Norwegian Variation Sources

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

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

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

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

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

Major sources:

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

Minor sources:

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

Historic sources:

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

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

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

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

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!

Two More Retro Challenges

In my entry of July 20, 2007 I offered three games to reconstruct:
1) Black's 4th move is 4...Re1+.
2) White plays the moves 1.f3, 2.Kf2, 3.Kg3, 4.Kh4. Black's 4th move is to give mate.
3) A game opens 1.a3. White's 5th move is to give mate with a rook.

Here are the solutions:
1) 1.e4 h5 2.Qxh5 Rxh5 3.e5 Rxe5+ 4.Kd1 Re1+.
2) 1.f3 e6 (1...e5 will also do) 2.Kf2 Qf6 3.Kg3 Qxf3! 4.Kh4 Be7 mate.
3) 1.a3 e5 2.Nc3 Bxa3! 3.Ne4 (Dia) 3...Bf8! 4.Ra5 Ke7! 5.Rxe5 mate.














For those who enjoy these puzzles I offer two more challenges. For a change I know (or think I know) the originator - American (ex Hungarian) GM Pal Benko - more known for his development of the Benko Gambit than for his endgame studies.

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

The first is relatively simple and I suspect there may be more than one solution. At least I had forgotten the solution, and when I tried to reconstruct it, the solution I found seemed rather unfamiliar. The solution to the second task I find rather surprising and I suspect I would have had problems finding it without the hints I got from an impatient task giver.

A Question of Style

As a comment to my entry 'A Grossly Unfair Test', a reader has sent the following question:

"In your book, 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black', you recommend the move 8...d5 after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Qe2 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 0-0 0-0 8 c3 (Dia) and you say that 'the more conservative 8...d6 9 Rd1 Na5 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 Qc7 leads to standard Chigorin positions where White's chances should be slightly preferable.' The 8...d6 line is recommended by Nigel Davies in 'Play 1 e4 e5!' and by Mihail Marin in 'A Spanish Repertoire for Black' which came out after your book. You have 'Play 1 e4 e5!' in your bibliography so you must have thought that White has improvements over Davies' lines. What do you think about Marin's analysis of this line? How does both books analysis compare to Greet's Play the Ruy Lopez?"

Actually the decision to recommend 8...d5 was not mainly a result of any dissatisfaction with 8...d6 or Davies' analysis of the move. The two moves have a roughly equal theoretical status so our choice was more a matter of taste and of finding a move that fitted into our general repertoire. Space considerations also was an issue as the Worrall clearly had to be considered a minor line - even more so before the arrival of Greet's book.

It must be taken into consideration that Davies and Marin both are recommending a Chigorin based repertoire where 8...d6 followed by ...Na5 and ...c5 fits very nicely in - the main strategies are the same whether White's rook is on e1 or on d1. We, however, offer a Zaitsev based repertoire. That doesn't totally exclude Chigorin like lines but it would require extra space for strategical explanations. Another factor is more subjective: we chose to recommend the Zaitsev variation because it involves rapid and natural development. Correspondingly we avoided the Chigorin because we were not really happy with the knight excursion to a5. It is a fact that Black often finds it quite hard to activate this knight in the Chigorin. These considerations apply in the diagram position too.

So, why didn't we recommend a Zaitsev development scheme with ...Bb7 and ...Re8 then? That is indeed a good question and this should have been stated clearly in our book: Against the Worrall attack, 8...d6 9.Rd1, 9...Bb7 doesn't seem to be working very well, as 10.d4 creates threats to e5, thanks to the pin in the d-file.

Fortunately this isn't a great problem as 8...d5 is an active and strong move which fits well with the general philosophy behind the Zaitsev. It takes a bit more theoretical preparation than 8...d6 but once Black masters a few sharp lines he can expect quite a pleasant life against the Worrall. This claim has to be backed up by analysis (and in our book we supply some). But to some extent it can also be supported by visual evidence.












If you compare these two diagrams which shows the positions after 11 moves in the two mainlines there can be no doubt that Black appears more active in the second:

• In the first diagram (arising from 8...d6 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7) White has achieved an central advantage (e4&d4 vs. e5&d6) while Black's knight on a5 appears somewhat misplaced.
  
• In contrast White in the second diagram (arising from 8... d5 9. d3 Bb7 10. Nbd2 Re8 11. a3 Bf8) has spent a move on the modest a3 while Black is almost fully developed (Zaitsev style!) and has even taken the active stance in the centre (e5&d5 vs. e4&d3).

Obviously this doesn't prove that 8...d5 is better than 8...d6 but I think it shows that 8...d5 is a more ambitious approach (and consequently better if it actually works).

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.

