Moving a Pawn Twice in the Opening

Yes, but this variation does not have a good reputation. 3.d4 is bad, but 3.c4 and 3.c3 lead to a white advantage. I personally prefer the latter, as black does not have anything better than an inferior Alapin after 3...d5, that is of course playable, but it goes without saying that black would rather have a knight on f6 than a pawn on a6.

I should add that as far as I remember, better than 5...Qc7 is 5...e5, after which black is already slightly better.

You are certainly right that the Albin does not equalize. Likewise it can hardly be said that it loses by force. It's just a second rate opening like so many others (for example like the abovementioned 2...a6 Sicilian).

The discussion focused on the thesis: The Albin is bad because the d-pawn moves twice. I brought up arguments to show that the Albin's lack of soundness does not have to do with the second d-pawn move, but solely with the fact that black is down a pawn and has to make serious concessions (like development or bishop-pair) in order to win it back.

I was not making any kind of argument that it is good to play a move that is out of the book. Often it is a mistake to play something out of the "book" 

Because I had no "book" I mistakenly thought 9. Na3 was out of the book.

When I thought up the move, many years ago it was probably out of the book.  However, since I have no data base, I could not look up the move. I do not even know how to get a data base or data bases and look up 9. Na3

 So, it was really my mistake to assume or hope 9. Na3 was out of the book.

There was a time, many years ago, when I could and did come up with moves and series of moves which, for sure, were out of the book.  Thus, I wrote 3 opening books which contained many new ideas. 

But time and my chess playing ability have passed me by and as Rumo75 says I am not a strong player. [any more]  So you will not see me try out or give out new moves or what I think are new moves any more with the exception of the Ponziani for which I know much or most of current theory and have a lot of new ideas and moves stored at home and in Ponziani Analysis Group.

I hereby apologize to all for my thinking I had something new in the Albin Counter Gambit. I still am guessing that with best play by both sides, White should win versus the Albin. [and even with 9. Na3] 

>>

Well, I've had this conversation before. Without meaning to be disrespectful, it's possible I know a lot more about the variation than those who claim it's bad for white. I'm aware that they claim that because others claim it. It isn't likely to be something they've experienced personally because very few people play it and the general impression of it is skewed by faulty analysis by GMs.

Before you get annoyed at that, there is also a point of logic to consider. If you claim that 3 d4 is bad, then presumably you must believe that it leads either to an edge for black or at least to an easy equality for black. But it doesn't. I've explored lines that are given as "equal" and found that they aren't equal but that although they may look equal, black has no winning chances at all and white has whatever winning chances there are. This is because the correct way for white to play is a non-tactical, positional squeeze. And, as we know, engines don't assess positional play all that well. So you would need to prove that 3 d4 leads to an easy equality for black, which means going through some lines. I already had this discussion with another player here and although he argued the same as you, he refused to prove it through analysis. I'm sure he couldn't have anyway.

Consequently there's no way I would play the ... e5 lines. And I play Qc7 instead, which is superior to them.

3 c4 and 3 c3 lead to no more of an advantage for white than they do in any Sicilian. All the analysis is flawed. Many players understand that and they play 3 d4.

fawlty analysis by GMs!

It's important to come up with your own theories. But at some point, players need to be realistic about their chess skills. If masters, armed with books and engines, state that something is clearly inferior, the best a class player could probably say is that it's playable at his or her level. 

I agree with Rumo about the Albin. The main reason it's weak is that Black has to fight too hard to regain the pawn. It's not a very sound investment. d5-d4 is Black's best, not worst option. 

I'm realistic enough to have seen tons of faulty analysis by GMs over the nearly 30 years I've been playing. I have never seen more faulty assessment than in the O'Kelly. That's why I play it. Most realistic players don't take GM assessment all that seriously. There is only a small handful that can really be trusted.

Of course, first they will have to come to terms with 3 c3, 3 c4 and 3 g3, which is stronger than either c3 or c4. And for most GMs, that will seem like too much work wasted. But eventually, someone will play it and claim it.

The entire thing is, in part at least, an avoidance of the 5 Bd3 lines, which are obviously bad for white here. I started playing it because of 5 Bd3 in the Paulsen.

I'd like to apologize for that, as I certainly changed my opinion (that was largely based on what you said about the Catalan). Your idea of Na3 was a good one, and you followed it up with a number of strong moves that make it difficult for black do equalize.

I do still think though that your use of logic is flawed a few times in this thread (reminds me of Hans Berliner who incidentally was also a correspondence chess player).

I'm not annoyed at all. I'm could not be further from being an expert on 2...a6, neither playing it with white nor with black. But would you mind elaborating on that? How can white gain an advantage after ...e5?

By clamping down on d5.

It's sometimes thought that 6 Nf3 is the best line, and then after ... Bb4, simply 7 B c4, which protects the e pawn and gives white an active game. But Nb3 is also viable. In fact, that is where the faulty analysis mainly lies. In that line black can force through ...d5 and get rid of the backward pawn, which has been given as equalising. But black is over-extended and struggling to draw.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if black does not have any higher ambitions, he can always enter the Najdorf by playing 6...d6 in both of your examples. Theoretically black is doing fine in both of those Najdorf lines, so that would exclude the possibility of 4...e5 being bad for black (though playing 2...a6 and then entering the Najdorf seems rather pointless).

I can see that breaking with d7-d5 asap can lead to problems in some lines. In those lines I would assume that simply playing the bishop out of the pawn chain (Bb4) and then continuing development with d6, 0-0, Be6 looks rather good for black. But I haven't analysed it and I can't right now, as I am at work. 

Here is a clarification or at least an attempt at a clarification.

We are looking at the Albin Counter Gambit and this is:

1. d4  d5 2. c4 e5? 3. dxe5  d4

I don't play the Najdorf. That attitude to the Najdorf comes with a pedigree because Kasparov didn't like the Najdorf and used it to enter a Scheveningen. He also didn't like the backward d pawn. Really, the poor analysis I spoke of is all rather superficial. Something seems as if it should be alright. But there are no breaks for black. Qc7 is stronger for several reasons. One is that it's non-forcing and gives white a chance to make a bad decision. It prevents e4-e5 without compromising the pawn structure. It commands c4 and pressurises c3 and c2. It prepares an attack on h2 and yet is well-placed to support an attack should white castle q-side. In some lines, Bd6 can be played, leaving the d pawn on d7. It prevents B f4 and a pin on the f6 knight is already broken. It carries no weaknesses and is a superb waiting move.

Kumo75   Don't compare me to Hans Berliner as he is the only grandmaster I know of who thinks White should win from the initial position.

 And I have done a number of forums indicating the initial position is drawn with best play by both sides.

[PS, I am guessing that Hans Berliner has seen the light and knows to himself that White does not win from the initial position with best play by both sides]

I'm not sure that Kasparov disliked the particularly d-pawn, it rather seems to me that he was a Scheveningen player who found the Keres Attack more unpleasant to face than the Najdorf main line with Bg5.

I don't think that black needs (immediate) breaks at any cost. d6-d5 or d7-d5 may work in some lines and not work in others. As long as white cannot maintain a knight on d5 the only weakness in black's position is pawn d6. In return he has the joys that come with a central pawn majority, the usual c-file pressure of course, and good piece development.

Maybe I misunderstand you and you are just saying that you personally like the Taimanov-style positions after Qc7 better than the Najdorf- or Sveshnikov-style ones after e5?