# Is e5 fully playable in the following positions?

Can someone provide computer analysis that confirms or refutes the correctness of `...e5`, played in the below positions.

First position:

``````[Title "Black relies on tactics to carry out freeing break"]
[fen "rn1qkb1r/pp3pp1/2p2np1/4p3/3P4/6P1/PPP1NPBP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.dxe5 Qxd1+ 2.Kxd1 Ng4 3.Ke1 Nxe5
``````

Second position:

``````[Title "White loosened control over center so Black tries e5 break"]
[fen "r2qkb1r/pp1n1pp1/2p2np1/4p3/3P4/6P1/PPP1NPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w KQkq - 0 1"]
``````

My computer is very old and weak, so I can't be confident in its analytical powers. If you could provide concrete lines that refute or verify the correctness of `...e5`, played in both diagrams, I would highly appreciate it.

Thank you.

• To nitpick: ...e5 is not playable in these positions, because there's already a pawn in e5. :) I'd guess the pawn was on e6? – JiK Oct 22 '14 at 21:22
• @JiK: Yes, pawn was on `e6`. Black's last move was `...e5`, that is why it is White to move. – AlwaysLearningNewStuff Oct 23 '14 at 0:00
• I'm running the first position now but it is clear that 1. dxe5 is a lemon. If White castles Black has nothing. Doesn't mean e5 was a bad move. – Tony Ennis Oct 23 '14 at 4:08

A quick analysis of the first position shows that `0...e5` was playable in that there was not a fundamentally better choice. Stockfish would prefer `0...Nbd7` but the resulting score is only .2 points better than `0...e5`. Those fractions add up after a while, but if one is looking to uncramp one's game, it could be a bargain. 7 hours of grinding shows that neither side gets much of an advantage after `0...e5 1. O-O`. The score settled on about .75 in White's favor.

Here's the continuation at 15 minutes per move. I think this shows that 1... e5 is playable and leads to a sharp game. White retains a slight advantage the whole time.

``````
[fen "rn1qkb1r/pp3pp1/2p2np1/4p3/3P4/6P1/PPP1NPBP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 1"]

2.O-O Nbd7 3.b4 Be7 4.Rb1 O-O 5.c4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nb6 7.b5 c5 8.Nb3 Qxd1 9.Rxd1 Nxc4 10.Bxb7 Rad8 11.Re1 Bd6 *
```
```

Here's the second position. I didn't see ALNS's message until this morning, so I thought I might as well post the results. There is a deviation in the moves, probably the result of me using the computer last evening while the program chugged in the background.

``````
[fen "r2qkb1r/pp1n1pp1/2p2np1/4p3/3P4/6P1/PPP1NPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.b4 Be7 2.Rb1 O-O 3.c4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nb6 5.c5 Nbd5 6.Qb3 a5 7.a3 Qd7 8.Bb2 Nc7 9.Rbd1 Nfd5 10.Nc2 Qg4 11.Bf3 Qf5 12.Rfe1 Rfe8 13.Be4 Qg4 14.Qc4 Qh5 *
``````
``` ```

The machine tallies this position as anywhere from .55 to .70 (through the next 16 moves!) depending on the exact variation being calculated. That is, there is no appreciable change in the score in the entire variation. It would seem `0... e5` is a viable move.

• Thank you, I have upvoted your answer as a token of gratitude. Please provide lines, as they are critical for me. Best regards. – AlwaysLearningNewStuff Oct 23 '14 at 12:34
• After `2.0-0 Nbd7` in your lines above, you do notice that White transposes into second diagram? Therefore you don't have to analyze the second diagram, so all you needed to do is provide information about exact evaluation ( `+0.30` or something similar ). I will wait for a while in case other answers crop up, but will probably officially accept your answer ( unless, of course, new answers are better ). Thanks again and best regards. – AlwaysLearningNewStuff Oct 24 '14 at 10:27
• It seems that Black will get Caro-like position -> he will probably equalize over time. I bet if the final position was analyzed that it would end with something like `+0.30`... Furthermore, my engine also gave it roughly `+0.75` so it seems that evaluation is constant, meaning that we can draw solid conclusions. I will analyze the final position myself just to confirm my thoughts. You are more than welcome to join me :) – AlwaysLearningNewStuff Oct 24 '14 at 16:32