Category Archives: Class B

Coaching Zone at East Devon Congress 2026

Posted on by

Thanks to all those who attended, shared games, contributed comments and heckled; I hope you got something out of taking part.

LINK to Lichess study for Saturday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/6WyVNXpv/

LINK to Lichess study for Sunday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/QIirDybT

Short talks

Not all the talks actually happened but here are the intended slides; the slides were designed to support a talk and not to stand alone.

AnalyseYourGamesDownload
BoardsightVisualisationDownload
Blunder-proofingDownload
CandidateMovesDownload
ElementsEvaluationDownload
EndgamesTipsResourcesDownload
MistakesMinorDownload
MistakesMajorDownload
PlanningDownload
OpeningsQ&ADownload
UsingComputersDownload

“To take is a mistake”

Posted on by

My young friend and former student Theo Slade quoted this to me a while ago.

“To take is a mistake”

In some circumstances, it’s easy to see why:

A capture by either side gives up the d-file and invites Rd7/Rd2, so both sides need to find something else to do.

There is a YouTube lecture by Smirnov on this subject, which has been made into a Lichess study, which makes the point thoroughly: https://lichess.org/study/MJ9ZFfKI

Another quote, from a current student:

“I’m a bit nervous about tension.”

OK, I get that. If you respond to a threat by defending the attacked piece, the threat remains in the air, and if you overlook it later, it can bite you. This is Smirnov’s first example:

So 1.Nxg4 Bxg4=, but 1.Nf3+/-

But of course, if control of h2 remains disputed, the N cannot move away from f3. But 1.Nf3! is still the best move and should be played!

A slight digression: The Ruy Lopez

“why is the Ruy Lopez … so difficult for Black to combat? (Nunn and Griffiths)

Good question. Let’s have a look:

Michael Stean comments here:

“The first and most primitive idea behind 3. Bb5 is to lay siege to Black’s e-Pawn, which will subsequently be liquidated by d4, thereby opening the floodgates for the White Pawn centre to scatter the enemy forces with the allied pieces following up to rout the broken army — no prisoners taken. Black cannot however be forced to surrender the centre. By keeping his own e-Pawn firmly defended Black can thwart all White’s aspirations of conquest in the centre, but this will lead to a rather cramped position. So the offspring of White’s plan is an advantage in space due to the necessity for his opponent to maintain a firm central barricade. This spatial plus however is not very big and the only way to maintain it is by avoiding any exchange of pieces. Black’s position (Diagram 73) has sufficient ‘capacity’ for three minor pieces, but not clearly enough for all four of them. This explains why White is willing to invest so much time early in the game (Bb5, Ba4, Bb3, Bc2, h3) purely to avoid exchanges. If his spatial strategy is to succeed he must leave Black with four minor pieces. These closed Ruy Lopez positions are some of the most subtle and complex in the whole opening repertoire. It is probably no coincidence that nearly all the great players of recent times have been deadly exponents of the Ruy Lopez. In the hands of Fischer or Karpov 3. Bb5 sometimes appears to win by force. For example, Karpov-Westerinen, Nice 1974. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 …

The clarity and popularity of Stean’s book has led to this being a leading interpretation of White’s chances in the Closed Morphy Defence. But there is more to it than that. Let us continue with the whole of that quote from Nunn and Griffiths:

“But already this opening has certain puzzling aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative, both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why should Black’s position be so awkward? The question really boils down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has problems.
“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position Black can easily get caught in a situation where his game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error (6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his position.”
— NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

Trying to go beyond the Good Doctor’s commentary is surely lese-majeste, but let me have a go anyway. Euwe and Kramer call this type of structure the Tension Form, and there we have another secret of the position. There is unresolved tension. The central pawns, White and Black, can take each other, be captured, recapture in different ways, or White can shut down the tension by d4-d5. Now, exactly where you want your pieces may be a different, depending on the central structure. If White takes on e5, the outpost on d5 may become tempting for a Knight (Stean is very good on this too), and so Black might want to keep a wary eye on that possibility, and be able to respond in the best way. If White plays d4-d5, that possibility vanishes, but other ideas appear. Operating under this tension and flexibility and uncertainty is difficult for Black, who has that constraint on their manoeuvres presented by the d6 pawn.

So the next question arises: why on earth would Black want to subject themselves to this sort of unpleasantness? Perhaps it is for lack of alternatives, but there is something else… Operating under this tension and flexibility and uncertainty is difficult for White too! Perhaps a little less so than for Black, but the positions are actually tricky for both sides, and not easy to simplify.
So Black might willingly take on a slightly squashed position — in the Lopez, in the Hedgehog, or in the Hippopotamus — in the hope that the opponent with more space will still face difficulties in finding the right piece placements and the right plans in a tense, changeable position. As Suba pointed out, once you have your pieces arranged prettily after the opening, you still have to play chess… So, learn to love tension!

Strategy and/or tactics

Posted on by

Two or three things prompted this session:

  • There was a long-running argument on the UseNet rec.games.chess
    newsgroups earlier this year,
    basically around the idea that “chess is tactics, and club
    players should study nothing but tactics” (or 90%
    tactics)    .
  • More recently I got a video by Nigel Davies called Dirty
    Tricks     which offered a complete repertoire
    for a club player. In every line, there was at least one huge
    smelly pit for the opponent to fall into, or some other hope of
    some other dramatic way of finishing the game early.
  • Pete Lane has kindly offered to run a session soon on ‘Preparing
    For Combinations’    . Without knowing
    what’s in it. I thought I might be able to do the overture for his
    three-act drama.

I am probably the best example you could hope to find of a club
player trying to run strategically before they can walk tactically.
I used to play like beginners should, all open games and
swashbuckling attacks, but then I saw a striking positional game
(Bernstein-Mieses) which has been my ideal ever
since. I switched to playing the Queen’s Gambit (and, soon after,
the English Opening), but, like many club players, rather too many
of my games feature elementary tactical oversights. Here is a
particularly dismal example: me to play as Black, in a dominating
position, and to come up with three tactical blunders in a row…

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|IPgr+.).|
|.).+.+.)|
|Hp+.+.+.|
|.+.+q+.+|
|0.+.0.+p|
|k+p+.+Q+|
|+.+.+.$.|
+-----------------+

Bellers,C – Regis,D [B27] Exeter Club Ch’p Exeter
Club Ch’p (5), 1997

33…Bxg3+?? [33…Re3! -+]
34.Kxg3 Qe5+ 35.Kxg4 h5+?? [35…Re4+!]
36.Kh3 Re3+?? [36…Qe6+] 37.Nf3 (sealed
move) (and resigned) 1-0

  (37…Qf4?! might have been worth a punt OTB, but not
after a week’s analysis)In response to this obvious failing I have
tried to play more open games and treat all positions a little more
sharply.

  However, I am far from persuaded that club players should
study nothing but tactics, or even devote (say) 75% of their study
time to it. But first let us hear the case for the prosecution:

“Chess is 99% tactics” — Richard TEICHMANN

  “Until you are at least a high Class A player: Your
first name is ‘Tactics’, your middle name is ‘Tactics’, and your
last name is ‘Tactics’.” — Ken SMITH

“Thirty years ago (this was written in 1942),
Teichmann said that chess is 99% tactics. And despite the enormous
strides of chess theory since then, his percentage can only be
reduced a few points.

“Many amateurs think that master games are usually
decided by some deeply-laid plan covering all possibilities for at
least ten moves. It is still true that most games, even between the
greatest of the great, are decided by tactics or combinations which
have little or nothing to do with the fundamental structure of the
game.

“To take one striking example, look at the games of
the Euwe-Alekhin matches. Euwe is a player who analyses
openings ad infinitum, i.e., one who wants to
settle everything strategically. Alekhin is likewise adept at the
art of building up an overwhelming position. And yet in almost all
cases the outcome depended not on the inherent structure of the
play, but on some chance combination which one side saw and the
other side did not. Tactics is still more than 90% of
chess.” – –  GM Reuben FINE, “Chess Marches
On“, Strategy and Tactics. (from
Richard S. Cantwell)

“It’s not that chess is 99% tactics, it’s just that
tactics takes up 99% of your time”- –  NM Dan
HEISMANN.

“Chess IS tactics” — NM Ignacio MARIN

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of
positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess
history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the
young chess player. ” — RICHARD RETI

  …and so on. Moreover:

“It is a mistake to think that combination is solely
a matter of talent, and that it cannot be acquired” —
RETI

  So, it seems fair to say that you do need to get your eye
in for tactics, and keep up your practice, and try to extend the
depth and range of what you can analyse routinely.

  However, I would disagree with the conclusion that
tactics are the be all and end all at club level. It’s not just the
point that if chess was only a matter of calculation, it would be
unplayable – obviously the number of choices at each turn means you
must use your judgement to select which moves to analyse. Also, I’d
guess that for at least 9 moves out of every 10 there is not going
to be any combinational blow available for either side, so you are
going to have to think about something else, if only how to set up
such a blow. But the real reason I object is: where do these
tactics come from? Why do combinations arise at all? It used to be
thought that chess mastery depended on ingenuity, daring and
intuition, but according to Lasker there is…

“…No combination without a considerable plus, no
considerable plus without a combination” — Em. Lasker,
Manual of Chess, Book IV

  So, before you get your tactical opportunity, you need to
build up a positional plus. Studying tactics alone is putting the
cart before the horse – or more fairly, the chicken before the
egg.

 

ASIDE: Part of this essay explains that I don’t
entirely agree with this view either; in fact, this is so dogmatic
that Lasker risks being dumped with Steinitz among the impractical
theorists rather than the practical players (of which he is usually
taken as a supreme example). So, why did Lasker make such a
statement? Well, there is more than a grain of truth in it, and I
think the absolute way in which Lasker expressed it was
born out of Lasker’s esteem for Steinitz, and particularly what he
saw as the heart of Steinitz’ theory. Anyhow, let’s listen to
Lasker’s ideas first, before criticising them.

Steinitz had many ideas which have become associated with the
treatment of closed positions, but Steinitz the player and
Steinitz the theorist both started in the arena of open,
tactical games. Lasker gives a game of Steinitz against
Hamppe as an example, with both players out to
score a win from the very start of the game. (In fact, Steinitz won
more brilliancy prizes than most of his ‘brilliant’ contemporaries,
and won them throughout his career.) Although he could play like
this, Steinitz also thought about, where do tactical combinations
come from?

