Zwaig Variation III

The Norwegian Chess Federation (Norges Sjakkforbund) has opened a weekly column at their website , called 'Fra arkivet' (From the Archive) which I look forward to following. This week they offered a game which was new to me (although I believe I have the scanned magazine somewhere in my shelves):
S.Heim - A.Zwaig, Cht Norway 1975
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5
The Norwegian variation.
6.0–0
Some day I will return to 6.d4!? which I feel may be underrated.
6...d6 7.d4 f6 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.b4
This is given as a novelty so I assume the game was played before Helmers-O.Moen from the same year. 9.a4 b4 10.c3 c5 11.cxb4 cxb4 12.Nbd2.
9...Nc4
9...Nc6 10.d5 Ne7 (10...Nxb4?? 11.a3+-) 11.a4 +=.
10.Nbd2 Nb6!? (Dia)
For 10...Nxd2 see 'Zwaig Variation II'
11.c4!
In 'Zwaig Variation II' I only gave Oim's 11.Qe2 which was the only example I could find in the databases. But even with more than 3 millons games the electronic sources cannot yet compete with paper when it comes to historical games (for ChessBase the critical point seems to be around 1985).
11...bxc4
Curiously Rybka for quite a long time like 11...Kf7?!. Should I re-install the program?
12.a4 Be6 13.a5?
Zwaig's suggestion 13.Qc2 indeed seems to offer White a plus.
13...Nc8! 14.Qc2 Rb8 15.Rb1 Na7 16.Nxc4 Qc8! 17.Be3?!
Zwaig mentions 17.Ne3 Qb7 and it seems Black is holding.
17...Nb5 18.Rfc1 Be7 19.Qd3 Qb7 20.Bd2?! (Dia)
I like this position! With the possible exception of his light-squared bishop, none of Black's pieces seems to be on a 'normal' square. Yet Black suddenly seems better. Zwaig suggests that 20.d5! is best (probably the position is then still '+=').
20...f5! 21.exf5 e4 22.Qe3
22.Qe2 Bxc4 23.Qxc4 d5 -/+.
22...Bxf5!
22...Bxc4 23.Rxc4 Qd5 (23...exf3 24.Re1 c6 25.Rxc6 unclear) 24.Re1 Qxc4 25.Qxe4 Qf7 26.Ng5 unclear.
23.Re1 Qd5! 24.Qf4! Bg6!
Actually 24...g5! 25.Ne3 gxf4 seems even stronger as 26.Nxd5 is fairly harmless.
25.Ne3 Qh5!
Zwaig discards 25...Qf7 26.Qxf7+ Kxf7 27.Nd5! e3 28.Rxe3 Bxb1 29.Rxe7+ Kf8 30.Ng5 Nxd4 31.Bc3 h6 32.Rf7+ with at least a perpetual for White but 32...Ke8 33.Nxc7+ Kd8 34.Bxd4 must be close to winning for White.
26.g4 Qh3 (Dia)

Somewhat surprisingly White is lost thanks to his trapped knight.
27.Nf5
27.Ng5? Bxg5 28.Dxg5 Sxd4 -+.
27...exf3! 28.Rxe7+ Kd8 29.Nh4?
29.Qg3 Qxg3+ 30.hxg3 Bxf5 31.Bg5 Bxb1 32.Rxg7+ is just as hopeless. Black escapes a piece up.
29...Kxe7 30.Qg5+ Kd7 0–1
Notes are based on Zwaig's for Norsk Sjakkblad.

Norwegian Variation in Norwegian

If you ever want to master the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez you eventually will need to learn the Norwegian language (stop complaining - it's a beautiful language and a lot of chess players have already learned Russian!). In a few months a biography on Svein Johannessen, written by Øystein Brekke, will appear - hopefully in time for Svein's memorial tournament. One main ingredient in the book no doubt will be Svein's experiences with his pet variation.

As a foretaste, today there is an article about the Norwegian variation by GM Leif E Johannessen (my co-author for The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black) in the Norwegian internet newspaper Nettavisen. The games can be found below but I assume you will be able to extract the essence of Leif's annotations with the help of my word list below.

