The Chess Mind

As mentioned here, GM Alexander Baburin tied for first in the Irish championship with Israeli GM Alon Greenfeld, but since he's an Irish citizen, he won the title. One of his wins can be replayed here (with an abbreviated version of his notes [which I've supplemented with some additional game references] from Chess Today, issue 2804), but I'd like to draw your attention here to the opening of that game:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Rc1 c6 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.O-O dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5 12.h3 exd4 13.exd4 Nb6 14.Bb3



This was the starting point for a variation that was hot in the mid-1980s. Kasparov himself won one of the most important games of his career with it, defeating Karpov in the crucial 22nd game of their 1986 match. I used it myself back then, but thought it was put out of business by the game Olafsson-van der Sterren. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed except that people have had time to forget how to face it, but sometimes that's reason enough. (Connoisseurs of this variation are welcome to correct me.)

Enjoy the game, and who knows - maybe a careful look at the diagram will reveal something.

I just finished watching Rustam Kasimdzhanov's ChessBase DVD on the Anti-Moscow Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5), and it's not a bad summary of the theoretical progression of the variation in super-GM play starting from the Radjabov-Anand rapid match in August 2006 going through Wijk aan Zee earlier this year. Kasimdzhanov does a nice job presenting the key ideas, some important move order issues, the games themselves and a few original ideas to boot. I'd recommend the disk to players (interested in the variation) from around 2100 to 2450, but if you do get it, you should hurry - theory is developing rapidly!

On the other hand, it may not be developing quite as rapidly as we think. Take the famous win by Kramnik over Aronian earlier this year, from Wijk aan Zee. That game continued (after the eight moves given above) as follows: 9.9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. a4 e5 15. Bg4 exd4 16. e5 c5 17. Re1 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 O-O 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Ne2 f5 21. Bh5 f4 22. b4 cxb3 23. Qxb3 Qd5 24. Qh3 Bc8 25. Nc3 (Improving on 25.Qd3, as played in Radjabov-Anand, Mainz 2006, game 7.)



and White went on to win many moves later. (The game and its predecessor can be replayed here.) Black can (and did) capture the knight, but White gets so much play on both sides of the board that it more than compensates for the pawns. (In fact, by the time the final simplifications occurred, Kramnik had gone from three pawns down to two pawns up.)

A brilliant novelty? Well, it is a brilliant move, and it was a novelty in the sense that it was a move that had never been played before. The only thing is that this wasn't some deep idea originating in the secret halls of Kramnik Laboratories; it was devised - and published! - by Anand in the notes to his game with Radjabov back in 2006. (Informant 97, game 318.) Not only that, but Anand also offered there what's now pretty much universally acknowledged to be Black's improvement, 22...d3! 23.bxc5! b4!, keeping the central files closed and White's Ne2 dominated.

It's true, of course, that the amount of information out there is colossal, and even those who have accumulated everything and have the best memories are taxed to the breaking point by that information. Still, this seems more a failure of research than memory on Aronian's part, as the theory of this particular subvariation consisted of only one game. And it's a good plug for the Informant, too!

I was browsing IM Jovanka Houska's 2007 book Play the Caro-Kann, and while looking through the introductory section on the Panov/Botvinnik Attack I read something incredible. In a subsection called 7th move sidelines, I came across this:

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 Nf6 5 Nc3

5 Nf3 is known as Vallicella's Caro-Kann trap - Black has to watch out for one big trick. Best is simply to play 5...Nc6, transposing to the main line after 6 Nc3, but 5...Bg4? would be a mistake after 6 c5! Nc6 7 Bb5. The point is that Black has big difficulties defending the c6 point; for example, 7...e6 8 Qa4 Qc7 9 Ne5 Rc8 10 Bf4 and White is winning!

There's nothing objectionable about the analysis*; rather, what struck me was the reference to Vallicella's Caro-Kann trap, as if this was standard lore in treatments of the Caro-Kann. How did Bill Vallicella, an outstanding philosophical blogger but a 1500-1700 club player not engaged in publicizing his games, suddenly achieve such fame? I had come across his trap either from an email by him or on a post on his predominantly philosophical blog, but when did a move he may have played but a single time turn into an idea requiring mention in a pretty major new theoretical work?

