SuperMac! The French MacCutcheon
Since I put this together, all the
pop-up games have stopped working, sorry about that. Normal service may
or may not be resumed, but meanwhile, you can find and play through all
the games in this PGN file
This line gets its name from a simul. game that the American
amateur MacCutcheon played against Steinitz in 1885. After some
initial explorations by Tarrasch and Co., it was relatively neglected,
but opening theory is never still… Chistiakov
played it for decades, as has Volkov, and recently it has appeared
again in Korchnoi’s games. It has also been
favoured by Ivanchuk and especially Morozevich who has found new
resources in many lines.
The Mac is supposed to be my main defence to 1.e4, but I often
complain that I never get
to
play it! Following the Shirov-Anand encounters in 2000, Whites
seem
more often to prefer 4.e5. But the tide may be turning: after
having one a season for the last 10 years, I’ve had four this year
already. So I thought I’d study it for once!
First, something to whet your appetite, an amuse-bouche and
something more substantial as a starter:
EG77:
- Byrne D. – Shipman W. [C12]
Gotcha! And a classic encounter, known from Fischer’s
collection of memorable games:
EG78:
- Fischer R. – Rossolimo N. [C12]
Now for the main course:
- Ideas
- Variations
- Bibliography
Ideas behind the
French MacCutcheon
The counterattacking …Bb4 is less theoretical than the Winawer but
shares its determination to double White’s pawns at cost of the
dark-squared Bishop. Given that Black’s other Bishop will be bad,
White can hope that the c-pawns will not be so vulnerable that an
attack that an initiative can still be pursued elsewhere.
Compared with
the Winawer, Black can celebrate the exchange of another pair of pieces
and the retention of the g-pawn; White can enjoy the lead in
development and the concession Black must make to hold the King’s-side
together (abandon castling with …Kf8 or create dark-square holes with
…g6).
The Mac promises counterplay… eventually.
The old main line melting pot (Alapin-Lasker Attack)
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4 g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5
After 10…c5, Black doesn’t have a single piece developed, but can
look forward to counterattacking against White’s messy pawns and King.
“White usually continues with something like h4, Nf3, Qf4
and
possibly dxc5, but the order in which the moves are played varies”
(Pedersen)
Thanks, Steffen, for that illuminating comment 🙂
Black also has a choice of systems:
Blockade with …c4
This is fantastically solid, and while Black’s Bishop is obviously
bad, White’s Bishop also lacks scope (being able to move only
backwards!). It rather reminds me of the Dutch Stonewall; White’s
light-squared Bishop is no more effective than Black’s. There
seems to be no move order with which White can unlock the Black
fortress.
EG119:
- Volokitin A. – Vysochin S. [C12]
Alternatively, Black can play to hold the tension in the position
How then to develop the Bc8? There is a common idea: …cxd4,
…Qa5, …b6 and …Ba6. This usually equalises but the game can
be rather flat as the tension goes out of it; you have to see the
endgames coming and make sure you’re poised for them.
EG112:
- Peschardt S. – Koch M. [C12]
Alternatively, Black can retain more tension by delaying the
exchange on d4 and waiting for White to go wrong. The fashionable
way to do this with …Bd7-c6 and …Nd7 and then castling long.
It seems to combine the virtues of
solidity and flexibility:
EG110:
- Bruzon Bautista L. – Glek I. [C12]
I continue to play …Nc6 which is more active, but I do find it can
fizzle out to a major-piece += ending quite quickly. The critical
line in this new arrangement has been tested at the highest level:
EG106:
I think that’s enough for a broad-brush understanding of the Mac; to
explore other themes we are going to need a bit more detail about the
theory.
Variations of
the French MacCutcheon
An attempt at refutation: h4, Rh3 and Bxg6
This is a crucial line, and is in all lines Bxg6 is a crucial
idea. In
all the main lines Black can at least survive although sometimes White
can force a draw. I’ll try and point out where White has an
instant draw if they want it.
