The Chess Mind

Tonight's issue of Chess Today was a treasure trove for sharp opening variations outside the main lines. I've linked five games which I'll now briefly introduce.

The first two feature the Albin Counter-Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5), an opening with a less than estimable reputation in professional and amateur circles alike. There is the old trap 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3? Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4?? exf2+ 7.Ke2 fxg1N+! -+, with the idea that 8.Rxg1 Bg4+ wins the queen, but that's easily avoided and the old main line 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Bg4 6.Bg2 Qd7 7.O-O O-O-O hasn't been a rousing success for Black, either.

Nevertheless, there are some interesting alternative possibilities for Black. Morozevich has played the gambit a few times, and Minev in an issue of Inside Chess from the late 90s suggested Black try a quick ...f6 followed by castling kingside. So the gambit's not quite ready for the museum, and the linked games may give those of you who don't mind risks some further ideas.

Next, a Philidor's Defense game. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Bc4 c6 5.O-O, Black almost always plays 5...Be7, getting going with his kingside development and (sort of) stopping White's threatened Ng5. It's well-known, though, that White can play 6.Ng5 just the same, and after 6...Bxg5 7.Qh5 the double attack on f7 and g5 lets White recoup the piece and enjoy an edge thanks to the bishop pair.

So why not 5...h6? It prevents Ng5 without giving up the bishop pair, and although it doesn't speed up Black's development, the position seems closed enough for it not to matter. Right? Try to figure it out first, and then take a look.

Next game: consider the position after 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.e4 f6. (Or, for that matter, a related position in the King's Indian: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5.) I'm sure that until I was a 2000-strength player, and maybe even some time after that, I would have evaluated this position as significantly better for White. White has more central space, Black's bishop on g7 is looking pretty stupid, and Black's king in the center gives White some free tempi, if nothing else.

Not so. Black scores extremely well in both lines, and for similar reasons: the dynamic factors are relatively negligible, but White's hole on d4 is forever. Of course, it's not as easy as all that, but it gives Black a plan that's well-modeled in the fourth game.

Finally, we turn from statics to dynamics with the always crowd-pleasing Chinese Dragon (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O 9.O-O-O Bd7 10.Bc4 Rb8!?). White immediately produces a novelty, 11.Nb3, in hopes of keeping the position stable. Sometimes the prophylactic approach works in super-sharp openings, but it doesn't here; if anything, it speeds up Black's attack, and White goes down in a hail of tactics.

Happy analysis!

In the 1930s and '40s, Mikhail Botvinnik developed a very powerful attacking plan against the Nimzo-Indian involving first acquiring and then advancing a central pawn majority with an eye to developing a kingside initiative. The most famous game with this plan is the well-known game Botvinnik-Capablanca, AVRO 1938, and those of you who watch my weekly ChessBase show (see here and here) will have noticed that last week's game, Gligoric-Benko, also demonstrated Botvinnik's idea in action.

To conclude our Tigran Petrosian tryptich, we'll take a look at his interpretation of the plan, from his last win in his last tournament: Niksic 1983 (won by Kasparov) against the Yugoslavian super-GM Ljubomir Ljubojevic. Botvinnik wrote that he had difficulty predicting Petrosian's moves when they played, but while Petrosian's style differed significantly from Botvinnik's, he was able to utilize his ideas and make them his own. Hopefully we can, too: click here, replay the aforementioned games, and add another weapon to your opening arsenal!

Rick Kennedy writes, by email:

In his 10/23/04 "Gambit Cartel" column at www.chesscafe.com, Tim McGrew mentions that you have done some analysis on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4!? 4.Bxf7+!? As this line seems to have ideas at least in some ways related to the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+!?)I was wondering if your analysis is published and/or available?

Rick, I really didn't do very much analysis - here's what I think I have:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 and now two lines:

(a) 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7 6.c3 d6 7.Nc4 Nc6 8.d4 Nf6 9.O-O Kf7=+

(b) 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.O-O Qxe5 (6...d6 7.Nf3) 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Ne6 9.f4 Qf6 10.f5 Nd8 11.d4+=

I am a bit unhappy about the comparison you draw and the punctuation you use, however. I prefer this:

(A) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?! (maybe ?) 4.Bxf7+!? (but possibly ?)

(B) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+??

The first 4.Bxf7+ is a practically interesting but objectively second-rate response to 3...Nd4, a bad move whose only raison d'etre is the beginner's trap 4.Nxe5(!/!?) Qg5 5.Nxf7?? Qxg2-+ (6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#), while 4.Bxf7+ in the second line leaves White a piece down for no compensation whatsoever. Is there even a single trap for Black to fall into in the Jerome Gambit?

