Two Knights' Defense 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3!

Moody-ArKheiN

Hello everyone, somes interested lectors might know and remember that Sloughterchess claimed to be able to refute the 2 Knight defense and he challenged me into a 5 games match with 3 days/move.

Sloughterchess - ArKheiN_ : 0-5

Game 1 : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Nc3  0-0 10.Be2 Nd5 11.Nh3 Rb8 12.0-0 Nb4 13.Bd1 c5 14.a3 Nbc6 15.b4 0-1 (Sloughterchess resigned) 

Game 2 : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 0-0 10.Ne4 Nd5 11.Nec3 Nf4 12.d3 Ne6 13.Bd1 Nd4 14.Qe3 h6 15.h4 Bxh4 0-1 (Sloughterchess resigned)

  Game 3 : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.Nc3 h6 11.Nge4 Nd5 12.Ng3 Nb4 13.Nf5 Bg5 14.h4 Nxd3 15.cxd3 Be7 16.O-O Bb4 17.Ne4 g6 18.Nxh6 Kg7 19.Ng4 Bxg4 20.Qxg4 f5 21.Qg3 fxe4 22.dxe4 0-1 (Sloughterchess resigned)

Game 4 : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Ba4 O-O 10.Ne4 Rb8 11.a3 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Ba6 13.d3 Nb7 14.Nc3 Nc5 15.Qf5 e4 0-1 (Sloughterchess resigned)

Game 5 : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.Nc3 h6 11.h4 Rb8 12.b3 Rb4 13.Ba3 Rd4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nge4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 f5 17.Nc3 e4 18.Qe2 Rfd8 19.f3 Qf6 0-1 (Sloughterchess lost on time in a very difficult if not lost position)

So what is the conclusion of the match? While Sloughterchess' hypothesis was that 4.Ng5 wins for White, the match showed that 4.Ng5 is lost for White!

I'm just joking. I won 5/5, not because White is worse, but because I am better than Sloughterchess and his old fritz 8. This is not a surprise: in a balanced position (here is pawn up vs activity), the winner is the best prepared/best player, like everywhere. I would play both side of the position. 4.Ng5 is good but probably not winning. 4..d5 followed by 5..Na5 resists to the time, to master play and to computers' brute force right now. Chess is too complicated to call a position winning losing in the opening without evidence. I hope Mr Sloughterchess learnt something from the match. Making a chess revolution is not that easy. Refuting the Two Knight defense would indeed be a chess revolution of the whole 1.e4 e5 opening.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5 c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 is the first important position for White after 5..Na5. The only point where I agree with Sloughterchess is: the classical 8.Be2 here is not necessarily the best move, 8.Qf3 is probably at least as good, and I agree this move is a good winning try. I have not analyzed 8..Rb8 and 8..h6 (two serious defenses) very deeply so I can't claim theses moves is ok. I can just guess theses defenses are playable but my favourite move is 8..Be7 and that was my move in the 5 games. I won't give a complete analysis of the games because I have not the time for that. But for me, the best  and only move for White here to fight for a small advantage is 9.Bd3! O-O 10.Nc3 h6 11.Nge4 Nd5 12.Ng3 Nb4 13.Nf5, here we see the point of 9.Bd3 and Qf3 at same time. White rushed to control light squares, and avoiding any ..f5 and ..e4 by Black, two typicals and nice ideas in theses positions. Light squares are just blockaded and White is close to get an edge but I think Black can equalize here with good play. Sloughterchess played in that way in game 3 but quickly after playing the good plan (showed by a member in the forum with 2 posted games but he has disappeared now), he went wrong with his next moves. He also used the interesting 11.h4!? but that is not strategically impressive. Tactically he manages to keep his knight on g5 but this is not the best place for it, as I have pointed out, it has to rush to the light squares. On g5 it is not giving any serious pressure, and the h4 pawn might become a weakness. Often I have been giving more than one pawn, by playing a strong ..e4! sacrifice at the right moment, liberating my power to the central white king. The position is not easy to play to any side. Black has to be active and not be afraid to give more material to achieve a strong activity while White has to know how to restrain Black's activity AND keeping his pawn up. That's might be impossible, and White might give back the pawn to get some activity back and the game become more normal after that.

