The Scandinavian Variation

My 8th game was a painful loss against a young Singaporean boy:

Wee Che En - Sv. Johnsen

Thailand Open 2009 (8)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 a5!?

This was what I had prepared against 1.e4 for this tournament. I like to call it the Scandinavian variation but may well be the only one to do so.

10.a4 b4 11.d4 bxc3 12.bxc3 exd4 13.cxd4 (D)

13...d5!

This is Black's idea in the 10.a4 line. Now it looks a little like a Open Ruy Lopez with Black controlling b4.

14.e5 Ne4 15.Nbd2

15.Re3 Nb4 16.Nc3 Bb7 17.Ne2 Kh8 18.Ba3 f6 19.Nf4 Ra6 20.Bxb4 axb4 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Qxd5 23.Qd3 Nc5 24.dxc5 Qxd3 25.Rxd3 fxe5 = Castillo-Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1950.

15...Bf5 16.Ba3!?

I didn't remember having ever seen this move and thought it looked a little funny. But when consulting my notes I had actually analyzed a GM game with it.

16...Bxa3

The game I had analysed went 16...Nb4 17.Nf1 c5 18.Ne3 Be6 19.Bxb4 axb4 20.dxc5 Bxc5 21.Qd3 Rc8 22.Rad1 Bb6 and Black was clearly better in Hellers-Kupreichik, Malmo 1987. The big question is whether these moves ever entered my mind or if they only appeared on my screen with Rybka doing the thinking. In earlier days I always played through my notes on a chess board (frequently a pocket set but a full size board if circumstances permitted me). It is too time consuming for my present life situation, but far better for memorization.

17.Rxa3 Nb4 18.Ra1 c6

I tried to calculate 18...Nd3 19.Re3 and now I looked at 19...Ndxf2 20.Qe2 Nxd2 21.Nxd2 Ne4 as well as 19...Nexf2 20.Qe2 and decided against the entire variation as I didn't find the resulting positions particularly clear. After the game I was pleased to see that Rybka agreed in this evaluation. That being said, the move I played probably reveals my lack of understanding for this kind of positions. It seems that Black in similar positions play a quick ...c5 with active piece play. Instead I tried to stabilize the queenside, hoping to create kingside chances with ...f6 at some point. This may be sufficient for equality but demands quite exact play.

19.Qe2 Rb8 20.Rec1 h6 21.Qe3 Kh8 22.Nxe4 Bxe4 23.Nd2 Bh7 24.Rc3 Qe7 25.Bd1 f6 26.f4 fxe5 27.fxe5 Rf7 28.Nf3 Rbf8 29.Qd2 Be4 30.Be2 Rf4 31.Rf1

For the last dozen of moves I as well as my opponent have played quite decent chess. My problem was that I didn't quite appreciate my opponent's play and felt that I should be looking for an advantage. Instead my small weaknesses on a5 and c6 were slowly beginning to be felt. So rather than accepting that I had to fight for equality, I played a somewhat desperate move:

31...g5?

It is tempting to add another question mark as this move isn't only weakening; it's also completely unprovoked.

32.Rc5 Qc7 33.Nh2!

This move I had completely missed.

33..Rxf1+ 34.Bxf1 Rf4 35.Ng4 Qd8

Probably 35...Kg7 36.Nf6 Bg6 is a somewhat better attempt to keep my position together.

36.Nf6 Bg6 37.Be2 Qb6 38.g3 Rf5 39.Qe3! Na2? (D)

Objectively this is a losing error but as my position is creaking in its seams anyway, I only give it one question mark. Actually I considered '?!' as it forces White to calculate a fairly long line.

40.Bd3 Qb3 41.Rxa5!

This wins as does 41.Rxc6.

41...Nb4 42.Ra8+ Kg7 43.Rg8+ Kf7 44.e6+ Kxf6

44...Ke7 45.Rg7+ Kxf6 46.Rxg6+ Ke7 47.Rg7+ comes to exactly the same.

45.Rxg6+ Ke7 46.Rg7+ Ke8 47.e7!

The move I overlooked when I played 39...Na2.

47...Qd1+ 48.Kg2 1–0

A Scandinavian Speciality in the Closed Ruy Lopez

I still have an unfinished manuscript on the 9...a5 variation of the Closed Ruy Lopez. It was intended to be a low-theory alternative to the Zaitsev in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black'. But even before my GM co-author had had a look at it, we decided that 9...Qd7 was a better companion move - mainly because of the many possible transpositions. However, I recently had a new look at the line because of this game:

