Category Archives: Level

What’s the point of learning opening theory?

Posted on by

A four-board match played away at Exmouth one Saturday:

The top board players each made a mistake on move 5: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 now 5.e3(?) was possibly inaccurate, allowing 5…d5! (see Kosten’s book) but Black didn’t play it, preferring 5…Be7.

Board 2, they both scampered along a main line of the French Tarrasch: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0 Bd6 This is the tabiya, where the real first choice lies for White: 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Re1 Be8. Now here all the books give this position as equal; although it is unbalanced I don’t know why White wants to play this line. We than had 15.Ng5 (a very important move) and then 15…Bh5? which was the first deviation from theory… White can now get an instant plus with 16.Bxh7+! e.g. 16…Nxh7 17.Qxh5 Nxg5 18.Qxg5 Nxd4? 19.Nxd5! but it was not refuted by White’s chosen move, 16.Qb1?! …

Board three was a bit less theoretical, although it has been played before: 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 c5 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.0-0 e6 5.c3 Ne7 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 after which Black surely should not have played 8…exd5(?) but 8…Nxd5, when there is some sort of plan against the IQP instead of a ‘normal’ White small plus with no prospects for Black.

And Board 4 had the unlikely start 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3…

So, opening preparation can be a complete waste of time!

“For example, I spent a couple of years studying all the possible transpositions in the Noteboom, but then guess what? Almost nobody gave me a chance to play it, preferring an early e2-e3 and the Anti-Meran…” Ruslan SCHERBAKOV

Examination of a game

Posted on by

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates
“The unexamined game is not worth playing” – Dr.Dave

Warming up 1

Play through this game and see what you think. I have omitted the final
moves, which are left as an exercise for the reader.

Warming up 2 – examples

A critical decision, which affected the whole course of the rest of the
game, was 12…g5.

To help us understand this move, let us look at some other positions
where Black throws in …g5, and see what we think.

Here are the other examples:

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Warming up 3 – comments

I think if you had to put them in some sort of order of merit, they might go:

Best – 6 4 3 2 8 5 7 – Worst

#7 is a rank blunder (1…g5?? 2.Nxg5). “Why did you play it, then?” I
guess I thought that it was a quiet, stodgy position, and so I didn’t
have to look out for my opponent’s tactics. I am here to inform you,
ladies and gentlemen, there is no such position…

6 and 4 very thematic tries (!), nibbling away on the long diagonal with
hope of using some pawn ‘levers’ to open lines, thanks to White’s
earlier pawn moves. 4 in fact reproduces the famous plan from
Fischer-Andersson, 1970. [Examples 4 and 6 also arose from this same
line of the English opening as our game.]

#2 is a poor move: there is no reason why Black should be entitled to
attack White’s solid and well-developed position with the Queen’s-side
still asleep. White immediately blew up the centre, and won with… a
King’s-side attack!

#5 looks simply weakening to me; the Knight gratefully hops into f5, and
after an exchange (or even a pawn sacrifice) on f5, White will own the
32 light squares.

#8 is a try for some play in a poor position; Black’s set-up is not
inspiring, but if left alone White is going to take apart the
Queen’s-side with d4-d5 and/or c4-c5 (options White doesn’t have in
#6). [This also arose from the same line of the English.]

#3 is a French Defence, and a good example of a modern chess opening
variation; the tension in the centre has spread to the wings. With a
closed centre, Black’s King is safe enough for now, and …g5 is both a
simple threat to win a pawn (which can be simply dealt with) and also a
bid for King’s-side concessions, which is not so easily rebuffed. I
think the verdict on this move is currently += and so !? at best (even
?!), but a while ago it was !? and ~, and it might become ~, = or even
=+ if someone comes up with a good idea for Black.

And finally:

The game with comments:

The Petroff Defence for Beginners

Posted on by

The Petroff Defence for beginners

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

An Exeter Junior Chess Club booklet

Edition 2.,

May, 11

Bibliography:

Karpov,
The Open Game in Action

Kasparov/Keene,
Batsford Chess Openings

Levy/Keene,
An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Club Player

walker,
Chess Openings for Juniors

Various magazines and other books

　

Introduction 3

a. Symmetry in chess 3

b. The isolated Queen’s pawn 4

A. The Classical Variation, 3. Nxe5 5

3… d6 5

1. An alternative on move 4 for White: 4. Nxf7, The Cochrane Gambit
5

2. Main line with 4. Nf3 6

1.1 An alternative on move 5 for White: 5. Qe2, Lasker Variation 6

1.2 The main line with 5. d4 7

1.2 (a) 6…Bd6 Marshall Gambit 7

1.2 (b) 6…Be7 Main Line 8

1.2 (b1) Main line with 8. c4 8

(b1-i) 8… Bg4 9

(b1-ii) 8… Nb4 9

(b1-iii) 8… Nf6 10

1.2 (b2) Main line with 8. Re1 11

(b2-i) 8… Bf5 11

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4 12

(1) Modestly, 9. c3 12

(2) Ambitiously, 9. c4 13

B. The Steinitz Variation, 3. d4 14

(a) 3…exd4 14

(b) 3…Nxe4 15

(b1) 4. dxe5 15

(b2) 4. Bd3 15

(b2-i) 5…Nd7 15

(b2-ii) 5…Bd6 16

C. White tries to get into the Four Knight’s Game, 3. Nc3 17

D. The Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit, 3. Bc4 18

Example games 19

Lasker – Pillsbury, St. Petersburg, 1895 19

Kupreichik – Mikhailchishin, Kujbyshev, 1986 20

Dolmatov – Makarichev, Palma, 1989 21

Introduction

The Petroff is a quiet success story in chess – an old and often
forgetten variation which can give Black a safe way of working for
equal chances in an open game, while avoiding White’s favourite lines.
This booklet tries to give an overview of the Petroff from both sides.
It has a reputation for being “dull and a draw”, but can offer exciting
attacking possibilities for either side. There are a couple of general
themes I’d like to deal with immediately: symmetry, and the isolated
Queen’s pawn.

a. Symmetry in chess

Symmetry usually means equality, and likelihood of a draw – no good
if you are trying to win. The symmetrical Petroff has reputation for
drawishness, but that is not really justified. Look at the Illustrative
Games if you still think the Petroff is dull! And what is drawn at
Grandmaster level can still have a lot of meat left in it for amateur
players (like the Colle system).

