Earth Defends Successfully

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

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

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

London versus Earth

When I co-authored "Win with the London System" I never suspected that it might get used as a weapon against my home planet. But according to the USCF site that's what's happening right now.

After the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bf4 (Dia), this is the position:

I am a little curious what will be the alternatives for Earth. Black's main options are 3...c5, 3...e6, 3...c6 and 3...Bf5 but also 3...g6 is a good move, and as far as I know nobody has come up with a fully convincing reply to 3...Nh5!?.

Maybe I will be following this game?


Update October 7th
Earth's alternatives now have been published. 3...e6 and 3...c5 were not surprisingly on the list. Also 3...Bf5 is a recognized system (but one which can easily lead Black into difficulties). Only 3...Nc6 was a surprise. It's a fairly rare move with a poor score (White scores 69% in MegaBase 2008) and until recently with no leading protagonist. However, it should be noted that Bareev recently won a game against GM opposition with the move. The position after 3...Nc6 more frequently arises from the move-order 2...Nc6 3.Bf4 Nf6.

Benjamin on the Harding Variation

The September column in Joel Benjamin's excellent 'Ask GM Joel' contains an interesting entry about the Harding variation in the Ruy Lopez Marshall which I discussed in my last July entry. Benjamin seems to agree that a reason why the line isn't played more often may be that Marshall players don't like putting their dark-squared bishop on f6 rather than on d6.

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 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 Bb7 12.d4

This is the established mainline and seems to force Black to look for long-term compensation for his pawn rather than the quick kingside attacks which sometimes results from the 11...c6 lines.
12...Qd7 (Dia)

This may transpose to 12...Bf6 lines but must primarily be considered an attempt to play for a kingside attack.

a) 12...Bf6, the mainline to which I will some day return superficially appears less attractive as it generally is associated with a queenside initiative.

b) 12...Nf6!? is suggested by Eric J and gets an additional improvement by Benjamin. Surprisingly no mention is made of the transposition 11...Nf6 (Marshall's original attempt) 12.d4 (White's clearly most popular reaction) 12...Bb7!? (12...Bd6 is almost exclusively played) which leads to the same position without allowing 11.Qf3.

13.Nd2

a) 13.Qh5 Nf6 14.Qf5 Qxf5 15.Rxf5 Be4 16.Rg5 Bd6 17.f4 Rfe8 18.Nd2 Bb7 19.Nf1 Re1 20.Kf2 Rxc1 0–1 Gardner-Harding, corr 1975.

b) 13.h3 looks like a waste of time:

b1) 13...Bf6 seems somewhat inconsistent but sufficient for equality: 14.Re1 Rfe8 15.Bd2 Rxe1+ 16.Qxe1 Re8 17.Qf1 Ne7 18.Na3 c5 19.Rd1 cxd4 20.Be3 Nf5 21.Bxd4 Nxd4 22.cxd4 g6 23.Nc2 a5 = Krnan-Tseitlin, Montreal 2004.

b2) 13...Rfe8 14.Nd2 Bf6 15.Rxe8+ Rxe8 16.Nf3 Qd6 17.Bd2 c5 18.dxc5 Qxc5 19.Qc2 Re2 20.Be3 Rxc2 21.Bxc5 Re2?? (21...Rxb2 =) 22.Rd1+- Granada Velez-Hakimifard, Kemer 2007.

c) 13.Qf3 Rad8 looks like the principal alternative:

c1) 14.Nd2 c5 and now:

c11) 15.Qf5 Bf6 16.Qxd7 Rxd7 17.Re1 cxd4 18.Ne4 dxc3 19.Bxd5 Bxd5 20.Nxf6+ gxf6 21.bxc3 ½–½ Pieris-Sarfati, Dubai 1986.

