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

Attempting a Kick-Start

My preparations for BCC, Thailand Open didn't go as planned. I never got around to any problem solving or training games and my opening preparation is patchy. In my first game I tried to get into tournament mode by concentrating on calculation more than on general strategy. Unfortunately my brain didn't quite manage to adapt.

The time control was 90 minutes for the game and an additional 30 seconds for each move.

Uehara-Sv.Johnsen
BCC Thailand Open 2009 (1)

1.d4 f5

I have heard that Japaneese players generally are good at calculating - possibly because many are experienced Shogi players. So maybe it wasn't a great idea starting the game by weakening my king's position. On the other hand this is the only opening against 1.d4 on which I have done any work lately.

2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bb4!?

Entering the Stonewall with 4...d5!? would probably have been the most sensible choice as that's what I have been spending my time on recently.

5.Bg2 0–0 6.Nh3 Ne4

6...d5 of course is an option but with White’s knight committed to h3 so early it’s tempting to play for ...e5. Probably 6...d6 is the safest way to do so. Two possible continuations are:

a) 7.0–0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nc6 9.c5 Ne4 10.cxd6 cxd6 11.Qc2 d5 12.Ba3 Rf7 13.f3 Nd6 14.Rae1 b6 15.e4 += Poulsen-Jakab, Budapest 2004.

b) 7.Qb3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Nc6 9.0–0 Qe8 10.Nf4 Rb8 11.Qa3 b6 12.Nd3 Bb7 = Oliwa-U.Krause, Germany 1995.

7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 d6 9.Nf4 Qe7 10.Qb3 Nd7 11.c5 Ndf6 12.cxd6 cxd6 13.Rc1 g5!? 14.Nd3 b6 15.Bb4 Nd5 16.Ne5 Bb7 17.Nc4 Nxb4 18.Qxb4 (D)

Here I spent a lot of time (probably close to 40 minutes) trying to find out whether there was anything for Black in the game continuation or after 18...Qg7 (or 18...Qf6 19.f3 Qxd4) 19.f3 Qxd4 20.fxe4 and now either 20...Rac8 or 20...fxe4.

The correct continuation proably is 18...Rac8 19.0–0 Bd5 20.Bxe4 fxe4 21.Qxd6 and now 21...Qf6! with excellent chances.

18...Nxg3?

When I played this I had realized that it lost a pawn rather than winning one. But by now I was down to 13 minutes on my clock and I wanted to play something forcing in order to have something to show for my lengthy calculation.

19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Rg1 Ne4 21.f3 Nf6?

A better practical chance would have been 21...d5 22.Ne5 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Qxc8 24.fxe4 Qc1+ 25.Kf2 Qf4+ which I probably would have played if I had realized how bad the game continuation was.

22.Rxg5+ Kh8 23.Qxd6!

After 23.Nxd6 Qd7 I probably have sufficient compensation for the pawn.

23...Rad8!? 24.Qe5

I thought that after 24.Qxe6 the open files towards White’s king would be sufficient practical compensation. That probably was a misevaluation - Rybka doesn’t believe in Black’s chances at all.

24...Qe7!?

A good practical try.

25.Kf2?? (D)

This is a terrible blunder. 25.a3 and quite a few other moves keeps the advantage.

25...b5??

This I played quite quickly. Not because I really was in time trouble but because I had a little more than five minutes left and wanted to get my time up somewhat by playing some ’obvious’moves quickly. Actually 25...Rd5! almost wins on the spot 26.Qf4 loses to 26...Ne4 and after 26.Qg3 or 26.Qe3, Black can choose between 26...Ne4+ and 26...f4.

26.Ne3 f4?

I am a pawn down for nothing but this turns the position into a forced loss.

27.Nf5!

This I only saw when I was waiting for my opponents move.

27...Qd7 28.Rc7!

This is not the only winning move but it’s the quickest.

28...Qd5 29.Nh6?!

Actually 29.Rg8+ Kxg8 30.Ne7+ is even stronger.

29...Qxe5 30.dxe5 Nd5 31.Rcg7!

This came as a small surprise. When the move appeared on the board it took me only a couple of seconds to see the idea but there’s nothing to do.

31...Rc8 32.Rg8+! 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).

My Chess Club

Today I stumbled across this blog reporting from a visit to my chess club, Oslo Schakselskap (OSS). Dana didn't get all the details correct but probably some of our members were responsible for most of the inaccuracies.

OSS really is a nice chess club, located very conveniently close to Majorstuen in Oslo. It arguably is the oldest Norwegian club, founded in 1884. With 4 GMs it has also got quite a strong line-up for team tournaments.

One thing Dana forgot to mention was the club's very nice library, which is very useful - in particular if you are looking for old magazines, tournament books, or the like.

A Veresov Idea

I have a framework for a book on the Veresov opening. Most of the chapters and sub-chapters are almost empty and will remain so until I start serious work on the opening. And that will only happen when I stumble over something promising against 3...Nbd7 and a few other challenging lines. The game below was interesting but I doubt it will be 4.Qd3 that makes me take up the Veresov again.

