Another Shortest Proof Game

At Chess Publishing Forum, IM John Cox has suggested a new 'shortest proof game' task: What's the shortest game ending with '0-0, mate' or '0-0-0, mate'.

So far the best tries are:
1.d4 e6 2.Qd3 Ke7 3.Bg5+ Kd6 4.Na3! Kd5 5.Qf5+ Kxd4 6.0-0-0, mate


and:

1.f4 f6 2.Nh3 Kf7 3.e3 Kg6 4.f5+ Kxf5 5.Bc4 g6 6.d3 e5 7.0-0, mate.

Both achievements are quite good but I wouldn't be surprised if they can be improved upon.

One would think that short castling must take at least four moves: one knight move, one pawn move to open for the bishop, one bishop move and castling but that isn't necessarily so because Black can capture pieces too.
The same of course goes for long castling.

For those of you still toying with symmetrical mates from my blog entry of April 5th, here are some short games I found:

Knight: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nge2 Nge7 4.g3 g6 5.Nd5 Nd4 (Dia)







6.Nf6 mate






Rook: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng5 Ng4 3.Nxh7 Nxh2 4.Nxf8 Nxf1 5.Ne6 Ne3 (Dia)







6.Rxh8 mate







Bishop: 1.b3 b6 2.Bb2 Bb7 3.f4 f5 4.e3 e6 5.Be2 Be7 6.Bxg7 Bxg2 (Dia)





7.Bh5 mate









Pawn: 1.g4 g5 2.f4 f5 3.gxf5 gxf4 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Ne5 Ne4 6.f6 f3 (Dia)






7.f7 mate








King: 1.f3 f6 2.Kf2 Kf7 3.Kg3 Kg6 4.Kh3 Kh6 5.e3 e6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.Bg6 Bg3 8. hxg3 hxg6 (Dia)






9.Kg4 mate.








Any better?

Addendum July 12th
There is a quite readable article on Shortest Proof Games at Chessville. It appears to be the first in a series.

A Collector's Item

I now am the proud owner of a rare collector's copy of Rudel's 'Zuke 'Em' book.

The first print has been withdrawn due to an excessive number of typos. A new edition is now under work and buyers of the first batch will have a new copy free of charge. More information can be found at Chessco's home page.

I have no idea whether this image will be the new cover or not. Actually I suspect the blue color is only symbolic - representing the author's and publisher's regret for having sent a poorly proof-read manuscript to the printers.

Addendum July 20th
Yesterday I received a new copy and as I suspected, the cover is unchanged. The new version has a new ISBN number and on page 255 I found my name on a list of people who helped finding typos in the first edition. There are still typos but the number now seems not to be disturbing.

A Markovic Triumph

There are very clear similiarities between the Gurgenidze System of my previous entry and the Markovic' Defence (or the De Bruyker's Defence).

The game below is long but it's not only one of the most high-powered recent games with the defence, it's also an excellent illustration of the positional ideas that make the defence attractive.

Eagle eyed readers may already have noticed that there now are some old but still interesting articles by Gerard Welling available as pdf-scans on Der Alter Gonif's blog:
Gerard Welling's article from the Myers Openings Bulletin #25 (vol 3., No. 1, Oct-Nov 1982), plus a supplementary historical article by Myers. A followup by Welling on the subject from MOB #35 (vol 3, no. 11, Oct-Dec 1984).
Part of Welling's article on rim-Knight systems from Rand Springer #37 (issue #1 of 1988).
These articles are 20 years old so I hope I don't infringe any copyright laws by linking to them.

Velimirovic - Markovic, Valjevo 2000

1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6!?

According to Stohl this is Kavalek's suggestion. That may well be the case but I could find no examples of him playing the line. What he has played is the related line 2...d5 3.e5 Na6. This is far behind 3...Bf5 in popularity but still fairly respected.

A typical continuation is 4.c3 Nc7 5.Bd3 g6 and now:

a) 6.Ne2 h5 7.0–0 Nh6 8.Nd2 Bf5 9.Nf3 Qd7 10.Ng3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nf5 += Fedorov-Eliseev, Ekaterinburg 2002.

b) 6.Nd2 h5 7.Nf1 Nh6 8.Ne3 Ng4 9.Nf3 Nxe3 10.fxe3 Bf5 11.Ng5 e6 12.e4 += Van der Wiel-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1982.

3.f4 (Dia)

Stohl considers this dubious. I don't entirely agree. It may not be White's best try for an advantage but I think Stohl's evaluation should be reserved for the related variation 3.Nc3 Nc7 4.f4?! d5 which may indeed give Black promising light-square play.

The difference is similar to the Gurgenidze system which is quite popular in the 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6 version but far less attractive after 3.Nd2!?.

3...g6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e5 h5 6.c3

This move which secures White's central pawn chain White cannot so easily play with his knight on c3.

6...Nh6!?

Interestingly Black seems to have nothing against allowing Bxa6. There can hardly be anything wrong with 6...Nc7.

7.Nbd2

Stohl evaluates 7.Bxa6 bxa6 8.c4?! dxc4! 9.Qa4 Qb6 10.Qxc4 Be6 as slightly better for Black.

7...Nc7 8.Be2 b6 9.Nf1 Ne6 (Dia)

This knight employment is quite popular also in the Gurgenidze system - but usually only after having developed the light-squared bishop to f5 or g4. In that case it's frequently exchanged for a knight.

