search posts of RSS chess feeds archive in yourchess.net  

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés
RESULTSFound 16 results for the word 'traxler' in 39827 chess posts stored in the archive of yourchess.net since june 2008
 
<< SEARCH MORE
 
Active v Quiet
I'm a sucker for openings that either contain sharp tactics or opening traps. The fact that I play the Traxler is a testament to this, but there are a number of offbeat/gambit lines I have for a few other openings. In the case of the French I played the Milner-Barry Gambit, which some consider dubious, but later on I went one step further with the Sorensen Gambit (9.Ng5) ,which Ian Rout first showed me. If the Milner-Barry is dubious, the Sorensen may well be unsound, although only if Black defends correctly. Of course I'm also capable of missing the correct continuation, especially as my memory starts to go.
A couple of times I've got to the diagrammed position (in blitz or rapidplay) and for some reason chosen 10.Qh5? I'm not sure why I've done this, but it is possibly mis-remembering something I read in a book a while back. Of course the active piece sacrifice on f7 is the best continuation, as the rest of the given game shows.

Lindberg,Douglas - Viniarski,Alex [C02]
AUS-ch U12 Churchill (6), 20.01.2000

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bd7 7.0-0 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nxd4 9.Ng5 h6 (D)
10.Nxf7 Kxf7 11.Qh5+ Ke7 12.Be3 Kd8 13.Qh4+ Ne7 14.Bxd4 Qc7 15.Nc3 Ke8 16.Rac1 Qd8 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Bxg6+ Nxg6 19.Qxg6+ Ke7 20.Bc5# 1-0
 
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2010/06/active-v-quiet.html
Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:42:00 +0000
 
 
 
The "quiet" d3
d3 in the Italian Game is one move I really don't like seeing, for two reasons. Firstly, as a Traxler player, 4.d3 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6) looks like a cop-out by White, and secondly, after 4.d3 I've had a couple of games where I've just been ground down.
However it is considered quite a strong system for White, so there are good reasons to play it. And despite the tag "Quiet Italian" White can whip up quite a strong attack, as Movsesian demonstrates in the current ACP Rapid Knock Out event.

Movsesian,Sergei - Naiditsch,Arkadij [C50]
ACP Rapid KO, 27.05.2010

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d3 0-0 6.Bb3 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.h3 Nb6 9.Re1 a5 10.a4 Bd6 11.Nc3 Bf5 12.Nb5 Bg6 13.Bg5 Qd7 14.Nh4 Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Qf3 c6 17.Nxg6 hxg6 18.Re4 Bb4 19.h4 Rae8 20.h5 Rxe4 21.dxe4 gxh5 22.Qxh5 c5 (D)
23.Bf6 Qc6 24.e5 Nd7 25.Be7 c4 26.Bxf8 Nxf8 27.Ba2 Ne6 28.Rd1 d3 29.cxd3 Nf4 30.Qg4 Qxa4 31.Bxc4 Qc2 32.Rf1 Ne2+ 33.Kh2 Qd2 34.f4 1-0
 
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2010/05/quiet-d3.html
Fri, 28 May 2010 13:56:00 +0000
 
 
 
La chronique échecs de Samir
Romantisme

A voir avec modération ! C'est le titre de la chronique hebdo sur les échecs de notre ami Samir. Prenez donc le temps de découvrir son nouvel article du journal Paris-Normandie, un surprenant voyage dans le monde des cases blanches et noires, raconté avec passion chaque semaine sur notre site échiquéen.


Laam - Jamais loin de toi

Au sommaire, un mat en 2 coups signé K. Hasenzahl, tiré du périodique Hamburger Problem-Nachrichten, de 1948. Puis, Samir nous offre la partie Reinisch - Traxler dont la combinaison de mat est fabuleuse. Aux échecs, les combinaisons nous éblouissent par la beauté et la clarté de leur conception. Celle-ci illumine depuis plus d’un siècle le ciel de l’échiquier.

Place ensuite à la curiosité de la semaine. Aussi incroyable que cela puisse paraître, dans la partie Heidenfeld – Kerins de 1973, les blancs ont roqué deux fois : ils ont fait le petit roque au 10e coup et le grand roque au 33e coup ! Place alors à la technique avec la traditionnelle finale de la semaine entre Spassky et Antoshin. Puis une citation de Mikhaïl Tal (1936-1992), champion du monde, et pour finir ce festin de Roi, un piège d'ouverture. Merci Samir !

 
http://www.chess-and-strategy.com/2010/05/la-chronique-echecs-de-samir_13.html
Thu, 13 May 2010 23:09:00 +0000
 
 
 
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 White Repertoire Webliography
I have been developing a 1.e4 e5 White repertoire based on the Italian Game or Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4) where White blows open the center with an early d4 (after 3...Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 or the gambit 3...Bc5 4.d4!?) rather than play the "quieter" Giuoco lines with 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 (which will feature in a repertoire book by John Emms titled Beating 1.e4 e5 due in May from Everyman Chess).  The repertoire also features the aggressive "Duffer's Attack" against the Two Knights (with 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 -- which Seigbert Tarrasch famously labeled a "duffer's move").  I realized the other day that my repertoire could be learned from web sources alone, so I thought I'd take on the challenge of putting together a "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 White Repertoire Webliography" for anyone who is interested.  I have also listed a few books and other materials for those who want to study these lines more deeply. 


I present the repertoire as a 14-part webliography of sources.  Even if you are not interested in the Giuoco Piano, you may benefit from the recommendations and online resources against the Petroff, Philidor, Latvian, Elephant, and other lines at Black's disposal.  As always, I invite reader comments and additions. 

1. Giuoco Piano Overview (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5)
I recommend learning a few different Giuoco Piano lines to get the maximum enjoyment from the repertoire.  I am personally most interested in the Steinitz-Sveshnikov Attack (4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5!?), but I have also enjoyed trying out the Moeller Attack (4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3), Rossolimo Variation (with 7.Bd2), and Max Lange Attack and Gambit (beginning 4.d4!?).  All are lots of fun to play for amateurs and well supported by online sources.  Some of these lines are regarded as "suspect" by GM theory, but all have been used with success by GMs, while amateurs will find them simply deadly against their level of competition.  Those interested in exploring the world of the Giuoco Piano or Italian Game in greater depth might pick up Jan Pinski's Italian Game and Evans Gambit (Everyman 2005) or Jude Acers and George Laven's The Italian Gambit System (Trafford 2003)--the latter of which has a surprising amount of good opening advice to offer amateur players.  I also have Reinhold Ripperger's ChessBase CD on The Giuoco Piano, which has some annotated games and exercises but is probably not worth the investment.  As usual, the web offers everything most amateur players will need to get started: 
  • Beginner's Repertoire at Chessgames.com
    The link presents a game collection from Chessgames.com with great classic games showing you how to crush people with the Moeller and other Giuoco lines.  It's essentially a complete repertoire in games -- just click your way through them and you get the basic theoretical ideas and tactics.
  • "Don't Shoot the Piano Player!" by Leviathan at Chessgames.com
    Another great games collection that serves as an excellent introduction to Giuoco Piano themes and ideas.
  • Exeter Chess Club's The Italian Game for Beginners by Dr. Dave (e-book in PDF)
    Tricks, traps and tactical ideas in the Italian lines, including the Evans, Moeller Attack, and others.  This little e-book makes a great beginner's introduction to Giuoco Piano themes.
  • Swansong of the Giuoco Piano, Part 1 (Kibitzer #64 at ChessCafe) by Tim Harding
  • The Giuoco Piano, Part 2: The Case for the Defence (Kibitzer #65 at ChessCafe) by Tim Harding
  • The Giuoco Piano on Trial, Part 3: The Summing Up (Kibitzer #69 at ChessCafe) by Tim Harding
  • The Giuoco Piano on Trial: White Wins the Case (Kibitzer #70 at ChessCafe) by Tim Harding
  • The Giuoco Piano Revisited (Kibitzer #118 at ChessCafe) by Tim Harding
    This five part series of articles on the Giuoco Piano lines with c3 and d4 for White -- mostly focused on the Moeller Attack and Rossolimo's Bd2 line with only some discussion of others -- gives a great overview to the Giuoco Piano theory and is remarkably pro-White in the final analysis.  In the last article, Harding returns to the Giuoco by way of reviewing Pinski's book, focusing on the critical lines vs the Moeller Attack and the Rossolimo Variation.