Ivanchuk - Carlsen
Corus (Wijk aan Zee) (5) 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 a5 (D)
This somewhat exotic move seems to first have been played by the Swede Gösta Stoltz and has later been championed by the Dane Lars Bo Hansen and the Norwegian Simen Agdestein, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to name it 'The Scandinavian variation'.
If I ever complete the manuscript I will consider including a chapter on the even rarer 9...Bd7!? which can be treated as a 'sister variation' with the connecting line being 10.d4 a5!?.
10.d4
10.a4 is White's other major option.
10...a4
The oldest game in my database went 10...exd4 11.cxd4 a4 12.Bc2 Nb4 13.Nc3 Nxc2 14.Qxc2 c6 15.d5 cxd5 16.exd5 b4 17.Nxa4 Bd7 18.b3 Nxd5 =+ Thomas-Stoltz, Warsaw 1935.
11.Bc2 Bd7 12.Na3
This seems logical and after getting Ivanchuk's approval I assume it is the new main line. 12.Nbd2 has been played more frequently.
12...Rb8 (D)

This looks more natural than 12...Qb8 which was Agdestein's preference: 13.Bd3 exd4 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 Qb7 16.Bg5 Rad8 17.Nc2 Na6 18.Ne3 Rfe8 19.Qd3 g6 20.a3 c5 21.e5 dxe5 22.dxe5 Bc6 23.Qc3 Nd5 = Renet-Agdestein, Lyon 1988. However, it must be said that the rook returns quickly to a8 so who knows?
13.d5
This must be more critical than 13.Bd3 when Yagupov-I.Zaitsev, Moscow 2000 continued 13...b4 14.Nc4 bxc3 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Nfxe5 dxe5 17.bxc3 Bd6 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.Bg5 a3 20.Qf3 h6 21.Bc1 Qe7 22.Ne3 Bd7 23.Bb3 Kh8 1/2–1/2.
13...Na7
One of Black's big challenges in most Closed Ruy Lopez systems is to activate his queenside knight. The alternative obviously was 13...Na5 which also seems satisfactory. One reasonable line suggested by Rybka goes 14.Qe2 Qc8 15.b4 axb3 16.axb3 c5 17.dxc6 Qxc6 18.b4 Nc4 19.Nxc4 Qxc4 20.Qxc4 bxc4 21.Be3 Ra8 22.Nd2 +=.
14.c4 Ra8 15.Be3 b4 16.Nb1 c5 17.a3 b3 18.Bd3 (D)

18...Nxe4!?
Typically Carlsen grabs the first opportunity to active play.
19.Bxe4 f5 20.Nfd2
Rybka initially prefers 20.Bd3 e4 21.Nc3 but after the further moves 21...Bf6 22.Rc1 Nc8 23.Bf4 exd3 24.Qxd3 Re8 25.Rxe8+ Qxe8 26.Re1 Qh5 27.Re3 h6 chances seems balanced.
20...fxe4 21.Qh5 Be8 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Qh5 Be8 24.Qe2 Bd7 ½–½
If it wasn't for the repetition, the position still would have been fairly equal.

Marshall - Harding Variation

I note there is a new Everyman book on the Marshall on the horizon. The line has always fascinated me but the necessary preparation does not quite seem worth the effort - in particular because the Anti-Marshall 8.a4 is quite well motivated while 8.h3 and 8.a3 are very reasonable attempts to avoid the sharpest lines.

If I some day decide to take up the Marshall, I will seriously consider to adopt one of the minor lines for my first few games - most likely the 11...Bb7 variation. Here is the first part of an overview which may be a good starting point for serious analysis:

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0)

I feel fairly well prepared up to this point after having co-authored 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black' in 2007.

8.c3

I don't know in how many percent of the games this move is played but I suspect the number is decreasing the lower down the rating ladder you go.

8...d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5

Also the Herman Steiner variation, 10...e4!? could be a nice surprise weapon.

11.Rxe5 Bb7 (Dia)

This is an active developing move. Its main spokesman has been Harding but it has recently been played by Short and Kamsky. In some ways it's a more natural move than the modern mainline 11...c6. Marshall's original 11...Nf6, I think is now defused and Balogh's 11...Nf4 has never been fully satisfactory. It could however be that 11...Nb6!? is underestimated. The knight isn't very active but it prevents White's important freeing a4 lever.

12.Qf3!?

This has recently been the choice of Sutovsky and Ivanchuk and will be the subject of this post but I assume 12.d4 still must considered the mainline.

12...Bd6!

Thanks to a tactical point this move is playable after all. In the 12.d4 lines we will mainly see this bishop taking up a less threatening post on f6.

13.Bxd5 c6 (Dia)

White must save his rook so Black regains his piece.

14.Re2

This seem to be the most useful post for the rook, but the theory has not yet been cemented and alternatives have been played by strong GMs:

a) 14.Re3 cxd5 15.d4.

b) 14.Re1 cxd5 15.d4 Qc7 16.g3 Rae8 17.Rxe8 Rxe8:

b1) 18.Bd2 a5 19.b3 Qc6 20.a4 bxa4 21.Rxa4 Qb6 22.Qd1 Bc6 =+ A.Timoshenko-Mackintosh, corr 2002.

b2) 18.Be3 b4 19.cxb4 Qc2 20.Nd2 Bxb4 21.Qd1 Rc8 22.Nf3 += A.Sokolov-Yermolinsky, Vilnius 1984.