Norwegian Chess Dictionary
Konge = King
Dronning = Queen
Tårn = Rook
Løper = Bishop
Springer = Knight
Bonde = Pawn
Hvit = White
Sort/Svart = Black
Vinne = Win
Tape = Lose
Felt = Square
Linje = File
Rad = Rank
Sentrum = Centre
Fløy = Wing
Trekk = Move
Rokade = Castling
Slå = Capture
Matt = Mate
Sjakk = Chess/Check
Brett = Board
Motstander = Opponent
Kvalitet = Exchange
Fordel = Advantage
Motspill = Counter-play
Uklart = Unclear
Offiser = Piece
Åpen = Open
Lukket = Closed
Åpning = Opening
Midtspill = Middle game
Sluttspill = Endgame
Avbytte = Exchange
Løperpar = Bishops-pair
Angrep = Attack
Forsvar = Defence
(the list will be updated whenever I discover an essential omission)

The Games:
Feoktistov - Agdestein, Vadsosjakken 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 f6 8.c3?!
8.dxe5 Nxb3 9.axb3 dxe5 10.Qe2 Ne7?! (10...Bb7 11.Rd1 Qc8) 11.Rd1 Bd7 12.Nc3 Ng6 13.Be3 c6 14.Ne1 Be7 15.Nd3 0-0 16.Bc5 Rf7 17.Qe3 Qc7 18.Bxe7 Rxe7 19.Qc5 Be8 20.Nd5 cxd5 21.Qxd5+ Kf8 22.Qxa8 +- Arakhamia Grant-Agdestein, Gibraltar Masters 2008.
8...Nxb3 9.Qxb3 c5 10.a4 Bd7 11.axb5 axb5 12.Rxa8 Qxa8 13.dxc5 Qxe4 14.Nbd2 Qc6 15.cxd6 Bxd6 16.Re1 Ne7 17.Ne4 Bc7 18.Qa3 Be6 19.Qc5 Bd5 20.Qxc6+ Bxc6 21.Nfd2 Kf7 22.Nc5 Ra8 23.Kf1 h6 24.Nd3 Nd5 25.Nb3 g5 26.h3 h5 27.Nbc5 g4 28.h4 Kg6 29.Ne6 Bd6 30.Nec5 Rd8 31.Kg1 Ne7 32.Ne6 Re8 33.Nec5 Rd8 34.Ne6 Rc8 35.b4 Nd5 36.Bd2 Ra8 37.Nec5 Nb6 38.Ne4 Bxe4 39.Rxe4 Nc4 40.Be1 f5 41.Re2 e4 42.Nc1 Be5 43.Nb3 Ra3 44.Nd4 Bxd4 45.cxd4 Kf7 46.Rc2 Ra1 47.Kf1 f4 48.Re2 f3 49.gxf3 gxf3 50.Re3 Kf6 51.Rc3 Nd2+ 52.Kg1 Rxe1+ 53.Kh2 Nc4 0–1

Senff- S.Johannessen, Norwegian Ch op (Oslo) 2006
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh4 Ne7 11.f4 exd4 12.Qxd4 d5 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Kh1 Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Qd7 16.Be3 0–0–0 17.Nf3 Bd6 18.Qd2 Rhe8 19.Qf2 Qg4 20.c4 Bxf4 21.Bxf4 Qxf4 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Qc2 Qe4 24.Qc5 Rd5 25.Qa7 Rd2 26.h3 Qd5 27.Rac1 Ree2 28.Qa5 Qd6 29.Qxb5 Qg3 30.Qf5+ Kb8 31.Qg4 Rxg2 32.Qxg3 Rxg3 33.Rc3 Rxh3+ 34.Kg1 Rg3+ 35.Kh1 g5 0–1

Norwegian Variation Acid Test

If I ever write a book on the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez, the first chapter will be on the 6.Bxf7+ variation. The positional ramifications of Johannessen's 7...Nxb3 and Zwaig's 7...f6 - or for that matter the Stein/Wibe variation with 7...exd4 - obviously are only relevant if Black can survive this more direct attacking attempt.

