even with a bishop on c5). This idea of playing to deny your opponent's queen a comfortable square for development is a very advanced positional idea that isn't feasible in most positions.

Also, Qd2 is an extremely rare move in this position. Everybody plays Qe2, your "logical" move (incidentally, it may be worthwhile to determine why you feel that Qe2 is such a logical move). It might well have taken Akobian out of his prep. That is the second idea of Qd2.

As for 10...c4, the idea of that is to cement a knight on d5 by not allowing c4 from White. It also gives Black an easy plan to play ...b5-b4, just like in the game. This idea is why Qe2 is always played on move 9, but Shankland evidently wasn't so sure that it was easy equality.

NM Jerry from Chess-Network said sometimes even Masters could not understand what's going on when they analyze strong GM games or something like this.

White is provoking the weakening of his opponent's black squares, and since the dark-squared bishop is considered Black's best bishop he is emphasizing the problem. Leaving Black with a bad bishop. I would have probably exchanged my light-squared bishop for that knight on d5 at some point. Not sure if 21.Bxb7 would have been a good move because it leaves a somewhat unprotected weakness on c3.

I always love watching how Positional players play.

Akobian is a very strong one.

His games are very nice to look at!

It is rather sad he ended up losing this game.

Many people believed the game was going to end in a draw until 33...Nb4.

Yes, Akopian is also a strong one. Neverending.

According to wikipedia. Yeah, I know, but never heard of it before, not very convincing, but hey, I thought it was Rut Lopez we were talking. Not sure if I should say 'kidding' either. But what do I know anyway.

Should I repeat myself? I know only for Akopian. But since I'm not in the game that much anymore everything is possible. Have you ever tried to change the title, if by mistake you wrote Rut Lopez instead of Ruy Lopez? I find it awkward if not impossible, so I'm guessing the guy doesn't bother to change it.

Well people rated below, let's say 2400, are patzers when they play against people rated 2700+

---------------------

AIM-AceMove wrote:

NM Jerry from Chess-Network said sometimes even Masters could not understand what's going on when they analyze strong GM games or something like this.

I think Qe2 doesnt allow c4, maybe help Ne5, and after 000, white is going to attack with f4, g4, etc. Is that correct ?

Even though this is a well known position in the Rubenstein variation of the French Defense, I like concrete analysis.  The first question I would ask myself is what is Black threatening  to do with 8...Qc7.   On the surface it appears that he is trying  to defend his pawn on  c5 which  is attacked twice by White's pawn on d4 and White's B on e3.   Then I go to my  next question  on my list.  What is the pawn structure?  I can see if White doesn't do anything about it, Black  can play 9...cxd4.  If he is allowed to do that  the position becomes unbalanced with a  3 vs.2 pawn  majority on the Qside for White and a  4 vs. 3 pawn majority for Black on the Kside.  But I have already asked myself on  my previous move why didn't Black play 8...cxd4 and unbalance the pawn structure.

Rather than give you the answers, instead  you  now  have some  concrete analytical tools.  Which move do you think is more logical 9.Qd2, 9.Qe2 or some other move.

10...c4 was an interesting idea in the akobian game. Usually the problem with nd5 against be3, is the knight ends up being chased about with c4 etc. 

The main line against 6Bd3 is thought to be 6...c5 70.0 NxN 8BxN Nf6 9Bg5 isn't it?

Yeah, Bb4 unfortunately, at some point.