Category Archives: Topic

Authors of openings books

Posted on by

Ah, so easily done: the unobserved transposition.

Angus Dunnington’s Winning with Unorthodox Openings [Everyman] gives on page 11 the line 1.b4 e5 2. Bb2 f6 3. b5 d5 4.e3 with the comment:

“Black must decide what his ambitions are in the centre”

…and gives 4…c5 and 4…Be6 as Black’s main choices.

Then on page 23 the line 1.b4 d5 2. Bb2 f6 3. e3 e5 is given, where our guide remarks:

“4. b5 a6 … leads to helpful simplifications for Black … with equal chances”

So presumably that’s Black’s best idea in the other move order, and maybe White should hold back from 3. b5.

It’s a bugger spotting transpositions I know; less forgivable is omitting a whole main line:

Angus Dunnington’s Winning with Unorthodox Openings [Everyman] gives on page 91 the line 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.g3 h5 with a fine game by Tartakower.

If you ever get this line as Black against Dunnington, I would be interested to see how he replies to 5…Nc6, 5…Ng4 or indeed any of the common replies to 5.g3 other than 5…h5 that are on my database, and completely unmentioned in the book.

[Sorry to pick on Angus again, I guess it shows I’m sufficiently interested in his books to by and study them. (Although Chess Psychology was an absolute dog, winning a prize only for the most uses of the word “ostensibly” in a chess book.)]

What’s the problem here? I think it’s repertoire books being written by people who don’t actually specialise in (and may never have touched) the openings in question. It also suggests a test: how many games cited in the book are by the author? If you skim a chapter and turn up none at all, add a pinch of salt, or a bit of additional study, to your reading.

Correspondence openings

Posted on by

James Drake, an occasional correspondent and freelance websoot prifreader, writes:

“I note your recommendation to play open openings when starting out to get more experience with tactics. I wonder if this applies to correspondence games. I’ve been playing them over the Internet the last few years and am at the stage where I get creamed by opponents who know long lines of the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. Given that I’ve been somewhat influence by Purdy’s recommended openings in Action Chess , which run counter to yours, e.g., The Colle system as White. “

I replied:

That’s depressing. Although if you are following long lines of theory, does that mean you know the theory too? What books are you using to support the play of the opening in these correspondence games? I’ve not played a lot of postal chess but I do know having some pretty meaty opening books at your elbow is a requirement.

The Colle still aims at an open game, and I’m happy to recommend it. http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/colle-system

I regard the Sicilian and Lopez as openings for life in a way I don’t think the Colle is; there are some short lines against the Colle which equalise but there is very little theory to learn for either side, which is appealing.

The Sicilian and Lopez have so much territory between them, it’s likely that a player of any style can find lines to play as White that suit them. Yes, there’s a bunch of theory to learn, but as long as you get a playable position where you understand the ideas, I think it’s possible to play the White side of 1.e4 without spending all your time studying long variations.

James added:

“Do you think I’d improve more quickly playing more OTB, live chess over the Internet, or against a chess engine set down to my level? “

I replied:

I think if you don’t know,  I don’t know! Personally, I don’t like playing against chess engines but they don’t half make sure you have your buttons done up. I also think correspondence play is an excellent proving ground, and that any mix of that and other approaches you find appealing is fine.

The most important thing I think is what you do about games you lose. It’s a familiar reaction among amateurs to blame your openings (which I’ve been doing all my life). Is it that you need to dig a bit deeper into the theory, or into the handling of the middle game? What was your most depressing loss, and what was your interpretation of why you lost?

Opening Books to help a solid Black player

Posted on by

Pete Henderson writes:

” My question to you is this; I have pretty much settled on the Colle system for my opening but cannot find a defense that I like playing. I am not trying to be a Grand Master or anything I just want to be a good solid player. I’ve been thinking about the Tarrasch and the Modern. The Modern from what I’ve read can be used for just about any White opening which I guess is what I would prefer (I’m not sure that is aggressive enough for me). The Tarrasch is just an answer to Queen Pawn openings; then I would have to learn a defense for the King Pawn Openings.”

The Tarrasch is a good choice I think: active and solid, perhaps a bit more open than you might like. A good partner for the Tarrasch might be the Petroff; again a very open game as Black. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted also has the same flavour; open and lots of IQP positions.

You can sort of play the Colle reversed against 1.d4; it’s called the Semi-Slav. I’ve got a web-page somewhere (http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/playing-black-against-queens-pawn-openings) which gives a repertoire with it and the Stonewall Dutch (which starts off with the same “Colle Triangle”). The pure Colle Reversed isn’t that great for Black (White normally gets in e3-e4 before you get in …e6-e5) but the Semi-Slav and Stonewall enjoy a good solid reputation at all levels.

I used to play the Modern but gave it up; it’s too hard for me and I used to get very different structures every game, and was losing games I didn’t understand (always a bad sign). A set formation with …g6 …Bg7 …c6 and …d5 leads to the Gurgenidze against 1.e4 and (usually) a variation of the Grunfeld against 1.d4; but I don’t much like either system for Black.

The defence which perhaps gives the most reliable and limited set of structures to play is the French; it comes closest I think to a system which is easier to play for Black than White (Kramnik claims the same about the Stonewall). I think the French fits alongside the Colle and Tarrasch/Semi-Slav quite well; it goes at about the same speed and you can play 1…e6 and 2…d5 no matter what White does as the first two moves: always a comfort!

Pete enquired further:

“Can you recommend good books on either the Dutch-Stonewall or the Semi- Slav?”

I replied:

If there’s not enough in the Playing Black against 1.d4 webpage for you…

There’s a really nice little book, terribly out of date, but still useful, by Tim Harding. Queen’s Gambit Declined: Semi-Slav. A library, a second-hand shop, or a friend might be able to supply it, if you don’t have much left in the piggy bank after buying those books on the Modern. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713424486/ A copy of QGD:SS with a look at Nunn’s Chess Openings to bring you up to date should be all you need at our level.

If you are thinking about buying new books, the Starting Out series from Everyman I think are usually quite good. There are volumes on the Slav/Semi-Slav (which I haven’t read, but Flear writes fine books and knows a lot about the Slav complex: NB not all of the book will be about the Semi-Slav with …e6) and on the Dutch by MacDonald (which I own, and it’s very good, but not all of it is about the Stonewall). http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443934/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443772/

A bigger theoretical book is Peter Wells on the Semi-Slav; but that is a book for real theory nuts. I haven’t read it but it’s reckoned a good book, although it’s ten years old now. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805032886/

The Bellin books for Batsford on the Dutch have good chapters on the Stonewall, http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071343211X/ and http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713457600/, but if you’re in for a book of that level you can’t do better than Jacob Aagaard’s monograph on the Stonewall. Aagaard always writes well and he’s done everything you need to do for this line. However, it’s pretty chewy material and he doesn’t cover all the sidelines you need to know if your opponent doesn’t want to play the Stonewall (like 2.Bg5). I think also that Aagaard has not played the line himself, just been asked to write a book about it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857442520/

So, with Aagaard, you’ll need the MacDonald or the Pinski books http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443071/ as well to fill out a Dutch repertoire, or a bit of time with an openings encyclopedia like Nunn’s. Many players (like MacDonald) use the move order 1…e6 to dodge lines like 2.Bg5, but that means you have to play the French or some lesser defence.

A book I don’t know at all: The Chess Advantage in Black and White by IM Larry Kaufman http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812935713/ recommends that Black play the Semi-Slav against 1.d4. It should be OK but a lot of the book will be wasted if you don’t play the other lines. (Spanish Exchange, Berlin).

Playing Black against Queen’s-Pawn Openings (2): Semi-Slav and Exchange

Posted on by

A1.2 The
Semi-Slav

Why not a whole one? The ordinary line Slav goes

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5.
a4

and Black has tried the quiet 5…Na6, the active 5…Bg4 and
the main line 5…Bf5. This last is a well known and popular line
and is worth a look.

I have gone for the Semi-Slav because it seems easier to play
into from other openings: if 1. c4 c6 2. e4 you have to play either
a Caro-Kann with 2…d5 or a funny Indian system with 2…e5. But
after 1. c4 e6 2. e4 d5 White has transposed into a lousy version
of the French.

The Semi-Slav has two very popular main lines, (a) the Meran
System and (b) the Anti-Meran Gambit. I’ll show you an example of
each but they are very fashionable systems with an awful lot of
sharp theory to learn.

 

A1.2(a) The Meran System

6… dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5

r+bqkb-r
p-+n+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+p+-+-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

The Meran system is characterised by this move.

8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5

r+bqkb-r
+-+n+ppp
p+-+pn-+
+pp-+-+-
-+-PP+-+
+-NB+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

10. e5

[The alternative is Reynolds’ Variation 10. d5 c4 11. dxe6
fxe6 12. Bc2 Qc7 13. O-O Bc5 14. e5 Nxe5 15. Bf4 Bd6 16. Ng5 Bb7
17. Nxe6 Qc6 18. f3 Bc5+ 19. Nxc5 Qxc5+ 20. Kh1 O-O

r+-+-rk+
+b+-+-pp
p+-+-n-+
+pq-n-+-
-+p+-B-+
+-N-+P+-
PPB+-+PP
R-+Q+R+K

a sharp position with good chances for Black]

10… cxd4 11. Nxb5 axb5 12. exf6 Qb6 13. fxg7 Bxg7 14.
O-O Bb7 15. Bf4 O-O 16. Re1 Bd5 17. Ne5 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 Bxe5 19.
Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qh5+ Kg7

r+-+-r-+
+-+-+pk-
-q-+p+-+
+p+bb-+Q
-+-p-+-+
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+-R-K-

and White recovers the piece with advantage.

A1.2(b) The Anti-Meran Gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5
h6

This avoids the Gambit.

[The main line goes 5… dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9.
Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7

White has a choice:

(a) 11. g3 Qa5 12. exf6 b4 13. Ne4 Ba6

and in this chaotic position White has favoured 14.
Be3

or (b) 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3

r+-qkb-r
pb+n+p+-
-+p+pP-+
+p+-+-B-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+-P-
PP-+-P-P
R-+QKB+R

6. Bh4

[6. Bxf6 is the right move: the game might go 6…Qxf6 7. e4
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb4+ 9. Ned2 c5 10. a3 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 O-O 12. dxc5 Rd8
13. Qc2 Na6 14. Be2 Nxc5 15. O-O Bd7

r+-r-+k+
pp+b+pp-
-+-+pq-p
+-n-+-+-
-+P+-+-+
P-+-+N+-
-PQ+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

which looks about equal but White’s game is better for the
moment: the Bd7 is not well-placed yet and the Queen’s-side
majority might roll ]

6… dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. e5

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+p+-
-+p+pn-p
+-+-P-p-
-+pP-+-B
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

[8. Bg3 b5]

We have now transposed into the main line of the Gambit.

8… Nd5

But this is new. This is Alatortsev’s Variation, an even messier
alternative to the main line of the Gambit.

9. Bg3 Bb4 10. Rc1 Qa5 11. Bxc4 Nxc3 12. bxc3
Bxc3+

rnb+k+-r
pp+-+p+-
-+p+p+-p
q-+-P-p-
-+BP-+-+
+-b-+NB-
P+-+-PPP
+-RQK-+R

13. Kf1 Bb4 14. h4 g4 15. Nh2 h5 16. f3 Nd7 17. fxg4 Nb6
18. gxh5 Nxc4 19. Rxc4 b6 20. Kf2 Ba6 21. Rxc6 Rd8 22. Ng4 Bc3 23.
Rxc3 Qxc3 24. Qa4+ Kf8 25. Qxa6 Rg8 26. Bf4 Rxg4 27. Be3 Qc2+ 28.
Qe2 Rxg2+ 0-1

These are great fun, and are superb counter-attacking systems
for people with time to study, but the amount of theory really is
too much to try as your first defence to 1.d4. I recommend some
slower lines of the Semi-Slav, which are not so dynamic, but quite
safe and should give you a good game.

 

Semi-slav
theory

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

3…c6 keeps open the option of the Stonewall Dutch e.g. 3…c6
4. e3 f5, but in this section I’ll also show you Abraham’s
Variation 3…c6 4. Nf3 dxc4

4. Nf3 c6

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

Most of your games will end up in this position. White can play
the opening moves in a different order, e.g. 1. c4 2. Nf3 3. Nc3 4.
d4

 

A1.2a Main-line Semi-Slav with 5.
Bg5

5. Bg5

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-B-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-+QKB+R

5… Nbd7

is an attempt to steer into the Cambridge Springs. After

6. e3 Qa5

we have got there.

 

A1.2b Main-line Semi-Slav with 5.
e3

5. e3

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQKB+R

As Black you should play

5… Nbd7

Now White usually continues:

6. Bd3

This is of course not forced and you may meet 6. Qc2 or 6. Be2.
See Example games for 6. Qc2.

After 6. Bd3 Black has a choice between:

6…dxc4, The Meran System that we saw in action above, or

b-1 6… Bd6, the Tchigorin Variation, or

b-2 6…Bb4, the Romih Variation.

I’ll show you these last two.

 

 

A1.2b-1 Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

White now has a choice:

(1) 7. e4, which is sharp

(2) 7. c5, which is not dangerous

(3) 7. O-O, probably best

 

b-1(1) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. e4

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PPP+-+
+-NB+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

Still a critical line

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 O-O !

(Harding’s “!”)

10. O-O c5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+-bp+-+
+-p-+-+-
-+PPB+-+
+-+-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

[Black players have often tried10… h6 e.g. 11. Bc2 e5 12.
Re1 exd4 13. Qxd4 Bc5 14. Qc3

[or 14. Qf4]

14… Re8

[or 14… a5]

11. Bc2 Qc7 12. Qd3

White also has a choice:

[12. Re1]

[or 12. h3 cxd4 13. Qxd4 e5

[or 13… Ne5]]

[or 12. b3]

12… f5 ! 13. b4

[or 13. Rd1 cxd4 14. Qxd4 Bc5 15. Qh4 Nf6

r+b+-rk+
ppq-+-pp
-+-+pn-+
+-b-+p+-
-+P+-+-Q
+-+-+N+-
PPB+-PPP
R-BR+-K-

Grunfeld-Bogolyubow 1926: with a fair game for
black]

13… b6 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. Rd1 Be7 16. b5 Bf6 17. Rb1
Ne5 18. Qe2 = Portisch

 

 

b-1(2) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. c5

7. c5

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

An opportunity? But it takes all the pressure off d5 and Black
can soon get in ….e5

7…Bc7 8. b4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Bb2 Qe7
12. Be2 O-O 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. O-O Rae8

-+-+rrk+
pp+bqppp
-+p+-n-+
+-Ppb-+-
-P-+-+-+
+-N-P-+-
PBQ+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

Burn-Teichmann Hastings 1895

For the conclusion, see Example Games.

 

 

b-1(3) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. O-O

7. O-O

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

Probably the best preparation for e4.

7… O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5 10. Bg5 Qe7

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-B-
-+BPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+Q+RK-

11. Re1

[11. d5 Rd8 ! (Euwe) and …h6, …Nd7-f8-g6]

11… Nb6

[11… Rd8]

12. Bb3 Bg4 13. h3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Nbd7 15. d5 h6 16. Be3
cxd5 17. Bxd5 += ECO

17… Bc5 18. Bxb7 Rab8 19. Bc6 Rxb2

-+-+-rk+
p-+nqpp-
-+B+-n-p
+-b-p-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-N-BQ+P
Pr-+-PP+
R-+-R-K-

White is more comfortable but Black is still in the game

Gligoric-Pachman, Sarajevo 1961

 


A1.2b-2 Semi-Slav with 6…Bb4

7. O-O

This natural move may lose the inititiative.

[7. a3 ! is best, according to Harding

7… Ba5

[7… Bxc3+ += concedes the two Bishops for no
compensation]

8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2!