“…If Steinitz continually took pains to discover
combinations, the success or failure of his diligent search could
not be explained by him as due to chance. Hence, he concluded that
some characteristic, a quality of the given position, must exist
… that would indicate the success or the failure of the search
before it was actually undertaken. (…)

“The master should not look for winning combinations,
unless he believed, unless he could prove to himself that he held
the advantage.

“An advantage could consist … not only in a single
important advantage but also in a multitude of insignificant
advantages.

“Therefore… in the beginning of the game ignore the
search for violent combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim
for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having
attained these ends search for the combination – and then with all
the power of will and intellect, because then the combination must
exist, however deeply hidden.” — Em. Lasker, Manual of
Chess, Book IV

  I think here is the heart of the matter: combinations in
fact do not come out of nowhere, so if you want to strike
tactically, you must first play positionally. Morphy’s dominance
was often attributed to brilliance, and while Morphy undoubtedly
was brilliant his games were based on good positional principles,
and his combinations came out of positional advantages. If you fail
to understand this, you may end up in this, perhaps familiar,
predicament of amateur players:

“… the most disheartening issue was our failure to
play as well as we feel we should (…)

“Here is my hypothesis: My friend and I are both
afflicted with the same problem, Forcing The Issue. We have spent
so much effort learning tactics from setup positions, that once we
are in a real game, we try to apply our lessons to positions that
don’t warrant it. Subconsciously, we believe that every position
has some stunning combination in it that will allow us to win. When
we look for it, if it’s not there (most often the case), we try to
force one, causing a lost game.

“Studying tactics in setup positions is a VERY
necessary part of learning chess, but, knowing when to apply
tactical knowledge is, at this point in my education, to me even
more important. My friend’s opponent instinctively makes “better”
moves because my friend is making weaker moves, and so am I. Given
a setup position, he would most likely find the solution much
faster than his opponent. In a general position, we would both
likely find a combination that wasn’t there.” — Gene
THOMPSON, The Search for Great ChessPart V,
Chess Scene

  (By the way, Gene is in my view also suffering from using
false positives‘, that is,
tests
which
include tempting tries but no actual winning tactic.)

  Spielmann said something that alludes to the same
problem:

“I can see the combinations as well as Alekhin, but
I cannot get into the same positions.” — SPIELMANN

  So, combinations do not come out of nowhere, but out of
previous good play, or out of the characteristics of the position,
and if you don’t play with that in mind, you can end up in
trouble.

  Positional factors also explain how and where come
combinational blows actually fall. We nowadays speak of a
cutting-point combination (a sacrifice at
the crossroads of two lines which we control – for example, if
attacking the Black castled King’s position with your Nf5, Bb2 and
Rg1 all focussing on g7, the sacrifice Nxg7 should immediately be
considered. One might also cite Rubinstein’s
Immortal (Black against Rotlevi):

+-----------------+
|K+R+.+.$|
|).+Q+.G.|
|.).+.H.)|
|1n)B+.).|
|.+.).+p+|
|+.+p+.gp|
|p0p+.+b+|
|+k+.4r+.|
+-----------------+

22. … Rxc3! 23.gxh4

  if 23.Bxc3 Bxe4+ 24.Qxe4 Qxh2 ‘mate, or 23.Bxb7 Rxg3
24.Rf3 Rxf3 25.Bxf3 Nf7+ 26.Kg1 Ne4+ 27.Kf1 Nd2+ 28.Kg2 Nxf3
29.Qxf3 Rd2+ etc.

23. … Rd2!! 24.Qxd2

  if 24.Qxg4 Bxe4+ 25.Rf3 Rxf3 etc, 24.Bxc3 Rxd2 with Rxh2
‘mate or Bxe4+ ‘mate to follow, or 24.Bxb7 Rxe2 25.Bg2 Rh3!
etc.

24. … Bxe4+ 25.Qg2 Rh3! 0-1

  ‘mate in three follows, 26.Rf3 Bxf3 27.Bd4 Bxd4 and Rxh2
‘mate.

  Here we can see that Rubinstein’s well-posted pieces are
as much the heart of this combination as his insight; without
accumulating control of the open files and diagonals, none of it
would work. And the combination, once launched, works like
clockwork – based mostly on the power of the Bishop on the long
diagonal but also the Rook on the seventh rank. One attraction of
the combination for me is the way the two groups of Black pieces
are brought into a working geometric mechanism.

  So, positional advantages not only let us know when, but
also where, to strike with a combination. Moreover, Steinitz’ theory
has
some important corollaries:

1. The right to attack belongs only to that side
which has a positional advantage, and this is not only a right, but
also a duty, otherwise there is the risk of losing the advantage.
The attack is to be directed against the weakest spot in the
opposing position.

2. The defending side must be prepared to defend and
make concessions, e.g making a weakening pawn move. However, the
defender should avoid making concessions until forced, and then
should make only the minimum concession necessary to meet the
threats.

3. In level positions the two sides will manoeuvre,
trying to tilt the balance of the position, each in their own
favour. With correct play on both sides, level positions keep on
leading to further level positions. Any attempt to undertake an
attack without an adequate positional basis should lead to a
disadvantage, if parried properly.

(after Kotov and Chernev)

  So, we can now say more clearly what is wrong with a diet
of studying only tactics. We can also understand how Steinitz could
contain someone like Zukertort or Blackburn (see
games below, in particular the accumulation of advantages
against Blackburn). And we can look back at the
old nineteenth-century games and see how a Steinitz might have
handled them too:

“Playing through this beautiful game, we can see why
lovers of the romantic era speak so highly of such games and the
era in which they were played. …(But) these combinations should
never have been allowed to come into being. In an opening in which
both players relentlessly pursue their respective aims – without
acknowledging the requirements of the position – rapidly changing
situations are produced, culminating in (a sacrifice.)” —
KONIG

  So, there is a lot to be said for this argument of Lasker
(and Steinitz), but he did overstep the mark when talking about
combinations, and Purdy was one who pointed this out most
forcefully. He had a lot of fun at Lasker’s expense about this
“utterly mad advice”, and indeed wrote an article entitled
‘The Steinitz-Lasker “Law” exploded‘.

  He shows by looking at two famous games
(Reti-Alekhin 1925, and rather ironically the
game from the Lasker-Capablanca match in
1921 that put Lasker two points behind) that
combinations are sometimes available without there being any
considerable plus, perhaps no plus at all. You might say that you
know of, or can devise, a scheme for assessing positions which
gives the advantage to Lasker or to Alekhin in the two games, but
I know of none such. In any event, surely positional evaluations
cannot be made irrespective of any immediate and concrete tactical
possibilities; moreover, it is difficult to say whether the
familiar geometrical motifs that lie behind combinations – like a
weak back rank – should be called positional or tactical
considerations. For the club player this is all academic:

“The question that matters to you in actual play is
simply, ‘What is my best move?’, and if you can decide without
being sure who has the theoretical advantage, so much the better”
— PURDY

  Now, Purdy’s criticism of this Steinitz-Lasker law is
pertinent, but not absolute. There is no doubt that the majority of
favourable combinations do appear in positions where one side has
the advantage.

  My objection to the “Tactics, tactics, tactics” school of
thought is not to say that tactics are not important or that most
games are not decided by tactical blows. Indeed, what is often at
fault in the game of the club player is a failure to check for
their opponent’s opportunities in reply. Moreover, given the rather
static manner of play and poor level of defensive skill amongst
club players, they are probably as well advised to imitate
Zukertort or Blackburn than Lasker or Steinitz. Seizing the
initiative, going for an attack, and having an eye for random
chances are probably at least as important as positional judgement
in club play. But I would still not wish to call for one type of
study as being important – in particular, not for tactics being
more important than strategy.

  Lasker once gave a scheme for studying chess, which is
much more convincing and pragmatic than his theorising about
combinations:

 

“Chess rules and exercises – 5 hours
Elementary endings – 5 hours
Some openings – 10 hours
Combination – 20 hours
Positional play – 40 hours
Practical play with analysis – 120 hours

“Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young
player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely
to be among those two or three thousand chessplayers [who play on a
par with a master]. There are, however, a quarter of a million
chessplayers who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours on chess
without making any progress. Without going into any further
calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that
nowadays we achieve only a fraction of what we are capable of
achieving.” — Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess, Book
IV

  Notice that “Practical play with analysis”
comprises over half of the hours of study. What I would take from
this is not that ‘positional play at 40 hours is more important
than combinational play at 20 hours‘, but rather that each are
to be integrated into a study of real games, both your own and
those of the masters. There is surely a case for balance in your
study: a balance between opening, middle- and end-game study, a
balance between reading, doing exercises and analysing your own
games.