1A. The Giuoco Piano, Steinitz-Sveshnikov Attack, a.k.a. "Anderssen Attack" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5!?)
The advance with 6.e5!? secures a space advantage for White and creates opportunities for controlling the dark squares and attacking on the kingside.  First played by Adolf Anderssen, the line was adopted by Wilhelm Steinitz in a few World Championship match games with Lasker (though he later rejected the line in favor of the Moeller Attack), and much later revived with success by the great theoretician Evgeny Sveshnikov.  There really is not much good "book" material on this line, though Pinski or Acers & Laven offer coverage.  Currently I am analyzing Ni Hua's games based on his notes in Mihail Marin's excellent book on the Reggio Emilia tournament.  I think this line is typically underestimated by theory and can be deadly at amateur level.  It also does not risk as much as the gambit lines and is more fun than the Rossolimo.
1B. The Giuoco Piano, Moeller Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3)
This is a risky line and Black probably keeps a pawn with best play, but you are not going to find too many opponents below 2000 ELO who can prove that over the board.  Besides, these lines are a lot of fun and Black has lots of ways to go wrong.  If an amateur player asked my advice on learning the Moeller Attack, I think I would recommend hunting down a copy of Andy Soltis's fun little book Winning with the Giuoco Piano and the Max Lange Attack (Chess Digest 1996), which presents the material wonderfully for non-experts (though John Nunn questions some of the analysis in his Secrets of Practical Chess).  Due to its historical significance and continuing interest among beginners, there is plenty of material online, especially Tim Harding's articles (cited above) and the following links:








1C. Giuoco Piano, Rossolimo Variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2)
The idea of playing the safe 7.Bd2 was revived by U.S. players Nicolas Rossolimo and Edmar Mednis and recently advocated by Roman Dzindzichashvili in some videos and in Chess Openings for White, Explained.  The game Rossolimo-Reissmann, Puerto Rico 1967, is rather inspiring.  Though the resulting trade of Bishops generally eases Black's task, the line still leads to wide open positions with plenty of piece play and chances for both sides.  White accepts an isolated pawn, but this gives him control over the center, especially the c5 and e5 squares.  You will see that theory finds two methods of achieving equality for Black, but that is never the end of the story in amateur games. 





1D. Max Lange Gambit and Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4)
There has been a revived interest in the Max Lange Attack and Max Lange Gambit, due mainly to some excellent analysis published by Lev Gutman and Stefan Bücker in the German chess journal Kaissiber (volumes 22-25 especially).  Most of Gutman and Bücker's analysis is neatly summarized by John Emms in the recent Dangerous Weapons: 1.e4 e5 (Everyman 2008), which I have reviewed in these pages and think is excellent. You can also find lots of material online, including by yours truly:





2. Rousseau Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5!?)
This counter-gambit is much trickier than you would expect and must be met vigorously by 4.d4!  See the second part of the McGrew analysis for details.
  • Giuoco Fortissimo: The Rousseau Gambit, Part One by Tim McGrew
  • Giuoco Fortissimo: The Rousseau Gambit, Part Two by Tim McGrew
  • Gambits in Many Dimensions (The Gambit Cartel #13 at ChessCafe) by Tim McGrew
    Despite playing the Black side of this complex line, McGrew offers some excellent and objective analysis demonstrating White's advantage after 4.d4! -- returning to the subject later to add analysis and some philosophical reflections on the value of even "unsound" gambits that create many opportunities for opponents to go wrong.  You actually will not find anything as detailed or useful in the "books" that mention this line.
3. Blackburne Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?!)
Black's idea resembles the Bird Defense to the Ruy Lopez, except that White's Bishop is much better placed on c4 than on b5 once the Knight goes to d4.  White should probably play 4.Nxd4! exd4 (White is up two tempi on the Bird) 5.c3! with a clear advantage.  The quiet alternative 4.c3!? Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qf6 yields White little.  You may be amused, as I was, by the idea of "falling for" the trap after4.Nxe5?!? Qg5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.O-O! and Tim McGrew does the best job of demonstrating White's chances for attack.

    • Blackburne Gambit -- 3...Nd4?! by Adam Bozon
      Best for beginners to know what to do against this, since they will see it sometimes
    • Two Wild Black Systems by Jeremy Silman
      The second part of this article covers 3...Nd4 very well from the White perspective..
    • A Shilling in the Mailbag (The Gambit Cartel #26 at ChessCafe) by Tim McGrew
      Analyzes the response 4.Nxe5(?) Qg5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.O-O! and 5.O-O!? as providing White plenty of interesting play for his piece -- a surprising and fun way to turn the tables on the gambiteer.
    • Reader's Showcase (The Gambit Cartel #25 at ChessCafe) by Tim McGrew
      Maybe the only article I've ever seen to take 3...Nd4 seriously.
    Two Knights, Duffer's Attack Overview (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5)
    Seigbert Tarrasch may have called it a "Duffer's Move," but 4.Ng5 clearly forces Black to surrender a pawn or suffer a dangerous attack.  In "Duffer's Delight," a writer at the Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog describes some of the reasons why 4.Ng5 is being seen more frequently in GM practice, as computers have helped analysts recognize that even odd-looking ways of winning or holding an extra pawn are difficult to meet.

    4.Two Knights, Duffer's Attack, Traxler Counter-Gambit (4.Ng5 Bc5!?)
    This may well be the toughest thing Black has against the Duffer's Attack with 4.Ng5, but I feel safe with the unusual 5.d4!? This is the rarest line for White, the easiest to study, and offers some safe bail-out options (like 5.d4 d5! 6.dxc4 dxc5 7.Qxd8+ etc).  Pinski does not think much of it, but other authors think it may be best.   If you disagree, check out the webliography for more links -- including the complete set of articles by Maarten de Zeeuw from New in Chess Yearbook available online for download.
    5. Two Knights, Duffer's Attack, Amazing Counter Attack (4.Ng5 Nxe4?!)
    Tim Harding explored this wild line (based on the idea that 5.Nxe4?! d5 is good for Black), returning to the subject later with the best ideas for White.  Best to be prepared so you are not amazed.
    6. Two Knights, Lolli Attack or Fried Liver (4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4! or 6.Nxf7!?)
    This is actually a bit of a disputed territory of late, thanks to the use of computers.  And some players (most notably Dan Heisman) have made a very deep study of these lines, concluding that Black might be able to hold or reach an unclear position.  However, at the amateur level, you can be pretty certain that if your opponent plays into this line he has done so unwittingly and is going to be defeated swiftly.  The Lolli Attack (with 6.d4!) seems like the way to get the most out of the position compared to the traditional Fried Liver continuation (with 6.Nxf7!?), but both are very effective at the amateur level.  Hat tip to The Bishops Bounty for pointing me to some sources.


    7. Two Knights, Duffer's Attack, Gunsberg Variation (4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3!?)
    Daniel Stellwagen's article in SOS #9 on the surprising 8.Bd3!? (securing e4 for the Knight's retreat, as in Stellwagen - de Jong) seems to have inspired a number of GM games, including Nakamura-Friedel, Short - Sokolov, and Conquest-Howell. Nakamura's use of the line to win the 2009 US Championship certainly gave it excellent publicity.  White gets a very dynamic and complex game with an extra pawn and solid position.  The pressure is on Black to show what he has got.





    8. Two Knights, Duffer's Attack, Fritz-Ulvestad (4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 or 5...b5)
    This is another tricky territory for White, but some recent games suggest that White looks good after 5....b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.cxd4 in the Fritz-Ulvestad.  I am looking for more analysis to support this section. 



    9.Hungarian and Closed Defenses (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4)
    Besides the traditional Giuoco Piano with 3...Bc5 and the Two Knights Defense with 3...Nf6, Black can also play several moves leading to a more closed position with 3...Be7 (the Hungarian Defense), 3...Qe7 (Euwe's traditional Closed line), 3...d6 (Mihail Marin's recent favorite) or 3...g6 (my own preference as Black).  Jan Pinski's book on the Italian Game and Evans Gambit (Everyman 2005) probably offers the most objective coverage of these lines.  None of these lines is something White needs to fear.  The simplest general policy is to play as you would against the closed Philidor with c3, d4, h3, and a4, restraining Black and holding onto more space.  I would say that you will rarely encounter these lines at the amateur level.