[9. Bd2 Bc7 10. Qc2 dxc4=]

9… dxc4

[9… Bc7 10. Bd2 dxc4 is an alternative, with a view to an
early …e5: it may transpose below]

10. Bxc4 Bc7 11. Bd2 e5

[or 11… Qe7 +=]

12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14. h3

r+bq-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+-b-+-
-+B+-+-+
P-N-P-+P
-PQB-PP+
R-+-+RK-

White is more comfortably placed: Forintos-Kolarov Havana
1966]

7… O-O 8. Qc2 Re8

r+bqr+k+
pp+n+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-bPP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

[or 8… Bd6]

[8… dxc4 ! Harding 9. Bxc4 Bd6 10. Bd3

[10. e4 e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. h3 Nh5 14. Ne2
Qh4 15. f4 Bc7

r+b+-rk+
ppb-+ppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+n
-+B+PP-q
+-+-+-+P
PPQ+N+P+
R-B-+RK-

“unclear”, Doroshkevic-Antoshin 1969]

10… Qe7 11. Ne2

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+BPN+-
PPQ+NPPP
R-B-+RK-

= Tolush-Alatortsev 1947]

 

A1.2c White avoids
Nc3

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3

[If White plays 3. Nc3 straight away just go 3…e6

[but White must be prepared to face 3… e5 !?]]

3… e6

 

A1.2c-1 White deviates with 4.
Qc2

4…Nf6 5. Bg5

The outline of the Cambridge Springs can already be seen

[5. g3 Ne4 6. Bg2 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 Nd7 9. Ba3 Bxa3 10.
Nxa3 Qe7

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PPn+-+
NP+-+NP-
P+Q+PPBP
R-+-+RK-

Ilvitsky-Botvinnik 1952]

5… Nbd7 6. Nc3

See above

 

A1.2c-2 White deviates with 4/5.
Nbd2

4. e3

[My computer always plays 4…Bd6 here, thinking perhaps
that White can’t organise e2-e4 as well as if Nc3 had been played.
If White is so determined to play slowly I wonder if 4… f5 is
worth a punt: White should certainly not chase the Bishop with 5.
c5 Bc7 when …e5 is bound to come quickly]

4… Nf6 5. Nbd2

The best strategy against these Nbd2 systems is to take
advantage of the lack of pressure on d5 by playing …c5(!). This
of course loses a tempo, but it hopes to show that White has
misplaced the Knight on d2 and will not be able to defend the d4
point so easily.

[White often continues 5. Bd3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2

[White can also play 6. O-O when one possible strategy is
6…Ne4 7. Nc3 f5 – see the Stonewall below]

6… c5! Our key move

7. b3

[or 7. O-O Be7 8. cxd5 exd5 9. b3 cxd4 10. exd4 O-O 11. Bb2
Re8 12. Ne5 Bb4 13. a3 Bxd2 14. Qxd2 Ne4 15. Qc2 Qb6 16. a4 Nxe5
17. dxe5

r+b+r+k+
pp+-+ppp
-q-+-+-+
+-+pP-+-
P+-+n+-+
+P+B+-+-
-BQ+-PPP
R-+-+RK-

Alekhin-Soultanbieff 1933

Now 17… Bd7! 18. Bxe4

[Not 18. a5 Qb4 (no Ra4)]

18… dxe4 = Alekhin:

the opposite-coloured Bishops reduce the excitement of the
extra pawn which at the moment blocks the line of the Bishop on
b2]

7… cxd4 8. exd4 b6 9. O-O Bb7 10. Qe2 Be7 11. Bb2
O-O

r+-q-rk+
pb+nbppp
-p-+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+P+B+N+-
PB-NQPPP
R-+-+RK-

= Harding]

5… c5!

Here we go again

6. Be2

[6. Bd3 Nc6!?]

6… Nc6 7. O-O cxd4 8. exd4 Be7 9. a3 O-O 10. c5 Ne4
11. Qc2 Bf6

r+bq-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+n+pb-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-Pn+-+
P-+-+N+-
-PQNBPPP
R-B-+RK-

“unclear” Keres-Nei Tallinn 1973]

 

 

A1.2d Main line Abrahams variation [D31]

One more Semi-Slav option you should know about:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

This odd move order looks a bit like a Meran, but Black means to
create more trouble with those Queen’s-side pawns. It’s less
well-known, not perhaps as sound, but easy to learn.

Let’s look at a quick game from Erik Teichmann:

Arkell-Teichmann 1985

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bb4 6.
e4

Natural but as we shall see, possibly over-optimistic.

6… b5 7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. Bxc3?! cxb5 10. b3 Bb7
11. d5

In another game White tried

[11. bxc4 b4 12. Qb1 f5

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+-pp
-+-+p+-+
p-+-+p+-
-pPPP+-+
+-B-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
RQ+-KB+R

Lupano-Korylov 1954 which continued:


|3. Bd3 Nf6
14. Ng5
Qe7 15. Rxa5
Rxa5 16.
Bxb4 Ra1|

with a complicated game in which Black has the better
chances]

11… Nf6

rn-qk+-r
+b+-+ppp
-+-+pn-+
pp+P+-+-
-+p+P+-+
+PB-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bb2 Nxe4 14. Bxg7 Rg8 15. Bd4 exd5 16.
cxd5 Qxd5

rn-+k+r+
+b+-+p+p
-+-+-+-+
p-+q+-+-
-p-Bn+-+
+-+-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

Black is winning all over the board!

17. Rc1 Nc6 18. Bc4 Qf5 19. Be3 Nc3 20. Qd2 Rd8 21. Qb2
Rxg2 22. Rxc3 Qxf3 23. Be2 Qf6 24. Rc2 Qxb2 25. Rxb2 Nd4 26. Rd2
Rg6 27. Rf1 Nxe2 28. Rxe2 Ba6

Looks easy, doesn’t it? Grab a Queen’s-side pawn, hit the
centre, swarm all over White’s position. Well, you won’t get that
every game, but it’s worth a punt.

Now for a spot of theory:

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

We will examine

d-1 5. e4

d-2 5. e3

d-3 5. a4

Other moves are possible, for example:

5. g3 (see Catalan),

5. Ne5!? (see Djuurhuus-Volzhin in d-3 below) or

5. Bg5 upon which Black can try

[5. Bg5 Qc7 6. a4 Bb4 7. e4 b5 8. Be2 Bb7 9. axb5 Bxc3+ 10.
bxc3 cxb5

rn-+k+nr
pbq-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
+p+-+-B-
-+pPP+-+
+-P-+N+-
-+-+BPPP
R-+QK-+R

Black is not worse]

 

 

A1.2d-1 Abrahams’ Variation with 5.
e4

This is a critical line.

5. e4 b5

[6. e5!?]

6. a4 Bb4 7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. bxc3!

Better than Arkell’s Bishop move.

9…cxb5

rnbqk+nr
+-+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pPP+-+
+-P-+N+-
-+-B-PPP
R-+QKB+R

White must make something of the central mass or the
Queen’s-side pawn will win for Black.

10. Rb1 Bd7 11. Qc2 Nf6 12. e5 Nd5 13. Ng5

This old analysis shows Black to be at least equal here

 

 

A1.2d-2 Abrahams’ Variation with 5.
e3

5. e3 b5 6. a4

This move-order may avoid the …Bb4 manoeuvre but invites other
trouble

6…b4 7. Ne4 Ba6 8. Qc2 Qd5 9. Ned2 c3

rn-+kbnr
p-+-+ppp
b+p+p+-+
+-+q+-+-
Pp-P-+-+
+-p-PN+-
-PQN-PPP
R-B-KB+R

10. bxc3 bxc3 11. Qxc3 Bxf1 12. Nxf1 a5 13. Ba3 Bxa3 14.
Qxa3 Na6 15. Ng3 Nb4 16. Rc1

with good chances for Black in an unclear position.

 

 

A1.2d-3 Main line Abrahams’ Variation
with 5. a4

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
P+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
-P-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

This is the main line.

5. a4 Bb4

White usually plays here 6. e3 but can also try:

[6. g3 a5 7. Ne5 Nf6 8. Bg2 Nd5 9. Bd2 Nb6 10. e3
N8d7

r+bqk+-r
+p+n+ppp
-np+p+-+
p-+-N-+-
PbpP-+-+
+-N-P-P-
-P-B-PBP
R-+QK-+R

Seirawan -Korchnoi 1981 with better
chances to Black]

or

[6. Bd2 a5 7. Qb1 Nd7! 8. e4 Nb6! 9. Be2 f5!

r+bqk+nr
+p+-+-pp
-np+p+-+
p-+-+p+-
PbpPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
-P-BBPPP
RQ+-K-+R

Piket, again with better chances to Black]

After 5. a4 Bb4:

 

6. e3 b5 7. Bd2

[7. Ne5 Qb6 8. Qg4 Kf8 9. g3 Nf6 10. Qf3 Bb7 -+
Speelman-Flear 1986]

7… Bxc3 8. Bxc3

8… a5!

The key move. You can also play

7…a5

when

8. axb5 Bxc3! 9. Bxc3

leads to the same position.

Novel play arises in this line on

[9. bxc3!? cxb5 10. Qb1 Ba6 11. Be2 Nc6 12. O-O Nf6 13. e4
Boleslavsky-Randvjir 1955

Now 13… O-O ,…Qc7,…Rfb8 intending …b5-b4 is about
equal]

 

or earlier after 7…a5:

[8. Qc2 Nf6 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Be2 Bb7 11. O-O Qb6 12. f4
Nbd7

r+-+-rk+
+b+n+ppp
-qp+pn-+
pp+-N-+-
PbpP-P-+
+-N-P-+-
-PQBB+PP
R-+-+RK-

Djurhuus-Volzhin 1992: Black returned the pawn with …b4,
and played …c5]

 

9. axb5 cxb5

rnbqk+nr
+-+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-B-+N+-
-P-+PPPP
R-+QKB+R

10. b3

[10. d5 should be met by 10…Nf6 11. dxe6 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1
Ne4 -+ as in Donner-Pliester]

10… Bb7

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+PB-PN+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

Now 11. d5!? Nf6 12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bxf6 Qxf6

(As in Gavrikov-Keraser 1982)

14. Qa4+ Nd7 15. Nd4 Unclear! See example games

 

Instead after the better

11. bxc4 b4

White now has two tries:

(a) 12. Bd2

(b) 12. Bb2

 

(a)12. Bd2 Nf6 13. Bd3 Nbd7 14. O-O O-O 15. Qc2 Qc7 16. e4
e5

in this important position experience has shown Black to
have fully equal practical chances after:

(a-i) 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Ng4

(a-ii) 17. Rfe1 Rfe8 18. c5

r+-+r+k+
+bqn+ppp
-+-+-n-+
p-P-p-+-
-p-PP+-+
+-+B+N+-
-+QB-PPP
R-+-R-K-

and here Black has done all right with

[18… exd4 Neverov-Kramnik 1991]

or [18… Ba6 Flear]

or [18… h6 Soltis]

(a-iii) 17. d5 Nc5

 

(b) 12. Bb2 Nf6 13. Bd3 Be4

[13… Nbd7 14. Qc2 O-O 15. O-O += Saeed-Pliester
1982]

14. Qc2 ? 14… Bxd3 15. Qxd3 a4 Polugaevsky]

Example games in the
Semi-Slav:

Burn – Teichmann (Hastings) [D46] 1895

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6 5. e3 Bd6 6. Bd3
Nbd7 7. c5 Bc7 8. b4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Bb2 Qe7 12.
Be2 O-O 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. O-O Rae8 15. Rad1 Bb8 16. Nb1 Ne4 17. Nd2
f5 18. Bd4 Ng5 19. Bd3 f4 20. Kh1 Qf7 21. Nf3

-b-+rrk+
pp+b+qpp
-+p+-+-+
+-Pp+-n-
-P-B-p-+
+-+BPN+-
P+Q+-PPP
+-+R+R+K

21… Nxf3 22. gxf3 Qh5 23. Rg1 Rf7 24. Qe2 Be5 25. Bc2
Rf6 26. Bxe5 Qxh2+ 27. Kxh2 Rh6+ 28. Kg2 Bh3+ 29. Kh1 Bf1#
0-1

 

 

Deviations by White:

Miralles,G – Granda Zuniga,J [D45] 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2
Bd6 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

10. h3 Qe7 11. a3 g6 12. Ba2 b6 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5
Bxe5 15. e4 Nh5 16. Ne2 Ba6 17. Rd1 Rfd8 18. Be3 Qf6 19.
Rab1

r+-r-+k+
p-+-+p+p
bpp+-qp+
+-+-b-+n
-+-+P+-+
P-+-B-+P
BPQ+NPP+
+R+R+-K-

19… g5 20. g3 Qf3 21. Nd4 Bxd4 22. Bxd4 Be2 23. Qc1
Nf4 24. gxf4 Qxh3 25. f5 Qg4+ 26. Kh2 Bf3 27. Bxf7+ Kf8 28. Bc5+
Kxf7 29. Qc4+ Rd5 0-1

 

Rohde,M – Shabalov,A
(8)


[D45] Philadelphia, 1990

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. d4 Nbd7 6. Qc2
Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

10. Bb3 Qc7 11. h3 b5

r+b+-rk+
p-qn+ppp

-+pb-n-+
+p+-p-+-
-+-P-+-+
+BN-PN+P
PPQ+-PP+
R-B-+RK-

12. Ng5 Bb7 13. Rd1 Rad8 14. a4 a6 15. Nce4 Nxe4 16.
Nxe4 Be7 17. axb5 axb5 18. d5 Nb6 19. Ra7 Nc8 20. Ra1 c5 21. Ng3 c4
22. e4 Bc5 23. Ba2 Nd6 24. Qe2 Ra8 25. Be3 b4

r+-+-rk+
+bq-+ppp
-+-n-+-+
+-bPp-+-
-pp+P+-+
+-+-B-NP
BP-+QPP+
R-+R+-K-

26. b3 c3 27. Rac1 Ra3 28. Bxc5 Qxc5 29. Nh5 Bc8 30. Rd3
Qb5 31. Rc2 f6 32. f4 Rf7 33. fxe5 fxe5 34. Qe3 Qa6 35. Kh2 Rxa2
36. Rxa2 Qxa2 37. Qb6 Qe2

-+b+-+k+
+-+-+rpp
-Q-n-+-+
+-+Pp-+N
-p-+P+-+
+PpR+-+P
-+-+q+PK
+-+-+-+-

38. Qd8+ Rf8 39. Nf6+ gxf6 40. Rg3+ Bg4 41. Qxd6 h5 42.
Qxb4 c2 43. Qc5 Qd1 44. hxg4 c1=Q

-+-+-rk+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-p-+
+-QPp-+p
-+-+P+P+
+P+-+-R-
-+-+-+PK
+-qq+-+-

45. gxh5+ Qg5 46. Rxg5+ fxg5 47. d6 Qxh5+ 48. Kg1 Qd1+
49. Kh2 Rd8 50. Qc4+ Kf8 51. Qe6 Qxd6 52. Qf5+ Ke7 53. Qh7+ Ke8 54.
Qg8+ Kd7 55. Qf7+ Kc6 56. Qc4+ Kb6 57. b4 Qh6+ 0-1

 

 


Example of Romih Variation:

Hegeler,F – Wockenfuss,K [D46] 2BLN, 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. a3 Ba5 8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2 Re8 10. Rd1 e5

r+bqr+k+
pp+n+ppp
-+p+-n-+
b-+pp-+-
-+PP-+-+
P-NBPN+-
-PQ+-PPP
R-BR+-K-

11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Rxe5 13. cxd5 cxd5 14. b4 Bb6 15.
Bb2

r+bq-+k+
pp+-+ppp
-b-+-n-+
+-+pr-+-
-P-+-+-+
P-NBP-+-
-BQ+-PPP
R-+R+-K-

15… Bg4 16. Be2 Rc8 17. Qd2 Qd7 18. Rac1 Rd8 19. Nb5
Ne4 20. Qc2 Rg5

-+-r-+k+
pp+q+ppp
-b-+-+-+
+N+p+-r-
-P-+n+b+
P-+-P-+-
-BQ+BPPP
+-RR+-K-

 

21. Bd4 Bh3 22. g3 Rg6 23. Bxb6 Rxb6 24. Qc7 Qe8 25.
Nxa7 Rf6 26. Bf1

-+-rq+k+
NpQ-+ppp
-+-+-r-+
+-+p+-+-
-P-+n+-+
P-+-P-Pb
-+-+-P-P
+-RR+BK-

26… Nxf2 27. Re1 Ra8 28. Qxb7 h5 29. Rc7 Rxa7 30. Qxa7
Qe4 0-1

 

Kraai,J – Donaldson,J (2) [D46] American, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. O-O O-O 8. Qb3 Bd6 9. e4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 e5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BPP+-+
+QN-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

