The Chess Mind

Like the dodo and the politician unwilling to exploit tragedies for political gain, the old main line of the Botvinnik variation of the Semi-Slav (BVSS) once proudly walked the Earth, but is now most likely to be found in museums. (Of course, I'm only kidding about politicians. They've always placed self-aggrandizement first.)

One might remember the BVSS: it was inordinately popular in the mid-90s, and Alexei Shirov devotes an entire section of his classic Fire on Board to his games in the variation. The old main line starts with the following moves: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7 11.exf6 Bb7 12.g3 c5 13.d5 Qb6 14.Bg2 O-O-O 15.O-O b4

Here White has a choice between 16.Na4 and 16.Rb1, and today we're taking the second path: 16.Rb1 Qa6 17.dxe6 Bxg2 18.e7 Bxf1

Do you understand what's going on here? If you answered yes, you're lying. 19.Qd5 Bh6 20.Bxh6 Bd3 21.Qa8+ Nb8 22.exd8Q+ Rxd8 23.Re1 bxc3 24.Bf4 Qb6 (24...Qb7? 25.Re7!+-) 25.bxc3 Bf5 26.h4 Qb7

I quote Shirov (Fire on Board, p. 210):

Until this move everything has been played before in the game Yermolinsky-D. Gurevich, USA Championship 1994, which White won after 26...Be6 27.Kh2 Rd7 28.h5, etc. The text forces White to go in for an ending which was considered lost for Black by Yermolinsky, but in fact is drawn.

27.Qxb7+ Kxb7 28.Re7+ Rd7 29.Bxb8 Kxb8 30.Rxd7 Bxd7 31.Kg2 Kc7 32.Kf3 Kd6 33.Kf4 Bc6!!

Again, Shirov:

You have to find such moves at home if you play the Botvinnik variation! If White can get his king to g5 and pawn to f4 then Black can only resign. The bishop manoeuvre prevents this set-up.

The game concluded as follows: 34.Kg5 Bf3 35.Kf5 Kd5 36.g4 Kd6 37.h5 Kd5 38.Kf4 Bd1 39.Kg5 Bf3 40.Kf4 Bd1 41.Kg5 Bf3 42.Kf4 1/2-1/2

Shirov, one last time, in an understandable bit of showing-off:

Drawn because of threefold repetition. As the reader will have realized, the final position had been analysed at home. Sometimes the Botvinnik variation gets so boring...

This game proved quite persuasive, and White started to vary in order to avoid this ending. (One recent exception was the game Benen-Hoekstra from the 2004 U. S. Junior Championship, which followed this game to the very end, with a meaningless, quickly erased deviation on move 39. I assume the game was a pre-arranged draw, though maybe Benen was only testing Hoekstra's memory.)

Fast forward nine years to the 2005 Dutch Championship. On his way to winning his 6th national title, Loek van Wely decided to test the conclusions of theory. Shirov just barely drew against Azmaiparashvili by activating his bishop for the defense, and thus van Wely's novelty was designed to keep Black's light-squared bishop from meaningful employment. You can find the details here, as well as the Yermo-Gurevich, Azmai-Shirov and Benen-Hoekstra predecessors. Further, I've also included (though without comment) two subsequent BVSS games from the Dutch Championship.

If you're looking for a crazy opening to add to your Black repertoire, I think you'll enjoy the BVSS, and even if you don't want to play it, this variation will provide you with hours of entertainment and analytical homework. Have fun!

Several moons ago, I discussed US Champion Hikaru Nakamura's advocacy of 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5?! (here and here), and while it has (or had) surprise and psychological value, I think it's objectively bad. Of course, I could be wrong (though I have no reason to think so, in this case), and he'd be a favorite to defeat me in any case, but if I had to play Nakamura and could choose between facing the Ruy Lopez and 2.Qh5, I'd instantly choose the latter every time.

However, great talent that he is, Nakamura has matured since April and has adjusted his repertoire. Now he has introduced a key finesse: 1.e4 c5 and only now 2.Qh5. Better? Have a look here, at the recent game Nakamura-Volokitin, from the recently completed Lausanne Young Masters event (a knockout event won by Volokitin; Nakamura second).