Size Matters

I recently bought James Vigus' 'The Pirc in Black and White' (Everyman 2007) in order to update my knowledge of the various 150-attacks against the Pirc. I have not yet had the time to study it any depth. It seems thorough and well organized but what immediately struck me was the size of the book. At 381 pages it beats 'The Philidor Files' (Everyman 2007) by Bauer (304 pages) by a large margin and even 'Play the Ruy Lopez' (Everyman 2007) by Greet (376 pages). But even these books are dwarfed by the monster sized 'Practical Endgame Play' (Everyman 2007) by Flear, which at 544 pages equals Nunn's Chess Openings (Everyman 1999).

These are examples of what may be a trend: It seems that chess books are getting heavier - bigger page formats and more pages. For Everyman the new standard seems to be 250 pages or more, with 350 pages being no rarity. Gambit's books too have been growing - most notably their standard format is now B5 (248 mm by 172 mm) as opposed to the earlier A5 (210 mm by 145 mm) standard.

These new books often have an impressive coverage of their subject with detailed strategic explanation in combination with full coverage of variations and game references. And there should be no complaints about the price - it's often only a fragment more expensive than the sub-200 pages volumes.

Yet... a book with 300+ pages will always be intimidating to some readers - maybe even the majority of potential buyers. So I wonder if there will be a reversal? Is there a growing market for the really slim book or booklet? If so, how can a reduction in quantity be achieved without compromising quality? Cutting the prose, reducing fonts or squeezing more text on each page would hardly attract many customers. To narrow the focus and concentrate on sub-lines could work for certain openings but generally I don't think it's the way to go.

One obvious solution is to cut the number of game references drastically. I have a theory that many social players don't bother much with parenthesis and long lists of alternatives anyway; they play through the main lines and read the prose. The minor alternatives are consulted only if the mainline cannot easily be understood. It’s also obvious that books are getting outdated quite quickly these days and there is a growing number of chess book buyers who actively (and skilfully) use databases and analysis engines to supplement their books.

I would like to write a 'Outline Book' which assumes that the reader has access to a database and a strong analysis engine where I on roughly 100 pages offer:

• An introduction with some suggestions about how to best make use of a database (players to watch, critical lines etc.) and an analysis engine (what is it good and bad at?).
  
• A fairly detailed 'outline' of a repertoire but with very sparse game references.
• Some inspirational games with verbal and rather light annotations.
• All necessary warnings about 'dangerous terrain' - traps and lines where you cannot survive without detailed theoretical knowledge.

How would this kind of book sell? Do the average club player like to have all the 'extra' information available just in case he will need it some day? Or would he prefer to pick up a slim volume which presents a playable repertoire can which be read from cover to cover over the week-end - even if it doesn't offer all your opponents alternatives at all junctions?

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.

Ask Dr. Johnsen

Today 'anonymous' left this message under my entry 'The Smallest Repertoire':

Q: I am due to play against a much stronger player in an on-line tournament soon, and wondered if you had a recommendation on how to approach it? I can see that he uses the French (I'm playing White) which I could prepare against (I'm an e4 player), but should I do something more psychological? Assume that he feels confident against me and adopt an opening as White that he has to attack me to win? Is there such a thing as a reversed Pirc, as I really enjoy that opening?
Any ideas welcome....

I don't really pretend to be a chess guru. But with too little time (and energy) to play tournaments myself, it's tempting to give advise to those who actually do play. So here are my 50 cents:

First of all: It's fully possible to play a reversed Pirc. 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.d3 might be a good attempt but it really depends on which lines you favor. However, I wouldn't expect you to gain much by heading for a reversed Pirc. Quite likely your opponent will choose a line which is not considered to give (White) a lasting advantage but which gives (Black) easy equality when reversed.

If you are willing to invest some time and work in this game, my main recommendation is to head for the sharpest mainline. Most strong players hates to risk losing to a weaker player who happens to be better prepared. Consequently they are quite likely to chicken out with an inferior move in order to avoid prepared surprises. With some luck this will give you a clear opening advantage. If the difference in playing strength isn't too great this could offer a chance for a win (or a draw offer from a position of strength).
More concretely:
1) Find out as much as possible about your opponents preferences in the French. Does he play the Winawer? The Classical? Which subline(s) does he prefer? Does he tend to follow the mainlines or does he play some home-brewed mixture?
2) Find a good book about the line you are most likely to encounter. Concentrate on the sharpest mainlines (that's the most ambitious lines for White). You will not have time to prepare for all the ways he may deviate but at least you should know when he leaves your prepared line (and you have to start thinking rather than remembering).
3) During the game, try to give an impression that you are well prepared and looking forward to a theoretical duel.

