The Queen's Pawn Family 2 - Krause Variation

If you want to make your Queen's Pawn Opening an all round weapon, you may have to face the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5!? (D).

Now Lakdawala recommends 3.c3 in order to reach the London safely, and that may also be the best attempt for those hoping for something related to the Torre. For Colle players, 3.e3 is the obvious choice. Unfortunately it's less clear that this will give White an edge than the Nimzo move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 - after all Black hasn't blocked his light-squared bishop.

However, none of these moves appears particularly threathening to Black's opening. It could be argued that Black is too optimistic trying to take on White's role in the early phase of the game. If that's the case, White now should play energetically in order to punish Black's arrogance. White's critical moves in the diagram position probably are:

  A: 3.dxc5
  B: 3.c4
  C: 3.g3
Let's look a little deeper:

A:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.dxc5
White is playing a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted. I will not go into much detail here, as this move was the repertoire choice in "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". I will only point out one omission and one important alternative for White:
3...e6
3...Nc6?! probably is dubious and wasn't mentioned in the Killer Repertoire. One interesting attempt at refutation is 4.a3 a5 5.Nc3 and now:
a) 5...e6 6.Na4!? seems sufficient to keep the c-pawn.
b) 5...Nf6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Nxe5 Bxc5 8.Nd3 also gave White a safe extra pawn in Bogdanovich-Hubel, Crailsheim 1998.
c) 5...d4 probably is too optimistic: 6.Nb5 e5 7.e3 Bg4 8.Be2 (even stronger may be 8.exd4 exd4 9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Nd6+ Kf8 11.Bf4) 8...Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Bxc5 10.exd4 Bxd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.0–0 with an obvious advantage for White in Matlak-Orsag, Karvina 1992.
4.e4!?
This is an important alternative to 4.c4 which was recommended in the Killer Repertoire.
4...Bxc5
It seems White can keep an advantage after 4...Nf6 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.Bd3:
a) 6...Bxc5 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.0–0 Nbd7 9.Bf4 a6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Rad1+ += Kharlov-Cifuentes Parada, Leeuwarden 1994.
b) 6...Qxc5 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Be7 9.Be3 Qa5 10.a3 a6 11.Qe2 0–0 12.Rfd1 Qc7 13.Bg5 b6 14.Ne4 Bb7 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7 17.Qd3+ Kg8 18.Qxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxd7 Bxb2 20.Rb1 Bxf3 21.Rxb2 Be4 22.Rxb6 Bxc2 23.Rbb7 +=  Ki.Georgiev-Seirawan, Brussels 1992.
5.exd5 exd5 (D)

In this fairly typical IQP position it seems chances are roughly even. That doesn't mean it cannot be a good practical choice for a good technician. If White makes it to the endgame, he probably will have something to play for.
5...Qb6 probably is too optimistic: 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Qb5+ Kf8 8.Qxb6 axb6 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.0–0 += Ruck-Balog, Hungary 2008.
6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.0–0 Nge7 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.Nb3 Bd6
Also 9...Bb6 seems fine: 10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Qd6 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Rad8 14.Bf4 Qf6 15.Qd2 h6 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Nf5 18.Qd2 d4 = A.Sokolovs-Howell, Germany 1996.
10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Re8 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Qc7 14.Ng3 Rad8 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Be3
Chances were equal in P.Nikolic-Leko, Horgen 1994.


B:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)

3.c4
With this move White offers Black to play the Tarrasch Defence.

3... cxd4
Instead the Tarrasch would arise after 3...e6. This old defence has, as far as I know, a sound theoretical standing, but many of the resulting positions are hard to defend against skilled opposition. More independent alternatives are:

a) 3...Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 must be a shade better for White. A recent example is  Kovalyov-Gomez, Dresden 2008 where Black was close to equality after 6...Qa5 7.Ne5 Nc6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.g3 Bb7 10.Qa4 Qxa4 11.Nxa4 c5 12.f3 e6 13.e4.

b) After 3...dxc4 4.d5!? may be critical (4.e3 e6 leads to a quiet line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted). Two recent examples are: 

b1) 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.e4 exd5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.Bxc4 0–0 9.0–0 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Nbd7 = Akopian-Shirov, Ohrid 2009.

b2) 4...e6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.Qxd5 Qxd5 7.Nxd5 Bd6 8.Nd2 Ne7 9.Nxc4 Nxd5 10.Nxd6+ Ke7 11.Nxc8+ Rxc8 12.g3 Nb4 13.Bh3 Rd8 14.0–0 N8c6 15.Be3 Leitao-Matsuura, Santos 2007.

4.cxd5 Nf6

Black should avoid 4...Qxd5 5.Nc3, e.g. 5...Qd8 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 8.Nd5 Kd8 9.Nb6 Ra7 10.Bf4 Nd7 and now Rybka points out that 11.Ne6+! fxe6 12.Be3 would have been the most efficient, even if White has several ways to a big advantage.

5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 (D)

This is typical for what White can expect in this line. The pawn structure is symmetrical but White is somewhat better developed. It seems likely that Black can equalize with some care but White can create some difficulties. One sample continuation is:

 8.g3 Bd7 9.Bg2 e5 10.Nb3 Bc6 = Landa-Ovetchkin, Krasnoyarsk 2007.

C:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)

3.g3
This quiet move attempts to play a reversed Gruenfeldt Indian. The only problem is that there is no black knight to exchange on c6, so if White hopes for a genuine Gruenfeldt a tempo up, he has to bide his time.

3...cxd4

3...Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.0–0 e6 6.a3 b5 7.Bg5 Bb7 8.Nc3 h6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nxb5 Qb6 12.Nc3 +/- Young-Akobian, Chicago 2009.

4.Bg2

4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb3

4...Nf6 5.0–0 (D)

In a sense this is a critical position. Should Black play the obvious developing move 5...Nc6, allowing White to have his desired Reversed Gruenfeldt?

5...Nc6

This is Black's most popular move but there are alternatives:
a) I don't know why 5...Nbd7!? is untested. Black threatens ...e5, so 6.Nxd4 e5 is natural. Then one possible line is 7.Nb3 Nb6 8.Nc3 Be6 9.f4 with complicated play.

b) 5...h6 is a bit strange but on second thought it seems useful to avoid the potential Bg5 pin. After 6.b3 g6 7.Bb2 Bg7 8.Nxd4 0–0 9.c4 dxc4 10.bxc4 Qb6 11.Qb3 Na6 12.Nd2 Nd7 13.N2f3 Ndc5 gave equal chances in P.Nikolic-P.H.Nielsen, Wijk aan Zee 2005.
c) 5...g6 is natural. Then 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.c4 0–0 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nb3 e6 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qc7 12.Rb1 with unclear play in Graf-Shomoev, Warsaw 2005 is one sample line.

6.Nxd4 e6 
That's the problem when White tries to play a sharp line with colours reversed. You will usually find that Black opts for a non-critical line which nevertheless gives good chances of equality. White has scored massively after 6... e5 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8. c4, but partly that may be because the white players have very clearly outrated their opponents. One recent and typical example is 8...Be7 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5 e4 11.Qa4 O-O 12.Rad1 Qb6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rxd5 Qxb2 17.e3 with a very clear advantage to White in Burmakin-Lochte, Bad Wiessee 2008.

