Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Z. Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
tempi?
11...Ba6 12 Bd2 Qb6 13 Bxa6 Nxa6 14 Bc3
It is obvious that White has a slight advantage out of the opening,
Raetsky/Chetverik [7]. I cant see an advantage.
14...0-0
Chances are equal, but this didnt
stop Sorokin from disposing of his
opponent in short order: 15 e5 f6
(15...e6) 16 d6 exd6?? (16...e6 =)
17 Qd5+ Kh8 18 exf6 + Bh6 19
Qg5! c4+ 20 Kh1 Black resigns
Or 16 g4 Nh6 17 N2c3.
16...exd6 17 N2c3 Nb4
The active black pieces compensate
for the loss of a pawn.
18 g4 Qb6+
By means of 18...Ne7 19 f5 Nexd5
Black could have regained his pawn.
19 Kh1 Ne3 20 Bxe3 Qxe3 21
Nxd6 Nd3 22 Qf3 Qxf3+ 23 Rxf3
Nxb2 24 Rb1 Na4 25 Ndb5 Rfd8
26 Rc1
The ending offers equal chances to both sides, i.e. 26 Ne4 Ra5 =.
26...Nc5 27 Rc2 Nd3 28 Rf1 Ra5 29 a4 Nc5 30 Na3 Bxc3 31 Rxc3
Nxa4 32 Nxc4 Nxc3 33 Nxa5 Rxd5 34 Nc6 Rd2 35 Ne5 Ne4 36 Kg1
f6 37 Nf3 Ra2 38 Nh4?
38 g5 Kf7 =. Black didnt have much. At this stage of the game, White
even manages to lose.
38...Kg7 39 Ng2 Nd2 40 Rd1 Nf3+ 41 Kh1 Rf2
The terrible placement of the white knight on g2 cannot be repaired.
42 h3 h5 43 Ra1 hxg4 44 hxg4 Kh6 45 g5+ fxg5 46 fxg5+ Kxg5 47
Rb1 Kg4 White resigns
Esteban Canal
ECO starts with sidelines, why cant I? The move does deserve
attention: 4...g6 5 f3 Nd6 6 e4 Bg7 7 Bd3 0-0 8 Ne2 f5 9 Nbc3 Na6 10
a3 e5 (10e6) 11 Be3 f4 (11Bh6) 12 Bf2 Nf7 13 b4 d6 14 Qb3 b6
15 Kd2 Bd7 16 b5 Nc7 17 Rag1 = (draw, 80) Schwartzman Fahrner,
Werfen 1991.
(b) 4 a3 Qa5+ 5 Nd2 threatens an immediate 6 b4. Hermesmann
Bcker, Bundesliga II, 1986, transposed to the Improved Old Benoni
explained above: 5...Nxd2 (5f5) 6 Bxd2 Qc7 7 Bc3 e5 8 dxe6 dxe6 9
Nf3 Nc6 10 e3 e5 11 Qc2 g6 12 0-0-0 Bg7 = (but 1-0, 45).
(c) 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 Nd6 6 Bd2!?. White sacrifices a pawn, for a lead in
development. 6...Nxc4 7 Bc3 Rg8 8 Qd3 Nd6 9 Nh3 b6 10 0-0 Ba6 11
Qf3 h6 12 Re1 Bb7 13 e4 Nb5 14 e5 (0-1, 66). White has some
compensation for the pawn, Mercier Bcker, Krefeld 1983 (Int.
juniors tournament of North Rhine & Westphalia).
(d) 4 g4!?. Why should White treat Blacks opening with respect, when
his opponent apparently tramples upon tradition? To advance on the
kingside, when Nf6 has left its post, is as logical as anything else.
None of these four moves give White an advantage, but Part 2 will
make it clear that 4 Qc2 is no refutation, either.
Sources
[1] Stoljar/Kondratjew: Alt-Benoni-Verteidigung, Heidelberg 1985
[2] S. Bcker: Der Geier, Stuttgart 1986
[3] S. Bcker: The Vulture & Associated Opening Systems, Wiltshire 1989
[4] T. Harding: Dynamic Black Defenses, Dallas 1989
[5] S. Bcker: Der Geier. Bauer d5 als Schwche, in Groteske
Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990.
[6] S. Bcker: Neu vermeldeter Hhenflug, in Kaissiber 3 (1997).
[7] RAETSKY/CHETVERIK: Starting out: Benoni Systems, London 2005
[8] S. Bcker: Geiers flottes Flgelspiel, in Kaissiber 21 (2005)
/html>
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
9...b5 10 cxb5
If White had foreseen his opponents move, he might have chosen the
cautious 10 0-0 bxc4 11 Nxc4 Nxc4 12 Bxc4 Ba6. The pawn structure
vaguely resembles a Benko gambit, but the defender still owns his
precious pawn on a7.
10...c4!
Excellent! Later there even follows
a blow on the opposite wing, by
means of f7-f5. Almost a model
game for the art of destroying
Whites pawn center in the Vulture.
11 Bxc4 Bb7 12 0-0 Rc8 13 Qb3 a6
14 bxa6 Nxa6 15 Be2
15 e5 Nc5 16 Qc2 Nxc4 17 Nxc4
Qa6 18 Rd1 Na4, with unclear
results.
15...Qc5+?
He had to play 15...Nb4!, for example 16 a3 Nc2 17 Rb1 Nd4 18 Nxd4
Bxd4+ 19 Kh1 Rxc1! =.
16 Kh1 f5 17 Ne5 Rc7 18 Bf3? drawn. The conclusion of peace now
seems justified (18...Nb4 =), but White overlooked 18 Ndc4! Nxe4 19
Be3 Qxd5 20 Nb6 +, when the black queen on d5 is pinned.
Old Main Line in Crisis
Although 6 e4, like in the last game, is seen
in the large majority of the games, it isnt
the critical continuation. After 6 b3!,
Blacks plan to attack with ...b5 clearly fails.
In my book I suggested 6...f5, followed by
...e6, to undermine Whites pawn center.
One of my main lines went 7 Bb2 e6 8 f3
Qd8! 9 e4 fxe4 10 fxe4 Qh4+ 11 g3 Qh6!
=. Unfortunately, this hidden trick only
works against the cozy 8 f3. More dangerous
are both 8 Bc3 followed by e4, or 8 g3!
(Udo Hobuss). By the way, 8 g3 was the
move which deterred Tony Miles from the
Vulture. White quickly develops his forces,
while Black faces serious problems finding a
good plan. In later publications (for example
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (3 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]
10 a3 Qd8
10...Nf8? 11 b4 Qd8 12 bxc5 +=.
11 Nf3 Nf8 12 0-0
Black concentrates his pieces on the kings wing, so that White
probably has nothing better than to play b2-b4. It would be wrong, for
example, to try 12 Bd2 and prepare to castle long. Black simply replies
a6, Bd7 and waits for the best moment for b7-b5. Even when he
plays h2-h4-h5, White doesnt achieve much on the kings wing. With
his strong defensive forces, Black will always be able to repel the
attack.
12...Ng6 13 b4 b6 14 bxc5 bxc5 15 Rb1
Surely White has other possibilities. Any maneuvering, however, costs
time, and if meanwhile Black advances h7-h5-h4, White is quickly
getting under pressure.
15...0-0 16 Bd2 Nh5!
To provoke 17 g3, for example
17...Bh3 18 Rfc1 Bg4 (intending
19...f5) 19 Ne1 Bxe2 20 Nxe2 Bg5
21 f3 Bxd2 22 Qxd2 Rb8, about
equal.
Timid and perhaps too passive
alternatives to the sharper text move
are: 16...a6 17 Na4 Ra7 or 16...Bd7
17 Rb7 Qc8 18 Rfb1 Bd8
(threatening Bb6) 19 R7b2 Ba5.
17 Nxe5
17 Rfc1 Ngf4 18 Bf1 f5 19 Be3 fxe4 20 Nxe4 Qe8 = or 17 Rfe1 Nhf4
18 Bf1 Bg4 19 Re3 Rb8 =.
17...Nxe5 18 Bxh5 f5!
If 18...Nxc4 19 Bc1 Bf6 20 Be2, White stands somewhat better.
19 Be2
The second player gets nice wing play for the sacrificed pawn.
Alternatives:
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (9 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]
19...f4 20 f3
20 Qd1 f3 and equality. Probably 20...a6!? =+ is even better.
20...Bh4 21 Bd3
21 Be1 Bxe1 22 Rfxe1 Qh4 23 Bf1 Rf6 24 Qf2 Qh5 25 Kh1 Rh6 26 h3
Bxh3 27 gxh3 Nxf3 28 e5 Qg4!!.
21...Qg5
21...Bg3 fails to 22 hxg3 fxg3 23
Ne2 Qh4 24 Nxg3. The text move
avoids Ne2, followed by Kh1, h3
and Ng1.
22 Rbd1
To be able to parry 22...Bh3 with 23
Bc1. On 22 Ne2 Bh3 23 g3 Black
disposes of 23...Bxg3! 24 hxg3 Qg6
25 Bxf4 Rxf4 26 Nxf4 Qxg3+ 27
Ng2 Rf8! 28 Rb3 Rxf3.
22...Qh5 23 Ne2 g5 24 Rb1
24 Bc3 g4 =+.
24...Rf6 25 Rb3 Rh6 26 Nxf4
Or 26 Qd1 Be1! 27 Qxe1 Qxh2+ 28 Kf2 Rh3 -/+.
26...gxf4 27 Bxf4 Rg6 28 Kh1 Rg7 29 Qb1 Kh8 30 Be2 Qg6 31 g3
Bh3 32 Rf2 Rag8 -/+. Black keeps the situation under control.
After the publication of Der Geier, Tim Harding* made a prophecy in
1989 [4]: However, now that his system has been fully exposed to the
public gaze and the fire of tournament and postal play, many of his overoptimistic analyses and assessments are being overturned and total
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (10 of 11) [10/23/2005 12:32:38 PM]
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
7 Qa4 pins the d7-pawn, but it takes Black only a few moves (g6,
Bg7, 0-0) to solve the problem. Sooner or later the white queen has
to retreat.
7...e5 8 Be2 d6 9 0-0
Or 9 Nf1 g6!?.
9...Nbd7 10 Ne1 Be7 11 Nd3 g5
Claiming that White has castled prematurely. The alternative was 11...00 12 f4 exf4 13 Rxf4 Ne8 14. Nf1!, which seems about equal.
12 Re1 Nf8 13 Bd1
He could play 13 Nf1! at once (13...Nxe4? 14 Nxe5!), attacking pawn
g5. For example 13...h6 (or 13...Ng6!? 14 Bxg5 Nxd5) 14 Ng3 Ng6 =.
13...Ng6 14 Nf1 Nf4
15 Kh1! h5 16 Nxf4 gxf4 17 g3
fxg3 18 Nxg3 Bh3 19 Nf5 0-0-0 20
b4 Rdg8 21 Bf3 cxb4
21...Bxf5 22 exf5 Ng4 was better,
for example 23 Rb1 cxb4 24 Rxb4
Qc5 25 Rb2 Bd8! =+.
22 Rb1 Bg4 23 Bg2 h4 24 h3?
Routine and a serious mistake.
White overlooks the following
sacrifice. Otherwise he wouldnt have hesitated to give his strong
knight for my bad bishop: 24 Nxe7+! Qxe7 25 h3 Bd7 26 Rg1 Rg6 27
Be3 b6 28 Rxb4 Rhg8 =.
Qc7 8 g3 d6
After 8...g6 9 f4 Bg7 10 Bh3 00
11 Qd2 Re8!? (11...d6) 12 Nf3 e4
13 d6 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Qc6 15 Ne5 e3
16 Qd5 Qxd5 17 cxd5 f6 18 Nd3 d6
White seems to be slightly better.
9 Bh3
A strong move, which my opponent
found over the board. Can Black
allow the exchange of his strong
bishop?
9...Bxh3
A younger Dr. Gerhard
Fahnenschmidt (now aged 65)
In I. Veneteanu (2245) A.
Berescu (2392), Bucharest 1999,
Black preferred to keep the bishops on the board: 9...Nd7 10 e4 Be7 11
Ne2 0-0 12 0-0 Rb8 13 a4 b6 14 Kh1 Re8 15 Ng1 Bf6 16 b3 a6 17 Qd3
Qd8 18 Ra2 g6 draw. The attack 10 f4 seems more dangerous. White
intends either f4-f5 or 11 fxe5, to establish a protected passed pawn at
d5. There are no immediate threats, but Blacks position is rather
passive.
10 Nxh3 Qd7
10...Be7 11 f4 Nd7 could be an alternative, if Black is willing to accept
a passed pawn at d5. Another option is 10...Qc8, which is similar to the
text, but keeps the d7-square for the knight.
11 Ng5
11...h6?
A mistake, which gives White a
useful additional tempo. The critical
line was 11...Be7! 12 h4 (12 f4
Bxg5, or 12 Ne4 f5) 12...h6
(12...Qg4? 13 Ne4 f5 14 f3! Qh5 15
Nf2 followed by g4) 13 Ne4 f5 14
Nd2 0-0 15 f4 e4, for example 16 g4
e3 17 Nf1 fxg4 or 16 e3 h5 with
complications.
12 Ne4 f5 13 Nd2 Qf7 14 f4 e4 15 g4 e3 16 Nf1
During the game I also feared 16 Nf3 fxg4 17 Nh4. In both cases Black
seems almost lost.
16...fxg4 17 Nxe3 h5? (17...Qxf4) 18 Qe4+ Kd8 19 0-0-0 Nd7 20 Nf5
Kc7 21 Qe6! Qe8 22 Bxg7 Rh7
23 Qg8??
Both 23 Bc3 and 23 Bxf8 Qxf8 24
e4 Re8 25 Qg6 should have won
easily for White, who has an extra
pawn and the better position.
23...Qg6 24 e4 Rxg7 (24...Re8! was
even stronger) 25 Nxg7 Qxg7 26
Qe6 Nb6 27 e5 Nxc4 28 Rhe1 Rd8
29 Re4 Nb6 30 f5 dxe5 31 f6 Qg5+
32 Kc2 Bd6 33 f7 g3 34 h4 Qg7 35
Rg1 Qh7 36 Kd3 c4+ 37 Ke3 Rf8 38 Rxg3 Bc5+ 39 Kd2 Qxe4 40
Rg6 Bb4+ 41 Kd1 Qe1+ 42 Kc2 Qd2+, White resigns.
Next month: something completely different.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
4 d5!
4 Nd2 Bb7 5 Bc4 had been my first idea to justify the sacrifice:
5...Bxg2 6 Ngf3 Bxh1??
Now White has a substantial lead in
development, sufficient for a
decisive blow: 7 Bxf7+! Kxf7 8
Ne5+ Ke6 (8...Ke8 9 Qh5+ g6 10
Nxg6 and wins. Note that the whole
combination doesnt work, when
White has played 4 Nc3 instead of 4
Nd2, because then Black has
10...Bf3!, which turns the tables) 9
Qg4+ Kd6 10 Nf7+ Kc6 11 Nxd8+
Kb5 12 Qe2+ Ka5 13 Nb3+ Kb4 14
Bd2+ Ka4 15 Qc4 mate. Obviously,
Blacks sixth move is a serious mistake. After 6...d5 7 Rg1 dxc4 (better
than 7...Bh3 8 Bd3 Nc6 9 Ne5) 8 Rxg2 b5 9 a4 c6 10 Ne4 Blacks
position is preferable. Not to take on g2 immediately seems even better:
5...f6 6 Bd3 e6 (or 6...g6 7 Be3 Bxg2 8 Qg4 Bd5 -/+) 7 Bf4 Bxg2 8
Qh5+ Ke7 -+. And of course Black has the cautious alternative 5...d5,
when White also doesnt have enough for his pawn.
I also didnt trust the quiet continuation 4 Nc3 Bb7. One game went:
5 d5 c6 (5...Nf6) 6 Bc4 cxd5 7 Bxd5 Bxd5 (7...Nc6 followed by Nf6
and e6 seems preferable) 8 Nxd5 Na6 9 Qe2 Nc7 10 0-0-0 Nxd5 11
Rxd5 Qc7 12 Nf3 Nf6 13 Rd3 h6 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 Rhd1 Rd8 16 Nd4 e6
17 g3 Be7 18 f4 f5 19 Nb5 Qb8 20 Nd6+ Bxd6 21 Rxd6 Ke7 22 Qd2
Qc7 23 Qb4 Ke8 24 g4 fxg4 25 f5 Rg8 26 Qa4 Ke7 27 Qf4 += Qc5? 28
f6+ Ke8 29 Rxd7! +- and White won, Kettner Villing,
Donaueschingen 1985 (Baden Championship).
Schillers continuation is too slow: 4 c4?! Bb7 5 Nc3 h6 6 Bh4. He
states, White tries to keep Black from advancing the e-pawn. Here,
however, Black can afford to adopt an unorthodox double fianchetto.
6...g5 7 Bg3 Bg7 8 Nf3 c5 9 d5 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 Nf6, and Black will
finally play ...e6. So when Eric Schiller condemned my gambit, he
didnt even know the fourth move of my analysis, which I had
published in 1983 (second edition 1984 [1]).
The text move is the key to the whole Mousetrap concept. The black b7bishop (the mouse) has left its mouse-hole to eat the white cheese
e4. Now the trap closes with a snap (4 d5!). Obviously the mouse is not
dead, but it seems the trap has hit her tail, as she cannot return to b7.
Back to chess here it also makes sense to separate the bishop from its
hole. Without the bishop, the pawn structure a7-b6-c7 is weakened.
And there is more the whole black position is in some disorder. The
As in the first game, Black decides to weaken the white squares. Here
this move has an additional motivation: to prevent Ne5. But still ... the
alternatives dont look too promising either:
(a) 8...Bh5 9 Be2 f5?! (9...Bxc3+ 10 bxc3 Nf6 11 Be5 +=) 10 h3 f4 11
Bh2 c6 12 Qd3, and White won in 22 moves, Knorr Kirste, corr.
1989. 10 Qd3 f4? 11 Ne5 +- seems even stronger
(b) 8...Nf6 occurred in four games:
9 Qd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 c6 11 h4 g4 12
Ne5 Bf5 13 Bf4 Kh7 14 Bd3 Bg6 15
Nxg6 fxg6 16 h5 Nxd5 17 hxg6+
Kg8 18 Nxd5 cxd5 19 Bxh6 Be5 20
g7 Rf7 21 Bh7+! and mate in a few
moves, 1-0, Erben Frenzel, corr
1990 (ICCF).
9 Qd2 Ne4 10 Nxe4 Bxe4 11 Be5
Bxe5 12 Nxe5 c6 13 Qd4 cxd5 14
Nc6 dxc6 15 Qxh8+ +-, and Blacks
position was hopeless, 1-0, 27,
Erben Antoszkiewicz, corr 1990 (ICCF).
9 Ne5 Bh7 10 Bc4 (stronger is 10 h4!) d6 11 Bb5+ Nfd7 12 Nxd7 Nxd7
13 Bc6 0-0 14 Bxa8 Qxa8 15 0-0 e5 16 f3 f5 17 a4 a6 18 Be1 Nf6 19
Qd2 Re8 20 Bf2 draw, Knorr Reichel, corr. 1989.
9 Ne5 Be4 10 f3? Bh7 11 Qe2 d6 12 Nc4 0-0 13 0-0-0 c6 14 dxc6 Nxc6
15 Ne3 Rc8 16 Qe1 a5 17 h4 Nb4 18 a3 Rxc3 19 bxc3 Na2+ 20 Kb2
Nxc3 21 Kxc3 Nd5+ 0-1 Knorr Bangiev, corr. 1993. The only
Mousetrap Gambit game that I know which was won by Black. It
wasnt convincing, though, because White has 10 Nxe4 Nxe4 11 Qf3 +/, when both 11...Nd6 12 h4 and 11...Nf6 12 0-0-0 give him a powerful
attack.
9 Bb5+ Nd7?
9...c6 10 dxc6 Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Qc7 had to be tried, according to Michael
Ltt [5].
10 Nd4 Bxd4 11 Qxd4 Ngf6 12 0-0-0
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Perhaps the least respected openings are those involving an early ...g5,
while 1 d4 g5? or 1 e4 g5?! might deserve their bad reputation, the case
isnt so clear for other White first moves. Yet Myers Defense 1 c4 g5 is
hardly more popular. For most players it is just one of these ice age
openings. So if you dare to play 1 c4 g5, there is a danger to be
misunderstood. Your opponent might believe that you are only a
Neanderthal man at the chessboard, without sense for the subtleties of
the game. Or, if he knows that your rating is higher than his own, your
choice will seem impolite at least. Still, who cares, as long as the real
merits of the opening are good enough to score with it.
In September 1996, Joel
Benjamins column
Unorthodox Chess
Openings in Chess Life had
the title Lunatic Fringe [8].
It covered Myers Defense 1
c4 g5, discussing a game
Benjamin - Heinola.
Benjamin presents an antidote
against unorthodox opening
play: It takes some cold,
rational thinking to prevent a
dubious opening from
working. Sounds like an
excellent idea against any
opening.
Qd2 Ne5 7 b3 Ng4 8 Bd4 e5 9 Be3 Ne7 Black could be satisfied with
the position.
6...Qa5?
Once again. Under these circumstances (i.e. after 5...Nc6) exchanging
on c3 appears less logical, but the maneuver still represents Blacks best
chance: 6...Bxc3+! 7 bxc3 Qa5 (7...Nf6 8 Bd4)
(a) 8 Qb3 Nf6 9 h4 Ng4 10 hxg5 Nxe3, and Black is okay.
(b) 8 Qd3 d6! 9 cxd6 Bf5 10 Qd2 0-0-0 11 c5 exd6 12 cxd6 Rxd6 13
Qb2 Nge7!, Black attacks.
(c) 8 Qc2 Nf6 9 h4 (9 h3 Ne4) 9...Ng4! (9...g4 10 Nd2 b6) 10 Qd2 (10
hxg5 Nxe3) 10...Nxe3 11 Qxe3 g4 12 Nd2 (12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 Qxe5 f6 14
Qd4 Rb8 followed by b6) 12...b6!?, for example 13 Nb3 (13 cxb6 Qxb6
14 Qxb6 axb6=) 13...Qa4! 14 Qf4 bxc5 15 Qxg4 Rb8 16 Qg7 Rf8 17
Nxc5 Qc2 18 Nb3 Qb2 19 Rd1 Nb4! 20 Na1 Nxa2 21 Rh3 d6 22 Re3
e5 23 Qg3 Be6=
(d) 8 Bd4!
8...f6 9 Qc2! e5 (9...Nxd4 10 Nxd4
Qxc5? 11 Qg6+ Kf8 12 Nf5+) 10
Be3 f5 11 Rb1 Nge7 12 Rb5 Qc7.
So far analysis by Kari Heinola.
During the game, he says, he had
forgotten the plan suggested in MOB
27 [4], 6...Bxc3+ combined with
8...f6 (as a reaction to Bd4). But
even the final position after 12...Qc7
didnt look too promising to
Heinola. He is certainly right.
In the diagram 8...Rh7!? deserves attention. This allows Black some
direct attacks (plans are 9...g4 or 9...b6 10 cxb6 e5). For example 9 Qc2
f5!, unclear: 10 h4 (10 Qxf5? Nxd4) 10...g4 11 Nd2 e5 12 Qxf5 Rf7 13
Qe4 Nf6 14 Qe3 g3! 15 f3 Re7 16 Qxh6 exd4 17 Qxf6 Qxc3 18 Rb1
Nb4=. It seems 9 e3! is best: 9d6 (9...b6? 10 Bd3+-) 10 exd6 e5 11
Nxe5 Nxe5 12 c5+/- (three strong pawns for the piece, plus serious
attacking chances).
7 Qd2 Nf6
Blacks in misery. 7...Bxc3+ 8 Qxc3 Qxc3+ 9 bxc3+/- is no alternative
either. A clear extra pawn for White, since Bc8 cannot be activated
without exchanging the pawn c5.
The simplest refutation of the nebulous idea 7...Kf8!? 8 Nd4 Ne5 9 b3
Ng4 seems to be 8 h4!+/-.
7...Qb4 fails to 8 Nd5 or 8 Rc1 (Qxc4? 9 Nd5). The text move at least
threatens Qb4 or Ng4, a last attempt by Black.
8 Nd5?
Without his usual play against
Whites tripled pawns Black is in a
fatal situation. White only has to
eliminate the few remaining threats
of his opponent, to achieve a clear
advantage.
Therefore the correct decision
would have been 8 h4!+/- g4
(8...gxh4 9 Rxh4 h5 10 Nd5 etc.;
8...Ng4 9 hxg5 Nxe3 10 Qxe3+/-) 9 Nd4. This maneuver clearly
improves Whites piece acti-vity, and Blacks knight f6 loses the square
g4.
Benjamin [8] likes the text move (8 Nd5?): Black is actually
generating some threats, namely 8...Ng4 and 8...Qb4. Thus I grabbed
the opportunity to seize the initiative by returning the pawn.
8...Nxd5?
The other knight move 8...Ne4? 9 Qxa5 Nxa5 10 Nc7+ Kd8 11 Nxa8
Bxb2 12 Rd1 Bc3+ 13 Nd2 Nxc4 is refuted by 14 Bd4! (analysis by
Kari Heinola).
But both players may have overlooked 8...Qxd2+! 9 Bxd2 (9 Kxd2
Nxd5 10 cxd5 Nb4) 9...0-0. Black gets some concrete counter play. It
may not lead to full equality, but in any case Blacks chances are better
than in the game: 10 Bc3 (10 Rd1 Ne4 11 b4 e6 12 Nc7 Rb8 13 Nb5 g4
14 Nh4 Nxd2, at least =; 10 Nxf6+ Bxf6 11 Rb1 d6! unclear, or 11 0-00 b6!+=) 10...Ne4 11 Bxg7 Kxg7 12 Rd1 (worse is 12 b4? e6 13 Nc7
Nxb4 14 Nxa8 Nc2+ 15 Kd1 Nxa1, because the knight cannot escape
from a8: 16 Kc1 Nxc5 17 Nc7 a6 18 Na8 b6! 19 Nxb6 Bb7) 12...Nxc5
(12...e6 13 Nc7 Rb8 14 Nb5) 13 b4 Ne4 14 b5 e6 15 Nc7 (after 15 bxc6
exd5 16 cxd7 Bxd7 17 cxd5 Rfe8 Black has sufficient compensation for
the pawn: 18 e3 Rac8 19 Be2 f5 20 Nd4 Nc3 21 Rd2 f4=) 15...Nb4 16
Nd4 Rb8 17 a3 Na2, unclear.
A Queen on Wheels
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Every chess player likes to surprise his opponent. But when your new
move only comes at move twelve, how can you be sure to reach this
precise position? Of course, you could prepare thousands of novelties,
in any possible line. This is an excellent solution for a happy few
whose names often begin with a K. Unfortunately, most of us are
better at forgetting new ideas than in preparing them. The radical
alternative is a repertoire where the surprises come at a very early stage,
perhaps on move two or three. This column has already presented
several examples. But to play 1 e4 c5 2 Qh5 or 2 Na3 isnt quite the
same as a winning novelty on move 18 in a Najdorf Variation. Late
surprises can gain impressive victories without much fight; however,
there is a third alternative. You can prepare novelties for a later stage of
the game, when they are (perhaps) more effective, and still you dont
have to spend all your time on opening theory. The solution is to
concentrate your efforts: find surprises in key positions of standard
openings. Take, for example, the Scandinavian Defense:
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3
When you are Black against a 1 e4
player, you can expect to reach this
position in 50 percent of your
games. The next move (5...Bg4) was
preferred by Jacques Mieses at the
beginning of the 20th century, later
it lost much of its popularity
because of a line found by World
Champion Lasker. This shouldnt
deter you, because the move has a
significant advantage over the
modern alternatives 5...c6 or 5...Bf5
it leads to a well-known main line:
5...Bg4! 6 h3 Bh5 7 g4 Bg6 8 Ne5
0-0-0 17 Qa5 Qb6 18 Qxb6 Nxb6 19 Ba5 Bc7 20 c3 Nc4 21 Bxc7 Kxc7
22 Rf2 Ne3 23 Rd2 c5 24 Re1 Nxg2 25 Kxg2 Rd5 26 Re5 = (draw, 37),
Stoica (2420) Bellon Lopez (2350), Buka-rest 1978.
(a2) 11 Bd2 e6 (11...Qb6 12 g5! Nd5 13 Nxd5 cxd5 14 Bxd5 e6 15 Bg2
+/ Labahn [6]) 12 g5 Nh5 13 d5 cxd5 14 Nxd5 Qc5 15 Qe2 +=.
(a3) 11 g5! Nd5 12 Bd2 Nxc3 13 bxc3 e5 14 Qb1 0-0-0 15 Qb3, at least
+= because of Whites pressure against b7 and f7.
(b) 10...0-0-0! 11 Qf3 (11 g5 Ne8 12 Qf3 Nd6 13 b4 Qf5!) 11...c6 12 g5
(12 0-0 e5 13 Be3 cxd4 14 Bxd4 Bc5) 12...Nd5 13 Qxf7 Nxc3 14 Bd2.
Whites set-up was recommended by Wolfgang Labahn (Hamburg) in
Kaissiber [6], but Black seems to get sufficient play for the pawn:
14...e5 15 Bxc3 (or 15 bxc3 exd4 16 cxd4 Bb4) 15...Bb4, for example:
16 Qc4 Bxc3+ 17 Qxc3 Qxc3+ 18 bxc3 Rh5 19 h4 Rdh8 20 Kf1 exd4
21 cxd4 Rxh4 22 Rxh4 Rxh4 23 Re1 Rxd4 24 Re7 Kb8 25 Rxg7 Ne5 =.
9...Qa6
Not a difficult decision (9...Qb4?? 10 a3 +).
10 Bf4
The most logical move, threatening Nd6+ with tempo and hitting c7,
John Watson [7]. There are several alternatives:
(a) 10 Bd3, Alekhine M. Schroe-der, New York 1924. See the note to
8...Nbd7, above.
(b) Against 10 f4 or 10 Qe2 Black replies 10...e6.
(c) 10 Ne3 Qa5 can lead to a draw by a repetition of moves, but Id
prefer 10...Qd6 11 h4 (11 g5 [5] Ne4!) 11...0-0-0 12 g5 Bh5 13 Be2
Bxe2 14 Qxe2 [5] Qc6 15 d5 Nxd5 16 Nexd5 e6 =.
(d) 10 d5 Ne4! (10...0-0-0? 11 Be3 etc.; 10...e6? 11 Bf4 Kd8 12 Ne3
Qb6 13 dxe6 Qxe6 14 Bc4 Qc6 15 00 Bd6 16 Bxd6 Qxd6 17 Qf3 c6
18 g5 Ne5 19 Qd1 Qxd1 20 Rfxd1+ Nfd7 21 Be2! f5 22 gxf6 Be8 23 f4
Ng6 24 fxg7 +, Marinkovic Sta. Nikolic, Kladovo 1991) 11 Nb5
10...Qe6+!
After 10...Kd8? (10...Qc6? 11 d5 +) 11 Qf3 + Black is lost.
11 Ne3
The database contains 68 games with 8...Nbd7 (score: 68 percent for
White), 29 of these reached the position after 10...Qe6+ (74 percent for
White). Here 11 Ne3 clearly dominated: in 21 games White scored 81
percent, while the important alternative 11 Ne5 (below) occured only
once. Nevertheless it is difficult to say whether 11 Ne3 is objectively
best, considering the coming blow on move twelve. None of the
alternatives is harmless:
(a) 11 Be2 Nd5 (11...Nb6 12 Ne5 0-0-0 13 0-0 Nfd5 14 Nxd5 Nxd5 15
Bg3 f6!?) 12 Qd2 (12 Nxd5 Qxd5 13 0-0 0-0-0 14 Qd2 e5 15 dxe5
Qxd2 16 Nxd2 Nxe5 =) 12...0-0-0 13 0-0-0 (1-0, 62) Villing
Niebaum, Bad Wrishofen 2002; 13...N7b6 =.
(b) 11 Qe2 Qxe2+ 12 Bxe2 0-0-0! is a critical position (12...c6? 13
Na5! +/ 0-0-0? 14 Nxc6!; 12...e6? 13 Bxc7 Bb4 14 f3 Nd5 15 Ba5 b5
16 Bxb4 Nxb4 [0-1, 24] Caldi Blanos, Buenos Aires 1992; 17 Ne3!
+/), for example:
(b1) 13 0-0-0 e6 14 Bf3 c6 15 Rhe1 h5 16 g5 Nd5 17 Nd6+ Bxd6 18
Bxd6 Nxc3 19 bxc3 Bf5 20 h4 Nb6 21 Be5 Rh7 22 Be4 Bxe4 23 Rxe4
Nd5 24 Rd3 =+
This time good knight against bad
bishop isnt sufficient for a win:
24...b5 25 Bg3 (threatens 26 g6)
Kd7 26 c4! bxc4 27 Ra3 Ra8 28 g6
fxg6 29 Re5 a5 30 Rg5 a4 31 Rxg6
c3 (or 31...Ne7 32 Rg5 Nf5 33 Rc3)
32 Be5 Ke7 (32...Kc8!? 33 Rxe6
Kb7) 33 Kd1 Kf7 34 Rg3 Ra7 35
Ke2 Kg8 36 Kd3 Ra5 37 Rg1 Kf7
38 Kc4 Rb5 39 Kd3 Ra5 40 Rg3
Kg8 41 Ke4 Kf7 draw, Sapi
Bellon Bopez, Mon-tilla Moriles
1978 [5].
(b2) 13 g5. The queens have left the board, but Whites lead in
development still counts. Black has to play carefully: 13...Nh5 14 Bg2
h6! (after 14...c6? 15 0-0-0 e6 16 Bd3! +/, pawn f7 is too weak) 15
gxh6 (15 Nb5 hxg5 16 Na5 Be4 17 f3 e5 18 0-0-0 Bb4!, or 16 Bg4
Nhf6 17 0-0-0 Nxg4 18 hxg4 a6 19 Na7+ Kb8 20 Bxc7+ Kxc7 21 Rxh8
Kb8 +) 15...Rxh6 16 Nb5 (16 0-0-0 a6 17 a3 Nhf6!; 16 Bf3 c6 17 d5
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 12) [2/19/2006 1:14:34 PM]
Qb6, apparently to win time on the clock. Then he chose the text move.
We ignore the two additional moves in the game.
After 12 Nb5 further complex variations
arise:
(a) 12...e5? is incorrect: 13 dxe5 Qc5
(13...0-0-0 14 exf6 Nxf6 15 Qxd8+ Kxd8
16 Bxc7+ +; 13...a6 14 exf6 axb5 15
Nd5 etc.) 14 Qd4! (14 exf6 Qb4+) Qxd4
15 Nxd4 Be4 16 Bg2 (better than 16 f3
Nd5) 16...Bxg2 17 Nxg2 Nd5 18 0-0-0
Nxf4 19 Nxf4 + [5].
(b) 12...Rc8. The correct answer. 13 g5
(13 Nc4 Qe6+ 14 Qe2 Qxe2+ is equal,
while 14 Be2? Qe4 attacks Bf4 and Rh1),
for example:
Z. Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
(b1) 13...Nh5? 14 Bxc7! Qc6 (After 14...Rxc7 15 Nd5 Qe6+ 16 Be2 the
black rook cannot move because of Nc7+, winning the queen. If
16...Qe4 17 Nbxc7+ Kd8 18 Rg1 e6 19 Ne3) 15 d5 Qc5 16 Ba5!,
followed by 17 b4 + [5].
(b2) 13...e5 14 dxe5! Ne4 15 Qg4 Qc6 16 Rd1 Bc5 17 f3 a6 [5] 18 a4!
+.
(b3) 13...Be4 14 f3 Nd5! 15 fxe4 Nxf4 16 Qg4 e5 [5] 17 Nc4 Qe6 18
Ncxe5 +/.
(b4) 13...Qc6!
Z. Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
(b) 16 Rb1 Nc3+ 17 Nxc3 Qxc3 18 Rb3 [5] Qc6 19 Qd5 Qa4 20 Qxb7
Rb8 21 Qxc7 0-0 /+, Black has a strong attack.
16...Kd8 17 Nb5
17 Ncd5 Bc3 18 Rb1 Qxa2 19 Bg2 (19 Rb5 Rc8) 19...Qa6+ 20 Kf3 Qc6
21 Ke2 Re8 /+.
17...Bc5 18 Rb1 Qxa2
19 Rb3
(a) 19 h4 Qa6 20 Qe1 Bh5+ 21 f3
Re8 +.
(b) 19 Bg2 Rc8 20 Ra1 Qe6 21 Ke1
Qb6 with excellent winning
chances, for example 22 Nxa7 Qb4+
23 c3 Nxc3 24 Qd2 Qxf4 25 Nxc8
Bb4! 26 Ra8 Kc7 27 Kf1 Qxe5 28
Bc6!? Nc5 29 Qb2 Nd3 30 Qa1 Qf4
+.
19...Qa6 20 f3 Qxb5+ 21 Rxb5 Nc3+ 22 Kd2 Nxd1 /+.
In Chess Strategy in Action John Watson wrote about 8...Nbd7!? [7]:
Blacks little-played idea and Stefan Bckers analysis ... may yet
prove to be unsound and I could have chosen something more
established, but I thought that the friskiness of Blacks queen would
provide a counter-example to the rules we established above.
We are still far away from proving the lines correctness. When I
checked my old analyses ([5], [6]), I found several refinements for both
sides. But the present state of affairs is already a success for the
Scandinavian Defense. Laskers line is not as convincing as the books
say. If only 8...Nbd7 leads to lively play with mutual chances (which
seems to be the case), Mieses sharp Scandinavian repertoire based on
Bg4 and Nc6 could become as popular as it was before 1920.
Sources:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Some openings have a special charm. There are moments when I cannot
believe in the correctness of the Kings Gambit or the Englund Gambit,
but months later I find myself again sitting at the board, or in front of
the screen, analyzing the critical positions. Like the Kings Gambit, the
Englund Gambit rarely transposes to other openings. A typical Englund
position also looks strange, as though it came from another world. This
column will not suffice even to get an overview of the many forms of
the Englund Gambit (Soller Gambit, Felbecker Gambit, Charlick
Gambit, Zilbermints Gambit), so well visit just the most important
continent: 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7.
The opening was invented by the
same man who established the
Latvian Gambit: Karlis Betin
(1867-1943; in German sources:
Karl Behting). He published his
analysis Knigsbauer gegen
Damenbauer in Deutsche
Schachzeitung 1930, pp. 171-174.
Two years later Fritz Englund
(1871-1933), the leading chess
figure in Sweden, sponsored a
thematic tournament, held at
Stockholm in late 1932 and early 1933. Every game had to begin with
Betin main line 4 Qd5. Dont ask me why the new planet wasnt
named after Karlis Betin probably because his article had already
been forgotten, or more probable because Englund died shortly
afterwards. When chess magazines reported his death, they rarely failed
to mention Englunds Gambit Tournament. So the name stuck.
Karlis Betin
It has got a name (though the wrong one), but does it really deserve our
attention? In his book Dynamic Black Defenses (1989) [4], Tim
Harding wrote on the Englund Gambit 1 d4 e5: Stefan Bcker is
writing a book on the gambit, to be published [...] towards the end of
1988 (after my deadline for this edition). No doubt he has some original
ideas about how Black may complicate matters, but I find it hard to
believe that he can find ways to make the gambit playable in
competitions above 2000 Elo standard.
Years later the same author wrote in his magazine Chess Mail 5/1998
[8]: There are so many different ways for Black to continue after 2
dxe5 Nc6 (or 2...f6!?) 3 Nf3 that it is really four gambits in one [...] Yet
all the gambit books and monographs in the world should not save
Black if his opponent is a sound 2300 player. This statement doesnt
sound as negative as the first, but a third quote from Harding (The
Kibitzer column No. 4, 1996) even puts the Englund Gambit in the
category of truly eccentric and almost certainly unsound gambits
which however may have their place in pub games, five-minute
tournaments and other forms of casual play.
Fritz Englund
d6, in the style of a Soller Gambit. The computer doesnt see enough
compensation for the pawn, but Black can develop quickly, he has the eand the f-file, and he can strive for d5 or g5. In practice Black will have
reasonable chances.
Terrifying Main Lines I: Stockholm Variation
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Qd5!
Analyzed on 24 pages in my book, plus many more in a later series of
articles published in Gambit Revue. Some books call it the Spielmann
Variation, after a game Spielmann - Lundin, but Rudolf Spielmann
didnt have a choice, since 4 Qd5 was the prescribed move in the
thematic tournament 1932/33 and had to be played in any of the 30
games.
4...f6 5 exf6 Nxf6 6 Qb3
There is nothing wrong with 6 Qd1.
Most theoreticians preferred the text
move; however, because the queen
b3 attacks b7 and hampers Blacks
development (at least it seems so).
6...d5
The point of Blacks set-up now is 7
Nc3 Bd7! (Bertazzo 1981).
Unimpressed by Whites Qb3, Black
calmly continues his development.
Sharp variations arise, like 8 Nxd5 Nxd5 9 Qxd5 Nb4 10 Qb3 Qe4!, or
8 Nb5 0-0-0 9 Bf4 a6 10 Nxc7 Qb4+, or 8 Bg5 Na5!?, or finally 8 Qxb7
Rb8 9 Qxc7 Qc5. But then Joachim Schmidt-Brauns (Jena/Germany)
found another plan, which seemed terribly strong:
7 Bg5! Bd7
To escape this variation, I even studied the wild experiment 7...a5?!, to
pose the opponent unusual problems. Black gains space at the
queenside, in some lines a piece can occupy the b4-square:
(a) 8 Nc3 a4! 9 Qb5 (9 Nxa4? Qb4+ 10 Nc3 d4 /+) Ra5 10 Qd3 Nb4
11 Qd2 d4 12 Nb1 Qe4 13 Na3 Rd5 or Nc6, about =.
(b) 8 Bxf6 Qxf6 9 Nc3 a4 10 Nxa4 (10 Qxd5 Bb4 =) Rxa4 11 Qxa4
Bb4+ 12 Nd2 Qxb2 =+.
(c) 8 a4 is a logical response: White wants to keep the queen on b3.
8...Nb4! 9 e3 (9 Na3 Bf5 also seems playable) 9...Qe4 10 Bd3 Nxd3+
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 11) [3/21/2006 10:12:07 PM]
11 cxd3 (or 11 Qxd3 Bb4+ 12 Nc3 0-0) 11...Bb4+ 12 Nbd2 Qe6 13 0-0
0-0 =. Although White has an extra pawn, Black can be satisfied. In
fact, Id prefer to play the position with Black.
(d) 8 a3 a4
(d1) 9 Qc3 Ra5! 10 e3 (10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 e3 Bg7, followed by f5, =)
10...d4!, with some attractive variations:
(d1a) 11 Qd2 Rxg5!! 12 Nxg5 Ng4
13 e4 Qc5 14 Nf3 Bd6 15 c3 Bf4!
16. Qc2 Be6 17 Bd3 Bb3 18 Qe2 00 = 19 0-0 Nge5! 20 Ne1 Be6 21 h3
dxc3 etc. A dangerous position for
White.
(d1b) 11 Bxf6! dxc3 12 Bxe7 cxb2
13 Ra2 Bxe7 14 Rxb2 0-0!. Black
should be able to defend, because it
is difficult for White to coordinate
his pieces. For example, 15 Bc4+
Kh8 16 Rb5 Rf5! 17 Rxf5 Bxf5 18 Bd3 Bxd3 19 cxd3 Rb5 [Oder] 15
h3 b6 16 Bb5 Na7 17 Bc4+ Kh8 18 Ke2 Bb7 19 Rd1 h6 (or g6).
Blacks pieces are rather active, and there are threats of Rc5 or Raf5. In
the coming ending, White always has to keep an eye on the
breakthrough b5-b4.
(d2) 9 Qd3! is best and more or less refutes Blacks idea. 9...Ne5
(9...Be6 10 Nc3 h6 11 Bxf6 Qxf6 12 0-0-0 +/; 9....Qc5 10 Bxf6 gxf6
11 Nc3 d4 12 Nb5! Ne5 13 Nxe5 fxe5 14 e3 +/) 10 Qd4 Nxf3+ 11
gxf3 Qc5 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Qxf6 Rg8 14 Qe5+ Kf7 15 Nc3 Bg7 16
Qh5+ Kf8 17 0-0-0 Bxc3 18 Rxd5 Qe7 19 bxc3 Qxa3+ 20 Kd2 Qe7 21
e3 Be6 22 Rd4 Rg5 23 Qh6+ +/, White is clearly better. Blacks
remaining hope rests on promoting the a-pawn.
8 e3!
The point of the new concept by Joachim Schmidt-Brauns, Black isnt
troubling himself with the unclear consequences of 8 Nc3 Na5.
8...0-0-0 9 Nc3 Be6
Not 9...Na5? 10 Bxf6 Nxb3 because of 11 Bxe7, attacking the Rd8 an
important difference to the line 8 Nc3 Na5.
10 Nd4 Nxd4 11 exd4
theoretician Ludek Pachman, and in the last eight years Eric Schiller
claimed in his works [2], [5] and [9] that 4 Bf4 were a refutation of
Blacks strategy.
4...Qb4+
The alternatives are not attractive, but when the main line practically
leads to a loss by force, they are looking a bit better:
(a) 4...f6?! 5 exf6 Nxf6 6 Nc3 d5 7 e3! +/. The position reminds me on
6 Qd1 in the Stockholm Variation above, but with two extra moves for
White.
(b) 4...d6!? 5 exd6 Qf6. A kind of Charlick (or Hartlaub) Variation of
the Englund, which involves the somewhat dubious exchange of the dpawn for Whites e5-pawn. But what else can Black do?
(b1) 6 e3 Qxb2 7 Nbd2 Bxd6 8 Bxd6 cxd6 9 Rb1 looks risky, but
apparently Black can survive: 9...Qc3 10 Rb3 Qa5 11 Rb5 Qc3 12 Bd3
Nf6 13 0-0 a6 (13...d5 14 Nb1 Qa1 15 c4!) 14 Rb3 Qc5 15 Ne4 Nxe4
16 Bxe4 0-0, and Black may be able to hold, e. g. 17 Qd3 Be6!.
(b2) 6 Qc1 Bxd6 7 Bxd6 Qxd6 8 Qd2 Qe7 9 e3 Nf6, for example 10
Bb5 Bg4. For his sacrificed pawn, Black hasnt much. But there are
open files for his rooks and no immediate problems with the
exception of a missing pawn.
5 Bd2
After 5 Nc3!?, White has a difficult choice to make: 5...Qxb2 6 Bd2
transposes to the main line, while 5...Qxf4 apparently isnt much better:
6 Nd5 Qe4 7 Nxc7+ Kd8 8 Nxa8 Nb4 (8...b6 9 Qd3 Qxd3 10 exd3 Bb7
11 Nxb6 axb6 12 d4 etc., with a rook and three pawns for only two
pieces) 9 Rc1 Nxa2 10 Rb1 Nb4 (so far my analysis in [3]) 11 c3 b6 12
cxb4 Bxb4+ 13 Nd2 Qxa8 14 e3 Qd5 15 Rc1 Ne7 16 Rc4 Nc6 17 f4
Bb7 18 e4 Qa5 +/.
5...Qxb2
5...Qe7 6 Bc3 b6 7 e3 Bb7 8 Bd3 f6 9 exf6 Nxf6 +/ isnt impressive,
but considering the consequences of the main line, this version of the
Soller Gambit might still be the best escape route that Black has. But
this isnt yet the whole truth, since White could reply 6 Bf4!? Qb4+ 7
Nc3, to reach the last note (5 Nc3!?, above) and force his opponent into
the main line.
6 Nc3 Bb4
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
originated about 1500-1505, only Fritz Clemens Grschen in SchachEcho (1975) boldly goes back to 1471-75.
During the nineteenth century, the Queens Pawn vs. Kings Pawn
Opening or Centre Counter Gambit, as Jaenisch called it, wasnt
regarded as a standard opening, but now and then even prominent
players used 1...d5. Anderssen lost with it against Morphy. William
Norwood Potter wrote that the defence is at least playable between
strong players; and perhaps, were it more often adopted, its claim as a
regular opening might become recognized. Before the Scandinavians
took over, Joseph Henry Blackburne had already played it in more than
20 games, with a positive result. Some sources say that the merit of the
Scandinavians was to move the queen to a5 instead of d8, but, while
you can find Qa5 in earlier games by Anderssen and Blackburne (just
one example: Weiss Blackburne, New York 1889: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Nf6
3 d4 Qxd5 4 Nc3 Qa5 5 Nf3 c6), Ludvig and Gustaf Collijn from
Sweden still used the old-fashioned 2...Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 in their eight
games of the Nordic Congress 1897, scoring 2-6.
Years later, however, we see Gustaf Collijn playing the modern move
order 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 d4 c6 against
Hallgarten (Ostende B tournament, 1906), and, after 1...d5, Carl
Schlechter comments in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1906, p. 306: This
defense could be named Nordic Defense or Scandinavian Defense,
because the Nordic players [did so much] for the exploration of this
opening. This was probably the earliest mention of the name
Scandinavian Defense (as pointed out in Kaissiber 7 by Peter
Anderberg, Harmstorf).
John Lutes in his Scandinavian Defense (1992) says: The entire
defense, in all its ramifications, was repeatedly played and analyzed by
Gustaf Nyholm, Gustaf Collijn, Ludvig Collijn, Fritz Englund, Karl
Berndtsson and Erhard Bjrklund, as well as many others. These
Scandinavian masters completely reshaped the defense into an exciting
and interesting asymmetrical opening. Apparently the Finnish player
Erhard Bjrklund was the reason to choose the name Scandinavian
Defense, instead of Swedish Defense.
The February column, A Queen on Wheels, recommended the littleknown line 8...Nbd7!? for Black. Here Ill mainly look at the readers
reactions. However, Ill take the opportunity to make the picture more
complete, by discussing early alternatives ignored in the first article.
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5
2...Nf6 3 c4 e6 became popular at the end of the 1980s. However, this
so-called Icelandic Gambit has a history. I prefer the name Palme
Gambit, after the Austrian Rudolf Palme, who pioneered the typical
motifs of the gambit in the 1950s (cf. Kaissiber 1). There are even older
examples, although less convincing than Palmes games: Hruby
Auspitzer, Vienna 1889, was in Deutsches Wochenschach 1889, p. 391.
So when the Icelandic Gambit finally got its name in 1989, it was
already 100 years old. And, in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1913, we find a
short comment by Carl Schlechter: 3...e6 also comes into
consideration.
3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4
Against 4 Bc4 Nf6 5 d3 c6 6 Bd2 Bg4 7 f3 Bf5 8 Nd5 Qd8 9 Nxf6 gxf6
[5] Bjrn Holzhauer warns that Black could end in a situation
considered as unfavorable by Matthias Wahls [4]: 10 Ne2; for example,
10...Qb6 11 Ng3 Bg6 12 f4 f5 (Holzhauer). I admit that my article [5]
somewhat underestimated the strategy of delaying Nf3. Wahls even
formulates a rule that Black should postpone the development Nf6, until
White has himself played Nf3. Never-theless, I am inclined to share
Mieses old point of view, that Black doesnt have to fear a set-up
involving d2-d3. In the line above, Black could vary with 9...exf6!?.
8...Nbd7!?
This knight move, instead of the
more common 8...e6, was discussed
in detail in A Queen on Wheels.
Now a new move by Ludger
Keitlinghaus makes life a bit harder
for Black, as we will see below.
Tartakowers line 8...c6 9 h4 Ne4,
given as playable in the February
article, can no longer be trusted.
After 10 Qf3 Nxc3 11 bxc3 Nd7 12 Nxd7 Kxd7 13 Rb1 Kc8 14 Bg2
Qxa2 15 Rb2 Qe6+ (so far my analysis in [5]) Bjrn Holzhauer found
a clear refutation: 16 Be3 (why should White exchange queens by
means of 16 Qe3?) 16...Qc4 (16...f6 17 d5) 17 Kd2 h5 18 g5 e5 19
Rhb1 b6 20 Qxc6+ Qxc6 21 Bxc6 Rb8 22 d5 + (Holzhauer).
9 Nc4 Qa6 10 Bf4 Qe6+! 11 Ne3
For the two important alternatives: 11 Qe2 and 11 Ne5 see A Queen on
Wheels.
11...Qb6 12 Nb5!
Here Khalifman had recommended 12 Bg2 in his recent book [7], as
two readers, Bjrn Holzhauer (Switzerland) and John Anderson
(Great Britain) kindly informed me. The work Opening for White
according to Anand, 1 e4 (Sofia 2004), presents Khalifman as its author
on the front page, but inside it reads: Copyright (c) 2004 by Alexander
Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov.
Khalifman/Soloviov write:
12...Qxb2. Blacks queen is finally
in action, but it is too late. After 13
Ncd5 Nxd5 14 Nxd5, Blacks
position is very difficult; for
example, 14...0-0-0 15 Rb1 +/, and
if 15...Qxc2, then 16 Nxe7+! Bxe7
17 Bxb7+ Kb8 18 Be4+, and White
wins.
Instead of the serious mistake
12...Qxb2?, Black should continue
12...e6 13 Nc4 Qa6 14 Qe2 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 Bb4, which is roughly equal.
The computer found a more original alternative: 12...c6 13 Qd2 e6 14
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 9) [4/25/2006 12:33:10 PM]
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Vadim Zviagintsev
Photo: Dagobert Kohlmeyer, Berlin
Not everyone has greeted the novelty with applause. Lubomir Kavalek
wrote the biting comment in the Washington Post [10]: Zviagintsevs
bizarre knight move to the edge against the Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Na3?!)
was an act of desperation against the well-known theoretician
Alexander Khalifman. Somehow it worked out and Zviagintsev won.
Quite the opposite could be true. During his preparation, Zviagintsev
might have spotted a real weakness of his opponent. In his books, [4]
and [5] Alexander Khalifman suggested his negative opinion about a
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (1 of 13) [5/23/2006 10:09:48 AM]
19 exd5 bxc4 20 Nxc4 Qc7 21 Qf4 Rxe1+ 22 Rxe1 Rd8, Shipov [11],
23 Ne4 Nxd5 24 Qg3=.
19...Re7! 20 Re3 Rae8 21 Rde1 a5 22 Nb1 b4 23 Qc2! Nd7 24 Nd2
Ba6! 25 Ngf3!
25Ne5?
Here Khalifman spoils his best
chance in the whole game: 25...Bc3
followed by f6=+, Sakaev [12], and
25Bd4 26 Nxd4 cxd4=+ was
equally advantageous for Black.
26 Bg5 Nxf3+
26...Rc7!=, Shipov [11].
27 Nxf3 Rd7?
The text move shows the strength of Whites breakthrough e4-e5, as
does Malcolm Peins line 27...Rc7 28 e5 c4? 29 exd6! Rxe3 30 Rxe3
Qxd6 31 Re8+ Kg7 32 Qd2+ [6]. The correct defense was 27...f6 28
Bf4 Bb5=.
28 e5! dxe5 29 Nxe5 Rxd5
30 Nxf7!
The splendid justification of Whites
28th move.
30...Rxe3 31 Rxe3?
At first sight, 31 Nh6+! Kf8 32
Bxe3 Bb7 seems okay for Black (33
Qe4 Rd4; 33 Qc4 Qd6), but White
wins almost by force: 33 Qe2! Bc3
(33Re5 34 Qc4) 34 Bxc5+ Qxc5
35 Qe8+ Kg7 36 Re7+ Kxh6 37 Qf8+ Bg7 38 Qxg7+ Kg5 39 Re3 Bc8
40 h4+ Kg4 41 Qxh7 Qd6 42 Rg3+ Kf4 43 Rxg6 Qc5 44 Rg3+ .
31...Kxf7 32 Re7+ Kf8 (32Kg8) 33 Qe4
33Rd1+?
Overlooking Whites 37th move,
perhaps in time trouble. Correct was
33...Qd6 34 Bh6+ Bg7 35 Bxg7+
Kg8 36 f4 Bb5 37 Bh6 Bc6, and
White has only a repetition of
moves (38 Rg7+ Kh8 39 Re7 Kg8).
34 Kh2 Qd6+ 35 f4 Bf6 36 Bh6+
Kg8 37 Qa8+! Black resigned
(37Qd8 38 Re8+)
Vadim Zviagintsev (2670) Ruslan Ponomariov (2738)
Sochi, April 20th, 2006 (Russian Premier League)
Sicilian Defense [B20]
1 e4 c5 2 Na3! Nc6 3 Bb5 g6
The game above demonstrated that 3Qc7 4 Nf3 g6 5 c3 is slightly
better for White. Here Blacks queen remains on d8, White could now
transpose to familiar lines of the Rossolimo Variation: 2 Nf3 Nc6 3
Bb5. But Zviagintsev follows his own plans, trying to profit from the
fact that his knight is still on g1. His setup resembles a Grand Prix
Attack, but with Whites bishop on b5 instead of c4.
4 c3
In the earlier game Vadim Zviagintsev (2659) A. Motylev (2632),
Moscow 2005, Russian Superfinal (9), White chose the weaker 4 Bxc6
bxc6 5 d3 Bg7 6 f4 d5 7 e5 f6 8 Qe2 fxe5=+ 9 fxe5 Nh6 10 Nf3 Bg4 11
00 00 12 c3 Qc7 13 Nc2 Nf5 14 Bf4 Nd4 (even stronger: 14...Nh4!
/+) 15 Ncxd4 (15 cxd4) Rxf4 16 h3 cxd4 17 hxg4 dxc3 18 bxc3 Rxg4
19 Nd2 Rg3 20 Rae1 e6 21 Nb3 c5 (21...Bh6! 22 d4 Rxc3, when the
counter 23 Qg4 Re8 24 Rf6 is strongly met by 24Be3+ 25. Kh1 Qg7
resp. 25 Kf1 c5!+) 22 Qf2 Rxd3 23 Nxc5 Rxc3 24 Nxe6 Qb6 25 Qxb6
axb6 26 Nxg7 Kxg7 27 Rf2 Re8 28 e6 Re7 29 Rd2 Rc5 30 a4 h5 31
Kh2 Kf6 32 Rf2+ Kg7 33 Rd2 Ra5 34 Rd4 Rc5? (34...g5! 35 Rb4 Kf6
36 Rf1+ Kg6) 35 Rd2 Kf6 .
4Bg7 5 d3 Nf6 6 f4 00 7 Nf3 d6
In Savchenko (2568) Belov (2599), Sochi 2006, Black varied with
7Na5 8 00 a6 9 Ba4 b5 10 Bc2 d6 11 Qe1 Rb8 12 Qh4 b4 13 Nc4?
(13 Nb1 Qc7 14. f5!+=) 13...bxc3 14 bxc3 Nxc4 15 dxc4 Qa5 16 Qe1
Nd7 (16...Be6 17 e5 Nd7 18 Bd3 /+) 17 e5 (Bd2) Nb6 18 Rb1 Bg4
(18...Be6 19 Rb3 Bxc4 20 Ra3 /+) 19 Ng5 (19 f5!) h6
29 cxb5?
Vadim Zviagintsev overlooks a
spectacular combination: 29 Nxb5!!
Nxc4 30 Bb7 Rc5 (30Rb8 31
Nc7! Rxb7 32 Nxe8+ Kg6 33 h4! or
31Bg6 32 Ba6 Nd2 33 Rf2 Ne4
34 Rg2 Rb1+ 35 Bf1 Kf6 36 e7 Nd6
37 Nd5+ etc.) 31 a4 a6 32 Bxa6 Rc6
33 Rf3!. This strange position is
probably won for White.
29...Rxc3 30 Nb1 Rc5 31 Be2
31 Be4!? is an interesting alternative, although Black may be able to
hold: 31Rxb5 32 Nc3 Rb6 33 e7 Rf6 34 Rb1 Rb6 35 Rd1 Re6 36
Rd8 Txe7 37 Nd5 Nb7 38 Rb8 Rd7 39 Rxe8 Nd6 40 Rxe5 Nxe4 41
Rxh5 Rb7 and the ending should be a draw.
31...e4 32 Kf2 e3+?
The following line was more or less forced and would have secured the
draw: 32...Rc2 33 a4 Nc4 34 Rd1 h4 35 Rd4 e3+ 36 Kf1 Rc1+ 37 Kg2
(37 Rd1? Rxb1) Rc2 38 Nc3 Nb2 39 Rg4+ Kf6 40 Nd5+ Kxe6 41 Nf4+
Kd6=.
33 Kxe3 Re5+ 34 Kf3 Bxb5 35 Bxb5 Rxb5 36 Re1 Rf5+ 37 Kg3 Kf8
38 Nd2
38Ke7
38Rg5+? 39 Kf4 Rg2 40 Ne4 Ke7
41 Nd6 Nc6 42 Nf5+ Kf8 43 Rd1
with strong threats.
39 Nf3 Rd5 40 Kh4 Nc4 41 Ng5
Rd2 42 Rc1 Nd6 43 h3 Ne8 44
Kxh5 Rxa2 45 Kg6 Ra4 46 Rb1
Nd6 47 Rb8 Rf4
Another solution: 47...Rh4 48 Ra8
Nb5 49 Rc8 Nd4 50 Rc7+ Ke8 51 Rxa7 Nxe6!=.
48 Ra8 Rf6+ 49 Kh5 Nb5 50 h4 Rf4 51 Rh8 Nd6?
51...Nd4 was an easy draw: 52 Rh7+ Ke8 53 Rxa7 Nxe6.
White can delay d2-d4, and Zviagintsev uses this moment for an
original development. But this is perhaps the wrong time for originality
(see next note). Therefore, Id recommend following Ljubojevic: 6 Nc2
f6 7 d4 fxe5 8 dxe5 Qc7 9 Bf4 Nge7 10 Ne3 Ng6 (10h6) 11 Bg3 0-00 (Qb6) 12 Ng5 Qb6 (12Ncxe5 13 Nf7) 13 Nf7 Qxb2 14 Qc1 Qxc1+
15 Rxc1 c4 (Ljubojevic Ribli, Belfort 1988) 16 Be2! Bc5 17 Bh5 b5
18 Nc2 a5 19 a3+/.
6a6
Jeroen Boschs 6f6! [13] is the critical reply. I dont think that White
can get an advantage, but he should be able to equalize: 7 Qe2 fxe5 8
Nxe5 Qb6! 9 Bg2 Nxe5 10 Qxe5 Nf6 11 0-0 c4 12 Nc2 Bc5 13 b3 cxb3
14 Rb1 0-0 15 Rxb3 Qa6 16 Nb4=.
7 Nc2 Rc8 8 Bg2 Qc7 9 Qe2 c4 10 00 Bc5 11 Nce1! Na5 (11...Nge7=)
12 d4 cxd3 13 Nxd3 Bb6 14 Nd4 Ne7 15 Bg5 Ng6 16 h4 h6 17 Bc1
Ne7 18 Rd1 Bxd4 19 cxd4 Nf5 20 Ne1 Bb5
20...Qc4 21 Qg4 Nc6 22 Bf1 (22 Nf3 Qe2 23 Re1 Qc2) 22...Qb4 23
Nf3 00, about =, Shakhmatny Nedelya.
21 Qg4 Nc6 22 Rd2 Qa5 23 Nc2 Nb4? (23...00!=+, Shakhmatny
Nedelya) 24 Nxb4 Qxb4 25 Qd1 00 26 b3 Qa5 27 a4 Bd7 28 Ba3
Rfe8 29 Bc5 Qd8 30 a5 Bb5 31 b4
For the rest of the game, White
obviously holds the advantage, but
Black manages to hold the draw,
mainly thanks to the oppositecolored bishops. It is difficult to find
clear improvements. Perhaps 31 Rc2
Rc6 32 Qd2+= comes into
consideration.
31...f6 32 Qe1 Qd7 33 Bh3 Qf7! 34
Ra3 h5 35 Rf3 Qg6 36 Qb1
Maybe 36 Bxf5 exf5 37 e6 was more dangerous. But in any case
Blacks blockade is very hard to break.
36fxe5 37 Bxf5 exf5 38 Qxf5 Qxf5 39 Rxf5 exd4 40 Rxd4 g6 41
Rg5 Re6 42 g4 hxg4 43 Rdxg4 Kh7 44 h5 Be8 45 hxg6+ Rxg6 46
Rh5+ Kg8 47 Rxg6+ Bxg6 48 Rxd5 Be4 49 Re5 Bc6 50 f4 Re8 51
Rg5+ Kf7 52 Kf2 Re4 53 Rf5+ Kg6 54 Rg5+ Kf7 55 Rf5+ -
When we heard about Zviagintsevs first success against Khalifman, we
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (11 of 13) [5/23/2006 10:09:48 AM]
all had our doubts whether he would dare to repeat 2 Na3 against
another super-GM. But he did it again, and again His games inspire
the creativity of many chess players, so it seems justified to name the
variation after him. And after Sven-ke Kronberg, who invented 2 Na3
in 1985 (cf. my next column). The Kronberg-Zviagintsev Variation has
specific goals: in some lines the knight protects a bishop on b5,
sometimes it goes to c4 or c2. Yet there is more at the same time 2
Na3 is a high-class waiting move. The situations on the board look
familiar but no, suddenly appears this strange knight on a3. Only a
little detail, but it changes everything. Chess is a young game.
Sources:
[1] R. T. Durkin: Knightmare-1. A New Chess Opening, n. d., (USA
1960?)
[2] G. Welling: Ein kleiner Seitensprung, in: Kaissiber #5 (1998), pp.
17-26.
[3] T. Krabb: Defending Humanitys Honor.
[4] A. Khalifman: Opening for White according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 3,
Sofia 2004.
[5] A. Khalifman: Opening for White according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 5,
Sofia 2005.
[6] M. Pein: column in: Daily Telegraph, December 22, 2005; Internet
source.
[7] Z. Franco: Internet source.
[8] J. Rowson: commented games on: www.chesspublishing.com,
December 2005.
[9] L. Day: commented game in Toronto Star, December 2005.
[10] L. Kavalek: Chess, column in: Washington Post, December 26,
2005.
[11] S. Shipov: two articles on www.chesspro.ru (2005, 2006)
[12] K. Sakaev: analysis.
[13] J. Bosch: SOS: Zviagintsevs Sicilian Surprise, in New in Chess
Magazine 3/2006, pp. 82-85.
[14] G. Sosonko: Zviagintsevs Knight, in New in Chess Yearbook
#78, Alkmaar 2006.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
2d6
Last month we looked at 2Nc6 3 Bb5!; for example, 3g6 4 c3 Bg7.
Here Zviagintsev preferred to postpone the development of his kings
knight: 5 d3 Nf6 6 f4 0-0 7 Nf3 (1-0, 58) Zviagintsev Ponomariov,
Sotchi 2006 (see Part One). This set-up seems preferable to the more
static 5 Nf3 e5 6 0-0, reaching the game (by transposition of moves)
Kupreichik (2437) Trifonov (2347), Minsk 2005 (Byelorussian
Championship): 6Nge7 7 Nc4 d5 8 Ncxe5 dxe4 9 Nxf7?! (9 Re1! f6
10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 Ba4 exf3 12 Bxc6+ Bd7 13 Bxf3 Rc8 14 d4, unclear)
9Kxf7 10 Ng5+ Kf8 11 d3 Ne5? (11exd3 12 Qb3 c4! 13 Qxc4 Qd5
/+) 12 f4 Nf7? (12Nxd3 13 f5 gxf5 14 Qh5 Ng6 15 Nxe4 unclear)
13 Bc4 Nh6 14 Nxe4 Bf5 15 Nxc5 Qd6 16 d4? (16 Be3 +/) 16b6 17
Nd3 Bxd4+! (=, 95).
Another important game was 3Qc7 4 Nf3 g6 (1-0, 37) Zviagintsev
Khalifman, Moscow 2005. While this dynamic treatment may be
objectively better, the following example can be useful if only as a
warning: 4e5 5 0-0 a6? (5Be7! is more precise, to counter 6 c3 a6 7
Bxc6 dxc6 8 Nc4 with the tactical trick 8Be6! 9 Ncxe5? f6 10 Nd3
Bc4 /+ etc.) 6 Bxc6 dxc6. By a transposition of moves, this is
McShane Mic. Richter, German Bundesliga 2005: 7 Nc4 Bd6
(perhaps 7b5 8 Ncxe5 f6 9 Nd3, although the sacrifice isnt quite as
good as the similar idea in the last note) 8 b4!
8cxb4 9 d4 exd4 10 Qxd4 Be7 11
e5 (he could win the exchange: 11
Bb2 Nf6 12 Nb6 Rb8 13 Qe5!)
11c5 12 Qf4 Be6 13 Rd1 Bxc4 14
Qxc4 Qc6 15 Qg4 Nh6 16 Bxh6
gxh6 and now, instead of 17 Qg7?
(=, 79), the direct attack 17 Nh4!
Bxh4 18 Rd6 + wins.
3 c3 Nf6 4 g3 g6
4Nxe4? 5 Qa4+ loses on the spot.
4Nc6 5 Bg2 d5 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 Nf3 Bg4 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Bxf3 e6 10 d3
Be7 11 0-0 0-0 12 Qe2 Qd7 13 Bd2 Rad8 14 Rad1 Rfe8 15 Bg2 a6 16
Nc2 b5 17 a3 Bf6 18 h4 Qc7 19 Be4 a5 20 Ne3 b4 21 Rc1 bxc3 22
bxc3 a4 23 Rc2? (23 Qh5! g6 24 Qd1 +/) 23Be7 24 Nc4 Bf8?
(24Rb8 =) 25 Rb1 +/ (1-0, 88) Sasikiran (2692) Cheparinov
(2635), Turin 2006 (Olympiad).
5 Bg2 Bg7 6 Ne2 00 7 00 e5 8 d4 exd4
This is not a new position; however, the earlier examples all began with
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (3 of 11) [6/24/2006 2:48:59 PM]
1 d4 Nf6 2 g3 g6:
(a) 8...Qe7 9 dxc5 dxc5 10 Bg5 h6 11 Bd2 Rd8 12 Qc1 Kh7 13 Nc4 b5
14 Ne3 Bb7 15 f3 Nc6 16 Rd1 a6 17 Qc2 Rd6 18 Be1 (, 47)
Minich Kolman, Slovakia 2000.
(b) 8...Nc6 9 Nc2 b6 (9...Qe7 10 dxc5 dxc5 11 Ne3 Rd8 12 Nd5 (01,
35) Schuettig Hein, Germany 1999; 9...Nd7 10 f4 cxd4 11 cxd4 exd4
12 Nexd4 Nxd4 13 Nxd4 Qb6 14 Be3 (01, 39) Pancras Pannekoek,
Vlissingen 1999) 10 f4 Bb7 11 d5 Ne7 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 Bg5 Ne8 14 g4
f6 15 Bh4 Nd6 =+ (01, 48) Macura Ryc, Brno 1974.
9 cxd4 Nc6 10 d5 Nb4 11 Nc2 Nxc2 12 Qxc2 Re8 13 Nc3 a6 14 a4
A position known from the
Modernen Benoni; although the
outcome is the same, the line looks
completely different. The knights
exchange on e5, instead of c2, and it
is Whites kings knight that has to
leave the board: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3
Nf3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 Nc3
g6 7 g3 Bg7 8 Bg2 00 9 00 Re8 10
Nd2 a6 11 a4 Nbd7 12 Nc4 Ne5 13
Nxe5 Rxe5 14 Qc2 Re8 15 e4 (see
diagram above):
(a) 15Rb8 16 Rb1 Nd7 17 Bd2 c4 18 Ne2 Nc5 19 Qxc4 (10, 41),
Goldin Pavlovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1998.
(b) 15...b6 16 f4 Ra7 17 Bd2 Ng4 18 h3 Bd4+ 19 Kh1 Nf2+ 20 Kh2 (1
0, 39) Suarez Navas Minaya, Havana 1966.
14...Bd7 15 a5 Ng4 16 Bd2 b5 17 axb6 Qxb6 18 Nd1 Bb5 19 Re1
Bd4 20 Bc3 Ra7 21 h3 Nf6 22 Ne3 h5 23 Kh2 Rae7 24 f3 Nd7 25 g4
(25 b3 f5) 25...hxg4 26 Nxg4 Kg7 27 Rad1 Ne5? (27...Rh8 28 f4 f6 =)
28 Rxd4! Nxg4+
28...cxd4 29 Qf2 Qd8 30 Bxd4 f6 31
Qh4 Rf8 32 f4 Nxg4+ 33 Qxg4 +/.
29 hxg4 cxd4 30 Qf2 f6 31 Bxd4
Qc7 32 g5 Kg8 33 gxf6 Rh7+ 34
Kg1 g5 35 Be3 Bd7 36 Qg3?
36 Bxg5! Kf7 37 Rc1 with excellent
winning chances.
36...Kf7 37 Bxg5 (37 Qxg5? Rg8) 37Reh8 38 f4 Qb6+ 39 Qe3
39 Qf2? Rh1+! etc.
39Qxb2 40 Re2 Qb1+ 41 Re1 Qc2 42 Qe2 Qc5+ 43 Qe3 Qc2 44
Qe2
In the next game, we will look at several second move alternatives for
Black.
Vladimir Malakhov (2691) Krishnan Sasikiran (2692) Sarajevo,
May 2006
Sicilian Defense [B20]
1 e4 c5 2 Na3 a6
Black prepares Nc6, but first avoids Whites intended Bb5. Further
alternatives:
(a) 2...b6 was suggested by Sakaev in his online annotation [12] and
was later called the most challenging response by Rowson [8]. The
bishop b7 will attack Whites pawn on e4, but I fail to see the challenge.
The main line is: 3 g3 Bb7 4 Bg2
2 Na3 was played two decades prior to Vadim Zviagintsevs use of it.
This first game with 2 Na3, as far as I know, was won by the strong
correspondence player Sven-ke Kronberg (ICCF 2475), who lives in
Helsingborg, Sweden.
Sven-ke Kronberg (Sweden) Santiago Bonay Toscas (Spain)
16th Correspondence World Championship 1985 (Semi Final 3)
Sicilian Defense [B20]
1 e4 c5 2 Na3 d5
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
U. Vetter P. Langer
Correspondence, April 1999
Ruy Lopez [C89]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 Re1 00
8 c3 d5
The Marshall Attack was first played in 1893 in Havana by four Cubans
in consultation against Walbrodt. Another game, Sittenfeld
Soldatenkow, appeared in 1901 in La Stratgie. It was seven-teen years
later when Frank Marshall introduced the move to grandmaster play.
9 exd5 e4
Black sacrifices a second pawn. The
text move characterizes the Herman
Steiner Variation, yet Frank
Marshall had the idea years before
his American colleague. When
Stoltz H. Steiner, Hamburg 1930,
was played, the move was
considered a theoretical novelty (cf.
[1], also Wiener Schachzeitung
1930, p. 276: neu!). More popular
is 9Nxd5, where Black seems to
have enough compensation for the
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (2 of 9) [7/25/2006 12:02:14 PM]
pawn.
9e4 has a somewhat dubious image:
A good line for those who like to sacrifice their material while
setting nasty traps. Of course, the problem is that if White
sidesteps the tactics the reward is a better game. G. Lane [9].
This extravagant variation is not nowadays in fashion. Indeed,
the waves of interest in it over the years have not generally
amounted to more than a storm in a teacup, although in practice
it does contain some venom. A. Suetin [8].
Tim Harding [5] wasnt so negative: Unsound or not, there has
been a lot of experience with it in correspondence chess and
internal Soviet events, with Black scoring his share of wins.
10 dxc6
According to Jeroen van den Bersselaar from The Netherlands, 10
Ng5 is best answered by 10...Na5, with approximate equality; for
example, 11 Nxe4 Nxe4 12 Rxe4 Bb7 13 d4 Nxb3 14 axb3 Qxd5 15
Nd2.