14...cxd5 15.d4 Qc7 16.g3 (Dia)

White seems a sound pawn up but his queenside is still undeveloped. The alternative 16.h3 Rae8 17.Nd2 b4 18.Nb3 Rxe2 19.Qxe2 bxc3 20.bxc3 Qxc3 21.Be3 Re8 was fairly equal in Szelag-Stern, Poznan 1999.

16...Rae8

16...Rfe8 may well be better. In Sutovsky-Short, Montreal 2007, the rook was useful on the queenside: 17.Be3 a5 18.Nd2 b4 19.Rc1 Qd7 20.Ree1 bxc3 21.Rxc3 Bb4 22.Rc2 Rac8 23.Rec1 Rxc2 24.Rxc2 a4 25.a3 Bxd2 26.Bxd2 ½–½ .

17.Nd2

It's worth noting that Ivanchuck preferred 17.Be3. Yet after 17...a5 18.Nd2 b4 19.cxb4 Bxb4 20.a3 Bd6 21.Ree1 Re6 22.Rac1 Qb6 23.Qd1 Rfe8 chances seemed balanced in Ivanchuk-Kamsky, Montreal 2007.

17...b4 18.cxb4 Qc2 19.Re3 Bc8

19...Bxb4 allowed White to keep a small plus after 20.Nf1 Rxe3 21.Nxe3 Qd3 22.Qd1 Qe4 23.f3 Qe6 24.Qb3 Rc8 25.Kf2 Qb6 26.Bd2 a5 27.Bxb4 axb4 28.Rd1 in A.Sokolov-Kharitonov, Vilnius 1984.

20.Nf1 Bxb4 21.a3 Ba5 22.b4 Bb6 23.Rxe8 Rxe8 24.Be3 Be6 25.Qd1 Rc8 26.Nd2 1/2–1/2 Anand-Short, Manila 1992.

Conclusion:

12.Qf3 shouldn't worry Black if he knows how to keep an initiative burning without a direct kingside attack.

A Transpo Trick

Andrew Soltis has written some of my favourite chess books. He has also written some chess openings books that he obviously has not put sufficient effort into.

His relatively recent "Transpo Tricks in Chess" (Batsford 2007) seems to fall in between these two main groups of Soltis books. It's a kind of 'Chess Openings Transpositions Encyclopaedia' but yet a surprisingly easy read. As one had to expect, its coverage of different openings is a bit uneven but generally it's quite good. Soltis doesn't cite his sources extensively and is often a bit brief. Consequently you sometimes have to wonder how trustworthy his evaluations and suggestions are. There is however little doubt that he knows a great deal about the book's subject. Soltis was a strong player and is good at conveying his knowledge to the reader.

I had a check of the London System and the Dutch Stonewall and was not particularly impressed but then there was nothing obviously wrong either. His coverage of the Closed Ruy Lopez was much more interesting. His explanations of the old 8...Na5 variation (the Proto-Chigorin) are very thought provoking. I must make a closer study of that variation when I can find the time and then Soltis will be among my main sources (together with Larsen's and Radulsky's games).

However, what really made me raise my eyebrows was his (surprisingly brief) comments on the Zaitsev variation. He writes that 'Zaitsev's original move order [9...Re8 S.J.] is inexact if Black wants to avoid a draw [9...Re8 10.Ng5 Rf8 11.Nf3 S.J.] as well as the complications of 9...Re8 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2. More precise is 9...Bb7! first and then 10 d4 Re8, transposing.'

(Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3, when Black can head for the Zaitsev with 9...Re8 or 9...Bb7)

In this brief passage there are two quite remarkable claims without much supporting analysis or explanations:

1) Soltis indicates that it's easier for Black to avoid the draw after 9...Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3 than after 9...Re8 10.Ng5 Rf8 11.Nf3.

2) Black may want to avoid the complications after 9...Re8 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2.

The first statement is more than adequately covered in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black' as Flear indicates something similar in his 'Ruy Lopez Main Line'. We conclude that exactly the opposite is true: the move-order 9...Re8 gives Black some extra opportunities to avoid a draw by repetition. I so far have no reason to doubt this conclusion.

Statement number two is more worrying: In our Ruy Lopez book we do not discuss 10.a4!? as a possible reply to 9...Re8 at all. Did we miss something very basic or critical in our research?