If this approach should fail (he is after all a much stronger player), you at least are likely to learn something from your preparations. If theoretical mainlines are not to your taste, you have got two main options:

1. Try to complicate from move two, and hope he gets more confused that you. You most likely will lose, but there always is a chance that he blunders first. 1.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 dxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g4 could be a try.
2. Play unashamedly for a draw. If he isn't too much stronger than you, he may worry if he really will be able to win a dead level ending and try to introduce some complications himself. That could backfire and give you an undeserved chance. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 is the obvious (and banal) solution.

Option 1 has the added bonus that it will give you a reputation as a dangerous chess pirate. Yet I suspect that option 2 is most likely to bring success.

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.

The End Is Near

My explorations of the move 1.a3 are nearing a conclusion. After today’s entry only the final hurdle - 1.a3 Nf6 - remains to be discussed. I must admit that the subject proved to be more extensive than I originally imagined. Whether it has any practical value is hard to evaluate. Personally I doubt I will ever play 1.a3 in a serious game; not because I consider it a bad move but because there are other moves that are more tempting.
1.a3 a6 2.e4 (Dia)

In some ways this position is not so different from the one arising after 1.e4. However, when you consider that the three most trusted lines in top-level chess is the Najdorf (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6), the Closed Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7) and the Sveshnikov (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5) it becomes apparent that there are major differences. Of the ‘big’ openings only the Petroff (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6) seems relatively unaffected.
2...e6!?
At first this seemed to me like Black’s best option. Now it probably will be something resembling a French Defence - a serious opening where Black frequently plays an early ...a6. And just as important: an opening where I couldn’t recall many lines where White plays an early a3. There are however several interesting alternatives:
a) 2...b5!? is the St. George Opening (1.e4 a6) where a3 seems more or less like a wasted tempo. However, after 3.d4 Bb7 4.Nc3 the move after all stops ...b4 as well as some ...Bb4 ideas and White has a grip on the centre.
b) I suppose it will be hard to find a line for Black where ...a6 is useful in the Alekhine. After 2...Nf6?! I believe White should go for the whole hog with 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 d6 5.c4 Nb6 6.f4 where a3 stops some potential counter-play with ...Bb4 or even ...Nb4.
c) The pseudo-Nimzowitsch arising after 2...Nc6!? could well be one of Black’s best options:
c1) 3.Nf3 d5!? (for 3...e5 see the entry on the ...a6 Mengarini) 4.exd5 Qxd5 and now 5.Nc3 Qa5 seems rather comfortable for Black who can develop quickly with ...Bg4 and ...0-0-0. So possibly 5.Be2, planning c4 and d4 is a better try.
c2) 3.d4 d5 and after the normal-looking 4.Nc3 Black’s best may be 4...dxe5 but I would be inclined to try 4...e5!, which is borderline playable even without a3 and ...a6 included and seems relatively safe with all Bb5 lines eliminated.
d) 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 is a pseudo-Scandinavian:
d1) 4.Nc3 Qd6! should be very comfortable for Black as one of his main systems involves ...a6 while I never have seen anybody play an early a3 in these lines.
d2) 4.d4 is a more interesting try as a3 can indeed be useful in the quiet lines arising from 4...e5 (4...Nc6!?) 5.dxe5 (5.Nf3) 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1. The continuation 6...Nc6 7.Bf4 Bf5 8.Nf3 0–0–0+ 9.Bd3 Nge7 (9...Bxd3 10.cxd3 Rxd3+ 11.Kc2 Rd7 =) 10.Ke2 Bxd3+ 11.cxd3 Ng6 12.Bg3 Bc5 with a small advantage to Black in Llapasset-Chatalbashev, Figueres 2006 is worth noting if only because it’s an example of a 2500+ player meeting 1.a3 with 1...a6.