Krogius & Matsukevich [7]
continue: Now White is ready to
counter 15f5 with 16 c4. How
strong Blacks initiative remains in
this case, wasnt yet determined in
practice. This is translated in [13]
to 15f5 16 c4 +/ Krogius,
Matsukevic. In fact, the position
seems balanced after 16Qf7. And
15Bf6! 16 Qg4 Rfe8 may be even
better.
Note that instead of 10Na5, the old variation 10Bg4? 11 f3! exf3
12 gxf3 Nxd5 13 Nxh7 Bd6 14 fxg4 Bxh2 15 Kxh2 ... + (Keres) is
unplayable, because of 15 Kf1! Kxh7 16 Qf3 + (Van den Bersselaar).
In M. Fetzer P. Langer, White chose the weaker 11 Qc2 Ne5 12 Nxe4
Nxe4 13 Qxe4 Bd6 14 f4 (or 14 d4 f5 15 Qxe5!?, but surely Black isnt
worse) 14Ng6! (a strong novelty) 15 d4 (15 g3 Qd7 16 Qc2 Rfe8 17
Re3 Nxf4! etc.) 15Qd7 16 Rf1 (16 Qc2 Rfe8!; i.e., 17 Re5 Nxe5 18
fxe5 Bxe5 /+) 16Rae8 17 Qc2 Re2 18 Qd3 Nh4 19 g3 Rg2+ 20 Kh1
Be2 0-1.
10...exf3 11 Qxf3
The main line in Total Marshall [13]. Tim Harding: Theory has swung
back to the view that this move, rather than 11 d4, is the most accurate
attempt to refute the Herman Steiner Variation. In the history of this
opening, more books have recommended 11 d4. Well look at this
important alternative at the end of the article.
11...Bg4 12 Qg3
In two of Peter Langers games White fell into an old trap: 12 Qe3?!
Re8 13 d4? (13 Qg5) Bd6 14 Qd2 Bf4! + Tislenko Pakulis, Liepaja
1981.
12Re8
12Bd6 13 Qh4 Re8 14 f3 Rxe1+ 15 Qxe1 Qe8 16 Qxe8+ Rxe8 17
Kf2 Bf5 18 d4 Bd3 19 Bd1 Bxh2 20 Nd2?? (20 Na3 = was necessary)
20...Re1 21 Bc2 Re2+ 22 Kf1 Bg3 23 Kg1 Re1+ and White resigned,
H. Bussjaeger P. Langer, 1998.
13 f3
Other continuations are less critical:
(a) 13 d4 Bd6 14 Rxe8+ Qxe8 15 Qe3 Qxc6 16 f3 Re8 17 Qf2 Bf5
(17Re7!? Radchenko 1963, is also interesting) 18 Bg5, and instead of
the unclear complications after 18Bd3, Black can choose the simpler
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (4 of 9) [7/25/2006 12:02:14 PM]
18Nd5 =.
(b) 13 f4 Bd6 14 Rxe8+ Qxe8 15 d4 Qxc6 is another situation where
Black has full com-pensation for his sacrificed pawn.
13Qd3!
Blacks position is menacing.
14 fxg4 Bc5+ 15 Re3
Forced because of 15 Kh1 Rxe1+ 16
Qxe1 Re8 17 Qd1 Nxg4, etc.
15Rad8 16 g5?
Total Marshall [13] recommended
16 Na3! Ne4 17 Qf3 Nxd2 18 Bxd2
Qxd2 19 Bxf7+ Kh8 20 Bxe8 Rxe8
etc., (+/). But this analysis also contains a side line, where Black
seems to survive: 20...Bxe3+ 21 Kh1 Rxe8 22 Qf7 Rg8 23 Qb3 (so far
Total Marshall [13])
Instead of Vitomskis 23...Bf4?,
Black plays 23...Bc5! and equalizes.
16...Nd5 17 Qf3 Nxe3 + 18 dxe3
Re5 19 g4! Bxe3+ 20 Bxe3 Rxe3 21
Qxf7+ Kh8 22 Na3 Rf3! 23 Qe6
Rdf8 24 Qe1 R3f4 0-1
think I have spotted an error in the most recent one. You wrote
that White has scored an impressive 64 percent out of nine
games. I dont quite understand how a score of 64% can be
achieved from nine games, at least not until quarter point scores
are introduced. Can this be corrected?
Thank you very much for spotting my statistical nonsense. In these nine
games, White scored six points, so I should have been able to find the
correct result of approximately 67 percent. Perhaps when I had
completed my studies of mathematics
Sources:
[1] F. Chalupetzky, L. Tth (Ed.): Die Schacholympiade von Hamburg,
1931.
[2] L. Barden: Die Spanische Partie, Berlin 1963.
[3] R.G. Wade, T. D. Harding: The Marshall Attack, London 1974.
[4] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 1st ed.,
Belgrade 1974.
[5] T.D. Harding: Spanish (Ruy Lopez): Marshall, London 1977.
[6] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 2nd ed.,
Belgrade 1981.
[7] N. Krogius, A. Mazukewitsch: Marshall-Angriff, Berlin 1989.
[8] A. Suetin: The Complete Spanish, London 1991.
[9] G. Lane: The Ruy Lopez for the Tournament Player, London 1991.
[10] V. Anand: C89, Belgrade 1993.
[11] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 3rd ed.,
Belgrade 1997.
[12] J. Nunn, etc.: Nunns Chess Openings, London 1999.
[13] T.D. Harding, J. Vitomskis, M. Bennedik: Total Marshall (CD),
Dublin 2002.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
8 c3 d5 9 exd5 e4
This last move defines the Steiner Variation of the Marshall Attack.
10 dxc6 exf3 11 Qxf3 Bg4 12 Qg3 Re8 13 f3
A critical situation for this opening. The next queen move was
attributed an ! in my last article, but after Mllers analysis it rather
deserves another sign. Ill explain why, before we return to this
situation and continue with the stronger alternative 13Bd6.
13Qd3? 14 fxg4 Bc5+ 15 Re3 Rad8 16 Qf3!
My article had only considered 16
g5 and the move recommended in
the books (or rather on the CD [5])
16 Na3. Mller was right to suggest
the text move as a refinement, to
play 16 Qf3 first and only after
16...Nxg4 to play 17 Na3, e. g.
17...Re5 18 Bc2 Nxe3 19 dxe3
Bxe3+ 20 Bxe3 Qxe3+ 21 Qxe3
Rxe3 22 Bb3 Rd2 23 Rf1 and White
is clearly on top. The text move 16
Qf3 has been played before, but
without recognizing its merits.
16Nxg4
The main line in [5] was 16Re5 17 h3 Ne4, Sevkeira Iten, Tyrol
1977, a game that ended drastically (18 Qf4?? Nxd2 19 Bxd2 Rxe3).
But a clear refutation exists: 18 Qxf7+ Kh8 19 Qf1 Nxd2 20 Qxd3
Rxd3 21 Bxd2 Rxd2 22 Nxd2 Bxe3+ 23 Kf1 Bxd2 24 Rd1 Bg5 25 Rd7
and wins.
I tried alternatives; however, neither 16Re7 17 h3 Ne4 18 Kh2 Qd6+
19 Kh1, nor 16Re4 17 Na3 Bxe3+ 18 dxe3 Nxg4 19 Qxf7+ Kh8 20
h3 look promising.
17 Na3!
Mllers new move, instead of 17 Bxf7+ Kh8 18 Qxg4 Rf8!, when
Black was already better in Gonzalos Santos, correspondence 1993
(Spain) [5].
Whites move order is much more precise than 16 Na3? Ne4!. Only
after the additional moves 16 Qf3 Nxg4, when it is no longer important
14 Qf2
14 Qh4 Rxe1+ leads to the same
position.
14Rxe1+ 15 Qxe1 Bxf3!
Apparently a novelty. The usual path
permitted by theory was 15Qe8,
and then:
(a) 16 Qf2! was considered the
main line: 16Bf5 17 d4 Qc6 18 Be3 Nd5 19 Nd2! (Keres). The
assessment of this position varies, from += (ECO) to +/ (Keres).
However after 19Re8 20 Bxd5 (other moves return the pawn: 20 Re1
or 20 Nf1 Bxh2+! 21 Kxh2 Qh6+. Or 20 Ne4 Bxe4 21 fxe4 Rxe4 22
Rf1 Nf4, but again I dont see much of an advantage) 20Qxd5, and
Black seems to have sufficient compensation for the pawn.
(b) 16 Qxe8+ Rxe8 17 Na3 Bf5 18 Nc2 Bd3 19 Ne3 +/ is analysis
from the Total Marshall CD [5]. Id prefer 18Bxc2 19 Bxc2 Re1+ 20
Kf2 Rh1; for example, 21 a4 bxa4 22 Bxa4 Nh5 23 Bc2 Bxh2 24 d4
Bg3+ 25 Ke2 g6 26 b4 and Whites chances on the queenside seem
more concrete than Blacks play on the other side.
16 gxf3 Bxh2+! 17 Kxh2 Qd3
After this sequence of more or less
forced moves, what does Black have
for his sacrifice of two (!) bishops?
The obvious result is that Whites
king has lost his pawn shelter.
Therefore, Black will be able to give
perpetual check in many lines. Then
there are immediate threats against
the white queen: Re8, often followed
by Re6-h6. And finally Black gets
long-term chances because of his
free h-pawn, which may advance at
an appropriate moment. On the other side, White only has to get all
his pieces into play to win the game. But this goal is not easy to
achieve.
Before we continue the analysis, lets look at an older line with a
similar sacrifice: 12Bd6 is an important alternative (instead of
12Re8). Then if 13 Qh4 Re8 14 f3 Bxh2+!? 15 Kxh2 Qd6+ 16 Kg1
Rxe1+ 17 Qxe1 Re8
(b) 19 Be6!?. Closing the e-file at the cost of a bishop. But Black still
has enough activity to compensate for the material deficit: 19fxe6 20
d4 (20 a4 Rf8, or 20 d3 Rd8) 20e5 21 Nd2 (21 dxe5 Re8 22 Qf4
Qh5+ 23 Kg1 Rxe5 24 Qg3 Rd5 25 Bd2 Rd6 26 Kf2 Qf5 27 Kg2 Re6
28 Kg1 Re2 /+) 21exd4 22 Qxd4 Re8 23 Kg3 Qg6+ 24 Kf2 Qc2! 25
a4 Qd1 26 Nf1 Ne4+ 27 Qxe4 Rxe4 28 fxe4 Qc2+ 29 Kf3. The chances
are even.
19Re8
20 Kg2
Since 20 Qf2? Ng4+ and 20 Qd2?
Qxf3 lose on the spot, White has to
give the queen for the rook. 20
Qxe8+ Nxe8 21 Kg2 can lead to the
same position, but offers Black an
additional option in 21Nd6 instead
of returning to f6.
20Rxe3 21 Bxe3 Qg6+ 22 Kf1
a5!
Energetic and necessary. Black disrupts the opponents plans. Else
Whites rook could get into play too quickly, and then Blacks
resignation would be only a question of time.
23 a4
23 Na3 looks logical, but Black has active resources: 23a4 24 Bd1
b4!
25 cxb4? (25 Nc4 Nd5 =) 25Qd3+
26 Kf2 Nd5 27 Nc2 f5! /+ (28 f4
g5!)
23bxa4
Much better than the short-sighted
23b4? 24 Nd2 Qd3+ 25 Kf2 bxc3
26 bxc3 Qxc3 27 Rb1 Qxc6. For the
cheap price of two pawns White has
regained the long-desired activity of
his rook. For example, 28 Bc4 h5 29
Rb8+ Kh7 30 Rb5 h4 31 Rxa5 Kg8 32 Rc5 Qd6 33 Nf1 h3 34 a5 h2 35
Kg2 +.
It is less clear whether 23Ne4 is good or bad. After 24 fxe4 Qxe4 25
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 8) [8/22/2006 2:05:52 PM]
Ke2 Qg2+ 26 Bf2 Qg4+ 27 Ke1 Qe4+ 28 Kd2 Qg2 29 axb5 Qxf2+ 30
Kc1 Qg1+ 31 Bd1 Qg5+ 32 Nd2 Qxb5, White certainly has an
advantage, but Blacks kingside pawns should not be underestimated.
24 Bc4
24 Bxa4 allows 24Nd5 25 Bc1 (what else?) h5 26 Bb3 Nf6 27 Kf2 h4
28 Bf4 h3 29 Nd2 (29 Bg3 Qh6) 29Qg2+ 30 Ke3 h2 31 Bxh2 (or 31
Bxc7 h1Q 32 Rxh1 Qxh1 33 Bxa5 Ne8 34 d5 Qg1+ with equality)
31Qxh2 32 Rxa5 Qh6+ 33 Kd3 Qg6+ 34 Ke2 Nh5 =.
24h5! 25 Nd2 h4 26 Bf4
26 Ke2 Nh5 27 Rg1 Ng3+ 28 Kf2 Qxc6 with approximate equality; for
example, 29 Bd3 a3! or 29 Bg5 Qd6 30 Bxh4 Qf4! or 29 Re1 Qd6 30
Bd3 g6 or 29 Bf4 Qf6 30 Bxg3 hxg3+ 31 Rxg3 Qb6!.
26Nh5 27 Bxc7 Qxc6 28 Be5 Qh6 29 Ke2
Or 29 Ne4 Ng3+!.
What follows is far from being
forced, but the line gives an
impression of how Black might use
his menacing h-pawn to stay in the
game. The diagrammed position is
difficult to assess. There is a good
chance, I believe, that the advanced
h-pawn will cost White a piece. In
the resulting position, Blacks queen
will have more space for her
maneuvers. It shouldnt be too difficult to exchange the a-pawns for
Whites b- and c-pawn, and then the draw cannot be far away.
29Qg5 30 Re1
If he finds the time for regrouping his pieces (Kd1, Bd3, Kc2), Black
would be in trouble.
30h3 31 Ne4 Nf4+ 32 Bxf4 Qxf4 33 d5 Qh2+ 34 Kd3 Kf8
Not 34Qxb2? 35 d6 Qb7 36 Nc5 Qxf3+ 37 Kc2 Qg2+ 38 Re2 Qg6+
39 Bd3 Qxd6 40 Re8+ +.
35 d6
There is no time to wait, since Blacks h-pawn is an enormous threat.
Sources:
[1] R. G. Wade, T. D. Harding: The Marshall Attack, London 1974.
[2] A. Matanovic, etc., Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 1st ed.,
Belgrade 1974.
[3] T. D. Harding: Spanish (Ruy Lopez): Marshall, London 1977.
[4] N. Krogius, A. Mazukewitsch: Marshall-Angriff, Berlin 1989.
[5] T. D. Harding, J. Vitomskis, M. Bennedik: Total Marshall (CD),
Dublin 2002.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
After 16 0-0 d5?! 17 f4! the open ffile would be a problem, so Black
should have searched for something
else (16g6, 16c6).
A position full of tension. Black has
achieved what he could expect from
the Balogh Defense: a pawn
majority in the center. Yet, in the
near future, Whites threat of
establishing a passed pawn on the afile seems more important. Can
Black find a way to push his center pawns?
16...Rhc8! 17 Nxe7
(a) If 17 Rd1 Nd5 18 Bb5, Black sacrifices the exchange: 18 Rxb5!
19 axb5 Nxc3 =.
(b) 17 Qxa7 Qc6 18 00 Ra8 19 Bb5 Qxc3 20 Qb7 d5 = isnt much
better.
(c) 17 Bb5 c6 18 Nxe7 Qxe7 19 Bxc6 d5 20 Qxa7 d4! is an important
resource.
(d) 17 0-0 c5; or (e) 17 b5 e4 18 Nxe7 Kxe7 19 Bc4 c5. Black has
nothing to fear.
17...Qxe7 18 Qc6
18 Qxa7 (or 18 Bf5!?) d5 19 Bd2 Nf4 20 Bxf4 (or 20 Bf1 Ne4 21 Qe3
Re8!) 20...exf4+ 21 Kf1 Qe5 22 Qc5 Re8 23 Kg1 f3! 24 g3 Nd7 with
attacking chances.
18...a5!
The only reasonable alternative was 18...Nd8 19 Bc4+ Kf8 20 Qf3 c5
21 bxc5 Nb7, but then White has 22 g4! h6 23 h4 e4 24 Qf5 Nxc5 25 g5
Qd7 26 Qf4 Qc7 27 gxf6 Nd3+ 28 Bxd3 Qxc3+ 29 Kf1 Qxa1+ 30 Kg2
Qxf6 31 Qxf6+ gxf6 32 Bxe4 +.
19 bxa5 d5 20 0-0
The last moves were almost forced. At this stage I feared another
continuation: 20 a6! Nf4 21 Bf1 Ra8 22 a7 Rd8 23 Rd1 Re8 24 Rb1
Qa3 25 g3!, which looked very difficult for Black. However, 20d4!
21 Bd2 Qd6 (del Rio) seems to hold.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Nxc4 Kh8 14 Nce5 Nxe5 15 Nxe5 Qd5 16 Qf3 Qxf3 17 Nxf3 c5 (=, 52)
Lvholt Kgler, Correspondence 2004. White may nevertheless be
able to demonstrate an advantage: 12 c3! Kg7 (12dxc3 13 Qc1!) 13.
Nxd4 Nxd4 14 cxd4 Kh8 15 Nc3! Qf6 16 Ne4 Qg7 17 Ng3 Be6 18 Re5
Rad8 19 f4 += Gutman. White has no weaknesses and can play for a
win without risk.
However, Black has another, even more convincing reply at his
disposal: 9 Bg5 f6! 10 Re1+ Kf7 11 Bh6 Kg6 12 Qc1 (so far analysis
by Gutman in [1])
12Qd5! (a significant
improvement by Volker Hergert,
Switzerland) 13 c3 d3 (13Bg4 14
Nh4+ Kf7, Hergert) 14 Nh4+ Kf7,
unclear (Hergert) [2].
9Be6
9Be7 10 Bg5 Rxg7 11 Bxe7 Nxe7
[1] 12 Qe2! (Bcker) appears to be
good for White, e.g. 12Bh3 13 g3
Qd6 14 Na3 d3 15 Qe3! +=, analysis
by Jrg Simons (France) and Bcker [2].
10 Bg5 Be7! 11 Bxe7 Kxe7
Returning to the line found by Tassilo von der Lasa in his Handbuch,
1858 (9 Bg5 Be7 10 Bxe7 Kxe7! 11 Re1+ Be6).
12 Re4!
Carl Schlechters move in the 8th edition of the Handbuch. 12 Nbd2
(Jacques Mieses) can also lead to fascinating positions, e.g. 12Qd5
(12Kf6!? +=) 13 b3! cxb3 14 axb3 (better than 14 Nxb3 in Mieses
Teichmann, St. Petersburg 1909, but 14 cxb3 [1] comes into
consideration) 14Rxg7 15 Ne4 Kf8 16 Qc1 Qf5 (16Rc8!?) 17 Ng3
Qd5
detect the move order subtleties, when you overcome the tactical
temptations either by intuition or (like Lev Gutman) by concrete
analysis.
2. Italian Game 4d6 5 c3 Bg4
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0 d6
Another critical variation, considered by many authors as the best
reaction on 4 0-0. After castling too early, they believe, White will have
difficulties to get rid of the pinning Bg4. But as Gutman has
demonstrated in [6], this is just another common prejudice.
5 c3 Bg4
6 b4!
The complications arising from 6 d4
or 6 Qb3 fascinated the theoreticians
of the past, from Staunton to Keres.
But the positional approach seems
more appropriate. The following
main line is based on analyses by
Gutman in [6]. However, once again
we are tempted to vary the move
order a bit and find our own
interpretation.
Lev Gutmans preferred line 6 h3 Bh5 7 b4 Bb6 8 a4 (Gutman [6]) may
in fact be less precise because of 8a5 9 b5 Nce7. With his bishop
already on the square h5, Black no longer has to fear the tactical blow
Bxf7+ (f7 is now protected by Bh5).
6Bb6 7 a4 a6
An important point of Whites move order was suggested to me by
Martin Bennedik (Germany): 7a5 8 b5 Nce7? is punished by means
of 9 Bxf7+. Therefore in move eight Blacks Nc6 would have to retreat
to b8, which at least gives White a slight plus.
8 h3
Stronger than 8 d3? (Levitzky Alekhine, St. Petersburg 1913)
8Qf6! (Bennedik) 9 Nbd2 Nge7 10 h3?! h5!. Obviously Whites
concept has failed and he has to be careful to avoid getting into serious
trouble. After the text move the analogous 8h5? 9 d3 Qf6? would be
too risky: 10 hxg4 hxg4 11 Ng5! g3 (what else?) 12 Ra2 +/. So it
seems probable that Blacks bishop has to move. The square h5 looks
like the most logical choice.
8Bh5 9 d3 Nf6
By a different order of moves, we
have reached the game Levitzky
Alekhine, St. Petersburg 1913.
Instead of developing the knight to
f6, Bennedik suggests 9Nge7, but
White should have an advantage
after 10 Nbd2 (10 Qb3? Bxf3! 11
Bxf7+ Kf8 12 gxf3 Ng6! =) 10...0-0
11 Qb3, e.g.:
(a) 11...Kh8 12 Bb2 Qe8 13 Rae1 f6
14 d4 Ng6 15 g3. Playing in
Steinitz style doesnt lose by
force, nevertheless the assessment += seems fully justified.
(b) 11...Qd7 12 Nh4 Rad8 13 Ndf3, and I prefer White.
10 Re1 h6 11 Nbd2 g5
Criticized by Alekhine, who claimed that Black would have had a good
game after 110-0 12 Nf1 d5. But Gutman proved that he was wrong:
12 a5! Ba7 13 Nf1 d5 14 exd5 Nxd5 15 Bd2 Re8 16 Ng3 Bg6 17 Qb3
Nf4 (17Nf6? 18 Nh4) 18 Bxf4 exf4 19 Ne4 +/, e.g. 19Ne5 20
Nxe5 Rxe5 21 Nd2. White threatens to push the Ba7 offside by means
of d3-d4. 21Rxe1+ 22 Rxe1 b5 is no solution either because of 23
axb6 Bxb6 24 Nf3 +/[6].
Alekhine is correct in saying that Blacks plan of opening the g-file
leads to serious weaknesses in his own camp. But significant
improvements should better be searched at an earlier stage of the game.
Here the situation was already clearly superior for White.
12 Nf1
Or 12 a5 Ba7 13 b5! axb5 14 Bxb5 0-0 15 Bxc6 bxc6 16 Nf1 +/
Gutman/Bcker.
12g4 13 hxg4 Nxg4
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
For the last situation h6/g5 vs. an early Nf3 the database knows only
49 examples (either in the move order 1 Nf3 h6, or by transposition),
which could be a warning. But the picture gains some charm when you
consider that Black has scored an impressive 64 percent.
These defenses have a few things in common e.g. Black doesnt have
to fear the direct Bc4, Ne2-g3 and often they will even transpose to
each other. After 1 g3, Whites knight usually goes to f3, so the reply
1g5 borrows some motivation from 1 Nf3 h6. In most games with an
Ice Age strategy (g5), Black attacks the center by means of c7-c5,
which already belonged to Myers concept after 1 c4 g5. However, in
some cases the c5 setup doesnt work too well, e.g. against the
formation e4, d4, c3, and I have begun to prefer another interpretation.
As so often, if you have found something new, it leads to other ideas.
Thus, Myers created several openings with a delayed g2-g4, such as 1
Nc3 c5 2 g4!? (inspired by the weakening move c5). By the way, Myers
later developed an analogous philosophy for the other side of the board:
against 1 f4, 1 b3 or 1 Nc3, the American says, Black can safely reply
1b5 (or 1 Nc3 a6 followed by b5). This might be the topic of another
article.
The following two games will not supply you with a complete
repertoire against 1 Nf3. My main goal is to demonstrate that there are
still some relatively unexplored openings where you can find your own
approach.
Hans Hornung (2211) Stefan Bcker (2349)
Bad Wiessee, November 2005
1 Nf3 h6 2 d4
Blacks plan could have been avoided by 2 h4, but many will find the
cure more dangerous than the disease. In some games 2 b3 has been
played, when the London formation 2...d5 3 Bb2 Bf5 would be a solid
reply. The move h6 fits well into Blacks plans. Moreover, there is an
entertaining alternative in 2...g5 3 Bb2, when both 3...Rh7 and 3...Nf6,
in spite of their strange appearance, seem okay for Black.
2...g5 3 e4 Bg7 4 c3
The immediate 4 h4 comes into
question: 4...g4 5 Ne5 d6 (5...h5 6
Bc4 was better for White in Gireada
Taga, Tusnad 2000, but 5...Nf6!? 6
Nc3 d6 7 Nd3 Nc6 8 d5 Nd4 is
interesting) 6 Nxg4 Bxg4 7 Qxg4
Bxd4, White has the two bishops.
Nevertheless it seems that Black can
castle long and get enough play on
the g-file, e.g. 8 Bc4 (8 Qd1 Bc5,
about =) 8...e6 9 c3 Nf6 10 Qe2 Bb6
11 Bf4 Rg8!? 12 Bxh6 Rxg2 or 12
Nd2 Ng4 13 f3 Qf6.
4...d6
Whites last move was directed against the thematic advance c7-c5. In
similar situations, Basmans book The Killer Grob (Oxford 1991)
recommends a different continuation, d7-d5. True, I dont find this
concrete position, with a knight on f3, in the book. Anyway, over the
board, I didnt like the analogous 4...d5 at all: 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Nbd2
must be better for White, and the aggressive 6...g4 7 Bc4 Qf5 8 Ng1
b5 9 Bb3 Bb7 10 Nf1 Bxg2? 11 Ne3 Qe4 12 Bd5 + even loses on the
spot. The modest 4...d6 looks like an auxiliary solution at first sight, but
I think it is more. Blacks setup is rather sound, even without immediate
central action. Moves like c5 or d5 can be useful; at least they deflect
Whites attention from Blacks weaknesses on the kingside. But they
are also committal, and altogether I see more disadvantages than
advantages for Black in such maneuvers. The position is opened, and
White can find active squares for his pieces. I am not sure that the text
move acquires full equality, but very probably it is Blacks best
continuation.
5 Bd3
In the post-mortem, Dr. Hornung agreed that he had missed the right
moment to attack Blacks pawn chain. According to him, the right
moment came on move 7. Of course h2-h4 is a critical option at any
moment, after Black has played g7-g5. At this stage there could follow:
5 h4 g4 6 Nh2 Nf6 7 Bd3 c5 8 d5 h5 (8...g3?!) 9 Nf1 Nbd7 10 Ng3 Ne5
=.
White achieved a small advantage after 5 Bc4!? g4 6 Ng1 (6 Nh4!?)
Nf6 7 Qc2 d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 Ne2 c6 10 Nf4 h5 += Astl Kroell,
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (3 of 9) [11/21/2006 1:49:50 PM]
willing to invest three tempi: e6, Nge7 and Ng6. The obvious drawback:
it costs plenty of time. That said it still requires a sharp eye to find a
refutation!
8 Na3 Ng6 9 Re1 0-0 10 Nc4 f5
Black hastens to demonstrate that
White has played too slowly. With a
pawn on g5, it looks attractive to
push your f-pawn, but at the same
time the advance creates weaknesses
on the e-file and gives White
concrete targets. In hindsight, I am
no longer sure that 10...f5 was the
correct decision. My solid
kingside formation may even allow
the calm 10...b6!? 11 g3 Bb7 12 a5
b5 13 a6 Bc8 14 Ne3 Rb8. Food for
thought.
11 exf5 exf5 12 b4?
12 Ne3! keeps Blacks queen away from f6, with unclear consequences:
12...g4 (12...Nce7 13 h3; 12...d5 13 b4 g4 14 b5 Nce7 15 Ne5 Nxe5 16
dxe5 c5 17 bxc6 Nxc6 18 e6! +/) 13 Nd2 Nce7 (or 13...Nf4 14 Bc2
Ne7 15 Ndf1 Nfg6 16 g3 b6!?) 14 g3 (14 Bc4+ d5) Qd7 15 Qb3+ Kh8
16 a5 f4 17 Nd5 Nf5 with complications.
12...Qf6 13 Ra2
13 Ne3 Nce7 14 Bc4+ Kh8 comes into consideration. After the text
move, White lacks effective counterplay, and Black begins to control
the position.
13...g4 14 Nfd2 Be6 15 Rb2 Nf4 16 Bf1 Nd5 17 Nb1 f4 18 b5 Nce7 19
Ncd2 Ng6 20 Ne4 Qf7 21 a5 b6 22 a6 Rae8 23 c4 Nde7 24 d5 Bd7 25
Rb3 Ne5 26 Nbc3 Qg6 27 Kh1 Qh5 28 Kg1 N7g6 29 Na2 Nh4 30
Kh1
30...Rf5?
Missing both the elegant execution
30...Nhf3! 31 gxf3 gxf3!
(threatening Ng4), and the simpler
30...f3! 31 Ng3 (31 g3 Ng2 +)
31...Qg6 +.
31 Nb4 Kh8 32 Nc6 Bxc6 33 bxc6
Rg8 34 Ba3 Nhf3?
I had spoiled my fine attacking
position and now the time trouble
began. The text move tries to force matters.
35 gxf3 Nxf3 36 h3?
Fortunately, White was too short of time to find 36 Rxf3! gxf3 37 Nd2
Bc3 38 Qxf3 Qxf3+ 39 Nxf3. The situation still seems unclear, but after
39....Bxe1 the zwischenzug 40 Bb2+! simply wins for White. The rest of
the game doesnt deserve any comments.
36...Be5? 37 Nxd6? cxd6 38 Rxe5 dxe5 39 d6 Qg5 40 d7 gxh3 0-1
Sascha Grimm (2359) Stefan Bcker (2351)
Oberliga North Rhine and Westphalia, October 2006
1 Nf3 d6 2 g3 h6
According to Myers thesis both Nf3 and g3 invites an early g7-g5. So I
couldnt resist. My opponent had probably expected a Leningrad Dutch.
3 Bg2 g5 4 e4 Bg7 5 d4 Nc6!?
After White has combined the moves g3 and e4, it is a natural reaction
to provoke the advance d4-d5 and to conquer the weak square e5. For
this purpose 5...c5 has been played: 6 dxc5 Qa5+ 7 Bd2 Qxc5 8 Bc3
Bxc3+ 9 Nxc3 Nf6 10 Qd4 Nc6 and a draw was agreed in Vogel
Welling, Dieren 1987. The text move is a lively alternative.
6 d5 g4!
18 Nc5 Bc8
I had intended 18...Be2 19 Re1 Bf3,
but here I saw 20 Bd4 Bxd4 21
Qxd4 Rg8 22 Na6! +=.
19 Bd4?!
For his creative play, White now
should have earned an advantage: 19
Nd3! Bd6 20 c4! +=. But he was
already suffering from zeitnot.
19...Bxd4 20 Qxd4 e5?!
20...0-0 =.
21 Qa4 e4
21...0-0 22 Qa5 Bg4 23 Re1 Rfc8 24 Qc3 d4 25 Qa5 f6 26 c3 dxc3 27
Qxc3 +=.
22 Qd4?
Time trouble. 22 Qa5! Bg4 (22...Qe5 23 Nxe4) 23 Re1 0-0 24 h3! with
an advantage for White.
22...0-0 23 Qf6? Qg5 24 Qc3 Rb8 25 Nb3 f5 26 Qe5?!
26...f4! 27 Qxc7 Rb7 28 Qd6 Bg4
Or 28...e3! 29 Qc5 f3 30 Bh1 exf2+
31 Qxf2 Ng6 /+. But the text move
is also sufficient. In spite of a few
inaccurate moves, from this point the
result was hardly in doubt.
29 Re1 Rd7 30 Qc5 e3 31 gxf4
exf2+ 32 Qxf2 Rxf4 /+ 33 Qe3?
Bf3 34 Qe6+ Kh7
34...Kf8! 35 Re2 Rg4 +.
35 Re2 Bg4 36 Qe5 Bxe2 37 Qxe2 Nf5 38 Nc5 Re7 39 Ne6 Qg8 40
Nxf4
40 Qd2 Nh4!.
40...Rxe2 41 Nxe2 Ne3 42 Ng3 Nxc2 43 Rf1 Ne3 44 Rf6 Nxg2 45
Kxg2 d4 46 Kf3 Qd5+ 47 Ne4 Kg7 48 Kf4 Qxa2 49 Rxc6 Qxb2 50
Rc7+ Kf8 51 Rd7? Qxh2+ 52 Kg4 Qe5 0-1
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (8 of 9) [11/21/2006 1:49:50 PM]
I shouldnt hesitate to repeat 1 Nf3 h6. The opening in the second game,
1 Nf3 d6!? 2 g3 h6, is an interesting waiting concept. With his bishop
on g2, Whites prospects of refuting Blacks setup are even smaller than
in the first case. There is still plenty to explore. With a little patience,
everybody can find his own approach.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
As you could expect, the two Caro-Kann lines are more popular than
the French versions the move g6 harmonizes better with c6 than with
e6. The second line (b) with Nd2 is said to be worse than the
Gurgenidze Variation (as indicated by the number of games), since
White will be able to protect his center by means of c2-c3 and start a
forceful attack (h2-h4-h5). Analogously, the fourth line should be better
than the third: after an eventual e4-e5 the usual counter c7-c5 profits
from the position of the Nc3. Nevertheless, in practice line four is even
rarer than the third a small surprise.
This article will discuss three games to discover whether the French line
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 really deserves its bad image. The first was
already presented in [4], in a chapter entitled Mild Provocation: g6
plus e6. For some of the readers this may sound like an
understatement. But I am still convinced that the risk that Black takes is
not much bigger than in other lines of the French Defense. To adopt
Ujtelkys ideas to the French Defense is rather a velvet than a bloody
revolution. Maximilian Ujtelky (1915-1979) usually began his games
with the fianchetto, but instead of the standard continuation d6 and Nf6,
which often leads to the Pirc Defense, he had his own ideas.
N. Gaprindashvili M. Ujtelky
Wijk aan Zee 1969 (tournament B)
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3
Apparently a normal Modern Defense [B06], but it soon transposes to
our strange kind of French Defense. The game Spassky Ujtelky,
Sotchi 1967 [2], continued 3 Nf3 d6 4 Bc4 e6 5 Bb3 d5 6 Nbd2 Ne7 7 00 0-0 8 Re1 Nd7 9 c3 c5 10 e5 b5 11 Nf1 a5 12 Bc2 b4 13 h4 (1-0, 45).
However, the French move order (seen in the two games below)
excludes such an irregular beginning with a delayed development of
Whites queens knight.
3e6 4 Be3!
White recognizes that Black intends something unusual, instead of a
Pirc Defense, and decides to castle long, intending a pawn storm against
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (2 of 11) [12/23/2006 1:08:42 PM]
16...Qxe5
A difficult decision in a messy
position:
(a) 16...Nxc5 17 Nh5 Nd7 18 Nf6+
Kd8 [4] 19 Bg2 +=.
(b) 16...Nxe5?! 17 Nh5 Ng4 18
Rxg4 [4] fxg4 19 Nf6+ Kd8 20 Bg5
Qxh2 21 Qe3 Bh6 leads to an
exchange of the queens: 22 Nfxd5
Bxg5 23 Nxe7+ Kc7 24 Qxg5 Qh6
25 Qxh6 Rxh6 26 c6 bxc6 27 Nxc6,
but the resulting ending is still unclear.
(c) 16...Bh6! [4] is probably best, e.g. 17 Kb1 Bxf4 18 Bxf4 Qxc5 19
Be3 Qc7 20 Bg5 b5 21 a3 Rb8 =+.
17 Qf2 Rxh2
(a) 17...Nc6 [4] 18 Nd3 Qxh2 19 Bg2 Rg8 20 Bf4 Bh6 21 Nxd5 exd5
22 Qe3+ +=.
(b) 17...Bh6 was recommended in [4]. 18 Nfxd5 Bxe3+ (18...exd5? 19
Bxh6 Rxh6 20 Re1 wins for White) 19 Nxe3 Rxh2 20 Bg2 Qxc5 21
Qf4 =.
18 Qxh2 Qxe3+ 19 Kb1 Qxc5
19...Nxc5? 20 Bg2 Ne4 21 Bxe4 fxe4 22 Rge1, followed by Nh5,
invites a dangerous attack.
20 Be2 d4?
20...Qd6 = came into question. Now
White finds an elegant attack:
21 Bh5! Nf6
21...dxc3? 22 Bxf7+! wins.
22 Nce2 Nc6 23 Qh4 Be7
He should have tried 23...Qe7 24
Nxd4 Nxd4 25 Rxd4 Nxh5 26 Qxh5
Bd7 to get his king out of the fire.
24 Qg5?
Overlooking 24 Rg7 e5 25 Bxf7+
Kd8 26 Ng6 +, with excellent
winning chances.
24...Nd8?
24...Nxh5 25 Qxh5 e5 +=.
25 Nxd4 e5 26 Nde6?
Returning the favor. After 26 Rge1! exd4 (or 26...e4 27 Qg7) 27 Qxf6,
Black is helpless against Whites threats.
26...Bxe6
26...Nxe6? 27 Bxf7+ Kxf7 28 Qg6+ Kf8 [4] 29 Rh1! +.
27 Nxe6 Nxe6 28 Bxf7+ Kxf7 29 Qg6+ Kf8 30 Rh1 Ng7
The alternative 30...Bd8 31 Rh8+ Ke7 32 Rh6 Nd4 33 Qxf6+ Kd7 34
Qf7+ Kc8 35 c3 Nc6 36 Rxc6+ Qxc6 37 Qxf5+ Kc7 38 Qxe5+ also
leads to a draw.
31 Rh8+ Ng8 32 Rh7 Bf6 33 Rd7 Qc4
34 b3??
After 34 a3, Black has nothing better
than perpetual check. The text move
is more ambitious and
Gaprindashvili deserves praise for
her courage, but here she wants too
much.
34...Qf1+ 35 Kb2 e4+ 36 Ka3 Qc1+
37 Ka4 b5+ 38 Ka5 Bc3+
Or 38...Qa3+ 39 Kb6 Bd4+! 40 Rxd4 Rb8+ 41 Kc7 Qc5+ +.
39 b4
39 Kb6 Qe3+ 40 Kc6 Ne7+! 41 Rxe7 Rc8+ 42 Kb7 Kxe7, etc.
39...Bxb4+ 40 Kxb4
40...Qb2+?
40...a5+ wins easily: 41 Kc5 Qxc2+
42 Kd4 (42 Kb6 Qf2+) Qd2+ 43
Ke5 Qxd7+.
41 Kc5 Qxc2+?
The last mistake in a fascinating
battle. After 41...Qe5+ 42 Kb6 Qe6+
43 Qxe6 Nxe6 44 Rdf7+ Ke8 45
Kd8 Rxf5 46 Rd8 Re5 47 Rd6+ Ka5
48 Nf6, Black can still play for a win.
42 Kb6 -
A French Revolution
(c) by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
The other two games also arose from the French move order.
P. Acs (2529) Z. Varga (2495)
Balatonlelle 2002
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3
4 Be3 Bg7 could transpose to the position of the first game. White
doesnt play 4 e5 at once, which would only give Black the welcome
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (7 of 11) [12/23/2006 1:08:42 PM]
6 b4
Stops any plans connected with c7c5, at least for a few moves.
6...Ne7
Id be tempted to play 6....f6. Of
course, this move involves some
risk, in respect to Blacks obvious
weaknesses. But hasnt White
weakened his queenside as well?
7 Rb1 Nd7 8 Bd3 b6 9 Ne2 c5 10 c3
cxd4 11 cxd4 b5 12 h4 h6 13 Bf4
13 a4 comes into question.
13...Nb6 14 Nc1 Nc6 15 0-0 Bf8 16 Bd2 Nc4 17 g3 Be7 18 Kg2?! Kf8
After 18...g5! =+, Whites d4-pawn suddenly would be in some danger
of getting lost.
19 Be2 a5 20 bxa5 b4 21 Nb3 Ba6 22 Be1 Kg7 23 Bd3 Rb8 24 Qe2
N6xa5 25 Nfd2 Rc8 26 Nxa5 Qxa5 27 Nb3 Qb6? (27...Qa4) 28 Nc5
Bxc5 29 dxc5 Qxc5 30 Bxb4 Qa7 31 Rfe1 Rhe8 32 h5 +/
32...gxh5? 33 Qf3 (simpler is 33
Qxh5) 33...Qd4 34 Qf6+ Kg8 35
Rbd1 (35 Bg6!) Qg4 36 Qxh6 Qg7
37 Qxh5 Bb7 38 Re2 d4+ 39 f3
Ne3+ 40 Rxe3! dxe3 41 Rh1 Rc7
42 Rh4 Rd8 43 Bh7+ Kh8 44 Bb1+
Kg8 45 Rg4 f5 46 exf6 1-0
The last game doesnt add much.
Once again, White immediately
advances his e-pawn instead of the
stronger strategies discussed above.
T. Huesmann (2315) St. Bcker (2350)
Aachen - SK 32, Br 4, 17-12-2006
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 e5?! a6 6 Ne2 c5 7 c3 Nc6 8 g3
Qa5
Intending to gain a tempo (9 Bd2 Qb6). There was nothing wrong with
8...cxd4 9 cxd4 f6 =.
9 dxc5
Or 9 Bg2 cxd4 10 b4 Qb6 11 cxd4 f6, about equal.
9...Nxe5
Avoiding the complications after
9...Qxc5:
(a) 10 Be3 Qa5 (Qb5!? Huesmann)
11 Bg2 Nge7 12 0-0 0-0 13 Bf4 Qc7
=.
(b) 10 Nf4!? Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Bxe5 12
Nd3 Qc7 (12...Qc4? 13 Be3 Qe4 14
Rg1 Bd6 15 Bg2 Qf5 16 g4 Qf6 17
Bd4 +/) 13 Nxe5 Qxe5+ 14 Be2
Qd6 15 0-0 Ne7 16 Bh6 Nf5. White
has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but Black has a solid
position.
10 Nxe5 Bxe5 11 b4 Qd8 12 Be3 Bg7 13 Bg2 Ne7 14 f4 0-0 15 0-0
a5?! 16 b5 Nf5?! (loses time) 17 Bf2 a4 18 Nd4 Ne7 19 Rb1 Qa5 20
Qd3 (20 Rb4) Bd7 21 g4 Rac8 22 Rfe1 Rxc5 23 Nc6
23...Rxc6
During the post-mortem I tried to
prove that 23...Rxc3 would have
given Black good prospects for a
draw. In reality, he is simply lost
after 24 Nxe7+ Kh8 25 Qd2 Qd8 26
Bh4! Qb6+ 27 Kh1 Rc4 28 Rec1!
+; for example, 28...Rd4 29 Qe2
Qd6 30 Bf2 Rb4 31 Rxb4 Qxb4 32
Bc5 Qxf4 33 Rf1 Qb8 34 Nxd5.
24 bxc6 Bxc6 25 Bd4 Rc8?
25...Qa6! offered good chances for a draw.
26 Bxg7 Kxg7 27 Qd4+ Kg8 28 h4 b5 29 h5 gxh5? (29...Bd7 30 hxg6
Qxc3) 30 f5! Bd7
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Ortwin Thal
(b) 12 Be3 was another relevant line: 12...c5 13 0-0-0 Kf7 14 Rhe1 g6
15 c3. So far Thal, who continues 15Nc6. Id prefer 15d5 16 c3
Ne6, to reduce the influence of the Bd3.
12...g6 13 c3 Ne6 14 Re1 Kf7 15 Be3
In his notes, Thal explains his strategy: to lure Blacks center pawns
forward, thereby creating weaknesses. Curiously my own plans were
similar. I felt that Whites bishops were too strong; therefore, I had to
do something to restrict their scope. The only way to achieve this was
to advance my pawns. This is nothing unusual if your opponent has
the bishop-pair, it is common practice to relegate one of them to a
bad bishop.
15...c5 16 Rad1 c4
A surprise for my opponent, who
expected 16...d5. But the reply 17
c4! d4 18 Bc1, followed by
doubling the rooks on the e-file and
combined with an eventual Ne4,
would be extremely dangerous for
Black. Fixing the pawns on c5 and
d4 creates an eternal weakness on
c5, perhaps Black cannot even
afford to develop his bishop to g7.
Therefore, the text move must be
the correct continuation. Black
heeds Capablancas advice and builds a pawn chain on the white
squares, to avoid a conflict with his dark-squared bishop. In a formal
sense, the pawns g6 and h7 do not belong to this pawn chain. But in
reality they are clearly part of the structure, which is meant to restrict
Whites bishop d3 and the knight on g3. The latter will soon escape
from his exile. But the white bishop leads a frustrating life, until its
undeserved reprieve (35 g4!!).
17 Be2
The other retreat 17 Bc2 intends a fast f4-f5, but Thal convincingly
demonstrates that Black gets sufficient counterplay: [Shredder 9] 17
Bc2 Rb8! 18 b3 Bg7 19 f4 (19 bxc4!? Rhc8 20 Bxa7 Ra8, Thal) 19...
Nd7, e.g. 20 Ne4 Ndc5 21 Nxc5 Nxc5 22 b4 Ne6 23 Bxa7 (23 Bd2
Nc7, Thal) 23...Bxc3 24 Re3 Bxb4 =.
17...a6
17...Rc7? is refuted by 18 Bxa7! Rxa7 19 Bxc4 d5 20 Rxd5!. The
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (6 of 12) [1/21/2007 3:05:19 PM]
next move brings the knight back into play, a maneuver clearly favored
by both humans. Instead, 18 h4 [Shredder; Hiarcs] 18...d5, followed by
Nc7, cannot be the critical line.
18 Nf1 d5
The normal 18...Bg7 is a bit too
slow: 19 g4 h5 (or 19Rhd8 20 f4
d5 21 f5; or 19g5 20 Nd2 d5 21
Nf3) 20 g5 Ne4 21 Bf3! N4xg5 22
Bd5! +.
19 Bf3 Nc7 20 Bf4
Thal analyzed 20 b3 [Hiarcs] in
detail, coming to the conclusion that
20...cxb3 21 axb3 e6! (21...Nb5? 22
Rxd5, Thal) would allow Black
sufficient activity, e.g. 22 Ra1 e5 23 c4 Bb4 24 Bd2 Bxd2 25 Nxd2 e4
26 Bg4 Rcd8, Thal. My own approach here was pure fatalism. Two
moves ago I had invested a lot of time to make sure that d5, Nc7 and e6
was the only reliable set-up for Black. Then I simply left it to White as
to which attack he would choose: g2-g4 or f2-f4-f5 or b3. None of
these lines would be easy to refute, but fortunately White had to make a
decision and could only play one of them.
20...e6 21 Ne3 Nb5
An insidious move. 21...Bc5 22 b4 was the alternative. Although the
players analyzed differently (22Bb6 Thal; 22cxb3 Bcker),
curiously both main lines led to the same drawish rook ending (in 34
resp. 37 moves) with black pawns h7 and g6 and white pawns on h3,
g2 and f2.
22 Ng4 Nxg4 23 Bxg4 Re8 24 a4?
I was relieved to see that White had overlooked my next move. In the
critical line 24 Be5 Rg8 25 h4 h5 26 Bh3 Nd6 27 b3, White still holds
a small advantage.
24...Bd6!
This sacrifice is difficult to foresee,
but once put on the board, it is
obvious that it must be correct.
After 25 axb5 Bxf4 26 bxa6, White
cannot profit from his gain, since
Blacks pawn chain separates the
file:///C|/cafe/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm (7 of 12) [1/21/2007 3:05:19 PM]
35 g4!!
A splendid sacrifice decides the day. None of the engines are able to
find it. As Thal told me after the game, the idea was inspired by one of
his team mates. While serving a roulade meal and drinking red wine,
the members of his team SV Hellern discussed their ongoing games.
Thal was convinced his position would be only a draw, but the others
persuaded him to have a fresh attitude. Reinhold Happe made the
remark: Something has to happen on the white squares. And this
proved to be very true.
35...Bg7
According to my opponent, 35...Be7 [Fruit 2.2.1] offered some
chances: 36 gxh5 gxh5 37 Bg2 Bd6 38 f5 e5. Unfortunately, now 39
Bf3 is very strong, e.g. 39Kf6 40 Bxh5 Reb8 41 Be3 Rxb2 42 Bg5+
Kg7 43 f6+ Kh8 44 Rxb2 Rxb2 45 f7 +.
36 gxh5 gxh5 37 Bg2!
Preparing the advance of the f-pawn is stronger than the immediate 37
f5 e5 38 Bg3 d4, Thal.
37...Reb8 38 f5! e5 39 Bf3
39 Bc5? [Fruit; Rybka] 39e4 40 Bd6 Rxb2! 41 Bxc7 Rxe2 42 Rxe2
Rb1+ 43 Kh2 Bxc3, Thal, and Black has plenty of pawns for the
sacrificed knight.
39...Rxb2
Over the
Horizons
For much of the last 25 years, one of my favorite lines has been 1 e4
Nf6 2 e5 Ne4!?. Blacks last move goes back to Allgaier (1763-1823),
but the first serious analysis was published in 1922, when the real
Alekhine Defense had just entered the stage. Swiss master Hans Fahrni
(1874-1939) wrote a booklet [1] on the new fashion 1 e4 Nf6, spending
10 of the 28 pages on 2Ne4. His introduction said that he regarded
both knight moves as interesting, especially 2Ne4!, although 2.
Nd5 seems better. In the early 1980s, I adopted 2Ne4, refined some
of its variations and began to play it in tournaments.
Stefan Bcker
Hans Fahrni
My own results have been good enough, but in the next two decades
the defense was rarely used by others. The exception was Kari Heinola,
from Finland, who now lives in the USA. Some sporadic mentions in
books did not convince many that the idea deserved to be played. Tim
Harding wrote in Dynamic Black Defenses (1989): Perhaps Bckers
most outrageous idea of all is the variation of the Alekhines Defense
which he calls the Mokele Mbembe, the name of a legendary African
beast, of which the only trace is its tracks: 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4?! 3 d3
Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 d5 Nc5 6 b4 Na4 (6Na6!?) 7 c4 b5.
An earlier book [4] was less
High-Flying Maneuvers
High-Flying Maneuvers
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
demonstrate.
9Nc6
Black could also play 9...Qa5+ 10
Qd2 (10 Nc3? d4; or 10 Nd2
Nc6) 10Qxc5 11 Nc3 d4 12
Nb5 Qxe5+ 13 Be2 Bg7!,
unclear.
10 c3
After this passive move, White can no longer expect an advantage.
Critical is 10 Nc3, but even then Black gets sufficient
compensation: 10...Qa5! 11 0-0-0 e6! (11...d4? 12 Nb5 Bg7 13 f4
Qxa2 14 Nc7+ Kf7 15 Nxa8 Bf5 16 Qg3 Bxc2? 17 Kxc2? Nb4+,
but 17 e6+! Kxe6? 18 Qe1+, followed by Kxc2, is a clear
refutation, since White now has b4 under control) 12 Qf6 Rg8 13
Bb5 a6 14 Bxc6+ bxc6. Black regains the pawn c5. The bishoppair and the mobile pawns give Black sufficient compensation for
the remaining pawn deficit.
10Bf5?
Too complicated. Instead, Black should have castled kingside: 10...
Bg7! 11 Na3 Qa5 12 Bb5 0-0 13 000 Rf5 unclear, or 11 f4 0-0
12 Nd2 (Computer Bcker, training game 1987 [7]) 12...Qa5 13
Nb3 Qa4 =.
11 Bb5 Qa5 12 a4
Now Black is in trouble.
12...000 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 b4
Qa6 15 Qe3 h5 16 Ne2 Bh6 17
f4 Bd3 18 Nd4 Rdf8 19 g3 Be4
20 Rg1 g5 21 fxg5 Bg7 22 Nd2
Bxe5 23 Nxe4 Bxd4 24 cxd4
dxe4 25 Qxe4 Rd8 26 Qe2 Qb7
27 Qc4 Rd5 28 h4 e5 29 000
Re8 30 dxe5 Rdxe5 31 Rgf1 Re4
32 Rd4 Re3 33 Rf7 Rc3+ 34
Qxc3 Qxf7 35 Rd2 Qf1+ 36 Rd1
Qe2 37 Qd3 Qe5 38 Kc2 Qe6 39 Kb2 Qg4 40 Ka3 Qe6 41 Rf1
Qe5 42 Qf5+ Qxf5 43 Rxf5 Re3+ 44 Kb2 Rxg3 45 Rf4 a5 1-0
An impressive series of games. I dont know whether Luyckxs
opponents were able to prepare for his opening in some
scenario.
The Hlderlin Variation: 4 Bd3 d5 5 Nc3!
Only a few months ago I would have hesitated to write an article
on 2Ne4, since Blacks problems in this main line, where White
aims to trap the knight on mid-board (Emms) [11], seemed
impossible to overcome.
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6!? 4 Bd3 d5 5 Nc3!
Even stronger than Fahrnis [1]
5 f3 (h4?) Ng5 6 Bxg5 fxg5 7 f4
(if 7gxf4, then 8 Qh5+), and
Black is worse. In fact, this
variation is quite playable for
Black. After the text move, Black
faces more serious problems:
(a) 5...Nxc3? 6 Qh5+ g6 (6...Kd7
7 bxc3 +/) 7 Bxg6+ hxg6 8
Qxh8 +/ Ne4 9 Bh6 Nd7? 10 e6
+ .
(b) 5...Bf5 6 Qf3 e6 was my original idea: 7 Nxe4? dxe4 8 Bxe4
Qxd4! 9 Bxf5 (9 Bxb7? Bg4!) 9...Qxe5+ 10 Ne2 Qxf5 += (draw,
64) Rausis Bcker, Dortmund 1990. But in [6] I gave 7 g4!, a
zwischenzug that wins a pawn. Black has no compensation at all.
Emms [11] copies my idea without giving a source.
(c) In 1985, Gerard Welling suggested 5...c5 6 dxc5 Qa5; for
example, 7 Bxe4 dxe4 8 Be3 f5 9 a3 Nc6 10 f4 Be6 11 b4 Qc7 12
Qe2 g6 13 0-0-0 Bg7 14 Nh3 h6 15 Nd5 Bxd5 16 Rxd5 00 17 g4
+/. This is hardly forced, of course maybe someone can find an
improvement?
(d) My attempt 5...Nc6 also failed: 6 Nxe4 dxe4 7 Bxe4 Nxd4 (not
7...Qxd4?? 8 Bxc6+) 8 Qh5+! g6 9 Bxg6+ hxg6 10 Qxg6+ Kd7 11
c3 +/; for example, 11...c6 12 cxd4 Qa5+ 13 Bd2 Qd5 14 Qf5+
Kc7 15 Qf3 Be6 16 Qxd5 Bxd5 17 f3, and White has a clear
advantage in the ending.
The situation seemed desperate, but any Mokele Mbembe
theoretician knows the axiom from that old master Friedrich
Hlderlin: Where there is danger, rescue will arise.
5...f5! 6 Nce2
After the Ne4 has lost its escape square g5, it is a natural reaction
to try and win the knight. Nevertheless, it could be stronger and
much simpler to play for a positional advantage: 6 Nh3! Nxc3
(6...e6 7 Nf4 g6 8 Nce2 c5 9 f3 Ng5 is hardly better: 10 c4!) 7
bxc3 e6 8 Nf4 g6. Blacks position is suspicious, but perhaps
playable.
6...e6
My move order 6...c5 in
Kaissiber #27 was incorrect.
Maurits Wind from The
Netherlands found a strong
reply: 7 f3! Nd6 (or 7c4 8
Bxe4 dxe4 9 fxe4 fxe4 10 Ng3,
and White wins a pawn) 8
dxc5 Nc4 (8Nf7 is too passive)
9 Bxc4 dxc4 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11
Nh3! Na6 12 Be3 e6 13 0-0-0+
Ke8 14 Rhg1! Bxc5 15 Bxc5
Nxc5 16 g4 g6 17 Nef4 +/. White is better developed and enjoys
a strong initiative (Wind).
7 h4
It is hard to resist the temptation to win the knight. Again, White
could play for a positional edge with 7 Nf4, when the verdict must
be the same as after 6 Nh3!.
7c5 8 c3 Nc6 9 f3
Without the maneuver Kf1-g2 (to protect pawn g3) the knight will
be difficult to catch; therefore, 9 a3 (to avoid the later Bb4+) could
be a loss of time: 9...cxd4 10 cxd4 Be7 11 g3 0-0 12 f3 Qa5+ 13
Kf1 Nxd4! 14 Nxd4 Nxg3+, followed by Nxh1.
9...cxd4
After the possible reply 10 fxe4!? fxe4 11 Bb5 dxc3 12 Nxc3 Bc5,
the passed pawns fully compensate the sacrificed piece.
10 cxd4 Bb4+
The modest looking 10...Be7 may be even better: 11 g3?! (White should play 11
fxe4 fxe4 12 Bb5!) 11...Qb6 12 fxe4 fxe4 13 Bc2 0-0 with attractive attacking
chances; for example, 14 a3 Bd7 15 Nh3 Rf3! 16 Rf1 Raf8 17 Nhf4
11 Kf1 Qb6
(c) 12 Nh3 0-0 13 Bc2? (13 a3 Be7 14 Bc2 (14 g3? Nxd4) 13
Bxh4 15 fxe4 fxe4+ 16 Nhf4 Be7 17 Ke1 Bd7 18 Ba4 Rac8
unclear) invites a combination: 13...Nxd4! 14 Be3
14...Nxe2 15 Bxb6 N4g3+ 16
Kf2 axb6 17 Rh2 Bc5+ 18 Ke1
Bd4 19 Bd3 (or 19 Nf4 Bxe5)
Bxe5, and Black isnt worse.
(d) 12 a3 Be7 13 g3 g5 14 Bc2
gxh4 15 gxh4 Nxd4 16 Be3 Bc5
17 Bxd4 Ng3+ 18 Nxg3 Bxd4 19
Building a Fortress
My March column on the Mokele Mbembe: 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4!? 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5
5 Nc3! f5, culminated in an entertaining knight sacrifice. Certainly it was important
to know whether the knight on e4 can be trapped by means of 6 Nce2. Apparently,
Black cannot avoid losing the knight, but achieves sufficient compensation
nevertheless. Still, I noted at the beginning of the article that a positional approach
(6 Nh3!) might be the real test of the opening. In this third and final installment of
my Mokele series, this critical line will be discussed in more detail. While no one
tried to refute my sacrifice, some readers confirmed that they considered 6 Nh3! as
best, or they suggested sensible alternatives.
The Fortress
In the previous round, White had gotten into a heated argument with his
opponent and the organizer, and was upset, explaining his rash opening.
5c6 6 Nf3 d6 7 d4 Bg4
Its hard to suggest moves for
White, but probably now he should
have played 8 b5 to maintain a
roughly equal position.
8 Bc4 e6 9 exd6 Bxd6 10 c3 0-0
(perhaps an inefficient move) 11 00 Nc7 12 Nbd2 a5 13 Rb1 Bf5 14
Rc1 Qe7 15 Qb3 Nba6 16 Bxa6
Nxa6
By the time Black got a clear
advantage, he had calmed down,
switching from extremes,
explaining why he played the
eventual attack methodically rather than decisively.
17 Nc4 axb4 18 Nxd6 Qxd6 19 cxb4 b5?
The obvious 19...Nc7 would have led to a simple advantage for Black.
20 Ne5 Be4 21 Qg3 Rfd8 22 Qf4 f5?! 23 Rfd1 Bd5 24 Rc3 Nb8 25 Rg3
Ra7 26 Bc1 Bxa2 27 Qh4 Bc4 28 Bf4 Qf8 29 Rh3 h6 30 Qh5? (30 Bxh6!)
30Qf6? (30Qe8) 31 Rg3 Kh7 32 h4 Rc8 33 Rg6 Qf8 34 Nxc4 bxc4 35
Rxe6 Nd7 36 Bd6 Qg8 37 Qxf5+ Kh8 38 Rde1 Nf6 39 Be5 Rf8 40 Rxc6
Qd6 41 Rd6 Qb5 42 g4 Raf7 43 g5 hxg5 44 hxg5 Nh7 45 Bxg7+ Rxg7 46
Qxb5 Rxg5+ 47 Qxg5 Nxg5 48 Re7 1-0
Josh Manion (2400) Todd Rowland (2100)
Chicago, 1993
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 Be3 d6 6 d5 Nc5 7 Bxc5 dxc5 8 c4
8e6
Perhaps 8...g6 is better, not fearing
the kingside assault, since White
has no dark-squared bishop, e.g. 8...
g6 9 Nc3 Bg7 10 f4 (10 Qa4+ c6
11 0-0-0 Qc7 12 d6 carries no bite)
100-0 11 Nf3 Bg4 12 h3 Bxf3 13
Qxf3 Nd7. Whites center is
terrifying, but hard to advance.
9 Nc3 Be7 10 Bd3 Nd7 11 Nf3
exd5 12 cxd5 f6? 13 Qc2?! (13 e6
wins a piece) 13Nxe5 14 Nxe5
fxe5 15 Bxh7 Bf6 16 0-0-0 Bg5+ 17 Kb1 Qf6 18 Ne4 Qh6 19 Nxg5 Qxg5
20 Bg6+ Kh8 21 Qxc5+ Kg8 22 Be4?!
Cleaner is 22 Qc2. Black now gets a fair chance to save the game in a rook
ending, with his h8-rook developed. White is plainly better, but this chance
is more than Blacks opening treatment deserved. White outplays Black for
the remainder.
22...Bf5 23 Bxf5 Qxf5+ 24 Qc2 Qxc2+ 25 Kxc2 Rd8 26 h3 Kf7?! 27 Rhe1
Kf6 28 Rd3 Rhe8 29 Re4 Kf5 30 Rb4 e4 31 Rc3 Rxd5 32 Rxb7 Red8 33
Rcxc7 Rd2+ 34 Kb3 Ke5 35 Re7+ Kf4 36 Rf7+ Ke5 37 Rbe7+ Kd6 38
Rxe4 a5 39 Ka3 Rb8 40 b3 Rc8 41 Ree7 Rdc2 42 Ra7 R8c5 43 g4 Rc1 44
Ra6+ Ke5 45 Rf5+ Ke4 46 Rxa5 R5c2 47 f3+ Ke3 48 h4 g6 49 Rf6 Rh1
50 h5 gh 51 gh Rhh2 52 Kb4 Rh4+ 53 f4 Rf2 54 Re5+ 1-0
Sorry to say that my score with the Mokele was negative, unlike my score
with other unusual openings back then. Maybe due to irrational fears of
kingside attacks, which wasnt an issue in the Elephant. Nowadays, I am not
playing actively, and tend to be more conservative as Black. Perhaps with
my fears behind me, I can take up the Mokele again.
In the diagrammed position above, I suggest 8...g6 9 Nc3 c6:
(a) 10 Bd3 cxd5 11 cxd5 e6 12 Qa4+ (12 Nf3 exd5 13 Bb5+ Nc6 14. Qxd5 Qxd5
15 Nxd5 Rb8 16 Rc1 Be6 +=) 12Bd7 13 Bb5 exd5 14 Nxd5 Bg7 15 Nf3 0-0 16
0-0-0 Nc6 with interesting complications; for example, 17 Nf6+ (17 h4 Nxe5 18
Bxd7 Nxd7 19 Nc3 Bxc3 20 Rxd7 Qa5 =; 17 Rhe1 Re8 18 g4 a6 19 Bxc6 Bxc6 20
Qc4 b5 unclear) 17Bxf6 18 exf6
18c4! 19 Qa3 (19 Qxc4? Rc8 is too
dangerous) 19c3 20 Qxc3 (or 20 bxc3
Qc7 21 Rd6 Rfe8 22 Rhd1 Bg4 = 23 h3
Bxf3 24 gxf3 Qc8 25 Qa4 Qxh3 26 Rxc6
bxc6 27 Bxc6 Qc8!) 20Rc8 21 Kb1 a6
22 Bd3 Qb6 23 Qd2 Nb4 24 Bxg6 hxg6
25 Qxd7 Rfd8 26 Qa4 Qxf2 =.
(b) 10 f4 Bh6 11 g3 Qb6 (11g5? 12
Qh5) 12 Qe2 (12 Qb3 g5! =) 12cxd5 13
Nxd5 Qa5+ 14 Qd2 Qxd2+ 15 Kxd2 Na6
16 Bg2 Be6 17 Kc3 0-0-0!? (17Rd8 18
Rd1 Rd7 19 Nf3 0-0 20 Rd2 Nc7 21 Nxc7
Rxc7 +=) 18 Nxe7+ Kb8 19 Nd5 Nb4
with approximate equality.
Concerning the move order in this variation, the following game is of interest:
H. Kauschmann (2220) R. Junge (2365)
Germany, Bundesliga II 1993
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 d5
Manions move order 5 Be3 avoids the defense e7-e6. However, then Black has the
additional possibility 5c6, followed by g6 and Bg7, delaying d7-d6.
5Nc5 6 Be3 e6!?
6d6 transposes to the game Manion Rowland above.
7 Nc3 exd5 8 Qxd5 c6 9 Qc4 b5 10 Qf4 d5 11 Rd1 Ne6
Black has solved his opening problems.
Looks ugly, but Black will obtain counterplay with c5; after 7...Be7?! 8 Qh5+ Kd7,
White can simply play 9 Qf7 Qg8 10 Qxg8 Rxg8 11 f3 Ng5 12 c4 c6 13 Nge2 with
advantage (analysis by Wind).
8 Nge2!
Apparently more precise than 8 Ngh3, when, according to Wind, Black obtains fine
play with the characteristic sacrifice 8...c5 9 f3 Qa5+ 10 Kf1 cxd4 11 fxe4 fxe4 12
Be2 Bc5. The text move reduces Whites chances to trap the Ne4, but has other
advantages: d4 is now well protected, so that White can think about playing 9 f3
Ng5 10 c4.
8...c5?!
Evidently the text move is too risky. Wind offers an escape route: 8...Nc6 9 a3 (to
stop Nb4) 9...a6 10 0-0 Bd7 11 Be3 Qe7 12 f3 Ng5 13 b3.
A critical position for the Mokele. Black
can choose between castling long (1300-0) or short (13...Bg7 14 Qd2 Nf7
followed by 0-0). In each case White
is better, but the position resembles a
complex French. Black is not without
chances. (Wind)
9 f3 Ng5 10 c4
My last column expressed the opinion that
6 Nh3 Nxc3! were better than 6e6 7
Nf4 g6 8 Nce2 c5 9 f3 Ng5 10 c4!. But I
had to recognize that the text move (10
c4) arrives at the identical position. Therefore, the move order 6 Nce2!, avoiding
the exchange on c3, must be more to the point than 6 Nh3.
10...dxc4 11 Bxc4 Nc6 12 h4 Nf7 13 Nxe6 Qb6
Proposed by Wind. My analysis ran 13Bxe6 14 Bxe6 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Qxd4 with
interesting complications after 16 Qb3 Nxe5 17 Bg5 Bg7 18 Bxf5 c4. However,
White can simply go into an ending where Black can hardly survive: 16 Qxd4 cxd4
17 f4 +/. No fortress in sight.
14 dxc5 Bxc5 15 Qd5 Ncxe5 16 Nxc5 Qb4+ 17 Kf2 Qxc4
So far analysis by Wind. After 18 Qxc4
IM Martin Christoffel
Tournament Book Zrich 1961
Yet, if the line is so important, then why doesnt have it a name? Palliser [11] tells
of its history: 10 e5!? didnt catch on when it was initially essayed by
Christoffel in 1961. However that was largely due to a poor follow-up in the shape
of 10Nef5 11 Bf2 Nxf3+ 12 Bxf3?. By the late eighties White had realized that
12 Qxf3 was far better and 10 e5 became quite trendy for a few years.
Christoffel - Matulovic
Zurich 1961 [3]
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Be3
Nd4 10 e5
In fact, at the time, Grob [3] wrote: A
mistake which the Jugoslav utilizes in
splendid way. White did not even reach
move twenty: 10Nef5 11 Bf2 Nxf3+ 12
Bxf3 dxe5 13 Bxc5 exf4! 14 Bxf8 Qxf8
15 Qe1 fxe3 16 hxg3? Bd4+ 17 Kh2 Qh6
+ 0-1
It is likely that IM Christoffel would
rather forget this episode than be honored
for inventing 10 e5.
About twenty years later I played the
gambit and mentioned it in two of my publications [4] and [5]. But dont name the
gambit after me! There are at least three worthier candidates.
First, the great David Bronstein introduced the idea eight years before Christoffel
in Zurich no less which makes it highly likely that Christoffel knew of
Bronsteins brilliancy when he adopted a similar approach.
Bronstein Keres
Candidates Tournament Zurich, 1953
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 g6 3 g3 Bg7 4 d3 Nc6 5 Bg2 Rb8 6 f4 d6 7 Nf3 e6 8 0-0 Nge7 9 e5
Considering the recent popularity of the
excellent idea e4-e5, it is odd that
modern authors seem to have forgotten
Bronsteins game. Equally curious is
Bronsteins modest comment [1]:
General considerations impelled White to
push his e-pawn to e5, without worrying
about its loss, since this opens at least
three lines: Whites half of the e-file, the
c1-h6 diagonal, and the g2-c6 diagonal. In
addition, the excellent post at e4 is cleared
for Whites queens knight.
The only difference between Bronsteins
version and the modern main line is that here Black has played Rb8 instead of
castling. In his popular tournament book [1] Bronstein criticized 5Rb8 mildly as
maybe a little bit too straightforward, while Roman Toran [2] put a question
mark behind the premature and faulty move. I am not sure that White can
capitalize on Blacks inaccurate rook move. For example, Black could reply 9
0-0, and I dont see a refutation. So Torans assessment seems too harsh. Both lines
Closed Sicilian
by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
The rest of the article presents concrete ideas for your analytical teeth.
Food for Thought I: White defers Castling
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 Be3!?
Whites king remains in the center.
Another reason why the importance of
the gambit 10 e5 has become doubtful: I
do not trust the traditional 8 0-0 0-0 9 Be3
anymore, because of the modern
approach 9...b6, intending d6-d5. Here
White has problems proving an
advantage: (a) 10 Qd2 d5.
There are many alternatives, of course. It is a matter of taste, but I like to play
Anderssens move 2 Bc4 against the Sicilian. The text move provokes a sharp
reply.
4 Bxf7+!? Kxf7 5 Qh5+ g6 6 Qd5+ e6 7 Qxa8
Will Black be able to trap the greedy queen? Even in the worst position my
optimistic father used to say: There is always an escape.
7Nc6
The only available example for this tactical onslaught is Al Hadhrani J. Klinger
(2520), Novi Sad 1990: 7Qc7 8 d3 Bb7? (better is 8Nc6! 9 Nf3 h6) 9 Bf4 d6
10 Qa7 b4 11 Na4 e5
12 Be3? Nd7 13 Nf3 Ne7 etc. (01, 25).
Instead, 12 Bg5! would have been a nasty
surprise for the young Austrian, e.g. 12
Nd7 13 Bd8! Qc8 14 Nb6 Nxb6 15 Qxb6
+/.
Despite this relative success, 7...Qc7
seems harmless, since White achieves a
comfortable position by 8 d4 cxd4 (8...
Bb7? allows the typical rescue 9 Bf4 d6
10 Qa7 Nc6 11 Qxc5!) 9 Nd5 exd5 10
Qxd5+ Kg7 11 Qxd4+ Nf6 12 e5 Ne8
(12...Nh5 13 e6+ Kg8 14 Bh6 Be7 (or 14...
Bxh6 15 e7) 15 exd7 Qxd7) 13 e6+ Kg8
14 exd7 Qxd7 15 Qxd7 Nxd7 unclear.
8 Nf3
It is necessary to prepare a2-a4, because
after the immediate 8 a4? b4 9 Nb5 axb5
10 axb5, Black has the strong continuation
10Nd4. Another, more obvious idea
behind the text move is to play 9 Ng5+.
8 d3? Qc7 9 Nf3 (9 Bf4 d6 /+) 9...h6 (9...
Bb7? 10 Bf4 e5 11 Bxe5 etc.; here 10...
check.
(b) 16Qf5 17 fxe4 Qc5
(17...Qe5 18 Nf4 Nf6 19 Nd5+ Nxd5 20
exd5 Qxd5 21 Rae1+ Kd6 22 c4 bxc4 23
Rf6+ Kc5 24 b4+) 18 Rxf8 Kxf8 19 Rf1+
(19 Qxd7 Nge7 20 Nf4 d3+ 21 Kh1 Qf2
22 Qxd3 Qxf4 23 Rf1 Qxf1+ 24 Qxf1+
Kg7 =) 19...Kg7 (19...Ke7 20 Qc8 d3+ 21
Kh1 Kd6 22 Qf8+ Nge7 23 Qxh8 dxc2 24
Qc3 =) 20 Qxd7+ Nge7 21 Nf4 d3+ (21...
Qxc2 22 Qg4 Re8 23 Nh5+ Kh8 24 Qh4
Ng8 25 Nf6 Re7 26 Nxg8 Kxg8 27 Qf6
h5 28 Qxg6+ =) 22 Kh1 Qe5 (22...Qe3 23
cxd3 h5 24 Ne6+ Kh6 25 Qd6 h4 26 g3 =)
23 Ne6+ Kh6 24 cxd3 (24 Rf3 g5):
With precise play Black seems to secure a
draw: 24...Rg8 (24...g5 25 d4 Qxe4 26 d5;
24...a5 25 Rf3 g5 26 d4; 24...Qh5 25 h3)
25 g4 g5 26 b4 Ra8 27 Kg1 Rg8 28 Kh1
Ra8 29 Kg1 Rg8 30 Kh1 Ra8 31 Kg1 =.
10 a4!
Neither 10 e5? Be7 + 11 d4 Bd8 12 d5
Bb7 nor 10 d3 Nf6 /+ (10...h6 11 Bf4
Qxf4 12 Nxe6+!) 11 e5 Nxe5 12 Bf4 Bb7
13 Qa7 Bd6 14 Nge4 Ra8 15 Bxe5 Rxa7
16 Nxd6 Kg8 17 f4 Ng4 + is playable for
White.
10...Nf6!
Black has to avoid the time-wasting 10...b4 11 Nb5 axb5 (11...Qb7 12 Qxb7
Bxb7 13 d3) 12 axb5 Nd4 13 b6 Qxb6 14 Qxc8 Nxc2+ 15 Kd1 Nxa1 16 b3 Nxb3
17 Qxd7+ Be7 18 Bb2+ Nd4 19 Nxe6+ Kf7 20 Nxd4 Nf6 21 Qc6 Rb8 22 Nf3
Qxc6 23 Ne5+ Ke6 24 Nxc6 Ra8 25 Kc2 c4 26 Nxe7 Kxe7 27 Rc1 +/.
11 Nxb5
11 axb5? Bb7 12 Qxb7 Qxb7 13 bxc6
Qxc6 14 d3 c4 15 Nf3 cxd3 16 cxd3 =+.
11...axb5 12 axb5 Bb7
12...Nb4?? 13 Nxe6+ dxe6 14 Ra7+; 12...
Nd4 13 Qa4 (unclear) 13Qf4 14 d3 Qg4
15 0-0 Ne2+ 16 Kh1 Nxc1 17 Nh3 Ne2 18
e5 Qxa4 19 exf6+ Kxf6 20 Rxa4 +=.