A quick check with my database was enough to calm me: There is only one high-level game with 9...Re8 10.a4 - Kholmov-Hennings, Chigorin Memorial 1973 (which is actually a couple of years before Igor Zaitzev developed his system!). The game continued 10...Bb7 and although White won the game, Black appeared to have a fully playable position after 20 moves. The game did nothing to reduce the interest in 9...Re8 and 10.a4 has had no other GM outings. I could find no examples continuing 10...Na5 in my database.

A check with Rybka and Fritz confirmed that we hadn't missed anything very basic. 10.a4 starts up around 6th place on their list of candidate moves but slowly climbs upwards. After a couple of minutes it seems to stabilize somewhere around 2nd to 4th place with an evaluation very close to '0.00'.

This of course doesn't exclude the possibility that 9...Re8 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2 is an important variation for the understanding of the Zaitsev variation. If there ever is an update of our Zaitsev book, it will certainly be mentioned. However, I suspect it will concentrate on the natural 10...Bb7 rather than on 10...Na5.

Returning to Soltis' book: I believe my experience could well be typical: As a grand overview over move-order tricks in the opening it's about as good as you could possibly wish. However, if you have researched a subject yourself, you will probably find Soltis book a bit superficial or even disappointing. However, there is also a realistic chance that you could also stumble over something really thought-provoking.

A Question of Style

As a comment to my entry 'A Grossly Unfair Test', a reader has sent the following question:

"In your book, 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black', you recommend the move 8...d5 after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Qe2 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 0-0 0-0 8 c3 (Dia) and you say that 'the more conservative 8...d6 9 Rd1 Na5 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 Qc7 leads to standard Chigorin positions where White's chances should be slightly preferable.' The 8...d6 line is recommended by Nigel Davies in 'Play 1 e4 e5!' and by Mihail Marin in 'A Spanish Repertoire for Black' which came out after your book. You have 'Play 1 e4 e5!' in your bibliography so you must have thought that White has improvements over Davies' lines. What do you think about Marin's analysis of this line? How does both books analysis compare to Greet's Play the Ruy Lopez?"

Actually the decision to recommend 8...d5 was not mainly a result of any dissatisfaction with 8...d6 or Davies' analysis of the move. The two moves have a roughly equal theoretical status so our choice was more a matter of taste and of finding a move that fitted into our general repertoire. Space considerations also was an issue as the Worrall clearly had to be considered a minor line - even more so before the arrival of Greet's book.

It must be taken into consideration that Davies and Marin both are recommending a Chigorin based repertoire where 8...d6 followed by ...Na5 and ...c5 fits very nicely in - the main strategies are the same whether White's rook is on e1 or on d1. We, however, offer a Zaitsev based repertoire. That doesn't totally exclude Chigorin like lines but it would require extra space for strategical explanations. Another factor is more subjective: we chose to recommend the Zaitsev variation because it involves rapid and natural development. Correspondingly we avoided the Chigorin because we were not really happy with the knight excursion to a5. It is a fact that Black often finds it quite hard to activate this knight in the Chigorin. These considerations apply in the diagram position too.

So, why didn't we recommend a Zaitsev development scheme with ...Bb7 and ...Re8 then? That is indeed a good question and this should have been stated clearly in our book: Against the Worrall attack, 8...d6 9.Rd1, 9...Bb7 doesn't seem to be working very well, as 10.d4 creates threats to e5, thanks to the pin in the d-file.

Fortunately this isn't a great problem as 8...d5 is an active and strong move which fits well with the general philosophy behind the Zaitsev. It takes a bit more theoretical preparation than 8...d6 but once Black masters a few sharp lines he can expect quite a pleasant life against the Worrall. This claim has to be backed up by analysis (and in our book we supply some). But to some extent it can also be supported by visual evidence.












If you compare these two diagrams which shows the positions after 11 moves in the two mainlines there can be no doubt that Black appears more active in the second:

• In the first diagram (arising from 8...d6 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7) White has achieved an central advantage (e4&d4 vs. e5&d6) while Black's knight on a5 appears somewhat misplaced.
  
• In contrast White in the second diagram (arising from 8... d5 9. d3 Bb7 10. Nbd2 Re8 11. a3 Bf8) has spent a move on the modest a3 while Black is almost fully developed (Zaitsev style!) and has even taken the active stance in the centre (e5&d5 vs. e4&d3).

Obviously this doesn't prove that 8...d5 is better than 8...d6 but I think it shows that 8...d5 is a more ambitious approach (and consequently better if it actually works).

An Interesting Review

The German language magazine KARL always provides well researched reviews. So when they yesterday published a review of "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" I read it with great interest and maybe I will translate some of it for non-German readers one day when I am less busy.

NB: For some strange reason it seems that the link to the review (http://www.karlonline.org/kol64.htm) works in Internet Explorer but not in Mozilla Firefox, which mysteriously 'redirects' to another review (http://www.karlonline.org/kol46.htm)!