The natural context for an examination of this line is this classical radio game:

Z.Nilsson-Hoen, Radio game Norway-Sweden 1970
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5
When this game was played I believe the radio games attracted a little less attention than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. But still a game against our neighboring country held a lot of prestige.
5.Bb3 Na5 6.Bxf7+!?
Interestingly this brutal attempt at refuting the Norwegian variation is called the Swedish variation (even before this game, I think). For his bishop White gets two central pawns, two checks and a lead in development.
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke7 (Dia)

Obviously Black's king will be stranded in the centre for some time. In addition Black's knight on a5 is out of play and somewhat vulnerable as is his rook on a8. Is this sufficient compensation for the bishop? Only analysis and practical experience can tell. For the moment few players seem willing to take the White pieces but it's really hard to tell as there aren't many advocates for 5...Na5 either.

8.Nc3

This is White's most direct attacking attempt. Also 8.Qf3 and 8.d4 are dangerous moves which Black must be prepared for. In addition there is also the surprising 8.Nf7?! with the point 8...Kxf7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qd5+ Kg7 11.Qxa8. Fortunately for Black it seems that the queen is completely out of play after 11...Nc6. There appears to have been a postal theme tournament with this variation in 2003. As could be expected White scored badly but the games seem to have been of a rather low standard and may not prove much.

8...Qe8!

Hoen is armed with Norwegian preparations. The next few moves are according to analysis by Zwaig. At the time when the game was played 8...Nf6?! was considered to be the main variation (8...Bb7?! appears to be untested and after 9.Nd5+ Bxd5 10.exd5 White seems to have reasonable compensation) 9.Nd5+ Nxd5 (9...Ke8!) 10.exd5 Qe8 and now the Swedes had improvements over Schlechter's old analysis which started with the moves 11.d4 Kd8 12.0–0 d6 13.Bg5+ Be7. I am not sure exactly what the Swede's were planning but have been told that the line probably can be found in 'Collijn's Lärobok'. It may well have started 11.0–0 Kd8 12.Re1 Be7 when quite remarkably all the three d-pawn moves 13.d4 (which is likely to transpose to the 11.d4 line), 13.d6 (with the tactical point 13...cxd6 14.Qf3) or even the modest 13.d3 (which takes away a square from the knight on a5) make sense and give White reasonable chances.

9.Nd5+

It's worth noting that a few years later Hoen played 9.d4 as White against Zwaig: 9...Kd8 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.Nd5 (11.Bg5 Be7 12.Nd5 Rf8 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.0–0–0 Bb7 15.Rhe1 Kc8 16.Qh3 Qe6 =+ Hoen-Zwaig, Oslo 1973) 11...Be7 12.Bd2 Nc6 13.0–0–0 d6 14.Nxc6+ Qxc6 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.d5 Qc4 17.b3 Qc5 -/+ Kudriashov-Guseinov, Azov 1991.

9...Kd8 10.Qf3 (Dia)

10...Bb7!

Apparently this rook sacrifice was Zwaig's new idea. I don't know how bad 10...Nf6 would have been.

11.Nf7+ Kc8 12.0–0 Nf6 13.Nxh8 Nxe4 14.d3 Bxd5 15.dxe4 Be6 16.Qg3 Kb7 17.Bf4 Rc8 18.a4 b4

Around this point Fritz and Rybka start to appreciate Black's resources.

19.Be5 Qh5 20.Bxg7

20.c3 Nc6 21.Bf4 Be7 is not better.

20...Bxg7 21.Qxg7 Rg8 22.Qf6 Bh3 23.g3 Rxh8 (Dia)

Finally it's clear that Black is better. I assume the rest of the game was quite pleasant for the Norwegian audience, who must have suspected that Black was on his way to victory even if no clear variations could be calculated.

24.Rfe1 Re8 25.Qf4 Nc6 26.c3 Re7 27.Re3 Ne5 28.Qh4 Qxh4 29.gxh4 Rg7+ 30.Rg3

A bit disappointingly there will be no mating attack.