13 Qa4 Nb4 14 d3 h6 15 Nf3 Be7 16
Qb3 c4 17 Qc3 Rc8 18 Qd2 g5 19 0-0
Sources:
[1] D. Bronstein: Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, New York 1979
[2] R. Toran: David Bronstein. Schpfergeist der neuesten Schachrichtung,
Amsterdam 1962
[3] H. Grob: Internationales Schachturnier Zrich 1961
[4] S. Bcker: Geschlossener Sizilianer Teil 1, Nordwalde 1983
[5] S. Bcker: Closed Sicilian, in New in Chess Magazine 7/1985, pp. 52-56
[6] G. Lane: Winning with the Closed Sicilian, London 1992
[7] V. Ravikumar: The Closed Sicilian, Brighton 1993
[8] J. Gallagher: Beating the Anti-Sicilians, London 1994
[9] D. King: The Closed Sicilian, London 1997
[10] D. Rogozenko: Anti-Sicilians. A Guide for Black, London 2003
[11] R. Palliser: Starting out: Closed Sicilian, London 2006
9 Qf3!?
The highly original manoeuvre Qf3-a3,
combined with Bd2-b4, was introduced in
1986 by Lazar Markovic. It gained some
popularity after an article by Jeroen Bosch
in New in Chess 5/2003. An edited version
of his article later appeared in the first
volume of the SOS series [6]. The
following sequence may be critical, it
stems from my longer article in [12].
9a6 10 Qa3 Be7 11 Bg5
It is important to force the opponent to
play f7-f6. The immediate 11 Bd2? 0-0 12
Bb4 axb5! 13 Qxa8 Na6 14 Bd2 from the stem game Markovic Joksic, Bela
Crkva 1986 (Open), could have backfired after 14...Bg5! /+.
11f6 12 Bd2 0-0 13 Bb4 Qd7 14 Bd3
My proposal, instead of 14 c4 b6 15 Nc3 f5 16 Be2 Bb7 17 Qb3 Qc7 18 0-0 Nd7,
Solleveld Alekseev, Santo Domingo 2003, and Blacks chances are by no means
worse, Rogozenko in his excellent book [8].
14b6 15 0-0 e4
Perhaps this is too risky. After 15f5 16 c4 g6 17 Bd2 Bb7 18 Nc3 Qc7 19 f3 Nd7
20 Be3, Whites position seems slightly preferable.
16 Be2 Bb7 17 Nd4 Bxd5 18 Rfd1
18a5
18Bf7!? 19 h3 g6 20 f3 is unclear.
19 Bd2 Bf7 20 Bb5 d5 21 Qg3 +=.
Whites pawn sacrifice offers him good
chances.
2. The Lwenthal Variation
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5
Nb5 a6 6 Nd6+ Bxd6 7 Qxd6 Qf6
8 Qxf6
Recommended by Alexander Khalifman
in his new book [11].
(a) 8 Qa3 Nge7 9 Nc3 Rb8 10. Nd5 Nxd5
Bxd5 16 Be3 0-0-0 17 Kf2 Be6 18 Bd3 Nd4 19 Rhe1 Rhe8 (Korneev Tomczak,
Tegel 2006) 20 Rad1 h6 21 Be4 += [11].
Black could have prepared the advance: 130-0-0 14 Kf2 d5 15 exd5 Nxd5 16
Nxd5 Rxd5 17 Be3 Rhd8 18 Bd3 g6. Even more convincing seems:
13Rc8! 14 Be3 Na5 15 Rd1 Bc4
Black enjoys clear plans like Bxf1,
followed by Nc4, or perhaps 16 Bd3 Ke7,
followed by doubling his rooks on the cfile. It is difficult to develop a promising
plan for White.
Hans Haberditz
Source: Neues Wiener Tagblatt,
January 19, 1941.
The critical line according to both Reinderman [7] and Khalifman [11].
White can also try 9 Nb5:
(a) 9Qxd6 (or 9Nb4) 10 Nxd6+ Ke7 11 Nf5+ Kd8! (instead of Kf8) deserves
attention: 12 Be3 Kc7 13 0-0-0 d5 +=.
(b) 9Rb8! and now:
(b1) 10 b3 Nxe4 11 Qxe7+ Kxe7 12 Ba3+ d6 13 f3 a6 14 fxe4 axb5 15 Bxb5 Ra8 =
(=, 49) Saastamoinen Salonen, Tampere 1998 [7].
(b2) 10 Be3 Nxe4 11 Qxe7+ Kxe7 12 f3 a6 13 fxe4 axb5 14 Bxb5 d6 15 0-0 Be6,
and Black seems to hold: 16 Rf2 Rhc8 17 a4 Ra8 18 Rd1 Nb4! 19 c3 Na6 =.
9Kxe7 10 Be3 d6 11 f3 Be6 12 0-0-0
Khalifman: Whites plan remains practically the same irrelevant of Blacks
response he starts a pawn-offensive on the kingside.
12Rhc8
Both sources give 12Rhd8, then they
recommend different moves for White:
(a) White obtains an advantage with 13
Kb1 followed by 14 Nd5+. Alas, I dont
see a good way to avoid this as Black,
Reinderman [7]. Id suggest the reply 13
Kf8 (the immediate 13d5? 14 Bc5+ Ke8
15 Nb5 is wrong); for example, 14 Nd5
Bxd5 15 exd5 Ne7 16 c4 Nf5, or 14 b3
Ne7 15 Bd3 d5 =.
(b) 13 h4 d5 14 Bc5+ Ke8 15 Nb5 b6 16
Nc7+ Kd7 17 Nxd5 and White remains with an extra pawn, Khalifman [11].
Obviously 13...d5? was premature. After the correct 13Kf8! 14 b3 b6 (d5) 15
Kb2 Ne7, White keeps a small advantage: 16 Bf2 (16 Nb5 d5 17 Nc7 dxe4 18 Bc4
Bxc4 19 Nxa8 Rxa8 20 bxc4 exf3 21 gxf3 Nf5 22 Bd2 Rc8 23 Bb4+ Ke8 24 Rhe1
Nd7 25 Re4 g6, about =) 16d5 17 Bb5 dxe4 18 Nxe4 Nxe4 19 fxe4 Bg4 20 Rxd8
+ Rxd8 21 Rf1 +=.
13 g4
(a) 13 Kb1 Na5 14 Bf2 (14 Nb5 b6! 15 b3 d5) 14a6 15 Na4 Nd7 16 b3 b5 17
Nb6 Nxb6 18 Bxb6 Nb7, and Black has a solid position.
(b) 13 Bf2! might be an improvement: 13a6 (13Nb4 14 Kb1!, now Black
cannot play d5) 14 b3 Nb8 15 Kb2 Nbd7 +=.
13Nb4
Corrections
Building a Fortress (April 2007): 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d4 f6 4 Bd3 d5 Against
Spohns proposal 5 Nd2 the article had recommended 5f5 6 Nh3 e6 7 Nf4 Kf7 8
0-0 c5 9 g4 Nxd2 10 Bxd2 c4 11 Be2 g5 12 Nh5 f4
wrote: Closing the door of the fortress. Calling Blacks position sound comes
close to a sacrilege. But what can his opponent do? A convincing answer came
from Walter Braun from Austria. He plays 13 c3 Nc6 14 h4 h6 15 Qc2, adding
that Whites plan of Kg2, Rh1, hxg5 and Bxf4! should lead to an almost forced win
for White. He seems to be absolutely right. Before opening the h-file, White can
even prepare the final blow, by means of Rh1-h3 and Ra1-h1. Black can hardly
survive. With hindsight, Id now prefer 5Ng5 (instead of 5f5) 6 Ngf3 Nxf3+ 7
Qxf3 (Nxf3) g6, although White must have an advantage.
Dont Name the Gambit after Me (May 2007): In the section Food for Thought
I, following the second diagram, a move was missing. Instead of improves upon
the usual 12 a4, the text should read improves upon the usual 11Qc7 12 a4.
Thanks to Pierre F. from Canada for pointing this out.
The new winning attempts brought a fresh breeze to this opening. Adherents of the
gambit have already found valuable improvements for Black [6], [12], but some
questions remain. Let us see whether one of the seven propagated lines is a real
refutation. The following lines all start from the diagram above.
Refutation 1
5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7 Ke3!?
The alternative 7 Kg1 is known to lead to
a draw.
7Qh4
But not 7Qe7? 8 Nxh8 d5 (8Qg5+ is
also hopeless) 9 Qh5+ (! Cramer) g6 10
Nxg6 Qc5+ 11 Ke2 Nf6 12 Qg5 Ne4 13
Qe3 [7] +/.
8 g3 Nxg3 9 hxg3 Qd4+ 10 Kf3 d5 11
Rh4 e4 12 Kg2 0-0
Here Christophe/Moll detected the novelty
13 Nc3! dxc4 14 Qh5 [5], but their
claimed refutation of the Traxler met the
strong reply 14Ne7! = (Bennedik [6]);
for example, 15 b3 Rxf7 16 Qxh7+ Kf8
17 Nxe4 Ke8 18 c3 Qe5 =. However, the
position is interesting enough to look at
some other possibilities.
13 Bb3
8 exd5
Another asserted refutation by De Zeeuw is 8 d3, giving White the exchange for a
pawn [10]. But in [12] Pietro Pastore showed that both 8Bg4 9 Qd2 Bh4 and
8dxc4 9 Kxf2 Bg4 10 Qe1 cxd3 11 h3 dxc2 (11Be2 Montcaubeig [12] is also
strong) 12 hxg4 cxb1Q 13 Rxb1 (so far De Zeeuw, [10]) 130-0-0! are good for
Black.
8Nxd4
9 d6!
Seems best. Other so-called refutations by
De Zeeuw:
(a) 9 h3 Bh4 (or 9Bg3 10 a4 [!! 10] Qc5
11 b3 Nxb3 12 Bb5+ c6 Moncaubeig [12]
13 d4 unclear; 10Ne4!? Pastore [12],
about =) 10 d6 cxd6 (10Qxd6 11 Nf7
Qc5 12 Na3 + De Zeeuw [12],
overlooking the attractive response 12
e4 =; e.g., 13 g3 Qf5+ 14 Kg2 e3! 15 dxe3
Bxg3 Moncaubeig, as pointed out in [12])
11 g3 + De Zeeuw [10].
Here Black has many choices, believes
Pietro Pastore and analyzes one line in
detail: 11b5 12 Bxb5+ Nxb5 13 gxh4
Ne4 14 Qe1 Qf6+ 15 Kg1 Bb7 16 Nc3
Ng5! 17 Qf2 Nf3+ 18 Kf1 0-0-0 19 d3
Nxc3 20 bxc3 Rf8 21 Be3 (so far Pastore
[12]) 21Qe6 /+.
(b) 9 Be2 Bh4 10 c3 Nxe2 11 Qxe2 Bg4
12 Qb5+ Nd7 13 Kg1 and White ends up
an exchange to the good, De Zeeuw [10];
130-0-0 (or 13Qf6 14 Qf1 Qb6+ 15
d4 0-0-0 16 g3 Rf8) 14 h3 (so far De
Zeeuw [10]) 14Bh5 15 d3 Rf8 16 Qb4
Qf6 17 Be3 Bg3 18 Nd2 (18 Na3 Be2! Pastore) 18Bf2+, with advantage for
Black.
9Qxd6
9cxd6 10 Kxf2! (Bennedik [6]) 10d5 (Bruno Montcaubeig tries to rescue 10
Bg4 11 Qf1 0-0-0 12 Nf7 d5 13 Nc3 Rf8 14 Nxd5 Nxd5 15 Bxd5 [10] by means of
15Rxf7! = [12], but 13 Kg1! Rf8 14 c3 Nc2 15 Na3 Nxa1 16 Bxd5 Nxd5 17 Qc4
+ +/ looks more critical). For example:
(a) 11 Be2 Ne4+ 12 Kg1 Qc5 13 Kf1 +
De Zeeuw [10], but 13Qf8+ 14 Bf3 Bg4
15 d3 Nxf3 16 gxf3 Bxf3 17 Qe1 Bxh1+
18 Kg1 (Pastore [12]) is better for Black.
Gambit Play
by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
Heismans main line, which De Zeeuw mentions only in passing. The line is
extremely complicated, and Heisman believes that Black gets sufficient chances. 6
Kf1 may be strong, but until now the solution has not been demonstrated. The
following line is just an example.
12 b4 Qe7 13 Nd2
A new idea, not mentioned by Heisman [7].
13Bg4 14 Nf3 Bxf3 15 gxf3 b5 16 c3 bxc4 17 Ng5 Nb5 18 dxc4 Nxc3 19 Qd3
Or 19 Qb3 h6 20 Qxc3 hxg5 21 Kg2 0-0-0 22 Rf1 Qe6 23 Qc2 e4!.
19h6 20 Nh3
(b) 8 Bc4 b5
(b1) 9 Bd3 (9 Bxb5 Bg4 10 f3 Nxb5 11 fxg4 Qxd1+ 12 Kxd1 Ke7 =) 9Bg4 10 f3
(10 Nf3 Bxf3 11 gxf3 Nh5 =) 10Bc8 11 c3 h6 12 cxd4 Qxd4 13 Qc2 hxg5 14
Bxg5 c6
15 Nc3 (15 Nd2 Qf2+ 16 Kd1 Be6 17
Nb3 Rxh2! 18 Qxf2 Rxh1+ 19 Ke2 Bxf2
20 Rxh1 Bb6 =) 15Rh5 16 h4 (perhaps
16 Bxf6 Qe3+ 17 Qe2 gxf6, but here
Whites extra pawn isnt too important)
16Nh7! (with the king on e7 this knight
would be pinned) 17 0-0-0 Nxg5 18 hxg5
Rxh1 19 Rxh1 Qe3+ 20 Kb1 Be6, and the
position is about equal.
(b2) 9 Be2! h6 10 Nf3 Nxe4 11 0-0 Bf5
(or 11Bb7 12 Nbd2) 12 Nxd4 (12
Nbd2? Nxf2!; the text move is also
stronger than 12 Be3 Qf6 13 c3 Rd8!
unclear, or 13 Bd3 Rd8 14 Nbd2 Nxd2 15 Nxd2 Bb6, almost =) 12Qxd4 13 Qe1
Rd8 14 Nc3 (14 c3 Qd6 15 Bxb5 Qg6) 14Nxc3 15 bxc3 Qa4 16 Rb1! +/,
intending 16a6 17 Bxb5! axb5 18 Qxe5, with a double attack on the black
bishops.
8 Bc4 b5
9 Bd3
De Zeeuw favors 9 Be2 (!, with a sound
extra pawn, De Zeeuw). However, his
observation that the f3 square is in
greater need of overprotection than the e4
pawn is quite strange. 9h6 10 Nf3
Nxe4 11 Be3!. Heisman [7] now gives
11Qd5 12 Bxd4, which is repeated by
De Zeeuw [10]. But Black should choose
11Bb7!? 12 Nxe5 (12 0-0 Nxf3+ 13
Bxf3 Qxd1) 12Qd6
13 Nf3 (or 13 Nd3 Bb6 14 Nd2 Rad8 15 Nxe4 Bxe4 16 0-0 Rhe8, Black has
Heismans [7] main line is 11 Rf1, but De Zeeuw [10] is right to prefer the direct
development of the bishop. White has an advantage. When De Zeeuw compares 5
Bxf7+ and 5 d4, he writes: Both moves yield White an extra pawn and leave
Blacks king stranded in the centre (e7), but 5 d4 also results in an open d-file.
The last observation may seem a bit far-fetched at first, as long as Black holds the
initiative. However, the situation may quickly change; for example, 11Rf8 [7] 12
Bxd4! Bxd4 13 0-0 Bxb2 14 Nbd2, and with every exchange Blacks king loses
some shelter.
None of the seven lines proposed in [5] and [10] comes close to being a theoretical
refutation. But those who want to practice Traxlers Counterattack with success
have to do some homework concerning 5 d4!.
Sources:
[1] R. Fine (editor): Modern Chess Openings, sixth ed. 1939
[2] R. Fine: Practical Chess Openings, New York 1948
[3] G. Cramer: Traxler-Gegenangriff, Fritz-Variante, Ulvestad-Variante. Hollfeld
1993
[4] L. Gutman: (analysis in:) Schach-Archiv, Hamburg 1996
[5] N. Christophe, A. Moll: Finally Refuted!, in New in Chess Yearbook 55
(2000)
[6] M. Bennedik: Really a Refutation?, readers letter in New in Chess Yearbook
56 (2000)
[7] D. Heisman: The Traxler Counterattack CD-Rom, Wylie 2000
[8] J. Plkvi: Two Knights Defence and Traxler Counter-Gambit, Kecskemt
2001
[9] T. Harding: Turmoil in the Traxler Two Knights, in: Chess Mail 1 and
2/2001.
[10] M. De Zeeuw: Another Look at the Traxler Gambit, in: NiC Yearbook 63,
65, 66, 67, 68 (2002-2003)
[11] J. Pinski: The Two Knights Defence, London 2004
[12] P. Pastore, B. Montcaubeig, L. R. da Costa Junior: Its Hard to Kill the
Traxler Gambit, in NiC Yearbook 70 (2004)
Corrections
Otti Keller from Switzerland sends valuable comments on Dont Name the
Gambit after Me, the article on the Closed Sicilian published in May:
In Bronstein Keres, my remark on Blacks 18th move contains a mistake,
because 18Qe5 loses a queen. The reader is right. The moves that Erich
Eliskases had analyzed on two an a half pages were not 18e5 and 18Qe5!,
but 18e5 and 18Nc6. Only after 18Nc6 19 c3 follows 19Qe5!, according
to Eliskases. My apologies.
Halfway through the article, in the section Food for Thought I, I gave the
following line: 1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 d6 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8
0-0 0-0 9 Be3 b6 10 d4 Ba6 11 Rf2 Qc7 12 a4 Rad8 13 Nb5 Bxb5 14 axb5 Nxd4
15 Nxd4 cxd4 16 Bxd4 e5 17 Be3 exf4 18 Bxf4 Bxb2 19 Ra4! Qd7 20 Qb1 Be5 21
Bh6. Here Mr. Keller writes: My computer finds 21 Bxe5 + (instead of 21 Bh6).
What is the idea behind 21 Bh6?
The sequence 21 Bh6 Rfe8 22 Qf1 seemed logical, to create a weakness (pawn f7).
White then has a slight advantage. But any stronger suggestion is certainly
welcome! The immediate 21 Bxe5 dxe5 is interesting; perhaps White can in fact
find a way to bring his bishop to d5, beginning with 22 Qb3 or 22 Qb2. From d5
the bishop would exert plenty of pressure on Blacks position. But I fail to see a
concrete win; for example, 22 Qb2 Qc7 23 Bf1 Nc8 24 Bc4 Rd4. Perhaps the
solution is beyond the horizon of my computer.
More on the Dry family is available in the January 1915 issue of Wiener
Schachzeitung. It gives a nice win by Nicolaus Baron Dry over Georg Marco.
Marco reports that his opponent founded a private miniature chess club
Nicolaus three sons and three daughters all played the game and also commends
the two oldest sons of the Baron, Andor and Ladislaus (a very talented and
enthusiastic chess friend), for their chess abilities. In 1912, Andor had been
successful in a tournament of the Akademisches Gymnasium, scoring 10 points
out of 11. Only in the tie-break did he lose to Kolisch.
Stefan Bcker
However, the entry on Dry Defence in The Oxford Companion to Chess (page
112 of the 1992 edition) states: ... pioneered by Ladislaus Dry, an Austrian
Baron, in 1923 In 1943 [on October 7, SB] Dry was sentenced to death by the
Nazis for sedition, but was released from prison by Allied troops in 1945.
The contradiction did he survive WWII or not? was solved thanks to the help of
Edward Winter and Peter Anderberg: The magazine Schachspiegel, 1947, page
124, had published a moving small story Der Schachspieler in der Todeszelle.
Here we see Dry alone in the death cell, his hands bound. Nevertheless, he has
found a way to play chess against himself, lying on the floor, with the help of some
soap-constructed pieces. A fellow sufferer is brought in, also a chessplayer. After a
hard-fought game, which ends in a draw, Drys opponent (whose name is given as
Petzold) is executed the next morning. Ladislaus Dry had his hands bound for
125 days. Without abrogation of his sentence of death, Dry was brought to other
prisons (Brandenburg, Straubing). On May 1, 1945 he was released from prison by
American troops.
More evidence that Baron Dry survived the war:
Riedmiller Baron Dry
Bavarian Championship, 1949
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 b6 5 Nge2 Bb7 6 a3 Bxc3+ 7 Nxc3 00 8 d5 d6
9 Be2 e5 10 00 Nbd7 11 f4 Qe7 12 f5 e4 13 Nb5 Ne5 14 b3 a6 15 Nc3 c6 16
dxc6 Bxc6 17 Bb2
17d5! 18 Nxd5 Bxd5 19 cxd5 Rfd8 20
Qd4 Rxd5 21 Qxb6 Rd2 22 Bxe5 Qxe5
23 Qc6 Re8 24 Qxa6 Qc5 25 Bc4 Qxe3+
26 Kh1 Ng4 27 b4 Nf2+ 28 Rxf2 Qxf2
29 Bf1 h5 30 h3 Red8 31 Qa4 e3 32 b5
e2 33 Bxe2 Qxe2 34 Rg1 Rd1 35 Rxd1
Rxd1+ 36 Kh2 Qe5+ 37 g3 Qe2 mate
(Source: Schach-Echo 1953, p. 358
found by Peter Anderberg)
The Dry Defence in Practice
Paul Keres Albert Becker
Thematic Tournament, Vienna 1937
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4
In Neue Wiener Schachzeitung 1937, p. 360, Dry mentions a game H. Mller
Dry, Klosterneuburg 1924. Apparently this was the first game with the new move
2Ne4. According to Dry [4], the disadvantage of moving the knight twice is
fully compensated by the greater flexibility regarding pawn moves: Black may
choose various structures to support his knight, involving either f5 or d5, the
development Bb4 or Bb7. It may be added that under certain circumstances e7-e5,
g7-g5 (against a Bf4), c5 or even the retreat Ne4-f6 belong to Blacks arsenal.
3 Nfd2
The fight for the e4-square begins. In the
thematic tournament sponsored by Dry
and held in Vienna 1937, the text move
was Whites most popular continuation.
12...h5 13 Bh3 Bxh3 14 Nxh3 Bc5 15 Ng5 Nf5 16 Ke1 Rd7 17 e6?! (17 Rd1)
fxe6 18 Nxe6 Bf2+?
The attempt to regain the pawn is a serious mistake that leads to a bad ending.
Black should have continued the attack by means of 18...Bb6! 19 e4 Nd4 =+ [8] 20
Nxd4 Rxd4 21 Ke2 Rhd8 22 Rad1 Rxe4+ 23 Kf3 Red4 24 Ke2 c6, etc.
19 Kxf2 Rxd2 20 Rhd1 Rxc2 21 Rac1!
Becker must have underestimated this
possibility.
21Rxb2
21Rxc1 22 Rxc1 Kd7 23 Nc5+ Kc8 24
e4 Nd6 25 Kf3, etc. (analysis by Becker).
22 Rxc7+ Kb8 23 Rcd7 a6 24 Nxg7
Nxg7 25 Rxg7 Re8 26 Re1 Rxa2 27 Kf3
Rb2?!
Black might already be lost. Whites eand f-pawns, assisted by the king, are
stronger than the opponents.
28 e4 a5 29 f5 Rf8 30 Re2 Rb1 31 Rg5 a4 32 e5 Rf1+ 33 Ke4 a3 34 f6 b5 35 Rf5
Rc1 36 e6 Kc7 37 e7 Re8 38 Kd3 Rd1+ 39 Rd2 Rxd2+ 40 Kxd2 a2 41 Rf1 1-0
Alekhine Marshall
New York 1927
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4 3 c4 e6
The real course of the game was 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Ne4, a variation that Janos Balogh
had introduced in 1922, two years before Baron Dry started to experiment with
2Ne4. Instead of transposing to Baloghs line by means of 3e6, the German
player Berthold Bartsch has used the enterprising 3d5!? in several games:
(a) 4 Nc3 Nxc3 5 bxc3 e6 (Mikhalchishin [9] suggests 5c5) 6 g3 c5 7 cxd5
(Aseev Bartsch, Neu Isenburg 1992) 7...exd5 [9], and Black has no problems
(Mikhalchishin).
(b) 4 Bf4 e6 (4...e5?! 5 Nxe5 Nc6 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Qa4 Bd7 8 Nc3 Qf6 is risky) 5 e3
5g5! (5...c6? 6 Bd3 Qa5+ 7 Nfd2 Nxd2
8 Nxd2 dxc4 9 Bxc4 Bb4 10 e4 was
advantageous for White in Klinger
Bartsch, Zurich 1990) 6 Be5 (6 Bg3? h5 7
Qc2 Nc6 8 Nc3 Bb4 9 Ne5 h4 10 Nxc6
bxc6 11 Be5 f6 12 0-0-0 Bxc3 13 f3 Bb4
14 fxe4 fxe5 15 exd5 Rh6 16 dxe5 Bc5 =
+) 6...f6 7 Bg3 h5 8 h3 Nxg3 9 fxg3 Qd6
10 Kf2 h4 =+.
(c) 4 cxd5 Qxd5 5 e3 Bg4 6 Be2 e6 7 00
Nd7 8 Qc2 Bd6 (but not 8...c6? 9 Bc4 Qf5
10 Nh4! Qh5 11 Qxe4 Qxh4 12 f3 +
Armbruster Bartsch, Bundesliga II,
2003) 9 Nc3 Nxc3 10 bxc3 Bf5 11 Qb2 Be4 12 c4 Qf5 13 Nd2 Bc6 14 e4 Qg6 15
Bf3 0-0 +=.
4 Nfd2
4 g3 d5 (4Bb4+ 5 Nbd2 f5 6 Bg2 0-0 7 0-0 Qf6?! 8 Nxe4 fxe4 9 Ng5 d5 10 c5 10, 48, Weil Podhorzer, Vienna 1937) 5 Bg2 Bb4+ 6 Nbd2 c5 7 0-0 Bxd2 8 Nxd2
cxd4 9 cxd5 exd5 10 Nb3 0-0 11 Nxd4 Nc6 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Qa4 Qe8 14 Bxe4
Qxe4 15 Qxe4 dxe4 16 Be3 -, Weil Keres, Vienna 1937.
4Bb4 5 Qc2 (5 a3?? Qf6 +) d5 6 Nc3 f5 7 Ndxe4 fxe4
Here Mikhalchishin [9] prefers 7.dxe4.
8 Bf4 0-0 9 e3 c6 10 Be2 Nd7 11 a3 Be7
This kind of Nimzo-Indian leads to a passive defense.
12 0-0 Bg5 13 f3 Bxf4 14 exf4 Rxf4 15 fxe4 Rxf1+ 16 Rxf1
16e5?
16...dxc4 17 Bxc4 Nb6 18 Qf2 Qe7
offered Black better chances to survive.
17 Qd2!
Striving for a brilliancy, instead of the
simple 17 cxd5 exd4 18 dxc6 with a sound
extra pawn; for example, 18bxc6 19
Na4 Ne5 20 Qc5! +/.
17...c5 18 dxe5 d4 19 Qf4! dxc3 20 Qf7+
Kh8 21 bxc3 Qg8 22 Qe7 h6 23 Bh5 a5
24 e6 g6 25 exd7 Bxd7 26 Rf7 1-0
Move Three Alternatives for White
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4, and now:
(a) 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 c5? (4e6 =) 5 c4 Qa5+ 6 Nfd2 cxd4 7 cxd5 Nd6 8 0-0 Nf5 9 a3
g6 10 b4 Qb6 11 Nc4 Qa6 12 Qd3 Bg7 13 Bb2 += 0-0? 14 a4 Nd7 15 d6 Nxd6 16
b5 (1-0, 33) Granados Gomez Bcker, Martinenc 2001.
(b) 3 Bf4 d5 (or 3c5 4 d5 Qb6 5 Qc1 e6 6 c4 Be7 7 Nbd2 Nxd2 8 Qxd2 d6 9 e4
e5 10 Be3 f5 = Podhorzer Weil, Vienna 1937) 4 e3 Bg4 5 c4? (5 h3! Becker [5],
but 5Bh5 6 c4 e5! still produces attractive complications. Parma in ECO gives 5
Be2 e6 =) 5e5!
6 Bxe5 (6 dxe5 g5 7 cxd5 c6!) 6Bb4+ 7
Nc3 Nxc3 8 Qb3 Nxa2+ 9 Kd1 dxc4 =+
(but 1-0, 51) Becker Keres, WSZ 1937
[5].
(c) 3 Nbd2 (more logical than 3 Nfd2,
Mikhalchishin [9]) 3d5 4 Nxe4 (4 e3 e6
5 Bd3 f5 6 Ne5 Qh4! Palme Fu, WSZ
1937, p. 82 [5]; after 4 g3 c5 5 dxc5 Nxc5
Corrections
One of the main lines covered in last months column on the Traxler Gambit went
as follows: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1 Qe7 7
Nxh8 d5 8 exd5 Nd4 9 d6 Qxd6 10 Nf7, and here I just added the hint that
Heismans main line 10Qc5 11 d3 Bh4 was extremely complicated. But John
L. Jerz from the USA had already found a strong alternative; namely: 10Qe7!
Few people claim that 1 e4 or 1 d4 are winning, but GM Jonathan Levitt and many
others believe that against 1 g4 Black can equalize, while 1 e4 or 1 d4 are better
and sometimes can even give you a +=. For an omniscient player this += would
still make no difference to other drawish positions, but fortunately there are
thousands of titled geniuses who have developed a sense for subtleties that the
omniscient player will never have. Here I should perhaps modestly insert that I
dont play 1 g4 myself (only 1 g4 Nh6, but thats serious). So in this article I am
just a neutral observer. The next game illustrates the equalizing tendency of 1 g4
criticized by Levitt:
M. Basman J. Levitt
Lloyds Bank Open, London 1982
1 g4 d5 2 h3 e5 3 Bg2 c6 4 d4 e4 5 c4 f5 6 Nc3 dxc4 7 gxf5 Bxf5 8 Nxe4 Nf6 9
Ng3 Bg6 10 e4 Bd6 11 N1e2 0-0 12 0-0 Nh5 13 f4 Qh4 14 Nxh5 Bxh5 15 e5 Bc7
16 Qc2 Nd7 17 Qxc4+ Kh8
18 Nc3 g5 -
It was 18 Nc3 rather than 1 g4 that wasted
the advantage. 18 Bd2! avoids Blacks
pawn break (18g5?? 19 Be1 +), then
White has an extra pawn and a clear plus
(at least +=). In his book [1] on 1 g4,
Henry Grob doesnt say that 1 g4
guarantees White an advantage, but he
claims that Black has to follow a
consistent defensive plan to avoid a
disadvantage. At first sight this seems to
be a more relaxed attitude as compared to
Levitts idea that you should strive for the
maximum from the first move. But Grob also writes [1]:
My score in these [1 g4] correspondence games is close to 90 percent.
Which Michael Basman counters [4] in Killer Grob style:
The Grob was first played regularly by Swiss master Henri [sic] Grob, but
not too successfully
In Michael Basmans book elementary questions like Has White an advantage
after 1 g4? or whether there are better moves are not touched. For Basman the
move has a logic of its own, and on the first introductory page the reader only
learns that White ignores the firmly held dogma that one should open the game
with a move by a centre pawn [4]. The book [4] is excellent, but demanding.
Many years ago Henry Grob had written about his own book [1]: This work is not
meant for beginners, and perhaps the same warning should appear in Basmans
Killer Grob.
Henry Grob
Source: Grobs Angriff 1. g2-g4, Zurich 1969
Lets continue our seminar for advanced 1 g4 players with a discussion of a key
position:
1 g4 d5 2 h3 e5 3 Bg2 c6 4 d4
Grob preferred the dubious 4 g5. The text move at least follows a straightforward
plan.
4e4 5 c4 Bd6 6 Nc3 Ne7
Since Basman had serious problems with
this position at Manchester 1981, the
setup is often recommended for Black: cf.
[5], [6] and [7]. White has done his best to
attack d5, but Blacks flexible knight on
e7 is not only defending that pawn, the
knight e7 might also attack via Ne7-g6-h4
or support a later f7-f5.
7 Qb3
There are several examples where White
forgets to fight for the d5-square: 7 g5?
Be6 8 h4 Nf5 9 Bh3 0-0 10 cxd5 cxd5 11
Nxd5 Ng3! (0-1, 20) Basman Keene, Manchester 1981. Other illogical moves are
7 Qc2?! or 7 Bd2.
But 7 Bg5 deserves attention:
(a) 7...0-0 8 Qb3 transposes to the main line, 70-0 8 Bg5.
(b) 7...Be6 8 Qb3 b6 (8f6 9 Bd2 Qb6 10 cxd5 cxd5? 11 Nxe4 or 10Qxb3 11
axb3 cxd5 12 Nb5 =) 9 Bxe7 Bxe7 10 e3 0-0 11 Nge2. This position isnt bad for
White: 11Na6 (or 11Bd6 12 a3, or 11dxc4 12 Qd1!?) 12 Nf4 Nc7, e.g. 13
cxd5 cxd5 14 0-0 Qd7 15 f3, about =.
(c) 7f6 8 Bd2 0-0 (but neither Adorjns oversight 8Ng6 [7] nor 8h5?? 9
Qb3 Bc7 10 0-0-0, J. Johansen M. Reichardt, e-mail 1998 where does Black put
his king? Other options: 8...b6 9 Qb3 transposes to 7 Qb3 b6 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2, and
8Na6 9 Qb3 = leads to the main line) 9 Qb3 (9 e3 Kh8! 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 f4 exf3
12 Qxf3 or 12 Nxf3 dont look reliable either) 9Kh8
A critical position:
(c1) 10 Rc1 Na6 (10f5!) 11 e3 f5 12
Nge2 Nb4? (12Ng6! 13 cxd5 Nh4 /+)
13 Nxe4 Nxa2 14 Nxd6? (14 Qxa2 dxe4
15 Qb1 unclear) 14Nxc1 15 Nxc1 Qxd6
16 Bb4 Qc7 17 cxd5 cxd5 18 Nd3 Be6
and Black won in Basman Kudrin,
Manchester 1981.
(c2) 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Nxd5 Be6 (11
Nbc6 12 Nxe7 Qxe7 13 d5 Nb4 unclear)
12 Bxe4 Nbc6! (12Bc7? 13 Qxb7 Bxd5
14 Bxd5 Qxd5 15 Qxd5 Nxd5 16 Rc1 Na6
17 e4! Rfe8 18 f3 Rac8 19 a3 Bg3+ 20 Kd1 Nb6 21 Ne2 Bd6 22 Rxc8 Rxc8 23
Bc3 unclear) 13 Nf3 Rc8! 14 Nxe7 Bxb3 15 Nxc8 T. Sawyer T. Just, corr. APCT
1996, 15Bf7 /+.
(c3) 10 0-0-0 (10 e3 a5!; 10 a3 f5 11 0-0-0 b5!) 10a5 11 c5 (or 11 a3 b5) 11
Bc7, followed by f5, and White is in trouble. While I dont trust the main line 7
Qb3, this line c may still contain a hidden improvement.
70-0
There are numerous alternatives:
(a) 7...dxc4? 8 Qxc4 Be6 9 Qa4 and pawn e4 falls: (1-0, 33) in De Jong Aaldijk,
corr. 1994.
(b) 7...h6 loses time: 8 Bd2 0-0 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 Nxd5 is slightly better for White,
and 7h5 8 Bd2 is even worse, because it ruins Blacks option to castle.
(c) 7Bc7 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2, and again Black has difficulties with the safety of his
king.
(d) 7...a6 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2 Bc7 10 0-0-0? b5! and Black stood well in G. Welling
R. Biedekoepper, Garmisch Partenkirchen 1991. 10 Rc1! += prevents b7-b5 and
refutes the idea.
(e) 7...b6 8 Bg5!
(e1) 8...f6 9 Bd2 Be6
10 c5! bxc5 (10Bc7 11 Nxe4) 11 Nxe4
cxd4 12 Rc1 Kf7 13 Nxd6+ Qxd6 14 Nf3
and White is slightly better.
(e2) 8...Be6 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 Qa4+! Qd7
(10Kf8 11f3; 10Bd7 11 Qb3) 11
Qxd7+ Kxd7 12 Bxe7 Kxe7 13 f3 =.
(f) 7...Na6 8 Bg5 f6 9 Bd2 Qb6 (Narciso
Dublan P. Cramling, Linares 1991) 10
Qxb6! axb6 11 cxd5 cxd5 12 f3 f5 13 Rc1
unclear.
(g) 7...Qb6(!) is solid: 8 Qxb6 axb6 9 Bg5
f6 10 Bd2 f5 11 gxf5 0-0 12 a3, about equal.
8 Bg5
Better than 8 Bd2 Na6 9 Rc1? in Basman Singh, London 1989, when 9dxc4!
Adorjn [7] 10 Qxc4 Nb4 would have been strong.
8f6
8...dxc4!? 9 Qxc4 Be6 10 Qa4
(a) 10Qb6 11 0-0-0 f5 12 gxf5 Rxf5 (G. Stuber L. van Damme, corr. 1997) 13
Bxe7 Bxe7 14 Bxe4 unclear.
(b) 10f6! 11 Bc1 f5 12 gxf5 Nxf5 13 Bxe4 b5 14 Qc2 is extremely dangerous for
White, e.g. 14b4 (14Nxd4) 15 Nb5 cxb5 16 Bxa8 b3! 17 axb3 Na6, and Black
has a strong attack.
9 cxd5 cxd5
Another plausible continuation is 9Kh8
(but not 9Qb6? 10 Qxb6 axb6 11 Nxe4
Bb4+ 12 Bd2 +/ Simmelink Engbersen,
corr. 1991) 10 dxc6 Nbxc6 11 Be3 f5, and
Black has sufficient compensation for his
sacrificed pawn.
10 Nxd5
Basmans new proposal in ECO A (1996)
[5]. Because of this different move order,
White is now able to avoid the
disadvantageous 10 Bd2 Kh8 (see 7 Bg5
f6 8 Bd2 0-0 9 Qb3 Kh8 10 cxd5 cxd5) 11
Nxd5 Be6 12 Bxe4 Nbc6! 13 Nf3 Rc8! 14 Nxe7 Bxb3 15 Nxc8 T. Sawyer T.
Just, corr. APCT 1996, 15Bf7 /+. Unfortunately, his new attempt is also
unplayable.
Corrections
Last months article on the Dry Defense, after 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 Ne4 3 Nfd2,
recommended 3Nf6! 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 e5 with a Philidor Defence, or 5 f4(!) e5 (or
perhaps g6) 6 Nf3 with an original, but fully playable Pirc Variation. In this line
Whites pawn e4 was hanging. What I meant to say was: 3Nf6! 4 e4 d6 5 Nc3
e5 6 Nf3 with a Philidor Defence, or 5 f4(!) e5 6 Nf3 Nbd7 7 Nc3 with an original,
but fully playable Pirc Variation.
This article concentrates on the most popular 7 Be3 (! in [2] and [3]). Beliavsky [4]
wrote: Black was fairly quickly crushed after 7 Be3, but as well see, Black has
an improvement (which was already given in the same article [4], by Ren Olthof).
Earlier alternatives for moves 4-6 (including 4 g4!?, lately recommended by
Khalifman), plus alternatives for White at move 7 will follow in part two in
November. Both articles will ignore 4 Nf3 e5, so youll need another source to
study the standard Philidor.
7 Be3 d5!
Play through and download the games
from ChessCafe.com in the DGT Game
Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
13Nb6
Not 13Qe6?! 14 Qxe6 fxe6 15 Ne5!
Nb6 16 Bg2 Rxf4 17 g5! g6 18 Rd8+ +/.
14 f5 Bd7 15 Qe5 Qh6+ 16 Kb1 Rae8,
and Black should be able to hold the
ending; for example, 17 Qg3 (17 Qc7 c5!)
17Re3 18 Bd3 Rfe8 19 Rhe1 c5 20
Rxe3 Rxe3 21 Re1 Rxe1+ 22 Nxe1 Qc6 23 Be2 c4.
Variation B: 8 e5
8 e5
Recommended in most sources, but the pawn advance is overestimated by theory.
8Ng4! 9 Bg1
Neither 9 f5? Qb6! 10 Qxb6 Nxb6 =+ nor
9 Qd2?! Nxe3 10 Qxe3 Qb6! = give White
any advantage.
9Qb6!
Ren Olthof [4] is right to prefer this
move over the alternatives. Palatnik/Ishee
[5] only analyze 9...Bc5 10 Qd2 Bxg1 11
Rxg1 Qb6 12 0-0-0 Nxh2! (soon /+), but
their own alternative 12 Na4 Qe3+ 13
Qxe3 Nxe3 14 Bd3 is in fact much
stronger and rather +/ than += [5].
For example 14b5 15 Nc3 Nc5 (15...
Nb6 16 a3 00 17 b3 Rd8 18 Nd4 Bb7 19
Kf2 Nec4 20 Nce2 g6 21 a4 Nb2 22 a5
Nxd3+ 23 cxd3 Nd7 24 a6 Bc8 25 Nxc6
Re8 26 Nc3 10, Dreev Kveinys,
Vienna 1996) 16 Kd2 Nf5 17 b4 Nxd3 18
cxd3 a5 19 a3 Bd7 20 Ne2 h5 21 Ned4
Nxd4 22 Nxd4 and White has a clear
advantage.
10 Qxb6
Not 10 h3?! Bc5 11 Qd2 Bxg1 12 Rxg1
Nh2 =.
10...axb6 11 h3 Nh6 12 g4 b5!
12Bb4 [4] (Wells Oratovsky,
Budapest 1999) looks less reliable,
because of 13 Kd2! (to take back on c3
with the king, thereby keeping his pawn
structure intact) 13Nc5 14 Bd3 0-0 15
a3 +=, when Blacks minor pieces occupy
awkward squares. The rest of line B is
merely analysis, but my impression is that
Black has few problems:
13 Be3 b4 14 Ne2
14 Nb1 Nc5 15 Nbd2 f6.
14...Nc5! 15 Ned4 f6 with full equality, e.g. 16 Bg2 Nf7 17 0-0 Ne4 18 Rfe1 h5!,
and it is White who has to be careful.
Variation C: 8 exd5
8 exd5
The sharpest continuation and probably
best. Black has to find some precise
C1 9 Qd2
13 Qd2 Bxf1 14 Bf2!! Nc4 15 Qe1 Bxd4 16 Qxe7+ Kxe7 17 Rxd4 c5 18 Rd1 Bxg2
19 Bxc5+ Ke6 20 Rhe1+ Kf5 21 Rd4 +/ Nxb2 22 Rg1, etc.
(c) 10...Ng4!? is not entirely clear: 11 Nf5 Nde5 12 Nxe7 Nxd3+ 13 Bxd3 Nxe3 14
Nxc8 Rxc8 15 dxc6 Rxc6 (15...Nxg2+ 16 Kf1 Nxf4 17 cxb7 Rb8 18 Be4) 16 g3 00 17 Ke2 Bd4. Whether Black has sufficient compensation for his pawn is difficult
to decide; for example, 18 Rab1 g6 19 Nb5 Bc5 20 Kf3 a6 21 Nc3 (21 Na3 b5) 21...
Bd4 22 h3 Rd8 23 Rh2 Bxc3 24 Kxe3 Rb6 25 b3 Re6+ 26 Kf3 Kg7 27 Re2 Rxe2
28 Kxe2 Re8+ 29 Kf2 Bd4+ 30 Kg2 Bc3 31 Kf3 f5 32 Be2 Rd8 33 g4 Kf6 34 Bd3
Rd4, and Black can hope to survive.
11 Nxd5 cxd5 12 Nf5
A tempting attack, but 12 0-0-0 also deserves attention: 110-0 (12...Nf6) 13 g3
Nf6 14 Bg2 (Galissot Verheyen, Artek 2000) 14...Re8 =.
12...Qf6 13 Bxc5
13 0-0-0 0-0 14 g3 (or 14 g4 Re8! 15 Bxc5 Nxc5 16 Qxd5 Bxf5 = Miras Garcia
Ross, Email 2001) 14...Re8 15 Bg2
15Qg6! 16 Bd4 (16 Bxd5 Nf6 or 16
Rde1 Nf6 are safer) 16...Ne5 17 Ne7+
Bxe7 18 Bxe5 Bf5 19 Qb3 Bf6! 20 Bxf6
Re2 21 Rd2 Rxd2 22 Kxd2 Qxf6 23 Bxd5
Re8 24 Bc4 a6 25 a4 b5 26 axb5 axb5 27
Re1 Qd4+ 28 Bd3 Rxe1 29 Kxe1 Qg1+ 30
Kd2 Qxh2+ 31 Be2 g6 32 Qxb5 Qxg3 =.
13...Nxc5 14 Qb5+
Another entertaining line: 14 Qe3+ Ne4
15 Bb5+ Bd7 16 Bxd7+ Kxd7 17 Nd4
White plans to profit from Blacks
exposed king position. But if nothing else
works, Black still has the attractive
tactical escape: 17Ng3!? 18 0-0-0 Nxh1
19 Nb5:
(a) 19Kc6 20 Rxd5 Kxd5 21 Nc3+ Kc6
22 Qf3+ Kd7 23 Qxb7+ Ke8 24 Qxa8+
Qd8 25 Qxa7 Kf8 26 Qg1 Qd6 27 Qxh1
Qxf4+ 28 Kb1 g6 29 g3 Qd4 30 a4 Kg7
31 Qd5 =.
(b) 19Qc6 20 Qe5 Qe6 21 Qc7+ Ke8 22
Qxb7 Qe3+ 23 Kb1 Rd8 24 Rxh1 Kf8 25
Qxa7 Qxa7 26 Nxa7 Re8 = with roughly equal chances.
14...Nd7 15 Ne3
A new attempt. In the game Soriano Ascaso Ramo Frontinan, Aragon 2003,
White played 15 Bd3 00 16 Qxd5 Re8+ 17 Kd2 and finally won after 17...Qxb2
18 Rab1 Qf6 19 Rhe1 Re6 20 g4 h6 21 h4 g5 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 Rh1 gxf4 24 Rh6
Qe5 25 Rbh1 Qb2 26 Rxe6 Qb4+ 27 c3 Qb2+ 28 Bc2 10. However, 17g6
practically forces a draw: 18 Nh6+ Kg7 19 Qg5 Qxb2 (19...Qxg5 20 fxg5 Nc5) 20
Nf5+ Kg8 =.
15...Qxf4!
Better than 15a6 16 Qb4 d4 17 Nc4 Qxf4 18 Be2 a5 19 Nd6+! (stronger than 19
Qa3 = or 19 Qd6 +=) 19Kd8 20 Qa3 Kc7 21 Nb5+ Kb8 22 Rf1 Qxh2 23 0-0-0
Ra6 24 Nxd4 Rg6 25 Qxa5 with heavy complications:
(a) 25...Rxg2 26 Kb1 Qe5 27 Nb5 Qc5 28
Bc4! Ne5 29 b3 Rg6 30 Rd5 Nxc4 31
bxc4 Qb6 32 Qe1 Ka8 33 Kb2 (33 Qd2
Re8 34 Rf3) 33...Rd8 34 Rxd8 Qxd8 35
Rxf7 Rf6 36 Qg1 Qa5 37 Qc5 Rc6 38 Nc7
+ and wins.
(b) 25Qe5 26 Qd2 Rxg2 (26...Nf6!? 27
Qb4 Nd5 28 Qa5 Be6 29 Bf3 Rc8 30 Rfe1
Qc7 31 Qd2 +=) 27 Rf5 Qh2 28 Qb4 Rg6
29 Qe7! (29 Ra5 Nb6 with a solid
position, for example 30 Bf3 Bd7 31 b3
Rc8 32 Kb2 Rf6 33 Rd2 Qf4 34 c4 Rxc4!
35 bxc4 Nxc4+ 36 Kc3 Qxd2+ -) 29
h5 30 Bf3 Rg1 31 Qe3! Rxd1+ 32 Bxd1 Nf6 33 Ra5 Re8 34 Nc6+! +/.
16 Nxd5 Qd6!
16Qe5+ 17 Be2 0-0 18 0-0-0 a6 19 Qc4 Nb6 20 Qc7! favors White.
17 0-0-0 0-0 18 Be2 (18 Bc4 a6) 18Nc5 +=
Because of his superior development
White stands better, but Black has good
chances to consolidate his position; for
example, 19 Bf3 (19 Qb4 Bd7 20 Rhf1
Qh6+ 21 Kb1 b6) 19Kh8 20 Nc3 Qc7
21 Rd5 Ne6 22 Kb1 a6 23 Qa4 h6 24 h4
Rb8 25 Rhd1 b5.
Sources:
[1] St. Bcker: Fr Ihre Erffnungskartei Nr. 1, in: Schach-Report 1991/7.
[2] T. Harding: Invitation to a Philidor, in: New in Chess Yearbook 22 (1991), p.
37.
[3] H. Warzecha: Die Ufimzew-Verteidigung. Moderne Systeme, Ludwigshafen
1995.
[4] A. Beliavsky: A Risky Strategy by Black, in: New in Chess Yearbook 56
(2000), p. 58.
[5] S. Palatnik, M. Ishee: The Tarrasch Formula, USA 2004. [6] A. Khalifman:
Opening for White according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 4, Sofia 2005.
By playing the Philidor Defense 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6, you can avoid the Ruy Lopez
and many other openings after 2Nc6 that involve a mass of theory. For at least
150 years the Philidor Defense had the image of being slightly passive. The books
presented short lines that usually ended with a +=, saving space for more
interesting topics. Nevertheless, creative players such as Nimzovitch, Larsen or
Barendregt used the defense with success. Only in the last decades have authors
begun to work out a detailed theory of the Philidor Defense, which makes it more
difficult to claim an advantage for White. In 1998, Jerry van Rekom and Leo
Jansen published an influential book that recommended 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3
Nbd7, calling it The Lion (De leeuw) [4].
This move order at least avoids the
pedestrian lines 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6
(which allows 4 dxe5 Nxe4 5 Qd5) and 1
e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 e5 (when White can
exchange queens). Whether an old line
already used by Alapin and Nimzovitch
needs a new name is another question.
The Pirc approach also involves new
risks. Part One of my article discussed the
main line 4 f4 e5 5 Nf3 exd4 6 Qxd4 c6!?
7 Be3 d5, but during my analysis I had
ignored two important sources (many
thanks to Steve Giddins from England for
pointing out my omission). The first was
Van Rekom/Jansen: De leeuw, ht zwarte wapen [4], and the second Christian
Bauers The Philidor Files (London 2006). So lets return to last months 7 Be3 d5
to check my results:
After 8 0-0-0 Bc5 (8c5 [4] is wrong, as
seen in [9]) 9 Qd3, Bauer recommends 9
Qe7 10 e5 Ng4 saying that the position
remains balanced. My line went 11 Bxc5
Nxc5 12 Qd4 += [9]. A possible
continuation: 12h5 13 Qg1 Be6 (1300? 14 h3 Nh6 15 Rxd5 Ne6 16 Ra5 Nxf4
17 Rxa7) 14 h3 Nh6 15 g4 g6 16 Be2 0-00 17 Nd4 Kb8 18 Kb1 Bd7 19 a3 Ne6 20
Qf2 Rdf8, and Black isnt much worse. So
Bauers 9Qe7 may in fact be a good
alternative to my 9Bxe3 [9].
After 8 e5 Ng4 9 Bg1, Bauers favorite is
9Nh6. I ignored the move because of 10 0-0-0 Qa5 11 Kb1 Nb6 (11Nf5
unclear, Bauer 12 Qf2 Bb4 13 Ne2! and Black is in trouble). So far W. Watson
Bauer, German League 1996. But 12 Nd2! Bg4 (12c5 13 Qd3!) 13 Re1 c5 (else
14 Nb3) 14 Qd3! +/ gives White a clear advantage. So the stronger alternative
should be 9Qb6! (not in [4]) 10 Qxb6 axb6 11 h3 Nh6 12 g4, Wells
Oratovsky, European Club Cup 1999. End of analysis in [8]. According to Bauer,
this gives White a clear advantage, but my 12b5! [9], followed by 13Nc5,
then b4 or f6, gives Black reasonable counterplay. I dont think that White has a
significant advantage.
In main line C1 in [9], I unknowingly followed Bauers analysis: 8 exd5 Bc5 9
Qd2 Qe7 10 Nd4 Ng4 11 0-0-0 Qxe3 12 Re1 Bxd4 13 Nd1 Qxe1 14 Qxe1+ Kd8
(Bauer also considers 14Kf8) 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 Qa5+ Bb6 17 Qg5+ Ngf6 18
Qxg7.
Bauer [8] stops here, saying Black has
rook, bishop and knight versus queen and
two pawns, but he experiences difficulties
coordinating his forces. My analysis
continued 18Rg8 19 Qxf7 Bb7 20 Qb3
Kc7 21 g3 Rae8 [9] and, after eleven
further moves, White had no advantage at
French Attack
by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Ldenscheid
As announced last month [9], Ill now check the relevant sidelines in moves four
through seven. Mainly alternatives for White, but youll also get hints why Black is
well-advised not to leave the main path. However, well have to postpone the
fashionable 4 g4!? until next month, because I underestimated the amount of
material. Moreover, 4 g4!? leads to positions of a different character, so it should
get a separate article anyway.
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 f4
After 4 Nf3, the response 4e5 reaches a main position of Philidors Defence.
4e5
5 Nf3
(a) 5 fxe5 dxe5 6 dxe5 Nxe5 7 Qxd8+
Kxd8 is discussed by Van Rekom/Jansen
[4] on six pages. With his firm grip on the
e5-square, Black has no serious problems.
(b) 5 Be3 (Wim Hokken [4]) is
interesting, to take back on d4 with the
bishop. Bauer recommends two moves:
5g6 [8], although 6 fxe5 dxe5 7 dxe5
Nxe5 8 Qxd8+ Kxd8 9 Nf3! gives White
an advantage. His second idea 5c6
(intending b5 and Qa5, [8]) was already
given by Van Rekom/Jansen [4] and seems quite reliable. There is a third line, not
mentioned in [4] or [8]: 5Be7!? 6 Nf3 (6 fxe5 dxe5 = Simon Eberth,
Fuzesabony 2002) 6Ng4 7 Qd2 Nxe3 8 Qxe3 0-0 9 0-0-0 exf4!? 10 Qxf4; for
example, 10c6 11 Bd3 b5 12 e5 Qc7 13 Kb1 dxe5 14 dxe5 Nc5 15 Ne4 Nxd3 16
Rxd3 f6 =.
5exd4
(a) 5...Qe7? 6 Be2! c6 (6...exf4 7 0-0 Nxe4 8 Nxe4 Qxe4 9 Bd3 Qd5 10 Bxf4 Be7
11 Re1 with a lasting attack) 7 0-0 b5 8 Bd3 Bb7 9 Be3 b4 10 Ne2 exd4 11 Nexd4
+/.
(b) 5...Be7? 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 Ng4 8 Bf4! Bc5 9 Qd2! (much stronger than 9
Bg5, as in Conquest Hodgson, London 1991, quoted by Bauer [8]) 9...Nf2 10
Rg1 Ng4 11 0-0-0! +/ 0-0 12 Be2 Bxg1? 13 Nxg1+; for example, 13Nh6 14
Nd5, etc.
(c) 5...c6?, analyzed in great detail by Van Rekom/Jansen [4], but there is a
refutation: 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 fxe5 Ng4 8 e6 fxe6 9 Ng5 Nde5 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 h3
Nh6 (or 11...Nf6 12 Bf4 Ng6 13 Bh2 +/)
Here 12 Bf4 and 12 Be3 have been
played, but I prefer the flexible and strong
12 Be2!. Two examples:
(c1) 12Nhf7 13 Nxf7+ Nxf7 14 Rf1
Ke8 15 Be3 Be7 16 0-0-0 b6 17 e5 Nxe5
18 Bd4 Bd6 (18...Bf6 19 Bh5+) 19 Ne4
Bc7 20 Ng5 Rf8 21 Nxh7 Rxf1 22 Rxf1
c5 23 Bh5+ Ke7 24 Bxe5 Bxe5 25 Rf7+
Kd6 26 Bf3 Rb8 27 Rxa7 +/.
(c2) 12Be7 13 Rf1 Bf6 14 Be3 b6 15 a4
Nhf7 16 Nxf7+ Nxf7 17 a5 b5 18 0-0-0+
Kc7 19 e5! Nxe5 20 Ne4 Nd7 21 Ng5 e5
22 Ne6+ Kb8 23 Rd6 +/.
(d) 5...exf4?! 6 Bxf4 Be7 7 Bd3 Nf8 8 Qd2 Ng6 9 Be3 += c6 10 0-0-0 b5
(Alexandria Blagojevic, Belgrade 1969) 11 h4 +/.
6 Qxd4!
Against 6 Nxd4, Black has at least two reliable replies:
(a) 6...c6 7 Be2 [4] g6 8 0-0 Bg7 9 Nb3 +=.
(b) According to Christian Bauer, 6...Be7 is a bit passive and gives White an
edge [8]. I agree: 7 Be2! (7 Bc4 0-0 8 0-0 K. Betins Nimzowitsch, Riga 1910)
70-0 8 0-0 Re8 9 Bf3 c6 10 Re1 Qb6 11 Kh1 Bf8 12 Nb3 +=.
(c) After 6...Nc5!? (! Beliavsky [5]) 7 Bd3, Van Rekom/Jansen [4] give 7Bg4
(!) 8 Nf3 h5, which Bauer [8] criticizes because of 8 Qd2!, followed by h3, and
Black loses valuable time. Instead, the solid continuation 7Be7 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 c6
may be best, about =.
(d) 6g6 7 Bc4 (Bauer only has 7 Bd3 [8]) 7Bg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nf3 (9 Re1 Nc5!
=) is a critical situation:
(d1) 9...Nb6?! 10 Bb3 c5 is risky because
of 11 a4 c4 12 Ba2 d5 13 e5 Ne4 14 Nxe4
dxe4 15 Ng5 Bf5 16 a5 h6 17 Nxf7 Kxf7
18 Qe2 +/.
(d2) 9...Nc5 10 e5 dxe5 11 Qxd8 Rxd8 12
fxe5 Nfd7! (12Ng4 13 h3! Nxe5 14
Nxe5 Bxe5 15 Bg5 Bd4+ 16 Kh1 Rd7 17
Rae1 Ne6 18 Bxe6! +/) 13 Bg5 Re8 14
Nb5 Na6 15 Rad1 Nb6 16 Bb3 Be6 17
Rfe1 +=.
(d3) 9...Qe7! 10 Re1 c6 11 Bb3 (11 Qe2
b5 =; 11 a4 d5 12 exd5 Qc5+ =+) 11...Nc5
12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 Ng4 14 Qd6 Re8 and Black has sufficient counterplay; for
example, 15 Bf4 Qxd6 16 exd6 Nf6 17 h3 Bd7 18 Be5 a5 19 Ng5 Nxb3 20 axb3
Bf5 21 Rac1 h5 =.
6...c6
The only move according to Van Rekom/
Jansen [4]. They seem to be right:
(a) 6...c5? 7 Qg1! Be7 8 Be3 0-0 (8...Ng4
9 Bd2) 9 0-0-0 Qa5 (9Re8 10 g4) 10
Kb1 b5 11 e5 +/.
(b) 6...g6? 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 Bc5 9 Qa4
Nh5 10 Bh6 followed by 11 0-0-0 and
Blacks position is vulnerable, Bauer [8].
For example: 10Bf8 11 Bg5 Be7 12
Bxe7 Qxe7 13 g4 Ng7 14 Nd5 Qc5 (Kulicov Novitzkij, St. Petersburg 1999) 15 00-0! Kf8 16 b4 Qf2 (16...Nb6 17 Qa3) 17 Qb3 a6 18 Rd2 Qa7 19 Ng5 +.
(c) 6...Be7? 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 Bc5 9 Qc4! Qe7 10 Qe2 Ng4 11 Nd5 Bf2+ 12 Qxf2
Nxf2 13 Nxe7 Nxh1 14 Nd5 + Martin Gonzalez Ortega Ruiz, Linares 1998 [8].
(d) 6...Nc5? (!? by Beliavsky in [5]) 7 Be3! (7 Bc4 is also strong)
(d1) 7...g6 8 0-0-0! (8 e5 Ne6 Ponomariov Beliavsky, Bled 1999, and now
Beliavsky [5] gives 9 Qc4!?, which is +/, in spite of Bauers belief that the
position remains balanced) 8...Bg7 9 Bb5+! (even better than 9 e5 Ng4 10 Bg1
Yakovich J. Johansson, Stockholm 1996, 10...0-0! [5] 11 h3 Nh6 12 g4 [8] and
White attacks)
9...Ncd7 (9...c6 10 Qxd6; 9Bd7 10 Qc4)
10 Bf2 (or 10 e5) 10a6 11 Ba4 b5 12
Bb3 0-0 13 e5 dxe5 (13...Ng4 14 Bh4 Qe8
15 h3 +/) 14 Nxe5 Qe8 15 Rhe1 Nxe5 16
fxe5 Ng4 17 Nd5 Bxe5 18 Qc5 Bd6 19
Qc3 (19 Ne7+) Be6 20 Bd4 Qd8 21 Bh8
+ and White wins.
(d2) 7...Be7 8 0-0-0 0-0 is not sufficient
either. The direct 9 e5 Ng4 10 Bg1 +/
may be best, which is also recommended
by Bauer [8]. 9 h3 to prepare g2-g4 is
equally strong, e.g. 9Bd7 10 e5 (else
Bc6 comes into question) 10Nh5 11
Bc4 Ng3 12 Rhe1 Nf5 13 Qd2 +/. Finally 9 Bc4 Nfd7!? 10 Kb1! (avoids the trick
10 e5 Nb6 11 Be2 Bf5 12 h3 Nd3+! 13 Bxd3 c5 =) 10Nb6 11 Be2 +/, and again
White is clearly better.
7 Bd2
The main line 7 Be3! d5! was already
analyzed above and in the October
column. Instead, 7Qb6 8 0-0-0 would
not be advisable, as 8...Qxd4 9 Bxd4 gives
White a positional edge, and 8Be7 9 e5
dxe5?! 10 fxe5 Ng4 11 e6 fxe6 12 Qxg7
Qxe3+ 13 Kb1 Rf8 14 Qxg4 Nf6 15 Qh4
+/ is even worse. But the text move isnt
Whites only option. These are his
alternatives:
(a) 7 Qa4? Qb6! 8 Bd2 Nc5 9 Qc4 Nfxe4
/+.
(b) 7 Bd3?! d5 8 e5 Bc5 9 Qa4 Qe7 =+.
(c) 7 b4 a5 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5 Nd5 10 Nxd5 cxd5 11 b5 Qc7 =+.
(d) 7 a4 d5, and now:
(d1) 8 exd5? Bc5 9 Qc4 0-0 /+
In Kronsfoth Bcker, Mnster 1989 [1],
my opponent already resigned! In another
game there followed: 10 Be2 Qe7 (threat:
Nb6) 11 a5 Hummel Ondersteijn,
Leiden 2000; 11cxd5 /+.
Sources:
[1] St. Bcker: Fr Ihre Erffnungskartei Nr. 1 in: Schach-Report 1991/7.
[2] T. Harding: Invitation to a Philidor, in: New in Chess Yearbook 22 (1991), p.
37.
[3] H. Warzecha: Die Ufimzew-Verteidigung. Moderne Systeme, Ludwigshafen
1995.
[4] J. van Rekom, L. B. Jansen: De leeuw, ht zwarte wapen, Netherlands 1998.
[5] A. Beliavsky: A Risky Strategy by Black, in: New in Chess Yearbook 56
(2000), p. 58.
[6] S. Palatnik, M. Ishee: The Tarrasch Formula, USA 2004.
[7] A. Khalifman: Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4, vol. 4, Sofia 2005.
[8] Chr. Bauer: The Philidor Files, London 2007.
[9] St. Bcker: The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor? Part One, 2007.
One of these alternatives is 4 g4, covered in the present article. 4 g4 hasnt much in
common with 4 f4, nor with my proposed name French Attack, but now it is a bit
late for finding a better title. And the question Pirc or Philidor? is still relevant,
as we will see. The early advance of the g-pawn is a dangerous alternative, by no
means weaker than 4 f4, so studying this supplement is a must for those who wish
to play 3...Nbd7.
4h6
4...e5 5 g5 exd4 6 Qxd4 cannot be recommended; for example, 6...Ng4 7 Be2 Nge5
8 Be3, followed by 0-0-0, and White attacks on the kingside Khalifman [1].
Now there are three main and a few minor continuations. Ill follow Christian
Bauer [2], presenting them in the order: 5 Nf3 (Variation A), 5 Be3 and various
moves (Variation B), 5 h3! (Variation C). If a Philidor Defense is strictly defined
by the move Nf3, White again has the choice: Pirc or Philidor.
Variation A: 5 Nf3 (Shirov Gambit)
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6 5 Nf3
By a transposition of moves, we have
reached one of the most fashionable lines
in Philidors Defense. In the move order
preferred in this article: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6
3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 Nf3 e5 (= Philidor Defense)
5. g4!?. The last move, introduced by
Alexei Shirov in 2003 and later repeated
in other games, leads to very unclear
situations. Black can accept the sacrifice
(5Nxg4), allow the threatened advance
(5g6 6 g5 Nh5) or play the calmer 5
h6.
Blacks choice of 3Nbd7 (instead of 3
e5) and Whites reply 4 g4 (which more or less forces 4h6) together now lead to
a situation that in theory should favor White (if there were any justice in chess):
Black has reduced his options: he can only play h7-h6 (and not take on g4
or play g6, as in the original version of Shirovs Gambit).
White now can play Nf3, but has strong alternatives, which was already
indicated by the fact that 5 Nf3 here appears only as Variation A, with two
more to come.
The first point seems less important to me, because in the usual Shirov Gambit I
regard the reply 5h6 as Blacks best continuation anyway. However, Variations
B and C should be taken seriously. There is still plenty of room for developing new
attacking ideas for White.
5e5! 6 g5 hxg5 7 Nxg5
Or 7 Bxg5 c6 8 Qd2 b5 =; for example, 9 Bd3 Rh3 or 9 a3 Qa5.
7...exd4!
For my taste there are by far too many losses for Black in the database, so here and
in the next moves Ill concentrate on the main path and ignore many corpses beside
the road.
8 Qxd4 Ne5
Nijboer [5] recommends 8...c6 (this
flexible move is best), but after 9 Bf4
Ng4 (Vaisser Bauer, Besancon 1999) 10
f3 Nge5 11 0-0-0 Qb6 12 Qd2 Be7 13 Be2
Black has equalized. For example 11 0-0-0? b4 12 Nd5 Bxd5 13 exd5 Qa5 14 a3
Rb8, etc.
Variation C: 5 h3
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6 5 h3
Khalifman [1] claims that with 5 h3 (which he analyzes on nearly eight pages)
White maintains his opening advantage. Bauer [2] tries to defend Blacks case on
about six pages.
5e5 6 Nge2
Khalifman [1]: Blacks task in the next
few moves is to organize some
counterplay on the queenside (that is to
prepare b7-b5) and to develop his
kingside. With the text move, White
keeps the option to play a different setup
without Bg2, perhaps with Be3.
(a) 6 Be3 has often been played. Perhaps
the following is a good plan for Black: 6...
Be7 7 Qd2 (7 Nge2 b5!?) 7a6 8 a4 exd4
9 Bxd4 c5 10 Be3 b5 (a nice pawn
sacrifice) 11 axb5 Bb7 12 f3 axb5 13
Rxa8 Qxa8 14 Bxb5 (14 Nxb5 0-0 15
Nxd6 Bxd6 16 Qxd6 Bxe4) 140-0 15 Nge2 d5 16 Bxd7? (16 Bxh6 or 16 0-0 d4
17 Bxh6 =) 16dxe4 17 Ng3 Rd8 18 Ncxe4 Bxe4 19 Nxe4 Nxe4 20 fxe4 Bh4+ 21
Ke2 Qxe4 22 Rg1 Qb7 23 Qd6 Rxd7 24 Qxc5 Rc7 25 Qf5 Qxb2 26 Rd1 g6 27
Qd3 Qe5 0-1, N. Borge J. Trapl, corr. 1998.
(b) 6 Bg2 can easily transpose to our main line: 6c6 7 Nge2 b5 8 a3.
6b5!? Bg2 b5
After 6c6, White may have more possibilities; for example, 7 a4. Both Bauer
(6b5!? [2]) and Khalifman (It is wise for Black to try 6b5 [1]) recommend
the text move, but give 6c6 as their main continuation. Often the result is only a
transposition of moves.
7 Bg2
Khalifman [1]: White should not exchange his central e-pawn for Blacks b-pawn
with: 7 Nxb5 Nxe4 8 Bg2 Bb7, but after 9 0-0 a6 10 Ng3! += White is better. The
correct solution seems to be (after 7 Nxb5) 7h5! with two tactical lines:
(a) 8 gxh5 Bb7 9 Bg2 (after 9 f3 Nxh5 10
Be3 Be7, Black has sufficient
compensation for the pawn) 9Bxe4 10
Bxe4 Nxe4 11 dxe5 Rb8 12 Qd5 (12 Ned4
Qh4!) 12Rxh5 13 Bf4 dxe5 14 Qxe4
Rxb5 15 0-0-0 Rb4 16 Rd4 Rxd4 17 Nxd4
Rh4 18 Re1 Bb4 19 Nc6 Qf6 20 Nxb4
15 Nf5!?).
(b) 9g6 10 f4 (the alternative 10 Be3 [1]
is also strong) 10Bg7 11 Be3 a6 and
now Khalifman only gives 12 Ng3 that
doesnt achieve much after 12exd4 13
Bxd4 0-0 =. Instead, 12 dxe5! dxe5 13
Qd6 += is advantageous for White.
9 Be3 Be7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Ng3 Nb6 12 b3 a5
Thanks to his active play on the
queenside, Black isnt worse. There might
follow 13 f4 (13 Qd2 a4 14 Rfc1 Bd7 =)
13exf4 14 Bxf4 Re8 15 Qf3 Be6 16 Nf5
Bxf5 17 gxf5 Qd7 =.
Sources:
[1] A. Khalifman:Opening for White
according to Anand 1. e4, vol. 4, Sofia
2005.
[2] Chr. Bauer:The Philidor Files, London
2007.
[3] St. Bcker:The French Attack: Pirc or
Philidor? Part One, 2007.
[4] St. Bcker:The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor? Part Two, 2007.
[5] F. Nijboer: Das Schirow-Gambit gegen Philidor, in: Schach ohne
Scheuklappen, vol. 7, Alkmaar 2007 (Secrets of Opening Surprises Vol. 7, edited
by Jeroen Bosch, in English).
Readers' Reactions
It is time to look at some reader feedback about earlier columns. Four of these
reactions are collected in this article.
1. Nameless Variation: 3Nbd7 4 g4
The December 2007 column, The French Attack: Pirc or Philidor? (III), studied
the various alternatives after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4 h6. White can
play 5 Nf3, going into Shirovs Gambit against the Philidor (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4
Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5 g4, and now 5h6). There were also dangerous alternatives in
5 Be3 and 5 h3, favored by Bauer, respectively by Khalifman. In an e-mail Ludger
Keitlinghaus from Germany compared the difficult position after 4h6 with the
Keres Attack of the Sicilian Defense 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3
e6 6 g4.
Stefan Bcker
Drawing: (c) by
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski,
Ldenscheid
In the main line 6...h6 of the Keres Attack, many players nowadays have doubts
regarding the safety of Blacks king. So they prefer 5...a6 to keep the square g4
under control. Similarly, after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 g4! h6 in your
December column positions often arise where Black has problems to secure his
king. For example, if White only succeeds to castle long, Blacks king practically
has to flee to the queens wing to get into safety. In the presented lines, it may be
possible to detect a narrow escape in the privacy of your study, but over the board
Blacks position could be hard to defend. It is difficult to remain calm when your
king is in danger. To illustrate his opinion, Keitlinghaus then added another
proposal for White, not covered in the last article: 5 f4!? e5.
Keitlinghaus: Here White could either
play 6 g5, 6 h3!?, intending 7 Nf3, or the
immediate 6 Nf3!?. White is in a
comfortable situation, since he has various
set-ups at his disposal, while Black faces
considerable problems. It is just one
detail, but I dont like that pawn at h6.
SB: I have to admit that after 4 g4 h6,
White has a wide choice of attacking
plans, while Black in almost every case
has to react carefully. But altogether I still
believe that Blacks position is sound, and
I am not even sure whether the modern
4 g4 should be preferred over the old main line 4 f4 seen in the 1990s. Against your
new suggestion Black should probably play as follows:
5 f4!? e5 6 h3
Or 6 Nf3 (6 g5 seems less critical) 6exd4 7 Qxd4 d5! (7c6 8 h3 Qb6 9 Bg2
+=) 8 Nxd5 Bc5 9 Nxf6+ Qxf6 10 Qd3 0-0! (10Bb6 11 e5 Qc6 12 Qe2! Nc5 13
Rg1 0-0 14 Be3 Qa4 15 f5 Bd7 16 Qc4 Rae8 17 0-0-0 is at least +=) 11 e5 Qb6 12
Be2 Bf2+ (12Rd8 13 h3 a6 14 Kf1 Qc6 15 Be3 or 15 Rh2, +/) 13 Kf1 Nc5
14 Qb5 Ne4, Black seems to hold (15 f5
h5).
6Be7
6c6 7 Nf3 exf4 8 Bxf4 Qb6 9 a3!
Qxb2?? 10 Na4 +.
7 Nf3 d5 8 exd5
8 fxe5 Nxe4 9 Nxd5 Bh4+ 10 Nxh4 Qxh4
+ 11 Ke2 Nb6 12 Nxc7+ Kd8 13 Nxa8
Bxg4+ only leads to a draw.
8exf4
8exd4 9 Nxd4 (9 Qxd4 0-0 10 Bd2 Bc5 11 Qd3 Re8+, unclear) 90-0 10 Bg2
Nb6 11 Nb3 a5 12 a4 Bb4 13 0-0 Bxc3 14 bxc3 Nfxd5 15 Qd4, and White is
clearly better.
9 Bxf4 0-0 10 Qd3 Nb6 11 0-0-0 Nfxd5 12 Nxd5 Qxd5!
After 12Nxd5? 13 Bd2, Whites attack is very strong: 13a5 (13Re8 14 Rg1
6 Bd3 e6 7 Nf3
In OFWAA vol. 4 Khalifman also gives 7 Nce2 h5 8 Nf3 Ne7 9 Be3 Nf5 10 Bf2
Na6 11 c3 Nc7, Spiekermann Kappler, Lausanne 2000, 12 0-0 with the idea g3,
h3, g4 as better for White. But he seems to like the text move: White does not
need to retreat his knight yet and he can play instead 7 Nf3, or 7 Be3.
In this position, couldnt Black play 7...
b6 ? It reminds me of a line in the French
Defense, 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e5
b6!? 5 a3 Bf8 6 f4. The difference is that
White is not able to continue with Bb5+ ...
c6, Ba4 as in the French, as Black has
already played ...c6. It seems that the
best way for White to keep his bishop is
in fact 7 Nce2 b6 8 c3 Ba6 9 Bc2. But the
maneuver takes time and Black can think
about counterplay with ...c5 (or perhaps
Nh6 is more precise). What do you think
about this idea?
SB: However, as a little compensation for the additional move c6, White has got
three useful moves: Nf3 and Bd3 and a3, and now it is even his turn to move:
8 Qe2!
White develops and also prevents your
intended 8Ba6. For example:
8a5
It may be time to choose a different plan.
The position is still closed and the loss of
a few tempi does not necessarily mean a
loss of the game. However, 8c5? is
tactically refuted by means of 9 Bb5+ Bd7
10 f5! exf5 11 0-0 a6 12 e6 Bxb5 13 exf7
+, and 8h5 9 Be3 must also be excellent
for White.
9 0-0 Nh6
9Ba6 is still premature because of 10 f5.
10 Bd2 Ba6 11 Nd1 Bxd3 12 Qxd3 Be7 13 Ne3 +/. Black has exchanged his
weak bishop, but in any other respect Whites position is superior.
