You got the "fork trick"...now what?

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/noahlz/blog/you-got-the-fork-tricknow-what/s4oSQXrn

@noahlz

Great blog! I really enjoyed your breakdown of this opening! The nuances of the Bxf7 trick were explained very well.

There's just one thing that I disagree with:

Ok, but what about the main line of this opening? White wants to play Bxc6 – giving up the bishop pair, but saddling you with doubled pawns and long-term endgame disadvantage.

Don't let them! Play Ne7 at the earliest opportunity. For example, if White plays d3 (to develop their dark-square Bishop):

You say we should 'Ne7 at the earliest opportunity' to avoid Bxc6 as it would saddle us with 'doubled pawns and long-term endgame disadvantage'.

Actually this is not correct. Bxc6 is not something that needs to be avoided.

The doubled pawns cannot be attacked effectively. The light squared bishop can become quite powerful after c5 and Bb7. The doubled pawns actually have the effect of locking the center and queenside for White.

Most importantly Black has the kingside pawn majority. So White has to neutralize Black's potential kingside initiative quite accurately. The dynamism of Black's position holds the balance.

This is why 9.d3 is very uncommon at the Master level and was only played in 2 games out of 58.

I made a study with notes to demonstrate this:

@RuyLopez1000 said in #2:

@noahlz

This is why 9.d3 is very uncommon at the Master level and was only played in 2 games out of 58.

Fair enough, but this opening at all (Four Knights walking into the fork trick) is basically unplayable at the master level, let alone its sidelines.

The principal audience of this post is mere mortals like myself, who not only encounter this frequently - but also face weird sidelines where white delays castling plays odd moves like d3. I want to understand how to exploit these moves. It turns out playing Ne7 is a recurring theme in many lines.

@noahlz said in #3:

@noahlz

This is why 9.d3 is very uncommon at the Master level and was only played in 2 games out of 58.

Fair enough, but this opening at all (Four Knights walking into the fork trick) is basically unplayable at the master level, let alone its sidelines.

The principal audience of this post is mere mortals like myself, who not only encounter this frequently - but also face weird sidelines where white delays castling plays odd moves like d3. I want to understand how to exploit these moves. It turns out playing Ne7 is a recurring theme in many lines.

All that is true.

But you didn't address what I was saying in the post.

You said:

>Ok, but what about the main line of this opening? White wants to play Bxc6 – giving up the bishop pair, but saddling you with doubled pawns and long-term endgame disadvantage.

But that's not what White wants at all.

1. You had a line after 9.d3 where you explained this was one of the reasons for playing Ne7.

2. However, in this line (9.d3 9.f5) after White played 10.Bxc6, the eval was -0.3 in Black's favour.

r1bq1rk1/p1p3pp/2pb4/4pp2/8/3P1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 11

3. The next study line after 9.Re1 just contradicts completely what you tell us tho. Because you allow Bxc6 to happen, even saying 'Aggressive white players give up the bishop anyway'.

But why do u call it an aggressive move? Shouldn't you be calling it an excellent move? As you told us earlier:

White wants to play Bxc6 – giving up the bishop pair, but saddling you with doubled pawns and long-term endgame disadvantage.

You even call the position equal at the end of the line, showing that Bxc6 is not dangerous at all.

You replied to my post by saying that you are focusing on lines played for 'mere mortals'.

But you just totally ignore what I was saying in my post:

''Ok, but what about the main line of this opening? White wants to play Bxc6 – giving up the bishop pair, but saddling you with doubled pawns and long-term endgame disadvantage.'' is not a correct statement.

Now some might say 'why bother with trying to go into this detail'. I mean it's a blog and no need to critique like it's some scientific paper. But I don't see why things shouldn't be corrected. This kind of discussion means that we can build up on each other's knowledge.

You made an excellent blog which I really enjoyed. But I do think that it's been demonstrated that Bxc6 is not something which White wants.

And I'd like to see what you think. To the points I made above as well as the previous post I made.

@RuyLopez1000

I guess I just disagree with your assertion that Bxc6 is fine for Black. The doubled pawns give White a clear plan: simplify to a winning endgame. Yes, Black temporarily has better development - but without precise moves that advantage will quickly fizzle.

Hence "long-term endgame disadvantage" from the doubled-pawns.

I guess I've been influenced lately by Hikaru's game recaps. He has repeatedly emphasized that having a clear plan is preferable to just following raw engine evaluation. Simply put, -0.3 is not decisive enough to advocate a line as "better"... we're humans, not engines!

Playing Ne7 gives black the flexibility of castling either direction, while denying White their simple "win the endgame" plan. That's why I'm recommending it over allowing Bxc6.

Also, it seems the most aggressive move is White playing immediate d4. It seems after you play exd4, White can play Bxc6. I guess take the pawn with Nxd4 instead? As it happens, White rarely plays d4 in my games (only 3 out of 17)