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

For example, after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 (the Exchange
Variation of the French Defence), we have a symmetrical pawn formation
with the likelihood of exchanges of the major pieces down the e-file.
In fact, Black wins lots of games in this line, perhaps because it is a
line chosen by weak White players seeking a draw against strong Black
players. (Perhaps the best way to play for a draw is to go for a win!)

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

This line of the Petroff (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3
Nxe4 5. d5 d5) has perhaps the worst reputation for drawishness, but
let’s have a look. Black has an aggressive Knight on e4 – it even looks
as if Black is a move ahead. White is not necessarily trying to draw in
this variation, and it is White to move. White will try to undermine
the Ne4 with moves like Bd3, Re1 and c4; Black can try to castle
Queen’s-side and belt down the other wing. All this can make for
exciting and tense struggles in an open game, which might be a lot
better than suffering White’s favourite line of the Ruy Lopez.

b. The isolated Queen’s pawn

Several lines of the Petroff can lead to an isolated Queen’s pawn
(IQP) position, if White plays to undermine the Black Knight on e4 with
c4, and Black later plays …dxc4. White will have the last remaining
central pawn on d4, a situation which is known from many other
openings. For example:

The isolated Queen’s pawn in the Semi-Tarrasch Defence to the
Queen’s Gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+ph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+P)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

4… c5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e3 Nc6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. a3 cxd4 10.

exd4 Bf6

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+n+pg.+|
|+.+n+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).HB+N+.|
|.).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

The isolated Queen’s pawn in the Caro-Kann Defence, Panov-Botvinnik
Attack

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p+.0p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

4… Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10.
a3

Bf6

Exactly the same!

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+n+pg.+|
|+.+n+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).HB+N+.|
|.).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

And in the Petroff:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d5 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7.
O-O Nc6 8. c4 Nf6
9. Nc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 O-O 11. Nc3 Nd6 12. Bb3

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.h.).+.+|
|+BH.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

So the IQP is important to know about, although in the Petroff
Black doesn’t have the Bc8 stuck behind the e6 pawn. White’s ideas will
still be the same: develop quickly, use the extra space to dodge about,
avoid exchanges (to keep Black cramped), play Ne5, look for a chance to
start a King’s-side attack using the light-squared bishop, maybe throw
in Rf1-e1-e3-h3.

So, let’s have a look at some variations.

A. The Classical Variation, 3. Nxe5

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Black must now play 3…d6. Why not 3… Nxe4? White answers 4. Qe2!

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+

Now 4… Qe7…

[Not 4… Nf6?? 5. Nc6+!

Variation

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+N+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+


winning the Q]

…and now 5. Qxe4 d6 6. f4 dxe5 7. fxe5 wins a pawn.

So, from the first diagram in the column:

3… d6

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now, White almost always plays the main line with 4. Nf3, but there
are two alternatives: 4. Nxf7, the Cochrane Gambit, and 4. Nc4. I have
never seen this last move played, and I don’t think it is dangerous,
but it does deny Black the natural …Bg4 pin. BCO recommends 4. Nc4
Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Ne3 Qf6 and 7…Be6 with an early …O-O-O in mind.

So that leaves us with the Cochrane Gambit to examine before we go
down the main line.

1. An alternative on move 4 for White: 4. Nxf7, The Cochrane Gambit

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+N0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Looks crazy? Looks promising? Your chess personality may make you
feel confident as White or Black in this position, but either way, you
must know about it.

4… Kxf7 5. d4

Black has tried:

[5… Nxe4? 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Qd5+ Be6 8. Qxe4]

[5… d5?! 6. e5 Ne8 7. Bd3 g6 8. h4]

So Black should prefer the safer:

5…g6 6. Nc3

+-----------------+
|rhb1.g.4|
|0p0.+k+p|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now BCO recommends the odd-looking:

6… Qe8

Other tries seem inadequate, e.g.

6… Bg7 7. Bc4+ Be6 8. Bxe6+ Kxe6 9. f4 Kf7 10. e5 Ne8

[or 10… Re8 11. O-O Nc6 12. exf6 Qxf6 13. Nb5 Re7 14. c3
o’neill-solomon 1985]

11. Qf3 c6 12. Ne4+-

+-----------------+
|rh.1n+.4|
|0p+.+kgp|
|.+p0.+p+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.+.)N).+|
|+.+.+Q+.|
|P)P+.+P)|
|$.G.I.+R|
+-----------------+

… with better chances for White (Makropoulos-Toth 1981).

　

2. Main line with 4. Nf3

Black should take the chance to recover the pawn with

4… Nxe4.

white has a choice now, between 5.Qe2, the Lasker Variation, leading
to an early endgame, or 5. d4, the main line.

1.1 An alternative on move 5 for White: 5. Qe2, Lasker Variation

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+

This pin is not dangerous here with the White Knight on f3, just
awkward for the moment.

5… Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg5 Nbd7 8. Nc3 Qxe2+ 9. Bxe2 Be7=

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p0ngp0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.+.G.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HP+N+.|
|P)P+B)P)|
|$.+.I.+R|
+-----------------+

White cannot claim any advantage in this endgame, although Black
still needs to get fully developed. This variation is why the Petroff
is no good when you have to win as Black against a player who knows
this line.

　

1.2 The main line with 5. d4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now Black can get an equal stake in the centre with:

5… d5

And White brings the Bf1 to its best square, so the King can castle.

6. Bd3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Like White, Black should plan to get the K off the open e-file as
soon as possible, and Black has a choice of two squares for the Bf8:

(a) 6…Bd6, a move of Frank Marshall – which looks good but is
perhaps trying a bit too hard – or the safe (b) 6…Be7, sealing the
e-file.

1.2 (a) 6…Bd6 Marshall Gambit

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Let us follow the play after the natural moves:

7. O-O O-O 8. c4 Bg4!?

This is Marshall’s idea.

9. cxd5 f5 10. Re1?

One natural move too many.

+-----------------+
|rh.1.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+P+p+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+


10… Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Nxf2 12. Qc2 Nxd3 13. Qxd3 Bxf3

winning, because if Qxf3, then …Qh4+ will pick up the rook on e1.
Instead of falling for this trap White should play:

　

10. Nc3 Nd7 11. h3 Bh5 12. Nxe4 fxe4 13. Bxe4 Nf6 14. Bf5 +-

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.h.+|
|+.+P+B+b|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

…with advantage, as in the game Alexander- Mattinson from 1938.