  I sometimes think studying is actually the easy bit.
Knowing what to study, based on an honest analysis of your own
strengths and weaknesses, is the hard bit. However, the goal may be
more clear:

“However obviously the majority of Chess-players may
be divided into two big classes of combination- and
position-players, in the Chess-master this antagonism is
transformed into a harmony. In him combination play is completed by
position play.” — Em. Lasker, Manual of Chess, Book
IV

Appendix: Games cited

Hamppe – Steinitz W [C29], Vienna,
1859

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.fxe5 Nxc3 6.bxc3
Qh4+ 7.Ke2 Bg4+ 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.d4 0-0-0 10.Bd2 Bxf3+ 11.gxf3 Nxe5
12.dxe5 Bc5 13.Qe1 Qc4+ 14.Kd1 Qxc3 15.Rb1 Qxf3+ 16.Qe2 Rxd2+
17.Kxd2 Rd8+ 18.Kc1 Ba3+ 19.Rb2 Qc3 20.Bh3+ Kb8 21.Qb5 Qd2+ 22.Kb1
Qd1+ 23.Rxd1 Rxd1# 0-1

Steinitz – Blackburne [C29], 1882

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.d3 dxe4 5.fxe5 Ng4 6.Nxe4 Nc6
7.c3 Qd5 8.Qb3 Qxb3 9.axb3 Ngxe5 10.d4 Ng6 11.Bc4 Be7 12.Nf3 h6
13.b4 0-0 14.0-0 Bf5 15.Nfg5 Bxe4 16.Nxe4 Nd8 17.b5 Re8 18.Ng3 Bf8
19.Nf5 Ne7 20.Ne3 Ne6 21.Ng4 Ng6 22.Bd5 Nd8 23.Bxh6 c6 24.bxc6 bxc6
25.Bc4 Re7 26.Bg5 Rd7 27.h4 Be7 28.h5 Nf8 29.Be3 Bd6 30.b4 Nde6
31.Ra6 Rc8 32.h6 Nh7 33.hxg7 Kxg7 34.Bh6+ Kg8 35.Bd3 Rcc7 36.Bd2
Nef8 37.Nh6+ Kh8 38.Be4 Re7 39.Bxc6 Re2 40.Nf5 Rxd2 41.Nxd6 Ng5
42.Re1 Nge6 43.Rf1 Nd8 44.b5 Rd3 45.Rf5 Nfe6 46.Ne4 Ng7 47.Rf6 Kg8
48.Rh6 Nge6 49.d5 Nf4 50.Rh4 Nxc6 51.Nf6+ Kf8 52.Rxc6 Rxc6 53.bxc6
Ng6 54.c7 Rxc3 55.d6 Ne5 56.Re4 1-0

Zukertort – Steinitz USA MATCH #9 [D26]
1886

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e3 c5 6.Bxc4 cxd4
7.exd4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe2 Nbd7 10.Bb3 Nb6 11.Bf4 Nbd5

  Steinitz pioneered the defence of the Queen’s Gambit
Accepted, and used this blockade which is still recognised as the
standard and best plan for Black.

12.Bg3 Qa5 13.Rac1 Bd7 14.Ne5 Rfd8 15.Qf3 Be8
16.Rfe1 Rac8 17.Bh4 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Qc7 19.Qd3 Nd5 20.Bxe7 Qxe7
21.Bxd5 Rxd5 22.c4 This metamorphosis to hanging pawns is
also now well-known. 22…Rdd8 23.Re3 Determined
to attack! 23…Qd6 24.Rd1 f6 25.Rh3 h6 26.Ng4 Qf4 27.Ne3
Ba4 28.Rf3 Qd6 29.Rd2 Bc6 30.Rg3 f5 31.Rg6 [31.Nd1 Lasker]
31…Be4 32.Qb3 Kh7 The tension mounts.
33.c5 Rxc5 34.Rxe6 Rc1+ 35.Nd1 Qf4 36.Qb2 Rb1 37.Qc3 Rc8
38.Rxe4 Qxe4 0-1

  A dramatic finish, but it was all decided beforehand.

“If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for
Steinitz, possibly even his peer. … Every move of Zukertort’s
pointed towards a vigorous cooperation the pieces united to attack
the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready
made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master.
Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans
over the board. […]”

“Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field
he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, he was unable
to make use of his faculty [in the majority of games in the match],
the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for
combinations. (…) Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in
vain, while Steinitz … was able to foresee them. Zukertort could
not understand how Steinitz was able to to prevent combinations…
he tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never
approached its solution by even one step.” — Em. Lasker,
Manual of Chess, Book IV

Lasker,E – Capablanca,J [D61] Havana,
1921

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
7.Qc2 c5 8.Rd1 Qa5 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bh4 cxd4 11.exd4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nb6
13.Bb3 Bd7 14.0-0 Rac8 15.Ne5 Bb5 16.Rfe1 Nbd5 17.Bxd5

  [17.Bxf6! Breyer

  A) 17…Nxf6 18.Ng6 fxg6 (18…Rfe8 19.Rxe6!! fxe6?
20.Bxe6+ Kh7 21.Nf8+ Kh8 22.Qh7+ Nxh7 23.Ng6#) 19.Rxe6;

  B) 17…Nxc3 18.Bxe7 Ne2+ 19.Rxe2 Rxc2 20.Rxc2;

  C) 17…gxf6 18.Ng6;

  D) 17…Bxf6 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Ng4! (19.Qf5 was
given by Lasker, ignoring Breyer’s move) 19…Bg5 (19…Bd8
20.Qf5) 20.f4! Bxf4 21.Qf5 Bc7! (21…Bb8 22.Qxd5 a6 23.a4
Rfd8 24.Qf5 g6 25.Nxh6+; 21…Bg5 CJSP 22.Qxd5 a6 23.Qxb7 Qb4
24.Nxb5 axb5 25.Re2) 22.Nxd5 Kh8 23.Nxh6 gxh6 24.Nf6 Kg7
25.Nh5+ Kh8 (25…Kg8 26.Qg4+ Kh7 27.Qg7#) 26.Qf6+ Kg8
27.Qg7#]

17…Nxd5 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Qb3 Bc6 20.Nxc6 bxc6
21.Re5 Qb6 22.Qc2 Rfd8 23.Ne2 Rd5 24.Rxd5 cxd5 25.Qd2 Nf5 26.b3 h5
27.h3 h4 28.Qd3 Rc6 29.Kf1 g6 30.Qb1 Qb4 31.Kg1 a5 32.Qb2 a4 33.Qd2
Qxd2 34.Rxd2 axb3 35.axb3 Rb6 36.Rd3 Ra6 37.g4 hxg3 38.fxg3 Ra2
39.Nc3 Rc2 40.Nd1 Ne7 41.Nc3 Rc1+ 42.Kf2 Nc6 43.Nd1 Rb1 44.Ke2 Rxb3
45.Ke3 Rb4 46.Nc3 Ne7 47.Ne2 Nf5+ 48.Kf2 g5 49.g4 Nd6 50.Ng1 Ne4+
51.Kf1 Rb1+ 52.Kg2 Rb2+ 53.Kf1 Rf2+ 54.Ke1 Ra2 55.Kf1 Kg7 56.Re3
Kg6 57.Rd3 f6 58.Re3 Kf7 59.Rd3 Ke7 60.Re3 Kd6 61.Rd3 Rf2+ 62.Ke1
Rg2 63.Kf1 Ra2 64.Re3 e5 65.Rd3 exd4 66.Rxd4 Kc5 67.Rd1 d4 68.Rc1+
Kd5 0-1

Reti ,R – Alekhin ,A [A00] Baden Baden (8),
1925

1.g3 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Nd4 d5 4.d3 exd3 5.Qxd3 Nf6 6.Bg2 Bb4+
7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 0-0 9.c4 Na6 10.cxd5 Nb4 11.Qc4 Nbxd5 12.N2b3 c6
13.0-0 Re8 14.Rfd1 Bg4 15.Rd2 Qc8 16.Nc5 Bh3 17.Bf3 Bg4 18.Bg2 Bh3
19.Bf3 Bg4 20.Bh1 h5 21.b4 a6 22.Rc1 h4 23.a4 hxg3 24.hxg3 Qc7
25.b5 axb5 26.axb5

26…Re3!! 27.Nf3?! cxb5 28.Qxb5 Nc3 29.Qxb7 Qxb7
30.Nxb7 Nxe2+ 31.Kh2 Ne4 32.Rc4 Nxf2 33.Bg2 Be6 34.Rcc2 Ng4+ 35.Kh3
Ne5+ 36.Kh2 Rxf3 37.Rxe2 Ng4+ 38.Kh3 Ne3+ 39.Kh2 Nxc2 40.Bxf3 Nd4
0-1

Rotlewi – Rubinstein, Lodz 1907/8,

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.dxc5 Bxc5
7.a3 a6 8.b4 Bd6 9.Bb2 O-O 10.Qd2? Only 10.cxd5 exd5
11.Be2/d3 could save the opening. 10. … Qe7! 11.Bd3 dxc4
12.Bxc4 b5 13.Bd3 Rd8 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.O-O Ne5 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.f4 Bc7
18.e4 Rac8 19.e5 White is asking for trouble. The open c-
and d-files have been left uncontested, and the pawn advances have
additionally opened diagonals for the Black bishops. A.R. moves
over to a direct attack. 19. … Bb6+ 20.Kh1 Ng4!
21.Be4 Of course 21.Qxg4 Rxd3 is strong. 21.Ne4 Rxd3
22.Qxd3 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 Qh4 24.h3 Qg3 25.hxg4 Qh4 ‘mate begins to
reveal the danger White is in. 21. … Qh4 22.g3 DIAGRAM
22. … Rxc3! 23.gxh4 if 23.Bxc3 Bxe4+ 24.Qxe4 Qxh2
‘mate, or 23.Bxb7 Rxg3 24.Rf3 Rxf3 25.Bxf3 Nf7+
26.Kg1 Ne4+ 27.Kf1 Nd2+ 28.Kg2 Nxf3 29.Qxf3 Rd2+ etc. 23.
… Rd2!! 24.Qxd2 if 24.Qxg4 Bxe4+ 25.Rf3 Rxf3 etc,
24.Bxc3 Rxd2 with Rxh2 ‘mate or Bxe4+ ‘mate to follow, or 24.Bxb7
Rxe2 25.Bg2 Rh3! etc. 24. … Bxe4+ 25.Qg2 Rh3!
0-1 ‘mate in three follows, 26.Rf3 Bxf3 27.Bd4 Bxd4 and
Rxh2 ‘mate. [Notes by Peter Lane]

Bernstein – Mieses [B45] 1921

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nxc6 bxc6
7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Ne4 12.Qd4 Nf6
13.Qd6 Ne4 14.Qb4 d5 15.Bd3 Qd6 16.Qxd6 Nxd6 17.f4! A key
move, preventing the advance e6-e5 when Black’s position is fine.
The rest of the game features an iron determination to prevent any
freeing move by Black, and a gradual invasion on the dark squares.
17…a5 18.Be3 Ba6 19.Kd2 Nc4+ 20.Bxc4 Bxc4 It is
sometimes assumed that the presence of opposite-coloured bishops is
a powerful drawing factor. This is true of some simple or blocked
positions, but here all Black’s pieces stand badly because of the
weak dark squares. 21.a4 Kd7 22.b3 Ba6 23.Bb6 Bc8 24.Ke3
Ra6 25.Bc5 Kc7 26.Kd4 Bd7 27.Rhe1 h5 28.Re5 g6 29.Rg5 Rg8 30.Ke5
Be8 31.Re1 Ra8 32.Kf6 Bd7 33.g3 Rae8 34.Ree5 Rh8 35.Rxg6 Rh7 36.Rg7
Reh8 37.Rxh7 Rxh7 38.Kg6 Rh8 While there’s life…
39.Kg7 ! [39.Rxh5 Be8+] 39…Rd8 40.Rxh5
Be8 White needs to be sure of his ground here, as he has
an alternative plan of advancing the h-pawn. 41.Rh7 Rd7+
42.Kh6 Rxh7+ 43.Kxh7 How many moves will it take White to
Queen a Pawn? How many for Black? 43…Bh5 44.h4 Bd1 45.c3
Bxb3 46.g4 Kd7 47.g5 e5 48.f5 Bxa4 49.f6 1-0