    10. Philidor's Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4)
    Since my bibliography, Christian Seel's The Philidor: A Secret Weapon and a new edition of Van Rekom & Jansen's The Black Lion have come out to supplement Christian Bauer's book (which I now see has plenty of flaws).  But the bibliography is still useful and offers the best "refutation" of Jim West's favorite Philidor Counter-Gambit with 3...f5: 4.exf5! as seen in Dvoirys - West, New York 2000.




    11. Petroff (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4!)
    I think the best way to achieve an unbalanced position against the Petroff is by 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 which also has the advantage of getting many amateur Petroff players out of their comfort zone.  If you are serious about finding an antidote to the Petroff, you might consider tracking down The Petroff Defence by GM Artur Yusupov (Olms 1999) which may still be the best reference on the 3.d4 lines I recommend.



    12. Latvian (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5!? 3.Nxe5! Qf6 4.Nc4!?)
    If you are somebody who likes to have a book to study an opening, you might consider picking up Tony Kosten's The Latvian Gambit Lives! (Batsford 2001), but online analysis has gone much further than Kosten.  Though there is an intimidating amount of analysis on the line, I recommend the Leonhardt Variation, which I first encountered looking at the game Trifunovic - Apsenieks, Stockholm 1937.  The line is recommended by a number of books, including Chess Openings for White, Explained.
    13. Elephant Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5!? 3.exd5!)
    The best analysis of this tricky line is probably on the web, especially now that you can download an excellent chapter from Watson and Schiller's Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings.  I have never encountered this opening in a game, but it pays to be prepared.
    14. The Damiano (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?)
    Does this really need commentary?  Well, with Sam Sloan on the loose playing this move against unsuspecting youngsters, it at least deserves mention.
    • Chess (Washington Post, May 25, 2009) by Lubomir Kavalek
      Perhaps the most useful and extensive GM commentary on 2...f6? ever recorded.
    • Life on the Edge (Gambit Cartel #12 at ChessCafe, August 2003) by Tim McGrew
      Returns to the Damiano and discusses some other problematic gambit ideas.
    • Tactics of Mistake (Gambit Cartel #11 at ChessCafe, July 2003) by Tim McGrew
      Considers the Black side of Damiano's 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6!?? with the idea of either challenging White to prove he knows the refutation or meeting 3.Nxe5 with 3...Qe7.
    Conclusion
    I hope you have enjoyed this repertoire and the number of excellent online resources that support it.  There are many other resources out there, but not everyone has access to them.  I have most enjoyed Boris Alterman's videos at ICC/Chess FM and look forward to his forthcoming Alterman Gambit Guide from Quality Press devoted to White Gambits.  And I wish Chess Commander would stop ripping off my stuff.
     
    http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2010/02/1e4-e5-2nf3-white-repertoire.html
    Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:13:00 +0000
     
     
     
    The early piece sac
    As someone who never understood the position nuances of opening play, most of my opening theory has been aimed towards forcing lines where I get some sort of material gain/mating attack. I am quite partial to lines involving gambits and sacrifices but again this is geared towards mating attacks (eg the Traxler, Muzio or BDM).
    However I am impressed by early sacrifices which don't lead directly to mate, but the slightly more subtle 'initiative'. Probably the most obvious (and unsound) example of this is the Halloween Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5??!) where White does get to push the Black knights around for a while.
    While arbiting Street Chess today I saw a game involving similar ideas, but in this case it was entirely sound. White decided to offer a piece for threats on the e file, and black decided to return the piece as a way of dealing with them. Unfortunately this allowed White to set up a mating threat which surprisingly Black missed.

    Fitzpatrick,Brian - Yuan,Yi [C80]
    Street Chess , 12.12.2009

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 Nc5 7.Nc3 Nxa4 8.Nxe5 Be7 (D)
    9.Nd5 0-0 10.Nxc6 dxc6 11.Nxe7+ Kh8 12.Qh5 Nb6 13.Re4 Nd5 14.Qxh7+ 1-0
     
    http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2009/12/early-piece-sac.html
    Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:58:00 +0000
     
     
     
    Kramnik beats Svidler, grabs lead in Moscow

    Tal MemorialStarting aggressively again, and finishing it off in the endgame, Vladimir Kramnik grabbed the lead in Moscow today by beating Peter Svidler. Although flu like symptoms among some players have been reported, so far Kramnik seems least affected.

    The Tal Memorial takes place November 4-18 in Moscow, Russia. The category 21 round-robin has Viswanathan Anand (India, 2788), Levon Aronian (Armenia, 2786), Magnus Carlsen (Norway, 2801), Vladimir Kramnik (Russia, 2772), Peter Leko (Hungary, 2752), Boris Gelfand (Israel, 2758), Vassily Ivanchuk (Ukraine, 2739) Alexander Morozevich (Russia, 2750), Peter Svidler (Russia, 2754) and Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine, 2739).

    The first four rounds of the round-robin are held in hotel “National” on November 5, 6, 7 and 8. Rounds 5-9 take place in the Main Department Store GUM on Red Square. The time control is the classic 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour and then 15 minutes plus 30 seconds increment to finish the game. The rounds begin daily at 15:00 Moscow time which is 13:00 CET.

    Round 4

    We received confirmation from the Carlsen team that Magnus is having some flu like symptoms, and according to Mig, Kramnik isn’t feeling 100% either in Moscow. However, the former World Champ doesn’t seem affected at all and gave another impressive show today, beating Svidler in coffeehouse style and using exemplary endgame technique.

    White’s “patzer plan” of rushing with the h-pawn and exchanging Black’s fianchetto bishop (isn’t that suppose to backfire with Black pressing in the centre?) worked out surprisingly well in this Exchange Grünfeld; at least over the board Svidler couldn’t find a good antidote. He tried his luck in an endgame a pawn down, and at first he seemed to get some compensation but as soon as the White rooks became active it was over.

    The top encounter (if not all games are, at the Tal Memorial) Carlsen-Aronian started quite interesting, and was heavily debated during our live commentary, but they drew relatively quickly. This was a most welcome course of events for the top seed, who will have the rest day to recover.

    Not much fireworks in the other drawn games either; Leko-Ivanchuk did start promising but they too called it a day as soon as the position was even. Tomorrow’s the only rest day after which the players will switch venues, from hotel National to the Main Department Store GUM on Red Square. Kramnik has showed some very good chess and is the deserved leader after four rounds.

    Games round 4 [IM Robert Ris]

    Game viewer by ChessTempo


    Tal Memorial 2009 | Round 4 Standings

    Tal Memorial 2009

    Tal Memorial 2009 | Schedule and results


    Following an excellent idea of Georg in the comments, we try to write something about Mikhail Tal every day.

    Mikhail Tal played countless crazy games, but one of the craziest was surely the game he played against the young readers of the Soviet magazine Pionerskaya Pravda in 1968. The readers called themselves ‘White Rook’ in this game. In it, Tal employs the Traxler Gambit as Black – basically, he sacs a rook as early as move four hoping to create complications against the white king. After the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Kg1 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3, over 20,000 readers sent in their moves each time it was their turn.

    The game was also heavily analysed and numerous discoveries were found during the course of more than fourty years. In the legendary Dutch chess book Chess curiosities (1974), Tim Krabbé devotes many pages to the game, which strangely didn’t make it into Tal’s Life and Games.

    The game was also analysed by Smyslov and still later by Alexander Khalifman in his Tal biography, but probably the most famous analysis was done by a Soviet chess junior called Vadim Brodsky, who made a fantastic discovery in the ‘endgame’ which appeared after move 26.
    Here, Tal erred with 26…Ng3+? and after some more adventures the game was subsequently drawn. But a few months after the game was played, Brodsky found that Black can win with 26…Nf4+! 27.Kh6 Rg6+ 28.Kh7 Rg7+! 29.Kh6 Kg8! and Black mates next move. Sadly, most modern engines find this line within seconds. We can only wonder what the great magician from Riga would have thought about this development.