c12) 15.dxc5 Bf6 16.Re1 Nxc3 17.Qg3 Na4 (17...Rfe8 18.Rxe8+ Qxe8 19.bxc3 Bxc3 20.Rb1 Bxd2 21.Bxd2 Rxd2 = Boguslavsky-Ketterer, Karlsruhe 2003) 18.Bxa4 bxa4 19.Nc4 Qd5 20.Nb6 Qxc5 21.Nxa4 Qc6 22.Nc3 Bh4 23.Qh3 Rd6 24.Bf4 Rf6 25.Ne2 g5 26.Bg3? (26.Rac1 Qb6 =+) 26...Bc8 0–1 Dimitrov-Hebden, Cappelle la Grande 1989.

c2) 14.Qf5 Qxf5 15.Rxf5 Bf6 (15...Rfe8 16.Be3 g6 17.Re5 f6 18.Re4 Kg7 19.Bd2 c5 20.Na3 Nc7 21.Re2 cxd4 22.Rae1 Bf8 23.Rxe8 Nxe8 = Harley-Hebden, Hastings 1988) 16.Bg5 Rfe8 17.Kf1 Bxg5 18.Rxg5 Nf4? (18...h6 or 18...Re7 look quite playable) 19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.Rf5+ Kg8 21.Rxf4 +/- Mihailov-O.Moen, Trondheim 2004.

13...Nf4 (Dia)

13...Bf6 still looks inconsistent but didn't work out too badly in Traut-Diaz Vega, corr 2002: 14.Re1 Rae8 15.Rxe8 Rxe8 16.Nf3 Qf5 17.Bc2 Qh5 18.Bd2 += .

14.Ne4 Bd6

This was Black's idea but it doesn't seem very tempting when White simply can capture the bishop. However, the knight on f4 is hanging so there are not many alternatives:

a) 14...Ng6 15.Nc5 Bxc5 16.Rxc5 Rae8 17.Be3 Kh8 18.Rh5 Be4 19.h3 Ne7 20.Re5 +/-Rogers-Djuric, San Bernardino 1988.

b) Benjamin mentions that 14...Nxg2 15.Kxg2 Bf6 16.Qf3 seems insufficient.

15.Nxd6 cxd6 16.Rg5 Ng6 (Dia)

17.Rg3

Benjamin only gives this move and concludes that White is better. 17.Be3 seems at least as strong. Henao-Djuric, Saint John 1988 continued 17...Rae8 18.a4 Be4 19.axb5 axb5 20.Bc2 d5 21.Bxe4 Rxe4 22.Qc2 f5 23.g3 += but it's easier for White to improve than for Black. One relatively obvious try is 20.Qh5.

17...Rae8 18.Bg5 Qf5

Or 18...Be4 19.h4 d5 20.h5 Ne7 21.Bh6 Nf5 22.Qg4 g6 1–0 Conquest-Lane, Cappelle la Grande 1990.

19.Bc2 Be4 20.Bxe4 Rxe4 21.a4 bxa4 22.Rxa4 +/- Kudrin-Hebden, Las Palmas 1989.

Conclusion:

12...Qd7 doesn't seem sufficient to turn 11...Bb7 into an attacking line and Black may as well admit that with 12...Bf6.

Another Claim to Fame

I have already demonstrated my longest chessgame. I also have a game in 'The Quickest Chess Victories of All Time' (Graham Burgess, Cadogan 1998). A very nice book in my opinion but I may be biased as I luckily am on the winning side:

Sv.Johnsen - G.Nesheim
Gausdal Open Ch NOR, 1985

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6
Recently Tarrasch' old 2...Qa5 has had a small boost in popularity. After 3.Nf3 Nc6 some notable continuations are:
a) 4.Na3 e6 5.Nc4 Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 8.Bd3 b5 9.Ne3 Nf6 = Alapin-Tarrasch, Vienna 1898.
b) 4.Bc4 d6 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.h3 e5 7.0–0 Be7 = Rainfray-Movsesian, France 2003.
c) 4.g3 Nf6 5.Qe2 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.Bg2 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.0–0 e6 = Rozentalis-Movsesian, Hastings 1996.

3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 Qa5?! (Dia)

6.Nxd4
6.Qxd4 appears less logical. After 6...Nc6 7.Qe4 e6 8.Bd3 f5 9.Qe2 Qa4 10.h3 Nf4 11.Bxf4 Qxf4 chances were equal in Tzoumbas-Skembris, Liosia 1991.