So the rather boring truth about this line seems to be that back on
move eight Black should play instead

8… c6

when theory knows of

9. Nc3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Bg4 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. Rb1 Nd7 13. h3 +=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+n+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+b+|
|+.)B+N+P|
|P+.+.)P+|
|+RGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Now, this position is solid but offers so few active possibilities
for Black that we should prefer as Black 6…Be7.

　

1.2 (b) 6…Be7 Main Line

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

And now play often goes:

7. O-O Nc6

…when White has a choice:

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Hit at the centre with 8.c4 (b1), or develop with 8.Re1 (b2). (White
can also play 8.Re1 and 9.c4, but this allows 8…Bg4.)

1.2 (b1) Main line with 8. c4

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

What are the alternatives here? Black does not have time for (b1-i)
8…Bg4. The position of the knight is now so wobbly that Black should
move it – both

(b1-ii) 8…Nb4, and

(b1-iii) 8…Nf6 have been tried.

(b1-i) 8… Bg4

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Like I said, Black really doesn’t have time for this.

9. cxd5 Qxd5 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Qxf3 13.
gxf3

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P+.+.).)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

The two bishops and strong centre give White the advantage in this

ending; White has natural ideas of Rb1 and Re1/Be3 which are
difficult

to meet.

(b1-ii) 8… Nb4

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.hP)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Now White usually preserves the bishop with:

9. Be2


[less promising seems
9. cxd5 Nxd3 10. Qxd3 Qxd5 11. Re1 Bf5 12. Ne5 g6=
Belyavsky-Smyslov 1986
]

　

After 9.Be2 Black has tried

(1) 9…Be6

(2) 9…O-O

(3) 9…dxc4

(1) 9… Be6

A line quoted by Karpov.

10. c5 Nc6 11. Qa4 a5 12. Ne5+=

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|+p0.gp0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|0.)pH.+.|
|Q+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+B)P)|
|$NG.+RI.|
+-----------------+

With an advantage for White.

(2) 9… O-O

10. Nc3 Be6

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+b+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.hP)n+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+B)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

The Grandmasters are still having a think about this one. It’s as
difficult for White to get an advantage as it is for Black to equalise!

BCO quotes games with 11. Be3, 11. a3, and 11. Nxe4!?. Having just
seen the Karpov line above, you might even fancy 11. c5!?

　

(3) 9… dxc4

This surrender of the centre doesn’t seem to work out too well for
Black.

10. Bxc4 O-O 11. Nc3 Nd6

12. Bb3+=

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.h.).+.+|
|+BH.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

…as in a couple of games from 1985, seems to leave White with a
plus in this IQP position. White will plan to complete development, and
then play Ne5 with hopes of an attack.


(b1-iii) 8… Nf6

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

This is a safe and simple move. Play may continue:

9. Nc3 O-O 10. h3 dxc4

11. Bxc4 Na5 12. Bd3 Be6

13. Re1 Nc6 +=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+bh.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.HB+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.GQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

White is held to have a slight advantage in this well-explored
position due to the extra central space, although in the ending the
d-pawn may become exposed.

1.2 (b2) Main line with 8. Re1

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Black has a choice of squares for the last minor piece:

(b2-i) 8…Bf5

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4.

(b2-i) 8… Bf5

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Karpov has shown that this is inaccurate.

9. c4 Nb4 10. Bf1

[not 10…dxc4 11. Nc3 +- with clear advantage: Karpov-Portisch]

10… O-O 11. a3 Nc6 12. cxd5 Qxd5 13. Nc3 Nxc3 14. bxc3
Bg6+=

+-----------------+
|r+.+.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+b+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).).+N+.|
|.+.+.)P)|
|$.GQ$BI.|
+-----------------+

…with a small advantage for White: Karpov-Portisch 1982. Karpov is
rather behind in development at the moment but he is threatening to
unravel with c4, dominating the centre.

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This very well-known position has a reputation for drawishness
(which is not really true at amateur level). White can play modestly
(1) 9. c3, or ambitiously (2) 9. c4.

(1) Modestly, 9. c3

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This rather modest move can lead to an interesting gambit which
Black should not be afraid to play

9 … f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Nbd2

(See Lasker-Pillsbury below for 11.Bf4.)

11…Kh8 12. Qxb7 Rf6 13. Qb3 Rg6=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.+.i|
|0.0.g.0p|
|.+n+.+r+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+Q)B+N+.|
|P).H.)P)|
|$.G.$.I.|
+-----------------+


　

(2) Ambitiously, 9. c4

Black’s knight is again too wobbly in the centre.

9… Nf6 10. cxd5

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|.+.).+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+


10… Bxf3

[10… Nxd5 is also known: 11. Nc3 O-O 12. h3 Be6 13. a3 Nxc3
14. bxc3 Bf6 15. Bf4 g6 16. Be4 Na5 17. Ne5 c6 18. Qf3+=

Variation

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+.+p+p|
|.+p+bgp+|
|h.+.H.+.|
|.+.)BG.+|
|).).+Q+P|
|.+.+.)P+|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+


After this long sequence, White has a small advantage which will
be long-lasting: Tseshkovsky-Barua 1986]

11. Qxf3 Qxd5 12. Qh3 Qxd4 13. Nc3 Rd8 14. Bf5 h5 15. Qg3
Kf8 16. Be3 Qb4 17. a3 Qa5 18. Qf3 g6 19. Bc2 h4

+-----------------+
|.+.4.i.4|
|0p0.gp+.|
|.+n+.hp+|
|1.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.0|
|).H.GQ+.|
|.)B+.)P)|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

Another long variation, rather a messy one this time, which BCO
assesses as unclear. I prefer White here: Velimirovic-Kurajica 1984]

　

B. The Steinitz Variation, 3. d4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

This is the main alternative to 3. Nxe4 and in the late 70s was
thought to give White good chances of advantage. That was because
everybody then played (a) 3..exd4. More recently Black has been
equalising with (b) 3…Nxe4.

(a) 3…exd4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.0P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now White must try

4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 +=

It has been thought for a long while that White has the edge here.