Vaganian-Adamski, Copenhagen 2006
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3
I read somewhere that Vaganian has made a habit of playing the Veresov once a tournament. It seems he still does.
2...Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3!? (Dia)

This isn't how my first chess coach taught me to play the opening. Nevertheless this move has been played by some strong GMs and prepares e4. I have tested it in a few blitz games and I often am annoyed that it is hard to employ my light-squared bishop anywhere more active than on e2.

In order to keep your repertoire consistent it is natural to combine this line with the related 3...c6 4.Qd3.
4...c5!?
The other critical move is 4...h6 when 5.Bf4!? seems more promising than 5.Bh4. Against quieter moves I believe White can reasonably expect an advantage (although a minor one).
5.0–0–0!?
Can this really be the move that saves the Veresov? White's most popular move has been 5.Bxf6 but I find it hard to believe that giving up the bishop-pair for so little visible compensation can promise any advantage. A more likely candidate is 5.e4 but it doesn't seem to give any edge either.
5...cxd4
It seems logical to make White's queen move again. After 5...e6 two recent games continued:
a) 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.Qxd4 h6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.e4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 dxe4 11.Ndb5 Kd8 12.Nxe4 a6 13.Nbd6 Bxd6 14.Nxd6 Ke7 15.g3 += Sirin-Swiercz, Gaziantep 2008.
b) 6.e4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qa5 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Kb1 f5 10.Nxc5 Nxc5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.f4 0–0 13.Nf3 Be7 14.g4!? Barhudarian-Eidelson, St Petersburg 2007.
6.Qxd4 e5
After 6...e6 7.e4 these are relatively recent encounters:
a) 7...dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qa5? 9.Bxf6 gxf6?! (9...e5 offers more resistance) 10.Nxf6+ Nxf6 11.Qxf6 Rg8 12.Bb5+ 1–0 Hector-Kirkegaard, Copenhagen 2006.
b) 7...Bc5 8.Qd3 d4 9.Na4 b6 10.f4 Qc7 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nf3 h6 13.Bh4 Bb7 14.Nxd4 Nxf4 15.Qd2 (15.Qc3) 15...Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Nd5 (16...g5) 17.Bg3 0–0 18.Bd3 Rfc8 =+ Andrzejewska-Koziak, Koszalin 2005.
7.Qa4 d4 8.Nd5 (Dia)
This position reminds of the one arising after 4.f3?! c5 5.e4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 e5 7.Qa4 which I used to play quite frequently a dozen years ago. In that line White has one more move (f3+e4 instead of 0-0-0) as his queen got to d4 in one move. However, as we shall see the two pawn moves may be irrelevant.
7...Be7
It looks normal to break the pin. The alternatives are:
a) 8...Bd6 probably should be met by the immediate 9.f4.
b) Rybka likes 8...b5!? 9.Qxb5 Rb8 which gives Black a lot of play for the pawn.
9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.f4!
This is White's idea, undermining Black's pawn centre.
10...0–0 11.fxe5
11.Nf3 too is interesting.
11...Nxe5 12.Nf3
12.Qxd4 Bf5 13.Nf3 Neg4 14.Qf4 Bxc2!? 15.Kxc2 Rfc8+ 16.Kb1 Nf2 is very unclear.
12...Nc6 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 (Dia)

With opposite castling the position is very hard to assess but it seems to me that White must be somewhat better. However, I am not sure I would be happy to play the white pieces in a practical game.
14...Bf5 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.e4 Rfd8 17.Qe3 Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 Qxe4?!
With the queens off White's better pawn structure must count for something. I would have been more worried about 18...Qe6.
19.Qxe4 Bxe4 20.Bd3 Rd8 21.Ke2 Bxd3+ 22.cxd3
This position too is hard to evaluate but the only question is how large White's advantage is. His passed pawn may well be decisive.
22...Kg7 23.Rc1 Rd7 24.Rc5 Kg6 25.g4 b6 26.Rb5 Rd4 27.h3 Ra4 28.a3 Ra5 29.Rxa5 bxa5 30.Ke3 f5 31.Kf4 fxg4 32.hxg4 Kf6 33.a4 h6 34.d4 Ke6 35.Ke4 Kd6 36.d5 f6 37.Kd4 a6 38.b3 Kd7 39.Kc5 f5 40.gxf5 h5 41.Kd4 h4 42.Ke4 h3 43.Kf3 1–0

Chess, Nim and Symmetry

I have a certain interest in symmetry in chess and plan to explore the subject in some future entries. However, first I need to clarify a few concepts and I don't really know where to start. So instead there will be some initial random thoughts.

In chess, symmetry normally refers to a position which is symmetrical along the horizontal mid-axis (mirrored along the 4th and 5th rank). This probably is because it's the kind of symmetry which occurs most frequently and therefore is of most practical interest.

However, it is also possible to reach positions which are symmetrical along the long diagonals.

This pawn endgame for a period was a popular wild variant on ICC:

It is completely solvable and reminds of the ancient game of Nim which has long been mathematically solved (at least the most popular versions).

I have heard rumors that this game was removed from the server because it attracted gambling. If that's correct it's strange because it's a game that in principle can be mastered completely and doesn't involve any element of chance.