Since you mentioned your earlier foible for the Gurgenidze Variation, after 1 e4 d6
2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 c6 4 f4 d5!? 5 e5 Ng8 6 Bd3 the natural 6g6! (instead of 6
e6?) 7 Nf3 h5 should be more to your taste, as a near relative of the Gurgenidze
Variation. Khalifman believes that White has an advantage, but perhaps for the
wrong reason:
8 0-0
3. Lwenthal Variation
The second part of my June 2007 article, The Comeback of the e5 Sicilians,
had covered the Lwenthal Variation. I mainly concentrated on 8 Qxf6, the move
preferred by Khalifman. However, my shortcut solution against 8 Qc7 was just a
blunder. During a correspondence game, Klaus Kgler from Germany found out
that the idea loses on the spot:
Milos Drugda (East Slovakia Chess) Klaus Kgler (The Good Knights GER)
Correspondence (Champions League 2007 B Group 4)
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5 a6 6 Nd6+ Bxd6 7 Qxd6 Qf6 8
Qc7
8Nge7!
Kgler wisely returns to the traditional
line, noticing that my suggestion 8...Qe7?
9 Nc3 Nb4 loses because of 10 Bd2! (I
had only considered the computers 10
Kd1 Nf6 11 Bg5 Nc6 12 f4 d6) 10...Nxc2
+ (or 10d5 11 Nb5 etc.) 11 Kd1 Nxa1
12 Nd5 Qe6 13 Ba5 b6 14 Bxb6 +.
9 Nc3 Nb4 10 Bd3 d5 11 exd5 Nexd5 12
Nxd5 Nxd5 13 Qa5
It is difficult to say whether the alternative 13 Qc5 offers more: 13Be6 14 0-0
Rc8 15 Qa3 Qe7 16 Qa4+ Rc6 (the solid continuation; or perhaps 16Qd7!? 17
Qe4 f6, Kgler) 17 Qe4 Nb4 18 Qxe5 f6 19 Qe4 (19 Qe2 Nxd3 20 cxd3 0-0 21 Bf4
Qd7 =)19...Nxd3 20 cxd3 0-0 21 Bd2 Rd8 22 Bc3 Qd7 23 Qb4 (so far analysis by
Kgler) 23...Qc8 24 Rfd1 Rcd6 25 d4 Bd5 26 f3 Re6 27 Re1 Rde8 28 Rxe6 Rxe6
29 Qa5 b5 30 Re1 Kf7 31 a3 Rxe1+ 32 Bxe1 Qc1 =.
13Be6 14 Bb5+ Kf8 15 Bd3 Qd8 16 Qd2 Qc7 17 b3 Rd8 18 0-0 f6 19 Qe2 Kf7
20 c4 White offered a draw, and Black accepted. Black has a sound position, but on
the other hand it is difficult to see how White could lose.
4. Grobs Attack
My September 2007 article, Grobs Attack: Not for Beginners, ran into
opposition from Lev Zilbermints from the USA:
I read your article about the Grob and I must say that I cannot agree with you. In
my opinion, the Grob is a perfectly decent opening, but you must know what you
are doing. In order to play the Grob, you must be a good tactician, a good
positional player, knowing how to play unorthodoxly and originally. You must
know how to fill in the weaknesses with new defenses, how to play fianchettoes
properly. That is one thing.
It is another thing that not everyone can combine all these different skills at the
same time. This is the reason why many players misplay the Grob. Thus, when the
stronger player beats the weaker Grob player, people think the Grob is a bad
opening. Nothing of the sort! What is bad are the skills of the Grob player.
This is why Henry Grob said that the Grob was not an opening for beginners.
Additionally, I think that the way many people play the Grob, 1 g4 d5 2 h3 e5 3
Bg2 c6 4 d4 is not the way to play it! I prefer the Zilbermints Grob Gambit, 1 g4
d5 2 e4! dxe4 3 Nc3
This leads to Englund Gambit-type
positions with a pawn on g4. Of course,
neither Grob nor Basman address these
lines in their books.
Another approach I like, not commonly
found in both books, is 1 g4, Bg2, and
White plays e4, closing the diagonal, and
grabbing the key f5-square for the pawn
or knight. White can either play 0-0 or 0-00, depending on the position. The Bg2 can
be redirected elsewhere. These are the
kind of plans that are not covered in Grob
books.
SB: It is true that there are other ways to play the Grob, and some may be better
than 4 d4. As I believe that 1g5 can be playable for Black (see my earlier
ChessCafe.com columns), I wont claim that 1 g4 loses by force. If White
continues cautiously with moves like d3, Nc3, he should be fine. Nevertheless,
Correction:
Regarding my column of August 2007, Ahead of his Time: Ladislaus Baron
Dry, I received this message from Taylor Kingston from the USA: I suppose
there could be more than one person named Ignatz Kolisch, but the Ignatz Kolisch
died in 1889.
My source was Wiener Schachzeitung 1915, which only had Kolisch. Being a
man of fast decisions, I added the Ignatz Sorry.
Switching Colors
Part One
In 1947, Heinz Wilhelm Dnhaupt published a 24-page booklet Mit
vertauschten Farben (i.e. With Reversed Colors), which recommended
playing established defenses with the white pieces. For example, he liked the
Queens Indian Defense for White: 1 Nf3, 2 b3. For Dnhaupt, the extra move
was of the greatest importance. Without its optimal use, White might even get
the worse of it. The author demonstrates how an additional move (like a3) may
improve Whites position enormously, on the other side there are also defenses,
he admits, where it is difficult to profit from the gained tempo.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Sometimes the extra move even vanishes completely. A chess scientist like
Dnhaupt then would close his files: mission failed. In this article we are more
stubborn and will look at a strange gambit once introduced by Bent Larsen. In
spite of its famous inventor, it didnt earn many points, but as you will see,
switching colors and a bit of psychology will help a lot!
To be fair to Dnhaupt, there is some psychology in his booklet. You have to
train yourself, he says, to get used to the specific differences connected with
reversed positions: your strong queens bishop is now operating on black
instead of white squares, and the opponents king appears not on the left, but
on the right side of the board.
Positions regularly occurring with colors reversed (and from now on we are
speaking of identical positions, not the kind of lines that Dnhaupt had looked
at) are usually close affairs. In the Queens Gambit we have; for example, the
symmetrical set-up known from Rotlewi Rubinstein, Lodz 1907: 1 d4 d5 2
c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 c5 5 e3 Nc6. Now a common continuation is: 6 a3 a6 7
dxc5 Bxc5.
Larsen: With 5 Qb3! Nc6 6 a3! (vacating the a2-square for the white queen
after 7 cxd5 Nd4) White would regain the pawn, and winning a center pawn for
my b2-pawn would have been just what I wanted.
This is what I later found myself over the board! Weak players have their
moments Play might continue: 6Nd4 7 Qa2 Bc5 8 cxd5 Bf5 9 d3 Nf6 10
Nc3 0-0 11 Nf3 c6 12 Nxe5 cxd5 13 0-0 Re8 14 Bf4 Bd6 (14...g5 15 Nxf7!?)
15 e3 Nc6, about =.
5Nc6 6 f4 Nge7 7 Nf3 d4 8 Nxe5 Nxe5 9 fxe5 0-0 10 Qc2 Ng6 11 Bxb7
Rb8 12 Be4 f5 13 Bd3 Nxe5 14 0-0 Bc5 15 Ba3 Qd6 16 Bxc5 Qxc5 17 Qc1
f4 18 gxf4 Nxd3 19 exd3 Bh3 20 Rf3 Qh5 21 Rg3 Rxf4 22 Na3 Rbf8 23 Nc2
Qf5 0-1
Larsens conclusion [1]: I think the fact that this was not a clear refutation of
3 b4 shows the wide scope there still is for experiments in the opening. [] I
played this once in a simultaneous exhibition in Switzerland; it is probably my
only qualification as a dada artist. (Bent Larsen: A Personal Approach to the
Openings, published in the fine anthology How to Open a Chess Game, 1974.)
Now to a personal approach from a 17-year-old Stefan Bcker:
Dr. Hermann Pusch (Bochumer SV 02) Stefan Bcker (SKK Nordwalde)
Nordwalde (2), December 17, 1976 (team, board 5)
Modern Defense [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5!
Found over the board. Blacks third move
immediately struck me as very logical, but I
thought for a long time before I played it. It
was only in May 1980 that I bought How to
Open a Chess Game [1]. To learn about
Larsens earlier game was disappointing, of
course.
4 Bxb5 c5 5 Bc4 cxd4
Like Larsen, I have always enjoyed playing
with a majority of center pawns.
6 Ne2 Nc6 7 0-0 Qb6 8 c3 Nf6 9 Nxd4 Nxe4 10 Nxc6 dxc6 11 Qe2 Nd6 12
Bg5 0-0 13 Bb3 Ba6 14 Qf3 Bxf1 15 Bxe7
15Rae8! 16 Bxd6 Re1 17 Nd2 Rxa1 18
Nxf1 Qa6 19 c4 Re8 20 Bb4 c5 21 Bd2
Qd6 22 Be3 Qd3 0-1
Is declining the gambit a real alternative?
Lets look at Larsens version: In the 28
available games (total score: 50 percent),
the gambit players chances remain
unchanged after Black declines the pawn
(by means of Nf6, Nc6 or c6): 50 percent in
7 games. In Bckers version declining
the gambit (4 Bb3) is also a serious option,
as again the gambiteer only scores 50 percent (9 games). Of course, for a
black gambiteer this should be more good news than bad.
However, a comparison of the Larsen Gambit Accepted and the Bcker
Gambit Accepted is more interesting. White did not lose a tempo in the
Larsen, it was rather Black gaining one in the Bcker (Bf1-c4xb5). Of
course, the resulting situations are absolutely identical! In reality, they are not.
Users of Larsens version harvest a modest 50 percent (in 21 games), while
my version is more successful when accepted, scoring 68 percent in 14
games.
The standard comment would be sorry, the number of games is still too small
to draw far-reaching conclusions. But what could a larger number actually
demonstrate? We already know that the LGA is as good as the BGA. Perhaps
we should better start believing in John Watsons observation above, that the
psychological factor can make a big difference. When we gambit that pawn
with white, we are full of doubts: can this wild gambit really be correct?
Shouldnt we better have done some analysis, before stumbling into such a
mess? On the other side, when we offer the gambit with black, we are rather
inclined to enjoy the complications, thinking everything thats unclear must
be good for Black. If there are any main lines with a repetition of moves, we
dont care
By coincidence, in Gambit 59 [2], I published the following main line:
1 g3 d5 2 Bg2 e5 3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4 Ne7!
More precise than 4Nf6. Now White
cant follow his original plan 5 Qb3? Nbc6
6 a3??, because of 6dxc4! with the point
of 7 Bxc6+ Nxc6, and Blacks bishop
remains protected.
5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 Qb3 Be6 7 a3 Bc5
Not 7Nf4? 8 Qa4+! (8 Qxb4 Nxg2+ 9
Kf1 [2] is also good) 8Bd7 9 Qxb4, etc.
8 Qxb7
8Nd7
8Bd4!? comes into consideration: 9 Bb2
Bxb2 10 Qxb2 Nc6 11 Nf3 0-0 12 Qc2 Nd4
13 Nxd4 exd4 14 0-0 Qf6 15 d3 Rb8, about
=.
9 Bxd5 Rb8 10 Qc6 Rb6 11 Qa8 Rb8 -
Drawn by repetition of moves. My analysis
appeared in 1984 [2]. The whole sequence,
till the final draw agreement, was
reproduced in A. Ganesan W. Gross, corr.
1995.
Lets assume that this line were the absolute main line of the gambit, what
would be your conclusion? The old masters had the joke: It is wise to decline
the Kings Bishop Gambit, but you should accept the Kings Knights
Gambit! Similarly, we could now say: Larsens Gambit doesnt promise
much, while Bckers Gambit is an excellent choice!
Sources:
[1] B. Hochberg (ed.): How to Open a Chess Game, New York 1974.
[2] St. Bcker: Gambit 59, Nuremberg 1984.
[3] ChessBase MegaBase 2008, Hamburg 2007.
Switching Colors
Part Two
This column presents additional material on the twin gambits 1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5
3 b4 Bxb4 4 c4 (Larsen) and 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5 4 Bxb5 c5 (Bcker).
Last month, I tried to convince you that the color makes a difference, for
psychological reasons. White seems to feel uncomfortable when he has to
defend against this gambit, no matter whether it is objectively sound or not.
Nevertheless, Ill start with an attractive game played in the 3...b5 version. To
focus only on the theoretical main lines might let us forget how difficult it is
for the defender to find the correct moves over-the-board. This example gives a
more realistic impression.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5
As in part one, I will not look at lines that decline the gambit. There is nothing
terribly wrong with declining it, but here I am more interested in checking the
theoretical soundness of the gambit, rather than in discussing the equal
positions that could also arrive via standard channels of the Modern Defense.
4 Bxb5 c5
5 Bc4?
Chess on the Edge, Vol. 2
continuation.
5...cxd4 6 Nf3 Nc6
Chess on the Edge, Vol. 3
Note that without the influential Bb5, this knight has now become a reliable
defender for the strong pawn on d4.
7 0-0
After Whites unforced retreat, Black has a solid position, as compared to other
positions in this opening. For example, after 7 c3, he can choose between the
counterattack 7...Nf6 8 e5 Ne4 (which is likely best, about =), or protect his
pawn d4 by 7...Qb6 8 0-0 Bb7 (8...Ba6?! 9 Bxa6 dxc3 10 Nxc3 Qxa6 11 e5!) 9
cxd4 Nxd4 10 Be3 Nxf3+ 11 Qxf3 Qf6.
7...e6
7...Qb6 or 7...Nf6 came into consideration. Apparently Blacks intention is 8 c3
Nge7 9 cxd4 d5 10 exd5 exd5 =.
8 Re1 Nge7 9 c3 Qb6 10 cxd4 Nxd4
Switching Colors
Sources:
[1] B. Hochberg (ed.): How to Open a Chess Game, New York 1974.
[2] St. Bcker: Gambit 59, Nuremberg 1984.
[3] ChessBase MegaBase 2008, Hamburg 2007.
Correction
Ren Olthof (Netherlands; New in Chess) wrote: In your latest ChessCafe.
com contribution from February 27, you mention Karel van den Berg. This
Dutch master is always referred to in the Netherlands as Carel (or C. B.) van
den Berg.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
6Qb6
6cxd5 7 Bxe5 Nc6 8 Bb2 and White stands only slightly worse. For
example 8Bc5 (80-0) 9 Qc1 Be7 (9Qb6 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 Nc3 Bxf2
+ 12 Kf1 is okay for White; and 9Bb6 10 Nf3 0-0 11 0-0 Re8 12 Nc3
Bg4 13 Qd1 also looks solid enough) 10 Nf3 Bg4 11 Nc3 (if 11 h3?! Be6
12 Bd4 Rc8 13 Nc3 Qd7, White cannot castle) 110-0 12 0-0 Rc8 13 d3
(relatively best) 13Re8 14 Qf4 a6 15 Rfc1 Bd6 16 Qa4 Qd7 17 Rab1,
White has a sound position.
7 Nc3 0-0
Not 7Bc5? 8 Na4.
8 dxc6
Alternatives:
(a) 8 Na4 Qc7 9 Qc2 Qe7!? (9Bd6 10 dxc6 Nxc6 11 Nf3) 10 a3 (10
dxc6? Rd8!; 10 Nf3 e4!) 10Bd6 (after 10Ba5 11 Nf3 e4, White has
the counter 12 d6! Qxd6 13 Nd4) 11 dxc6 (what else?) 11Nxc6 12 Nf3
(or 12 Bxc6 bxc6 13 Nf3 Bh3, at least =+) 12Bg4! 13 h3 Bd7 14 0-0
Rac8 15 Qd1 e4 16 Ng5 (16 Nd4 Na5!) 16Ne5 17 Nc3 Nc4 18 Bc1 Bf5
/+.
(b) 8 a3 Bd6! (8Bxc3 9 Bxc3 cxd5 10 Bxe5 Ng4 11 d4 Qa5+ 12 Kf1
looks impressive, but White may be able to hold: 12Nxe5 13 dxe5 Rd8
14 f4 Nc6 15 Qb1) 9 Qc2 (9 Rb1 cxd5 10 10 Nxd5 Nxd5 11 Bxd5 Bc5 or
9Bf5 /+) 9.Bg4 10 Nf3 cxd5 11 Ng5 Qa6 /+.
8Nxc6
Or 8Rd8!? 9 c7! Qxc7 10 Nf3 Nc6 11 0-0 with a similar situation as in
the main line.
9 Nf3 Bg4
There are many alternatives such as 9Bf5 or 9Rd8. One of them may
be more accurate and could well give Black a slight advantage.
10 0-0 Rfd8 11 Rb1 Qa5 12 a3 Be7 13 Ba1
This position is unclear; for example,
13e4 (13Rab8 14 Nb5 Rd5 15 Bc3
Qd8 16 Nxa7 Nxa7 17 Nxe5) 14 Nh4
Rac8 15 Nxe4 Nxe4 16 Bxe4 Bxh4 17
gxh4 Rxd2 18 Qb3 Rxe2 19 Bf3 Bxf3
20 Qxf3=. Altogether, the variation is
still easier for Black, and it may be
possible to demonstrate a =+. Thus the
gambit 1 g3 e5 2 Bg2 d5 3 b4?! cannot
be your ideal choice in correspondence
chess, but at least the gambit has made
the small step forward from the status of
refuted to just playable. And in the Bcker version of the gambit, 1
e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bc4 b5, taking over the psychological initiative helps to
reduce the objective risks.
After this uphill struggle, lets choose a simpler topic and relax. One of
the best known lines in the Najdorf Sicilian is the Poisoned Pawn
Variation, associated for many with Bobby Fischer, who even used it in
the 1972 world title match. It is one of the openings where thinking starts
only at move twenty. There is another big advantage that makes studying
the opening a pure pleasure. For the Poisoned Pawn Variation you rarely
have to compare more than two sources, because any book older than ten
24 Qh5
Much stronger than 24 Qxh6? Qxe4 25 Bh5 f6 =.
24...Qg6 25 Qxg6+!
A new proposal. The line 25 Bc7 Re8 26 Qxg6+ fxg6 27 Rxd7 Bxd7 28
Nf6+ Kh8 29 Nxd7 Re7 30 Nb6 Rae8 31 Bd6 was called +/ in [3], but,
after 31Rh7, I wasnt able to demonstrate an advantage, e.g. 32 Bd3
Rd8 33 Ba3 Rc7.
25...fxg6 26 Ba3
Even after exchanging queens, and being
three pawns up, Black is in trouble.
26...Kh7
Or 26...Kg7 27 Bb2+ e5 28 Bg4,
followed by 29 Be6.
27 Rfd1 Kg7 28 Bg4 h5 29 Be2!
Avoiding 29 Bxe6? Nb6 =. After the
retreat, Black has to make major concessions:
29...Nf6 30 Rxd8 Nxe4 31 Rf8!
The threat 32 Rdf1 now forces the issue.
31Nc3 32 Re1 Nd4 33 Bc4 Ncb5 (33...b5 34 Bxe6!) 34 Be7. White has
a clear advantage, Black can only fight for a draw: 34...Nf5 35 Bxe6
Nxe7 26 Rf7+ Kh6 27 Rxe7 Nd4.
Variation B
21...f5
The only sensible response, in order to avoid being mated, Georgiev
[3]. However, there are at least two serious alternatives.
22 Bxf8 Nxf8 23 Nd6 Kh7
(a) 23...b5? 24 Bf3 Bd7 25 Nxf5 exf5 26 Rxd7 Nxd7 27 Bxc6 Rd8 28
Bxd7 10, Shirov Guliyev, Calatrava 2007
(b) 23...Qe5 24 Qxe5 (24 Qf2 Bd7 25 Nxb7 Nb4 26 Bf3 Rc8 -,
Kristjansson Thorhallsson, Reykjavik 2007) 24Nxe5 25 Rb1 Nfd7
was analyzed in some detail by Georgiev [3], introduced by the remark: I
have the feeling that Black could hold this endgame, but he has to
overcome some obstacles on his way to consolidation. 26 Nxc8 Rxc8 27
Rxb7 Nc5 28 Ra7 Rb8. So far [3], who now considers 29 Rc7 and 29
Bf3!. Id prefer 29 Rd1 += Rb2?! 30 Rc7 Rxc2 31 Bxa6 +/. However,
this ending certainly holds more secrets yet to be discovered.
24 g4!
Probably best. The text move gave
White a lasting advantage in Christoph
Kamp Thorsten Winkler,
Correspondence Bundesliga 2007-2008.
I dont know the further course of the
game as it is still unfinished. So Ill just
give a few ideas:
24...Ng6 25 Nc4
(a) After 25 Bd3 Nce7 26 c4, Black has
an amusing resource: 26fxg4! 27 Rf8 (apparently winning a piece,
but) 27Nf5 28 Bxf5 exf5 29 Rxc8 Rxc8 30 Nxc8 Nh4! 31 Kf2 Qa1!
and White cannot avoid the draw by perpetual check.
(b) 25 gxf5 exf5 26 Bh5 Nge7 27 Rg2 g5 28 Rd1 f4! 29 Qe4+ Bf5 =.
25...Qb4
25...Qc7? 26 Nb6 Rb8 27 Nxc8 Qxc8 28 Bd3, intending 29 Re2, +/.
26 c3 Qf8 27 Bd3 Nge7! 28 Nb6 Rb8 29 Re2 Kh8 +=.
Variation C
21Qb6
?! [3]. Georgiev regards this ending as worse for Black than the ending
after 21f5 22 Bxf8 Nxf8 23 Nd6 Qe5. This isnt obvious, though. In
both cases White has a comfortable position, but Blacks chances for a
draw seem intact.
22 Qxb6 Nxb6 23 Bxf8 Kxf8 24 Nd6 f6!
(a) 24...Ne5? 25 Nxf7 Nxf7 26 Bh5 +
P. Carlsson F. Fernandez Fuentes,
Tarragona 2007.
(b) 24f5? 25 Rb1 Na4 26 Bf3 +/ [3].
25 Rb1 Na4 26 Bf3 Ne5
This sequence, starting from 24f6!,
has also been pointed out by
nicholaswin [2], as leading to equality.
26...Nc5? 27 Nc4 Ke8 28 Rd6! +/.
27 Bxb7
After 27 Nxb7 Bd7 28 Rxd7 Nxd7 29 Nc5 Naxc5 30 Bxa8 Ke7, the
ending must be a draw.
27...Bxb7 28 Rxb7
28 Nxb7 is a reasonable alternative: 28Nc3 29 Rb3 Ne4 30 Rd4 f5 31
Nd6 Nc6 32 Rd1 Rd8 (32...Nf6 33 Re3 Nd8 34 Rc3) 33 Rbd3 +=.
28...Nc3 29 Rb3 Nd5 30 c4 Ne7 += 31 Rb7 N7c6
In Blank Kamp, Correspondence Bundesliga 2007-2008, there followed
32 Ra2 a5 33 Ra3 and the game soon ended in a draw. 32 c5 += would
have been slightly better.
Variation D
21...Nce5
An interesting defense that was analyzed by visitors of the
Chesspublishing.com website [2].
22 Bxf8
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
SScorebook
The Complete
DGT Product Line
The Pirc
in Black and White
by James Vigus
underlined by Welling.)
Only a postcard, but one full of original thoughts. It shows how it is
possible to find new ideas: by studying old books. Fifty years after his
death Aron Nimzovitch is still inspiring opening innovators. Nimzovitch
died on March 16, 1935. Welling wrote his postcard one day after his
invention, but perhaps he didnt mail immediately it was postmarked on
March 20, 1985.
Gerard Welling in
Schwbisch Gmnd 2006
3Nh5
4 Be2
Alternatively, White can ignore the
knight on h5, hoping that it wont be too
useful on that square. And if Black is
careless and puts his bishop to g7, a later
h3 and g4 may still win that knight. The
quieter treatment with 4 Nf3 can even
be considered as the main line: 4 Nf3 d6
and now:
(a) 5 Bc4 Nc6 (5Bg7? 6 Ng5! 0-0 7 g4 d5 8 Bf1! f6 9 Nh3 fxe5 10
dxe5 + Martens).
(a1) 6 Ng5 e6 7 g4 Be7? 8 Nf3 Ng7 9 Bh6 Rg8?! 10 Nbd2 (1:0, 30) as in
the correspondence game Stern (2575) Hjorth (2450), 1993-94 (SSKK
Bulletinen 40 years). According to Hjorth, the correct continuation was
7Ng7 8 Qf3 Qe7! 9 Ne4 dxe5! [7]. Apparently 9d5 is another
reliable reply.
(a2) 6 Qe2 has been analyzed in great detail by Martens and Hjorth, 6
Bg4 (Hjorth) and 6a6 (Martens) being their main continuations. There
is also the minor alternative 6d5 +=, which should be playable, since
for the loss of a tempo (d6-d5) White has to move the Bc4 for a second
time, and the position of the Qe2 is not necessarily an improvement over
her original square d1. However, 6Bg7 may be even better: 7 h3!
(intending g2-g4) 7f5 (7dxe5? 8 dxe5 Nd4 9 Qd3! Nxf3+ 10 Qxf3 00 11 g4 Qd4 12 Be2 +/), for example 8 exf6 Nxf6 9 Nc3 d5 10 Bb3 0-0
11 Bg5 e6 +=. White stands slightly better, but the weakness of the square
e5 should not be overestimated.
((b) 5 Nc3 dxe5! (5c6?! 6 Bc4 d5, followed by Ng7 seems weaker).
Here Martens analysis went 6 Nxe5 Bg7 7 Bc4 0-0, intending c5.
However, Michiel Wind (Malaysia) found a subtle pawn sacrifice for
White that poses Black serious problems: 6 Be3! exd4 7 Bxd4 f6 8 Qe2
Bh6 (probably best) 9 Rd1 Nd7 10 Bc5 +=
So far analysis by Wind. In the
diagrammed position, Black can try 10
c6 11 g3 e5 12 Bh3! (on 12 Bd6 or 12
Ne4, follows 12Bf8) 12Qa5 13 Bd6
Bf8 14 Nd2 Qa6 (not attractive, but
forced) 15 Qxa6 bxa6 16 Nb3 Nb6 17
Bg2 Bd7 18 Bxf8 Rxf8 +=. White will
win back his pawn, either on a6 or c6. In
the resulting ending, his better pieces
give him an edge.
4d6!?
Martens interesting pawn sacrifice leads to attractive complications.
Nowadays the alternative 4Ng7 is less popular, after 5 Nf3 d5 6 c4 c6 7
Nc3, White immediately attacks the pawn d5 (a big difference to the line
3 Nc3 d5 4 e5). Nevertheless, in Burmakin (2552) Morozevich (2717),
Sochi 2005, Black drew the game in 52 moves. In Schach 8 (2006), p.
38f., we learn that Morozevich himself had considered 4d6 to be the
theoretical move, but on the spur of the moment changed his mind,
because one should not sacrifice a pawn in a team event. According to
Vladimir Barsky, the author of that article in Schach, Levon Aronian had
used his specialty 3Nh5 4 Be2 d6 in blitz games against Morozevich.
5 Bxh5
Instead of chasing a pawn, it might be wiser to build a strong center.
However, the logical continuation 5 f4! was played in only eleven games:
(a) 5dxe5 6 fxe5 Nc6 7 c3 Qd5 8 Nf3 Bg4 9 c4 Qd8 10 e6 fxe6 11 d5
+/.
(b) 5Ng7 6 Nf3 Bg4 (Bickford) isnt convincing: in general Black isnt
eager to exchange his bishop on f3, without any concessions of his
opponent. My analysis went 6h5 7 0-0 Nf5 8 c3, followed by Na3-c4e3. White has a significant advantage.
(c) 5c5 6 d5 e6 7 Bxh5 Qh4+! is Martens analysis. Unfortunately, after
7 Nc3! (instead of 7 Bxh5), Black is in trouble:
(c1) 7Qh4+ 8 Kf1 Ng3+ 9 hxg3 Qxh1
10 Ne4 +/.
(c2) 7exd5 8 Nxd5 Bg7!? 9 g4 dxe5
10 gxh5 Be6 11 c4 Qh4+ 12 Kf1 0-0 13
h6 +/./p>
(c3) 7Ng7 8 Nf3 Be7 9 exd6 Bxd6 10
Bb5+ Kf8 11 0-0 +/.
((c4) 7dxe5 8 fxe5 Bg7 9 Nf3! exd5
10 Qxd5 0-0 11 Be3 +/.
(d) 5e6 6 Nf3 Ng7! += seems more reliable, e.g. 7 Be3 Nf5 8 Bf2 h5 9
Bd3 Nc6 (9Bh6 10 Qd2 Nc6 11 0-0 dxe5 12 dxe5 b6 13 Nc3 Bb7 14
Ne4 Nxe5! looks fine, but the precise reply must be 10 g3!) 10 a3 b6
(10Bh6 11 g3 f6 12 exd6 Qxd6 13 Nc3) 11 Nc3 d5 (11Bb7 12 d5!)
12 Qd2 Bb7 13 0-0-0 Na5 14 Kb1 Be7 15 Qe2 Qd7 16 h3 (16 g3 Nc4 17
Ng5 Qc6) 16h4 17 Qe1 (threatens to win h4) 17Qd8! 18 Rf1 Rh5,
about =.
5gxh5 6 Qxh5 dxe5 7 Qxe5
After 7 dxe5 Qd5! (Martens), Black has nothing to fear.
7Rg8
A critical situation does the open g-file
and the initiative guarantee sufficient
compensation for Blacks investment of
a pawn?
8 Ne2!
8 Qe4 is an attempt to hold the extra
pawn on g2 and can transpose back to
variations of the main line after, say, 8
Nd7 9 Ne2 (9 Qxh7? Rg6!! Martens) 9
Nf6 10 Qf3, but Black has another option: 8Rg4! 9 Bf4 (or 9 f4 f5) 9
f5! 10 Qe3 Bg7 11 c3 c5 12 dxc5 e5 13 Nh3 Kf8 14 Bg5 Qd5 15 Nd2 f4
wins a piece for several pawns, with unclear consequences.
8Nc6!
There are two alternatives, but none of them guarantees equality:
(a) 8Rxg2 9 Ng3. For the moment Blacks imprisoned rook seems
secure, but it is a continuing source of problems. 9Bh3 (perhaps 9
Qd7 is the lesser evil: 10 Nc3 Qc6 11 Qh5 Na6 12 a3 Bg4 13 Qxg4 Rxg3
14 hxg3 Qxh1+ 15 Ke2 Rd8 16 Rb1 Qc6 17 Be3 Qg6 18 Qxg6 hxg6 19
Ne4 += and White has the better ending) 10 Be3 and then:/p>
(a1) 10Nc6 11 Qe4 Qd6 12 Nc3 Rd8!? 13 d5 (13 Qxh7? Bg4 14 Qe4
Fashionable or Ailing?
Do we still regard a white opening as correct if it only leads to a draw?
A fashionable line against the Kieseritzky Gambit that gives hardly more
than equality could have been the culprit for putting Alexei Fedorov off
the Kings Gambit. In his excellent series of articles on the Kings Gambit
[4], Michael Agermose Jensen from Denmark wrote in 2001: 5...d6
presently hangs like a Damocles sword over anyone foolhardy enough to
venture 2 f4.
Over the
Horizons
The new trend to analyze tactical variations in great detail can become a
danger for some openings. However, for the great majority of 2 f4
adherents it seems premature to dismiss their favorite attacking line. It
cannot be denied that 5...d6 leads to simplifications, but there is still
plenty of room for Whites winning attempts.
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Rudolf Spielmann
Master of Invention
by Neil McDonald
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5
Critics of the Kings Gambit often refer to Rudolf Spielmanns article
Vom Krankenlager des Knigsgambits [From the Sickbed of the Kings
Gambit] (Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten 1924). But the move
Spielmann feared was 3...d5. To quote from his text: I have to admit that
Id like to take on a Kieseritzky or Muzio Gambit, which always offer
significant practical chances to White.
4 h4
In Das neue Knigsgambit (1986), I advocated 4 Bc4, since in my
opinion both the Hanstein and the Muzio Gambit are underestimated. In
the meantime Thomas Stock has discussed the Muzio Gambit in
Kaissiber 13, on 31 pages. Another option for courageous players is the
Rosentreter Gambit 4 d4.
4...g4 5 Ne5
The Kieseritzky Gambit. During most of
the last two centuries, Allgaiers Gambit
5 Ng5 hasnt had the best reputation.
9...Kd8!
Found in 1999 by Jensen, when he was preparing new ideas for a
correspondence tournament. The old 9...a6 offers more options to White:
(a) 10 Nd5!? Qg6 11 0-0 (August Jensen, corr. 2000/2001) resp. 11
Qf3!? (Jensen), with heavy complications.
(b) 10 Bxc6+ bxc6 11 Qf3 Rg8 12 d3 Bh6 13 Qf2 Rb8 14 Ne2 Rxb2?
(14...f3! 15 Qxf3 Qxf3 16 gxf3 Bxc1 17 Rxc1 Rxb2 = van der Rak [4]) 15
Bxb2 Qxb2 16 0-0 Qxc2. Instead of 17 Rac1? (Short Shirov, Las Vegas
1999) 17...Qd2! =, White should have played 17 Rab1! Qxa2 (17...Qxd3
18 Nxf4) 18 Nd4 +=.
10 Bxc6
(a) 10 Nd5? fails because of 10...Qg7! 11 0-0 Rg8 12 Rf2 (12 Nxf4 Nd4
13 Bd3 Bg4 14 Qe1 Nf3+ /+) 13...Nd4 13 Bc4 c6 14 Nxf4 Be7 /+.
(b) 10 d3?! Nd4 11 Qd2 is another idea by Jensen [5], but after 11...Bh6
12 Nd5 Qg7 (12...Qe5 13 Ba4 f5) 13 Ba4 Rg8 14 Rf1 Qxg2 15 Qxg2
Rxg2 White is getting into trouble: 16 Bxf4 (16 Rf2 Rg1+ 17 Rf1 Nf3+)
16...Re2+ 17 Kd1 Bxf4 18 Rxf4 Rh2 19 Ne3 (19 Rxf7 b5!) 19Be6 20
c3 Nc6 21 d4 Ne7; for example, 22 d5 Ng6 23 Rf1 Bc8! 24 Bb5 Rxb2 /+.
10...bxc6 11 Qf3
(a) 11 0-0? Rg8 12 d3 Bh3 13 Rf2 Bh6 14 Ne2 f3 /+ is too risky.
(b) 11 d4 Rb8 12 0-0 (12 e5 =+) 12...Bh6 13 Rf2 Rg8 14 Ne2 Qxh4 15
Bxf4 Rg6 =+.
11...Rg8 12 d3 Bh6
12...Rg4 13 g3! Rb8 14 Rb1 Be7 15 Bxf4 Rxb2 16 Kd2 +=.
13 Qf2
A measure of precaution: 13 Ne2 (13 Bd2 Rg3 14 Qf2 Bg4) 13...Bg4 14
Qf2 Bxe2 15 Kxe2 Rg3 /+.
13...Rb8!
Other continuations hand the initiative to White:
(a) 13...Rg4 14 Ne2 Rb8 15 Rb1 Be6 16 g3; for example, 16...Qg7 17
Nxf4 Bxf4 18 Bxf4 Rxb2 19 Kd2 +=.
(b) 13...Bg4 14 g3 f3 15 Bxh6 Qxh6 16 Qd2 Qf6 (16...Qxd2+ +=) 17
000 (17 Qf2 Qh6!) and now:
17...Qd4 (17...Rb8 18 d4 Kc8 19 Qf2
Qh6+ 20 Kb1 f6 21 Rhe1 Qg7 22 Rd3
Re8 23 Ree3 h5 24 Rxf3 Bxf3 25 Rxf3
with compensation) 18 Rde1 Rb8 19 e5!
d5 (19...dxe5? 20 Re4 Qb6 21 Na4 +/)
20 Nd1 (or 20 Qh6 f2 21 Ref1 Qxe5 22
Rxf2 Be6 23 Rf3 Kd7 24 d4 unclear).
White can be satisfied with the situation;
for example, 20...h5 21 Rhf1 Kc8 22 a3
c5 23 Nc3 Kd7 24 Qf2! c6 25 Qxd4
cxd4 26 Na4 Rb5 27 b4 a5 28 Nc5+ Ke7
29 Nb3 axb4 30 a4! +=.
14 Ne2 Rxb2
Jensen [4] recommended 14...f3, but the position after 15 Qxf3 Qxf3 16
gxf3 Bxc1 17 Rxc1 Rxb2 18 a3 Ra2 19 Kd2 Rxa3 20 Rhg1! Rh8 21 Rb1
would be much to Whites taste.
15 Bxb2 Qxb2 16 0-0
16 Qd4? (Westerinen Bae, Oslo 2002) 16...Qxd4 17 Nxd4 c5 18 Nc6+
Kd7 19 Nxa7 Ba6 /+.
16...Qxc2
17 Nd4!
17 Nxf4? Qxf2+ 18 Rxf2 Bg7 19 Rc1
Bd4 20 Rxc6 Rg4 21 Nd5 Bb7 22 Rc4
Bxf2+ 23 Kxf2 Rxh4 24 Nxc7 Rh5 =+
-, Fier (2490) Leitao (2601),
Guarulhos 2006 (Brazil
Championships). After 25 Ke3 a6 26
Kd4 Rg5 27 Nd5 (27 Rc2?? Rc5) 27
Rxg2 28 Nf6 Rxa2 29 Nxh7 Ra5 30
Rb4, the most probable result would be a
draw, in spite of Blacks extra pawn.
The text move is more precise, it has already been mentioned by Jensen
[5].
17...Qxf2+
Not 17...Qxd3? 18 Nxc6+ Ke8 (18...Kd7? 19 Ne5+!) 19 Rab1 += Jensen
[5].
18 Rxf2
18 Kxf2? Bg7! 19 Nxc6+ Kd7 20 Rac1 Bb7 21 Nb4 Bd4+ 22 Ke1 f5 23
Rc4 Be3 24 Nc2 Bb6 25 Nb4 Re8 26 Rxf4 d5 =+.
18...c5 19 Nf3
An important alternative is 19 Nf5 Bxf5 20 exf5 Rg4 21 Rb1, and now:
(a) 21...Rxh4 22 Rf3 Bg7 23 g3!? (23
Rh3? Rxh3 +) 23...fxg3 (or 23...Rg4 24
Rxf4 Rxg3+ 25 Kf2 Rxd3 26 f6 Bh6 27
Re4 Bg5 =) 24 f6 Bh6 25 Rxg3 c4 26
Re1 c3 27 Rg8+ Kd7 28 Re7+ Kc6 29
Rc8 Be3+ 30 Rxe3 c2 31 Re1 Rb4 32
Kf2 Rb1 33 Re7 Rf1+ =, draw by triplerepetition.
(b) 21...Kc8 22 Re1 Rxh4 23 Re8+ Kb7
24 Rf3 Bg5 25 Rf8 f6. Blacks pieces
are almost imprisoned: 26 Re8 Rg4 27 Re4 a6 28 Rc4 Kc6 29 Rc1 h5,
followed by Rg3 =.
19...Bg7
(a) 19...Bg4 20 Rb1 Kd7 21 Ng5!? f6 22 Rxf4 unclear.
(b) 19...Re8 20 Rb1 f5 (Jensen) 21 e5 dxe5 22 Re2 Bg7 23 Rbe1 Bb7 24
Nxe5 Bd5 =.
20 Rb1 c6 21 Rc2 Kc7 22 Rc4 Bf6 23 Kf2 Bg4
24 Ra4
(b) 11...Be6 =+Jensen [5], but after 12 Nd5 0-0-0 13 Bg5 Re8 14 Nf6,
White has the initiative.
11 Qxd4 Nxd4 12 Bd3
Before Black can profit from the empty
square e5, White plays his few
remaining trump cards. His main threat
is Nd5. If Black plays Ne6, White will
castle short and try to attack pawn f7, by
doubling his rooks on the f-file. Maybe
there is a chance for Be2-h5.
12...Ne6
(a) 12...Bg4 13 0-0 h5?! 14 Rf2 Ne6 15
Be3 0-0 16 Raf1 c6 17 Be2! +=.
(b) 12...Be6 13 Nd5 Kd7 comes into question. However, after 14 c3 Rhe8
15 0-0, White has the initiative.
13 Be3 c6!
A cautious treatment that is probably best.
(a) 13...Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 Rg8 15 0-0 Rg4 16 Rf5 Rxh4 17 Raf1 Nd8 18
Rg5 +=.
(b) 13...Be5 14 0-0 (14 g4!? deserves attention) 14...Rg8 15 Be2!? (or 15
Rf5 c6 16 Raf1 f6 17 Rxf6, and White gets sufficient compensation for
the exchange.) 15...Rg3 16 Bd2 Nd4 17 Bh5
17...Bh3 (17...Bg4? 18 Bxf7+ Kd7 19
Be1 Re3 20 Bc4! Nxc2 21 Rf7+ Ke8 22
Bd2 +/) 18 Rf2 Kd7 19 Nd5 Rag8 20
Rxf7+ Kc8 21 Ne7+ Kb8 22 Nxg8 Rxg2
+ drawn.
14 0-0
The alternative is 14 g4, followed by
Rg1 and 0-0-0, with mutual chances.
14...0-0
14...Nc5 15 Bc4 Be6 (15...0-0? 16 Bxc5 dxc5 17 Rxf7!) 16 Bxe6 Nxe6 17
Rf5 Be5 18 Ne2 Rg8 19 Raf1 f6 20 Rh5 Rg7 21 c3 =.
15 a4 Nc5 16 Bc4 Be6 17 Bxe6 fxe6 18 Rad1
The position is roughly balanced: 18...
Be5 19 Rxf8+ Rxf8 20 Bxc5 dxc5 21
Ne2 c4 (or 21...Bxb2 22 c3 c4 23 Rb1
Ba3 24 Rxb7 Bc5+ 25 Kh2 Rf2 26 Nd4
=) 22 c3 Bc7 23 Rd7 Bb6+ 24 Kh2 Rf2
25 Ng3. If necessary, White will be able
to give perpetual check by means of e5
and Nh5-f6-h7.
In spite of my efforts, 5d6 is a bit
frustrating. But there are drawish lines in
almost any opening. Is it now all too simple, so that every Black player
can master the situation easily over the board? I dont think so; altogether
the variation is still pretty complicated.
At the moment 5d6 is the fashion in the Kings Gambit, a trend mainly
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Rudolf Spielmann
Master of Invention
by Neil McDonald
(b) 9 Bb5+? c6! 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Nxc6 Nxc6 12 Bxc6+ Kf8! 13 Bxa8
Ng3 14 Rh2 (after 14 Kf2, best is 14Bf5! 15 Bd5 Nxh1+ 16 Qxh1 Qf6
17 c3 Bd3, followed by g3+. Kasparovs line [My Great Predecessors,
Part 1, p. 30f.] is less clear) 14Bf5 (14Qe7+ 15 Kf2 Ne4+, an idea of
Harrwitz, is refined by 15Ne2! +) 15 Bd5 Kg7 16 Nc3 Re8+ 17 Kf2
Qb6 18 Na4 Qa6 19 Nc3 Be5!! 20 a4 Rosanes Anderssen, Breslau
1863.
Now Anderssen announced a brilliant
mate in four: 20Qf1+ 21 Qxf1 Bxd4+
22 Be3 Rxe3 and mate next move. 9 Bb5
+ had been a popular move, but after this
game the players of the 19th century
wisely preferred other lines To my
surprise, Joe Gallagher in Winning with
the Kings Gambit (London 1992)
claimed that 9 Bb5+ could well be
Whites best [move], because 11 Bc4!
was an improvement. First of all, White
is helpless after 11 Bc4 0-0!. Secondly,
Black could change his order of moves and play 10Nxc6! first.
Altogether, the move 9 Bb5+? is clearly refuted.
(c) Against 9 Bxf4? Nxf4 10 0-0 (Oskar Cordel), Black can choose
between two refutations: either 10Qe7 11 Rxf4 f6, or 10f6!, when 11
Nxg4 is strongly met by 11Rg8 12 Qe2+ Kf8 13 Ne3 Bh3 /+.
However, the line in the Handbuch [1] 100-0 11 Rxf4 f6 12 Rxg4+
Kh8 13 Ng6+ hxg6 14 Rxg6 Rf7 15 Rh6+ Kg7 16 Qh5? Bf5 (Marco)
fails to 16 Qd2 +/.
(d) Against 9 Kf2?, Black should avoid 9Ng3? 10 Bxf4! Nxh1+ 11
Qxh1 with active play. However, 9Nd7 /+ is excellent for Black.
9Qe7
Recommended by Jaenisch, 1860, and still attributed an ! from most
authorities. However, Anderssens favorite 90-0 is a serious alternative.
One year after Anderssens death, his pupil Fritz Riemann claimed in
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1880, p. 161, that 90-0 refuted Whites play.
After 10 Ne2!, Black has many ways to go wrong:
(a) 10Qe7? 11 Nxf4 Nxf4 12 Bxf4 f6
13 0-0 fxe5 14 Bg5!; for example, 14
Qe8 15 Rxf8+ Kxf8 16 Qf1+ Kg8 17
Qf6 b5 18 Bb3 exd4 19 Bh6 Qg6 20 Qd8
+ Kf7 21 Bf8! Nd7 22 Rf1+ Nf6 23
Bxd6 cxd6 24 h5 Qg5 25 Qxd6 +/.
(b) 10Re8? (Riemanns favorite, given
a ! sign) 11 Nxf4 (Blackburnes
improvement [2]; not 11 Bxf4? f6 12 0-0
Nxf4 13 Nxf4 fxe5 14 Nh5 Anderssen
Riemann, Breslau 1877; 14Qxh4! + Riemann) 11Nxf4 12 Bxf4 f6
13 0-0 fxe5 14 Bg5 Qd7
15 Qd2! +/ Von Scheve Richter,
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1883. Instead of
the last move, 15 Rf6!? (proposed by
Marc Narciso in Kaissiber 15) is another
strong alternative.
(c) 10Nd7?! 11 Nxf4 Nxe5 12 dxe5
Qe8 (12Ng3 Zeier Schafranietz,
Untergrombach 2004, 13 Ne6!) 13 e6!
Nxf4 14 Bxf4 fxe6 15 Bxd6 exd5+ 16
Be2 cxd6 17 Qxd5+ Be6 18 Qg5+,
better.
(d) 18Nd7 19 Bd3 Qe5 20 Qh6 f5 21 Bxf5 Qg7 22 Qxg7+ Kxg7 23 Ne6
+ +/ etc.
19 Rf1 Nd7 20 Nxf3!? gxf3 21 Rxf3 f6 22 d6+ Kh8 23 dxc7 +/
White has sacrificed a rook and is
rewarded by the total paralysis of
Blacks camp. After 23Qg4 24 Rf4
Qg7 25 Qd6 a5 26 b5 a4 27 Bd4 a3 28
Be6 Ne5 29 Rxf6!, Black has to resign.
A worthy final for Morphys move 9
Nc3.
Sources
[1] P. R. von Bilguer: Handbuch des
Schachspiels, Berlin 1916
[2] O. Cordel: Fhrer durch die Schachtheorie, Berlin 1888
[3] O. Cordel: Theorie und Praxis des Schachspiels, Potsdam 1913
[4] I. Estrin, I. Glazkov: Das angenommene Knigsgambit, Dsseldorf
1982
[5] M. Agermose Jensen: The Kings Gambit Lives!, four articles in
Correspondence Chess News 45, 51, 52 und 55 (2001).
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Rudolf Spielmann
Master of Invention
by Neil McDonald
(a) After 12 Nxe4 Qxe4 (Schmelz Bueno, corr. ICCF 2000, the stem
game of 11f5), the continuation 13 g3 =+ was relatively best. The
alternative 12fxe4 13 Nf2 0-0 14 g3 h5 was more ambitious. Now 15
Nxe4 seems to win back the pawn. However, this success is only
temporary: 15Re8 16 Ng5 Qxe2+ 17 Bxe2 Bxd4!. Again, Black has
gained a valuable extra pawn, and the strong square f4 is gone (/+).
(b) 12 g3 Bxd4 /+.
(c) 12 Bg5 Nxg5 13 hxg5 h6 14 g6 Bf6! 15 Nf4 Bg5! /+.
After the text move, Alexander Bangiev (1996) believes that White has
the initiative. In reality, it is Black who often develops a dangerous attack
against Whites king.
120-0 13 d5
The threat of Qf7 is difficult to parry:
(a) 13 g3 Qf7 14 a3 Qa2 15 Bg2 Bd7 16 Nxe4? Rae8 17 Rhe1 fxe4 18
Bxe4 d5 +.
(b) 13 h5 Qf7 14 h6 Bf6 15 Kb1 Be6 16 Nxe4 fxe4 17 Nc1 Ne7 /+.
(c) Perhaps 13 Nf2 is the lesser evil, but neither 13Nf6 14 Qb5 a6 nor
13Qf7 14 Nfxe4 fxe4 15 g3 Bf5 /+ look reliable for White.
13Ne5 14 Qe3
14 Nxe5 Bxe5 15 Qe3 Bxf4 16 Qxf4
Bd7 17 Re1 Rae8 18 Bd3 Nc5 /+.
14Bd7
(a) 14Qf7 15 Bxe5 dxe5 16 Nxe4 fxe4
17 Nc5 Qf2 18 Qxf2 Rxf2 19 Nxe4 Bh6
+ 20 Kb1 Bf5 21 Bd3 Rxg2 22 Nf6+
Kf7 23 Bxf5 Kxf6 24 Bxh7. White can
hope for a draw.
(b) 14Nd7!? 15 Nf2 Qf7 16 Nfxe4 fxe4 17 Bg5 Nc5 18 Nb3 Nxb3+ 19
axb3 Qf2 20 Qxe4 Bf5 21 Qe2 g3 /+.
15 h5 Rae8 16 h6 Bh8 17 Nxe4 Nc4 18 Qg3 fxe4 19 Nc5 Be5 /+
Black has a clear edge, because 20 Bxe5
Nxe5 21 Nxe4 fails to 21Bf5!.
The Main Line 6 Bc4!
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5
Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4!
Now that 6 d4 appears to be refuted, the
critical 6 Bc4! deserves another look.
Some readers have commented on last
months column, even submitting interesting games.
6d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 d4 Nh5 9 Nc3!
Hans-Christian Eberl (Austria) writes:
I always play the Kings Gambit
against 1e5, both in OTB and
Correspondence, and also regard 6 Bc4
& 9 Nc3 as Whites best option.
10 Ne4!? Re8 (perhaps better: 10f5, Eberl) 11 0-0 Bxe5 12 dxe5 Rxe5
13 Ng5 Qd6 14 Qd4 Nc6 15 Qf2 Nb4 16 Bxf4 Nxf4 17 Qxf4 Bf5 18
Rad1 h6
19 Nxf7! Kxf7 20 Qxg4 Kf6 21 h5 Nxc2
22 Qg6+ Ke7 23 Rxf5 Rxf5 24 Qxf5 Qc5
+ 25 Kh1 Qxc4 26 Qe5+ Kf8 27 d6 cxd6
28 Qxd6+ Ke8 29 Qe5+ Kf8 30 Kg1
Re8 31 Qd6+ Kg7 32 Qg6+ Kf8 33 Qxh6
+ Kg8 34 Qg6+ Kf8 35 Rf1+ Ke7 36
Qg7+ Kd6 37 Rd1+ Kc6 38 Qd7+ Kb6
39 Qxe8 Qc5+ 40 Kh1 a6 41 Rc1 Ka7
42 Qe2 Nd4 43 Rxc5 1-0, Eberl (Team
Schlechters Erben) Kayis (Team
Satranc Okulu Sbilyap), ICCF
Champions League 2007 C Group 4.
Michael A. Jensen also prefers 10 Ne4! to 10 Ne2, so in this case I am
outvoted. 10 Ne2 looked solid enough during my analysis, but I cannot
exclude that 10 Ne4 is in fact better.
10 0-0
Both Jensen and Eberl regard 10.Kd2 as correct. We gladly take the
chance to publish two inspiring examples:
(a) 10Bxe5 (Eberl: If 10...Kf8, White plays 11.Re1!. Neither do I
share your assessment about 10...0-0. In both cases Black fights for
equality.) 11 Re1 Nd7 12 Qxg4 Ndf6 13 Qe2 Ng4 14 dxe5 0-0 15 b3
Qxh4 16 Ba3 Ng3 17 Qf3 Re8
18 Qxf4 Nh5 19 Rh1 Nxf4 20 Rxh4
Rxe5 21 Rah1 h6 22 g3 Ng6 23 Rh5
Bd7 24 Be2 Rae8 25 Bc5 Rxe2+ 26
Nxe2 Nf6 27 Nc3 Nxh5 28 Rxh5 Ne5 29
Bxa7 Nf3+ 30 Kc1 Re1+ 31 Kb2 Bg4 32
d6 cxd6 33 Rxh6 Be6 34 Rh5 Re5 35
Rxe5 dxe5 36 Ne4 Nh2 37 Nd6 Bd5 38
c4 Bf3 39 b4 Kg7 40 b5 Kf6 41 c5 Nf1
42 a4 Ke6 43 a5 Ne3 44 a6 bxa6 45 b6
f5 46 b7 Nc4+ 47 Kc3 Bxb7 48 Nxb7
Kd5 49 Bb8 e4 50 Bf4 a5 51 Nd6 1-0,
Eberl (2313) Mergard (2200), corr.
2005 (ICCF tourn. EM/MN/094).
(b) 10Bxe5 11 Re1 0-0! (before the game I had only studied 11...f6 12
dxe5 fxe5 13 Qe2 Nd7 14 Qxg4 (14 Nb5 Qc5) 14...Ndf6 15 Qg5 e4 16
Be2!) 12 dxe5! (12 Rxe5 Qxh4 13 Ne4, and here Black has 13...Nd7 14
Rg5+ Kh8 15 Qxg4 Qxg4 16 Rxg4 f5 =+)
12...Qc5 (not 12...Qxh4? 13 Ne4, e.g.
13...Ng3? 14 Nf6+ Kg7 15 Kc3! +) 13
Bd3 Ng3 14 Ne4 Nxe4+ (14...Qxd5?? 15
Nf6+) 15 Rxe4 Qxd5 16 Qf1! (with
compensation) 16...f5 10, M. A. Jensen
J. Knudsen, Kge 2005 (Danish
Championship). A funny end. My
opponent believed to have lost his queen
(Bc4) and resigned. The move Bc4 is
illegal, but 17 exf6 Nd7! 18 Rxf4 would
have been good for White.
Comments: Michael Agermose Jensen.
10Bxe5 11 Nb5! (Ivo Nei 1980?) 11...a6
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Starting Out:
Accelerated Dragon
by Andrew Greet
isnt promising.
15...Qb6 16 b3 cxb3
16Bxh6 can transpose to the game after 17 Qxh6 cxb3 18 axb3. Less
precise seems 16...Qa5 17 Bxg7 Kxg7 18 hxg6 Qa3+ 19 Kb1 fxg6 20 Qh6
+ Kg8 21 Nd5 Rf7 22 Nxf6+ exf6, Guo Oliver, Australian Open 2007,
because of 23 Qc1! +=.
17 axb3
17 cxb3 is also met by 17...Bxh6 18
Qxh6 Rfc8.
17...Bxh6
17...Qa5 18 Bxg7 Qa1+ 19 Nb1 Kxg7
20 hxg6 fxg6, Listes Deur, Split 2005;
21 Qg5 unclear.
18 Qxh6 Rfc8
To insert 18Qa5 19 Kb2 didnt convince me, since after 19...Rfc8
White has the first-class defense 20 Rd3 (for example, 20...Rb4 21 Nd5
Nxd5 22 exd5 Bf5 23 Nxf5 gxf5 24 Qg5+ Kf8 25 Rc1 + in Prasenjit
Shiven, New Delhi 2008). After the precise text move, 19 Rd3 fails to
19...Rxc3 20 Rxc3 Qxd4.
19 Nd5
Because the h-file has not been opened yet, Black is able to defend
himself.
19...Nxd5 20 exd5 Bf5! 21 Nxf5 gxf5 22 Kb2
White is well advised to remove the pin
in the c-file. If 22 Qg5+ Kh8 (22Kf8
23 Rhe1 hands over the initiative to the
first player) 23 Qxe7 (23 h6? fails to 23...
Rxc2+! 24 Kxc2 Qxb3+ 25 Kd2 Rg8 26
Qxe7 Rxg2+ 27 Ke1 Qc3+ 28 Kf1 Qxf3
+ 29 Ke1 Qf2 mate) 23...Qxb3 24 Qf6+
Kg8 25 Qg5+ Kf8 26 Qd8+ Rxd8 27
cxb3 Rxb3, and Black has a slight
advantage.
22Rxc2+!?
22Qc5 23 Qd2 leads to equal play and offers no real chance to play for
a win.
23 Kxc2 Qxb3+ 24 Kd2 Qb2+ 25 Ke3
25 Ke1? loses because of 25...Qxg2 +
25Rb3+ 26 Rd3
Of course not 26 Kf4? Qe5+ 27 Kg5 Rb4 followed by mate.
26Qe5+ 27 Kf2!
In my calculations I had only foreseen 27 Kd2 Rb2+ 28 Kc1, when 29...
Ra2! forces mate; for example, 30 Rb3 Qa1+ 31 Rb1 Qc3+ etc.
27Rxd3
15 0-0-0
A critical position. White develops as
fast as possible and isnt interested in
winning back a pawn (15 Qxa7 b6!). If
15 Qe3 Be6 16 0-0-0, Black cant play
16Bxc4? 17 e5!, but after 16Qb6 he
has a sound position.
15Rc8!
15b5? 16 Bb3 Qb6 17 Qd2 Be6 18
Qh6 Rfc8 19 Bxe6 fxe6 is unplayable
because of the tactical 20 e5! Rxc3 (20dxe5 21 Ne4) 21 bxc3 dxe5 22
g5 Nh5 23 Rxh5 Qe3+ 24 Kb1 gxh5 25 Qxe6+ Kf8 26 g6 hxg6 27 Qxg6
Qb6 28 Qxh5 Qf6 29 Rg1 Rb6 30 Rg5 +.
16 Nd5
a) 16 e5?? dxe5 17 Qe3 Rxc4 18 Qh6 Rxc3! +.
b) 16 Bb3 Qa5 17 Qe3 Be6 18 Nd5 Bxd5 19 exd5 Qc5, about =.
c) 16 Rh2 Rc5 17 Rdh1 e5 18 Qd3 Be6 =.
d) 16 g5 Nh5 17 e5 e6 18 Rxh5 gxh5 19 Ne4 Rxc4 20 Qxc4 d5, about =.
e) 16 Bd5 Qb6! (not 16b5?? 17 e5! dxe5 18 Qe3 with a winning attack)
17 Qxb6 axb6 18 Bxb7 Rc7 19 Bd5 Kg7 =.
16e5 17 Qf2!? Be6 18 Qh4
Or 18 Nxf6+ Qxf6 19 Bxe6 fxe6 20 Rxd6 Qf4+ with sufficient
counterplay: 21 Kb1 Qxg4 22 Qh2 Qh5 23 Qxh5 gxh5 24 Rxh5 Rxf3 25
c3 Rc6 26 Rxc6 bxc6 27 Rxe5 Kf7 28 a4 Kg6 29 Rxe6+ Rf6 and Black
should be able to draw.
18Bxd5 19 Bxd5 h5!
19b5? 20 Qh6 +/.
20 gxh5
Or 20 Bxb7 Rb8 21 Bd5 Kg7 22 Bb3 Rh8 +=.
20Nxd5 21 Rxd5 Qxh4 22 Rxh4 Rc6 23 hxg6 fxg6 24 Rh3 Kf7 +=
White only has a slight advantage in the
ending.
Sources
[1] L. Henris: The Chinese Dragon
Variation, New in Chess Yearbook 62
(2002)
[2] E. Anka: The Chinese Dragon
Revisited, New in Chess Yearbook 71
(2004)
[3] E. Anka: The Chinese Dragon
Refuted!, New in Chess Yearbook 72 (2004)
[4] G. Lane: Enter the Dragon, latest column for ChessCafe.com
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Dangerous Weapons:
The Benoni and Benko
by Palliser et al
Today every opening seems to be charted. A game begins, the knights are
developed to their usual squares, and both players are, more often than
not, well informed about the available alternative main lines. In an
environment where stereotypical play is all too common, a modern
theoretician may set himself a task completely different to his traditional
role: to generate more chaos in the order.
At least this is the impression you get when you see the arsenal of Ultra
Hypermodern Counter Attack (UHCA) Systems [3]. There are seventy
unusual opening ideas, collected and often invented by Rolf Martens;
for example, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Qh4 (Minerva
Variation) or 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Ng4 (Caro-Kann,
Kangaroo Variation). Most ideas are accompanied by short analyses.
There is a lot of chaos on the board. However, in searching for new ways
the authors approach also remains systematic. When he found a strong
idea such as 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 a6 (Kamchatka Defence), he looked
for possible transpositions. And when he began to like Nh6 in certain
French positions, he tested the idea in other French lines or in other
openings.
Starting Out:
Benoni Systems
by Alex Raetsky
& Maxim Chetverik
Another sign for the Swedes originality had been his Cannae Theses in
SSKK Bulletinen no. 205 (1988/3). The only chess magazine I ever saw
with a bust of Hannibal on the cover.
In [6], Martens reported on his personal background: I was born in
Norway in 1942 and have lived in Sweden since 1950. Ive worked as a
welder in relatively big industries for 24 years and also have had jobs in
various other fields. I was brought up as an intellectual and have a
university degree with mathematics and physics as main subjects. On the
web, there are some mentions of me in connection with chess. I was
Swedish champion at that game in 1967 and later, after I had learned
some Marxism, made some shocking discoveries in its opening
theory. (emphasis mine, S. B.)
Martens was so left, politically, that for some years he sympathized with
the ultra-left German KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT), a party that followed
the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. Apparently, it was the
only party in Europe (at least) that did this. However, at some point or
other in the 1980s, it too started to degenerate [6].
Rolf Martens is the closest you can get to a chess myth in Sweden,
wrote Jesper Hall in his excellent article [4] in New In Chess Magazine,
and continued: [He] impressed everyone with his dynamic and tactical
play, for which he rarely used more than an hour per game. In 1969, he
scored 3-3 against Ulf Andersson in a training match which has become
legendary. [] Gradually, in the early seventies, he retired from both the
academic field and the chess world. Before his comeback in the mideighties, he was more or less silent as far as chess was concerned.
A Refutation of the Snake Benoni?
One of Martens most successful opening ideas is the Snake Benoni:
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3
Richard Palliser contributed the chapter Killing the Snake in Dangerous
Weapons: The Benoni and Benko (London 2008) [8], where he claims
that against an early Nc3, the Snake Benoni appears unplayable. We
will see. By the way: 4 Nf3 exd5 5 cxd5 Bd6 followed by 0-0, Re8 and
Bf8, as played by Yakov Murey in 1979, is called Snail Benoni in
Martens list [3]. And if here 6 Bg5 0-0! 7 Nbd2 (7 Nc3 Re8 =) 7Re8 8
e3, as recommended by Raetsky & Chetverik [5], I dont see what is
wrong with 8h6 9 Bh4 Be7 10 Qb3 d6 =.
4exd5 5 cxd5 Bd6!?
1995) 7...Ba5! (the correct reply; 7...0-0? 8 g5, and the knight cannot flee
to h5), and now:
(a) 8 g5 Ne4 9 Qd3 Nxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 Bf4 d6 12 Nd2 Nd7!
According to Maurits Wind Black is okay: 13 Bg2 (13 Bxd6 Re8 14 Nc4
Nb6 15 Nxa5 Qxd6 16 Bg2 Qf4 with the threats of Qa4 and Qxg5, =) 13...
Re8 14 Nc4 Ne5 15 Bxe5 (15 Nxe5 dxe5 16 Bd2, about =) 15...Rxe5! 16
Nxe5 Qxg5 17 Nc4 Qxg2 18 0-0-0 Qg5+ 19 Kb2 Bc7. In return for the
exchange, Black has a pawn and the bishop-pair (analysis by Wind).
(b) 8 Qd3 Qe7 9 Bd2 0-0 10 d6 and White is better, Blees Miezis,
Antwerp 1996. However, instead of the superficial 8Qe7? there is a
solid alternative overlooked by Richard Palliser: 8...0-0! 9 g5 (9 h3 Na6
=) 9Nh5 (in contrast to the line 70-0? 8 g5 mentioned above, the h5square is now available for the knight); for example, 10 d6 b6 11 Bh3 Ba6
12 Qc2 Nc6 13 0-0 Qe8 =.
6...Be5!?
This interesting idea was found by the Dutch IM Gerard Welling from
Eindhoven. Instead of the long march Bd6-c7-a5 typical for the Snake
Benoni, Black prefers to exchange the bishop without further ado, saving
valuable time. In 2007 Martens had written [7] that for many years I
have considered the reply 60-0 [] as insufficient and instead 6Be5
as both necessary and sufficient for Black. The move was already
recommended in [3] and [4], with both sources calling it the Eindhoven
Variation. How is it possible that both sources [5] and [8] miss it? (Much
worse: why did my own work [2] ignore it, too?)
In [3] Martens had expressed his doubts whether my Vulture was correct;
nevertheless, he continued: Anyway, this systems author has inspired
me to check out surprising solutions to some opening problems
elsewhere. They sometimes succeed and are the best. So he was not only
inspired by Marxism, but also by me.
Instead of the surprising text move, on six pages Richard Palliser mainly
analyzes the old attempt 60-0. After 7 f4 Nxe4 8 Nxe4 Re8 9 Qe2!,
wild complications arise.
But neither 9Bf8 nor 9b5 guarantee sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed piece. Another move was lately recommended on the Internet
[7] by Simplicissimus: 9Bc7 10 g4 Nc6!? (an amusing idea, also
missing in [8]) 11 dxc6 d5 12 Bg2 dxe4 13 Nh3? Qh4+ 14 Nf2 e3 etc. In
his reply Rolf Martens does not seem convinced, and in fact 13 g5
(instead of 13 Nh3?) seems more critical.
In the diagram position, 9Na6! 10 Nf3 (so far Palliser [8]) and now
10c4! is relatively best. Here Black gets fair chances; e.g., 11 Nxd6 (11
Bd2 Nc5) 11Rxe2+ 12 Bxe2 Nb4 13 Kf1 Qc7 14 Nxc4 Nxd5, when
White only has a slight advantage.
7 Nf3
7 Bd3!? d6 8 Nf3 deserves attention:
(a) 8Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 comes into question, but the apparent simplicity
of the position is deceptive: 10 0-0 (10 h3 Re8) 10Bg4 11 h3 Bxf3 12
Qxf3 Nbd7 13 c4 (13 Bf4 Qc7 14 Qg3 Ne5 with a solid position for
Black) 13...Ne5 14 Qe2 Nxd3 15 Qxd3 Qe7 16 Re1 Nd7 +=. Blacks
resulting position is somewhat passive (similar to the important sideline 9
Bb5+ Bd7 10 Bd3 Bg4 11 0-0 below), but it certainly can be defended
(b) In the sources listed below Rolf Martens preferred 8Nbd7. Here he
had stopped in [3]. The next source [4] gave already more details: 9 0-0 00 10 Re1 Re8 11 Bc2 with the threat of 12 Nxe5 Nxe5 13 f4 Ng6 14 e5
dxe5 15 Bxg6 hxg6 16 fxe5. But neither 11Qb6 [4] (Jesper Hall: Rolf
believes in equality whereas I believe that White has a slight edge.) nor
his latest attempt 11Bxc3 12 bxc3 b5 [7] are sufficient to equalize.
7Bxc3+ 8 bxc3
8d6
8Nxe4? 9 Bd3 Nf6 (9...f5? 10 Bxe4 fxe4 11 Bg5 Qa5 12 0-0! gives
White a strong attack) 10 Qe2+ Qe7 11 Qxe7+ Kxe7 12 0-0 d6 (12...
Nxd5? 13 Re1+ Kd8 14 Bc4 +/) 13 Re1+ Kd7
(a) 14 Ng5?! Nxd5 15 Bc4 Nxc3 16 Nxf7 Rf8 17 Bb2 b5 18 Be6+ Kc6 19
Bxc8 looks great for White, but underestimates Blacks resources: 19
Na4! 20 Nxd6 Nxb2! with sufficient counterplay because of his pawn
majority on the queenside.
(b) 14 c4! h6 15 Bb2 Kd8 16 Bxf6+. It is this harmless approach which
may refute Blacks eighth move. After 16gxf6 17 Nd2! there could
follow: 17Na6 18 a3 Nc7 19 Re3 Rb8 20 Rf3 Ne8 21 h3 b6 22 Ne4 +/.
9 Qa4+!?
Or 9 Bb5+ (9 Bd3 Bg4 leads to the same position) 9Bd7 10 Bd3 Bg4
(a) 11 Qa4+ Nbd7 12 Nd2 0-0 13 Qc2 Ne5 14 0-0 Qc7 15 h3 c4! 16 Nxc4
Nxc4 17 hxg4 Nxg4 with an unclear situation; for example, 18 Rb1 (18
e5 h5) 18Nge5 19 Be2 Rac8 20 Rd1 (so far analysis by Maurits Wind),
and now 20Rfe8 equalizes.
(b) Again, the simpler reply 11 0-0 may be the real threat: 110-0 12 h3
Bxf3 13 Qxf3 Nbd7 14 c4! (14 Bf4 Qc7 15 Qg3 Ne5) 14...Ne5 15 Qe2
Nxd3 16 Qxd3 Re8 17 Re1 Nd7 += and once again (as in the similar line
with 7 Bd3 d6 8 Nf3 Bxc3+, above) Blacks passive position can
certainly be defended.
9Nbd7
9...Bd7? 10 Qb3 would be a serious loss of time.
10 Bd3 0-0 11 0-0 Re8
More precise than 11Nb6 12 Qd1 Bg4 13 h3 Bh5 14 Bf4! Qc7 15 Re1.
Black is struggling in this difficult situation: 15...Rfe8 16 c4 Bxf3 (else 17
g4) 17 Qxf3 Nfd7 18 Bf1! Ne5 19 Qb3 Ng6 20 Bh2 f6 21 Rab1 Re7 22
Re3 +/ (Maurits Wind).
12 Qc2
12 Re1 Nb6 13 Qd1 Bg4 14 Bf4 Nh5 15 Bd2 c4 16 Bc2 Qf6, and Black
has nothing to fear.
12c4! 13 Bxc4 Nxe4 14 Re1 Ndf6 15 Bd3 Bf5
Although White has the bishop-pair, the position should be about equal,
considering Blacks coming play on the c-file. A possible continuation is
16 c4 Bg6 17 Be3 Qa5 18 Rab1 Rac8 19 Bd4 a6 20 a4 Nc5 21 Rxe8+
Nxe8 22 Bf5 Rb8 23 Ra1 Nf6 24 h3 (24 Nh4 Qb4; 24 g3 Re8 25 Rb1
Bxf5 26 Qxf5 Qxa4) 24Nfe4 25 Nh4 Re8 26 Kh2 Qd2 27 Qxd2 Nxd2
28 Bxc5 dxc5 29 Nxg6 fxg6 30 Bd3 Ne4 =.
Sources
[1] R. Martens: Den moderna svenska Schackskolans svar pa 1. d4, in
SSKK Bulletinen no. 204 (1988), pp. 11ff.
[2] St. Bcker: Snake-Benoni, in: Groteske Schacherffnungen
(Stuttgart 1990)
[3] R. Martens: List of Ultrahypermodern CounterAttack (UHCA)
Systems, April 1999
[4] J. Hall: Seek, and thou shalt find! The unorthodox explorations of
Rolf Martens, in New In Chess Magazine 1999/8, pp- 58-71
[5] A. Raetsky, M. Chetverik: Starting Out: Benoni Systems, London 2005
[6] R. Martens: On my Background; (Internet, March 2005)
[7] R. Martens: numerous postings on his ideas in opening theory, until
spring of 2008, on the Internet.
[8] R. Palliser, J. Emms, Chr. Ward, G. Jones: Dangerous Weapons: The
Benoni and Benko, London 2008
[9] St. Bcker: Rolf Martens Snake-Benoni widerlegt?, in Kaissiber 33
(2008), p. 72
Olympic Experiments
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
Top TNT
Theory, Novelties,
Tournaments
by Chess Informant
Here isnt the place for a detailed report. What follows is a selection of
some interesting opening ideas.
Hrvoje Stevic (Croatia; 2588) David Howell (England; 2593)
Dresden, 2008 (Round 11)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 dxe5!?
The ending after the usual 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5 offers Black fine drawing
chances (as demonstrated by Vladimir Kramnik during the London 2000
match against Garry Kasparov), and so the Berlin Defense 3Nf6 has
earned the nickname Berlin Wall. To keep the game under control
might be a wise tactic in the worlds elite, but I have never understood
Practical Guide
to Rook Endgames
by Nikolay Minev
11 Qd3?
A similar concept as described in the last note (10 Qd3). Clearly more
popular is 11 a5!, which prepares f4 (the immediate 11 f4? is met by
Qb6). After 11Bf5 12 f4 Qd7 (12Bxc2?! 13 f5!), the often-seen
treatment is 13 Rf2, but I believe that another setup is stronger: 13 Qf2!
(apparently a new idea) 13c5 14 Ne2 Bxc2 15 f5 0-0-0 16 Bg5 Re8
17 e6!?
Simpler and perhaps better: 17 Re1! Be6 18 Nxe6+ fxe6 19 Qg4 Qd7 20
c4 +=.
17...Bf6 18 Re1 c5 19 Nb3 b6
On 19c4, the knight returns to d4 of course.
20 exf7 Bf5 21 c3
Or 21 c4 dxc4 22 Nd2 Qd3 23 Qb7 Rhf8 24 Ra3 Qc2 25 Nf1, followed by
Ne3 =.
21...Be4 22 Qd1 Kxf7 23 Nd2 Bf5 24 Nf3 Be4 25 Nd2 Bf5 26 Nf3 g5?!
Black isnt satisfied with a repetition of moves.
27 Ne5+ (or 27 a5 +=) 27...Kg7
28 Ng4
There is nothing wrong with this move. But White might also choose 28
f4 or even 28 Qf3!? Be4 (28...Be6 29 Qd3 Rh6 30 f4 resp. 29...Qe8 30
A surprising novelty: White loses his right to castle. However, the price
that Black pays seems too high. The alternative idea 5Nf6 6 Nf3 e5
comes to mind, but the compensation for the pawn is questionable in this
case: 7 Bxe5 Bb4+ 8 Kd1 Nbd7 9 Bg3 0-0 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Bd3,
intending Ke2, Rc1 and Kf1.
6 Bxe5 Qa5+ 7 Kd1 Nd7 8 Bg3 c5 9 Nf3
Development first.
9Ngf6 10 a3
Or 10 cxd5 cxd4 11 Nxd4 with the small trap 11Qxd5 12 Qf5! forcing
the exchange of queens.
10cxd4 11 exd4 Be7 12 c5
Closing the center. Whites pieces occupy reasonable squares, and his
king on d1 seems secure. Nevertheless, in a later stage of the game an
adventurous black player may still hope for tactical surprises, made
possible by Whites unusual king position.
12Ne4 13 Bd3
13f5?!
For psychological reasons, Black should have continued his aggression:
130-0. In such a situation, many white players will avoid taking the
second pawn: 14 Bxe4 dxe4 15 Qxe4, fearing unnecessary
complications after 15Bxc5. The pawn sacrifice 5e5?! may be
dubious or worse, but if Black succeeds in opening the position against
Whites king, at least he should get practical chances.