30...Nf3+ 31.Kh1 Rxg3 32.hxg3 b3

Quite frequently a rook and a pawn can be a good match for two minor pieces in a simplified endgame. But here there is no way to activate the rook and the kingside pawns can quite easily be blocked.

33.a5 d6 34.Ra3 Be6 35.Ra1 Nd2 36.Kg1 Nc4 37.Rb1 Nxa5 38.f4 Nc4 39.Kf2 a5 40.f5 Bf7 41.g4 a4 42.h5 (Dia)

I suppose most listeners had already found the decisive idea:

42...Nxb2! 43.Rxb2 a3 0–1

Addendum March 20th

A quick check in the 1903 edition of 'Collijn's Lärobok' reveals only this relatively short variation after 6.Bxf7+: 8.d4 Nf6 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.f4 Kd8 11.0-0 Be7 12.Qe1 Nc6 13.Nxc6 dxc6 14.c4 with an advantage to White according to Svenonius. Later editions may have had more detail but possibly it's Svenonius' original analysis I should try to locate.

Norwegian Variation Sources

From Norwegian chess enthusiast, chess author and chess shop owner (Sjakkbutikken) Øystein Brekke, I recently received two very interesting sets of photo copies. The most recent one is from the Swedish chess magazine "Tidsskrift för Schack" 1964 with the heading "En ovanlig variant i spanskt parti" (An Unusual Variation in the Spanish Game). It was written by the late Svein Johannessen and is a five part article on the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez.

Even more ancient is the second set of photo copies which is from "Deutsche Schachzeitung" 1901 with the heading "Eine neue Vertheidingung der spanische Partie" (A New Defence in the Spanish Game). This set consists of an article by editor Carl Schlechter (February issue), a summary of some readers' letters regarding the variation 6.Bxf7+ (June issue) and finally a second article by Schlechter focusing on the 6.Bxf7+ variation (September).

This new information obviously calls for an update of my list of Norwegian variation sources:

The Norwegian Variation Bibliography
Below is a list of the significant sources that I am aware of. I will update it whenever I find the time or stumble over anything new.

Alternative names:
English: Wing variation, Taimanov variation, Furman variation
German: Jagdvariante
NIC-code: RL 9.3
ECO-code: C70

Major sources:

• New In Chess Yearbook 37 (1995):
  (25 pages article by Jonathan Tisdall)
• Norsk Sjakkblad 1993 and 1994 (Norwegian language):
  7 articles by Jonathan Tisdall (drafted by Sverre Johnsen): 2/93; 3/93; 4/93; 5/93; 1/94; 2/94; 6/94 and 7/94. There is also an annotated game Ernst-Tisdall, Gausdal 2002 (Zwaig variation) in 1/93.
• Sjakkmesteren Svein Johannessen, Brekke, Norsk Sjakkforlag 2009 (Norwegian language). Contains many annotated games - some previously unknown - and an overview chapter.
• Opening for White according to Anand 1.e4 (vol.2); Khalifman, Chess Stars 2003
  (I don't have the book available but have read it and as expected it offered a serious try for White to extract a genuine advantage)
• Chesspublishing 1.e4 e5; Davies, February 2003
  (mainly for subscribers)
• Play the Ruy Lopez; Greet, Everyman 2006
  (13 well researched pages from White's point of view).

Minor sources:

• Easy Guide to the Ruy Lopez; Emms Everyman 1999
  (quite good coverage but mainly from White's perspective)
• The Lopez Grip Part 3; Martin, Bits and Pieces (Chessville) 2004
• Norsk Sjakkblad #4 and #5 2005 (Norwegian language)
• Older issues of Norsk Sjakkblad (I will eventually try to make a list of the relevant issues).

Historic sources:

• Tidsskrift för Schack 1964 #7, 8 and 9; Svein Johannessen (Swedish language)
  
• Deutsche Schachzeitung 1901 #2, 6 and 9; Carl Schlechter (German language)
  

General sources:
The encyclopedic works (ECO, NCO, MCO, BCO2 etc.) almost by definition have some coverage of the line. I will add some details on this whenever I find the time.