That of course doesn't stop it being a devilishly difficult game to play perfectly. I assume most of those playing it for big sums of money must have had access to tables with computer generated solutions.

For a beginning understanding it may be useful to analyze this position which obviously is closely related to the initial position:
My guess is that White to move loses. But although I analyzed this position (or a similar one with kings on b7 and g2) 25 years ago I must admit that I don't remember anything about it - except that it isn't a draw.

Preliminary conclusion: Diagonal symmetry occurs relatively rarely in practical chess and tends to lead to races and occasional zugzwang and not to drawish positions.

In future entries I will concentrate on symmetry along the horizontal mid-line.


PS: Today I added a chess gadget to my blog. You can see it at the bottom of the main window. I have no idea how good, hard or varied the exercizes are. It seems you get a new diagram every time you reload the page [F5].

Another Delay for the Stonewall

I was not happy when I one week ago noticed that the publishing date for 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' was delayed with another month to April. But I was not surprised either as I was starting to realize that with a normal production time after the final proofs were done, March was just barely possible.

I was more surprised today when I saw that publishing date now is May. I have absolutely no information about the causes for this delay. However, Gambit Publishing is a relatively small company and I assume that minor problems, like a bankrupt print shop (there must be some in these times of financial problems), an employee on sick leave or even a data crash will have more noticeable effects than they would for a bigger company.

I only hope that the editors will be less restrictive about including last minute updates than they usually are.

In the meantime I am busy with another book project for Gambit. I don't know why it's not listed in their list of upcoming books but it may be because it's an update of another author's work and that they now are pondering whether I have been too keen adding material and comments to the original. I hope I will soon feel free to disclose the title.

A Scandinavian Speciality in the Closed Ruy Lopez

I still have an unfinished manuscript on the 9...a5 variation of the Closed Ruy Lopez. It was intended to be a low-theory alternative to the Zaitsev in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black'. But even before my GM co-author had had a look at it, we decided that 9...Qd7 was a better companion move - mainly because of the many possible transpositions. However, I recently had a new look at the line because of this game:

Ivanchuk - Carlsen
Corus (Wijk aan Zee) (5) 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 a5 (D)
This somewhat exotic move seems to first have been played by the Swede Gösta Stoltz and has later been championed by the Dane Lars Bo Hansen and the Norwegian Simen Agdestein, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to name it 'The Scandinavian variation'.
If I ever complete the manuscript I will consider including a chapter on the even rarer 9...Bd7!? which can be treated as a 'sister variation' with the connecting line being 10.d4 a5!?.
10.d4
10.a4 is White's other major option.
10...a4
The oldest game in my database went 10...exd4 11.cxd4 a4 12.Bc2 Nb4 13.Nc3 Nxc2 14.Qxc2 c6 15.d5 cxd5 16.exd5 b4 17.Nxa4 Bd7 18.b3 Nxd5 =+ Thomas-Stoltz, Warsaw 1935.
11.Bc2 Bd7 12.Na3
This seems logical and after getting Ivanchuk's approval I assume it is the new main line. 12.Nbd2 has been played more frequently.
12...Rb8 (D)

This looks more natural than 12...Qb8 which was Agdestein's preference: 13.Bd3 exd4 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 Qb7 16.Bg5 Rad8 17.Nc2 Na6 18.Ne3 Rfe8 19.Qd3 g6 20.a3 c5 21.e5 dxe5 22.dxe5 Bc6 23.Qc3 Nd5 = Renet-Agdestein, Lyon 1988. However, it must be said that the rook returns quickly to a8 so who knows?
13.d5
This must be more critical than 13.Bd3 when Yagupov-I.Zaitsev, Moscow 2000 continued 13...b4 14.Nc4 bxc3 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Nfxe5 dxe5 17.bxc3 Bd6 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.Bg5 a3 20.Qf3 h6 21.Bc1 Qe7 22.Ne3 Bd7 23.Bb3 Kh8 1/2–1/2.
13...Na7
One of Black's big challenges in most Closed Ruy Lopez systems is to activate his queenside knight. The alternative obviously was 13...Na5 which also seems satisfactory. One reasonable line suggested by Rybka goes 14.Qe2 Qc8 15.b4 axb3 16.axb3 c5 17.dxc6 Qxc6 18.b4 Nc4 19.Nxc4 Qxc4 20.Qxc4 bxc4 21.Be3 Ra8 22.Nd2 +=.
14.c4 Ra8 15.Be3 b4 16.Nb1 c5 17.a3 b3 18.Bd3 (D)

18...Nxe4!?
Typically Carlsen grabs the first opportunity to active play.
19.Bxe4 f5 20.Nfd2
Rybka initially prefers 20.Bd3 e4 21.Nc3 but after the further moves 21...Bf6 22.Rc1 Nc8 23.Bf4 exd3 24.Qxd3 Re8 25.Rxe8+ Qxe8 26.Re1 Qh5 27.Re3 h6 chances seems balanced.
20...fxe4 21.Qh5 Be8 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Qh5 Be8 24.Qe2 Bd7 ½–½
If it wasn't for the repetition, the position still would have been fairly equal.