Despite the heading 'Jugendlicher Leichtsinn' which translates to something like 'Youthful Recklessness' (maybe light-headedness is more precise?), the review is generally positive. However, as quite a few others it's also quite critical to our choice of mainline. Not so much because the reviewer, Erik Zude, doubts its soundness or because he finds faults in our analysis but because of the extremely sharp nature of the resulting positions. He is however quite happy with our chapter 5 - Regrouping System, which is a complete alternative repertoire for readers who don't enjoy memorizing razor-sharp variations.

His analysis of a random position from the book seems quite interesting and may be the basis for a future blog entry.

It's a pity that the otherwise very conscientious review got a few errors in the Table of Content. This one, which I copied from Niggemann is more correct:

004 Symbols
005 Bibliography
006 Preface by Sverre
008 Preface by Leif

023 Part 1: Introduction
023 A Quality Opening
029 A Great Learning Tool
030 Learning the Closed Ruy Lopez
031 Closed Ruy Lopez Strategy
032 Some Closed Ruy Lopez Concepts
033 Ruy Lopez Overview

048 Part 2: The Main Battleground
051 1 The Zaitsev Main Line
082 2 The 17. ..c4 Zaitsev
091 3 Other Zaitsev Lines
107 4 Imperfection
117 5 Regrouping System

132 Part 3: White Ducks the Challenge
133 6 Rare 8th and 9th Moves
156 7 5th and 6th Move Alternatives

175 Part 4: Exchange Variations
178 8 The Exchange Variation
194 9 Delayed Exchange Variations
205 Index of Variations

Chigorin Mainline

I promised to try identifying the current "Chigorin Mainline". My quest starts after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 (Dia) when we have the first real split:

11...Qc7!

This is the Classical Chigorin - as the eponymous master himself played it. Black has tried other moves but none of them are as popular:

a) 11...Nd7, Keres’ variation is Davies’ recommendation in ‘Play 1.e4 e5!’, but has recently run into certain theoretical difficulties. Most likely this is only temporary but it’s Black that’s looking for improvements now.

b) 11...cxd4, I.Sokolov’s favorite is very playable but it appears slightly illogical to allow White the option to develop his knight to c3.

c) 11...Nc6, Borisenko’s variation too is fully playable, but White tends to play 12.d5 when Black doesn’t really have an attractive square for his knight.

d) 11...Bb7, Romanishin’s variation is fully playable but Black will frequently have to return his bishop to c8 in order to re-activate it if White plays d5.

e) 11...exd4, has no accepted name but has been played by Chiburdanidze among others.

f) 11...Re8, Hebden’s gambit line may be theoretically suspect but has been used relatively recently by Gustafsson.

12.Nbd2

This is played more than ten times as frequently as 12.d5 which is White’s second most popular move. The knight is on its way to g3 via f1 and the e-pawn may soon need protection.

12...cxd4

It’s not at all obvious that it’s in Black’s interest to exchange his c-pawn for White’s more modestly placed c-pawn. But the open c-file will ensure that something is happening on the queenside and distract White from his slow but dangerous kingside plans. In addition Black gains temporary access to b4 for his knight.

a) 12...Bd7 is what Marin in ‘A Spanish Repertoire for Black’ calls the ‘Petrosian System’ - or more accurately that’s what he calls the natural follow-up 13.Nf1 Nc4. In my opinion ‘Petrosian variation’ would have been a more appropriate name.

b) 12...Nc6 is what Marin calls the ‘Rubinstein System’ (again I prefer ‘variation’ rather than ‘system’).

c) 12...Re8 could reasonably be called the Donner variation.

d) 12...Rd8 is a sensible move that has been played by many strong players, but it seems Romanov is the most consistent patron.

e) 12...Bb7 I suppose could be called the Panov variation after the strong player who was one of the early practitioners.

f) 12...Be6, 12...h6, 12...g6, 12...Nd7, 12...exd4 are rare moves that have been tried by strong players and that may well be valid tries for equality.

13.cxd4

(Dia)

13...Nc6

At this point Black only has a very few independent alternatives:

a) 13...Bb7 14.Nf1 transposes to 12...Bb7 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4

b) 13...Bd7 14.Nf1 transposes to 12...Bd7 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4

c) 13...Be6 14.Nf1 transposes to 12...Be6 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4

d) 13...Rd8 is relatively independent and has been played by Shirov, Kasimdzhanov and Bologan among others. Not at all a bad line-up but I could find only 180 games versus more than one thousand with 13...Nc6.

14.Nb3!

The fact that this move is necessary is one of Black’s small triumphs in the Chigorin. The knight will soon be on its way to the king's wing again but it will cost two extra moves.

14...a5

The Chigorin variation is extremely solid but also slightly passive. It is hardly a coincidence that the most active sub-variations have become the mainlines. This is Black's choice in almost 90% of the games.

