The artillery of the chessboard, landing blows from afar.
Author Archives: DrDave
French a la carte
I have been looking at French repertoires recently, and thought it was
useful for my own amusement at least to see what various authors
writing for the Black audience recommended.
Repertoire books these days often give you a choice, which is excellent.
| Variation | McDonald 2008 |
Watson 1 1984 |
Watson 2 1999 |
Watson 3 2007 |
Moskalenko 2008 |
Williams 2010 |
| Advance | 3…b6 | 5…Bd7 with 6.a3 c4 and 6.Be2 f6 |
5…Bd7 with 6.a3 c4 and 6.Be2 f6 |
5…Bd7 with 6.a3 c4 and 6.Be2 f6 5…Bd7 with 6.Be2 Nge7 |
5/6…Nh6 (±5…Qb6) |
5…Bd7 with 6…f6 |
| Wade 3…c5 4…Qb6 and 5….Bd7 & …Bb5 |
5…Qb6 with 6.a3 c4 |
5…Qb6 with 6…Nh6 |
5…Qb6 with 6…Nh6 |
5…Qb6 6.a3 c4 |
— | |
| Tarrasch | 3…Be7 | 3…Nf6 5.Bd3 with 7…Qb6 5.f4 with 7…Qb6 |
3…Nf6 5.Bd3 with 7…Qb6 5.f4 with 7…Qb6 |
3…Be7 | 3…Nf6 5.Bd3 … 6…b6 various ideas against 5.f4, including 7…cxd4 8.cxd4 a5 |
3…Nf6 5.f4 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ndf3 cxd4 8.cxd4 a5 |
| Fort Knox: 3…dxe4 & 4…Bd7 | 3…c5 4.exd4 Qxd5 | 3…c5 4.exd4 Qxd5 | 3…c5 4.exd4 Qxd5 | 3…c5 4.exd4 Qxd5 | — | |
| Nc3 Nf6 |
MacCutcheon 4.Bg5 Bb4 Classical with 7…Be7 |
— | — | Burn 4.Bg5 dxe4. 5.Nxe4 Nbd7 Classical with 7…Be7 Classical with 7…cxd4 |
MacCutcheon 4.Bg5 Bb4 |
— |
| Winawer | 4…Qd7 &…b6 | 4…c5 main lines with …Qc7 | 4…c5 main lines with …Qc7 | 4…b6 5.Qg4 Bf8 | 4…c5 main line with 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Ne7 7 Qg4 Qc7 8 Qxg7 Rg8 9 Qxh7 cxd4 10 Ne2 dxc3 11 f4 Nbc6 12 Qd3 d4!? | |
| 4…c5 main lines with 7…Qc7 | 4…c5 main lines with …O-O | 4…c5 main lines with …O-O | 4…c5 main lines with 6…Qa5 | — | ||
| KIA | Main line d5/c5/Nc6 with delayed castling. |
Sicilian style: 1…e6/2…c5/3…Nc6/4…g6 |
Sicilian style: 1…e6/2…c5/3…Nc6/4…g6 |
Sicilian style: 1…e6/2…c5/3…Nc6/4…g6 |
Sicilian style: 1…e6/2…c5/3…Nc6/4…g6 |
|
| 3…Nf6 4.Ngf3 Nc6 |
||||||
| 3…Nf6 4.Ngf3 Bc5 |
||||||
| 3…c5/4…Nc6/5…Bd6/6…Nge7 | 3…c5/4…Nc6/5…Bd6/6…Nge7 | 3…c5/4…Nc6/5…Bd6/6…Nge7 | ||||
| Others: | ||||||
| Wing gambit | 3…Bd7 | 5…d4 |
Food for thought! I like McDonald’s trick against the Wing
Gambit, that’s definitely worth a punt.
Space and potential (mud, mud, glorious mud)
How do you play against the Hippo? It’s all about Space and
Potential. At risk of sounding like an estate agent, I propose to
describe my limited understanding of these issues…
Space
All else being equal, it’s an advantage to have more space. More
space means you can get about the board more easily, organise an attack
more easily, and sometimes all your opponent can do is sit tight while
you work out how to win:
Giving up the centre — Nimzowitsch again
What’s going on here?
We have two very different cases: more space with a fixed pawn
centre, and more space with a fluid centre. When things are not fixed,
the side with more space may have to watch out for counterplay right
across the board. There are half-open files, sort-of outposts, and the
possibility of a break on the side you take your eye off! These days,
the half-open centre is often contested in the Scotch, Caro-Kann and
sometimes the French Defences.
Half-open centres
- …e5xd4, Nxd4 in the Scotch Game
- …d5xe4, Nxe4 in the French and Caro-Kann
- …c5xd4, Nxd4 in the Sicilian
White has more space, and, while Black has counterplay, sometimes
that’s what decides the game. White can organise an attack, and if
things break open, can occupy key squares and lines more easily. White can add importantly to the space advantage with f2-f4 or c2-c4.
On the other hand, as Tarrasch said, “Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position. If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about!”
We’ll have one more advertisement for the centre before considering its burdens.
The Maroczy Bind: c4 and …c5xd4
Black’s counterplay in the Sicilian often comes from a Queen’s-side
push with …b5 (minority attack) or a well-timed counterblow in the
centre with …d5. Why doesn’t White stop both of these ideas with
c2-c4? (The Maroczy Bind). It can be crushing…
Ah, if only life was always so simple. In most lines of the
Sicilian, White is not allowed time to get in this c2-c4 move at all. In
others, White has time for c2-c4, but Black has time for development and
counterplay. In only one or two lines of the Sicilian has the Maroczy
proved to be a lasting test of Black’s resources, and even there Black
can play with hopes of equality or even turning around the game.
The Accelerated Dragon is the most common place where we see Binds, and
Black can hope to restrain the White structure, swap off all White’s
best pieces, and go for a QN vs QB endgame. That happens perhaps more often in Black’s head than on the board, but this might do as an exanmple:
Maroczy Bind with g3 and …g6
We often see this line arising from English Opening lines, mainly
the Symmetrical Variation. White has long been thought to have good
chances of an advantage, and I have enjoyed playing it as White:
It’s mate in 6…
I’ve often had Black knights crawling all over the dark squares on the Queen’s-side, but still won the game, because Black lacked the capacity to follow through with anything meaningful.
The Hedgehog: Maroczy Bind with g3 and …e6
“Playing against the Hedgehog requires forthright planning —
grabbing space and then doing something with it.” says Mark Ginsburg
Hedgehog with Bb7 and Nc6
I had the privilege of watching the following game. I have a feeling
that …Nc6 is a bit in the way. but there’s more going on here than I
can follow…
Hedgehog with Bb7 and Nbd7
Mihai Suba wrote an amusing book about the Hedgehog, Dynamic
Chess Strategy. He suggests that White can easily and quickly adopt
‘perfect’ but unimprovable position, and, while Black may be cramped,
can always find ways to improve things. It’s a psychological problem as
much as a chess one, but it is a problem, and no more clearly seen than
in this game from Chess for Tigers:
Much the same point is made by Sielecki in
recommending the Hedgehog [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YARzPWgDSQ ]
(or ‘headshock’) against the London: Black can find ways to improve and
expand more easily than White.
Double fianchetto hedgehog
It exists, but you don’t meet it very often, as it’s something of an
extravagance. d5 is very inviting for a Knight, and if chased off with …e6, the Black dark-squared Bishop cannot cover d6, f6 and h6 all at
once.
I had some ideas of probing the dark squares with Ng4 which may have made my illustrious opponent nervous, but Stockfish is unimpressed.
The Hippopotamus: double fianchetto with a full board
The Hippopotamus is often used in this formation:
[chessboard]
r2qk2r/1bpnnpb1/pp1pp1pp/8
[/chessboard]
Black has the entire second rank covered, has no obvious weaknesses and can probe with any pawn at any point.
Double fianchetto systems are as old as chess, but the Hippo looks
and feels a bit fishy to many when adopted by Black and with the
half-smothered Knights.
Yet, there are many great players who have tried
it as Black and even more great players who have made no progress
against it as White. Keene and Botterill give as evidence a game of
Keres who drew against Navarovsky’s Hippo (1/2-1/2, 27 moves) and
Petrosian’s two draws against Spassky’s beasts.
Spassky had a game with the Hippo against that great hypermodern innovator Ujtekly, which, although he won, may have given him some respect for its resilience — enough to try it in the greatest arena of chess.
Potential
“Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get filthy and the pig enjoys it!
The Hippopotamus is one of chess’s dirty little secrets. In a
repertoire book by White, you will rarely (never?) see a recommendation
of how to play against the Hippo — for example, it failed to make even the chapter
titled ‘Garbage’ in Sam Collins’ 2004 book — but players at all levels wheel
it out and survive and even thrive with it. Black’s position is ‘cramped
but not compromised’, in the words of Keene and Botterill, and White can
easily over-stretch, just as against the the Hedgehog. Every advance by White loosens the position, and Black may be well-placed to take advantage of new opportunities.
Jonathan Rowson
wondered aloud if the Hippo has now just about made it onto the
‘respectable’ list, where Black’s potential is compensation for White’s
space or initiative (Chess for Zebras, page 237) — the argument here is
similar to Suba’s point about the Hedgehog. As Tartakower once remarked, White has their initiative to defend!
So far, so general. It’s probably better to look at some specific formations.
The two-pawn centre hippopotamus
[chessboard]
r2qk2r/1bpnnpb1/pp1pp1pp/8/3PP3/2N2N2
[/chessboard]
With Black having full pawn control of the fourth rank, it’s almost
certain that White will have to break through with a pawn move. However,
e4-e5 can be readily met by …d6-d5, getting into a sort of French
Defence centre with White’s pieces in front of the c- and f-pawns, which
they might want to move. Black can quickly follow up with ….c7-c5 and perhaps …f7-f6, and
White may regret pushing the e-pawn!
Similarly, after d4-d5, Black can reply …e6-e5, getting a King’s
Indian sort of centre where …f5 is easy for Black to achieve, while
c2-c4-c5 may be a long way off for White.
White can hope that Black’s weaknesses on the wing where White gets
more space (King’s-side in the French, Queen’s-side in the King’s
Indian) are enough to override any inconvenience from advancing a pawn.
Whizzing through a number of 2500-level White wins in the Hippo, this
seems the most common way of winning.
Transfer to King’s Indian formation
Transfer to French formation
Black keeps the tension after a White advance
This maintenance of tension gives White the chance to swap an advanced pawn for a Bishop’s pawn — not usually a good idea, but might allow access to lines or squares.
White gets in with a break
White can try and arrange some other sort of breakthrough, perhaps
using some other pawn. Sometimes the breaks work, sometimes they don’t;
sometimes one or other side gets in on the wing, even while the central
situation is unresolved:
Black successfully anticipates a break:
White holds the tension
There is a long and interesting lecture about this game by the winner, available on Youtube
White hesitates and is lost:
If White just sits on their pretty development and does nothing with it,
Black can undermine the White centre with flank blows like …c5, and
even advance and take over the centre in Hypermodern style.
