15 Dec 07
Originally posted by !~TONY~!It's not really up to me to 'post a line', since it's up to black to demonstate adequate compensation for the pawn in this line, something I haven't yet seen done. And, of course, as your comments point out, there are quite a few things black can try.
Why 6..Qe8 and not 6..Rf8? You know the rook is going to f8, but it's not so clear that the Queen should be on e8. I don't actually like Black's play in the opening at all in that game. Also, instead of 14..Nxe5, after 14..dxe5, I would have no qualms with playing the Black side. You still haven't posted a line. I could name a bunch of openings that theory ...[text shortened]... wns on" today, that are probably still fine, and just victims of fashion or other reasons.
To your specific points: 6...Rf8 may well transpose back into the game after 7.0-0 d6 8.Nc3 Qe8, though white this way has the reasonable alternative of 7.d3 d6 8.Be3!? 14...dxe5 is hardly much of an improvement. Black is behind in development and has an exposed king, truly a position only for masochists. After 15.Re1 e4 16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.Be3! black's position is horrible. And remember Howell played the (probably) slightly inferior 6.Bb3!
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadI don't have to show a line to demonstrate anything! No one asks someone to let a gambit refute itself do they!? Interestingly enough, Jan Pinski uses this game to show the 6. Bb3 line, and contrary to your opinion, says that "Traxler's 4...Bc5 can perhaps only be refuted in the solid variation 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Rf8 7. d3! . In my opinion, Black has sufficient compensation after 7..h6!, but practical testing is obviously required."
It's not really up to me to 'post a line', since it's up to black to demonstate adequate compensation for the pawn in this line, something I haven't yet seen done. And, of course, as your comments point out, there are quite a few things black can try.
To your specific points: 6...Rf8 may well transpose back into the game after 7.0-0 d6 8.Nc3 Qe8, tho ...[text shortened]... s position is horrible. And remember Howell played the (probably) slightly inferior 6.Bb3!
In the Howell game, he goes on to cite 14..dxc3 and 14..dxe5 as options, and also called 17..Nxe3 a mistake. 17..Qe5! leaves Black OK in his opinion. 16..Qf8!? gets honorable mention. As far as your analysis, where in the hell did you come up with 15..e4? 15..Bd7! is much better. What purpose does 15..e4 serve?
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadWell my line shown to be equalizing by fritz was 'refused' without reason by you.
It's not really up to me to 'post a line', since it's up to black to demonstate adequate compensation for the pawn in this line, something I haven't yet seen done. And, of course, as your comments point out, there are quite a few things black can try.
To your specific points: 6...Rf8 may well transpose back into the game after 7.0-0 d6 8.Nc3 Qe8, tho ...[text shortened]... s position is horrible. And remember Howell played the (probably) slightly inferior 6.Bb3!
Take a look back at this thread... that line equalizes and if white can improve any it isn't significantly!
15 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensWell, first of all white can play 7.0-0 (instead of 7.d3) which will probably transpose to the Howell-David under discussion (and definitely better for white in my opinion). Also 8.Be3! is an improvement in the line you give. And, of course, 6.Bd5 is probably somewhat more accurate than 6.Bb3.
Well my line shown to be equalizing by fritz was 'refused' without reason by you.
Take a look back at this thread... that line equalizes and if white can improve any it isn't significantly!
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by ih8sensthis thread is like the Latvian Gambit thread.
Well my line shown to be equalizing by fritz was 'refused' without reason by you.
Take a look back at this thread... that line equalizes and if white can improve any it isn't significantly!
neither can be certainly refuted.
both are more of surprise weapons in OTB play,
and both leave white with a slight advantage if he knows his stuff.
like with the Latvian Gambit, white usually doesn't know what he's "supposed" to do, since what theory does exist, isn't nearly as publicized can we call it a day, stop yelling at each other, and go back to being friends?
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Against the Latvian, white gets more than a slight advantage after 3.Nxe5. On balance I would say that the Traxler is rather better than the Latvian.
this thread is like the Latvian Gambit thread.
neither can be certainly refuted.
both are more of surprise weapons in OTB play,
and both leave white with a slight advantage if he knows his stuff.
like with the Latvian Gambit, white usually doesn't know what he's "supposed" to do, since what theory does exist, isn't nearly as publicized can we call it a day, stop yelling at each other, and go back to being friends?
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadYou're right. Jan Pinski has no idea what he's talking about, and since you make the unsupported claim that 6. Bd5 is more accurate, I suppose I will believe you over a well respected IM. What line are you referring to 8. Be3 in?
Well, first of all white can play 7.0-0 (instead of 7.d3) which will probably transpose to the Howell-David under discussion (and definitely better for white in my opinion). Also 8.Be3! is an improvement in the line you give. And, of course, 6.Bd5 is probably somewhat more accurate than 6.Bb3.
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by ih8sensI think overall it's certainly not refuted. With incredibly accurate and good play by White I think he holds a tolerable edge.
Well Tony you've made a great arbitrator but I don't believe you've actually stated your opinion on the traxler...
Sound or unsound.. whadda u think?
15 Dec 07
Originally posted by !~TONY~!With 15...e4 I was trying to block the d-file, understandable in view of the precariously placed black king. It fails to a tactic (17.Be3!). Your move 15...Bd7 still leaves black with a pretty gruesome position after 16.Bc2 Rf6 17.b4 Bd6 18.b5 Ne7 19.cxd4 exd4 20.Nxd4.
I don't have to show a line to demonstrate anything! No one asks someone to let a gambit refute itself do they!? Interestingly enough, Jan Pinski uses this game to show the 6. Bb3 line, and contrary to your opinion, says that "Traxler's 4...Bc5 can perhaps only be refuted in the solid variation 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bb3 Rf8 7. d3! . In my opinion, Black has suffi ...[text shortened]... e hell did you come up with 15..e4? 15..Bd7! is much better. What purpose does 15..e4 serve?
You're quite right about 17...Qe5, but Howell had gone wrong with 16.Be3?! Instead 16.Bc2 is clearly better for white as is 14...dxc3 (probably relatively best for black) 15.exd6 Bxd6 16.bxc3. In both these latter positions, material is equal, black's king is less safe and black will have problems completing his development. I'm not saying it's a forced win for white, but I am claiming a clear advantage for white.