|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Recent
Games
Reprinted with the kind permission of the author. This article was
originally published in Issue 7 of the Unorthodox Openings Newsletter,
edited by
Davide Rozzoni. A position at the very heart of the Nimzowitsch defence is reached after 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3
There has been relatively little practical experience with this position, but the overall impression has been that Black’s game is difficult. However, for those who are not primarily concerned with avoiding losses this is a fascinating position that offers rich possibilities for experimentation. Analysis can be found in the books by Myers (The Nimzovich Defense to 1.e4: Caissa Editions, 1995) and Keilhack & Schlenker (1..Sc6! aus allen lagen: Schachverlag Kania, 1995). In an article on the home page of Kania Chess Publishers - the publisher of several excellent opening books and well worth a visit for much other chess material and information - I tried to expand on these analyses. Here I present a brief update based on recent games found on the pages of TWIC, IECG, ICCF and ChessBase online database. One major line is 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 e5 8.dxe6 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Bb4
I rated this position as difficult for Black. Here is a recent encounter between two strong and uncompromising players that does not change this assessment.
Ernst,
T.(2495) - Furhoff, J. (2410) 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 e5 8.dxe6 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Bb4 10.Bxc7 played also by Plaskett so this may take precedence over 10.Bc4 10...Bxe6 11.Ng5 Plaskett-Simons continued 11.Bb5 Ke7 12.Ng5 Nf6 13.Nxe6 Kxe6 14.Rd4 and White eventually won. In the Kania article I suggested 12...a6 and 12...Bxa2 as possible improvements. The latter move was seen in Hassan, B. - Hill, B., IECC T4422w, 2001, with the continuation 13.0–0 Bxc3 14.bxc3 a6 15.Bd7 Nh6 16.f4 Rad8 (!? was this drastic move really necessary? Now it becomes messy) 17.Bxd8+ Rxd8 18.Ba4 Rxd1 19.Rxd1 b5 20.Ra1 Nxf4 21.Bxb5 axb5 22.Rxa2 Ng4 23.Ra7+ Kd6 24.Rxg7 Ne2+ 25.Kf1 Nxc3 26.Ke1 b4 27.Rxh7 Ne3 28.Rb7 Ncd5 29.g3 Nxc2+ 30.Kd2 Nd4 31.h4 e3+ 32.Kd3 e2 33.Kd2 b3 34.h5 Kc5, 1/2-1/2 Ke7 12.Nxe6 Kxe6 13.Bc4+ Kf6 14.0–0 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rc8 16.Rd7 Ne5 17.Bxe5+ Kxe5 18.Bb3 Nf6 19.Rxg7 Rhd8 20.Rxb7 Rc5 Surely Black is lost in this position despite some central influence 21.f4+ exf3 22.Re7+ Kf4 23.Rxf3+ Kg5 24.h3 Rd1+ 25.Kh2 h5 26.Rg7+ Kh6 27.Rf7 Rd6 28.Rxa7 h4 29.Re7 Nh5 30.Rfe3 Kg5 31.Re8 Ng3 32.Rg8+ Kf6 33.Rgxg3 hxg3+ 34.Kxg3 Re5 35.Kf3 Rxe3+ 36.Kxe3 Ke5 37.g3 Rc6 38.c4 Rc8 39.Kf3 Rc7 40.h4 Rc8 41.h5 Rh8 42.c5 Rxh5 43.Ba4 Rh7 44.Bb5 Ra7 45.a4 Rc7 46.c6 Ra7 47.c4 Kd6 48.Kf4 Rg7 49.a5 Kc7 50.Kxf5 Rxg3 51.Ke5 Rd3 52.a6 Rd2, 1/2-1/2 Another important line is: 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 e5 8.dxe6 Bxe6 9. Nb5 Bd6 10.Bxd6 cxd6
The Australian GM Ian Rogers, one of the strongest players to employ the Nimzowitsch defence with some regularity, has played 11.Qd4 here with success. However, 11.Qxd6 Qxd6 12.Nxd6 also is dangerous and may actually be a more clear-cut way to an advantage. White likely will emerge from this position a pawn up with a three to one pawn majority on the queen side. Black has some compensation in a lead in development and central influence. While Black perhaps does not lose by force, it is not much fun. The following game does not change this assessment.
Belotti, B.
(2430) - Barlocco, C. (2136) 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 e5 8.dxe6 Bxe6 9.Nb5 Bd6 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.Qxd6 Qxd6 12.Nxd6 Ke7 13.Nxb7 Nf6 14.Nc5 Bd5 15.Nb3 a5 16.Nd4 f4 17.Bb5 Rhc8 18.a4 Kd6 19.0–0–0 Ke5 20.Rhe1 Ra7 21.f3 Bc4 22.Nc6 Rxc6 23.Bxc6 e3 24.g3 Rc7 25.gxf4+ Nxf4 26.Rxe3 Kf5 27.Be4, 1–0 That White can get tangled up was seen in Doster, P. -Pauche, G., Stuttgart Ch. 1993 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 e5 8.dxe6 Bxe6 9.Nb5 Bd6 10.Bxd6 cxd6 11.Qxd6 Qxd6 12.Nxd6+ Ke7 13.Nxb7 Rc8 14.c3 Nf6 15.Na5 Rc7 16.c4 Rb8 17.Rb1 Ne5 18.Nf4 Bf7 19.Be2 Nxc4 20.Nxc4 Bxc4 21.Bxc4 Rxc4 22.0–0 Rc2 23.g3 Rbxb2 24.Rxb2 Rxb2 25.Rc1 Rxa2 26.Rc7+ Nd7 27.Nh5 g6 28.Nf6 Kxf6 29.Rxd7 h5 30.Rd6+ Kg7 31.Rd7+ Kh6 32.h4 Ra1+ 33.Kg2 Ra2 34.Re7 a5 35.Re8 a4 36.Kf1 a3 37.Ra8 Ra1+ 38.Ke2 Kg7 39.Ra7+ Kf8 40.Ra6 a2 41.Ra7 Ke8 42.Kd2, 0–1 Nevertheless, this line probably is best avoided. Finally a look at a line that I pushed for in the Kania article. 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 a6 8.Bc4 h5
At the time I was unaware of games or analysis of this position besides my own limited experience. Here I considered 9.Qe2 and 9.Nf4. There is of course nothing new under the sun and older material has since come to my attention. Pascal Roques has had several outings on the Black side of this position. Curiously, he has twice faced 9.Nf4, a move that I had also encountered, but which probably is not the sternest test. Scarani, A. - Roques, P., ICCF, WCH2, 1998 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 a6 8.Bc4 h5 9.Nf4 Nxf4 10.Bxf4 g6 11.f3 Bg7 12.fxe4 fxe4 13.Qd2 Bf5 14.0–0–0 Nf6 15.Rhe1 Qd7 16.Qd4 Bh6 17.Bxh6 Rxh6 18.h3 Rh7 19.Kb1 Qd6 20.Bb3 Rd8 21.Qa7 Qb6 22.Qxb6 cxb6 23.a3 Kd7 24.Re3 Kd6 25.Rf1 Rf7 26.Kc1 Rff8 27.a4 Ke5 28.Rf2 h4 29.Kb1 Nh5 30.Re1 Ng3 31.Rd2 Bd7 32.Nd1 Rf1 33.Rxf1 Nxf1 34.Rf2 Ng3 35.Ne3 Kd4 36.Nd1 Nf5 37.Nc3 Ke5 38.Rf1 Nd4 39.Ba2 e3 40.Re1 Kf4 41.Rd1 Nf5 42.Re1 Kg3 43.Re2 g5 44.Bc4 Nd4 45.Rxe3+ Kxg2 46.Bd3 Bxh3 47.Rxe7 Bc8 48.Re4 Nf3 49.Re2+ Kg3 50.Ne4+ Kf4 51.Nf2 g4 52.Re4+ Kg3 53.Re2 Rxd5 54.Ne4+ Kf4 55.Nf6 Re5 56.Be4 h3, 0–1. Brueckner, J. - Roques, P., IECG WC.2003.S.0003, 2001 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 a6 8.Bc4 h5 9.Nf4 Nxf4 10.Bxf4 g6 11.Qe2 Nh6 12.Bb3 Nf7 13.h4 Bh6 14.Bxh6 Nxh6 15.Ba4+ b5 16.Bb3 Qd6 17.0–0–0 Bd7 18.f3 exf3 19.gxf3 Rb8 20.Rd4 Kd8 21.Qe3 Nf7 22.Ne2 a5 23.c3 a4 24.Bc2 c5 25.dxc6 Qxc6 26.Rhd1 Rb7 27.f4 Re8 28.Rxd7+ Rxd7 29.Nd4 Rxd4 30.Qxd4+ Kc7 31.Qa7+ Kc8 32.Re1 Kd8 33.Rg1 Kc8 34.Kb1 a3 35.Qxa3 Nd6 36.Qa7 Nc4 37.Kc1 Rd8 38.Qxe7 Qb6 39.Qe1 Rd2 40.Bb3 Qf2 41.Qxf2 Rxf2 42.Bxc4 bxc4 43.Rxg6 Rxf4 44.Rg5 Rxh4 45.Rxf5 Rh1+ 46.Kd2 Rh2+ 47.Ke3 Rxb2 48.Rxh5 Rxa2, 1/2-1/2 Those were not easy games but they reinforce the playability of Black’s position after 9.Nf4. Likely stronger is 9.Qe2. The most serious challenge to the playability of this line may, however, be the direct 9.Ng5 which featured in a recent 10 move win.
Zavanelli, M.E. - Anda, H. 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 f5 7.Nh3 a6 8.Bc4 h5 9.Ng5 ! White eyes the weak squares in Blacks position with no fear of the advancing pawns 9...h4 10.d6 and Black resigned! Did Black resign because of a lost position or were there other circumstance? Certainly black cannot play 10...hxg3 because of 11.d7 but is there really no defence? First a superficial look at a line in which Black’s king goes on a stroll. 9. Ng5 h4 10. d6 e6 11.Bxe6 hxg3 12.d7 Bxd7 13.Bf7 Ke7 14.Nd5 (14.Bxg6 gxf2 15.Kxf2 Be6 16.g4 Nh6 17.gxf5 e3 18.Kxe3 Bxf5 19.Nd5 Kd6) Kf6 15.Nf7 Kd6. This does not look too pleasant but I cannot see a direct killer. A deeper look probably will come up with an advantage for White at some point. A simpler solution to 9.Ng5 may be 9... e5 10.dxe6 [10.h4 Bd6; 10.Ne6 Bxe6 11.dxe6 Qxd1+ 12.Rxd1 h4] 10...Qxg5 11.Nd5 [11.Bxc7 Nh4] and now both 11...f4 12.Nxc7+ Ke7 (White appears to have nothing better than a draw by repetition), and 11.Nd5 Bd6 12.Bxd6 cxd6 13.Nc7 Ke7 14.Nxa8 Qxg2 look playable. Suggestions and games warmly welcomed.
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