Houska doesn't cite a source, and I certainly didn't recall seeing it in any published materials, so naturally it was off to Google. Entering "Vallicella Caro-Kann", I discovered the main source, conveniently entitled "Vallicella's Caro-Kann Trap"...and you can, too - just click here. Then laugh.**

* Actually, while I wouldn't disagree with her positive suggestion, I don't believe 5...Bg4 is in fact a mistake; the real error comes later. After, e.g. 7...e5 I don't see a White advantage after 8.dxe5 Ne4 or 8.Qa4 Bxf3 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qxc6+ Nd7 11.gxf3 exd4, and even the arguably best 8.Nc3 promises little or nothing after 8...Nd7 9.dxe5 Bxf3 (10.Qxf3 d4; 10.gxf3 a6).

** If anyone knows IM Houska personally, please ask her to write me (via the Contact link) - I'd like to trace the path from Vallicella's idea to her book.

I just finished watching a ChessBase DVD by Rustam Kasimdzhanov on the French - one of three - and I was pleasantly surprised. GM Kasimdzhanov, a former FIDE world champ, has a 3-disk series on meeting the French, and the second disk examines 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc3 7.Be3. His coverage comprises 14 clips that together run 3 hours and 17 minutes: one clip is an Intro, one a brief theoretical overview, 12 clips covering 11 games, and a final summary "Outro".

The disc is a success in three respects (I will note a couple of limitations later). First and foremost, Kasimdzhanov does an excellent job of illustrating the importance for White of the d4 square, and in demonstrating how he can use it (especially with a good Nd4 vs. bad light-squared bishop) to win thematic French endings. The careful viewer will not only learn some theory, but will really understand how to win (some of) the resulting positions. (Note: this thematic ending is far from the only idea discussed on the disk, but it receives coverage in keeping with its importance.)

Second, Kasimdzhanov does a decent job of presenting in outline the important variations White needs to know. Of course he can't cover everything, but much of what is important is at least touched upon. The viewer playing White is unlikely to see anything concepts after 7.Be3 he won't have been prepared for by the video's host.

Third, it's a fantastic source of really beautiful games. Many of the 11 games were new to me, and even just for the pleasure they provided the disk was worth my time. Kasimdzhanov's choices were brilliant, as the games were not only extraordinary but thematic as well.

Now for the limitations. First, and this is true of most video DVDs not supplemented by databases, the total amount of information is far less than one gets from a book or a database. Of course, one doesn't want too much information, because then one isn't sure what to focus on and what to disregard, but for strong club players (approx. 2000 and up) a bit more info is probably necessary.

Second, Kasimdzhanov doesn't say too much about what White ought to avoid. He does present many of Black's ideas, but I don't recall any Black fantasies/White horror stories that are the counterparts to the Nd4 vs. bad bishop White fantasy/Black disaster. More specifically but along the same lines, Kasimdzhanov sometimes omits mention of theoretical improvements for Black. Here's one example, albeit one that's probably not relevant to his repertoire.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Qd2 O-O 10.O-O-O a6 11.h4 (Note: Kasimdzhanov's "official" recommendation here is 11.Qf2) 11...Nxd4 12.Bxd4 b5 13.Rh3 b4 14.Na4 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 f6 16.Qxb4 fxe5 17.Qd6 Qf6 18.f5 Qh6+ 19.Kb1, he continues to present the game Kasparov-Short, Amsterdam (VSB Euwe Memorial) 1994, which was brilliantly won by White. Kasimdzhanov is rightly enthusiastic about Kasparov's idea with 18.f5!!, and continues to present the game, which went 19...Rxf5 20.Rf3!! Rxf3 21.gxf3. White is a pawn down with a bad kingside structure, but Black's retarded development and White's attacking prospects given him the advantage. What Kasimdzhanov doesn't mention is the move 19...Nf6!, which has been played quite a few times since Kasparov-Short (most prominently by Stellwagen and Brynell), and Black's results have been excellent. Even if it turns out that White can prove an advantage there, it's not the sort of position one can figure out on spec.

I would suggest, therefore, that if you're over 2000 OTB or a correspondence player, you supplement this disk with something else, like a quality database and/or a book like volume 6 in fellow former FIDE champ Alexander Khalifman's "Anand" series. But for just about anyone else, this DVD will give you all you need to face 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 with confidence. Highly recommended.

[Full disclosure: I do a weekly show with ChessBase, so I have some motivation not to write a negative review. However, there isn't and never has been any pressure on me to write any reviews at all, so my positive feelings about this disk are genuine and unsolicited.]

Holland may be a small country in terms of area, but in chess it's a mighty power with a great history. They're holding their national championship (photos and reports here, in English) in Hilversum now, and Friso Nijboer is the early leader with 2/2.

A game from the first round - Smeets-Reinderman - caught my eye, from a variation of the Open Ruy invented by Igor Zaitsev and famously played in two world championship matches - its debut in Karpov-Korchnoi, 1978 and its absolute high point in Kasparov-Anand, 1995. I knew it was theory pretty far in, so I wondered if this 28-move draw (by perpetual check) simply repeated pre-existing theory. The novelty came on move 24, but what was surprising is that Black improved, or "improved", on an earlier game Black won in 32 moves! Here's the position before Reinderman's novelty:



It's Black to move, and he played 24...c2, threatening both 25...Bxa1 and 25...d1Q. White's situation would be dire, if he didn't have the neat tactical resource 25.Rxa6!, with the point that 25...d1Q, as played by Reinderman, allows perpetual check starting with 26.Ba7+ Kc8 27.Bd4!. White threatens 28.Ra8#, and moves like 27...Qxf1+ change nothing after 28.Kxf1. Black will have to play ...Kb8 sooner or later, and that's what happened: 27...Kb8 28.Ba7+ Draw.

This looks neat enough, but what about the stem game, won by Black? That was Burnett-Becerra, from a 2006 USCL clash, and there (going back to the diagram position) Black played 24...Rhe8. Now there are two questions: (1) Why can't White go for the same perpetual? and (2) How did the game finish? The answer to the first question makes for a nice mini-quiz, and I recommend you try to solve it before proceeding.

Inspired by my game with Yudasin, a reader who wishes to remain anonymous has sent a wonderful Botvinnik Semi-Slav where Black's queenside pawn mass - complete with three connected passed pawns on the 7th - devours everything in its path. Black is down two full rooks, but it matters not a whit. This game in turn reminded me of another Botvinnik Semi-Slav, one that's almost its bizarro world counterpart. This time it's White who's down a rook (but not two, alas) and enjoying compensation in the form of a mighty pawn armada. It doesn't quite come to three pawns on the 7th this time, but it's still a special game.

They don't get much better than this.

Here is an email from "Khayyam" (lightly edited):

Hello Dennis!

I would like to ask for your opinion about the following line which caught my attention about a year ago and during this year I've tested it in several practical games: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bc4!?

Although I'm not quite sure whether it is a "novelty" at all, I haven't found 5.Bc4 on the internet (at least in high-level games).

I've analysed the two main variations 5...Nxe4 and 5...Qa5+ and have come to the conclusion that the pawn sacrifice is quite reasonable and deserves serious consideration (So the question is that: why hasn't it been tried by grandmasters yet?) I'm aware that Black can always deviate from White's preparations by 5...e6, but then, the Scheveningen variation should be declared Black's main choice in Sicilian, shouldn't it?

I can't claim that my analysis is faultless and that's why I really need your opinion, you can imagine my curiosity about the whole matter.

Your suggestion is an interesting one, and while I've never seen it in high-level play either (according to my database, it has appeared only once in games between 2400+ players), I do recall reading a very brief article on it a quarter of a century ago! IM Mark Ginsburg had a series on opening sidelines ("Chess Openings for Heroes") in a now-defunct publication called Players Chess News. Here's his analysis, which I was able to dig up this afternoon at the Notre Dame library, from Chess Annual I (1981/2), pages 62-3:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bc4 Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 with a "positional sort of pull", albeit one that is "not heroic", or - his preferred idea - 6.Qh5(!) e6 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Nxe6 ("Sheer poetry!") Qe7 (8...Qa5? 9.Bd2! 1-0) 9.Nc7+! Kd8 10.Nd5! Ng3+ 11.Nxe7 Nxh5 12.Bxd7 "with a better endgame(!) for White."

Now I'll throw in my two cents. First, as noted by both "Khayyam" and Ginsburg, Black can play 5...e6 and transpose to the Sozin (assuming White plays 6.Nc3). "Khayyam" seems to think this is a concession on Black's part, as the Scheveningen (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6) is not the most popular line of the Sicilian anymore. The last part of that sentence is correct, but not part one: Black is under pressure in the Scheveningen against the English Attack (6.Be3 followed by f3, Qd2, g4, O-O-O etc.), and to some extent the Keres Variation (6.g4) and the 6.Be2 lines, but whether one plays the Najdorf (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6) or the Classical Sicilian (same first four and a half moves, then 5...Nc6), playing ...e6 is almost automatic against Bc4 lines. So meeting 5.Bc4 with ...e6 isn't really a concession at all. In fact, while some Sozin specialists like GM Mikhail Golubev might disagree, the 6.Bc4 variations are generally considered quite pleasant for Black these days, theoretically speaking.

Next, we should make an attempt to evaluate Ginsburg's suggestions. First, does White have a positional pull in the 5...Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ g6 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 line? I have my doubts. The position is strategically complex with imbalances galore: Black has the bishop pair and a pair of unopposed central pawns; White has a lead in development, fewer pawn islands and the possibility of exerting pressure on Black's center pawns as they advance. I think Black has approximate equality after either 9...d5 or 9...e5, but if I were going to head for such a position on a regular basis, serious analysis would be required.

After Ginsburg's preferred 6.Qh5, however, accurate play leaves Black without any problems. One example of interesting but probably inaccurate play is 6...d5. Neither 7.Bb5+ nor 7.Qxd5 offer much, but 7.Bxd5 g6 8.Qe5 Nf6 9.Nb5 is good enough for an edge. So we continue with his line - 6...e6 7.Bb5+ - and now there's not only his 7...Bd7 to consider, but also 7...Nd7 (best) and the greedy 7...Ke7 to boot. Both are playable, but 7...Nd7 is simplest. The point is that after 8.Nxe6 Nef6 9.Nxd8 Nxh5, the White knight is trapped. It escapes after 10.Bxd7+ Bxd7 11.Nxb7, but after 11...Bc6 12.Na5 Bxg2 13.Rg1 Be4 it's Black who enjoys the slightly more comfortable ending.

Going back a ways, it's also worth mentioning the other 5th move possibility noted by "Khayyam", 5...Qa5+. After the natural 6.Nc3 Nxe4 7.Qf3 Nf6 8.O-O e6 (not 8...g6 9.Re1 Bg7 10.Bh6!) White has a lead in development, but I'm not sure it will yield tangible returns. For example: 9.Bf4 a6 10.Rad1 Be7 11.Rfe1 O-O and White's compensation is starting to fade.

In sum, it seems that Black should be fine with either 5...e6 or by "falling for" the trappy lines, but as White isn't in bad shape either it's a reasonable sideline for the occasional game, provided White doesn't mind the main line Sozin.

You can replay the analysis above, and a bit more besides, here.

There's the ChessBase show tonight, of course, but I've also got two newly released videos on ChessVideos.tv. The first is the 17th-place winner in the USCL Game of the Year countdown (video here), featuring the interesting attacking game Bonin-Molner.

The second is something completely different, a fun look at some weird, fascinating backwaters in the Italian Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4). You won't learn much of mainstream theoretical value, but I hope you'll be entertained, enthused, and feeling wonder about the fascinating possibilities present in even the simplest and best-known positions. That video is here.

A month and a half ago I noted the game Thesing-Marin, which repeated a line of the Open Ruy generally condemned on the basis of the 8th game of the 1978 world championship match between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi. Both games started 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 and now 10...g6. Korchnoi was crushed in 28 moves and his 10th move found few followers, but one of them was Korchnoi himself! Still later Marin used it against Thesing, though the large rating disparity should give us pause before declaring the line safe and sound.

In the post linked above, I tried to discern the truth of the matter. My conclusion was that 10...g6 is very risky and probably advantageous for White, but it's at least playable. This update doesn't undermine that conclusion or the novelty devised in that post, but adds to the source material and Black's troubles. The source is the man himself, Viktor Korchnoi, in the updated Olms Edition of Chess is My Life. Click here to see his analysis (it's all his except when preceded by "DM"), with which I'm largely in agreement. The news, then, isn't news at all: Black will continue to struggle in this variation against best play.

In this post of several months ago, I presented the spectacular game Ahn-Ruck.



Here White played 9.a4, a plausible move but a mistake, only to get wiped out with the brilliant 9...Nxe4!!. Along with my sources at the time, I praised Ruck for his brilliant new move. Indeed, it is brilliant, and it's the first time the move has been played in that exact position. If you take a look at Tim Krabbé's latest Open Chess Diary entry (#368), you'll see that it has been played (at least) twice before, but with colors reversed and without a4 (...a5) having been played. Actually, the trap is far more likely to arise in that context, so you might want to have a look.

Russian GM Vadim Zvjaginsev is one of those players one should always keep an eye out for. Not only is he a very strong grandmaster (current rating: 2674, peak of 2680), he's also one of the most creative, experimentally-minded players of our age. His most famous experiment is his anti-Sicilian line 1.e4 c5 2.Na3!?*, but for Zvjaginsev, the road less traveled is a way of life.

His latest abominations against routine come from the just-completed Russian Cup, where he lost in the finals 1.5-.5 to Artyom Timofeev. In the semi-finals, against Tomashevsky, he trotted out the hoary old King's Gambit, while against Timofeev in the finals it was time for the Schliemann. Of course neither of those choices is as rare as his patented 2.Na3, but they're still both extremely rare at elite levels.

Have a look.


* Those interested in checking out the 2.Na3!? Anti-Sicilian can have a look at these posts and the game links therein: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

In my youth, when the world was young and dirt was interesting, one of the opening lessons I learned from the world of big-time chess was that in the Open Ruy (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4, with the standard continuation 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6) the move 10...g6 (after 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3) was an error. Viktor Korchnoi tried it in game 8 of his 1978 world championship match against Anatoly Karpov, and he was butchered. All the analysts I saw evaluated the move as dubious or simply bad, and that was that. There was a period early in my tournament career when I played the Open Ruy, and as a result of this famous game 10...g6 never so much as entered my mind as a viable substitute for 10...d4, 10...Bg4 or 10...Be7.

Fast forward 29 years(!), to some time this past Sunday, when looking through Chess Today's daily database I came across a game between Matthias Thesing and Mihail Marin, from the new season of the Bundesliga. To my shock, Marin played 10...g6! That got my mind spinning: Maybe the position in Karpov-Korchnoi was different? Nope, same position. Maybe 10...g6 wasn't universally condemned, and Korchnoi's error, according to the commentators, came later? Nope, they all piled on against 10...g6, from the old commentators to the new - even Kasparov in My Great Predecessors (Volume 5, p. 120) joins the chorus booing 10...g6.

So what gives? Has Marin discovered something new? Was this a bluff, a one-time throwaway idea against a lower-rated player? (Thesing is a "mere" IM - a fine player in his own right but at 2393 considerably lower-rated than the 2551-rated Marin.) 10...g6 is not popular at all, but Korchnoi himself has trotted it out a couple of times since the Karpov debacle. Was I right as a kid in thinking 10...g6 was a poor move, or was this another example of seeing an unusual idea misevaluated based on the game's result?

The bottom line is that I'm not sure. I think White can gain an edge, but it's nothing fatal and the positions are more complicated than the K-K game might suggest. After reviewing a bunch of games, especially the fascinating Neeloptal-Mikhalevski encounter, I spent quite some time on 11.Nd4 Nxe5 12.f4 (a novelty, I think), and you'll find some very interesting ideas therein - most notably the queen sac 12...Nc4 13.f5! Ne3 14.fxe6!! In sum, 10...g6 is a very dangerous continuation, but it may be playable. Readers' analysis is welcomed.

Here are the games and analyses.

On the train to visit a friend, and maybe play in a chess tournament, I was browsing Mihail Marin's Beating the Open Games. On balance, my impression of the book is quite favorable, but I was taken aback by the following quotation:

This novelty has a curious history.

When preparing for games, I frequently consult my own articles, CD's [sic] or books in order to refresh my memory. This has proved rather efficient so far, which is a consequence of the fact that I am generally sincere when writing about my openings. (Page 227; emphasis added.)