Black succeeds with wing play:
Black may be tempted or obliged to advance a pawn to the fourth rank
on the wing. …b5 is a common idea in the Modern, and more typical of
the Hippo is …g5 with the idea of …Ne7-g6-f4.
White succeeds with wing play:
Obliged or tempted Black may be, but once such an
advance has happened, White has something to aim at. …g5 invites the f2-f4 break, …b5 invites a2-a4, and …h5 invites g2-g4.
The main line?
Tiger’s Modern gives best play against White’s best set-up as notes to this game:
The three-pawn centres against the Hippo
With the adjustment of a Knight and the advance of the c- or f-pawn,
we have a three-pawn centre hippopotamus, and now Black needs to take
notice, as the White centre is much more solid. Black can hope that
while White is arranging all this, Black can sort out some way of
meeting it, or provokes White into advancing before they are quite ready
by some wing advance of their own.
Some of the most critical lines against Hippo structures start by
White aiming at a three-pawn centre from the very start.
def centre against the Hippo
I would have guessed this was risky for Black. Nigel Davies has made
a good case for it but Tiger Hillarp Persson doesn’t recommend it in his
book on the Modern, preferring to expand while possible with …b5, and
only permitting the luxury of the Hippo once White has committed to
blocking both Bishop’s pawns.
cde centre against the Hippo
This can arise from the English Defence
Miles and Short have both dabbled in it, pointing at White’s slow
3.a3 as justification.
In Danny King’s book on the English Defence, he suggests an early h2-h4 can critically restrict Black’s chances to expand, as shown in a couple of Milov-Miles games.
Nakamura rather provocatively tried it against Kramnik when White
had wasted no time at all… In a King’s Indian formation, the typical advance c4-c5 arrived
with lightning speed.
Move orders
People that know me won’t be surprised that I wonder if the Hippo can be move-ordered. I haven’t hit on anything yet, but there are some specific move orders that Black is well-advised to avoid:
Click [. . .] to list games
The London System
I once heard the Torre Attack described as The Old Man’s Bad Habit (Aagaard), and no less a tribute can be paid to the London…
“One problem is that this is actually a pretty good opening”
— Christof Sielecki
The original idea of the London System was as an Anti-KID weapon in the tournament in our capital in 1922, fighting for the control of central dark squares.
Capablanca later played a game that was a good advert for it against Yates in 1924, where again dark square dominance was a theme.
And Frank Marshall used it in his own style, playing for mate in a way that may later have inspired Mark Hebden:
After this initial enthusiasm, the trail goes cold for a while, warming up with the intervention of David Bronstein. Black can hope to make a point about the early development of the Bishop by attacking b2. Sometimes White plays it as a gambit, sometimes White defends with Qc1/Qc2, sometimes White blocks with Qb3, when the Queens are likely to be swapped. One thing that I got out of looking at London games by Bronstein and others is the paradoxical power of doubled pawns. Sometimes Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 (or the same with a swap on b3) showed the doubled pawns as a weakness, but sometimes the open a-file and chances to break twice with the b-pawn proved stronger. The creative Bronstein can be found on both sides of the argument.
The London System has a number of advantages for the club player.
- White’s pieces tend to come to the same sorts of squares each game,
- it concentrates on some fairly simple aims in the opening (fast, solid development, central occupation) and
- there isn’t much theory on it because there are no sharp lines.
To some extent, these advantages are all also disadvantages!
- White’s pieces tend to come to the same sorts of squares each game, so it should be easy to predict and counter.
- It concentrates on some fairly simple aims in the opening (fast, solid develoopment, central occupation) which can be met happily with the same sorts of strategy.
- There isn’t much theory on it because there are no sharp lines, which means Black shouldn’t struggle either to find a decent line against it nor to equalise.
So much, so general. In practice, passive or too-simple play by Black can lead to trouble, and, with a space or development advantage, White can attack happily on either side of the board. I’ve lost and struggled against the London throughout my chess career, and watched Peter Lane (formerly of this parish) have some real walk-throughs against strong players with this system. Repertoire books (Soltis 1988, Johanssen & Kovacevic 2009) do give unrealistic numbers of White wins (2/40 losses in Soltis) but they also give you some recipes about how to play, and a player with a plan will usually beat a player without one. It all depends on what ideas you can bring to the game. Magnus Carlsen brings more to a game than most, and he can beat top Grandmasters with the London.
John Cox had a superb introduction to ‘Dealing with d4 Deviations’:
I begged Everyman Chess to let me write this book. All my chess-playing life I have had a terrible record against these feeble variants, as I saw them. The final straw was being utterly slaughtered by Richard Pert in a London league match in the 4 e3 line in Chapter 9. I wanted the incentive to study them and give myself the opportunity to put this right. And for me, it’s worked splendidly. I believe I have really learned something about these systems, and if I am able to pass on to the reader the confidence I have now gained myself, then the job will have been well done.
…I think it’s worth examining why I used to do so badly against these systems. Dealing with these openings successfully is a matter of psychological approach among other things – it’s not by chance that every work from Black’s point of view called them ‘annoying’ or some synonym. I set out what I now feel were my main failings in this area in the hope others might recognize some of theirs and be inspired to remedy them at less cost in points than I managed.
1) The most obvious point – I didn’t actually have a repertoire at all against, say, the Colle. You just play chess, right? Develop the pieces and equalize.
I remember Grandmaster Vlatko Kovacevic playing the Colle against me back before databases. I had no idea this was his customary weapon of mass destruction, and I thought I must have sat down at the wrong board. A GM playing 3 e3??With that attitude, it won’t surprise you to learn I got torched on the kingside around about move 25. Only the fact that the game was played in a comparatively minor event has saved me from appearing in every Colle book since on the wrong end of a classic White crush. Time has mercifully obscured the details, but I know I went …d5 and …c5. Pretty soon a knight appeared on e5 and I didn’t seem to be able to shift it. Shortly after that, either the h- or the g-pawn arrived on the premises. Then came Re3, Qh5, and the next thing I knew I was looking like something out of 1001 Winning Chess Combinations. That wasn’t the only such debacle, either; every time my opponent played one of these vile things I was behind on the clock as I worked on my conception of the wheel, and just as you’d expect some of my wheels came out square. Hopefully the remedy to this is obvious – you hold it in your hands.
2) I was bored by these openings: I didn’t consider them interesting.
3) Not only did I not consider them interesting, I didn’t consider them dangerous.
4) A less obvious point, this: to combat these openings successfully requires a good knowledge of many structures. A good chess education, in fact.
5) I didn’t experience the adrenalin surge I got defending ‘my’ openings.
6) Lastly, I wasn’t playing set-ups I was happy and had experience with.
John Cox
And a little tribute to England’s most notable exponent of the system:
It personally brings back some memories of Michael Franklin at some quickplays in London I used to play at. A very strong player, and a very frustrating player to play against. Imagine fantastic quality Staunton sets, and that horrid London system bishop cutting across the diagonal, just waiting with its little cutesy pigeon hole on h2 made by the h3 move, to puncture the opponents pawn structure etc – and kill all the enthusiasm of the up and coming young players.
If you imagine Michael Franklin as a kind of chess Dracula, sucking all the enthusiasm and counterplay out of the position and his opponents, you begin to feel the nature of the opening and the people that really excel at using it. And yes even with a minority attack, those sorts of players will just wait to pounce on any weaknesses you dare create on the Queenside. They literally look forward to you entertaining them trying to attack them anywhere waiting to pounce on weaknesses created …
Tryfon Gavriel
Let’s look at some specific lines.
London main lines with 1.d4 d5
Symmetrical Variation
Nunn’s Chess Openings gives the extremely unimpressive variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.Qxd3 Bd6 7.Bxd6 Qxd6…
but putting a bit of pawn pressure on the centre with 4.c4 helps a lot. Conversely, Black may do best by playing an early …c5 instead of copying White.
Two Knights Variation
This was reckoned to be the perfect defence against the London because of the line
…
Now if Qc2 Bf5! Qxf5? Qxb2!
So, rather than suffer the indignity of Qc2 Bf5! Qc1, White might take on b6. After 9.Na3 Black should probably keep the Knight out of b5 with 9…Ra5, but if I had this with Black I would be strongly tempted by 9…Rxa3!?
Tony Miles then started introducing the London with 2.Bf4.
Now if Black tries the same idea, there may be trouble:
So, J/K rolled out a repertoire book called Win with the London System, which heavily featured 2.Bf4, and it is in this form that it has become most popular recently.
However, Eric Prie wrote a scathing review of this book, saying it disregards or under-emphasises the best lines for Black.
https://www.chesspublishing.com/content/8/feb06.htm
Eric claims full equality for Black in several lines:
Eric declares the early …c5 system a complete solution for Black.
(Black can even try a very early …c5 with 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5!? to which some players have replied in the spirit of the Albin Counter-Gambit with 3.e4!?, but I’m by no means sure who has more to fear there.)
All-purpose System
Straightforward solid development ought to be OK but, after an early …e6, White can sometimes whip out an attack on the King’s-side, using e5 to hold down the Black position. It can look like an improved Stonewall Attack!
I couldn’t find Kovacevic-Cox but it may have looked and felt a bit like that game…
Cox and others recommend equalising with 6…Bd6, as Michael Adams likes to do. In theory, White should welcome exchanging Black’s better Bishop, but has to waste a move with either Bxd6 or Bg3 or suffer a muddling of the pawns on f4. Ne5 sometimes works, blocking the exchange, but a bit of analysis suggested 7.Ne5 is not great now.
In general, White won’t mind …Bxg3 or even…Nxg3, when hxg3 opens the h-file for a Rook on h1, but after castling, will want to avoid the doubled pawns by a preliminary h2-h3.
But White found a fabulous idea in the main line:
So, avoid that for sure!
Another trap:
J/K give
and then suggest
(11. Qg4 O-O 12. f4 Nf6 13. Qf3 Ne7 14. Bd3 Qb6 15. Rb1 +=)
This is typical of repertoire books: a failry long line is given as += without suggesting where Black might have gone wrong. I don’t dispute the final +=, but if you want to play this for Black, you can certainly try the same plans as in the game: 12…a6 and then either 13…f5 stopping White’s f-pawn or 13…b5 starting queenside play, or both. The authors do not suggest that these ideas were mistaken nor give any argument for getting the Queen in front of the b-pawn with …Qb6. There are so many moves and variations in that book, but you come away thinking that fewer moves and more thinking would have made a much better book! But maybe not one so easy to produce.
You can abandon all finesse with Aagaard and Lund’s 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Bd6, which they consider easily equal. Instead, 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 e6 3.e3 Bd6 4.Bxd6 Qxd6 5.Qg4!? is a try for advantage, perhaps the only one.