10.Ng3?! Ng7! 11.Be3 a5 12.b3 e6 13.0–0 Ng4 14.Bd2 h4 15.Nh1 Nf5 16.Qc1 Ba6

According to Stohl Black is already better.

17.Bxa6 Rxa6 18.h3?! Ngh6 19.Be1

More natural is 19.Nf2 Ng3 20.Re1 Nhf5 when Black may have a small advantage

19...Be7 20.Bf2 Ra8 21.Qd2 Rc8 22.b4 a4!

If you enjoy long pawn chains, slow manoeuvring and long plans, the Markovic (and the Gurgenidze) may be a good opening choice.

23.Rfe1 b5

Black is slightly better with his outpost on f5 and better bishop, but his chances to open the position with a timely ...f6 or ...g5 are rather vague and can hardly be realized without White's help.

White's knight in the corner looks strange but can relatively easily be extracted. Now an instructive manoeuvring phase begins. First both sides evacuate their kings from the possible scene of action.

24.Kf1 Kd7 25.Ke2 Ng8 26.Bg1 Rh5 27.Bh2 Ng7 28.Rf1 Nh6 29.Nf2 Nhf5 30.Ng4 Kc7 31.Rae1 Kb7 32.Kd1 Ne8! 33.Qe2 Nc7 34.Ne3 Rh8 35.Kc1 Na8

The battle spans the entire board; now it's a black knight in the corner!

36.Nxf5?

A serious concession, now Black gets the open file he needs on a silver platter.

36...gxf5 (Dia)

37.Rg1 Nb6 38.Nd2 Qf8 39.a3

Later the pawn will be weak here and White can't let the knight to c4, so perhaps it was better to do without this move.

39...Qh6 40.Ref1 Rcg8 41.Rf3 Rg6 42.Kd1 Rhg8 43.Ke1 Bd8 44.Kd1 R8g7 45.Re3 Nd7 46.Qf3 Qh8 47.Ke1?!

White should have kept his king on the queenside, protecting c3. He can cover g2 by Re2. But even then a well timed ...f6 and ...fxe5 gives Black good winning chances.

47...Qg8 48.Kf1 f6! 49.Re2

White cannot allow 49.exf6? Nxf6 followed by ...Ne4.

49...Qh7

The time was already ripe for 49...fxe5 50.fxe5 (50.dxe5?! Bb6 51.Rh1 c5 is no better) 50...Rg3! (50...Nf8 51.Qf2 Nh7 52.Nf3 and the knight won't get to e4 via g5) 51.Bxg3 Rxg3 52.Qf2 Rxc3 53.Re3 Rxe3 (53...Rc2 54.g4! unclear) 54.Qxe3 Bg5 55.Qd3 Bxd2 56.Qxd2 Qg3 and Black is clearly better as he is planning ...Nb6-c4.

50.Ke1?

50.Qf2 stops the sacrificial motif but Black is still better.

50...fxe5 51.fxe5 Rg3! (Dia)

For the exchange Black gets a dangerous attack.

52.Bxg3 Rxg3 53.Qf2 Rxc3 54.Re3 Rc2 55.Qf4

After 55.Rf1 Bg5 56.Rd3 Nb6 Black's pressure is unbearable.

55...Nf8! 56.Re2

56.Rd3 Ng6 57.Qf3 Bg5 is hardly any better, but now Black could have won by force.

56...Rc3 57.Re3 Rc2?

After 57...Ng6 58.Qf2 (58.Qf3 Rc1+ 59.Kf2 Rxg1 60.Kxg1 Bb6 –+) 58...Rc1+ 59.Ke2 Nf4+! 60.Qxf4 (60.Kf3? Qh5+ 61.Kxf4 Bg5#) 60...Rxg1 Black’s has a winning material and positional advantage.

58.Re2 Ra2?

For 58...Rc3 59.Re3 Ng6 see 57...Ng6.

59.Nf3?

After the loss of both queenside pawns White's position becomes untenable. After 59.Qf3 with the idea Qc3 and Nf3 it's difficult to see any advantage for Black.

59...Rxa3 60.Kf2 Rb3 61.Rc1 Rxb4

The rest is relatively simple.

62.Rec2 Rc4 63.Kf1 Qe7 64.g3 hxg3 65.Qxg3 Qa3 66.Kg2 Kb6 67.h4 Qb3

67...Qd3! is an immediate win.

68.Rxc4

68.Ne1 Rxc2+ 69.Rxc2 Qxg3+ 70.Kxg3 b4 also wins for Black.

68...dxc4 69.Rh1 Qc2+ 70.Kh3 a3 71.Qg7 Qf2 72.Ng5

72.Qxf8 Qxf3+ 73.Kh2 Qf2+ 74.Kh3 Qxh4+ 75.Kg2 Qe4+ would only prolong the hopeless struggle.

72...Bxg5 73.hxg5 f4 0–1

Annotation (in particular for the later stage of the game) is based on Stohl’s for ChessBase.

Bukhuti Gurgenidze 1933-2008

A few weeks ago I learned from a Chessbase article that chess legend Bukhuti Gurgenidze was dead. Although a very strong player he was more noted as an original chess thinker and a trainer for several women world champions. Below is a game he played in one of the opening lines that are named after him. Actually he didn't play it very frequently himself but his student Nona Gaprindashvili did.

