23 ( +1 | -1 ) Analysis pleaseI'd appreciate any and all analysis on board #424001. This one is pretty complicated :) I'm not sure where I went wrong (unless 12. h4!? is simply unsound). Thanks in advance.
44 ( +1 | -1 ) Your 12. h4 is an interesting way to push on to g5 and g6 but I doubt you have quite enough for the piece; the two knights working together are just too much. You did give Black a bit of a run for his money with the piece sacrifice, though. However, since 12. Bxf6 isn't very effective as Black has 12... Bxf6 instead of 12... Nxf6, I think you're pretty much forced to play 12. Bh4. I did find one game that continued 12. Qh3, but that looks clumsy and anti-positional, to say the least.
20 ( +1 | -1 ) 12. h4!?is a theoretical line, never played in high level practice AFAIK. The only evaluation I saw was "unclear". But unless something better can be found, it looks like Black has the better chances.
79 ( +1 | -1 ) Interesting...Wasn't even aware this was a book line. My hunch is that if this sacrifice is going to work at all, there needs to be a second followup sacrifice, either a some kind of exchange sacrifice for one of the Black knights or else a knight sac on d5. I don't see Nd4-f3 ideas working particularly well, and I don't think Ne4 is enough by itself since Black has adequate control over g5 (especially after ...Kg8 to protect the h8 rook). Just guesses on my part, I have to analyze a bit more closely.
Is a proposed continuation given in your opening manual atrifix? Or is it just one of those "lazy evaluations" that give 12. h4 'unclear' with no further analysis?
I managed to find one game with 12. h4 but Black declined with 12... b5, moving back into more standard themes.
59 ( +1 | -1 ) It's kind of a "lazy evaluation" given by some GM--I didn't find it in an opening manual but in a commentary on a game where 12. Bh4 was played (don't remember which one), so it's not really "book" per se. Perhaps I should have played 21. Kb1. The problem with 20. Rxh7 is that 20... Rxh7 21. Rxh7 Nxh7 22. Nd5 is met by 22... Bg5+!. 20. Kb1 is too slow because Black just plays 20... Bc6, so maybe 21. Kb1 is better than 21. Nce2. Then if 21... Bc6 22. Nxc6 bxc6 23. Bxg6 is possible (owing to no ...Qxe5-g5+). I didn't really know what to play after the 19th move :)
I'd be interested in seeing the game with 12. h4, and thanks for your comments.
140 ( +1 | -1 ) 21. Kb1 Be8 seems like it would kill White's attack, when Black can slowly begin to untangle his pieces.
A bishop check really kills a lot of opportunities for White, but in what lines I've looked at, Kb1 always just seems to slow. The basic problem I keep running into is that White simply doesn't have enough force on the kingside, so I believe he needs to get some kind on knight presence on d4 or e4. I've been looking at lines involving 14. e5 g6, hoping this would give White some extra options. My original idea was 15. Bxg6 fxg6 16. Qd3 but it runs into the same basic problem; White doesn't have enough force to crash through against best defense.
After 14. e5 g6, 15. exd6 Bxd6 (hoping to use the position of the bishop to play Ne4 with a gain of time) 16. Rh4 (16. g3 perhaps?) Kf8 17. Rdh1 Kg8 18. Ne4 Be7 19. Nbd2 when it's possible White has enough attacking chances.
12. h4 is definitely interesting, if nothing else.
As for the 12. h4 game, here it is, although White simply plays 13. Bxf6 immediately, transposing back to regular lines.
[Event "?"] [Site "Vukovar"] [Date "1976.??.??"] [White "Ivanovic, B "] [Black "Szekely, P "] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B97"] [Round "?"]