London lines against Indian systems
London vs Grunfeld
Only as I was driving over, thinking through how to structure this talk, I realised I had omitted looking at the Grunfeld set-up. Let me repair my omission here:
London vs King’s Indian
This is where we came in. I have a suspicion that going for …e5, as recommended by Gallagher, plays into White’s hands a little, while …c5, as recommended by Dembo, is less easy for White to play against. But I expect both should equalise; White’s system is too indirect.
London vs Modern
I think White is well-advised to try a different move order here. Black can get in …e5 quickly and easily, and other attempts by White are not convincing.
London vs …e6.
“It is more pleasant to play Bf4 once Black has played e6”. – Magnus Carlsen.
Black has a fair choice of systems here
Sielicki recommends going for a Hedgehog set-up against the London with …e6 and …d6.
…
Miserable, but while I've seen 6.Nc4 given as += I expect 6...cxd4 7. exd4 d6 may be perfectly playable.
In the game, 7...Bd6 8.Bb5+ Kf8 is more defensible.
Eric Prie suggests, contra Carlsen, that 1.d4 e6 2.Bf4 is not so threatening for Black, as 2...c5 and 3...Qb6 is not convenient to meet.
Another trap:
London vs Dutch
Soltis disparages White's chances, as Black is well-placed to play ...e5, while J/K concede that Black is fine after
The Stonewall Dutch is unattractive after Bf4 ...
...but the Leningrad can be essayed. Before you see Nf3, watch out for ideas of h4 by White.
Move orders
We have learned that 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 may be improved by 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4.
But after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3, 2...d5! May give White a problem
And is 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 too early to show White's hand?
White can try to hand back the problem with
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c3!?
...hoping that Black might allow a decent version of the London or perhaps the Torre. Cox and Ladkawala each discuss this move order; the Rowson-Haslinger game may be a pain for Black but there's nothing wrong with 5...Nf6 first and then 6...Bd6
Transpositions
The transpositions that I know about and I think are the most important are:
Queen's Gambit Declined Blackburne Variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.c4 O-O 6.Nc3
is the same as
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Bf4 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.c4
Queen's Gambit Slav Defence Exchange Variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Nc6
is the same as
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6
Caro-Kann Defence Exchange Variation
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Nc6
is the same as
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bf4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6
Queen's Indian Miles Variation
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 b6 4.c4
is the same as
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Bf4
And I expect with some cooperation on both sides, we could get to the Bf4 lines against the Benoni.
Bibliography
WATTS/MAROCZY (ed. Regis) The International Chess Tournament London 1922
SOLTIS Winning with the London System
JOHANSSEN et al. Win with the London System
LADKAWALA The London System Move by Move
NUNN et al. Nunn's Chess Openings
AAGAARD & LUND Defending 1.d4
COX Dealing with 1.d4 Deviations
GALLAGHER Beating the Anti-King's-Indians
DEMBO Fighting the Anti-King's-Indians
BOROS Bust the London System! | Strategy Session https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6Im1MVh_o
SIELECKI Fight the London System with Black Pt 3 - ...Nf6 e6 Setups (Nimzo, Queens Indian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YARzPWgDSQ (featuring the 'headshock')
Also on YouTube: Simon Williams has posted some summaries of chapters from his DVD and an update on developments since the DVD came out.
Opening Workshop 2018
Opening recommendations for beginners
-
- Your choice of opening will rest (or should rest) on several considerations: your style and temperament as a chessplayer, your time and aptitude for study, and your ambitions as a player. The standard recommendation for a junior with little experience is to play open, attacking lines with 1.e4 with both colours — this will let them some fun, will get their eye on for important basic tactics, and instil a sense of the importance of activity and development that should last them the rest of their lives, and they will likely enjoy learning a few lines and traps. But for an older player, perhaps more interested in getting a playable game while doing as little study as possible, then the Colle System or London System might suit better as White, and the French or Caro-Kann and Slav as Black. For someone with more affection for attacking chess, the Vienna and Closed Sicilian could suit.
- Do you need a second-string opening?
- All else being equal, yes!
- This does not mean, mugging up on a new system the night before (many risks to this)
- It means, keeping a second opening system simmering in the background (friendlies, occasional serious games) all the time
- It helps if your second-string system is:
- Low on theory – nothing sharp
- Easy to learn – using a similar set-up in each game
- Related to systems you already play
- Because of this last point, it isn’t easy to recommend one for everyone, but:
- Low on theory/easy to learn: Colle, London, King’s Indian Attack, Closed Sicilian; Fort Knox, Stonewall, Scandinavian, Old Indian
- Related to systems you already play: e.g. Worrall Attack for a Ruy Lopez player, Keres Defence for a Nimzo/Bogo player, King’s Indian for a Modern Defence player, Accelerated Dragon for a Dragon player,
- Playing White against the Budapest Gambit
- A non-standard line for Black against Bird’s Opening
- From’s Gambit (1.f4 e5) may not be satisfactory — and you have to be prepared for a transposition to the King’s Gambit with 2.e4 — while White can be relied upon to know the main lines with 1…d5. What else is there?
- Richard Palliser recommends in Beating Unorthodox Openings to play either 1…d5 2.Nf3 Bg4 or 1…d6 with the idea of an early …Bg4 and …e5. This system is missing from Taylor’s popular book.
- Just generally, I think that’s the right sort of line to try and find: the main lines will be familiar to your opponent and there is more to learn, even if they are the best lines. Something sound but offbeat shouldn’t be too hard to find. For similar reasons, I have recommended 1.b4 c6
- How do you not get mated against the King’s Indian?
- First, let’s see the problem. In the main lines, we get a fixed pawn centre where Black is more or less obliged to hack down the King’s-side while the Queen’s-side burns.
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7.O-O 7… Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Ne8 10. Be3 f5 11. f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5
- You can just try and get better at defending, as that Queen’s-side attack is very appealing. But if not?
- The Benko line tries to tie up the King’s-side before pursuing Queen’s side play
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Ne8 10. f3 f5 11. g4 *
- A line with a similar idea is the old Petrosian main line:
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. d5 Nbd7 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Nh5 11. h4 *
- The Averbakh line is directed against Black’s …e5 idea
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Bg5 e5 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Qxd8 Rxd8 9. Nd5
- The Samisch rather fancies some King’s-side aggression for White:
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3
- Paul likes the Smyslov Variation: if Black insists on lashing out on the King’s-side, then all they may achieve is a position full of targets:
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 O-O 5. Bg5 d6 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Be2 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Bg3
- More steady play by Black can result in a position where they have no easy plan:
- 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 O-O 5. Bg5 d6 6. e3 Nbd7 7.Qc2 c6 8. Be2 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 e5 (10…Nh5 11. Nxg5) 11. O-O Re8 12. dxe5 dxe5 13.Rfd1 Qc7 14. Rac1)
- The Caro-Kann
- I made a play-though web page: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/caro-kann
White tries against the Budapest Gambit
An appetiser: the Englund Gambit
Brian complained that he lost quickly facing this line. You might guess he fell into a trap which may be the main hope of Black when playing this line:
Perhaps White can survive and even thrive after 6.Nc3, but why invite trouble? Once you know …Qb4+ might be a problem, improvements are not hard to find. 4.Nc3 is simple and good.
Anyhow, back to the Budapest Gambit. A brief statement for the defence: the first famous game played using it, and a more recent example.
And the prosecution:
The repertoire books I have available all assure us that you can get a safe plus against the Budapest without much effort.
They all recommend different lines, however! I don’t know if that is so reassuring…
Creating and exchanging strong pieces
The pieces at their best
[Click on … to see list of games]
Successful exchanges
[Click on … to see list of games]
Pros and cons of exchanges
[Click on … to see list of games]
Making the position better for your pieces and worse for your opponent: basics
Opening lines for pieces
Making the position better for your pieces and worse for your opponent: the struggle of BB vs BN/NN
[Click on … to see list of games]
The Caro-Kann Defence
Firstly restrain…
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
Black counters in the centre, provoking an immediate crisis. White must defend or dodge.
The Caro Kann has a reputation of being a boring defence. It is quite deserved, I believe. Black aims for a solid position where White’s space and activity can be held in check and in the end neutralised by exchanges. It is a system free from weaknesses and has been popular among top Grandmasters for many years.
It is not, however, your best choice if you want to play for a win, unless your technique is very good.
This is the key structure in the Caro-Kann — neither White nor Black has to agree to it, but it is seen in the vast majority of games in this defence.
What can we say about this?
- White has more space and easy development. White can hope to turn that to advantage.
- Black will try and hold back White’s pieces by careful development and exchanges
- Black can develop the Bc8 happily (unlike the French) then move …e6
- The best way for Black to hit back in the centre is …c5, which will lose a tempo (unlike the French)
The attempt to find a dynamic Caro-Kann with 5…gxf6 created a bit of interest, but, as is often the case, White found some antidotes and that line is no longer tried as often.
It’s hard to demonstrate a plus against the Caro-Kann, and, even with a plus, you might not win. So White players have tried very hard, and the theory in some of these lines is deep and subtle. White trying hard means that some of the lines have got quite sharp, and, if White really goes for it, winning chances for Black may reappear.
The main lines
The big main lines start with:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4
There was a time when Black would often try the Gurgenidze line with 3…g6, trying to blockade on the light squares, when White might prefer to have a pawn and not a Knight on c3. So 3.Nd2 may be a finesse.
Anyhow, Black’s turn…
4…Nf6
5.Nxf6 exf6
This was always thought of as a fairly duff line as White has a useful Queen’s-side majority while Black’s four King’s-side pawns are messed up and not useful. There’s a lot of chess to be played between 5…exf6 and 80.c8Q but White always has that idea up their sleeve.
More gloom for Black appeared when a more direct attacking plan was found to be successful.
One of the heroes of the Caro-Kann, Ulf Andersson, showed some better ideas for Black in this line:
But like I say, your technique has to be good.
5.Nxf6 gxf6
Doubled pawns are known to be a disadvantage but they offer a half-open file and some extra central control. White can squelch much of Black’s fun with 6.g3 and Bg2.
4…Nd7
Black wants to play …Ngf6 without getting doubled pawns. Black has given up the centre, and is playing passively, so White can hope to get an initiative by playing with maximum speed and aggression.
When I was a boy, ‘sensible’ play beginning 5.Nf3 had been replaced with more pointed play with 5.Bc4.
These days it’s all about 5.Ng5, daring Black to try and chase it away with …h6.
Two famous games in this line:
4…Bf5
The big main line goes…
and while White can play this for a win, Black still has hopes of holding.
White can try some fiddles to derail Black along the way, but they are not anything to terrify Black.