14 b4 Qd8 15 Qb3 f4 16 Bxf4 Nxf2+ 17 Kc2 Nxh1? (170-0) 18 Qxd5
Nf6 19 Bb5+ Kf8 20 Qxd8+ Rxd8 21 Rxh1 Nd5 22 Bg3 h5 23 Re1 h4
24 Be5 Rh6 25 Bc4 Rg6 26 Re2 Rxg2 27 Rxg2 Ne3+ 28 Kd3 Nxg2 29
Ke4 Bf6 30 Bd6+ Be7 31 Bc7 Rc8 32 Be5 Bf6 33 Be6 Rc6 34 Bh3 Bxe5
35 Nxe5 Ra6 36 Bxg2 Rxa3 37 Kf5 Ra2 38 Bxb7 Rxh2 39 c6 Rc2 40
Ke4 1-0
14Nc3! Keeps Whites king in the center. 15 Qb4 Nxe2 16 Kxe2 Qg5
17 g3 Rac8 18 Bd2 Rxc5 19 Qxb7?! Qg4+ 20 Qf3 Qc4+ 21 Ke1 Bxb2 22
Rd1 Rd8 23 Qe2 Qxe2+ 24 Kxe2 Rc2 01, Schandorff Howell, Dresden
2008.
7...Rg8!?
19 Rxc5! Kxc5 20 Be3+ Kb4 21 Nd6 Rb8 22 Kc2 b5 23 a3+ and White
wins.
14Kb8?
Avoiding the greedy 14Bxb4 15 Rb1, although it might have worked:
15Bxc3 16 dxc3 Qd5 17 Rd1? Nc5, or 17 Ba3 Qa5.
15 b5 Nce5 16 f4?
Correct was 16 Ne4, which gains valuable time: 16Be7 (16Bg7 17
f4) 17 f4 and Black is in difficulties, because 17Nxc1 18 Raxc1 Nd3, in
analogy to the game, is met by 19 Rc3 +/. And the alternative 17f5 18
fxe5 fxe4 19 Qxe4 is no fun either.
16Nxc1 17 Raxc1 Nd3 18 Bxd3 Qxd3 19 Ne4 f5 20 Ng5 Qxd2
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Deluxe Tournament
Scorebook
4d5??!
Top TNT
Theory, Novelties,
Tournaments
by Chess Informant
Black moves his d-pawn for the second time and will lose further time
with his queen. We are reminded of another ancient line in the
Scandinavian Defence: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 e5?! 5 Nf3,
and White is better. Today we understand, thanks to the work of
Nimzowitsch, that Black can better defend a slightly passive position than
exchange Whites center pawn in such a brutal way. Although the line is
dubious, its refutation is far from obvious.
5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Qe2+!
A novelty found by Louis Paulsen in a game against C. Lepge, 1863
(Schachzeitung 1863, p. 366). Today many opening systems are named
after this inventive player, but surprisingly his brother Wilfried included 6
Qe2+! in a list of the best opening ideas by Louis Paulsen (Schachzeitung
1870, p.5).
The text move improved upon 6 Nc3 Bb4 (Jaenisch):
(a) 7 Bf4 Bxc3+ (7Ne7? 8 Qd2 Bxc3 9 Qxc3 0-0 10 0-0-0 Ng6?! 11
Bxc7 Bd7 12 Bc4 Qxg2 13 h4 Nc6 14 h5 Qg5+ 15 Kb1 Nge5 16 f4! +
Jan Sprenger Bcker, Echternach 2005) 8 bxc3 Ne7 9 Qe2 Nbc6! 10
Nb5 0-0 11 Nxc7 Qa5 and Black has sufficient compensation.
(b) 7 Be3 Nf6 8 Ndb5 0-0 9 Nxc7 Qa5!
10 Nxa8 Bg4 11 Be2 Rd8 12 Qb1 Bxe2 13 Kxe2 Qa6+ 14 Ke1 Ne4 15
Nc7 Qc4 16 N7b5 Qxb5 17 f3 Nxc3 18 bxc3 Bxc3+ 19 Kf2 Qe5 20 Qc1
Bxa1 21 Qxa1 Qd6 =+ (0-1, 33) Grund Chikovani, Tallinn 1997
(European Championship U18).
Another good line is 6 Bf4!? Nf6 7 Nc3 (7 Qe2+ Be7 8 Nb5 Na6 9. N1c3
Qd8 returns to the main line) 7Bb4 (7Qc5 8 Qe2+ Be7 9 0-0-0 0-0
10 Nb3 Qf5 looks risky) 8 Ndb5 Bxc3+ 9 Nxc3 Qxd1+ 10 Rxd1 c6
followed by Be6, Nbd7 and 0-0-0. Of course White has the bishop-pair,
which gives him an advantage.
6...Be7 7 Nb5 Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8
Jaenischs attempt to rescue his line in La Stratgie 1870. Theoretician
von der Lasa also trusted the text move (Deutsche Schachzeitung 1873,
p. 195). In the game mentioned above, C. Lepge continued 8...Qf5 9 Be3
Nf6 10 Nd4 Qg6 11 Qb5+ Nd7 12 Bd3! +/ (but drawn, 53). And 9...
Bf6?!! certainly fails to 10 Nd4!. Altogether Jaenischs move seems best.
A critical position. William Steinitz now liked 9 Bf4 Nf6 10 Qc4 in his
The Modern Chess Instructor, following an earlier analysis of Lipschtz.
Another well-known theoretician, Oskar Cordel, preferred 9 Be3
(Fhrer, 1888). To me a longer bishop move looked more dangerous: 9
So far Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005. The chances are equal. Since
20 Kf1 Bxc3 21 Nxc3 Qe6 22 Qxe6 fxe6 23 Bg3 Rad8 24 h3 Nf6 25 Na4
Rxd3 26 Nc5 Rd5 =+ is risky, White should rather play it safe: 20 Be3!
Nxe3 21 Rxg7+ -.
Variation B. White Plays 9 Be3 (Cordel)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 d5 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Qe2+ Be7 7 Nb5
Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8 9 Be3 Nf6
Improving upon Cordels original analysis 9...c6 10 Rd1 Bd7 11 Nd6+
Bxd6 12 Rxd6 Qe7, when 13 Rd2! would give White an advantage.
10 Bd4!
The bishop blocks the d-file, so that White can castle to the queenside.
10...0-0 11 0-0-0 Bg4 12 f3 Bd7 13 Qe5 Re8 14 Bc4 Bf8 15 Qf4 Be6 16
Be5
16...Nh5 17 Rxd8
After the game Maurits Wind preferred 17 Qe4, to secure some positional
advantage.
17...Nxf4 18 Rxa8 Rxa8 19 Bf1
19 Bxf4 Bxc4 20 Nxc7 came into consideration. White has an extra pawn,
but the bishop-pair gives Black fair chances for a draw.
19...Nd5 20 Nxd5 Bxd5 21 Nc3
21 Bxc7 Bxa2!.
21...Re8
22 Nxd5
The saving trick that White had missed some moves ago was 22 Bg3
Nb4! 23 a3 Na2+ 24 Nxa2 Bxa2 25 Bd3 c6!.
22...Rxe5 23 Bxa6 bxa6 -, Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
Apparently 9 Be3 offers better chances for some advantage than 9 Bf4.
But there is still the third bishop move on our agenda, and as we will see,
it is even stronger:
Variation C. White Plays 9 Bg5!
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 d5 5 exd5 Qxd5 6 Qe2+ Be7 7 Nb5
Na6 8 N1c3 Qd8 9 Bg5!
12 Bxe7+!
A subtle idea: With his king on f8, Black can no longer play 12Qxe7 13
Qxe7+ Nxe7, because then Bd7 would not be protected. Less critical is 12
Bg3 h5, when Black develops sufficient activity by bringing his kings
rook to the sixth rank:
(a) 13 Qc4 h4 14 Bxc7 Qe8 15 Qe2 Bxb5 16 Nxb5 Rh6 17 Bf4 Re6 18
Be3 Bc5 19 Nd4 Re4 20 c3 Nf6 21 Qb5 Ng4 22 Kd2 Bxd4, soon drawn,
Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
(b) 13 Nd5 h4 14 Bf4 Bg5! 15 Be5 Rh6 16 f4 Bf6 17 Nxf6 Nxf6 18 Qf3
Qe7 19 Nd4 (or 19 Qxb7 Re8 20 Nc3 Ng4 21 Bxa6 Nxe5 22 fxe5 Bc6 23
Qxa7 h3!) 19...Qb4+ -, Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
(c) 13 Qd2 Nf6 14 h4 Rh6 15 Bc4 Rg6! 16 0-0 Bc5 17 Nd4 Nb4 18 Nb3
Bb6 19 Na4 Bxa4!? 20 Qxb4+ Qe7 21 Qxa4 Rxg3 22 Rfe1
Looks like a mistake, but the move contains some poison. Moreover,
there is nothing better: 15...Ne7 16 Ndc3!, White has the upper hand: 16...
Nb4 17 Rd2 a6 18 Bxf7 axb5 19 Be6 +/.
16 Nd6 cxd5 17 Bxa6 Kc7 18 Bxb7!
White doesnt fall into 18 Nxf7 Re8+ 19 Be2 Bb5 20 Rd2 Rh7 21 f4 g5!
22 Ne5 Bxe2 23 Rxe2 Rhe7 24 g3 Nf6 25 0-0 gxf4 26 gxf4 Nh5 =.
18...Rf8
36...Kd6
I had missed 36...Kd7 37 Kc5!. Nevertheless there remained a last chance
for Black, which was pointed out by Maurits Wind after the game: 36...
Bc8! 37 Re7+ Kb8 38 Be4 f3 39 gxf3 gxf3 40 Rf7 Rf2, and it isnt easy
for White to convert his advantage into a point.
37 c5+ Ke7 38 Be4 Kf6 39 c6 Rd1+ 40 Kc3 h3 41 gxh3 f3 42 Rf2 1-0,
Maurits Wind Bcker, corr. 2005.
With some regret I have to admit that the unusual 4d5??! is a bad idea,
although the clearest refutation 9 Bg5 wasnt in the books, nor was it easy
to find. Undeniably Jaenischs 4d5 has some surprise effect, but
perhaps we should reserve the move for blitz games.
This column is based on my article Eine historische Frage (Kaissiber
21; 2005), expanding on that article by analyses and games at move six
and (in C) 11h5.
An Academic Question
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Play 1.b3!
by Ilya Odessky
Bird's Opening
by Tim Taylor
Top TNT
Theory, Novelties,
Tournaments
by Chess Informant
He played the Kings Gambit in his youth, but later used it only as a rare
surprise weapon. Larsens Personal Approach to the Openings, as his
well-known article in [1] was titled, was everything else than dogmatic.
Can there be a better encouragement for building an opening repertoire
that fits your own style than the following [1]:
When I say an opening is natural for a player I mean that he likes it, and
that he believes in it (which is not necessarily the same thing). I have
never believed, or felt, that the Kings Indian is a correct defense for
Black, but I have often liked playing it. I feel the same about the Dutch
Defense, and in this case more masters will agree with me! Some
openings I consider absolutely correct, but I do not like to play them. Or
take Bent Larsens remark on gambit play [1]: Being a pawn down keeps
many players awake. A gambit never becomes sheer routine as long as
you fear you may lose the King and pawn ending!
Whether the Ruy Lopez is better than the Kings Gambit, remains an
academic question. On a line in the Kings Gambit, Garry Kasparov wrote
(My Great Predecessors, Part 1, p. 30): White cannot build up any
particular momentum. Can White really build up some momentum in the
Ruy Lopez? I asked a grandmaster who had written a book on the Ruy
Lopez, whether there was anything wrong with my analysis on the Steiner
Variation in the Marshall [2]. He didnt reply.
In GM tournaments, the Kings Gambit will remain a surprise weapon.
Not because it were incorrect, but because it takes more time to prepare
dozens of tactical main lines for White than to find an underestimated
side-line for Black for the next game against a 2 f4 player. The Kings
Gambits abundance makes a lot of its charm, but at the same time there
are practical handicaps, at least in the eyes of grandmasters. On any other
level, I see no reason why the Kings Gambit cannot be used on a regular
basis. Both main systems, the Kings Knight Gambit 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3
Nf3 and the Kings Bishop Gambit 3 Bc4, seem to be basically sound and
offer plenty of chances for the attacker.
Asked by readers of Kaissiber whether they should rather learn the
French Defense or the Caro-Kann Defense, Bent Larsen replied: Know
thyself. Chess isnt easy and there is no standard repertoire that applies
to everyone. A typical Kings Gambit game often enters irrational
complications just a few moves beyond your prepared stuff and your
theoretical worries quickly fade away. On the other side a Ruy Lopez
player may spend a lot of time in front of the computer on distilling only a
shade of an endgame advantage against the Berlin Wall. The following
updates of two lines studied in earlier columns illustrate what I mean.
Update 1. The Berlin Wall of the Ruy Lopez, LHermet Variation
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 dxe5!?
In his epic work The Berlin Wall (Glasgow 2008), John Cox analyzes the
sharp text move, invented by Rudolf LHermet from Magdeburg, on five
of the 328(!) pages. I am a bit puzzled by Cox remark: the German
columnist did not invent the move, and perhaps the Anglophone worlds
Mackenzie Variation is more correct. Can a reader help? Obviously
Cox has read The Oxford Companion to Chess, but Hooper/Whyld didnt
give a source for their claim.
6Nxb5 7 a4 Nbd4 8 Nxd4 Nxd4 (8d5!) 9 Qxd4 d5 10 Nc3 c6 11 a5
with the nicest diagram. But well, here are the alternatives:
13Bb4
Or 13Be7 14 Be3 f6 15 Bxa7 fxe5 16 Na4 Qe6 17 Nc5 Qc8 18 fxe5 00 (18Rxa7 19 Nb3) 19 Bb6 Bd3 20 Qxf8+ Bxf8 21 cxd3
White has more than sufficient compensation (at least +=). I still believe
that 13 Qf2! is an excellent novelty in a position that has occurred twelve
times in the database. However, I admit that the modest looking 12Be7,
as recommended by Ludger Keitlinghaus, looks absolutely equal. Not to
forget the reliable alternatives 13Be7 and 8d5!. We conclude that for
this month the Berlin Wall remains intact. Good luck with studying the
remaining 323 pages of Cox endgame work.
Update 2: The Kingss Gambit, Kieseritzky Gambit
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6
25Rd8 (or 25c6 26 Nf6+ Ke7 27 e5 Rg7 28 Bh6 Rgg8 29 Ba6! Rcd8
30 Nxg8+ Rxg8 31 Rf6, and White is better) 26 Rf5! c6 (26Ng7 27
Rbf1) 27 Rbf1 Rd7 28 Nf6+. White is clearly better (+/-). Of course my
analysis doesnt change the general assessment that the Hungarian
Defense is solid and often leads to a draw. However, new ideas in [3] and
[6] make it more difficult for Black to achieve his half point.
6 Bc4!
6 Nxg4!? Nxe4 (6d6 transposes to the Hungarian Defense, above) 7 d3
Ng3 8 Bxf4 Nxh1 9 Qe2+ Qe7 10 Nf6+ Kd8 11 Bxc7+ Kxc7 12 Nd5+
Kd8 13 Nxe7 Bxe7
10 Ne4!
In [4] I had recommended the traditional continuation 10 Ne2. But later
Hans-Christian Eberl from Austria found the strong 10Qe7! 11 Nxf4
Ng3!, which convincingly refutes Whites idea. For example, 12 Ne6 fxe6
13 Qg4+ Qg7 14 dxe6 Qxg4! 15 Nxg4 Kh8 16 Rg1 b5! 17 Bb3 Nc6 18
Be3 Nf5 -/+ or 15 e7+ Be6 16 exf8Q+ Kxf8 17 Bh6+ Ke8 18 Nxg4 Bxg4
-/+.
10f5
Apparently more critical than 10Re8 11 0-0 Bxe5 12 dxe5 Rxe5 13
Ng5 Qd6 14 Qd4 Nc6 15 Qf2 Nb4 16 Bxf4 Nxf4 17 Qxf4 Bf5 18 Rad1 h6
14Ng3
Or 14Bxb2 15 Rb1 Bf6 16 Kd1! Kg7 17 Rxb7 Kg6 18 Rb5, unclear
[7].
15 0-0-0 Nxh1 16 Rxh1 h6 17 Bb4!
In this hair-rising situation, White seems to have sufficient compensation
for the sacrificed material:
17Kg7
(a) 17hxg5 18 Be7! Qd7 19 d6+ Kg7 20 Qd5 Qe6 21 Qd3 Qd7 = [7].
(b) 17f3 18 gxf3 hxg5 19 Be7 [7].
(c) 17Bd6 18 Bc3 hxg5 19 Qd4 Qf6 20 Qxf6 Rxf6 21 Bxf6 with
compensation [7].
(d) 17b5 18 d6+ Kh8 19 Nf7+ Rxf7 20 Bxf7 cxd6 21 Qd5 Rb8 22 Re1
Bb7 23 Qe6 Bg7 24 Bc3 Qxh4 25 Qd7 = [7].
18 Re1 Re8 19 Rxe5 Rxe5 20 Qd4 Qf6 21 Qxf4 Bd7
Another line from my analysis in [7]: 21Kg6 22 h5+ Kxh5 23 Nh7!
Qg7 24 Bc3 Kg6 25 Nf8+ (=).
22 Bc3
The chances are equal; for example, 22hxg5 23 hxg5 Qe7 24 Bxe5+
Kg6 25 Qg3 Qxg5+ 26 Bf4 Qe7 27 Bd3 Kf7 28 Bxc7 = [7].
Sources:
[1] B. Hochberg (ed.): How to Open a Chess Game, New York 1974.
[2] ChessCafe.com, August 2006, Repairing the Steiner Variation
[3] ChessCafe.com, June 2008, Fashionable or Ailing?
[4] ChessCafe.com, July 2008, Kieseritzky Gambit: A Patient Novelty
[5] ChessCafe.com, July 2008, Kieseritzky Gambit: The Discussion
Continues
[6] St. Bcker: Am Triumphlager des Knigsgambits, Kaissiber 32
(2008)
[7] St. Bcker: Der Stand der Dinge, Kaissiber 33 (2008)
[8] ChessCafe.com, December 2008, Olympic Experiments
[9] J. Cox: The Berlin Wall, Glasgow 2008
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Dealing with d4
Deviations
by John Cox
Fighting the
Anti-Kings Indians
by Yelena Dembo
Geniuses, who can find the right solution on the spot, are rare. To learn by
your mistakes is, in the long run, at least as successful. The model of the
nave club player, who bangs out his first vague idea, only to correct it a
few seconds later, is emulated by the software which analyzes a chess
position: the first suggestion comes instantly, soon to be replaced by
something better. Our opening theory was developed by trial and error.
Armand Edward Blackmar, the inventor of the Blackmar Gambit 1 d4
d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 f3, died in 1888. In the same year Oskar Cordel mentioned
3e5 in Fhrer durch die Schachtheorie as a good reply. Had Blackmar
ever faced 3e5 in a game, he would have recognized the strength of the
move. Certainly he would have chosen the more accurate 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3
in his next game.
One of the critical lines of the BDG is the sequence that Albric OKelly
showed Diemer in June of 1956: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3
4c6!
110-0! /+
An improvement by OldGrizzly [6]. I had found a flaw in the main
line 11Nd5 12 Bc1 [7], namely 12 h4! when 12h6 13 Nxe6 fxe6 14
Qg4 Bf5 15 Qxg7 Rh7 16 Qg8+ Kd7 17 Qg3 Nxf4 18 Rxf4 Na6 19 Rxf5
exf5 20 Be6+ leads to some chances for White, resembling the endings in
a Muzio Gambit. However, by just changing the move order OldGrizzly
has pushed White back into the cold. There could follow 12 a4 Nd5 13
Bc1 h6 14 Nf3 Nd7 /+, and White has nothing at all to show for his
sacrificed pawn.
4. Call a Grandmaster
When nothing else helps, make a phone call and ask a grandmaster. In
this case it was Lev Gutman, who calmly listened to my latest dubious
attempt to rescue the line, 7 g4??! (more on this below). One hour later he
called back. No, he could not bring himself to believe in my raving tactics
with 7 g4, but he had found a more positional set-up.
1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6! 5 Bc4 exf3 6 Nxf3 Bf5! 7 Bg5 e6 8
Nh4!? Bg6 9 Nxg6 hxg6 10 Qd3!
Gutmans key idea is to castle long (in contrast to old games with Ne5xg6 plus 0-0), play h4 and Rh3 (to be able to take back on c3 with the
rook, if necessary) and Rh3-f3, to pin Blacks pieces to the weak pawn on
f7. The text move includes motifs of Bxe6 and Qxg6+, but in the long run
the queen may belong on e2, to exert pressure on the e-file and assist an
advance of the kingside pawns.
10Be7
Or 10Qa5 11 h4!; for example,
(a) 11Qf5 12 Qe3 Qxc2? 13 0-0 +/.
(b) 11Bb4 12 Bxe6 0-0 (12fxe6? 13 Qxg6+ Kf8 14 0-0 +) 13 0-0
fxe6 14 Bxf6 Nd7 15 Bg5 +=.
(c) 11Qxg5 12 hxg5 Rxh1+ 13 Ke2 Rxa1 14 gxf6 Nd7 15 Bxe6 Nxf6
16 Nd5! unclear.
12 h4 a5
Or 12b5 13 Bb3 a5 14 a4 b4 15 Ne4, and Black still has to find shelter
for his king.
13 Bb3 Nb6 14 a4
(a) 8...e6 9 Nxf5 exf5 10 0-0 Nf6 11 Rxf5, and White is better.
(b) 8...Bd7 doesnt impress either. White may continue: 9 Ne4 b5 10 Qe2
e5 11 Bxf7+ Kxf7 12 Qf3+ Nf6 13 0-0 exd4 14 Qb3+ Ke7 15 Re1, etc.
(c) 8...Bc8!? is less natural than the text move, but also critical:
(c1) 9 0-0?! Nf6 10 Nf3
Should it really be worth a second pawn to deny the Bc8 an active role
and gain one tempo? An interesting idea, but unlikely, e.g., 10e6 11
Qe2 Nbd7 12 Bf4 Be7 13 Rae1 Nf8.
(c2) 9 Ne4 Nf6 (9Nd7 10 Qxg4 unclear; 9e5 10 0-0!) 10 Rf1 (10
Nxf6+ SWJediknight [6] 10exf6! 11 0-0 Be7) 10Nbd7 11 Qe2 e6
(11Nb6 12 Nxf6+ gxf6 13 Bxf7+ Kxf7 14 Qh5+ Ke6 =) 12 Bg5 Qa5+
(12Be7 13 Nf5 exf5 14 Nd6+ Kf8 15 Nxf7, about =) 13 Bd2 Qh5 14
Nxf6+ Nxf6 15 Nf3 Bd7 (15Nd5 16 Bxd5 Qxd5 17 Ne5 f6 18 c4 Qxd4
19 Rxf6!? Qh4+ 20 Rf2 Bc5 21 Be3 Bd6 22 Nxc6!? unclear) 16 Rg1 (my
original analysis went 16 0-0-0 0-0-0 17 Rde1 with compensation, but
SWJediknights 16Nd5! followed by f6 and an eventual Qh5-e8 [6] is
strong) 16h6 17 0-0-0 =+
White seems to have some compensation for the sacrificed pawns, e.g.,
17Nd5 18 Qf2 or 170-0-0 18 Rdf1 Be8 19 a3 Rg8 20 Qe1.
9 Ne4 Nf6 10 Rf1 Nbd7 11 Qe2 e6 12 Bg5 Qa5+ 13 Bd2 Qh5 14 Nxf6+
Nxf6 15 Nf3 Bd7 16 0-0-0 0-0-0 17 Rde1.
9 Bg5
Apparently more precise than 9 Nxf5 gxf5 10 Bg5 Qd6 or 10Rg8!,
MNb [6]. However, 10 h3 Nf6 (SWJediknight [6]) 11 Bg5 e6 12 d5 may
be worth a look.
9Qd6
There is no lack of alternatives:
(a) 9h6 10 Nxf5 gxf5 (10hxg5 11 Qxg4 gxf5 12 Bxf7+!?) 11 Bh4
Ne3 (11b5 12 Bb3 b4 13 Ne4!?; 11Bg7 12 Qe2) 12 Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.
Qh5+ and then
(a1) 13...Ke6 14 d5+ Kd7 15 Bf2 (15 Rd1 Nxd1 16 Qxf5+ Kc7 17 Qe5+
Kc8 18 Kxd1 Rh7 19 Qf5+ e6 20 Qxh7 Qxh4) 15...Nxc2+ (15...Nxd5 16
Bd4 Rg8 17 Nxd5 cxd5 18 Qf7 Rg5 19 h4 Rg2 20 0-0-0 Kc8 21 Bc5 e6
22 Bxf8 Qd7 23 Be7 Nc6 24 Qf8+), and here either 16 Ke2 Qe8 17 Qxf5
+ e6 or 16 Kd2 Nxa1 17 Qxf5+ Kc7 18 Qe5+ Qd6 19 Qxh8. White has
reasonable chances for a draw, although Black certainly has an advantage.
(a2) 13Kg8 14 Qg6+ Bg7 15 Qe6+ Kh7 16 Rg1 Rg8 17 Qxe3 Qxd4 18
Qxd4 Bxd4 19 Rxg8 Kxg8 20 0-0-0, about =.
(b) 9Bc8 10 Qf3 Nf6 11 Bxf6 exf6 12 0-0-0 Bh6+ 13 Kb1 0-0 14 Qg3
Kh8 15 d5 with sufficient compensation.
(c) 9Bg7 10 h3 h6 11 Bf4 Nf6 12 Nxf5 gxf5 13 Rg1 Rg8 14 Qd3, and
White has a lot of play for the two pawns.
(d) 9Qd7 10 Nxf5 gxf5 (10Qxf5 11 Qd2 f6 12 Bf4 g5 13 Bxb8 Qf3!
14 Rf1 Qe3+ 15 Qe2 Rxb8 16 Be6 Qxe2+ 17 Kxe2 h5 18 Rad1; for
example, 18Bg7 19 h3 Nh6 20 Ne4 Rd8 21 d5 with good chances for a
draw) 11 h3 Bh6 12 Qd2 Bxg5 13 Qxg5 Qxd4 14 hxg4 Qxc4 15 Rxh7
Qd4 16 Rxh8+ Qxh8 17 0-0-0 Nd7 18 gxf5 Qe5 19 Qg8+ Nf8 20 Qg5
Rd8 21 Rf1.
16 Qxf4 f5 17 Kf1 fxe4 18 Qxg4 Kd8 19 Ke2! Bh6 20 Raf1 Rf8 21 Ng2
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Chess Informant 82
Only $9.95!
NIC Yearbook 82
Only $9.95!
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Chess Informant 85
Only $9.95!
often preferable to positions where the pawn a2 becomes weak. There are
systems (for example with Nf6) when opening the a-file is absolutely
normal and even part of their main line. And in the Nge7 systems I have
always liked to face the b7-b5-b4 approach, rather than the solid b6.
Moreover, Richard Palliser doesnt mention another move at all: 1 e4 c5 2
Nc3 a6 3 Bc4. 3b5 4 Bxf7+!? (Al Hadhrani Attack) was analyzed in
my column Dont Name the Gambit after Me [9]. Maybe this would
have been too wild even for Anderssen, but there is a sound alternative: 4
Bd5!? Ra7 5 d3 e6 6 Bb3, and a later a2-a4 will soften up Blacks pawn
chain. It isnt entirely clear whether a bishop on b3 is a strong piece, but
we all have our personal favourites, and sometimes the Anderssen bishop
becomes a monster. The following two examples illustrate what a Bb3
can do in Closed Sicilian structures:
Bcker (2341) - Stone (2340)
Den Bosch 1999 (Toernooi voor de Toekomst)
Closed Sicilian [B23]
1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 Nc3 g6 4 d3 Bg7 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 g5 7 Bg3 d6 8 h4
g4 9 h5 a6 10 a4 Rb8 11 Nge2 Nf6 12 Nf4 Ne5 13 Ba2 e6 14 Nce2 Qa5
+ 15 c3 Bd7 16 Qb1 Rc8 17 0-0 Bc6 18 b4 cxb4 19 cxb4 Qb6 20 a5
Qa7
Boris Spassky
A more relevant game, from the big boys: Boris Spassky has been
successful with the Closed Sicilian (his candidates matches of the 1960s
are not forgotten) played other Anti-Sicilians like 3 b3, and he also knows
the Open Sicilian. Being well-versed in many systems can be useful. This
game begins as a Rossolimo Variation (3 Bb5), but the white bishop is
forced back to c4, and there it mutates into one of the strongest pieces on
the board.
Spassky (2560) Kasparov (2760)
A complex and roughly even position, [8]. However, after 15 Bf4 +/Black is in trouble.
6...d4 7 Ne4 Nxe4 8 Bxe4 Nd7
Kortchnois move: the knight goes to f6, so that Whites bishop on e4 has
to give up its menacing position.
9 0-0 Nf6 10 Bg2 Bd6 11 c3!?
11 d3 0-0 12 Bf4 Bg4 = Spassky Kortchnoi, USSR 1968. The text move
was new, but Kasparov finds a strong reply.
11...d3 12 Nf4 00 13 Nxd3 Bxg3 14 fxg3 Qxd3 15 Qf3 Qxf3 16 Bxf3
White has an excellent position and continued with the promising 14 Bg5,
to occupy the empty square d5 with his knight. There followed 14...h6 15
Bxf6 Bxf6 16 Nd5 Bg7 17 Rb1 Rxb1 18 Qxb1 Na5 19 Qb6 Nxc4 20
Qxd8 Rxd8 21 dxc4 Rd7 22 Nb6 Rc7 23 Nxc8 Rxc8 24 Rb1 +=, but (, 56). In [8] Palliser analyzes instead Adams suggestion of 14Be6 15
Nd5 Bxd5 16 exd5 Ne7 (unclear) on more than a page, overlooking 17
Qf3! +/- which is difficult to meet.
There are alternatives in the diagrammed position; for example, 14 Rb1
Rxb1 15 Qxb1 Na5 16 Nb6!? Nc6 17 Bg5 h6 18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 Ncd5 Be6
20 c3 Bg7 21 Qc2 Ne7 22 Nc4 Nxd5 23 exd5 Bc8 24 Qa4 +=, and Black
is on the defensive. Altogether, 9b5? just appears too aggressive and
wont find many followers.
Instead of striving too hard for complications, there are players and
variations who fall into the other extreme and simplify too much or too
soon. They apparently underestimate Whites better pawn structure.
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 e6 3 f4 d5 4 d3 dxe4?
Thanks to his better influence in the center, Whites pieces will occupy
the better squares. For example, 9Nbd7 10 Nf3 h5 (what else?) 11 Bd2
Ng4 12 h3 Nxf2 13 Kxf2. White does not have a direct attack, but in
almost every respect his position is somewhat better.
Sources:
[1] G. Lane: Winning with the Closed Sicilian, London 1992
[2] V. Ravikumar: The Closed Sicilian, Brighton 1993
[3] J. Gallagher: Beating the Anti-Sicilians, London 1994
[4] D. King: The Closed Sicilian, London 1997
[5] St. Bcker: Garri Kasparow und die Anti-Sizilianer, in Kaissiber 11
(1999)
[6] D. Rogozenko: Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for Black, London 2003
[7] R. Palliser: Starting out: Closed Sicilian, London 2006
[8] R. Palliser: Fighting the Anti-Sicilians, London 2007
[9] St. Bcker: Dont Name the Gambit after Me.
Lower Life
in the
Latvian Gambit
Part 1
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Chess Informant 82
Only $9.95!
NIC Yearbook 82
Only $9.95!
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line
Svedenborgs variation.
5 Qh5+ g6 6 Nxg6 hxg6 7 Qxh8
Many sources regard the safer 7 Qxg6+ as the main line. According to
[9], Svedenborg introduced 7...Kd7 (when White is only slightly better) in
1970 as an improvement upon George Brunton Frasers analysis of 1875,
7...Ke7 8 d4! (if 8 d3 Bh6, unclear). For example: 8...Qd6 9 Bg5+ Kd7 10
Qf5+ [9] etc. However, the surprising 8...e3! (instead of 8...Qd6) seems to
have been overlooked:
At first, the idea looks strange. Didnt the e4-pawn provide valuable
shelter for Blacks king? But the continuation 9 Bxe3 Qd6 10 Bg5+ Kd7
explains why Black sacrificed the pawn: 11 Qf5+ Qe6+ gives check and
forces the exchange of queens: 12 Qxe6+ Kxe6, with an unclear situation:
White has three pawns for a knight.
7...Kf7 8 Be2
Perhaps 8 Qd4 was better.
Chess Informant 85
Only $9.95!
13...Bh5
13...Nc6 14 f4 Qe7 15 f5 gxf5 16. 0-0 Nf6 17 Rxf5 Bxf5 18 Qxf5 Nd4
with sufficient compensation for the pawn.
14 d4?
Still engaged on many boards, GM Hecht overlooks an emergency door
for his queen: 14 f4! Qe7 (14...Qe8 15 f5 Nf6 16 fxg6+) 15 f5 Nf6 16 fxg6
+ Bxg6 (16...Ke8? 17 Bg5) 17 Qh4 +/-.
14Qe6 15 f4 Nf6, White resigns.
Leonhardts Variation
Paul Saladin Leonhardts 1928 article [1] mentions the new ideas and
practical successes with 2f5, achieved by Behting, Mattison and others,
while a clear White concept was missing. The author reasons that the
Latvian Gambit cant be correct, when the Kings Gambit is incorrect. For
him, 2...f5 belongs to the group of unsound systems which are not
revealed by Caissa.
Only the last quarter of the article gives his recommendation for White:
(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6) 4 Nc4!
In the endings after 11...Be6 12 Ne5 0-0 13 d4 Nc6 14 Bd3 Bf5 15 0-0
Bxd3 16 cxd3 or 11...Kd8!? 12 Ne5 Re8 13 d4 (13 f4 g5) 13...c5 14 c3
Nc6 15 f4 cxd4 16 cxd4 g5 17 fxg5 Qg7 18 Bb5 (18 0-0-0 Nxe5) 18...
Nxd4 19 0-0-0 Qc7+ Black has active pieces and reasonable drawing
chances.
The text move (5...Qf7) was Gunderams proposal in [2].
6 Ne3 c6 7 d3!
20Be7
Or 20...Bxf2+? 21 Rxf2 Qxc4 22 Bh6+ Kf7 23 Qg5 +-.
21 Bxg8 Rxg8 22 Bxf6 Rg6 23 Bxe7+ Kg8 24 h4 +- and White wins.
Melchors Three Suggestions
In his web article Another Look at the Latvian Gambit (2002), Jeremy
Silman wrote: I'm left wondering why people choose to play the Latvian
in the first place. Isn't this kind of gambit all about having fun and
fighting for the initiative? If so, why would anyone wish to play a gambit
that forces them to defend various pawn-down endgames where they can
make a draw at best? It seems clear to me that the Latvian Gambit is
refuted as a practical tournament choice. Though an ardent defender of
the Latvian Gambit, Alejandro Melchor (Spain) was almost inclined to
agree with Silman, considering the strength of the variations arising from
Leonhardts 4 Nc4. But instead he started a thread [11] to discuss the
remaining alternatives for Black. When it became clear that the main line
of the Leonhardt Variation was almost hopeless for Black, Melchor
proposed three possible solutions. Is one of them good enough to replace
the Leonhardt?
(A) (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3) 6...d
(B) (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3) 5...Na
(C) (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5) 3...Nf6
A. The Atars Variation 6d5!?
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3 d5!?
Black hurries to castle and to develop his pieces. The move is missing in
the books; only Diepstraten [5] has two games. His oldest example is 7
Nexd5 Bf5 8 Be2 Nc6 9 0-0 0-0-0 (0-1, 35) Jimenez Atars, K. Betins
Memorial 1971/72. But apparently the variation is now coming into
fashion. Melchor writes [11]: Latvian Gambit experts are currently
trying this relatively unexplored line. IMs I. Oren and I. Budovksis in the
past, and French C. Deneuville in our days, have drawn some games in
easy way. Melchors overview based on 22 games looks encouraging. In
any case White has to make some unusual decisions.
7 Ncxd5
7 Nexd5 Be6!? (7...c6 8 Nc3 transposes to the main line) 8 Bc4 Na6 [11]
is also interesting. 9 Bxa6?! bxa6! gives Black attractive play, but after
the flexible 9 b3, it might be difficult for Black to achieve full
compensation.
7...c6
Id prefer 7...Be6! 8 Bc4 Bd6 (8...Na6 9 Bxa6 Bxd5 10 Nxd5 Qxd5? 11
c4 [11] or 10bxa6 11 c4 is better for White) 9 0-0 c6!? 10 Nc3 Bxc4 11
Nxe4 Bxh2+ 12 Kxh2 Qc7+ 13 Kg1 Bxf1 14 Kxf1 with compensation,
analysis by Melchor [11]. This position should be playable for Black.
8 Nc3 Nf6 9 f3
White tries to avoid weaknesses on the d-file. This approach seems more
convincing than the examples with 9 d3 presented in [11]. 9 g3 also
comes into consideration. In the diagram situation there could follow:
9...Bc5 (perhaps intending 10 fxe4 Bxe3!?, to blockade Whites two extra
pawns on the square e5) 10 Be2! exf3 11 Bxf3 0-0 12 0-0 +/-, White is
clearly better.
B. The Dreibergs Variation 5Na6
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fxe4 5 Nc3 Na6
Diepstratens work [5] names the variation after Leonied Dreibergs
(1908-1969), who was born in Riga, but immigrated into the USA after
World War II.
6 a3!
Over the
Horizons
For the pawn deficit in the Latvian Gambit after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5
Black may not have compensation, but usually he can hope for
complications. Suppose there is a variation which leads to an early
exchange of queens and the prospect of further simplifications, while
Black still is a pawn behind and has no immediate idea how to regain it
would a Latvian Gambiteer choose it? Probably not, in most cases he
would rather give a second pawn to avoid frustrating simplifications, and
to generate some vague chances.
Stefan Bcker
Chess Informant 82
Only $9.95!
Chess Informant 85
Only $9.95!
Informant 95 (CD_
Only $5.95!
Kosten [6]: This time there is no need for Black to worry about Qh5+,
but on the other hand, he loses a whole pawn without embroiling White in
complex calculations. This doesnt sound encouraging, and I am sure
that my readers would now prefer a column on something more
aggressive, for example 3Qe7, an entertaining move from the 19th
century which Lodewijk Prins once played against the readers of his
column in the Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool. But after 4 Qh5+ g6 5
Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6 Be2 Nf6 7 Qh3 hxg6 8 Qxh8 Qxg2 9 Rf1 Kf7 the readers
followed the old Bilguer line 10 Qh4 (+/- [2]), running into problems.
Instead, 10 d4! would have been a clear improvement.
The move was called also sensible by Kosten [6]. In fact it might refute
3Qe7, for example 10Nc6 11 c3 Bg7 12Qh4 d6 13 Nd2, threatening
to catch Blacks queen (13 Bf3, resp. 12Qd5 13 Bc4 +-). 13g5 14
Qg3 +/- and Black has to exchange queens. Perhaps the text move (3
Nf6) isnt such a bad idea, if one of the main alternatives results in such a
bad ending
4 exf5
This fascinating and radical move order appeared in no less that five of
his eight Lwenthal games. For a better overview, the games are here
transformed to the standard version of the Latvian Gambit known to
you and me from our sporadic use of it in our coffeehouse practice. If the
German correspondence player is right to believe that the Lwenthal
Variation gives sufficient compensation for the pawn, while the rest of the
world thinks otherwise, the psychological pressure on White to prove an
advantage must be immense. I am indebted to Joachim Hunstock for the
permission to publish some of the most unusual Latvian Gambit games I
have ever seen. Sometimes he added a hint, which move he regarded as
better. The rest of the theory is mine, but of course it helps, if good
games guide you into the right direction.
4Qe7 5 Qe2
9 Nf3
Relatively best. After 9 Ndb5 Kd8, Hunstocks experiences in four games
prove that Black has excellent compensation for the pawn:
25g5!! 26 Bxg5 Rg8 27 Rae1 Rxe1 28 Bxf6 Re2 29 Rf2 Re6 30 Bh4 a4
31 Kf1 Rge8 32 Kg1 Re2 33 Bg5 Re1+ 34 Rf1 R8e2 35 Bf4 Kd7 36 b3
a3 37 Bg5 Kc6 38 Bf4 Kb5 01, Klee Hunstock, Corr. Cup
qualification, 1990. Played with reversed colors (1 e3 e5 2 e4 etc.).
(c) 10 a4!? a6 11 Na3 d5 12 d3 b5? (12Qf7!? Hunstock) 13 Nab1 b4 14
Nd1 Nc6 15 Qxe7+ Bxe7 16 Ne3 Re8 17 Be2 Bf8 18 h3 Ra7!?
15 Ba4
Or 15 Bd3 Kf7 16 Bf4 Re8+ 17 Kf1 d5 18 g3 g6 19 Kg2 Bg7, e. g. 20 h4
a6 21 Rhe1 Ne4 22 Kf3 Nc5 +=, because of the doubled black d-pawn
White has a slight advantage, but a draw seems the most probable result.
15d5 16 0-0 Kf7 17 Bf4 Bc5 18 Rfe1 Rhd8 19 Rad1 Ne4 20 Re2 Kf6
21 h4 h6 22 Bb3 g5 21 hxg5+ hxg5 24 Bh2 g4!? =
White can win a pawn, but not the game: 25 Bxd5 Rxd5 26 Rxe4 Bb6 27
c3 (27 Re2 Rb5 28 b3 Rbc5) 27Kf5 28 Re2 d3 29 Red2 Rcd8, and
Blacks passed pawn fully compensates the pawn deficit.
Variation B. 7 d3
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nf6 4 exf5 Qe7 5 Qe2 d6 6 Nf3 Bxf5 7 d3 Nc6
8 Qxe7+ Bxe7
White has serious problems. 15 f3 Rxd4 16 Nb3 Rd6 17 Be2 Re8 18 Kf2
Bc2 19 Rhe1 Bxb3 20 axb3 Rd2 21 Kf1 Nd5 22 Bb5 Rxe1+ 23 Rxe1 c6
24 Bc4 Rxb2 25 Re2 Rb1+ 26 Kf2 Kd7 27 Rd2 Kd6 28 g4 h6 29 h4 a5 30
Rd3 b5 31 Bxd5 cxd5 32 h5 Rc1 33 Ke3 Rc2 34 Kd4 a4 01, Remus
(USA) Hunstock, corr. WT/M/482. Played with reversed colors.
(b) 9 Nc3 0-0-0 (9d5 10 Bf4 0-0-0 11 0-0-0 Rhf8 12 a3 d4 13 Ne2 Bg4
14 Neg1 Be6 15 Re1 Bd5 16 Bg3 Nh5, and Black has compensation for
the pawn) 10 a3?! (strange, Hunstock; for 10 Be2 see 9 Be2 0-0-0 10
Nc3, below) 10d5 11 Be2 d4 12 Nd1 Rhe8 13 Nd2 Rd5 14 0-0 Bd6 15
Bf3 Rc5 16 Bxc6 Rxc6 17 Nf3 Rxc2 18 Nxd4 Rxc1 19 Rxc1 Bxd3 20
Ne3 Bxf1 21 Rxf1 Be5
22 Nb5 Bxb2 23 Nxa7+ Kb8 24 Nc4 Bd4 25 Nb5 Bc5 26 Nc3 Ne4 27
Nxe4 Rxe4 28 Nd2 Re2 29 Nc4 Ra2 30 Ne5 Bxa3 31 Re1 Bb2 32 Nd7+
Ka7 33 Nf8 Bd4 34 Rf1 c5 01, Seack Hunstock, Corr. Cup
preliminaries, 1990.
90-0-0 10 0-0
10 Nc3 d5 (more logical than 10Nb4 11 Nd4 [or 11 Bd1] 11...Bd7 12
a3 Nbd5 [0-1, 76] Jackson Diepstraten, corr. Atars Memorial 1985/87,
13 Bf3 +/-)
(a) 11 a3?! d4 12 Nb1 Rhe8 13 0-0
Black controls more space and his pieces are placed on the classical
squares, while Whites position is somewhat cramped. These factors may
be less important in such a simplified position, where the queens have left
the board. But still it seems possible that there is enough compensation
to hold the balance:
16 Rxe8 Rxe8 17 Bd2 g4!? 18 Nh4 Bd7 19 hxg4 Nxg4 20 Bxg4 Bxg4
21 Ng6 Nd4 22 Nxd5 Re2 +=
The rook on the second rank forces further simplifications. For example,
23 Bxh6 c6 24 Ngf4 Rxc2 25 Ne3 Ne2+ 26 Nxe2 Bxe3 27 Bxe3 Bxe2 28
b4 axb4 29 axb4 Bxd3, and Black should be able to achieve a draw.
Many open questions remain, but Blacks practical chances after 3Nf6
4 exf5 seem far better than the theoretical works suggest.
Sources:
[1] G. H. D. Gossip: Theory of the Chess Openings, 2nd ed. London 1891.
[2] S. Alapin: Falkbeerartige Wendungen, in: Deutsches Wochenschach
1907, p. 325.
[3] C. Schlechter (ed.): Handbuch des Schachspiels, 8th ed. 1916
[4] L. C. M. Diepstraten: Lettisch Gambiet. Deel 1, Venlo-Antwerp 1993.
[5] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit, London 1995.
[6] A. Lein, S. Pickard: The Latvian Gambit. A Grandmaster View, Dallas
1995
[7] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit Lives!, London 2001
[8] J. Silman: Splat the Lat and more on the Latvian Gambit.
[9] Latvian Gambit Refuted; chesspub.com.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Chess Informant 85
Only .99 cents!
Informant 92 (CD_
Only $5.95!
Informant 95 (CD_
Only $5.95!
Gambit Play
Zygmunt Nasiolkowski, Germany
A key move in the Morgado Defense 3 Bc4 Nf6 which we have entered
via a transposition of moves. Alternatives are worse:
(a) 5...fxe4? 6 Bg5! is hopeless: 6...Nc6 (or 6...d6 7 Nf7 Rg8 8 Nd6+
Qxd6 9 Bxf6; 6...c6 7 Nc3 d5 8 Bxd5! +-) 7 Nf7 Rg8 (7...Qb4+ 8 Nd2 d5
9 c3 Qxb2 10 Bxf6 Kxf7 11 Bxd5+ Kxf6 12 Nxe4+ with a winning
attack) 8 Nc3 Qb4 9 Ne5 Nxe5 10 Bxg8 Nxg8 11 dxe5 Qxb2 12 Bd2 and
wins.
(b) 5...d6? 6 Nf7! (even stronger than 6 Bf7+ Kd8 7 Bb3 dxe5 8 dxe5+
Bd7 9 exf6 Qxe4+ 10 Kf1 gxf6 11 Nc3 +/- Qg4 Pogats Szilagyi,
Hungary 1950; maybe 11...Qh4 instead would have slightly improved
Blacks chances for a draw) and now:
(b1) The move so far preferred in practice was 6...d5 7 Nxh8 dxc4 8 e5
Nd5 Markland Simm, Manchester 1967, when Blacks knight on d5 is
(a) 6 Nf7 d5 7 Nxh8 dxc4 8 e5 (note that 8 Nc3?! Be6 9 d5 0-0-0 is only
unclear, not nearly as convincing as it was after the time-wasting 5...d6? 6
Nf7 d5 above) 8...Nd5 may be playable for Black:
(a1) 9 h4!? Be6 10 c3 g6 11 Bg5 Qg7 12 h5 Be7 13 Bxe7 Kxe7 14 Nxg6
+ hxg6 15 h6 Rh8 16 Qc1 g5 17 hxg7 Rxh1+ 18 Kd2 Rxc1 19 Kxc1 Nf4
+=
(a2) 9 Qh5+ g6 10 Nxg6 hxg6 11 Qxg6+ Qf7 12 Qxf7+ Kxf7 13 c3 Be6
with sufficient compensation (0-1, 28), Pupols - Morgado, corr. 1970-72
[7].
(b) 6 Nc3 Nxe5 7 dxe5 Qxe5 8 0-0. Here Tony Kosten recommends 8...
Bd6!? 9 g3 fxe4 [7], but White could reply 10 Re1 Kd8 11 Nxe4!. More
precise seems the move-order 8...fxe4 9 Nd5 Nxd5 10 Bxd5 Bd6! (10...c6
11 Bxe4 Bd6 12 f4!?) 11 g3 c6 12 Bxe4 0-0 13 Qd3 h6 when Black can
probably hold, e.g. 14 c3 b6 15 Bf4 Rxf4!.
6...Nxe5
The main line in The Latvian Gambit Lives! [7] goes 6...fxe4 7 Nc3,
which would be quite acceptable for Black (transposing to 6 Nc3 above).
But White has a strong alternative: 7 Ng4! d5 (7...Nxg4 8 Qxg4 Nb4 9 d5
Qe5 10Re1 d6 11 Qd1 +/- or 8...d6 9 Qd1 Bf5 10 f3 0-0-0 11 fxe4 Qxe4
12 Rf4! Qxc2 13 Qf1! +/- g6? 14 Na3 Qa4 15 Bd2 +-) 8 Nxf6+ Qxf6 9
Bxd5 (9 Qh5+ Qg6 10 Qxd5 Bh3 11 Qg5 Nxd4 +=) 9...Bf5 10 Nc3 0-0-0
11 Be3
Black has no compensation for the pawn. But I cannot claim that the text
move is better, so it would be too hard to attribute a question mark to 6...
fxe4.
7 dxe5 Qxe5
The Argentinean correspondence player Juan Sebastian Morgado, after
whom the variation 3 Bc4 Nf6 is named, had preferred 7...Nxe4 to the
text move. But he never encountered the critical reply 8 Nc3! (while 8
Be3 Nc5 9 Nc3 Ne6 Saavedra - Morgado, corr. 1969, and 8 Qe2 d6 9 f3
Nc5 10 b4 Ne6 Maly - Morgado, corr. 1976, gave Black a reasonable
position; in fact Morgado won both games)
8...Nxc3 (8...c6 9 Nxe4 fxe4 10 Bf4, and pawn e4 will soon fall, with a
miserable position) 9 bxc3 c6 10 a4 Qh4 11 Bb3 Bc5 12 a5 f4 13 Ra4 g5
14 Be3! Be7 15 g3 Qh3 16 gxf4 h6 17 Re1 Rf8 18 Bc1 Bc5 19 Qd3 etc.,
+/- (at least). Other continuations are possible, for example 9...Qc5 10
Qd3 Be7 11 Rb1 Rf8 12 Re1 or 9...b5 10 Bxb5 Qe6 11 Qf3 c6 12 Ba4
Ba6 13 Bb3 Bc4 14 Bxc4 Qxc4 15 Qxf5, but there is nothing which Id
like to play for Black.
8 exf5
8 Nc3 allows Black to escape into a less critical line: 8...fxe4 9 Nd5 Nxd5
10 Bxd5 Bd6 11 g3 c6 12 Bxe4 0-0 +=. See 6 Nc3, instead of our main
line 6 0-0!.
8...Qxf5 9 Nc3
9 Re1+!? Kd8 (9...Be7? 10 Qe2 Qc5 11 b4 Qd6 12 Nc3 Qxb4 13 a3 +-)
and then:
(a) 10 Be6?! Qg6 11 Nc3 was successful in a corr. game Grava Grivainis, Betins Memorial 1970. Instead, the exchange of queens 10...
Qh5 11 Qxh5 Nxh5 would have limited Whites advantage (+=).
(b) 10 Nc3 is more straightforward, but there may be a small difference in
comparison with our main line, since now Black could try 10...Bc5 11
Be3 Bxe3 12 Rxe3 Qf4. I may be wrong, but the exchange of bishops
could make Blacks task easier:
10 Bd3!?
In a situation where Black is so much behind in development, White
usually isnt eager to exchange queens. Nevertheless the text move
involves such an exchange. After analyzing more complicated variations,
I got the idea that by taking the queens off the board White might already
have a technical win in an ending where Blacks half army is
slumbering on a8 and c8. While the following variations are not entirely
clear from a theoretical point of view, in practice the text move is quite
unpleasant for Black. He has practically no winning chances, the only
question remains whether Whites advantage is sufficient to win.
There are plenty of alternatives, but Ill mention only two:
(a) 10 Re1 Bc5 transposes to 9 Re1+ Kd8 10 Nc3.
(b) 10 h3 is a useful move which avoids Qg4. White intends to keep the
queens on board and hopes to profit from Blacks exposed king: 10...c6
11 Ne2 d5 12 Bd3 Qd7 13 c4, e.g.,
(b1) 13dxc4?! 14 Bxc4 Qxd1 15 Rxd1+ Bd7 16 Bf4 Bb4 17 Nd4 Kc8
18 a3 Ba5 19 Ne6 Re8 20 Rd6 Re7 21 Nxg7 Ne4 22 Rxd7 Rxd7 23 Be6
Kd8 24 Bxd7 Kxd7 25 Rd1+ Ke7 26 Be3 +/-, White has a sound extra
pawn.
(b2) 13Bd6 14 Qb3 (14 Be3 Re8 15 Qb3 Rxe3! 16 fxe3 Qe7 17 Rf3
dxc4 18 Bxc4 Qe5 and Black has considerable compensation for the
exchange) 14Re8 15 Rd1 (White has many alternatives, this line is just
an example) 15Kc7 16 cxd5 Nxd5 17 Nd4 a5 18 Nb5+ Kb8 19 a4 Qe7
20 Nxd6 Qxd6 21 Bxh7 g6 22 Qa3 Qxa3 23 Rxa3 Bf5 24 Rg3 Re6 25
Bg8 Rd6 26 Bxd5 Rxd5 27 Rxd5 cxd5 28 Rc3 (28 Rg5!? Kc7 29 g4 Be4
30 f3) 28b6 29 Bf4+ Ka7 30 g4 Bb1 31 Rc7+ Ka6 32 Be3 Rd8 33 Bd4
Rd6
(c) 12 Nd5 h6 13 Bd2 Bd6 14 Bc3 b6 15 Rad1 Bb7 16 Ne3 Be7 17 Rfe1
Bf6 18 Bxf6+ Nxf6 19 f3 with lasting pressure, e.g., 19Ne8 20 Bg6
Nd6 21 Ng4 Rf8 22 Rd4 Rb8 23 c3 Ba8 24 Ne5 b5 25 Bh5 Rb6 26 Bg4
Bc6 27 Rd2 Rf6 28 Rde2 Ra6 29 a3 with an advantage for White, but I
am not sure whether it is sufficient to gain a full point.
12Be7
12Nf6 13 Nd5 h6 14 Bxf6 gxf6 15 c3 c6 16 Nxf6 with an extra pawn.
13 Bxe7+ Kxe7 14 Rfe1+ Kd8 15 Nd5
15 Re3 Nf4 16 Rae1 comes into consideration.
15g6
The only alternative is 15c6!? (15h6? 16 Re2 is too slow) 16 Be2
cxd5 17 Bxh5 b6 18 Rad1 Bb7 19 Bf7 Rc8 20 Re2 Rc5 21 Red2
The rook endings after 21Ke7 22 Bxd5 Bxd5 23 Rxd5 Rxd5 (or 23
Rxc2) 24 Rxd5 Rc8 or 21Rf8 22 Bxd5 Bxd5 23 Rxd5 Rxc2 (23...Rxd5)
24 Rxd7+ Ke8 25 f3 Rf7 26 Rd8+ Ke7 27 R8d2 Rxd2 28 Rxd2 g5 offer
White good chances to play for a win, but if you are a pawn behind, a
playable rook ending might still be considered as a lesser evil.
16 g4 Ng7 17 Re3 c6 18 Nf6 Ne6
(a) 18Ne8?! must be worse: 19 Nxe8 Rxe8 20 Rae1 Re6 (20Rxe3 21
Rxe3 d6 22 Rh3 h5 23 f3 Rb8 24 Bxg6 hxg4 25 Rh8+ Kc7 26 fxg4 Bxg4
27 Rxb8 Kxb8 28 h4 +-) 21 f4 b5 22 Kf2 Rxe3 (22Kc7 23 Rh3) 23
Rxe3 d6 24 Rh3 h5
White has an extra pawn, and two of his pawns are passed pawns. Maybe
the simplest continuation is 31 Re7 (31 Kf2 Rg7) 31Raf8 32 Kf2 Kd6
33 Nxf8 Kxe7 34 Ng6+ Kf7 35 Kg3 Kg7 36 Ne5 with an eventual Ng4 to
break Blacks blockade on the black squares, or 35a6 36 Rh8. White
has good winning chances.
The Lwenthal Variation 3Nf6 remains an interesting alternative to 3
Qf6, but the analysis above shows that in the critical position after 8
Qxf5 White has some advantage. While 3Nf6 may not be objectively
better than 3Qf6, the move is still quite unknown and underestimated in
all sources on the Latvian Gambit printed on paper. It could be a useful
surprise weapon against anybody who has only a superficial knowledge
of the Latvian Gambits main line 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4.
Sources:
[1] G. H. D. Gossip: Theory of the Chess Openings, 2nd ed. London 1891.
[2] S. Alapin: Falkbeerartige Wendungen, in: Deutsches Wochenschach
1907, p. 325.
[3] C. Schlechter (ed.): Handbuch des Schachspiels, 8th ed. 1916
[4] L. C. M. Diepstraten: Lettisch Gambiet. Deel 1, Venlo-Antwerp 1993.
[5] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit, London 1995.
[6] A. Lein, S. Pickard: The Latvian Gambit. A Grandmaster View, Dallas
1995
[7] T. Kosten: The Latvian Gambit Lives!, London 2001
[8] J. Silman: Splat the Lat and more on the Latvian Gambit.
[9] Latvian Gambit Refuted; chesspub.com.
Leningrad Fashions
If you are waiting for a new opening book that provides a repertoire to
last a lifetime (as some publishers claim), it is a bit disappointing to
discover that a particular author needs more time for completing his work
because the theory keeps evolving. It seems we have to live with
openings that are in a continuous state of flux.
Over the
Horizons
The rapid evolution of the Leningrad Dutch, for example, where Black
fianchettoes his Bf8, makes it almost impossible to write an opening book
that is still useful after a decade. After 1 d4 f5 2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 g6 4 Nf3
Bg7 5 c4 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 Nc3, the last century has already seen several
best moves come and go.
Stefan Bcker
Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch
by Valeri Beim
Leningrad System
by Stefan Kindermann
The move was introduced in 1959 by Jorge Pelikan. His second game
from the diagrammed position went 8 Nd5 Nxd5 9 cxd5 h6 (later drawn)
Pugach Pelikan, Buenos Aires 1959. One of the novelties in the 1980s
that made the rare continuation so popular was 9Qb5! (0-1, 67) in
Uhlmann Espig, Leipzig 1983. Another inspiring maneuver was 8 Re1
Qf7! 9 Ng5 Qxc4 in Huzman Malaniuk, Kiev 1986.
There is nothing wrong with 7Qe8. However, in the last three decades
13 Bg5 (13 Qxd6 Be6 14 Bg5 Qf7 15 Bd2 Rad8 16 Qc5 Bxc4 17 Ng5
Qg8 18 Bc3 Nd4 =) 13Qe6 14 Be3 (14 e4 f4) 14e4 (better than 14
f4) 15 Ng5 Qf6 16 h4 (16 Qxd6 Qxd6 17 Rxd6 Bxb2 =) 16h6 17 Nh3
Qxb2 18 Nf4 Qf6 19 Rab1 Rd8 20 f3 exf3 21 Bxf3 Kh7 22 Rb3 Qe7 with
equal chances.
9Na6 10 Be3!
The critical continuation (missing in Hardings pioneer work [2], in other
respects still a highly useful book), the bishop is heading for its ideal
square d4. Nothing else poses Black major problems: 10 Nd4 Nc5 11 b4
Nce4 12 Nxe4 fxe4! (12Nxe4 13 Be3 Nf6 14 h3 a5 15 b5 Nh5 16 Qd2
Be5 17 Bh6 Bg7 18 Be3? Be5 19 Bh6 draw, Comas Fabrego Spraggett,
Spain 1999; 18 Bxg7 +/-) 13 Bb2 Qb6 14 Qb3 a5 = Tolstrup Bjorntoft,
Tastrup 2000. Black has fully equalized and later won the game.
10Bd7!
Black retains the option to move the knight to c7 and later perhaps to b5.
However, 10Nc5 occurred in several games and was even the main line
in ChessBase Magazine No. 65.
The plan Qa5, Rfc8 and the following Qd8 is a good defense found by
Kevin Spraggett. The alternative 12Nc7? is hardly convincing: 13 Qd2
Nb5 14 b4 Qa6 15 Nxb5 Qxb5 (15Bxb5 16 a4! +/-) 16 Ng5 Bh6 (16
Rac8 17 Rac1 b6 18 h4! h6 19 Nh3 Ng4 20 Nf4 Bxd4 21 Qxd4 Ne5 22
Qe3 Kf7 23 h5! g5 24 Ng6 Nxg6 25 hxg6+ Kf6 26 g4 +/-) 17 Be3 Bxg5
(17Ng4 18 a4! Qc4 19 Bf4, and again Black is in trouble) 18 Bxg5
Rfc8 19 Qb2 +/-.
13 b4
More dangerous than 13 e3, from a key game of the 7cxd5 variation,
Magai Spraggett, Istanbul 2000 (ol): 13Qd8 (13Nc7?! 14 b4 Qa6
15 a4 b5 16 a5) 14 Rc1 (+= Tyomkin)
(a) 14Qe8 15 Ng5 Nc5 (perhaps 15Nc7) 16 b4 h6 17 Ne6 Nxe6 18
dxe6 Bc6 19 Qb3 Bxg2 20 Kxg2 Qc6+ 21 f3 Qc4 22 Qxc4 Rxc4
23 Bxf6 Bxf6 24 Nd5 Rac8 25 Nxf6+ exf6 26 Rxc4 Rxc4 27 Rd1 Kf8 28
Rxd6 Rc7 29 Rd8+ Ke7 30 Rh8 Kxe6 31 Rxh6 g5 32 g4 Rc2+ 33 Kg3
fxg4 34 fxg4 b5 35 Rh7 a6 36 Ra7 Rc6 37 h4 gxh4+ 38 Kxh4 Kd5 39 Rd7
+ Ke6 40 Ra7 , Magai Spraggett, Istanbul 2000 (ol). In ChessBase
MegaBase 2008 the game is commented by D. Tyomkin.
(b) 14Nc5!? 15 Ng5 (15 b4 Na4 16 Nxa4 Rxc1 17 Qxc1 Bxa4 18 Ng5
+= is an analysis by Tyomkin, but 15Nce4! 16 Nxe4 Nxe4 equalizes)
15h6 16 Ne6 Nxe6 17 dxe6 Bc6 18 Qb3 Qe8
18Bb5
Or 18Qe8 19 Nd4 Ba4 20 Qd3 Nb8 21 e4 (21 Nc6 Rc2) 21Nd7 22
exf5 Ne5 23 Qe3 Ng4 24 Qe4 gxf5 25 Qf4 Ne5 26 Rac1 Qg6 27 Qd2 Qf6
28 f4 Nd3 29 Rxc4 Rxc4 30 Ne2 Nb2, and Black might survive. The
variation is a mess, and I am not sure how forced it really is, or whether it
is worse than our main line. Ground to be explored.
19 Re1 e5 20 dxe6 Qxg5 21 Nd4 Rc3
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The first book on the Englund Gambit was written by Henry Grob. In his
correspondence practice the text move was seen more often than the
alternatives 4 Qd5, 4 Nc3 or 4 Bg5. So I named 4 Bf4 the Grob
Variation. However, our database shows a different picture: the
committal 4 Bf4 is chosen in only eighteen percent of the games. In
modern tournament play apparently safety comes first: 4 Nc3 and 4 Qd5
(ECOs favorite) are the top choices. On fourth place, behind 4 Bf4, there
is 4 g3, followed by 4 e4, 4 Nbd2 and some others. None of these
alternatives is a reason to give up the Englund Gambit.
Understanding the
Sacrifice
by Angus Dunnington
10 Qxd2 Kd8 11 e4
Blacks position isnt impressive, but what can White do? If 22 0-0 Bd7,
or 22 Be2 dxe5!? 23 fxe5 c6 24 Ne3+ Kc7. In both cases Black should be
able to consolidate.
B. Immediate Exchange: 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5
Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Nd5 Bxd2+
This was my main line in [2], but I am not sure anymore whether it is
better than 8Ba5 (A).
9 Qxd2 Qxa2 10 Rd1 Kd8 11 Ng5 Nh6 12 e6! d6
13 exf7!
There were a few problems with my analysis in [2], which ran: 13 e7+
Kd7 14 Nxh7! (14 g3) 14Nf5 15 Nf8+ Kd8 16 Nxc7+ Kxe7 17 Nxa8
Kxf8 +/. First of all, 14 g3 is not really an alternative, because of 14
Qa5 15 Bh3+ f5. Secondly, the last move in the variation isnt forced.
Instead of 17Kxf8, Black might postpone the decision how to take the
Nf8 for a happier moment: 17Nfd4!
I have my doubts whether White can convert his advantage into a full
point: 31 Ra1 Kb6 32 Rd1 Kc6 33 h3 a5 34 Nd5 c4 35 Ne7+ Kc5 36 Rd7.
Finally, the rook breaks into Blacks position. But apparently Black has
enough counter play with 36Ra8 or 36b4+.
The text move (13 exf7!) wasnt even mentioned in my article [2], but it
offers substantial winning chances for White.
13Qa5
13Rf8? 14 Nxc7 Kxc7 15 Qxd6+ Kb6 16 Ne4 (threatening 17 Nc3!)
16Qxc2 17 Nd2! Rxf7 18 Rb1+ Qxb1+ 19 Nxb1 Nf5 20 Qd5. White
has traded R + N for his opponents queen, and should win.
14 c3
More promising than 14 Qxa5.
14Rf8 15 Nxh7 Rxf7 16 Ng5 Rf8 17 g3 Ne5 18 Bg2 Nhf7 19 Nxf7+
Rxf7 20 Qd4 +/-
But is that ending lost? If this line were relevant for the correctness of the
Englund Gambit, we should perhaps look closer. There are only a few
pawns left, pawn e5 is weak, Whites Bg2 doesnt control the square h8,
and all rook endings are drawn anyway. After 25Qc3+ 26 Qd2 Qxd2+
27 Rxd2 a5 28 Bf3 Rc7 29 0-0 Ke7, an easy win for White is not in sight
(and perhaps there is no win at all).
Both lines, A and B, are unpleasant for the second player. Objectively, the
situation hasnt changed much since my last article. But the picture has
become more complicated, in comparison with the relatively short
analysis that I published three years ago.
Sources:
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
However, in the second of these columns [2] attentive readers noticed a short
sentence, halfway into the article on page four: Improvements for Black are
needed. Although well-hidden in this fine print, I couldnt deny that the
following variation was a major threat for the whole defense: 1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5
3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 Nc6 5 d5! Ne5 6 exf5 Nxd3+ 7 Qxd3 Qd7 8 Nge2! (Ortwin
Thal) 8Qxf5 9 Qc4. Here White is simply much better (+/-); for more
details see [2].
Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch
by Valeri Beim
Leningrad System
by Stefan Kindermann
It took a while until I regained my sympathy for Baloghs Defense. The key
idea, studied in Kaissiber 30 (2008) [4], was to change Blacks move-order 1
e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4! 5 Nxe4 Nc6!
Michael Tcharotschkin
The Kaissiber article didnt cure all of Blacks problems, but at least it had
one positive effect (which also answers my rhetorical question in the last
column, whether there is anybody who reads my articles): it inspired another
German player, Michael Tscharotschkin, to start playing Baloghs Defense.
He is the man behind a website that announces forthcoming tournaments. Not
surprisingly, he is an active tournament player himself, with 103 resp. 82
games rated by FIDE in the last two years. I hasten to mention another detail
from the FIDE data available on the Internet: Tscharotschkins official FIDE
score with the black pieces is 70 wins, 41 losses and only 32 draws.
No doubt, the Balogh Defence was a fitting acquisition for his repertoire. He
has since played the system with success, in more than a dozen games.
Michael Tscharotschkin was so kind not only to share these games with me,
but even submitted detailed analyses in critical positions in short, he did
most of the hard work for the following part of the article. (Note: For the
theoretical part below, MT stands for Michael Tscharotschkin, SB for Stefan
Bcker.)
White Accepts the Sacrifice
J. Hernando Rodrigo (2377) M. Tscharotschkin (2236)
Open Badalona (Spain), August 5, 2008
Baloghs Defense [A82]
1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nc6!? 6 Nxf6+
Calmer alternatives 6 c3 and 6 Nf3 are discussed in the second part of this
article.
6exf6 7 Qh5+
7 c3 was analyzed in Kaissiber 30 [4]. I gave the following analysis of the
innocent looking, but dangerous developing move: 7...Be6 8 Ne2 d5 9 Nf4
Bf7 10 0-0 Qd7 11 Re1+ Be7
Blacks position is passive, but solid. There might follow 12 Nh5 0-0 13 Qf3
For the sacrificed exchange, Black enjoys a strong and lasting attack against
Whites king, while his own majesty often castles long and watches the battle
from a safe distance.
10 Be3
My Kaissiber article [4] had a laconic 10 Kd1 Bf5, comp. for the
alternatives. Once again this proves how different things can look in practice.
At this point three of Tscharotschkins opponents must have felt that Black
came too prepared for these complications. So they decided to opt out in
time by choosing one of the less probable replies:
(a) 10 Kd1 Bf5 11 Nf3 0-0-0 12 Re1 (12 Qh4 g5 13 Qg3 (13 Nxg5?? Re8!!
+ FM Thomassen Tscharotschkin, Benidorm 2008) 13...Qe4 14 Ne1 Nxd4 =
+ Navarro Lopez-Menchero Tscharotschkin, Benidorm 2008) 12...Qf7 13
Bh6 Qc4 14 Re2 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Qxd4+ 16 Ke1 =, analysis by
Tscharotschkin.
(b) 10 Kf1 and now
(b1) 10...Be6 11 Nf3 Nxd4 12 Bh6 Bc4+ 13 Kg1 Ne2+ 14 Kf1 0-0-0 15 b3
Ba6 16 c4 d5 17 Rd1 Kovermann Tscharotschkin, Schwbisch Gmnd
2009.
10...Nb4!
10...Nxd4? 11 000! +/- Lundeby - Jansson, Oslo 2007.
11 Kd2
My article focused on this move, preferred by the software, and gave another
idea short shrift: 11 0-0-0 Qe4! 12 Rd2 Qxg2 13 Bh6 Be6! =+ [4]. Michael
Tscharotschkin agrees that Kd2 is the normal move, but as it often happens
with human adversaries, two of them went astray:
(a) 11 0-0-0. MT: Looks good at first sight, but it has a drawback: 11...
Qe4!. The next moves are forced: 12 Rd2 Qxg2 13 Bh6 Be6 14 Qxf8+ Kd7
15 Qg7+ (the rook is taboo: 15 Qxa8?? Nxa2+ 16 Kb1 Qf1+ 17 Rd1 Qxd1+
18 Bc1 Qxc1 mate, MT) 15...Kc6
(a1) 16 b3 Qxh1 17 Qxg6 Rg8 18 Bg7 Qxh2 19 c3 (19 Qxf6?? Qxg1+ 20 Kb2
+ Walton Tscharotschkin, Calvia 2008) 19...Nd5 20 c4 Nf4 21 d5+ Kb6 22
Qg3 Qxg3 23 fxg3 Rxg7 24 dxe6 Nxe6 -/+, analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(a2) 16 d5+ is the best move, but hard to find! (MT) 16...Bxd5 17 b3 Qxh1
18 Qxf6. The resulting situation seems critical for the assessment of 11 0-0-0.
A possible continuation is 18...Qxg1+ 19 Kb2 b6 20 Qc3+ Kb7 21 Qxb4 =+,
Tscharotschkin.
(b) 11 c3 Nc2+ 12 Kd2 Nxa1 13 Bh6 Be6 14 Qxf8+ Qxf8 15 Bxf8 Kxf8 16
Nf3 Nb3+ 17 axb3 Bxb3 = Cabello Rodriguez Tscharotschkin, Malaga
2008.
11...Bf5 12 g4!?
So far the players had followed my article [4]. The advance of the g-pawn is
an interesting novelty. After 12 Rc1, there might follow
(a) 12Nxa2 (! in my 2008 Kaissiber article [4]) 13 Re1 Qf7 14 Bg5+ Kd7
15 Qxf6 Qc4 16 Re3 Qxc2+ 17 Ke1 d5 18 f3 Qxg2 (in [4] I gave 18...Bd6 19
Re2 Qb1+ 20 Kf2 Nc1 21 Bxc1 Qxc1 22 g4 Be4 23 Qf7+ Kc6 24 fxe4 Rf8 25
Nf3 Qxh1 26 exd5+ Kb5 27 Qxf8 Bxf8 28 Re1 Qxe1+ 29 Kxe1 Kc4 =) 19
Re7+ Bxe7 20 Qxe7+ Kc6 21 Qc5+ Kd7 =, analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(b) However, in the diagrammed position, Michael Tscharotschkin isnt
satisfied with mere equality! MT: I prefer 12...0-0-0!?, because here Black
can still fight for a win!
(b1) 13 a3 Na2 14 Rd1 Qe4 15 Ne2 Qxc2+ 16 Ke1 Re8 17 Qxf6 Bg4 18 f3
Bd7 19 Qf4 (19 Kf2 Bh6 20 Bxh6 Rxe2+ 21 Kg3 Rxg2+ 22 Kf4 b6 +, MT)
19...Bb5 20 Rd2 Qb1+ 21 Rd1 Qxb2 22 Rd2 Qb1+ 23 Kf2 Qxh1 24 Rxa2
Qb1 25 Rd2 (25 Qf7 Qd3 +, MT) 25...d5 26 a4 Bd6 27 Qf7 Bxa4 28 Qxd5
(28 Nc3 Qb3 +, MT) 28...Bb5 +, analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(b2) Maybe 13 Ne2 (which MT also mentions, without analysis) is stronger.
Then 13Nxa2 14 Ng3 Nxc1 15 Nxf5 Nb3+!? can lead to an amusing
voyage of Whites king: 16 Kc3!? (16 cxb3, about =) 16gxf5 17 Kxb3 (the
point: White avoids a weakness in his pawn chain) 17Qe6+ 18 Kc3! (he has
to return: 18 Ka3? Qc4! -/+) with roughly equal chances. There is an even
more aggressive continuation, namely 13Qf7 (instead of 13Nxa2) 14
Ng3 Bd7.
14Nxc2?
A serious mistake. Correct was 14...Bxc2! 15 a3 Nd5 16 Kxc2 (16 Re1?! Ba4
17 Bh6 Qd7 18 g5 f5 19 Qf1 Bb5 20 Qf2 Bc4 21 Nh3 Qa4 22 Kc1 Bd3 23
Qd2 Qc6+ 24 Kd1 Qa4+ 25 Kc1 Nb4 26 Qd1 Na2+ 27 Kd2 Qxd4 28 Nf4 Bb5
+ 29 Kc2 Qxf4 +, MT) 16...Nxe3+, Black has a winning position: 17 Kb1
Nc4 18 Ka2 Qe6 19 Rd1 Ne3+ 20 d5 Nxd5 21 Ka1 Ne3 22 Rc1 Qb3 23 Rc3
Qd1+ 24 Ka2 Nd5 25 Rb3 Re8 26 g5+ f5 27 Qh8 a5 +, analysis by
Tscharotschkin.
