|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Play of the Jackal by Adrian Skelton
The opening
occasionally emerges from lines in which White plays 1.Nc3 or where Black
initially intends playing a Centre Counter, occasionally a Sicilian, or even
a Caro-Kann but unwittingly allowed his opponent to steer the game towards
Jackal type positions. However, it is specifically directed against
the French Defence. A main line runs: 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.Bg5!? to reach the position below:
White has dispensed with the usual support of his e-pawn [with Bg5] and instead challenged Black to show that he can make something of the relative weakness of this or other weakened points. But in fact - easier said than done - although Black’s standard strategy in the French Defence is to apply pressure to the dark squares, when it comes down to practicalities in the Jackal, attempts to win a pawn on the likes of b2 and e5 must be carefully considered in the context of White’s accelerated development and counterattacking possibilities. Black may well get opportunities to take a pawn; but an opportune moment in which to strike is more difficult to determine: As we will see, this ‘judgement call’ can be a difficult one to make and has already cost Black several games. By the same token; White obviously cannot afford to cast material around like confetti: Nor can he simply point to superior development as if this were a byword for to win: He must utilize his more active pieces to create specific threats and, above all else, keep the position open, unsettled and dynamic. The opening therefore tends to revolve around the struggle between these two competing elements; Black’s hope of pinching a pawn while otherwise holding his position together – versus White’s aspirations of opening up the position to launch a direct combinative attack. That White can generate such threats is beyond doubt: even while the analysis was still at an exploratory stage and unavoidably sketchy, it was already becoming clear that White’s capacity for dynamic play was not to be underestimated.
Analysis of the Jackal’s key lines has been a slow process – but actually quite good fun. Fun, because the positions tend to be tactically rich; slow because one cannot get to the heart of a position just by simply feeding it to a computer. As others have pointed out; a strong strategic sense is not necessarily a chess program’s strongest suit. Allowing a program to guide the exploration of new lines is a bit like letting a monkey at the wheel of your car - it’s certainly capable of working the controls, but at the first sign of distraction it will have you careering across the neighbour’s lawn. Some of the early preliminary analysis I did on the Jackal’s variations bears this out. The following variation appeared in a theoretical article in ‘New In Chess’ [2001] and again comes about as a result of Black’s attempts to win material. Notably, it stems from an earlier position which a chess program will assess as clearly winning for Black.
Although the original NIC article attempted to sound a note of caution regarding the Jackal Attack, further discoveries since made suggest that Black’s defence appears to be a bit more difficult than I first supposed. The Jackal bishop on g5 can turn out to be a real thorn in Black’s side. A recent game, Cuartas – CoriTello [Salou 10th Open: May 2008] saw White make a known opening error identified in the original ‘Day of the Jackal’ article. But when Black failed to exploit this, the bishop gradually came to dominate proceedings.
The ‘bad bishop’ was once more up to its tricks in a still more recent game:
In the next position the e-pawn has once proven irresistible. This time the Jackal bishop has bowed out - but has nevertheless left its mark. Although the Indian IM now played 15.Qxf6 and went on to win, he had a much stronger attacking plan that is known from analysis of a very similar position given in the Jackal e-book:
It was mentioned earlier that in order to make the Jackal work, it is important for White to seek dynamic and unbalanced positions. Although he may not be playing a gambit at the outset; he is advised to play in similar style. This is precisely what happens in the next game. Facing a significantly stronger opponent, White gives up the exchange to obtain good outposts for his own minor pieces while his opponent’s remain cramped and his queen, sidelined.
Black has a dark squared weakness problem – once again thanks to that culprit on g5. Moreover, despite his efforts to get his queen out of the claustrophobic corridor, it remains very short of squares. These two factors combine to allow White to either decoy the queen onto a fatal square or to instigate a direct mating attack. The winning move here is slightly shocking: 15.Be7!! Thus if now 15…KxB then 16.Nc3 Qxb4 17.Nxd5 wins. But the alternative 15…Qb5 also offers little comfort: For instance, 15…Qb5 16.Qg5 and now if, for example16…g6 17.Bd6 f6 18.exf6 Rf8 19.Re1 and this game is over. Although White’s missed this possibility (15.Nd4 was played) he still retained a good position and with every reason to be optimistic. The game continued 15.Nd4 c5 16.bxc5 Nxc5 17.b3 Qd7 18.Qa5 Nb7 19.Qb6 h6 20.Bh4 g5 [As in Position 2 above – the short term satisfaction of kicking the bishop can incur later retribution.] 21.Bg3 Nd8 22.Ne3 Qa7 23.Qb4 a5 24.Qd2 Ba6 25.Ra1 h5 26.h4 g4 27.Rxa5 Qb8 White’s pieces have gradually gained the sorts of outposts that one could have envisaged back at position 6. While still in fact an exchange down, it almost appears as if he is a piece up. Black’s last move however turns out to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
28…exd5 29.e6 Qb7 30.Nf5! Qa7 31.Nd6 Kf8 32.Nb5 and White went on to win – the Jackal bishop once again involved right at the death. [The full game can also be scrolled through at the Jackal website or in the e-book.] One last example of the ‘play of the Jackal’. This time, more of a theoretical one. This position can emerge from Position 1 when Black first brings his queen to a5 then later to b4. Seeking a line against the Jackal which ‘seems safe and avoids complications,’ the British GM, Glenn Flear, has offered the opinion that White is now forced to trade queens due to the attack on the b-pawn.
It transpires that White actually had two much more active lines than Flear’s suggestion. Even the weaker of these [1.Qh5!?] needs to be handled very carefully by Black since now on 1…Qxb2 White has 2.Nxd5 in reply. Surprisingly, Flear failed to considers this White attempt to avoid the exchange of queens. It was certainly worth a mention. While it is probably true to say that Black will gain a queenside advantage in any endings reached – analysis reveals that reaching them could prove to be a problem in itself. Such are the range of continuations open to White and the complications that can set in that it is only possible to give a flavour of them. Here for instance is a plausible but unforced ‘fun variation.’ The worrying thing for Black is that such positions can accumulate from relatively minor inaccuracies.
Overall then, as the above snapshots briefly illustrate, the Jackal Attack offers White an interesting way of introducing a sharp game with good practical chances against the French Defence. White does have some potential weak points; true, but a balanced and accurate evaluation is not gained by focussing on this feature in isolation. Certainly, if Black is permitted to calm the position, lock up the centre or to trade queens, then he is likely to gain sufficient time to pressurize White’s weak points. But, provided White avoids falling in with such intentions and instead keeps the position fluid and unstable, then his advantages in development and space can soon generate favourable – and often dangerous – combinative possibilities. So, ‘What is the bishop doing on g5 while White’s centre dissolves?’ one might ask: ‘Praying for it’ would seem to be the most accurate answer. That’s the play of the Jackal.
|
Advertisement
The
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I
named it after a favourite old film – Fred Zimmermann’s adaptation of the
Frederic Forsyth novel, ‘Day of the Jackal’ –because of some notional
connections with that story’s plot.