Other tries for White
The advance variation
3.e5
This has been an important line and one infused with some newer ideas. Structurally, Black wants to play …Bf5, …e6 and …c5 to create some play; White can use the early commitment of Black’s Bishop to harass it. Early pioneers would chase Bishop with pawns, while later enthusiasts found piece play would do as well. Nigel Short later played the line more simply, declaring his pieces more active.
The Exchange Variation
3.exd5 cxd5
Not a bad try, and one I have tried with success. White goes for a small edge in a quiet position, hoping to post their pieces actively and accurately.
White can try to deny Black’s Bc8 its best square with 4.Bd3; after 4…Nc6 5.c3 Qc7 Black returns the disfavour.
The Panov-Botvinnik Attack
3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4
White throws the game into sharper and more open territory. When it arrived on the chess scene, it was a mighty terror, but Black players have calmed down since. I still often recommend this line for White; there is an excellent book on this variation by Aagaard.
The Fantasy Variation
3.f3
White adopts an aggressive attitude, not accepting that the pawn on e4 need be moved nor that it be replaced by a piece. The move f3 is a little awkward but it leads to complex positions that may be to your liking.
Apart from that, it's considered an unimportant try for White, but may give you the sort of closed game you like.
The Goldberg Variation
2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3
An early favourite of Short, it has some points in its favour, but has never been a popular try.
The King's Indian Attack
2.d3
Another resort for lazy White players: you can plonk your pieces on the same squares in each game.
Or, if you're a genius, you can suddenly change gear with effect.
The Two Pawns' Variation
2.c4
White is just being awkward... This move order may be a fair way to reach lines of the Panov without offering Black the chance to play the best setup against the IQP (H/T: John Emms).
Playing Black against Queen’s-Pawn Openings (3): without c2-c4
A2 Playing actively against
1. D4
I will follow some lines from Fine in his 1943 book
The Ideas behind the Chess Openings. You
will soon see the connection with this section.
Start: 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3
[3. f4 is sometimes played to avoid the 3…Nc6
line]
3… c5
[More to the point is 3… Nc6 4. f4 [
or 4. c3 e5
] 4… Nb4 5. Nf3 Nxd3+ 6. cxd3 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8. O-O O-O]
4. c3 Nc6 5. f4
Now play might go:
5… e6 (which doesn’t look quite right, as it blocks
the Bc8)
6. Nf3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Ne5 Qc7
White’s threatening Ne5 needed some response; Black could also
try to occupy e4
9. Nd2 Re8 10. g4 (DIAGRAM)
with a crushing attack.
This is the ideal Stonewall position.
Let’s go back to the first diagram.
Instead, we might try for Black 5… Bg4,
and play then might go 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 Bd6 8. h3 Bh5
9. b3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Rc8 (DIAGRAM)
Black is comfortable
Because Black can see what White is up to, Black can arrange the
development to counter it. White’s opening plan is not camouflaged
enough to stop Black from seeing what is going on and opposing it,
and the opening moves are not flexible enough to try any other
plan. This is why you don’t see the Stonewall very often among
stronger players.
One place where the Stonewall formation will not go away is
Black playing it in the Dutch Defence. Why is this more
common?
White, starting first, is usually trying to get an
advantage and won’t play just to equalise with moves like Bf4,
Bxd6, Ne5 and f4.
Instead, White will often adopt an attacking formation on
the Queen’s side to start with and so there is a tendency for each
side to attack on opposite sides.
White often plays g3 and Bg2, creating a slow game with a
slightly weakened King’s side. Black can hope to get the …f4
break in at some point.
This may help explain why you see the Stonewall is a better idea
played a move behind in the Dutch Defence than played straight away
as White. Perhaps the real reason is that World Champion Mikhail
Botvinnik kept playing and winning with it for decades. Take a look
at these games:
A2.1 The Dutch Defence,
Stonewall Variation
Rabinovitch – Botvinnik (Ussr Ch’p,
1927)
1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3
d5 7. O-O c6 8. Qc2 Qe8 9. Bf4 Qh5 10. Rad1 Nbd7 11. b3 Ne4 12. Ne5
Ng5
[12… Bf6 is better, says MB]
13. h4
[13. f3 Nh3+ 14. Bxh3 Qxh3 15. e4 += MB]
13… Ne4 14. Bf3 Qe8 15. Nxd7 Bxd7 16. Kg2
Bb4
White seems to have defended more than got on with his own
plans. He now makes a mistake:
17. Bxe4 ? 17… fxe4 18. Rh1 Qh5 19. f3 Qg6 20. Kf1 e5
21. dxe5 Rxf4 22. gxf4
Black has some clear achievements: the open g-file, the two
bishops, the upset White King.
22… Qg3
threats …Bc5/…e3
23. Nxe4 dxe4 24. Rxd7 Bc5 25. e3 Qxf3+ 26. Qf2 Qxh1+
27. Ke2 Qh3 28. f5 Qg4+ 29. Kd2 Rf8 30. e6 Qxf5 31. Qxf5 Rxf5 32.
Rxb7 Rf2+ 33. Ke1 Rf6 34. b4 Bxe3 0-1
Another decisive King’s side attack:
Steiner – Botvinnik, Groningen,
1946
1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Be7 6.
Nf3 d5 7. Nc3 c6 8. O-O O-O 9. Bf4 Qe8 10. Qc2 Qh5 11. Rae1 Nbd7
12. Nd2
Aiming at e4, but too slowly. Another plan is to attack c6 with
the b-pawn.
12… g5 13. Bc7 Ne8 14. Be5 Nxe5 15. dxe5
f4
Black’s plans are well-advanced; e4 will now be answered by
..f3
16. gxf4 gxf4 17. Nf3 Kh8 18. Kh1 Ng7 19. Qc1 Bd7 20. a3
Rf7 21. b4 Rg8
Making use of the open g-file
22. Rg1 Nf5 23. Nd1 Rfg7
Black has a winning position
24. Qxf4 Rg4 25. Qd2 Nh4 26. Ne3 Nxf3 27. exf3 Rh4 28.
Nf1 Bg5 0-1
if the Q moves, …Bf4 forces mate.
Here’s an important game against a powerful rival.
Flohr – Botvinnik (10) Match,
1933
1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nc3 d5 6. Nf3
c6 7. O-O O-O 8. b3
[8. Bf4 is better, says Botvinnink, or 8. Qc2 Qe8 9. Bg5
with Bxf6]
8… Qe8 9. Bb2 Nbd7 10. Qd3
[ 10. Ng5 Bd6 11. f4 Botvinnik]
10… Qh5 11. cxd5
[11. Bc1 Botvinnik]
11… exd5 12. Nd2
[12. Ne1 and f4]
12… Ne4 13. f3
[13. f4 is now met by 13… Nxd2 14. Qxd2 Nf6 when White
cannot really hope to get the N to e5]
13… Nxc3 14. Bxc3 f4 ! 15. Rfe1 Bd6 16. Nf1 Rf7 17. e3
fxg3 18. Nxg3 Qh4 19.Nf1 Nf6 20. Re2 Bd7 21. Be1 Qg5 22. Bg3 Bxg3
23. Nxg3 h5!
the final phase
24. f4 Qg4 25. Rf2 h4 26. Bf3
[26. h3 Qe6 27. Nf1 Ne4 is still -+]
26… hxg3 27. Bxg4 gxf2+ 28. Kg2 Nxg4 29. h3 Nf6 30.
Kxf2 Ne4+ 0-1
And lastly, a more complicated game from an early
tournament:
1. c4 f5 2. d4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nf3 d5 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nc3 c6 8. Qc2 Qe8 9. Bf4
[9. Bg5 Chekhover]
9… Qh5 10. b3 Nbd7 11. Rad1 Kh8 12. Kh1
a loss of tempo, and perhaps not even a better square
12… Rg8 13. e3 g5 14. Bc7 Ne8 15. Be5+ Nxe5 16. Nxe5
Nf6 17. f3
the right plan for White
17… Bd6 18. e4 Nd7 19. g4
[19. Nxd7 Bxg3]
19… Qe8 20. Nxd7 Bxd7 21. e5 Bb4 22. gxf5 exf5 23.
cxd5
23… Bxc3 24. dxc6 risky 24… Bxc6 25. Qxc3 Qe6 26.
Qd2 Bd5 27. Rc1 Rg7 28. Rc2 f4 29. Qc1 Rag8 30. h3 h5 31. Kg1 g4
32. hxg4 hxg4 33. Kf2 Rh7 34. Rh1 g3+ 35. Ke1 Rxh1+ 36. Bxh1 Qh6
37. Bg2
the last move before the time-check
37… Bc6
[37… Be6]
38. a4 Bd7
going for complications instead
[38… Bd5]
39. d5 Bf5 40. Rc7 Qh2 41. Qb2 Qg1+ 42. Bf1 Qe3+ 43. Be2
Be6 44. Qc2 Rg7
45. dxe6
[45. Rc8+ Bg8 46. Qf5 and Rxg8+, getting perpetual]
45… Qf2+ 46. Kd2 Qd4+
controlling d8
47. Ke1 Rxc7 0-1
Since Nigel Short has ventured the Stonewall on occasion
interest in the opening has grown again.
Martin – Troger [A94] 1995
1. Nf3 f5 2. d4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4
d5 7. b3 c6 8. Ba3 Bd7 9. Bxe7 Qxe7
Black has played it the old-fashioned way: more interest
recently has been in the idea of parking the Queen’s Bishop on b7.
White has responded with another traditional recipe – exchange off
Black’s good bishop and milk the dark squares.
10. Nc3 (?)
Martin was unhappy about this natural move afterwards.
Either
[10. Nbd2 Be8 11. Ne5 Nbd7 12. Ndf3 Bh5]
or
[10. Qc1 Be8 11. Qa3 Qxa3 12. Nxa3 Nbd7]
could have been tried, but Black is by no means losing either
game.
10… Be8 11. Qc2 Nbd7 12. cxd5 cxd5!
[Not 12… exd5 13. Qxf5 Ne4 14. Nxd5 cxd5 15. Qxd5+ Bf7 16.
Qxb7]
13. e3 Bh5 14. Rfc1 Bxf3 15. Bxf3
=+ Martin
15… Rac8 16. Qb2 Nb6
[16… Nb8]
17. a4 g5 18. a5 Nbd7 19. a6 b6 20. Be2 Nb8
Right idea but too late: White is now better.
21. Nb5 Nc6 22. Rc2 Nd7
[22… Nb4 23. Rxc8 Rxc8 24. Qa3]
23. Rxc6
else …Nd7-b8 and Black is ready to attack the King
23… Rxc6 24. Nxa7 Rc7 25. Nb5 Rcc8 26. a7 Nf6 27.