7.c4 Bc5 8.Nb3 Be7 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.bxc3 Bf6 13.Rb1 Bxc3 14.Ba3 += Romanishin-Salmensuu, Linares 1999.

A New Barry Idea

These days I am reading Cyrus Lakdawala’s “Play the London System”. It’s an interesting read and I will probably return to the subject.

Our understanding of one opening is often influenced by our understanding (or lack of such) of other openings. I was curious when I saw Lakdawala briefly discard Black’s traditional mainline in the Barry attack (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 is the relevant London move-order) with the explanation that ‘7.dxc5 transposes to a favourable Reversed Catalan’ and some relatively brief variations. I must admit that the Catalan is not my field of expertise so I had to take a closer look at his variations - in particular as I had explored this line when researching ‘A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire’ (and concluded that Summerscale’s 7.Ne5 probably still is White’s best try):

7...Qa5

This is the most popular reply and the only one mentioned in the book although 7...Nbd7!? has been played by Khalifman among others.

8.Nd2!

The exclamation mark is by Lakdawala and the move probably is White’s best try.

8...Qxc5

This is clearly most popular. Somewhat mysteriously Lakdawala gives the rare 8...Ne4!? as his main line. After 9.Ncxe4 dxe4 10.0–0 Nc6 11.c3 f5 12.Nb3 of Hodgson-Gullaksen, Stavanger 1989 he concludes that Black doesn’t have enough for his pawn.

9.Nb3 Qb6 10.Nb5!

Again the exclamation mark is by Lakdawala. White has also tried 10.0-0, 10.a4 and 10.Nxd5?!.

10...Ne8! (Dia)

This is not mentioned in the book but has been played by Hebden and Lars Bo Hansen among others and is given an exclamation mark by Ftachnik in Megabase. Lakdawala only mentions 10...Na6 11.Be5! and White probably is better as ‘Bd4 is in the air’. The move is far from obvious but as there clearly are some threaths to c7 it's not particularly surprising either.

11.Qxd5

What else? Black was threatening ...e5 as well as ...Bxb2.

11...Bxb2 12.Rb1 Bg7 13.0–0 Nc6 14.c4 (Dia)

Not 14.N5d4? e5! 15.Nxc6 bxc6 and Black wins.

So far everything seems very natural if not entirely forced. Now it seems Black has at least two ways to equalize (as a matter of fact Rybka also thinks 14...a6!? and 14...e5 look OK):
A: 14...Bf5 15.Rbd1 Nf6

Or 15...Nb4 16.Qd2 Na6 17.Nc3 Nf6 18.Qc1 Rac8 19.Be5 Be6 20.Bd4 Qb4 = L.B.Hansen-Djurhuus, Reykjavik 1995.

16.Qc5 e5 17.Bg3 Ne4 18.Qxb6

Rybka claims that 18.Qa3 is equal. That may well be right; the position looks somewhat strange and I find it hard to evaluate.

18...axb6 19.Ra1 Rfd8  and in Akselrod-Salinnikov, Tomsk 2003 Black was clearly better thanks to his activity.

B: 14...Nf6 15.Qc5 e5! 16.Bg3 Ne4 (Dia)

This too looks fine for Black who is active and has the bishop pair.
a) 7.Qxb6 axb6 18.a3 Bf5 =+ Rogers-Fedorowicz, Groningen 1990.

b) 17.Qa3 and now 17...Nxg3 18.hxg3 Rb8 (18...Rd8?! 19.c5 +/- Klimets-Gerasimovitch, St Petersburg 2002) 19.c5 Qd8 20.Rfd1 probably is a little better for White. However, Rybka thinks that 17...Bf5 as well as 17...Be6 is at least OK for Black.






Conclusion:
I have not found a path to advantage for White after 7.dxc5. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but Lakdawala's explanation clearly isn't sufficient for me. Maybe someone who knows more about the Catalan (and consequently more about the Reversed Catalan too) can point me in the right direction?

Play the London - pdf Extracts

Just briefly noting that there are now pdf-extracts from Lakdawala's 'Play the London System' at Everyman's chess book site.

I note with some surprise that the book now has reached 256 pages, which is 64 more than the last time I checked. It is still hard to judge how much analytical content there is and how well organized it is. However, the book still seems promising and I am pleased to note that the introduction contains a good portion humour.

Play the London System Announced

Everyman Chess has now officially announced 'Play the London System' by Cyrus Lakdawala. It is scheduled for September 2010 in the US and October 2010 in Europe, but Everyman hasn't exactly stuck rigorously to their publishing scheme the last year. At 192 pages it will be be of similar size as our 2005 work.

With this information I will take new contact with Gambit Publishing and suggest they publish an updated version of 'Win with the London System' early in 2011. There almost certainly will be an update but its extent is unclear (as is the timing).

A Chinese Invasion

My opponent in round 7 was a young Chinese rated just below 2400. I have beaten higher rated players but this felt a bit like wasting a white game:

Sv. Johnsen - Ziyang Zhang
BCC Thailand Open (7)

1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4

Lines with ...c6 and an early development of Black's light-squared bishop are particularly challenging to London players as White has to play c4 in order to fight for an advantage. That's perfectly fine if your general chess understanding is well developed. But if you only feel comfortable with your pawns on c3, d4 and e3 your task is harder.

5.c4 Nbd7 6.Nbd2 e6

6...Nh5 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 e6 10.Qc2 Nxg3 11.hxg3 Bf5 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 g4 14.Nh4 Qg5 unclear Gomez Esteban-Magem Badals, Linares 1995.

7.Qb3!?

A challenging decision. My co-author of 'Win with the London System' showed common sense in V.Kovacevic-Bisguier, New York 1989: 7.Bd3 Nh5 8.Bg3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Bd6 10.Qb3 Rb8 11.Nh2 Bh5 12.Nhf1 Nf6 13.f3 Bg6 14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.g4 0–0 16.0–0–0 with complicated play.

7...Nh5

Black has also tried 7...Bxf3 8.gxf3 with these options:

a) 8...Qb6 9.c5 Qxb3 10.axb3 Nh5 11.Bc7 Rc8 12.Ba5 a6 13.f4 g6 14.Bd3 Ng7 = Dos Santos-Miranda, Curitiba 1999.

b) 8...Nh5 9.Bg3 Qb6 10.c5 Qxb3 11.axb3 a6 12.b4 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Rc8 14.f4 g6 15.g4 Bg7 16.Bd3 f5 17.Ke2 +=Schlindwein-Pieper Emden, Gladenbach 1996.

8.Bg5 Qa5! 9.0–0–0?!

I cannot remember the last time I castled queenside so early in the London. I certaily looked for sensible alternatives and noticed that 9.cxd5 exd5 (9...cxd5 10.Bb5 Bb4 11.Bxd7+ Kxd7 12.Ne5+ Ke8 13.0–0 is very good for White) 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qxc6 might be possible but I didn't even try to calculate the consequences of 11...f6 12.Be2 Rxb2 (12...fxg5 13.Ne5) 13.Rd1 Bb4 14.Qa8+ Kf7 15.Qxh8. According to Rybka White is able to keep a small advantage in some very complicated lines.

9...Bb4 (D)

10.Bh4?