Honfi - Gurgenidze, Kislovodsk 1968
1.e4 g6
Gurgenidze also played the Caro Kann version of his defence: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6!? 4.e5 (4.h3!? Nh6 5.Nf3 f6 was a Gaprindashvili specialty) when 4...h5 may be better than 4...Bg7. However, when he played that opening he seemed to prefer another pet variation: 3...b5!?
2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6
This is the characteristic move of the Gurgenidze system.
4.f4 d5
In contrast to many other lines of the Modern, Black immediately claims a foothold in the centre.
5.e5 h5! (Dia)

I met this defence in one of my first tournament games and was convinced that Black had gone mad. But only 10 moves later I was very happy to accept a draw offer; I simply could find no active plan.
6.Nf3 Nh6!

Black is breaking all the rules but he has a plan: He wants to block White's pawns on the dark squares in order to gain total dominance of the light squares.

7.Be3 Bg4 8.Be2 e6
Quite frequently Black tries to hold back this move as ...Nd7-f8-e6 can be an interesting option.
9.Qd2 Nd7 10.0–0–0 b5 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 h4 13.Bf2 (Dia)


13...Bf8
This move occurs surprisingly frequently in this system - the bishop is biting on granite and needs to change diagonal to find active opportunities. Consequently Black has been investigating move-orders where the bishop never leaves f8. I already have mentioned the Caro-Kann version. A paradoxical option is the so-called 'Accelerated Gurgenidze' 1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.Nc3 c6 4.f4 d5?!?. Black's idea is that while he loses a tempo on ...d6-d5 he saves two by not playing ...Bf8-g7-f8. As far as I know it's now considered close to refuted but I will have to check that more closely.
14.Ne2 Nf5
This knight is the pride of Black's position.
15.Kb1 Nb6 16.Bg4 Nc4 17.Qe1 a5 18.Bxf5 gxf5 19.Ng1 Bb4 20.Qe2 a4 21.Nf3 (Dia)

21...Bc3!
Even modern software needs some thinking time to appreciate this move. It's easier for Black than for White to bring his troops to the queenside.
22.bxc3 Qe7 23.Be3 b4
There is no way to stop Black opening the b-file against White's king.
24.Qe1 b3 25.cxb3 axb3 26.Bc1 Rxa2 27.Rd2 Qa7 0–1

Adventures in Sokolsky's Jungle

It's always a pleasure to discuss something you know nothing about and don't care that much about either. Whether 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.c4 0–0 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb2 Re8 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Be2 Rxe3!? is correct or not will not have a great impact on my repertoire but the complications are nevertheless enjoyable.

In a recent entry my preliminary conclusion was that 10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qb3 Nxg2+ 12.Kd1 doesn't look like a clean winning line. Consequently it seems sensible to examine White's alternative king move, 12.Kf2. Even if alternatives have been tested, I will assume that 12...Bh3 (Dia) is the critical test. Black develops another minor piece while protecting his advanced knight.
13.d4

This looks natural.

a) White should avoid 13.Rg1? Bc5+.

b) Unsurprisingly 13.Bf1 also fails: 13...Bc5+ 14.Kg3 Qd7 15.Qc4 Nd4 16.Nxd4 Qg4+ 17.Kf2 (Gross-Grehl, corr 1991) 17...Qf5+! 18.Kg1 Re8 and Black is winning.
c) 13.Bc4 Qe7 (13...Bc5+ 14.Kg3 Qd7 15.Bxf7+ Kh8 16.Qc4 Rf8–+ Alvarez-Roldan, corr 1998) 14.Bxf7+ Kh8 15.Bd5? Bc5+ 16.Kg3 Qd6+ 17.Kxh3 Nf4+ also wins for Black Nebe-Vorlop, corr 1988.

d) 13.Kg3 looks suspect and 13...Qd7!? probably is sufficient:

d1) 14.Ng5 Bd6+ 15.Kf2 Qf5+ 16.Nf3 (or 16.Bf3 Bc5+ 17.Ke2 Qxg5) 16...Bc5+ 17.Kf1 Nf4+ 18.Ke1 Re8 and Black wins.

d2) 14.Ne5 Bd6 15.d4 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Be7 17.e6 Bxe6 18.Qd3? Bd5 was winning for Black in Seifert-Nebe, corr 1991.

d3) 14.Qc4 b5 15.Qxb5 Bd6+ 16.Kf2 Rb8 17.Rc1 Rxb5 18.Bxb5 Qf5 –+ Gross-Grehl, corr 1992.

d4) 14.Ng1 Bd6+ 15.Kf2 Bc5+ 16.Kg3 Bxg1 17.Rxg1 Qd6+ 18.Kxh3 Nf4+ 19.Kg4 Nxe2

e) 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Ba3 (14.Ng1? Bc5+ 15.d4 Nxd4 16.Rxd4 Qh4+ 0–1 Zschalich-Leisebein, corr 1987) 14...Re8 (14...Nd4!? 15.Qd3 Bxa3 16.Nxa3 Nxe2 17.Qxe2 Qxa3 with advantage to Black could be an improvement) 15.Bf1 g5 16.Bxb4 Nxb4 17.Na3 g4 18.Re1 Nxe1 19.Rxe1 Qc5+ 20.d4 Rxe1 21.Bxh3 Re2+ 22.Kxe2 gxf3+ 23.Qxf3 and White was slightly better in Zschalich-Preussner, corr 1997.

13...Qe7 (Dia)

This is the critical moment. White is relatively free to improve his position but nothing looks particularly convincing.