e) 2...c5, leading to Sicilian waters cannot be a bad move but for some time now, 1.e4 c5 2.a3 has been a relatively popular anti-Sicilian line, and from that move-order 2...a6 doesn’t make much sense. Nevertheless there are a few examples to be found:
3.b4 e6 4.Bb2 (4.bxc5 Bxc5 5.d4 Be7 6.c4 b5 7.Bb2 d6 8.cxb5 Nf6 9.Nd2 gave White a clear advantage in Twitchell-Burton, Birmingham 2006) 4...Nf6 5.e5 Nd5 6.c4 Nf4 7.bxc5 Bxc5 8.d4 Ba7 9.Qd2 Ng6 10.Nf3 Nc6 11.h4 b6 12.h5 and White was clearly better in Korostenski-Orel, Tabor 2005.
3.d4 d5 (Dia)
3...c5!? may be best. It would resemble the Franco-Sicilian (1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5?!), which is considered slightly suspect because White after 3.d5 holds a space advantage. However, in this set-up an early ...a6 seems considerably more useful than a3 and after 4.d5, the immediate 4...b5 looks reasonable. My try with White would be 4.c3 with the possibility to transpose to our mainline after 4...d5 5.e5.
4.e5!
This must the way for White to make sense of a3.
a) 4.Nd2 seems rather pointless as ...a6 is a useful move for Black in the Tarrasch-variation (actually 3...a6 is steadily becoming more popular) while I am unable to recall any major variations where White plays an early a3.
b) 4.Nc3 was my immediate try for White - possibly because I knew a few rather strong players had met Prie’s 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 a6!? with the seemingly harmless 4.a3?!
b1) 4...dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Bd3 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 c5 9.0–0 Nd7 10.c4 += Lanka-Prie, Paris 1990.
b2) 4...Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Nf3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Bf4 Be7 10.0–0 0–0 11.Qe2 Nc5 = Guseinov-Radjabov, Moscow 1997.
b3) 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Be7 (7...Nxd4?? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Bb5+ +- Grillo-Mussap, Salsomaggiore Terme 2005) 8.0–0 0–0 9.c3 b6 10.Nfg5 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Bxg5 12.Bxc6 += Garcia Vasquez-R.Gomez, Bogota 2004.
4...c5!?
Maybe 4...Bd7! is a simpler solution. It seems to compare favourably with the variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bd7 4.Nf3 a6, planning ...Bb5, but is it sufficient for equality?
5.c3 Nc6 6.Nf3 (Dia)
This French position has actually more frequently appeared from the Sicilian move-order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6 (the O’Kelly-variation) 3.c3 e6 4.d4 d5 5.e5 Nc6 6.a3.
6...Bd7!
Other moves fail to make sense of ...a6:
a) 6...c4 7.Bf4 (It’s worth reminding of the old trap/error 7.Nbd2 Qb6 8.Be2 Nge7? 9.Bxc4!) 7...f5 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Nbd2 Bd6 10.Bxd6 Qxd6 11.Be2 0–0 12.0–0 b5 13.Re1 += G.Lee-Joksic, Biel 1991.
b) 6...Qb6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bd7 (8...Nge7 9.Bd3 Nf5 10.Bxf5 exf5 11.Nc3 Be6 12.0–0 Be7 13.Na4 Qa7 14.Nc5 b6 15.Nb3 h6 16.Ne1 0–0 = Lukianenko-Kuzuev, Moscow 1997) 9.Be3 Rc8 10.Bd3 Nge7 11.0–0 Nf5 12.Qd2 Be7 13.Nc3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 0–0 15.Na4 Qd8 16.Nc5 += A.Zaitsev-Potapov, Kaluga 2003.
7.b4
White has also tried:
a) 7.Be3 c4 8.Nbd2 Na5 9.Be2 Bc6 10.0–0 Qd7 11.Ng5 Ba4 12.Qb1 h6 13.Nh3 0–0–0 14.Nf4 Kb8 15.Bg4 Ne7 unclear Palos-Eingorn, Graz 1995.
b) 7.Bd3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Bc2 Rc8 10.0–0 Nge7 11.Nc3 Na7 12.Rb1 Nb5 13.Ne2 h6 14.h4 Nc6 15.Be3 Na5 16.Nf4 Nc4 17.Nh5 Kd8 18.Bd3 Rc7 19.Qe2 Kc8 20.Rfc1 Nxe3 21.fxe3 Kb8 22.Qd1 += Iuldachev-Kotronias, Mumbai 2003.
c) 7.Be2 Rc8 8.0–0 h6 9.b4 cxd4 10.cxd4 Na7! (this is the key manoeuvre) 11.Bb2 Bb5 12.Nc3 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Ne7 14.Qd3 Ng6 15.Nd2 Qd7 16.Rac1 Be7 17.Nb3 Rxc1 18.Rxc1 0–0 19.g3 Rb8 20.h4 Qb5 21.Qe3 Nc8 22.Nc3 Qe8 23.Kg2 Nb6 =+ Sadvakasov-Morozevich, Mainz rapid 2004. 7...cxd4
7...c4 also fails to make sense of ...a6 8.Be2 Nge7 9.Nbd2 Nf5 10.Nf1 Be7 11.Ng3 b5 12.Nxf5 exf5 13.h4 Be6 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bf4 a5 =+ Kozakov-Przybylka, Zabrzanski Wrzesien 1994.
8.cxd4 Rc8 9.Nbd2? (Dia)