Finally, while it is true that 8.Qf3 is a critical move, it is often helped by Bd3 to control light squares but the queen often get under attack and Black is gaining time while the Queen did not hurt much (after 8..Be7, Black is telling to her: I don't care of you and your pressure on c6!). So, 8.Bd3 might be another serious try to get a slight advantage as White, and it has been tried by GM Nakamura in the final of a US Championship and he won.

And don't forget that: 1..e5 is playable, 3..Nf6 is playable 4.Ng5 is playable, 5..Na5 is playable, 8.Qf3 is playable, 8..Be7 to name only one defense is playable, and the best player/best prepared will win any side of that.

-The Two Knight defense is complicated, pawn vs activity is complicated, chess is complicated, human can't get the ultimate truth even with the help of computers. So, just have fun!

ArKheiN's games and mine have practical value and add to theory, but as a theoretician, losing concepts often found before the right ones are. Here is critical "try" in the Qf3 line we haven't explored. My Fritz engine is down so I have had to do this the "old fashioned" way i.e. shuffling wood. In the final position White is clearly better.

Please stop it now. We are getting bored. I can't spend my life to refute you everyday.It's a shame you don't learn anything I say to you. You won't refute the 2Knight with a 5 min thought each time, even if it was refuted you might never find the refutation of your whole life. Before the match you said our games would have a theoretical importance, now you say it's for practical importance. Please just stop now, I did not want to play the 5 games for nothin. You had your chance, we have seen your result, it speak for itself. Please just stop and come back with the strongest computer.

It has been my experience over the past 25 years that it sometimes takes years to find the right move order. Take the Berliner Gambit---It took me years to prove it was unsound, yet it has been endorsed by two World Champions. I have returned to the positional way to play this gambit and have found a critical move that takes away one of the most important resources for Black in the main line i.e. Nd5

To play against c4, theoreticians must conceive of a whole new way to play the gambit.

Here is one possible move order 8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 (This is positional; Bd3 is more tactical) 9...O-O 10.c4! Bg4 11.Qe3 h6 12.Ne4 or h4 with a complicated game in either case. Black still has to prove he has a pawn's worth of compensation. I am leaning towards 12.Ne4---I need a good theoretician and/or someone with a strong computer to crunch these variations

I've played the two knights defense from both sides alot, I think 4. Ng5 does give white a winning advantage, but I think the winning line is 8.Bd3 not Qf3. There's not a ton of theory on the Bd3 line yet, but it appears to be winning for white so far.

It's a matter of taste. If you want sharp, tactical chess, then 8.Bd3 gives White a lot of attacking possibilities. I like to consolidate, beat back Fritz's attacks and keep my extra pawn. That's why I play the Qf3 line. What the two variations have in common is that they keep a file closed. When you play the 8.Be2 line, you give Black an extra open file because you have to play either f4 or d4 and Black just captures en passant. This favors the attacker. The Chigorin Defense is awkward but playable; that is another way to keep a file closed.

Good to hear someone else likes the 4.Ng5 variation! Typically in this opening, the better player rather than the better memorizer will win.

Winning is a strong word pvmike, but in my long message I agreed that 8.Bd3 is a good try and need more practice.

Goodbye slougther, Im tired by you, you want the last word, well done you refuted the 2Knight with 10.c4! And of course you were the one who refuted the Berliner. Congratulation for your genious!

Sloughter has really been working hard on his pitch.  I will buy all your ties.  Oh shoot, I missed my appointment.

I will not become a myrmidon.