Now, I do sympathize with the plight of the GM author. On the one hand, he is expected to present accurate and truthful information: this is his duty to his publisher, the audience, and, I would add, a general moral obligation. On the other hand, he needs to perform as a player, and if he's got a few terrific improvements on current theory ready to hand, it's hard to just give them away when they could net him several hundred or even several thousand dollars. Maybe one possibility is to simply present current theory in the relevant lines, and in that way the readers are getting current information and the author doesn't have to tell any lies.

So I do understand his plight, but nonetheless, it's disconcerting to read a comment like the one given above. Generally sincere? Great. It's one thing to know that an author is finite and fallible - that's a given. But to pay him to lie to me? That's completely unacceptable.

Your thoughts, readers?

You might think that the title of this post is slightly sarcastic, but it really isn't. To assure a nice, easy, boring - or boring-looking - draw in high level chess when playing Black against an opponent who's trying, you need to do something at least a little special. The GMs who are in these games recognize the subtlety of the ideas and, yes, the beauty of the plans - even if they're used to spectator-unfriendly ends. But for the amateur and casual fan, it's more easily missed. This is understandable, but every so often it's worth taking a closer look at these marvelously efficient efforts to see what makes them tick.

So let's have a closer look at the game Eljanov(2681) - Anand(2801) from today's round of the European Club Cup. The game was an exciting Moscow Variation Semi-Slav, and followed the dramatic Kramnik - Anand game from Mexico City all the way through White's 20th move. Anand varied on move 20, and ten moves later the game was abandoned as a draw. In the earlier game, the play was quite unclear but saw White enjoy the initiative much of the way through; today, however, Anand succeeded brilliantly in taking all the spunk out of Eljanov's position.

Intrigued yet? Have a look.

I used to play the main line Budapest Gambit from time to time (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 is the Budapest, and the main line continues 3.dxe5 Ng4), but never felt tempted by the Fajarowicz - 3.dxe5 Ne4. At least two books have advocated this variation in the last decade or so, but I'd like to know why. If White plays 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.a3, he enjoys a useful advantage without even a smidgin of risk. Here are a couple of possible variations:

Line 1a: 6...Nxd2 7.Bxd2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qf4 or 9.Qc3 with a slight-to-clear advantage.


Line 1b: 6...Nxd2 7.Nxd2 gives White a slight edge thanks to the bishop pair.

Line 2: 6...Bxd2+ 7.Nxd2 Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2 Nxe5 (8...Qh4 9.Bc3! Qxc4 (Not forced, but then what's the point of 8...Qh4?) 10.e3 Qe6 11.Qh5 with a clear advantage) 9.Bc3 with an edge. One possible continuation: 9...Qe7 10.Qd4 f6 11.e3 b6 12.Be2 Bb7 13.O-O followed by b4, with an edge.

I freely grant that the above isn't a refutation in the strong sense: the concluding positions in these lines are all playable for Black. But the real question is why Black would want to play such positions - there are basically no complications, and the positions are primarily technical. And if one can win such positions with Black against a peer or near-peer, one shouldn't play the Budapest, but technical lines instead!

A ridiculous title, I know. What's next, a post explaining how to breathe? If the topic concerned the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? 3.Nxe5! fxe5 4.Qh5+, you'd be right to think this post is unnecessary, as it has long been known that White wins here: 4...Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.h4! (but absolutely, positively NOT 8.Bxb7? Bd6! 9.Qa5 Bxb7 10.Qf5+ Kh6 11.d3+ g5 12.h4 Kg7 and the Black king survives) 8...h5 9.Bxb7! (now!) 9...Bd6 10.Qa5 Bxb7 11.Qf5+ Kh6 12.d4+ g5 and now both 13.Bxg5+ (many sources) and 13.Qf7 (McGrew) win and then some.

However, as McGrew notes in his July 2003 Gambit Cartel article, 3...Qe7 is far more resilient. Black will die a painful and deserved death after 4.Nf3 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 followed by quick and natural developing moves, but 4...d5! 5.d3 dxe4 6.dxe4 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Bf5 (as played against Bobby Fischer in a simul - drawn!) or even 7...Nc6 8.O-O Bd7 9.Nc3 Qf5 looks remarkably survivable for Black. (You can find more details in McGrew's article.)