Qa2
27… Kg7 28. Qa6 Qd8 29. Qb7+ Kg6 30. Ra6 Ra8 31. Nc7
Qe7 32. Qxb6 Qd8 33. Nxa8 Qxa8 34. Qxe6 Rf7 35. Bd3
1-0
A2.2 White avoids the
Stonewall
There is no Exchange Variation against the Dutch but there are
some annoying ways for White to avoid the Stonewall. You can avoid
all these by playing first …d5, …e6, …c6 and …f5, but you
must then face the Exchange QGD.
1. d4 f5
A2.2a Modern System with Bg5xf6
2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 Be6 6. Bd3
g6
This is currently very popular. I offer you a selection of games
in the examples section.
2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6
Now White can play:
(a) 4. Bg5 Nc6 5. d5 Ne5 6. Qd4 Nf7 7. Bh4
[7. Bxf6 exf6 8. Nxe4 f5 9. Ng3 g6 10. O-O-O Bh6+ 11. f4 O-O
12. Nf3 Bg7 13. Qd2 b5 14. Nd4 Nd6
= BCO2]
7… g5 8. Bg3 Bg7 9. O-O-O
[9. Nxe4 O-O]
9… c6 =+ BCO2
(b) 4. f3
4… Nc6
[4… d5 5. fxe4 dxe4 6. Bg5 Bf5 7. Bc4 e6
[7… Nbd7 8. Nge2 Nb6 9. Bb3 Qd7 = BCO2]
8. Nge2 Bb4 9. O-O c6 =]
5. fxe4 e5 6. dxe5 Nxe5 7. Nf3 d6 8. Bf4
Ng6]]
Korchnoi has offered a number of gambits with g2-g4, making use
of the target on f5.
See the example game Menadue-Pert.
These shouldn’t be any problem
BCO2 gives:
2. Qd3 d5 3. Bf4 e6 4. Qg3 Na6 5. e3 c6 =+
Ivkov
Examples of White avoiding the Dutch
1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. e4
This almost forgotten gambit is not much worse than the
others which surface sporadically. Even though dubious, all such
gambits require precise defence from Black. — BELLIN
3… fxe4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. g4 h6 6. h4 d5 7. Nh3 Nc6 8. Nf4
e5 9. Ng6
[9. dxe5 Nxe5 x f3]
[9. Nfxd5 exd4 10. Nxf6+ Qxf6 11. Nd5 Bb4+ is also
fine]
9… Bxg4 10. Qa4
White insists on being shown, but 10. Be2 was better
10… exd4 11. Nxh8
[11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. cxd5 Bb4+ 13. Bd2 Bxd2+ 14. Kxd2 Qxd5 and
the White King will not survive …e3+]
11… dxc3 12. bxc3 d4 13. Rb1
[13. Ng6 dxc3 14. Ne5 Bb4 15. Nxc6 Qd2+ 16. Bxd2
cxd2#]
[13. Bh3 Bxh3 14. Rxh3 Qd7 15. Rg3 Bd6 is very good for
Black]
13… dxc3 14. Rxb7
[14. Bh3 Qd3]
[14. Ng6 Qd7 and White is all but paralysed]
14… Qd7 15. f3
[15. Rb5 Bb4 16. Rxb4 Nxb4 17. Qxd7+ Kxd7]
[15. Bh3 Bxh3 16. Rxh3 Bb4 17. Rxb4 Nxb4 18. Qxb4 Qxh3 19.
Ba3 O-O-O]
15… exf3 16. Be3 Bc5 17. Rxc7 Qd2+ 18. Bxd2
f2#
A triumph for the spear-carriers
1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. h3 Nf6 4. g4 b6
Normally White would try to blot this out by d5 but there is no
Pc4
5. gxf5 exf5 6. Bg2 Bb7 7. Bg5 Be7 8. Nc3 O-O 9.
h4
White is wasting too much time on attacking-looking moves but
has no real plan.
[9. d5!?]
9… Qe8 10. Qd3 Nc6 11. O-O-O
[11. Qxf5 Nb4 12. O-O-O Ne4 -+]
11… Nb4 12. Qc4+ d5 13. Qxc7 ?
opens a file against the King
13… Ba6 14. Qe5 Rc8 15. Qxf5 ?
[15. a3]
15… Rxc3 16. Qe6+ Kh8 17. bxc3 Nxa2+ 18.
Kd2
[18. Kb2 Nxc3!]
18… Bb4!
a beautiful bit of opportunism
19. Bh3
[19. Qxe8 Bxc3+ 20. Ke3 Ng4#]
19… Bxc3+ 20. Ke3 Nb4 21. Qxe8
[21. Rc1 Qb5 22. Rhe1 Bxe1 23. Rxe1
[23. Nxe1 Qxe2+ 24. Kf4 Nh5#]
23… Nxc2+ 24. Kd2 Ne4+ 25. Kxc2 Rxf3 26. exf3 Qd3+ 27. Kc1
Qc3+ 28. Kb1
[28. Kd1 Nxf2#]
28… Bd3+ 29. Ka2 Qa5+ 30. Kb2
[30. Kb3 is better but only delays the inevitable 30… Bc4+
31. Kb2 Qb4+ 32. Kc1 Qa3+ 33. Kd1 Bb3+ 34. Ke2 Qa2+ 35. Kd3 Qc2+
36. Ke3 Qd2#]
30… Qb4+ 31. Ka2 Nc3+ 32. Ka1 Qa3#]
21… Ng4+ 22. Bxg4 Nxc2# 1-0
Langeweg,K – Perez Garcia,H [A80] Wijk-B, 1986
1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. b3
c5 7. e3 cxd4 8. exd4 d5 9. Ne5 Nc6 10. Re1 Ne4 11. f3 Nxe5 12.
fxe4 Nf3+ 0-1
Sparreboom,W – Bellin,R [A80] Guernsey op, 1988
1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nd3 Nc6 5. e3 Nf6 6. Nd2
e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. d5 Nxd5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 0-1
Barczyczyn – Vasiukov,E [A80] Bled op, 1989
1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Bf4 c6
The London System vs. the Dutch
5. h3 e6 6. e3 Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. Ne5 Nbd7 9. g4 Nxe5 10.
dxe5 Ne4 11. Nxe4 fxe4 12. Qd2 Bh4 13. O-O-O Bxf2 14. g5 Qb6 15.
Bf1 Rxf4 16. exf4 Be3
oops
17. Bg2 Bd7 18. Rhe1 Bxd2+ 19. Rxd2 Rf8
20. Bxe4 Rxf4 21. Bd3 0-1
Ligterink,G (2470) – Van Heste,J (2290) [A80] NLD-ch,
1987
1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 c6 6.
Bd3 Bd6 7. Qf3 g6 8. h3 Qe7 9. g4 f4 10. O-O-O fxe3 11. Re1 O-O 12.
Rxe3 Qc7 13. Nge2 f5 14. gxf5 Bxf5 15. Bxf5 Rxf5 16. Re8+ Kf7 17.
Qe3 Be7 18. Rh8 Kg7 19. Re8 Bg5
20. f4 Rxf4 21. Kb1 Rf1+ 22. Rxf1 Bxe3 23. Rxe3 Na6 24.
Nf4 Kh6 25. Nd3 Qd6 26. Ne5 Rf8 27. Nf7+ Kg7 28. Ref3 Qe7 29. Ne5
Rxf3 30. Rxf3 Qh4 31. Ne2 Qe4 32. Rf7+ Kg8 33. Rf2 Nb4 34. Nc1 Qxd4
35. Re2 Qd1 36. a3 Na2 37. Kxa2 Qxc1 38. Nd3 Qg5 39. Nc5 Qh4 40. b3
b6 0-1
Maksimovic,S (2345) – Akhmilovskaya,E (2420) [A80] Sochi,
1987
1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 c6 6.
Bd3 g6 7. Qf3 Bb4 8. Nge2 Nd7 9. h3 Ne5
A characteristic tactic.
10. dxe5 fxe5 11. O-O-O e4 12. Bxe4 fxe4 13. Nxe4 Rf8
14. Qg3 Qe7 15. N4c3 Bd6 16. f4 Bd7 17. Rhe1 O-O-O 18. Nd4 b5 19.
Nf3 b4
20. Nb1 Rde8 21. Nbd2 Qf6 22. Qf2 Bc5 23. Nb3 Bb6 24.
Qd2 Re4 25. Ne5 Re8 26. Qd3 Rxe3 27. Qa6+ Kc7 28. Rxe3 Qxf4 29. Kb1
Qxe3 30. Nxd7 Kxd7 31. Qb7+ Kd6 32. Qxh7 Qe4 33. g4 Re7 34. Qg8 Kc7
35. Qf8 Kb7 36. h4 a5 37. a4 bxa3 38. bxa3 a4 39. Nd2 Qe2 40. Rf1
Bc5 0-1
Cazzaniga,W – Speck,H [A80] Mendrisio op, 1988
1. d4 f5 2. g4 d5 3. Bg5 Nf6 4. h3 c6 5. Bxf6 exf6 6. e3
Qb6 7. b3 Bd6 8. Bd3 f4 9. exf4 Bxf4 10. Ne2 Qc7 11. Nxf4 Qxf4 12.
Qd2 Qf3 13. Qe2+ Qxe2+ 14. Kxe2 b6 15. Nd2 Kf7 16. f4 Ba6 17. c4
Nd7 18. a4 c5 19. Bf5 Rhd8
20. Bxh7 cxd4 21. Kf2 dxc4 22. Be4 Rac8 23. Bd5+ Kf8 24.
bxc4 Nc5 25. g5 Re8 26. gxf6 Nd3+ 27. Kg3 Re3+ 28. Kh4 Nxf4 29.
fxg7+ Kxg7 30. Rhg1+ Kh6 31. Bf3 Rf8 32. Rg4 Bc8 33. Kg3 Bxg4 34.
hxg4 Rd3 35. Rh1+ Kg7 36. Rh2 Ng6 37. Re2 Rf7 0-1
This subtle system is out to stop you playing …d5, and then
taking over the centre or Queen’s-side later.
B1 Playing solidly against
1. c4
The …e6 system is a nice counter to the English; …c6 is OK
as a system as long as White does not transpose into something
unfamiliar to you.
1. c4
1… e6
[1… c6
Now
(a) 2. Nf3 is OK
2… d5 3. b3 Nf6 4. Bb2 Bg4
[or 4… Bf5]
BUT
(b) 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 is
a Caro-Kann or Nimzo-Indian line which is OK for Black but is
outside the scope of the repertoire I recommend]
2. Nf3 d5 3. b3 c6 4. g3 Nf6
An alternative system is:
Kurajica [A13] Agincourt Defence (French-English),
1995
1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. g3 c6
offering to transpose into standard QP lines
4. b3
insisting on independent lines
[4. d4]
[4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qc2 b5 6. a4 Bb7 -/+ Carls-Nimzovitch
1925]
[4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Bg2 a5 6. O-O Na6 7. a3 Be7 8. d4
[8. b3]
8… O-O 9. Nbd2 b6 Naranja-Larsen 1973]
4… b5
Black intends to bite the c-pawn until it screams in
pain ” Benjamin/Schiller
5. Bg2 Ba6
6. cxd5
[6. d3 Qb6 != Kurajica]
6… cxd5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bb2 Be7 9. d3 O-O
10. e4
White could also try:
[10. Nbd2 Nc6 11. a3
[11. Rc1 Qb6 =+ Masic-Kurajica 1972]
11… b4 12. axb4 Nxb4 13. Ne5 Qb6 = Romanishin-Kurajica
1977]
[10. Ne5!? is a suggestion of Watson]
10… dxe4 11. dxe4 b4 =+ Hartoch-Kurajica 1974 =
B2 Playing actively against
1. c4
Your Dutch-style system is a fine counter to the English. The
first time I ever tried it I beat a 140-grade player in about 30
moves.