14.Ne5

a) After 14.Bc4? Na5 15.Bxf7+ Kh8 Black was winning in Gedigk-Grehl, corr 1990.

b) 14.Nbd2 is strongly met by 14...Bxd2 15.Nxd2 Nxd4 16.Qxh3 Qxe2+ 17.Kg3 f5 18.Rhf1 (18.Qxg2 f4+ 0–1 Ritter-Reyes, corr 1996) 18...f4+ 0–1 Oakes-De Smet, corr 1992.

c) 14.Na3?! Re8 15.Ne5? Nxe5 16.Qxh3 Nf4 was winning for Black in Perrson-Grehl, corr 1989.

d) 14.Rg1!? deserves a look.

e) 14.a3 should be taken seriously as it has been tested by one of the real experts: 14...Re8 15.Bc4 Na5 16.Qxb4 (16.Bxf7+ Kh8 17.Qd5 Qe2+ 18.Kg3 Ne3 –+) 16...Qe3+ 17.Kg3 Qf4+ 18.Kf2 Qe3+ 19.Kg3 h5 –+ Trokenheim-Ronneland, Sweden 1994.

14...Nxd4

14...Nf4!? may be an improvement. 15.Qxf7+ Qxf7 16.Nxf7 Nxe2 17.Nh6+ gxh6 18.Kxe2 Re8+ is clearly better for Black.
15.Qxf7+ Qxf7+ 16.Nxf7 Nxe2 17.Ng5 Bc5+ 18.Kxe2 Nf4+ (Dia)

Black still has only got three pawns for his rook but White's king is exposed and his rooks are exposed in their corners.

19.Kd1?!

Giving back the exchange with 19.Kf3 Bg2+ 20.Kxf4 Bxh1 looks fairly balanced but Black may have less losing chances.

19...Rd8+ 20.Kc2?

This seem to lose. 20.Nd2 doesn't look safe at all and I suspect a good PC programme would find something for Black if given some time and gentle guidance (but 20...Bg4+ 21.Kc2 Bf5+ 22.Nge4 Be3 23.Rhd1 Rxd2+ 24.Rxd2 Bxe4+ 25.Kd1 Nd3 26.Bc3 b5 is only a little better for Black).

20...Bf5+ 21.Kb3 h6 0–1 Zschalich-Poetzsch, corr 1987 (22.Nf3 Rd3+ –+)

Conclusion:

Based on available games and some quick checks by Fritz and Rybka, 12.Kf2 looks even less convincing than 12.Kd1. It probably will pay for both sides to examine alternatives to 11.Qb3 - that is 11.Qc1 and 11.Qa4.

Chess Book Covers Revolutionized

Thinkers' Press announces a new book on the Colle Zukertort. The cover and the title "Zuke 'Em, The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized" certainly promise something special. I have found no high resolution picture so it's hard to judge the artistic quality but the book certainly will stand out in my book shelves. Only Basman's "The Killer Grob" (Pergamon 1991) may stand up in comparison.

Probably the best book on the Zukertort (and some complementary lines) is Aaron Summerscale's "A Killer Opening Repertoire". I really wonder what exactly Summerscale means when he admits that Rudel "solved a problem that had vexed him" and says that he is "Very impressed by the sheer amount of brain power." Could this actually be a good book? Until further notice I remain sceptical about the content as in this case the playing strength of the author seems to be a legitimate concern.

No matter what the book actually delivers, the Zukertort in my opinion is a valid try for a small pull with White - at least against set-ups with an early ...e6. I have played the system myself on occasion and have my own small ideas about White's optimal move-orders - but I honestly don't see the potential for a Zukertort Revolution.

Addendum May 29th.
There now is an ad for the book at Chessco's homepage. Many big words but not that much new information. I replaced the previous picture with one with a higher resolution.

Addendum June 1st.
In a comment (below) the author, David Rudel, points to the book's website which contains a lot of excerpts from the book.

A New Orang Utan in Town

I have very rarely played the Sokolsky opening (also known as the Orang Utan opening) as it doesn't lead to the kind of positions I enjoy to play as White. That doesn't necessarily mean it leads to bad positions and I have always had a certain interest in the opening and some of the original positions that can arise.
Now there is a new book on the opening available. The reviews so far haven't been too favorable so I am waiting for a chance to browse the pages at a chess book stand but I suppose I eventually will buy it.

Here is the Table of Content:

4 Bibliography
5 Introduction
11 The Sokolsky Gambit
35 1b4 e5 2Bb2 Bxb4
48 Black Plays ...e5 and ...d6
73 Queen's Indian Systems
100 Black Plays ...d5 and ...e6
121 Black Plays ...d5 and ...Bf5/Bg4
143 1 ...c6, 1...f5 and Unusual Moves
171 Index of Complete Games

If you too are still skeptical to the book you may want to see this interesting discussion at the ChessPublishing forum before you order (unless you are interested in re-incarnation flame wars you will do well to fast-forward to page 3).

In his review (in German) at Niggemann, Martin Rieger points out that one of the critical lines is quite superficially handled:

1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4!? 3.Bxe5

This is the quintessential Sokolsky variation. White gets a central pawn in return for his b-pawn but allows Black a certain lead in development.

3...Nf6 4.c4

It's possible for White to speed up development by delaying this move and giving priority to the development of his kingside. However, this (or 4.Nf3 followed by 5.c4) is White's most popular as it makes it likely that White will be able to exchange his c-pawn for Black's d-pawn, enlarging his numerical superiority in the centre.

4...0–0 5.Nf3 Nc6!?

From a purely positional point of view, this looks premature. Now Black must rely solely on his piece play to compensate for White's central dominance. Most theoretical manuals recommend 5...Re8 and White probably should avoid 6.e3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Be2 (8.Bb2 Nc6 may transpose to the mainline below) 8...Rxe5! 9.Nxe5 Qf6 when 10.f4? is met with 10...Nxe3 -+.

6.Bb2 Re8 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Be2

It's not easy for White to improve on this, a3 and ...Ba5 doesn't seem to change too much but there certainly are sub-variations where it could make a difference.

9...Rxe3!? (Dia)

This controversial sacrifice has mainly been tested in correspondence games. If nothing else it's a fascinating starting point for analysis.

10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qb3!?

This apparently is Conticello and Lapshun's (C&L) attempted refutation. If this proves OK for Black, there still is 11.Qc1?! and 11.Qa4 to deal with.

11...Nxg2+ 12.Kd1

There also is 12.Kf2!? but again that's only necessary to investigate if C&L's mainline fails to convince.

12...Be6 13.Qd3 (Dia)

13...Qxd3!?

It's easy to forget that exchanging queens is an options after sacrificing a rook. This is Rieger's suggested improvement over 13...Qe7 which is the only move I could find in my databases (and which scores rather poorly). It would be interesting to know whether it's an invention of his own or if it can be found in specialist literature. Lapshun - Sinn, World op (Philadelphia) 2003 continued 14.Nd4 Nf4 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Qd4 Bb3+ 17.axb3 Qxe2+ 18.Kc2 1–0.

14.Bxd3 Bg4 15.Be2

15.Be4 Re8 16.h3 Bh5 seems no better:

a) 17.Bd5 Rd8 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Kc1 Bxf3 –+.

b) 17.d3 Rxe4 18.dxe4 Bxf3+ 19.Kc1 Nf4 and Black's advantage is obvious.

15...Nf4 16.Rf1

Again it's hard to find a real improvement:

a) 16.Rg1 h5 17.Nd4 (17.Rf1) 17...Nxe2 18.Nxe2 Re8 19.Rg2 Bc5 20.Nbc3 Bf3 =+.

b) 16.Nd4 Nxe2 17.Nxe2 Re8 18.Re1 f5!? (18...Bc5) 19.a3 (19.h3 Bh5) 19...Bd6 20.Nbc3 (20.d4 f4 -/+) 20...Nd4 21.d3 Bxh2 and Black is probably winning.

16...Nxe2 17.Kxe2 Bc5 (Dia)

This position may be crucial for the evaluation of one of the Sokolsky mainlines.

18.Kd3

Here Rieger gives 18.Bc3 Re8+ 19.Kd3 b5! and claims that Black is winning. The position is hard to evaluate but it seems White's king escapes and the position after 20.Kc2 b4 21.Bb2 Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Nd4+ 23.Bxd4 Bxd4 24.Nc3 bxc3 25.dxc3 Bc5 looks fairly equal.

18...Rd8+ 19.Kc4

White attacks the bishop. 19.Kc3 looks safer but then it will still take White several moves to co-ordinate his pieces and 19...b5 looks quite promising for Black.

19...Be6+

Also 9...Bb6 20.d4 Be6+ 21.Kd3 Nb4+ 22.Kd2 looks playable. White's winning chances must be rather limited after e.g. 22...c5.

20.Kxc5 Rd5+ 21.Kc4 Re5+

21...b5+ 22.Kc3 Rc5+ 23.Kd3 Bc4+ 24.Ke3 Bxf1 is not too different from the main continuation.

22.Kc3

22.Kd3 Bf5+ 23.Kc4 Be6+ 24.Kd3 Bf5+ is a perpetual as 25.Kc3? Rc5+ 26.Kb3 Bc2+ 27.Ka3 Ra5 is mate.

22...Rc5+ 23.Kd3 Bc4+ 24.Ke3 Bxf1

The position is unbalanced with Black having three pawns for a piece but chances look fairly equal.

Conclusion:

These lines are very hard to analyze but I cannot see that 11.Qb3 Nxg2+ 12.Kd1 lead to a convincing advantage for White and both players must investigate 12.Kf2 and possibly White's 11th move alternatives.

I will return with a Sokolsky bibliography at some point. In the meantime I can only recommend Marek Trockenheim's online Sokolsky Encyclopaedia. There's a huge amount of information there and it's quite well organized in a way. Yet it's not really easy to utilize it. You will find some games with the above lines here.

Addendum June 3rd.

Steve Giddins' review for British Chess Magazine points out a strange slip:

'I noticed only one major editorial lapse, albeit an embarrassing one – games 75 and 76 are actually the same game, annotated quite differently, and with different conclusions as to Black’s losing move!'

I wonder if this is somehow connected to John Elburg's observation that parts of the book is directly translated from Sokolsky's book:

'included are also the best of the great Sokolsky himself all directly translated from Sokolsky’s well known b4 openings book from the 1960s.'

Could it be that this is a Sokolsky game annotated by Sokolsky as well as by Lapshun/Conticello? I suppose I will have to buy the book in order to find out.

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

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.

Love Not Returned

I can understand why I score badly when I am tricked into opening variations that I don't like and have not prepared. It's more surprising when the same happens in my favorite variations.

As far back as I can remember I have had a weak spot for the Kan variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6!? Or actually for three sub-variations that can arise from it:

a) 4.Nc3 b5 5.Bd3 Bb7












b) 4.Bd3 Bc5 5.Nb3 Ba7












c) 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4












I cannot recall exactly when I first saw saw these variations but they must have been among of the first Sicilian variations I came across.

Unfortunately these very variations seem to be weak spots in my chess understanding. I have played them in a few tournament games with catastrophic results and my blitz results have not given me any reason to give them a new chance.

I cannot say exactly why my score is so miserable. It's hardly the variations' fault as they according to MegaBase 2008 score very well for Black. It more likely is due to the fact that those bishops in the long diagonals - normally pointing towards White's king - tempt me to play for a king's attack with moves like ...h5 and ...Nf6-g4 when patient consolidation and queenside play are called for.

Maybe some day I will find the time to write a repertoire book based on these lines - just for myself. In the meantime I will start posting a few annotated games here.

Leningrad Investigations III

My apologies for neglecting this blog for almost three weeks. I expect my posting frequency to increase for the next few weeks.

I still don't know how sound the 6...c6 variation in the Dutch Leningrad is. But it's obvious that it will be a more tempting repertoire choice if it's also playable against the Nh3 system. My preliminary investigations hint that it seems fully playable but that it takes some inventiveness and courage to keep the line's independent character:

1.d4 f5 2.g3

2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 can lead to the same lines.

2...Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3

This is roughly twice as popular as 5.Nf3. Yet the position arising after 5.Nf3 occurs almost as frequently as the one after 5.Nc3. The explanation of course is that there are many paths to the Nf3-set-up where the knight arrives earlier on f3.

5.Nh3 is a considerably rarer move but after 5...0–0 6.0–0 c6 7.Nc3 Na6 play will generally transpose to the main line after 8.Nf4. In addition White can try:

a) 8.d5 Qe8 9.Rb1 d6 10.b3 c5 11.Bb2 Rb8 12.Nb5 Bd7 13.a4 Ra8 14.Nf4 Qc8 15.h4 Nc7 16.Nc3 += Andonovski-Nikoloski, Struga 2002.

b) 8.b3 d6 9.Bb2 Nc7 10.Qc2 e5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Ba3 Re8 13.Rad1 += Bisguier-Chernin, USA 1990.

c) 8.Rb1 d6 9.b4 Nc7 10.e3 Bd7 11.a4 a6 12.Qb3 Kh8 13.Rd1 Qe8 14.b5 axb5 15.cxb5 Ne4 unclear Vorisek-Danner, Prague 1995.

5...0–0 6.Nh3

This is the characteristic move. But 6.Nf3 is almost equally popular.

6...c6!? (Dia)

Is it possible that this move can have independent value against the Nh3 systems too?

7.Nf4

7.0–0 Na6 8.Nf4 is just an alternative move-order.

7...Na6

7...d6 immediately leads to positions normally arising from 6...d6.

8.0–0 Nc7 (Dia)

Black is determined to stay away from well-trodden Leningrad paths. 8...Qe8 is an interesting alternative:

a) 9.e4 fxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 d6 12.Bg2 e5 13.Ne2 Nc7 14.Be3 Bg4 =+ Kaminik-G.Danner, Graz 1996.

b) 9.b3 d6 10.Ba3 Nc7 11.Rc1 g5 12.Nh3 Qg6 13.f4 g4 14.Nf2 h5 unclear Thallinger-G.Danner, Austria 1995.

This is the point where White must decide: Should he play a neutral developing move which may prove irrelevant when Black at long last plays ...d6? Or should he play 9.d5 before Black has played ...d6 (when there is no genuine weakness to nail on e6)?

9.Rb1

This is relatively noncommittal.

a) 9.b4 d6 10.Qb3 e5 11.c5+ d5 12.dxe5 Ng4 13.Bb2 Kh8 14.Nd3 Qe7 15.f4 Ne3 =+ Amura-Ad.Rodrigues, Merlo 1990.

b) 9.Qb3 d6 (9...Qe8!?) 10.d5 cxd5 11.cxd5 Nd7 12.Rd1 Nc5 13.Qc2 a5 14.Be3 N7a6 15.Bd4 and White had won the opening duel in Stimpel-Meier, Wiesbaden 1993.

c) 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 and now:

c1) 10...d6 11.Be3 Bd7 12.Rc1 g5 13.Nh3 h6 14.f4 g4 15.Nf2 += Moschell-Neubert, Potsdam 1997.

c2) 10...e5 awaits practical tests, e.g. 11.dxe6 (11.d6!?) 11...dxe6 12.Qb3 Kh8 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Nd3 e5 15.Be3 Rd8 16.Bc5 Qe8 with unclear play.

9...d6!?

Can it be that ...Nc7 is more useful than Rb1? If nothing else the knight move is more relevant for Black's weaknesses in the e-file.

a) 9...d5 looks independent but I doubt it’s sufficient for full equality.

b) The untested 9...Qe8!? 10.d5 e5 is worth a try, e.g. 11.dxe6 dxe6 12.Qd6 Rf7 13.Nd3 Ng4 14.h3 Bf8 15.Qf4 e5 16.Qd2 Nf6 looks roughly even.

10.d5 (Dia)

White is trying to steer play back to well mapped terrain.

10...Qe8

10...Bd7 as well as 10...e5 11.dxe6 Nxe6 return to known Leningrad lines with ...d6 (one move-order leading to the latter line is 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nh3 d6 6.d5 c6 7.Nf4 e5 8.dxe6 Na6! 9.Nc3 Nc5 10.0–0 0–0 11.Rb1 Nxe6 of Salov-Illescas Cordoba, Madrid 1996).

11.b4

a) 11.c5!? should be tested.

b) 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.c5 d5 13.e3 e5 14.Nfe2 g5 15.b4 a6 16.Na4 Be6 17.Nb6 Rd8 =+ Arva-Albert, Goed 2004.

11...g5!?

This risky pawn push fits well with Black's previous play but the timing can be discussed. Alternative tries are:

a) 11...Rf7 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.b5 Bd7 14.Qa4 cxb5 15.Qa5 Rc8 16.cxb5 Ne4 17.Nxe4 fxe4 18.Bxe4 Nxb5 unclear Zeller-Ennenbach, Schwaebisch Gmuend 1993.

b) 11...cxd5 12.Nfxd5 Ncxd5 13.cxd5 Bd7 14.Be3 Rc8 15.Bd4 Rc4 16.e3 Ng4 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qd2 += M. de Souza-Miguel, Pouso Alegre 1998.

c) 11...Bd7 and now:

c1) 12.Bb2 g5 13.Nd3 e5 14.dxe6 Bxe6 15.c5 d5 16.e3 Rd8 17.Ne2 Bc8 18.Be5+= Goy-R.Schmidt, Cologne 1991.

c2) 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.b5 Rc8 14.a4 Ng4 15.Qb3 Kh8 16.Bb2 g5 17.Nd3 Ne6 18.Nb4 Nd4 19.Qd1 c5 20.Na6 Qh5 (-/+) 21.h3 Ne5 22.Re1 f4 23.g4 (23.Ne4) 23...Bxg4 24.hxg4 Nxg4 25.Ne4 Qh2+ 26.Kf1 Ne3+ 27.fxe3 fxe3+ 0–1 Landenbergue-Klauser, Kecskemet 1988.

12.Nd3 cxd5

12...h6 13.Bb2 e5 14.dxe6 Bxe6 15.c5 d5 16.e3 Rd8 17.Ne2 a6 18.a4 Bc8 19.Nd4 += Biliskov-Zelic, Sibenik 2005.

13.cxd5 Qg6 14.Rb3 Bd7 15.a4 Ne4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Nb2 Rac8 18.Re3 Bf5 19.h3?!

White's pieces are strangely placed and he doesn't have time for this preparatory move. The immediate 19.g4 was necessary, leading to a very messy position.

19...Qf7

Now the pawn on d5 is doomed and Black takes over the centre.

20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Rxe4 Nxd5 22.Rg4 h6 23.b5 Nc3 24.Qd3 (Dia)

24...Na2!

I like this strange move. It probably can only be found by calculation and is the kind of move I keep missing all the time.

25.Rc4 Nxc1?!

Even stronger was 25...Rxc4 26.Nxc4 Rc8 with a winning position.

26.Rfxc1 Qxf2+ 27.Kh1 Rcd8 28.R4c2 d5

Black keeps a clear - perhaps winning advantage but his play is less exact in this phase. I assume both players were short of time by now.

29.Rg1 Qf7 30.Nd1 e5 31.e4 dxe4 32.Qxe4 Rd4 33.Qg2 Rxa4 34.Ne3 Qb3 35.Nd5 e4 36.Rd1 Rf7 0-1 Saulin-Sambuev, Moscow 2006. It seems likely White lost on time but objectively his position is hopeless.

Extreme Symmetry

I will be very busy until the 15th or so but I will try to fill the silence with some mini entries. In my entry of February 22nd I offered two reconstruction tasks:

1) Black's 5th move is to promote a pawn to a bishop with mate.
2) Black's 5th move is to promote a pawn to a knight with mate.

Here are the solutions:
1) 1.c3 d5 2.Qb3 d4 3.Kd1 dxc3 4.Kc2 cxd2 5.Qc3 d1B mate (Dia)

2) 1.d4 e5 2.Kd2 exd4 3.b3 d3 4.Kc3 dxe2 5.Kb2 exd1N mate (Dia)

Today's task can be seen as a prelude to a theme to which I hope to return shortly: Symmetrical positions and the advantage of moving first.

Can you construct a symmetrical game in which White's 4th move is mate?

The usual conditions apply:

All moves must be legal but obviously they don't have to make sense by conventional chess standards.

Unfortunately there are two and a half solutions. There are two different mate positions and one of them can be reached via two slightly different routes.

Good luck!

April's Fool

This item I have been saving for some months now:

Below is a game I more than once have used in chess classes as it's rather thematic, short and finishes with a nice tactical blow.

Jan Plachetka - Lothar Zinn, Decin, 1974

1.Nf3 c5 2.b3 Nc6 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.e3 d5 5.Bb5 e6

It's a kind of reversed Nimzo Indian and White has got a good grip on the a1-h8 diagonal, including the central squares d4 and e5.

6.Ne5 Qc7 7.0–0 Bd6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.f4 0–0

Now also Black's king is close to that long diagonal.

10.Rf3 Nd7

Black challenges White's grip on e5.

11.Rh3! g6? (Dia)

This now is a famous mistake. I am not sure how the position should be evaluated after 11...f6. There are at least two practical tests:

a) 12.Qh5?! doesn't quite convince: 12...fxe5 13.Qxh7+ Kf7 14.Rg3 Ke8 15.Rxg7 Ba6 16.Na3 exf4 17.exf4 Kd8 18.Bc3 Kc8 –+ Rogers-Bacrot, Cap d'Agde rapid 1998.

b) White probably should content himself with 12.Nxd7 Bxd7 13.Qh5 h6 14.Qg4 Kh8 15.Nc3 Rae8 16.Ne2 Re7 17.Rf1 e5 18.f5 and White had nice attacking prospects in Baeumer-Ripperger, Ludweiler 1994.

12.Qh5!!