15.Be3

The d-pawn needs new protection so the knight can be released for worthier tasks.

15...a4

And this natural follow-up is Black's choice in almost 95% of the games.

16.Nbd2

This is the natural move, even if there actually are 11 games with 16.Nc1 - some of them with quite strong white players.

16...Bd7

At this point there again is a split. This is the preferred move in more than 50% of the games but there are alternatives that have been played by world-class players:

a) 16...Nb4 has been played by Adams and Beliavsky among others.

b) 16...Be6 too has been played by Beliavsky in addition to Tkachiev, Sturua and some other GMs.

17.Rc1

There can hardly be a more natural move than placing the rook vis-a-vis Black's queen and making room for the bishop on b1. Still 17.a3 is quite a popular move which is fairly likely to transpose at some point.

17...Qb7

(Dia)

With this move we reach what I declare the starting point of the Modern Chigorin Mainline in the Ruy Lopez. This is Black's preferred move in 140 out of 217 games in MegaBase 2007. The two main alternatives 17...Rac8 and 17...Rfc8 can both transpose. One reason I choose to stop here is the fact that it's not absolutely clear what's White's main continuation in this position. From the 140 MegaBase 2007 games we have this distribution:

• 18.Qe2: 51 games, with Kramnik and Shirov as the most prominent recent players.
• 18.Nf1: 39 games, with Ivanchuk, Svidler and Leko as recent top players.
  
• 18.a3: 28 games, with Karjakin and Bologan as leading practitioners.
• 18.Bb1: 18 games with Almasi and Kotronias as recent top players (and Anand with a 10-years old game)
• There also are games with 18.d5 and 18.Bd3 by strong GMs.

I suppose I will return to this position in a future blog.

Chigorin or Zaitsev

The Chigorin or the Zaitsev - that's the question; at least if you have decided to buy a book on the Closed Ruy Lopez for Black.

While there certainly are other aspects to be taken into account, one main consideration when choosing a repertoire based theory book, is the quality of the recommended lines.

In my and GM Leif E. Johannesen's "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" we primarily recommend the Zaitsev variation, starting 9...Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8.
(Dia)












In "A Spanish Repertoire for Black" on the other hand, GM Mihail Marin recommends the Chigorin variation, starting 9...Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7.
(Dia)












So, what is best - Chigorin or Zaitsev?

Obviously there is no definite answer to that question. Both lines have been played at absolute top-level and have withstood detailed computer assisted analysis. But there nevertheless are some differences that may help you decide:

• Zaitsev development is quicker and more natural.
• Black's knight on a5 tends to create problems in the Chigorin.
• The Chigorin is the oldest line, and has developed a correspondingly larger body of theory.
• The Zaitsev tends to lead to sharper lines where both players must follow a narrower theoretical path.
• In the Zaitsev Black must worry about weaker players going for a repetition of moves.
• In the Chigorin Black tends to be a little passive for quite a long time.
• In the Zaitsev mainlines Black's kingside tends to come under fire.
• Experience pays well in the Chigorin and your results are likely to improve over time.
• Strategic ideas tend to be clearer and easier to understand in the Zaitsev.
• Chigorin strategy tends to be extremely slow and often quite subtle.
• In the Zaitsev mainline the centre frequently becomes quite open.
  
• In the Chigorin White can close the centre permanently with d5.

If that didn't help, I suppose the best you can do is comparing the mainlines and try to decide what suits your style the best. For the Zaitsev you only need to check my entry "Worthy of Study" to find the critical position. It's a bit harder when it comes to the Chigorin - actually I think identifying the Chigorin mainline could be a nice topic for a future blog entry.

In the meantime it's nice to know that even if you should happen to choose the wrong line (it could even be that the Breyer variation is the line for you!), there will be very little work wasted. Your study of one Closed Ruy Lopez line is almost guaranteed to deepen your understanding of any other line within that complex. And whenever you decide to do a switch you will save a lot of time.

Kuzmin Variation

Having concluded in a previous entry that 7.Ng5?! is fairly harmless, or even weak, it's time to take a look at White's subtler replies.

After the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 b5 6.Bb3 d6, it seems that 7.c3! must be the critical test.

(Dia.)

Now d4 is no longer available for Black's knight and 8.Ng5 is becoming more of a threat.
7...Na5

This is Black's most popular follow up and removes pressure from the sensitive f7-pawn. In a reply to my 7.Ng5 entry, Phil Adams brought to my notice that Soltis in his new book ' Transpo Tricks in Chess' (Batsford 2007) briefly discusses this move-order. Obviously Bisguier used it mainly as a confusing transposition tool against Robatsch in Hastings 1961, here playing 7...Be7. That allows White to look for ways to omit or delay Re1 (as the e4-pawn is already protected by Bc2), but the White rook will be nicely placed on e1 so it will normally quickly transpose to a mainline Closed Ruy Lopez.