Bellers,C – Regis,D [B27] Exeter Club Ch’p
Exeter Club Ch’p (5), 1997

1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.Nf3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 d5 6.exd5 Nf6
7.Bb5+ Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d6 exd6 10.Nc3 a6 11.Bd3 Nb6 12.Bg5 h6
13.Bh4 Be6 14.Re1 Qd7 15.Qd2 Nbd5 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Rac8 18.a3
Rfe8 19.Bg3 Nf6 20.Bd3 Nh5 21.Nh4 Nxg3 22.hxg3 g5 23.Nf3 Bf5
24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Bxf5 Qxf5 26.Rc1 Qe4 27.Qb4 Qd5 28.Rc7 g4 29.Nh4
Bxd4 30.Rxb7 Re2 31.Rb8+ Kh7 32.Qb7 Bxf2+ 33.Kh2 [DIAGRAM]
33…Bxg3+?? [33…Re3! -+] 34.Kxg3 Qe5+
35.Kxg4 h5+?? [35…Re4+!] 36.Kh3 Re3+??
[36…Qe6+] 37.Nf3 (sealed) 1-0

  Next:

“Combinative vision manifests itself at an early age,
and children are quick to notice and execute combinations which
chance to turn up. Preparing combinations,
however, is more difficult for them.” — ZAK, Improve your
chess results.

 

Bibliography

LASKER, Manual of Chess

  PURDY, The Search for Chess Perfection

  CHERNEV, Logical Chess

  KOTOV, Play like a Grandmaster

  KONIG, Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik

The Modern Italian Game

Posted on by

Bishop’s Opening, and the Modern treatments of the Giuoco Piano
and Two Knight’s Opening.

Bibliography

Bishop’s Opening, Tim Harding [Chess Player]

Simple Chess, Michael Stean [Faber]

Secrets of Grandmaster Play, Nunn and
Griffiths [Batsford]

The Open Game in Practice, Anatoly
Karpov [Batsford]

Winning with Bishop’s Opening, Gary Lane
[Batsford]

Introduction

Let us open 1. e4 and after 1…e5, 2.
Nf3

All square?

As many juniors already know, we can continue with moves like
Bc4, d3, Nc3 and Be3/Bg5 followed by
O-O, White has achieved an easy development. However, this
system of development puts no pressure on Black whatsoever, and
Black’s only task is to keep up with White’s development. For
example, after 2. Nf3 Black might reply 2…Nc6,
then after 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6
(Giuoco Pianissimo) we can try 6. Be3
Bb6! when Black has an easy game, while after 6.
O-O Bg4! White may even feel that the King has been
committed too soon (7. h3 h5!?). 6.
Bg5 may give Black a few ways of going wrong but basically
the impression is that this game with Knights on their natural
squares of c3 and f3 is not a difficult system for Black to
equalise against because Black can develop easily.

Going for d2-d4?

In order to put early pressure on Black, White cannot use the
pieces alone. Plan A must include development by d2-d4 at some
point. This will put pressure on the Black Pawn at e5 and give a
few more possibilities for both sides.

  The immediate 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 leads
to release of central tension and denies White the opportunity of
ever achieving a ‘perfect’ centre with Pawns on e4 and d4. This is
a perfectly reasonable opening (Scotch Game), but perhaps
we can do better:

Preparing d2-d4 with c2-c3

Supporting the d4 Pawn with c2-c3 seems a good idea, so that
…e5xd4 can be met with c3xd4. Then our Knight on b1 could go to
c3 anyway. However, 3. c3 (Ponziani’s
opening) has been thought for a long while to offer White
little: it is a well-motivated move but for the moment does not
restrict Black at all. Black can make an immediate nuisance by
either 3…Nf6 or perhaps even
3…d5, when the natural 4.exd5
Qxd5 cannot be met by tempo-gaining 5.Nc3.

The old Italian Game with c2-c3

There can be little objection to the Italianate 3.
Bc4, which retricts …d5, enables castling by White, and
after 3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)
4.c3! is an excellent way to proceed, since after
the spoiling attempt 4…Nf6, 5.d4! can follow in
any event. These are well-known lines, which perhaps do not offer
White much more than equality in theory, but in practice usually
lead to an open game where Black has lots of chances to go wrong.
This old-fashioned Italian Game, concentrating on fast development
and attacking play, is a great choice for your first chess opening
system.

Euwe Max – Van Mindeno H [C54], It “AVRO”,
Netherlands, 1927

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 0-0 11.Rxe4 Ne7 12.d6 cxd6
13.Qxd6 Nf5 14.Qd5 d6 15.Bg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Qxf7+
1-0

  However, this is not the way most folk play the opening
these days.

  If there is a problem with 3. Bc4 it is
3…Nf6 (Two Knights’ Defence), which
does not allow us to play 4. c3/5. d4. 4. d4!?
(the Max Lange Attack) can be tried as a reply, but this
again detracts from the goal of setting up Pawns on d4 and e4.

Garcia C – Taulbut Shaun M It active,
1982

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6.
Re1 d5 7. Nc3 dxc4 8. Rxe4+ Be7 9. Nxd4 f5 10. Bh6 Kf7 11. Qh5+ g6
12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. h4 Be6 15. Rxe6 1-0

  Again, the play is open and unclear, which is fine for
those with an adventurous spirit and a good memory (for this line
is very well researched), but we may prefer to avoid this.

Getting to d4 in two moves: the modern
Italian Game

However, if after 3…Nf6, 4. d3 seems an
admission of failure, this may be only a temporary setback. 4. d3
may be followed by protecting the e-Pawn (with Nbd2, or castling
and Re1), and then we can play c2-c3 and d3-d4 as originally
planned. This slightly delayed occupation of the centre may be
stronger than doing so immediately, because it is more solid.

  The most important test in this position is, of course,
the simple 4…d5: if this equalises then White
will have to try something else. In fact, it seems that after
5. exd4 Nxd4 6. O-O and 7. Re1 Black can
experience some difficulty defending the e-Pawn. So this idea of
d3, c3 and only later d4 seems quite playable.

  Also, after 3…Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3! we
enter similar lines. The main variations of the Giuoco Piano with
5. d4 are well-explored and well-known, so your opponent may
equalise without much thought if they know the book lines, whereas
these lines with d3 are less familiar and offer more scope for
original play.

  In any event, the system with c3 and d3 may be more
interesting than a Four Knights’ type of system with Nc3 and d3.
The Queen’s Knight can play first to d2, which looks a little slow,
but, because the centre is solid, it can then plan grand tours like
Nd2-c4-e3-d5 or Nd2-f1-g3-f5, or some other combination like
Nd2-f1-e3. If a general King’s-side push is being considered, once
the King’s Knight on f3 moves, the Queen’s Knight can pop around
from d2 to f3.

  There has been much Grandmaster interest in this
apparently slow style of playing these old openings. What can Black
do in response to this plan?

Plans for the d-Pawn for both sides in the
modern Italian Game

We have considered four central formations for White above:

d3 only (with Nc3), which in itself may be too
slow

d4 only, which in itself may be too early

c3 and d4, which may be vulnerable to …Nf6

d3 and c3 with d4 later, which may be the best plan
so far

  Black of course has all these plans available from the
other side:

…d6 and …Nc6

…d5 only

…c6 and …d5

…d6 and …c6 (with maybe …d5 later)

  Because Black may be trying only to equalise, lack of
aggression in these different plans may be no great drawback.

  White is going to stick the King’s Bishop on c4, while
Black has yet to commit it to a square: …Bc5 is natural, …Be7
is solid, and some folk have tried it on g7.

  This combination of different possible plans by White and
by Black is rather interesting. It is this strategic complexity and
relatively slow unfolding of plans which has led to a growth of
interest in these lines, together with a re-appraisal of some old
variations.

The modern Italian Game and the Bishop’s
Opening

A point of order: I have introduced these lines from a move order
with 2. Nf3. But it may be interesting to play 2.
Bc4 instead: the Bishop’s Opening. After 2. Bc4
we can reach the same lines after either 2…Nf6 3. d3 Nc6
4. Nf3 or 2…Nc6 3. Nf3 or
2…Nc6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3. Are there advantages to
playing 2. Bc4 instead of 2. Nf3? In the early
1980s when interest was growing in 2. Bc4, Petroff’s
Defence (the reply 2…Nf6 to 2.
Nf3) was proving to be a good equalising try for Black at
all levels of chess. The Bishop’s Opening move order obviously
avoids this defence, and one or two others besides (like
Philidor’s Defence and the Latvian Gambit). So,
yes, there may be practical advantages in starting out with 2. Bc4.

  The growth of interest in Bishop’s Opening actually began
with Bent Larsen’s researches in the 1960s. [He wanted to get into
a line of the Vienna Opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.
Bc4 Nc6 4. d3 without encouraging the wild 3…Nxe4 4.
Qh5, so introduced the line with 2. Bc4.] He
discovered, amongst other things, that after 1. e4 e5 2.
Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 Black has no easy time of it. The other
theoretical development, published in a little Tim Harding book,
was a series of correspondence games by Koch in which he showed
that the supposed equalising line 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3
c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7
led to a position in which, hypermodern style, Black was left
defending an overambitious centre against strong pressure from
White’s minor pieces.

  There are old-fashioned ‘Italian’ and gambit approaches
to Bishop’s Opening – for example, White can essay the
Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3!?] or
the Urusoff Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4!?], both of
which have yet to be refuted and the latter actually claimed a
scalp of the young Karpov. But here I am interested mostly in the
modern treatments.