• ECO C (4th edition) has 1,5 pages
• NCO has 0,5 pages

This is an updated version of an entry I originally posted August 30th, 2007. Some information added August 26th, 2009)

The Zwaig Variation II

There are indications that the critical line in Zwaig's variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 f6) may be 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.b4!?. Tisdall describes this move as 'too ugly to be true'. But although I cannot claim to understand why, it has been the choice of some of the best prepared players ever to face 7...f6.

9...Nc4 (Dia)

10.Nbd2 Nxd2

10...Nb6!? has been played by a correspondence World Champion and should be taken seriously: 11.Qe2 Be6 12.Rd1 c6 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nc4 Nd7 (14...Qc7 15.Nxb6 Qxb6 16.a3 c5 +=) 15.Nd6+ Bxd6 16.Rxd6 Bc4 17.Qe3 (17.Qd1 Qc7 18.Be3 Nf8 19.a4 may be even stronger) 17...Qc7 18.Rd1 a5 19.Nd2 Be6 20.bxa5 Rxa5?! (20...Kf7! Oim; 20...Qxa5) 21.Qe2 Ke7 22.Nb3 Ra4 23.Be3 += Stern-Oim, corr 1994.

11.Qxd2

11.Bxd2 c6 (11...c5 12.c3 Bg4 13.Re1) 12.c3 Be6 13.Be3 Be7 14.Nd2 (14.a4) 14...a5 15.Qc2 g5?! (15...axb4 16.cxb4 Qd7 17.Nb3 +=) 16.a4 Qb8 17.axb5 Qxb5 18.c4 +- Helmers-O.Moen, Norway 1975.

11...Bb7 12.Re1 Qd7

12...a5 is probably weaker: 13.bxa5 c5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe2 Qxa5 16.Nxe5 0–0–0 (also 16...fxe5 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Qxe5+ Kf7 19.Rd1 is clearly better for White) 17.Nf3 Bd6 18.Bb2 and White's advantage was beyond doubt in T.Ernst-Gausel, Ostersund 1992.

13.Bb2 Be7

Tisdall suggests that 13...0-0-0 is worth consideration.

14.a4 f5 15.axb5 fxe4 16.bxa6

An interesting computer-aided line goes 16.Ng5 Qg4 17.bxa6 Rxa6 18.Rxa6 Qxg2+ 19.Kxg2 e3+ 20.Nf3 exd2 21.Rea1 Bxa6 22.Nxd2 Bb7+ 23.f3 Kd7 24.dxe5 dxe5 with equality.

16...Rxa6! 17.Ng5

17.Rxa6 is met by 17...exf3! planning ...Qg4 with a mating attack.

17...Rxa1 18.Bxa1?

18.Rxa1 Qg4 19.Nh3 Qxg2+ 20.Kxg2 e3+ 21.Kg3 exd2 22.dxe5 h5 23.f4 dxe5 24.Bxe5 g5 –+.

18...Qg4

Black is close to winning already. White has nothing to oppose the light-squared bishop.

19.Nh3 (Dia)

19...Qxg2+!

A nice demonstration of the power of Black's light-square play.

20.Kxg2 e3+ 21.Kg1?!

21.Kf1 may be slightly better but after 21...exd2 22.Rd1 e4 23.Rxd2 d5 White has no satisfactory reply.

21...exd2 22.Rd1 g5 23.dxe5 g4 24.Nf4 Bg5 25.Ne2 Be4 26.exd6 Bxc2 27.dxc7 Kd7 0–1 T.Ernst-Tisdall, Gausdal 1993.

The Zwaig Variation

Like most of the early developers of the Norwegian variation, IM Arne Zwaig is now a member of my chess-club, Oslo Schakselskap. One of his main contributions was his investigation of the line 7...f6 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4) which borders between being an independent line and a pure move-order finesse. Black offers White to exchange his light-squared bishop for Black’s knight on g8 rather than the a5-knight. This may at first glance seem advantageous for White who prevents short castling and avoids doubled b-pawns, but on closer inspection it’s not at all so clear, as the open a-file after ...Nxb3 is one of White’s major assets in the mainlines.