I had a look at 7...g6 8.Ng5 d5 9.exd5 but did not find anything that really looked playable for Black.

7...Bg4 is another active move that keeps open the option to develop with ...g6. Unfortunately it seems White can keep an edge with little risk:

a) 8.Qe2 mainly has historical interest: 8...Be7 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d3 Nc6 12.h3 Bd7 13.d4 += Stoltz-Alekhine, Salzburg 1942.

b) 8.Re1 is the start of a familiar plan for most players of the white side of the Ruy Lopez. White hopes to demonstrate that the active bishop mainly is a target and will play d3, Nbd2-f1-g3 and only then put the question to the bishop with h3. A relevant game went 8...Na5 9.Bc2 c5 10.d3 g6 11.Nbd2 Bg7 12.Nf1 0–0 13.h3 Bd7 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 Qc7 16.Ne3 Be6 17.d4 Nc4 18.Nxc4 Bxc4 19.d5 b4 20.cxb4 g5 (20...cxb4 21.Ba4 +=) 21.Bg3 cxb4 22.Qd2 with some advantage to White in Unzicker-Bisguier, IZ (Gothenburg) 1955.

8.Bc2 c5

This increases Black's central presence, allows him to support his central pawns with ...Qc7 and seems generally consistent with his previous move. Still, b4 doesn't seem to be much of a threat yet, so I wonder if 8...g6 9.d4 Qe7 may be a possibility.

9.d4 Qc7

This seems necessary in order to support Black's central presence (but seen in light of the further course of the game you may wonder if 9...Qe7, planning ...g6 is an option).

10.Nbd2

(Dia)

This appears to be the critical move, and only if Black can pass this test he needs to worry about the alternatives 10.Re1, 10.h3 and 10.a4.

10...g6!?

Well, this bishop development was Black's main idea. However, it's worth noting that one of Kuzmin's latest games with the line went 10...cxd4 11.cxd4 Bd7 12.Bd3 Be7 13.Qe2 0–0 14.b3 Nc6 15.Bb2 Bd8 16.a4 bxa4 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 dxe5 19.bxa4 Bg4 20.Qe3 Be6 when the players agreed a draw even if White had the more comfortable position in Kindermann-Kuzmin, Panormo 2001.

11.b4!

Only this non-stereotyped move can cast doubt on Black's idea. 11.a4 b4 12.cxb4 cxb4 13.b3 exd4 14.Nxd4 Bg7 15.Bb2 0–0 16.Rc1 Nd7 17.Bb1 Qb6 was fine for Black in Vasiukov-Kasparian, Yerevan 1955.

11...cxb4 12.cxb4 Nc6 13.Bb2 Bg7

Actually the optimistic 13...Nxb4 14.Bb1 Nc6 seems playable but after 15.Qc2 Qb6 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Bg7 19.Nb3 0–0 20.Bd4 White's advantage is fairly obvious.

14.Rc1

(Dia)

14...Qe7!?

Black's queen is exposed in the open c-file so this is a natural reaction. Black has also tried:

a) 14...Bb7? 15.Bb3 Qe7 16.Rxc6! Bxc6 17.dxe5 Nh5 18.g4 Nf4 19.exd6 +- Bronstein-Evans, Moscow 1955.

b) 14...0–0 15.Bb3 += was our conclusion in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black', but on closer inspection it seems that Black has some quite serious problems: 15...Qb6 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Bg4 19.Qc2 Rae8 and now Suetin-Ragozin, (URS Ch) Kiev 1954 was drawn after the moves 20.Qc7 Qxc7 21.Bxc7 Bh6 (this position is equal) 22.Rc6 Bxd2 23.Rxf6 Be2 24.Bd6 Bg5 25.Bxf8 Bxf6 26.Re1 Rxe4 27.Bc5 Bc3 28.f3 Bxe1 29.fxe4 Kg7. However, after 20.Qb2 Black has problems freeing his position.

15.Bb3 Nxd4

15...Bb7 16.a3 0–0 17.d5 Nd8 18.Rc3 gives White a clear advantage.

16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Bxd4 0–0 18.Re1 Be6 19.Nb1

Or 19.Bxe6 Qxe6 20.a4 with a small plus for White.

19...Bxb3 20.axb3

Now White will have some pressure down the semi-open a-file but his b-pawns are weak. I am not sure why White preferred this over 20.Qxb3 which seems to preserve a small advantage.

20...Nh5 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Rc6 Rfd8 23.Nc3 Nf6 24.Qa1 Qe5 1/2–1/2 Vasiukov-Arulaid, Voroshilovgrad 1955.