11. h3 b5 12. Be2 a6 13. a4 Bb7 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Re1
Re8 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bh4 Ng6 18. Bxf6 Qxf6

r+-+r+k+
+b+-+pp-
p+pb-qnp
+p+-+-+-
P+-+P+-+
+QN-+N+P
-P-+BPP+
R-+-R-K-

19. Rad1 Ne5 20. Nb1 Nxf3+ 21. Bxf3 Be5 22. Re2 Bc8 23.
Red2 Be6 24. Qa3 Rac8 25. b4

-+r+r+k+
+-+-+pp-
p+p+bq-p
+p+-b-+-
PP-+P+-+
Q-+-+B+P
-+-R-PP+
+N+R+-K-

25… bxa4 26. Qxa4 Bxh3 27. Qxa6 Be6 28. b5 cxb5 29.
Qxb5 Rb8 30. Qe2 Rec8 0-1

-rr+-+k+
+-+-+pp-
-+-+bq-p
+-+-b-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+B+-
-+-RQPP+
+N+R+-K-

[30… Rec8 31. Na3 Rb3]

 

Karpov – Tal [D46] Moscow, 1973

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. O-O O-O 8. a3 Bd6 9. Qc2 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qe7 11. h3
e5

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
P-N-PN+P
-PQ+-PP+
R-B-+RK-

12. Ba2 a5 13. a4 Bb4 14. Rd1 b6 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nd4
Bd7 17. Bd2 Rad8 18. Be1 Ng6 19. Nf3 Ne5 20. Nd4 Ng6 21. Nf3
Ne5

-+-r-rk+
+-+bqppp
-pp+-n-+
p-+-n-+-
Pb-+-+-+
+-N-PN+P
BPQ+-PP+
R-+RB-K-

1/2-1/2

 

Example of Tchigorin Variation:

Plachetka,T – Drtina,M (5) [D46] Trnava, 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bd6 7. O-O dxc4 8. Bxc4 Qe7 9. e4 e5

r+b+k+-r
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

10. Bg5 Nb6 11. dxe5 Bxe5 12. Bb3 O-O 13. Qc2 h6 14. Bh4
Re8 15. Nxe5 Qxe5 16. f4

r+b+r+k+
pp+-+pp-
-np+-n-p
+-+-q-+-
-+-+PP-B
+BN-+-+-
PPQ+-+PP
R-+-+RK-

16… Qc5+ 17. Bf2 Qh5 18. Rae1 Be6 19. Bd4 Bxb3 20.
Qxb3 Nfd7 21. Rf3 Kf8 22. Rh3 Qa5 23. Rg3 f6 24. e5 c5 25. Bf2 fxe5
26. fxe5

r+-+rk-+
pp+n+-p-
-n-+-+-p
q-p-P-+-
-+-+-+-+
+QN-+-R-
PP-+-BPP
+-+-R-K-

26… c4 27. Qc2 Rxe5 28. Rf1 Kg8 29. Bd4 Rg5 30. Rff3
Ne5 31. Re3 Nc6

r+-+-+k+
pp+-+-p-
-nn+-+-p
q-+-+-r-
-+pB-+-+
+-N-R-R-
PPQ+-+PP
+-+-+-K-

32. Bxg7 Kxg7 33. h4 Rxg3 34. Rxg3+ Kh8 35. Qg6 Qc5+ 36.
Kh2 Qf8 37. Ne4 Ne5 38. Qh5 Qf4 39. Ng5 Qf6 40. Ne4 Qf4 41. Ng5 Qf8
42. Ne4 Nbd7 43. Rg5 Nf7 44. Rf5 Nde5 45. Ng5 Kg8

r+-+-qk+
pp+-+n+-
-+-+-+-p
+-+-nRNQ
-+p+-+-P
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-+PK
+-+-+-+-

46. Nxf7 Nxf7 47. Qg6+ Qg7 48. Qe6 Rf8 49. Rf6 Kh8 50.
Kh1 b5 51. Qe7 Rg8 52. Rf2 Ne5 53. Qe6 Nd3 0-1

Abrahams’ Variation

Curtis-Teichmann 1985

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 b5 6.
Bg5

[6. a4]

6…f6 7. Be3 Bb4 8. Be2 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Nd7 11.
a4 Nb6 12. axb5 Bxc3 13. Qxc3 cxb5 14. b3 Bb7

r+-q-rk+
pb+-n-pp
-n-+pp-+
+p+-+-+-
-+pPP+-+
+PQ-BN+-
-+-+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

15. Nd2 f5 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. bxc4 fxe4 19.
cxb5 Nd5 20. Qa3 Qf6 21. Nxe4 Qg6 22. Ng3 Nf4

r+-+-rk+
pb+-+-p-
-+-+p+qp
+P+-+-+-
-+-P-n-+
Q-+-+-N-
-+-+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

23. f3 h5 24. Qe7 Rf7 25. Qh4 Qh6 0-1

[26. Rfe1 g5]

 

 

Serebrjanik-Maximenko
1991

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bb4 6. e3
b5 7. Bd2 [7…a5] 7… Bxc3 8. Bxc3 a5!
9. axb5 cxb5 10. b3 Bb7

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+PB-PN+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

11. d5!? Nf6 12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Qa4+ Nd7 15.
Nd4

This is the point we left off above

15… e5 16. Nb3 Ke7

r+-+-+-r
+b+nkppp
-+-+-q-+
p-+Pp-+-
QpP+-+-+
+N+-P-+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+-KB+R

17. Qb5

[17. Rd1] or [17. Be2]

17… Ba6 18. Qxa5 Rhb8 19. d6+ Ke8 ! 20. Qd5 Bb7 21.
Qd2 Rxa1+ 22. Nxa1 Nc5 ! 23. d7+ Kd8 ! 24. Qxb4 Qd6 25. Qd2 Qa6 26.
Qb2 [26. Nc2 Be4 -+] 26…
Qa5+

The White pawn on d7 shelters the Black King,While the useless
White pieces can only sit around and watch their own King get
mated.
-r-k-+-+
+b+P+ppp
-+-+-+-+
q-n-p-+-
-+P+-+-+
+-+-P-+-
-Q-+-PPP
N-+-KB+R

0-1

A1.3 The Exchange
Variation

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5

White’s approach in this line has many advantages: the position
is simplified, White has a permanent structural advantage and a
clear plan to follow, and Black’s counterplay is limited. White can
now adopt two plans:

 

A1.3a The minority attack with b4 and
b5

White plans to play b4-b5xc6 when your c-pawn will be backward
on an open file. If nothing else happens, this can be enough to
lose the game.

­ King’s-side action using the semi-open e-file and
particularly the outpost at e4. (see several games below)

­ Temporary delay and permanent simplification with …a5,
forcing White to adopt a3 and b4 or make other concessions (Smagin
and Ekstroem games)

­ The creation of a passed a-pawn with …a6, when b5 is
met by …c6xb5 (white axb5) and …a5 (I have no example of this
plan).

­ Meet b5 with …c5

­ Prevent b5 by playing …b5 and using the strong c4 point
(see the Van der Sterren game below)

5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Bd3 Nbd7

r+bqk+-r
pp+nbppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-P-+-+
+-NBP-+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+QK-NR

8. Qc2

[8. Nf3 loses the initiative straightaway: 8…Ne4 9. Bxe7
Qxe7=]

8… O-O 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rab1
Ne4

r+bqrnk+
pp+-bppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-Pn+-+
+-NBPN+-
PPQ+-PPP
+R+-+RK-

12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Ne5 Bf5 14. Nxe4 Bxe4 15. Bxe4 dxe4
16. b4

[16. Qxe4 f6]

 

A1.3b Central break with f3 and
e4

White’s other plan is less popular but more dynamic. The King’s
Knight come to e2, and then f2-f3 will prepare e2-e4. Black’s best
plan is to hit back. We may see a bit more of this plan since the
following advertisement for it:

Kasparov – Short (10) [D35] WCh, 1994

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O Nf8

Normal is 9…c6

10. b4!

r+bqrnk+
ppp-bppp
-+-+-n-+
+-+p+-B-
-P-P-+-+
+-NBP-+-
P+-+NPPP
R-+Q+RK-

10… a6

[10… Bxb4? leads to trouble after 11. Bxf6]

11. a3 c6 12. Qc2 g6 13. f3 Ne6 14. Bh4 Nh5 15. Bxe7
Rxe7

[15… Qxe7!?]

16. Qd2 b6? 17. Rad1 Bb7 18. Bb1 Nhg7 19.
e4

r+-q-+k+
+b+-rpnp
ppp+n+p+
+-+p+-+-
-P-PP+-+
P-N-+P+-
-+-QN+PP
+B+R+RK-

White has his cake and is eating it too: he has succeeded in
playing both b2-b4 and e2-e4, and Black has no counterplay. Black
soon collapsed.

Below you can see some ways of fighting against this idea,
particularly if White risks castling Queen’s-side.

 

 

Example Games in the Exchange
Variation

Black plays solidly

Steinbacher,M – van der Sterren,P (5) [D36] Ostend,
1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bg5 Be7 7. Qc2 g6 8. e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O
12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Rab1 Bd6 14. b4 b5

Black defends his Queen’s-side solidly. White tries a Knight
advance.

15. Ne5 Bxe5 16. dxe5 Nd7 17. f4 a5 18. a3 Nb6 19. Ne2
axb4

r+-q-rk+
+-+-+p+p
-np+-+p+
+p+pP-+-
-p-+-P-+
P-+QP-+-
-+-+N+PP
+R+-+RK-

20. axb4 Nc4 21. Nd4 Qb6 22. Ra1 Ra4 23. Rxa4 bxa4 24.
Ra1 Ra8 25. Nc2 a3 26. Ra2 Ra7 27. Qd4 Qxd4 28. exd4 f6 29. exf6
Kf7 30. Kf2 Kxf6

Black now wins methodically.

31. Ne3 Nxe3 32. Kxe3 Kf5 33. Kf3 h5 34. h3 h4 35. Ke3
Ra4 36. Kd3 Kxf4 37. Kc3 Ke3 38. Kb3 Ra8 39. Kc3 Ra7
0-1

 

Black wins with a King’s-side
attack:

??-?? [D34]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
Qc2 O-O 7. e3 Re8 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Nf3 Nf8 10. O-O c6 11. Rab1 Ng6
12. b4 a6 13. a4 Bd6 14. b5 axb5 15. axb5 h6 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. bxc6
bxc6 18. Rb6 Bg4 19. Nd2 Re6

r+-+-+k+
+-+-+pp-
-Rpbrqnp
+-+p+-+-
-+-P-+b+
+-NBP-+-
-+QN-PPP
+-+-+RK-

This neat move is useful for attack and defence: if Rxc6, then
Bxh2+ wins the exchange. GM Nigel Davies in an article praises this
type of rook manoeuvre for Black: the Rook can move to (say) the
g-file and cause problems for the White King. As it happens White
soon digs a pit into which he or she falls!

20. Na4 Nh4 21. g3 Nf3+ 22. Nxf3 Qxf3 23. Re1 Bh3 24.
Bf1 Bf5 25. e4 Rxe4 26. Qxc6 Rxe1 27. Qxa8+ Kh7 28. Nc3 Bh3
0-1

 


Davidovic,A – Smagin,S (4) [D36] It-open, Dortmund,
1989

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Qc2 Be7 7. Bg5 g6

This plan is unusual.

8. e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rab1
a5 13. a3 Re8 14. Rfc1 a4 15. Qc2 Qa5 16. Re1 Bd6 17. Bh4
Ne4

This plan is very familiar!

18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Nd2 Qh5

r+-+r+k+
+p+n+p+p
-+pb-+p+
+-+-+-+q
p+-Pp+-B
P-+-P-+-
-PQN-PPP
+R+-R-K-

Black is well-placed for a quick King’s-side attack; White’s
intended Queen’s-side initiative is nowhere to be seen.

20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. hxg3 Nf6 22. b3 Ra5 23. bxa4 Ng4 24.
Nf1 Rf5 25. Rxb7 c5 26. Re2 Qh6 27. Qb3 Re6 28. f3 Rh5 29. fxg4
Rh1+ 30. Kf2 Rxf1+ 0-1

 

Von Gleich,A – Ekstroem,R (1) [D36] Lugano, 1989

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bg5 c6 7. Qc2 h6 8. Bxf6 Bxf6 9. e3 O-O 10. Bd3 Re8 11. h3 Nd7 12.
O-O Be7 13. a3 Bd6 14. b4 Nf6 15. Rfc1 Qe7 16. Ra2 a5 17. bxa5 Rxa5
18. a4 Ne4 19. Bxe4 dxe4

-+b+r+k+
+p+-qpp-
-+pb-+-p
r-+-+-+-
P+-Pp+-+
+-N-PN+P
R+Q+-PP+
+-R-+-K-

The familiar …Ne4 move leads to a quick King’s-side kill.

20. Nd2 Be6 21. Raa1 Bxh3 22. Qxe4 Qd7 23. Qh4 Rg5 24.
g3 Bg4 25. Qh1 Bxg3 26. Nce4 Rh5 27. Qg2 Bh2+ 28. Kf1 Kh8 29. Ke1
Bc7 0-1

 

Yermolinsky – Shipman,W (3) [D36] MCC, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6.
cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Nh5
12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. a3 g6 14. b4 Ne6 15. b5 Ng5 16. Nxg5 Qxg5 17. Kh2
f5 18. bxc6 bxc6 19. Na4 Re6

r+b+-+k+
p-+-+-+p
-+p+r+p+
+-+p+pqn
N+-P-+-+
P-+BP-+P
-+Q+-PPK
R-+-+R+-

White has created a weak pawn on c6 but Black doesn’t care too
much!

20. Nc5 Rf6 21. Be2 f4 22. Bxh5 Qxh5 23. f3 fxe3 24. Qd3
Bxh3 25. gxh3 Re8 26. Nd7 Rf4 27. Rae1 Re7 28. Qa6 Qf5 29. Ne5 Rxe5
30. dxe5 Rh4 0-1

 


White wants to play in the centre:

Deze,A – Tadic,K (1) [D35] Novi, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
e3 O-O 7. Bd3 c6 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Re8 10. Nge2 Nbd7 11. f3
c5

A change of emphasis: White wants to advance in the centre with
e2-e4, so Black immediately hits at the d-pawn with …c7-c5.

12. O-O b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Bf2 cxd4 15. exd4 a6 16. Qb3
b5 17. a4 b4 18. Na2 Qb6 19. Rc1 Bd6

r+-+r+k+
+b+n+pp-
pq-b-n-p
+-+p+-+-
Pp-P-+-+
+Q+B+P+-
NP-+NBPP
+-R-+RK-

White’s plan has come to nothing.

20. Qd1 Nf8 21. Bg3 Ne6 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. Qd2 a5 24. Bb5
Re7 25. Ng3 Qb6 26. Nf5 Rc7 27. Rfe1 Kf8 28. Rxc7 Qxc7 29. Nc1 Bc6
30. Bxc6 Qxc6 31. Nd3 Re8 32. b3 Qc3 33. Qxc3 bxc3 34. Rc1 Rc8 35.
Nd6 Rc6 36. Nb5 c2 37. Ne5 Nf4 0-1

 

White castles Queen’s-side:

Paduch,A – Ghafour,Y (8) [D35] A.Kotov memorial, Singapore,
1990

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bf4 Be7 7. e3 c6 8. h3 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. Qc2 a5 11. g4 Nf8 12.
O-O-O a4

Black was all ready to meet White’s King on the
Queen’s-side.

13. a3 Qa5 14. Ne5 Be6 15. Bf5 c5 16. Kb1 Rec8 17. Qe2
c4 18. e4 dxe4 19. Bxe4 Bd5

r+r+-nk+
+p+-bppp
-+-+-n-+
q-+bN-+-
p+pPBBP+
P-N-+-+P
-P-+QP-+
+K+R+-+R

20. Bxd5 Nxd5 21. Bd2 Bxa3 22. Nxc4 Nxc3+ 23. Bxc3 Qb5
24. d5 Qxc4 25. Qe5 f6 26. Qf5 Bd6 27. f4 Qxf4 28. Qd3 a3 29. Rhg1
axb2 30. Bxb2 Qa4 0-1

 

 

Tisdall,J – Inkiov,V (5) [D36] Gausdal, 1990

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
Qc2 c6 7. e3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Nge2 Re8 10. h3 Nf8 11. g4 b5 12.
O-O-O a5 13. Ng3 a4 14. Kb1 Qa5 15. Nce2 Bd7 16. Nf5 Bxf5 17. gxf5
Rac8 18. Rhg1 Kh8 19. Bxf6 Bxf6

-+r+rn-k
+-+-+ppp
-+p+-b-+
qp+p+P+-
p+-P-+-+
+-+BP-+P
PPQ+NP-+
+K+R+-R-

An exciting opposite-side castling position has arisen.

