English Chess Forum

Hi,
I am abit puzzled by Rybka's analysis to one of my games, specifically it recomendation to play 7 Bg5 then exchange the Bishop for the Ne7 in the following game fragment;

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nge7 5. O-O f5 6. d4 Bb6 7. Re1 (7. Bg5 h6 8. Bxe7 Nxe7 9.Nxe5)

Since this game I have encountered another similar position where Rybka wants to play this type of move with the same outcome and still can't see why losing the bishop pair is advantageous. Is this due to White maintaining the initiative or is this simply working towards completing development.

Any help and advice would be gratefully received,

Will

Because it wins a pawn? I wouldn't like to be black after your 7.Re1 either though.

James Coleman wrote:Because it wins a pawn? I wouldn't like to be black after your 7.Re1 either though.

and there's Qh5 check as another threat.

I think Black's opening is a bit suspect and needs a bit of Rybka inspiration to make it work.

I found that game I was thinking of, the above game was not the one I had in mind.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. c3 Ba7 8. d4 Qe7 9.Re1 (9. Bg5 h6 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Bd5 exd4 12. cxd4 O-O 13. e5 Qe7 14. Nc3 Bb7 15. a4 b4 16. Ne4 Bb6)

This is example is the source of my confusion, this leads to losing the bishop pair for an advantage that I don't understand.

Cheers

Will

Centre control, I think. Being forced to play ...exd4 with white's being able to play cxd4 in response is a major structural concession for black; whether the two bishops make up for it is another matter.

Thanks for the replies, I think I am starting to appreciate the better control of the centre Jack pointed out.

Will