5… d5 6. exd6 Nxd6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. Qf4 g6

　

[or 8… Bf5 when BCO gives 9. Bb5 Qe7+ 10. Be3 Nxb5 11. Nxb5
Qb4+ 12. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 13. c3 Bd6 14. Nxd6+ cxd6 15. O-O-O O-O-O 16. Nd4
Be6 17. b3 a6 18. Ne2+=

Variation

+-----------------+
|.+k4.+.4|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+n0b+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+P).G.+.|
|P+.+N)P)|
|+.IR+.+R|
+-----------------+


when Black’s weak d-pawn gives White the better endgame
(Gurgenidze-Beim, 1982) ]

Natural moves to follow are:

9. Bd3 Bg7 10. O-O O-O+=

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+pgp|
|.+nh.+p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.!.+|
|+.HB+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

All the central pawns have disappeared, but White is a little better
placed (Short-Murei 1982-3)

　

(b) 3…Nxe4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now White usually tries 4. Bd3, but we ought to have a quick look at
4.dxe5 before accepting this as best.

(b1) 4. dxe5

The game may now go:

4…d5 5. Nbd2 Nxd2 6. Bxd2 Be7 7. Bf4 c5 8. c3 Nc6 9. Bd3
Be6=

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p+.gp0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|+.0p).+.|
|.+.+.G.+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.+QI.+R|
+-----------------+

This position is about equal (Short-Seirawan 1986).

(b2) 4. Bd3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

This is probably the best move here as on move 6 of the Classical
Variation.

4… d5 5. Nxe5

This variation is both like, and unlike, the Classical. Black’s main
tries are (b2-i) 5…Nd7 and (b2-ii) 5…Bd6, although 5…Be7 and even
other moves have been played.

(b2-i) 5…Nd7

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0n+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+pH.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

White has tried all sorts of moves here:

(1) The cheeky 6. Nxf7

(2) The safe 6. Nxd7

(3) The logical 6. Qe2

I’ll just give one quick example of each.

(1) Cheeky

6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qh5+ Ke7 8. Qxd5 Ndf6 9. Qb3 Be6 10. Qxb7
Bd5 11. Qa6 Kf7

+-----------------+
|r+.1.g.4|
|0.0.+k0p|
|Q+.+.h.+|
|+.+b+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NG.I.+R|
+-----------------+

Nenashev-Baikov 1985: “unclear” says BCO!

(2) Safe

6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. O-O Qh4 8. c4 O-O-O 9. c5 g5 10. Nc3 Bg7 11.
Ne2 f5 12. f3 Rhf8 13. a4 Rde8°

+-----------------+
|.+k+r4.+|
|0p0b+.gp|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.)p+p0.|
|P+.)n+.1|
|+.+B+P+.|
|.).+N+P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Again, “unclear” says BCO (Sveshnikov-Makarichev, 1987). It does
show how Black can play for a win if required.

　

(3) Logical

6. Qe2 Nxe5 7. Bxe4 dxe4 8. Qxe4 Be6 9. Qxe5 Qd7 10. O-O
O-O-O 11. Be3 Bb4 12. Nc3 f6 13. Qg3 Bxc3 14. bxc3 h5 15. h4 g5 16. f3
Rdg8-+

+-----------------+
|.+k+.+r4|
|0p0q+.+.|
|.+.+b0.+|
|+.+.+.0p|
|.+.).+.)|
|+.).GP!.|
|P+P+.+P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Not at all unclear: Black won in the famous upset of Karpov-Larsen,
1980

(b2-ii) 5…Bd6

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+pH.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

The balance looks a little tense, but Black seems to be able to
hold.

6. O-O O-O 7. c4 Bxe5 8. dxe5 Nc6

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p).+.|
|.+P+n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

This position offers equal chances.

　

C. White tries to get into the Four Knight’s Game, 3. Nc3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now, after 3… Nc6 we get into those genuinely dull, drawish
variations of the Four Knights Game. I don’t care if Short and Nunn
have played it, it’s a poor line for juniors (in my opinion). It tends
to be stodgy and blocked, you probably won’t enjoy it and it doesn’t
give you the sort of training in open games that you need.

Thankfully Janowski found that Black can play

3… Bb4

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.g.+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

BCO now gives

4. Nxe5 O-O 5. Be2 Re8 6. Nd3 Bxc3 7. dxc3 Nxe4 =

+-----------------+
|rhb1r+k+|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.)N+.+.|
|P)P+B)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

…with equal chances in a more open game. White’s two bishops don’t
frighten me.

　

D. The Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit, 3. Bc4

Now Black can steer for the equally promising lines of the Two
Knights Defence with 3…Nc6, but to look at that properly will take
another booklet.

Two Knight’s Defence

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+B+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has no real reason to avoid:

3…Nxe4

white can try other moves, but the usual try is

4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 Be7

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0pgp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+B+.+.+|
|+.).+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has no weaknesses, and White will find it difficult to get
through. Black will want to get the two bishops working, but must be
careful to keep lines
closed
 until development is complete. White has tried various plans in
this position but they are all pretty unconvincing.

　

Example games

Lasker – Pillsbury, St. Petersburg, 1895

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3
Be7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Re1 Bg4 9. c3 f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Bf4

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.g.0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.)nGb+|
|+Q)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$N+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

White allows the King’s-side to be weakened.

11… Bxf3 12. gxf3 Ng5 13. Kg2 Qd7 14. Qc2 Ne6 15. Bc1 Bd6
16. Nd2 Rae8 17. Nf1

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|0p0q+.0p|
|.+ngn+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P)Q+.)K)|
|$.G.$N+.|
+-----------------+

Black’s pieces are much better placed than White’s. If White was
hoping to tempt Black into an unsound attack, he has only tempted
Pillsbury into a sound one.

17… Nexd4 18. Qd1 Rxe1 19. Qxe1

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|0p0q+.0p|
|.+ng.+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P).+.)K)|
|$.G.!N+.|
+-----------------+

Black now starts a king hunt, sacrificing a piece for a couple of
pawns.

19… Nxf3 20. Kxf3 f4 21. Qd1 Ne5+ 22. Ke2 Qg4+ 23. Kd2
Qxd1+ 24. Kxd1 Nxd3

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.+.0.+|
|+.)n+.+.|
|P).+.).)|
|$.GK+N+.|
+-----------------+

Black has recovered his piece, and still has his pawns. White is
lost.

