If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked in the header and footer).

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
 

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

Perhaps I am showing my age, but rather than sit through a “Girls Gone Wild!” movie, I would prefer any number of possible videos from a “Grandmasters Gone Wild!” collection, especially those dedicated to creative chess openings.  I like to imagine classics like “GGW: The Rice Gambit,” based on the infamous King’s Gambit variation that received attention from top GMs in the early 20th Century.  Other titles might include a study of Bronstein on a good day, Miles on almost any day, and Tartakower even on a bad day.  Who wouldn’t want “GGW: The Hypermoderns”?

A full shelf of such videos would of necessity include a contemporary feature on GM Alexei Bezgodov, “Grandmasters Gone Wild: Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!?”  Unfortunately for us all, there is no such movie series – at least not yet, any way.  Fortunately, there is such a book, recently released by Chess Stars press.  For those who like opening analysis from a “Grandmaster Gone Wild,” this is an extraordinary find.  (See a profile of GM Bezgodov, and a game annotated by him.)

Bezgodov tackles 1.e4 c5 2.a3!? with amazing energy and imagination (and likely a database or computer playing program).  It is a rare and wonderful thing to see a grandmaster provide so many new ideas and evaluations (over 200 pages worth) for what is admittedly an unorthodox variation.  He suggests 3.b4!? as often as possible in the lines he gives, with transitions at times to the venerable Sicilian Wing Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.b4).  This alone should sell the book to many attacking fiends and tactical maniacs.  But wait – there’s more!  Some lines have a distinct Sokolsky-like feel, with a Bishop on b2 and a pawn on b4 or b5, and if anyone is foolish enough to answer 1.e4 c5 2.a3 with 2…e5, the author has analysis of the attacking 3.Nc3 & 4.f4, or just plain 3.f4 – a very modern Vienna Opening or King’s Gambit.  There are Scandinavian and Alekhine Defense-like lines, as well.

Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!? was originally planned as a book for blitz play, but, as it developed Bezgodov came to believe that it could be of use even in strong tournaments: “…White can really obtain and preserve an opening advantage!”  Unconvinced?  Well, you’re not alone.  When FM Carsten Hansen recently went to review the book, his first thought was “Has this guy lost his mind?”  Hansen eventually decided that Grandmaster Bezgodov had not.

This is reminiscent of Reuben Fine’s treatment of the Sicilian Wing Gambit in his Practical Chess Openings (1948).  Apparently under Marshall’s influence, Fine included analysis that led to a clear positional advantage for White.  Good old Fred Reinfeld, in his monthly Chess Review “Spotlight on Openings” column, reacted “If this conclusion is valid, then the Sicilian is as good as discredited.”  Of course, that issue was resolved, to no one’s surprise, and 1.e4 c5 is seen today in the lowest and the highest of places.  Concluded Reinfeld over 50 years ago:

White’s advantage [in the Sicilian Wing Gambit], if any, resides in his superior development.  This suggests that, if Black sees to it that his development does not lag, White cannot obtain any advantage.  But, then, what will White have for his gambit pawn? White will have a losing game!

If you want to make up your own mind about how to answer Hansen’s question, you can take a sneak peak at excerpts from Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!?, or you can follow along with this review, as we keep Reinfeld’s useful words in mind.

A word, first, about naming the variation, as Bezgodov refrains from doing so; although he can (and does) easily claim to have written the first book-length treatment.  In Europe 1.e4 c5 2.a3 has been known by many as “van Duijn’s Gambit,” celebrating the Dutch iconoclastic politician (founder of the Goblin Party) and amateur chessplayer Roel van Duijn.  Hans Ree tips his hat and acknowledges “Roel’s Gambit” in his recent Dutch Treat column for Chesscafe.  Ree quotes van Duijn: “Doesn’t Bezgodov know my games, from the junior championship of The Hague in 1958 till now?  Or my articles in Schakend Nederland and Schaaknieuws?”  In an e-mail, van Duijn told me he had invented the opening during the championships of his school in The Hague.  The goal of the line was to eliminate Black’s c-pawn, in order to conquer the space in the center.  Bezgodov, although unaware of van Duin’s work, targets c5 relentlessly.

As sometimes happens, the explorer has not trod the path alone.  Rainer Schlenker, in his Rand Springer magazine, presented games (some of his own) and analysis in the 1990s.  Of course, he acknowledged van Duijn’s work and games.  For that matter, Canadians Duncan Suttles, Lawrence Day and Jonathan Berry were playing 2.a3 vs the Sicilian in the 1960s and 1970s.  Day says he got the idea from watching Duncan Suttles play speed chess in 1964 at the Canadian Open.  It is not clear what Suttles’ inspiration was.  However, American Ariel Mengarini (of 1.e4 e5 2.a3 “fame”) was experimenting with the line in the 1950s, so he, along with van Duijn, could have been influences.  (Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!? contains a 1979 game by Suttles, but the author was apparently unaware of how often he had played the opening.  There is also a 1966 game by Mengarini.)