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3
This is the Sicilian Reversed line of the English Opening,
sometimes called the King’s English. Black can play two lines with
a Dutch feel, playing on the second move either 2…d6 or 2…Nc6.
The first risks being met by 3. d4 (if that is a risk), the second
may not be quite the right square for the Knight. If you play the
Closed Sicilian as White, this must be the best choice for you.
Example lines go:
After 2… d6:
(a) 3. d4 as in Hubner-Kasparov m1 1979
(b) 3. Nf3 f5
[or 3… Bg4 idea 4. g3 Bxf3 5. exf3 Nc6]
4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. O-O Be7
[or 6… g6]
(c) 3. g3 f5
[or 3… Be6 4. Bg2 c6]
After 2…Nc6:
3. Nf3 f5
4. d4 e4
Now White has a number of moves:
(a) 5. Bg5
e.g. 5… Be7 6. Bxe7 Ngxe7 7. Nd2 Nxd4 8. Ndxe4 Nec6 9. Nd2
O-O 10. g3 d6 11. Bg2 f4 12. O-O fxg3 13. hxg3 Bg4
(b) 5. Ng5 h6
[or 5… Be7 6. Nh3 ]
[or 5… Nf6 6. e3 and now
6… h6
[6…g6]
7. Nh3 g5
after 5…h6 White can retreat with
6. Nh3
[6…g5!?]]
or spuddle with
6. Nd5
(c) 5. Nd2
as in Miles-Chaves
Instead of the immediate 3…f5 Black can play more slowly
e.g.
3… g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e3 d6 6. Nge2
and now Black has tried:
6…f5
6…h5
Play in these hypermodern openings is more flexible and less
forcing, so both sides have a lot of choice about their early move
orders. I’ve tried to give an example of each line cited in the
games below.
Example games in the
Anglo-Dutch
Hubner – Kasparov (1, Hamburg) [A21] 1985
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. d4
Most folk used to think this was good for White… until this
game!
3…exd4 4. Qxd4 Nf6 5. g3 Nc6 6. Qd2 Be6 7. Nd5
Ne5
Creating trouble on c4
8. b3 Ne4 9. Qe3 Nc5 10. Bb2 c6 11. Nf4 Ng4
The pesky Knights keep hopping around, not letting Black
settle.
12. Qd4 Ne4
Very alert
13. Bh3
[13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. Qxe4 Qa5+ 15. Kd1 Nxf2+]
13… Qa5+ 14. Kf1 Ngxf2 15. Bxe6 fxe6 16. Nxe6 Kd7 17.
Nh3 Nxh3 18. Qxe4
Black’s initiative persists.
18… Re8 19. Nc5+ Qxc5 20. Qg4+ Kc7 21.
Qxh3
21… Be7 22. Bxg7 Rhf8+ 23. Bxf8 Rxf8+ 24. Ke1 Qf2+ 25.
Kd1 Qd4+ 26. Kc2 Qe4+ 27. Kd2 Bg5+ 28. Kc3 Qe5+
0-1
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. e3 Be7 6. Nge2
c6 7. d4 O-O 8. b3 Nbd7 9. O-O h5 10. h4 Ng4 11. f3 Nh6 12. Ba3 Qe8
13. dxe5 dxe5 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Qd2 Nc5
Black has more space.]
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. b4 c6 6. b5 c5
!
Now White can’t open a file on the Q-side.
7. Bb2 Nbd7 8. d3 g6 9. a4 a5 10. bxa6 Rxa6 11. Nf3 Bg7
12. Nd2 O-O 13. Nb5 Rf7 14. Bc3 Nf8 15. e3 Ne6 16. O-O g5 17. Qe2
Re7 18. Rfe1 g4 19. f4 gxf3 20. Nxf3 Nf8 21. Nd2 Ng6 22. Nb3 Bh6
23. a5 Ng4 24. Bd5+ Kh8 25. Qd2 Rg7 26. Kh1
Black has his open lines and could create more with
26… f4 27. exf4 Nxf4
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3 Be7 6. Nf3
O-O 7. O-O Kh8 8. b4
[After 8. Bd2 the ever-inventive Speelman did once try
…Na6 but 8…Qe8 is still Black’s best]
8… Qe8 9. Bb2 Qh5 10. e3 Nc6 11. a3 Bd7 12. Nd2
Qh6
Black is well-placed to build up on the K-side.
…0-1
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3
Be7
5… g6 is a Closed Sicilian position: see below
6. Nf3 O-O 7. O-O Qe8
8. c5 c6 9. cxd6 Bxd6 10. b4 Kh8 11. Rb1 Nd5 12. Qb3
Be6
= 13. Ng5 Nxc3 14. Qxc3 Bxa2 15. Ra1 Bg8 16. Bb2 Qe7 17.
Nf3 Nd7 18. Ba3 a6 19. Nd2 Nb6 20. Rfb1 Nd5 21. Qb2 Nc7 22. Nc4 Nb5
23. Rc1 Bxc4 24. Rxc4 a5
0-1 : a Queen’s-side decision!
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5. Nd2 Nf6 6. e3
g6 7. Be2 Bg7 8. Rb1 a5 9. a3 O-O 10. b4 axb4 11. axb4 Ne7 12. Qb3
d6 13. b5 Kh8 14. Ba3 f4 15. Ncxe4 fxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bf5
18. Bd3
18… Nd5 19. O-O
[19. cxd5 Bxe4 20. Bxe4 Qh4+ 21. Kd1 Qxe4 22. Rb2]
19… Nxe3 20. Rf3 Qh4 21. g3 Qg4 22. Rxe3 Rxa3 23. Qxa3
Qh3 24. Kh1 Bxe4+ 0-1
White resigned here but 25. Rxe4 Rf2 26. Re8+ Bf8 27. Rxf8+
Rxf8 28. Qa2 looked worth trying first!
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Bb4 6.
Bd2 O-O 7. Nf3 d6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. Bxc3 Qe8 10. O-O Qh5 11.
Qd2
11… f4 12. gxf4 h6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. d4 Bh3 15. dxe5
Rad8 16. Qf4
[16. Qc2 Bxg2 17. Kxg2 Ng4 18. Rfd1 Rxf3 19. exf3
[19. Rxd8+ Nxd8 20. Kxf3 Qh3+ 21. Ke4 Nxf2+ 22. Kd5 Qe6+ 23.
Kd4 Nc6+ 24. Ke3]
19… Qxh2+ 20. Kf1 Ne3+]
16… Bxg2 17. Kxg2 Nd5 18. Qc1 Nf4+ 0-1
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5.
Ng5
Black now plays more quietly:
5…Be7 6. Nh3 Bf6 7. e3 d6 8. Nf4 Nge7 9. g4 Ng6 10.
Nfd5 Bh4 11. Bg2 O-O 12. O-O Nce7 13. gxf5 Bxf5 14. Nf4 Nxf4 15.
exf4 d5 16. cxd5 Nxd5 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Bxe4 Nxf4 19. Qg4 Qxd4 20.
Bf3
20… h5 0-1
21. Qxh4 Ne2+]
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nh3
g5
This is a noisier line!
7. f3 exf3 8. exf3 Bg7 9. d5 Qe7+ 10. Kd2 Nd4 11. Bd3
Kd8 12. Ng1 b5 13. Nge2 bxc4 14. Bxc4 Qc5 15. Kd3 Rb8
16. Be3 ?
16… Qxc4+ 17. Kxc4 Ba6+ 18. Nb5 Nxb5 0-1
[19. Qa4 Na3+ 20. Kc5 d6+ 21. Kc6 Ne7#]
[19. Nd4 Nxd4+ 20. Kc3 Ne2+ 21. Kd2 Rxb2+ 22. Ke1 Bc3+ 23.
Kf1
[23. Bd2 Nf4 24. Rg1 Nd3+ 25. Ke2 Rxd2+ 26. Qxd2 Bxd2 27.
Kxd2]
23… Nf4+ 24. Kg1 Rxg2#]
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5.
d3
We have seen all this above. Now
5… g6
is a Closed Sicilian position
6. e4 Bg7 7. Nge2 O-O 8. O-O c6 9. h3 Be6 10. exf5 gxf5
11. Be3 Qe7 12. Qd2 Kh8 13. Rae1 Nbd7 14. f4 Rg8
Black’s position is fine.
15. Kh2 Qf7 16. Bf3 Rae8 17. b4 e4 18. dxe4 fxe4 19.
Bxe4 Bxh3 20. Kxh3 Nxe4 21. Qd3 Bxc3 22. Qxc3+ Nxc3
0-1
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e3 d6 6.
Nge2
6… h5 7. h3 h4 8. g4 f5 9. gxf5 Bxf5 10. d4 exd4 11.
Nxd4 Nxd4 12. exd4 c6 13. Be3 Nf6 14. Qd2 Qd7
15. O-O-O Kf7 16. Bg5 b5 17. cxb5 cxb5 18. Bxa8 Rxa8 19.
Qe2 Rc8 20. a3 a5 21. f3 b4 22. Kd2 bxc3+ 23. bxc3 Qb7
0-1
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e3 d6 6.
Nge2
6… h5 7. d4 e4 8. a3 Nf6 9. O-O O-O 10. b4 Ne7 11. Bb2
g5 12. d5 Ng6 13. Na4 Qe7 14. Rc1 f4 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. Nd4 Ne5 17.
Bxe4 Bh3 18. Re1 fxg3 19. fxg3 Raf8 20. Qc2 Qf7 21. Qb1 Rf2 22. Ne6
Rg2+ 0-1
23. Kh1
[23. Bxg2 Qf2+ 24. Kh1 Qxg2#]
23… Qf2 24. Bxh7+]
One of the best example games I have on file for the Reversed
Closed Sicilian is this one
1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 d6 5. Nf3 e5 6. d3
f5 7. O-O Nf6
8. Rb1 h6 9. b4 O-O 10. b5 Ne7 11. a4 Be6 12. Ba3
Rc8
Black does not rush but secures the Q-side.
