Wednesday, August 27, 2014

An Email Discussion

Earlier this month I received two emails from chessfriend Yury Bukayev. The first, with the subject "Your post of July 18 has a large error‏" and contained the following
Your post of July 18 has a large error. Thus, you have published your appraisal of the position: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6? 4.b4?! Bxb4? 5.c3 Ba5 as winning for Black. It isn't true! Look, please, Paragraph 2, part III of my article! Yury 
The second email, with the subject "Else about your error in the post of July 18‏" continued
The position 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6? 4.b4?! Bxb4? (4...d6 =) 5.c3! leads to Evans-Bukayev gambit in all cases: . It isn't important, is White's pawn on d2 or on d3. Dear Rick, I suggest you to write a new post in August about it. I think, my 2 Evans-Bukayev gambits have done the Evans idea immortal for strong theory.
My response was pretty straight-forward
I will take another look at my July 18th post, at your two emails, and your article, and post about it all on my blog.
At this point I can say that I wrote that after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 h6 4.b4 Bxb4, Houdini 3, at 22 ply, gives Black an advantage of about 1/3 of a pawn. That much is factual - and neither Houdini 3 nor I consider "1/3 of a pawn" as "winning" for Black.
The game wardcleophus - Kiera, blitz, FICS, 2013, which I gave in the notes in the blog post, continued 5.c3 Ba5 and Black did win - but only after White immediately blundered with the Jerome-ish 6.Bxf7+? If, instead, White plays 6.0-0 the situation would be completely different from the game. Likewise, if Black plays 6...Nf6 (instead of 6...d6, similar to your article) the second player does not look lost, either.
Readers are encouraged to review the offending post, "Creative Exercise" and decide for themselves.

No comments: