A Scandinavian Speciality in the Closed Ruy Lopez

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

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

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

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

Dangerous Weapons - Dutch

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

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

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

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

He That Seeketh Findeth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delaying the Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Happy New Year

Here is some fireworks for the new year:

Salaske-Leisebein, corr 1988

1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.c4 0–0 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb2 Re8 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Be2 Rxe3!? 10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qc1 (Dia)

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

11...Nxg2+

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

12.Kf2 Bh3

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

13.Rg1! Qe7 14.d4 (Dia)

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

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

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

Tilp-Hammerschmidt, corr 1988.

14...Re8 15.Bd3

15.Bb5 is met by 15...a6

15...Nh4

This looks sufficient for at least equality. Alternatives are:

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

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

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

16.Qg5

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

16...f6 (Dia)

17.Qf4?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the Veresov

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











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to Tournament Chess

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

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

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

Leif Erlend Plays the Stonewall

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

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

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

Ruy Lopez meets Nimzo Indian

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

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

Carlsen Plays the Stonewall

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

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

Zwaig Variation III

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

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

Double Reversed Halloween Gambit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Happy Halloween!

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

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

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?