For some strange reason I didn’t consider 10.e4! at all. I seems to work quite well and at least ensure equality - something I wasn’t really close to achieveing in this game.

10...Nhf6 11.h3 Bxd2+ 12.Rxd2 Bf5 13.Bd3 Ne4 14.Bxe4

In a way this is the source of my coming problems as we now are left with bishops of opposite colours.

14...Bxe4 15.a3 0–0 16.Be7 Rfc8 17.Bb4 Qa6 18.cxd5 cxd5+ 19.Bc3 Rc6 (D)

At this point I think my position is objectively lost. Black’s attack may not seem immediately decisive but the opposite coloured bishops ensure that what he attacks I cannot defend. The positive thing to say about this game is that I now for the rest of the game defends quite well. When I in the following sequence add an exclamation mark to almost all my moves it's because I found the only moves to continue the game. It should be said that my opponent too found very strong moves but in general he had a few more tempting options to choose from.

20.Kd1! Rac8 21.Ke1! f6 22.Rd1! Rb6 23.Qa2 Bc2 24.Rc1 Qd3 25.Nd2! f5 26.h4! Nf6 27.Rh3! Ne4 28.Nxe4 fxe4 29.Qa1! Ba4 30.f4 (D)

30...e5!

If Black hadn’t found this attacking idea (or the 30...Bb5 31.Kf2 e5! version of the same idea) I might have saved the game. Now I am unable to defend because my kingside is undermanned.

31.dxe5 Bb5 32.Kf2 Qe2+ 33.Kg1 Rg6 34.Rh2 Qxe3+ 35.Kh1 Qxf4 36.Rd1 e3 37.b3 e2 38.Rg1 Bd3 39.e6 Rxe6 40.Bxg7 e1Q 41.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 42.Qxe1 Rc1 0–1

A Rook Gone Astray

My 6th game in Pattaya was another London System:

Sv.Johnsen - W.Chengjia
BCC Thailand Open (6)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4

My opponent (a young Chineese girl) was rated a little above 2000 and I had no idea what to expect. Anyway I saw little reason to deviate from the opening with which I have the most experience.

2...e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2 d5 6.Ngf3 cxd4 7.exd4 Bd6 8.Bg3

An old game in this line went 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.Bb5 0–0 10.0–0 Bd7 11.Re1 Qf4 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.Ne5 Nd7 14.Ndf3 and White probably was a little better in Blackburne-Chigorin, Berlin 1897.

8...0–0

Opening the h-file before White has castled is risky, e.g. 8...Bxg3 9.hxg3 Qd6 10.Bd3 Bd7 11.Qe2 Ng4 12.0–0–0 h6 13.Rh4 Nf6 14.Ne5 gave White a clear advantage in Knezevic-Asmundsson, Grindavik 1984.

9.Bd3 e5?!

This looks wrong. Black frees her position but accepts an isolated queen’s pawn while exchanging a few pieces in the process. An interesting an relatively recent game continued 9...Re8 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.f4 Rf8 12.0–0 Ne8 13.Bh4 f5 14.Rf3 Bxe5 15.fxe5 Qb6 16.Bf2 Qxb2 17.Rh3 g6 18.Nf3 Rf7 19.Rb1 Qxa2 20.Qc1 Rg7 21.Bh4 Qa5 22.Bf6 Rf7 23.Ng5 and White had compensation for his pawns in Gonzales-Halay, Manila 2007.

10.dxe5 Re8 11.0–0 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Rxe5 14.Nf3 Rh5?! (D)

This move confirmed what I had started to suspect: My opponent probably had little classical chess education and was mainly relying on her calculating skills.

15.Re1 Qd6 16.Bf1 Bg4 17.h3 Bxf3 18.Qxf3

Except for the strangely placed black rook, this is a fairly typical IQP position. White must be a little better.

18...h6 19.Rad1 g6 20.Rd4

I was about to play 20.Qe3 when I noticed 20...Ng4!?. It’s not at all clear that 21.Qg3 Qxg3 22.fxg3 improves Black’s chances. But the resulting position looks a little strange and this might favour the better calculator, which I suspected wasn’t me.

20...Rf5 21.Qd3 Rf4

It seemed my opponent only now had noticed that her d-pawn might be in trouble.

22.g3 Rxd4 23.Qxd4 b6 24.Bg2 Rd8 25.Rd1 Re8 26.c4

The pawn has been doomed for some moves already.

26...Re2 27.cxd5 Nd7 28.Rc1 Qe5!

This is quite a good try to keep the game going.

29.Qxe5 Nxe5 30.Rc7 (D)

30...Rxb2?

A better try would have been 30...Re1+ 31.Kh2 Re2 when e.g. 32.d6 Rd2 33.Re7 f6 34.Rxa7 still isn’t clearly winning.

31.f4!

This wins by force.

31...Nd3 32.d6 Nc5 33.d7 Nxd7 34.Rxd7 Rxa2 35.Bd5 Ra1+ 36.Kf2 a5 37.Bxf7+ Kg7 38.Rb7 Kf8

Black might have saved herself the last dozen of moves. It’s hard to imagine how White can go wrong.

39.Bxg6 Ra2+ 40.Kf3 Rb2 41.f5 Rb3+ 42.Kf4 Rb1 43.Ke5 Rc1 44.Rxb6 a4 45.Rb8+ Kg7 46.Rb7+ Kf8 47.f6 Re1+ 48.Be4 a3 49.Ra7 Re3 50.Kf4 Rc3 51.Bd5 1–0

The Whole Truth?

I have always made a point to have a post-mortem with my opponent after a game - simply because I enjoy it and find it useful. However, when going to a tournament with my wife and little son, that doesn't seem the right way to spend my time. So during this tournament I have not so far had a look at my games with my opponents but rather done some quick Rybka checks at a more convenient time. The computer generally shows me how well or badly I and my opponent calculated and frequently (but not always) provides a more accurate assessment of the positions than what I had during the game. What I miss is that little look into my opponent's mind that a post-mortem offers. I need to be reminded how a chessplayer thinks during a game.

Sv.Johnsen - Akharaboollasez
BCC Thailand Open 2009 (2)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4

This occasionally leads to a more interesting game than 2.Nf3 followed by 3.Bf4 does.

2...e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Be7 5.Nd2 d5 6.Bd3 b6 7.Ngf3

This is the right moment to enter the more traditional London lines as 7...Nh5 now can be met by 8.Bxb8 and a check on b5, forcing Black to move his king and lose time with his misplaced knight.

7...Bb7 8.Ne5 0–0 9.Qf3 Nbd7 10.Qh3

This attacking formation is one of the main ideas behind the classical London System. But with his bishop on b7 and his knight on d7, Black's e4 control may just be sufficient for equality.

10...Re8 (D)

11.g4!?

Probably 11.Ndf3 is better 11...Ne4 which I thought looked annoying is well met by 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.Ne5. If my memory had been better I might have remembered the continuation of Blackburne-Harmonist, Breslau 1889: 13...Qd8 14.f3 Nf6 15.Ng4 g6 16.Bb5 Nd7 17.Nh6+ Kg7 18.Nxf7 Bh4+ 19.Bg3 Kxf7 20.Bxh4 with a clear advantage to White. This is Illustrative Game 3 in ’Win with the London System’. The London is easy to learn superficially but exact knowledge takes a bit more as the many similar positions can easily be confused.