20. Nf4 Nd7 21. Rc1 a3 22. b3 c5 23. Nxd5 c4 24. Nxf6
Nxf6 25. bxc4 bxc4 26. Bxc4 Ne4 27. Ka1 Nd2 28. f6 Rxc4 0-1

Lessons from Larsen

Posted on by

The best advice you can give a young player is for them to play like Morphy and Tarrasch, and to play the openings they played. But, once your play has reached a certain standard, you need to appreciate more the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of chess. Then you are ready to look at Larsen’s games.

He was clearly the one of the strongest players in the world in the ‘sixties and ‘seventies, and captained the Rest of the World team against the Soviet Union in 1970. And he also has a bold spirit, excellent fighting qualities, superb technique and a fresh approach to the openings. You can learn a lot from a man like that.

Larsen is also a wonderful annotator, and worth reading for his notes alone: for example, his book of the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi match is excellent reading, and a far cry from the hurried hackwork that usually follows a championship match. His games collection is a joy from start to finish – frank, witty, thorough and the games are full of delights.

Opening

Larsen,B – Lengyel,L [C28] Amsterdam (9), 1964

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3

Not a move to play against everybody: 3…Nxe4! 4. Qh5! may be required.

3…Nc6 4.d3 Bb4 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Na5 8.Bb3 Nxb3 9.axb3 0-0 10.c4

I remember Michael Stean showing this position and claiming White could play for a win with it, using the extra central Pawn. Larsen had played this before and got just a draw, but wanted to show it was worth a win. But it takes a steady hand…

10…Qe7 11.Nd2 Nd7 12.Qh5 Nc5 13.f4 exf4 14.Rxf4 Qe5 15.Qxe5 dxe5 16.Rf2 Ne6 17.Nf3 f6 18.Be3 a6

 

19.Nh4 Bd7 20.Nf5 Rae8 21.h3 Rf7 22.Kh2 Nf8 23.g4 Ng6 24.Ng3 Ne7 25.Raf1 Be6 26.Ne2 Nc6 27.Kg3 Nb8 28.Nc3 c6 29.c5 Nd7 30.Na4 Rd8 31.h4 Rdf8 32.Nb2 Rc8 33.Ra1 Kf8 34.Ra4 Ke8 35.Rb4 Rc7 36.c3

 

36…g6 37.d4 h5 38.g5 fxg5 39.Bxg5 exd4 40.Rxf7 Kxf7 41.cxd4 Nf6 42.Kf4 a5 43.Ra4 Bxb3 44.Rxa5 Ng4 45.Ra3 Be6 46.Nd3 Kg7 47.Ne5 Rc8 48.Be7 Re8 49.Bd6 Nxe5 50.Bxe5+ Kf7 51.Kg5 Bg4 52.Ra1 Re6 53.Rb1 Re7 54.Rf1+ Ke8 55.Kxg6 Kd7 56.Rf4 Be2 57.Bd6 Re6+ 58.Kg5 Bd3 59.Be5 Be2 60.Rf2 Bd3 61.Kf4 Rg6 62.Ke3 Bc4 63.Rf5 Rg1 64.Rxh5 Re1+ 65.Kf4 Bd3 66.Rh7+ Ke6

 

67.d5+ cxd5 68.exd5+ Kxd5 69.Rd7+ 1-0

Larsen,B – Spassky,B [A03] Amsterdam, 1964

1.f4

“Most masters have no high opinion (of Bird’s Opening), but I chose it for the very reason that they do not play it and do not know it. I know it quite well, and have many original ideas. Now I challenge Spassky with it; let us see what ideas he has to show.”

[Spassky too keeps to his own unusual repertoire including the King’s Gambit, which for him is no frivolous whim, but a deeply-studied system that he knows and trusts. This is just what we all should do: stick to your openings and they will reward you over time.]

1…d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b4 Bg7 5.Bb2 0-0 6.Be2 Bg4 7.0-0 c6 8.a4 Nbd7 9.Na3 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Re8 11.d4

 

11…Ne4 12.Bxe4 dxe4 13.Nc4 Nb6 14.Na5 Nd5 15.Qe1 Qd7 16.c4 Nf6 17.b5 Qc7 18.Rb1 Ng4 19.bxc6 b6 20.Qe2 f5 21.Nb3 Qxc6 22.d5 Qxa4 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.Nd4 Rec8 25.h3 Nf6 26.Rfc1 Qd7 27.g4

 

27…Kf7 28.g5 Ne8 29.Qa2 Nd6 30.h4 Qe8 31.Ne6 Qh8 32.h5 h6 33.Rb2 gxh5 34.Rh2 hxg5 35.Nxg5+ Ke8 36.c5 Rxc5 37.Rxc5 bxc5 38.Qa4+ Kf8 39.Rg2 Re8 40.Qd7 Qh6 41.Qxa7 Qh8 42.Qd7 Qh6 43.Ne6+ Kf7 44.Ng5+ Kf8 45.Kh2 h4 46.Ne6+ Kf7 47.Ng5+ Kf8 48.Kh3 c4 49.Ne6+ Kf7 50.Ng5+ Kf8 51.Rg1

 

51…c3 52.Qe6 Qxe6 53.dxe6 Kg7 54.Nxe4+ Kh6 55.Nxc3 Ne4 [55…Rd8] 56.Nxe4 fxe4 57.Kxh4 Ra8 58.f5 Ra2 59.Rg8 Rf2 60.Rf8 1-0

Flohr,S – Larsen,B [A56] Copenhagen, 1966

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5

“If (Black) forgets to do something active, then he will be slowly strangled. Playing this system means that I force myself to play aggressively!”

4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 g6 6.Bd3 Bg7 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.h3 a6

Black waits for the Bc1 to move before playing Nh5.

9.Be3 Nh5 10.Qd2 [10.g4 Nf4 11.Nxf4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Ne5] 10…0-0 11.g4 Nf4 12.Nxf4 exf4 13.Bxf4 Ne5 14.Be2 b5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Nxb5 Ra4 17.Nc3 Rd4 18.Qe3 Re8 19.Qg3 g5 20.Be3 Ng6 21.Bb5 Rexe4 22.Nxe4 Rxe4

White gets nervous and flees the centre, but this is out of the frying pan and into the fire.

23.0-0? Rb4 24.Bd3 Be5 25.Qf3 Nh4 26.Qd1 Qf6 27.a3 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Bxg4 29.axb4 Nh4+ 30.Kg1 Bxd1 31.Rfxd1 cxb4 32.Be4 Bxb2 33.Ra8+ Kg7 34.Rb8 Bc3 35.Rxb4 Nf3+ 36.Bxf3 Qxf3 37.Rd3 Be5 38.Rg4 h6 39.Rd2 Qxh3 40.Rg2 f6 0-1

Middlegame

Bronstein,D – Larsen,B [E75] Amsterdam izt, 1964

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6

“A move full of fighting spirit and self-confidence. As a matter of fact I believe that Bronstein knows more about the King’s Indian than I do but — come out and fight!”

3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Nf3 h6 9.Bf4 exd5 10.exd5 Re8 11.Nd2 Nh5 12.Bg3 Bg4 13.0-0 Nxg3 14.hxg3 Bxe2 15.Nxe2 Bxb2 16.Rb1 Bg7 17.Rxb7 Nd7

The next few moves should be showered with annotation marks, but which ones?

18.Nf4 Nb6 19.Re1 Bc3 20.Ne4 Bxe1 21.Ne6 Bxf2+

 

22.Kxf2 fxe6 23.Qg4 Rf8+ 24.Kg1 Rf6

 

25.Qh3??

[25.dxe6 Nxc4! (25…Qf8 26.e7 Rf1+ 27.Kh2 Qf5 28.Qxf5 Rxf5 29.Rxa7! Rb8=; 25…h5 draws 26.e7 Rf1+ 27.Kxf1 Ne3+ 28.Ke2 Nxg4 29.exd8Q+ Rxd8-+]

25…Qf8 26.Ng5 Rf1+ 27.Kh2 Rf5 28.Nxe6 Rh5 29.Qxh5 gxh5 30.Nxf8 Rxf8 0-1

A fabulous ding-dong of a game. Donner annotated this game twice in two days, once giving 22.Kxf2? then again with 22.Kxf2! But if he knew about 25…Nxc4, maybe he would have annotated it a third time, and found a third typographical symbol. Larsen thought that Donner had a lot of courage to correct his first analysis so quickly; I agree.

Larsen,B – Petrosian,T [B39] Santa Monica, 1966

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6

“I used to have Black in this position!”

5.Be3 Bg7 6.c4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 Ne6 10.Qd2 d6 11.Be2 Bd7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rad1 Bc6 14.Nd5 Re8 15.f4 Nc7 16.f5 Na6 17.Bg4 Nc5 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Qf2 Rf8

“I have several times used this position to illustrate how the right move is sometime found through elimination.”

20.e5!

[20.Bxc5?! dxc5 21.Nf6+ (21.Qxc5 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Qb6 23.b4 Qxc5+ 24.bxc5 “is drawn” ; 21.Qh4 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 e6 is bad, but inspires the game continuation 21…Bxf6 22.Rxd8 Raxd8 with compensation]

20…Bxe5 21.Qh4 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Ne6?

[22…e6 is still worth trying]

23.Rf3 Bf6?

[23…f5]

24.Qh6 Bg7

 

25.Qxg6

The exclamation mark should not be attached to this move, but rather to Rf3; of course it is the current move that makes the previous one possible.

25…Nf4

[25…fxg6 26.Bxe6+ Kh7 27.Rh3+]

26.Rxf4 fxg6 27.Be6+ Rf7 28.Rxf7 Kh8 29.Rg5 b5 30.Rg3 1-0

Endgame

Eliskases,E – Larsen,B [A96] Mar del Plata, 1958

Larsen tells us that one of the most popular chess excuses is “a cold”. Yet this game was played when he had a terrible cold, so what can he say next time? [ Actually Larsen’s comments on this game are much more lengthy and amusing, but I would be a cad to reproduce them here and spoil his punchline. ]

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.c4 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.b3 Qe8 8.Bb2 a5 9.a3

 

9…Nbd7 [9…Qh5] 10.Nbd2 Qh5 11.Re1 Ne4 12.e3 Ndf6 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Nd2 Qg6 15.f3 exf3 16.Nxf3 Ng4 17.e4 e5

 

18.Bc3 Bg5 19.Nxg5 Qxg5 20.Ra2 Qh6 21.Bf3? exd4 22.Bxd4 Ne5 23.Bxe5 dxe5 24.Qd3 Be6 25.a4 Rad8 26.Qe3 Qxe3+ 27.Rxe3 Bh3 28.Ra1 Rd2 29.Rb1 h5 30.Bxh5 Rg2+ 31.Kh1 Rff2 32.Bf3 Rxh2+ 33.Kg1 g5 34.Rbe1 Rb2 35.R1e2 Rhxe2 36.Bxe2 Be6 37.Kf1 Kf8 38.Ke1 Ke7 39.Kd1 Kd6 40.Kc1 Ra2 41.Kb1 Rd2 42.Kc1 Rd4

 

43.Kc2 Kc5 44.Kc3 c6 45.Bf3 Rd8 46.Be2 Rh8 47.Bf3 Rh3 48.Bg2 Rh2 49.Bf3 Bf7

 

50.Bg4 [50.g4 Be6] 50…Bh5 51.Bc8 Be2 52.Bxb7 Bg4 53.Rd3 Rg2 54.Bxc6 Kxc6 55.b4 axb4+ 56.Kxb4 Rb2+ 57.Kc3 Re2 58.a5 Rxe4 59.a6 Be6 60.Kb2 Rxc4 61.Ra3 Rb4+ 62.Kc3 Rb8 63.a7 Ra8 64.Ra6+ Kd5 65.Kb4 Bd7 66.Ra1 e4 67.Kc3 Bb5 68.Kd2 Kd4 69.Ra3 g4 70.Rb3 Ba6 71.Rb4+ Bc4 72.Ra4 e3+ 73.Kc2 e2 74.Kd2 Kc5 75.Ra1 Kb6 0-1

All games complete and play-through

Taimanov’s Legacy

Posted on by

Introduction

I once read a comment in an old book that Samisch was the only
master who had more than one opening system named after him
(variations in the Nimzo- and King’s Indian). I think that wasn’t
strictly true even then, but now there are many masters with
opening namesakes. Pianist and Grandmaster Mark Taimanov has given
to the chess world two prominent variations: in the Nimzo-Indian,
the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 Nc6!?
beloved of English master Michael Franklin, and in the Sicilian,
the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3
a6 , usually followed by Taimanov’s trademark
…Nge7

I thought both variations very odd when I first came across
them: unnatural and awkward. But of course GM Taimanov sees a
little deeper behind these moves than folks like me, so I’ve been
following in his footsteps and trying to find out a bit more about
what he saw in his line of the Sicilian.

My motive to do so now was curiosity, piqued by a few prompts in
the last couple of years:

  1. Having a privileged trawl through some of Bob Lee’s games, in
    which the Taimanov Sicilian featured strongly. (Bob approached 200
    grade strength playing for Exeter in the 1970s, but his real forte
    was correspondence chess: read all about it!).
  2. Buying a copy of Nunn’s Chess Openings , and, along
    with a thumbs-up to several other variations which I had always
    thought a bit duff theoretically, like the Stonewall Dutch, one
    line of the Sicilian that was doing well was the Taimanov
    Sicilian.
  3. Looking for an answer to the Grand Prix Attack as Black in the
    Sicilian, I came across a try which seemed to leave White nothing
    better than to transpose into a line of the Taimanov. Black
    equalised with some exotic-looking manoeuvres in Lein – Ivanovic
    [B23] Lone Pine, 1980

    1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e6 4.Nf3 Nge7 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nxd4
    7.Qxd4 a6 8.Qf2 b5 9.Bd3 Ng6 10.Be3 Bb7 11.Bd4 Qc7 12.0-0 f6 13.Bb6
    Qc6 14.Be3 Rc8 15.a4 b4 16.Ne2 Bc5     …0-1 (72)

  4. A growing dissatisfaction with the way I’ve been playing the
    Sicilian after 2. Nf3. I’ve played the Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto
    for a lot of years (mixed in with some other stuff) but I think my
    interpretation of the variation has been a bit straightforward and
    it often leads to positions I find hard to play. So, I’d like to
    try something else, and I have devoted a bit of the summer break to
    researching the Taimanov.

Anyhow, here’s some general thoughts on the Taimanov line.

What’s in a name?

Taimanov himself generally refers to lines with an early …Qc7
as the “(Improved) Paulsen” ( Sicilian Paulsen , Batsford
1984; Sicilian Defence Taimanov System , Batsford 1989,
and Winning with the Sicilian , Batsford 1991), and this
has been the most important at master level. So, Plaskett’s
introductory book on the line for Chess Press includes mostly games
with …Qc7. The strategy which is most characteristic of the line,
and of which Taimanov was most keen to claim under his name, are
the lines with …Nge7.

Black can play his moves in many different orders, and, as so
often in Modern openings, slide out into other variations
entirely.

It’s generally agreed that the Taimanov starts with

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 or

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6

Nunn and co. include under Taimanov the lines

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
and 6…Qc7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
and 6…Nge7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.
c4

 

The related Kan Sicilian (without …Nc6) is the move order:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 ,
followed often by 5.Nc3 Qc7

The position reached after the first four moves of this move
order is printed on a Chess Digest booklet entitled ” Sicilian:
Kann/Paulsen-Taimanov

So… the Kan is e6 and Qc7 without Nc6, Taimanov is e6/Nc6
without Qc7, and e6/Nc6/Qc7 is what Taimanov calls Improved Paulsen
and almost everyone else calls Taimanov. (Nf6 and d6 at any stage
will get you into a Scheveningen.)

What’s the big idea?

+-----------------+
|r+b1kgn4|
|+p+p+p0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

If its possible to put this modern GM opening in a nutshell,
it’s that Black intends to develop the Queen’s-side quickly, with
moves like …b5, …Bb7, …Rc8, …Qc7 and so on. You sometimes
see the complete mobilisation of the Black Queen’s-side forces
before a single King’s-side piece is touched (Leko’s
favourite).