9...Bxb4!
Black’s plan - besides completing his development - is to exchange his light-squared bishop by means of ...Na7 followed by ...Bb5. But the most important thing in chess is to strike immediately when opportunity arises.
10.Bb2
My computer suggests that after 10.axb4 Nxb4 11.Rb1 Nc2+ 12.Ke2, Black should play 12...Qa5, when one possible line is 13.Ne1 Nxd4+ 14.Ke3 Ba4 15.Qh5 Nf5+ 16.Ke2 Bb5+ 17.Kd1 Qa4+ 18.Nb3 Bxf1 19.Rxf1 Rc3 with an easy win for Black.
10...Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Nge7 12.Bd3 Na5 13.Qg5 Ng6 14.Rc1 Qxg5 15.Rxc8+ Ke7!
Quite a rare intermediate move; in Watzka-Karayannis, Chalkidiki 2002 White resigned. Not at all an unreasonable decision considering that Black will be at least two connected pawns up in an semi-endgame. But no game has been won by resigning, and I believe I would have tried 16.Rxh8?! Qxg2 17.Rg1 Qxf3 18.Bc3 with the faint hope of getting in the cheapo 18...Qxd3?? 19.Bb4 mate!

Leningrad Investigations I

When does an opening or a variation deserve a name? Obviously it does when it’s popular enough to be recognized by everybody. If you refer to the Marshall gambit in the Ruy Lopez, most players of any strength will know what you are talking about and you save a lot of time compared to giving the first nine moves of the opening. But even for rare lines it may make sense to designate a name if you are going to discuss it or write about it, and I spent some time contemplating a good name for the variation that’s the subject of this entry (see also my previous entry on this line). From my database it seems that Anic, Apsenieks, Danner, Gazic, Haub, Kostic, Ragozin, Szabolcsi and Zwaig (in alphabetic order) for slightly different reasons all seem to be candidates for eponymous fame. If one or more of them have published analysis of the line or in any way propagated it, their candidature will be considerably strengthened. For the moment I will stick to ‘the ...c6 Leningrad’.
1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 c6!?
This is a highly transpositional move. And in order to fully appreciate it, you must see it from White’s perspective. He almost certainly has prepared something against 6...d6 - most likely 7.Nc3 and then a reply to Black’s most common 7th moves: 7...Qe8, 7...c6 and 7...Nc6. But 6...c6 is a seemingly modest move he may have overlooked. It would be very convenient for him if Black’s rare move proved to be only a feint, so 7.Nc3, hoping for 7...d6 is a likely (and good) reply:
7.Nc3 (Dia)

7...Na6!?
The main strength of this move is that it keeps White guessing whether Black is still planning to return to normal Leningrad lines with a delayed ...d6 or not. More independent moves are 7...Qb6, 7...Ne4 and 7...d5.
If Black immediately plays 7...d6 (returning to one of the 6...d6 mainlines) White’s most popular move is 8.d5 but also other moves have their followers. Against most of these moves (8.b3, 8.Qc2 8.Rb1 and 8.Re1) 8...Na6 is a respected reply. Most probably White now is trying to make up his mind: Should he play the move that he would have played against the ‘normal’ 7...d6 - again hoping for transposition after 8...d6 - or should he try to pick one of the moves against which ...Na6 isn’t popular?
8.Rb1
This move makes sense as a delayed ...d6 now would lead to a line where White is scoring very well. You should however bear in mind that White quite likely had prepared 6...d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.d5 against the Leningrad and now is slightly outside his normal repertoire.
8...Ne4
Black cannot stay completely uncommitted forever. This move is to some extent connected with a ...d5 set-up but White cannot be completely sure about Black’s intentions.
a) 8...d6 9.b4 transposes to the line 6...d6 7.Nc3 c6 8.Rb1 Na6 9.b4, which (as already mentioned) scores rather poorly for Black.
b) 8...Kh8 is a flexible move but may also prove a waste of time. 9.b4 Ne4 10.Qb3 d6 11.Bb2 d5 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Ne5 Be6 14.cxd5 Bxd5 15.Qa4 Nc7 16.h3 Nb5 17.Qc2 Nd6 18.f3 exf3 19.Bxf3 Bxf3 20.Nxf3 Qc8 1/2–1/2 Novikov-E.Ragozin, St Petersburg 1995.
c) 8...d5 is fairly solid but Black suffers from a certain lack of counter-play: 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Nac7 11.Bf4 Kh8 (11...Ne6 12.Be5 f4 seems to create a little more counter-play) 12.Be5 and White’s advantage was fairly clear in Littke-Bernadet, North Bay 1994.
9.Qc2
White has also tried:
a) 9.Bf4 d6 10.Qc1 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qa5 12.c5 dxc5 13.Qe3 Nc7 14.c4 Ne6 15.d5 cxd5 16.cxd5 Nxf4 17.Qxf4 Qd8 =+ Graf-Bartel, Kusadasi 2006.
b) 9.Qb3 Kh8 10.Bf4 d6 11.Nxe4 fxe4 12.Nd2 Bxd4 13.Nxe4 Qb6 14.Qd1 Bf5 15.b4 Bg7 16.Be3 Qd8 17.b5 cxb5 18.Rxb5 b6 = Bruzon Bautista-Bartel, Calvia 2006.
c) 9.c5 b6 10.cxb6 axb6 11.Qc2 d5 12.Rd1 Be6 13.Ng5 Bd7 14.f3 Nxg5 15.Bxg5 Qe8 16.e4 fxe4 17.fxe4 Bg4 = Glyanets-E.Ragozin, Orel 1992.
9...d6 10.Rd1
10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Ng5 d5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Qb3 e6 would have been unclear.
10...Qe8! (Dia)