    (Arne Moll)

    Links

     
    http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/kramnik-beats-svidler-grabs-lead-in-moscow/
    Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:25:48 +0000
     
     
     
    LE TEST DU MOIS

    alburtAvec toutes ces vidéos, j'avais oublié de vous faire plancher ce mois-ci. J'avais été un peu échaudé par votre faible participation du mois dernier... Nous allons voir ce dont vous êtes capables ce mois-ci. Dans cette position, vous avez les noirs et devez trouver comment prendre l'ascendant. Le début est assez simple, mais je vous demande de vous mettre dans la peau d'un grand maître, authentique génie des échecs, et de me donner une proposition de suite sur 10 coups. Les réponses les plus satisfaisantes recevront un ebook, grand classique de la littérature échiquéenne, le livre d'Alburt "Chess openings for Black, explained" (2005).
    Voici la position. Soyez brillants ! Pendant ce temps-là, je vous concocte une vidéo sur la Traxler dont vous me direz des nouvelles...

    ex_juin2009

     
    http://echecsvdm.canalblog.com/archives/2009/06/19/14137643.html
    Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:59:46 GMT
     
     
     
    UN PETIT MORCEAU DE BRAVOURE

    Je suis toujours dans mon vidéo trip duquel je n'ai pas encore attéri. Vous avez toujours l'air d'apprécier, si j'en juge sur le nombre des connexions. Croyez moi, quand la vie est difficile pour vous, cela fait chaud au cœur. Ici, je vous propose ma vidéo la plus longue (plus d'une heure !) où je fais ce que je voulais faire depuis longtemps : un rappel des principales lignes de la défense des 2 cavaliers avec 4.Cg5,d5, incluant l'attaque fegatello. Je ne pouvais pas faire l'impasse puisque je suis hépatologue ! Ce rappel concerne les 10 premières minutes et ceux qui aiment les commentaires sur les ouvertures peuvent s'arrêter là. Je leur promets un tome II consacré à la Traxler, pour laquelle j'ai une tendresse particulière. Quant aux autres, rien ne les empêche de tout voir (le faible niveau sonore et les quelques bâillements s'expliquent par le fait qu'il était tard dans la nuit !) - ça vaut bien une émission de divertissement racoleuse de TF1 !-  ou de plancher sur quelques positions où vous devez trouver les coups gagnants avec les noirs : à 27'21" ; à 41'41" ; à 47'49" par exemple. C'est assez basique mais tout de même très spectaculaire ! Merci de continuer à me faire confiance et à m'encourager... Et à bientôt pour la suite !

     
    http://echecsvdm.canalblog.com/archives/2009/06/16/14106589.html
    Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:16:00 GMT
     
     
     
    EXERCICE 118 : les noirs jouent et gagnent

    Décidément, je ne me lasse pas de la Traxler, 2 ans après mes premiers pas avec cette ouverture rapportée dans mon recueil. Elle me donne toujours des émotions fortes, comparables à celles qu'on ressent dans une rencontre sportive de haute intensité. J'ai joué la position qui suit pas plus tard que la nuit dernière, juste après avoir dévoré le livre de Spielmann "l'art du sacrifice aux échecs", dont je vous parlerai prochainement en détail. Ce livre a eu pour effet de me donner une envie irrépressible de "combiner" et cela ne s'est pas fait attendre : pas moins de 4 parties jouées avec à chaque fois de jolies pointes tactiques... qui feront l'objet d'exercices ultérieurs. La position provient d'une Traxler, donc, et mon adversaire s'est totalement laissé pièger dès l'ouverture, perdant une pièce et me donnant une avance confortable... Mais cela n'enlève rien à la combinaison finale que je vous propose de retrouver ici.

    ex118


    Réponse : quiconque a un peu l'habitude constate que le roi blanc est en très mauvaise posture, entouré qu'il est de cases interdites. On parle alors de réseau de mat et c'est donc bien une combinaison de mat forcé qu'il fallait trouver. Ici, tout s'enchaîne à merveille en cherchant systématiquement les coups forcés : 21...Fd3+ 22.Rb4 Pour l'instant, c'était facile. Maintenant, il faut continuer dans le même esprit et la seule façon de continuer les coups forcés est de jouer le sacrifice 22...Fa5! 23.Rxa5 est forcé et le mat est imparable. Il y a la façon Fritz : 23...c6+ 24.Rb4,a5+ 25.bxa6,Db6+ 26.Cb5,Dxb5+ 27.Ra3,Txa6#. Et il y a la suite de la partie, que je trouve plus jolie : 23...b6+ 24.Rb4,a5+ 25.bxa6,Txa6 menaçant 26...Ta4#. Sur 26.Fc6 suit 26...Ta4+!! 27.Fxa4,Da8 suivi de 28...Da5# et sur 26.Cb5, joué dans la partie, suit 26...Ta4+ 27.Rb5,Dd7+ 28.Fc6,Fxc4#


    une partie un peu folle.pgn
     
    http://echecsvdm.canalblog.com/archives/2009/05/12/13708871.html
    Tue, 12 May 2009 20:54:07 GMT
     
     
     
    The Traxler Refuted (again!)
    I received an email today titled "The Possible Refutation of Traxler Counter-Attack". Over the years I've seen plenty of magazine articles with either this title, or a variant on it, but this is the first time I've been contacted directly with the claim. At least the author is covering his bases, in not claiming a definite refutation of the Traxler.
    As it arrived late this evening, I've only had a cursory glance at the analysis. What I've looked at seems sound, but makes the common mistake of being too narrow in the choice of lines. There are a number of places where Black can vary, and while some of my own investigations show that White is better in some of those lines, it isn't the case that White is better in all the lines.
    As for publishing the analysis, I'll hold off until I have further discussions with the author of the email.
     
    http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2009/05/traxler-refuted-again.html
    Fri, 01 May 2009 13:52:00 +0000
     
     
     
    Chigorin’s queen move

    Chigorin's queen moveEverybody has a favourite chess move. Many just love 23…Qg3. Tim Krabbé’s favourite is 16…Nc6. According to British Chess Magazine, it’s 47…Bh3. And a member of my local chess club is obsessed by the move 7.Ke3! in the Traxler Counter-Attack. These are all highly spectacular moves. My own favourite is the very modest queen-shuffle 2.Qe2.

    I’m talking about the little-known Chigorin Variation of the French Defence, which arises after 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2.

    nullI still remember the moment when I first encountered this move. I stumbled upon it in an old volume on chess strategy by Euwe and Kramer and, incomprehensibly, the authors didn’t comment on the move at all! I couldn’t understand what was going on, and was very frustrated about it. The quoted game was Chigorin-Tarrasch, 1893 and this frustrated me even more: how could such an outstanding player like Mikhail Chigorin play this absurd move?

    Baffled at first, I started hypothesizing that White must have some idea with it, and I supposed (correctly, as it turned out) that it was to prevent d7-d5. But this didn’t make much sense either. First of all, Black could still play 2…d5 and after 3.exd5 Qxd5 he would have a position from the Scandinavian Defence with a rather strange Queen on e2, would he not? Secondly, even if Black couldn’t play d7-d5, it hardly seemed worth misplacing the queen just for that.

    As always, things turned out to be not so easy. I started stuyding the line and discovered many things; mostly that, of course, the white king’s bishop could simply go to g2 and wasn’t so blocked after all. The game would then look much like a reversed King’s Indian. Also, if Black played Nc6-d4 at some point, chasing the queen even further over the board, the knight could be forced to retreat with tempo by c2-c3, making a nice ‘hole’ for the Queen on c2 in the process. It seemed there was actually some positional basis for Qe2 and this showed me in a profound way what a deep and rich game chess is.

    Nowadays, it’s of course well-known that Qe2 and the idea to develop the bishop to g2 is a kind of prelude to later King’s Indian positions. Being a French player myself, I too sometimes face the move 2.Qe2 and in my experience, white players indeed usually strive for a quiet KID-like setup, apparently in an attempt to deviate from better known lines such as after 2.d3. Alexei Suetin, in his classic 1982 mongraph on the French, writes of the move:

    It may be looked upon as the forerunner of the modern openings strategy which in semi-open systems aims at achieving a King’s Indian position with opposite colours, e.g. in the variation 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 etc.

    Similarly, Gligoric, Uhlmann and Botvinnik (The French Defence, 1975) note:

    Tchigorin’s [sic] move, 2.Qe2, can transpose to the King’s Indian Attack (in which White’s queen usually plays to e2) but by playing his moves in a different order Black can bypass the K.I.A. setup and take a more aggresive stance.