The Black d-Pawn is kept back on d7. This enables Black to make
a more aggressive posting of the King’s Bishop, on c5 or b4, for
example, and can also allow the Black Queen on c7 more scope.

Black hopes that the hole on d6 will take too much time and
effort for White to occupy with any effect. While Black is staking
out some space on the Queen’s-side, he does not want to make a
target of the King’s-side.

The King’s Knight is kept away from f6 for the early moves, not
encouraging Pawn prods like e4-e5 or g4-g5, and may even go to e7.
From there, it may go on to g6, covering the King’s-side, but the
other cunning plan is for Black to ‘unload’ a Knight with
…Nc6xd4, and then …Ne7-c6, gaining time to unravel. With such
an exchange of pieces, Black’s typical Sicilian cramp is less, and
White has fewer prospects of attack.

+-----------------+
|r+b+.4k+|
|+.1.gp0p|
|p+n0p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+P).+|
|+.H.GB+.|
|P)P+.!P)|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

(Wittmann,W – Klinger,J AUT-ch (3), 1993 (0-1, 57))

Plaskett comments:

“This is almost exactly what Black aims for in this
system:
a standard Sicilian middle-game but where the reduction in material
lessens the danger of White commencing a successful attack. (…)
In this very standard position Black can face the future with total
confidence.”

This of course could have arisen from the Grand Prix line
above.

Taimanov’s line has been played for decades and remains
important, having been played in its various forms by many top
players, including champions Tal, Fischer and Karpov, occasionally
Kasparov, and a host of others like Andersson, Benjamin, Bronstein,
Christiansen, Larsen, Portisch, Ribli, Sokolov, Suetin and Timman.
The old Paulsen formation has been played by just about
everybody!

 

After what I’m calling the Paulsen/Taimanov move order:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3
a6

White has a big choice: 6. Be2, 6. Be3, 6. Nxc6
, and 6. g3 are most often played, but you get
6. f4 6. Bf4 and 6.
Bc4 occasionally.

Taimanov’s system

6. Be2 Nge7

According to Plaskett, Bill Hartston once wrote, ‘all true
Taimanov players should be aiming to be playing …Nge7’ ,
although Soapy Jim in his own practice seems to prefer the Paulsen
method with an early …Qc7. In fact, most people do – the
lines with …Nge7 get only three rows in NCO, while …Qc7 gets
three pages!

It’s still a rich position, not yet exhausted. White’s main
tries are: Nb3, O-O, Be3, f4 and Bf4, most of which are dismissed
in NCO with the assessment “=”. It’s only “=” if you know what
you’re doing, though!

Let’s see the Taimanov method in action. This is a game from his
1989 book for Batsford on the system, and the notes are based on
his:

Unzicker,W – Taimanov,M [B46] Wijk aan Zee, 1981

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Be3 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 b5 9.0-0[DIAGRAM]

9.O-O-O and 9. a4 are alternatives

9…Nc6 10.Qd2

The White Queen must sometimes find a more awkward square, if
Black ‘unloads’ before White has moved the Bc1

10…Be7

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|+.+pgp0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|P)P!B)P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

NCO gives here 11.Rad1 0-0 12.Bf4 f6 13.a4 bxa4 14.Nxa4
Ne5
15.Be3 Rb8 16.f4 Nf7 = Khalifman-Taimanov 1996

11.f4 Bb7 12.e5!? [12.Rad1] 12…Na5!? 13.Bd3 Rc8
14.Ne2
Nc4 15.Bxc4 Rxc4 16.Rad1 Qc8

[DIAGRAM] And still Black is not castled – in fact, castling
here drops
the d-Pawn. For all the pressure White has gathered against d7,
Black’s attack on c2 is the more important.

+-----------------+
|.+q+k+.4|
|+b+pgp0p|
|p+.+p+.+|
|+p+.).+.|
|.+r+.).+|
|+.+.G.+.|
|P)P!N+P)|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

17.c3?! b4!

threat …bxc3 18.Nxc3 Bb4

18.Rc1

[18.cxb4 Bxb4 19.Qd3 Be4]

18…0-0 19.b3 bxc3 20.Nxc3 Rc6 21.Na4 Ba3 22.Rxc6 Qxc6
23.Nb6 d6!? 24.exd6

[24.Nc4 Bb4]

24…Bxd6 25.Rc1 Qe4 26.Rc4 Qb1+ 27.Rc1 Qg6 28.Qc2 Be4
29.Qf2 Rd8!? 30.Rd1 Bc7 31.Rxd8+ Bxd8 32.Nc4 Bd5

[DIAGRAM] Black’s Bishops rule.

+-----------------+
|.+.g.+k+|
|+.+.+p0p|
|p+.+p+q+|
|+.+b+.+.|
|.+N+.).+|
|+P+.G.+.|
|P+.+.!P)|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+

33.Nd2 h6 34.h3 a5 35.Nf3 Bc7 36.Nd4 Qb1+ 37.Kh2 g5!?
38.Nb5 Bxf4+ 39.Bxf4 gxf4 40.Nc3 Qf5 41.Nxd5 exd5 42.Qd4 Qe4 43.Qf6
d4! 44.Qxh6 Qe5! 45.Qh4  

[DIAGRAM] Black seems to have more Pawns! The thing is, more passed
Pawns.

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+k+|
|+.+.+p+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|0.+.1.+.|
|.+.0.0.!|
|+P+.+.+P|
|P+.+.+PI|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

45…d3 46.Qd8+ Kg7 47.Qxd3 f3+ 48.Kg1 Qe1+ 49.Kh2 f2
50.Qg3+ Kf8 51.Qb8+ Ke7 52.Qc7+ Ke6 53.Qc4+ Ke5 0-1

See also the game with Mnatsakian below, with similar themes.
Taimanov has shown the flexibility and resilience of this defence
over decades of master play.

NCO gives the current verdict on alternative lines as:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7

7.f4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qf2 d6 10.Be3 b5 11.0-0 Be7 12.Rad1
Qc7 =;

7.0-0 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qd3 Qc7 (9…Nb4? 10.Qg3! Nxc2
11.Bg5 f6 12.Bf4±) 10.Bg5 Bd6 11.Kh1 f6 12.Be3 (12.Bh4 Ne5
13.Qd2 Ng6 14.Bg3 Bxg3 15.hxg3 b5 =) 12…b5 13.f4 Be7 14.e5 0-0
=

I don’t know how often you’ll get to play these Classical lines:
neither club nor master players currently prefer these slow
Karpovian systems with 6.Be2 against the Sicilian.

Avoiding the unload

If Black has made the unnatural move …Nge7 planning
…Ncxd4/…Nec6, can White take advantage of this? Perhaps by
dodging the exchange with 7.Nb3 or 7.
Nf3. Black must not sit by and get squashed, but must keep
White off-balance.

Orlov – Taimanov,M [B46] St Petersburg, 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Nb3 b5! 8.0-0 Ng6 9.f4 Be7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Bd3 Nb4! 12.Qh5
Nxd3 13.cxd3 f5! 14.Nd5 Bb7! 15.Nxe7+ Nxe7 16.Nc5 Bc6 17.Bd4 Qe8!
18.Qg5 Qf7 

[DIAGRAM]

…0-1 (61)

+-----------------+
|r+.+.4k+|
|+.+phq0p|
|p+b+p+.+|
|+pH.+p!.|
|.+.GP).+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|P).+.+P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

NCO prefers

7…Ng6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 b5 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.Be2
=

Going for the jugular

i.e. the weak spot on d6. This can be strong plan and may give a
pretty prospectless game for Black (White’s statistics in this line
are impressive), but Taimanov doesn’t usually have much trouble
holding the position, e.g.

Kupreichik,V – Taimanov,M [B46] India, 1982

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Bf4 Ng6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bd6 Bxd6 10.Qxd6 Qe7 11.0-0-0 Qxd6
12.Rxd6 Ke7 13.Rhd1 Nf4 14.Bf3 Rb8 (threat …Nd5) 15.R6d2

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.4b+.+.4|
|+.+pip0p|
|p+p+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+Ph.+|
|+.H.+B+.|
|P)P$.)P)|
|+.IR+.+.|
+-----------------+

White undoubtedly has a plus here, but can he win?

15…e5

15…Rd8 16.g3 Ng6 17.b3 d6 18.Na4 Ne5 19.Bh5 g5 20.f3 Bb7
21.c4 d5 22.Nc5 1/2-1/2 Adorjan,A – Taimanov,M [B46] Budapest,
1982; 15…g5!?

16.g3 Ne6 17.Bg4 Nc5 18.a3 a5 19.f4 f6 20.fxe5 fxe5
21.Rf2 d6 22.Bxc8 Rhxc8 23.Rdf1 Rf8 1/2-1/2

Plaskett notes the interesting alternative…

Furhoff,J – Taimanov,M [B46] Stockholm (3), 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Bf4 Ng6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bd6 f6!? 10.0-0 Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qe7
12.Rad1 Qxd6 13.Rxd6 Ke7 14.Rfd1 Rb8 1/2-1/2

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+r+.i.+|
|+.+R+.0p|
|.+p+p0n+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|N+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.).|
|P+r+.).)|
|+.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

…but goes on to say that he would avoid the whole line by
sticking in 7…Nxd4.

The squeeze

6. g3

This is a good Grandmaster move, flexible and keeping the edge
(5. g3 can be met by 5…d5!=). Taimanov gives a fine game in his
Batsford books:

Mnatsakanian,E – Taimanov,M [B46] Erevan, 1986

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7

White has a lot of choice here: Nde2, f4, Be3, Nb3 and the
simple Bg2.

7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qd1 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Be3 b5
12.f4 Bb7 13.Qe2

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|+b+pgp0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+P).+|
|+.H.G.).|
|P)P+Q+B)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Despite White’s undynamic start the first impression is that
White is doing well (more space, better development, pressure down
the d-file and prospects on the King’s-side). But Black is solid
and has his own chances on the Queen’s-side – chances he makes full
use of! Black’s play is typical and exemplary:

13…Rc8 14.Qf2?! Na5!? 15.Nd1

[15.Bb6 Qxb6!? (15…Qe8!) 16.Qxb6 Bc5+]

15…Nc4 16.Bd4 f6!

[DIAGRAM]

Black is playing a careful game, adeptly combining attack and
defence.

+-----------------+
|.+r1.4k+|
|+b+pg.0p|
|p+.+p0.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+nGP).+|
|+.+.+.).|
|P)P+.!B)|
|$.+N+RI.|
+-----------------+

17.c3 e5 18.Ba7 Qc7 19.Kh1 Bc6!?

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+r+.4k+|
|G.1pg.0p|
|p+b+.0.+|
|+p+.0.+.|
|.+n+P).+|
|+.).+.).|
|P).+.!B)|
|$.+N+R+K|
+-----------------+

20.Be3 Qb7!? 21.Qc2 d5!

[DIAGRAM]

The Sicilian player’s delight is a central break.

+-----------------+
|.+r+.4k+|
|+q+.g.0p|
|p+b+.0.+|
|+p+p0.+.|
|.+n+P).+|
|+.).G.).|
|P)Q+.+B)|
|$.+N+R+K|
+-----------------+

22.exd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5+ Qxd5+ 24.Qg2 Rfd8

[DIAGRAM]

Black is on top.

+-----------------+
|.+r4.+k+|
|+.+.g.0p|
|p+.+.0.+|
|+p+q0.+.|
|.+n+.).+|
|+.).G.).|
|P).+.+Q)|
|$.+N+R+K|
+-----------------+

25.fxe5? Qxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rxd1 0-1

Not all your games with the Taimanov will be so smooth!

More typical is restraint with Nb3 and a4, which, if Black
doesn’t organise any counterplay, can be very effective:

Topalov,V – Illescas Cordoba,M [B46] Alcobendas (3), 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7
7.Nb3 d6 8.a4 Bd7 9.Bg2 Nc8 10.0-0 Be7 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Be3 Qc7 13.f4
Rb8?!

[DIAGRAM] Black is already on the slide.

+-----------------+
|.4n+.4k+|
|+p1bgp0p|
|p+n0p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P+.+P).+|
|+NH.G.).|
|.)P+Q+B)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

14.g4! Re8 15.g5 Nb4 16.Qf2 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.f5 Nxc2
19.Qxc2 b4 20.g6 e5 21.Nc5 bxc3 22.Na6 Rxb2 23.Nxc7 Rxc2 24.Nxe8
Bxe8 25.f6 Rxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Bxf6 27.Ra8 Bd7 28.Rc1 1-0

Brutal. The GMs specialising in this line have often gone for
Illescas’ system, but ‘chasing’ the White Knight with …Na5.

De Firmian,N – Zapata,A [B46] Tunis (12), 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7
7.Nb3! d6 (7…Na5!?) 8.Bg2 (8.a4!?)
8…Bd7 9.0-0 Nc8 10.a4 Be7 11.Qe2 0-0
12.Be3 Na5 13.Nxa5 Qxa5 14.Bd4 Bd8 15.Rfd1 Bc6

[DIAGRAM] (1-0, 58)

+-----------------+
|r+ng.4k+|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+b0p+.+|
|1.+.+.+.|
|P+.GP+.+|
|+.H.+.).|
|.)P+Q)B)|
|$.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

Taimanov gives this as “equal” (1989) or “comfortable” (1991),
but gives the whole game in the back of the 1989 book, making it
look like an absolute crush for White, Black being unable to
organise any counterplay with his awkwardly placed pieces. Whatever
the real verdict here, it’s still a pretty passive line for Black,
and I’d like to find an idea to brighten it up a little. Perhaps
Black cannot really hope to equalise with …Nge7 and must play the
Paulsen move …Qc7.

Leko,P (2605) – Lautier,J (2635) [B47] Dortmund (4), 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.g3
a6
7.Bg2 Nf6 8.0-0 Bc5[DIAGRAM]

[8…Be7 9. Re1 Nxd4 10. E5!? (Motwani) 10…Nb4!? (Tal);
8…Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 is the old main line, as in a Fischer-Taimanov
match game]

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|+p1p+p0p|
|p+n+ph.+|
|+.g.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.+.).|
|P)P+.)B)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

9.Nb3 Ba7 10.Bg5 Ne5 11.Qe2 d6 12.Kh1 h6 13.Bxf6 gxf6
14.f4 Nc4 15.f5 Ne3 16.Rf3 Nxg2 17.Kxg2 Bd7 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Rxf6
h5[DIAGRAM]

with compensation (NCO)

20.Rd1 0-0-0 21.h4 Kb8 22.Nd4 Qc5 23.Nf3 Rhf8 24.Rxf8
Rxf8 1/2-1/2

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|gp1b+.+.|
|p+.0p$.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+NH.+.).|
|P)P+Q+K)|
|$.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

After 6…Nge7, White often plays the 7.Nb3 seen above, so
Plaskett has recommended 6…Nxd4 as played by Wilder, but after 7.
Qxd4 Ne7 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. Qd2 White has organised his pieces better
than usual. Still, it’s a game.

DeFirmian,N – Wilder,M [B46] Estes Park (13), 1987

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 Nxd4
7.Qxd4 Ne7 8.Bf4 Nc6 9.Qd2 b5 10.Bg2 Bb7 11.0-0 Na5 12.b3 Rc8
13.Ne2 Nc6 14.Rfd1 Be7 15.Rac1 f6 16.c4

[DIAGRAM]

16…Ne5

17.cxb5 Rxc1 18.Nxc1 axb5 19.Nd3 Nxd3 20.Qxd3 e5
21.Be3
Bc6 22.Bh3 Qc7 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 Bxa4 25.Ra1 Qc6 26.Qd5 Rf8
27.Bxd7+ Qxd7 28.Qa8+ 1/2-1/2

+-----------------+
|.+r1k+.4|
|+b+pg.0p|
|p+.+p0.+|
|+p+.h.+.|
|.+P+PG.+|
|+P+.+.).|
|P+.!N)B)|
|+.$R+.I.|
+-----------------+

The English attack

Our Government is always going on about traditional British
values, which I have always thought of as class prejudice and
self-loathing. In chess terms, perhaps the distinctive British
value is an aptitude for deceptively simple attacking opening
systems.

I can think of several recent examples of home-grown openings
that have gained a wide currency – the Penrose Benoni, the
DERLD, the Grand Prix Attack, the Trompovsky, the 150 Attack in the
Pirc, and the English Attack in the main line Sicilians. This was
pioneered by top GMs Nunn and Short, and involves playing an attack
with Be3 and Qd2, usually with f3. If you know the Yugoslav Attack
against the Dragon, you’ll know the White moves.