EG121:
- George I. – Rudd J. [C12]
Harding reported the key discovery in the main line: after 13.Bxg6,
Black hits back with 13…Nxd4! This is a good move whether White
reinforces the attack with the Rook (as in the game) or the Knight.
EG130:
- Schmidt H. – Harding T. [C12]
Because of this possibility, I like to play …Qa5 when I can.
However, …Qc7, being able to interpose on f7, is also an effective
deterrent. Then Black might prefer to chase away the Bishop with
…c4 before playing …Bd7 (interfering with the black Queen’s
observation of f7).
An example of White being able to draw occurs in the modern main
line, where e6 is also loose:
EG120:
- Kolev A. – Comas Fabrego L. [C12]
Black’s options in defence at other times include declining the
piece (with …Rf8
or other moves) or temporising with …Rg8 (when the King may feel less
exposed).
So, this is not a huge problem, assuming a draw is acceptable to
Black,
and the theory is not deep, but if Black ever fails to check the sac on
g6 it can rear up like a garden rake hidden in the grass…
EG129:
- Smith R. – Goundar S. [C12]
So, it seems the MacCutcheon cannot be refuted by direct attack, and
White can settle for a more orthodox pursuit of the advantage.
I’ll
review the main lines below, but there is a bit more to theory now than
when I first looked at it. I think Ivanchuk renewed interest in
the Mac after his game with
Anand (below) where, although he lost, he was a bit better into the
middlegame. White players once more pushed deep into the forest of
manoeuvres
after
9.Bd3, this time armed with computers and databases, but without ever
catching sight of a definite plus. White’s alternatives along the
main highway have therefore also been re-examined. Some tries
formerly dismissed have become important, but also some disappointingly
dull recommendations for Black have been replaced with more dynamic
replies.
Some theory on the old main line:
To try and make sense of the morass, I have divided White’s choices
between immediate tries, and those following:
Nf3
Flexible and almost certainly necessary at some point. (Ne2 is
an alternative which I have never seen played at top level but have had
it in one of my own games.) Nf3-h2-g4 is a natural career path
for the
Knight, but it can reappear on d4.
h4
Throwing in h4 certainly gives White some extra options on the
King’s-side (like a timely h5 or even Rh3), and the odd tempo seems not
to be crucial.
Let’s see what happens if Black meets both moves with the
old-fashioned …Nc6 (…Bd7, …Qa5 and …Qc7 are all reasonable
alternatives).
Using the b-file: Rhb1 or Rab1
These Rook moves don’t seek to refute the line but gain an edge with
which to badger Black’s still rather restricted
position.
After h4, moving the King’s Rook over to the b-file seems
indecisive. The Queen’s Rook might not be a bad try: White can
try and
over-stretch Black before deciding where to break, and it doesn’t take
long for the Rook to relocate to the King’s-side.
Immediately:
Only 11.Rab1 is available and it is of course likely to transpose
below.
After 11.Nf3 Nc6:
We have seen that the simplifying method works:
EG112:
- Peschardt S. – Koch M. [C12]
Rab1 or Rhb1 can both be reasonably met by Qc7 (deterring Qf4) or
the blockade:
EG113:
- Hector J. – Glek I. [C12]
dxc5
I was puzzled by this when I first saw it: surely White is playing
into Black’s hands? But Black will have to reorganise to make any
use
of the opportunities on the c-file, and the gain of the d4 square can
be worth it.
Immediately:
This doesn’t trouble Black:
EG104:
- Hebden M. – Vaisser A. [C12]
After Nf3
Doesn’t seem much more threatening: Black’s demolition of White’s
centre in the following game is very pretty to watch…
EG139:
- Yudovich M. – Chistiakov A. [C12]
After h4:
In this move order it abandons the e-pawn:
EG108:
- Brodsky M. – Vysochin S. [C12]
So this is not so much a crucial opening idea as a middlegame one:
White and Black must assess it on each turn to see if it is yet a
worthwhile option for White.