This looks more active than 10...Nc7 11.b4 h6 12.Bb2 Kh7 13.d5 Nxc3 14.Bxc3 of Shuklin-Poletaev, Kazan 1995 which nevertheless might have been playable for Black if he hadn’t blundered with 14...e5?? which allowed 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Bxe5 and a winning advantage to White.
11.b4
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where White goes wrong in this game. This looks like a more active way to exclude Black’s ...Nb4 option than 11.a3 but now the weakness of the c-pawn becomes a factor.
11...Qf7 12.Na4 Be6
Every opening has its distinct personality but few are so peculiar as the Leningrad. Black’s piece deployment would seem strange by any standard except the Leningrad Dutch, yet he is probably already better.
13.d5
White experiences similar problems after 13.b5 cxb5 14.cxb5 Rac8, e.g. 15.Qb2 Nc7 16.b6 Bd7 17.Qb3 Nd5 and Black’s play in the c-file promises him the better chances.
13...cxd5 14.cxd5 Bd7 15.b5 Rac8 (Dia)

Here, in Lacrosse-Murey, Bethune 1998 White already resigned. That certainly was a bit premature and my guess is that White, depressed by the development of the game, miscalculated the line 16.Qd3 (16.Qb3 leads to much of the same) 16...Nac5?! 17.Nxc5 Rxc5 and overlooked the resource 18.Ng5! Nxg5 19.Bxg5 Rc3 20.Qd2 which is fairly equal. Instead Black gets a clear (but hardly winning) advantage after 16...Nc7! 17.Be3 (17.a3 Qe8 18.Nd4 Nxd5 19.Nxf5 Bxf5 20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Qxe4 e6 22.Qd3 Nf6 23.Qxd6 Ne4 24.Qb4 Nxf2 isn’t better) 17...Qe8 18.Nd4 Nxd5 19.Nxf5 Rxf5 20.Bxe4 Nxe3 21.Qxe3 Rxb5.

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?

Svein Johannessen RIP

It was with sorrow that I two days ago was informed that International Master Svein Johannessen had passed away.

Svein was the first Norwegian player of international strength and would easily have become an GM if tournament opportunities in the 1950s and 1960s had been more like what they are today. During long periods of his life Svein was part of the inventory in Oslo Schakselskap's playing venues in Bogstadveien 30 - mostly to be found playing blitz or looking up games or studies in old chess magazines. His play was always refreshingly free from routine moves and schematic thinking - even in his old years with the clock ticking away a little too quickly. I picked the game below partly because the opening interests me but I also think it's quite typical of his style of play:

James Aitken - Svein Johannessen, Tel Aviv ol (Men) B-final 1964

1.e4

Svein's opponent in this game was somewhat past his prime but had some 25 years earlier taken a few nice scalps from world class opposition.

1...c5

Although the Norwegian Variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5) to some extent became Svein’s trademark variation, he had a very varied repertoire, and always seemed more comfortable in the semi-closed and semi-open games.

2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6!?

This is the Kan variation - an opening for which I have always had a soft spot. Unfortunately my score with it is rather catastrophic and a very good reason for me to avoid it in serious games.

5.Nc3 Qc7

Opening terminology can be quite confusing. If Black here plays ...Nc6 and ...Nge7 the line is often called the Taimanov variation.

Another option which has fascinated me lately is 5...b5!?, possibly followed by ...Qb6, attacking the knight on d4, and only after Nb3, to play ...Qc7 (or even ...Qb8). It can occasionally be very hard to tell who has lost or won a tempo, as White frequently withdraws his d4-knight voluntarily in order to keep some pressure in the open d-file.

6.g3

This modest-looking move is third in popularity after 6.Bd3 and 6.Be2 and quite logical as there are some tactical shots in the h1-a8 diagonal.

