Showing posts with label Nomenclature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nomenclature. Show all posts

Saturday, October 8, 2011

The Muzio Family

Chess nomenclature is a difficult subject in general and in particular within the King's Gambit. For most practical players it is also a relatively uninteresting subject. So I will try to keep such discussions to a minimum in my coming King's Gambit book. However, I want what little I include to be as correct as possible. Therefore I will give the subject some coverage on this blog in the hope that knowledgeable readers may correct anything wrong or even debatable.

In this entry I will try to identify and name White's positional piece sacrifices after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5.

I: The Polerio Attack

4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0! gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)












The Polerio Attack, may be considered head of the Muzio Family. It is generally regarded as fairly respectable. However, it's quite possible that correct play leads to a forced repetition (which theoretically isn't a good result for White).

II: The Lolli attack

5 Bxf7+? Kxf7 6 Nxe5 (D)













The Lolli Attack is the black sheep of the Muzio family. White gives up his bishop instead of his knight and wins some time. Unfortunately White has insufficient compensation as Black after 6...Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 starts winning his tempi back. The Lolli may be acceptable as a blitz or coffee house weapon but is probably unplayable above mediocre club level chess.
III: The Ghulam Kassim Attack

4 Bc4 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)













This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 d4 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the Ghulam Kassim Attack after the Indian player who published analysis on it around 1826 (at least the publication seems to have been available in 1843). It may transpose to a (probably good) variation of the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but White may also consider castling queenside.

IV: The MacDonnell Attack

4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)












This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 Nc3 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the MacDonnell Attack. It may transpose to the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but is more likely to merge with the Ghulam Kassim Attack after a quick d4 and queenside castling.


V: The Rosentreter Attack

4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)













This is the Rosentreter Attack which obviously is closely related to the Ghulam Kassim Attack, to which it may quickly transpose with an early d4.
 
Instead 5 Bc4 would lead to the Ghulam Kassim Attack while 5 Nc3 would lead to the Sørensen Attack (below).

VI: The Sørensen Attack

4 Nc3 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)












This position I believe should be called the Sørensen Attack but I assume that some will argue that it should rather be the Quaade Attack. I am not at all sure what's correct and will try to look at bit deeper into the matter. My reasons for preferring Sørensen over Quaade are:
  1. The mainline in the Quaade variation is 5 Ne5. It may even be argued that this knight move is the idea behind 4 Nc3 (as it is more or less unplayable in the Rosentreter variation, 4 d4).
  2. In Bilguer's Handbuch, the line is attributed to Sørensen. 
Instead 5 Bc4 would have transposed to the MacDonnell Attack.

This classification I think is the easy part of the Muzio nomenclature. The real challenge is to find good classification principles when the lines merge (as they tend to do). Maybe I will return to that subject in a future post.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Stonewall History

When writing a chess book I am always careful not to turn it into an academic exercise. Chessplayers are looking for points not education and they are definitely not paying for history lessons. However, as an author you are obliged to do at least some historical research - even if the result has to be condensed into a couple of paragraphs in the final manuscript.

One of my small side projects when preparing a manuscript on the Dutch Stonewall is to trace the origins of the name. For the moment I know next to nothing. For obvious reasons I assume the name is a de
scription of the pawn formation and not a family name or a place. I suspect the name may first have been used about a black set-up after 1.d4 d5 or quite possibly about the white system 1.d4 d5 2.e3.

The development of the Stonewall ideas is of course something entirely different. First of all one may note that the formation seems to be relatively old. Among ChessBase's older entries we find:

A White Bird Stonewall:
L.De Labourdonnais - A.McDonnell, London 1834: 1.f4 d5 2.d4 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6

A Double Stonewall:
G.Walker - P.De Saint Amant, London 1836: 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 c6 5.f4 d5

An Anti Bird Stonewall:
P.De Saint Amant, - W. Fraser, Lo
ndon 1836: 1.f4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 4.c4 c6 5.e3 e6

The first modern looking example I have come across so far is half a century younger:

P.Lipke - C.Walbrodt, Vienna 1898
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 e6 4.g3
This is the modern way to meet the Dutch. Now it will be a bit harder for Black to develop his queen-side.
4...d5
After this move we have a genuine Stonewall Dutch.
5.Bg2 c6 6.0–0 Be7
This bishop development is how Botwinnik used to play the Stonewall. The modern interpretation is 6...Bd6 in order to meet 7.b3 with 7...Qe7, preventing the exchange of dark-squared bishops.
7.Qc2 0–0 8.Bf4 Ne4 9.Nc3 Nd7 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.Bxe5

(Dia.)