6...e6
I think I had a faint hope of 6...Nc6 7.Nb3, which actually happened in Arslanov-Nozdrachev, Russian Ch U12 2004.

7.Nd2!
This appears more logical than 7.Bc4 Nb6 8.Bb5 a6 (8...Nc6 9.a4 Nd5 10.0–0 a6 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Na3 += Donets-Khatenever, St Petersburg 2005) 9.b4 Bxb4 10.cxb4 Qxb4+ 11.Qd2 Qxd2+ 12.Bxd2 axb5 13.Nxb5 Na6 14.Nd6 += Stojic-Edwards, Canberra 2003.

7...Nc6
Burgess notes that White is better after 7...a6 8.Nc4 Qc5 9.Qg4 as well as 7...d6 8.Nc4 Qd8 9.Nxd6+ Bxd6 10.Bb5+.

8.Nc4 Qd8 9.Nb5 Bc5
9...Be7 10.Nbd6+ Kf8 11.Qh5 g6 12.Bh6+ Kg8 13.Qf3 Bxd6 14.Nxd6 transposes to 9...Bc5 10.Nbd6+ Kf8 11.Qh5 g6 12.Bh6+ Kg8 13.Qf3 Bxd6 14.Nxd6 (note to Black's 11th move).

10.Nbd6+ Kf8 11.Qh5 (Dia)

11...Qe7?
This loses a piece. Black had to try 11...g6 12.Bh6+ (12.Qh6+ Kg8 13.Bg5 Qf8 14.Qxf8+ Kxf8 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Bh6+ Kg8 17.f4 is good too) 12...Kg8 13.Qf3 Bxd6 when Burgess considered 14.Nxd6 dubious because of 14...Nxe5 but actually 15.Qe4 Nc6 16.0–0–0 is very good for White. An important line is 16...Qe7? which surprisingly loses to 17.Rxd5! exd5 18.Qxe7 Nxe7 19.Bd3 when Black is helpless. Instead Black must try 16...f5 but 17.Qc4 Nf6 18.Be2 clearly is better for White. Thanks to Rybka for assisting me with these lines!

12.Bg5 f6 13.exf6 1–0
(after 13...Nxf6 14.Bxf6 gxf6, White picks up the loose piece with 15.Qxc5)

Defensive Resources

Probably the weakest aspect of my chess is my defensive skills. Not only have I problems with spotting my own defensive resources, I also miss my opponents' resources when I sacrifice material to get to his king. This weakness I know I have in common with many players. Computers on the other hand have no such difficulties; they calculate all moves with equal accuracy. Going through what you think was a nice attacking game with the newest piece of chess software can sometimes be a frustrating experience. Can it be that young players who grow up with Fritz as a correction to their optimistic sacrificial tendencies will develop a keener eye for defence and counter-attack? Time will show!

Nearly one year ago I wrote a small piece on a surprising tactics in the Alekhine's Defence. It's time to return and see what happens if White doesn't fall for the trick:
(1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 Nf4!?)
7.d4! (Dia)

This is supposed to be the refutation of Black's unsound play. Whether White gets a major advantage or not is not entirely clear to me but it's absolutely clear that Black must show some defensive skill in order to survive the next dozen moves.

a) For the 'natural blunder' 7.Qg4? , see my entry of September 6th, 2007.

b) 7.g3?! is less useful than d4 and White must be careful not to have his extended centre annihilated. There are no high-level tests but 7...Ng6 8.d4 b6 9.cxb6 (9.Nf3!?) 9...axb6 10.Nf3 Bb7 11.h4 Nc6 12.h5 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Bxh1 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Be2 Bg2 =+ B.Seres-Braun, Hungary 2003 could be a starting point for further investigations.

7...Nxg2+

This must be the only critical line.