Qf4
A natural try to invade on f6. There is a common trick, seen
in the Rossolimo game: after Black plays …Qc7, Black can meet Qf4
with …f5!, covering the weakness on f6. It doesn’t solve all
Black’s problems, but it certainly makes life easier. So, if
you’re determined to play Qf4 as White, either play it immediately, or
wait for something committal like
…Qa5 or …Qe7.
Immediately:
The simplifying seems to work perfectly well:
EG105:
- Petrushin A. – Piskov Y. [C12]
The blockade is not so convincing (see below):
It’s not a bad moment to decide on the modern arrangement of Black’s
minor pieces:
EG110:
- Bruzon Bautista L. – Glek I. [C12]
After Nf3:
The safest try for Black seems to be the usual simplifying of cxd4
Qa5+ and b6
EG114:
- Koltsov_V/Lensky_I – Harding T. [C12]
The blockade is not convincing:
EG146:
- Voloshin L. – Kyeck C. [C12]
An early Qa5 can oblige White to recapture on d4 with a piece, but
that isn’t a problem for White (who may play dxc5 to get a piece to
this square!).
EG115:
- Brueggemann J. – Glek I. [C12]
After h4:
Simplifying still works:
EG140:
- Sutovsky E. – Glek I. [C12]
And without citing a practical example, Psakhis mentions a variation
on the blockade idea:
So, what have we found out so far?
White’s
Move 11/12: |
R(ah)b1
|
|
Qf4
|
|
|
and
Black’s reply: |
Now |
After
Nf3 |
Now |
After
h4 |
After
Nf3 |
simplify
cxd4/Qa5+/b6/Ba6 |
OK |
OK |
OK |
OK |
OK |
| Blockade
|
OK |
OK |
NBG
|
NBG
|
NBG
|
Queen
moves? |
Qc7
Qa5!?
|
Qc7
|
Qa5
|
Qa5
|
Qa5
|
That’s a sort of survival guide. You can find yourself
re-inventing bits of theory: in one game after 11.Nf3 Nc6 12.h4 Qa5!? I
faced 13.Qf4! and decided to make the Queen move again: 13…cxd4
14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 Bd7 which I later discovered had been played often
and is all perfectly
respectable, although 14.h5!? might have made me blink a bit.
EG118:
- Nyysti S. – Glek I. [C12]
After both Nf3 and h4…
…Well, first it’s Black’s move! — and the good news is that there
is
still
a fair choice. Our familiar pawn decisions are all still
available (…c4, …cxd4) and there have also been tried various Queen
moves (…Qa5, …Qc7 and …Qe7) as well as developing the Bishop
(with …Bd7).
Simplify – EG133:
- Milos G. – Cichocki A. [C12]
Blockade – EG141:
- Panov V. – Kortschnoj V. [C12]
Qa5 – EG117:
- Brunner L. – Glek I. [C12]
Qe7 – EG142:
- Rivera Kuzawka D. – Hoffman A. [C12]
Qc7 – EG116:
- Firman N. – Pliasunov A. [C12]
Conclusions? It certainly seems that the simplifying technique
works against
anything White might try, but if you’re playing for a win as Black, you
might prefer to keep more dynamism in the position, and for this a
Queen move looks best. Qa5 is active and Qc7 solid; Qe7 might be
passive with this formation.
|
Whatever you pick, there remains to be examined during the
following play the interpolation
h5 g5. It’s not appropriate immediately:
EG149:
- Gilles R. – Sakai K. [C12]
|
Fidgety Bishops I: 9.Be3 and 9.Bc1
There are two fidgets with the dark-squared Bishop on move 9: White
can
play it to c1 or e3. Both variations deny Black the opportunity
to eliminate one of White’s pair of Bishops; also, the black Knight on
e4 may become stranded and vulnerable to harassment with moves like
f3. They also offer the c-pawn as bait; Black will lose time and
position by taking it, after which any attempt at counterplay is more
likely to turn out better for White.