Can be found here. Surprisingly, the "noveltors" only scored 6/10 with their bombshells, so it's proof that while openings are certainly important, they're by no means everything. (On the other hand, those failing to win did so against (in game order) Shirov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Mamedyarov, Antal (not a famous player, but 141 points higher-rated than his opponent and playing White) and Svidler. So although I would still maintain that openings aren't everything, perhaps the evidence here isn't ideal for making that case.)

Two points en passant. First, as the Johannessen-Shirov game is cut off after Black's 26th move, here is the remainder and the result: 27.Rac1 h5 28.e3 Ne5 29.Bd5 Rd7 30.f4 Rhd8 31.e4 Ng4 32.Kf3 Kxb5 33.Ne3 Nxe3 34.Kxe3 and drawn.

Second, Black's novelty in Antal-Vegh may put to an end the suffering undergone by Kan Sicilian fans since the spectacular game Mitkov-Rublevsky, Neum 2000. The game deservedly received attention at the time, and it has stuck in my mind ever since. I think you'll like it too (even if you play the Kan variation), and you can replay it here.

Greg [last name withheld to preserve the secrecy of his repertoire!] writes:

Dennis, I will be returning to tournament play in November after a very long hiatus from the game. I have been using Chessbase CD-Roms and a few books (Play the French, 3rd edition) on the French Defense, Chigorin QGD, and Colle System to try to prepare for this event. I like openings that don't require massive preparation, allow me to minimize my opponent's options, and are reasonably sound. I don't want to try to memorize all kinds of book lines and I'm wondering if you have any suggestions about the best way to learn any or all of these openings. My last published rating was 1652, and I've been working with Junior 9 to get back into practice.

Thanks. I enjoy your blog.

Greg

Greg: I'm not sure you can play the French well without some pretty serious work, but let's waive that and turn to your question: what's the best way to learn these (or any) openings?

Here's my quick answer, which I suspect I've given before on my blogs (but couldn't find). First, pick one or more "heroes" for the opening in question. (Ex. Kasparov, Anand, or Gelfand in the Najdorf; Kramnik in the Berlin Defense; Short in the QGD for Black.) Create a database of their games, and play through them several times, quickly, to get an initial sense of how the opening and resulting middlegame tends to look when played by its leading practitioners. You'll notice certain move order finesses and typical middlegame plans, and that's not bad for starters!

Second, if you have a book on the opening in question, look through the main lines and model games. See what your opening should look like when everything goes right - and when everything goes right for your opponent, too. Pay attention to the key points emphasized by the author; less attention to fine points and memorization.

Third, start playing the line, especially in blitz. That will help solidify what you've seen, and make more personal and real the problems you need to solve. Compare what happens in your games with the heroes' games and with theoretical sources (ECO, NCO, an opening monograph, a computer book, etc.), not just to confirm your move order but the middlegame follow-up as well.

As you work up a track record of playing the line and examining your performance, it becomes time to start working on the details. Here, finally, it's appropriate to do a little memorizing of key lines and move-order finesses.

To recap: start with the big picture, with ideas. Develop some experience to see what the real problems are and to gain a feel for the line, and only then, after taking ownership of the line for yourself, should you start to worry about serious theory.

Hope that helps!

A switchback, for those unfamiliar with the term, occurs when a player moves a piece from point A to B, and after the opponent makes some committal move (e.g. a pawn move or a capture), the first player immediately and favorably returns the piece from point B to point A. It's a common theme in chess compositions, but it occurs in game situations, too.

Naturally, I have an example for you, one from tonight's issue (#1775) of Chess Today. The featured game was Korobov-Bogner from the Grundfos Young Masters in Aarhus, Denmark, and while the game is noteworthy on several other levels (it's theoretically significant, it displays several unusual pawn formations, and features some brilliant play - especially White's 28th and 30th moves), my primary excuse for presenting the game is to demonstrate the switchback idea IM Maxim Notkin mentions in his annotations.

What now? Click here, of course!