This is a bit of a theoretical minefield at the moment. You can
play into one of the current main lines of the Scheveningen/
Najdorf, which Kasparov is currently handling comfortably as
Black:

Anand,V (2769) – Kasparov,G (2851) [B90] Chess@iceland Blitz
Final Kopavogur ISL (4), 02.04.2000

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e6
7.Be3 b5 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.a4 Nc4 11.Bxc4 bxc4 12.0-0 Bb7
13.g5 Nd7 14.f4 Nc5 15.Qg2 g6 16.Rad1 Qc7 17.Qg4 h6
18.f5

+-----------------+
|r+.+kg.4|
|+b1.+p+.|
|p+.0p+p0|
|+.h.+P).|
|P+pHP+Q+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|.)P+.+.)|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

Black has held back on the King’s-side, and avoided committing
the King, so is well-placed to absorb this thematic break.

18…gxf5 19.exf5 e5 20.Ne6 fxe6 21.Qh5+ Kd8 22.f6 Qc6
23.Rd2 Kc7 24.g6 Rg8 25.g7 Bxg7 26.Qf7+ Qd7 27.Qxd7+ Nxd7 28.fxg7
Rxg7+ 29.Kf2 d5 0-1

But if you prefer something a little less topical? A strictly
Taimanov interpretation allows plenty of extra scope for ideas.
Let’s see:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3
Qc7
7.Qd2 Nf6 8.f3

[DIAGRAM] Plaskett notes 8…Ne5!?, 8…Bb4!?, 8…d5!?,
8…Nxd4 and even Fernand Gobet’s 7…Nxd4 as
workable replies making various uses of the Taimanov move-order. A
more orthodox Taimanov strategy (with an early …b5) is also
playable:

+-----------------+
|r+b+kg.4|
|+p1p+p0p|
|p+n+ph.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.GP+.|
|P)P!.+P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+

Diaz,J – Sion Castro,M [B48] Capablanca mem B (6), 1991

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6
7.Qd2 Nf6 8.f3 b5 9.g4 Bb7 10.0-0-0 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bd6 12.g5 Bf4
13.Be3 Nh5 14.Ne2 Bxe3 15.Qxe3 Rc8 16.Rd2 Qc5 17.Nd4 Qe5 18.Ne2
Qc5

+-----------------+
|.+r+k+.4|
|+b+p+p0p|
|p+.+p+.+|
|+p1.+.)n|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.!P+.|
|P)P$N+.)|
|+.I.+B+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

19.Qd3 d5 20.e5 d4 21.Nxd4 Qxe5 22.Nxe6 Qe1+ 23.Rd1
Qxe6
24.Qa3 Nf4 25.h4 Qe3+ 26.Kb1 Qc5 0-1

Theory in this line is still settling down, and while in
practice most Taimanov players have played the familiar way, I
might prefer the early …Bb4 system.
Zagrebelny,S – Saltaev,M [B48] Moscow, 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.Be3
Nf6 7.f3 a6 8.Qd2 Ne5 9.0-0-0 Bb4 10.Nb3 b5 11.Bd4 h6
12.a3

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|+.1p+p0.|
|p+.+ph.0|
|+p+.h.+.|
|.g.GP+.+|
|)NH.+P+.|
|.)P!.+P)|
|+.IR+B+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

[Pribyl was successful with 12. Kb1 Nc4 against
Christiansen]

12…Be7 13.Bxe5 Qxe5 14.f4 Qc7 15.e5 Ng4 16.Qe2 h5
17.Ne4 Bb7 18.h3 Nh6 19.g4 Qc4 20.Rd4 Qxe2 21.Bxe2 f5 22.exf6 gxf6
1/2-1/2

 

Can you play the pure Taimanov, 6. Be3 Nge7?
Of
course you can, and Taimanov has, but it’s nothing like so popular
a try, since Black knows that the Queen will have a good retreat
square after ‘unloading’. He gives:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3
Nge7

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|r+b1kgn4|
|+p+p+p0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.+QIB+R|
+-----------------+

[6…Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Ne7 8.f4 b5 9.0-0-0 Nc6 10.Qd2 Be7 11.Qf2
Bb7 12.g4 0-0 13.Bg2 Qc8 14.Bc5 Bxc5 15.Qxc5 Na5 16.Qxc8
Polgar,S-Taimanov,M/Foxtrot, London ENG 1996/0-1 (34)]

7.Nb3 b5 8.a3

[8.f4 d6 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.Qf3 Ng6 (10…Nc8) 11.0-0 (11.0-0-0
Rc8) 11…Be7 12.a4 b4 13.Ne2 0-0 14.a5 Bf6 15.Bb6 Qb8„
Ciocaltea-Taimanov 1974;

8.Bd3]

8…Ng6 9.f4 Be7 [9…Qc7 10.Qd2 Be7 11.g3 0-0 12.h4 b4
13.axb4 Bxb4 14.Bg2 Nge7 15.0-0 d5!?=+ Shamkovich-Taimanov
1967]

10.g3 d6 11.Qd2 Rb8 12.Bg2 Qc7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Rad1 b4…
1/2-1/2 (30)

Leconte,J – Appleberry,M [B46] Paris Apsap Sept (4), 1993

Whose afraid of the big bad Maroczy
Bind?

The Maroczy bind, with White Pawns on e4 and c4, is a key test
of any Sicilian line in which it can be applied. The immediate 5.c4
is a bit slow, and players in the days of Nimzovitch and Tarrasch
showed that Black is well-placed to react to it with …Nf6 and
…Bb4. But a preliminary 5.Nb5 is a significant strengthening of
the strategy, forcing …d6, stopping …Bb4 and avoiding
exchanges. It has been an occasional weapon of Karpov against a
line he’s played himself, and Karpov, as always, makes the line
look like a smooth White win. He maintains the spatial edge,
gradually pushing Black back and finally striking hard on the
Queen’s-side, after which Black’s counterattack looks
desperate.

Karpov,A – Van der Wiel,J [B44] Tilburg (7), 1983

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4
Nf6
7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be7 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Rc1 Bf8
13.Qb3 Nd7 14.Rfd1 Nc5 15.Qc2 Bb7 16.Qd2 Rc8 17.Nc2 Ne5 18.f3
Rc7

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+.1rgk+|
|+b4.+p0p|
|p0.0p+.+|
|+.h.h.+.|
|.+P+P+.+|
|+.H.GP+.|
|P)N!B+P)|
|+.$R+.I.|
+-----------------+

Karpov has made a good living out of such small advantages.

19.Bf2 Qb8 20.Nd4 Rec8 21.b3 Be7 22.Bf1 Kh8 23.Be3 Rg8
24.Bg5 Bf8 25.Nce2 h6 26.Be3 Qd8 27.Ng3 Qh4 28.Be2 g6 29.b4 Ncd7
30.Bf2 Qe7 31.f4 Nc6 32.Nf3 Nf6 33.Bxb6 Rd7 34.b5 Nb8 35.Bd3 Bg7
36.Qe2 Rc8 37.a4 Ba8 38.a5 Ne8 39.Qe3 Kh7 40.Be2 Nf6 41.h3 d5
42.cxd5 Rxc1 43.Qxc1 exd5 44.e5 Ne4 45.Nf1 Qb4 46.Qc8 Nc3 47.Rd2
Nxe2+ 48.Rxe2 d4 49.Qxb8 Bxf3 50.gxf3 d3 51.Rd2 Qxf4 52.Be3 Qxf3
53.bxa6 Rd5 54.Qb7 Bxe5 55.Rf2 Qe4 56.Rxf7+ Kg8 57.Qe7
1-0

Current thinking on the line is that it’s not that good for
White. The offside Knight on a3 is a significant cost and Black
should be able to equalise in true Hedgehog style – White
doesn’t have that many obvious plans and Black should be able to
keep them under control. Gallagher in Beating the Sicilian
3 tells a sad tale; after:

Gallagher,J – Cramling,P [B44] Bern (3), 1991

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4
Nf6
7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be7 9.Be2 b6 10.Be3 Ne5! 11.f4 Ned7 12.Bf3 Bb7
13.0-0 0-0 14.Qe2

[DIAGRAM] White has a good plan here of playing his g-Pawn up
from g2 to
g4 and g5, squeezing the bind and getting some heat off the e-Pawn.
But:

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|+b+ngp0p|
|p0.0ph.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+P+P).+|
|H.H.GB+.|
|P).+Q+P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

14…h6! Now g4 is met by …Nh7! and …g5!
when White must relinquish control of e5. 15.Rfd1 Qc7
16.Rac1 Rac8 17.Bf2 Rfe8 18.Rc2 Bf8 1/2-1/2

This is the idea Nunn, Gallagher and their collaborators
recommend for Black in Nunn’s Chess Openings . Now, better
players than me are still playing this line for a win as White, but
White is as likely to lose the plot as Black here, typically by
over-reaching on the King’s-side and getting blown up in the
middle:

Meladze,F – Yudin,V [B44] corr Tch10-SU, 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4
Nf6
7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 b6 9.Be2 Bb7 10.f4 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Be3 Nb8 13.Bf3
Nbd7 14.Qe2 Re8 15.g4 h6 16.Qg2 Nh7 17.Rac1 Rc8 18.Ne2 Nhf8 19.g5
hxg5 20.fxg5 Ne5 21.h4 Nfd7 22.Ng3[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+r1r+k+|
|+b+ngp0.|
|p0.0p+.+|
|+.+.h.).|
|.+P+P+.)|
|H.+.GBH.|
|P).+.+Q+|
|+.$.+RI.|
+-----------------+

All finished over there? Right, now, as far as I remember, an
attack on the wing is best met by play in the centre…

22…d5! 23.exd5 Bxa3 24.bxa3 Rxc4 25.Rxc4 Nxc4 26.dxe6
Rxe6 27.Bd4 Nde5 28.Bxe5 Bxf3 29.Qxf3 Nxe5 30.Qf4 Qe7 31.Qb4 Qc7
32.Nf5 Nc4 33.Qc3 Re5 − 34.Qf3?? Nd2 0-1

 

Lastly, the system with Nb5 and Bf4 is still played and may
suffice for a typical White edge (NCO again). A twist noted by NCO
is White’s attempt to lean on the d-Pawn, but Black can let it go
and seems to have sufficient compensation:

Berg,K – Eingorn,V [B44] London, 1989

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4
e5
7.Be3 a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nd2

[11.Nd5 Bg5 = NCO 12.Na3 Be6 1/2-1/2
Adorjan,A-Langeweg,K/Amsterdam 1971]

11…0-0 12.Nc4 b5[DIAGRAM]

[12…Be7 13. a4]

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|+.+.+p0p|
|p+n0.g.+|
|+p+.0.+.|
|.+N+P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.+QIB+R|
+-----------------+

13.Nxd6

[13.Qxd6 Qxd6 14.Nxd6 Be6 15.Be2 Rab8 =~ Kasparov-Anand,
Frankfurt 1998]

13…Be6 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Qxd8 Raxd8 16.exf5 e4 17.Nxe4
Rfe8 18.Bd3 Bxb2 with compensation NCO

19.Rb1 Bc3+ 20.Kf1 Bd4 21.g3 Ne7 22.g4 Nd5 23.Kg2 g6
24.Kf3 gxf5 25.gxf5 Nf6 26.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1/2-1/2

 

The non-Sicilian Sicilian

The line that Nunn and Gallagher actually recommended for White
in Beating the Sicilian 3 was a formation which neither
Black nor White will find familiar from elsewhere in the Sicilian,
but which French players might find to their taste.

The idea is for White to play Nxc6, and after …bxc6, play
against Black’s less flexible Pawn structure and maybe get in an
attack on the King’s-side. Black often plays …d5, hence the link
with the French. Fischer had a couple of important games with this
structure: beating Petrosian with White in 1971, a classic BvN
endgame, and holding the draw against Spassky in the decisive game
of the 1972 match.

I don’t see many White endgames in this line these days in this
line, what you get is an abundance of hacks:

Klimov,S (2432) – Lindberg,B (2307) [B46] IM Salongernas
Stockholm SWE (5), 09.06.1999

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6
bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Re1 Ne7 10.Qh5

[10.Qg4 0-0 11.e5 f5 12.Qh4 Bc5 = Siero-Lebredo, 1983;
10.e5
Bc7 11.Qg4 Ng6]

10…e5 11.f4 d4 12.fxe5 Qa5 13.Rf1 Ng6 14.Nb5
Bb8[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|rgb+k+.4|
|+.+.+p0p|
|p+p+.+n+|
|1N+.).+Q|
|.+.0P+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.+P)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

15.e6 axb5 16.exf7+ Kf8 17.e5 Nxe5 18.Bh6 Qc7 19.Bxg7+
Kxg7 20.Qxh7+ 1-0

This line is one of the reasons Black players like to play
5…Qc7 , on, so they can recapture on c6 with the Queen (
6. Ndb5!? Qb8! and …a6 is not a problem for Black). But
if you want to play 6…Nge7 , you’ve got to play
5…a6 , and if you waste another move with a Pawn
by playing 5…a6 , White might decide to play
6. Nxc6 . (Plaskett says Kamsky once jumped the
gun with 5.Nxc6 , and won.)

Now, this system is undoubtedly dangerous and has a very high
percentage of White wins. But the theoretical verdict from NCO is
quite consoling for Black, and the evergreen Taimanov shows us the
way:

Yemelin,V – Taimanov,M [B46] St Petersburg ch (6), 1997

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6
bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Re1 (9. Qe2!?) 9…Be7
(9…Bb7!?, 9…Rb8!?) 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg4 g6
12.Bh6 Rb8 13.Nd1!? Rb4 14.Qe2 Bg5
15.c3 Rb6=

[DIAGRAM] (1/2-1/2, 80)

+-----------------+
|.+b1k+.4|
|+.+n+p+p|
|p4p+p+pG|
|+.+p).g.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.)B+.+.|
|P).+Q)P)|
|$.+N$.I.|
+-----------------+

White is well-developed but Black has it all under control.
Gambiting the b-Pawn at move 13 is only unclear: it’s not obvious
that White has compensation.

Overall, this is not a great line to play for a win with as
Black but generally you should look forward to grinding points in
the endgame as Black (in this, like so many other lines of the
Sicilian).

Sundries

Taimanov is pretty dismissive of other systems tried against the
Taimanov, but I would not be confident about refuting them if I had
not seen them before: we examine 6. Bc4, 6. Bf4 ,
and 6. f4.

Petursson,M – Cramling,P [B46] Reykjavik (5), 1984

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 Qc7
7.Bb3

[7.0-0 Nf6 8.h3 (8.Be3 Ng4) 8…Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5 10.Qd3 b5
11.Bb3 Bb7 12.Re1 d6 13.Be3 0-0 = Lutikov-Taimanov 1978]

7…Nf6 8.Be3 b5 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.0-0 c5 11.e5
Nd7

+-----------------+
|r+b+kg.4|
|+.1n+p0p|
|p+.+p+.+|
|+p0.).+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+BH.G.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

White is tempted by a tactical trick, but it all falls
apart.

12.Nd5 exd5 13.Qxd5 Nb6 14.Qf3 Bb7 15.Qg3 c4 16.e6
Qxg3
17.exf7+ Kd7 18.hxg3 0-1
Schneider Lars – Ake_Taimanov Mark [B46] Jurmala, 1978

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Bf4 d6
7.Nf3

[7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bc4 Nf6 (8…d5!? 9.exd5 cxd5 10.Qf3 Nf6
11.0-0-0 Bb7 12.Rhe1 Be7 13.Bd3 0-0 14.Qh3 Rc8 = Lukin-Osnos 1984)
9.Qe2 d5 (9…e5 10.0-0-0 Qc7 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Qd3 Be6 13.Bxf6 gxf6
14.Rhe1!? MT) 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.Bb3 Be7 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Ba4+ Nd7
14.Qg4ƒ 0-0 15.Bh6 Bf6 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Rd3 Rac8 18.Re1 d4
19.Red1 Qc7 0-1 Van Der Wiel John T H-Polugaevsky Lev/It, Amsterdam
(Netherlands) 1984]

[7.Bg3 Be7! (e.g. 7…Nf6 8.Be2 Be7 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 Nd5
11.exd6 Bxd6 12.Ne4 Watson,W – Benjamin,J [B46] New York op (2),
1987/ 1-0 (33)) 8.Be2 e5! 9.Nb3 Nf6 10.Bh4 0-0 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Bg4
Be6 13.Nd5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd5 15.exd5 exd4 16.0-0 Qa5 17.Bf3
Ivanovic,B-Romanishin,O/Lone Pine 1981/1/2-1/2 (53)]

7…b5 8.Qd2 Ra7 9.0-0-0 Rd7 10.g4 Qa5 11.Kb1 Nf6 12.g5
b4

+-----------------+
|.+b+kg.4|
|+.+r+p0p|
|p+n0ph.+|
|1.+.+.).|
|.0.+PG.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P!.).)|
|+K+R+B+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

White has mad a heavy commitment to attack d6, but it has got
nowhere: meanwhile, Black has good Queen’s-side play.