11...Nf8

This is an important defensive resource.

12.Ndf3 Ne4 13.g5!?

I considered 13.Bb5 but found that 13...f6 14.Nc6 Qc8 15.Nxe7+ Rxe7 was a bit unclear. Doda-Kraidman, Siegen 1970 continued 16.g5 Ng6 17.gxf6 Nxf4 18.exf4 Nxf6 19.0–0–0 Ba6 20.Bxa6 Qxa6 21.Kb1 with a small advantage to White.

13...cxd4 14.exd4 Bxg5 (D)

I considered this too risky on general grounds but was not sure how Black could save himself. I thought that after 14...Ng6 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.Rg1, Black was helpless against the plan Rg4-h4. Rybka, however has no problems finding 16...Qc8 17.Rg4 e5 18.Nxe5 Ba3! with quite difficult play.

15.Nxf7?!

A much stronger continuation is 15.Nxg5 Nxg5 16.Qh5 g6 17.Qxg5. What I missed was that 17...f6 18.Qh6 fxe5 19.Bxe5 gives White a deadly attack, e.g. 19...Qe7 20.Rg1 Rac8 21.Bxg6 Nxg6 22.Rxg6+ hxg6 23.Qh8+ Kf7 24.Qg7 mate.

15...Kxf7 16.Bxg5 Nxg5 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Nxg5+?

I wanted to play for mate but Black can defend quite easily. After 18.Qxg5 Qxg5 19.Nxg5+ Kg7 20.f4 White would have had a very nice positional plus.

18...Kg7 19.Qg4 e5 20.0–0–0 e4

After 20...h6 I considered 21.h4!? hxg5 22.hxg5 with a lot of possibilities but nothing that really works for White. One reasonable line is 22...e4 23.Bb5 and now 23...Re7 24.Qh3 Qd6 25.Qh8+ Kf7 26.Rh7+ Nxh7 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh8+ leads to a drawing mechanism I noticed during the game. A better try for Black may be 23...Qd6 24.Bxe8 Rxe8 when he probably is a little better. Consequently White probably should play 21.Nh3 when 21...Bc8 must be a little better for Black than the game.

21.Bb5 Bc8! 22.Qf4 Re7

Rybka at first prefers 22...Bd7 but after a while finds that White wins after 23.Qf7+ Kh6 24.Rdg1 Bxb5 25.Rg4 Be2 26.Rh4+ Bh5 27.Rg1 Qe7 28.Qf4 Kg7 29.Rxh5 (but even then there are some long semi-forcing lines after 29...e3).

23.h4 Qc7 24.Qe3 h6 25.Nh3 Rf7 26.Be2 Nh7?!

This looks wrong. 26...Bxh3 27.Rxh3 Qf4 28.Qxf4 Rxf4 29.f3 e3 30.Re1 Re8 is roughly equal.

27.Rdg1 Bxh3 28.Rxh3 Qf4 29.Rhg3 Qxe3+ 30.fxe3 Rf6 31.Kd2 (D)

This looks like a very good reversed French for White. Black's central pawns are weak.

31...Raf8

31...b5! 32.Bxb5 Rb8 is a much better chance.

32.R1g2 a5?!

This does nothing positive for Black's position.

33.Rg4 Rc8 34.a4 Rfc6 35.Bb5 Rf6 (D)

36.c4?

My lacking sense of danger strikes again! This is the wrong moment to act.

36...dxc4?

36...h5! 37.Rf4 Rxf4 38.exf4 dxc4 is only a little better for White.

37.Rxe4 Rc7 38.Kc3 Rf1 39.Re6 Nf6 40.Bc6 Rc1+ 41.Kd2 Rh1?

41...Rf1 42.e4 Rf4 43.e5 Ng4 is a little better but still probably winning for White. The rest is simple.

42.Rxg6+! Kxg6 43.Bxh1 Kf7 44.Rxb6 Re7 45.Bf3 h5 46.Rb5 Ng4 47.Rxh5 Nxe3? 48.Rh7+ 1–0

Not Ready Yet

In a little more than two weeks I shall play my first real tournament in more than four years.
The 9th Bangkok Chess Club Tournament now has 12 registered GMs and I am ranked no. 61 out of 146 participants. It surely will be a nice tournament but it worries me that I am badly prepared in almost every way.

According to plans I should by now have completed my update of the London Systems files, and be well on my way to have a complete repertoire against 1.e4. Unfortunately that's very far from reality. I have barely started looking at the London and am still undecided about which opening to play against 1.e4.

However, the openings are not my weakest point. If I can only raise my tactical vision and my concentration I suppose I will not do too bad. The problem is that this is a much more evasive goal than working out an opening repertoire. Fortunately I have roughly one free week before the tournament and I have some tricks that I hope will kick-start my tactical vision.

The main problem with playing some blitz and basically no tournament games is that my sense of danger has been weakened. Yesterday's game in Sjakkalliansen, the informal Oslo team league for companies, was quite typical:

Sv.Johnsen-S.Nørve
Sjakkalliansen 2009
1.d4 Nf6
Normally I am very poorly motivated for these unrated team games. They are played on Wednesdays' evenings and a quick draw normally is a perfect result. However, for this game I tried to raise some interest in order to test my play. It helped somewhat that I lost my previous game against my opponent. Nørve must be roughly as rusty as I am but he is a three times Oslo champion from 20 years ago or so.
2.Bf4 b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.e3 g6 5.Nbd2 d6 6.Bc4
This bishop placement makes sense against a set-up with ...g6 and ...b6 but wasn't examined deeply in 'Win with the London System'.
6...Nh5?!
6...Bg7 is better but Black probably wanted to catch my bishop before I got around to play h3.
7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5? (Dia)
This move has a tactical flaw which makes Black's plan starting with 6...Nh5 meaningless.
9.Ne5!
I still usually notice this kind of simple tactics.
9...dxe5 10.Qxh5 e6 11.Bg3 Bg7
11...exd4 12.Bxe6 looks extremely dangerous. After 12...Qe7 13.Bc4 Bxg2 I may even consider 14.0–0–0!? Bxh1 15.Rxh1 as it's hard to see how Black can ever complete his development, e.g. 15...Nd7 16.Qf3 Rc8 (16...0–0–0 17.Ba6+ is of course not an option) 17.Qb7 and White must be winning.
12.Bxe5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Bxg2 14.Rg1
Around here Jonatan, my three years old son, decided that he had seen enough and decided to leave for his mother, trusting that not even his father could mess this up.
14...Bd5 15.0–0–0 Bxc4 16.Nxc4 Nd7 (Dia)

17.f4?!
17.Qf3! as pointed out by my opponent is very strong, preventing Black from ever castling.
17...gxf4 18.Rg7
In this position I actually considered 18.Qf3! but discarded it thanks to some very sloppy calculations.
18...Qe7 19.exf4 0–0–0!
Black correctly judges that an endgame a pawn down is his best chance.
20.Qxf7 Qxf7 21.Rxf7 Nc5 22.Rxd8+?!
This move starts a phase of planless play.
22...Rxd8! 23.Ne3
23.b3 might well have won me a couple of tempi compared to the game continuation.
23...Rd4 24.b3 h5 25.h4 Kd8 26.a4 a5 27.Nc4?!
This blunders a pawn and hints that my form is not the best.
27...Nxa4
Here my opponent offered a draw and considering the trend of the game I would normally have accepted. However, the exchange doesn't change the fact that I am somewhat better thanks to my sounder pawn structure.
28.Nxa5 bxa5 29.bxa4 Rxa4 30.Kd2 Re4 31.Kd3 Re1 32.Rh7 Rf1 33.Ke3 a4 (Dia)

34.Rxh5??
My thought process run something like this: 'Can there be any danger picking up the pawn? No - if he tries to run with the a-pawn I just check him and go to a8 with my rook.' Well, that's exactly how you trick yourself into not calculating properly. Chess is a logical game but simplified logic brings you nowhere!
34...a3??
My opponent didn't spend much time on this move but I still had time to discover 34...Kc8! and see that I couldn't stop the a-pawn by normal means. As a matter of fact this nice move wins easily even against 35.f5 which seems to be my best trick.
35.Rh8+ Kd7 36.Ra8 Rh1 37.Ke4 Rxh4 38.Rxa3 Rh1 39.Rg3 c5?
This makes my task easier but I believe my position must be won anyway.
40.Rd3+ Kc7 41.Rd6 Re1+ 42.Kf3 Rf1+ 43.Kg4 Rg1+ 44.Kh5 Rf1 45.Kg4
45.Kg5 Rg1+ 46.Kf6 Rg4 47.Kxe6 Rxf4 48.Kd5 Rf2 49.c4 also wins quite easily but at this point it appeared that if I won this game my team would surprisingly qualify for next year's top league and I didn't trust my calculation skills at all.
45...Rg1+ 46.Kf3 Rf1+ 47.Ke3 Re1+ 48.Kf2 Rc1 49.Rxe6 c4 50.f5 c3 51.Ke2 Rxc2+ 52.Kd1 Rd2+ 53.Kc1 Kd7 54.Ra6 Rd5 55.e6+ Ke7 56.Ra7+ Kf6 57.Rf7+ Kg5 58.e7 1-0
A little later my team mate on board secured his draw and my team had qualified for next year's first league (provided that there is one as it quite likely may be replaced by a cup system).

Earth Defends Successfully

After the further moves 3...c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.Bb5?! Qa5+ 6.Nc3 Ne4 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.0–0 Nxc3 9.Qd2 Ne2+! we have reached this position:

It now seems clear that Earth has defended successfully against the attack from outer space. 5.Bb5 is a sensible move which was recently played by Kamsky (who lost against Gelfand) but not really in the London spirit. 5.c3 is the standard move and probably best.

I plan to leave the match here, trusting the kids at Stevenson Elementary School. After the likely continuation 10.Qxe2 Ba6 11.Qe1! (A better try than 11.Qd1 of Parreno Cueto-Bertona, Alicante 2001) 11...Qb6! 12.dxc5 Qb7! (12...Qxc5 13.c4 Bxc4 14.Qc3 is not so bad for White), Black will be an exchange up for little compensation.

Why Not the Slav?

This is the second part of an answer to why I didn't follow up 'Win with the London System' with a book on the Slav (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6).

The Slav and the London system are quite a popular pair of openings - frequently complemented by the Caro Kann against 1.e4. And if my first project had been on the Slav, quite likely the London would have appeared a natural continuation. However, with the London coming first, I didn't really consider following up with the Slav. This isn't quite as silly as it may sound:

While I enjoy playing a reversed opening with White (see my posts on 1.a3) - looking for a good way to use that extra tempo, I find it quite uncomfortable to go the opposite direction - taking an opening which I play with White and play it a tempo down. There certainly will be related lines but a tempo down they almost always are slightly worse.

In the case of the Slav compared to the London, this most clearly is illustrated with this position (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3):

a) 4...Bf5?! followed by ...e6 and a typical London position would be Black's preferred move if it was playable. However, very few strong players use this move regularly with Black - probably with good reason as White scores around 80% with 5.cxd5! cxd5 6.Qb3 (a database search hints that there may be more to this than is generally known so I may return to this subject).

b) 4...dxc4, which gives up Black's central foothold but wins some time for development, is Black's traditional main continuation. After 5.a4 Bf5 the position has some resemblance of a reversed London. However, the pawn exchange is generally considered undesirable and for London players mainly interesting as an example of how to handle the position if something goes wrong.

c) The Semi-Slav 4...e6, which locks in the light-squared bishop, can lead to very interesting positions if White plays ambitiously but isn't very similar to a London set-up.

d) 4...a6!? - the Chebanenko Slav - is a more recent try for Black. Now when Qb3 can be met by ...b5 or even the exotic ...Ra7, ...Bf5 becomes an option for Black in certain lines. This is a very interesting idea but seen in a London perspective not very attractive. While a3 frequently can be useful in London, it has quite low priority. Consequently Black is not just his normal tempo down - in many respects he is closer to two tempi behind a normal London line.

e) 4...Qb6!? has been played by many strong players, most recently by Kamsky. Black prepares ...Bf5 by defusing the Qb3 option but it must be admitted that this system is more solid than exciting and it seems that White has several paths to a small edge.

f) Black has other options like 4...Ne4, 4...Bg4 and 4...Nbd7 but none of them are very London-like.

London Stonewall Similarities

In a previous post I got a question about why I didn't follow up the London book with one on the Slav Defence. I am eventually going to say something more about that but first I would like to point out some similarities between the Dutch Stonewall and the London System:

• The London as well as the Stonewall to a great degree are based on ideas rather than exact variations and involve a lot of possibilities for transpositions and move-order tricks.
  
• In both openings you normally attempt to fortify a central bastion rather than create immediate central activity.
• Both openings frequently allow you to switch to a kingside attack shouldn't your opponent play actively enough.
• Both openings lead to characteristic pawn structures that can frequently be recognized even in the endgame.
• There are certain London lines where White sets up a Stonewall formation (normally after the exchange of the light-squared bishops but not exclusively).
• Both openings are in my opinion a bit underestimated.
  

A typical London position:















A typical Stonewall position:















See the similarity?

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.

Interview with London Author

At freechess.info there is now an interesting interview with Marcus Schmücker - the author of "Das London-System".

I for a moment considered translating it to English, as I assume that a considerable number of my readers will have problem following the interview in German language. On second thought I dropped the idea, as I assume that those who don't read German will have relatively little interest in the book as well as in the author. So I decided only to extract and translate (rather loosely) some of the points that I found interesting:

• When my book was 80% ready, the English version of GM Kovacevic' book was published. At first I was a bit unhappy about this poor luck but it soon turned out that there were not only disadvantages in this apparently unfortunate timing. It turned out that he was following other paths and that most of my work was still worth publishing.
  My (SJ) comment: I am not in the publishing business but my guess is that the ideal timing for a book is 3-6 months after a good competing book is published. That allows you to list the competing book in your bibliography and include some essential analysis without allowing the first book to completely 'tap' the market.
  
• I consider the strongest point in my book to be that it offers the readers a simple receipt and a lot of fresh ideas. For instance I recommend the set-up with 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4 while Kovacevic examines both 2.Nf3 and 2.Bf4 with his main emphasis on the latter. In addition there is the fact that I only consider positions arising after 1.d4 d5. Against the King's Indian or the Queen's Indian I was unable even after deep research to find a promising path to advantage. In the introduction I have given my reasons for this decision and consequently omitted the analysis of these lines. So those who would like to play the London System "against everything" will need to get Kovacevic' book in addition to mine.
  My (SJ) comment: First of all I don't quite understand why he omitted the lines demonstrating that the London doesn't offer an advantage against 1...Nf6. Maybe there simply were too many lines that ultimately failed? Or maybe he didn't want to help potential black players? I have not yet seen the book and really look forward to reading the introduction.
  
  Schmücker probably has a point that including both the 2.Bf4 and the 2.Nf3 move-orders in our book made it slightly less accessible. Organizing the material was a quite hard task and I can see that for a reader preferring the 2.Nf3 move-order it can in some cases be hard to find the relevant material.
  
  It certainly was an interesting decision to only include 1.d4 d5 lines. I agree that the London System is more likely to achieve an edge after 1...d5. In Game 1 in our London book we write after 1.d4 d5: "The London System can be played after virtually any black set-up but is probably most effective against this classical reply." Consequently Schmücker probably has a slightly easier task to prove an edge for White. Yet I doubt it was a wise decision as I perceive the typical London player as a slightly lazy character who would very much like to play the same system against all of Black's replies to 1.d4.
  
• I chose to self publish this book in order to minimize the risk and see how the book was received. It will be considerably easier to contact a publishing company if I can refer to a success with this book. For my next projects I will choose the direct way.
  My (SJ) comment: I don't quite understand Schmücker's reasoning here. There may well be ways to self publishing a book so that there is little or no financial risk. But with a normal contract with a publishing company you are guaranteed at least a small fee. Probably he was worried that they would turn down an untitled author but I can see no other risk than being rejected. Personally I have found it very convenient to have a professional chess publisher to rely on. Gambit Publishing provided good general advice, helped me with the English language and did a very good (semi-automated, I think) proof-reading. In addition they ensured a good technical quality (cover, paper quality, binding, printing etc.).
  
• My next book will examine a certain system in the Dutch Leningrad which currently hardly ever is played and therefore will be a good surprise weapon.
  My (SJ) comment: This is very interesting - can he have the 6...c6 system in mind?

A German Competitor

When I a few weeks ago was searching for reviews of the German translation of "Win with the London System", I stumbled upon another new German book on the London system -"Das London-System" by Marcus Schmücker. I immediately ordered it from my local chess dealer but have not yet received it. Consequently I have not had much useful to say about it.

Today I found a review at the German site freechess.info. That was not by chance as I check it quite regularly. It used to be one of the better chess review sites - and I suppose it still is, as there is always useful information to be found. This time it was interesting to see the link to the author's home page.

Yet I must say I agree with the reader letter complaining that the reviews have gootten too kind lately. No big problem when it's my own products that are under the microscope but a little irritating when it's a competing work.

For a table of content, see Schachversand Niggemann.

More info will follow as soon as I receive my copy!

Third London Question

I slowly work my way through the London questions supplied by an anonymous reader. Whether I ever will catch up is an open question as new questions are coming in.

Q3: After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Nf3 0-0 5.Be2 d6 6.0-0 Nfd7 7.h3 e5 8.Bh2 f5 9.c4 Nc6 10.Nc3 g5 11.dxe5 now you only cover Black responding with 11... Ndxe5, but what should White do against 11...dxe5? (Dia)

A: This recapture probably should have been mentioned in "Win with the London System" as it had been played by 2400 player Gonzalez Velez when the book was written (later it has also been employed by GM Nataf). However, at least to me, it appears less natural than 11...Ndxe5 which immediately frees Black's somewhat entangled queenside. Still the move clearly has some virtues as it keeps Black's kingside pawn front mobile. What's more problematic: it leads to extremely tense positions which are difficult to analyze and evaluate. I will give it a try with the assistance of some analysis engines (Mainly Rybka 2.3 and Fritz 11) but must warn the readers that this kind of positions are really GM territory.

I believe White should continue 12.Nd5!

Initially the computers seem to like 12.Qd5+ Kh8 13.Rad1, but after 13...h5 White’s queen is tactically exposed in some lines and it seems that Black has sufficient counter-play on the kingside:

a) 14.Qb5 g4 15.hxg4 hxg4 16.Ne1 a6! (16...Rf6 17.Bxe5!) 17.Qa4 Rf6 and Black’s attack seems dangerous.

b) 14.Rd2 a6 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.e4?! g4 (16...Nc5 is simple and good) 17.Ne1 f4 18.Qd3 Nd4 19.Nd5 Qf7 (Black obviously is already better) 20.h4? Nc5 21.Qb1 g3 0–1 Zimny-Tirard, Koszalin 1999.

16.Ne1 improves but Black clearly is in good shape.

12...a5 (Dia)

This was the choice of the strongest player to take on Black’s side but the move is far from obvious and probably this is a critical junction:

a) 12...Nb6 13.Qb3 g4 14.hxg4 fxg4 15.Ne1 Na5 16.Qc3 Nxd5 17.Qxa5 Ne7 18.Rd1 looks good for White.

b) 12...Nc5 13.b4 Ne6 14.b5 e4 15.bxc6 exf3 16.Bxf3 Bxa1 17.Nxc7 Qxd1 18.Rxd1 Nxc7 19.Bxc7 bxc6 20.Bxc6 gave White a safe extra pawn in Bosque Ortega-Gonzalez Velez, Barbera 1997.

c) For good or bad 12...f4!? seems to be the consistent course:

c1) After 13.Nd2 Nf6 14.Bf3 Bf5 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Ne4 Qg6 17.Bh5 Qh6 18.Bf3 fxe3 19.fxe3 g4 a draw was agreed in Sprotte-Grabics, Balatonbereny 1997 even if Black was close to winning.

c2) I like 13.exf4 which opens the centre somewhat and makes kingside pawn storm more risky for Black, e.g.:

c21) 13...gxf4 14.Qc2 Nc5 15.Rad1 Bf5 16.Qc1 e4 17.Nxf4 Qf6 18.Nd5 Qxb2 19.Qxb2 Bxb2 20.Nh4 is clearly better for White.

c22) 13...exf4 14.Qc2 Nc5 15.Rad1 Bf5 16.Qc1 +=.

13.Nxg5!?

A very interesting idea which leads to positions that are hard to evaluate but 13.Qa4 could be an improvement:

a) 13...g4 14.hxg4 fxg4 15.Ne1 Nc5 16.Qb5 Ne4 17.Rd1 Nd6 18.Qb3 Rf7 19.c5 must be good for White.

b) 13...Nc5 14.Qa3 Ne6 15.Rad1 Bd7 (15...Qe8? 16.Nxg5!) 16.Nd2 also seems to favour White.

c) 13...h5 14.Rfd1 g4 15.hxg4 hxg4 may be critical, e.g., 16.Ne1 Nc5 17.Qa3 Ne4 and now White has the tactical finesse 18.Nb6 Nd4 19.exd4 cxb6 20.Bxe5! (20.dxe5 Qh4 21.Qe3 Kf7! =+) 20...Bxe5 21.dxe5 Qh4 22.Qe3 Kg7 23.g3 Qh5 24.Ng2 and it seems Black’s kingside initiative has been neutralized.

13...Qxg5 14.Nxc7 Rb8 15.Ne6

White collects two pawns and the exchange for his knight. In general that's a fair deal perhaps favouring White very slightly - with chances increasing as the endgame approaches. It's also very unbalanced and the correct evaluations may depend on rather fine positional points (but mainly on White's king's position).

15...Qe7 16.Nxf8 Qxf8

16...Nxf8 may improve Black’s co-ordination somewhat but the resulting position is still hard to evaluate.

17.Qd5+ Kh8 18.Rfd1 Bf6

18...Nc5 may be better and looks roughly balanced after e.g., 19.Qd6 Be6 20.Rac1 a4 21.Qxf8+ Rxf8 22.Rd6 Bf6 23.b3 axb3 24.axb3 Ra8 (24...Nxb3 25.Rb1 Nc5 26.Rb5 Be7 27.Rd5 +=) 25.Rb1 Ra2 26.Bf3 e4 27.b4 Nxb4 28.Rxb4 Ra1+ 29.Rd1 exf3 30.Rxa1 Bxa1 31.gxf3 =.

19.Bf3

White doesn't achieve anything particular with 19.Qb5 Ra8 .

19...Nc5 20.Qd6 (Dia)

This position from Prie-Nataf, Paris 2006 is quite hard to evaluate. In my experience computers tend to evaluate this material imbalance as more favorable for White than most human masters. Whether this is due to poor evaluation functions or reflects the fact that there are tactical resources available for the rook and pawn side that humans tend to overlook is hard to tell. Rybka 2.3 says +0.85 at 18 ply. That seems too optimistic but it's also clear that White has a rather low losing risk after the exchange of queens. For what it's worth, the game ended in a draw after the further moves 20...Ne6 21.Bxc6 Qxd6 22.Rxd6 bxc6 23.Rxc6 Kg7 24.Rd1 Kf7 25.b3 f4 26.Kf1 Bb7 27.Rcd6 Be7 28.Rd7 Bc6 29.Ra7 a4 30.Rd6 axb3 31.axb3 Be8 32.Rd5 Kf6 33.exf4 exf4 34.Ra6 Rxb3 35.Bxf4 Bg6 36.Bg5+ Kf7 37.Ra7 Nxg5 38.Rxg5 Bd3+ 39.Kg1.

Gewinnen mit dem Londoner System

The German translation of "Win with the London System" is now available with the title "Gewinnen mit dem Londoner System". I still have not got the book myself but expect some copies to arrive in the mailbox any day now. It will be a nice addition to my book shelf and even if my preferred reading language is English, I suppose I will read it from cover to cover just to get an impression of the translation.

As for the content I know that there are no new analysis or variations. Three minor misprints in the English edition has been corrected - that's all. It obviously would have been possible to improve the analysis and add some recent games with relatively little effort. Yet I believe this was a wise decision by Gambit Publications. Partly because the London System is a low-maintenance system which generally doesn't require heavy loads of analysis and memorization but mostly for marketing reasons.

I know that original German works which are later translated to English and updated in the process have caused a lot of frustration for German buyers who feel cheated when they have to buy a new book in order to feel fully prepared. Moreover the two publishing companies Quality Chess (their books are better than their website) and Chess Stars which have made it a habit to publish revised versions of their books have mainly gotten criticism for their efforts. One example of the typical reader reactions can be found at the ChessPublishing discussion forum (as far as I know the best chess discussion forum on the net).

The first review (in German) of this German edition can be found at Freechess Info . This, by the way, is an excellent review site for those who can work their way through a German text. At times I find their verdicts too kind, but the reviews are generally well written and well researched. I don't expect there to be a lot of reviews in English for this translation.

Toothless Sophistication?

1.a3 a6 (Dia)

If I as a tournament director saw a game starting like this I suppose I would have to follow the game to make sure a real game was being played - not just some meaningless moves camouflaging a pre-arranged draw. That being said, 1...a6 is quite a reasonable reaction to White’s attempt at passing the initiative over to Black. Now we are back to square one so to speak, and it’s White’s task to demonstrate that the two extra moves haven’t hurt his winning chances. That he may attempt with most reasonable moves, including 2.Nf3, 2.c4, 2.g3, 2.Nc3 and 2.f4. However, for the sake of simplicity I will limit myself to White’s two main ‘first’ moves: 2.d4 and 2.e4. And in order not to make an overly long entry, I will have to split the subject into two.
2.d4
I assume Eric Prie, who preaches the virtues of 1.d4 d5 2.a3, would already be very pleased with White’s position. White can safely develop his dark-squared bishop as any attack on b2 by a black queen going to b6 can safely be met by b4 or Ra2.

A:
2...d5 (Dia)

This certainly must be a sound move. However, if there is anything at all for White in the Prie System, this should be a great chance to demonstrate White’s edge:
a) 2...c5?
b) 2...f5 3.g3 (3.Nf3 b5) 3...Nf6 4.Bg2 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.0–0 0–0 7.c4 d6
3.Nf3
a) 3.c4?! has more or less been eliminated as an option. After 3...dxc4 White will have a hard time regaining his pawn
b) 3.e3?! appears illogical as a3 isn’t a particularly useful move either in the Colle or in the Queen’s Gambit Declined. Despite of that White had an edge after 3...Nf6 4.c4 c6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 Bd6 8.Nf3 0–0 9.e4 in Bodi-Deli, Heves 2001. Black probably should have taken his chance to play 5...Bf5! with excellent chances.
c) 3.Bf4!? may somewhat improve over 3.Nf3 (I believe that 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 slightly improves over 2.Nf3 followed by 3.Bf4). However, not everything is so clear - for instance after 3...c5!? I assume that the pseudo-Albin gambit 4.e4 must be rather dubious as ...a6 is a useful defensive move while a3 hardly can be of much use.
3...Nf6
This is a very natural continuation and may well be where interest will focus if 1.a3 a6 should ever receive grandmasterly attention.
4.Bf4!
This certainly seems more promising than the Torre approach 4.Bg5?! which is unlikely to achieve anything if Black replies with 4...Ne4!.
4...Bf5!
Black too takes advantage of the fact that his b-pawn too can be comfortably defended.
5.e3 e6 (Dia)

After the symmetric introduction it’s up to White to demonstrate that his extra tempo can be used constructively:
a) 6.Bd3 is hardly the way to go: B.Lengyel-Czebe, Budapest 1998 continued 6...Bd6 7.Nbd2 Nc6 8.Qe2 1/2–1/2. It obviously would have been able to play on for both sides but White cannot boast of any advantage.
b) 6.c4 seems more promising.
b1) If Black is content with sound but modest development White may well have a little play as he had in Frosch-Wanderer, Schladming 1994 which continued 6...Be7 7.Nc3 c6 8.h3 h6 9.Be2 0–0 10.0–0 Bd6 11.Ne5 +=.
b2) The big question is what happens if Black uncompromisingly upholds symmetry with 6...c5. Janse van Rensburg-Diedericks, Port Elizabeth 2005 continued 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bd3 Bg4 9.Be2 dxc4 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bxc4 with rather dull equality. I suspect that 7.Rc1 may be White’s best try but that the position ultimately will prove rather barren.