8.Kf1 Nh4 (Dia)

Now White can try:

a) 9.Ne4!? is the subject of the game below.

b) 9.Qg4 looks active but doesn't threaten anything particular. The only practical example was rather one-sided: 9...Nf5 (9...h5!?) 10.Nf3 b6 11.Ng5 Ba6 12.Nb5 (12.Bxa6 Nxa6 13.Rg1 h6 14.Nf3 bxc5 15.d5 Nb4 also looks good for Black) 12...Nc6 and Black was already clearly better: 13.Nxf7? Bxb5! 14.Nxd8 Bxc4+ 15.Ke1 (Black is clearly better after 15.Kg1 Rxd8 16.Bg5 Rb8) 15...Rxd8 16.cxb6 Nfxd4 0–1 Coupet-Westerinen, Metz 1985 (17.bxc7 Rc8 18.Be3 Nxe5! 19.Qh5+ g6 20.Bxd4 gxh5 21.Bxe5 Rg8 –+).

c) The normal developing move 9.Nf3! probably is best and deserves a separate entry - maybe next year?!

Wetzel-Aldrich, Minnesota 1997:

9.Ne4!?

This looks active and strengthens White's central grip but has only been tested in this relatively low-powered (but entertaining) game.

9...Nf5

Black is poorly developed but has no pawn weaknesses. 9...Nc6 seems playable too.

10.d5 d6

The game is quickly losing its theoretical significance. 10...Qh4!? may well be best. After 11.Qd3, 11...b6 as well as 11...Na6 are interesting options.

11.Bg5 Be7 (Dia)

12.dxe6!?

Both players are rated USCF 2000+ and could probably have played a better game if they had tried to keep things under control. Instead they are sharpening the game to a point where they lose control.

12...Bxg5 13.Qg4?!

Better is 13.Qh5 Bxe6 14.Bxe6 g6 15.Qxg5 fxe6 16.Qxd8+ Kxd8 17.exd6 Rf8 with roughly equal chances.

13...fxe6

13...Bxe6 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.Nxg5 Qd7 16.cxd6 cxd6 =+.

14.Nxg5 d5 15.Bd3 0–0 16.N1f3 Nc6?!

This appears somewhat irrelevant to White's kingside attack. 16...h6 would have forced White to immediately demonstrate his idea.

17.Bxf5?!

This mainly helps Black defend. After 17.Qh5 Nh6 (17...h6? 18.Qg6 hxg5 19.Nxg5 Rf6 20.exf6 Qxf6 21.Qe8+ Qf8 22.Qh5 +-) 18.Bxh7+ Kh8, it seems White has a promising attack, e.g. 19.Rg1 Bd7 20.Rg3 b6 21.Bg6 and it seems White will break through.

17...Rxf5 18.Qh5 h6 19.h4 Nxe5?

19...Qf8 and 19...Bd7 are among the natural moves that probably win.

20.Nxe5 Rxe5?

Here the rook is very exposed. Far better is 20...b6 which allows a useful check on a6: 21.Qg6 hxg5 22.Ng4 (22.hxg5 Ba6+ –+) 22...Ba6+ 23.Kg2 Kf8 24.hxg5 Qxg5 25.Rh8+ Ke7 26.Qxg5+ Rxg5 27.Rxa8 Rxg4+ 28.Kf3 Ra4 29.b3 Ra3 30.cxb6 axb6 31.Kf4 unclear.

21.Qf7+ Kh8 22.Qg6?!

This wins but as the game develops it seems 22.Qf4 would have been a wiser choice with these typical variations:

a) 22...Re4 23.Qxe4 +-.

b) 22...Qf6 23.Qxe5 +-.

c) 22...Rf5 23.Qxf5 +-.

22...hxg5 23.hxg5+ Kg8 (Dia)

24.Rh7??

Probably both players thought this was winning. Correct would have been 24.Qh7+ Kf7 25.g6+ Kf6 26.Qh4+ Rg5 27.f4 Kxg6 28.fxg5 and Black is defenceless.

24...Qe7??