At this point our main game Hernando Rodrigo Tscharotschkin,
Badalona 2008, loses its theoretical value. We give the rest in short
(comments by SB):
15 fxe4 Nxa1 16 Ne2? (16 g5+! f5 17 exf5? Qe4 -+, but instead 17 Ne2! Nc2
18 exf5 Qd7 19 Kxc2! is strong) 16...Nc2 17 Nc3 Nxe3 18 Qxe3 c6 19 d5 c5
20 h4 Bg7 21 h5 Rh8 22 Kc2 (better 22 Qf3!, to prevent the freeing move f6f5) 22...f5! = 23 gxf5 Bxc3 24 bxc3 gxf5 25 Kd3 Re8? (25...Qe5! 26 h6 b5
with a strong attack) 26 e5 dxe5 27 Kc4 Kb8 (27Qd7!) 28 h6 Qd7! +
(a) 6 c3 e5 (here the analysis in [4] ended, SB) 7 Bg5 Be7 8 Bxf6 (8 Nxf6+
Bxf6 9 Qh5+ Kf8 and now either 10 Bxf6 Qxf6 = or 10 Nf3 exd4 11 Bxf6
Qxf6 12 0-0 dxc3 13 bxc3 g6 14 Qh6+ Qg7, and now White gambits a pawn,
but the position is equal) 8...Bxf6 9 d5 (9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 Qh5+
g6 12 Bxd7+ Nxd7 13 Qd5 Qe7 14 0-0-0 (or 14 Qxb7 Rb8 15 Qd5 Bxc3+ 16
bxc3 Nf6 17 Qc6+ Kf8 18 f3 Rb6 19 Qa4 d5 20 Nh3 dxe4 21 fxe4 Qxe4+ 22
Qxe4 Nxe4 23 0-0+ Kg7 =) 14...0-0-0 =) 9...Nb8 (better than 9...Ne7 10 Qh5
+ Kf8 11 Nxf6 gxf6 12 Qf3 +=) 10 Nf3 0-0 11 0-0 Nd7 12 Qc2 Qe7 =,
analysis by Tscharotschkin.
(b) 6 Ne2 e5 7 c3 Nxe4 8 Bxe4 d5 9 Bc2 Bd6 10 0-0 0-0 11 dxe5 Bxe5 12 f4
Bf6 +=, Tscharotschkin.
6g6
6...Nb4!? came into consideration: 7 Ne2 Nxd3+ 8 Qxd3 Nxe4 9 Qxe4 Qd7
10 d5 Qg4!; e.g., 11 Nf4 g5 12 f3 Qf5 13 Nh5 Qxe4 14 fxe4 Bg4 15 Bd4 Rg8
16 Ng3 Bg7 17 Bxg7 Rxg7 18 Kd2 e5 and Black is only slightly worse.
7 h4
7 Nxf6+ exf6 8 Ne2 d5 9 c3 += (cf. the first game, note 7 c3).
7...Nxe4 8 Bxe4 d5 9 Bf3 Be6 10 Ne2 Bg7 11 Qd2
Maybe 11 Nf4!? was more promising.
11...Qd7 12 b4 a5 (or 12Bg4 =) 13 b5 Nd8 14 Rb1
Both sides suffer from serious weaknesses, so it seems only fair to say that the
chances are balanced. The software suggests 14...Bg4 15 Bxg4 Qxg4 16 Kf1
Nf7, about equal (SB).
One game continued, not worse, but differently: 14...Nf7 15 c4 c6 16 bxc6
bxc6 17 c5 (17 cxd5 Bxd5 18 Bxd5 cxd5 19 Qd3 0-0 20 h5 g5 21 0-0 Qg4!,
unclear; SB) 17...Bf5 18 Rb6 e5 19 Nc3 0-0 20 0-0 (1-0, 32) R. Pabalan
M. Tscharotschkin, Dubai Open 2009. Black could have secured a small
advantage by 20Rae8 =+.
Reviving the Old Main Line
1 e4 d6 2 d4 f5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nc6
Lets assume for a moment that the exchange sacrifice (6 Nxf6+ exf6 7 Qh5+
etc.) is correct, and that the positional 7 c3 isnt a big threat to the soundness
of Blacks move-order either. What else could White try?
6 Nf3
Of course. Even if Blacks move-order-enterprise to avoid 4Nc6 5 d5 is
successful, we should never forget that there still remains the main line, which
the text move reaches by a transposition of moves. True, this was what Black
had intended, but if we look back to my two columns [1] and [2], Black ended
a bit too often in very, to put it mildly, adventurous positions:
6Bg4 7 h3 Bh5 8 Ng3 Bxf3 9 Qxf3
But fortunately Michael Tscharotschkin proposes something different even in
this case:
9d5!?
Tscharotschkin: I like this move more than the dangerous 9Nxd4 10.
Qxb7, when White seems to have a good position. Okay, I am not infallible.
But even if Id admit for a second that the positions after 9Nxd4 are a bit
risky for Black, we still have a small conflict, since I had claimed in [1] that
None of the alternatives is playable: (a) 9...d5 10 c3 g6 11 Bg5 Bg7 12 0-0-0
Qd7 13 h4 etc. Who is right?
10 c3
In an unpublished analysis [3], Dr. Ortwin Thal, my conqueror in the
correspondence game studied in [2], continues 10 Bb5 Qd7 11 Bg5 a6 12
Bxc6 Qxc6 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 14 Rhe1 Qa4 15 Kb1 +/- (O. Thal). Id prefer a
more chaotic approach: 11Qe6+!?
(a) 12 Kd1 Ne4! 13 Nxe4 dxe4 14 Qg4 Qd5 15 Bxc6+ bxc6 16 Re1 Qxd4+ 17
Kc1 Qxf2 18 Qxe4 0-0-0 19 a4 g6 20 Kb1 Qc5 21 h4 h6 22 Be3 Qd5 23 Qg4
+ e6 24 Bxa7 h5! (Black wishes to play Bb4, but the square is still watched by
the queen) 25 Qh3 Kb7 26 Bg1 Bb4! 27 c3 Bd6 with an unclear position.
(b) 12 Kf1 0-0-0 (now 12Ne4? 13 Nxe4 dxe4 14 Qg4 is premature) 13 Re1
Ne4! (or perhaps 13Qd7 14 Qc3 h6! 15 Bf4 e6) 14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 Qxe4
Nxd4 16 Qxe6+ Nxe6 17 Bc1 (17 Rxe6 Rd1+ 18 Re1 Rd5) 17Rd6 18 g3
g6; for example, 19 Kg2 Bg7 20 Bc4 Kd7 21 Re4 Nc5 22 Re2 Bf6 +=.
10e5
Tscharotschkins improvement upon my analysis in [1]. I checked my old
files to find out what I had missed.
11 Qe2 Qe7 12 Nf5
12 dxe5 Nxe5 13 Bc2 Nc4 14 Qxe7+ Bxe7 15 Nf5 Kf7 +=, Tscharotschkin.
12...Qe6 13 dxe5 Qxe5 14 Be3 g6!
Here my old analysis went 140-0-0, which in fact seems to be weaker.
15 Nh4
He can also try 15 f4 Qe6 16 Nd4 Nxd4 17 Bxd4 Qxe2+ 18 Kxe2 Bg7 19
Rhe1 0-0 +=, SB.
15Bg7 16 Nf3 Qe7 17 0-0-0 0-0-0 +=
So far Michael Tscharotschkins analysis. His assessment seems correct.
Id still say that 9Nxd4 offers attractive chances for Black as well, since
there are many traps waiting for White (for more details see [1] and [2]. But
the alternative 9d5 is more solid, apparently it is in fact objectively the
better move. Almost certainly it is the one line that is easier for Black to learn
and handle in OTB play.
Dont expect a quiet afternoon when you play Baloghs Defense. Your pawn
structures will be asymmetrical, now and then a white knight will land on the
square e6, upon which you better have a good reply at hand. But there are
many lines that will score heavily for Black, first and foremost the exchange
sacrifice. A defense that generates chaos on the board cannot be much worse
for the second player.
Sources:
[1] S. Bcker: Symmetry and Chaos: Baloghs Defense, ChessCafe.com,
September 2006.
[2] S. Bcker: The Roulade Game, ChessCafe.com, January 2007.
[3] O. Thal: Unpublished Analyses, 2005-2007, which I partly used for [2].
[4] S. Bcker: Vertrautes Chaos, in Kaissiber 30 (2008).
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Pachman's Verdict
The book The Easiest Sicilian (by Kolev and Nedev) covers a repertoire for
Black mainly based on the Sveshnikov Variation. Certainly the Sveshnikov is
a sound system, and it is relatively easy to understand, because the
characteristic pawn structure with black pawns on e5 and d6 and a hole on d5
limits the possibilities for both sides. But there are other systems in the
Sicilian Defense which are, in my opinion, easier to learn. One of my personal
favorites is 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6.
Over the
Horizons
B33 Sicilian Defence
by Chess Informant
Stefan Bcker
In spite of the strange appearance of Black's second move the set-up is more
reasonable than it looks. The concept was developed in the 1980s in
cooperation with Gerard Welling (Netherlands), we tested it in several games.
My article of six pages published in NIC Yearbook 18 (1990) called it the
Bcker-Welling Variation. A recent database reveals at least three earlier
games, played in 1967 by Werner Stephan (Germany). A key idea is the
continuation 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5 d6, already played by
W. Stephan, when the move h7-h6 is more useful in respect to the coming
fight for square d5 than Sveshnikov's Nc6.
My Best Games
in the Sveshnikov
by Alexei Shirov
Starting Out:
Sicilian Sveshnikov
by Jon Cox
The pin Bg5 is avoided, and the Nb8 can often go directly to d7 instead of
taking the long way Nb8-c6-b8-d7, as in some lines of the Sveshnikov. Every
white knight that arrives at d5 will be mercilessly exchanged. Altogether
Black seems so much better prepared for the positional fight ahead that I used
to regard 2h6 as an improved version of the Sveshnikov. In a game
Schnthier Bcker, German Championship Bad Neuenahr 1984, White
played:
7 Be3
On the straightforward 7 Nd5 Nxd5 8 Qxd5 my article gave 8Be7! (8a6?
is premature because of 9 Bc4) 9 Be3 a6 10 Nc3 (or 10 Na7 Nd7) Nd7
followed by 11Nf6 (=) [1], but Werner Stephan's solution was by no means
worse: 8Nc6 9 Be3 a6 10 Nc3 Be6 11 Qd2 Rc8 = (0-1, 50) Bernhard
Black has successfully solved his opening problems. Instead of 11 Nxb4 Qa5
12 Nac2 Nxe4 [1] or 12Bb7 13 Be2 d5, with unclear play, or 11 Nc2 a5
with rough equality, Frank Schnthier now blundered and lost: 11 Qa4? Nxd5
12 cxd5 bx3 13 b4 Be7 -+ (0-1, 23).
In analogy to 2a6, another move that hopes for 3 d4?! cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5
Nc3 e5!, the text move may be critical. Other alternatives were covered in
more detail in [1]. Here I give only some hints:
(a) 3 d4 cxd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 Nxc3, in Morra Gambit style, was tried in Marxen
Steffens, Schleswig-Holstein 1991 (0-1, 65).The sacrifice can be declined by
4Nf6 5 e5 Nd5, which transposes to our main line.
(b) 3 b3 d6 4 Bb5+ (4 Bb2 e5; or 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Nf6 6 Nc2 Nc6, about =,
Nagy Welling, Budapest 1984 [1]) 4Bd7 and Black has a solid position.
(c) 3 c4 g5 is a position that could also arise via Myers' Defense 1 c4 g5 (an
unusual topic on which Maurits Wind wrote in Kaissiber 34), but the position
of White's knight on f3 improves Black's chances: 4 d4 (4 h3 costs time, but
may be better) 4g4!? (the article [1] discusses 4Bg7 5 d5 d6) 5 Ng1 (both
5 Nh4 e5! or 5 Ne5? cxd4 6 Qxd4 Bg7 must be worse for White) 5cxd4 6
Qxd4 Nf6 7 Nc3 Nc6 8 Qd1 d6 9 Nge2 Bd7
The early h7-h6 restricts White's options, 6 Bc4 e5 7 Bb5+ at least gains a
tempo on a double-edged variation, and 6 a4 g6!? is an improved Dragon. In
the diagrammed position, White probably has nothing better than 6 Be3 a6!
(6e5 7 Bb5+ was good for White in Vuckovic Popovic, Zlatibor 2007,
and Navara Vokac, Pardubice 2002) 7 f3 (if 7 Qd2, the reply 7Ng4 is an
option, because g5 is not available to the bishop):
(d1) 7e6 8 Qd2 Nbd7 9 0-0-0 b5 10 g4 Bb7 11 h4 Rc8 (=, 41) Slter
Werner Stephan, Detmold 1966.
(d2) 7e5! 8 Nb3 Be6 9 Qd2 Nbd7 10 0-0-0, and we are entering a main line
of the Najdorf Variation, where the move h7-h6 is often played as a reaction
to White's g2-g4. It isn't obvious how White could profit from Black's slightly
unusual move-order. To claim that 2h6 were "easier to learn" than other
second moves, and then transpose to a line of the Najdorf Variation may be
considered as a contradiction. But you can't have everything. May it suffice to
say that after 2h6 few White players will be inclined to transpose to regular
main lines without a fight.
3Nf6
A reasonable response, strangely ignored in my article [1].
4 e5 Nd5 5 d4
Against the O'Kelly Variation of the Sicilian Defense, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 a6!?, the
analogous treatment 3 c3 Nf6 (3d5 is a major alternative) 4 e5 Nd5 5 d4 is
regarded as one of the critical lines. The database contains 150 games with the
latter position, and famous players like Barcza, Prins, Stahlberg, Kholmov,
Kortchnoi, Gurgenidze and Ikonnikov were fighting for Black's cause. Here
isn't the place to discuss this situation, and the practical results have not been
overwhelming. But it isn't obvious (at least to me) that a7-a6 must be more
useful than the move h7-h6 in the diagrammed situation. While the a6-version
has been a regular guest on the boards, there is not a single game in the
database with the analogous h7-h6 position. Instead of the text move, 5 Bc4
Nb6 6 Bb3 d5 7 exd6 Qxd6! (7exd6 8 d4 c4 9 Bc2 Be6 10 d5! is a
promising gambit; e.g., 10Bxd5 11 a4 a5 12 0-0 Be7 13 Nd4 0-0 14 Bxh6)
gives Black an acceptable position again the analogous case with the move
a6 is less attractive (8 d4!).
5cxd4 6 cxd4
(a) In the O'Kelly Variation (a6 instead of h6), 6 Bc4! Nb6 7 Bb3 is a critical
continuation; for example, 6Nb6 7 Bb3 dxc3? 8 Ng5 or 8 Nxc3 followed by
Ne4 and Bg5 with a strong attack. Because of the move h6, in our case the
gambit may be "acceptable" for Black. Another treatment that only works in
the h6-version is 6 Bc4 e6!? 7 Bxd5 exd5 8 Qxd4 Nc6! 9 Qxd5 d6
Both 10 Bf4 Qb6! 11 Qb3 Qa6 (11dxe5!?) 12 exd6 Be6 13 Qa3 Qc4 14
Be3 Qd3 15 Nbd2 Bxd6 16 Qa4 0-0 17 Rd1 Qg6 18 0-0 Rad8 and 10 exd6
Bxd6 11 Qe4+ Be6 give Black excellent compensation for the sacrificed
pawn. Note that in the last case, if Black had the pawn on a6 instead of h6, 12
Ng5 +/- would be a clear refutation.
(b) 6 Qxd4 e6 deserves attention: 7 Be2 (7 Bc4 Nc6 8 Qe4 d6 0-0 dxe5 10
Nxe5 Qc7, or 9 exd6 Nf6 =) 7Nc6 8 Qe4 d6 9 0-0 dxe5 10 Nxe5
bxc3 d5 12 Bd3 Bd7, Black's king will stay in the center (+=). An active
solution such as 11dxe5 12 dxe5 Qc7, even if objectively riskier, would be
more to my taste.
7Be6!
Motivated by the additional h6, which prevents Ng5. The text move seems
flexible enough to guarantee sufficient counterplay, more in the spirit of an
Alekhine's Defense (the combined attack on e5) than of a Sicilian Defense.
8 Bd3 Nc6 9 0-0
There is nothing better: 9 Be4 dxe5, resp. 9 Be3 g5 10 exd6 Qxd6, about =.
9g5 10 Qe2
10 h3 is a bit slow: 10dxe5 11 Nxe5 Nxe5 12 dxe5 Bg7 13 Bb5+ Kf8 14
Qe2 Nxc3 15 bxc3 Rc8 16 Rb1 Rc5! unclear.
10g4 11 Nh4
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Just a Game
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
I knew that it had to end, one day. We are living in a world of fugacity.
However, there are always a happy few which seem bigger than life. Angela
Merkel, for example. The Soviet Union. Or Garry Kasparov, a former World
Champion, remembered till today for the 10.3 gigabytes of analyses that he
had collected when he decided to step down. Data that is now probably
inhabiting a USB stick in a Norwegian laptop.
Sorry, I digress. But even for the greatest the long stream of victories
suddenly comes to an end. Often caused by their own hubris. Finally it has
happened even to my former pet defence, in the bygone year, 2009. It was
defeated, adequately, at the end of a decade, like 1989, when the Berlin Wall
came down. No, this article does not cover a mere sub-variation of the Ruy
Lopez. But seriously, who could ever think that I might manage to lose a
game with the Mokele Mbembe, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4?
David Baramidze
It is so unfair that Rybka assesses this position as +0.60, about as good for
White as the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez. Here White is not a full pawn
ahead! The placement of the knight on g7, which is slightly unusual, is only
temporary. Not to forget the practical problems which White is facing in the
Mokele, they are much larger than in the Marshall.
7 Nf3 d6 8 c4 e6?!
In home-analysis, a few days after the game, I found the reason for the defeat.
My bishop should have gone to g4: 8Bg4! 9 Be2 e6 10 Nc3 Nd7 11 Ng5
Bxe2 12 Qxe2 dxe5 13 fxe5. White's position is looking more active, but
that's only temporary: 13Be7 14 Nf3 0-0 15 Bf4 Re8 16 0-0 f6. Simplifying
the situation. With every exchange White's pieces advance further to Black's
king, which may look menacing. But these problems can be overcome: 17
Qd2 fxe5 18 Nxe5 Nf6 19 Rae1 exd5 20 Nxd5 Nxd5 21 cxd5 Nf5 22 g4 Nd6
23 Bh6 Bf8. Black is suffering from minor problems regarding his piece
coordination. Nothing serious, however: 24 Bg5 Be7 25 Bxe7 Rxe7 26 Qd3
a6 27 a4 Re8 28 Nxg6 Qd7. Black's remaining problems in the ending are
only temporary.
Oh, now I see that 29 Rf8+!! Rxf8 30 Ne7+ Kg7 31 Qd4+ Kf7 32 Qf4+ Kg7
33 Qg5+ Kf7 34 h3! +- wins by force. So it seems I still have some important
work to do over the holidays. and will keep this article shorter than originally
intended.
9 Nc3 Be7 10 Be2 0-0 11 0-0 c6?
After 11exd5 White's advantage would have been smaller (+/-). After too
many blitz games, my c7-c6 in this set-up almost comes automatic. Similar
situations must have occurred in dozens of my online blitz and bullet games.
None of my opponents found the punishment, which is here demonstrated by
the young German GM. It seems that playing against people with names like
xyHAzard123 doesn't exactly help to deepen your opening knowledge.
12 c5!
20g5 21 Nxg5! fxg5 22 f6 Nxf6 23 Bxg5 Be6 24 Bxh7+ Kh8 25 Bg6 1-0
Thus I lost with the Mokele Mbembe to a GM. But I'll never lose with it
against an International Master.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The next game allows me to return to the Myers Defence. It is not free of
errors, but who can avoid mistakes in an unfamiliar position. Concerning the
recent flood of repertoire books advocating the Catalan Opening, or other
"closed" openings, often involving an early Nf3, unorthodox systems like
Myers' g7-g5 deserve a revival.
Nicolas Rousset (France) writes: "Your ChessCafe article 'The Impoliteness
of Ice Age Openings' in January 2006, about the Myers' Defense, made a
great impression on me. After a lot of experimental blitz games on the
Internet, I finally tried the thing in a serious game over-the-board. It was
played between two modestly rated players, but I think it may interest you
probably you are not spammed every day with Myers' Defense related emails!"
Jonathan Etrog (2189) Nicolas Rousset (2132)
Puteaux (French Cup), (3) January 2010
Myers' Defense [A10]
Comments: Nicolas Rousset
1 c4 g5
My opponent was confronted with this move for the first time. He
remembered having read something about it, and that "there was a trap after 2
d4." He decided for a quiet approach.
2 g3
An interesting strategy: now Black, who in the present case has no more
experience than White in the Myers' Defense, needs to find a harmonious
development of his pieces. (SB: Myers believed that an early g7-g5 is
justified, if White has played one of these three moves: c4, Nf3, or g3. Wind
prefers g7-g5 in "improved" situations, where White combines at least two of
the three moves, as illustrated by Hodgson's System: 1 c4 c5 2 Nf3 h6 3 d4
g5. While Wind's article [3] looks at lines including c4 and Nf3, after the text
move Black also cannot be worse. Critical was 2 d4 h6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 c5
with sharp complications, see [3].)
2...Bg7 3 Bg2 c5 4 Nc3
Here I recognized the threat Ne4, forking my pawns on c5 and g5!
4...h6
Kari Heinola, the hero of your article, decided to sacrificed a pawn, or maybe
he did not notice the threat: 4...Nc6 (Mazock Heinola, 25th Paul Keres
memorial 2000) 5 Ne4!.
(SB: It's wise to avoid the fork. The motif reminds me of Larsen Raizman,
Munich 1958: 1 f4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 b4, when Black didn't dare to play 3Nd5
either. In Kaissiber 26 (2007) Bent Larsen admitted that he has lost his former
belief in the correctness of the combination 3Nd5 4 Bb2 f6 5 f5, because of
5Nxb4. While Larsen's case is not entirely clear, 5 e3 Nxb4 6 a3 N4c6 7 d4
d5 8 c4 with some pressure, the fork 5 Ne4 in the diagram wins a pawn for no
real compensation.)
5 a3
Apparently new. 5 e4 led to a draw in Gaspariants S. Marder, Copenhagen
2004 (Politiken Cup).
5...Nc6 6 Rb1
6Qa5?
Not exactly preventing the b4-push, but the queen will prove to be wellplaced, making the development of the bishop c1 difficult. (SB: The text
move is a mistake and loses time, since b4 cannot be prevented. There are
solid alternatives: 6d6 [6a5] 7 d3 [or 7 b4 Bxc3 8 dxc3 Bf5] 7Qd7
intending b6 and Bb7; for example, 8 Qa4?! a6 9 Bd2 Rb8 10 h4 b5 11 cxb5
axb5 12 Nxb5 Nd4 =.)
7 Nf3 d6 8 h3
(SB: No mistake, but the advance of the b-pawn was possible and
advantageous: 8 Nd5 Bf5 [8e6 9 b4 Qd8 10 Nc3] 9 b4 +/-, and the queen
has to retreat to d8. The attempt 9cxb4? 10 axb4 Qa2 11 Rb3 Bc2 fails to
12 Rb2! Bxd1 13 Rxa2 Bb3 14 Ra3 Bxc4 15 Nc7+ +-.)
8f5
I had the feeling that Black was better, but how to continue? There were
several candidate moves, but I didn't have a clear plan. For his weak 9th move
my opponent had spent a lot of time, and now it wasn't easy to concentrate on
the game again. Moreover, a furious tactical phase began on the board next to
us, which added to my difficulties. But suddenly I saw a "not very positional
move":
11...d5!
Simply threatens ...d4 and ...dxc4.
12 Qb3
12 cxd5 Nxd5 13 Nd2 Nxc3 14 bxc3 Ne5 and Black is better. (SB: The
zwischenzug 14 Qh5+ Kf8 15 bxc3 Ne5 16 0-0 Bxd3 is still sufficient for a
draw; e.g., 17 f4 (17 Rxb7; 17 Ne4) 17Bxf1 18 fxe5 Bxg2 19 e6 Kg8 20
Qf7+ Kh7 21 Qf5+ with perpetual check. There is an aggressive alternative:
130-0-0!? 14 Bxd5 (14 Nxd5) Rxd5 15 Nxd5 Bxd3.
White has many ways to go wrong: 16 Ra1? Nd4 17 Ne3 Be2 -/+ or 16 Ne3
Nd4 17 b4 Qb5 with unpleasant threats. The correct reply 16 b4 cxb4 17 Qb3
Bxb1 18 Nxb1 bxa3+ 19 Bd2 leads to an unclear situation with chances for
both sides.)
12...0-0-0! 13 cxd5 Nxd5
White suffers from his weak point d3.
14 0-0 Qb6
The opening and early middlegame took a lot of time, now a mutual zeitnot
begins. I overlooked 14...Bxd3 15 Nxd5 c4 -/+.
15 Qxb6 Nxb6 16 Ne1 c4 17 g4
17Bxd3?
(SB: Gives the strong bishop for a weak knight. 17Bh7! 18 Be3 cxd3 would
have been much stronger, Black should win.)
18 Nxd3 cxd3 19 Rd1 Nc4 20 Bd5 Bxc3?
Better is 20...N4e5 -/+.
21 Bxc4 d2 (or 21...Bd4) 22 bxc3 dxc1Q 23 Rbxc1 Ne5 24 Bd5
24Rhf8
24Ng6! was more precise, with the better ending. After the text move
White holds:
25 c4 Ng6 26 Re1 Kc7 27 Rc3 Rf6 28 Rce3 Rdf8 29 Re6 b6 30 R1e2 Kd7
31 Bc6+ Kc7 32 Bd5 Kd7 33 Kf1 Rxe6 34 Bxe6+ Kd6 35 Bf5 Nf4 36 Rd2+
Kc5 37 Rd7 e6 38 Be4 Nxh3 39 f3 Kxc4 40 Rxa7 Rd8 41 Rc7+ -
Corrections
1. Sicilian Defense 2 Nf3 h6!?
The November 2009 column "Pachman's Verdict" covered 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 h6,
and here mainly the line 3 c3, which I had regarded as critical since 1990.
About the line 3 Nc3 d6! 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Nf6 my column only said:
"transposes to a little-played, but interesting system."
Missing was the information that there already existed a thread on www.
chesspub.com, where this idea is discussed, called "The Transporter Sicilian"
by TalJechin from Malm. Here you will also find additional material. In the
diagrammed position the continuation 6 Bc4 e5 7 Nf5! may be good for
White. My latest attempt in the said thread: 6a6! (instead of 6...e5). Then
on 7 f3 Black can play 7...Qc7, which wins a tempo on the Bc4 (an advantage
of postponing Nc6), followed by e6. Best may be 7 Be3, when Black has a
choice:
(a) 7...e5
(a1) 8 Nde2 Ng4 transposes to analysis by Mark Nieuweboer.
(a2) 8 Nf5 g6 9 Ng3 Be6 += is playable for Black, because Ng3 is less useful
than a Ne3.
(b) 7...Ng4 8 Qf3!? Ne5 9 Qe2 Nxc4 10 Qxc4 e6 11 0-0 b5 12 Qb3 Nd7
unclear.
(c) 7...Qc7 8 Bb3 e6 with interesting play.
2. Mokele Mbembe
The December 2009 column "Just a Game" had my whining about the loss of
a Mokele. 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ne4 3 d3 Nc5 4 d4 Ne6 5 f4 g6 6 d5 Ng7 7 Nf3 d6 8
c4. So far Baramidze Bcker, Kiel 2009. Now I should have preferred 8
Bg4! 9 Be2 e6 10 Nc3 Nd7 11 Ng5 Bxe2 12 Qxe2 dxe5 13 fxe5 Be7 14 Nf3 00 15 Bf4 Re8 16 0-0 f6 17 Qd2 fxe5 18 Nxe5 Nf6 19 Rae1 exd5 20 Nxd5
Nxd5 21 cxd5 Nf5 22 g4 Nd6 23 Bh6 Bf8 24 Bg5 Be7 25 Bxe7 Rxe7 26 Qd3
a6 27 a4 Re8 28 Nxg6
Instead of 28Qd7 29 Rf8+! +-, Jason from the USA recommends "28...
Qg5! 29 Rxe8 Rxe8 30 Nf4 Qxg4+ and now black is okay." Many thanks!
Indeed, after 31 Kh1 Qf5 32 Qxf5 Nxf5 33 Ne6 Ne3 34 Nxc7 Rc8 35 Re1
Rxc7 the rook ending looks drawish. In the meantime I had found another
solution: 27Nf7 also seems to hold. Now we can start to search for a win
for Black.
Sources
[1] St. Bcker: "The Impoliteness of Ice Age Openings," ChessCafe January
2006
[2] St. Bcker: "Finding Your Own Approach in the Second Ice Age,"
ChessCafe November 2006
[3] M. Wind: "Mit g5 gegen Englisch: Myers' Idee und ihre Folgen," in:
Kaissiber 34 (2009)
[4] M. Wind: "Kampf der Systeme: Myers gegen Rti," in: Kaissiber 35
(2009)
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
The adventures in the Max Lange Attack, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4
exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 6 e5!, are as fascinating today as they were a hundred years
ago. It is still possible to discover new ideas, and, according to analyses by
Lev Gutman, the first player seems to have a small advantage. Even by King's
Gambit standards, the Max Lange Attack has an excellent rate in creating
sharp positions. But the merits of the Max Lange Attack itself are only one
side of the coin. It has become almost impossible to recruit new followers for
this gambit. The reason is the well known Anti-Max-Lange 5Nxe4!, called
"a cautious offshoot of the powerful Max Lange Attack" by Tartakower in
Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, Vienna 1925. 6 Re1 d5 7 Bxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3
Qh5
Stefan Bcker
This liquidation, more common after 8Qa5, seems even less promising
under the present circumstances, with the black queen on h5. Thus, for many
decades the books have preferred 10 Bg5 Bd6 (in the tricky, but weaker line
10h6 11 Bf6 Qg6 12 Nh4 [1], [2] John Emms recommended 12Qg4 [4],
yet 13 Qd3! +/- Sedov Sulskis, Swidnica 1998, is a clear refutation) 11 Nxd6
+ (Chris Baker avoided this simplification and gave 11 c4 [2], but Emms's
reply 11h6 12 Nxd6+ cxd6 13 Bf4 Qc5 [4] made clear that it was no
improvement) 11cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 (Emms: "this is objectively level, even
though Black's practical results have been quite good" [4]) 13 c3 Rc8 [4]. This
is also John Nunn's main line in [3]. It is difficult to dispute his assessment
"=". The chances to win this position are close to zero: 14 b3 0-0 15 Nxd4
Nxd4 16 Qxd4 Qxd4 17 cxd4 d5 18 Rac1 Rxc1 19 Rxc1 Rc8 20 Rxc8+ Bxc8,
and even the most inventive players will agree to a draw.
100-0-0
Not a new position, its first appearance in print was in Neue Berliner
Schachzeitung 1867. Black returns the pawn (no big deal: there wasn't a way
to hold it).
11 Nxe6 fxe6
Now after the common 12 Rxe6 Bd6
"White is struggling to equalize", as John Emms writes [4]. John Nunn [3]
correctly assesses it as =+. Some examples follow:
(a) 13 Qd3 Nb4 14 Qe4 Na6! 15 b4 Nxb4 16 Rb1 Qd5 17 Bg5 Qxe4 18 Rxe4
Na2 and Black is better.
(b) 13 Qe2? d3! 14 cxd3?? Nd4 and wins.
(c) 13 Qe1 Rhf8 14 Qe4 (to avoid Rxf3) 14d3! -/+ Danneck Ptter,
Aachen 1982.
(d) The main line 13 Bd2 Rhe8 is no pleasure either. White has to exchange
his most active piece, thereby conceding the e-file: 14 Rxe8 Rxe8 15 h3 =+.
The last variation looks highly suspicious. If White cannot hold the e-file, it is
obviously a mistake to enter such a forcing liquidation, with White losing all
his active assets, while Black gains a clear superiority, often even a winning
attack on the e- and f-file or tactical threats against h2.
To play the Max Lange Attack, White's pressure on the e-file is a must. It was
the impression that 12 Rxe6 feels wrong (winning back the pawn, but losing
everything else), which led me to consider whether White has a better move.
In fact, we should be magnanimous and let the pawn stay on the board:
12 Bg5!?
The database provides four games in which this idea has been tested, though
not very successfully: White earned a meager half point. If we include two
similar games against 8Qa5 (starting 8Qa5 9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Neg5 0-0-0
11 Nxe6 fxe6 12 Bg5), we have six examples (+ 1, = 1, - 4). After introducing
the Bg5 move in the 8Qa5 variation, its inventor Dusan Cepon was
rewarded with the only full point (Cepon Potocnik, Slovenian
Championship 1991). In spite of these bad results in a handful of
unconvincing games, I believe that the bishop move is better than 12 Rxe6
and deserves attention.
12Re8
A natural reaction, since it protects the extra pawn. Black is willing to pay the
price: his rook is now in a passive position. There are four alternatives:
(a) 12Be7? 13 Bxe7 Nxe7 14 Rxe6 loses time.
(b) 12Bb4? 13 Rxe6 Rd5 14 Bd2 Bd6 can lead to the same position as in
variation "c", but there are additional options for White, such as 13 Bxd8!
Bxe1 14 Qxe1 Rxd8 15 Qxe6+ Kb8 16 Re1, and White controls the e-file, in
sharp contrast to the position after 12 Rxe6?!.
(c) 12Rd7. Since Black's rooks are no longer connected, White can now
take the pawn, without fearing the loss of the e-file: 13 Rxe6 Bd6 14 h3?! (to
avoid Bxh2+) 14Rf7? (14h6! 15 Bd2 Qf5, when 16 Qe2 Qxc2 fails and
16 Re2 g5! gives Black a significant advantage) 15 Bd2 Rhf8 16 Ng5 Qxd1+
17 Rxd1 Rxf2 18 Ne4 R2f5 19 Rxd6 cxd6 20 Nxd6+ Kc7 21 Nxf5 Rxf5 22 c3
dxc3 23 Bxc3 (=, 50) Sambuev (2498) Barbeau (2357), Montreal 2009. It
would have been better to retreat immediately: 14 Bh4 with an unclear
situation.
20 Rd3 R5d7 21 Rb3 Qd5 22 Qd3 Qb5 and Black slowly converted his
advantage (0-1, 61) Sunzhukhanov Makarkin (2147), Doroshkevich
Memorial 2008. In the diagrammed position, obviously the white rook
belongs on e4, to exert pressure on the pawn e5, and not the queen.
(d3) The correct solution must be the sacrifice 13 Rxe6!, when 13Rxg5?!
14 Nxg5 Qxg5 15 Re8+ Kd7 16 Qe2 offers White more than enough for the
small investment. The absolute control of the e-file after 16Qf6 (16Ne7?
17 Rb8 is too cooperative) 17 Re1, which is unknown after the old 12 Rxe6?!,
deserves another diagram:
17g6 is almost forced (17Qf5 18 Ra8), when White can either force a
draw (18 Re6; 18 Qg4+), or continue his attack (18 Ra8; 18 c3). Considering
the consequences of 13Rxg5?!, Black should certainly prefer 13Bd6! 14
Bh4 g5 (or 14Bxh2+ 15 Kxh2 g5 unclear) 15 Bg3 with roughly equal
chances.
What follows is a new move. I don't believe (after the text move 12Re8) in
13 Bf4? Bc5 (13Qd5!) 14 Be5 Rd8 15 Bxg7?, which led to a disaster in
Krogulski Toczek, Polanica Zdroj 1999: 15Rhg8 16 Be5 Bb4 17 Bg3 (17
Re4 Qg6 -+) 17Bxe1 18 Qxe1 Qf5 19 Qe2 e5 20 Nxe5 Nxe5 0-1.
13 Re4!
A rook with a view: on Black's pawns e6 and d4, and on the square h4 (Qd3
followed by Rh4 is an option). With the text move, White prepares to double
his heavy pieces: Re4, Qe2, maybe even Rae1, to increase the pressure against
Black's e-pawn. Hopefully, the attacked pawn will proceed to e5, nurtured by
Nc6, Bd6 and rooks behind the pawn. White's bishop g5 will often retreat to
g3. Of course, blockading the e5-pawn would only be a first step. If
everything goes according to plan, Black should remain passive, watching his
own center pawns. White's further plan usually involves an attack with b2-b4,
or there may be a chance for c2-c3 or h2-h4, disrupting Black's pawn
formation.
At first sight White's strategy seems illogical why ignore the hanging pawn
e6, but later try to win it, once it has become Black's best protected unit on the
board, or even in the whole tournament? Couldn't Black simply return the
pawn and get a good position? However, there is a big difference between 12
Rxe6?!, when White afterwards is forced onto the defensive, and the new idea
12 Bg5 Re8 13 Re4, to win back the pawn in better circumstances: on move
twelve White wasn't ready to conquer the e-file. After White has caught up in
development, to win the e-pawn with all his pieces active might allow him to
turn his attention to the next target: Black's important pawn on d4.
However, for the time being Black still possesses his extra pawn. It will
require concrete analysis to prove that White is fine. I have studied the
sacrifice since 2006 and believe that it is correct. But it would be pointless to
bury the idea under a hill of variations. A few sample lines will have to
suffice:
(a) 13Bd6 14 Bh4 Qd5 (an active queen, but also a target for an eventual c2c4) 15 Qe2 Rhf8 16 Bg3 Bxg3 17 hxg3 a6 18 a4 (18 c4 dxc3 19 bxc3 seems
premature) 18e5 19 Rd1 Re7 20 b4!, White has excellent play for the pawn.
(b) 13h6 14 Bh4 g5 15 Bg3 Bg7 16 Qe2 Qg6 17 Re1 h5 18 Qc4 and White
is better.
(c) 13Be7 is one of Black's best options. In my opinion, Black should avoid
the formation Bd6 plus pawn e5, which only adds to Black's problems. For
example, White might open the d-file by c2-c3, and in such a case the bishop
d6 would only hamper Black's counterplay along the d-file. 14 Bxe7 Rxe7 15
Qe2 (or 15 Qe1, about equal, while both 15 b4 Nxb4! or 15 Nxd4 Qxd1+ 16
Rxd1 Rd8 17 Rd3 Nb4 are less advisable) 15Qd5 16 b4 a6 (16Nxb4 17
Rxd4 Qc5 18 Rc4 Qa5 19 Rd1 with chances for both sides) 17 h3 Rf8 18 a4!
18Nxb4 19 Nxd4 (or 19 Rxd4), White has sufficient compensation for the
sacrificed pawn.
The whole concept, controversial as it may be, has an additional advantage. It
can be played, without too many changes, also against the second main line
8Qa5. This fact had already been mentioned in the article, in the notes to 12
Bg5. The two existing games went as follows: 8Qa5 9 Nxe4 Be6 10 Neg5
0-0-0 11 Nxe6 fxe6 12 Bg5 Re8
(a) 13 c3? Bd6 (13dxc3) 14 cxd4 Rhf8 15 Bh4 e5 16 Qd3? Nxd4 -/+ (but 10, 32) Cepon Potocnik, Slovenian Championship 1991.
(b) 13 Bh4 e5 14 a3 Bd6 15 Re4 (the "rook with a view"!) 15h6 16 Qd3
Qa6 17 Qxa6 bxa6 18 Rae1 Rhf8 19 Bg3 Re7, Marek Kawulok (1567)
Magdalena Miturova (1535), Kuncice pod Onrejnikem 2006 (Open). A good
game, unfortunately White spoiled it with 20 Nxe5? (20 b4! Kb7 21 Nd2 =)
20Rfe8 21 f4 g5!, which cost him the exchange (0-1, 27).
(c) 13 Re4! is more flexible and therefore preferable (to 13 Bh4, above).
Often the play will be similar as in the 8Qh5 version. One difference should
be noted, though. In case of 13Be7, White can reply 14 Bxe7 Rxe7 15
Nxd4, without fearing the exchange Qh5xd1. But again I'd prefer 15 Qe2!, to
exploit the strength of White's rook on e4.
Sources
[1] M. Euwe: Theorie der Schach-Erffnungen, Hamburg 1989 (3rd ed.)
[2] Chr. Baker: A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire, London 1998
[3] J. Nunn et al: Nunn's Chess Openings, London 1999
[4] J. Emms: Play the Open Games as Black, London 2000
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
To be fair, the dubious image was based on some bad experiences from
master play. One of the model games illustrates the dangers of a wellprepared advance f4-f5:
Steinitz Blackburne
London 1863 (Match)
Hippopotamus Defense [B00]
Hippopotamus Rises
by Andrew Martin
Tiger's Modern
by Tiger Hillarp Persson
"Hippopotamus Defense"
(c) 1997 by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski
The example shows that Black has to remain flexible. Not always does the
full Hippo set-up appear on the board. White has prevented the fianchetto of
the bishop c8. For such a case Feustel has prepared a sharp reaction:
9f5!
Consequently, Black focuses his play on the kingside.
10 0-0 Nf6 11 exf5 Nxf5 12 Bc4 0-0
Black is putting his hopes on the f-file.
13 Rfe1 Kh7 14 Bf4 Nh5
Indirectly defending the e-pawn (15 Bxe6? Bxe6 16 Rxe6 Nxf4).
15 Bg3 g5
15Qf6 16 Ne4 Qe7 also came into consideration (but not 16Qf7? 17
Nexg5+ winning the queen). In recent years, g6-g5 has become quite popular
in the Hippopotamus as a regular ingredient in the system. Here the advance
serves a more concrete purpose.
16 Bxe6
Alternatives include 16 Qd3 Qf6 17 d5 e5 18 Ne4 Qg6 and 16 h3 Nfxg3 17
fxg3 d5. The following complications do not clearly favour either side. The
Hippopotamus often begins slowly, but when the forces come into contact, the
tactical battle can even be "sharper" than in standard openings, because none
of the pieces have left the board!
16Bxe6 17 Rxe6 g4 18 Ne1 Bxd4 19 Ne2
Or 19 Re4 c5 20 Nd3 Qd7 21 Nd5 Rae8 with equal chances.
19Ba7 20 Nd3 Qd7 21 Re4
21 Nef4 may have been better: 21Nhg7 22 Re2 Qf7 23 Rae1 Rae8 24 Rxe8,
about =-.
21Nf6 22 Rb4 b5 23 axb6 Bxb6 24 Bf4?
Wastes time, 24 Nc3 was preferable.
24a5 25 Rba4 Rae8
26 Ng3?
Apparently, White feels that the black squares around his king need to be
protected, but the text move makes the situation even worse. 26 Nc3 was
necessary.
26Nxg3 27 hxg3
Or 27 Bxg3 Ne4 28 Qd1 Qf5 and White is in trouble.
27Ne4 28 Qd1 Qg7? 29 Kf1?
Overlooks 29 Be3 =, thereby returning the favor: one move ago Black could
have won by 28Rxf4 29 gxf4 g3!.
29Rf5 30 Qc1? Rh5 -+ 31 Kg1 Nxf2 32 Nxf2 Re2 33 Qf1 Bxf2+ 34 Qxf2
Rxf2 35 Kxf2 Qxb2 0-1
Maurits Wind, member of the editorial staff of Kaissiber and an experienced
1b6 player, kindly contributes a recent attractive tournament game of his
own. The Hippopotamus Defense can lead to all kind of pawn formations.
Here you have an example that includes the advance d4-d5 from White, which
allows his opponent to conquer the black squares by means of 11g5!, with
drastic consequences for the white king.
Frank Schellmann (2141) Maurits Wind
Bad Wrishofen (8), 2010
Hippopotamus Defense [B00]
Comments by Maurits Wind
1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bd3 e6 4 Nf3 d6 5 0-0 Nd7 6 c4 g6 7 Nc3 Bg7 8 Be3
Ne7 9 Rc1 h6
12 d5
The response 12 h4 had to be taken into account. Here it is harmless. After
24Bxh2+!
I played the bishop sacrifice after only two minutes of consideration. Was that
foolish? I don't know. It seems to me that 24...Bxh2 is clearly the move.
Threatening to win with ...dxe4 and Rxd4, hence forcing White's hand.
Another strong possibility was the direct attack 28...e5 29 Be3 Qh2+ 30 Kf1
Qh1+ 31 Bg1 h4, followed by ...h3. White is then in serious difficulties.
29 cxd5 exd5
As Rybka demonstrates, Black could have played a beautiful second piece
sacrifice here: 29...Bxd5! 30 exd5 Rxd5. Because of the threat ...Rxd4 (or first
Rad8), White must give his queen with 31 Qxd5 exd5. In the final position,
Black's attack continues unrelentingly (-+).
30 e5 Ba6
With the plan ...Ne6 to remove the bishop from d4. For example, 31 a4? fails
to 31...Bxb5 32 Bxb5 a6 33 Bd3 Ne6, regaining the piece with clear
advantage.
31 Kf1!
White wisely vacates square g1 for the bishop on d4.
31...Rac8?!
Bringing in the last reserves, with new threats. However analysis shows that
the option 31...Qh1+ 32 Bg1 h4 would in fact have been stronger. For
example, 33 Qc2 h3 34 gxh3 Qxf3+ 35 Ke1 Rac8 36 Qd2 d4 37 a4 Bb7 and
White has no defense against ...Rc3! (-+).
32 Ke1?
In this highly complex position, a bit short of time, without sight of the board,
White misses the best defense: 32 Bg1! Qh1 33 e6! fxe6 34 Qb2! and White
narrowly escapes with a draw.
32...Rc4!!
A crushing blow. Black threatens to win material in one of many ways. First,
Nb5 is under attack, but if it moves, Bd4 falls and this also happens after 33
a4 Bxb5.
33 Bxc4 dxc4
White is now a rook ahead, but he is bound to lose material after which Black
will still have a decisive attack.
34 Qe3
The key point of Black's combination is that 34 Qxc4? fails to 34...Bxb5! 35
Qxb5 Qh1+ 36 Kd2 Rxd4+ and the rook on d1 also falls to the black pieces.
34...Bxb5
Of course, Black ignores the rook on e2 for the moment. The knight on f4 is
important in the final attack.
35 e6
Desperation. White was facing too many threats like Nxe2, Nd3+, c3, Qh1+
and there is no real defense. Against 35 Bxb6!?, I had prepared the move 35...
Rd3!.
35...Nxe6
Conveniently protecting square g7 against counter-threats on the long
diagonal, as well as defending rook d8 and attacking the bishop on d4.
36 Kd2
Panicking. After 36 Red2, I had planned the fine reply 36...c3!, winning
directly.
36...c3+ 37 Kxc3 Bxe2 0-1
Black remains a piece and pawn up, while maintaining a crushing attack
against the White king. White resigned, with less than one minute remaining
on his clock.
Sources
[1] B. Feustel: Erffnungen abseits aller Theorie, Hollfeld 1982
[2] St. Bcker: Groteske Schacherffnungen, Stuttgart 1990
[3] N. Kostov: Hippopotamus Defense: 1b6!? approach, (Internet)
[4] T. Hillarp Persson: Tiger's Modern, Gothenburg 2005
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
But when Simon Alapin asked in WSZ 9-12 (1913) what Nimzowitsch had in
mind against the Staunton Gambit 1 d4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3,
Nimzowitsch avoided a difficult discussion (a decade before O. H. Krause
found 4Nc6!) with the snippy hint (WSZ 15-18, 1913) that the Dutch can
also arise via 1 d4 e6 2 Nf3 f5. In Copenhagen 1922, he would indeed choose
this classical Dutch treatment against E. Jacobsen. It didn't take long,
however, until Nimzowitsch came into contact with another, just as
controversial version of the Dutch Defense. In Copenhagen 1923, he faced the
surprising opening novelty:
Dutch A80-A85
by Boris Schipkov
Killer Dutch
by Simon Williams
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/2np1n2/5p2/2PP4/
2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w kq - 0 5"]
The new idea, developed by the Danish player and theoretician Orla Hermann
Krause. "Obviously Black intends to play e7-e5," writes Nimzowitsch, adding
that here a preparation of the advance by means of Qe7 isn't necessary (his
article [2] had started looking at 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2 c5 3 d3, followed by f4, since
in A. N.'s view the Krause Dutch is a kind of "Chigorin Reversed"),
confirmed by the short variation 5 g3 e5! 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 Qxd8+ Kxd8. In the
resulting position, Nimzowitsch doesn't see an advantage for White.
5 Bf4 h6 6 h4 Ng4
Nimzowitsch [2]: "All this according to Dr. Krause. Willy-nilly now I had to
play:"
7 d5
Starting Out:
The Dutch Defense
by Neil McDonald
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1p1/2np3p/3P1p2/2P2BnP/
2N2N2/PP2PPP1/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]
The "critical position," says Nimzowitsch [2]. However, after Mller's reply
7Nce5? he could have achieved a significant advantage: 8 e4 fxe4 9 Nxe5
dxe5 10 Bg3, analysis by Nimzowitsch [2]. In the game he lost his advantage
by exchanging the bishop: 8 Bxe5 dxe5 9 e4 e6 10 Nh2, but won nevertheless
(1-0, 49).
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp3p1/2np3p/3Ppp2/2P2BnP/
2N2N2/PP2PPP1/R2QKB1R w KQkq e6 0 8"]
absolutely correct": 8 dxc6 exf4 9 cxb7 Bxb7 10 Qd4 Qd7!, for example:
(a) 11 Qxf4 Be7 followed by Bf6 and a "formidable set-up," Nimzowitsch [2].
(b) 11 Rd1 (11 0-0-0 "leaves f2 unprotected" [2]) 11a6 12 Rh3 0-0-0,
"already threatening Be7, since Qxg7 would fail to Nxf2 Kxf2 Bh4+ followed
by Qxg7," Nimzowitsch [2].
8 dxe6 Bxe6 9 g3!
According to Nimzowitsch [2] this "extraordinarily interesting pawn
sacrifice" has its point in the strange bishop manoeuvre Bf1-h3-g2 in moves
eleven and twelve. Altogether the chances are roughly balanced, and if we
check the further game with a computer, the next moves are not entirely
forced. But to retain some of the spirit of the old magazine, let's just repeat
Nimzo's exclamation marks:
9Bxc4 10 Nd4 Qd7 11 Bh3!! g6 12 Bg2!!
[FEN "r3kb1r/pppq4/2np2pp/5p2/2bN1BnP/
2N3P1/PP2PPB1/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 12"]
[FEN "r3k2r/p1pq4/b1p4p/2bN1pp1/5BnP/
1P4P1/P3PPB1/2RQ1RK1 b kq - 0 17"]
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1p1/2np1n1p/3P1p2/5B1P/
4PN2/PPP2PP1/RN1QKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6e5!?
According to [2], under these circumstances the sacrifice "may not be quite
correct." White's move-order is too unusual anyway to have much theoretical
relevance. However, it is interesting to compare the move with other cases of
Krause's e7-e5 motif.
7 dxc6 exf4 8 Bb5 b6
! by [2]. But Nimzowitsch doesn't give the precise refutation of Krause's later
idea 8Kf7. Neither 9 exf4 (Krause) nor 9 0-0 (Nimzowitsch [2]) nor 9 Qd4
(Nimzowitsch in Die Praxis meines Systems) really works. The computer
suggests the convincing 9 Nc3! fxe3 10 Ne5+ Kg8 11 Bc4+ Kh7 12 Nf7 with
the strong threat of 13 Ng5+! (+/-).
9 exf4 d5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/p1p3p1/1pP2n1p/1B1p1p2/5P1P/
5N2/PPP2PP1/RN1QK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp3p1/2np1n1p/3Ppp2/2P2B2/
2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq e6 0 7"]
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp1p1pp/2np1n2/5p2/3P1B2/
5NP1/PPP1PPBP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]
There are several alternatives, but the text move must be critical.
In round three of the same tournament I was more successful: 5 d5 Nce5 6 0-0
Nxf3+ 7 exf3 (Black isn't worse; Euwe [3] assessed a similar situation as
advantageous for White) 7g6 8 c4 Bg7 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Re1 c6? (10Re8 11
f4 Bd7 12 Qb3 Rb8, about =) 11 f4 (11 Bg5 +=) 11Bd7 12 Qb3 c5 13 Qxb7
Rb8 14 Qa6 Rb4
[FEN "3q1rk1/p2bp1bp/Q2p1np1/2pP1p2/1rP2P2/
2N3P1/PP3PBP/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
15 Qxa7? (underestimates Black's plan; 15 a3! Rb3 16 a4! Ng4 17 Nb5 was a
refutation) 15Ng4 16 h3 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Ra4 (an unusual situation: for the
two sacrificed pawns Black seems to have sufficient compensation) 18 Qb7
Nf6 19 Bd2 Kf7 20 Reb1 Qa5 21 Qb6 Qa8 (21Qxb6 was an option) 22 Rb2
Ra3 23 Bf1 Qa4 24 f3 h5 25 Bd3 (offering a draw) 25Ra8 26 Be1 Ra6 27
Qb8 Qa5?! (risky: Black avoids the draw) 28 Qh8 Ra8 29 Qh6 Rg8 30 Re2
Qd8 31 Bd2 e6 32 dxe6+ Bxe6 33 Rae1 Bc8 34 Bc1 Ra7 35 Qg5 Qd7 36 a3
Rc7 37 Be3? (a serious error; 37 Bc2 Qc6 38 Re3 +/- protects f3 more
efficiently, with good winning chances) 37Qc6 38 Rf1 Re7 39 Bd2 Rxe2
40 Bxe2 Re8 (40Qa4!?) 41 Bd3 d5 42 Rf2 Qe6 43 cxd5 Qxd5 44 Bf1 c4 45
Qh6 Bd7 (45Qc5! =+) 46 a4 Bxa4 47 g4 hxg4 48 hxg4 Bd1 49 gxf5? = (49
g5! Nh5 50 Bc1! would have refuted Black's attack, e.g. 50Re1 51 Ba3 Ng7
52 Qh8 Re8 53 Rd2! +-) 49Rg8 50 Rg2 Bxf3 51 fxg6+ Ke7 52 Rg5 Qxd2
53 Re5+ Kd8 54 Qg5 Qd6 55 Rc5? Rxg6 01, Donaldson (2419) Bcker
(2341), Den Bosch 1999 ("Toernooi voor de Toekomst").
5h6
5Nd5?! appears a bit slow, after 6 c4 Nxf4 7 gxf4 White is better, for
example 7g6 8 h4 or 7e6 8 d5. But at least Black has conquered the
bishop pair, this set-up could be worth a second look. The continuation 5g6
6 d5 Na5 is equally risky. The Krause motif would be sounder than usual after
5Rb8 6 d5?! e5, but almost everybody will prefer 6 0-0! and wait for an
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp3p1/2np3p/3Ppp2/5BnP/
5NP1/PPP1PPB1/RN1QK2R w KQkq e6 0 8"]
[FEN "1rq1k2r/p1p3p1/3p3p/5p2/3N1Pn1/
2P5/PP1KPbB1/RN1Q3R b k - 0 14"]
Black has some active play, and White's king isn't exactly in safety. For a
tournament game this situation may offer sufficient compensation, though it
seems dubious whether it is entirely correct: 14Be3+ 15 Kc2 Bxf416 Rh3,
or 14Bxd4 15 Qa4+ followed by Qxd4, or 14Qa6 15 b3.
(b) In the post-mortem my opponent recommended 9bxc6!, which indeed
was my best chance: 10 Nd4 d5 11 Nxc6 Qd6 12 Ne5 (12 e3 Qxc6 13 Bxd5
Qd6 14 Bxa8 Qxd1+ 15 Kxd1 Nxf2+ leads to an acceptable ending: +=), and
Black can choose between the solid 12c6 13 Qd4 Rb8 += and the sharp
12Nxe5!? 13 fxe5 Qxe5 14 Qxd5 Qxb2 with hair-rising complications.
10 Qd3 (10 Nh2) 10b6 11 Nc3 Bf6 12 Kf1!?
There was nothing wrong with 12 0-0-0 0-0 (12Nxf2? fails to 13 Qe3+) 13
Rdf1 etc.
1200 13 Rd1 Kh8 14 Rh3 a5 15 Nd5!
[FEN "r1bq1r1k/2p3p1/1pPp1b1p/p2N1p2/
5PnP/3Q1N1R/PPP1PPB1/3R1K2 b - - 0 15"]
[FEN "2b1q1k1/2p2rp1/1pPp2Np/r1bN3P/
2P2Pp1/p3P1R1/P1Q2P2/3R2K1 w - - 0 27"]
27 e4?!
27 f5! Bxf5 28 Nge7+! Rxe7 29 Nxe7+ Qxe7 30 Qxf5, followed by Rxg4,
would have won immediately.
27Kh7 28 f5 Qxc6 29 Nde7 Qd7? (29Qa4) 30 e5 Rxf5 31 Nf8+ Kh8 32
Nxd7 1-0
This article has concentrated on Krause's counter-motif, directed against the
bishop on f4. In my opinion it is one of the hardest tests for the correctness of
Krause's Variation. However, there are many other set-ups available to the
first player. For example, in Kaissiber 11 (1999), Hans Berliner proposed 1 d4
f5 2 g3 d6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 d5 Ne5 5 e4!? Nf6 6 exf5 Bxf5 7 Nd4 ("Die SystemMethode gegen die Hollndische Verteidigung"), to which Bent Larsen
replied 7Be4! in Kaissiber 12 (1999), p. 18. But White still has 7 Nxe5,
with a small edge. The battle goes on.
Sources
[1] A. Nimzowitsch: "Entspricht Dr. Tarraschs Die moderne Schachpartie
wirklich moderner Auffassung?," in Wiener Schachzeitung 5-8 (1913), pp. 7384
[2] A. Nimzowitsch: "Moderne Phantasie ber ein Tschigorin'sches Thema,"
in Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten 1925, pp. 1-12
[3] M. Euwe: Theorie der Schacherffnungen, Teil VI-VII, Berlin 1965 (2nd
ed.)
[4] S. Bcker: "Dutch Defense: Krause's Variation," in Myers Openings
Bulletin 38 (1986), pp. 2-5
[5] S. Bcker: "Aaron Nimzowitsch: Triumphe dank Dr. Krause," in
Kaissiber 10 (1999) pp. 26-59
[6] S. Bcker: (commented game) in Toernooiboek voor de Toekomst, Zeist
2000
[7] P. Anderberg: "Neues zum Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch-Konflikt," in: Kaissiber
26 (2007), pp. 50-55. How the conflict between Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch
began.
[8] R. Palliser, S. Williams, J. Vigus: Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch,
London 2009
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Grandmaster Repertoire 2:
1.d4, Vol. 2
by Boris Avrukh
Dangerous Weapons:
Benoni and Benko (Ebook)
by Palliser, Emms, Ward & Jones
While I am less impressed by the research (the oldest book in the bibliography
has the date 1999, and on p. 202 the author admits: "I am not writing about
chess history in this book, so I have decided to deal with the moves rather
than the names"), a major plus of the book is that Avrukh spends a lot of
energy on "minor systems." As can be expected, he mainly discusses the
established systems, such as the Budapest Defense, various Benoni and Indian
Systems, the Modern and the Dutch Defense. However, the 614 pages also
recommend ideas against "Black Knights Tango," English Defense, 1a6
followed by b5 and many other systems. The Vulture (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5
Ne4) is missing, but there is another exotic Benoni:
Snake Benoni 5Bd6
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 Bd6
The last move defines the Snake Benoni. It is covered on pp. 102-107 in the
book. Only in a later chapter, p. 127, about 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 a6, there
follows a hint that Black might include an early a6: "I think in reply we
should play naturally. 4 a4. I do not see how Black can profit from the
inclusion of a6 and a4" []. "If 4e6 5 g3 exd5 6 cxd5 Bd6 7 Bg2 we get a
position from the Snake Benoni (see page 102) that Black could also reach
from the normal Benoni move order, so I don't see much point in this 3a6
move order."
6 Nc3 0-0 7 Bg2
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp1p1ppp/3b1n2/2pP4/8//
2N3P1/PP2PPBP/R1BQK1NR b KQ - 0 7"]
7Re8
Alternatives are 7Be5 8 Nf3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 and 7Bc7 8 d6! Ba5 9 Nh3!.
In both cases Avrukh's analysis looks convincing. His conclusion at the end of
the chapter stresses the importance of the motif d5-d6. Perhaps Black should
consider to prepare Bc7 by means of Qe7, or to include the moves a6 and a4,
as mentioned above: 7a6 8 a4 (typically played earlier) 8Qe7 9 Nf3,
transposing to Chuchelov Womacka, Porz 1990. None of these lines is easy
for Black, but to justify the claim at the end of the chapter ("I believe that the
contents of the present chapter represents quite a serious challenge to the
future of the Snake Benoni"), these alternatives should have been
considered.
8 Nf3 Bc7 9 d6 Ba5 10 Nd2 Bxc3 11 bxc3 Qa5 12 0-0
Explanations and sidelines to these moves fill almost three pages in the book.
12Nc6
According to Avrukh it is too risky to grab the c-pawn: 12Qxc3 13 Rb1
Qd4 14 Bb2 Qxd6 15 Bxf6 Qxf6 16 Ne4 Rxe4 17 Bxe4 Ibragimov Miezis,
Cappelle le Grande 1998, but objectively this sacrifice of the exchange for a
pawn may not be worse than the text.
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/pp1p1ppp/2nP1n2/q1p5/8//
2P3P1/P2NPPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 13"]
[FEN "r1b5/p2p1kpp/1pnQ1n2/2p3B1//
2q5/1N4P1/P3PP1P/R4RK1 w - - 0 19"]
White has won the exchange for a pawn. A possible continuation is 19 Bxf6
gxf6 20 Rad1, and Black can only fight for a draw.
Clarendon Court: 1 d4 c5 2 d5 f5
1 d4 c5 2 d5 f5
[FEN ""rnbqkbnr/pp1pp1pp/8/2pP1p2/8/8/
PPP1PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq f6 0 3"]
Avrukh: "I do not rate this variation highly, but who knows, maybe I am
wrong." His main line follows a tactical game:
3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e4 fxe4 5 g4!? e6
Kaissiber 25 analyzed 5h6, but perhaps Avrukh is right: a slight advantage
for White.
6 dxe6
The alternative 6 Bg2!? (Avrukh) may be better.
6h6 7 g5 hxg5 8 Bxg5 Be7 9 Nge2 Nc6 10 Bg2
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pb1p1/2n1Pn2/2p3B1//
4p3/2N5/PPP1NPBP/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 10"]
An interesting situation:
(a) 10Qb6? 11 Qd2 dxe6 12 0-0-0 Ne5 (threatening 13Nc4) fails to 13
Qf4 +/-.
(b) The book's mainline: 10dxe6 11 Qxd8+ Bxd8 (Buturin Trushnikov,
Lvov 1996) 12 Be3 "!?N" Avrukh, when White is slightly better (+=).
(c) Even 10d5?! comes into consideration: 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Qxd5 Qxd5 13
Nxd5 Bxb2 14 Rb1 Be5 15 Bxe4 Bxe6 16 Rxb7 0-0-0 17 Ne7+ Kxb7 18
Nxc6 Bd5 19 Nxd8+ Rxd8 20 Bxd5+ Rxd5 +=.
(d) According to Avrukh, 100-0 is worse: 11 exd7+ Bxd7 12 Bxf6 Rxf6 13
Nxe4 (+/-), but Black hasn't much to fear after, say, 13Rf7 14 Qd2 Bg4 15
0-0-0 Nd4 16 f3 Bxf3 17 Qxd8+ Rxd8 19 Rxd8+ Bxd8 20 Nxc5 Bg5+ 21
Kb1 Be3 22 Ne4 Nxh2 =.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp2pp/4p1n1/8/4PP2//
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp3pp/4p1n1/3p4/4PP2//
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq d6 0 7"]
7 Nc3
The variation was lately discussed on www.chesspub.com. Some of the
alternatives:
(a) 7 Qd3 Bb4+ 8 Bd2 (8 c3 Be7! 9 g3 dxe4) 8Bxd2+ 9 Nbxd2 Nxf4 10
Qe3 dxe4 11 Qxf4 exf3 12 0-0-0 fxg2 13 Bxg2 Qe7 14 Qa4+ Bd7 15 Qa5
Nf6!?.
(b) 7 c4 Bb4+ 8 Nc3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 dxe4 10 Qxd8+ Kxd8 11 Ng5 Ke7 12 Ba3
+ Ke8 13 g3 Nf6 14 Bg2 e5.
(c) 7 e5 Nh6 8 Bd3 Be7 9 Bxg6+ hxg6 10 Qd3 Nf5 11 g4 Nh4 12 0-0 Nxf3+
13 Rxf3 Bc5+ 14 Kg2 Qh4.
(d) 7 g3 Bd7!? 8 Nc3 (to take the pawn is risky: 8 exd5 exd5 9 Qxd5 Qe7+ 10
Kf2 0-0-0) 8Bb4 9 Bd3 Qe7 10 Bd2 0-0-0, unclear.
7Bb4 8 g3 Bxc3+! 9 bxc3 Nf6 10 e5 Ne4
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp3pp/4p1n1/3pP3/4nP2//
2P2NP1/P1P4P/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
Black can be satisfied with his position; e.g., 11 c4 c6 12 Bd3 Qa5+ 13 Kf1 00 14 Kg2 Nc5 15 cxd5 Nxd3 16 Qxd3 exd5 =.
It is still possible to play the Snake Benoni, the Clarendon Court, or 1 d4 Nc6,
even against the strongest opposition. But I have to admit that White keeps a
slight advantage in each of these lines, sometimes more. Avrukh's analyses
are inspiring, and his repertoire suggestions are consistent and reliable. In a
comparison test, I tried to find good lines for Black in the Czech Benoni and
in the Dutch Defense, with mixed results. More in the next column.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
Grandmaster Repertoire 2:
1.d4, Vol. 2
by Boris Avrukh
Quoted from his introduction: "I want the readers to have a repertoire that will
last, so if there is a choice between two strong lines I choose the one where
the theory is less likely to change on a daily basis." That sounds more
realistic, and goes into the same direction as Georgiev's sound approach.
But openings where sharp variations matter less are not a new invention.
Though I believe that the new books by Avrukh and Georgiev offer good
value for the money, nobody is forced to buy the latest books with over 600
pages. To give a concrete example: In my opinion a player who prepares with
Alt-Benoni-Verteidigung (Stoljar/Kondratjew, Heidelberg 1985), a 104-page
book on the Czech Benoni, would not be seriously handicapped against a
player who attacks him with the brand-new knowledge found in Avrukh's
book.
Czech Benoni
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e5 4 Nc3 d6 5 e4 Be7
Chess Openings
Encyclopedia 2010
by Chess Assistant
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pp2bppp/3p1n2/2pPp3/2P1P3/
2N5/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]
A closed position with a minimum of pawn breaks a good way to limit the
dangers of computer preparation. In this situation the main line used to be 6
Be2 followed by Nf3, 0-0 and an eventual Ne1-d3, to watch the key squares
b4 and f4 and assist any action with b2-b4 and f2-f4. In Avrukh's repertoire
the bishop belongs to g2, so he has to recommend the fianchetto:
6 g3
"This is considered to be the best set-up for White against the Czech Benoni,"
Avrukh. Well, maybe I have slept over twenty-five years of Czech Benoni
theory. I admit that such laziness would be a bit extreme, even with the Czech
Benoni in your defensive repertoire it must be wiser to update your
knowledge every decade or so. But I am unsure whether I am really wrong.
Maybe Avrukh just prefers to see it this way, some optimism is allowed.
60-0 7 Bg2 Nbd7 8 Nge2 a6 9 a4 b6 10 0-0 Ne8
[FEN "r1bqnrk1/3nbppp/pp1p4/2pPp3/P1P1P3/
2N3P1/1P2NPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 11"]
[FEN "2bq1rk1/r2nbpnp/pp1p2pB/2pPp3/
P1P1PP2/2NQ2P1/1P2N1BP/R4R1K b - f3 0 14"]
14f5 15 Bh3!
"A very strong idea, which secures White's edge," Avrukh.
15fxe4 16 Nxe4 exf4 17 Bxd7 Bxd7 18 Nxf4 Bf5 19 Bxg7 Kxg7 20 Ne6+
Bxe6 21 dxe6 "+/-," analysis by Avrukh.
Does Avrukh really believe that the main line of the Czech Benoni should
lead to a clear advantage for White? Will many of his readers share his
optimism? After all, the Czech Benoni has a reputation to be a bit passive, but
not easy to overcome. The decisive error in the line above is probably 14f5.
According to Avrukh, "White uses the same idea if Black chooses to
exchange on f4 first": 14exf4 15 gxf4 f5 16 Bh3!. However, instead of the
suicidal 15f5? Black has several better continuations, e.g. 15Re8 (or 15
Nf6 16 Bh3 Ng4) 16 Bh3 Bh4 17 Qf3 Nf6 followed by Rae7 or Nh5.
If this were not sufficient to achieve full equality (I think it is), there remains
11Rb8! and other alternatives along this line. Don't misunderstand me:
even here, where he clearly overshoots the mark, I find Avrukh's analysis
inspiring. But nobody should expect a large opening advantage against the
Czech Benoni.
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1ppbp1bp/n2p1np1/p4p2/2PP4/
1P3NP1/PB1NPPBP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 10"]
Boris Avrukh only considers 9c6 and follows a game Tratar Rogetzer,
Vienna 2003, with some initiative for White (and a +/- after Black committed
an error in move twelve), but in my opinion the text move is more flexible.
10 Ng5
The knight is looking for weak squares in Black's camp. 10 Re1 c5! is also
critical:
(a) 11 e4 fxe4 12 Nxe4 Nxe4 13 Rxe4 Bf5, about =.
(b) 11 d5 a4 and Black isn't worse.
(c) 11 Ng5 h6 12 Nh3 cxd4 (or 12g5) 13 Bxb7 Ra7 14 Bd5+ (14 Bxa6
Rxa6 15 Nf4 Qe8) 14Nxd5 15 cxd5 Rc7 (15g5); for example, 16 Nc4
Rc5 17 Nf4 g5 18 Nh5 Bh8 and Black can be satisfied with his position.
10c6 11 Qc2
White intends e2-e4. If instead 11 Re1, the response 11Nh5 seems
adequate, and 11 d5 Qb6 must be good for Black.
11f4!?
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1p1bp1bp/n1pp1np1/p5N1/
2PP1p2/1P4P1/PBQNPPBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 12"]
One of the nice dynamic options of the Leningrad Dutch. After the text move
Black has almost equalized:
(a) 12 gxf4 Bf5 13 Qd1 (or 13 e4 Bd7 14 f5 Nh5 with compensation for the
sacrificed pawn) 13Nh5 14 e3 e5 15 d5 exf4 16 Bxg7 Nxg7 17 exf4 Nh5!
18 dxc6 Nxf4 with dangerous attacking chances.
(b) 12 Qc3 fxg3 13 fxg3 Qb6. Black is fully developed and has a solid
position: about =.
The new work studies the Dutch Defense on seventy-five pages, the remark
above only scratches the surface. In the section on the Classical Dutch,
Avrukh discusses the ideas of GM Simon Williams in great detail. Finally,
there is the Stonewall Variation, but the Krause Variation is missing.
Budapest Defense
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 Nf3
In my opinion, Alekhine's 4 e4 is White's best attempt to get an advantage.
4Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 Nc3 0-0 7 Be2 Ngxe5 8 Nxe5 Nxe5 9 0-0
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pppp1ppp/8/2b1n3/2P5/
2N1P3/PP2BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 9"]
Avrukh: "This is the initial position of our variation. In my opinion the whole
line promises White slightly the better chances, due to his control of the
centre."
9Re8 10 b3 d6
10a5, intending Ra6 to create attacking chances, is more popular at this
stage, but I am not convinced that it is better.
11 Bb2
Kiril Georgiev's proposal 11 Na4 also deserves attention. 11Bf5 12 Bb2 (so
far mentioned by Georgiev), and here 12a5 13 Qd5 c6 14 Qd2 Ba7!? 15
[FEN "r3r1k1/pppb1ppp/3p4/2b1n1q1/2P5/
1PN1P3/PBQ1BPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 13"]
[FEN "3rr1k1/pppb1ppp/3p4/2b3q1/2P3n1/
1PN1P3/PBQ1BPPP/3R1R1K w - - 0 15"]
15 h3 Qh4 16 Bf3
If 16 Bd3, the calm 16 g6! keeps the position under control, but even 16
Rxe3 17 fxe3 Nxe3 18 Qd2 Bxh3 is possible.
16...Ne5 17 Qe4 Ng4 18 Qc2 Ne5 =
Drawn by a repetition of moves.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
The fashionable repertoire books are pretty useful, if you don't expect more
than repertoire proposals. The disadvantage is that background information,
about the origin and further development of key ideas, is generally missing. In
a typical bibliography, the oldest of the twenty-five works listed is from 1999.
It is poor to see a detailed analysis of 1 d4 e5, but no mention of the name
Englund Gambit. Personally, I prefer books that put ideas into a context,
which warn you that an old idea is now considered risky, and that Short's
choice may be superior to Louis Paulsen's. Many of these old variations are
better than their reputation.
The choice of your openings also depends on individual factors. Thus, I have
reservations when asked to suggest a repertoire. Such a thing as "the strongest
opening" simply does not exist. However, a week ago I received this message
from Lex Jaffe, USA:
"I have greatly enjoyed your column over the past several years. I was
curious if it would be possible for you to suggest a fun, offbeat
repertoire based on 1 e4 in the future. I would be interested in reading
your recommendation of which lines the readers should investigate. - P.
S. The Mouse Trap Gambit works every time."
Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.
It could have been worse, at least it was 1 e4 and not the Aleppo Gambit.
What finally convinced me to break with my convictions and outline a few
ideas for an offbeat 1 e4 repertoire, were the last two sentences. Someone who
is successful with the Mouse Trap Gambit (1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7 3 Bg5!?) would
not be prejudiced against riskier ideas. Equally important was his willingness
to invest his own work. Someone who merely follows my analyses, but
doesn't develop his own ideas, misses the point in an offbeat repertoire.
There will be a recurring motive, a main reason why I try to cover 1 e4 e5 in
two or three columns, to invite you to study old lines, popular around 1900 or
even older. It will be quite a challenge to find an offbeat idea against 1...c5,
but if I fail, the ongoing 2 b4 series in Kaissiber might be a good replacement.
In fact, I am unsure whether I can deliver in all cases. Look at it as an
experiment with an open end. In any case the surprise element should be a
main factor. Whether it is "fun" mainly depends on your preferences. If you
like to sacrifice pawns for a dubious attack, you'll be happy in every opening.
My description of an ideal 1 e4 e5 opening for White would be similar to the
one in the poem "My Opening":
Ruy Lopez was too slow for me,
And Evans far too frisky;
I sought an opening that should be
Brilliant and yet not risky;
I sought, and found it, I believed;
Analysis laborious
Proved my attack, howe'er received
Was bound to be victorious.
However, in this act of opening creation something must have gone wrong. In
the club the opening inventor didn't score as planned, and the third verse of
the poem (by C. C. P., in The British Chess Magazine 1903) ends in total
failure:
I taught my office boy the game;
He learnt the moves, and dash it!
Saw at a glance my little aim,
And found a way to smash it.
To me still sound my opening seems,
But since the critic chortles,
I'll cast off all ambitious dreams,
And play like other mortals.
Instead of starting from scratch, the easier way to develop your own opening
fun is to use a standard system and find an unusual twist in a well known
position. This is the approach that I'll use here. Although it begins with
Alapin's Opening, not to be confused with the Aleppo Gambit, my
recommendation is the Scotch Game. Simon Alapin (1856-1923) was aware
of this possibility. After 2...Nc6, he used to continue with 3 f4, but when Max
Lange in Deutsche Schachzeitung harshly questioned the soundness of 2 Ne2
("not better than 2 Ke2") and challenged Alapin to a correspondence game
(1892-93), Alapin suddenly dropped all his eccentricity, continued 3 d4! and
won in a strong, positional way, as his opponent was practically compelled to
avoid the natural 3...exd4 and chose 3...Qh4?!.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4P3/8/
PPPPNPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 2"]
The normal path heading for the Scotch is 2 Nf3. But this Autobahn is
available only to those who are well versed in the Russian Defense 2...Nf6,
the Latvian Gambit, and 2...d5. Not to mention the Philidor Defense 2...d6.