Dangerous Weapons - Dutch

For the moment I find the Dutch defence one of the most interesting opening subjects. Nonetheless I was not exactly ecstatic to see that Everyman is announcing a new book in their series Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch.

The three authors are all very competent so of course my slight feeling of disappointment has to do with timing. I would much have preferred to have the book available before completing "Win with the Stonewall Dutch". The book is being set and is announced for March so there is not a lot to be done anyway. But there might just have been room for some small but valuable updates.

One advantage of writing on the Dutch is that a complete repertoire can still be fitted within a reasonably sized book. But the anti-Dutch lines are constantly expanding and in the not too distant future they will demand a separate volume.

I hope the book will be balanced in the way that it doesn't concentrate too much on White's minor systems. There are a lot of minor systems for Black that would fit perfectly in the Dangerous Weapon series.

He That Seeketh Findeth

He who seeks shall find ... but not always what he seeks for. When looking for games in the 6...a5 line that I wrote about yesterday, I came across this game. It has little relevance to the theme but still is food for thought:

Dautov - Maier, Garmisch Partenkirchen 1991
1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 a5!?
This may look strange if you don't know that 6...d6 7.Nc3 a5 and 6...d6 7.b4 are two quite critical lines in the Classical Dutch. See yesterday's entry for some more thoughts.
7.Nc3
If there is a way to take advantage of Black's rare 6th move, it most likely is 7.d5.
7...d6
Black presumably is happy to have avoided the 6....d6 7.b4 variation and enters a position more frequently reached by the move-order 6...d6 7.Nc3 a5. Normally I would have gone on to the next game in my database but I noticed that the unrated player held a draw with Black against a strong GM so I had a closer look:
8.Re1 Ra6!? (D)

An amazing move that I would never have considered in a serious game. I have seen ...Ra6 played at a later stage in this kind of positions - after Black has played ...e5 and accepted an isolated e-pawn. But then there has always been a clear way to the kingside.

9.Qc2 Kh8
I am not quite sure whether Black is preparing ...e5 with this move or if he is mainly waiting for White to play e4.
10.e4 fxe4 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 e5!?

In his book Play the Classical Dutch, Simon Williams states "If Black can achieve the ...e5 advance he will generally be at least equal". This advise is not at all hard to remember. The tricky part is to decide when Black can do this and when he cannot. It may be a question of calculation but also of evaluation. Here ...e5 certainly is a legal move. But after seeing the game, I am still not quite certain whether Black here can play ...e5 or not.
13.dxe5 dxe5
The Isolated King's Pawn (IKP) occurs far less frequently than its cousin, the Isolated Queen's Pawn (IQP). Normally Black is doing fine with the IKP in the Dutch as he is well placed to attack White's kingside fianchetto. But isn't the pawn just for taking?
14.Nxe5 (D)

One of two critical lines. The other starts 14.Qxe5 and one possible continuation is 14...Re6 15.Qxa5 Nc6 16.Qd5 Rd6 and Black has at least some practical compensation. However, in a practical game one may wonder whether a developing move like 14...Be3 hadn't been better.
14...Bb4 15.Rf1 Re6 16.Be3 Qe7 17.f4 Nd7 18.Bd4 Re8
White is pretty much tied up to the defence of his central knight.
19.Bh3 Nxe5 20.fxe5 Rd6 21.Bxc8 (D)

½–½
Isn't Black clearly better after 21...Rxd4 22.Qxb7 Qxe5?

I am not sure how well Black played in this game. But I think that for the next few months I will be looking a little harder for ...Ra6 ideas in the Dutch.

Delaying the Decisions

Sometimes you have to wonder why certain opening lines are well explored while others are ignored. Usually there is a good reason but it's not always easy to find and sometimes fashion seems the only explanation.

Generally the critical cross-road in the Classical Dutch is considered to arise after these moves: 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 (the Modern Dutch Stonewall is characterized by the move 4...d5 followed by ...Bd6; the advantage is a more active employment of his dark-squared bishop and the disadvantage is that Black s reveals his central formation earlier) 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 (Dia)

In this position Black's main moves are 7...Ne4, 7...Qe8, 7...a5 (all examined in Simon Williams' Play the Dutch played by strong players and in general quite well researched) and 7...c6 (which has been played by Saemisch among others but seems unfashionable). None of these moves are developing moves in a strict sense but they all to some extent prepare queenside development, prepare ...e5 or prevents e4.

What's interesting is that if we retrace two half moves, to this position (Dia):

the picture is entirely different. Black's main options are 6...d5 - Botwinnik's Stonewall which sets up a relatively static centre and 6...d6 - the Classical Dutch (aka. the Ilyin Zhenevsky variation) which keeps the central pawns fluid (but generally prepares ...e5).

However there is also another relatively popular option - Alekhine's idea 6...Ne4!? which delays this decision. This system too is examined in Williams' book. Black's main idea is to meet some of White's developing schemes with ...d5 and others with ...d6. Another benefit is the fact that Black doesn't allow b4 (6...d6 7.b4!? is quite an important little line, scoring considerably better than 7.Nc3).