A computer would in a second have spotted the saving move 24...Qd7! exploiting White's exposed king 25.Qh5 (after 25.c6 bxc6 there is a bishop check on a6) 25...Qb5+ 26.Kg2 Rxg5+ 27.Qxg5 Kxh7 and White must be happy with a perpetual check.

25.Qh5 1–0.

Why Not the Slav?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London Stonewall Similarities

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

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

A typical London position:















A typical Stonewall position:















See the similarity?

Simen Plays the Stonewall

I was very happy when I got Simen Agdestein on my team for 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. He is one of the real pioners for the modern version with ...Bd6 rather than Botwinnik's classical ...Be7 Stonewall. Simen is not as active on the tournament circuit as he used to be, and even though he has started well in Tromsø's Arctic Chess Challenge, he is most of all the head of NTG's delegation of young chess students. But Simen is still capable of beating almost anybody and he still plays the Stonewall forcefully:

M.Turner (2493) - S.Agdestein (2583)
Arctic Chess Challenge (5) 2008

1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0–0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.b3 Qe7 8.Bb2 b6 9.Qc1 Bb7 10.Ba3 Nbd7 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Qa3 c5!?

Characteristically Simen goes for the sharpest solution.

13.cxd5 exd5 14.Nc3 0–0 15.Rac1 f4!

The name 'Stonewall' has tricked many white players. In Simen's hands, the wall is actually extremely mobile.

16.Rfd1 a6 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.Ng5 fxg3 19.hxg3 Ng4 20.Nf3 Rae8 21.Rd4?! (Dia)

White tries to fend off the attack by tactical means. It backfires badly but it seems White had serious problems anyway.

21...Nxf2!

This looks convincing, but I'd have to consult Fritz to be entirely sure.

22.Kxf2 Qe7 23.Rdd1 d4 24.Kg1 Qe3+ 25.Kh2 Nf6 26.Qxc5 Ng4+ 27.Kh3 Nf2+ 28.Kh2 Ng4+ 29.Kh3 Nf2+ 30.Kh2 Nxd1 31.Nxd1 Qh6+ 32.Kg1 Rc8 33.Ng5 Rxc5 34.Rxc5 Qd6 35.Ne6 Bxg2 0–1

Marshall - Harding Variation

I note there is a new Everyman book on the Marshall on the horizon. The line has always fascinated me but the necessary preparation does not quite seem worth the effort - in particular because the Anti-Marshall 8.a4 is quite well motivated while 8.h3 and 8.a3 are very reasonable attempts to avoid the sharpest lines.

If I some day decide to take up the Marshall, I will seriously consider to adopt one of the minor lines for my first few games - most likely the 11...Bb7 variation. Here is the first part of an overview which may be a good starting point for serious analysis:

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0)

I feel fairly well prepared up to this point after having co-authored 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black' in 2007.

8.c3

I don't know in how many percent of the games this move is played but I suspect the number is decreasing the lower down the rating ladder you go.

8...d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5

Also the Herman Steiner variation, 10...e4!? could be a nice surprise weapon.

11.Rxe5 Bb7 (Dia)

This is an active developing move. Its main spokesman has been Harding but it has recently been played by Short and Kamsky. In some ways it's a more natural move than the modern mainline 11...c6. Marshall's original 11...Nf6, I think is now defused and Balogh's 11...Nf4 has never been fully satisfactory. It could however be that 11...Nb6!? is underestimated. The knight isn't very active but it prevents White's important freeing a4 lever.

12.Qf3!?

This has recently been the choice of Sutovsky and Ivanchuk and will be the subject of this post but I assume 12.d4 still must considered the mainline.

12...Bd6!

Thanks to a tactical point this move is playable after all. In the 12.d4 lines we will mainly see this bishop taking up a less threatening post on f6.

13.Bxd5 c6 (Dia)

White must save his rook so Black regains his piece.