The latter move may be just as good in the diagrammed position. But there is
a chance that a Philidor player would modify his set-up, when he sees the
knight appear on e2. You don't have to be an octopus to predict that in the
case of 2...d6 White will castle long, followed by f3 and g4. This systematic
pawn storm against the Philidor structure is in no way handicapped by having
a knight on e2, rather the opposite. From e2 the knight can easily go to g3-f5.
In a standard Philidor, White's knight usually sails to f5 via h4, but g3 is a
more natural square for the knight.
2...Nc6
On the main alternative 2...Nf6, Alapin's continuation was 3 f4 [1], but I much
prefer 3 d4! Nxe4 4 f3 (the more complicated 4 Qd3 d5 5 f3 Ng5 6 dxe5 Ne6
7 f4 may be even better; e.g., 7...Nc6 8 a3!) 4...Ng5 5 dxe5; for example, 5...
Nc6 6 f4 Ne6 7 Nbc3 d6 8 exd6 Bxd6 9 Be3 0-0 10 Qd2 Nc5 11 0-0-0 Re8 12
h3, with heavy complications. It is a nice position particularly if you like
attacks after opposite castling.
Minor continuations like 2...Bc5 3 c3 (or Na4) or Hugo Schting's 2...f5 3
exf5 d5 4 d4, with a reversed version of King's Gambit, are advantageous for
White. More details in [1].
3 d4 exd4
Accepts the invitation to the Scotch Game, perhaps in the belief that a 2 Ne2
player would feel uncomfortable in a standard opening. By the way, the text
move may well be Black's best option in Alapin's Opening, provided he
doesn't like the unclear situation after 2...Nf6. The solid set-up 3...d6 wouldn't
be the Philidor proper, but White's plan would remain similar (cf. my
comment above after 2 Ne2). Another possibility is 3...Nf6 4 d5 Bc5 5 Ng3!
(avoiding the mean trap 5 dxc6? Ng4 6 Be3 Bxe3 7 fxe3 Qf6 -/+) 5...Ne7 6
Nc3 +=.
4 Nxd4
[FEN"r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/3NP3/8/
PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
In the twelve years from 1990 to 2001, Garry Kasparov created new interest
in this ancient opening by playing the Scotch with great success. According to
the database, the sixteen wins and eight draws (no losses) show a
"performance rating" of 2923. Several new books on the Scotch are available,
but generally they lack information on older ideas. The three books by Lev
Gutman, though a bit dated, remain the main source for the serious student of
the Scotch. Two are listed in the bibliography, the third book covered 4...Qh4.
4...Nf6
The next column will discuss the alternative 4...Bc5, focusing on a main line
from the nineteenth century that didn't make it into Kasparov's practice,
probably because he read the wrong (new) books. However, I am not yet sure
whether 4...Qh4 will get a column. What does the database say? 14,000 games
with Nf6, almost 20,000 with Bc5. Only 2,900 games with 4...Qh4. Well,
maybe.
5 Nxc6
Going into the Scotch Four Knights by means of 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Nxc6 bxc6 is
also popular, when 7 Bd3 is now the main continuation, covered in detail by
Abby Marshall in her latest column for ChessCafe.com. In the 1880s, Louis
Paulsen's 7 Qd4 Qe7 8 f3 was regarded as the main continuation.
[FEN"r1b1k2r/p1ppqppp/2p2n2/8/1b1QP3/
2N2P2/PPP3PP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
It offers many complex and interesting variations after both 8...d5?! and 8...c5
(Berger). In Play the Open Games as Black, London 2000, John Emms
recommended 8...Bc5 9 Qd3 a5, as in Tartakower Prins, Venice 1949. In my
opinion, 10 Be3 (instead of Tartakower's 10 Bg5) 10...Ba6 11 Qd2 leads to
equality. In Starting Out: The Scotch Game, London 2005, Emms only says:
"Black can try 8...Bc5" and offers more details on lines where White has an
easier life.
5...bxc6
Black's split pawn formation means that almost every ending will be slightly
better for White. In particular after a further d7-d5 and some pawn exchanges,
Black will often be handicapped with the inferior pawn formation. A threat to
exchange queens may worry White in other forms of the Open Games but
hardly in the Scotch!
6 Qe2!?
[FEN"r1bqkb1r/p1pp1ppp/2p2n2/8/4P3/8/
PPP1QPPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
become accessible today via "Google Books" and are only a few mouse clicks
away. In his article Edward Winter in particular looks at 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5
8 c4 Ba6 9 b3 0-0-0. The last move is "old," while other options like Anand's
9...g5 used to attract most followers nowadays. Winter's conclusion:
"Although many of the above Scotch Game variations still occur in modern
games, the great labor of these giants from another century seems to have
been virtually forgotten."
The picture may change. In one of the latest books on the Scotch, The Scotch
Game for White, Sofia 2009 [7], Vladimir Barsky often gives a +/- in the
fashionable lines, while in the old 9...0-0-0 line he only claims a slight
advantage (+=). On page 176, Barsky writes on the position after 9...0-0-0 10
Bb2: "It is amazing, but I will have to mention this position was tested in
practice as early as the end of the 19th century!" Perhaps someone should
have informed Mr. Barsky about the rich history of the Scotch. Barsky's
bibliography consists of mere two books (Marin, 2007 and Emms, 2005).
6...Qe7
[FEN"r1b1kb1r/p1ppqppp/2p2n2/8/4P3/8/
PPP1QPPP/RNB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
[FEN"3qk2r/Q1pbbppp/5n2/8/4pB2/
2N5/PrP2PPP/R3KB1R w KQk - 0 13"]
13 Bxc7 Qc8 14 Ba6! +- suddenly traps Black's queen; e.g., 14...Bc5 15 Qxc5
Qxa6 and now the crowning 16 0-0-0! +-.
(c) 6...Rb8 comes into consideration.
7 Nd2
[FEN"r3kb1r/p1p1qppp/2b2n2/2p5/2B1p3/
4Q3/PPPN1PPP/R1B2RK1 b kq - 0 13"]
Black has an extra pawn, but won't be too happy with it.
(c) 7...a5!? is another attempt to lure White into a version of the Mieses
Variation: 8 e5 Nd5 9 c4 and here 9...Nb6 is the usual continuation, for which
you'll need a book (190 games are in the database). But 9...Ba6!? is also
interesting; e.g., 10 b3 g6 11 Nf3 Bg7 12 Bb2 0-0 13 Qd2 Nb6 14 Be2 Bb7 15
0-0 c5, the chances seem roughly balanced. Gutman in his Gewinnen mit
Schottisch had believed (p. 64) that 10 Qe4("!") Nb6 was good for White.
However, the computer boldly sacrifices a knight: 10...Nb4! 11 a3 d5 12 Qb1
Qxe5+
[FEN"r3kb1r/2p2ppp/b1p5/p2pq3/1nP5/
P7/1P1N1PPP/RQB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 13"]
13 Kd1 (or 13 Be2 dxc4!) 13...0-0-0 14 c5 (what else) 14...Bxf1 15 Rxf1 Na6
-/+ with a strong, lasting attack on White's uncastled majesty. Lev Gutman's
three books on the Scotch are important, because he has studied many old
sources and checks them without prejudices. But the occasional computer
surprise happens to the best authors. Instead of 8 e5, White can play 8 Qe3!?,
either followed by calm development after 8...g6 9 Bd3 Bg7 10 0-0 0-0 11
Nf3 Re8 12 Re1 =, or an interesting pawn sacrifice after 8...Qc5 9 Qg3! g6 10
Be2 Qxc2 11 0-0 Qc5 12 Nc4 Nxe4 13 Qxc7 Bd6 14 Nxd6+ Qxd6 15 Qxd6
Nxd6 16 Bf4 Nf5 17 Bd3. White has sufficient compensation for the pawn,
but whether he can hope for more is an open question.
If you don't like one of these additional possibilities for Black, go into the
Mieses Variation without the delaying tactics that I propose here. The
following game continuation would still be of interest for you, since it can be
reached by a transposition.
8 e5!
Finally, White goes into the main line. At least it seems so.
8...Nd5 9 c4 Ba6
[FEN"r3kb1r/p1ppqp1p/b1p3p1/3nP3/2P5/
8/PP1NQPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
[FEN"r3kb1r/p1ppqp1p/b1p3p1/3nP3/2P1N3/
8/PP2QPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 10"]
The two games in the database scored an impressive 100 percent. Admittedly,
one of them went 10...f5?? 11 exf6 Nxf6?? 12 Nxf6+ and 1-0. Even worse
would be the direct 10...Qxe5?? 11 Nf6+ and wins.
10...Bg7
(a) In the correspondence game Ulrich Beyer Dr. Peter Schaaf, Bundesliga
II 1997, there followed 10...Qb4+ 11 Kd1 Bg7 12 f4 0-0 13 Qd2 Qxd2+ 14
Bxd2 Nb6 15 b3 d5 16 Nc5 Bc8 17 Rc1 a5 18 cxd5 cxd5 19 Bb5 +=, and
White had a pleasant position (1-0, 46). A tougher nut to crack could be 12...
Rb8!
(a1) 13 Qc2 f5 14 a3 Qb6 15 cxd5 fxe4 16 Bxa6 (or 16 dxc6 Qd4+) 16...Qxa6
17 dxc6 fails to 17...0-0 18 cxd7 Bxe5! 19 fxe5 Rf1+ with a draw by
perpetual check.
(a2) 13 b3 0-0 14 Qd2 Bc8 15 Qxb4, White obtains the better position: 15...
Nxb4 16 a3 Na6 17 b4 d6 18 Nf6+! Bxf6 19 exf6 +=. The knight on a6 is a
problem for Black that will return in the present main game.
(b) The computer found a hidden resource: 10...0-0-0!? 11 Qc2 Qxe5 (or 11...
Nb4 12 Qc3 Qh4 13 Ng3 Qd4 14 Rb1 c5 15 Qxd4 cxd4 16 a3 Nc6 17 f4 =)
12 cxd5 Bxf1 13 Kxf1 Re8, winning back the piece; about equal. Since 14
Qa4?! Qxe4 15 Qa6+ Kb8 (15...Kd8? 16 Bg5+ Be7 17 d6! =) 16 Be3 c5 17
Qb5+ Kc8 is good for Black, White has to exchange queens: 14 dxc6 Qxe4 15
cxd7+ Kxd7 16 Qxe4 Rxe4 17 Be3. The resulting ending is equal and does
not permit either side much of a winning attempt.
11 Bg5! Qxe5
He takes the pawn a natural, but risky decision.
(a) 11...Qb4+ 12 Qd2! Bxe5 13 0-0-0 Qxd2+ 14 Nxd2 +=, when White has
very active pieces, in effect more than compensation for the pawn.
(b) 11...Bxc4!? 12 Qxc4 Qxe5 is the kind of "computer" sacrifice that is rare
in human OTB-play: 13 Be2 0-0 14 Rd1 Rae8 (or 14...Nb6 15 f4 Qxb2 16
Qb3 Qxb3 17 axb3 unclear) 15 f3 Qxb2
[FEN"4rrk1/p1pp1pbp/2p3p1/3n2B1/2Q1N3/
5P2/Pq2B1PP/3RK2R w K - 0 16"]
Black has collected three pawns for the piece, the position is unclear. In a
practical game, not against the computer, White should have fine chances:
when the board is still "full," it is generally easier to play with the piece than
with the three pawns.
12 Nc5 Qxe2+ 13 Bxe2 Nb4 14 0-0-0
14 0-0 can become just as complicated. White seems to have sufficient
compensation for the pawn. I wasn't able to find a win in the jungle after 14...
Bc8 (and don't forget 14...Bxb2) 15 Bg4 f5, but if you like the first thirteen
moves in this article, with a little independent analysis 14. 0-0 could be a
good practical weapon.
14...d6 15 Rhe1
After 15 a3? Na2+ 16 Kb1 Rb8 17 Rd2 Nc3+ 18 Kc2 dxc5 19 bxc3, we have
an unusual case with five pawns on the c-file. Objectively the text move must
be stronger.
[FEN"r3k2r/p1p2pbp/b1pp2p1/2N3B1/
1nP5/8/PP2BPPP/2KRR3 b kq - 0 15"]
15...0-0?
The wrong decision. Not the losing error, perhaps, but Black is getting into
difficulties. The alternative 15...dxc5 16 Bf1+ Kf8 17 a3 Nd5 18 cxd5 Bxf1
19 Be7+ (or 19 Rxf1) 19...Kg8 20 Rxf1 leads to an equal position.
16 Nxa6 Nxa6 17 Bf3 Rab8 18 b3 Be5!
The pawn on c6 is taboo (19 Bxc6? 20 Nb4), and Black hurries to shut the efile.
19 Bd2
19 Kc2 Nb4+ 20 Kb1 a5 21 a3 Na6 22 Kc2 a4 23 b4 at first looks reasonable,
until you see that Black sacrifices the knight with gusto: 23...Nxb4+ 24 axb4
Rxb4 with ber-compensation.
19...c5 20 Ba5!
[FEN"1r3rk1/p1p2p1p/n2p2p1/B1p1b3/
2P5/1P3B2/P4PPP/2KRR3 b - - 0 20"]
Black's knight is stranded on a6, and if the Rb8 moves, there may follow Bb7,
winning the pawn c7. The whole black structure on the queenside is close to
petrifaction. Nevertheless, it is not easy to find a good plan for White. The
key idea may be to play f2-f4 at an appropriate moment, to invade on e7.
Black's answer is prophylaxis: he brings his own f-pawn to f4.
20...f5 21 Kc2
Protects pawn b3 and threatens 22 a3, but in reality it is only a little maneuver
to gain the tempo Kc1-b1.
21...Nb4+ 22 Kb1 Na6 23 Bc6!
Another plan was 23 Bd5+ Kg7 24 f4 Bxf4+ 25 Re7+ Kh6 26 Bc3 Be5 27
Bd2+ f4; for example, 28 Rf1 (other moves like h4 or g3 are possible, but
apparently not better) 28...Nb4 29 Be4 Rbe8 30 Rd7 d5! 31 cxd5 Bd6 32 Re1
Rxe4! 33 Rxe4 Nxd5 34 h4 Nb6 35 Rxd6 cxd6 36 Bxf4+ Kh5 37 Bxd6, this
ending is equal.
23...Nb4 24 Ba4
24 Bb5 c6 25 Ba4 Rbc8 only helps Black to reorganize.
24...Rb7 25 Re3!
25 a3 Na6 26 Kc2 (threat: Bc6) 26...Nb8 27 f4 Bxf4 28 Re7 Rf7 29 Re8+ Rf8
is a draw.
By placing his rook to the third rank, White protects the pawn b3, so that 26
a3 Na6 27 Bc6 becomes a deadly threat.
25...f4 26 Rf3 g5 27 Rh3!
It was tempting to exchange two rooks, when the embarrassing placement of
Black's remaining pieces would be even more obvious: 27 g4 fxg3 28 Rxf8+
Kxf8 29 hxg3 Kg7 30 a3 Na6 31 Kc2 Nb8 32 Bd2 Bd4
[FEN"1n6/prp3kp/3p4/2p3p1/B1Pb4/
PP4P1/2KB1P2/3R4 w - - 0 33"]
[FEN"1r4k1/p1p4p/n2p4/BBp1b1p1/
2P5/P4P2/K4P2/1R6 b - - 0 34"]
There goes the knight, but now the whole White armada is misplaced. To
queen his pawn a3, White would need about eleven moves. How fast the
single pawn h7 is in comparison! Black plays: 34...Rf8! 35 Bxa6 Rxf3 36 Be1
Rd3 37 Bb7 h5! 38 Ba5 h4 and holds the draw.
28...Kg7 29 a3 Na6 30 Bd2 h6
In several variations the valuable rook h3 plays the main role, often White can
start a mating attack: 30...Kg6 31 f4! Bxf4 32 Bc6 followed by 33 Be4+, and
Black's defeat is near.
30...Rf5 31 Kc2 Nb8 32 Rh5 Rxf3 33 Rxg5+ Kf6 was more stubborn, but 34
Rh5 Rxf2 35 Rxh7 +/- offers good winning chances. The next move opens a
file for White's rook d1.
[FEN"5r2/prp3k1/n2p3p/2p1b1p1/B1P5/
PP3P1R/3B1P1P/1K1R4 w - - 0 31"]
[FEN"4Br2/p1p5/nr4kp/2p1R1p1/
2P5/PP5R/5P1P/1K6 b - - 0 36"]
[FEN"5k2/R4B2/1P5p/2p3p1/
1nP5/7r/1K5P/8 b - - 0 50"]
Sources
[1] G. Welling: "Simon Alapin's Hippopotamisches Springerspiel," in:
Kaissiber 2 (1997)
[2] L. Gutman: Gewinnen mit Schottisch, Kassel 1992
[3] L. Gutman: 4. d4 im Vierspringerspiel, Kassel 1993
[4] E. Winter: "Kasparov, Karpov and the Scotch," published online (1991).
[5] J. Emms: Play the Open Games as Black, London 2000.
[6] J. Emms: Starting Out: The Scotch Game, London 2005
[7] V. Barsky: The Scotch Game for White, Sofia 2009 (not too bad, but the
bibliography lists only two sources: Marin's Beating the Open Games, and
Emms' Scotch book)
[8] G. Flear: Starting Out: Open Games, London 2010 (Scotch section: poor)
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n2q2/2b5/3NP3/
2P1B3/PP3PPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
White to play and find the best move for the repertoire. Before I give the
solution, perhaps you should try to find it yourself. How do you prepare a
continuation for your next tournament game? Is there a personal strategy that
you have developed? Let me guess:
First step You look into your database, where you find:
7 Bc4 5,200 games, score 54% for White, average rating (White) in
rated games 2160
7 Nc2 540 games, score 46%, average rating: 2090
7 Qd2 280 games, score 49%, average rating: 2090
7 f4 108 games, score 48%, average rating: 1930
7 Be2 640 games, score 42%, average rating: 1810
7 Bb5 210 games, score 50%, average rating: 1760
Second step You look into a recent opening book. It informs you that the
1922 Handbuch had assessed 7 Bc4 Ne5 8 Be2 Qg6 9 0-0 d5 as preferable for
Black (p. 547, fn. 29), but thanks to Garry Kasparov and Sergey Dolmatov,
who found the strong resource 10 Bh5!, the Scotch Game was successfully
reanimated.
Conclusion You decide to play 7 Bc4, like everybody else on this planet.
There are many reasons why your decision is wrong. You'll have to learn
much theory, and for little reward, because your opponents will expect 7 Bc4.
Since the golden days of Garry Kasparov enough resources for Black have
been found. To score heavily with 7 Bc4, you are simply a few decades late.
What you really need is an idea that is unpopular yet strong.
Louis Paulsen
Source: G. A. Macdonnell:
The Knights and Kings of Chess, 1894.
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n2q2/1Bb5/3NP3/
2P1B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
Perhaps you are beginning to see the advantage of a little historical research,
instead of mindlessly following the crowd. Provided that you can repair 7
Bb5, you'd gain a secret weapon that an opponent can easily underestimate.
Even better: the old sources from the nineteenth century, long forgotten and
unavailable for most opponents, would become your private gold mine.
You are probably sceptical whether analyses from the nineteenth century are
still useful. In my opinion, they are. There are errors, of course, but often just
the kind of errors that can happen to your human opponents. The old articles
often inspire new ideas, which in my opinion counts for more than just
imitating recent successes of other players, no matter how strong they are.
Spotting mistakes overlooked for 150 years, with the help of your computer,
is part of the fun. Regarding the extent of old sources, you may be surprised
how much is available, at least about fashionable lines of the past. Lev
Gutman's reference work [5] on the Scotch has one page on 7 Bb5. The old
analyses [1], [2], [3] used for this article are a total of about twelve pages, and
the authors C. E. Ranken, W. Timbrell Pierce and William Steinitz deserve to
be taken seriously. More can be found in old books and magazines, should 7
Bb5 ever become popular again.
By sheer coincidence, 7 Bb5 was tested in the second match game of the two
experienced players, whose names are already known to the readers of this
column.
Attakinsky Defendarov
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/8/
PPPPNPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 3"]
This move order avoids the Russian Defense. Last month I had studied only
2Nf6 3 d4 Nxe4, but Kaissiber co-editor Maurits Wind (Netherlands) is
right to mention 3exd4 as a good alternative. Probably White cannot prove
much of an advantage, but I propose the response 4 e5 Ne4 5 f3 (the gambit 5
c3?! Dxc3 6 Nbxc3 Bb4 seems too risky) 5Nc5 6 Nxd4 (6 c3 looks
unsound) 6...Nc6 (6d6 7 exd6 Bxd6 8 Nb5!?) 7 Be3!. The last move offers
a lively gambit; for example, 7Qh4+ (7Nxe5 8 f4 followed by Nc3 gives
White sufficient compensation) 8 Bf2 Qg5 9 Nc3 with interesting
complications. If 9Qxe5+ 10 Be2 Nxd4 11 Bxd4 Qg5 12 f4!, White has
sufficient compensation, at least.
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pppp1ppp/8/2n3q1/3B1P2/
2N5/PPP1B1PP/R2QK2R b KQkq - 0 12"]
As I said in the first part, I do not claim an advantage for White after Alapin's
2 Ne2, but the play seems unbalanced and offers many opportunities. The 2
Ne2 sequence can be a good decision, if you want to reach the Scotch,
without having to spend a lot of work on the Russian or Philidor's Defense.
You can easily upgrade this basic repertoire at a later moment, when you feel
fit to play 2 Nf3.
3 d4 exd4
Accepting the invitation to the Scotch.
4 Nxd4 Bc5
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b5/3NP3/8/
PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5"]
The July column had proposed a (slightly) offbeat treatment of 4Nf6. The
bishop move is even more popular. Another option for Black, 4Qh4, creates
positions that anyone inclined to unusual situations should enjoy anyway.
White should be warned, however, that 4Qh4 isn't the bad move that some
sources suggest. The jury is still out.
5 Be3 Qf6 6 c3 Nge7
One of the best-known positions of the Scotch Game. The "modern
continuation" 7 Bc4 is also the oldest: two games Perigal Walker are
published in Walker's Chess Studies. Gutman's book [5] discusses ten
continuations. Louis Paulsen introduced one of the minor ideas, 7 Be2, in
1864, and 7 Bb5 is named "Paulsen Attack" after him. Cook's The Evolution
of the Chess Openings, 1906, writes: "This is one of the strongest
continuations, first played in an unimportant game in 1866, but introduced
into master play by L. Paulsen v. Anderssen at the Leipsig Tourney (1877)."
If this wasn't enough, Paulsen introduced a third option for White, 7 Qd2, in
the game L. Paulsen Englisch, 1880.
7 Bb5!?
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/2n2q2/1Bb5/3NP3/
2P1B3/PP3PPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
"The move [] is, we believe, the strongest at this juncture," Steinitz in [2].
70-0
The most important alternatives are as follows:
(a) 7Nd8 8 0-0 0-0 Gunsberg Blackburne, London 1881, is good for
White. Ranken [1] mentions that in a "subsequent partie" 9 Nd2 was played,
and this seems in fact more flexible: +/-. An alternative line: 8Qb6 9 Qe2 00 10 b4 Bxd4 11 cxd4 "with an excellent attack," Steinitz [2]. Yes, and
Rybka's 9 Bc4 isn't bad either.
(b) Against 7Qe5, Gutman recommends 8 Qd3!. It was analyzed in more
detail 1882 by Ranken [1]: 8d6 9 Nd2 0-0 10 f4 Qh5 11 0-0 f5 "even
game." The last move fails to 11 Nxf5 +/-, but if we replace it by 11Bd7
+=, the analysis comes close to the truth. I have tried 80-0 9 Nd2 a6 10 Bc4
d6 (10d5? 11exd5 Nxd5 12 N4f3) 11 0-0 Qh5 12 f4 Na5; White's
advantage is small.
(c) One little detail that I simply have to add. Recent books on the Scotch
rarely fail to mention that the early exchange of the white queen on f3 is an
excellent, modern idea, which apparently has revived the Scotch Opening, or
something like that. Here comes a variation from W. T. Pierce, 1892 [3]: 7
d6 8 Qf3
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp1nppp/2np1q2/1Bb5/3NP3/
2P1BQ2/PP3PPP/RN2K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppppnppp/1bn2q2/1B6/P2NP3/
2P1B3/1P3PPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - a3 0 9"]
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppp1nppp/1bnp1q2/1B6/P2NP3/
2P1B3/1P1Q1PPP/RN3RK1 b - - 0 10"]
The situation is complex. It wouldn't hurt to know more about the 7 Qd2 line,
or to study Meitner's 7 Nc2. The move a2-a4 is often useful: 10Qe5?! 11
Bf4 Qxe4? 12 Re1 Qg6 13 Bxc6 Nxc6 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 a5 +/-. Black should
adopt a strategy aiming at d7-d5; for example, 10h6 followed by Rd8, or
perhaps 10Qg6; e.g., 11 f3 d5 12 Bd3 dxe4 13 Bxe4 Nf5, which the
computer regards as roughly equal, even after the astonishing 14 g4!?. New
and good ideas are still needed in this variation, for both sides.
10 Bxc6 bxc6 11 a5 Bc5
The only alternative is to take on d4. It brings about a situation with bishops
on squares of opposite color, but other factors in the position, like Black's
weak a-pawn, may be more significant: 11Bxd4 12 Bxd4 Qg6 13 f3! (to
restrict Black's minor pieces)
[FEN "r1b2rk1/p1p1nppp/2p3q1/P2p4/3BP3/
2P2P2/1P4PP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 13"]
[FEN "r1b2rk1/p1p1n1pp/2p4q/P2pbp2/
1P1N1P2/2P1B3/3N2PP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 16"]
The point of White's last move: for the price of a pawn, he has established a
firm grip on the dark central squares and along the e-file. To exchange the
bishop e5 now would not be an improvement: 16Bxd4 17 Bxd4 Ng6 18 g3.
We all know the rule that when a king is under fire, bishops of opposite color
are no drawing factor, they increase the attacker's chances. Who will doubt
that in our case the menacing Bd4 is stronger than the Bc8?
15Bd6 17 N2f3 Bd7
The freeing 17c5 looks good at first sight, but it fails to 18 Nb5; e.g., 18
cxb4 19 Nxd6 Qxd6 (or 19cxd6? 20 Bf2 Be6 21 Ng5 +-) 20 cxb4 Qxb4? 21
Rc1 followed by 22 Bc5 +-.
18 g3
White can choose from several promising plans. A possible alternative is 18
Nb3 Ng6 19 Nc5 Be8 20 g3 Qh5 21 Bd4 Bf7 22 a6.
18Kh8
In a difficult situation, Black is lacking a good plan. To clear the square g8 for
a later Ne7-g8-f6-e4 could be useful.
19 Ne5 Be8
If 19Bxe5 20 fxe5 Qg6 21 e6 Bc8 22 Bf4, White wins the pawn c7, in a
great position.
20 a6!
Underlining White's intentions: the pawn a7 is designed to fall, sooner or later.
20Bh5 21 Qd2 Rae8 22 Bf2 Rg8
[FEN "4r1rk/p1p1n1pp/P1pb3q/3pNp1b/
1P1N1P2/2P3P1/3Q1B1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 23"]
Black hopes for 23 Nexc6 Nxc6 24 Nxc6 Bxf4 25 Qxf4 Qxc6 27 Bxa7 Be2,
conquering the white a-pawn. But instead of chasing for pawns White
increases the pressure:
23 Nd3! Qg6
Or 23Bf7 24 Rxe7! Bxe7 25 Ne5 Qf6 26 Ndxc6 and for the small price of
the exchange, White will enjoy a passed pawn on the a-file: +/-, at least. Even
worse is 23g5? 24 Ne6 +-.
24 Re6 Qf7 25 Ne5 Bxe5 26 Rxe5 c5
Not really a solution, but returning the pawn at least reduces the strength of
the bishop f2.
27 bxc5 Bg4 28 Rae1 Ng6 29 Re6!
[FEN "4r1rk/p1p2qpp/P3R1n1/2Pp1p2/
3N1Pb1/2P3P1/3Q1B1P/4R1K1 b - - 0 29"]
More effective than 29 Rxe8 Rxe8 30 c6, yet even here White has excellent
prospects to win. Black's weak a-pawn would remain a serious handicap for
the rest of the game.
29h6
29Rxe6 30 Nxe6 is hopeless. White threatens 31 Qxd5, and if 30c6 31
Qb2 Re8, the invasion 32 Qb7 +- decides the game.
30 Qe3 Rb8 31 Kg2 Rgf8 32 h3 Bh5 33 Qd3 Rb2 34 Rb1 Ra2 35 Rb7 Re8
Black's last chance is a counter.
36 Rxe8+ Qxe8 37 Rxc7
[FEN "4q2k/p1R3p1/P5np/2Pp1p1b/
3N1P2/2PQ2PP/r4BK1/8 b - - 0 37"]
Sources
[1] C. E. Ranken: "The Scotch Gambit," in: The British Chess Magazine
1882, pp. 90-95
[2] W. Steinitz: The Modern Chess Instructor, London 1889, pp. 62-63
[3] W. T. Pierce: "The Scotch Gambit," in: The British Chess Magazine 1892,
pp. 334-340
[4] P. R. v. Bilguer: Handbuch des Schachspiels (ed. by C. Schlechter), Berlin/
Leipsig 1922
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
After two losses with 1 e4 e5 in his little match with Attakinsky (see the July
and August columns), an exhausted Defendarov declared that he needed a
pause, apparently to prepare a more resilient first move. We take the
opportunity to discuss 1 e4 g6, a reply not to be expected from this orthodox
master. Many players find it difficult to prepare for flexible defenses such as
1g6, 1d6, 1b6, where a great number of move orders are possible, in
contrast to the more straightforward play in the Open Games; for example, in
the Marshall Gambit. By postponing to move his center pawns, Black often
keeps the option to transpose to other defenses. 1g6 and a later c7-c5 could
perhaps lead to a Modern Benoni, to an Open Sicilian or several other
systems. For our offbeat repertoire after 1 e4, the Modern Defense 1g6 is a
difficult response not because of its strength, but because of its flexibility. It
isn't easy to develop something unusual, a personal approach against 1g6, if
Black has so many different options.
My own early attempts with 1g6, based on the instructive work by Keene
and Botterill, The Modern Defence (London 1972), typically included the
pawn storm b7-b5, directed against the white knight on c3. This preference
explains why I felt uncomfortable, when White chose the solid c2-c3. Many
years later it seemed to be a useful weapon against the German fianchetto
expert Jrg Hickl. I liked my position, at least up to a point:
Modern Defence
by Jon Speelman
& Neil McDonald
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp3p1p/2pp1np1/4p3/3PP3/
2PB4/PP2NPPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
As mentioned above, all kind of move orders are possible. Whether the
opening should be called Modern Defense or Caro-Kann Defense or Pirc, I
leave to the reader.
6 0-0 Bg7 7 Nd2 0-0 8 h3 Nbd7 9 f4
This solid white set-up, with the knight on e2 and an eventual later f2-f4, can
still be recommended. It is relatively easy to handle. Of course it doesn't
refute 1g6, but in my opinion White keeps a lasting small advantage.
9Qe7 10 Qc2 exf4 11 Nxf4 b6 12 b4 Bb7 13 Bb2 c5 14 Rae1 Rae8 +=
[FEN"4rrk1/pb1nqpbp/1p1p1np1/2p5/
1P1PPN2/2PB3P/PBQN2P1/4RRK1 w - - 0 15"]
White has more space. Black's position is sound, but his options are limited.
15 bxc5
15 b5 was preferable.
15bxc5 16 Qa4 a6 17 Qa5 Bh6 18 Bc1 Bg7 19 Qc7? Rb8 20 Nf3? (20
dxc5) 20...Rfc8 21 Qa5 cxd4 22 cxd4 Nxe4 23 Bxe4 Bxe4 -/+ and Black won
(0-1, 47), since 24 Nd5 Qe6 25 Nc7 fails to 25Qc4.
However, the set-up with c3 and Ne2 remained an exception in my games.
For an adherent of the Closed Sicilian it is more tempting to lure the opponent
into this familiar structure, by playing 2 Nc3 and leave the d-pawn on d2. Of
course Black doesn't have to accept the invitation by playing c7-c5. The
following game is an unusual mixture of a Pirc Defense and the Closed
Sicilian. The ChessBase software classifies it as a "Vienna Game". I agree
without much enthusiasm, since the situation is rather untypical for a Vienna
Game.
Stefan Bcker (2415) Stephan Ingenerf (2265)
Wittlich 1983
Vienna Game [C25]
1 e4 g6 2 Nc3 Bg7 3 g3 e5 4 Bg2 d6 5 d3 Ne7 6 f4 0-0 7 Nf3 Nbc6 8 0-0 f5
[FEN"r1bq1rk1/ppp1n1bp/2np2p1/4pp2/4PP2/
2NP1NP1/PPP3BP/R1BQ1RK1 w - f6 0 9"]
The position is almost symmetrical, only the king's knights are occupying
different squares. But it is White's turn, and some exchanges give him the
slightly better pawn structure.
9 fxe5 Nxe5?!
Better: 9dxe5 10 exf5 Bxf5, about =.
10 Nxe5 dxe5 11 exf5 gxf5 12 Qh5 c6 13 Bh6!?
White sacrifices a pawn.
13Qb6+ 14 Kh1 Qxb2
[FEN"r1b2rk1/pp2n1bp/2p4B/4pp1Q/8/
2NP2P1/PqP3BP/R4R1K w - - 0 15"]
15 Ne4! fxe4
The computer suggests the defense: 15Qd4, intending 16 Ng5 Qg4!. But
after 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 the quiet continuation 17 Rab1! threatens g3-g4, while
the knight e4 is still taboo: 17fxe4 18 Rxf8! Kxf8 19 Rf1+, winning.
16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Rxf8 Qxa1+ 18 Rf1 Qxf1+ 19 Bxf1 Ng6 20 dxe4 Be6 21
Qg5 Rf8 22 Kg1 Bxa2 23 h4 h6 24 Qg4 Rf6 25 c4 Rxf1+ 26 Kxf1 Bxc4+ 27
Kf2 1-0
Gambit inventor:
Max Lange (1832-1899)
Searching for a more forcing sequence, or at least a trap, against the Modern
Defense, I detected the following exotic gambit in Max Lange's Der Meister
im Schachspiel, Weimar 1881, p. 204:
Steinitz Blackburne
Vienna 1873
Modern Defense [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Bd3?!
[FEN"rnbqk1nr/ppppppbp/6p1/8/3PP3/3B4/
PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 3"]
A surprising pawn sacrifice. It is even more surprising that Black doesn't take
on d4:
3c5 4 dxc5 Qc7 5 Ne2 Qxc5 6 Nbc3 Nc6 7 a3 d6 8 Be3 Qa5
(1-0, 39)
However, the diagrammed position didn't really occur in this final and
decisive game of the Vienna tournament. The tournament book gives this
sequence: 1 a3 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 e4 c5 4 dxc5 Qc7 5 Bd3 Qxc5 6 Ne2 Nc6 7
Be3 Qa5+ 8 Nbc3 d6, and via a completely different move order we have
finally returned to Max Lange's creative version. Max Lange was a well
known theoretician and had invented other gambit openings that were named
after him, but his "improved game version"(?) 3 Bd3?! seems difficult to
justify.
This example should be a warning. The King's Fianchetto or Modern Defense
is flexible enough to resist any premature attack. It is probably wiser to play a
solid set-up, usch as my first two examples, or another reliable system there
are many. But for those who still urge me to show something offbeat, I
propose the "Antique Attack":
1 e4 g6 2 c3!? Bg7 3 Qb3
[FEN"rnbqk1nr/ppppppbp/6p1/8/4P3/1QP5/
PP1P1PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]
[FEN"rnbqk1nr/pp1pppbp/6p1/2p5/3PP3/
1QP5/PP3PPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq d3 0 4"]
[FEN"r1bqk1nr/pp1p1p1p/4p1p1/8/2BbP3/
1Q6/PP3PPP/RNB1K2R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 0-0
9 Nc3 also deserves attention: 9Ne7 10 0-0 a6 11 Bf4 0-0 12 Rad1 Nc6 13
Qa3Bg7 14 Bd6.
9Ne7
Looks more natural than 9Nf6 10 Qd3 Qb6 11 Nc3; for example, 11Ng4
12 Qe2, and White has the initiative.
10 Nc3 a6 11 Bf4 Nc6
[FEN"r1bqk2r/1p1p1p1p/p1n1p1p1/8/
2BbPB2/1QN5/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w kq - 0 12"]
White has sufficient compensation for the invested pawn. He can simply plant
his bishop on the vital square d6, which gives him a lasting grip on the
position. 12 a4 is also possible, to prevent b7-b5. Another ambitious idea is 12
Rad1 0-0 13 Bd6 Re8 14 Rxd4!? Nxd4 15 Qd1. Maybe not entirely correct,
but the long-term pressure may be worth the exchange.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
We had begun our series of off-beat suggestions for White with the Open
Games 1 e4 e5, studied in July and August, and the Modern Defense 1 e4 g6
in September. Although the reply 1e5 is regarded as solid, there are more
than enough gambits for White to stir things up. You can either create a new
weapon, or repair a bomb from an ancient book. After his two losses with 1
e5, it was no surprise that Defendarov wanted a change and adopted the
French Defense. In the nineteenth century, 1e6 was seen as boring; a
reputation mainly caused by the main line at that time, the Exchange
Variation. Today the French Defense ranks only behind the Sicilian Defense.
The modern French players acclaim the firm pawn chain and the system's
reliability. Occasionally Black even manages to win a game.
The average French player isn't stronger than the average 1e5 or 1c5
player, but he has typically played the French Defense for decades. Instead of
entering the Winawer Variation or another line requiring knowledge of
French structures, I have always preferred rarer treatments with pawn
structures less familiar to French players. But even these side-lines are
relatively stable, and the "Fort Knox Variation," 4Bd7 followed by Bc6,
got its name for a reason. By the way, I don't know who invented the name. A
tip by a reader would be much appreciated.
Black Shockers
by Andrew Martin
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3p4/4P3/
2N2N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
By developing his two knights and postponing the advance d2-d4, White
avoids the Winawer Variation (2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4). If Black would insist in
3Bb4, the reply 4 a3 Bxc3 5 dxc3 dxe4?! 6 Qxd8+ Kxd8 7 Ng5 += is
sufficient to give White some advantage.
3dxe4
De facto transposing to the Rubinstein Variation 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 (or
Nd2) dxe4 4 Nxe4, an option which Black also would have had against the
standard move order. The Two Knights Variation has the potential
disadvantage to offer Black two additional options, namely 3d4, going into
positions known from the Van Geet Opening 1 Nc3, and 3Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5
d4 c5 6 dxc5. The latter is an interpretation of the Steinitz system that isn't as
popular as the Steinitz main lines with f2-f4. But I believe it is
underestimated.
4 Nxe4 Bd7
The manoeuvre Bd7-c6 is characteristic of the so-called Fort Knox Variation.
The bishop c6 is often exchanged for a white knight, followed by c7-c6 with a
solid formation. But White has his own ideas in the present game. Main
alternatives not considered here are 4Nd7, 4Nf6, 4Be7, and 4Qd5.
5 d4
The attempt 5 Ne5, to profit from the different move order, costs valuable
time: 5Nc6 =. After d2-d4, we have reached the Rubinstein Variation.
5Bc6 6 Neg5!?
[FEN"rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/2b1p3/6N1/3P4/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
(a) 6h6? is the "worst case": 7 Nxf7! Kxf7 8 Ne5+ Kf6 9 Qg4 +- (1-0, 19)
Janos Kirwald, corr. 1987 (EU-ch GT 270).
(b) 6Be7 7 Bc4 Bd5 8 Bxd5 is ECO's main line, but 8 Be2! at least
conquers the bishop-pair, as both 8Nd7 9 c4 Bc6? 10 d5 and 8Nf6 9 c4
Bc6 10 Ne5 Bxg2? 11 Rg1 fail. And 8h6? 9 Nxf7! is just as bad as "a." The
only question remains whether 8 Bb5+!? Bc6 (or 8c6 9 Bd3) 9 Qe2 may be
even stronger. Again 9Nf6? fails to 10 Nxf7. In other words: 6Be7 looks
anti-positional.
(c) Neil McDonald [1] calls 6Bd6 "the antidote." He continues ([1], p. 89):
"[7 Nxf7] 7Kxf7 8 Ng5+ Ke8 doesn't give White anywhere near enough for
the piece; for example, 9 Nxe6 Qh4!?..." But someone noticed that the
grandmaster was wrong: "dmp4373" posted analysis [2] in the public section
of "Chesspublishing.com." Others contributed to the interesting thread, with
the final result that the text move, criticized in 1999 by John Nunn [3], may
well be the correct continuation. After 6Bd6 7 Nxf7! Kxf7 8 Ng5+ Ke8
(Thomas Johansson's proposal 8Ke7 9 Bc4 Bd5 10 Bxd5 Bb4+ 11 c3
Qxd5! is unclear, but 11 Bd2! [instead of 11 c3] 11Bxd2+ 12 Qxd2 Qxd5
13 c4! += keeps the attack alive; e.g., 13Qxc4 14 Rc1 Qd5?! 15 Rc5! Qxg2
16 Qe2! +-) 9 Nxe6, White has indeed the better position:
[FEN"rn1qk1nr/ppp3pp/2bbN3/8/3P4/8/
PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQ - 0 9"]
(c1) 9Qh4 (!? McDonald) 10 Bd3! (improving upon 10 Nxg7+ Kd7 11 Nf5
Qe4+ 12 Ne3 Ne7 13 Be2 unclear [1-0, 43], Genocchio Foisor, Edoardo
Crespi Magistrale 2009) 10Bxg2 (or 10Qf6 11 0-0 Ne7 12 Re1
"dmp4373") 11 Bg5 Qh3 12 Qe2 +/- "dmp4373."
(c2) 9Qf6 10 Bc4 Qg6 (10b5 11 Bb3 Bxg2 12 Rg1 Qf3 13 Ng5! +/"ReneDescartes" [2]; or the analogous 10Bxg2 11 Rg1 Qf3 12 Ng5!) 11
Ng5 Nh6 12 0-0 Kd8 13 Bd3 Qf6 14 c4. So far the analysis in [2] by
"dmp4373," which results in a position slightly better for White. 13 Re1! Bd7
14 Bd3 Qf6 15 h3 Kc8 16 c3 might be stronger; for example, 16Nf5 17
Qh5 Qg6?! 18 Qxg6 hxg6 19 g4 Nh4 20 f4, followed by Kf2-g3, and Black is
in difficulties.
7 Nxf7!? Kxf7 8 Ng5+ Ke8
8Ke7 fails to 9 Qe2! +-, while 9 Qg4?! in Marjanovic Skembris, Bela
Crkva 1983, left Black some hope. In fact the game ended with a draw.
[FEN"r2qkbnr/pppn2pp/2b1p3/6N1/3P4/8/
PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQ - 0 9"]
9 Bd3
A novelty suggested by "Djy" in the Chesspublishing thread [2].
(a) 9 Be2 is another untested idea and not easy to refute: 9Qf6 10 0-0 Rd8!
(but not 10Bd6? 11 Re1 Nf8 12 d5! Bxd5? 13 Qxd5!!) 11 Bd2 (aimed at
Black's good resource Nd7-c5, which is too effective against 11 Re1, 11 Bc4
and 11 Bg4) 11Bd6! 12 Re1 Nf8 13 Bh5+ g6 14 Bg4 Ne7 15 c3 (15
Bxe6!?) h6 16 Nxe6 Nxe6 17 Bxe6
[FEN"3rk2r/ppp1n3/2bbBqpp/8/3P4/
2P5/PP1B1PPP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
[FEN"r2qkbnr/pppn2pp/4p3/6N1/2BP4/8/
PPP2PbP/R1BQK1R1 b Q - 0 10"]
Bxd7 18 Be5 c6 19 Nh4, with heavy complications and chances for both
sides.
[FEN"r2qkbnr/pppn2pp/2b1p3/6N1/3P4/
3B4/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 0 9"]
9Qf6
9Ndf6!? 10 Qe2 (so far analysis by "Djy" in [2]) 10Ne7 is a serious
alternative: 11 Nxe6 (less convincing: 11 Bf4?! Qd7 12 0-0-0 h6 13 Nxe6 Kf7
14 Nxc7 Rc8 15 Nb5 Ned5 16 Be5 Re8) 11Qd7 12 0-0 Kf7 13 Re1 Bd5 14
Nc5 Qg4 15 Qxg4 Nxg4 16 c4 with compensation.
10 0-0 Bd6 11 Nxe6
The line suggested by "Djy" continues 11 c4, "but it's not a 'clear' way,"
writes "Djy." It seems that 11Nf8 12 Re1 (perhaps 12 Be3 h6 13 Nh3) 12
Ne7 is slightly better for Black.
11Qxe6 12 Re1
[FEN"r3k1nr/pppn2pp/2bbq3/8/3P4/
3B4/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 12"]
12Ne5
Black avoids the enormous complications after 12Be5, perhaps a wise
decision:
(a) 13 Bf4 (13 dxe5? Nc5 14 Bf1 Qg6 is harmless) 13Kf8 14 Bxe5 (14
dxe5 Ne7 15 b4 may be playable, but 14 c4?! Re8 15 dxe5 Nc5 16 Be2 Ne7
17 b4 Qg6 looks dubious) 14Nxe5 15 Rxe5 Qd6; for example, 16 Qe2!? h5
17 Re1 Nf6 18 Bc4 Re8 19 h3 Rh6 20 Bb3 b5 21 Qe3 Rg6 22 f3
[FEN"4rk2/p1p3p1/2bq1nr1/1p2R2p/3P4/
1B2QP1P/PPP3P1/4R1K1 b - - 0 22"]
The position seems roughly balanced, since none of the players can do much
without giving up the center.
(b) 13 c4 (to control the square d5) 13Kf7 14 Bf4! (14 d5? Bxd5 15 cxd5
Qd6 -/+; 14 dxe5?! Ne7 15 b4 b6 16 Qh5+ g6 17 Qh4 Nf5 =+) 14Rd8! 15
b4! (but not 15 dxe5? Nc5; the text move controls the square c5 and plans
dxe5) 15a6 (it isn't obvious whether the immediate 15Ngf6 is better or
worse; 15b6 also comes into consideration) 16 a4 Ngf6 (16...Qf6) 17 b5
(better than 17 dxe5) 17Qg4 18 Qxg4 Nxg4 19 dxe5 Nc5 20 Be2! Bd7 21
f3 Nh6 22 Be3 b6 (22Ne6 23 g4 c5 24 f4) 23 a5! Nf5 24 Bf2 axb5 25 cxb5
Nb3 26 axb6 Nxa1 27 bxc7 Rc8 28 b6 Nb3 29 Ba6 Be6 30 h3 g5 31 Re4 Na5
32 Ra4 Nc6 33 f4 gxf4 34 Rxf4 Ke8 35 Bxc8 Bxc8 36 Rxf5 Bxf5
[FEN"4k2r/2P4p/1Pn5/4Pb2/8/7P/5BP1/6K1 w - - 0 37"]
[FEN"r3kr2/ppp1b1pp/2b1q3/3PP3/2P3n1/
3BB3/PP4PP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
[FEN"r2k1r2/ppp3Q1/1q4p1/2bPP3/
8/3B4/PP4PP/R6K w - - 0 25"]
25 Rf1!
25 d6? Bxd6 26 Be2? (26 exd6 Qxd6 -/+ would be the lesser evil) 26Qd4
27 Bg4 Bc5 28 h3 c6 29 Rd1 Qxd1+ 30 Bxd1 Rf1+ 31 Kh2 Rxd1 32 Qg8+
Kc7 33 Qxa8 Rd8! -+, finally trapping the queen.
25Rxf1+ 26 Bxf1 a6 27 Qg8+ Ke7 28 Qg7+
28 Qxa8 Qxb2! 29 Qh8 Qf2 =.
28Ke8
[FEN"r3k3/1pp3Q1/pq4p1/2bPP3/
8/8/PP4PP/5B1K w - - 0 29"]
29 d6!
A last attempt: if 29cxd6?? 30 e6 +-.
29Bxd6 30 Qxg6+
Black's king cannot escape the perpetual check. Draw agreed. Apparently the
Fort Knox Variation is just safe enough.
Sources
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
In the history of our game, theoreticians have uttered bold claims: that 1 e4 e5
wins for White, that 1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 undermines the Sicilian Defense, or about
the extreme risks of Alekhine's Defense. But have you ever heard serious
concerns about the soundness of the Caro-Kann Defense, 1 e4 c6? The move
only came into fashion around 1900, but then it was adopted by some of the
greatest positional players: Capablanca, Nimzowitsch, Karpov, to name only
three. Thus, it won't surprise anyone that the present article isn't meant to
refute the Caro-Kann. We all know that White doesn't win by force, but some
repertoire books want to make us believe that a "+=" can be achieved, if only
White follows the prescribed recommendations.
In this series of unusual suggestions for 1 e4 players, I do not promise a
significant white advantage, if the second player finds the best moves. The
last column in October saw us sacrificing a knight on f7 in the French
Defense, but the game ended in a draw. In spite of the result, the idea is
exciting enough and worth exploration. Specializing in rare opening systems
can be a successful venture. Your average opponent probably doesn't play like
Capablanca (translation for younger readers: he doesn't play like a computer).
A personal approach to the openings is often a success if Black can be lured
onto unfamiliar territory, maybe just by a slightly strange move order, and if
White has done his homework.
The Caro-Kann
by Lars Schandorff
While that knight sacrifice in our last column denies Black the usual "French"
type of position and rather resembles sharp lines of the Caro-Kann, the
"advance" treatment 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 in the Caro-Kann creates a kind of
"French." Unless that the position is entirely different, of course: Black is still
able to develop his bishop to the active square f5, and will frequently do so.
Only a few decades ago such a position would have been regarded as
equalizing easily for Black. But Nigel Short has played 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nf3
followed by Be2 with success, apparently such treatments do contain some
poison. Players of the highest category (say, in the "K" class) won't be caught
on the wrong foot, but the lesser Caro-Kann players with limited experience
in the French may feel uncomfortable. In the following game, we see a
mixture of the Advance Variation 3 e5, and the Steiner Variation 2 c4, which
can only increase Black's confusion. If this were not enough, the ChessBase
software classifies it as Sicilian Defense, Alapin Variation 2 c3.
Attakinsky Defendarov
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/2p5/8/2P1P3/8/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq c3 0 2"]
In the 1930s, Lajos Steiner published analyses claiming that 2 c4 refuted the
Caro-Kann. But in the case of d7-d5, he used to take twice on d5, instead of
the advance e4-e5 in the present game.
2d5
Older theoretical works were still looking at alternatives: 2e5, which can
result in Indian positions after 3 d4. Another reasonable option is 2e6 3 d4
(or 3 Nf3) d5 4 Nc3, transposing to the Slav Gambit, or 4 exd5 cxd5, the
Panov Attack, or 4 cxd5 cxd5 (4exd5 5 e5 Na6 6 Nc3 Nc7 7 Nge2 Ne7 8
Nf4, Tal Bisguier, Bled 1961, won by White only in a long ending) 5 e5,
with a French Defense type of position. However, newer repertoire books
prefer the text move, and it is by no means a bad move.
3 cxd5 cxd5 4 e5!?
An unusual attempt, played in 1951 by Bogolyubov. The common
continuation is 4 exd5, with roughly equal chances. Only a few books on the
Caro-Kann Defense mention the text move.
4Nc6
4d4 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3!? Bxf3 7 Qxf3 should not be underestimated; e.g., after
7Nc6 the sacrifice 8 e6!? fxe6 9 Bc4 Nf6 10 0-0 offers promising play for
the pawn.
5 d4
[FEN"r1bqkbnr/pp2pppp/2n5/3pP3/3P4/8/
PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq d3 0 5"]
The same position can arise via the Alapin Variation in the Sicilian Defense: 1
e4 c5 2 c3 d5 3 e5?! Nc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4. Or even via the Scandinavian
Defense: 1 e4 d5 2 e5?! c5 3 c3 Nc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 cxd4. Neither of these
treatments is critical for those openings. For example, 3 e5?! in the first line is
ignored in Sveshnikov's The Complete c3 Sicilian. He doesn't need to feel
guilty about it, you cannot cover everything. Objectively, Black should have
[FEN"r1b1kbnr/pp2pppp/8/3NP3/8/8/
PPn2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - 0 9"]
[FEN"k4b1r/B4ppp/4p2n/1p1bP1N1/
R7/8/1P2KPPP/1B6 w - b6 0 23"]
White has a clear advantage; e.g., 23 Ra1 Kb7 24 Be3 Kb8 25 Ra7 +/-.
10 Nc7+ Kd8 11 Nxa8 Be6
Improving upon the earlier examples:
(a) 11Bf5? 12 Bd3 e6 (12g6 13 Bxf5 Bh6+ 14 Kc3 and soon 1-0,
Wiedmann Baumgartl, Pfarrkirchen Open 1988; or 12Be6 13 Kc3 Kc8 14
Be3 and White won in Zilch Koksch, Bad Zwesten 2000; or 12Nh6 13
Nf3, etc.) 13 Bxf5 exf5 14 Nf3 Kc8 15 Kd3 +/-.
(b) 11b6 12 Nf3 Bb7 13 Nxb6 axb6 14 Bd3 e6 15 Ke2 Ne7 16 Be3 Nd5 17
Rxa1 Nxe3 18 fxe3 +/-. White has a sound extra pawn and the better position.
12 Kc3 Bxa2 13 Nh3 e6 14 Ng5 Nh6 15 Be3
[FEN"N2k1b1r/pp3ppp/4p2n/4P1N1/
8/2K1B3/bP3PPP/n4B1R b - - 0 15"]
15Bb4+
The lesser of two evils: 15Nb3 16 Bc4 Bc5 17 Bxb3 Bxe3 18 fxe3 Bxb3 19
Kxb3 Ke7!? 20 Nc7 Rc8 21 Nb5 Rc5 22 Nc3! (much stronger than 22 Nxa7?)
22Rxe5 23 Nf3! +/-, when after 23Rxe3? 24 Ra1 a6 25 Kc2 the black
rook is in serious trouble; for example, 25Nf5 26 Kd2 h5 27 Ra5 f6 28
Nh4! Re5 29 Ng6+ and wins.
16 Kxb4 Nc2+ 17 Ka4 Nxe3 18 fxe3
[FEN"N2k3r/pp3ppp/4p2n/4P1N1/
K7/4P3/bP4PP/5B1R b - - 0 18"]
18f6
18Bd5 isn't better: 19 Kb4 Kc8 20 e4 Bc6 21 Bc4 Kb8 22 Rf1 Be8 23 Nb6
axb6 24 h3 +/-.
19 exf6 gxf6 20 Ka3!? fxg5
The only alternative was 20Bd5 21 e4 fxg5 22 exd5 exd5 23 Be2 Kd7 24
Rd1 Rxa8 25 Rxd5+ Kc7 26 Rc5+ Kd6 27 Rxg5 +/-, Black's h-pawn will fall.
21 Kxa2 Kc8 22 Bc4 Kd7 23 Bb5+ Kc8 24 e4!
[FEN"N1k4r/pp5p/4p2n/1B4p1/
4P3/8/KP4PP/7R b - - 0 24"]
Denying the knight the square f5. White's rook will soon infiltrate the
opponent's position, while Black cannot do much.
24Kb8 25 Bc4 Re8 26 Rf1 e5
If 26Kxa8, White wins the e-pawn: 27 Bxe6.
27 Bb5 Rc8 28 Bd7 Rd8 29 Rf6!
Again White profits from Black's weak eighth rank: 29Rxd7?? 30 Rf8+ and
mate next move.
29Kxa8 30 Be6 Ng8 31 Rf7 Re8 32 Bf5
[FEN"k3r1n1/pp3R1p/8/4pBp1/
4P3/8/KP4PP/8 b - - 0 32"]
White's pieces are dominating. The only question is whether the advantage is
sufficient for a win which seems to be the case.
32h6
A passive defense, but 32h5 33 Bg6 h4 34 Rf5 Rd8 35 Rxe5 Kb8 36 Rxg5
Ne7 37 Bf5 almost certainly wins for White, too.
33 Kb3 a6 34 Kc4 Ka7 35 Kd5 Ne7+ (desperation) 36 Kxe5 Nc6+ 37 Kf6
Re5 38 Rd7 Rb5
[FEN"8/kp6/p4K1p/1r2PBp1/
2n5/8/1P2R1PP/8 b - - 0 41"]
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
A Modest Novelty
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
There is no forced win in chess, and if your opponent has done his homework,
he will achieve a decent position after the first ten or fifteen moves. Even if
your 1 e4 repertoire is a dangerous minefield, in which you have invested
hundreds of hours, there will remain a number of main lines that are fully
playable for both sides. Preparing something new in a well known position
can be risky if your novelty had any merit, it would probably have been
used before. Nevertheless, it can be advisable to leave the beaten track early.
If Black seems to possess a solid book knowledge, it is hardly in your interest
to follow an old grandmaster game. Fortunately, there often exists an
alternative that is either underestimated or new. It may not be the kind of idea
that you are willing to repeat in another game, but perhaps it is sound and
surprising enough to score one point.
Attakinsky Defendarov
French Defense [C11]
1 e4 e6 2 Nf3
The "Two Knights Variation." The present game transposes to a Classical
French, but at least White has avoided the Winawer Variation 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3
Bb4.
2...d5 3 Nc3 Nf6
Our October column discussed 3...dxe4, resulting in a Fort Knox Variation.
4 e5 Nfd7 5 d4
The Flexible French
by Viktor Moskalenko
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppn1ppp/4p3/3pP3/3P4/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq d3 0 5"]
A Startling Chess
Opening Repertoire
by Chris Baker
Siegbert Tarrasch
One of the few authors who recommended White's set-up was Chris Baker, in
A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire, London 1998 [1]. He studied 5.Nf3 c5
6.dxc5 in great detail on thirteen pages, coming to the conclusion: "The Two
Knights' Variation [...] can lead to some exciting and original chess. It has
given me consistently good results against the French Defence over the years
and I have yet to be convinced that Black can demonstrate a clear route to
equality." In a theoretical competition that I started in 2009, members of
Chesspublishing.com improved upon several book lines [2]; the thread is
available online and contains some basic information on the theory of the line.
In my opinion, 5 Nf3 is quite promising for White.
5...c5 6 dxc5
[FEN"rnbqkb1r/pp1n1ppp/4p3/2PpP3/8/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
The key idea of Tarrasch's set-up: White is willing to exchange his pawns d4
and e5, so as to exploit these squares for his minor pieces.
6...Nc6 7 Bf4 Bxc5 8 Bd3 f6
8...0-0? fails to 9 Bxh7+ Kxh7 10 Ng5+.
9 exf6 Qxf6
[FEN"r1b1k2r/pp1n2pp/2n1pq2/2bp4/5B2/
2NB1N2/PPP2PPP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
[FEN"r1b2rk1/1p1n2pp/p1n1pq2/2bp4/8/
3B1NB1/PPP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 12"]
Only a modest novelty, maybe not even the best move on the board. However,
it includes two little traps, and there is no clear refutation even if Black
finds a reasonable reply, it is still a game of chess. Black will still have his
"hanging pawns" on e6 and d5.
I had proposed a different continuation in [2]: 12 Rb1 Nd4 13 Nxd4 Bxd4 14
Ne2!? Bxb2 15 Bd6 Rf7 16 c3 Bxc3 17 Nxc3 Qxc3. It seems that 18 Rc1 fails
to 18...Qf6! (18...Qb2? 19 Rc7 Qb6 20 Bg3 Nf6 21 Rxf7 Kxf7 22 Be5 gives
White a plus), so White has to be satisfied with a draw: 18 Rb3 Qc6 19 Bxh7
+ Kxh7 20 Qh5+ Kg8 21 Rh3 and so on. A later attempt 14 Kh1!? Bxc3 15
bxc3 Qxc3 16 Rb3 Qf6 17 Bd6 Rf7 18 c4 dxc4 19 Bxc4 Ne5 (19...b5?! 20
Rf3 Qxf3 is dubious) 20 Bxe5 Qxe5 21 Rd3 += may or may not work in
practice, but Black can simply reply 14...Rf7, which is about equal.
12...Qxb2?
Too optimistic. Just as bad would be the "natural" 12...e5, since White's
knight returns to its square with devastating effect: 13 Nc3 Nb6 14 Nxd5
Nxd5 15 Bc4 Be6 16 Bxd5 +/- with a sound extra pawn and a positional
advantage. Am I nave to hope that someone might fall into this trap? Yet it is
very tempting to play e6-e5, to punish the "passive" move of White's knight,
and weird manoeuvres like Nc3-e2-c3 are sometimes overlooked. And a third
plan connected with 12 Ne2 is the advance c2-c4 to undermine the hanging
pawns; e.g., after 12...Ba7 or 12...Kh8.
The critical answer must be 12...Nde5 13 Nxe5 Nxe5 14 c3 Bd7 15 Nf4.
Objectively the position is probably equal. But the pawn structure hasn't
changed, Black still possesses his hanging pawns, and exchanging pieces
won't solve his problem. True, you shouldn't lose because of hanging pawns
alone. Anyway, the pawn structure requires careful play from both sides, and
the better player should win.
13 Ng5 Nf6
Black's position seems to hold, but new threats are on the way.
[FEN"r1b2rk1/1p4pp/p1n1pn2/2bp2N1/8/
3B2B1/PqP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Nf4 Nd8
14...Nd4 15 Rb1 Qa3 (15...Qxa2 16 c3 e5 17 Nh5 +/-) 16 Nh5! h6 (forced) 17
Nxf6+ Rxf6 18 Bh7+! Kf8 (18...Kh8 19 Be5! hxg5 20 Bxf6 Nf3+ 21 Kh1!
+/-; e.g., 21...gxf6 22 Rb3 or 21...Kxh7 22 Bb2 etc.) 19 Nh3 Rf7 (19...Qc3 20
Nf4 b5 21 Nd3) 20 Re1 Nf5 21 Be5 Qxa2 22 Rb3 +/- with a strong attack.
15 Rb1 Qa3
15...Qxa2? 16 Nh5 h6 17 Nxf6+ Rxf6 18 Be5 Qa5 (else 19 Ra1, winning the
queen) 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Nh7 f5 21 Nf6+ Kf7 22 Nh5 +/-.
16 c4 h6 17 Nf3 Qxa2
Or 17...dxc4 18 Bxc4 b5 19 Bb3 +/-, and Black suffers from the
misplacement of his queen.
18 cxd5 Nxd5
Maybe 18...exd5 19 Bc2 +/- was the lesser evil.
[FEN"r1bn1rk1/1p4p1/p3p2p/2bn4/5N2/
3B1NB1/q4PPP/1R1Q1RK1 w - - 0 19"]
19 Ng6! Nc3
Neither 19...Rf6 20 Be5 Qa5 21 Nd2 or 19...Re8 20 Rc1 Qa5 21 Nd2 seems
sufficient to defend the position.
20 Qe1 Nxb1
If 20...Rxf3, the reply 21 Qxc3 wins.
21 Nxf8
[FEN"r1bn1Nk1/1p4p1/p3p2p/2b5/8/
3B1NB1/q4PPP/1n2QRK1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Nd2
Desperation, but 21...Na3? 22 Qe4 Kxf8 23 Ne5! +- loses on the spot.
22 Nxd2 Kxf8 23 Nc4 Nf7
To prevent the menacing 24 Qe5 (or Qe4).
24 Qc3 Qa4
Else 25 Ra1.
[FEN"r1b2k2/1p3np1/p3p2p/2b5/
q1N5/2QB2B1/5PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 25"]
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
With so much background, the move 2 c3 isn't exactly what I'd like to include
into our off-beat repertoire for 1 e4 players to be continued elsewhere. But
let us see what another GM author recommends against 2 c3, if only to
identify a reason why we should not play 2 c3. This part in Ftacnik's The
Sicilian Defence [3] comes with a promising title: "Forrest Gump The c3
Sicilian." Lubomir Ftacnik doesn't fear Sveshnikov's pet line: "The biggest
problem for Black is not so much finding a route to an acceptable position,
but rather to find a fully sound line that offers him enough chances to play for
a win. For this reason I decided to cover two options for Black, so that the
reader can choose one that suits his own attitude to risk as well as the specific
tournament or match situation that might arise on a given day."
Chess Explained
The c3 Sicilian
by Sam Collins
Evgeny Sveshnikov
The two options that Ftacnik discusses on twenty-nine pages are 2d6 and
2d5. Reasonable replies, no doubt, but unfortunately neither of them "suits
my attitude to risk," to say it in Ftacnik's words. Repertoire works have their
limitations, and we often have to choose between an author's selection and our
own taste. I have played 2d5, but was never entirely happy with it. Let us
instead study the more entertaining 1 e4 c5 2 c3 Qa5, an unusual idea from
Alapin Tarrasch, Vienna 1898.
[FEN"rnb1kbnr/pp1ppppp/8/q1p5/4P3/2P5/
[FEN"r1b1kbnr/ppqp1ppp/2n1p3/8/2NNP3/
2P5/PP3PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]
(a1) 7a6 8 Nxc6 (more critical than 8 Bd3 b5 = Alapin Tarrasch, Vienna
1898) 8Qxc6 9 e5 b5 10 Nd6+ Bxd6 11 Qxd6 +=.
(a2) 7Nxd4 8 Qxd4 b5 9 Qe5 Qxe5 10 Nxe5 a6 +=.
(b) 4 a3 e6 5 d4 Nxd4 6 Nxd4 cxd4 7 b4 Qe5! (7Qc7 8 cxd4 Sveshnikov
Kupreichik, Kiev 1984) 8 cxd4 (8 Qxd4 Qxd4 9 cxd4 d5 = [2]) 8Qxe4+ 9
Be3 Qc6 10 d5!? is an interesting sacrifice analyzed by Sveshnikov in both
[1] and [2], but 9Nf6! 10 Nc3 Qc6 11 Rc1 Nd5 is an improvement. White
has no sufficient compensation.
(c) 4 d4 cxd4 (4Nxd4!?) 5 b4 Qc7 6 b5 Ne5 7 Nxe5 Qxe5 8 Qxd4 "+=
Makropoulos Ljubojevic, Athens 1981," is a variation from [1] not repeated
in [2]. Indeed Black can hardly be worse: 8Qc7 9 Be2 (9 a4 e5 = happened
in the game cited above) 9e5 10 Qd3 a6 11 bxa6 Nf6! 12 0-0 (12 axb7?
Bxb7 13 f3 d5! or 13 Nd2 Bc5, in each case with fine compensation for
Black) 12Rxa6 13 c4 Bb4 =. There is another sharp possibility: 5 Bd2
(instead of 5 b4) 5dxc3 (5Qb6 Kruchem Krger, corr. 1996) 6 Nxc3 e6
7 Bd3 d6 8 0-0 Qd8 9 Bf4 Nf6, and Black isn't worse.
4b5!
4d6, though played by Sergei Movsesian, seems dubious: 5 0-0 Nf6 6 Re1
b5 (or 6e5 7 d4 cxd4 8 Qb3 with a strong attack) 7 Bd5 Bd7
[FEN"r3kb1r/p2bpppp/2np1n2/qppB4/4P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQR1K1 w kq - 0 8"]
[FEN"r2nkb1r/pb1ppppp/8/qppP4/4n3/
2P2N2/PP2BPPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 9"]
7Nf6 8 Bxc6 dxc6 (U. Schaffner A. Frank, Bern 1991) 9 cxb4 Qxb4 10
Qe2 would give White more to hope for. After the text move, Black can take
back on b4 with the Bf8, which saves time.
[FEN"r1b1kbnr/p2p1ppp/2n1p3/q7/Bpp1P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 8"]
Black has equalized; for example, 8 b3!? Ba6 9 a3 Ne5! 10 Nxe5 (10 axb4?
Nd3+) 10Qxe5.
Thus Tarrasch's 2Qa5!? still deserves attention. After 3 Nf3 Nc6,
Sveshnikov's 4 Bc4 isn't necessarily better than Alapin's 4 Na3. In both cases
Black has reasonable chances.
Sources
[1] E. Sveshnikov: B22, Belgrade 1997
[2] E. Sveshnikov: The Complete c3 Sicilian, Alkmaar 2010
[3] L. Ftacnik: The Sicilian Defence, Glasgow 2010
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Over the last months I have tried to draft an off-beat repertoire for the 1 e4
player. Certainly it would have been possible to give more shocking lines than
the Alapin Opening with 3 d4 (aka Scotch), 1 e4 e6 2 Nf3 or 1 e4 c6 2 c4, but
I was eager to demonstrate that it is still possible to develop an original
repertoire without sacrificing soundness. Admittedly 1 e4 e5 2 Ne2 doesn't
look very adventurous at first sight no comparison to sacrificing a pawn on
move two or three, the romantic approach. But I'd claim that my suggestions,
while relatively solid, involve the element of surprise and offer a more
creative way to play for an advantage than devoting all your time on main line
developments. My key idea was to restrict the opponent's options in the first
moves as much as possible, create a slightly unusual position and prepare
surprises mainly between moves six and ten, to throw the defender off
balance.
Stefan Bcker
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
Hugh Myers
Dangerous Weapons:
Anti-Sicilians
by Emms, Palliser,
& Peter Wells
In a way it is easier to build a repertoire for Black every forcing line that
leads to unclear complications can be regarded as a success. When you are
playing White, you rather hope to control the situation restrict Black's
options, avoid forcing lines, keep the tension, retain some initiative and
prospects for the future. Occasionally you might risk an attack that is not
entirely correct. But the basis of your repertoire for white should be like the
one described in my small repertoire: follow a modest, but clearly defined
strategy, bring your king into safety, and then start to undermine Black's
position. While the King's Gambit requires more knowledge of sharp
variations, over-the-board Black might suffer just as much under the milder,
but lasting pressure of the Scotch.
The repertoire is still sketchy. Interested readers might fill the gaps with their
own analyses. However, there is a major hole that needs to be addressed: the
Sicilian Defense 1 e4 c5. There is an armada of second moves for White, but
it isn't easy to prove an advantage:
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/4P3/8/
PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq c6 0 2"]
2 Nf3 is the popular choice. I can't believe that White has an edge, though.
For example, how should he treat the Sveshnikov Variation? Sure, there are
drawing lines (enough to let me avoid the Sveshnikov with both colors), but
none of the "critical" lines seems to give White a lasting advantage.
2 c3 Qa5!? seems quite reliable; cf., the January 2011 "Over the Horizons."
Additional feedback at the end of this column.
2 Nc3, the Closed Sicilian, is an old favorite of mine, but too complex for a
small repertoire. It is perhaps worth mentioning that Ftacnik [6] recommends
the treatment 2d6 3 g3 Nc6 4 Bg2 g6 5 d3 Bg7 6 f4 e6 7 Nf3 Nge7 8 0-0 00 on four pages (e.g., 9 Be3 b6!?), but ignores the more precise 8 Be3 0-0 9
Qd2, intending 9...b6 10 Rd1.
2 b4 is the topic of an ongoing series in Kaissiber. It is certainly playable,
since White gets sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. On the other
side, it isn't the kind of "solid surprise" that we are searching for our
repertoire.
2 a3, followed by b4, is no improvement; e.g., 2e6 3 b4 b6 =, when the
move a2-a3 is just a loss of time.
2 Bc4 (Anderssen) 2e6! is about =.
2 Na3 (Zviagintsev), the sensation of 2006, was covered in "A Knight on the
Edge," in May 2006 and June 2006. Best may be 2g6, when White hasn't
much. It is interesting to note that 2 Na3 has something in common with 2 a4,
the main topic of this column. In both cases there might follow 2Nc6 3
Bb5! Nd4 4 Nf3, because the bishop on b5 is protected either by the Na3 or
by the pawn on a4.
The move that I recommend is a rare alternative which is both sound and
surprising. In his book The Sicilian Defence [6] Ftacnik considered 2 Na3, but
not the following idea found by the American theoretician Hugh E. Myers
(more about him in [5]):
1 e4 c5 2 a4!?
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/2p5/P3P3/8/
1PPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq a3 0 2"]
Myers [2]: "No opening has been more analyzed than the Sicilian Defense,
but here is an immediate reply which everyone else has overlooked. One point
to it is that if 2d6 3 Bb5+ Bd7, White can transpose to a known variation
with 4 Nf3 (Larsen Olafsson and Larsen Bednarski, 1967; []) or try
something new, such as 4 f4, 4 d3 or 4 d4!?."
Another quote from Myers' last book, A Chess Explorer (page 115): "My
name, in books and magazines, has been attached to several openings. In my
mind, there's no better case for it than here, because of playing priority and
writing an explanation of its theory ..."
The inventor played 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+ Bd7 4 a4 in a game against A.
Pichardo (Santo Domingo 1968), probably inspired by Bent Larsen's
successes with 4 a4. The more radical version 2 a4!?, illustrated in the
diagram, was introduced in Myers P, Neuer, Eastern Experts, New York
1971 (game four in [2]).
2d6
Other possibilities include the following:
(a) 2Nc6 3 Bb5 looks like an English Opening (1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Bb4) with
colors reversed and the additional move a4. Whether the extra move a2-a4
adds much to a defense regarded as equal is open for discussion.
(b) 2Nf6 3 e5 Nd5 4 Nc3 (or Nf3) can lead to a kind of Alekhine Defense.
In the position after 3Nd5 White scored heavily according to the database
(6 in eight games).
(c) 2g6 3 Nc3 (more convincing than 3 h4 in Myers Neuer, Eastern
Experts, New York 1971) 3Bg7 4 f4 Nc6 5 Bb5 d6 (5Nf6!?) 6 Nf3 Bd7 7
0-0 Nd4?! (7Nf6) 8 d3 e6 9 e5! += Welling Jasnikowski, Copenhagen
1980. Black's fianchetto Bg7 invites the advance of White's f-pawn, to delay
the decision what to do with the Bf1. If the defender wants to prevent the
exchange of the bishop for his knight, he might play the cautious 4a6,
which can result in a kind of Closed Sicilian (after 5 g3). However, plenty of
alternatives are available; for example, 5 Bc4 in the spirit of an (improved)
Anderssen Variation 2 Bc4.
(d) 2a6 3 Nc3 transposes to a situation discussed in "Paralyzing the
Sicilians" in April 2009. Or White can go into a King's Indian Attack: d3,
Nf3, g3 and so on.
(e) 2.e6 3 Nf3 Be7 (3d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bb5+ Nc6 6 d4 Bd6 7 dxc5 with
a slight edge; 3Nc6 4 Bb5 Nf6 and White can choose between 5 e5 Nd5 6 00 Be7 7 Nc3 and the more solid 5 Nc3 with a small plus) 4 Nc3! (the
consequent reply: White keeps an eye on Bb5) 4Nc6 (or 4a6) 5 Bb5 Qc7
6 0-0 Nf6 7 d3 d6; for example, 8 Re1 0-0 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 e5 and White is
slightly better.
3 Bb5+ Bd7
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/pp1bpppp/3p4/1Bp5/P3P3/
8/1PPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 4"]
If White plays 3 Nf3 or 4 Nf3, almost certainly the position will transpose to
the Rossolimo Variation (2 Nf3 followed by Bb5). It goes without saying that
both sides can vary their moves; in particular 3Nc6 is equally popular. Over
the years the Rossolimo Variation has grown from modest beginnings (in the
1950s) to impressive books, like the 350 pages work by Rainer Kraut [3].
That said, the lines involving an early a2-a4 represent a mere sub-set of the
Rossolimo theory. Thus, it seems still manageable to study the line in depth.
But as explained by Hugh Myers, you can also try f2-f4 instead of Nf3, or
invent something else, like (in the diagram position) 4 Ne2 or 4 d3, if you
prefer to avoid anything theoretical.