6...b5

Around the time when this game was played, Svein experimented with other moves at this point:

a) 6...Bb4 7.Nde2 Ne7 8.a3 Bc5 9.Bg2 Nbc6 10.0–0 0–0 11.Kh1 Rd8 12.Nf4 b5 13.Nd3 Ba7 14.a4 bxa4 15.Rxa4 Bb7 16.Bf4 d6 = Gaprindashvili-Johannessen, Reykjavik 1964.

b) 6...Nf6 7.Bg2 Nc6 8.Nb3 (8.0–0 Be7 9.Kh1 0–0 10.Be3 d6 11.f4 Bd7 12.Qe2 Rac8 13.Rad1 b5 = Duraku-Johannessen, Varna 1962) 8...Be7 9.0–0 0–0 10.Qe2 d6 11.f4 Bd7 12.Be3 Rac8 13.g4 d5 14.exd5 Nb4 15.dxe6 Bxe6 =+ Czerniak-Johannessen, Belgrade 1962.

7.Bg2 Bb7 8.0–0 Nf6 (Dia)

9.a3?!

This slow move isn’t really necessary. More to the point is 9.Re1!

a) 9...b4 10.Nd5! demonstrates White’s tactical point. After 10...exd5 11.exd5+ Kd8 12.Bg5 Bc5 13.Nf5 h6 14.Bxf6+ gxf6 15.Qg4 Kc8 16.Qg7 White had plenty of compensation in Vesselovsky-Hrivnak, Ceske Budejovice 1997.

b) Probably 9...d6 10.a4 b4 (10...bxa4 11.Nxa4 Be7 12.Bd2 0–0 13.Nb3 Nc6 14.Be3 Nd7 15.Qd2 Nce5 16.Na5 Nc4 17.Nxc4 Qxc4 18.Nb6 Nxb6 19.Bxb6 Rfc8 = Unzicker-Mariotti, Milan 1975) 11.Nd5! is of greater theoretical interest: 11...exd5 12.exd5+ Kd8 13.Bg5 Nbd7 14.Qe2 Qb6 15.c3 Ne5 16.a5 Qc5 17.Nc6+ Kc8 18.Be3 and White was winning in Smirin-Gelfand, Sverdlovsk 1987. The game concluded 18...Qb5 19.Bh3+ Nfd7 20.Bxd7+ Kxd7 21.Nxe5+ Kc8 (21...dxe5 22.c4) 22.c4 1–0 .

9...d6

Now the game merges with other lines where Black has played an earlier ...e6. 9...Nc6!? could be an attempt to take advantage of White’s slow 9th move.

10.Qe2

Probably White should consider one of the alternatives in order to fight for an advantage:

a) 10.f4 Nc6 11.Nb3 Be7 12.Be3 0–0 13.Qe2 Na5 14.Nxa5 Qxa5 15.Rfd1 Qc7 16.Rd2 Rfd8 17.Rad1 += Panov-Kotov, Moscow 1946.

b) 10.Re1 Be7 11.a4 (11.g4?! h6 12.h4 g6 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 Nh5 15.Nde2 Nc6 16.Be3 Ne5 =+ Mueller-Bologan, Oakham 1992) 11...b4 12.Na2 0–0 13.Bg5 Nbd7 14.Qd2 a5 15.Nb5 Qb6 16.c3 Nc5 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nd4 bxc3 19.Nxc3 Rab8 unclear Topalov-Short, Dortmund 1997.

10...Nbd7

The game Koskinen-Barda, Jonkoping 1958 which continued 10...Be7 11.Be3 Nbd7 12.f4 0–0 13.f5 e5 14.Nb3 Nb6 15.Na5 Rac8 16.Rad1 Ba8 17.Bg5 Nbd7 18.Nb3 h6 19.Bc1 Nb6 and an unclear position may be of some historical interest to Norwegians.

11.Nb3 Be7 12.f4 Rc8 13.Be3 0–0 14.Kh1

14.Rfd1 Rfd8 15.Rac1 Nb6 16.Na5 Ba8 17.h3 d5 18.e5 Nfd7 19.Na2 Nc4 20.Nxc4 Qxc4 21.Qxc4 bxc4 was unclear Holeksa-Zajic, Prague 1968.

14...Nb6 15.Na5 Ba8 16.Rad1

After 16.Bxb6 Qxb6 17.Nb3 Rfd8 Black seems a little more comfortable thanks to his bishop-pair.

16...Na4 17.Nxa4 bxa4 18.Qxa6 Nxe4 (Dia)

Now it’s obvious that Black has won the opening duel. This is the kind of central majority he normally can only dream about - even in the Sicilian.

19.c4?!

19.c3 would have been somewhat better.

19...Rb8 20.c5

Black’s tactical point was 20.Rb1 Nd2! 21.Bxd2 Bxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Rb6 which traps the queen.