The Bishop’s Opening and the Ruy
Lopez

Before getting stuck into the details, there is another general
point to consider: the strategically heavyweight lines of the
Ruy Lopez are generally reckoned to be one of the most
important battle-grounds in chess, being complex and offering White
good chances to play for an advantage, and, indeed, giving both
sides chances to win. These positions in fact have parallels in the
modern lines of the Bishop’s opening. For example, the main lines
of the Ruy Lopez include the old Tchigorin Defence:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7
6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7
[Kasparov – Donchenko, 1976]

  and the modern Breyer system:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7
6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d3 Nbd7 [Vasiukov –
Karpov, 1971]

  Now, positions similar to these can readily be reached
through Bishop’s opening: after:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O
O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2
c5 [Kosten-Cooper, 1988]

  …we have a formation similar to the Tchigorin; to find
a parallel system to the Breyer we can try:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6
6. c3 Nbd7.

  These parallels help explain the GM interest in the old
Bishop’s opening. The differences between the parallel lines lie
principally in White’s more restricted route for the Bishop:
Bf1-c4-b3-c2 rather than Bf1-b5-a4-b3-c2 in the Ruy Lopez, chased
by Black’s a- and b-Pawns. Whether these advances represent
Queen’s-side counterplay more than Queen’s-side weaknesses has yet
to be resolved!

Pawn formations in Bishop’s opening

What is going on strategically in Bishop’s Opening types of
positions? You will find layers of tactical details (like the
attack on f7) when you look at master games in this opening, which
can obscure what is going on underneath the surface. The easiest
way to think about the plans in different lines is to consider is
the Pawn formations. If White succeeds in playing d3, c3 and d4 we
create a tense pawn formation (a), in which the tension can be
resolved in a number of ways. Before White can do this, it is
possible for Black to set up such a formation, so we have all the
possibilities available to both sides. The possibilities of a quick
shift to another formation will be better handled by the side with
the more advanced and more flexible development.

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy
Lopez)

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-X-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-Pp+-+
+-P-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

The tension may even be added to by Black playing …c5, analogous
to the Tchigorin line. In the long term, the adjacent central Pawns
should confer a space advantage, so exchanges should be avoided by
the side trying to maintain them.

Black may resolve the tension by playing
…e5xd4 (c3xd4) which results in an unbalanced position where
White has an extra central Pawn (b).

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP
unopposed

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-X-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-Pp+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

These adjacent Pawns in a more open position confer a bigger
advantage but in a more open position may be more vulnerable to
attack e.g. along the e-file.

White may resolve the tension in the
first formation, by playing either d4-d5 (giving a closed centre
(c) with an advanced d-Pawn), or by playing d4xe5 (…d6xe5) with a
balanced, semi-open KP centre (d).

(c) Closed centre with advanced
d-Pawn.

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-X-+-+
+-+pX-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-P-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

The advanced d-Pawn gives a space advantage, particularly on the
Queen’s-side. To play for a win the c-Pawn and maybe b-Pawn should
be advanced, to sieze more space and perhaps open lines on that
side. The opponent may consider an advance of the f-Pawn to
undermine the d-Pawn and counter-attack on the King’s-side.

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

This is a very common formation in KP openings. If neither side can
achieve a sharp advance of the f-Pawn, play will be dominated by
piece play on either wing. There are natural posts for Knights on
d5 and f5 (d4 and f4 for Black), and if Black’s c-Pawn has pushed
to c5 earlier, the d5 point is even more attractive. Control of the
d-file is a good idea but can usually be countered, resulting in
exchanges. Occupation of the mutual outposts f5 and f4 by Knights
is less straightforward to counter, and while your opponent is
sorting out that threat, it may be that you can get the d-file
then.

  If Black anticipates the d3-d4 advance with …d7-d5,
after e4xd5 and …Nf6xd5 we have a semi-open unbalanced KP centre
(e), typical of the Steinitz variation of the Ruy Lopez with
colours reversed.

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-X-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

The e-Pawn confers a space advantage and attacking prospects on the
King’s-side, which may be added to by f2-f4. The e-Pawn is exposed
on the half-open file, and should be restrained (e.g. by …Re8)
from breaking open lines for the attack by e4-e5. Black’s break
…d6-d5 is a natural plan to dissolve the centre.

  If neither side ventures d4/…d5, then we have a
balanced, closed KP centre (f).

(f) balanced, closed KP centre

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-X-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

Unless one side or the other goes for a pawn break we get a slow
game where play on the wings is dominant: on the Queen’s-side we
may see a pawn rush, but on the King’s-side we are more likely to
see more modest plans like the occupation of f5 or f4 by a Knight.

  The flexibility of the Bishop’s Opening is such that you
can end up playing any of these Pawn formations, and playing each
side of the unbalanced ones [a,b,c and e] as either White or Black!
Interestingly, White often ends up playing against a Black
preponderance in the centre. Let’s see:

Variations with (a) Closed KP centre,
Tension form (Ruy Lopez)

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 Bb6 5. d4 Qe7 6. O-O
d6 [closed Giuoco Piano]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3
Bd6 [Paulsen’s Defence with …d5]

Variations with (b) Double Pawn centre, KP
unopposed

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 exd4 12.
cxd4 Ba7 [Speelman-Yusupov, 1989/90]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6
6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5
[Nunn-Murey, 1982]

Variations with (c) Closed centre with
advanced d-Pawn.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.Bb3
Be6 8.Bc2 h6 9.Re1 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Qc7 11.d4 Rfe8 12.h3 Nf8 13.c4 Ng6
14.d5 [Kasparov – Georgadze,1979]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6
6. Nc3 d4 [Nunn-Kortchnoi, 1981]

Variations with (d) Balanced, semi-open KP
centre

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 d5?! 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4
[Kosten-Cooper, 1989]

Variations with (e) Semi-open unbalanced KP
centre.

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5
[Larsen-Berger, 1964]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6
6. h3 Nbd7 7. a4 O-O 8. Re1 Nc5 9. Nc3 h6 10. d4 exd4 11.
Nxd4 [Vogt-Tseshkovsky, 1981]

Variations with (f) balanced, closed KP
centre

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d6 [Paulsen’s
Defence with …d6]

This flexibility and variety is the final clue to understanding the
GM interest in the old Bishop’s opening – because it can be
interpreted in a fully modern way by both sides.

  [Examples of pawn formations]

Variations of Bishop’s Opening.

After

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

  Black can adopt a variety of systems. The Black King’s
Knight nearly always goes to f6, so assume 2…Nf6
will be played. White responds 3. d3 to play in
the modern style. Now Black has a choice:

3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)
3…Nc6 (Two Knight’s Defence)
3…c6 (Paulsen’s Defence to the Bishop’s
Opening)

3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

3…Bc5 4. Nf3 usually transposes to the Giuoco
Piano. Black can be expected to play …Nc6 and …d6. We can see a
typical interpretation of this line by Karpov below, but the most
precise move-order as far as I am aware is seen in the game
Torre-Kamsky, where White avoids having to defend against …Nf6-g4
with h2-h3 (then Nd2-f1-e3), by playing instead Nd2-c4-e3, keeping
watch on g4.

 

3…Nc6 (Two Knight’s Defence)

3…Nc6 4. Nf3 invites the Two Knights’ Defence,
assuming Black does not play ….Bc5. Black can play …d6 or
…d5. Playing …d5 immediately seems to leave Black’s e-Pawn
exposed (Nunn-Garcia), although if White prepares d2-d4 with an
early c2-c3, Black may show the d-Pawn is weaker after …d5
(Yudasin-Ivanchuk), so White does best to preserve options until
Black shows where the d-Pawn will go (Kosten-Cooper). Black cannot
successfully delay entirely a move of the d-Pawn (Taulbut-Rumens),
nor trick White by playing …d6 and then …d5 (Kosten-Conquest).

 

3…c6 (Paulsen’s Defence to the Bishop’s
Opening)

3…c6 4. Nf3 is a pure Bishop’s Opening, a line
known as Paulsen’s Defence. Black can play …d5 or more modestly
with …d6. 4…d5 5. Bb3 leaves Black defending a
big centre in a complex middle-game (Nunn-Murey). Black cannot seem
to simplify without disadvantage (Taulbut-Westerinen, Larsen-Nunn).

  Because of this Black may prefer to play modestly in the
style of Philidor’s Defence, with …c6 and …d6. This is rather
playing White’s own game, thinking about …d5 in two moves. White
has some prospects of advantage (Vogt-Chekhov) in a slow
position.

  [Examples of variations]

Example Games

Examples of pawn formations

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy
Lopez)

No games here – really, the whole point of this formation is that
it can become another. With the tension generated by these
unresolved choices, neither side can commit themselves to very
much. Only when there is some decision made might some plan be
readily undertaken, although a phase of manoeuvring may follow the
establishment of such a centre. So, several of the games below
maintain this formation for a move or two, and I will note this
with “[RLTF]“.