4 Nf3
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/pp1bpppp/3p4/1Bp5/P3P3/
5N2/1PPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4"]
5e6
According to Larsen [1], 5Nc6 looks better and could transpose to Larsen
Olafsson, above.
6 0-0 Be7
[FEN "rn1qk2r/pp1bbppp/3ppn2/1Bp5/P3P3/
3P1N2/1PP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
[FEN "r4rk1/1p1qbppp/p3p3/P1pn4/2N5/
3P4/1PP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 13"]
[FEN "3rrbk1/1pq2ppp/p7/P1pnp3/2N1R3/
3P1Q2/1PPB1PPP/R5K1 w - - 0 18"]
17Nb4 comes into consideration. The text move does not only look bad, it
is refuted by force.
18 Qe2! f6 19 f4 Be7 20 Re1 g6 21 Qf3 exf4
Or 21Nxf4 22 Bxf4 exf4 23 Qe2! (Larsen), and the pin on the e-file wins
for White.
[FEN "3rr1k1/1pq1b2p/p4pp1/P1pn4/2N1Rp2/
3P1Q2/1PPB2PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 22"]
22 Nb6!
After this exchange, the immobility of Black's bishop becomes a fatal
handicap.
22Nxb6 23 axb6 Qd7 24 Qxf4 f5
[FEN "3rr1k1/1p1qb2p/pP4p1/2p2p2/
4RQ2/3P4/1PPB2PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 25"]
25 Bc3!! fxe4 26 Qe5 Bf8 27 Qh8+ Kf7 28 Rf1+ Qf5 29 Rxf5+ gxf5
White's queen now harvests a number of pawns.
30 Qf6+ Kg8 31 Qg5+ Kf7 32 Qxf5+ Kg8 33 Qg5+ Kf7 34 Qf6+ Kg8 35
Qh8+ Kf7 36 Qxh7+ Ke6 37 Qxe4+ Kd6 38 Qxb7 Rd7 39 Qxa6 Ke6 40 b7
+ Bd6 41 Qc4+ 1-0
Correction
The last column had discussed 1 e4 c5 2 c3 Qa5 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4 b5. One of
the lines went 5 Bd5 Nf6
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/p2ppppp/2n2n2/qppB4/4P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 e5 Nd5 8 0-0 (Alikhanov Boris Ionov, St. Petersburg 2002)
8Bf5 =+. But reader Michel Barbaut from France suggested that 6 0-0! e6
7 Bxc6 dxc6 8 Re1 may be stronger, adding that the idea was already given in
E. Rozentalis / A. Harley: Play the 2 c3 Sicilian (London 2002), with the
comment: "followed by 9 d4 gives White the better position." It seems to me
that after 8Qc7 9 d4 h6 Black is only slightly worse, yet these problems can
perhaps be avoided entirely. Instead of 5Nf6 (see diagram above) I now
prefer 5Bb7 6 d4 (or 6 d3 e6) 6cxd4 with equal chances.
Sources
[1] B. Larsen: Ich spiele auf Sieg, Zurich 1971
[2] H. Myers: Exploring the Chess Openings, Davenport 1978
[3] R. Kraut: Sizilianisch mit 3. Lb5(+), Schwieberdingen 1996
[4] H. Myers: A Chess Explorer, Davenport 2002
[5] E. Winter: Hugh Myers (1930-2008)
[6] L. Ftacnik: The Sicilian Defence, Glasgow 2010
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
I can only hope to entertain and instruct readers of Over the Horizons in the
same dedicated manner as Stefan Bcker. This month I would like to present
a special sideline in the Botvinnik System of the Semi-Slav that will certainly
rack up points for you! Let's get started.
Bartholomew, J (2440) Becerra Rivero, J (2598)
Philadelphia, 2008
Semi-Slav Defense [D44]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
Computers seem to favor 3.Nf3. However, if 3.Nc3, then Black has the
opportunity of playing the Winawer gambit of the Slav. 3.Nc3 e5!? 4.dxe5 d4
5.Ne4 Qa5+ unclear.
[FEN"rnb1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p5/q3P3/2PpN3/
8/PP2PPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]
I was acquainted with the Winawer Gambit thanks to some games of Jan
Timman, only that Timman played the position differently after: 1.d4 d5 2.c4
c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3 e5!? 5.dxe5 d4. An interesting way of breaking the
symmetry in the Exchange Slav.
3...Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5
9.exf6 gxh4 10.Ne5 Qxf6 these sidelines have proven to be more than
satisfactory for Black.
9...hxg5 10.Bxg5 Be7!?
[FEN"rnbqk2r/p3bp2/2p1pn2/1p2P1B1/2pP4/
2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
This is the variation we will be exploring this month. 10...Nbd7 leads to the
well-established mazes of the Botvinnik. In my database there are roughly
2,200 games with 10...Nbd7 (the mainline of the Botvinnik), but only 237
games with the interesting 10...Be7. The earliest elite grandmaster game with
this position is between none other than Garry Kasparov and Vassily
Smyslov, Candidates Final, 1984.
11.exf6
11.Bxf6 can transpose to the mainline after Black exchanges twice on f6.
However, Black can play ...Rh4 to target the d4-pawn: 11...Bxf6 12.exf6
Rh4!? (12...Qxf6 transposes.) 13.g3 Rxd4.
11...Bxf6 12.Bxf6
12.Be3 Nd7 13.Qf3 Bb7 14.Nxb5 Qa5+!? 15.Nc3 000 with an initiative in
Yermolinsky,A (2568)-Becerra Rivero,J (2537), San Diego 2004.
12...Qxf6
[FEN"rnb1k2r/p4p2/2p1pq2/1p6/2pP4/2N5/
PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 13"]
13.g3 Na6
The knight guards the important c5-square from any Ne4c5 ideas by white,
and also eyes the d3-square.
14.Bg2 Bb7
[FEN"r3k2r/pb3p2/n1p1pq2/1p6/2pP4/
2N3P1/PP3PBP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 15"]
[FEN"r3k2r/pb3p2/n1p1pq2/1p6/P1pP4/
2N3P1/1P3PBP/R2QK2R b KQkq a3 0 15"]
15...000 16.axb5
A) 16...Rxd4?! 17.Qe2 cxb5 (17...Nb4 18.00 Kb8+/=) 18.Bxb7+ Kxb7 19.
Nxb5 Rd5 20.Nc3 Re5 21.Ne4 Qe7 22.00+/=.
B) 16...cxb5 17.Bxb7+ Kxb7 18.Nxb5 One of the most significant theoretical
positions of the whole system. 18...e5!
[FEN"3r3r/pk3p2/n4q2/1N2p3/2pP4/
6P1/1P3P1P/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 19"]
(18...Nb4; 18...Qf5)
B1) 19.00 exd4 (19...Qc6).
B2) 19.Qa4.
B3) 19.d5 Most common reply. 19...Nb4.
B3a) 20.00 White castling here truly leads to a memorable finish! 20...Qh6!
21.Kg2 only move (21.h4 Qxh4!!+ 22.gxh4 Rdg8+ 23.Qg4 Rxg4+ 24.Kh1
[FEN"7r/R7/1k6/3P1p2/Q4K2/6P1/
3q3P/7R w - - 0 30"]
[FEN"r3k2r/pB3p2/4pq2/1p6/1npP4/6P1/
PP3P1P/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 17"]
17.Bxa8? (17.Qf3 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Rd8=/+ After everything clears on d4, Black
will have his majority more advanced and will therefore maintain the
initiative and the better prospects in the game.; 17.00 Rd8 unclear) 17...Nd3
+ 18.Kd2 Qxd4+.
15...Qe7 16.00 000 17.a4 f5!
[FEN"2kr3r/pb2q3/n1p1p3/1p3p2/P1pPN3/
6P1/1P3PBP/R2Q1RK1 w - f6 0 18"]
[FEN"1k1r3r/p3q3/b1p1p3/5p2/PppP1N2/
1n4P1/1PQ2PBP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 23"]
[FEN"1k4r1/p6q/b1p1R3/5p2/Ppp2P2/
7P/1PQ2PB1/6K1 w - - 0 28"]
28.Qe2 Qc7 29.Re8+ Rxe8 30.Qxe8+ Bc8 31.a5 c3 32.bxc3 bxc3 33.Qe3
Qxa5
[FEN"1kb5/p7/2p5/q4p2/5P2/2p1Q2P/
5PB1/6K1 w - - 0 34"]
34.Qd4 Kc7 35.Qc4 Bd7 36.h4 c5 37.Qd5 c2 38.Qe5+ Kc8 39.Qh8+ Kc7
40.Qe5+ Kc8 41.Qh8+ Kc7
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
This month I will show you a remarkable gambit in the Sicilian Alapin that is
fundamentally sound, being played by none other than Karpov himself, and
also incredibly interesting to be acquainted with, because there are so many
pitfalls for Black to avoid already starting at move four!
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3
Charles Galofre
ECO B
by Chess Informant
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/3p4/2p5/4P3/2P2N2/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
Alapin Variation
by Sergei Tiviakov
3...Nf6
This is essentially Black's best reply. All other moves allow White to play d4
without any trouble, granting him a space advantage. Now, as is the case
when one side is statically at a disadvantage, this side will fight at all cost for
dynamic possibilities to maintain the "equilibrium" in the position.
Consequently, allowing White to gambit material for superiority in time. An
interesting battle is ahead.
4.Be2
This is the main move here.
4.Bd3 is what is referred to as the Kopec System, named after international
master Dr. Danny Kopec. The idea is to play a Ruy Lopez-like position.
4.h3 is a quiet sideline, preventing Black from playing Bg4, a move that is
common played in these positions, allowing Black to give way with his
bishop and fight for the d4-square. All Sicilian players should be well versed
with this plan, Black will play ...g6, ...Bg7, and expand on the queenside,
attempting to seize the initiative on the dark squares.
4...Nc6
This is Black's first choice. He now threatens to capture the pawn on e4.
The other major alternative here is 4...g6; against this I recommend White to
play 5.00, followed by Bb5+ and d4.
If you play this position long enough, you are bound to catch someone in this
line by 4...Nxe4.
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/2p5/4n3/2P2N2/
PP1PBPPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
And no, if you're wondering this is not the gambit. I played this position
reversed (with black) versus an expert in a tournament game and the expert
captured the pawn and after an eventual check by the queen (here Qa4+, but
in that game Qa5+) I was up a piece. After the game, the player told me, I
thought this was a gambit of some sorts. Chess jokes.
5.d4!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2np1n2/2p5/3PP3/
2P2N2/PP2BPPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq d3 0 5"]
5...cxd4
5...Nxe4? 6.d5+- Ne5 7.Qa4+ and the knight on e4 falls.
6.cxd4 Nxe4
If Black does not play this move, he is ceding the game to White without a
proper fight. For instance, 6...e6 and now
A) 7.Nc3 here it is appropriate to say that White has established his spatial
advantage. 7...d5 8.e5 Ne4 9.00
B) 7.d5!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp3ppp/2nppn2/3P4/4P3/
5N2/PP2BPPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
A novel approach to the position. The idea is to force the knight to an inferior
square. If Black plays ...Ne5, then White will achieve a better pawn structure,
otherwise, the knight will take a step backwards, granting White that extra
time. 7...Ne5 (7...Nb8 8.Nc3 Be7 9.00 00 10.h3 +/=) 8.dxe6 +/=).
6...d5 This is certainly the most traditional way of playing versus the center.
Unfortunately, in this position, as in similar variations of the Alapin, Black
will have problems with the development of the bishop on c8. 7.e5 Ne4 8.00
and now
A) 8...e6 Limiting the scope of the bishop on c8.
B) 8...Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 (9...Bf5 10.Nh4 Be6 +/=; 9...Bxf3? 10.gxf3 +-) 10.e6!!
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pp2pppp/2n1P3/3p3b/3Pn3/
5N1P/PP2BPP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/2np4/q2P4/8/
2P2N2/P3BPPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
Here one could say that we have reached the critical position of this variation:
the tabiya. Black has three moves: 9...Ne5, 9...Nb8, and 9...Nd8. 9...Qxc3 is
omitted as Bd2 wins a piece on c6. Before going into variations, it's important
to understand the spirit of the position. Essentially, White is a pawn down, but
chess theory states that a pawn is typically worth three tempi. By taking this
into account, without factoring the current development advantage for White,
we could establish that it will take Black three moves to simply castle his king
to safety. This, with the addition that White has open b- and e-files for his
rooks should help us create a picture of White's compensation. Let's move
forward and explore some of the possibilities.
9...Ne5
Blacks most common response (275/441). He is placing the knight on its best
square and at the same time initiating exchanges in pieces to neutralize
White's advantage in development. Now there are two approaches for White.
Usually, it's been considered that Nxe5 is best. But current analysis suggests
that the move 10.00 might be better, even scoring higher in the percentage of
wins (75% compared to 67.9% for 10.Nxe5). We will look at some common
lines for White after 10.Nxe5 so that this line could also be added to your
gambit repertoire.
9...Nb8 (102/441) This move is considered to be too slow. The idea is to
play ...Nd7 and ...Nf6. 10.00 with compensation.
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/q2P4/8/
2P2N2/P3BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p1n2/q2P4/8/
1QP2N2/P3BPPP/R1B1R1K1 b kq - 0 12"]
Karpov-Kveinys, Riga 2002 saw 12.Rb1 a6 13.Be3 b5 14.c4 Bf5 15.cxb5 Bg7
16.Rb2 axb5 17.Bxb5+ Kf8 18.Bc6 Rc8 19.g4 e4 20.Rc2 1-0.
C2a) 12...Nxd5?! 13.Bb5+
C2a1) 13...Kd8 14.Qxd5+ (14.Ng5).
C2a2) 13...Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.Qxb7++.
C2b) 12...Qxd5 13.Bb5+ (13.Bc4 Qh5) 13...Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.c4! Qc6
16.c5! Qd5 17.Qb2 with attack.
C2c) 12...a6 13.c4! followed by Be3 and Bb6.
9...Nd8 64/441 The idea of this move is to later play e5 and capture the pawn
with the knight on e6. It was considered to be an improvement in the 1990's
but today the games show the line is clearly favorable for white. Black is
positionally forced to play e5 otherwise the knight is cut off from the game at
d8. 10.00
[FEN "r1bnkb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/q2P4/8/
2P2N2/P3BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
[FEN "r1b2k1r/pp2bppp/3pn3/qB6/3N4/
2P5/P4PPP/1RBQ1RK1 b - - 0 14"]
White is only down a pawn, and Black will not be able to castle. This line is
clearly favorable for White.
B) 10...g6 11.Qd4 with attack
B1) 11...f6 12.Rb1 Bg7 (12...Qxa2 13.Bd2) 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Re1 with
compensation (14.Bd2).
B2) 11...Rg8 12.Re1 Bg7 (12...Qc5) 13.Qh4 Bf6 14.Qxf6!! exf6 15.Bb5++.
C) 10...Qxc3? 11.Bb5++.
9...Qxc3+? 10.Bd2+.
10.Nxe5!?
Historically, there are more recorded games in this variation.
10.00!?
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/q2Pn3/8/
2P2N2/P3BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/8/q2Pp3/8/1QP5/
P3BPPP/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 11"]
A) 11...a6 Generally, when Black plays ...a6, White goes for Be3 and Bb6
binding the queenside. 12.00
A1) 12...g6 13.Be3 Qc7 (13...b5 14.a4!) 14.Bb6 Qd7 15.c4! With a bind on
the queenside. 15...Bg7 (15...e6 this move doesnt make much sense, opening a
file for White. 16.Rad1) 16.Rae1.
A2) 12...Qc7 13.Be3 g6 14.Bb6 if ...Qd6, then c4!, followed by c5!, with
complete dominion over the board. Otherwise, ...Qd7 will lock two major
pieces and a bishop in the queen's flank.
A3) 12...e6 13.Bc4! Novelty. 13...exd5 14.Bxd5 with initiative; Whites pieces
excert too much pressure in the position. His ideas include Be3 and Bb6, as
well as f4! opening more files.
B) 11...Qc7 12.00
B1) 12...a6 13.Be3 g6 14.Bb6 with compensation.
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp2pppp/3p4/3Pq3/8/8/
P2BBPPP/1R1QK2R b Kkq - 0 12"]
A novel approach to this position, which has only been played a handful of
times. Rb1 is more precise, threatening the thematic Bb5+.
12...f6!
Black's most resilient way to play this position. This defensive method has
been employed by Julian Hodgson in a similar position. That game went 12.00 Qxd5 13.Rb1 f6 14.Re1 e5 15.Bf3 Qf7 16.Bb4 Be6 17.Bxd6 Bxd6 18.Qxd6
Rd8 19.Qa3 b6 20.Bc6+ Bd7 21.Be4 Be6 22.Bc6+ Bd7 23.Be4 b5 24.Red1
Qc4 25.Bd5 Qc7 and Hodgson won against Garcia at move sixty-three at the
World Open in 2000.
White keeps plenty of pressure, and things are far from clear. 12...Bg4 13.f3
Bf5 14.Rxb7 and White is just better.
12...g6 13.00 (13.Rxb7!? this move is thematic. Only that in this position,
not best. I include it for your attacking reference. 13...Bg7 14.Rc7 00 15.00
Qb2 16.Rxe7 Qxa2 17.Bf4 Rd8 Black has untangled his pieces, White no
longer exerts pressure, and there is a lingering a pawn that soon will be
pushed giving Black the initiative.) 13...Bg7 (13...Qxd5 14.Bb5+!+/-; 13...a6
14.Rxb7!!
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/1R2pp1p/p2p2p1/3Pq3/
8/8/P2BBPPP/3Q1RK1 b kq - 0 14"]
14...Bxb7 15.Qa4+ Kd8 16.Ba5+ Kc8 17.Qe8#) 14.Qa4+ Kf8 15.Qa5!+/- Bf5
(15...f5 16.Rfe1 Qd4 17.Bg5 Bf6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Rbc1 b6 20.Qa4 Bb7 21.
Bf3 Rc8 22.Qxa7 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Qb2 24.Rf1+/-) 16.Rxb7 Qxe2 17.Qc7 Re8
18.Re1 Qxe1+ only move (18...Qxd2? 19.Qxe7+! Rxe7 20.Rb8+ Re8 21.
[FEN "r4b1r/pp2pppp/3pk3/3q4/Q7/
8/P2B1PPP/1R3RK1 b - - 0 16"]
16...f6 only move (16...Qxd2 17.Rfd1+/-) 17.Rb5 Qd3 18.Rd1 Rc8 19.Rxb7
with attack.
13.Be3 and the position is unclear.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
The Baltic Defense is an ambitious system that tries to immediately solve the
classical problem of the QGD: how to develop the black light-squared bishop.
This system is a Latvian specialty; Shirov has made contributions to it during
his career and it is a extended part of Rausis repertoire. The move 2...Bf5 is
bold because it leaves the center unprotected and weakens the b7-pawn. You
can see how White tries to take advantage of this with either capturing on d5
immediately, granting White a greater presence in the center (the pawn on
d4), or by playing the traditional response, 3.Qb3, pressuring the mutual
points on b7 and d5. Having said that, the opening leads to a variety of
positions and can be favored by highly original players. The positions can be
solid or full of tactics. The opening should lead to an advantage to White; but
because it is not frequently played, Black is always comfortable in the arising
struggle.
Babu, N (2365) Prasad, D (2415)
Kolkata 1992
The Baltic Defense [D11]
1.d4
It is common knowledge that the classical problem in the QGD is how to
develop the light-squared bishop. Sometimes, in the Tartakower it goes to b7,
other times in the Slav it is played to f5 after an exchange on c4. Black is
always trying to make way for this piece in the opening and an interesting
theoretical debate arises.
1...d5 2.c4 Bf5
ChessBase Magazine #90
by ChessBase
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/2PP4/
8/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]
3.Nc3
This is the move that is played the most in practice.
3.cxd5 This line gives White a greater presence in the center. Black can
therefore fight for equality by gambiting a pawn (the c6!? Lines), or he will
reach a Caro-Slav structure where White has the bishop-pair, but Black has a
solid structure. 3...Bxb1
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3P4/3P4/8/
PP2PPPP/RbBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
A) 4.Rxb1 Qxd5
A1) 5.e3 Nc6 (5...Qxa2)
A2) 5.a3 Nc6 6.Nf3 000
A2a) 7.e3 e5 8.Qc2 exd4 9.Bc4 d3 10.Qb3 Qe4 11.Bd2 Be7 (11...Nh6 01,
Wichmann,D (2255)-Vorobyov,Y (2245) Gotha 2005).
A2b) 7.Qc2 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Be3 unclear.
B) 4.Qa4+
B1) 4...Qd7
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pppqpppp/8/3P4/Q2P4/8/
PP2PPPP/RbB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 5"]
This is a new try here for Black. It has been played by Miladinovic, who is a
creative player. White can easily get a better position; for example, 5.Qxd7+
Nxd7 6.Rxb1 Ngf6 7.Nf3 (7.Bd2 Nb6 8.f3 Nfxd5 9.e4 Nf6 10.d5! 000 11.
Nh3 h6 12.Rc1+/=) 7...Nb6 8.e3 Nbxd5 9.Bd3 Nb4 10.Bc4 e6 11.a3 Nc6
12.00+/=.
B2) 4...c6!?
B2a) 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.Rxb1 e5
[FEN "r2qkbnr/pp3ppp/2n5/4p3/Q2P4/8/
PP2PPPP/1RB1KBNR w Kkq e6 0 7"]
[FEN "rn2kbnr/p4ppp/2p5/1p1qP3/Q7/
5P2/PP2P1PP/1RB1KBNR w Kkq b6 0 8"]
B2b2) 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.e3 (7.a3 Ngf6 8.g3 Qe4 9.Ra1 e5 10.Bg2 Nc5 11.Qc4
exd4 -, Van Wely,L (2632)-Eliet,N (2408) France 1999; 7.b4 e5 8.e3 exd4
9.Nxd4 Ngf6 10.b5 c5 11.Nf3 Nb6 12.Qc2 Rd8 -, Rashkovsky,N (2550)Rausis,I (2495) Cappelle la Grande 1995) 7...Nb6 (7...Ngf6 8.Be2) 8.Qc2
Qxa2 9.Bd3 e6 10.00 Qd5 11.e4 Qd8 12.b4 a6 13.Be3 Nf6 14.h3 Be7 -,
Onischuk,A (2585)-Sakovich,I (2290) Lubniewice 1994.
3.Nf3 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.c5 transposes.
3.Qb3 This is White's most challenging move, he will gain a pawn, but Black
will gain plenty of activity. The positions are highly unclear. 3...e5!?
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3ppb2/2PP4/
1Q6/PP2PPPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq e6 0 4"]
A) 4.Qxb7 Nd7
A1) 5.Nf3 Rb8.
A2) 5.Qxd5 Bxb1 6.Rxb1 Bb4+ 7.Kd1 (7.Bd2 Ngf6) 7...Ne7 with
compensation.
A3) 5.Nc3 exd4 6.Nxd5 (6.Nb5 Bb4+) 6...Bd6 7.e4 Nc5 (better is 7...dxe3 8.
Bxe3) 8.Qc6+ Bd7 9.Nxc7+ Qxc7 10.Qxa8+ Ke7 11.Qd5 Nf6 with
compensation 12.Qxd4 Ncxe4 13.Nf3 Rd8 14.Be2 Be6 15.Kf1 Bg3 16.Qe3 1
0, Miles,A (2610)-Gobet,F (2360)/Geneve 1986/EXT 2001 (34) 16...Nxf2
unclear An improvement over the game.
B) 4.dxe5 d4 5.Qxb7 Nd7 6.Nf3 (6.Nd2 Ne7 7.g4 Bxg4 8.Qe4 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6
10.Qe5 Kf7 11.Ngf3 Ng6 12.Qxd4 Bxf3 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Nxf3 Bb4+ -,
Bu Xiangzhi (2630)-Eid,F (2332) Dubai 2005) 6...Rb8
B1) 7.Qc6 Bb4+ with compensation.
B2) 7.Qxa7 Nc5 8.Nxd4 (8.Qa5 Nd3+-/+) 8...Ra8-/+.
B3) 7.Qa6 unclear.
C) 4.cxd5 exd4 5.Nf3 (5.Qxb7 Nd7 with compensation) 5...Bc5 6.Nxd4 (6.
Qc4 Nd7 7.Nxd4 Qh4 8.Be3 Bxb1 9.Rxb1 Ngf6 10.Rc1 00 11.Nf5 Bb4+ 12.
Kd1 Qxc4 13.Rxc4 Nxd5 14.Bd4 Rfd8 15.e4 N5f6 16.Rxb4 c5 17.Rxb7 cxd4
18.f3 d3 19.Rc7 Ne5 20.Ne7+ Kf8 21.Nf5 a5 22.Rc5 Neg4 01, Dyachkov,S
(2520)-Rowson,J (2400) /Halle 1995/CBM 048 ext (53)) 6...Bxd4 7.Qa4+
Nc6 8.dxc6 b5
[FEN "r2qk1nr/p1p2ppp/2P5/1p3b2/Q2b4/
8/PP2PPPP/RNB1KB1R w KQkq b6 0 9"]
9.Qxb5 Ne7 10.e3 Rb8 11.Qe2 00 12.Nc3 (12.exd4) 12...Nxc6 13.g4 Bxc3+
14.bxc3 Be4 15.Rg1 Ne5 16.Bg2 Nd3+ 17.Kf1 Nxc1 01, Ward, C (2440)Rausis,I (2490) Le Touquet 1992.
3...e6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.c5
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pp3ppp/1qp1p3/2Pp1b2/
3P4/1QN2N2/PP2PPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
Now Black has an option: to play the "solid" line as described by Shirov or
Kramnik in one of the commentated games (Qc7) or to exchange on b3.
Exchanging on b3 is played more often, and it should lead to a position with
easier play for Black, because White has a harder time consolidating his
advantage and the play is more casual and not precise where Black with the
right play can sometimes get the upper hand.
6.Qxb6 In case you were wondering about the best play after the exchange of
queens. Generally, this exchange is better for the side that gets the open file.
Sometimes, even doubled isolated pawns are OK, given the counterplay
granted from the file. 6...axb6 7.Nh4 Bc2!
A) 8.e3 Be7 9.Nf3 Nf6 with a lead in development Black should be better. (9...
dxc4.)
B) 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bf4 h6 10.Rc1 Bh7 White will play Nf3 and Black will be
in a good position, he can play for the initiative with b5-b4 on the queenside.
6...Qxb3
6...Qc7 If you are a Shirov fan, the first diagram in his book Fire on Board
shows the move 31...Re4!! from a game that was played in this variation. It is
included in the notes below. 7.Bf4 Qc8 (7...Qxf4 8.Qxb7)
A) 8.e4
[FEN "rnq1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/2Pp1b2/
3PPB2/1QN2N2/PP3PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq e3 0 8"]
A beautiful line, White is trying at all cost to take advantage of his lead in
development. 8...Bxe4 (8...dxe4 9.Nh4) 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Nd2 Nf6 11.Nc4 (11.
Qc2) 11...Nbd7 12.Be2 Nd5 13.Nd6+ Bxd6 14.Bxd6 f5 15.g4 -, Bacrot,E
(2691)-Nikolaidis,I (2516)/Kallithea 2008/CBM 125 Extra (51).
B) 8.e3 Nf6 9.Qa4 Nbd7 10.b4 a6 11.h3 Be7 12.Qb3 00 13.Be2 Be4 14.00
Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Bd8 16.a4 Bc7 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.b5 e5 20.b6 Bb8 21.
a5 exd4 22.exd4 Bf4 23.Qc2 Qd7 24.g3 Qxh3 25.Bg2 Qh5 26.gxf4 Ng4 27.
Rfd1 Rae8 28.Rd3 Qh2+ 29.Kf1 f5 30.Qd2 Rf6 31.f3
[FEN "4r1k1/1p4p1/pPp2r1p/P1Pp1p2/
3P1Pn1/2NR1P2/3Q2Bq/R4K2 b - - 0 31"]
[FEN "rnq1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/2Pp1b2/
With this simple move, White, statically, will get a better position. He will
have the bishop-pair, better development, and the queenside.
7.axb3 Nd7
7...Na6 Black has played this more often, but after the thematic e4, White will
get the upper hand. 8.e4
[FEN "r3kbnr/pp3ppp/n1p1p3/2Pp1b2/3PP3/
1PN2N2/1P3PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq e3 0 8"]
(8.Bf4) 8...Nb4
A) 9.exf5 Nc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.b4
A1) 12...a5 13.bxa5 Nb3 14.a6 Nxc1 (14...bxa6) 15.axb7 Rb8 16.Kxc1 Rxb7
17.Bd3+/- (Shirov) (17.Kc2) 17...g6 18.Re1 Bh6+ 19.Kc2 Ke7 (19...Ne7) 20.
b4 Nf6 21.Ne5 Rc7 22.b5 cxb5 23.Nxb5 Rb7 24.Nc6+ Kd7 25.Ne5+ Ke7 26.
Nd6 Rc7 27.Ndf7 Bg7 28.Nxh8 Bxh8 29.f4 Nd7 30.Ra1 Bf6 31.Ra8 10,
Shirov,A (2615)-Svidler,P (2480)/ Gausdal 1991/TD.
A2) 12...Nh6 This novelty is an improvement on Svidler's play.
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp4pp/2p1p2n/2Pp4/1P1P4/
2N2N2/1P3PPP/n1BK1B1R w kq - 0 13"]
B) 9.Ra4 dxe4 (9...Nc2+ 10.Kd2 dxe4 11.g4 Bg6 12.Ne5 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 Bxc5
14.Rc4 Bxf2 10, Atalik,S (2619)-Grigoriev,A (2336) 2007) 10.Rxb4 exf3 11.
Rxb7+/-.
8.b4
8.Bf4 a6 9.e3 (9.b4 f6 10.e3) 9...Ne7 10.h3 f6 11.g4 Bg6 12.b4 Rc8 13.Bg3
h5 14.Rg1 hxg4 15.hxg4 Kf7 16.Be2 Ng8 17.Nd2 Be7 18.Nb3 Bd8 19.Na5
Bxa5 20.Rxa5 Ne7 21.Kd2 Rh3 22.Na2 e5 23.Nc1 exd4 24.exd4 Nf8 25.Bf1
Rh8 26.Bg2 Ne6 -, Andersson,U (2590) -Larsen,B (2585) Tilburg 1980.
8...a6 9.b5 [9.h3] 9...cxb5 10.Nxb5 Rc8 11.Nc3 Ne7 12.Bf4
12.b4 Nc6 13.b5 axb5=/+ Black is better developed and will open the
queenside with b6.
[FEN "2r1kb1r/1p1n1ppp/p1n5/2Pppb2/
3P1B2/2N1PN2/1P3PPP/R3KB1R w KQk - 0 14"]
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Untamed Chigorin
by Nigel Davies
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp1pppp/2n5/3p4/2PP4/
5N2/PP2PPPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
3...e5!?
Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
ChessBase Game Viewer.
This bold move is called the Lazard Gambit. It brings about positions that
resemble the Albin Counter Gambit, as well as positions similar to the
Chigorin Defense. The idea behind the move is to immediately play the key
thematic freeing move of the Chigorin the ...e5 manouevre. Here exchanges
on d5 help Black by improving his position (the capture and activation of the
queen), while a capture on e5 leads to a imbalanced position where Black has
a majority on the queenside and White has a majority on the kingside. This is
all made possible thanks to the intermediate move (intermezzo) 4...Bb4+,
giving Black the chance to capture on c4, regaining his pawn without a
forceful simplification of the position through an exchange of queens. The
line has been played by some grandmasters, but it has not been picked up with
serious enthusiasm. Let's look at some of the lines, and improvements for
Black to include it to our repertoire. 3...Bg4 is the most common move taking
us to the mainlines of the Chigorin.
4.dxe5
After 4.cxd5, we once again get either a Chigorin, or positions similar to the
Goring Gambit Declined. 4...Qxd5
A) 5.dxe5 White gains a pawn, but Black gets the initiative in return and will
immediately build a formidable position. 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 Bg4 7.Nc3 000
+ (7...Bc5 8.Ke1) 8.Kc2 Nge7 9.e4 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nd4+ 11.Kb1 Nxf3
[FEN "2kr1b1r/ppp1nppp/8/4P3/4P3/
2N2n2/PP3P1P/RKB2B1R w - - 0 12"]
12.Be3 Nxe5 13.Be2 N7c6 14.Nd5 f6 15.f4 Nf7 16.Rc1 Kb8 17.a3 Nd6.
B) 5.e3 Bg4.
C) 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 (7.bxc3 e4 8.Ng1 Nf6 9.e3 00 10.c4 Qg5)
7...e4
C1) 8.Ne5 e3 9.fxe3 (9.f3 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ne7) 9...Nf6 (9...Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ne7
11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qa3 Qe6 13.000 00 14.g4 Bc6 15.Rg1 Rfd8 16.Bh3 Nd5
17.Bd4 a5 18.Rd2 Nb4 19.b3 Be4 20.Qb2 c5 21.Bc3 Nd5 22.Rg3 b5 23.g5
Qg6 24.e6 fxe6 25.Bf6 Re8 26.Qe5 Kh8 27.Bxg7+ Qxg7 28.Qxe4 a4 29.Qb1
axb3 30.e4 bxa2 31.Rxa2 Nc3 32.Rxa8 Rxa8 33.Qb2 Nxe2+ 34.Qxe2 Qa1+
35.Kd2 Ra2+ 36.Ke3 Qd4+ 37.Kf3 Rxe2 38.Kxe2 Qxe4+ 39.Re3 Qc4+ 40.
Kf3 Qd5+ 41.Kf4 Qd4+ 42.Re4 Qf2+ 43.Kg4 Qf5+ 01, Dobrev,N (2407)Karpatchev,A (2521), Marseille 2006/EXT 2007).
C2) 8.Nd2 e3
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/ppp2ppp/2n5/3q4/3P4/2B1p3/
PP1NPPPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/8/4P3/1bPpPn2/
3B4/PP1B2PP/RN1QK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
10.Bxb4 Nxg2+ 11.Kf2 Qh4+ 12.Kg1 Qg5 13.Qf3 Ne1+ 14.Qg3 Qxg3+ 15.
hxg3 Nxd3 16.Ba3 Nxe5 17.Nd2 Be6 18.b3 a5 19.Kg2 Bg4 20.Rhf1 f6 21.
Rh1 Kd7 22.Bc5 Nc6 23.Nf3 b6 24.Ba3 Rae8 25.Rhe1 Bxf3+ 26.Kxf3 h5 27.
Re2 h4 28.c5 Ne5+ 29.Kg2 hxg3 30.Kxg3 Rh5 31.cxb6 Rg5+ 32.Kf2 Rh8 0
1 Kibbermann,F-Keres,P, Tallinn 1935/EXT 2001.
B) 6.g3 Ne7 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.00 (8.f4 h5; 8.Bxc6+) 8...Nxe5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp2ppp/8/4n3/2Pp4/6P1/
PP2PPBP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 9"]
9.b3 Bc5 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb2 Nxc4 12.Bxd4 00 13.Qd3 Be6 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.
Bg2 Rxb4 16.Bc3 Rb6 , Grachev,B (2510)-Morozevich,A (2721),
Moscow 2006/EXT 2007 (43).
4.e3 Bg4 5.Qb3 Bxf3 6.gxf3 Nge7
[FEN "r2qkb1r/ppp1nppp/2n5/3pp3/2PP4/
1Q2PP2/PP3P1P/RNB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
A) 7.cxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 (8.Bc4 Qxf3) 8...Nxd5 9.dxe5 Ndb4 10.Na3 Nxe5 11.
Ke2 (11.f4 Ned3+ 12.Ke2) 11...000 12.f4.
B) 7.Nc3 exd4 8.Nxd5 Na5 9.Qa4+ Nac6; 4.Nc3 exd4 5.Nxd4 Nxd4 6.Qxd4
dxc4 7.Qxd8+ (7.Qxc4 c6) 7...Kxd8; 4.Bg5 f6 5.cxd5.
4...Bb4+
4...d4 d4 transposes to the Albin.
5.Bd2
5.Nbd2 dxc4 6.Qc2 Nge7 7.a3 (7.e3 Bg4 8.Qxc4 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Qd7 10.f4 00
0 11.Qc2 g5
[FEN "2kr3r/pppqnp1p/2n5/4P1p1/1b3P2/
4P3/PPQN1P1P/R1B1KB1R w KQ - 0 12"]
12.a3 Bxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Qf5 14.Qc3 gxf4 15.Bd2 Nd5 16.Qb3 fxe3 17.fxe3
Qf3 18.Rg1 Nd4 19.Qa4 Nxe3 20.Rc1 Qe4 21.Bh3+ Nef5+ 01, Candela
Perez,J (2435)-Carretero Ortiz,F (2158), Sevilla 2004/CBM 101 ext).
5...dxc4
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/2n5/4P3/1bp5/5N2/
PP1BPPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6.e3
6.Qa4 Qe7 7.e3 (7.a3 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 Bd7 9.Qxc4 Nxe5 10.Qc3 Nxf3+ 11.
Nxf3 Nf6 12.e3 00 13.Be2 c5 14.00 Ne4 15.Qe5 Rfe8
[FEN "r3r1k1/pp1bqppp/8/2p1Q3/4n3/
P3PN2/1P2BPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 16"]
16.Qxe7 Rxe7 17.Rac1 b6 18.Bc4 Kf8 19.h3 a5 20.Rfd1 Ba4 21.b3 Bc6 22.a4
Ke8 23.Nd2 Nd6 24.Bf1 Rd8 25.Nc4 Nxc4 26.Rxd8+ Kxd8 27.Bxc4 Rd7 28.
f3 f6 29.Rc2 Kc7 30.Kf2 g5 31.g3 Rd1 32.h4 h5 33.e4 g4 34.fxg4 hxg4 35.
Ke3 Rd4 36.Bd3 Kd6 37.Rf2 Ke7 38.Rc2 Ke6 39.Rf2 Bd7 40.Rf5 Rb4 41.
Bc2 Ke7 42.Rd5 Bc6 43.Rf5 c4 44.bxc4 Rxc4 45.Kd2 Rxc2+ 01, Cramling,
P (2545)-Bauer,C (2465), Cap d'Agde 1996/CBM 055 ext) 7...Bd7 8.Bxc4
Bxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 Nxe5 10.Qb3 Nxf3+ 11.Nxf3; 6.Nc3 Nge7 7.a3 (7.e3 Be6 8.
a3 Ba5 9.Rc1 00 10.Qa4 a6 11.Ng5 b5 12.Qc2 Bf5 13.e4 Bc8 14.Rd1 Nd4
15.Qb1 Nec6 16.Be3 h6 17.Nf3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3 Qe7 19.Rg1 Nxe5 20.Be2
Qh4 21.f4 Qxh2 22.Kd2 Nd3 23.Bxd3 Rd8 24.Kc2 cxd3+ 25.Rxd3 Rxd3 26.
Kxd3 Bb7 27.Bd4 Rd8 28.Ke3 Rxd4 29.Kxd4 Qxf2+ 30.Kd3 c5 01,
Miljkovic,M (2130)-Petronijevic,Z (2430), Nis 1997/EXT 2002) 7...Bxc3.
6.g3 Be6 7.Qa4.
6...Be6!?
Better is 6...Qe7
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/ppp1qppp/2n5/4P3/1bp5/4PN2/
PP1B1PPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
[FEN "1r6/p3kppp/3R3n/2p1PbN1/pr6/
4P3/BP3PPP/2KR4 w - - 0 23"]
23.e4 Rxb2 24.exf5 Rxa2 25.Rd7+ Ke8 26.Rxa7 a3 27.Rd3 Ra1+ 28.Kd2 a2
29.Ke2 Nxf5 30.e6 f6 31.Ne4 Nd4+ 32.Rxd4 cxd4 33.Nd6+ Kf8 34.e7+ Kg8
35.Kf3 Re1 36.Rxa2 Rxe7 37.Nf5 Rd7 38.Rd2 Rbd8 39.Ke4 d3 40.Ne3 g6 41.
g4 Rd4+ 42.Kf3 Kf7 43.h3 Ke6 44.Kg3 Ke5 45.Kf3 Rc8 46.Ra2 Rc1 47.Ra5
+ Ke6 48.Ra6+ Rd6 49.Ra7 d2 01, Cvitan,O (2500)-Godena,M (2430), Biel
1988/EXT 2002; 7.a3 Ba5 (7...Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 b5 9.a4 a6 10.Rc1 Na5 11.
Nd4 c5 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qg4 Qe7 14.Ne4 Nh6 15.Qf3 Rb8 16.Nd6+ Kd7 17.
axb5 axb5 18.Ra1 Nc6 19.Qe4 Nf7 20.f4 Nxd6 21.Rd1 Rb6 22.Be2 g6 23.
Rxd6+ Kc7 24.00 Nb4 25.Ra1 Rhb8 26.Bf3 Nd5 27.Rxd5 exd5 28.Qxd5
Kc8 29.Ra7 R8b7 30.Qg8+ Kc7 31.Qa8 10, Apsenieks,F-Lazard,F, Paris
1924/HCL) 8.Qc2 Qd5 9.Nc3 Bxc3 10.Bxc3; 7.Be2 Nge7 8.00 00 9.Bxb4
Nxb4 10.Na3 Ng6.
7...Bxd2+
7...Qe7 8.a3 Bxd2+ 9.Nbxd2 a6 10.Nxc4.
8.Nbxd2 a6 9.Nd4 b5 10.Nxc6 [10.Nxe6 fxe6] 10...Qd7 11.Nb8 [11.Qb4
Qxc6] 11...Qxd2+N
[FEN "rN2k1nr/2p2ppp/p3b3/1p2P3/Q1p5/
4P3/PP1q1PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 12"]
A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.
Nxg5 Nd5
Charles Galofre
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/p4p2/2p1p2p/1p1nP1N1/
2pP3B/2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/p4N2/2p1p2p/1p1nP3/2pP3B/
2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 10"]
The bullet. White cashes in at a early stage, but Black creates quick chaos in
return, where the unaware white player can quickly fall victim to a quagmire
of complications. Black is playing on both flanks now.
10.Nf3 Common, yet a passive response to Black's onslaught on the
queenside. The characteristics of the position remain the same as a true
Botvinnik. Only here, Black gets a free hand on the queen's flank with a
couple of bold moves that hand him the initiative on the wing 10...Qa5=!
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/p4p2/2p1p2p/qp1nP3/2pP3B/
2N2N2/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
A) 11.Rc1 Bb4
A1) 12.Qc2?! Qxa2!
A1a) 13.Qd2 Nxc3.
A1b) 13.Be2 Bxc3+! 14.bxc3 Qxc2 15.Rxc2 Nf4 16.g3+ (16.Bg3 01,
Wornath,K-Seidel,A/Hofheim 1995/GER (72)).
A1c) 13.Nd2 Nxc3 14.bxc3 , Davidovic,M (2051)-Kopcak,S/Bratislava
2004/EXT 2006 (58).
A2) 12.Qd2 Nd7 13.Be2
A2a) 13...Bb7 14.00 c5 15.Rc2! (15.Rfd1 , Gavrikov,V (2485)Nogueiras Santiago,J (2485)/Tbilisi 1983/MCL (23)).
A2b) 13...N7b6!
[FEN "r1b1k2r/p4p2/1np1p2p/qp1nP3/1bpP3B/
2N2N2/PP1QBPPP/2R1K2R w Kkq - 0 14"]
[FEN "r1b1k2r/p4p2/1np1p2p/q3P3/1ppP3B/
b1P2N2/P1RQ1PPP/3BK2R w Kkq - 0 17"]
[FEN "r1b1k2r/p4p2/1np1pB1p/qp2P3/2pP4/
2P2N2/P4PPP/2QBK2R b Kkq - 0 17"]
B) 11.Qd2 b4
B1) 12.Ne4 c3 13.bxc3 bxc3 14.Qc2
B1a) 14...Na6?! 15.a3! (15.Bc4 10, Krausser,H (2185)-Sulava,N (2390)/
Velden 1995/EXT 1997 (25)).
B1b) 14...Nd7! ;
B2) 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Be2 (13.Bf6 Rg8=/+)
B2a) 13...Nc6!? 14.00 unclear (14.Bf6 Rg8 unclear) 14...Qb6 01, Budo,ABastrikov,G/Leningrad 1938/HCL (66).
B2b) 13...c3 14.bxc3 (14.Qc1 Ba6=/+) 14...bxc3 unclear 10, Flohr,SStahlberg,G/Zuerich 1934/HCL (39); 10.Qh5 The rather auto-pilot response
succumbs to the capture of the minor pieces for a rook 10...hxg5+ 01,
Letelier Martner,R (2215)-Michel Yunis,C (2370)/Santiago de Chile 1993/
EXT 1998 (37); 10.Nxd5 Rather, an unnatural response. Black threatens a
deadly check on b4... he has a hard time dealing with the threat as follows:
10...Qxd5 11.Qd2 (11.Nf3 Bb4+ 12.Nd2 Qe4+ 13.Qe2 Bxd2+ 14.Kxd2 Qxd4
+ 15.Kc1 Qxh4+) 11...hxg5+.
10...Qxh4 11.Nxh8
11.g3 Nxc3+ with queen e4 to follow. (11...Ne3 01, Sroka,D-Junker,R/
Germany 1992/EXT 2004 (19)).
11...Bb4 (with attack) 12.Rc1 c5!?
[FEN "rnb1k2N/p7/4p2p/1ppnP3/1bpP3q/
2N5/PP3PPP/2RQKB1R w Kq - 0 13"]
Now Black is playing in three flanks... the center, the king side and the queen
side....He will have the initiative for some time. In a practical game the
complications are immense and a experienced player can easily be rewarded.
12...Qe4+!?
[FEN "rnb1k2N/p7/2p1p2p/1p1nP3/1bpPq3/
2N5/PP3PPP/2RQKB1R w Kq - 0 13"]
Bg2 Nxg2 25.Kxg2 h4 26.Re3 Rg7 27.Rh1 Kg6 28.Qe4+ Nf5 29.Rxh4 Kf7
30.Rf3 10, Nikolic,P (2655)-Timman,J (2630)/Wijk aan Zee 1997/CBM 057/
[Lutz]).
14.Be2 Nxe5
Blacks knights and bishops are the envy of the board... pay close attention to
the h8 knights for how long it remains in it commencing square.
15.00
15.Bh5+ Ke7 16.00 (16.Qe2 Nf4) 16...Bb7.
15...Bb7 16.Bh5+
16.Nxb5 Bxc5 17.Ng6 Nxg6 18.Rxc4 Ndf4 19.Rxc5 Rd8 20.Nd6+ Kf8 (20...
Rxd6 21.Bb5+ Kf7 22.Qxd6 Qg4 23.Qc7+ Kg8 24.Qxb7 Nh3+ 25.Kh1 Nxf2
+ 26.Rxf2 10, Nielsen,P (2500)-Sveshnikov,E (2580)/Kemerovo 1995/CBM
050/[Ftacnik]) 21.Nxb7 Rxd1 22.Bxd1 Nxg2 23.Rc8+ Kg7.
16...Ke7
[FEN "r6N/pb2k3/4p2p/1pPnn2B/1bp4q/
2N5/PP3PPP/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 17"]
16...Kd7 17.Ng6.
17.Nxd5+
17.Re1 Rg8 18.Rxe5 (18.Ng6+ Rxg6 19.Bxg6 Bxc5 20.Ne4 Nd3 21.g3
1.65/7 ) 18...Rxg2+ 19.Kxg2 Nf4+ 20.Kf1 Qh3+ 21.Ke1 Ng2+ 22.Ke2 Nf4+
23.Ke1 Ng2+ 24.Ke2 Nf4+ 25.Ke1 Ng2+ 26.Ke2 Nf4+; 17.Qe2 Rg8 18.Qxe5
Rxg2+ 19.Kh1 Nf4 20.Ng6+ Rxg6+ 21.f3 Qg5 (21...Nxh5 22.Qc7+ Kf8 23.
Qb8+ Kg7 24.Qxb7+ Kh8 25.Ne2 Qf6 26.Qxb5 Bd2 27.Qe8+ Kh7 28.Qd7+
Ng7 29.Qxd2 Qf5 30.Qc2 Qh3 31.Qxg6+ 10, San Segundo Carrillo,P (2523)Vera Gonzalez Quevedo,R (2544)/Benidorm 2002/CBM 093/[Lutz]) 22.Qc7+.
17...Bxd5 18.f4
18.Ng6+ Nxg6 19.Bxg6 Rg8 20.Qc2 Qg4+.
18...Bxc5+
18...Rg8 19.Rc2 Qh3 20.Qe2 Bxc5+ 21.Kh1 Rxg2 22.Qxg2 Qxh5 23.fxe5
Bd4 24.Rd2 Bxg2+ 25.Rxg2 Bxe5.
19.Kh1 Rg8!
[FEN "6rN/p3k3/4p2p/1pbbn2B/2p2P1q/
8/PP4PP/2RQ1R1K w - - 0 20"]
A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
A Portuguese Jungle
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
When I was young my favorite opening as black, against any starting move,
was 1...Nc6!?. This move captured my imagination and I went ahead to
construct an interesting repertoire with formidable replies to every move that
White could play. The most interesting of which was 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 and
now, the patented Nimzo-Scandinavian 2...d5!?. I developed this idea based
on material by IM Nikolay Vlassov published on a now-defunct website. (It
was also featured in Kingpin magazine #28.) However, my intention today is
to examine the Portuguese Variation of the Scandinavian Defense, which can
be considered a cousin of the Nimzo-Scandinavian.
I recommend this opening to all players below the 2400 mark, because it is
easy to reach the position over the board and the chances of a player knowing
the absolute correct replies to gain an advantage are incredibly limited. This
presents an interesting risk-reward scenario, where the reward is definitely
worth the risk; after all, we attain our favorite opening and increase our
chances of winning the game. In chess, we can call this a practical advantage.
The Scandinavian
by John Emms
Scandinavian Defence
by Curt Hansen
[FEN "rn1qkb1r/ppp2ppp/4bn2/8/2P5/8/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 5"]
A) 5.Nf3 The strongest reply here, there have been different opinions on how
to play the following position. I prefer an early Qe7 followed by Bg4. 5...Qe7
(5...c5!? 01, Laurent,B (2337)-Okhotnik,V (2470)/Agneaux 2006 (29)
interesting, yet it might be too slow, nonetheless, its a positional approach, we
are looking for tactics;)) 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.d4 Bg4!? (7...Bf5 this move, which
leads to simplifications, might seem a little shocking, yet apparently Black is
trying to prove his development advantage in the queenless middlegame
phase of the game. 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Be3 Nb4 10.Na3 Ne4 10, Pruess,D
(2402)-Gareev,T (2551)/Cappelle la Grande 2007 (44))
A1) 8.Qxe7+ Bxe7 9.Be3 (9.Be2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nxd4 01, Suarez Calvo,AMenendez Villar,J/Aviles 2001 (49)) 9...000 10.d5 Nb4 11.Na3 Rhe8 12.
Be2 (12.Nd4 Nbxd5) 12...Bxf3 (12...Nd7 01, Tate,A (2030)-Bryson,D
(2371)/Oban 2005 (68));
A2) 8.d5 Bxf3 9.gxf3 (9.Qxe7+) 9...Nd4 10.Qxe7+ Bxe7 with compensation
-, Waldschmidt,G (2218)-Heinzel,O (2392)/Oberhausen 2008 (52);
A3) 8.Be3 000
A3a) 9.Nc3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Nxd4 -, Stevens,T (1753)-Ly,M (1881)/Mount
Buller 2005 (37);
A3b) 9.Nbd2 Nb4 10.Kd1 with compensation (10.Rc1 Bf5 11.Ne5 Nc2+ 12.
Rxc2 Bxc2 01, Churm,R (2115)-Ryan,J (2210)/Isle of Man 1995 (48));
A3c) 9.d5 Ne5 10.Nc3 Nfd7 11.000 Qf6 12.h3 Bxf3+/= (12...Bh5 01, De
Silva,N (2236)-Eid,F (2392)/Bled 2002 (36));
B) 5.d4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qe7 7.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 8.Qd2 Nc6
B1) 9.Qxb4 Nxb4 10.Na3 000 11.d5 Bf5 12.f3 c6! with compensation
[FEN "2kr3r/pp3ppp/2p2n2/3P1b2/1nP5/
N4P2/PP4PP/R3KBNR w KQ - 0 13"]
13.Ne2 (13.Kd2 cxd5 14.c5 a6 15.Ne2 Nc6 16.Ng3 Bg6 17.h4 h5 18.Bd3
Bxd3 19.Kxd3 01, Niedermaier,H (2250)-Dutschak,H (2280) /Germany
1997/GER-chT2 (30); 13.Kf2 cxd5 14.g4 Bg6 15.Kg3 d4 01, Purdy,J (2250)Wohl,A (2255)/ Sydney 1990 (39));
B2) 9.d5 000 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.f3 Rhe8+ unclear 12.Be2 Bf5 13.000 Na5
14.b3 (14.g4 Bg6 15.Nh3 Nd7 16.Nb1 Qb3
[FEN "2krr3/pppn1ppp/6b1/n2P4/2P3P1/
1q3P1N/PP1QB2P/1NKR3R w - - 0 17"]
17.Bd3 Qxa2 18.Qb4 Re2 19.Bxe2 Nb3+ 20.Qxb3 Qxb3 21.Rd2 Qe3 01,
Kuijf,M (2485)-Hodgson,J (2545)/Wijk aan Zee 1989) 14...Qa3+ 15.Qb2.
3...Bg4
[FEN "rn1qkb1r/ppp1pppp/5n2/3P4/3P2b1/
8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
[FEN "r2qkb1r/ppp2ppp/2n1Pn2/5b2/2PP4/
5P2/PP4PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 7"]
A Portuguese jungle.
B1) 7.exf7+ Kxf7
B1a) 8.Be3 A very natural response, but Black has jet-speed. 8...Bb4+
B1a1) 9.Nc3 Re8 10.Qd2 (10.Kf2 Rxe3! 11.Kxe3 Bc2!!; 10.a3 Rxe3+) 10...
Qxd4-/+;
B1a2) 9.Kf2 Re8 10.Nc3 (10.Ne2 Rxe3 11.Kxe3 Qe7+ 12.Kf2 Re8 13.Qc1
Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Be1+ 15.Kg1 Qc5 16.Qd1 Bc2 01, Dimitrov,V (2460)-Rivera
Kuzawka,D (2375)/Lalin 1994; 10.a3 Bc5 11.b4 Rxe3 12.bxc5 Rd3 13.Bxd3
Qxd4+ 14.Ke1 Bxd3 15.Ra2 Re8+ 16.Ne2 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qxc4) 10...Rxe3
[FEN "r2q4/ppp2kpp/2n2n2/5b2/1bPP4/
2N1rP2/PP3KPP/R2Q1BNR w - - 0 11"]
11.Kxe3 Bc2 12.Qd2 Ng4+ 13.Kf4 (13.fxg4 Qg5+) 13...Bd6+ 14.Kxg4 Qd7+
15.Kh4 g5+ 16.Kh5 Bg6+ 17.Kxg5 Qf5+ 18.Kh4 Qh5# 01, Novruzova,NNeuhauser,S (1827)/ Herceg Novi 2006;
B1b) 8.Ne2 Nb4
B1b1) 9.Ng3 Bc2 (9...Nc2+ 10, Pelikan,K-Vesely,J/Brno 2002 (26)) 10.Qd2
Bc5-/+;
B1b2) 9.Kf2 Bc5 10.Qd2 Nd3+-/+
[FEN "r2q3r/ppp2kpp/5n2/2b2b2/2PP4/
3n1P2/PP1QNKPP/RNB2B1R w - - 0 11"]
B1c) 8.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.Nc3 Re8+ 10.Kf1 (10.Nge2 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nxd4 01,
Thorel,P (1430)-Delannoy,F (1760)/Bethune 2004 (14)) 10...Qxd4 11.Be2-/+
(11.Bxf5 01, Nemeth,G (1835)-Boguszlavszkij,J (2254)/Zalakaros 2010
(14));
B1d) 8.d5 Nb4 9.Na3 Bc5 10.Be2 (10.Qb3) 10...Re8 11.Kf1 Kg8 In all these
positions, there are constant themes. Black has a development advantage,
White's king is having a hard time finding shelter, Black has serious pressure
down the e- and d-files, White's center will collapse after an eventual c6 and,
lastly, the a3-knight is a spectator in the game. (11...Qd6 01, Bilic,I (2204)Ljubicic,F (2384)/Pula 2000 (16) 12.g4 Bg6 13.f4 Rxe2 14.Nxe2 Nxg4 15.
Ng3 Nd3 16.Qf3 01, Bilic,I (2204)-Ljubicic, F (2384)/Pula 2000);
B2) 7.d5 Nb4
B2a) 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Na3 Bc5 10.Bd2 (10.Be3) 10...Qe7 with compensation;
B2b) 8.exf7+ Kxf7 9.Na3 Bc5 10.Be2 (10.Qb3 Re8+) 10...Re8 11.Kf1
[FEN "r2qr3/ppp2kpp/5n2/2bP1b2/1nP5/
N4P2/PP2B1PP/R1BQ1KNR b - - 0 11"]
[FEN "rn1qk2r/ppp1bppp/4pnb1/3P4/2PP2P1/
2N2P2/PP5P/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 8"]
A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
The first thing I noticed about this variation is its simplicity. I was under the
assumption that it would never lead to much for White, and that it would be
too slow-going for my taste. Nevertheless, my interest was piqued upon
reviewing some of the lines. The basic position may be theoretically equal,
but there are plenty of opportunities for Black to go wrong. This presents
White with an invaluable practical opportunity, so let's get to it.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
This is the most straightforward way of playing the gambit. 3.Bc4 is another
option.
Translate this page
Play 1 e4 e5!
by Nigel Davies
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/8/2BpP3/
5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 5"]
5...Nxe4
Against 5...Bc5 in our "gambit repertoire," we are planning to play the Max
Lange Attack.
6.Re1 d5
Here we will look at the sober 7.Bxd5. The Canal variation, 7.Nc3 dxc3 8.
Bxd5 f5 9.Ng5 Bd6 10.bxc3, holds plenty of surprise value; however, it has
been meticulously refuted by theory. It can be said about certain lines in a
gambit repertoire that "they might not be correct, but you can play them
correctly."
If 6...f5, casting a shadow over the idea of castling kingside, Black's strong
point on e4 will be removed after a couple of precise moves, and White will
find himself with a large advantage: 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bxe7.
7.Bxd5
ECO C
by Chess Informant
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp2ppp/2n5/3q4/3pn3/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 0 8"]
[FEN "r3kb1r/ppp2pp1/2n1bB1p/7q/3pN3/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 11"]
B1b2) 12...Qg4 13.Qd3 Rg8 Black now has to be careful about f3-f4-f5 and
Qh7 ideas from White. He is under considerable pressure and completely
frozen on both wings because of the bishop on f6 (13...Qh5 14.f4).
B2) 10...Bb4 11.Nxd4 These lines fizzle out to being slightly better for White.
11...Qxd1 12.Rexd1 Nxd4 13.Rxd4
B2a) 13...c5 14.Nd6+ (14.Rdd1) 14...Kd7.
B2b) 13...Be7 14.Re1 Rd8 15.Ra4 a6 16.Bxe7 Kxe7 17.Rb4.
B2c) 13...Ba5 14.Nc5 00 (14...Bb6 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Rd2) 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.
Rad1+/=.
B3) 10...Be7 11.Bxe7 Kxe7 (11...Nxe7 12.Nxd4 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 000 14.
Ng5 g6+/=) 12.Neg5 (12.Nxd4 Qxd1 13.Nxc6+ bxc6 14.Raxd1 Rhd8 15.
Rxd8 Rxd8 16.f3 c5 17.Kf2 Rb8 18.b3 c4 19.Nc5 Rb5 20.Nxe6 fxe6 21.Re4
cxb3 22.axb3 Rc5 23.Re2 Kd6 24.f4 Rf5 25.Ke3 e5 26.Rd2+ Ke6 ,
Frolov,D (2401)-Onischuk,A (2652)/Sochi 2004) 12...Rhd8+/=
[FEN "r2r4/ppp1kppp/2n1b3/6Nq/3p4/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 13"]
White can now capture twice on e6; i.e., Nxe6 and Rxe6.
B4) 10...f6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6.
B5) 10...Bd6 This is one way to equality. 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bf4 Qd5 13.c3
[FEN "r3k2r/pp3ppp/2npb3/3q4/3p1B2/
2P2N2/PP3PPP/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 13"]
B5e) 13...Rc8 14.b3 00 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qxd4 17.cxd4 Rc2= (17...
d5)
8...Qd8 As in Perfiliev-Botvinnik, Leningrad 1925. There is a lot of venom in
this line for both sides. 9.Rxe4+
A) 9...Be6
A1) 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Rxd4 Qf6 12.Qd3 (12.Be3 Be7 13.Nb5).
A2) 10.Nb5 Bd6 (10...Qd7 11.Bf4).
B) 9...Be7 10.Nxd4
B1) 10...00 11.Bf4 (11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Qxd8 Bxd8 13.Rc4 Rb8 14.b3+/=) 11...
Bf6 (11...f5 12.Nxc6 bxc6) 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qxd8+/=.
B2) 10...f5 this was his idea.
B2a) 11.Bh6 00 (11...fxe4 12.Bxg7 Rf8) 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Rd4 Qe8 14.Bf4.
B2b) 11.Rf4 00 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qxd8 (13.Be3 Bd6).
B2c) 11.Rxe7+
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp1R1pp/2n5/5p2/3N4/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQ2K1 b kq - 0 11"]
Botvinnik does not mention this shocking move. This is a serious alternative
that puts White in the driver's seat. Let's see how White gets compensation:
B2c1) 11...Qxe7 12.Nd5 (with initiative) 12...Qf7 (12...Qd8 13.Nb5 00 14.
Nbxc7 Rb8 15.Qh5 (with initiative)) 13.Qe2+ Kf8 14.Qb5 with compensation.
B2c2) 11...Nxe7 12.Qh5+ (12.Bg5 00 13.Ndb5 Qxd1+ 14.Rxd1 Ng6 15.
Nxc7 Rb8 16.Rd4 f4 17.N3d5 f3 18.g3 Bf5 19.c4 Rf7 20.Nb5 Rd7 21.c5 Be6
22.Ndc3 Rxd4 23.Nxd4 Bg4 24.Ncb5 Ne5) 12...g6 13.Qh4
B2c21) 13...00 14.Bg5 Re8 (14...f4 15.Bxe7 Qxd4 16.Bxf8 Kxf8 17.Rd1
Qe5 18.Qh6+ Ke8 19.Qxh7+-) 15.Rd1!!+-.
B2c22) 13...Nc6 14.Bg5!!
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp4p/2n3p1/5pB1/3N3Q/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R5K1 b kq - 0 14"]
14...Qxd4 15.Re1+!
B2c221) 15...Kf7 16.Re7+ Kg8 (16...Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8 18.Qxd4 Nxd4 19.
Nd5 Ne2+ 20.Kh1 Ng3+ 21.fxg3+-) 17.Re8+ Kf7 18.Qxd4 Nxd4 19.Rxh8
Ne6 20.h4+-.
B2c222) 15...Be6 (only move) 16.Rxe6+ Kd7 (16...Kf8 17.Bh6+ Kg8 18.
Qxd4 Nxd4 19.Re7 Rd8 20.Rxc7 Ne2+ 21.Kf1 Nxc3 22.bxc3 b6 23.Rxa7+-;
16...Kf7 17.Rxc6 Qxh4 18.Rxc7+ Ke6 19.Bxh4+-) 17.Re7+! Kc8 18.Rxc7+!
[FEN "r1k4r/ppR4p/2n3p1/5pB1/3q3Q/
2N5/PPP2PPP/6K1 b - - 0 18"]
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppp1b1pp/5p2/5qB1/3QN3/
8/PPP2PPP/R3R1K1 b kq - 0 12"]
12...fxg5 13.Qxg7 Qf8 14.Nf6+ Kd8 15.Rad1+ Bd6 16.Qxg5 h6 17.Qh4 Bd7
18.Nh7++-.
9.Nxe4 Be6
9...Be7 10.Bg5
A) 10...f6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bxf6+/- Rf8 (12...00 13.Bxe7 Rf7 14.Bh4 Bg4
15.Re4 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Raf8 17.Bg3 Qd5 18.Qd2) 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Qxd4 Qb6
15.Qc3 (15.Qe5 Qd6 16.Qe4 c6 17.Rad1 Qf6 18.Qb4 Rg8 19.Rd6 Qg7 20.g3
Rf8 21.Ne5 Rf6 22.Qd4 Rxd6 23.Qxd6 Bf5 24.Nxc6 bxc6 25.Qxc6+ Kf7 26.
Qxa8 Qxb2 27.Qxa7)
A1) 15...Rg8 16.Rad1 Bd7 (16...Qg6 17.g3 Bg4).
A2) 15...Be6.
B) 10...Be6 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Qxd4 00 13.Qc5+/= Nc6 14.Qxa5.
C) 10...00 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Nxd4
[FEN "2kr3r/ppp3pp/2nbR3/q5B1/3p4/
5N2/PPP2PPP/R2Q2K1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Rde8
13...Rdf8 14.Qe2 Kd7 (14...Kb8 15.Re4 a6 16.Bd2 Qd5 17.Qd3) 15.Re1
Qxa2 16.Qe4 Qa5 (16...Kc8 17.Nxd4) 17.Be7 Bxe7.
13...Qf5 14.Qe2 Rdf8 15.Rd1 h6 16.Bh4 g5 (16...Kd7) 17.Bg3 Bxg3 18.hxg3
Qc5 19.Ne5
13...Qd5 14.Qe2
A) 14...Kd7 15.Rxd6+ (15.Re1 Rdf8 16.Bh4).
B) 14...Rdf8 15.Re4 Kb8 16.Bd2 a6 17.Qd3.
13...Rd7 14.Qe2 h6 15.Re8+.
14.Qe2 Kd7
14...Rxe6 15.Qxe6+ Kb8 16.Re1 a6 17.a3 Qb5=.
15.Rxe8 Rxe8 16.Qd3 h6 17.Bd2 Qh5
White has targeted the d-pawn and has weakened the kingside. 17...Qb6 18.b3.
18.h3+/= Ne5 19.Qb5+!
[FEN "4r3/pppk2p1/3b3p/1Q2n2q/3p4/
5N1P/PPPB1PP1/R5K1 b - - 0 19"]
As you can see, a "mild variation," but with some hidden spice. I like the
practical side of this gambit. You are playing towards equality, but if your
opponent decides to get creative, you have opportunities to gain the upperhand.
Next time, we might talk about the Max Lange. If you look for me on
YouTube, please subscribe to my channel.
A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
Lately, its been an all gambit repertoire. This month, we will look at the
Moscow Variation versus the Sicilian Defense. Of course, playing it from a
more aggressive perspective, where we attempt to gambit a pawn at every
opportunity.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/3p4/1Bp5/4P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 3"]
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pp1qpppp/3p4/2p5/4P3/5N2/
PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
This is more precise than 4...Nxd7. Mikhail Botvinnik would say that
capturing with the queen is preferable because you are missing your lightsquared bishop and the queen will complement those colors.
4...Nxd7 The knight is a little misplaced here, which is why this move is not
[FEN "rn2kb1r/pp1qpppp/3p1n2/2p1P3/8/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 6"]
6...dxe5 7.Nxe5 Qc7 (7...Qc8 8.Qf3 e6 9.Re1 Be7 10.Na3; 7...Qd6 8.Qe2
Nbd7 9.Nc4 Qc6 10.Nc3 e6 11.a4; 7...Qd5 8.Re1; 7...Qd8 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.Nc4
Nb6 10.d3) 8.d4 e6 (8...cxd4 9.Bf4 Qb6 10.Nd2 Nc6 11.Ndc4 Qc5 12.Qf3 e6
13.Rad1 Rd8 14.Rfe1 Be7 15.Qb3 Qb4 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Ne5 Rc8 18.Qg3
Nh5 19.Qf3 Nxf4 20.Qxf4 00 21.Qxd4 c5 22.Qd7 Bf6 23.Nxf7 Bd4 24.Qxe6
Bxf2+ 25.Kh1 Rc7 26.Nd8+ Kh8 27.Qd6 Kg8 28.Qe6+ Kh8 29.Qd6 Kg8 30.
Rf1 Qb6 31.Qxb6 axb6 32.Ne6 10, Volokitin,A (2558)-Ivanchuk,V (2709)/
Warsaw 2002) 9.Bf4 Bd6 10.Na3
[FEN "rn2k2r/ppq2ppp/3bpn2/2p1N3/3P1B2/
N7/PPP2PPP/R2Q1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/2np1n2/2p5/3PP3/
2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7"]
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/3p4/3Pn3/4n3/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNBQR1K1 b kq - 0 10"]
A4a2) 12...000 13.a4! (with initiative) Kb8 14.Be3 Rc8 (14...Qg4 15.Bxa7
+!! Kxa7 16.Nb5+ Kb8 17.Qe3; 14...e6 15.Rac1 a6) 15.Qd1.
A4a3) 12...h6 13.Bd2 000 with compensation.
A4a4) 12...Qg4 13.Qd3 with compensation.
A4a5) 12...e5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.Rad1 00 (15...Rc8 16.Qe3) 16.
Qh3 h6 17.Bh4 Rad8 18.Qxe6++/-.
A4b) 10...Qg4 11.Qa4++-.
A4c) 10...Nf6 11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.Rxe5+/- g6 (12...Rd8 13.Nc3 g6 14.Bg5 Bg7
15.Qe2 h6 16.Re1 00; 12...e6 13.Nc3 Bd6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Re1 00 16.Bg5)
13.Bg5.
B) 8...d5 This is possibly the second most important position of the opening.
It is a very tranquil way for Black to play for equality. I use to capture on d5
(!?-?!) thinking that I could push through quickly by playing Qb3, but 9.exd5
leads to equality. The better move is 9.e5!+/= Or to be clearer, it is the best
way to play the position. To put it simply, Black has a problem with his
knight. Where does he put it? Moreover, White keeps the possibility of
playing on both flanks: via the c-file or with f3-f4-f5.
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/2n2n2/3pP3/3P4/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 9"]
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpppp/2n5/3pP3/3Pn3/
8/PP3PPP/RNBQNRK1 b kq - 0 10"]
B3a) 10...f6 11.f3 Ng5 12.Bxg5 fxg5 13.Nc3 (13.Nc2) 13...e6 14.f4 gxf4 15.
Rxf4 000 16.Nc2 Kb8 The f-file is an asset here. Additionally, White can
probe the kingside with moves such as Qg4-h5.
B3b) 10...h6 11.Be3 e6 (11...Rc8 12.Nd3 e6 13.f3 Ng5 14.Qe1 Qc7 15.Nc3
Qb6 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Nxb4) 12.Nd3+/= From here on, Black has problems
with his knight. It is hard to tell where the knight will find a purpose in this
game. After the move f3 by White, it will go to g5, where its obviously
misplaced. And then where?
B3b1) 12...f5 13.a3.
B3b2) 12...Be7 13.Qg4 h5 (13...g6 14.Qe2 00; 13...Bg5 14.Qe2) 14.Qe2 Rc8
(14...h4 15.f3).
B3b3) 12...Ne7.
B3b4) 12...Nb4 13.f3.
B3b5) 12...Rc8 13.f3 Ng5 14.Qe1 Qc7 15.Nc3 Qb6 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Nxb4
Bxb4 (17...Qxb4 18.Qf2).
8.d5 Ne5
The most natural move.
8...Nb8 9.Qd3 (9.Re1) 9...Nf6 10.Bg5 Na6 11.Bh4 000 This unclear
position needs more research.
8...Nd8 9.Re1 Nf6 10.Bg5 with justifiable compensation.
9.Nxe5 dxe5 10.Re1 Nd6
10...Nf6 11.Rxe5 e6 (11...000 12.c4 e6 13.Bg5; 11...g6 12.Bg5 Bg7 13.c4
00 14.Nc3 Rfe8 15.Qf3) 12.c4
A) 12...000 13.Bg5 Bd6 (13...Qc7 14.Bxf6; 13...h6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Rh5)
14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Rh5.
B) 12...Be7 13.Nc3 exd5 (13...000 14.Bf4 Rhe8; 13...00 14.dxe6 Qxd1+
15.Nxd1) 14.Bg5 000 (14...d4 15.Ne4 000 16.Nxc5 Qc7 17.Nd3 Bd6).
C) 12...Bd6 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Re1; 10...f5 11.f3 Nf6 (11...Nd6 12.Rxe5) 12.
Rxe5.
11.Rxe5 g6
11...000 12.Re1.
12.Re2
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1qpp1p/3n2p1/2pP4/8/
2P5/PP2RPPP/RNBQ2K1 b kq - 0 12"]
A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.
Over the
Horizons
Charles Galofre
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp1ppppp/2n5/1Bp5/4P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 3"]
3...g6
Black's most common response.
4.00 Bg7 5.c3 Nf6
This is how the majority of games proceed. In the current position, a range of
moves have been tried: 6.Re1 (classical), 6.e5 (natural), and 6.d4 (ambitious).
The latter is my recommendation.
Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
ChessBase Game Viewer.
6.d4
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pppbp/2n2np1/1Bp5/3PP3/
2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 6"]
6...cxd4
This natural-looking move is the most inferior response. True, the exchange
of pawns leaves White with an isolated pawn, but it opens the position, giving
White the c3-square for the knight and the c-file for the rooks.
After 6...Nxe4, White gets compensation with 7.d5:
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pppbp/2n3p1/1BpP4/4n3/
2P2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7"]
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp2ppbp/2n3p1/1B1pP3/
3Pn3/8/PP3PPP/RNBQNRK1 b kq - 0 9"]
A1) 9...h6 10.f3 Ng5 11.Nc3 00 (11...Ne6 12.Nc2 00 13.Be3; 11...Bd7 12.
Be3) 12.Be3 Ne6 White has a space advantage and all his pieces are more
purposely placed.(12...Qb6 13.Ba4).
A2) 9...f6 10.f3 Ng5 11.Bxg5 fxg5 12.Nc3 00 (12...Bd7 13.Rf2) 13.Rc1 Na5
b4 and White is just clearly better. (The threat is Nxd5.)
A3) 9...Qb6 10.a4
A3a) 10...00 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.a5 Qb5 (12...Qc7 13.f3 Ba6+/-) 13.Na3 Qxa5
+/=.
A3b) 10...a6 11.Bxc6+ bxc6+/=.
B) 8.Ne5!? Qb6 9.Qa4 Nxe4 10.Nxc6.
8.d5
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp1pppbp/2n3p1/1B1P4/4n3/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 8"]
This is the purest form of the gambit. With all lines open, it is an interesting,
complex position.
8...Nd6 9.Na3 a6
9...Ne5 is natural: 10.Nxe5 Bxe5 11.Re1
A) 11...Nxb5 12.Rxe5 gives White a clear advantage. 12...f6 (12...d6) 13.
Nxb5! fxe5 14.d6!+/-.
B) 11...Bg7 12.Bg5 f6 compensation.
C) 11...Bf6 12.Bh6.
10.Bd3
[FEN "r1bqk2r/1p1pppbp/p1nn2p1/3P4/8/
N2B1N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...Ne5
10...Na7 11.Re1 00 12.Nc4 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 b5 (13...d6 14.Bg5) 14.Bb3 d6
(14...Re8) 15.Bg5 Re8 16.Qd2 Bf6 17.Bxf6 exf6 18.Rxe8+ Qxe8 19.Re1 Qd8
20.Nd4 Bd7 21.Ne6.
11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Re1 Bf6 13.Qb3
[FEN "r1bqk2r/1p1ppp1p/p2n1bp1/3P4/8/
NQ1B4/PP3PPP/R1B1R1K1 b kq - 0 13"]
A PDF file of this month's Over the Horizons column, along with all previous
columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.