    And the great Kasparov, in the first part of My Great Predecessors, says the following of the line (as played in the game Chigorin-Teichmann, Hastings 1895):

    Chigorin demonstrated all the basic ideas of the set-up with the X-ray bishop at g2 and symmetrical pawns on e4 and e5: restriction of the knight at c6 by c2-c3, manoeuvre of the knight to c4 (…) This was the style of the future! Many decades later the King’s Indian Attack became fashionable.

    Tarrasch

    Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934)

    Now, I must make a personal confession. Although I really love the move Qe2 for all its initial weirdness, I don’t like the stereotyped moves that usually follow after it! White often automatically plays g3, Bg2, Nf3 and 0-0, then goes for d3 and/or c3 and he reaches ‘normal’ King’s Indian structures. Played this way, the system loses all its charm, at least for me. It’s just another boring KID with reversed colours! Therefore, in this article I will take a different point of view than the (however highly esteemed) opinions quoted above. In an attempt to stop this cliché treatment of the move Qe2, I will show that Mikhail Chigorin played it with many different ideas in mind as well, and that it’s not such a boring setup at all. In fact, Chigorin played the move to deviate from stereotyped chess to force the opponent and himself to think right from the start of the game.

    In 1893, the Russian Mikhail Chigorin and the German Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, two of the strongest players of those days, played a 22-game match in St. Petersburg (Chigorin’s home town) against each other. It was not an official title match, but the stakes were high. It was a clash not just of chess giants, but of chess schools. As Raymond Keene describes the situation in The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory:

    Steinitz’s games had taught the chess world much but certain eccentricities persisted in the old master’s conception of opening play, which could not satisfy an idealogue and purist such as Tarrasch. For the first time, we now see the multiplicity of Steinitzian options narrowed down and pruned. Variations and moves are ‘incorrect’ for general and logical reasons and Chigorin’s objections (in his games with Tarrasch) that his incorrect or ugly moves are actually quite viable were more or less ignored. That was until Nimzowitsch came along to renew the challenge to Tarrasch, and until (much later) Soviet writers rediscovered Chigorin as the ideological father of Russian chess, finding that his ‘ugly’ moves, too, had a scientific basis.

    The final score of the match was +9 -9 =4. The games were famously analysed by Tarrasch in his masterpiece Dreihundert Schachpartien (300 chess games). In all-but-one of Chigorin’s white games, the ‘ugly’ Qe2 line was played, making this historic match the ‘creation story’ of this particular variation. But according to Tarrasch himself, Chigorin wasn’t the first to have played the move. In his comments to the first game, Tarrasch writes:

    This move was no surprise for me, I had seen it already in a game by Pollock, but given it no attention. It has no other value than to prevent the usual methods of play, and to lead to a difficult, closed game for both. Such experiments are usually allowed to white without huge risks.

    Tarrasch's first comment on Qe2 in his book Dreihundert Schachpartien

    Tarrasch's first comment on Qe2 in his book 'Dreihundert Schachpartien'

    So far, I have not been able to dig up this game by Pollock, but it must exist, as it is also mentioned in the official match book by Albert Heyde (Der Schachwettkampf zwischen Dr. S. Tarrasch und M. Tschigorin, Ende 1893).  Can a reader locate it? (Interestingly, Kasparov quotes Chigorin mentioning how he got the idea for 2.Qe2 from a game he played - as Black - against Steinitz in their 1892 match in which Steinitz also played Qd1-e2 to prevent d7-d5: ‘It was this that gave rise to my initial plan with g2-g3, Bg2 and d2-d3, which was later varied’. Didn’t Chigorin know the Pollock game while Tarrasch did? An why, if he already had the idea, didn’t Chigorin play this setup on the first opportunity he got - the second match game - in the match against Tarrasch?)

    In any case, Heyde makes a very important observation about these games, which is also important for our pursuit:

    The games with this opening which were played in this match are the most interesting. In these, Chigorin tries a move tried in America - by Pollock if I’m not mistaken - 2.Qe2, which is well underestimated by most players.  Admittedly, Chigorin himself did not immediately find the right continuation, since in the defence with 2…Be7, the queen move gains in strength only by means of 3.b3 and 4.Bb2.

    Here’s the thing. I’ve played the logical move 2…Be7 (preparing d7-d5) myself a number of times against 2.Qe2, and on none of those occasions did my opponent go for b3 and Bb2. In all cases, White automatically went g3, Bg2 and d3, without even thinking. I find this very strange. If you play such an interesting move as Qe2, why follow up with such boring schemes?

    But let’s not overhaste things. After all, Tarrasch himself didn’t play 2…Be7 until the 10th match game. In the first four games, he played 2…c5. And as already briefly mentioned, Chigorin didn’t play the g3, Bg2 and d3 setup until the second time he got the line on the board. Chigorin’s first attempt went as follows (comments are by Tarrasch):

    Chigorin - Tarrasch
    St. Petersburg (m/2), 1893

    1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 ‘With this, Black switches to a Sicilian game, in which the position of the white queen on e2 in any case can’t help the attack.’

    3.Nc3 ‘This is, on account of the however insignificant threat Nb8-c6-d4, not good and lays the foundation of later problems. White should play g2-g3, as in the 4th and 6th games of the match, and not rob himself of the possibility to chase away the enemy knight with c2-c3.’

    3…Nc6 4.Nf3 a6 5.g3 ‘The wing development of this bishop was of course already intended with Qe2.’

    5…Nd4 6.Qd3

    nullAt this point, we get a marvellous example of Tarrasch’s famous sarcasm: ‘One sees, Chigorin has learned a lot from Steinitz, perhaps too much. In any case it was more natural to withdraw the queen to d1 and continue the game with d3, Be3, Bg2 etc.’ In the end, Tarrasch got a beautiful position indeed, but unfortunately, he got mated.

    Well, never mind that Black got a good position out of the opening - what’s important for us is to note is that White wasn’t playing the typical KIA moves here. It shows that the move can also be used to achieve interesting, different kind of positions. Tarrasch himself understood this point well when he wrote, in that other famous book of his, Die Moderne Schachpartie (1916): ‘The one idea of this unusual move is that it complicates the game and makes it more difficult.’

    Although Tarrasch obviously was no fan of Qe2, I think it does show that Tarrasch values the move not as a way for White to reach a certain kind of standard setup, but to make play interesting. And this can be done in many more ways than just one! In a way, Tarrasch acknowledged this also by varying his own setup as Black during the match. For instance, even though he reached a perfectly fine position (and a classic victory) in game 6 after 2…c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nd4 5.Qd3 Be7, he played differently with 4…Be7 in the 8th game, ‘to take a new course as soon as possible’.

    Let’s now turn our attention to the line described above by Albert Heyde.

    Chigorin-Tarrasch
    St. Petersburg (m/12), 1893

    1. e4 e6 2.Qe2 Be7

    nullWhile searching for contemporary sources in the Max Euwe Centre in Amsterdam, I discovered that at the time, opinions about how to play this line varied considerably. In the november 1893 issue of the Deutsches Wochenschach magazine, the text move is regarded as the ’simplest and securest’ reply to White’s concept. On the other hand, in the same issue of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, 2…c5 is considered ‘clearly the best answer to this untheoretical move’. 

    In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right. For instance, The Handbuch des Schachspiels by P.R. von Bilguer (1922) mentions that Steinitz considered best a setup with …c5, Nc6, d6, Nf6, Be7 and 0-0, later followed by d6-d5. Euwe (Theorie der Schaakopeningen, 1953) does likewise. Suetin (1982) and Psakhis (The Complete French, 1992) also prefer 2..c5, and so does Uhlmann (Französisch - richtig gespielt, 2004). It has also been the choice of players such as Morozevich, Bareev, Jussupow and Kortchnoi., but I wonder if it was just an ‘autoreply’ or if they actually considered 2…Be7, which I personally find more esthetic.

    Deutsches Wochenschach

    In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right

    3.b3 ‘A creative reply, directed against d7-d5′ - Tarrasch.

    3…d5 4.Bb2 Bf6 Tarrasch’s notes are worth quoting in full:

    The normal development would have been 4…Nf6, after which Black must ruin his king’s side by means of 5.exd5 exd5 (5…Qxd5 is not good for Black) 6.Bxf6 gxf6. Because of this, I chose the bishop’s move in all games with this opening. This further provokes the advance of the e-pawn, which is almost always more unpleasant for Black on e4 than on e5. In general, central pawns are best advanced only two squares, and because of this 4…d4 isn’t good; White would attack the pawn several times with c2-c3, Nf3 etc, and the end force the exchange.

    An interesting discourse, but it’s interesting that Chigorin appears not to have intended 5.exd5 at all! In three later games, he chose 5.Nc3 or 5.e5. The latter move, by the way, was also played against Grandmaster Rafael Vaganian in 1998. It seems these positions have not lost all relevance after all…

    5.e5 Later in the match, Chigorin deviated with 5.Bxf6. But according to Kasparov, who analyses some of these games in his already mentioned My Great Predecessors vol. 1, taking the bishop is inferior to the text.

    5…Be7 This position also occurred in the 14th match game. On both occasions, Chigorin played

    6.Qg4 after which Tarrasch played the amazing 6…Bf8
    null

    A unique position: on move 6, Black has ‘completed’ his bishop manoeuvre with Bf8-e7-f6-e7-f8! According to Tarrasch,  this is better than weakening the king’s side with g7-g6. He writes: ’One can’t blame the bishop now for making four moves; of course, taken together these are wasted. But because of the move e4-e5 Black has the opportunity to develop play on the queen’s side well, and start an attack there, while not much can happen to him on the king’s side.’

    In my opinion, this manoeuvre also shows that Siegbert Tarrasch wasn’t only the dogmatist he has often been called , but also, like Chigorin, an empiricist who liked to experiment. Recall the Keene quote, or what Robert Wade (in his well-known book Soviet Chess) had to say about it:

    Dogmatic as benefits a teacher and a methodist, Tarrasch tried to explain chess in an uncomplicated mechanical fashion rather similar to the way in the same period that the universe was explained. Just as small exceptions upset the rules to which the universe supposedly conformed, small exceptions required the rules propounded by Tarrasch to be modified. Chigorin was a non-confirmist, just as Nimzowitsch became in the days of the twentieth century preceding World War I.

    Well, that may be so, but I fail to see what’s so ‘conformist’ about making four bishop moves in your first six moves, ending up on f8 anyway! (By the way, in an internet game from 2004, Alexander Repritsev played 6.h4!? against the well-known grandmaster Sergey Shipov, so we’ll never know if the grandmaster analyst also intended Tarrasch’s non-comformist move Bf8…)

    But this wasn’t the end of it. The idea of attacking g7 by means of Qg4 inspired Chigorin in 1899 to play (against Showalter) the even more radical 3.Qg4!?! after 2…Be7. The game continued in ‘Winawer style’: 3…Nf6!? 4.Qxg7 Rg8 5.Qh6 and White won - all of which goes, I hope, to show the potential versatility of the move Qe2.

    And even if Black doesn’t play 2…Be7 but the more popular 2…c5, White can still play differently than a standard King’s Indian Attack setup with Nf3 and g3. This time, it was Géza Maróczy who found out how. In early 1904, after 2…c5 he played the move 3.f4 against Swiderski, postponing the development of the white squared bishop to a more suitable moment.

    nullTwo months later, during the famous Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament, Chigorin himself caught Maróczy’s idea and tried it two times (against Showalter and Marco). He lost both games, though, and generally was in poor shape in those days. (He did win $67,50 for his final result, according to the tournament site.)

    Still, despite this bad experience with 3.f4, the move was regularly seen in tournament pratice. It was employed by Paul Keres in the 1930s, and after that occasionally used by strong players. Admittedly, most white players later went for a KIA setup anyway (but now with the standard move f4 included already), but not always. Canadian IM Lawrence Day, for instance, has played the position with considerably more gusto, trying, after 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 g6 the move 5.Na3!? and after 4…Nge7 our good old plan 5.b3!? And as a perfect example of how the system can be played in a creative fashion, consider the beginning of the following game:

    Day - Stonkus
    Toronto open 1995

    1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c3 b5 6.g4!? Nxg4 7.Qxb5 Be7 8.Rg1 Bh4+ 9.Ke2
    null
    and White won.

    Now, according to my database, 3.f4 is still only White’s third most popular move behind 3.Nf3 and 3.g3, but not too long ago, it has also caught the attention of the creative British top grandmasters Nigel Short and Luke McShane. Short employed the move twice in his 1997 FIDE knockout match against Viktor Kortchnoi, while McShane, too, has played it against Kortchnoi. (Short told me that he had played the move mainly because he ‘must have been desperate’. Well, even better, for apparently he hoped that  Chigorin’s move would somehow bring back his usual creativity!)

    Nigel Short

    Nigel Short, who admitted playing 2.Qe2 only because he was desperate...

    The strong Belarus grandmaster Alexei Fedorov has also played 3.f4, and guess what - he played b2-b3 two moves later. I consider all of this sufficient proof that Chigorin’s Qe2 is not just ’some move’ to enter a King’s Indian Attack in a less theoretical way, but has independent value as a system. However, to my knowledge, no monograph or theoretical survey has ever been written about the variation in over 100 years! Why is this?

    Is it because White’s move still just looks too silly to take seriously, as Tarrasch used to think? Or is it because people think it’s just another boring (when you’re playing black) or easy (as white) way to arrange your pieces without actually having to think the first few moves? I hope I have convinced you that this was not the fate Chigorin intended his variation. He played it as a way to start a chess game in an interesting, creative way. When I first saw the move Qe2, I thought it was a great big mystery.

    Now I know it still is.


    Arne MollArne Moll regularly writes columns for ChessVibes. Here you can find previous columns all listed together.

     
    http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/chigorins-queen-move/
    Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:49:12 +0000
     
     
     
    Chess Reviews: 87




    Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3…Qd6
    Second Edition: Revised and Enlarged!
    By Michael Melts
    301 pages
    Russell Enterprises


    ‘Novice and Intermediate players found it easy to learn and understand, while powerful grandmasters such as Sergei Tiviakov realized it was an excellent line in which Black could play fearlessly - and soundly - for a win.’


    GM Ian Rogers provides a new foreword (his 2001 foreword for the first edition is included also).
    The first time I saw 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd6 was in simultaneous display by GM David Bronstein in the mid-1990s. (He was quite happy to give players the choice of colour.) I was impressed by the way he built up perfectly viable positions with Black and how his Queen - far from being a target - actually appeared to coordinate very nicely with the rest of his forces.

    I tried to find out more about 3...Qd6 but the books were more or less silent on the matter.

    Several years later, a book appeared offering comprehensive coverage and it has now been revised and enlarged.

    The introduction tells of William Norwood Potter, the first adherent of 3...Qd6 and, according to Lasker, an influence on Steinitz.

    The main material is broken down into six main section:

    1. Information for Club Chess Players
    2. 3 Nc3 Qd6 4 d4 Nf6 5 Bc4

    3. 3 Nc3 Qd6 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3

    4. Fifth Move Alternatives for White after 3 Nc3 Qd6 4 d4 Nf6

    5. Fourth Move Alternatives for Black after 3 Nc3 Qd6 4 d4

    6. Fourth Move Alternatives for White after 3 Nc3 Qd6


    There are 40 main games and many more game snippets are included in the notes.

    It‘s rather off-putting to see variations labelled as ‘B3b2a’ and ‘C2b2b1’ and this highlights one of the problems the reader is faced with. To play such a rare line, one would expect to have to get to know a few key lines and understand some model positions, but here a lot more effort is required.

    When they appear, the simple prose explanations make a more palatable impression, but these are confined mainly to part 1.


    ‘The move 5...a6 looks a bit extravagant. What is the reason for moving the a-pawn?

    Usually after 5.…a6: 1. White cannot attack the queen on d6 by Nc3-b5 or (after Qd6-c6) White cannot pin the queen with Bb5. 2. Black can bring the knight on b8 to the active c6-square; after Nb8-c6 Black attacks the d4-pawn and can carry out e7-e5 more easily, looking for counterplay in the center. 3. Black can easily activate the Nb8 and Bc8, and then play 0-0-0 - one of the most aggressive (and sometimes riskier) plans in the 3...Qd6 system. 4. Black can play b7-b5.’