This offended my sense of propriety - how can Black play such garbage and live to tell the tale? - but the few minutes I spent trying to improve McGrew's analysis back in 2003 was altogether inconclusive. Flash forward to yesterday afternoon, when Dan Dugovic offered a comment on my last post. That comment and its follow-up got my wheels spinning, and during a little session of daydreaming the solution came to me. The answer: meet 3...Qe7 with 4.Nc4! I think this is better than 4.Nf3 for two reasons.

First, in the 4...Qxe4+ line, White's kingside pieces are more aggressively placed on e3 and d3 than on f3 and e2, and he should therefore be more quickly able to stir up trouble on the e-file. Second, by keeping the d1-h5 diagonal open, White can meet 4...d5 with 5.Qh5+ and 6.Qxd5. Black does gain some counterplay for the pawns, but it looks like accurate play allows White to consolidate with an extra pawn in the bank.

Order has been restored in the universe: moves like 2...f6 followed by 3...Qe7 leave Black in a lousy position. Perhaps you'll never have the chance to use this analysis, but hopefully it will inspire you to trust the power of the traditional rules of open games. And if this encourages you to seek refutations of your opponent's liberties in open games - and to succeed in finding them - then this post will have been a success.

More details here.

I'm usually not interested in cult openings (e.g. the Blackmar-Diemer pawn loss) and go out of my way to discourage people from using them, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the Traxler/Wilkes-Barre variation of the Two Knights: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!? (Threat? What threat?). I don't know if it's sound - it might be - but it's a lot of fun, and it seems a most fitting reply to the duffer's move.

At any rate, those who are interested in this crazy line should bookmark and utilize John L. Jerz's very useful page on this variation, as well as Stefan Bücker's July 2007 Chess Cafe column.

HT (of sorts): This month's Bücker's column.

As popular as the Marshall Gambit* is, the Chigorin Variation** of the Ruy Lopez is even more popular, at least historically. Despite sharing the first six and a half moves in common, the two lines continue in very different directions. The former is quite sharp and open, with Black frequently enjoying a space advantage and the initiative in exchange for a pawn. The latter, by contrast, often features turgid maneuvering, with White enjoying a slight space advantage in what is often a partially locked position. Or at least that's how things stood before the game Kuznetsov-Gajewski:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2



This position has appeared 8736 times in Mega2007, and countless more times in correspondence and amateur play. I've had this position with White dozens of times myself, and I've always seen 10...c5, the move that arose in 8703 of the 8736 games mentioned above. But what I've never seen, and had never been played in the Mega database, was Gajewski's choice in our main game: 10...d5!!?



This is a thematic break in the Ruy, even when we're not taking the Marshall into account, but here?! Black won the game and the computer approves, but we'll have to wait and see. If it's fully sound, it's truly significant, as White's play has long been seen as Black's most serious test. If Black can equalize this easily, then the Ruy as we know it is in trouble. (Actually, it's already in trouble thanks to the Marshall Gambit, but this would be a further nail in the coffin.)

Here's the full game.

* 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5

** 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5

Nick De Firmian's tribulations in the Arctic Chess Challenge had been noted in some earlier posts (here and here), and now we'll conclude the sad summary with one final unfortunate report. In round 7, De Firmian was paired with the 17-year old, 2122-rated Norwegian player Johannes Kvisla, and the two debated a Najdorf line that was popular and extremely important in the 1980s, but which has large disappeared nowadays. Surprisingly, while this variation is right up De Firmian's alley, it was the youngster who bowled a strike.

Have a look here: it's a fascinating line and a nice accomplishment by the youngster.

In a post several days ago, I presented the following sequence of moves:

DM-Pocket "Fritz", g/10:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 Ne7 6.O-O c5 7.c4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxc4 9.d5 exd5 (novelty) 10.Nxd5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxd5 12.Bxc4 Qxe5 13.Bb5+ Nc6 14.Re1 Be4 15.f3 Rd8 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qe2 (eventually 1/2-1/2)

and challenged readers to find improvements for White. During the game I felt sure after 9.d5 that I should have at least a small edge, and I felt happy about my moves when playing them. Despite that, I "awakened" around move 15 or 16 to realize that Black was slightly better, and it was time to earn the draw. (Which I did.)

Here are my findings; readers are encouraged to offer further improvements.