If White accepts the offer, the game will take an independent course. However, if he declines with 8.Nc3 (as Greet recommends in his Play the Ruy Lopez), play will almost always transpose to the mainline after 8...Nxb3 9.axb3. So in reality the effect of Zwaig’s move-order is to avoid the 7...Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.c4 line and maybe to tempt White into inferior lines.

Let’s have a look at 8.Bxg8!? Rxg8 (Dia):

9.Nh4!?

This opens a path to h5 for White's queen and is a natural attempt to demonstrate that Black's kingside has been weakened. The main alternative is 9.b4 (to which I may return in a later entry) but White has also tried 9.a4, 9.Nc3, 9.Qe2, 9.Ne1, 9.c3 and 9.dxe5.

9...Qd7

This indirectly protects the h-pawn so that Qh5 now can be safely met by ...g6.

10.a4

White must try to stir up things early as Black's bishop pair tends to become a significant factor if the game develops quietly.

a) 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qf3 Be7 13.h3 Bb7 14.Rd1 Qc6 15.Nc3 f5 16.g3 fxe4 –+ R.Rodriguez-Alvarez Ibarra, San Sebastian 1996

b) Fritz' suggestion 10.Nf5 g6 11.Ne3 must be taken seriously as 11...c6 12.d5 c5 13.Bd2 Nb7 14.a4 b4 15.Nc4 is very good for White.

c) 10.Nc3 and now:

c1) 10...Qg4 11.Nd5 (11.Nf3 Bb7 12.a4 b4 13.Nd5 0–0–0 14.Re1 f5 was unclear in Ostojic-Johannessen, Amsterdam 1969) 11...Ra7 12.Nf3 +=

c2) 10...c6 11.b4 Nc4 12.a4 Bb7?! (12...Qg4 looks like an improvement, e.g.: 13.Qxg4 Bxg4 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.axb5 Bxb4 and Black is clearly better) 13.Qd3 g6 14.Nf3 Rg7 15.d5 c5 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8+ Bxa8 18.Bh6 +/- Y.Gruenfeld-Moen, La Valetta 1980

10...b4 11.c3 Rb8 12.Nd2 g6 13.Nhf3 c5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe2 Rg7 16.Ne1 b3 (Dia)

17.g3?!

17.f4 seems to be a better attempt and may be sufficient for a small advantage. Black's king will be exposed but may escape danger via f7 and g8.

17...Qc6 18.Ng2 c4 19.Ne3 Be6 20.Nd5?!

Tactically this is a correct pawn sacrifice; if Black accepts it immediately his king will be dangerously exposed. However, strategically White is not able to support this knight so in a relatively short perspective this move will either be an incorrect pawn sacrifice or a double tempo loss.

20...Rf7 21.f4 Bc5+ (Dia)

It's already obvious that Black is better - mainly because his king now is ready to run to f8.

22.Kg2

After 22.Ne3 Qd6 Black is more active and has the bishop-pair as a bonus.

22...Rd8

Also the direct 22...Bxd5 23.exd5 Qxd5+ seems to be sufficient for a clear advantage.

23.Nf3 Bxd5 24.exd5 Rxd5 25.Be3 Bxe3 26.Qxe3 Rd3 27.Qe2 Re7 28.Rae1 e4 29.Nd4 Qd5

Now Black's advantage is beyond doubt, and it's hard to see how White can keep his position together.

30.Qg4 f5 31.Qg5 Nc6 32.Qf6

32.Nxc6 Qxc6 33.Kh3 Rd2 is no better.