13.Ne2 Nxe4 14.Qe3 d5 15.Nfd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Bd6 17.Bxd6
Nxd6 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qxe6+ Kd8 20.Rxd5 Qxd5 21.Qxd5 Nb5 22.Qf3 Bb7
23.Qg4 Bxh1 24.Bh3 Bc6 25.a3 bxa3 26.Qf4 Rb7 27.bxa3 Nc3+
0-1
Chandler Murray – Andersson Ulf [B46] Naestved, 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
6.f4

This is quite an important line, but if Andersson’s approach
given below is adequate, then it may become less so! Having
deprived the dark-squared Bishop of its best square on f4, White
can no longer plan to rearrange with Bf4 and Qd2 if Black unloads.
However, there is another rearrangement, of retreating the Queen to
f2, out of the way of the Bishop – which is the
Wittman-Klinger example used in the introduction. Also, this line
is where we arrive from Lein-Ivanovic, having come across from the
Grand Prix Attack.

6…Nxd4!? 7.Qxd4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.a3 Rc8 10.Bd2
Nf6

+-----------------+
|.+r1kg.4|
|+b+p+p0p|
|p+.+ph.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.!P).+|
|).HB+.+.|
|.)PG.+P)|
|$.+.I.+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

Typical Sicilian: Black looks horribly underdeveloped, but
White
has no obvious way through.

11.b4 d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.0-0-0
Rc4 16.Be3+ Kc8 17.Kb2 Be7 18.a4 1/2-1/2

Move orders (1): how to get to move
four

After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 or 1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 e6 there is no requirement for White to play
3. d4 . There are several alternatives against
each move, including 3. c4 and 3. c3; 2…e6 often prompts 3. d3
and 3.b3. There are arguments which suggest that, say, 3. b3 is
better against 2…e6 than other second moves, although Joe
Gallagher in Beating the Anti-Sicilians once played 2…e6 hoping
to tempt the reply 3. b3…!

Bhend,E – Gallagher,J [B40] 1992

+-----------------+
|.+r1r+k+|
|+b+.gp0p|
|p0n+ph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.).+P+.+|
|+.+P+N+.|
|.GPH.)P)|
|+R+Q$BI.|
+-----------------+

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b3 b6 4.Bb2 Bb7 5.d3 d6 6.Be2 Nf6
7.0-0 Be7 8.Nbd2 Nc6 9.Re1 0-0 10.Bf1 Rc8 11.a3 a6 12.Rb1 Re8 13.b4
cxb4 14.axb4 d5! -/+[DIAGRAM]

15.e5 Nd7 16.d4 Nxb4 17.c3 Nc6 18.Bd3 Na5 19.Ra1 Nf8
20.Nf1 b5 21.Re2 Nc4 22.Bc1 a5 23.N3d2 b4 24.cxb4 axb4 25.Nb3
Qb6

26.Ne3 Ba6 27.Nc2 Ra8 28.Rb1 Reb8 29.f4 Na3 30.Rb2 Bxd3
31.Qxd3 Rc8 32.Be3 Rc3 33.Qd1 Nxc2 0-1

The Bb5 system against 2…Nc6 is a serious attempt to get
positive play against the Sicilian, which must be treated with
respect. A “Taimanov” solution might involve …e6 and …Nge7, as
favoured by Krasenkow.

Ricardi,P (2555) – Granda Zuniga,J (2600) [B30] Buenos Aires
Najdorf (9), 1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.0-0 Nge7 5.c3 a6 6.Bxc6
Nxc6 7.d4 d5 8.exd5 Qxd5 9.Be3 c4

+-----------------+
|r+b+kg.4|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.+p).+.+|
|+.).GN+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$N+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+

10.b3 Be7 11.bxc4 Qxc4 12.Nbd2 Qd3 13.c4 0-0 14.Rc1 b5
15.cxb5 Qxb5 16.Nc4 Bb7 17.Nb6 Rad8 18.Rb1 Nb4 19.a3 Qxb6 20.axb4
Be4 21.Rb3 Qb7 22.Qe2 Rd5 23.Rc1 Rb5 24.Nd2 Bd5 25.Rbc3 Bd6 26.Nb3
Bxg2 27.Nc5 Qa8 28.Qg4 Bf3 29.Qh3 Bd5 30.Bd2 Rxb4 31.Qh4 Bxc5
32.Rh3 Be4 33.dxc5 Rb1 34.Rxb1 Bxb1 35.Rg3 0-1

Also, there are “Anti-Sicilian” systems, some of which can be
used to switch back into the main line Sicilian. So, the
“Chamaeleon” system with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 and
3. Nge2 can always be used to switch back with
4. d4 , and a lot of people use 2.
Nc3 to put Black players off 2…d6
(after which they will play the f5 gambit from the Grand Prix
Attack), while after 2…Nc6 will play 3.
Nf3 and 4. d4 . I don’t have very strong
opinions about all this yet: Joe Gallagher was the key reference a
while ago but is dating on the c3 Sicilian.

Move orders (2): just passing
through?

Some folks have been using the Taimanov move-order to get to
other Sicilians. Lev Polugaevsky is all over my database of
Taimanov Sicilians, but always switched out early on. What’s the
point? Well, the most common reason is to play the Scheveningen
without having to face the Keres Attack: so,

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6
risks 6. g4!?

but

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Be2 d6
7. O-O Nf6

avoids all that. (Or it did until Karpov got fed up with
Kasparov dodging the Keres, and played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4
cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.g4!? (Wch32-KK2 Moscow (14),
1985))

Black can even use it to get to positions of a
Pelikan/Sveshnikov type:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Nb5 d6
7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 e5
7.Be3 Nf6 8.N1c3 a6 9.Na3 b5

[The latter move order loses a tempo for White over the
modern main Pelikan lines, although it was quite common at one
point. Taimanov had it in his 1971 match with Fischer, but that was
before Sveshnikov taught us all to play a quick …a6 and
…b5.]

So this is the Taimanov: flexible, modern, not too fiercely
theoretical, looking comfortable in most lines of NCO. I fancy
giving it a try this season; I’ll let you know how I get on.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TAIMANOV Sicilian Paulsen (Batsford)

TAIMANOV, Winning with the Sicilian (Batsford)

TAIMANOV, Sicilian Defence: Taimanov System (Batsford)

NUNN & GALLAGHER, Beating the Sicilian 3 (Batsford)

PLASKETT, The Sicilian Taimanov (Chess Press)

NUNN et al., Nunn’s Chess Openings (Batsford)

Lessons from Kramnik

Posted on by

We have entered an era where it is not always obvious what the best
players are doing. They are better than previous generations, they play
all positions well, and they are fighting against players who also do
everything well, and what makes the difference is not apparent to me.

But while Kramnik’s play is subtle and deep, there are games which
makes it look as though what he is doing is as simple as it looks.

Opening

Kramnik brought to several apparently settled opening systems a new
clarity in pursuing White’s main plans. In the Grunfeld, it was White’s
central majority; in the King’s Indian, the Queen’s-side attack.

Middlegame

This is a fine multi-layered game: a stubborn insistence on retaining a
small initiative in the opening, an unexpected pawn sacrifice, and a
switch to attack.

An immensely revealing comment: some positions cannot be treated
lightly. It was always the case that Kasparov should never be allowed to
build up an attacking force on the King’s-side, yet here he falls foul
of the same strategy.

Endgame

Kramnik’s clarity showed itself to good effect in positions with
material inequality. His win against Leko was a model of how to
coordinate a pair of Rooks, and against Kasparov sheer persistence paid off.

A sharp modern game with many phases, which also exemplifies the ancient idea of transformation of advantages.

Lessons from Petrosian

Posted on by

The wiliest, boringest, most elusive, most modern of world champions, Petrosian remains a difficult and contradictory figure. His play combines deft tactical awareness with an acute sense of prophylaxis , so that opponents have the greatest difficulty in laying a finger on him. And for his own part, he often seems content holding the margin of the draw than undertaking any heroics in pursuit of a win. In the analysis room, and in blitz games, Petrosian’s abundant tactical skills were apparent to everyone, but to the spectator of his tournament games, these were far from obvious, and he was regarded as dull and perhaps relatively weak.

You don’t get to be world champion without having something going for you, and I have included one game below designed to dispel the idea that Petrosian cannot attack. But like Ulf Andersson, his youthful attacking phase matured into a highly sophisticated positional style, where a web of small moves can bind and hold the opposing pieces, and his tactical skills were used to anticipate and avoid the attacking ideas of his opponent. He has embraced the hypermodern style, perhaps taking to another level Nimzovitch’s ideas about prophylaxis and the centre. With this style, his tactical skills are always subservient to strategy.

What can a club player learn from a man who once opened as Black:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6 5.Qg4 Bf8 6.Nf3 Qd7 7.Nb5 Nc6 and won? (Joppen,E – Petrosian,T [C16] Belgrade (11), 1954: 0-1, 56?)

A club player who is trying to decide what is going on in lots of Petrosian’s games could well do themselves a mischief. But in his most accessible games, the play contains as much tension and drama as one could hope for. And also, for my purposes, as much instruction. By all means go to masters like Morphy and Capablanca to understand simple chess. But I don’t think you will find clearer examples of how an apparently strong Pawn front can in fact turn out to be a hollow sham than in Petrosian’s games against Korchnoi and Spassky, Also notable were his games with campaigns based on colour-complexes; he more than once reduced a strong GM like Mecking to useless shuffling.

Exchanging to win

Posted on by

I was struck recently when discussing this position with the coaching group:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+p0.+p0p|
|p+pg.+q+|
|+.h.0N+.|
|.+.+P+Q+|
|+.+PG.+P|
|P)P+.)P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

White’s next move, 15. Nh4 , was regarded with scorn by some – ” he’s just playing for a draw “. On the contrary, provoking the exchange of Queens looked like a reasonable winning attempt to me! In fact, Black did swap with 15…Qxg4 without much thought about alternatives, when 15…Qe6 might have been worth a look.

Some players seek exchanges and some avoid them; I get the impression that juniors exchange without much hesitation.

Exchanges are just moves, says Stephen Gerzadowicz. They have good and bad effects, and are better for one side or another. Weight these up, then decide whether to exchange or not. Fortunately, there are some general guidelines to help us.

Rules for exchanging

  • If you are ahead in material, exchange pieces (but not Pawns)
  • If you are behind in material, exchange Pawns (but not pieces)
  • Avoid the exchange of your most active piece (especially if you are defending)
  • If you have more space, are attacking the King, or have Pawn weaknesses, avoid exchanges (especially of Queens).
  • If you have less space, are defending the King, or have better Pawn structure, seek exchanges (especially of Queens).
  • If you have the advantage of the two Bishops, avoid the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Bishop for one of your Bishops.
  • If you have two Rooks and your opponent only one, seek the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Rook for one of your Rooks.
  • Avoid being left with a permanently poor piece, like a Bad Bishop
  • Last but not least, look at the effect of the exchange on the position. Have you improved the opponent’s Pawn structure? Have you brought into play an opposing piece?

Having looked at all these ideas, we can perhaps understand the position given more clearly. The Black Bishop is poor but not yet Bad; Black has the worse Pawn structure, and the Queen is one of his most active pieces. The exchange draws the h-Pawn in to become a g-Pawn, so White can play g3 and f4 without fearing that …exf4 will split his Pawns. Also, White is GM David Norwood, who might have thought that a technical endgame might expose his amateur opponent’s deficiencies.

Okay, let’s look at these guidelines in examples.

If you are ahead in material, exchange pieces (but not Pawns)

If you are behind in material, exchange Pawns (but not pieces)

Right

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|0R+.+p0p|
|.+.+.i.+|
|+P+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+P+|
|4.+.+.+P|
|.+.+.+K+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

Regis,D – Walker,J [C33] Exeter vs. Teignmouth, 1994

34.b6 ! 34…axb6 35.Rxb6+ Kg5 36.Rb5+ Kg6 37.Rc5 h6 38.Rb5 f6 39.Rc5 Re3 40.Rc7 Re5 41.Kg3 h5 42.Rc3 hxg4 ? 43.hxg4 Kg5 44.Ra3 g6 45.Rb3 Re4 46.Rb5+ f5 ? [46…Re5 47.Rb4] 47.gxf5 gxf5 48.Rb8 Re3+ 49.Kf2 Ra3 50.Rb4 f4 51.Rb8 1/2../strong>

the basic draw: Philidor’s position White has been steering for this since move 33!

Wrong

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|0.+b+k+.|
|.+.+.0.+|
|+.+.4.0p|
|P+.H.+.)|
|+P+.+P).|
|.+.+.I.+|
|+.+.$.+.|
+-----------------+

Hecht,H – Spassky B V [B31] Dortmund, 1973

Black should retain the Rook by 50…Rc5.

50…Rxe1 51.Kxe1 Ke7 52.Kd2 Kd6 53.Kd3 Ke5 54.a5 a6 55.b4 Kd5 56.Kc3 gxh4 57.gxh4 Ke5 58.Kc4 Kd6 59.b5 axb5+ 60.Nxb5+ Ke5 61.Kc5 Bc8 62.Kb6 Bstrong 63.a6 Bg2 64.f4+ Kxf4 65.Nd6 f5 66.Nb7 Kg3 67.a7 f4 68.a8Q f3 69.Qb8+ 1-0

 

Avoid the exchange of your most active pieces (especially if you are defending)

Wrong

van Scheltinga – de Groot [E94] errors: eagerness to exchange, 1936

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nfd7 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Qd2

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0n+pgp|
|.+n0.+p+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+P)P+.+|
|+.H.GN+.|
|P).!B)P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

9…exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bxd4 12.Qxd4 Qf6 13.Qd2

The exchanges have left White dominating the board.

13…Qe5 14.f4 Qc5+ 15.Kh1 Nf6 16.b4 Qxb4 17.Qd4 Kg7 18.Nd5 Qc5 19.Qxf6+ 1-0

I couldn’t find another example of this from the point of view of exchanges, but if you think about retreating as having the same effect:

Nimzowitsch,A – Capablanca,J [C62] St Petersburg (1), 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3 exd4 8.Nxd4 g6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa6 Qd7 11.Qb7 Rc8 12.Qxa7 Bg7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Qa6

+-----------------+
|.+r+.4k+|
|+.0q+pgp|
|Q+p0.hp+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

White has grabbed a Pawn on the Queen’s-side. It is striking how quickly White’s game deteriorates:

14…Rfe8 15.Qd3 Qe6 16.f3 Nd7 17.Bd2 Ne5 18.Qe2 Nc4 19.Rab1 Ra8 20.a4 Nxd2 21.Qxd2 Qc4 22.Rfd1 Reb8 23.Qe3 Rb4 24.Qg5 Bd4+ 25.Kh1 Rab8 26.Rxd4 Qxd4 27.Rd1 Qc4 28.h4 Rxb2 29.Qd2 Qc5 30.Re1 Qh5 31.Ra1 Qxh4+ 32.Kg1 Qh5 33.a5 Ra8 34.a6 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 Qc4 36.a7 Qc5 37.e5 Qxe5 38.Ra4 Qh5+ 39.Kg1 Qc5+ 40.Kh2 d5 41.Rh4 Rxa7 0-1

Znosko-Borovsky says, ” A player who is at disadvantage in time should keep up any available threat” . That is, the Queen was better on a6, restricting the freedom of action of Black’s pieces.

If you have more space, are attacking the King, or have Pawn weaknesses, avoid exchanges (especially of Queens).