13. Nd2 b6 14. e3 g5 15. d4 exd4 16. exd4
f4
17. Re1 Bg4 18. Nf3 Qd7 19. c5 Rce8 20. Rc1 Nf5 21. Qd3
Kh8 22. cxd6 cxd6 23. Rxe8 Qxe8 24. Rf1 Qh5
The Black pieces hover like vultures
25. Ne4 Nxe4 26. Qxe4 Bh3 27. Ne5 Bxg2 28. Kxg2 g4 29.
Bxd6 Rf6 30. Bb8 Qh3+
0-1
C Reti Opening and King’s Indian
Attack
Again, White doesn’t want to rush into the centre without
preparation, and plays Nf3 first to stop you playing …e5.
C1 Playing solidly against 1. Nf3
David Norwood, who is a specialist in the King’s Indian Attack,
reckons that Black equalises easily in this line which:
“…offers excellent chances of equality. Black’s plan is
extremely logical – to limit the scope of the fianchetto bishop
with …d5 & …c6, then develops the B to g4 where it can
either exchange or retreat. I predict it will remain difficult for
KIA players to prove any advantage in this system.
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c6 3. Bg2 Bg4
4. O-O
[4. d3 Nd7 5. O-O Ngf6 6. c4 dxc4 7. dxc4 e5
8. Nc3 Be7 9. b3 O-O 10. Bb2 Re8 11. Qc2 Bf8 12. h3 Bh5 13.
Nh4 Nc5 14. Rad1 Qc7 15. g4 Bg6 16. Nxg6 hxg6 17. e3 a5
Todorcevic-Rodriguez, Salamanca 1990 …Drawn (47)]
4… Nd7 5. d3 Ngf6 6. Qe1
[6. Nbd2 e5 7. e4 Bd6 8. Re1 O-O 9. Nf1 Bh5 10. Ne3 Re8 11.
Nf5 Bf8 12. c3 dxe4 13. dxe4 Nc5
14. Qxd8 Raxd8 Fahrner-Luther, Graz 1991 …0-1]
6… e5
7. e4 dxe4 8. dxe4 Bc5 9. b4
[9. Nbd2 Qc7 10. Nc4 Be6 11. Qe2 b5 12. Ncd2
Dizdarevic-Huss, Swiss 1990 12… O-O = Norwood]
9… Bd6 10. Na3 Qe7 11. c3 b5 12. Nc2 a5 13. bxa5 O-O
14. c4 Be6 15. cxb5 cxb5 16. Nh4 Bc5 17. Nf5 Qd8 18. Qd2 Qxa5 19.
Qg5
|Daw: Vagaia
Dofma, Moscow
199
You may be interested in this excellent game, which features our
system with colours reversed.
Smyslov,V (2565) – Nunn,J (2565) [A48] (Tilburg 34/91),
1982
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. Nbd2 O-O
[4… c5 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. Ne4 Bxd4 7. Nxd4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 O-O
9. c4 Nc6 10. Qd2 d6 11. Nc3 += Smyslov-Ernst, London
1988]
5. e4 d6 6. c3 h6 7. Bh4
Does driving the bishop back have any effect in this formation?
Yes – it does further weaken the kingside fortress.
7…c6 8.Bb5 Bd7 9. O-O a6 10. Bc4 e5 11. dxe5 dxe5 12.
Re1
Overprotection of e4 frees up the minor pieces for more useful
tasks.
12… Qe8
[12… b5 13. Bf1 followed by an eventual a2-a4 would put
strong pressure on the queenside.]
13. a4 Nh5 14. Nb3 g5 15. Bg3 Rd8 16. Nfd2
White’s pieces have been quckly transferred to the queenside.
Black’s pieces, especially the offside knight, cannot get there so
quickly.
6… xg3
17. hxg3 h8 18. e2
e7 19. f1
The exchange of the Black knight for the Bg3 has created new
opportunities on the kingside. Smyslov is the master of harmonic
play – his pieces are often ready to switch to new targets
quickly.
19… Qf6 20. Nc5 Bc8 21. Ne3 Ne7 22. a5
Qg6
Black has chosen to sue the Bc8 to defend the queenside, but the
heavy guns are all on the kingside, and White controls a bit more
of the center. But before foraging on the queenside, Smyslov
squashes the counterplay.
23. g4! b6?!
Black is paralyzed on the kingside, unable to transfer the
knight to f4 due to the placement of the queen at g6. But this
sacrifice of a queenside pawn leads to disaster. There is nothing
more rueful than a lost pawn formation. Black could resign without
remorse
24. Nf5! Nxf5
[24… bxc5 25. Nxe7 Qd6 26. Nxc8 Rxc8 27. Bxa6+/-
]
25. gxf5 Qc6 26. Nxa6 Bxa6 27. Bxa6 bxa5 28.
Rxa5
Now White has an extra pawn and better bishop. The rest is easy
for a player of Smyslov’s caliber.
28… Ra8 29. Rea1 Rfd8 30. Bc4 Rxa5 31. Rxa5 Kg8 32.
Ra6 Qd7 33. Bd5 Qe7 34. Qh5 Rd6 35. Rxd6 cxd6 36. b4
1-0
Resigns; a tale of two bishops…
C2 Playing actively against
1. Nf3
There is a slight problem here:
1. Nf3 f5
can be met by the awkward gambit
2. d3 Nf6 3. e4 fxe4 4. Ng5
So you may prefer to play into you line with
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. g3 e6.
The other way to play into the Dutch allows some
transpositions:
1. Nf3 e6
2. g3
[2. e4 d5 is a French Defence which is OK for
Black]
[2… c5 is a Sicilian: White can play the King’s Indian
Attack with 3. d3 or play it open with 3. d4 e.g. 3…cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. a3 Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O d5 9. exd5
Nxd5]
[2. b3 Be7]
2… f5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. O-O Be7
Both sides are quietly getting on with their own systems. The
trouble with meeting White’s flexible setup with the Dutch is that
Black may be denied the outpost on e4 and White can even try to
blow up the pawn structure by playing e2-e4.
5. d3
[5. b3 c5 6. Bb2 O-O 7. c4 Nc6 8. Nc3 e5 9. e3 d6 10. d4 e4
11. Ne1 Qe8 12. Nd5 Bd8 13. dxc5 dxc5
This is better for White]
5… O-O 6. Nbd2 d6 7. e4 fxe4 8. dxe4 e5 9. c3 Qe8 10.
Nh4 Nc6 11. Nc4 Qh5 12. Qxh5 Nxh5 13. Nf5 Bd8
With about equal chances.
This is an oddly effective line; White stops active play with
…c5 and prepares to bring the Bb2 onto the long diagonal.
D1 Playing solidly against
1. b4
I think the most solid system is
1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6
when I know of no way for White to secure the advantage.
White can try
1. b4 e5 2. a3
but this is fairly harmless:
2…d5 3. Bb2 f6
should be fine for Black
D2 Playing actively against
1. b4
Of course you can play
1. b4 f5
but the theory on this line is hardly explored.
White may play d3 at some point which may rob you of some of
your best ideas.
This is a flexible line, aiming at first to post the Bc1 on b2,
pointing at the e5 point and beyond at the Black King’s-side.
The Bb2 needs watching but you should be OK in this opening.
E1 Playing solidly against
1. b3
1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 Nf6
is fine for Black
E2 Playing actively against
1. b3
Go for it…
1. b3 f5
…and Black should not be without play.
1. b3 f5 2. Bb2 Nf6 3. d3 d6 4. e4 e5 5. exf5 Bxf5 6. Ne2
Nc6 7. d4 Be7 8. Ng3 Bg6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Qxd8+ Rxd8 11. Bb5
O-O
Black has active play and won in 23 moves! —
KEENE]
This obviously can transpose to other openings, and it is
probably best to try to do just that.
1…d5
and
1…f5
both look playable. White may well transpose into lines
considered above.
The obvious snag is, you can’t play the Dutch against this:
1. f4 f5 2. e4
is awkward.
But why not play the most awkward lines for White: the From
Gambit.
1. f4 e5
Now
2. fxe4 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6
gives you a development lead and free play for your pieces.
Instead:
2. e4
transposes into the King’s Gambit, which I think most Bird
players will do. See the booklet on Playing Black in e4
openings
A while ago I wouldn’t have bothered with this odd-looking
opening, but it has become a bit of a secret weapon among those in
the know. What to play against it depends on what else you play;
it’s probably the best of the unusual lines.
1…f5 walks into 2. e4.
1…c5 offers a Sicilian, and after 1…d5 2. e4 you can with
2…d5 offer a Caro-Kann or with 2…e6, a French. Perhaps 2…dxe4
3. Nxe4 and …c6 may appeal.
1…d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2
is a well-known sequence, after which
3…e5 4. Ng3 Be6
Else 5. Bc4 will follow. This looks like Black’s best idea to
me.
Ekebjaerg,Ove – Strand,Torger cr
Nielsen-mem, 1987
1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e5 4. Ng3 Be6 5. Nf3 Nd7 6.
c3 c5 7. cxd4 cxd4 8. Be2 Bd6 9. O-O h5 10. d3
This doesn’t look to me very promising for White, although White
did win.
The idea of this odd-looking move is…
1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4!
…when the pin on the b7 point may be embarrassing.
The two best-known players of this line, Henri Grob and Claude
Bloodgood, agree that one of the most awkward lines for White
is
1. g4 e5
with the idea 2. Bg2 h5! when the pawn cannot advance to
g5.
Grob himself played this against 1. g4. So Bloodgood reckons
White’s best try is
2. d3
To be honest, many Grob players have no idea that this is a
known line, all they know about is the …Bxg4 variation. So they
may be out-tricked in their own opening!
Some sample lines in this rare opening:
1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5 3. gxh5 Rxh5 4. e3 Rh8 5. c4 f5 6.
Qc2 g6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Nf6 9. d4 d6 =
1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5 3. gxh5 Rxh5 4. e3 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6.
Nc3 d5 7. cxd5 Rg5 8. Bf3 cxd5 9. Qa4+ Nc6 10. d3 Rg6 11. e4 d4 12.
Nd5 Be6 13. Qb5 Qd7 14. Bd2 Bxd5 15. exd5 Nb4 16. Qxd7+ Kxd7 17.
Bxb4 Bxb4+ 18. Kd1 Kd6 = [or 18… Bd6]
1. g4 e5 2. d3! d5 3. Bg2
[3. g5 Be7 4. h4 h6 =+]
3… Bxg4 4. c4
Now this gambit is not as good for White as in the lines without
d3 and …e5.
4…Bb4+ 5. Nd2 c6 6. cxd5 Ne7
[6… cxd5 7. Qb3 Nc6 8. Bxd5 Qe7 9. h3 Bh5 dr]
7. dxc6 Nbxc6 8. a3 =
Grob – Stingelin+ Analysis,
1993
1. g4 e5 2. d3! d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. h3 Ne7 5. Nf3 Ng6 6. Nc3
f5 =/+
[6… h6 was the game: 7. e4 !]