14.Re2

This seem to be the most useful post for the rook, but the theory has not yet been cemented and alternatives have been played by strong GMs:

a) 14.Re3 cxd5 15.d4.

b) 14.Re1 cxd5 15.d4 Qc7 16.g3 Rae8 17.Rxe8 Rxe8:

b1) 18.Bd2 a5 19.b3 Qc6 20.a4 bxa4 21.Rxa4 Qb6 22.Qd1 Bc6 =+ A.Timoshenko-Mackintosh, corr 2002.

b2) 18.Be3 b4 19.cxb4 Qc2 20.Nd2 Bxb4 21.Qd1 Rc8 22.Nf3 += A.Sokolov-Yermolinsky, Vilnius 1984.

14...cxd5 15.d4 Qc7 16.g3 (Dia)

White seems a sound pawn up but his queenside is still undeveloped. The alternative 16.h3 Rae8 17.Nd2 b4 18.Nb3 Rxe2 19.Qxe2 bxc3 20.bxc3 Qxc3 21.Be3 Re8 was fairly equal in Szelag-Stern, Poznan 1999.

16...Rae8

16...Rfe8 may well be better. In Sutovsky-Short, Montreal 2007, the rook was useful on the queenside: 17.Be3 a5 18.Nd2 b4 19.Rc1 Qd7 20.Ree1 bxc3 21.Rxc3 Bb4 22.Rc2 Rac8 23.Rec1 Rxc2 24.Rxc2 a4 25.a3 Bxd2 26.Bxd2 ½–½ .

17.Nd2

It's worth noting that Ivanchuck preferred 17.Be3. Yet after 17...a5 18.Nd2 b4 19.cxb4 Bxb4 20.a3 Bd6 21.Ree1 Re6 22.Rac1 Qb6 23.Qd1 Rfe8 chances seemed balanced in Ivanchuk-Kamsky, Montreal 2007.

17...b4 18.cxb4 Qc2 19.Re3 Bc8

19...Bxb4 allowed White to keep a small plus after 20.Nf1 Rxe3 21.Nxe3 Qd3 22.Qd1 Qe4 23.f3 Qe6 24.Qb3 Rc8 25.Kf2 Qb6 26.Bd2 a5 27.Bxb4 axb4 28.Rd1 in A.Sokolov-Kharitonov, Vilnius 1984.

20.Nf1 Bxb4 21.a3 Ba5 22.b4 Bb6 23.Rxe8 Rxe8 24.Be3 Be6 25.Qd1 Rc8 26.Nd2 1/2–1/2 Anand-Short, Manila 1992.

Conclusion:

12.Qf3 shouldn't worry Black if he knows how to keep an initiative burning without a direct kingside attack.

Win With the Stonewall Dutch

It's official!

On Gambit's homepage, there is now a list of their forthcoming books, including 'Win With the Stonewall Dutch'.

As usual it took me a second look to fully appreciate the cover artwork - at first the dominating grey looked a little drab. But now I'm convinced it will stand out in a positive way in the book stalls. I assume the artist is Wolff Morrow as for my previous books.

The title was as expected (I assume Gambit would have contacted me if there had been a substantial change from the working title) but I was a little surprised by the author part. It says 'Sverre Johnsen and Ivar Bern With a contribution by Simen Agdestein' but in my opinion '...With contributions by Simen Agdestein' would better describe the reality.

Also the publishing date (February 2009) was slightly surprising. I was expecting December 2008 but I can understand Gambit's conservative target date as our agreed deadline now has been overstepped by more than three weeks and they still have not received any final manuscript. That also explains the sparse updates of this blog!

The Reversed Kan Sicilian

There have been some months now since I had anything on 1.a3. I cannot promise this will be the last entry but right now I am not aware anything more of any importance missing.

1.a3 Nf6 2.e3 e5 3.c4

This position obviously can also arise from the move-orders 1.c4 e5 2.e3 Nf6 3.a3 or 1.e3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.a3.

3...d5!?

This enters an Open Sicilian position a move down and looks a bit too optimistic. However, the normal result of a correctly played Open Sicilian is a small advantage to White. It could well be that losing a tempo only leads to equality - which is an excellent result for Black.