Right

Timman,J – Petrosian,T, Las Palmas izt (2), 1982

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.a4 Bg4 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.f3 Nfd7 8.Nxc4 e5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Nd7 11.f4 Bb4 12.Qc2 Qe7 13.e4 g5 14.Be2 gxf4 15.e6 Qh4+ 16.Kf1 Bxe2+ 17.Qxe2 fxe6 18.Qf2

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p+n+.+p|
|.+p+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|Pg.+P0.1|
|+.H.+.+.|
|.).+.!P)|
|$.G.+K+R|
+-----------------+

18…Qe7 19.e5?! Nxe5 20.Bxf4 Rf8 21.Rd1 Bc5 0-1

White’s elaborate Bishop manoeuvres in the main line Ruy Lopez are at least in part designed to keep Black burdened with a full complement of minor pieces.

Kasparov,G (2800) – Karpov,A (2730) [C92](W (20), 1990

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.strong Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a4 h6 13.Bc2 1-0

+-----------------+
|r+.1rgk+|
|+b0.+p0.|
|p+n0.h.0|
|+p+.0.+.|
|P+.)P+.+|
|+.).+N+P|
|.)BH.)P+|
|$.GQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This was crowned by a famous attack.

14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 c5 16.d5 Nd7 17.Ra3 f5 18.Rae3 Nf6 19.Nh2 Kh8 20.b3 bxa4 21.bxa4 c4 22.Bb2 fxe4 23.Nxe4 Nfxd5 24.Rg3 Re6 25.Ng4 Qe8 26.Nxh6 c3 27.Nf5 cxb2 28.Qg4 Bc8 29.Qh4+ Rh6 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Kh2 Qe5 32.Ng5 Qf6 33.Re8 Bf5 34.Qxh6+

[34.Nf7+ Matt/Mate in 6! 34…Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 Ne7 37.Rxf8+ Ng8 38.Rgxg8+ Qxg8 39.Qxh7#]

34…Qxh6 35.Nf7+ Kh7 36.Bxf5+ Qg6 37.Bxg6+ Kg7 38.Rxa8 Be7 39.Rb8 a5 40.Be4+ Kxf7 41.Bxd5+ 1-0

Wrong

+-----------------+
|.+r1.4k+|
|0p+bhp0.|
|.+.+ph.0|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+BH.+.+.|
|P).+Q)P)|
|+.$.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Kortchnoi,V (2695) – Karpov,A (2700) [D31], 1981 [Wcstrong0-Merano (9)]

16. Ne4?

Undoubtedly a mistake, freeing Black’s game. As we can see from the sequel, though, White was trying to win, not merely play the best moves.

16…Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Bc6 18.Nxc6 Rxc6 19.Rc3?!

[19.Rxc6 Nxc6 20.d5 exchanges the IQP leaving nothing much left to play for.]

Black won the endgame.

 

If you have less space, are defending the King, or have better Pawn structure, seek exchanges (especially of Queens).

Right

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+ngp0p|
|.+p+ph.+|
|+.+p+.G.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.HB)N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|+.$QI.+R|
+-----------------+

Capablanca’s freeing manoeuvre took most of the sting out of the QGD:

8…dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 =

You will see Capa play like this in many games.

Wrong

Littlewood,P – Mestel,J [E61] Hastings (9), 1981

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.e4 c6 6.e5 Ne8 7.Bf4 d6 8.strong Nd7 9.exd6 Nxd6 10.Be2 Re8 11.Qd2 Nf5 12.Rd1 c5 13.Nb5 Nf8

+-----------------+
|r+b1rhk+|
|0p+.0pgp|
|.+.+.+p+|
|+N0.+n+.|
|.+P).G.+|
|+.+.+N+P|
|P).!B)P+|
|+.+RI.+R|
+-----------------+

The simple 14. dxc5 wins a Pawn and seeks exchanges. Instead White wins an exchange, but allows counterplay.

14.Nc7 Nxd4 15.Nxe8 Qxe8 16.Ne5 f6 17.Nd3 b6 18.0-0 Bb7 19.Be3 e5 20.Rfe1 Rd8 21.Bxd4 Rxd4 22.Bf1 Ne6 23.f3 h5 24.b4 cxb4 25.Qxb4 Bf8 26.Qc3 Qd7 27.Kh1 Kh7 28.Qc2 Bc6 29.Qb1 Ba4 30.Rd2 Bh6 31.Rb2 Bf8 32.Nf2 Ba3 33.Ne4 Kg7 34.Rf2 Bc6 35.Nc3 Bc5 36.Nb5 Rh4 37.Rd1 Nd4 38.Nxd4 Rxd4 39.Re1 Rh4 40.Rd1 Rd4 41.Re1 h4 42.Rb2 Qd6 43.Rb3 e4 44.fxe4 Qe5 45.Rbe3 Bd6 46.g3 Rxe4 47.Qxe4 Bxe4+ 48.Rxe4 Qxg3 49.R4e2 Bb4 50.Rd1 Qf3+ 51.Kh2 Bd6+ 52.Kg1 Bc5+ 53.Kh2 Qg3+ 54.Kh1 Qg1# 0-1

 

If you have the advantage of the two Bishops, avoid the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Bishop for one of your Bishops.

Right

 

Wrong

 

If you have two Rooks and your opponent only one, seek the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Rook for one of your Rooks.

Right

 

Wrong

 

Avoid being left with a permanently poor piece, like a Bad Bishop

Right

+-----------------+
|.+r+k+.4|
|0p+b+p+.|
|.+.+p+.0|
|1.+p).+R|
|.h.).!.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P+P+.)P+|
|$.+.+K+.|
+-----------------+

Bryson,D – Williams,C [C12] BCCC, 1984 [TDH]

18…Bb5

The classic French manoeuvre to offload the bad Bishop.

Wrong

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4r+|
|+p0.+k+p|
|p+.0.g.+|
|+.+P0.+.|
|.+P+N+.+|
|+.+.+K+.|
|P).+.).)|
|$.+.+.$.|
+-----------------+

Booth,C (1800) – Regis,D (1825) [A42] Exeter vs. Harrogate, National Major Plate Final, 1996

Black has been left with classic KID bad Bishop.

22.b4 b6 23.a4 a5 [23…Bh4 24.a5] 24.Rxg8 Kxg8 25.bxa5 bxa5 26.Rb1 h5 27.Ke3 Bh4 28.Rb5 Rf4 29.Rxa5 Bxf2+ 30.Nxf2 Rxc4 31.Ne4 h4 32.Nd2 Rc3+ 33.Ke4 Kf7 34.Ra7 Kf6 35.a5 c6 [35…] 36.dxc6 Ke6 37.Rd7 Rxc6 38.Rd8 Rc3 39.Re8+ Kf7 40.Rh8 Ra3 [40…] 41.Nc4 Ra4 42.Kd5 Ra1 43.Rxh4 Rd1+ 44.Kc6 e4 45.Nxd6+ 1-0

 

Last but not least, look at the effect of the exchange on the position. Have you improved the opponent’s Pawn structure? Have you brought into play an opposing piece?

Right

Forintos,G – Gligoric,S [E77] Ljubljana, 1969

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 9.exd5

+-----------------+
|rhb1.4k+|
|0p+.+pgp|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.0P+.+.|
|.+P+.).+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+B+P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

9…Nh5 (Spassky) 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 f5 12.Ng5 Ng7

A wonderful transformation, despite the loss of the Bg7 which is so often the salvation of Black’s game. White’s Pawns are blockaded across the board, and Black’s weak e6 square is comfortably under observation.

13.Bf3 Nd7 14.Re1 Nf6 15.Rb1 Re8 16.Rxe8+ Qxe8 17.Rb2 Bd7 18.Rxb7 Rb8 19.Rxb8 Qxb8 20.Qc2 h6 21.Nstrong Qe8 22.Bd2 Ba4 23.Qc1 Ng4 24.Nf2 Nxf2 25.Kxf2 Qe7 26.Kg1 Ne8 27.Qb1 1/2../strong>

Wrong

How often do we see in club play, …Bg4, … Bxf3, then Qxf3 or Nxf3 when the net effect is that Black has lost the Bishop pair and brought out a White piece. Here’s a more complex example:

Peters, J – Andersson,U [B15] defence: mending weaknesses, 1978

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.Bc4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+p+.0.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+B).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQI.HR|
+-----------------+

White’s Queen’s-side majority is a big engame plus, so White was startled by…

6…Qe7+ 7.Qe2 Be6

Black will only enter an endgame on certain conditions!

8.Bxe6

[8.Bb3 is the only testing continuation]

8…Qxe6 9.Bf4 Na6

The threat of …Nb4 eventually prompts the exchange on e6

10.0-0-0 0-0-0 11.Qxe6+ fxe6

White has drifted into a dull position.

12.h4 c5 13.Be3 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Bc5 15.Ne2 e5 16.Bxc5 Nxc5

Black has no problems and even won.

 

Further Reading

TAULBUT & JONES, Chess Exchanges (Pergamon)

MEDNIS From the Middlegame to the Endgame (Cadogan)

EUWE & KRAMER The Middle Game, Vol. II – Chapters on Liquidation (Bell).

Capablanca was the great artist of exchanges, in defence and attack.

Mini Chess Games

Posted on by

Exeter Chess Club: Mini Chess Games for Beginning Chess Players

See also some great active chess games for juniors from Sverre.

[cool blue cat says:]

How should we first learn the game of chess?

 Nimzovitch had some interesting things to say about learning chess:
rather than learn about all the pieces, do one at a time, and learn its
strategical properties:

e.g. The Rook. Moves of the Rook. Control of ranks and files. Doubling
on the file. The seventh rank…

and so on – chess rather than mere moves.

  Similarly, it has been said that one of the best things about the
old Soviet approach is that they used to teach the game backwards: that
is,

first learn to mate with two Queens (and King) against bare King
then mate with one Queen
then mate with one Rook
then two Bishops [Mate with Two
Bishops]
then learn how to win with King and Pawn against King
then King and two Pawns against King and Pawn, etc.

I don’t even know if it’s true, but it sounds good: get the basics right at
the start.

  Anyhow, however you learned, here are some exercises to practice.
You will find others marked in boxes elsewhere in these pages.

Games for One

  • There are very many self-test books and programmes available for
    tactical play. For Beginners I like Tony Gillam’s books Simple
    Chess Tactics     and Simple Checkmates; after
    which you can try Chernev and Reinfeld’s Winning Chess.
    For club players I know of nothing better than Livshitz’ series called
    Test Your Chess IQ – there are volumes for ELO 1600,
    2000 and 2200+. On-line there are tactical tests at Chess Archives for beginners and
    more advanced players, and there is a demo version of the Art of
    Chess Tactics     programme available (look for ctdemo.arj).
  • For strategy and endgames the best resources are IMHO the games and
    notes of the masters. See also Winning Endgames by Tony
    Kosten, Pandolfini’s compete endgame course and the
    Little Chessercises in Pandolfini’s book
    Chessercises .
  • Play a computer. If you have a PC computer like an IBM type, Mac or
    Amiga there should be a version of GNU chess available free via ftp from
    the Internet Chess Library
    (Chess Space: Programs
    Index    ). To start with, make a programme move fast and/or on low
    level, and it will probably make enough blunders for a beginner to
    survive.

Games for Two

  • Mating Race: Player 1 takes White K+Q against Player 2 Black K only, in
    starting positions. Black moves first: how many White moves does it take
    for player 1 to mate? Start again, remove White Q and put Black Q on
    board, White moves first. How many Black moves?
  • Mating Race 2: Same as above with K+R against K.
  • Mating Race 3: Same as above with K+B+B against K. [Mate with Two Bishops]
  • Pawn Race: Same as above with K+e-pawn (on e2) against K. Try with
    White to move first (should be a win!) and with Black (should be a
    draw!). Variations: try with f-pawn, g-pawn, h-pawn…
    try with 2 pawns vs. one, 2 vs. 2 symmetrical, 2(bc) vs. 2(cd).
  • Pawn power: play with just your King and pawns each.
    Variations:
    (1) White plays with only abc pawns, Black with only fgh;
    (2) White plays with only abcdefg pawns, Black with only bcdefgh;
    (3) play with Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation pawn structure i.e. White
    pawns on a2,b2,c2,e4,f2,g2,h2, Black pawns on a6,b7,c7,c6,f7,g7,h7. Swap
    sides in each game.
    …etc!
  • “Play the pawn game recommended by GM Lev Alburt and Roman Pelts in
    their COMPREHENSIVE CHESS COURSE. Set up all pawns in their normal
    starting positions, with NO OTHER PIECES on the board. Play continues
    normally, all pawn moves (including en passant) as in a regular
    game.

      You win the game if: a) You capture all of your opponent’s
    pawns; b) you get any pawn to a queening square; c) your opponent has no
    legal moves, but you still have a legal move.

      The game is drawn if: a) you agree to a draw; b) neither
    side has a legal move (all pawns are blockaded). This is more challenging
    than it first appears, and I have had a number of reports from parents of
    a 5 or 6 year old beating them at the pawn game. 😉    ” — Duif
    [This is very much like an 8×8 version of the old 3×3 computer
    game of hexapawn,
    which you can play on different
    sized boards    ]

  • One from the very helpful
    http://www.rockfordchess.org/clubs/starting.htm

    Typical
    learning game: Rook’s pawn hunt

      • Have players place their rooks on the
        proper squares.
      • Have players place their pawns at
        random anywhere on the board being careful not to blockade
        their own rooks.
      • Rules: Pawns are asleep and cannot
        move. Object is to take turns capturing pawns. First player
        to capture all opposing pawns wins.

  • Rook Ending: play with Ke1+Rf1+Pf2 against Ke8+Rf8.
    Variations: try different pawns a-h, two pawns, two
    pawns vs. one…
  • Cut-down chess games: Play with K+8p each and…
    • just the rooks
    • just the bishops
    • just the knights
    • just the queens
    • just the minor pieces (knights and bishops)
    • just the major pieces (queen and rooks)

[TRAINING]Exercises

There are also a few chess exercises that are worth checking out:

  the well-known knight’s tour (visit each square on
a board ONCE with a knight: there’s a Solution
here and a Windows
programme to practice with!)
and the eight queens
puzzle (place eight queens on a chessboard so no queen attacks
another).

The Number of Knight’s Tours Equals 13,267,364,410,532, so you should be
able to find one, eh? ( Counting
with Binary Decision Diagrams. Abstract: Comments on: Martin Loebbing and
Ingo Wegener, The Number P.S.).

There’s a couple of evil ones I have come across for Knight and Bishop:

Knight puzzle: Visit in
turn the squares a1-h1, h2-a2, a3-h3 WITHOUT ever moving to a square occupied
or attacked by a Black Pawn. Not too difficult, but can you beat 5 minutes
against the clock? (the Czech Knight

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+x+-X-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-+-+-+-+
N-+-+-+-

Knight puzzle: Exchange the positions of the White and Black
Knights.

-S-S
+-+-
-+-+
+-+-
-N-N

SOLUTION from Alexander Doskey

Bishop puzzle: Exchange the positions of the White and Black
Bishops WITHOUT ever allowing a Bishop to be attacked by an enemy Bishop. You
may make more than one move for each side at a turn.

-L-L
+-+-
-+-+
+-+-
-B-B

SOLUTION from Alexander Doskey

Does any body know any puzzles for Rooks or Kings?

PS from Mark Johnson, to whom the mightiest hat should be firmly tipped:

One exercise I use with my students is to have one player with King and Knight, vs King. From the initial position, player 1 must take his knight to the 4 corners and return to the original square. Beginners try to do this without the assistance of the king, and there’s the trap. In each corner (assume Knight is at a1) a King who can move to c3 or b2 will trap and capture the knight. The purpose of the defender is to obstruct the travel of the knight and eventually, with the support of the king, the exercise can be completed. Without the support of the king, it is nearly impossible. They learn knight mobility, but also the importance of piece coordination.

Also, I point out that in the endgame, the Knight and King are roughly as powerful. In the center of the board, the knight can move to 8 squares. The king can also cover 9 squares. The difference is that the knight cannot reach the squares adjacent, while the king cannot reach the more distant squares covered by the knight.

Rather than refer to the Opposition which is difficult for my young players to pronounce, I tell them each king has a wall around him, and the kings cannot touch the other player’s king-wall.

Regarding the knight’s tour, I don’t have them try to memorize them, but do have them try to do it (without teaching them the pattern). I either take all the pieces of both sides and fill 33 central squares with the pieces (32 plus 2 extra queens, minus the knight) and have them try to take as many pieces as they can. (cannot land on an empty square) All but 7 this time…try to leave only 6…then 5. Mainly teaches them knight mobility. Also works with a set of poker chips. Main thing is to have them learn to maneuver the knight.