Maroczy variation 9.Be3
I sort of got the idea (from Eade and Pedersen) that Black either
declines with …c5 (our first example game, above), or
grabs the pawn on c3 but avoids …c5 to keep it closed (because of
course after
falling behind in development you don’t want to open the
position). To quote, Ben Goldacre, “I think you’ll find it’s a
bit more complicated than that”: Psakhis gives as a line 9…Nxc3 10.Bd3 c5 11.dxc5 Qa5 12.Nf3 Ne4+
13.Nd2 Nxc5 14.0-0 with compensation for the pawn but
nothing more. So perhaps all three approaches for Black are
viable, depending on your view of the theory, and how you like to
defend your gambit lines.
Moskalenko favours what he calls a ‘Black jet’
approach, taking an active stance on the King’s-side and harassing the
White Queen.
EG144:
- Felgaer R. – Moskalenko V. [C12]
Duras variation 9.Bc1
This move retreats all the way while having designs on the a3-f8
diagonal.
EG102:
- Balcerak J. – Richter W. [C12]
Psakhis again assesses this line as ‘with compensation’, which may
or may not be satisfactory for White.
EG103:
- Tal M. – Vooremaa A. [C12]
An attempt at normaility: Qxd2
White is by no means obliged to play Qg4, and keeping her majesty at
home allows her to recapture on d2. Play is more sober but White
cannot hope for much with such a poor structure.
EG99:
- De Gleria F. – Glek I. [C12]
There is a way to try and get the best of both worlds, following Qg4
with Qf4:
EG101:
- Grigoriants S. – Glek I. [C12]
Fidgety Bishops II: 6.Bc1 and 6.Be3
These moves have similar motives as on move 9: to retain the
Bishop
pair, strand the black Knight on e4, and offer a gambit of the
c-pawn.
Olland variation 6.Bc1
This has often been dismissed but is equally often revived…
Pedersen once tripped over this line as Black and struggled, so when he
came to review the Mac he took care to ‘solve’ the problem of this
variation, quoting this game (which is findable by searching on the
name of the Black player instead of Rytschagov/Rõtšagov):
EG143:
- Rytshagov M. – Anderton D. [C12]
Psakhis treats it with respect and concludes that Black’s problems
cannot be dealt with so easily: in particular, he cautions that 15.Qg3
leads to a White initiative. I was duffed up in this line by Mike
Yeo at
Torbay last year, since, while I knew of the existence of 6.Bc1 I also
had a touching optimism that all problems could be solved over the
board. (Not true…
) However, a
couple of rounds
later, Richard
Cannon played Pedersen’s recipe and the well-schooled Yeo produced
Psakhis’ recommendation… without a definite result.
EG128:
In fact, this fancy line may not be necessary: …Bxc3 and …Ba5
are both playable if sharp.
EG89:
- Borriss M. – Huebner R. [C12]
Janowsky variation 6.Be3
Again, says Psakhis, this is a serious bid for the advantage.
I haven’t yet had it played against me*, but it may be a better try for
White than the Lasker line. Black still has plenty of resources:
EG94:
- Timoshenko G. – Vysochin S. [C12]
Moskalenko has recently described a
‘new’ (old) idea which seems to hold after a fashion, although I’m not
sure
I fancy it:
EG126:
- Areshchenko A. – Smerdon D. [C12]
Since Moskalenko published his book, it seems to have cropped up a
bit more often, so you are vulnerable to a TN here. For example,
would you be prepared to meet 8.h4!? h5! 9.hxg5!? …? (I’m not sure
“!?” quite captures the spirit of that move; it’s one of Shirov’s, so
perhaps one day his innovations will be assigned a symbol all their
own.)
* P.S. Just had it in the club championship! The Mac is also a
favourite of my opponent, so of course I faced the strongest
line… I tried reproducing the Byrne-Shipman line but showing
good judgment Phil recaptured on d4 with a piece and I really struggled
to do anything useful after that, and was lucky to escape with a
draw. So, next time it’s either Mosklalenko’s Black Jet or the
chewy main line.
EG150:
- Trussler P. – Regis D. [C12]
Other White dodges at move 6.