4.cxd5 Nxd5 (Dia)

Now we have a Reversed Kan Sicilian on the board. With reversed openings it can sometimes be hard to say whether White has an extra move or Black has one less. But in this case it’s quite clear: White has got a free move. How can he best use it?

5.Nf3!?

a) I am confident that if this variation should ever become popular, 5.b4 would be one of the first moves to receive serious attention. So far I could find no practical examples.

b) 5.Qc2 is the main line in the comparable reversed position but could be too quiet to achieve anything against modest development by Black:

b1) 5...Bd6 6.Bd3 Qg5 7.Ne2 c6 8.Ng3 Bc7 9.0–0 Nd7 10.Nc3 N7f6 11.Nxd5 Nxd5 12.b4 h5 13.Bb2 Bh3 14.gxh3 h4 15.Be4 (15.Ba6) 15...hxg3 16.Bxd5 and White was clearly better in Rodriguez Lopez-Castillo Martinez, Mislata 2000.

b2) 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 a6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.Be2 0–0 9.h4 h6 10.b4 Be6 11.Bb2 Nxc3 12.Bxc3 Bf6 =+ Sattari-Cheparinov, Dos Hermanas Internet Blitz 2004.

5...Bd6

a) 5...Nc6 6.Nc3 (6.Bb5) 6...Be6 7.Qc2 a6 8.Be2 Be7 9.0–0 Qd7 10.b4 0–0 11.Bb2 Bf6 12.Na4 Qe8 13.b5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Bd7 (14...e4) 15.Nc5 Ncb4 16.axb4 Bxb5 17.Rxa8 Qxa8 18.Ra1 += W.Paulsen-Flechsig, Leipzig 1879.

b) 5...Nd7 6.Qc2 c6 7.Nc3 N5f6 8.Bc4 Bd6 9.b4 0–0 10.Bb2 Qe7 11.Ng5 Nb6 12.Ba2 g6 13.h4 Bf5 14.Nce4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Rad8 16.h5 Nd7 17.g4 Bxg4 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.Nc5 with a clear advantage to White in Schmittdiel-Medunova, Liechtenstein 1994.

6.Qc2

This is the normal Kan move but doesn't appear very threatening and may allow Black to reach an acceptable position with modest play. However, if Black plays modestly White's long-term advantages - in particular his central majority - may become an important factor. Alternatives include:

a) By parallel from the reversed lines, 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Ba2 should be an important line.

b) 6.d3 Nc6 7.b4 a6 8.Bb2 Be6 9.Nbd2 0–0 10.Nc4 f6 11.Be2 Re8 12.0–0 Bf8 13.Rc1 Qd7 14.Qc2 Rad8 15.Rfe1 = Kunte-Suvrajit, Atul 2006.

c) 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 (7.dxc3 0–0 8.e4 a5 9.Bc4 a4 10.0–0 Bg4 11.h3 Bd7 12.Bg5 += Eichler-Baumgartner, Austria 2000) 7...0–0 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 c5 10.d5 Nd7 11.Bb2 Nf6 12.Bc4 a6 13.a4 Bf5 14.0–0 Rb8 15.a5 += Steinitz-Rosenthal, Vienna 1873.

d) 6.e4 Nb6 7.d4 exd4 8.Qxd4 0–0 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Qc3 Re8 11.Bg5 f6 12.Be3 Ne5 =+ Symeonidis-Panagiotopoulos, Nikea 2004.

6...0–0 7.b4

White has also tried:
a) 7.d3 Re8 8.Nbd2 Bf8 9.Be2 a5 10.b3 a4 11.b4 c5 12.bxc5 Na6 13.Bb2 was very good for White in Bouhallel-Weemaes, Belgium 2003.

b) 7.Bc4 Be6 (7...Nb6 8.Ba2 Qe7 9.h4 N8d7 10.Ng5 Nf6 11.Nc3 Kh8 12.Ne2 e4 13.f3 Nbd7 14.fxe4 c5 15.d4 gave White the advantage in Bosboom-Ellenbroek, Enschede 1993) 8.Qb3 c6 9.Nc3 Nd7 10.d4 Rb8 11.e4 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bg4 13.Be2 c5 14.d5 b5 =+ Pantsulaia-Dzagnidze, Istanbul 2006.