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP
unopposed

Ivanovic,B – Ilincic,Z [C50] Jugoslavija,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5
h6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. Nd5 Qd8 9. c3 a6 10. d4 [RLTF] exd4 11. cxd4 Ba7
12. Rc1 O-O 13. h3 Re8 14. O-O Rxe4 15. Bd3 Re8 16. Bb1 g6 17. Qd2
Kg7 18. Rfe1 Be6 19. Nf4 Bd7 20. Rxe8 Qxe8 21. Nd5 Rc8 22. Re1 Qd8
23. g4 Be6 24. Nf4 Bd7 25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Re6 Be8 27. d5 Ne7 28.
Nh5+ Kh7 29. Nf6+ Kg7 30. Qc3 Kf7 31. Re4 c6 32. Rf4 cxd5 33. Nh7+
Nf5 34. Qd2 Kg7 35. gxf5 Kxh7 36. Rh4 h5 37. Ng5+ Kh8 38. Ne6 Qf6
39. Qh6+ Kg8 40. Rxh5 Rc7 41. Nxc7 Bf7 42. Qh7+ Kf8 43. Qh8+ Qxh8
44. Rxh8+ Kg7 45. Ra8 Bc5 46. Ne8+ Kh6 47. Rd8 d4 48. Nxd6 Bxa2 49.
Nxb7 Ba7 50. Rd6 Bc4 51. Rxg6+ Kh5 52. Nd6 Bd3 53. Nf7 1-0

Speelman Jonathan S – Yusupov Artur [C53] It
(cat.14), Hastings (England), 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 [RLTF] exd4
12. cxd4 Ba7 13. d5 Bg4 14. Be3 Bxe3 15. Nxe3 Bh5 16. Nf1 Ng6 17.
Ng3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nd7 19. Rac1 Nde5 20. Qe3 c6 21. dxc6 bxc6 22.
Nf5 Nh4 23. Red1 Nxf5 24. exf5 a5 25. Qd4 Re8 26. Ba4 Rc8 27. h3
Qf6 28. Rc3 Qxf5 29. Qxd6 Re6 30. Qd2 Rce8 31. Bb3 R6e7 32. Bc2 Qf6
33. Re3 Qg5 34. Qd4 c5 35. Qc3 g6 36. Ba4 Rb8 37. Rde1 f6 38. Qxa5
Kf8 39. Rd1 c4 1-0

Nunn – Murey Luzern cq, 1982

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 Bd6 6.
Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5 10. Re1 O-O 11. Qd2 b6
12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Nxe5 d4 14. Nb1 Bb4 15. c3 Bxb3 16. cxb4 Qa6 17.
b5 Qa4 18. Na3 Bd5 19. Rec1 Rac8 20. Rxc8 Rxc8 21. Nec4 Bxc4 22.
Nxc4 Rd8 23. Na3 Nd5 24. Kf1 h6 25. Rc1 Qb4 26. Qxb4 Nxb4 27. Ke2
Nxa2 28. Rc4 Rd5 29. Kd2 Kf8 30. Ra4 Rg5 31. g3 Rf5 32. f4 g5 33.
Nc4 gxf4 34. Rxa2 Rh5 35. gxf4 Rxh2+ 36. Ke1 h5 37. Rxa7 h4 38. Kf1
Kg8 39. Rd7 Rh3 40. Rxd4 Rg3 41. Kf2 1-0

 

(c) Closed centre with advanced
d-Pawn.

Kasparov,Gary – Georgadze,T (1) Minsk,
1979

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d3 Nf6 5. c3 O-O 6. O-O c6
7. Bb3 Be6 8. Bc2 h6 9. Re1 Nbd7 10. Nbd2 Qc7 11. d4 [RLTF] Rfe8
12. h3 Nf8 13. c4 Ng6 14. d5 Bd7 15. Nb1 Bf8 16. Nc3 c5 17. Ba4 a6
18. Bxd7 Nxd7 19. g3 Be7 20. h4 Nf6 21. Nh2 Qd7 22. a4 Qh3 23. Qf3
Qd7 24. a5 Nf8 25. Bd2 Rec8 26. Nf1 Ng4 27. Na4 Bd8 28. Rec1 Rab8
29. b4 cxb4 30. Bxb4 h5 31. Nb6 Bxb6 32. axb6 Qe7 33. Qa3 Rd8 34.
f3 Nh6 35. c5 dxc5 36. Bxc5 Qf6 37. Kg2 Re8 38. Be3 Nd7 39. Rab1
Qe7 40. Qxe7 1-0

Nunn – Olafsson (Teesside) [C50] potential,
1982

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3
Qe7 [6… O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Ba7] 7.
Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 O-O 9. Re1 Be6 10. Nf1 [10. Bc2]
10… Ba7 11. Bc2

  “But already this opening has certain puzzling
aspects. Why should White consistently maintain his initiative,
both in the variations we have looked at and in those to come? Why
should Black’s position be so awkward? The question really boils
down to a more basic one: why is the Ruy Lopez (which this opening
has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat? Look at the
present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly developed; he has as
much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet he has
problems.

“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy
Lopez position Black can easily get cought in a situation where his
game cannot unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of
Ng3-f5 and later d4, but it is less easy for Black to find
something profitable to do without weakening himself or making some
serious concession. His pieces may look reasonably placed, but they
cannot readily achieve anything constructive or relevant. I should
make it clear that this does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is
far from being a bad opening for him. But in practice one error
(6…Qe7) can leave him in misery. And so, if a player seems to
have a respectable game (in a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for
that matter), yet still loses, his misfortune may often be traced
back to this lack of life in his position.” — NUNN AND
GRIFFITHS

11… Kh8 12. Ng3 [12. Bg5]
12… Qd7 13. d4 [RLTF] [13. h3 ! 13… Bxh3
14. gxh3 Qxh3 15. Be3 ! 15… Bxe3 16. Rxe3 Ng4 17. Re2 wins 17…
f5 18. exf5 e4 19. dxe4 Nce5 20. Nxe5 Qh2+ 21. Kf1 dxe5 22. Rd2 and
Qf3] 13… Bg4 [13… exd4 14. cxd4 Bg4
15. Be3 Bxf3 16. gxf3 +-] 14. d5 [14. Be3
Bxf3 15. gxf3 =+] 14… Ne7 15. h3 Bxf3
[15… Bxh3 draws, says nunn] 16. Qxf3 Nfg8 17.
Bd2 g6 18. c4 f5 19. exf5 Nxf5 20. Nxf5 gxf5 21. Bc3 Rae8 22. b4
Ne7 23. h4 Rg8 24. h5 Rg7 25. c5 Reg8 26. g3 h6 [26…
f4 27. Rxe5 dxe5 28. Bxe5 Qh3 29. Re1 fxg3 30. fxg3 b6 31. Qd3 Qxh5
32. Kg2 idea Rh1 wins] 27. Rad1 Qe8 28. Rxe5 dxe5 29.
Bxe5 b6 30. d6 Nc6 31. Bf6 Qe6 32. Bxg7+ Rxg7 33. Qxc6 bxc5 34.
Qa8+ Rg8 35. Qxa7 Rxg3+ 36. Kh2 Qe5 37. Qxc5 1-0

Nunn – Korchnoi, Johannesburg, 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 Bd6 6.Nc3 d4 7.Ne2
Na6 8.c3 dxc3 9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0 Nc5 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Ng3 Nh5 13.h3
Nxg3 14.fxg3 Bh5 15.g4 Bg6 16.h4 f6 17.h5 Bf7 18.d4 Ne6 19.Bb3 Qa5
20.Bd2 exd4 21.cxd4 Bb4 22.Be3 Rae8 23.h6 Kh8 24.g5 fxg5 25.Ne5 Bg8
26.hxg7+ Kxg7 27.Rf5 Be7 28.Qf3 Qd8 29.Qh5 Rxf5 30.exf5 Nf4 31.Bxf4
Qxd4+ 32.Kh1 Qxa1+ 33.Kh2 Rf8 34.Ng4 gxf4 35.f6+ Rxf6 36.Qg5+ Rg6
37.Qxe7+ Kh8 38.Bxg8 Qg7 39.Bf7 1-0

 

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

Kosten,Anthony – Cooper,Lawrence [C55]
London open, 1988

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 12. Ng3
g6 13. h3 Bg7 14. d4 [RLTF] cxd4 15. cxd4 exd4 16. Nxd4 d5 17. e5
Ne4 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Bf4 Bxe5 20. Rxe4 Bxf4 21. Rxf4 Bd7 22. Qf3
Qe7 23. Qd5 Nc6 24. Bxg6 Ne5 25. Re1 Bc6 26. Qb3 Qg5 27. Rg4 Nxg6
28. Rxe8+ Rxe8 29. Rxg5 hxg5 30. Nxc6 bxc6 31. Qb7 Re1+ 32. Kh2 Re2
33. Qxa7 Rxb2 34. a4 1-0

 

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

Larsen,Bent – Berger,Bela [C24] Amsterdam
izt, 1964

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O
Bg4 7. Re1 Be7 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Nd4 10. Qg4 O-O 11. Rxe5 Nf6 12.
Qd1 Bd6 13. Re1 Re8 14. Be3 c5 15. Nd2 Bc7 16. Nf3 Qd6 17. Bxd4
cxd4 18. Rxe8+ Rxe8 19. c3 dxc3 20. bxc3 Nh5 21. Qa4 Re7 22. Qxa7
Nf4 23. Qxb7 h5 24. Qc8+ Kh7 25. h4 1-0

Vogt L – Tseshkovsky V, It cat. 10 ,
1981

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 d6 6.Re1 Nbd7
7.h3 0-0 8.a4 Nc5 9.Nc3 h6 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Re8 12.Bf4 Bf8 13.Qf3
Ne6 14.Be3 Ng5 15.Bxg5 hxg5 16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.Qxf5 Re5 18.Qf3 Qa5
19.Bb3 Rae8 20.Re2 1/2-1/2

 

(f) balanced, closed KP centre

Karpov,An – Yusupov A M [C53] It, Bugojno,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Re1 a6 8. Bb3 Ba7 9. h3 h6 10. Nbd2 Nh5 11. Nf1 Qf6 12. Be3
Nf4 13. Bxa7 Rxa7 14. Kh2 Ne7 15. Ne3 Ra8 16. a4 Be6 17. Bxe6 fxe6
18. Ng1 Rad8 19. g3 Nfg6 20. Rf1 d5 21. Qe2 Nc6 22. Ng2 Rf7 23. h4
Rdf8 24. Rad1 Nge7 25. h5 g6 26. Nh3 Qf3 27. Qxf3 Rxf3 28. hxg6
Nxg6 29. Ne3 d4 30. Nc2 R3f7 31. cxd4 Nxd4 32. Nxd4 exd4 33. f4 c5
34. a5 b6 35. axb6 Rb7 36. Rc1 Rxb6 37. Rxc5 Rxb2+ 38. Rf2 Rxf2+
39. Nxf2 Ra8 40. Ra5 Ne7 41. Ng4 Nc6 42. Rc5 Ne7 43. Rc7 Kf8 44.
Ne5 a5 45. g4 a4 46. f5 exf5 47. gxf5 Nxf5 48. exf5 Ra5 49. Rc5
Rxc5 50. Nd7+ Ke7 51. Nxc5 a3 52. Kg3 Kd6 53. Nb3 Ke5 54. Kg4 h5+
55. Kg5 h4 56. f6 Ke6 57. Kg6 h3 58. f7 h2 59. f8=Q h1=Q 60. Nc5+
Ke5 61. Qb8+ 1-0