32...Nxd4 33.cxd4 Rd2+ 0–1 Hecht-Zwaig, Raach 1969 (34.Kh3 e3 35.Rg1 Qf3 decides immediately)

Greet on the Norwegian

After having demonstrated fairly convincingly that 10...Qd7 in the main-line of the Norwegian variation (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh4) is at best difficult for Black, Greet in his "Play the Ruy Lopez" moves on to Black's other major option:
10...Ne7
(Dia)
This may be Black's most natural way of facing the Qh5+ threat. However, I have always thought it inferior to 10...Qd7 as I quite early was taught that the black queen needed access to f7, and this knight move obviously interferes her direct route.
11.dxe5
Greet recommends this move, which probably is stronger than 11.f4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bxd5 when Black should be able to defend, e.g. 14.Qe2 Qd7 (14...Qe7?!) 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.dxe5 0-0-0 (16...Qb5!? 17.Qf2 fxe5 18.Nf5 g6 19.Ne3 Be7 may be best) 17.Qxa6+ Bb7 18.Qc4 fxe5 19.Be3 and White had some advantage in Vihinen-O.Moen, Gausdal 1994.
11...dxe5
11...fxe5?! 12.f4 gives White a dangerous attack.
12.Qf3
(Dia)
12...Qd7
The somewhat less natural 12...Qc8!? may transpose and in some lines even improve: 13.Be3 (13.Rd1 h5 14.h3 Qe6 simply transposes to the 12...Qd7 line with 14.Be3) 13...h5 14.h3 Qe6
and now a split:
a) 15.Rfd1 g5 16.Nd5 0-0-0 17.Nxe7+ Bxe7 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.Nxf5 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Bf8 21.f3 h4 was better for Black in Nyysti-L.Johannessen, Gothenburg 2003.
b) After 15.Bc5!? Kf7 (Heinrich-H.Martin corr 1971) Greet gives 16.Rfd1 when Black still is far from equality.
13.Rd1 Qe6 14.Nd5
14.Be3 h5 (14...g5 15.Nxb5 axb5 16.Qh5+ Qf7 17.Rxa8+ Bxa8 18.Rd8+ Kxd8 19.Qxf7 gave White a clear advantage in Spassky-Taimanov, URS-ch Moscow 1955) 15.Bc5 Qg4 16.Qxg4 hxg4 17.Bxe7 Bxe7 18.Nf5 g6 19.Ne3 Bd6 20.Nxg4+= Langeweg-S.Johannessen, Beverwijk 1965.
14...Nxd5 15.exd5 Qf7
After 15...Qd7 16.Nf5, Greet concludes that White is slightly better. This seems to be supported by the game 16...a5 17.c4 a4 18.bxa4 bxa4 19.b3 c6 20.Rxa4 Rxa4 21.bxa4 cxd5 22.cxd5 Qxa4 23.Bb2 += Chambers-Draba, corr 2002.

So far Greet's coverage has been quite convincing, and now he just manages to get his main analytical point right as he informs the reader that Anand recommends 16.Nf5!, when e.g., 16...g6 17.Nh6 Bxh6?! 18.Bxh6 offers White the better chances.

However, for those wishing to see the conclusion of Anand-Agdestein Baguio City 1987, it now gets quite confusing as Greet claims that the game continued 16.Be3?! Be7?! 17.Nf5! Rd8 and now the impossible 18.Be3. If Greet instead had given 18.c4 g6, it would at least have been a quite reasonable transposition back to the actual game, allowing the reader to make sense of the rest of the score. However, according to BigBase2007 the game actually continued 16.c4?! Be7?! (16...g6!) 17.Nf5! Rd8 18.Be3 g6 (18...0-0 19.Bh6!) 19.Nh6 Qg7 20.Qg3 with a clear advantage to White.

So - how bad is this for the book? Well, in my opinion it mainly raises some questions about Everyman's proof-reading routines. But it isn't really an analytical problem, as it occurs after the analysis has been concluded. And a reader who tries to play through the game and gets confused should be able to find the correct gamescore in a database without too much effort. So in itself this must be classified as an ugly but still quite minor blemish in such a monumental work. The real question is how many problems of this kind will turn up after a more detailed scrutiny of the book. My preliminary guess is that there will not be too many as it appears to be quite well researched.

