Is there a definite refutation of the Sokolsky Opening- II

 The second myth about the so called refutation of the Sokolsky opening is based on the advance of the c pawn (of course to c5). I remember about 25-30 years ago Cem Karadag (then the Turkish Junior Champion and an avid Sokolsky player) holding the top of the c pawn upside down and saying regretfully  that  if it wasn't for this pawn he would preferably play the opening throughout his carrier. However as you will see below White still has excellent chances after a c5 at a given moment.
  After the exchange of the Black's final  central pawn (the d pawn) Black can only hold on to the center with c5 and f5.

After c5 White can sometimes play d5 with the idea of e4 (first f3 and then e4 if necessary). As a precaution f5 comes in handy at these times.

    If after c5 White doesn't or can't respond with d5, Black has the option of exchanging one of the center pawns back with cxd4. Responding with exd4 leaves White's d4 pawn weak and a strong game can be initiated using the weakness of this pawn.We can see an example in the  Urzica-Adorjan  game which was played in 1969 in World Junior Championship. Karpov won the tournament. Urzica had he won this game would have had sole second place. However after this loss they tied for second.  In the game Adorjan first retreats the Black Bishop to e7 (instead of a5 pinning the d pawn ) and then attacks the center with c5. Adorjan tries the same manouver againt Smyslov 1971/2 Hastings. Pls note that together with c5 this Bishop exchange manouver on f6 is very strong and effective. Smyslov-Adorjan.   Muri-Stankevicius  Volke-Schaefer
As these above 2400 rating games show so far we don't have a refutation. White still has excellent chances.
  The Oldekop Variation
We can of course play c5 without retreating the Bishop to e7 and maintaining the pin on d2. In this variation c5 control is used in collaboration with the pin on b4 and also Black's white Bishop is placed on f5 to apply more pressure on White's camp. Nekashkevic-Oldekop  Treskunov-Oldekop Shustef-Oldekop Rudenkov-Oldekop Prosvirin-Oldekop
 Mr. Oldekop who ever he may be seems to have had a field day in this variation which looks like a bizarre refutation. But not so. After c5 an early Qc2! tips the tables for White giving excellent chances on both the kingside and the queenside.  Katalymov-Giterman Muri-Ponelis Kural-Jonsson. I salute the Kazakh player for his deep insight of the position and  for coming up with a beautiful solution to the c5+Bf5 problem.

  Now I know a sneaky thought is coming to your mind. What if we play Bf5 first at move number 6 and play c5 a move later to force an Oldekop variation. It has been tried before : Kural-Osipov

This, in my opinion a highly professional analysis of possible refutations of the Sokolsky Opening yields one result: there is no refutation. In most games both sides have excellent chances with reciprocative possibilities.



Is there a definite refutation of the Sokolsky opening? - I

There is a definite answer to this question; and it is: no! The myth of Sokolsky's refutation is based on two pillars and of course they both belong to the exchange variation : 2 ... Bxb4!.
1) A certain Rook sacrifice on e3.
2) The advance of Black's c pawn to c5 to stop the advance of White's central pawn majority which is usually with d4.
Tha latter of these two pillars of refutation pertain to more advanced players.
But let's take the first one and examine it carefully.

 An early Re8 in the exchange variation with the pin of the Bishop on b4 and the collaboration of a Knight on d5 causes extreme pressure on e3. White does not have time to castle and hence comes the Rook sacrifice on e3. But is it sound?  The game Lapshun-Sinn  demonstrates this very well. The Queen escapes to b3 and the King retreats to d1. Black must develop his Queen side pieces in order to attack. Be6 is met by Queen exchange offer on d3 and swiftly the Rook gets to g1 and commences operations. White is not better because he is a whole Rook up but because he has active play.
Please check our annotated selection of strong games for a personal opinion:
Muri-Van der Kooij
Muri- Bjorn

The second pillar of refutation is based on the advance of the c pawn in the exchange variation.
I will soon continue with this subject which must be dealt in detail.