Bernstein’s 6.Bh4
Again often dismissed, but the very natural try in the next game led to
a convincing win for White:
EG86:
- Kuzmin G. – Maiorov O. [C12]
So, more recently Black has turned to the unobvious try 8…f5:
EG85:
- De la Riva Aguado O. – Vallejo Pons F. [C12]
Tchigorin Variation 6.exf6
Obviously crucial if it works, but also not any sort of
refutation. I
was disappointed to think that Black would have to try and
untangle a mess rather slowly after the variation given in the
following game:
EG147:
- Landa K. – Morozevich A. [C12]
But when asked the question, The Moz recommends that
we play simply and
dynamically …
EG134:
- L’Ami E. – Barsov A. [C12]
White dodges at move 5: 5.exd5, 5.Nge2 and others.
5.exd5
[Igor Glek] is an expert
in the MacCutcheon variation of the French. That stood him in
good stead, as Glek wrote in the French magazine Europe Echecs,
in 1988 when he was doing his military service in Russia. At that
time Anatoly Karpov was playing for the Red Army team. Karpov
asked Glek for advice about what to play with white against the
MacCutcheon. Glek compiled a small file on the line that starts with
5. e4xd5, which of course is not a refutation of the MacCutcheon,
but very safe and, according to Glek, gives white good prospects
for a minimal positional advantage. “Just what I needed,” Karpov
said. — Hans REE
Again, I had concluded that
Black would get a slightly worse but tenable play,
but recent games have shown some reasonable chances for the defender:
EG81:
- Van der Wiel J. – Glek I. [C12]
EG84:
- Petrukhin D. – Popov R. [C12]
5.Nge2
A similar attempt to stifle Black’s play: I imagine Black can
equalise quite happily after the game continuation but getting
counterplay is something
else.
EG83:
- Glek I. – Volkov S. [C12]
5.Others
At the moment, these all seem inconsequential. Fingers
crossed…
Bd3
Lasker used this in his match against Tarrasch, with not bad
results but these could not be credited to the opening.
EG135:
- Lasker E. – Tarrasch S. [C12]
f3
Lasker also tried this against Tarrasch. Note the move order
in the following game, which quite often yields a classical French.
EG138:
- Stead K. – Kagan M. [C12]
After Qg4, the King slide …Kf8
Living legend Viktor Korchnoi (another man hard to find in a
database! Kortsnoj, Kortschnoi…) played …g6 in his youth, but
…Kf8
later; the King move seems to lead to more complex play and so is a
better way to play for a win (or just a more interesting game).
It’s not a way of playing I think I understand, but be my guest!
EG79:
- Anand V. – Ivanchuk V. [C12]
EG80:
- Anand V. – Kortschnoj V. [C12]
EG91:
- Fressinet L. – Vallin G. [C12]
Bibliography
Tim Harding: The Classical French
(Batsford 1991)
W John Lutes: French MacCutcheon
(Chess Enterprises 2001)
Steffen Pedersen: The Main Line
French
3.Nc3 (Gambit 2001)
James Eade: Remember the
MacCutcheon!
(Chess Enterprises 2002)
Lev Psakhis: French Defence
—
Steinitz Classical and other systems (Batsford 2004)
Viktor Moskalenko: The Flexible
French
(New in Chess 2008)
 |
Justin Horton once asked
for a book on the Mac, but this begs the question of purpose.
Eade’s Remember the MacCutcheon!
is a great introduction, giving you a feel for the line in a way
few opening books do by describing the emotional journey of his games,
as well as throwing in a brisk summary of the
theory (a book which deserves the exclamation point awarded on its
title page). Psakhis’
book is not exclusively a treatise on the Mac, but is as thorough and
authoritative as one could wish. And Lutes’ is a neglected gem,
throwing in a huge amount of antiquarian material on the French in
general and a lot of non-English-language sources on the Mac. He
refrains from offering his own opinions as to the best routes, but
provides you with the most detailed map of the terrain. Lastly,
Moskalenko’s book is a passionate and partial look at the French,
including a nice chapter on the Mac with lots of original suggestions.
|
![[cool tip]](https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/chessx/cool_cat.gif)