25. Ke2 Ne5 26. f3 Re8 27. b3 Ng4+ 28. Kd2 Ne3 29. Bb2 Ng2
30. h3 Bc5 31. Nh2 Bf2 32. c4 dxc4 33. bxc4 h5 0-1

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+k+|
|0p0.+.0.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+P+.0.+|
|+.+.+P+P|
|PG.I.gnH|
|$.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

If anything, White’s position has gone from bad to worse.

Kupreichik – Mikhailchishin, Kujbyshev, 1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. c4!? Nc6 6.
d4?!

[Mikhailchishin gives 6. Be2 d5 7. Nc3 Be6]

6… d5 7. Nc3 Bb4 8. Qc2 Qe7 9. Be3 Bf5

Black has the advantage: White cannot easily complete development
and his poor Queen is embarrassed.

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.1p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.gP)n+.+|
|+.H.GN+.|
|P)Q+.)P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+


10. Qc1

[10. Bd3?! dxc4 11. Bxc4 Ng3-+]

10… Nxc3 11. bxc3 Ba3 12. Qd2 Nb4!!

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.1p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.hP).+.+|
|g.).GN+.|
|P+.!.)P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+

White is busted. He tries to hang on with Ke2 but it doesn’t take
much longer with the K stuck in the middle.

13. Ke2 Nc2 14. Rd1 dxc4 15. Ne5 O-O 16. f3 b5 17. g4 Nxe3
18. Qxe3 Bd7 19. Kf2 Rae8 20. Qd2 Bc8 21. Re1 Qh4+ 22. Kg2 f6 0-1

Janowsky – Marshall, 1912

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3
Bd6

6…Be7 is honestly better

7. c4 O-O 8. cxd5

Castling was a lot better here

8… Bb4+ 9. Kf1 Qxd5 10.

Qc2 Re8 11. Nc3 Nxc3 12. bxc3

+-----------------+
|rhb+r+k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.g.).+.+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P+Q+.)P)|
|$.G.+K+R|
+-----------------+


12… Qxf3!! 13. cxb4

[13. gxf3 Bh3+ 14. Kg1 Re1+ 15. Bf1 Rxf1#]

13… Nc6 14. Bb2 Nxb4 15. Bxh7+ Kh8 16. gxf3 Bh3+ 17. Kg1
Nxc2 18. Bxc2 Re2 19. Rc1 Rae8 20. Bc3

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.i|
|0p0.+p0.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.G.+P+b|
|P+B+r).)|
|+.$.+.IR|
+-----------------+


20… R8e3

[brilliant, but 20… Rxc2 21. Rxc2 Re6 was easier]

21. Bb4

[21. fxe3 Rg2+ 22. Kf1 Rxc2+ 23. Ke1 Rxc1+ 24. Kd2 Rxh1]

21… Rxf3 22. Bd1 Rf6 0-1

　

Dolmatov – Makarichev, Palma, 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7
Bxd7 7. O-O Qh4 8. c4 O-O-O 9. c5 g5 10. f3!? Nf6 11. Be3 Rg8 12. Nc3
g4

Black plays with great energy and has a fierce attack.

+-----------------+
|.+k4.gr+|
|0p0b+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.)p+.+.|
|.+.).+p1|
|+.HBGP+.|
|P).+.+P)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+


13. Qe1

[13. Bf2 is better]

13… g3 14. hxg3 Rxg3

+-----------------+
|.+k4.g.+|
|0p0b+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.)p+.+.|
|.+.).+.1|
|+.HBGP4.|
|P).+.+P+|
|$.+.!RI.|
+-----------------+

15. Qd2

[not 15. Bf2, as 15….Rxg2+ 16. Kxg2 Qh3+ 17. Kg1 Bd6 18. cxd6
Rg8+ wins]

15… Bxc5 16. dxc5 Rdg8 17. Rad1 d4 18. c6 dxe3 19. cxd7+
Kd8 0-1

+-----------------+
|.+.i.+r+|
|0p0P+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.1|
|+.HB0P4.|
|P).!.+P+|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

Black has various threats – …Rh3, …Rxg2, …Qf2+ and so on –
which cannot all be met.

“Dull and a draw”, eh?

Novel Opening Play

Posted on by

Jonathan wanted to have something on this session thinking about the English Opening, but, in case you don’t play that system, I’ll broaden it out a bit.

The experience of meeting novelty

It needn’t be a completely new move, of course, just new to you. Let’s see if we can create that experience for you. Some examples that we came up with: As White, facing 1.d4 e5!? As White, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? As Black, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4!? Some examples for more experienced players, can be found in the SOS volumes.  For example, here are the suggestions from SOS 13: Responses to novelty Emotional responses: suspicion, derision, fear, panic, amusement, complacency, offence, dismissal, distraction… “He must be a duffer”/”He must have studied it and know everything”… “I’d hate to lose quickly, what’s the safest move here?” “What are they up to?” You have to get past those emotional responses as fast as you can and start thinking about the position in front of you right now.  The one strand that is very relevant is that last one: What are they up to?  That’s always a good chess question, because your opponent is always up to something! So, looking for rational responses: it’s just another move.  What’s the idea? — or, more likely, the ideas?  What are your ideas?  What moves are at all plausible for me?  What moves do I want to play anyway? Maybe there is a combative line that is quite theoretical and leads to a clear advantage for your side.  But can you find it while steering clear of any traps? Perhaps more practical is to seek a smaller, safer advantage. Let’s have a look at these approaches in our examples:

Example 1

1.d4 e5!?

This sprightly idea is called the Englund Gambit.  Imagine you are facing this move in the first round of the Bristol Rapidplay against an unknown opponent.

I think it’s clear that after 2.c3 or 2.d5 Bc5 White has abandoned any hope of an opening advantage.  Really the only way forward is to take it

 

2.dxe5

No qualms here yet I think.

2…Nc6 3.Nf3

Also qualm-free.  A very natural move, one we probably want to play anyway, and one that defends the pawn.

[3.f4 looks like Trying Too Hard.  Maybe it’s good, but with 3.Nf3 available and the clock going, why bother?]