Interested readers might want to take a look at some of my earlier posts: this one on junk openings, and see here and here on the Jerome Gambit with the follow-up 5.Nxe5+, as in a well-known Blackburne game.

A few days ago, I addressed a lament concerning Black's fate after 1.d4 followed by 2.Nf3. These modern-day Jeremiahs wanted to know what the initiative-deprived Black player can do to liven things up.

I offered some thoughts on the subject in the earlier post, but this time I'm going to point out that it's not all sweetness and light for White when choosing this move order. It has its costs, ones that should be taken quite seriously. Here are some examples (I'll include cases with 3.Nf3 as well):

1.d4 d5 2.c4 allows a couple of nuisance lines:

(a) 2...e5 (the Albin Counter-Gambit)
(b) 2...e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 (the Hennig-Schara Counter-Gambit)

On the other hand, by playing 2.Nf3, White misses out on some interesting opportunities, too:

(a) The opportunity to face the Albin Counter-Gambit.
(b) The opportunity to face the Hennig-Schara Counter-Gambit.
(c) The QGD line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 O-O 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.Nge2, with the idea of a central pawn advance: O-O, Rae1, f3, Ng3 and e4.
(d) 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Bf5?! 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3, as with a knight on f3 instead of c3, Qb3 is no longer a double attack.
(e) 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5 3.cxd5 Bxb1 4.Qa4+ c6 5.Rxb1 Qxd5 6.Nf3 offers White better prospects for an edge than 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bf5 3.c4 e6.

Now for 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3

This avoids the following:

(a) The Budapest (2.c4 e5)
(b) The Benko Gambit (2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5)
(c) The Nimzo-Indian (2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4)

On the other hand, one loses out on

(a) The opportunity to face the Budapest.
(b) The opportunity to play the Taimanov Variation against the Modern Benoni, widely considered Black's biggest problem. (2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+!)
(c) A slew of lines against the King's Indian: the 4 Pawns Attack (2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4), the Saemisch (5.f3) and various lines with Nge2.
(d) The Queen's Gambit line addressed in the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 section - with a knight on f3 the transpositional possibility 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 O-O 8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.Nge2 is precluded.

Further, one can play 2.c4 and still avoid the Nimzo-Indian and the Benko by varying on move 3.

The moral of the story then, as I see it, is that White players objectively gain nothing by playing 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 (unless their goal is to play the Torre Attack, in which case this discussion is moot). They avoid certain aggressive Black lines, but as in each case the line can either be avoided later or ought to be encouraged, the advantage is illusory. Thus, as the goods they are forsaking are genuine ones, 1.d4 players should simply learn good lines against the Budapest, Albin and Hennig-Schara gambits. The free points will be worth it!

The Marshall Gambit, which arises after the introductory moves 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, and almost always continues 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6, has a reputation as a swashbuckler's opening. On the other hand, the Petroff Defense - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 - often provokes moans, groans and boos from the chess public.

If you play the Marshall, you're a daredevil; if you play the Petroff, you're a nematode, at least in the eyes of the general public.

This is utter hogwash, for two reasons. First, the Petroff nowadays often leads to sharp, strategically interesting positions with imbalanced pawn structures. The days when the Petroff meant a mutually static pawn structure with each side keeping seven pawns into the middlegame, making lots of trades and White enjoying as his sole advantage a smidgeon of extra space are long gone, but the old reputation remains.

Second, since at least the work of Boris Spassky in the 1960s, the Marshall Gambit has been used as a drawing weapon. Black engages in the usual kingside buildup (here the crowd cheers wildly), but quite often White will swap down to a drawish endgame. The most common endings leading to the drawing haven occur with Black enjoying two bishops vs. a bishop and knight or with the players suffering from opposite-colored bishops. (Sometimes the former leads to the latter.) In each case White has a nominal advantage, but the structures are such that the drawing tendencies are very well-established.

Want proof? Click here. The first games show Spassky's use of the weapon in the 1960s against Tal and Fischer, and the last game contemporizes this chessic sleeping pill, as Viswanathan Anand employs the Marshall to draw easily with Magnus Carlsen, on the way to a 3-1 (+2=2) match victory today in Leon.

What's the moral? For me, it's that the Petroff and its occasional adherents deserve a break, but if you're not willing to join me there, then I expect to hear your whistles and jeers at the sight of Marshall's most famous gambit!

I few days ago I received a letter asking a question and offering a lament:

How can Black wrest the initiative from White right out of the gate when White plays 1. d4? I hate it when White follows up with Nf3.

My quick reply was that although Black can try openings like the Modern Benoni and King's Indian Defense, he isn't entitled to the initiative. I think my reply was right as far as it went, but there's more to be said, and in this post I'd like to argue that one's choice of opening is neither necessary nor sufficient for acquiring the initiative.