Dolmatov S – Kruppa Y (12) [C53] Ch URS ( 1
liga ), Irkutsk, 1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O
O-O 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 Ne7 10. Bg5 Ng6 11. Nh4 Bg4 12.
Qc2 Nf4 13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Bxe6 Bxe6 15. Nhf5 h6 16. Bh4 Kh7 17. d4 g5
18. Bg3 Nh5 19. Qe2 Nf4 20. Qf3 Rg8 21. dxe5 dxe5 22. Rfd1 Qf8 23.
Ng4 f6 24. Nfxh6 Rh8 25. Nf5 Kg6 26. h4 Bc4 27. Bxf4 gxf4 28. Nxe5+
1-0

Larsen,B – Torre (2) Brussels, 1987

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O d6 6. Re1
O-O 7. Nbd2 Nbd7 8. a3 h6 9. Ba2 Re8 10. Nf1 Nf8 11. Ng3 Be6 12.
Bxe6 Nxe6 13. d4 Qc7 14. c4 Nh7 15. d5 Neg5 16. Nf5 Nxf3+ 17. Qxf3
Kh8 18. Be3 c5 19. Rac1 Bg5 20. h4 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Rac8 22. b4 Qd8
23. Qg3 Rg8 24. f4 f6 25. b5 Qd7 26. fxe5 fxe5 27. Qg6 Rcd8 28. Rg3
Nf8 29. Qh5 Nh7 30. Re1 Rdf8 31. Rg6 Rf6 32. Rxf6 Nxf6 33. Qg6 Rf8
34. g4 Ne8 35. g5 Qf7 36. Qxf7 Rxf7 37. g6 Rd7 38. Rf1 Kg8 39. a4
h5 40. Kf2 Nf6 41. Ke3 Kf8 42. a5 Rd8 43. Kd3 Rd7 44. a6 b6 45. Rg1
Ng4 46. Rxg4 hxg4 47. Ke3 Rd8 48. Kf2 Kg8 49. Kg3 Rd7 50. Kxg4 Kf8
51. Kg5 Kg8 52. h5 Kh8 53. h6 gxh6+ 54. Nxh6 Kg7 55. Nf5+ Kf8 56.
Kf6 1-0

 

Examples of variations

3…Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

Torre Eugenio – Kamsky Gata (1.119) [C53]
Manila (Philippines), 1990

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. O-O
d6 7. Bb3 a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Be6 11. Be3 Bxe3 12.
Nxe3 Qd7 13. Nh4 Bxb3 14. Qxb3 b6 15. Nhf5 Kh7 16. Rad1 Rfe8 17.
Nd5 Nxd5 18. Qxd5 Rad8 19. d4 [RLTF] Kg8 20. Ne3 b5 21. h3 Ne7 22.
Qb3 Qc6 23. d5 Qc5 24. a4 Rf8 25. Qc2 Rb8 26. b4 Qb6 27. Ra1 Ra8
28. c4 bxc4 29. Qxc4 f5 30. Rec1 Rac8 31. b5 axb5 32. axb5 fxe4 33.
Ra6 Qd4 34. Qa2 Qd3 35. Rc4 Rxf2 36. Qxf2 Rf8 37. Qe1 Nxd5 38. Ra3
Qxa3 39. Nxd5 Rf7 40. Kh2 Qb3 41. Qxe4 Qxb5 42. Nxc7 Qd7 43. Nd5
Qe6 44. Ra4 g6 45. Ra8+ Kg7 46. Rd8 h5 47. Qc4 Qf5 48. Rxd6 Qg5 49.
Nc7 Qf4+ 50. Qxf4 exf4 51. Ne6+ Kh6 52. h4 Rf6 53. Ng5 Rxd6 54.
Nf7+ Kg7 55. Nxd6 Kf6 56. Ne4+ Kf5 57. Ng5 Kg4 58. Nf3 Kf5 59. Kg1
Kg4 60. Kf2 Kf5 61. Ke2 Kg4 62. Kd3 Kf5 63. Kd4 Kg4 64. Ke4 Kg3 65.
Ke5 Kg4 66. Kf6 Kg3 67. Kg5 1-0

 

3…Nc6 (Two Knight’s Defence)

Nunn John D M – Fernandez Garcia Jose L
Lugano Switzerland, 1983

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Re1 Bg4 9. h3 Bh5 10. g4 Bg6 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12.
Rxe5 c6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. Re2 Qh4 15. Bxd5 cxd5 16. Nc3 Kh8 17. Qxd5
Rad8 18. Bg5 Qxh3 19. Qg2 Qxg2+ 20. Kxg2 f6 21. Bh4 h5 22. gxh5
Bxh5 23. f3 Rfe8 24. Rh1 Kg8 25. Bxf6 Rxe2+ 26. Nxe2 Bxf3+ 27. Kxf3
Rf8 28. d4 Rxf6+ 29. Ke3 Bf8 30. Nc3 Re6+ 31. Ne4 Ra6 32. Ra1 b5
33. d5 Kf7 34. Kd4 g6 35. Nc5 Bg7+ 36. Ke4 Bxb2 37. Rf1+ Rf6 38.
Rb1 Ba3 39. Rxb5 Bxc5 40. Rxc5 Ra6 41. Ke5 Ke7 42. Rc7+ Kd8 43. Rg7
1-0

Taulbut – Rumens Civil Service Open,
1981

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bb3 O-O 6. O-O
Re8 7. Nc3 d6 8. Ng5 Rf8 9. f4 Na5 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. Nxf7 Rxf7 12.
Bxd5 c6 13. Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. b4 Qb6+ 15. Kh1 Qxb4 16. Bd2 Qc5 17.
Qh5+ g6 18. Qxh7+ Ke8 19. Qxg6+ Kd7 20. Qg4+ 1-0

Yudasin Leonid – Ivanchuk Vassily (2) Ch
World match cand., 1991

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c3
d5 7. exd5 Nxd5 8. Re1 Bg4 9. Nbd2 Kh8 10. a4 f6 11. a5 Rb8 12. Nf1
Be6 13. Qa4 a6 14. Bxa6 Nxa5 15. Qxa5 Ra8 16. Qb5 Nb6 17. Be3 Bd7
18. Qb3 bxa6 19. d4 e4 20. N3d2 f5 21. d5 Rb8 22. Qa2 Bf6 23. Rad1
Na4 24. Nc4 Bb5 25. Na5 Nxb2 26. Qxb2 Bxf1 27. Qa2 Bb5 28. c4 Bd7
29. Nc6 Bxc6 30. dxc6 Qe8 31. Qxa6 Bc3 32. Rf1 f4 33. Ba7 Ra8 34.
Qb7 f3 35. Qxc7 Be5 36. Qd7 Rxa7 0-1

Kupreichik,V – Yusupov,A Minsk,
1982

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Bb3
Qc7 7. O-O Na6 8. a3 Nc5 9. Ba2 d6 10. b4 Ne6 11. Ne2 a5 12. Bb2
Re8 13. Qd2 Bf8 14. Ng3 c5 15. b5 h6 16. Nh4 Qd8 17. Ngf5 g6 18. f4
gxf5 19. fxe5 dxe5 20. Nxf5 Nf4 21. Rxf4 exf4 22. Qxf4 Bxf5 23.
Qxf5 Bg7 24. Rf1 c4 25. Bxc4 Qb6+ 26. Kh1 Rac8 27. Bxf6 Qxf6 28.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Qh5+ Kg8 30. Rxf6 Bxf6 31. Qxh6 Bg7 32. Qd2 Rf8 33.
g3 Bd4 34. Qg5+ Bg7 35. c4 Rf2 36. e5 Rcf8 37. Qe3 Ra2 38. Kg1 Kh7
39. e6 Bf6 40. d4 b6 41. d5 Be7 42. d6 Rd8 43. h3 1-0

Spraggett,Kevin – Marin,Mihail (06) [C54]
Manila izt, 1990

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d6 6. Bb3
O-O 7. O-O a6 8. Nbd2 Ba7 9. Nc4 Be6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3
Ne7 13. Ne3 Qd7 14. Re1 Kg7 15. d4 [RLTF] Nxe4 16. dxe5 d5 17. Nd4
Rad8 18. Qh5 Nc6 19. Nxe6+ Qxe6 20. Rad1 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Qf6 22. Bxd5
Nxg3 23. hxg3 Nxe5 24. Be4 Ng4 25. Rf1 Qe6 26. Re2 Nf6 27. Qf3 Nxe4
28. Rxe4 Qxa2 29. Rb4 b5 30. Qc6 Qa5 31. f4 Qb6+ 32. Qxb6 cxb6 33.
Ra1 Rfe8 34. fxg5 hxg5 35. Rxa6 Re2 36. Rd4 Rxd4 37. cxd4 Rxb2 38.
Rxb6 f6 Q

Kosten Anthony C – Conquest Stuart (14)
London England, 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 d5 [RLTF] 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5
12. Rd1 Qc8 13. Nc4 h6 14. Bc2 Qe6 15. Ne3 Rad8 16. Bd2 Rfe8 17.
Nf5 Bf8 18. g4 Bg6 19. N3h4 Bxf5 20. gxf5 Qe7 21. Kh2 Nh7 22. Nf3
Rd6 23. Be3 Qd7 24. Rg1 b5 25. Rg3 Rf6 26. Rd1 Qc8 27. Rdg1 Kh8 28.
Qf1 1-0

Kosten Anthony C – Hebden Mark It open,
1987

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3
d6 7. c3 Na5 8. Bc2 c5 9. Nbd2 Re8 10. a3 b5 11. b4 Nc6 12. a4 cxb4
13. axb5 Nb8 14. cxb4 d5 15. Bb2 Bxb4 16. Nxe5 Bb7 17. Ndf3 a6 18.
bxa6 Rxa6 19. Rxa6 Bxa6 20. Ng5 Rf8 21. Bb3 Bb7 22. Nexf7 Qe7 23.
e5 Ne8 24. Qh5 h6 25. Qg6 1-0