Here's a response to the post on the c4 line:

8.Qf3 Be7 9.Be2 O-O 10.c4 (Yes you get the dark squares) Re8 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 f5 13.Qc2 (Now the pawn pushes are harmless, so I have deprived Black of his two key strategies in this line) Be6 (Your suggestion) 14.b3 c5 15.Bb2 Nc6 16.Nc3 Nd4 17.Qd1 (How does Black make progress? You have weaklings on c5 and a7) Nxe2ch 18.Qxe2 Qd7 19.O-O Rad8 20.Rad1 Bf6 21.Na4 +/-

For what it's worth, Richard, you will have much better luck getting people to accept your ideas if  you don't present them so strongly. From what I can tell online, a lot of your lines are at least provocative, though not necessarily the "best." Just don't claim to have "refuted" strong openings when in reality you have been essentially the only one to acknowledge said "refutations."

When I have had my ideas and games validated in Chess Life, Inside Chess, Rank and File Magazine, Empire Chess and the Canadian Magazine Check!, perhaps I am justified in my attitude, particularly when post members have called me a "liar", "weird", "delusional", etc. It does make one defensive.

Here is a partial list of the individuals who have endorsed the ideas which you claim I share alone: World Champion Garry Kasparov, GM Judit Polgar, GM Larry Christiansen, GM Michael Rhode, GM Max Dlugy, GM Larry Evans, GM Lev Alburt, GM Patrick Wolff, GM Joel Benjamin (although we disagree on a whole lot of stuff), ICM van der Tak, ICM John Elburt, IM Jeremy Silman, FM Alex Dunne, NM Steve Taylor, NM Alon Bochman.

When these players have reviewed and endorsed many of my ideas and your response is, "...Just don't claim to have refuted 'strong' openings when in reality you have been essentially the only one to acknowledge said 'refutations'"

The Berliner Gambit is a "strong" opening. World Champion Garry Kasparov in BCO 2 devoted a page of analysis to it in a 400 page book. If you do the math, that is more important analysis (according to World Champion Kasparov) than for the entire chess community combined for over a year. I'm told my innovation is "trivial". As far as claiming a refutation that no one else endorsed, a theoretician has copyrighted the 12.Qf2 varitation where I lost 80 games in a row at tournament level with White even though Fritz 8 has the starting postion as +-

When I showed the main line to IM Jeremy Silman, he said, "It sucks for Black".

As for being positive and assertive, yes I am over the line. I have had GM Joel Benjamin ridicule me for sending him analysis of the Evans Gambit where I pointed out that according to Mark Ishee Evans Gambit Games White has a win loss ratio of 3:1; regardless of the theoretical merit of the opening is a great opening for attacking players.

Joel asked me, "When was the last time you saw a Grandmaster lose on the Black side of the Evans Gambit?". Within months of that obnoxious comment, GM Garry Kasparov beat Anand with the Evans Gambit. Apparently Joel doesn't consider Anand to be a Grandmaster.

What I see going on in this thread is bunch of puerile young males whose concept of originality is to see who can come up with the most witty insult. Then, of course, it is necessary for these brats to surpass that insult with an even more clever insult.

Your comment was civil, reasonable and spot on. I wish I could say the same of the young males who contribute to this thread. I have to wonder that if they are the future of our race, God help us because because we are going to need it.

One good comment was the idea I missed with c4 i.e. giving up the dark squares. Does it matter? I am not sure but White has returned to a Universal position, the most difficult kind of position to attack. In a recent book I recommend that players who wish to snatch material in the opening or early middlegame should ask themselves, "Can I return to a Universal position with my extra material?" If the answer is yes, then, by all means grab material. If you can't return to a Universal position, it may be dangerous to snatch the booty. You will note in my variation that I start out in Classical mode i.e. Knight, Bishop and Queen ahead of my pawns, grab a pawn, return all three pieces in back of my pawns, i.e. a Universal position. That is why I know it is critical to the variation. One young man, who is thoroughly obnoxious, claimed he was bored with my analysis so he refused to analyze the variation.