    Although top-level players such as Tiviakov, Nisipeanu and Dreev have dabbled with 3…Qd6, I feel that it lacks a consistent hero to make it more appealing to the masses.

    David Bronstein was already 71 when he played this instructive game:


    Wood - Bronstein
    Hastings Masters 1995

    This position illustrates some of Black’s aims and comes from one of the main annotated games in the book.

    GM Tiviakov has had some good results with it; for example, he drew an interesting encounter with the current World Champion.


    Anand - Tiviakov
    Wijk aan Zee 2006
    12...Bg4! (to meet 13 Bxg4? with 13...Qe4+) drawn after 50 moves. But would he dare to play the same thing again, against the same opponent, or is 3...Qd6 merely a temporary shock weapon?


    There’s a good index of games and another for variations. The bibliography is extensive and shows over 40 sources, impressively ranging from Land and Water (an early London magazine) to recent New in Chess Yearbooks.

    However, adding this line to your repertoire could prove to be a case of ‘all or nothing’; to make the most of the material offered here, one would have to devote considerable attention and effort.

    For those prepare to take the plunge, there’s no doubt that this is a deep and very thorough work which is very unlikely to be surpassed as the ultimate reference work on 3...Qd6.





    New in Chess Yearbooks
    Volume 89 and Volume 90

    246 pages each
    New in Chess

    New in Chess Yearbooks appear four times each year. The format is a settled one and each volume follows a familiar structue.

    Forum

    This provides all readers with an opportunity to respond to anything from previous Yearbooks. The correspondence comes from all over the world, with titled players and top authors freely joining in the debate.

    Sosonko’s Corner

    GM Sosonko’s regular column is a good read and offer good advice, such as ‘Don’t Panic’ when faced with something new in the opening. That is the subject of his article in Yearbook 89.

    Surveys

    The real meat of the Yearbook is obviously to be found in this section. There is typically a prose introduction followed by a selection of very recent top-level games, complete with deep annotations (using symbols rather than words in the vast majority of cases). There’s good use of photos too, one per survey and most of which were new to me.

    32 opening lines are covered in volume 89 and 33 in volume 90. Highlights from the former include ‘The Variation That Decided The World Championship’, in which Peter Lukacs and Laszlo Hazai take a good look at this key position from the Semi-Slav.


    World Champion Anand and P.H. Nielsen provide annotations from the Anand - Kramnik title match.

    ‘It is advisable for the authors to be extremely modest in evaluating this line. As we see, even World Champions find it very difficult over the board. Good computers, good analytical programs and a lot of time and energy may help, but only effective over-the-board calculation may lead to success here.’

    Viktor Moskalenko provides two entertaining surveys on The Budapest Defence as updates to his book on the subject.

    ‘We can observe an increase in the Budapest Gambit’s popularity and its theory keeps growing. If you are not prepared, you are in danger no matter your level! A good example is the recent game Kramnik-Mamedyarov.’

    Kramnik - Mamedyarov

    Nice Rapid 2008

    It is easy to see that the former World Champion is in big trouble. 0-1 (39)

    From volume 90, GM Eingorn’s survey on 7...Kf8 in the Winawer and Nikolay Ninov’s analysis of the Traxler Gambit are particularly interesting.

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2


    ‘In contrast to the classical continuations 7...Qc7 and 7...0-0, Black’s strategy here is based on a completely different logic and White has to try and demonstrate (not in words, but in deeds) that the opponent’s voluntary rejection of castling has substantial significance. One of the best replies is considered to be 8 Bd2, which is directed against the standard manoeuvre ….Qd8-a5-a4 and at the same time does not allow the complications which are possible after 7 a4 Qc7 8 Nf3 cxd4.’

    It would be quite possible to spend a huge chunk of one’s life analysing The Traxler. The author focuses on lines resulting from a strong ninth move:

    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1 Qe7 7 Nxh8 d5 8 exd5 Nd4 9 d6!

    ‘…which is definitely the best winning attempt in my opinion.’

    Brain-twisting positions are commonplace in this opening, such as this one:



    …when Black’s best move is apparently 22...Ne1+!!

    The point is that these Yearbooks are not afraid to spend time and effort on unusual variations as well as all of the popular main lines. With a few volumes in one’s library it would be possible to start to build up a very impressive repertoire based on the high level material on offer.

    Some of the comments betray a sign of the times, such as this one from Paul Boersma, during a survey on the Queen’s Indian in volume 89.
    ‘For uneducated or younger players I should perhaps add that Nimzowitsch was a nervous grandmaster of the first quarter of the twentieth century who invented many positional ideas/terms regarded as superfluous in our era of computers.’

    Book Reviews

    GM Glenn Flear inhabits the final section of the Yearbooks and is given six or so pages to convey his thoughts on recent chess books.

    Volume 89’s reviews, under the umbrella title of ‘Cherry Picking’, takes a good look at five opening books.

    ‘All the authors below are cherry-picking for us, but can we rely on them having a discerning taste for fruit?’

    The amusing titles continue in Volume 90 with ‘Never Mind The Quality…Feel The Width’. Once again five opening books are assessed, including New in Chess’s own edition of ‘The Black Lion’ (which will be given a full review here very soon).

    New in Chess Yearbooks are impressive tomes and will definitely be of benefit to stronger players. Average club players will probably find them tough going and a on the deep side…

    …which allows my segue neatly into this series:





    Chess Opening Essentials 2 1. d4 d5/ 1 d4 various/ Queen’s Gambit
    GM Dimitri Komarov, GM Stefan Djuric
    and IM Claudio Pantaleoni

    288 pages New in Chess

    Chess Opening Essentials 3 Indian Defences, Complete
    GM Dimitri Komarov, GM Stefan Djuric
    and IM Claudio Pantaleoni

    336 pages New in Chess

    Editor Peter Boel sets out the aims of this series - which is set to run to four volumes - in his introduction. The books set out to be:

    Comprehensive
    Easy-to-use
    Long-lasting
    Complete
    Down-to-Earth
    Convenient


    The original (Italian) editions came out in 2005 and have been updated to include games all the way up to early 2009.

    There is an eye-catching and effective use of colour throughout the books, typically to highlight a name, important position or star move.

    Each opening starts with a short essay followed by a fully annotated explanation of the moves in question. Supplementary study games are included (without notes, but highlighted by colour to distinguish them from the main text).

    Here’s a randomly selected piece from volume 2, regarding the main line of the Tarrasch Defence, just after White has played 6 g3:


    ‘From the g2-square the bishop will bear down on the weak d5 pawn, and consolidate the defences of the soon-to-be castled king against Black’s characteristically energetic piece play. This variation was played so successfully by Rubinstein that it brought the Tarrasch almost to the point of extinction before its revival in the 1960’s.

    Now we take the move so much for granted that it seems almost natural. Yet this is far from the case; even though 6.g3 was first played by Carl Schlecter in 1908, it took 20 years of play at the highest levels before it became clear that it was White’s best move! Today, in the age of the Internet, this seems incredible, but in those days, tournaments were far fewer, and new ideas circulated neither freely nor quickly.’

    Here’s a sample from volume 3:

    King’s Indian Defence

    White has just played 13 Nc3-b5

    ‘Korchnoi’s idea from 1987 had a couple of initial successes, only to find itself quickly abandoned.

    The strategic concept is to eliminate the fundamentally important c8 bishop after 13...a6 14 Na7. Do not forget that Black’s chances of successfully attacking the kingside are reduced to practically zero without the light-squared bishop, which supports …g5-g4 and attacks the h3 point. This is true not only in this line but for all the Mar del Plata variations.

    The tactical justification for the move lies in the fact that after 14...Rxa7 15 Bxa7 b6 16 b4 Bb7 17 c5 dxc5 18 Rc1, every attempt to capture the bishop on a7 has failed.

    However, unfortunately for White, after the simple 13...b6! The knight move is shown to be a waste of time.’

    The examples quoted are both typical of those found throughout these books.

    Learning the moves in conjunction with the relevant ideas and plans is clearly a good way to develop a firm understanding of the openings.

    These books are ideal for improving club players, including keen juniors. Even experienced players will find them useful as a starting point if they intned to add more openings to their arsenal.