20...Nxc5 21.Bxc5 Bxg2+ 22.Kxg2 Qxc5 23.Nc4 d5 24.Nd2 Rxb2 25.Qxa4 Qe3 26.Qa5 Bd8 0–1

Leningrad Finesses

I have for a long time been found of opening lines which are only subtly different from the mainlines and which can easily transpose to an advantageous version should your opponent be careless. I stumbled over the game below when researching 'alternative Stonewalls' as back-ground material for a book on the Dutch Stonewall. It first caught my attention because of the interesting exchange offer (or possibly blunder) which White somewhat surprisingly turned down. Later, however, the opening line has started to interest me.

Hera - Gajewski, Oberwart 2007
1.d4 f5

The Dutch is Black's most unbalancing reply to the closed games.

2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6

This is the Leningrad variation which is one of Black's most dynamic lines within the Dutch complex. 3...e6, leading to the Classical Dutch or the Stonewall is a more solid option.

4.Nf3 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 c6!? (Dia)

6...d6 is by far Black's most popular option at this point. Then, after 7.Nc3, 7...Qe8 is now Black's most popular line, but 7...c6 is still frequently played. One of the ideas behind the game move is to set up a kind of stonewall with pawns on c6, d5 and f5 (and eventually e6, but usually only after bringing the light-squared bishop via e6 to f7). But White also must take into account that Black can return to a more standard Leningrad set-up with ...d6 as long as he keeps playing flexible moves like ...Na6, ...a5, ...Kh8 etc. There are also lines with ...Ne4 and ...Qe8 which may transpose to standard Leningrad lines. One of Black's more independent ideas is an early ...Qb6.
7.Nc3

This is White's most natural continuation but 7.b3 and 7.b4 are important alternatives to which I may return in a later entry.

7...Na6!?

I like this move which is an attempt to keep White guessing about Black's intentions. It's still possible to play ...d6 with a relatively normal looking Leningrad position. Black's most frequent choice is 7...d6 immediately returning to the 6...d6 7.Nc3 c6 line. The direct 7...d5 reveals Black's plans too early for my taste but 7...Ne4!? is another flexible approach.

8.d5!?

This stops Black's ...d5 plans but doesn't appear very logical when there is no weakness on e6 to clamp down on.

8...cxd5

This seems to be a new move and I am not convinced it's better than 8...Nc5 which have been tested in several games, e.g. 9.Be3 Nce4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bd4 Nf6 12.b4 cxd5 13.cxd5 d6 14.Qb3 Qe8 15.Ng5 += L.B.Hansen-J.Kristiansen, Denmark 1992.

9.cxd5 b6 10.d6 Bb7 11.dxe7 Qxe7 12.Bf4

Black is active but White obviously has got the better pawn structure and probably is somewhat better.

12...Ne4!?

Is this an intentional exchange sacrifice? 12...d5 is an obvious alternative and doesn't look too bad.

13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Bd6 Qf6 15.Qb3+

If White wants to win that exchange it may be better to do it right away as 15.Bxf8 Rxf8 16.Nd2 Qxb2?! (16...d5 17.Rb1) can be met with 17.Nxe4!, threatening Nf6+ when Black may not have anything better than 17...Kh8 anyway (17...Qxa1?? 18.Qb3+ loses immediately).

15...Kh8 16.Be5?!

After this move it seems that Black is already somewhat better as he is allowed to connect his center pawns. The critical test must 16.Bxf8 Rxf8 when Black indeed will have some compensation after e.g. 17.Nd2 Nc5 18.Qc2 Qxb2 (18...d5) 19.Qxb2 Bxb2 20.Rab1. His extra central pawn and strong bishops will make it very hard for White to make any progress.

16...Qe7 17.Bxg7+ Qxg7 18.Nd2 d5 (Dia)

Now Black's position appears very harmonious.

19.Rad1 Rac8 20.Nb1 Rc4 21.Qa3 Nc5 22.b3 Rc2

It's hard to suggest improvements for White but it's obvious that his position has worsened during the last few moves.

23.Qxa7?

Now the queen will find herself in trouble. After 23.b4 Ne6 24.Qxa7 Nd4 25.Qxb6 Nxe2+ 26.Kh1 Rxa2 Black must be somewhat better thanks to his center pawns but it's not obvious how he should continue.

23...Qf6 24.Qa3 Ra8 25.Qb4 Raxa2 26.Rd2 Rxd2 27.Nxd2 Na6 28.Nxe4 dxe4 29.Qc4 Rd2 30.Bxe4 Rd4 31.Bxb7

The game is decided. 31.Qc3 Bxe4 32.Qc8+ Kg7 33.Qxa6 Bd5 is just as bad.

31...Rxc4 32.bxc4 Nc5 33.Bd5 Qb2 34.e4 Nd3 35.f4 Kg7 36.e5 b5 37.Kh1 bxc4 38.Bxc4 Qb7+ 39.Kg1 Qb6+ 40.Kg2 Qc6+ 0–1