In round 1 of the ongoing Eastern Open in Connecticut, my friend Brian Karen, a longtime high-2000/low-2100 player, achieved his first ever non-loss to an IM or GM in a tournament game, drawing GM Sergey Kudrin.

I'm happy for him, and the most interesting feature about the game is just how uninteresting it is! With White, Brian played a normal, solid opening, and Kudrin, a good, tournament-tested GM, was unable to achieve anything at all. Brian didn't have to play something crazy or obscure to trick Kudrin, didn't need some cheesy "Winning with Crappy Gambits" volume or video - nothing like that. On the other hand, he didn't go in for an absolute main line, but a solid second-tier variation. So one's choices aren't limited to becoming a theory zombie or going the trickster route; there is a middle way, especially with White against higher-rated players.

Take a look here and see for yourself!

The clever hypermoderns realized, all those years ago, that one could control the center without occupying it, and they won numerous games against opponents who would rush into the center with as many pawns and pieces, only to learn they had overextended. Openings like the Pirc, Modern, Alekhine, King's Indian and Gruenfeld went from "Irregular" to respectable, despite the gigantic pawn structures White can create in those openings.

Of course, the hypermoderns had their excesses, too. Sometimes ceding too much central space is fatal, and the planned ambush is a miserable failure. One might take certain liberties, sometimes justifiably, but it's possible to go too far.

Enter volume 4 of Alexander Khalifman's excellent series Opening for White According to Anand, which covers 1.e4 d6 and 1.e4 g6 openings. I received a copy yesterday, and came across the following incredible line:

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 Nc6



Typical hypermodernism! Black is begging White to push the pawn, in the hopes that White will (a) overextend and (b) make the Bg7 the dominant piece on the board. Khalifman recommends falling into Black's "trap":

4.d5 Nb8

You put your right knight in, you pull your right knight out.... It's a goofy-looking move, but the hope is to play ...c6 and start chipping at White's center. Besides, even though Black is undeveloping, White has only developed one piece as well!

5.h4!

A common way of attacking a fianchetto setup, and with Black's lack of central control and development, this is likely to turn out well.

Now, you might wonder about what I just wrote. Two paragraphs ago, I wrote that White has only developed one piece, and now I'm claiming that Black's laggard development is a problem. What gives? Well, the comment two paragraphs ago was written in part for dramatic effect, but it's also to highlight what it really means to be ahead or behind in development. Both sides have only one piece out, but while all of White's pieces can come out, one move after another, Black's can't: the Bc8 is stuck, the Nb8 can only go to a6, and Nf6 encourages e5. Black's next move is therefore pretty logical:

5...d6

Now e5 has been stopped (securing f6 for the Black knight), and the Bc8 has an open diagonal and d7 is available to the Nb8.

6.h5 Nf6 7.h6 Bf8

You put your bishop in, you pull your bishop out...

Black's play makes a funny impression, but still: White has only one piece out, and the pawn on h6 at least keeps the h-file closed. Besides, it might even become a weakness!

8.f4!



Khalifman's main line continues 8...Nbd7 9.g4! e5 10.g5 Nh5 11.Rxh5! gxh5 12.Qxh5 exf4 13.Bxf4 Rg8 14.O-O-O with a clear advantage for White. His sideline is far more entertaining, however, so let's continue with

8...Ng8

Another retreat! Black hopes to round up the h-pawn while White keeps shoving pawns, but this carries the forwards/backwards see-saw to an absurd extreme. The punishment needs to be seen:

9.Qd4 f6 10.f5! gxf5 11.Qd1!!



White can go backwards, too! Unfortunately, this is more like a richochet than a homecoming: the queen will bounce back out to h5, terrifying the poor Black king.

11...Qd7 12.Qh5+ Kd8 13.Qf7 Qe8



Not quite another instance of the hokey pokey, but another retreat to the first rank.

14.Qg7! Bxg7 15.hxg7 Nh6 16.gxh8Q Qxh8 17.Bxh6 fxe4 18.O-O-O



And White has a clear advantage, according to Khalifman. Sometimes opening theory can be so entertaining!