Play the Ruy Lopez

When I some 10 days ago received Andrew Greet’s “Play the Ruy Lopez” - an impressive tome of 376 pages - my instinctive reaction was to check how his analysis of the Worrall compared to our coverage in “Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black”. It came as no shock that his 131 pages (!) offered quite a lot more than our 8.5 pages did. The Worrall is after all a rather minor option for White. (But our 4 pages on 7.d3 and 7.a4 may be of some interest even to Greet’s readers wishing to expand their Worrall repertoire a bit). Whether he really has made 5.Qe2 a promising line for White is another question, to which I may return later if I reach any conclusion.

The next thing I did was to check what Greet had to offer on the Norwegian variation. As a good Norwegian I have always wanted to play this risky line, but I have never dared to. Instead I have from time to time checked its theoretical status and recent games by Norwegian players. In order to play it successfully you need good defensive technique, good nerves and a deep understanding of chess - three qualities I have never claimed to possess.
The variation’s theoretical standing has always been shaky, and without offering a lot of new analysis, I believe Greet’s book has made Black’s task even harder; mainly by pointing out White’s most promising course but also by offering some small improvements for White where needed. Below is my summary of one of the mainlines with some additions from Greet's book :

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5
This is the Norwegian Variation. In Greet's words it is "...arguably Black's most direct method of fighting against the Ruy Lopez".
6.0–0 d6 7.d4 Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh4 Qd7
Up to here, Greet deals systematically with all of Black's possible deviations. But every Norwegian knows that this is the first real junction for Black (with a possible exception for Zwaig's 7...f6). Now, however, 10...Ne7 is a major alternative which deserves a separate entry.
11.Nd5!
(Dia)
Greet recommends this over 11.f4, which is also quite challenging.
11...g6!?
This is not a perfect solution but the alternatives are even less tempting:
a) 11...Ne7?! 12.Qh5+ Kd8 13.c4 when Black’s king soon felt very vulnerable in the centre in Short-Sulskis, Bled 2002.
b) 11...0–0–0 12.c4 Ne7 13.Be3 Nxd5 14.cxd5 Kb8 15.Qe2 Re8 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Rfc1 when Black’s king again was under heavy fire, this time on the queenside, in Leventic-Krstic, Zadar 2004.
c) 11...Qf7 has been considered the main continuation but after 12.c4 c6 there are problems ahead:
c1) 13.Ne3?! Ne7 was not too bad for Black in Anand-Timman, Linares 1993.
c2) Anand later suggested 13.Nc3! as an improvement.
c3) Greet suggests 13.Nb6! which he modestly attributes to his computers. My Fritz 9.0 agrees that White has a very clear advantage after e.g. 13...Rb8 14.d5. It is not inconceivable that the knight may turn out to be trapped, or at least misplaced at b6, but I honestly cannot see how. I would not feel comfortable on the dark side here.
12.c4 Bg7

(Dia)
In Gutsche-Boog, corr 2000, 12...Rd8 was made to look quite silly after 13.Bd2 exd4 14.Ba5. 13.dxe5
Here Greet concludes with Anand's recommended 13.f4, presumably agreeing that White is clearly better. I happen to know that some Norwegian players disagree with that evaluation. I will not try to reproduce the analysis I saw a couple of months ago, but I can promise that things are not at all clear. However, judging from available games, this central exchange may be more critical.
13...fxe5
Could 13...dxe5!? be the right move?
14.Bg5
(Dia)
This could be the critical position. Black has a difficult task ahead, e.g.:
14...Rb8
14...h6? 15.Nxg6 hxg5 16.Nxh8 Bxh8 17.Qh5+ obviously is not an option.
15.Qd3 bxc4 16.Qxc4 c6!?
Giving up the light-squared bishop with 16...Bxd5 17.exd5 of Raidna-Boog, corr 2000 is a desperate measure.
17.Nb6!? Qf7 18.Rfd1 Bf6
18...h6? seems to lose after the slightly surprising 19.Qb4!
a) 19...hxg5? is out of the question because of 20.Qxd6.
b) 19...Qc7 20.Nc4 c5 21.Qa4+ and Black’s fortress is cracking again.
19.Nf3 Qe7 20.Be3
This position is not necessarily lost for Black, but it cannot be what Black hoped for when entering the Norwegian variation.