If this sly system doesn’t appeal you might fancy the emerging
main line approach:
Basman – Keene, Benedictine,
1981
1. g4 d5 2. h3 e5 3. Bg2 c6 4. d4 e4 5. c4 Bd6 6. Nc3
Ne7 7. g5
Basman has also tried:
[7. Qb3 O-O 8. Bg5 f6 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Nxd5 Be6 11. Nxe7+
Qxe7 12. d5 Bf7 13. Be3 Na6
-+ Keene]
[7. Bg5 f6 8. Bd2 unclear, (Basman – Kudrin, Benedictine,
1981)]
7… Be6 8. h4 Nf5 9. Bh3 O-O 10. cxd5 cxd5 11.
Nxd5
11… Ng3 12. Nf6+ gxf6 13. fxg3 Bxg3+ 14. Kf1 Nc6 15.
Be3 Nb4 16. Kg2 Nd5 17. Kxg3 Nxe3 18. Qd2 Qd6+ 19. Kf2 Qf4+ 20. Nf3
exf3
0-1
21. Qxe3 Qxh4+ 22. Kxf3 Bd5+
Also ran: 1. e3, 1. a3, 1.
a4, 1. h4, 1. f3
I can’t imagine these giving you any trouble: You can certainly
play your usual Colle or Dutch, and various 1. e4 lines can be
played with colours reversed.
1. e3 Van T’Kruy’s Opening hopes for a reversed French. 1…d5
is OK for Black.
1. a3 has some idea of playing b2-b4; just 1…d5 and 2…c6 in
reply is a good start for playing fast or slow. You can also blow
up the Queen’s-side with …a5 if White does play b4.
1. a4 might tempt you to 1…e5 if that’s what you usually
play.
1. h4 e5 must be all right too.
1. f3 is a bit of a joker; 1…d5 or 1…e5 should give you an
easy game.
Index of Games
Pribyl – Penrose (Nice) 1974 [*]
Marshall,F – Tarrasch,S, Nuremberg, 1895 [*]
Ottaviani,W – Liying,P (Novi-14) [D52] Cambridge Springs: loose
Bg5, 1990 [*]
Buthali,D – Figueroa,C (Novi-14) [D52] cambridge springs: loose
Bg5, 1990 [*]
Borovikov,V – Shabanov,Y (Podolsk) [D52] Cambridge Springs:
Black grabs material, 1990 [*]
Duemer,K – Meyer,Frh (2.BLSW) [D52] cambridge springs: Q-side
attack, 1989
[*]
El Mezwaghi,H – Mubarak,A (Novi-12) [D52] cambridge springs:
Queen’s-side majority in EG, 1990 [*]
Michaelsen,N – Hort,V (FRG-ch) [D52] cambridge springs: break on
Q-side, 1989 [*]
Perez,A – Perera,M [D52] cambridge springs: chances with NN,
1989 [*]
Lengyel-Karpov, Moscow 1972 [*]
Tukmakov-Korchnoi Leningrad 1973 [*]
Arkell-Teichmann 1985 [*]
Burn – Teichmann (Hastings) [D46] 1895 [*]
Miralles,G – Granda Zuniga,J [D45] 1989 [*]
Rohde,M – Shabalov,A (8) [*]
[D45] Philadelphia, 1990
[*]
Hegeler,F – Wockenfuss,K [D46] 2BLN, 1989 [*]
Kraai,J – Donaldson,J (2) [D46] American, 1989 [*]
Karpov – Tal [D46] Moscow, 1973 [*]
Plachetka,T – Drtina,M (5) [D46] Trnava, 1989 [*]
Curtis-Teichmann 1985 [*]
Serebrjanik-Maximenko 1991 [*]
Kasparov – Short (10) [D35] WCh, 1994 [*]
Steinbacher,M – van der Sterren,P (5) [D36] Ostend, 1989 [*]
??-?? [D34] [*]
Davidovic,A – Smagin,S (4) [D36] It-open, Dortmund, 1989
[*]
Von Gleich,A – Ekstroem,R (1) [D36] Lugano, 1989 [*]
Yermolinsky – Shipman,W (3) [D36] MCC, 1989 [*]
Deze,A – Tadic,K (1) [D35] Novi, 1989 [*]
Paduch,A – Ghafour,Y (8) [D35] A.Kotov memorial, Singapore,
1990 [*]
Tisdall,J – Inkiov,V (5) [D36] Gausdal, 1990 [*]
Rabinovitch – Botvinnik (Ussr Ch’p, 1927) [*]
Steiner – Botvinnik, Groningen, 1946 [*]
Flohr – Botvinnik (10) Match, 1933 [*]
Yudovitch – Botvinnik, 1934 [*]
Martin – Troger [A94] 1995
[*]
Karayannis-Bellin 1993 [*]
Menadue – Pert 1995 [*]
Langeweg,K – Perez Garcia,H [A80] Wijk-B, 1986 [*]
Sparreboom,W – Bellin,R [A80] Guernsey op, 1988 [*]
Barczyczyn – Vasiukov,E [A80] Bled op, 1989 [*]
Ligterink,G (2470) – Van Heste,J (2290) [A80] NLD-ch, 1987 [*]
Maksimovic,S (2345) – Akhmilovskaya,E (2420) [A80] Sochi, 1987 [*]
Cazzaniga,W – Speck,H [A80] Mendrisio op, 1988 [*]
Kurajica [A13] Agincourt Defence (French-English), 1995 [*]
Hubner – Kasparov (1, Hamburg) [A21] 1985
[*]
Gonzalez-Rossolimo 1952. [*]
Korchnoi-German 1962. [*]
Zlotnikov-Minasian 1993 [*]
Hallerod-Hearst 1960 [*]
Miles-Chaves 1977 [*]
Bruno-Kurajica 1985 [*]
Darga-Herter 1968 [*]
Seirawan-Browne 1979 [*]
Grunberg-Kasparov simul.1987 [*]
Hodgson-Short 1986
[*]
Pierson-Calverley 1983 [*]
Psakhis – Kasparov, 1990 [*]
Smyslov,V (2565) – Nunn,J (2565) [A48] (Tilburg 34/91), 1982 [*]
Ekebjaerg,Ove – Strand,Torger cr Nielsen-mem, 1987 [*]
Ott – Grob, Corr [*]
Hug – Grob, Corr [*]
Grob – Aebi (corr) & Analysis [*]
Grob – Stingelin+ Analysis, 1993 [*]
Basman – Keene, Benedictine, 1981 [*]
The Windmill
What’s a windmill? Glad you asked…
Dr.Dave’s Adventures at East Devon 2016
Friday night:
My entry to our local congress is sometimes deranged by family visits,
but an expectedly free weekend allowed another excursion in Exeter’s
St.George’s Hall, now renamed the Corn Exchange.
[It’s about as big a hall as a corn exchange would be, but Exeter is a
wool town, not a grain one, and this unhistoric renaming of a post-war
building rather makes me wince. Not as much as the chess, though…]
I have played less this season, quite deliberately; I’ve been finding
evening chess very hard, and in October even lost to a club member graded
50 points below me, when our grades suggest I should win every single
game. But in the daylight, I was hoping for better things.
Click on […] to see games list.
1. Black vs de Piro (141) – win.
Well, the first one is of course an evening game, after a week at work
and an abbreviated encounter with the Junior Club.
Tristram joined the Exeter club for a year or so recently, and in many
friendly games I couldn’t rememeber him playing much theory, so I
chanced my arm with the main line, but found, to my horror, that he knew
it all backwards. I scrambled together some reasonable moves from bits
of half-remembered theory and analogy with the …Qb6 lines that I have
always played before, but got to a position which used to be the main
line, yet has since fallen from favour. Characteristically, Tristram
went for the attack, but soon had to give away a piece to save his
Queen. I wonder how easy the endgame would be; I liked the passed pawn,
but in the post mortem I couldn’t make progress.
2. White vs. Kazanov (210?) – loss.
What an unforgiving game chess is. After being handed a space advantage,
I didn’t find a plan to make use of it and was brought back to focus by
my opponent breaking on the King’s side. It was not clear whose King
was the most exposed, but after some swaps we arrived at an endgame.
Under pressure to reach move 40 in time, I chose an active, forcing move
which made life more difficult for me, even impossible, when a calmer,
stabilising move would probably draw. But my real irritation is not
making more of the good position from the opening. (Maybe h2-h4? But
that’s not my style.)
3. Black vs. Jepps (150) – win.
On the four previous occasions we have met, Gerry has walked off with
the whole point each time. He is my Kryptonite: he loves gambit play, I
hate it; he attacks very well, I defend very badly … I thought I’d
play a straight bat against 1.e4 and my opponent, rather than playing
some evil underground gambit, went down a main line of theory, hoping to
play the Alekhin-Chatard Attack. Finding himself in the unfamiliar
MacCutcheon, he found most of the right moves in the opening, but
mistakenly judged his Bishop worse than mine (fearing …c4), and
swapped it off, losing time, when I think Black must have at least
equality. The standard attack down the c-file seemed to work smoothly
enough, and Gerry’s attacking verve and tactical opportunism didn’t
surface.
4. White vs. Wilson (155) – win.
I got a nice game the last time I played Matt with White, and hoped
to repeat the same line, or something like it. But my opponent bashed
out a completely different line that I rarely see, and a search of the
memory banks returned a familiar result: 404 Page Not Found. Black
seemed to equalise very easily, and while I had the Bishop pair it
seemed both of them were bad! I couldn’t see what else to do but
instigate a minority attack and hope Matt faltered on the other wing. My
attack flowed well enough, yielding a pawn, then poor Matt missed a
sequence of cheap forks around the time control.
[I have something of a reputation as a theory hound, but this is clearly
quite unfounded: I read fairly widely, but my knowledge is as shallow as
a gnat’s bidet.]
5. White vs. Helbig (194) – draw.
I have drawn and even won against Paul Helbig, a strong South West
player, but the most common (and expected) result has been a loss. My
single win came about from this line of the Pirc, with which I’ve had
some good results. However, once again my opponent bashed out what seems
to be a simple equalising line with little hesitation … which I should
have expected, as that’s exactly what he did last time! I was beginning
to find my position sinking into rigidity, even the rigor of death, but
a good-looking Queen manoeuvre by Black was met by an even stronger one
by White. Black had to concede a pawn, but, as always with classy
players, found the most awkward way of doing so, and I could only retain
the pawn by swapping off into an opposite-coloured Bishop endgame with
slender hopes of a win.
Overall: This unremarkable performance won me the upper grading prize,
remarkably enough (AKA the ‘not bad for an old duffer’ prize). I came
away happier with the result than the games; I got caught out in the
opening too often, and was in moderate time trouble in nearly every
game. But I can’t complain, that’s my best tournament result for a
while.