A) Pawn structure:
Should we play d4, e4, f4
or d4, e4, h3
or d4, e4, f3 (with the intention h4-h5)
or transpose to KI with c4, d4, e4?

B) e5:
Should we allow Black to play e7-e5
or should we prevent it with e4-e5?

C) Position of Bishops:
Should the LSB go to e2, d3, or c4?
Should the DSB go to e3, f4 or g5?

D) Queen side:
Should we prevent Black's b7-b5 with a4
or should we defense Nc3 with a3
or should we allow b5-b4?

This is only because of our self-imposed limitations. Kutztown writes in his post <...kutztown46: I posted the following in my forum in response to <kwid>:

...we have designated <chancho>'s forum for Umansky pre-game strategic and openings planning. Discussion is ongoing there, and you are part of it. However, you are suggesting that this forum needs to be split into several forums,...>

Forums can't be split unless someone manually sorts and re-sorts the relevant kibitzing to the new forum location. The analysis tree doesn't have this problem and neither does wikibooks.org

There are infinitely many forums to branch to, and forums branch with very little effort. A page grows until its full, then fine details are discussed in greater depth on the relevant branch.

I'm still waiting for kwid's email address so that everyone involved in the openings project has reliable and moderated communication. The goal of the operation will be to create a very fine opening book that completely covers every relevant variation as the game progresses during the first 10 moves.

Obviously people vote however they want, so if kwid commits to helping me build the wiki, we need at least 3 people who are strong analysts or strong players. There is no guarantee that I'll hear back from kwid, nor a guarantee that the world team will listen to orders, so I'm asking 3-4 reliable and dedicated hard workers to send me an email if you are interested. (but wait until I hear back from kwid, if he accepts this invitation) He has correctly explained our need for a respected opening preparation and a single unmoderated thread where anyone can say anything is not a good recipe for the result intended.

<kwid> if you read this, please tell me yes or no. I need someone who is good at chess to spearhead this. I'll take care of the unpleasant work such as the formatting and entry into wikibooks.org

I dont want to obligate you if you're not interested. Its going to be at least 3 hours of work per week for me, and probably even more for you. I've gotten one email since I announced an hour ago. The proposal is on hold until you have had plenty of time to think about it.

<OCF> furthermore, if people like kwid have spent several hours compiling, reviewing, and improving upon current opening theory then we will easily become more influential than the OE because given the types of voters you mentioned, there are more people who are passionate about chess and want to perform at our top ELO.

RV for example volunteers his top-notch machines even though we have plenty of people on the team with just quad-cores. I'm willing to put in hours of tedious formatting work just to give more incentive for kwid and other strong players to work with one another. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think presenting the team with a rock solid opening preparation lead by kwid and others will appeal to a silent majority of voters.

If a small group of our top players can provide competent leadership and offer a valuable summary style opening preparation that is extremeley beneficial, then I would expect teammates who want to make the best moves will pleasantly find that their interests are aligned with the small group's interest. A group dedicated to a common interest will outnumber the share of random teammates who all love the same pet line for a given move.

Wikibooks has been waiting for a couple years, and the reason no one has done it yet is because everybody who would take on the task would want to copyright it and sell it on a bookstand.

<4.Be3>>

9. a3

click for larger view

Let me tell you first that I admire your enthusiasm about the prospects of rewriting chess theory and providing means for easy access world wide.

You seem to have certainly enough energy to keep pushing the world team into a new direction to optimize our potential analysing capability. You may have to carry a heavy workload to see it implemented and carried out successfully. My involvement will be very limited because of my inadequate writing skill and thus ineligible for any communications tasks assignments.

But it may take a more conciliatory approach than your if I may say so, to convince analysts to direct their efforts into a collective pool and giving up their individual recognitions to a large extent.

Therefor such a change requirement runs contra to our personal needs and wants.

As you rightly guessed it would require a team effort where the core is committed to create and implement the necessary changes to our current method for searching and selecting our best move candidate.

Hi Dan! At first glance I couldn't match your move 9.a3 and your diagram with the move order of Plomp-Umansky.

Obviously you had in mind: 1.e4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.h3 Nbd7 <8.Re1 Qc7 9.a3>

A thorough analysis of the available ECO9 or Austrian Attack may indicate to be superior to BCO8.

Drop me an email so I can tell you more about it in private (to keep it a surprise for as long as possible).

I don't know where to post this, so I will delete the message soon after you have had a chance to read it.

There is much interest from my first couple email responses. You are our team's last leader who is still active. Don't you want to work with our team's best handful of teammates to bring the focus of our game back to the primary goal of world class chess analysis?

While I may have understood what you want to do, I failed to realize that you desired me to be the person who would make it happen. That is simply not possible for two reasons - my lack of time and my lack of expertise in the openings area.