Conclusion:

It seems Black has a slightly harder task to equalize after 6...d6 7.c3 than in the Closed Ruy Lopez mainlines, but that to some extent should be compensated by the element of surprise. It would also be interesting to see a high level game with 9...Qe7.

Learn from Your Books

Writing chess books is not very financially rewarding - at least not if you want to write a good one and in addition need to share your royalties with a co-author. It can be emotionally rewarding if you are happy with the result and the critics like it too. But how rewarding is it for your chess? I honestly don’t know. I am convinced I have learned a lot when writing my two previous books, and the third one looks very promising too. But writing takes time that could have been spent playing chess (among other things), and there is little doubt that the best I could do for my playing strength right now would be to play a bit more chess!

In a way co-authoring a book with a grandmaster is the perfect learning tool: First you do your very best to understand and systemize all available material on an opening and write it down. Then you have a strong player to answer your questions and point out your misunderstandings and the subtleties and move-order finesses you didn’t note. Finally - as a last check that everything is crystal clear - you have to verbalize it all as lucidly as possibly. So far everything seems perfect.

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. Books usually are published and some of them even sell well. After a while you must suspect that your opponent has scrutinized your analysis and have some improvements ready. At this point you have to ask yourself if you learned something from the writing process that is not publicly available. And in my experience there usually are quite a few lines that did not quite make it to the book but are still eminently playable.

One such line that got only a passing mention in “The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black” is Kuzmin’s Closed Ruy Lopez variation:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 b5!? (5...Be7 is the most common path to the Closed Ruy) 6.Bb3 d6!? (Dia.)

Black’s moves so far are not very committal and can be played with various ideas in mind. If allowed, Black would like to develop his kingside with ...g6, ...Bg7 and ...0-0 rather than the somewhat cumbersome ...Be7, ...0-0, ...Re8, ...Bf8, ...g6 and ...Bg7 which Black in the standard Closed Ruy Lopez lines often completes around move 20.

The most obvious question is what happens if White immediately attacks f7:

7.Ng5?!

This probably is too optimistic. The critical 7.c3 and some minor alternatives will be the subject of a future blog entry.

7...d5 8.exd5 Nd4 (Dia.)

This position should be compared to the one arising from the Fritz variation in the Two Knight’s Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4!?). Despite Black's tempo loss (...d6 and ...d5) it's clear that Black's chances have been improved by the extra moves ...a6, ...b5 and Bb3. The essential difference is that Black now threatens to remove White's strong light-squared bishop.

9.Re1

This is the natural move, but White has also tried 9.d6, 9.c3 and the somewhat surprising 9.Qe1 which has been preferred by Kveinys among others.

9...Bc5!

This probably is even stronger than 9...Bd6 which however was good enough for Fuentes to beat Capablanca in a simultaneous exhibition in Madrid 1935.

10.Rxe5+?!

a) 10.Nf3?! Bg4 11.Rxe5+ Kf8 12.d3 Bd6 13.Rg5 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qd7 15.Kh1 Qh3 16.f4 Nf3 17.Rg2 Re8 wins for Black. This is only semi-forced, but obviously difficult for White.

b) 10.h3 0–0 11.d3 Nxd5 12.Nc3 Nxb3 13.axb3 f6 14.Nge4 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Bb6 16.Ba3 += Prathamesh-Khruschiov, Moscow 2006

10...Kf8 (Dia.)

11.Nc3?

You may wonder how a player of Korchnoi’s caliber (oh yes, he was already a world class player 56 years ago!) could do such a horrible move. Most of the explanation probably is that White is more or less lost whatever he does:

a) 11.h3 Nd7 12.Nxf7 Qf6 13.Re3 Qxf7 14.c3 Nxb3 15.Rf3 Nf6 16.axb3 Qxd5 and Black had a piece for a couple of pawns and was probably winning in Deshmukh-Peng Xiaomin, Calcutta 2000.

b) 11.Re3 Bg4 12.Qe1 Nxb3 13.Rxb3 Qxd5 is also very difficult for White, e.g. 14.Nc3 Qxg5 15.d4 Qh4 16.dxc5 Re8 and Black should be winning again.

11...Ng4

Black is winning already.

12.Nge4 Qh4

This probably is a bit more exact than 12...Nxe5 13.Nxc5 which should also win.

13.Rh5

Don’t forget that the rook at e5 is hanging.

13...Qxh5 14.h3 Qh4 15.Nxc5 Qxf2+

Even stronger would have been 15...Nxf2! 16.Qf1 Nxh3+ 17.gxh3 Qg3+ 18.Qg2 Nf3+ 19.Kh1 Qe1+ with mate to follow.

16.Kh1 Qg3 17.hxg4 Bxg4 18.Qf1 Nf3! 19.gxf3 Bxf3+ 20.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 0–1 Korchnoi-Estrin, Chigorin Memorial (Leningrad) 1951.