The Chess Mind

This May has been a spectacular month for chess fans: MTel (disappointing, but still a super-tournament), the US Championship, the Candidates starting in Elista tomorrow (I should have a post on this later tonight), and the Bosna and Capablanca Memorial tournaments currently underway. Here's an interim report:

Bosna, standings after 7 (of 10) rounds:

Movsesian 5
Predojevic 4
I. Sokolov 3.5
Short, Morozevich 3(!)
Timofeev 2.5

Capablanca Memorial, standings after 6 (of 9) rounds:

Ivanchuk 5 (too bad he's not in the Candidates)
Gashimov, Dominguez 3.5
Quesada, Arencibia 3
Miton, Nogueiras, PH Nielsen, Delgado 2.5
Bruzon 2(!)

As can be seen above, Nigel Short hasn't had a stellar tournament so far, but one bright spot came in round 4, when he defeated Ivan Sokolov with that wonderful old museum piece known as the Evans Gambit. There wasn't much else that was 19th century about the game, but that's typical of contemporary gambit play: it's about long-term gains or a prolonged initiative much more than it is creating a whirlwind and praying for mate.

Here's the game.

James West entitles his most recent reply in our ongoing debate "Relentless":

When people ask me what my middle initial stands for, I sometimes say jokingly, "Relentless!" Those of you who have been following my over-the-blogs debate with Dennis Monokroussos can understand why. Every time Monokroussos finds a line that is advantageous for White against the Philidor Counter Gambit, I redouble my efforts to find a better move for Black. This time, my never-say-die approach seems to have paid off because I think that I have finally found an equalizing path in the variation favored by Monokroussos, namely...

That he is relentless can't be disputed; that he is successful, however, can be. This post will be my final one on this variation (with one exception*): as none of the pro-White analyses have been overturned (the loyal opposition has always done the varying from earlier lines), I'm at least satisfied that my intuitions about the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Neg5 have been confirmed. A "mathematical" proof that White has a clear advantage is impossible**, but if a player of West's abilities, doggedness and deep familiarity with the opening hasn't succeeded by now, it's reasonably unlikely that it's going to happen. Impossible? No, that would be foolish of me to say, and I'll continue to follow (and check) his analytical efforts - but not on this blog. (Especially given the apparent lack of reader interest, at least to judge by the complete absence of feedback over here.) Here is my (presumably) final* reply in our very pleasant dispute, from which I've learned a great deal. Thank you, Mr. West!

* West didn't offer a reply to my last analysis of the variation 6...exd4 7.Nxd4, but when he does I'll offer a reply (even if it's to congratulate on him on finding a refutation of my analysis).

** Actually, it's incoherent, since a proof of that sort could only show that one side or the other is winning or that the position is a draw. As I blogged long ago, calling an advantage "clear" or "slight" is a way of offering a prediction, or describing the sides' relative margin of error, or describes the players' comfort level, or is shorthand for a statistical assessment.

Is anyone still reading these? James West and I have been going back and forth over lines that start with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5?! 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5?!/?, and the results thus far have been in White's favor. In just about every post, I've argued that White gains a clear advantage (or more), and West has admirably stuck up for his variation, diligently searching for new methods of defense.

For those who are still following the debate, my last salvo was fired off here, and this is his latest response. I'm pleased to report that on this occasion West and I are nearly in agreement. His analysis looks quite sensible, and I'm happy to adopt his proposed variations. The only barrier to complete concord comes in the evaluation stage: I think he has misassessed both variations. In one line, White wins outright, and in the other, White maintains a clear advantage. But have a look for yourselves.

Will it never end? It will, but not yet. My part 7 is here, and this is West's reply. Of course, there's an antidote, and it's just a click away.

One other remark, for the good Mr. West. While our debate thus far has focused on the lines (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5? 6.Neg5 exd4) (1) 7.Nxd4 Qe7+ 8.Be2 h6 9.Ngf3 c6 10.O-O Qf6 11.Re1 Bb4 12.c3 Bd6 13.Ba6+ Kf7 14.Bd3 and (2) 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.Bd2, he ought not to forget about Marvin Barker's suggested 9.c3 (in line (2)).

Update: I've slightly modified the analysis to incorporate a suggestion by Dave Vigorito and to alter a couple of sentences in the commentary.

I've had some fun lately, picking on the Philidor Counter-Gambit (most recently here), but there are healthier versions of the Philidor. Those who are interested in learning more are encouraged to take a look at Michael Goeller's massive (certainly by blog standards) literature review here. Pride of place in his review goes to Christian Bauer's The Philidor Files, a new, excellent book I've reviewed for Chess Today.

NM James West continues to support his favorite version of the Philidor Counter-Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5(?!/?)), and I keep going after it. This is his reply to my previous post on the gambit, and here's my analytical reply.

Every now and then, I find myself interested in the Modern Benoni. It's a fun and dynamic opening, but it has its drawbacks, too. One well-known problem is the Taimanov Variation (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+!), which has led many Benoni fans to either give it up or to try various move-order tricks, like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6. If White plays 3.Nc3, Black will go for the Nimzo-Indian, but if White avoids it with 3.Nf3 Black plays 3...c5 and avoids the Taimanov. (This approach was pretty effective in the 1980s, when 4.Qc2 was unpopular and White players feared the so-called Hübner Variation against 4.e3. Since the early 90s, though, it hasn't worked as well.)

It's not as if the Taimanov Variation is fatal, but it's still nice to avoid it, and thus the search for move-order tricks continues. One idea I had one night, as I waited for sleep to overtake me, was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 a6. White often (but not always) plays a4 in response to ...a6, so this looks at first like a very simple solution. On the other hand, there's the variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.e5, which is okay for Black - but just barely. Returning to my pre-sleep musing, I continued, after 6.e4 a6, with 7.f4 b5 8.e5. There was a little more mental analysis (on 8...Ng4, I think), but that was the end of it.

To my surprise, the position after 8.e5 showed up in a game from last night's Chess Today: Lalic-Laurent, from a recent open tournament in France. Black, a player with the very decent FIDE rating of 2399, chose 8...b4, and you can figure out the rest for yourself. (The mystery is why Laurent didn't figure it out in advance, since the line through 8.e5 isn't hard for a 6...a6 player to figure out. Even I did!)

The second game seems more successful innovating from the lower-rated player. In a sharp line of the Open Sicilian where White normally castles long, our hero castled short instead and still hacked his opponent to pieces. (Quite well, but it could have been even more beautiful - see the notes.)

Here are the games.

Just a quick update this time around. His post is here, my counter-analysis here.