11...Bf6
This was the classical way to bring the dark-squared bishop into the fight over the e5-square. P.Ricardi-M.Tempone, Buenos Aires 1999 continued 11...Nd6 12.b3 Bd7 13.Na4 Nf7 14.Bf4 g5 15.Bd2 with a small advantage to White.
12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.e3
Only here does the game depart from the more recent encounter J.Grant-L.Haraldsson, Calvia 2006 which continued 13.Rad1.
13...Qe7 14.Qb3 Kh8 15.Rad1 Rb8 16.Rfe1 Bd7 17.Ne2 Be8 18.Nf4 Bf7 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Nd3 Nd7 21.Rc1 Qd6 22.Qa4 Ra8 23.Rc3 Qe7 24.Rb3 Rfb8 25.Rc1 Bh5 26.Rbc3 Be2 27.Nf4 Bc4 28.Qa3 Qxa3 29.Rxa3 Re8 30.h4 a5 31.Ra1 g6 32.Rc3 Nf6 33.b3 Ba6 34.f3 Kg8 35.Kf2 ½–½

(Dia.)

The position is equal as Black's bishop is in no way inferior to its black counter-part. The g4-break achieves nothing for White as ...fxg4 and fxg4 will secure the e4-square for Black's knight.

Monday, June 25, 2007

A Wild Beast

A few years ago I wrote a small booklet on the line 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 a6!? (Dia.) with the title "The Tiger".
The title was inspired mainly by Rekom and Jansen's "The Lion" on the somewhat related line 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7. My booklet was distributed mainly as pdf-files but a few printed copies were made on my job's printer. I played it in a few games myself and even a few of the readers were tempted to test it (with varying success).

Then a few things happened:
1) I started writing books for Gambit - an activity that took most of my chess time.
2) I more or less stopped playing tournament chess (I will be back!)
3) There appeared a book called "Tiger's Modern", which concentrated on the Modern opening 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 and after most moves (4.f4, 4.Be3, 4.Nf3) the challenging 4...a6!?.

My Tiger Files were put aside and I noted that whenever I decided to reopen them, I would have to decide on a new name. Since then not so much have changed; I still have no time to update my old manuscript. However, a few weeks ago I devoted a quiet evening to checking my databases for developments in this line (and a few other favorites) and noticed that Cicak, one of its strongest practitioners, now has had some success with it:

M.Meinhardt - Cicak, Stuttgart Ch. (Gerlingen) 2007
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 a6!?
Black delays or omits the weakening ...g6. Against White's more timid set-ups he will probably play it after having first created some queen-side play with ...b5. Against others he will probably avoid it altogether, preferring a more solid set-up with ...e6 or ...e5 depending on circumstances.
4.a4

This can hardly be the critical test but it's quite likely to bring the play back to Pirc waters.
a) 4.f4 e6 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd3 Qxc5 8.Qe2 Nbd7 9.Be3 Qc7 10.Bd4 Nc5 11.0–0–0± Bartel-Cicak, Cork 2005
b) 4.Bg5 e6 and now:
b1) 5.Bd3 Be7 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0–0 h6 8.Bh4 Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxc3 10.Bxd8 Nxd1 11.Bxc7 Nxb2 12.Bxd6 Nxd3 13.cxd3 Nb6 =+ Galdunts-Cicak, Germany 2004.
b2) 5.Qf3 Be7 6.0–0–0 Nfd7 7.h4 Bxg5+ 8.hxg5 Qxg5+ 9.Kb1 Nc6 10.Rh5 Qe7 11.Qg3 g6 12.Rh6 Qf8 13.Rh4 Qg7 14.Nf3 Ne7 15.Qh2 += E.Berg-Cicak, Gothenburg 2006.
4...g6
Now the game takes on Pirc characteristics. 4...e5 would also be perfectly sensible, reaching a position from the modern Philidor Defence with the added moves a4 and ...a6
5.g3
This too looks fairly harmless.
a) 5.Nf3 would probably lead to a well known Classical Pirc position after 5...Bg7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 b6.
b) One of my games went 5. Bc4?! Bg7 6. Qe2 Nc6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Be3 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 when I was already slightly better in V.Hansen-Johnsen, Norwegian Open
(Gausdal) 2000.
5...b6
The obvious 5...Bg7 is also fine: 6.Bg2 0–0 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.0–0 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.h3 Re8 = L.Campos-Movsziszian, Albacete 2002.
6.Bg2 Bb7 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.0–0 c5 9.Re1 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Rb8 11.h3 Bg7 12.Nd5 e5
Clearly Cicak isn't too obsessed with classical strategy. The hole at d5 and the backward d-pawn look ugly but doesn't actually bother Black much.
13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.Nb3 0–0 15.c4 Qc7 16.Nd2 Nd7 17.b3 Nc5 18.Nb1 f5 (Dia.)