This is the kind of person who is on line today. When I first encountered this young man, he wrote on line, "I want to learn from you." This seemed odd but the opening he sent me was obviously unsound and I gave a cursory glance at the position and sent back an obvious developing move because "anything wins" and thought nothing further of it. What this young man had sent to me was an opening trap in an obscure opening. Then he pointed out this to me his response was instructive, "Now you will learn from me." This same obnoxious young boy is still going on line to tell me, "You are learning nothing from me." Not true---I have learned from him that it is socially correct to be deceptive, obnoxious, rude, uncivil and otherwise a poor representative of the younger generation. How would you have responded to this individual when he tells you, "Now you will learn from me."

It was a great post when someone actually provides chess insight i.e. mentioning the importance of the dark squares and utterly depressing when I see the kind of palaver on this website. It does lend credence to the observation that chess players are typically anti-social. That is clearly displayed in this thread.

Actually, what ArKhein_ was trying to point out to you was that you rely too much on a computer instead of doing your own analysis.  At chesspub you posted many computer lines, but they were just computer lines without your own work.  Fritz was designed to be a blunder check, not a refuter.  You let Fritz think for an hour and slap down a variation, without going through the alternatives.  Eventually, some players become bored with constantly proving the line as false.  Anybody can look at a computer and read off its recommendations.  Only some players can do their own analysis.

Kasparov may have spent a page on the Berliner, but the fact that he and no other GMs play it today speak of its soundness.  The only strong player to think that opening was sound was Berliner himself.  Estrin was a far stronger player.  The Berliner has been considered a fragile opening to begin with and it has been refuted for decades before your work.  You may have a solution for the Berliner, but there are several solutions to it.  Silman would look at many lines and conclude that black's position sucks because the Berliner is a weak opening.  If it was a strong opening, everybody would want to play it.  Anyways, black has far stronger solutions which have shown to be equal.  The fate of the Two Knight's Defense does not rely on the Berliner.

I do find some of your ideas interesting as long as they are not presented in a manner of superiority.  I am very passionate with the Italian so I like to defend black as much as possible.  It is great that you have had the opportunity to work with many strong players.  Personally, I prefer to do my own work.

I do think that the above line is critical for white in the 8.Qf3 Be7 variation and white should have a small advantage, but a refutation no.  Right now though 8.Qf3 Rb8 has been pretty strong with black.

I find your Traxler ideas the most interesting myself.

The Berliner line of the two knights defense is complicated, but white should end up with a winning postion. Black's best chance is in the Na5 line.

When I accidentally deleted my Fritz 8 program last week, that's how I found Bg4/Qe8/Qh5/Nd7/Rf6/Raf8 in the Wilkes-Barre Traxler. Next I found c4 in the 8.Qf3 Be7 line, but it was only my research methods which I presented in a Mensa Bulletin article in March 1995, that permitted me to find it.

Thanks for reminding what great times I had playing and analyzing positions before I got a strong computer. It is great fun to sit down with a chess board instead of glued to the one-eyed monster, and actually do chess again.

ArKheiN won five games in a row with a crushing attack in the middlegame; that is precisely why he is wrong.

In the internal harmony of chess, if I had won one, drawn two and lost two using a strong computer, I might have believed that Be7 was, indeed, good for Black. But he kept getting "too" much of an advantage.

Something was wrong. I knew I had to have missed something. That is why I went back to the Wilkes-Barre as well. With both sides playing perfect chess, after about move 20 with my innovation, 8.Nf3, the position, at best, should have been about = to +/=, not +/- or +-. Then I suddenly realized that Fritz, after analyzing the position for over 10 minutes, played the horrible move 8...Kf7 instead of Bg4 recommended by Senior Life Master Andrew Karklins.

With respect to 8.Qf3 Be7, it was precisely because I got beaten 5 times in a row in sharp middlegames that I knew ArKheiN was wrong. In the "internal harmony" of chess 8.Qf3 isn't that "bad". In other words if ArKheiN had won two games, drawn two and lost won, then 8.Qf3 might not be good i.e. Black was getting the "appropriate" amount of an advantage.