7...Nd7

Or 7...Bg4 8.Bb2 Nd7 9.Be2 Kh8 10.d3 f5 11.Nbd2 Qe7 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 N7f6 = Bouhallel-Marchadour, Avoine 2006.

8.Bb2 Re8 9.Bc4 N7f6 10.d3 c6 11.Nbd2 Bg4 12.Ng5 h6 13.Nge4 Bf8 14.h3 Bh5 (Dia)

So far the play has looked rather calm and positional. Now White decides to use his active pieces, his central majority and his delayed castling in a kingside attack.
15.g4 Bg6 16.Rg1 Nxe4 17.dxe4 Qh4 18.Rg3 Rad8 19.Nf3 Qf6 20.h4

It's becoming clear that White's attack is very dangerous.

20...Qd6?

This fails for tactical reasons - the pin in the b1-h7 diagonal can be neutralized. After 20...Nb6 White's attack still seems promising but nothing is really decided.

21.h5 Bh7 22.g5 b5

Now 22...Nb6 is met decisively by 23.g6.

23.Bb3 hxg5 24.Nxg5 Be7 25.Nxh7 Nb6 26.Rg6 Qd3 27.Bxe5 Bxb4+ 28.axb4 Rxe5 29.Qb2 Kxh7 30.Qxe5 fxg6 31.hxg6+ Kh6 32.Rd1 Qxb3 33.Rxd8 Qxb4+ 34.Kf1 1–0 Kjartansson-Baldursson, Reykjavik 2006.

Another Shortest Proof Game

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

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


and:

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

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

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

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

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







6.Nf6 mate






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







6.Rxh8 mate







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





7.Bh5 mate









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






7.f7 mate








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






9.Kg4 mate.








Any better?

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

A Collector's Item

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

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

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

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

A Markovic Triumph

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

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

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

Velimirovic - Markovic, Valjevo 2000

1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6!?

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

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

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

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

3.f4 (Dia)

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

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

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

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

6...Nh6!?

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

7.Nbd2

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

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

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

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

According to Stohl Black is already better.

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

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

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

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

23.Rfe1 b5

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

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

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

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

36.Nxf5?

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

36...gxf5 (Dia)

37.Rg1 Nb6 38.Nd2 Qf8 39.a3

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

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

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

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

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

49...Qh7

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

50.Ke1?

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

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

For the exchange Black gets a dangerous attack.

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

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

55...Nf8! 56.Re2

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

56...Rc3 57.Re3 Rc2?

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

58.Re2 Ra2?

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

59.Nf3?

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

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

The rest is relatively simple.

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

67...Qd3! is an immediate win.

68.Rxc4

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

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

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

72...Bxg5 73.hxg5 f4 0–1

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

Bukhuti Gurgenidze 1933-2008

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Adventures in Sokolsky's Jungle

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

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

This looks natural.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13...Qe7 (Dia)

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

14.Ne5

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

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

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

d) 14.Rg1!? deserves a look.

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

14...Nxd4

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

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

19.Kd1?!

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

19...Rd8+ 20.Kc2?

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Chess Book Covers Revolutionized

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

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

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

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

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

A New Orang Utan in Town

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

Here is the Table of Content:

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

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

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

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

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

3...Nf6 4.c4

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

4...0–0 5.Nf3 Nc6!?

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

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

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

9...Rxe3!? (Dia)

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

10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qb3!?

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

11...Nxg2+ 12.Kd1

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

12...Be6 13.Qd3 (Dia)

13...Qxd3!?

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

14.Bxd3 Bg4 15.Be2

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

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

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

15...Nf4 16.Rf1

Again it's hard to find a real improvement:

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

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

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

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

18.Kd3

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

18...Rd8+ 19.Kc4

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

19...Be6+

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

20.Kxc5 Rd5+ 21.Kc4 Re5+

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

22.Kc3

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Addendum June 3rd.

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

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

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

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

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