3…Qe7

OK, that is an awkward-looking move.  That may mean that Black really is a bit of a duffer, or this is an unusual move with a point.  One very natural response is:

4.Bf4

But remembering last week (loose piece, exposed King, look at all checks and captures every move) you should instantly spot the point:

4…Qb4+

Now one line that you might be tempted by is 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3 (an unnatural move I think, and a Warning Sign) 6…Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1 ‘mate!

That’s not forced of course.  Perhaps White can improve without spending too much thinking time with 6.Nc3 e.g. 6…Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5…

However, if your analysis skills aren’t up to all that in rapidplay, I think you should take one look at 4.Bf4, spot 4…Qb4+, and move on to the next most natural move:

4.Nc3

Must be OK.  Let Black have the pawn back, we’ll carry on playing good strong sensible moves.

4…Nxe5

Now, Black still has some problems due to the awkward …Qe7.  It’s not hard to recommend here:

5.e4

 

White has easy development and a small advantage.  We can look forward to continuing our sensible opening play, perhaps arriving at a position where we have completed development in good order when Black is still trying to get sorted out, and we can then look for a way of seizing the initiative or forcing a weakness.  Perhaps 4.Bf4 leads to a bigger advantage with best play on both sides, but 4.Nc3 and 5.e4 is easier to handle and free from risk.

 

[5.Nxe5 Qxe5 just solves Black’s problem for them: the Bf8 can now be developed.]

Example 2

As White, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!?

Again there is a fiendish trap: 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3# (Blackburne’s Shilling Gambit)

But I’m sure you can spot the suspicious time-wasting by the White Knight.  I think a better move is easy to find:

4.c3! and now after 4…Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 White has an obvious plus.

Example 3

As Black, facing 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4!?

The idea is to play the Urusoff gambit: 3…exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4, when White plans Nc3 Bg5 O-O-O and Rhe1. I think 3…exd4 is a move you want to play anyway, but after 4.Nf3 we can find something else. 4…Nc6! transposes into the main lines of the Two Knights’ Defence, which gets us back into what we know.  What’s that? Oh, dear… It turns out not too many of us know the main lines of the Two Knights’ Defence, but we do know the Giuoco Piano. In that case, I think we have no business playing 2…Nf6, and instead, 2…Nc6 is the only way to preserve any hope of getting into known lines.  But if White wanted to play the Giuoco Piano I assume they would have gone for it straight away, so we still need to know another line here (Vienna Game?).  At least after 2…Nc6 there will be no Urusoff. So, the advice when faced with a novel move is:

  • Don’t Panic, and Don’t Sneer
  • Ask yourself, what is the idea?
  • Play natural moves, and moves you want to play anyway, when you can
  • Be suspicious of moves that disobey standard opening guidelines.

“This reminds me of a rule I know very well because I made it up: When you are caught in an opening you don’t know, make good developing moves!” — Bent Larsen in Evans et al.

P.S. GM example appended

Bobby Fischer against the world

Posted on by

Just been to see Bobby Fischer Against the World at the Exeter PictureHouse.

Lots to say about it (I’m a Fischer nut, but there were loads of stills I hadn’t seen, and live footage) but I mentioned one error I thought I noticed:

The breakthrough Game 3 of Spassky-Fischer was indeed notable for its unusual opening play by Fischer, but it was a defence he had played before, contrary to what I think people were saying in the film.

Not until Liz Garbus makes a film about trains or stamps will she find a more
nitpicking audience, I expect.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sWuhpsG2aU
Interview with Director Liz Garbus: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/06/catching-up-with-liz-garbu…
Review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jul/14/bobby-fischer-against-the-wor…
Long profile of Fischer: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/bobby-fischer-rsquo-…

Openings workshop 2011

Posted on by

Four questions from the floor with comments from all

A defence to the Kings Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.f4

Asking around the group for moves for Black at move 2, we collected:

2…f6;
2…d6;
2…Nf6;
2…Nc6;
2…Bc5;
2…exf4;
2…Qh4+;
2…Qf6;
2…Qe7;
2…d5 …

And that probably doesn’t exhaust everything that has been tried, but it will do for now.  All have some logic so let’s work our way through them.

Before we do, it is important to note at the start that White is not yet threatening the Black e-pawn,  Here if 2…a6 3.exf4?? Qh4+ and White is embarrassed.   So actually Black can pretty well do what they like.

* 2…f6 is well motivated but fails to the elementary tactical sequence

3. fxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qxe5+ Qe7 6. Qxh8 Qxe4+ 7. Be2 Qxg2 8. Bf3 …

* 2…Nf6 and 2…Nc6

Both neglect to support the King’s pawn.  After 2…Nc6 3.Nf3 Black has the same problem.

3.fxe4
becomes a threat after 2…Nf6 and the logical sequence:

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nf6 3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5 (4…Nc6 5. d3 Nc5 6. d4 Ne4) 5.d4
Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf2

…as in Fischer-Wade, 1968, gives White an edge.

* 2…d6

Not daft, not bad, but not best.  This move is unkind to the Bf8,
and, as there is no direct threat to the e-pawn, we can go:

2…Bc5 3.Nf3 d6

Now White can try 4.Nc3 and 5.Bc4, or 4.c3, with normal chances of a
small White advantage.

 * Falkbeer/Nimzowitsch

2…d5

White can avoid all dangers

3.Nc3

– however, White is also in no danger of getting an advantage with this
tame move.

3. exd5

Now Black has a choice of counter-gambits, Nimzowitsch’s 3…c6 and
Falkbeer’s 3…e4.

After 3…c6, any mess can be declined with 4.Nc3, reckoned to
be the best line at the moment.

3…e4 is a great idea but I
think White can find a way towards an advantage:

4. d3 Nf6

(4… Qxd5 5. Qe2 Nf6 6. Nd2 Bf5 (6…Bg4 7.Ngf3) 7. dxe4 {idea ?xe4, 8 g4! is very strong.})

5. dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3

(6. Be3!? is an idea of Spassky: 6… Qh4+ 7. g3 Nxg3 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.hxg3
and now 9…Qxe3+ 10.Qe2 or 9…Qxh1 10.Qe2)

6… Bc5 7. Qe2 f5

(7… Bf5 8. Nc3+=)

8. Nc3 Bf2+ 9. Kd1 += and
Black’s juggernaut has run into sand.

* The Gambit Accepted and the Cunningham Defence

Turning now to ways of accepting the gambit, after 2…exf4, Black’s threat of playing 3…Qh4+ is most easily met by 3.Nf3. Now Black has another enormous choice here, but I recommend looking first at the Cunningham Defence.