So I returned to the positional 9.Be2 instead of the tactical 9.Bd3. That is when I found 10.c4. It is very difficult to find because almost every chess player in this position would desperately try to find ways to catch up to Black's lead in development. This is precisely the wrong way to look at the position. White should have focussed on finding ways to stop Black strong piece play and Kingside pawn pushes. Enter 10.c4. With a single move White wipes out all Black's counter play with the exception that Black does get play on the dark squares. However, in return, White takes away the d5 square, the significance of the pawn pushes on the Kingside, prevents the pawn push c5/c4---all key strategies by Black. Finally, c5 fatally weakens the c5 pawn and White just plays Na4/Ba3 hitting c5 twice and tying Black down to its defense. By forcing Black to play passively, White is practically guaranteed to get a big plus.

What is most telling about the position after Nxe4/Qxe4/Qc2 is that White has returned to a Universal position, the most difficult position to attack. Thus it is not at all surprising to me that White is clearly better as he plays simple developing moves while Black just spins his wheels trying to find targets.

Thanks, again, for getting me away from the silicon beast and starting doing chess again.

On another front, here is an idea I've come up with that I think is better than Fischer/Random chess. What if we had dice with 20 sides on them, each corresponding to a move in chess? White retains the first move, but Black gets to roll the dice. He/she gets to pick one opening move from whatever number shows up on the dice. It might be e3, or Na3 or f3, etc.

    Except for those rare occasions when d4 shows up on one dice and e4 on the other, the openings would be purely random. Opening chess theory would all but disappear, and this new chess I call nouveau chess, should be played in separate tournaments. True talent, not memorizers, will rise to the top. I predict that with this new format that Vishy Anand would be the first player to hit ELO 3000 because he plays so quickly and so well. With this new type of chess, players cannot afford to spend twenty minutes on move 4. This will force a lot of errors in the last five moves just before the first time control so the spectators should have a great time trying to figure out which Grandmaster will make the next to last mistake and win!

I do not believe this is a great variant as you still have the advantage of opening theory with certain players.  To be the greatest you have to know every opening which is impossible to a practical extent.

This is why Fischerrandom is a better variant.  You are forced to use pure talent instead of opening theory, which shows who the strongest players are at handling any position.

Conquiscador---do you want to play a few games with your variation 8.Qf3 Rb8 (or other variations without computers)?

By the way, the best continuation for Black in the 10.c4 variation may well be to play an early Nd5 with the indirect exchange of Knights (Black follows cxd5 with Bxg5 leaving White with a small plus.)

Sure, I can take a shot at a game without computer assistance.  My experience in these variations is low so I might not play as well.  So far though, our two games have fared well for black.  I can post them tonight with light annotation.

Richard, I posted one comment suggesting that you tone down your obviously ineffective post style and I got hit with a page-long rant about how qualified you are. It's no wonder people don't like to listen to you.

Can't you see that nobody here cares how many GMs you have met or how many books you have published? The lines speak for themselves. If you post a line saying, "Check this out," people here will probably respond positively, at least from what I have seen. Opening theory is kind of like science in that you have to do the experiment without knowing how it will end up. You have to be open to the idea that your line might not be a refutation, etc. But you instead seem to be on a quest to prove yourself right, and that's not going to get you anywhere.

Chess is a combination of beauty art and sport. Those who believe it is merely sport will argue that competition over-the-board and winning is all that matters, not even correspondence chess is as significant. For those who believe that chess is an art form, we believe passionately that beauty and art count

 at least as much as who wins in hand-hand combat. Some players who finish at the bottom of the field might well win the brilliancy prize. To those who believe in sport, the winner of the contest is the individual who scores the most points at the end of the tournament. For those who believe in beauty, the real winner is the individual who finishes dead last but wins the brilliancy prize.

My game in the Petroff is a gambit named after me in several data bases. It features a major theoretical novelty in one of the oldest openings in chess, a flawless middlegame, and an endgame so unusual that it has been seen only once before---by World Champion Capablance. I will cherish the game for the rest of my life not because it is part of winning a chess tournament, but chess art in one of its most beautiful forms. It is annotated here in detail so that the reader can appreciate why chess to me is a search for truth and beauty, not sport.