Posted on behalf of Ullysses72
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5 Bxg5+ 14.Kb1
Dear friends,
I have to apologize for replying so late but recent technical problems are forcing me to access RHP only through a mobile phone. This fact hinders me from typing texts (my thumb will be ruined otherwise).
Robbie came with the question “What are we to make of Silman’s works”. Well my friend we are not here to refute or verify any esteemed chess author. We just can’t. Silman is not an author to be questioned lightly. It is his personal (maybe strong minded) style to address to his readers as the teacher who holds the absolute truth. And this is good for amateur’s chess players simply because everyone has to learn the “rules” in order to follow the “rules” and rarely question the “rules”. On the other hand you’ll have to keep in mind that whenever you read a book you must always try to understand the reason for having someone saying for example “White is obviously better”. Obviously??? Why is that? Can someone please explain to me where the “obvious” part that I am missing is? Since there is no one there I’ll have to dig it out myself.
The second part has to examine the way we are reading theory. I am talking about hobby studying and not serious study which is a whole lot different thing. At this particular variation we have Silman stating “The pawn cannot be taken safely” and then we have John Emms stating. “Accepting the pawn must be the critical test for the Najdorf main line “ Later on when black castles kingside he states “Black is risking a lot by castling into so many opening lines but his position remains extremely resourceful”. Maybe a third author will state something different. We are amateur’s and we are having the authors contradicting each other. Or maybe this is not the case. I believe that Silman would like to have you follow a solid approach which does not enter a tactical mess while Emms is just giving you the info about a playable variation at least according to his opinion. Different books oriented to different players and thus we have different approaches. Then we check databases and we see that Bxg5 has been played before with wins, losses and draws (I cannot check whether the move has been granted the seal of approval by a super GM). If we do not know that “at the game X vs. Y X played this and now the whole line is refuted” we can safely assume (as amateurs) that the line is at least playable. Well this is where the personal style of everyone intervenes and makes the choice. We’ll have to check the variations, look upon the positions that they create and then make the choice.
Regarding the game I can say a lot but I can hardly do it now while making the post hiding from the boss. I choose to fish in murky waters, surprise my opponent and get him out of his domain in order to play in my territory. My opinion about RHP players is that 90% of them (including me) are too much material oriented. Most of them (including me) are panicked when being a pawn down and rush out to equalize only making matters worse. What I’ve said in private to Robbie is that with this line you can have a playable position and with careful play you could even consolidate the extra pawn. Of course that depends on the opponent. Yet again everything depends on the opponent no matter what the opening is. Later on I tried hard to defend accurately against any tactical motifs keeping in mind the plan to attack the isolated pawn at d4. I was aiming at the draw but then my opponent slipped at move 31. Qe7+ (see Cimon’s post) and I got the upper hand. In general terms I can say that after Robbie passed the game through Rybka seeing that the position after Bxg5 is equal the line is not easy but at least interesting. The forum suggested a lot of lines but it is impossible to check the entire tree of variations (at least not without team work and maybe the assistance of a silicon monster). I am proud now only because I have fueled (at least a bit) the fire of team research. Consider yourself an outsider that reads these posts. We have authors and databases saying yes and no, Fat Lady saying maybe, black beetle and Cimon saying no plus Rybka saying “equality”. This debate will not end by us. We have offered to our RHP buddies food for thought saying “choose” and that is just fine at least for judging if the line is playable or not.
I have checked the majority of the lines given by the fellow members. My comments are as that.
Fat Lady. I was terrified at the idea of 21.Bxg6 hxg6 22. Qxg6 Qg7 23. Qxd6 with d4 pawn soon to follow due to the open g file and the deadly threat Rg1 upon it. In fact it was one of the reasons that made me regret the earliest choice. But this move produces a whole lot different game which has to be analyzed. And my opponent did not play it. I loved that Rhf1!!! I was black!
Black beetle. Sorry mate but after 16. Bh3 Bf6 the pawn is taboo. Correct. But it must stay there also. Black will either continue his plans in Queenside or he can gradually build up pressure on the poor pawn so again my humble opinion is that the position remains equal.
Cimon is correct also. I don’t recall if I have seen this line back when the game was played.
I thank you all for doing me the honor of having a look in one of my games. I am sorry that I am not able at this moment to take part in any conversation actively and thus support any opinion or argument about my thoughts. My conclusion is that the line is maybe shocking to mainstream Najdorf players. That is the beauty in it. Although I have to admit that Bxg6 is something worth fearing at.
P.S My warmest thanks to Robbie for making this post possible. Thank you my friend. I owe you a lot!
16 Oct '09 05:27
can anyone help me find this game?
Back to Top