3…Be7 threat …Bh4+

4. Bc4

4.Nc3?! Bh4+ 5.Ke2 may not be terrible, but White probably doesn’t want to go down this line.

But after 4.Bc4, 4…Bh4+ 5.Kf1 may inconvenience Black more than White.

4… Nf6

There are now an encouraging number of mistakes for White to make in the first few moves.

(5. O-O? Nxe4)

(5. Nc3?! Nxe4!)

(5. d3?! d5!)

So, by the process of elimination:

5. e5! Ng4!

Now 6. h3?? Bh4+ is awful for White and 6. d4 d5 7.exd6 Qxd6 looks OK for Black, so

6. 0-0 0-0! 7. h3?! d5! 8. Bb3

[8.exd6 then 8…Qxd6 threatens to win the loose c4-bishop with 9…Qc5+.]

8…c5! 9.c3

[9.hxg4 c4 10.Ba4 b5 11.Bxb5 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 Qxb5 13.Nc3 Qc6 14.d4 Bxg4 15.Bxf4 Nd7 16.Qd2 Bxf3 17.Rxf3 f6 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Re1 Rf7 20.Rfe3 Nf8 21.Be5? Bg5 …0-1 Kennaugh-Hebden, 1994]

9…c4 10.hxg4

[10.Bc2? loses swiftly to 10…Qb6+]

10…cxb3 11.Qxb3 d4! 12.d3

[12.Nxd4 Bc5 13.Rxf4 Nc6 14.Qc4 Nxe5! 15.Qxc5 Nd3!]

12…Nc6 13.c4 g5! 14.Nbd2 Bxg4 15.a3

[15.Qxb7 Nb4 is horrible for White.]

15…Qc7 16.Re1 Bh5

(idea 17…g4)

17.Ne4 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Nxe5 19.Kg2 f5 20.Nf2 Ng6 0-1 Holmes-Motwani 1994.

Tchigorin’s bust of the Stonewall Attack.

When the Stonewall works, it can feel as simple as shelling peas:

That is very much How Not To Defend Against The Stonewall Attack, although the move order is worth remembering.

However, Black can play more craftily and survive, mostly by not castling into the attack, but also by making a more determined effort to control the light squares and/or the centre.

In a way, White has learned a trick, like Scholar’s Mate is a trick:

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?? 4.Qxf7#

(Actually that was my first ever game in a chess club, and I was Black…)  Once Black has seen the idea it is not so hard to dodge.  Then White needs an opening with more and deeper ideas, that poses Black problems that are not so easy to see coming or to deal with.

Tchigorin worked out a move order that makes nonsense of the whole Stonewall Attack, which Brian (**) is having trouble with:

* Tarrasch-Tchigorin, 1895 [GAME]

Sad to say, there is no answer to this for White.  You either have to hope that Black players don’t know this defence, or you need to trick them with some other move order (3.Nd2!?), or really you need to find a better opening.

By all means start towards it with 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 but now I suggest 3.Nf3.

After 3…e6 we can play the Colle System and after 3…Bf5 we can play the Slow Slav with 4.c4 – not a hugely inspiring way to play but Kramnik struggled occasionally
in 2006 when faced with it by Topalov in their 2006 match.  (3…Bg4 4.c4 is similar.)
Certainly, White has better chances with these ideas than in the Tchigorin line.

That’s not to say that you should forget all about this formation.  You might find that Black uses a move order in the opening which does not allow Black to play the very best defences.

(1) You might be able to spring a Stonewall Attack after a different start, while playing more mainstream QP openings:

* Portisch-Petrosian, 1974 [GAME]

* Prie-Jablonski , 2003 [GAME]

(2) You can try Bird’s Opening:

* Danielsen-Halldorsson, 2002 [GAME]

(3) And lastly, there is still an enthusiasm for playing the Stonewall Dutch Defence as Black (ask Tim!), perhaps not with such directness as this:

* Glucksberg-Najdorf, 1935 [GAME]

Kramnik famously declared that, with the extra space, the Stonewall Dutch is easier to play with Black than for White!  I was very struck when I got a copy of NCO, to see all the main lines of the Stonewall were given an unadorned “=”.

With recommendations like that, it is hard to dismiss the defence, but of course with greater attention came greater number of ideas for White, and it perhaps is less easy to play the Stonewall for Black than it used to be.

There are a couple of excellent books on the defence around, by Aagaard and by Johnssen et al.

(**) I will just say here that Brian’s adoption of the Stonewall is due to the book How to Think Ahead in Chess, which, whatever its title might suggest, is an opening repertoire book recommending the Stonewall for White.  I note that this book appeared in 1943 while Tchigorin’s bust has been known since the well-known game Tarrasch-Tchigorin, Hastings 1895.  Soltis also suggested the Stonewall for White in 1992, but at least
he had the integrity to mention the problem and suggest a solution. (4. f4 Nb4 5. Nf3 Nxd3+ 6.Qxd3 when Soltis suggests the central control is still worth something.)

Defending against the Ruy Lopez.

Well, if I could guarantee a trouble-free life against the Lopez, I would be able to earn a fortune selling the secret.  It seems the GMs are still working out the details of the Zaitsev and the Marshall and the Moller, but these sophisticated and subtle systems are buried under a mountain of theory, not easily absorbed by club players.

So what are we to do?  Lots of options, but let’s have a look at these two:

* Open Defence
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3

I always liked to see Korchnoi’s progress with this vigorous Defence, favoured by Tarrasch and also adopted by the upright Dr.Euwe.  When I was a boy I had a notion of playing the Dilworth Variation, a complicated line of which the evaluation defends on a
complicated endgame:
9… Bc5
Alternatives are
(9… Be7)
and
(9… Nc5)

Sadly, Korchnoi’s persistence with the line at World Championship level provoked Karpov and his team to develop better anti-Open variations, and these days 9.c3 is discarded in favour of the modern 9.Nbd2.  This is particularly sad for fans of the Dilworth, for although Black is still battling away with 9…Be7 and 9…Nc5, it seems White has a simple small advantage after 9…Bc5.