For a first example, think of former world champion Alexander Alekhine (1892-1946). Alekhine was the great master of the initiative in his day, and has been a chess hero to many players in the intervening generations, most notably Garry Kasparov. Yet in Alekhine's day, the Queen's Gambit Declined, perhaps the most staid opening of them all, was THE major opening in the chess world in general, and in his games as well. (For example, of the 220 games in his classic My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937, 54 are QGDs, and a staggering 31 of 32 games in his world championship match with Capablanca were QGDs.)

To take a more recent example, I'm thinking of a player I like, but many chess fans don't, and whose repertoire includes the Najdorf, Classical and Sveshnikov Sicilians and the Botvinnik Variation of the Semi-Slav. Despite these razor-sharp opening preferences, however, he - Vladimir Kramnik - is rarely accused of being a player who strongly values the initiative.

So what does count? I'd say two things are relevant. First, knowing what you're doing. If you're playing a sharp opening but don't really have a clue, you're liable to get slaughtered. Second, what matters is that you have a good feel for the initiative. If you do and you know what you're doing in a given opening, then you will often find ways to seize the initiative, regardless of the opening.

Click here for a couple of examples.

Victor Reppert has, at long last, presented another post on his beloved Dragon Sicilian. His latest effort seeks to rehabilitate Black's position after move 19 of the famous 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi game, won decisively by White.

I have my doubts about his suggested improvements (see my comments to that post for some of my worries), but even so, it's a worthwhile exercise. Take a look - it's an interesting post and a very good blog!

(For those unfamiliar with Reppert's work on the Dragon, see also here, here and here. If after that you're still hungry for more Dragon theory, take a look at some of my old posts: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. If that isn't enough, it's time to call Dragonholics Anonymous.)

Channel surfing on the idiot box tonight, I came across the following opening sequence on the 1995 cinematic masterpiece "Assassins," starring master thespian Sylvester Stallone, Antonio Banderas and Julianne Moore:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 exd4(?! - 6...b5 is normal and best. The text introduces the Riga Variation of the Open Ruy Lopez.) 7.Re1 d5 8.Nxd4 (8.c4 and 8.Bg5 are important alternatives) 8...Bd6 9.Nxc6, and here Sly, playing an opponent over his computer (it turns out to be Antonio Banderas), entered the (correct) 9...Bxh2+.

It's about 45 minutes to an hour further on in the "film", and as far as I can tell chess has dropped out for good and without any subsequent significance (maybe the significance came beforehand), but the line is an interesting one in its own right. (Readers who have had the inordinate pleasure of having seen the movie in its entirety are invited to fill in the details about the significance of chess in the movie.)



White has three moves here, and it's not obvious at a glance alone which is best. Let's take a look:

(a) 10.Kxh2 is simplest, when Black must force a draw: 10...Qh4+ 11.Kg1 Qxf2+ 12.Kh1/Kh2 Qh4+ 13.Kg1 Qf2+ etc.

(b) 10.Kf1 Qh4, and now neither

(bi) 11.Be3 O-O 12.Nd4 Bg4 13.Nf3 Qh5 14.Nc3 Rad8 with a winning or near-winning advantage for Black in the game Maroczy-Berger, Vienna 1908 nor

(bii) 11.Nd4+ b5 12.Be3 Bg4 13.Nf3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 bxa4 15.g3 Bxg3 16.fxg3 Qxg3 17.Qxg3 Nxg3+ 18.Kg2 Ne4 (DM) with approximate equality is particularly appealing for White. That leaves only

(c) 10.Kh1! This is the main move, though it looks odd, not capturing anything while walking into what looks like big trouble via both ...Qh4 and a potential ...Nxf2+ fork. Continuing: 10...Qh4 11.Rxe4+ dxe4 12.Qd8+ Qxd8 13.Nxd8+ Kxd8 14.Kxh2 (That's why the king needed to go to h1 - so it could take the Bh2 after all the excitement!)



Materially, Black is doing well enough here, with a rook and two pawns for White's bishop and knight. This position strongly favors the minor pieces, however, and White has scored extremely well here (86% according to PowerBook 2005.) One notable game, between Jose Capablanca and Edward Lasker, continued 14...Be6 15.Be3 (15.Nd2 might be even better) 15...f5 16.Nc3 Ke7 17.g4 g6 18.Kg3 h5 19.gxf5 h4+ 20.Kh2 gxf5 21.Ne2 and White has a slight edge.

Thus, for those of you who don't mind this position too much, this is a line worth considering in situations where allowing a draw isn't a problem. And for those of you take up this variation and have some success, you have Sly Stallone to thank. Who'da thunk it??