Another respected 6th move with similar motives is Bellin's 6...c6!? which has slowly increased in popularity for at least 15 years. This line has been played by Short, Larsen, Smyslov and Bronstein among others and is discussed in Giddins' excellent 'How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire'.

These by no means are easy lines to play for Black. Not only does he delay development but he also needs a good general understanding of the Dutch. In order to play the position well, you not only must know when to go for a Stonewall set-up with ...d5 and when to go for a fluid centre with ...d6. You also must be able to handle both kinds of position well!

The obvious question is: What about 6...Qe8!? (Dia) and 6...a5!? (Dia).


None of the moves have been tested in modern grandmaster clashes. Actually there are relatively few practical examples altogether - I find only 99 games with 6...Qe8 and 30 games with 6...a5 in MegaBase 2009. Obviously both moves can transpose to standard lines after 7.Nc3 d6 so the two principal questions are now:

1. Can and should White avoid 7.Nc3 d6 which would transpose to the 6...d6 7.Nc3 a5/7...Qe8 lines?
2. After 7.Nc3, can Black give the game an independent twist with an alternative to 7...d6 (or are these moves just move-order tricks avoiding the 6...d6 7.b4 option?)?

I don't have the answers yet but I will keep you informed about my investigations.

Happy New Year

Here is some fireworks for the new year:

Salaske-Leisebein, corr 1988

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!? 10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qc1 (Dia)

In earlier entries I have had a look at 11.Qb3. I assume I will have to return to 11.Qa4 some day.

11...Nxg2+

This is natural and probably more promising than 11...Bf5, e.g. 12.Kf2 Nc2 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Nc3 Rd8 15.Na4 Nxa1 16.Bxa1 Re8 17.Re1 +/- Bungo-Le.Karlsson, corr 1990.

12.Kf2 Bh3

Again this seems to be the critical try. After 12...Nf4 13.d4 Nxe2 14.Kxe2 Bg4 15.Qf4 Bxf3+ 16.Kxf3 Qd5+ 17.Qe4 Qh5+ 18.Kf2 f5 19.Qd5+ White had a clear advantage in Engelhardt-Rollwitz, Berlin 1995.

13.Rg1! Qe7 14.d4 (Dia)

White may also try 14.Ba3 Re8 15.Bb5 Ne5 16.Rxg2 when Black has these options:

a) 16...Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Nxf3 18.Bxe8 Qe2+ 19.Kg3 h5 (19...Ne1 20.Bxf7+ Kh8 looks winning for Black) 20.Bxf7+ Kxf7 21.Qxc7+ Kg6 22.Qxb7 (22.Qd7 Kh6 23.h4 Nxh4 is no better) 22...Qxh2+ 0–1

b) 16...Qf6!? 17.Be2 Ng4+ 18.Rxg4 Bxg4 19.Bd1 Bxf3 20.Bxf3 Qxa1 21.Bxb4 Qd4+ 22.Kg2 Qxb4 –+.

Tilp-Hammerschmidt, corr 1988.

14...Re8 15.Bd3

15.Bb5 is met by 15...a6

15...Nh4

This looks sufficient for at least equality. Alternatives are:

a) 15...Be1+? 16.Rxe1 Nxe1 17.Qxe1 Qd7 18.Qd1 Nb4 19.Nc3 Nxd3+ 20.Qxd3 Qg4 21.Rg1 1–0 Woelfelschneider-Guenther, corr 1990.

b) 15...Ne3 16.Nc3 (16.d5 Nf5 17.dxc6 Bc5+ 0–1 Milligan-J.Svensson, corr 1995) 16...Ng4+ 17.Rxg4 Bxg4 18.Qf4 Bxf3 19.Kxf3 Bd6 20.Nd5 Bxf4 21.Nxe7+ Nxe7 22.Kxf4 Nd5+ 23.Kg4 g6 = Schuehler-Salaske, corr 1989.

c) 15...Qf6 16.Qg5? (16.Nbd2 Nf4 17.Bb5 Qf5 18.Bc4 Bg4 19.Rg3 h5 unclear) 16...Be1+ 17.Rxe1 Nxe1 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 –+ Frenzel-Nebe, corr 1989.

16.Qg5

16.Qh6!? Ng6 17.Qg5 may be an improvement.

16...f6 (Dia)

17.Qf4?!

This may hand Black the advantage, so White should investigate line c) below.

a) 17.Qxg7+? Qxg7 18.Rxg7+ Kxg7 19.Nxh4 Be1+ 20.Kf3 Bxh4 –+.

b) 17.Qxh4? Qe3+ 18.Kg3 Qxd3! 19.Qxh3 Bd6+ 20.Kh4 (20.Kg2 Re2+ 21.Kh1 Qxf3+! 22.Qxf3 Rxh2#) 20...Re4+ 21.Rg4 (21.Kh5 g6+ –+) 21...g5+ 22.Kh5 Rxg4 0–1 Dziel-Zarebski, corr 1993.

c) 17.Bc4+ Kh8 18.Qxh4 Qe3+ 19.Kg3 Bd6+ 20.Kxh3 Qxf3+ 21.Rg3 Bxg3 22.Nd2 and the position is unclear.

17...Nxf3 18.Kxf3 g5 19.Nc3 Qg7

Rybka's 19...Kh8! looks like a worthwhile improvement.

20.Nd5 gxf4 21.Nxf6+ Kf8 22.Rxg7 Re3+ 23.Kxf4 Rxd3 24.Rxh7 Bd2+ 25.Ke4 Re3+ (Dia)

The position is totally bewildering. I would be more worried with White than with Black. However, this was a correspondence game (as most other examples in this line) and it seems the players were able to handle it correctly.

26.Kf4 Rb3+ 27.Ke4 Bg2+ 28.Kf5 Ne7+ 29.Ke6 Rb6+ 30.Ke5 Nc6+ 31.Kf5 Rxb2 32.Rh8+ 1/2–1/2

Addendum January 27th
There are three quite interesting articles by Tim Harding on the Sokolsky and even this 9...Rxe3 variation on Chess Cafe:

How Sokolsky Played the Sokolsky
Significant Games in the Sokolsky Opening
Goodbye to the Friendly Orang-Utan

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.

Return to Tournament Chess

In April I will play Bangkok Chess Club Open. This is Bangkok Chess Club's 9th international tournament and I am convinced it will be just as well organized as the two I have played previously. Also the accommodation offered at Aisawan Resort and Spa no doubt will be a pleasure (and a bargain for the players).

The fact that the prizes are higher than ever with a top prize of approximately 2.000 Euros is of no direct interest to me. I would be a very poor man indeed if my income depended on my tournament results. However, an indirect effect may be a stronger field than usual. There are already four GMs registered and no doubt the lower ranks will soon fill up. Due to no fault of the organizers in several previous tournaments it has been a problem that quite a few of the stronger participants have never arrived. First there was the Sars epidemic, then the next year - a few days before tournament start - a top Russian trainer died and most of the titled Russians canceled. Another year there was a problem with visas for Myanmar players (who had some very attractive Elo numbers) and so on. I really hope that this year the organizers will face no such problems!

This will be my first serious tournament for at least four years, so I am quite worried about my chess form. My online blitz ratings are quite worrying unless I count only the peaks and the few tournament games I have played have been of a general low quality. I promise to not turn this blog into one more of the training diaries that can be found everywhere on the net but the subject may pop up in future entries.

Leif Erlend Plays the Stonewall

During the eighties and nineties most Norwegian top players played the Dutch Stonewall. Headed by Agdestein, the GMs Djurhuus, Gausel, Tisdall and Østenstad, as well as some of the IMs and promising juniors all collected experience in this solid but unbalancing system. During the chess Olympiad in Dresden not only Carlsen but also another Norwegian GM took up the tradition:

Frhat - L.Johannessen, Olympiad Dresden 2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3
With 3.Nc3 White gets some extra options against the Triangle set-up as well as against the Queen's Gambit Declined.
3...c6
Via a slightly different move-order Johannessen arrives at the same position as Magnus got against Rowson. This is among Black's sharper options against 1.d4 as he may now consider capturing the c-pawn and try to keep it. Was this team preparation for the Norwegian boys?
4.g3
Rowson preferred 4.e3 after which Magnus went for the Stonewall with 4...Bd6 and 5...f5 anyway. Would 4.Qc2 have lead to the same reaction?
4...f5
Now it's a Stonewall structure. With White's knight already committed to f3, some quite critical lines with Nh3 are eliminated.
5.Bg2 Nf6
Just as Magnus, Leif Erlend avoids the attempts to give the position an independent twist with the ...Qf6 idea.
6.0–0 Bd6 7.b3
7.Bf4 is the principal alternative.
7...Qe7 (Dia)
This is one of the three or four main branches of the Stonewall and quite deeply investigated by strong Grandmasters. Although this as far as I know is Leif Erlend's first Stonewall game, he wasn't totally unprepared as he has been reviewing a copy of our manuscript for 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. I also think he got some advise from Simen Agdestein before the game - at least that's the impression I got when I had a few words with him on Tuesday.
8.a4
This is among the easier systems for Black to equalize against but possibly among the harder to play for a win against.
8...a5 9.Ba3 b6 10.Qc1
From this square the White queen can go to:
- a3, offering a queen exchange
- b2, fighting for control over e5
- f4, (as in the game) offering a change of pawn structure.
10...Bb7 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Qf4!?
This seems to be a new move if not a new idea. Now we get a pawn structure normally arising from an exchange of bishops on f4. White gets total control over e5 but relatively few active possibilities.
a) 12.Na3 0–0 13.Nc2 Na6 14.Nce1 Nb4 15.Nd3 c5 16.Rd1 Rac8 17.Qb2 Ne4 18.Rac1 ½–½ Ustianovich-Hermanov, Lvov 2003.
b) 12.Nbd2 Nbd7 13.Qb2 0–0 14.Rac1 Rac8 15.Rfd1 f4 16.Ne5 fxg3 17.hxg3 Qe7 18.Nd3 Ng4 19.Nf3 Ba6 20.Qd2 h6 21.Bh3 Ndf6 22.Nf4 Ne4 23.Qe1 Rxf4 24.gxf4 Ngxf2 25.Bg2 ½–½ Donaldson-Herder, Vancouver 2000.
c) 12.Qa3 and now:
c1) 12...Ke7 13.Qb2 Rc8 14.Nbd2 Na6 15.Ne5 Rc7 16.h3 Kf8 17.g4 Kg8 18.e3 Rf8 = Yedidia-Vaisser, France 1996.
c2) 12...c5 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Nc3 Nc6 15.Qc1 0–0 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Qf4 Qxf4 18.gxf4 Ne4 = Brito Garcia-Ulibin, Benasque 1992.
12...Qxf4 13.gxf4 Na6 14.Nbd2 Ke7 15.Rfc1 Rac8 16.e3 Rhd8 17.cxd5 (Dia)

17...cxd5
This is very sound and very equal. If Black is playing for more than a draw, 17...exd5 probably had to be tested. There is very little direct risk involved as White has no realistic target and no pawn breaks. But if Black plays for ...c5 or ...g5 White will get his share of the play.
18.Ne5 Nb4 19.Bf1 Rg8 20.Bb5 Kd6
This is roughly as good as any other move but there is an implicit draw offer. Normal (verbal) draw offers were only allowed after move 30.
21.Nf7+ Ke7 22.Ne5 Kd6 23.Nf7+ Ke7 24.Ne5 ½–½

Ruy Lopez meets Nimzo Indian

I have already mentioned that a lot of reviewers appear to have enjoyed Leif's preface to 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black'. Yesterday I noticed a small article which connects a very well known Fischer game to a game from this introduction. While not exactly a review I allow myself to consider this piece a recommendation of our book. The blog in general seems interesting so I added it to my favorite chess links list.

As for the theoretical part, I am no expert on the Nimzo Indian but it seems that the debate on Spassky's 13.fxe5 is closed in Black's favor. However, after 13.0-0 0-0 a few strong players still seem to believe in White's chances after 14.f5 or 14.Qe1. But the main reason that there are so few recent games seems to be that White's set-up with e3 and Nf3 isn't very popular for the moment.

Carlsen Plays the Stonewall

I did not have the time to follow the Chess Olympiad round by round. But this game I had to inspect. Seeing Norwegian top player Carlsen handle the Stonewall as Black obviously is obligatory for any self-respecting author of a Stonewall manual.
Rowson- Carlsen, Dresden Chess Olympiad 2008
1.d4
Rowson is one of my favorite chess authors - even though I can normally digest only a couple of his pages a day. Yet I must admit to never having studied his games.
1...d5
The Stonewall is more of an formation (or a 'system' if you like) than a specific opening line.
2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6 4.e3
In general Stonewall positions with e3, rather than the typical Dutch development with g3, are more attractive for Black, as there are some quite promising kingside attacking schemes available. However, this may be so mainly in amateur level chess as GMs generally know how to defuse the more direct attacking attempts.
4...Bd6 5.b3 f5 6.Be2 Nf6 (Dia)
Now we have a Stonewall position that could just as well have arisen from the Dutch. There also is an independent developing scheme with ...Qf6 and ...Nh6-f7 but this is less tempting when White has held back Nc3, so that he can play b3 and Ba3 without any artificial preparation.
7.0–0 Qe7!
This delays the exchange of dark-squared bishops which generally is considered favorable for White.
8.Bb2 b6 9.Qc1 Bb7 10.Ba3 Nbd7 11.Qb2?! (Dia)
This must be an attempt to establish control over e5 but looks rather artificial. Probably 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Qa3 would have been met by 12...c5 too but that position looks easier for White to handle.
11...c5!
Now White's bishop as well as his queen looks somewhat misplaced.
12.Nc3 a6 13.Rfd1 0–0 14.cxd5 exd5 15.g3 Rac8 16.Rac1 Kh8 17.Qb1 Ne4 18.dxc5 Nxc3 19.Rxc3 bxc5 20.Bf1 Nf6 21.Bg2 Ne4 22.Rc2 (Dia)
Sometimes when you watch Carlsen's games you get an impression that he plays more natural moves than his opponents. You may even think that this is his secret and conclude that chess actually is a simple game. What you should not forget is that in order to win by playing natural moves you need:
1) a strong belief in piece activity and a willingness to invest some material in order to achieve the kind of position you are looking for.
2) the ability to calculate accurately and quickly in order to confirm that your instincts are right
3) the tactical strength to actually exploit your good position when time has come.
22...a5
For the next few moves Carlsen seems content to simply improve his position in various small ways. That is slightly surprising as his advantage seems to consist more of better piece co-ordination than of a better structure. However, despite Black's slow play White seems unable to improve his position much.
23.Bb2 Rf7 24.Ba1 Re8 25.Qc1 h6 26.Ne1 Kh7 27.Nd3 Rc8 28.Nf4 Bxf4 29.exf4 Qf8 30.Qa3 d4 31.Qxa5
Not all players would have had the confidence to let that pawn go.
31...Rd7 32.Qb5 Qd6 33.Qd3 Ba6 34.Qf3 d3 35.Rcc1 d2 36.Rc2 Qg6 37.Bf1 Bb7 38.Qe3 Re8 39.Be5 Rxe5! (Dia)
Time has come for Black to cash in his advantage. I haven't checked the game in detail with a computer but the exchange sacrifice seems fairly convincing.
40.fxe5 f4 41.Qe2 Ng5 42.Rc3?
White had to prevent Black's next with 42.e6. I assume Black must still be better, but I am not sure how big his advantage is.
42...Qc6 43.f3 Nxf3+ 44.Kf2 Ng5 45.e6 Ne4+ 46.Qxe4+ Qxe4 47.exd7 Qd4+ 48.Ke2 Ba6+ 0–1

Probably an instructive game. Maybe I can still squeeze it - or at least a fragment of it - into 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' during the proof-reading stage?