 

3…c6 (Paulsen’s Defence to the Bishop’s
Opening)

cf. Nunn-Murey above
Taulbut – Westerinen Brighton, 1981

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 dxe4
6. Ng5 Bc5 7. Nxf7 Qb6 8. O-O Ng4 9. Nc3 Rf8 10. Nxe4 Rxf7 11.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. h3 Nf6 13. Nxf6 Kxf6 14. Qh5 h6 15. Kh1 Be6 16. f4
Ke7 17. Qxe5 Bd4 18. Qe2 g6 19. f5 gxf5 20. Bxh6 Na6 21. c3 Bh8 22.
Rae1 c5 23. Qh5 Kd7 24. Rxf5 Bg8 25. Rf7+ Kd8 26. Qh4+ Kc8 27. Rf8+
1-0

Vogt,L – Romanishin,O Riga, 1981

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 [RLTF] 5. Bb3 Bb4+
6. Bd2 Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 Qc7 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 Bg4 10. h3 Bxf3 11.
Qxf3 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Rxe4 Nd7 14. d4 exd4 15. Re7 Qd6 16.
Rae1 Kh8 17. Bxf7 Rad8 18. Qg4 Nf6 19. Qh4 Qb4 20. Bg6 Rd7 21. Re8
Rd8 22. c3 Rdxe8 23. Rxe8 Qd6 24. Rxf8+ Qxf8 25. cxd4 Qb4 26. b3
Qd2 27. Bf5 Qxa2 28. Qg3 Qe2 29. Qb8+ Qe8 30. Qxb7 g6 31. Bd3 a5
32. Bf1 Qd8 33. Qxc6 Qxd4 34. Qa8+ Kg7 35. Qxa5 Ne4 36. Qe1 h5 37.
Qe3 Qb4 38. Bc4 Nf6 39. Qe5 Qb6 40. g3 Kh6 41. Qe3+ 1-0

Larsen, Bent – Nunn, John (6) London,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2
Bxd2+ 7. Nbxd2 dxe4 8. Nxe5 O-O 9. dxe4 Nxe4 10. Ndf3 Nd7 11. O-O
Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Qf6 13. Qd4 Bf5 14. f4 Qd8 15. Rad1 Qxd4+ 16. Rxd4
Nc5 17. Bc4 Rae8 18. b4 Ne6 19. Rd7 b5 20. Bb3 Rd8 21. Rxa7 Rd2 22.
Nf3 Rd6 23. Nh4 g6 24. Nxf5 gxf5 25. c3 Rd3 26. Rf3 Rxf3 27. gxf3
Rd8 28. Bxe6 fxe6 29. Rc7 Rd1+ 30. Kf2 Rd2+ 31. Ke3 Rxh2 32. Rxc6
Kf7 33. Ra6 Rc2 34. Kd4 Rf2 35. a4 bxa4 36. b5 Ke7 37. c4 Rxf3 38.
Kc5 a3 39. b6 Rb3 40. Ra7+ Kf6 41. Kc6 e5 42. b7 exf4 43. Rxa3
1-0

Vogt,L – Chekhov, Halle, 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.Re1
Nbd7 8.a4 a5 9.Nc3 h6 10.Ba2 Re8 11.d4 Bf8 12.Be3 Qc7 13.Nh4 b6
14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Qf3 Bc5 16.Nf5 Bxe3 17.Rxe3 Kf8 18.Rd1 Ba6 19.Nxh6
Re7 20.Nf5 Ree8 21.g4 Nc5 22.g5 Ng8 23.g6 f6 24.Bxg8 Kxg8 25.Qh5
1-0

 

Example of Queen’s-side advance

Ljubojevic,Ljubomir – Kortchnoi,Viktor (08)
[C54] Brussels SWIFT, 1987

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. b4 Bb6 6. d3 d6
7. a4 a5 8. b5 Ne7 9. Nbd2 Ng6 10. O-O O-O 11. Bb3 d5 12. Ba3 Re8
13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Ne4 Ndf4 15. Nfg5 Be6 16. Nxe6 Nxe6 17. g3 Kh8
18. Qf3 f6 19. h4 Ngf8 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. Rfe1 Rad8 22. Bc4 h6 23.
Qh5 Nh7 24. Kh2 Ba7 25. Rf1 Bb8 26. Nc5 Nxc5 27. Bxc5 b6 28. Ba3 c5
29. bxc6 Qxc6 30. Bb5 Qxc3 31. Bxe8 Qxa3 32. Bb5 Bd6 33. d4 exd4
34. Rfe1 Be5 35. f4 Bd6 36. Re8+ Rxe8 37. Qxe8+ Bf8 38. f5 Qf3 39.
Qe6 Qxd1 40. Bc4 Qc2+ 41. Kh3 Qxc4 42. Qxc4 Bc5 43. Kg4 Nf8 44. Qd5
Kh7 45. Kf3 Kh8 46. Ke4 Kh7 47. Kd3 Kh8 48. Kc4 Kh7 49. Kb5 Kh8 50.
Kc6 Kh7 51. Kc7 h5 52. Kd8 Kh6 53. Ke8 1-0

Mestel A Jonathan – Pinter Jozsef [C53] It
(cat.14), Las Palmas (Spain), 1982

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. b4 Bb6
7. a4 a5 8. b5 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. Nbd2 Ng6 11. Ba2 Bg4 12. h3 Bh5
13. Qc2 Nf4 14. Kh2 g5 15. Ng1 g4 16. g3 gxh3 17. f3 Kh8 18. gxf4
Rg8 19. Nxh3 Qf8 20. Nc4 Qg7 21. Ng5 Qh6 22. Nxb6 Bxf3+ 23. Kg3
exf4+ 24. Bxf4 Rxg5+ 25. Bxg5 Rg8 26. Kxf3 Qh3+ 27. Ke2 Rxg5 28.
Rf2 Ng4 29. Qd2 h6 30. Rg1 cxb6 31. Qf4 f5 32. Rxg4 Qxg4+ 33. Qxg4
fxg4 34. Rf5 Rxf5 35. exf5 Kg7 36. Ke3 1-0

French a la carte

Posted on by

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.

The London System

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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)

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…

Middlegame gym

Posted on by

“Failing to plan, is like planning to fail.” ― Stephen McCranie

Test positions in PDF with comments about planning in general

Remember, this is more a guide of how to play positions where you have no idea what to do to start with; if you understand the opening systems you play better and better, that shouldn’t happen so often!

Suggested solutions

A coaching challenge

Posted on by

I played at the East Devon Chess Congress earlier this year alongside my
longstanding friend and team-mate Charlie Keen. During a break between
games, we went over one of his encounters, looking for tips for next
time. The critical position was this one:

You might get more out of the discussion below, if you try and decide
for yourself what you would play here.

Decided? Now read on…

This was the game to that point:

Later I got this email:

“Please see attached, You had wondered if 23. fg was wrong, but in fact
it turns out that 20. g4 was wrong, and the annotated variation starting
20. Be2 is the way to play this position. 20. g4 cost 150cp and nearly
the game, but for the clock. You did not think twice about g4, nor did I.
How to spot this sort of error in advance?”

Never one to let a rhetorical question lie, let’s have a look, shall
we?

This was the game continuation:

This was Fritz’ recommendation, a pawn-and-a-half better in outcome,
according to Charlie:

[I will say my feeble old version of Fritz gives Charlie’s move as +1.0
and the alternative as +1.5.]

1. Just to remark before getting stuck in, no chess player can be
expected to get very far if they don’t “think twice” about their moves,
unless it is “QxQ checkmate”. There are pros and cons about many moves,
and often you have to take risks to beat opponents of a similar calibre
to your own, so thinking more than once is recommended on occasion.
(Chess is the art of creating positions that are too hard for your
opponents, but if your opponent is as good as you are, there’s probably
an element of risk involved…) On the other hand, the clock is ticking,
and there is pressure to play promptly, so let’s make the natural moves
quickly and think only when we have to…

2. Hindsight is a great teacher. Let’s look at the pros and cons of
that move 20.g4:

PRO:
Grabs space on the King’s-side
Prepares to grab more space on the King’s-side
Prepares to open lines on the King’s-side
Gains time by attacking the Knight
Forcing (so easy to analyse)

CON:
Abandons pawn control of f4
Prepares to open lines on the King’s-side (they are two-way streets!)

We can see with hindsight that the cons of the game continuation did
become manifest on the board. Thinking this way, hindsight today might
become foresight tomorrow. We might, indeed, spot the error in advance.

3. Is there anything general, and generalisable, that we can say about
the incorrect text move? And is there anything general, and
generalisable, about the correct Fritz suggestion?

If you had to describe the theme of the game, we might file it under
Attacking the King castled on the same side, which presents
problems when we are trying to open lines.

We can see in the Fritz line that Black got some counterplay when the
Black Queen was able to occupy the h-file before White.

Moreover, if you contrast the White and Black campaigns, you might say
Attacker and Defender. But let’s refine this to:
Attacking with Bishops and Defending with Knights.

In the game, Black’s Knight, solidly placed on f4, was a real nuisance
to White. We can also see in the Fritz line something of the generally
recommended strategy for fighting with Bishop(s) against Knight(s),
namely, the Knights must be denied stable squares. Here’s the technique
in a fairly pure form, although Steinitz later chose to swap the
advantage of Bishop over Knight for other chances:

With that discussion in mind, the strength of the Fritz line, and the
principles that underlie it, becomes clear. White builds up more slowly,
denying the Knight a place to squat, and not opening the position to the
risk of our own King. And, I hope, this sort of reflection is what might
help us spot such errors in advance.

4. What, in the end, is the lesson of this game? Perhaps it’s more than
something about Bishops and Knights, viz.:
just as rehearsing tactical examples widens the variety of tactical
opportunities (and mistakes) that we are likely to notice at the board,
familiarity with a wide variety of strategical examples is likely to do
the same thing for our positional decisions.

Comments invited!

Try moves in both orders

Posted on by

Just a little practical example of something I often talk about: move order in analysis.

If you have a good idea, try it with a different order of moves: it might be even better!

For example:

Here White piled on the pressure with 14.c5+, soon followed by b5-b6.

Try it the other way around: