Missing the Veresov

Opening preferences are not only a matter of analysis and preparations. At least for some of us personal preferences, practical considerations and even nostalgia come into consideration. For roughly ten years I almost exclusively played the Veresov Opening (1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 or 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5) (Dia) with White.











Initially it worked great, and indeed there is a lot to be said in its favour:

• White develops quickly and avoids any weakening pawn moves.
• It has a certain surprise value and is somewhat underestimated by theory.
• Play is often sharp with opposite castling.
  
• The move-orders 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 and 1...d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 are equally valid - making it an almost universal system.

However, I finally had to give it up. The main reasons were:

• Thanks to ChessBase all my opponents started spending their evening before the game preparing for the Veresov and most of the surprise value was lost.

• I started facing theoretical problems in several lines simultaneously and had no time to do the necessary repair between tournaments.

• There were no top players employing the opening regularly, so the supply of high-level ideas were too small.
• The good literature on the opening started to date and the new works were of low quality.

After I gave the Veresov up the situation has improved slightly with Miladinovic and Morozevich playing the opening relatively frequently (there are always some GMs employing it as a surprise weapon but their contributions are usually of a more practical than theoretical nature). There also appeared a book by Nigel Davies - 'The Veresov: Surprise Your Opponents with the Tricky 2 Nc3!' which contained quite a few interesting ideas. I will not say that it's a great book but it's well written and generally it's very decent workmanship as one has come to expect from Davies.

Yet I have not taken up the Veresov again. The main reason is that I have not found a line I am happy with after 3...Nbd7. It's really surprising that such a modest move should prove such a challenge. I used to play 4.f3 but have completely lost faith in that line. I also have experimented with 4.Qd2 which generally leads to the same kind of positions as 4.f3 and which 4.Qd3 which actually may give White a minimal advantage. Even 4.e4 I review from time to time. However, after reading Davies' book the move which interests me the most is 4.e3!?, planning a Stonewall set-up with f4, Nf3 and 0-0 against most of Black's replies. There is, however, one major problem: after the modest-looking 4...e6, Davies' suggestion 5.Qf3 seems to lead White into a difficult position after 5...Bb4 (Dia).

Eric Prie has something to say about this in his May column at Chess Publishing.

So I am still looking for something promising for White after 3...Nbd7. In the meantime I will improve my London-files in preparation for Bangkok Chess Club Open.

1.a3 - the Final Hurdle

It would be very surprising if 1.a3 were sufficient for a genuine opening advantage. But if White could expect comfortable equality in a position more familiar to himself than his opponent it would not be a bad opening option at all. To some extent I think I have demonstrated that this can be achieved against 1...e5, 1...g6, 1...c5 and 1...d5. Consequently the main challenge for White seems to be the flexible 1...Nf6:

1.a3 Nf6! 2.e3!? (Dia)

This is my best shot. It doesn't promise White an advantage but it may give unbalanced equality in a position where White can hope to be the best prepared. White has also tried:

a) Prie himself has declared that 2.d4 g6! leads to a King's Indian where the pawn move to a3 is mostly a waste of time.

b) 2.g3, planning a King's Indian set-up with Bg2, d3, Nd2, Nf3, 0-0 and e4 probably is sufficient for equality as a3 normally is vaguely useful in these set-ups.

c) 2.b4 may at first look consistent with White's first move. But when you look more closely at the position you realize that it could just as well have occured from the move-order 1.b4 Nf6 2.a3?! which looks rather pointless. A recent practical example went 2...d5 3.Bb2 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.c4 c6 6.Qc2 0–0 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.d3 dxc4 9.Qxc4 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Nb6 11.Qc2 Re8 12.h3 a5 = Suba-Moya Hernandez, Almeria 2006.

2...e5

a) After 2...e6, I quite like 3.Bc4 d5 4.Ba2 with an original position which I suppose is roughly equal.

b) 2...c5 3.b4 may have a little less bite than 1.a3 c5 2.b4 but still gives White fair chances for a central superiority. 3...b6 may be best.

c) 2...g6 3.c4 (3.b4 Bg7 4.Bb2 d6 5.c4 0–0 6.g3 c6 7.Bg2 Nbd7 8.Nf3 e5 9.d3 Qe7 10.Nbd2 Nh5 11.Qc2 f5 unclear Emelianov-Ozgibcev, Novokuznetsk 1999) 3...d6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Be2 c6 6.d3 a6 7.Bd2 Nbd7 8.Rc1 Rb8 9.Nf3 e5 10.0–0 0–0 11.Qc2 Ne8 12.d4 f5 unclear Patuzzo-Giordano, Lugano 2003.

d) 2...d5 of course is very sound, but it seems White can unbalance the play:

d1) 3.b4 e6 4.Bb2 leads to a position that frequently has occurred from the Sokolsky move-order 1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 e6 3.e3 Nf6 4.a3.

d2) 3.Nf3 e6 4.c4 Be7 and now White has tried:

d21) 5.b3 0–0 6.Bb2 c5 7.Be2 b6 8.0–0 Bb7 9.d3 Nc6 10.Nbd2 Ne8 11.d4 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 dxc4 14.Nxc4 Nd6 15.Be5 Nxc4 16.Bxc4 Bf6 17.Qxd8 Rfxd8 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Rfd1 += Gelashvili-Miladinovic, Kavala 1999.

d22) 5.g4!? is the trademark move for the new 'no rules' generation of chess players. 5...c5 6.b4 Nxg4 7.Rg1 Nh6 8.bxc5 Bf6 9.d4 was unclear in Bosboom-Sonntag, Germany 2006.

d23) 5.b4 seems like the logical move. 5...0–0 6.Bb2 b6 7.Qc2 c5 8.bxc5 bxc5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0–0 Bb7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nc3 g6 = Kozul-Sosonko, Bled 1997.

d3) I like 3.f4!? even if Black has somewhat reduced White's options compared to the 1.a3 d5 2.f4 lines I discussed in a previous entry (e3 is unnecessary or even damaging in a reversed Dutch Leningrad).

d21) 3...g6 4.b4 is an interesting Bird/Dutch set-up which is not easy to achieve as Black. Note that a3 is not wasted as 1.f4 d5 2.b4? is refuted by 2...Qd6! (1.f4 Nf6 2.b4? Nd5! is a variation of the theme).

d22) Also after 3...c5, 4.b4 is an interesting option, e.g., 4...cxb4 5.axb4 Qb6?! 6.Nc3 Qxb4? 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Ba3 Qa5 9.Bxe7 and White's advantage is sizable.

3.c4
White is hoping for a reversed Paulsen/Kan Sicilian. Other possibilities include:
a) 3.d4 exd4 4.exd4 Be7 5.Nf3 0–0 6.Bd3 d5 7.0–0 Bg4 8.c3 Bh5 9.Bf4 Bg6 10.Ne5 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nbd7 = Filzmeier-Marjanovic, Nova Gorica 1999.

b) 3.b4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.h3 Bg7 6.Bb2 0–0 7.c4 Re8 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.Be2 e4 10.Nh2 Ne5 =+ Basman-Kinlay, Bristol 1980.

c) I have a weak spot for 3.Bc4 d5 4.Ba2 which leads to a quite unique position. However, objectively I must admit that White is unlikely to achieve full equality.

3...c6 (Dia)

Probably this is best. It's known from the O'Kelly Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6) that ...a6 (here a3) is not particularly useful in set-ups with c3 (here ...c6).

a) 3...b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Nf3 e4 6.Nd4 c5 7.Nf5 g6 8.Ng3 Bg7 9.Be2 0–0 10.0–0 ½–½ Galkin-Malaniuk, Sochi 1997.

b) 3...g6 4.Nc3 (4.b4 Bg7 5.Bb2 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.Nf3 Ng4 8.h3 Nh6 9.Qb3 a5 10.Nbd2 axb4 11.axb4 Rxa1+ 12.Bxa1 Be6 13.d4 exd4 14.Bxd4 Nc6 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Be2 += Bosboom-Gulko, Wijk aan Zee 2001) 4...Bg7 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qc2 a5 7.Rb1 0–0 8.Be2 Re8 9.d3 d6 10.0–0 Bf5 11.Nd2 Rb8 ½–½ Hulak-Tkachiev, Istanbul 2003.

c) I was surprised to discover that there are quite a few games continuing 3...d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5. This seems quite accommodating as White is playing a Kan/Paulsen Sicilian a move up. It may tell something about the importance of one tempo in an unbalanced position that White in this line scores 61% (in 41 games) while Black in the corresponding position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 scores 51% (in 39.435 games) - which is still an amazingly good result for Black. Maybe I will return to this in a later entry.

4.Nf3

Also 4.d4 seems reasonable: 4...exd4 (4...e4!?) and now:

a) 5.Qxd4 seems relatively safe (isn’t this somewhat reminiscent of the French line 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5!?). A recent game went 5...d5 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Nc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 0–0 9.e4 Bc7 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.f4 h6 13.Nxf7!? Rxf7 14.e5 Nfd7 15.Be3 Nf8 16.Bxf7+ Kxf7 17.0–0–0 and it seemed that Black had slightly the better chances in a difficult position in Bosboom-Tiviakov, Hilversum 2007.

b) 5.exd4 would follow the parallel main line in the reversed 2.c3-Sicilian. After 5...d5, 6.Nf3 most likely would lead to an IQP position where a3 probably would be marginally useful. Also 6.c5, planning to meet 6...b6 with 7.b4 and a queenside space advantage makes sense.

4...e4 5.Nd4 d5
5...g6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Qc2 Qe7 8.b4 0–0 9.Bb2 d5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Be2 Nbd7 12.0–0 Ne5 unclear Kuligowski-Sosonko, Amsterdam 1982.

6.cxd5 cxd5 (Dia)

7.d3

a) I like 7.Qc2 here but it hardly changes the evaluation that White must thread carefully in order to keep the chances equal.

b) 7.b4 seems consistent but is hardly sufficient for equality:

b1) 7...Nc6 8.Bb2 (8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Qc2 Bd7 10.d3 exd3 11.Bxd3 Bd6 =+ Haapasalo-Rantanen, Salo 1998) 8...Bd6 9.Be2 0–0 10.f4 Bd7 11.0–0 Rc8 12.Nb3= Talon-Dal Borgo, Belgium 2002.

b2) 7...a5 8.b5 Bd6 9.Be2 0–0 10.Bb2 Nbd7 11.f4?! (after 11.Nc3 White is close to equality in an unbalanced position) 11...Nb6 =+ Talon-Van den Brande, Westerlo 2004.

7...Bc5

Or 7...a6 8.Nc3 Bd6 9.dxe4 dxe4 (Bosboom-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1999) 10.Qc2 +=.

8.Nc3 0–0 9.Be2 Qe7 10.0–0 Rd8 11.b4 Bxd4 12.exd4 Nc6 13.Be3 Bf5
= Milov-Godena, Cannes 2006.

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 Prie System

To me the main problem with starting a game 1.a3 always has seemed to be the closed defences, 1...d5 and 1...Nf6. That is still so, but lately a new system has appeared that is very relevant for 1.a3 players - the Prie System which goes 1.d4 d5 2.a3 (Dia) and may at first seem mysterious. The move is not new - it was first used (repeatedly) by Somacarana in the eighteen-fifties - but it seems Prie deserves the naming rights as he is the first top player not only playing it successfully but also writing about it.


I believe Prie's reasoning goes roughly like this:
1) 2.c4 is White's best move but some lines demand quite a lot of study.
2) Systems with an early bishop development to f4 or g5 fail to gain an advantage and possibly even to achieve equality because of lines with an early ...c5 and ...Qb6.
3) 2.a3 to some extent discourages 2...c5 and a3 is a useful 'extra' move against most reversed Queen's Pawn openings.
4) a3 is useful in a few of White's normal Queen's Gambit lines, so White may well consider a delayed c4 should Black play too passively.
5) The possible switching between black and white strategies and speculating in which lines a3 is useful, irrelevant or even damaging can be quite confusing.

In short the Prie System may not lead to any objective advantage to White but it leads to 'normal looking' positions where the strongest player is likely to win. Here is a game where Prie definitely was the stronger:

Prie - D.Adams, British Cht 2005
1.d4 d5 2.a3

This is Prie's preferred move-order. He also considers 1...e6 2.a3 a valid try but against 1...Nf6 he prefers 2.Nf3 because of 2.a3?! g6.

2...e6

2...c5 definitely is risky in view of 3.dxc5 when White may actually try to hang on to the pawn.

3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 h6 6.Bf4 0–0 7.Nbd2 b6 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Qf3 c5 10.c3 (Dia)

Now it looks like a London system where it's not easy for Black to make use of his extra tempo.

10...a5 11.h4 Nfd7 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.Rh3! Ndxe5 14.dxe5 Qc7 15.Qh5

Most likely White is winning already.

15...Ba6 16.Bc2 Rfd8 17.Rg3

Now it's definitely decided.

17...Bf8 18.Bxh6 Qxe5 19.Bg5 f5 20.Nf3 Qd6 21.Bxd8 Nxd8 22.Ng5 Be7 23.Qh7+ 1–0

The London is such an easy game to play!