Zwaig Variation III

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

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

Double Reversed Halloween Gambit

Forgive me for returning to 1.a3 and the Mengarini (1.e4 e5 2.a3) but you were warned in this previous entry.

1.a3 e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 g6
This is a reversed version of Glek's Four Knight's line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3!?.
5.Nxe5?! (Dia)

As you may or may not know the original Halloween Gambit arises after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5?! which probably is incorrect for several reasons. What is most relevant in our context is the fact that after 4...Nxe5 5.d4, Black's most popular - and probably best - move is 5...Ng6.

Therefore clever players discovered the Reversed Halloween Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 (Glek) 4...Nxe4?!) which almost certainly improves over the original. Not only has the knight's best retreat option been eliminated, there is also a couple of kingside weaknesses which at least outweigh White's extra tempo.
The diagram position shows the Double Reversed Halloween gambit which in reality is the original Halloween Gambit with the extra moves a3 and ...g6. Surprisingly it's almost as popular as the more normal looking 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.Nxc6 bxc6 with a relatively balanced position.
5...Nxe5 6.d4 Nc6
As already mentioned this is a less attractive square than g6.
7.d5 (Dia)

This is more promising than 7.e5 which was tried in one of the first games with the variation.
7...Nb8
Here we see another small point of 1.a3 - the knight cannot go to b4 (as in the parallel line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Nb4). Black's other options are:
a) 7...Ne5 8.f4 Neg4 9.h3 looks promising for White (9.e5 Bc5!? is complicated).
b) 7...Bg7! 8.dxc6 bxc6 is the sensible man's move, transposing to the line 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.Nxc6 bxc6 mentioned above.
8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 (Dia)


This can be considered the critical position. White obviously has a certain amount of compensation for his piece.
9...cxd6
Black opens the centre. G.Jones-Bae, West Bromwich 2005 continued 9...c6 10.Bc4 Qh4 11.Qe2 Bh6 12.g3 Qh5 13.g4 Qh3 14.Bxh6 Nxh6 15.Ne4 Kd8 16.Nf6 b6 17.0–0–0 Qh4 18.Rhg1 Qg5+ 19.Kb1 Ng8 20.f4 Qxf4 21.Rgf1 Qg5 22.Bxf7 Ba6 23.c4 Nxf6 24.exf6 Kc8 25.Bg8 Rxg8 26.f7 Qd8 27.fxg8Q Qxg8 28.Qe7 Bxc4 29.Rf8+ Kb7 30.Qd8 1–0 .
10.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Na6 12.Bc4 Bh6 13.Qe2+ Kf8 14.Be3 Bxe3 15.fxe3 Qh4+ 16.g3 Qh5 17.Qf2 Qf5 18.Qe2 Qh5 19.Qf2 Qf5 20.Qe2 Nh6 21.Rf1 Qh5 22.Qf2 Qf5 23.Qe2 Qe5 24.0–0–0 Kg7 25.Rd5 Qe8 26.Qd2 Rf8 27.Qd4+ f6 28.g4 b6 29.g5 Nf5 30.gxf6+ Rxf6 31.Rdxf5 gxf5 32.Rg1+ Qg6 33.Rxg6+ Kxg6 34.Bd5 Rb8 35.e4 Bb7 36.exf5+ Rxf5 37.Qg4+ Kf6 38.Qh4+ Kg6 39.Bc4 Nc5 40.b4 Ne4 41.Nc7 Nxd6 42.Qg3+ 1–0 Carlsen-Nyysti, Helsinki 2002.

I seem to remember an article about this variation in the Norwegian chess magazine 'Norsk Sjakkblad' by Stokke and Hjortås a few years ago. I will return with the year and issue number and possibly some more analysis whenever I find the relevant issue.

Happy Halloween!

Addendum November 27th
From Stefan Bücker, the editor of Kaissiber, I have received some additional information for those interested in this variation:
The game Carlsen - Nyysti, Helsinki 2002, was published in Kaissiber #20, page 34 (source: Suomen Shakki 2002), in the historical introduction to Maurits Wind's extensive analysis of the Halloween Gambit (pp. 22-51 of that issue). The article starts with Bücker's historical overview, showing that the 4.Nxe5 gambit was invented in 1873 (or earlier) by Dr. Carl Theodor Göring, who is better known as the inventor of the Goering Gambit. Later issues of Kaissiber contained refined analyses on the Halloween Gambit by Maurits Wind.

I can warmly recommend the magazine Kaissiber to anyone who can read German and who is interested in chess history or unorthodox opening theory.