B:
(1.a3 a6 2.d4)
2...Nf6 (Dia)

This is more flexible than 2...d5 and logically it should be harder to prove that a3 is useful against all set-ups available to Black. Prie has stated that he has been unable to find any advantage for White after 1.d4 Nf6 2.a3?! g6!. That’s not really surprising. However, chances should be a little better after 2...a6.
3.Nf3
a) 3.Bf4 will quite likely transpose below after 3...g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 0–0 but 3...d5 (leading to line A above) and 3...e6 4.e3 c5 are also reasonable options.
b) 3.c4 certainly looks natural but after the further natural moves 3...g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 it seems that ...a6 is more useful than a3 in all of White’s main systems (6.f3; 6.f4; and 6.Nf3/6.Be2).
3...g6!
There’s hardly anything wrong with 3...d5 or 3...e6 4.Bf4 c5 or even 3...b5!? but the King’s Indian is one of the hardest systems to meet for London players.
4.Bf4
The London approach - not necessarily White’s best but certainly the system with which I am the most familiar. Alternatives include:
a) 4.g3 b5!? seems fine for Black.
b) The King’s Indian Torre 4.Bg5 is worth consideration.
c) Trying for the Barry/150 Attack with 4.Nc3 cannot be too bad but after 4...d5 (4...Bg7 5.e4 d6 certainly is OK for Black too) 5.Bf4, Black if nothing else has 5...Nbd7!? as Nb5 is no longer an option.
4...Bg7 5.e3 0–0 6.Be2 d6 7.0–0 (Dia)

These moves are far from forced but yet a kind of London vs. King’s Indian main line.
7...Nbd7
This is Black’s most popular continuation in the similar position without the two a-pawn moves. 7...c5, 7...Nfd7 and 7...b6 are all important alternatives. In general it should be noted that systems with ...b6 seem very appropriate against this London version as the standard reaction a4 involves a tempo loss. In contrast systems with ...c5 and ...Qb6 allows White to demonstrate an advantage of his early a3, as he (after having met ...c5 with c3) frequently can protect his b-pawn with the active b4.
8.h3 Qe8 9.c4 e5 10.Bh2 Qe7 11.Nc3 (Dia)

This series of moves is known from the London system versus the King’s Indian. White’s plan is to break up Black’s queenside pawn chain with c5 and then apply pressure on c7 and d6. That may be feasible in this position too, but one of White’s resources: the move Nb5 - often including a piece sacrifice for two pawns - has been eliminated. Therefore it seems natural to conclude that in this slightly modified version White has less chance to get an advantage.

The Smallest Repertoire

How small can a functional repertoire be?
Some of us are busy or lazy enough to look for opening repertoires that require as little learning and maintenance as possible. But how much (or little?) knowledge is the actual minimum? There probably is a correct answer somewhere but it's constantly changing as opening theory is developing. If you only consider the amount of available GM-praxis you can reach "a playable middlegame" with very little preparation. One solution could be this:

• Black versus 1.d4: 1...c6 2.c4 b5 - a system occasionally employed by GM Rogers.
• Black versus 1.e4: 1...c6 2.d4 Na6 (or 2...b5?!) - a system occasionally employed by GM Miles.
• White: 1.e3, hoping for 1...e5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qh5 - the Mexican Attack which has a certain surprise value.

The main problem with an approach like this is that you will rarely get an advantage with White and will have to struggle for some time with Black. It must also be said that you give your opponent so much freedom to choose his preferred set-up that you can hardly expect to be playing the game on your home ground. If you are looking for "+=" with White and "=" or "unclear" with Black you will have to devote slightly more time to your preparations.
So if you are looking for an easy solution, these are my recommendations:

White:
Here we either are looking for an opening starting 1.d4 or 1.e4 but deviating on the second move (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4!? / 1...Nf6 2.Bf4 are my personal favorites) or an alternative first move which still restricts Black's choice - possibly the King's Indian Attack: 1.Nf3 followed by 2.g3, 3.Bg2 and 0-0. A move like 1.b3 or 1.g3 may take your opponent out of the book quite quickly but for yourself to be properly prepared you simply have too many options to consider - not only 1...d5 and 1...e5 followed by different development schemes - but also 1...c5, 1...f5, 1...Nf6 etc.

Black versus 1.d4:
My suggestion here is some variation of the Dutch (1.d4 f5). Possibly it's not a good way to fight for straight equality but chances are good to reach an unclear position. I am not yet decided about which sub-system yet but possibly the Classical is a good candidate.

Black versus 1.e4:
Here my favorite is the Scandinavian (1.e4 d5) . The theory is expanding and actually there now is quite a lot of theory. But the important thing is that Black makes most of the choices and to some extent can decide whether he wants a sharp or a solid game.

Any alternative suggestions?

Another London Question

I have not had much time for this blog during the last month but my next couple of months look a little less busy. Anyway, it's now long overdue to return to the London questions that I took up in my entry of September 26.

Q2: After 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Bf5 (Dia) you give two moves for White, 5.Nf3 and 5.Qb3, but what's wrong with 5.dxc5?

A2: 4...Bf5?! is a very rare move; it has only been played in three games. That should have been reason enough for us to suspect that it might be quite a poor move. And it indeed seems that the closest White comes to a refutation of 4...Bf5 is to accept the pawn with your suggestion 5.dxc5! (and not our routine move 5.Qb3 which only seems sufficient for a very small plus). There are lines where Black gets a nice centre for the pawn and murky lines like 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 Ne4!? 7.b4 g5!? 8.Nxg5 Nxg5 9.Bxg5 Bg7 10.Bb5 but sufficient compensation is nowhere to be seen.

I no longer have any idea why we missed this rather obvious pawn win. The obvious explanation is the fact that humans are so used to see hanging c-pawns (e.g. in the Queen's Gambit) which are only indirectly defended that we become blind to the possibility of capturing them and hanging on to them. However, this isn't a really satisfactory explanation as we used chess programs extensively to check our analysis. And even if the pawn win isn't immediately obvious to the human eye, there is no computer program that will miss it. In theory it should be possible to trace the correspondence between me and mr. Kovacevic and the ChessBase files we exchanged and establish who did the original analysis of this line and whether there were any discussion about the line. But as I see it that would be rather tedious and quite pointless research.

As a consequence of the above conclusion, the lines given with 5.Nf3 appear rather meaningless and should instead have been discussed under the more popular move-order 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.c3 and now Black has either 5...Nc6 - which leads to a well known position - or the popular mistake 5...e6? which might well have deserved a diagram in the book and will get one here: (Dia)

According to MegaBase 2007 this position has occurred in no less than 33 games but only in ten of them White has found the tactical stroke 6.Bxb8!. Now 6...Qxb8! 7.Bb5+ Kd8 allows Black to fight on in a bad position, and in Zimmer-Mosthaf, Hassloch 1997 Black actually won a quite weakly played game.

However, probably in shock, Black more frequently has continued 6...Rxb8? 7.Bb5+ Ke7 8.dxc5 after which he with some justification already could resign.