From a slow start Black has now organized his forces and is ready to attack.
19.Nc3 f4 20.Nd5 Qf7 21.Ra2 Bxd5 22.cxd5 a5 23.Ba3 h5 24.b4 axb4 25.Bxb4 Bh6 26.Qc2 Rbc8 27.Qb1
Around here Black's position looks very promising.
27...Qe7 28.Ra3 fxg3 29.fxg3 Na6 30.Bc3 Qa7 31.Kh1 Rf2 32.Rf1 Qf7 33.Rxf2 Qxf2 34.Qf1 Qxf1+ 35.Bxf1 Nc5 36.Bg2 Bc1 37.Ra2 Nd3
(Dia.)


Black's attack has disappeared but his pieces are clearly more active and White's pawns are vulnerable.

38.Bd2 Bxd2 39.Rxd2 Nc5 40.Ra2 Ra8 41.Rb2 Ra6
White's a-pawn is doomed anyway.
42.Rb4 Kf7 43.Bf3 Nxa4 44.Be2 Ra5 45.Kg2 Ke7 46.Kf3 Nc5 47.h4 Ra3+ 48.Kf2 Kd7 49.g4 Rh3
Now it's clearly decided.
50.Rxb6 Nxe4+ 51.Kg2 Rxh4 52.Rb7+ Ke8 53.gxh5 gxh5 54.Rh7 Nf6 55.Rh8+ Kf7 0–1

Obviously the result was not determined by the opening but that probably was what Black was hoping for anyway.

Could "The Panther" be a good name? I believe it quite fittingly is used mainly about the black variety of the big cats.

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Origin of a Name

I am always careful not to dive too deeply into historical background when writing about an opening. Research of this kind can be very time consuming and most chess-players have a very practical approach to their game; they simply don’t want to be bothered with historical facts that will not help them winning games.

Nevertheless you occasionally stumble into questions that you really should know a bit about in order to consider yourself an expert on a theme. Personally I would like to know a bit more about the origin of the name “London System”. So far I can say this:

The name "London System" doesn't occur anywhere in the tournament book for the London 1922 tournament. The first use of the name which I have come across, is in the New York 1924 tournament book. There the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 followed by Bf4 generally are referred to as "Reti's Eroffnung im Nachzuge" (Reti's Opening Reversed) but there is one interesting exception:

Janowski-Reti, New York (9) 1924
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.h3
Quite curiously a consensus seems to have been reached among the top players at the time that the immediate 3.Bf4 was premature. This already seemed to be accepted in the later rounds of the London 1922 tournament. Can it be that 3.Bf4 Nh5!? was considered inconvenient?
3...Bg7 4.Bf4 b6
Probably a set-up with ...d5 (followed by ...c5, ...Nc6 and ...Nfd7, preparing ...e5) is the way to demonstrate that h3 was too slow. This is discussed in some detail in "Win with the London System".
5.e3 c5 6.c4
Here Aljekhine comments: "Hier hatte besser 6.c2-c3 nebst Lf1-d3 (c4) geschehen sollen, was zu einem Kampfe zwischen zwei Systemen (Reti's und dem Londoner) gefuhrt hatte." Or in a rough translation to English: "6.c3 followed by Bd3 (c4) would have been better here. That would have lead to a battle between two systems (Reti's and the London).
6...cxd4 7.exd4 0-0 8.Nc3 d5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.b3 Ne4 11.Rc1 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 dxc4 13.bxc4 Nc6 14.Rd3 Na5 15.c5 Qd5 16.0-0 Qxa2 17.Re1 Qd5 18.Bf1 Ba6 19.Rc3 Bxf1 20.Kxf1 Nc6 21.Be3 Rfd8 22.Qc1 b5
Now the queenside passed pawns decide.
23.Rd1 b4 24.Rc2 a5 25.Ng1 a4 26.Ne2 b3 27.Rcd2 a3 28.Nf4 b2 29.Qc3 Qf5 30.Nd3 Bxd4 31.Bxd4 Rxd4 32.Kg1 (Dia)

Now come some nice and correct but totally unnecessary tactics:
32...Rxd3 33.Rxd3 Qxd3 34.Qxd3 a2 35.Kh2 a1=Q 36.Rb1 Rb8 37.h4 Qa4 38.g3 Qd4 39.Qc2 Qf6 40.Kg2 h5 41.Kg1 Nd4 42.Qd1 Qf5 43.Kg2 Qxc5 44.Qd2 Qd5+ 0-1

Aljekhine's comments don't give the impression that he introduces a new name for the system, he rather takes it for granted that the reader already is familiar with it. So where did the name originate? Possibly in a chess magazine issued some time between these two tournaments?
Any information or suggestions from readers would be appreciated.