 * Berlin Defence

Is there any reason to play a line without 3…a6?  Fine showed the superiority of Morphy’s move-order in clear terms in his well-known book, emThe Ideas Behind The Chess Openings./em After strong1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5/strong with and without strong3…a6 4.Ba4 /strong

Without …a6 With ….a6
3…Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.Nc3+= 4…Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3=
3…d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.Bg5+= [4…d6 5.d4 b5 6.Bb3 Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Bd5 Rb8 9.Bc6+ Bd7=

You can argue about the moves but I hope the point is made.

Only if you were very keen to avoid the Exchange Variation would it
seem advantageous to omit 3…a6.

However, while Black’s winning chances in the Berlin are not great,
White’s winning percentage is not huge either.  Let’s look at the
main line:

strong3… Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 (6. dxe5!? Nxb5 7. a4) 6… dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8.
Qxd8+ Kxd8/strong

The Queens come off and White has to try his best in an endgame
where yes, the King’s-side majority is a big asset, but Black has two
Bishops and already a lot of light-square control.

White can point to several advantages but the position is relatively
quiet and the play positional. So what?  Well, Kramnik possibly
owes his World Championship title to the Berlin Defence, where in 2000
Kasparov failed to make effective use of the White pieces:

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
 * 1 * . . . . . * 1 . . * . .

so, 2-0 or 8.5-6.5 to Kramnik.  The marked games were draws
where Kramnik played the Berlin and held
it. The Berlin is a smart move against a player with such a marked

reference for complex attacking play.

 * Schliemann Gambit

Just a second suggestion if the Open and Berlin don’t appeal.

The main lines of this variation are long and difficult and probably
better for White.  White has to know them, though!

Lutz,C – Yagupov,I Groningen, 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4
5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qxf4 10.Ne5+ c6 11.d4
Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh3 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bf4 0-0-0 15.0-0-0 Bd6 16.Kb1 Rhf8 17.Rhf1
Kb8 18.a4 Ka8 19.a5 Bxc4 20.Qxc4 Bxe5 21.dxe5 Nd5 22.a6… 
(1-0,60)

Sokolov and others have pointed to 5…Nf6 as a less high-stakesoption, where Black has reasonable chances for the pawn.

A line in the Alapin Sicilian

Charlie asked after the variation:

1.e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. exd5
Qxd5 …

Now both Charlie’s suggested plans:

5. d4
5. Na3

… look like very reasonable ways of seeking the advantage.  I
don’t know much about this line but I looked it up.  The move
order is not one that you find in all the books, but after 5.d4 we are
into a fairly well-known position where Black can try 5…cxd4, 5…Nf6
or even 5….e5!? with reasonable chances of equality.  5.Na3 has
been tried a couple of dozen times in the last 10 years, with fair
results, although following 5.Na3 the most common sequence has been
5…Bg4 6.Be2 e5, and
I can’t see that White has succeeded in setting Black any problems
after this.

In the search for novel play we should avoid:

* Potze-Van der Elburg, Hoogeveen 2006: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Na3 Bg4 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 0-0-0 8.Qa4 e4 9.d3 Bxf3 0-1 as 10.gxf3 exd3
11.Bd1 d2 wins a piece.

Nice things happen: play-through Italian Game suggestions

Posted on by

Nice email from Robert Janninck:

I am a fan of your site. It helped me getting started with openings. In return I put the Italian game for you in chessbase format. For me when i see things happening on the board it always help, so i thougth maybe that will help others too.

…

My motivation: I like to help youre concept (site) to get better/easier and help others in having more fun in chess. Make it reachable and not for the money.

Thanks a million Robert!

Original handout: https://devonjuniorchess.co.uk/wp/drdaveexeter/1996/04/28/the-italian-game-for-beginners/

Robert’s conversion:

italian.pgn

The simplest mutual full-point Zugzwangs

Posted on by

Tim came to the club buzzing with these a few weeks ago.

[Skip intro]

A Zugzwang (German: forced move) is a chess position where, if it’s your turn to move, you lose, and if your opponent has the move, you might be OK.

Here’s an example from one of my own games: anything White does loses. We say, White is in Zugzwang.

Black can doodle happily with pawn moves, but any move of a white Pawn or piece loses at least a Pawn. White in fact threw himself on the sword with
43. c4 Ra3+ 44. Kh4 Be7+ 45. Kh5 Rh3#

The simplest Zugzwang position of all is known from the theory of Pawn endgames, with two Kings and one pawn trying to promote.

Black to move loses, but with White to move, it’s a draw.

A mutual or reciprocal Zugzwang is where neither side wants to move, and this position is indeed a mutual Zugzwang.

A mutual full-point Zugzwang (m-f-p-Z) is where both sides are in Zugzwang. In the Pawn endgame, White to move concedes a half-point to Black, but in a m-f-p-Z White loses a whole point. Here’s an example, known as the trebuchet:

All OK? So, these ideas have been around for dickey’s years, but what Tim was enthusiastic about was learning of positions with King each, a Pawn each and a single white piece (Bishop, Knight or Rook), which met the conditions of a m-f-p-Z. In fact, Tim was more mischievous than just to show us: he set us the task of finding the positions! I’ll give you an hour or so now to have a go yourselves…

(…)

Finished? How many did you get?

Solutions for 5-men positions:

Bishop:

A couple with a Knight:

and

Rook:

Nothing so simple exists for a Queen, but if you are prepared to add extra pawns, or an enemy Queen:

and

Here are solutions for 6-men positions with B N or R:

and

or

And if you have a Rook each, we have examples like:

More?

Full set:

http://www.k4it.de/egtb/zugzwang.php/

Article about 6-man tablebases:
http://ticc.uvt.nl/icga/acg12/proceedings/Contribution104.pdf

John Nunn got a bit interested in all these, and I refer you to his excellent books based on comprehensive computer endgame databases, recently updated since the emergence of the 6-man tablebases:

P.S.

Candidates for the Immortal zugzwang game include this classic from Nimzowitsch:

Samisch – Nimzovitch [E06] Carlsbad, 1923

And two he would rather forget:

Nimzovitch,A – Capablanca,J [B12] New York, 1927

Alekhin – Nimzowitsch [C17] San Remo, 1930

All are to be found in the Canon:

P.S. in 2026: a complicated mfpZ

https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/9062/full-board-with-full-point-mutual-zugzwang

Noam Elkies chipping in tuppence there