Looking at the diagram and without use of an engine I would say that Black can equalise with 9. - e5.>

my preferred move order:

1.e4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7. Re1 Nbd7 8. h3 Qc7 9. a3

& your 9...e5, ok, 10. Be3

click for larger view

Pirc/Classical Variation B08

10. - b5 11.Qd2 Bb7 =
Compare Gurevich-Dzindzichashvili, 1992 (where White played Bg5 instead of Be3).

E) Castling:
0-0 or 0-0-0? >

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c4

GM Umansky does not play KI after 1.d4, he prefers NID/QID so obviously he does not feel entirely comfortable with the KID. Moreover, in the game against van Oosterom, after <1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c4 d6 4. Nc3> Umansky quickly deviated from the main line with <4...e5> and got into a difficult position (he managed to save the draw though)

1. f4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g4 Nc6 5. g5 Ng8

the point of g4 is to kick the knight with g5 and win back the gambit pawn. (e6 and d5 are both very playable options for black which lead to very beautiful chess games.)

1. f4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g4 Nc6 5. g5 Ng8 6. Nxe4 e6 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. d4 Nf5 9. c3 Be7 10. d5 Na5 11. b4 Nd6 12. Nxd6+ cxd6 13. Qd4 e5 14. fxe5 O-O 15. Qe4 dxe5 16. bxa5 Qxa5 17. Bd2 d6 18. c4 Qa6 19. c5 b5 20. a4 Bf5 21. Qe3 Qb7 22. c6 Qb6 23. Nh4 Bc2 24. Qxb6 axb6 25. Bxb5 Bb3 26. Rf1 Rxf1+ 27. Kxf1 Bxd5 28. c7 Rf8+ 29. Ke2 Be6 30. Ba6 Bg4+ 31. Kd3 d5 32. Bb7 Be6 33. a5 e4+ 34. Kc2 bxa5 35. Rxa5 Kf7 36. Rxd5!!
the point is his bishop can't leave the promotion diagonal. Bc8 37. Rf5+ king moves are met by ♖ook takes ♖ook. and ♗f6 ♗d5+♔e8 gxf6 wins a bishop. Bxf5 38. Nxf5 Re8 39. Nxe7 Kxe7 40. c8=R Rxc8+ 41. Bxc8 Kd6 42. Bf5 h6 43. Bf4+ Kd5 44. gxh6 gxh6 45. Bxh6 Ke5 46. Bg6 Kd5 47. Kd2 Ke5 48. Ke3 Kf6 49. Bxe4 Ke6 50. Bf4 Ke7 51. h4 Ke6 52. h5 Kf6 53. h6 Ke6 54. h7 Kf7 55. h8=Q Ke7 56. Qg7+ Ke6 57. Bc6 Kf5 58. Bd7#

click for larger view

Not so deep Rybka analysis:

19 ply

1. ² (0.31): 9.a3

2. ² (0.28): 9.Qd2 e5 10.Be3 exd4 11.Bxd4 Re8 12.Rfe1 b5 13.a3 <+0.19/17>

the point is to get your king to safety and develop your kingside fully in 4 moves.

this opening can take you into spanish and italian games as well as sicilan variants. its very flexible classical style chess and computers like the open games of e4. as their books are full of e4 games.

but it can be kinda bland for advanced players.

( i don't like h3) i'd like to think white can do better and h3 loosens up your king position in some ways.

usually as soon as a player neglects the center with g6. you should look at how best to block off that diagonal with pawns.

e4 g6 c3 (with the idea of d4 later to put a chain of pawns on his fionchetto diagonal) with Nbd2.

but d4 is good theory too and it does'nt block our knight from c3.

your line reminds me of the GM Nigel short from UK.. in his kings indian video.

That's the problem. BTW these positions resemble positions from the Philidor opening (1.e4 e5 2.Sf3 d6) and look drawish.

After replaying about 50 games I think we should deviate from the main lines by early playing Be3.

IMO 9.a3 is too hesitant and slow.>

11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Qd2

click for larger view

12...Re8 13. Rad1 a5 14. Bd3 Rd8 15. Ne2

click for larger view

Remember the start of the game against GJ Timmerman. The majority voted 1.d4 because they wanted to play a KID. At that time I strongly opposed this idea because I was convinced that a KID would be too complicated for the team and that we would not be able to originate ideas like (let's say) Radjabov.

Now the situation has changed: On the one hand we have lost strong players like Thorsson who was very experienced in opening theory (and I miss him; had he attended the second game against AN we would have mastered the opening in a better way). On the other hand we have players like kwid (it is a pity that his comments are too polite) AND we have much more fast and first-class engines.