The Chess Mind

By Dennis Monokroussos.
This is a blog for chess fans by a chess fan, one who loves the beauty of the game and wants to share it with those who are like-minded.
Yet the chess mind is not only a chess mind, and other topics, such as philosophy, may appear from time to time. All material copyrighted.
Part 10 on West and the Philidor Counter-Gambit

James West entitles his most recent reply in our ongoing debate "Relentless":

When people ask me what my middle initial stands for, I sometimes say jokingly, "Relentless!" Those of you who have been following my over-the-blogs debate with Dennis Monokroussos can understand why. Every time Monokroussos finds a line that is advantageous for White against the Philidor Counter Gambit, I redouble my efforts to find a better move for Black. This time, my never-say-die approach seems to have paid off because I think that I have finally found an equalizing path in the variation favored by Monokroussos, namely...

That he is relentless can't be disputed; that he is successful, however, can be. This post will be my final one on this variation (with one exception*): as none of the pro-White analyses have been overturned (the loyal opposition has always done the varying from earlier lines), I'm at least satisfied that my intuitions about the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Neg5 have been confirmed. A "mathematical" proof that White has a clear advantage is impossible**, but if a player of West's abilities, doggedness and deep familiarity with the opening hasn't succeeded by now, it's reasonably unlikely that it's going to happen. Impossible? No, that would be foolish of me to say, and I'll continue to follow (and check) his analytical efforts - but not on this blog. (Especially given the apparent lack of reader interest, at least to judge by the complete absence of feedback over here.) Here is my (presumably) final* reply in our very pleasant dispute, from which I've learned a great deal. Thank you, Mr. West!

* West didn't offer a reply to my last analysis of the variation 6...exd4 7.Nxd4, but when he does I'll offer a reply (even if it's to congratulate on him on finding a refutation of my analysis).

** Actually, it's incoherent, since a proof of that sort could only show that one side or the other is winning or that the position is a draw. As I blogged long ago, calling an advantage "clear" or "slight" is a way of offering a prediction, or describing the sides' relative margin of error, or describes the players' comfort level, or is shorthand for a statistical assessment.

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on Friday May 25, 2007 at 6:07pm
Esti (mail):
I just recently started reading your blog, and I find it quite interesting. I would not go as far as saying as it is my only source of chess news (I do read other sites), but it is a necessary stop every couple of days. Congrats!

About the Filidor (Philidor). I remember when I was 7 or 8 my dad decided to get me a chess instructor, as I had show some promise (which never amounted to much, except a healthy interest in the game). That instructor started the first class with several general comments, but the one thing that I clearly remember saying is that the Filidor should be avoided at all costs, when playing black. I will not comment on the analysis, as I have not followed, but I have to say that the empirical evidence I have gathered over the years seems to prove this!

My wife is waiting, so I have to go, but I will try to continue this at some other date.

Again, congrats on the site.
5.25.2007 6:40pm
Dennis Monokroussos:
Thanks for the comment, Esti. Let me be clear, though, there's nothing really wrong with the Philidor per se - even some top GMs like Bacrot, Nisipeanu, Azmaiparashvili and Beliavsky play it from time to time. (Have a look at Christian Bauer's very new book on the opening for confirmation.) Maybe Black's chances for equality are less than they are in the more popular openings, but it's fully sound and playable. It's just this line that's in trouble!
5.25.2007 7:08pm