Kasimdzhanov on the Anti-Moscow Gambit, or why Aronian should read the Informant
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!
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!
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Tuesday May 27, 2008 at 4:14pm