A very visual move.

12...Nf6

Obviously not 12...gxh5? 13.Rg3+ Kh8 14.Nxf7 mate.

13.Ng4!

This is slightly more exact than 13.Qh6 when Black can prolong the struggle with 13...d4! 14.exd4 (14.Ng4 Nh5 15.Rxh5 f5! 16.Ne5 Bxe5 17.fxe5 gxh5 18.exd4 cxd4 19.Bxd4 Qg7 +=) 14...Re8 15.Ng4 Nxg4 16.Qxh7+ Kf8 17.Qh8+ Ke7 18.Qh4+ Kd7 19.Qxg4 +-.

13...gxh5 14.Nxf6+ Kh8

Or 14...Kg7 15.Ne8+ Kh6 16.Bg7+ Kg6 17.Rg3+ Kf5 18.Rg5+ Ke4 19.Nc3.

15.Rxh5 h6 16.Nxd5+ Kh7 17.Nxc7 Bxc7 18.Rxc5 1–0

Interestingly there is a quite amusing tag to the game. In John Pajak-David Norwood, Toronto 1985 Black instead tried the clever 10...Ne8(!!) 11.Rh3 g6 and was rewarded with 12.Qh5?? gxh5 0–1. This game concluded Norwood's very readable book "Winning with the Modern" (Batsford 1994) on a humorous note. I am not quite sure what should be the lesson to learn. Probably something like: Always check twice before you give your queen away.

His 12th (and last) move is sufficient reason for Pajak to get an honorable mention on a 1st of April's chess column. But that's not all. According to MegaBase 2008 the game was actually played on the first of April! When I noticed this, my first reaction was to check whether John Pajak was a real chess player or if the entire game was an invention by Norwood. And he indeed is - at the time when the game was played Pajak was unrated but he soon gained a respectable rating of 2310. There also obviously was a tournament in Toronto 1985 with, among others, GMs Joel Benjamin and Kevin Spraggett. The date, however, appears somewhat questionable as according to MegaBase all games were played on April 1st.

I will leave my research there - this game may well have been played on April 1st - and in my mind that's when it should have been played!

London from a Different Angle

Two days ago I finally received my copy of Schmücker's 'Das London-System'. I have not had time to look at it in any detail and will not have for a few weeks, but here are a few quick observations:

The cover illustration is nice but otherwise the book's lay-out appears rather amateurish: the pages look a lot like ChessBase print-outs; all variations are in square brackets; there are no chapter headings (except for the headers - together with the page numbers) and frequently there are no introductions to the chapters (at first you have to wonder why the right-hand side columns on pages 44 and 95 are empty; then you discover that there actually start new chapters on the next pages).

There seem to have crept in some typos - a rather visible one is diagram 174 which shows the initial position whereas the text indicates that it should show the position after 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.c4 c6. There also are a few misspelled names. More importantly I wouldn't expect there to be any illegal or very poor moves as ChessBase would prevent this.

The main question of course is the quality of the chess content; the analysis, the research work and the textual explanations. I cannot really say much about his analysis yet, but it seems he has caught at least one serious omission in our London book. Except for a 2007 game by the author I couldn't find many recent (2005-2007) game references. I saw a 2006 reference and I probably have missed some more. Nevertheless my guess it that the manuscript were mostly done in 2005 and after that has only been spot wise updated. Schmücker's textual explanations appear sufficient and generally clear enough even though he hasn't bothered much with making complete sentences.

A main point of divergence between ours and Schmücker's recommended repertoire seems to be the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4, where we suggests 7.Qc2 (or avoiding the line completely with the 2.Bf4 move-order) whereas Schmücker recommends 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Na3 (Dia)

For our London book we too had originally planned a chapter on this line. However, when space limitations became an issue it was among the first lines we sacrificed - mainly because we were unable to demonstrate any advantage after 8...e6 9.Nb5. When 8...Ra5 too proved a tough obstacle, and 8...e5!?, 8...Rxa3!? 8...Na7 and 8...Ne4 each required rather deep analysis and corresponding space, simply skipping the line seemed an obvious decision. Schmücker provides extensive analysis of 8...e5, 8...Rxa3, 8...Bg4, 8...Na7 and 8...Ra5. I don't now why he doesn't mention 8...Ne4?! as the refutation is rather instructive. As for the quality of his analysis I can only guess but he obviously must have put a lot of work into it so probably it's quite good.

The big surprise is that Schmücker proposes to meet 8...e6 with the untested and modest looking 9.Nc2!?. Can this really be sufficient to fight for an advantage? I will not completely rule it out; Black has as Schmücker points out locked in his light-squared bishop and White can fairly easily neutralize Black's play in the a-file. Pure analysis isn't likely to reveal much in this quiet position so I hope to see some practical examples soon.

Find the Losing Move

I will not have much time to update this blog for the next two weeks. But I have a few items that only need the final touch to be publishable and sometimes I stumble over something on the net ...so stay tuned!

Today I found a tragicomic finish at Streatham & Brixton Chess Club involving Leif Johannessen, my co-author for 'The Ruy Lopez - A Guide for Black'. Actually it's really strange I haven't seen it before. Had I had the black pieces I know I would have shown it to everybody willing to waste a moment. But Leif is a sympathetic young man who may have found the episode more tragic than comic.

It's Beliavsky-L.Johannessen, Linares open 2002:
White to move is trying to win a drawish queen endgame. Can
you find the losing move?

For a variation over the theme, have a look at Tim Krabbe's collection of players resigning in won positions.

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.