The title can only be justified by interpreting the Zaitsev Variation (5. Nc3) thus: whilst an interesting sideline that can lead to spectacular and short games if black comes unprepared, it is objectively not the best and gives the second player unnecessary counter-chances. And indeed, full acceptance of the gambit by 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 (5. b6!? is popular, but in my humble opinion it doesn't promise much; see for instance Haridas-Young from RR99, where the result had nothing to do with the opening, in which I had a clearly winning position for no counterplay - time decided) must remain the critical area of debate. It is not of grave importance at amateur level that my knowledge of the theoretical standing in elite circles is patchy, but I understand that the ball is currently in black's court. In any case, having been stung already, I had to bear in mind the old saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Losing to a line that is not objectively the best twice from two games would be because of a lack of due diligence. Thus it was satisfying indeed that, albeit with some hiccups, I avoided that fate.
As I noted at the end of the annotations, I was in the end quite happy with how I played. One might cynically note the turnaround from my mood on Saturday evening, and perhaps I am often too influenced by my last game. But going from -1 to +1 is a productive day!
No comments:
Post a Comment