    For more on books from Russell Enterprises, pop along to:
    http://www.chesscafe.com/

    For further details of these and other New in Chess products, please visit: http://www.newinchess.com/

    Missed a review? Please visit my archive:
    http://marshtowers.blogspot.com/2007/12/chess-review-archive.html


     
    http://marshtowers.blogspot.com/2009/03/chess-reviews-87.html
    Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:22:00 +0000
     
     
     
    The Veresov System
    At the club level you often get players who specialise in an offbeat opening, defending its soundness no matter what the current 'theoretical' opinion is. While these openings may be suspect at the highest levels, they often work at lower levels, mainly due to the strength of the opposition. I see plenty of Colle players, the odd Budapest or Nimzowitsch defender, and of course the Blackmar-Diemar Gambit arouses fierce passions in its adherents. I've spent 25 years playing the Traxler as Black, and have even shifted more and more towards 1.Nc3 as my weapon of choice.
    However, there is one opening which I haven't seen anyone utilise on a regular basis is the chess circles I move in. The Veresov System (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5) doesn't seem to be a bad opening, but I can't recall seeing anyone play it in the tournaments I've played in. And I have no explanation for its unpopularity, especially given that the opening ideas seem pretty straightforward.
    So in attempt to increase its popularity here is a short game from last year. White goes for rapid queenside castling with 4.Qd3 and after Black bites of more than he can chew with 13. ... Bxa3 , happily surrenders his queenside pawns in the knowledge that mate is not far away.

    Ibba,I (2222) - Bieg Pagel,C (1988) [D01]
    Capo d'Orso Open Porto Mannu Palau ITA (6), 21.05.2008

    1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.Qd3 Be7 5.f3 Nc6 6.0-0-0 0-0 7.e4 Nb4 8.Qd2 c6 9.a3 Na6 10.Bxa6 bxa6 11.Nh3 Rb8 12.Nf2 Qa5 13.Bxf6 (D)
    13. ... Bxa3 14.Qg5 Bxb2+ 15.Kd2 Qxc3+ 1-0
     
    http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2009/03/veresov-system.html
    Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:41:00 +0000
     
     
     
    New & full of opening novelties: Yearbook 90

    YB 90Yearbook 90 has just arrived!

    In this issue of The Chess Player’s Guide to Opening News
    you will find answers to urgent quenstions like:

    – what was the most original gambit of the year 2008?
    – will KingLoek finally admit defeat in the Botvinnik Slav?
    – is the Berliner Variation of the Two Knights out of business?
    – has Erwin l’Ami refuted Rybka in the Classical Nimzo?
    – what were Perenyi’s ideas behind his all-out Attack on the Najdorf?
    –can Black still hope for a win in Tiger’s Modern?
    – how did the Senior World Champion rejuvenate the Morozevich French?
    – with what gambit did Kasparov combat the Scandinavian in simuls?
    – have Naiditsch and Bacrot succeeded in killing the Marshall Attack?
    – has Nikolay Ninov found the ultimate Anti-Traxler plan?
    – have new horizons opened in the sharp Leningrad Dutch?
    – with what obscure variety of the Staunton Gambit can you catch Topalov?
    – and much more!

    “Fantastic value for money”, is what the British Federation for Correspondence Chess said about the Yearbook.

    Pleas have a look at the full contents of Yearbook 90.

     
    http://www.chessvibes.com/advertisement/new-full-of-opening-novelties-yearbook-90/
    Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:51:03 +0000
     
     
     
    Lucius Endzelins
    Lucius Endzelins ranks very high on the list of great Australian CC players. After CJS Purdy won the first CC World Championship, Endzelins was the Australian representative in the 2nd World Championship, and finished in equal 2nd, half a point behind Viacheslav Ragozin
    He played in 2 more World Championship finals, finishing 7th in both the 3rd and 5th World Championships.
    The 5th World Championship Final was won by Hans Berliner and is most notable for the Estrin v Berliner game, which many consider the best game of chess ever played. Interestingly Estrin, who published a number of books on the Two Knights Defence, defended the White side of this opening not only against Berliner, but also Endzelins. Endzelins chose the Traxler to test Estrin, and held an advantage into the middlegame. However Estrin was able to avoid the worst and the game ended in a draw.

    Estrin,Y - Endzelins,L [C57]
    5th CC World Ch Final 6568 corr ICCF, 1965
    [RR]

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 9.h3 Qc5(D)
    10.Kxf2 Nxc2+ 11.d4 Qxc4 12.Na3 Nxa3 13.bxa3 Qxd5 14.dxe5 Qc5+ 15.Be3 Ne4+ 16.Kf3 Qf8+ 17.Bf4 g5 18.Qc1 Nc5 19.Nf7 Qxf7 20.Qxc5 Qxf4+ 21.Ke2 Be6 22.Rac1 Rd8 23.Rhd1 Rxd1 24.Kxd1 Qf1+ 25.Kc2 Qxg2+ 26.Kc3 Qxh3+ 27.Kb2 g4 28.Rc2 Qd3 29.Qxc7 Bf5 30.Qb8+ Qd8 31.Qxd8+ Kxd8 32.Rf2 Be4 33.Rf4 Bf3 34.Rf7 h5 35.Kc3 h4 36.Rh7 h3 37.Kd4 g3 38.Rxh3 g2 39.Rg3 Ke7 40.a4 ½-½
     
    http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/10/lucius-endzelins.html
    Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:43:00 +0000
     
     
     
    Another save in the Traxler
    (NB These comments and annotations first appeared on chessworld.net)

    As the Traxler involves such a heavy material investment for Black, possible refutations always seem just around the corner for White. In this game White grabs almost all that Black offers, and then tries to give some of it back to achieve a simplified but winning position.

    Jose Gener - shaunpress
    www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 2008

    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.exd5 Nd4 (8. ... Bg4 9.Be2 Bxe2+ 10.Qxe2 Nd4 I'd played this variation in a couple of other games in this tournament (and won). But 11.Qd3 came up in one of the games, and I found it impossible to crack. Not to say that there isn't a line for Black, but I decided to avoid it in this game. ) 9.d6 This move (and the next one for White) is another refutation attempt of the Traxler. If it works then the whole Nd4 line is under a cloud. 9...cxd6 (I ignored 9. ... Qxd6 as I wasn't prepared for White's next move. However I may well play it next time I reach this position ) 10.Kxf2 This is a new-ish move (within the last decade or so) but apart from an article in Chessmail I haven't found much on it. 10...d5 When I played this move I at least saw White's next move and overall idea. Black is down a rook and a piece so White can afford to return some material to stop back's mating attack. 11.Bxd5 So here it is decision time. Black needs to find something to keep the attack going. 11... Bg4 (D)
    After 4 days thought I decided the game move was the best try. (The obvious 11. ... Nxd5 can be met by 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Qxg6+ when Black is running out of pieces to mate with. A sample continuation leaves White in front after 14. ... Kd8 15.Qg8+ Kc7 16.Qxd5 Nxc2 17.Na3 Nxa1 and White will pick up the knight in the corner and remain a piece and a few pawns ahead) 12.Bf3? After this move Black is winning. White has to move the Queen instead (probably to f1) although blacks attack becomes very strong. 12...Ne4+! This is the move that makes the whole line work. Of course white can give up the queen for the material already captured, but with the White King still exposed and a lack of development, Black will be able to pick up loose pieces. 13.Ke3 The three retreats also lose. (13.Kf1 Nxf3 14.gxf3 Qh4! 15.Qe2 Bh3+ 16.Kg1 Qg5+ 17.Qg2 Qxg2+ is one of the many mates that can occur) (13.Kg1 Qc5! wins) (13.Ke1 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qh4+ mates) 13...Qg5+ This leads to a forced mate 14.Kxe4 Qf4+ 15.Kd3 Bf5+ 16.Kc4 Rc8+ And White overstepped the time limit here. (17.Kb4 Nxc2+ followed by Qb4 mate) (17.Kd5 Be6+ 18.Kd6 e4+ is another way to get mated.) 0-1
     
    http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/08/another-save-in-traxler.html
    2008-08-20T23:04:00.004+10:00
     
     
     
    << SEARCH MORE
     
    Concept by Valerio Tirri :: Powered by Portaneo :: Yourchess.net :: :: Share :: Tags