Bezgodov first takes a look (Chapter 1) at 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5, which he admits (much to the disappointment, I imagine, of attacking players) is “not Black’s most popular move.”  He likes 3.Nc3 for White, noting:

The move c7-c5 weakened Black’s position considerably. Black is incapable of exploiting a lot of ideas that are typical for the Vienna Game.  For example, his bishop cannot go to c5, his knight cannot go after White’s bishop on c4 with Nc6-a5, because White has the a2-square to retreat to…

Ingeniously, to introduce the analysis, he gives the line from Kroshk – shasha, Internet, 2004: 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bc4 d6 5.d3 Be7 6.f4 exf4 7.Bxf4 Nf6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.0-0 Bg4 and compares White’s position with what Anand achieved in his game against Van Wely at Monaco 2003, a game which sported “a line of the Sicilian Defence that has become incredibly popular lately” 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Bc4 Be7 5.d3 d6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Ng5 0-0 8.f4 Bg4 9.Nf3 ef 10.Bxf4.  Kroshk’s line with a2-a3 is the better of the two for the first player, Bezgodov contends:

I can add jokingly “In case you wish to get a better position with White than Anand, you only need to play 2.a3!”

Another way to meet 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5 is (Chapter 2) 3.f4 directly, and his analysis of “the New King’s Gambit” is likewise very interesting.

Can you imagine the amazement of some ardent fan of the King’s Gambit if he looks at this diagram?  What is so strange about it?  It is really simple – if only you put the pawns on a3 and c5 to their original places we will have one of the most popular and extensively analyzed positions of the King’s Gambit.  It had been dealt with back in the '70s of the 19th century if my memory was serving me right.  So that King’s Gambit fan might ask – where and how have these a3 and c5-pawns come from.  It will be time consuming to analyze exhaustively in whose favour it is the inclusion of the pawn moves.  I might do that some day in the future, but for now I will show you some lines that illustrate White’s excellent prospects…

I don’t have the skill to critique a grandmaster’s hard work in depth, but I can point out that he presents plenty of explanations to go along with lines of play, and they make sense to this club player.  He seems to strive for balance, as when he looks at 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e5 3.f4 exf4 and has to note:

The conclusion is simple: Dear readers!  Please refrain from playing 4.d4 or 4.Nc3 – you might get crushed quickly and spectacularly!

Occasionally (in this chapter and others) Bezgodov will travel to move 20 or beyond to show where things could wind up in a particular line.  Playing that over is a lot of fun, but as a caution, remember that Larsen used to say “long analysis, wrong analysis.”  (Of course, that has more meaning when a grandmaster says it.)  The author labels 1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nc6 (covered in Chapters 3-5) as the most popular choice for Black, and this is encouraging for the Wing Gambiteer who figures that a transposition to 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cb 3.a3 Nc6 4.ab is good for White.  Reinfeld’s advice notwithstanding, Black does best to avoid pawn-grabbing with 4…Nxb4 (a move at least as old as Marshall – Taylor, simul, Chicago 1915; or, coming out of the 2.a3 line, Mengarini – Fajans 1952) – according to different Wing Gambit (and 2.a3) resources (Siciliansk Gambit, Jonasson, 1979; Sicilian Wing Gambit: A Historical Survey, Romeo, 1982; The Sicilian Wing Gambit, Hurt, 1983; Sizilianisches Flügel-Gambit, Schwarz, 1984; Sicilian Defense, Wing Gambits, Kapitaniak, 1985; “Oude en nieuwe wegen het Van Duijn-gambiet” van Duijn, Shaaknieuws #31, #32 & #34, 1994; “Roel’s Gambit,” Ree, ChessCafe, 2004) – including International Master Lawrence Day (in the discussion at www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16101.)

Bezgodov’s creativity shines in such lines as 1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nc6 3.b4 cb 4.ab Nxb4 5.Ra4!? although he also analyzes 5.d4, which he believes is White’s best 5th move.  1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nc6 3.b4 cb 4.ab Nxb4 5.d4 d5 6.c3 Nc6 7.ed Qxd5 8.Na3!? is Day – Tootoosis, Canadian Closed Championship 1969.  Bezgodov approves.  Day: “The threat of Nb5 and Bf4 is blunt but mangly.”  Van Duijn, going his own way, prefers 8.Nf3.

Day believes that Black is fine after 1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nc6 3.b4 e5 (the last line covered in Chapter 3).  In “Sicilian Defense, 1.e4 c5 2.a3 and The Wing Gambit,” in The New Myers Openings Bulletin, April – June 1993, he continued “4.b5 Nd4 5.c3 Ne6 as in many Suttles – Vasyukov speed games at Vancouver 1971.”  (I have not seen the games, but Day recently told me they were played during the Fischer-Taimanov Candidates Match, and that Northwest Chess published some of them. Anyone?)  Bezgodov gives 4.b5 leading to a small advantage for the first player.  Schlenkler looked at this line from Schlenkler – Reimche, Mengen active open 1992, in Rand Springer #57, continuing 4…Nd4 5.c3 Ne6 6.Nf3, but Bezgodov believes 6.Bc4!? improves for White.

Oddly, Chapter 3 contains the side-line 1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nc6 3.b4 e5 4.b5 Nce7 5.Nf3 f6 6.Bc4 (d4!?) d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.0-0 Be6 9.Re1 Bd6 10.d4 cxd4 11.Nxd4, which is from a game Van Duijn - De Vilder, although this reference is not mentioned.  Instead, after another dozen moves, the line is attributed to two 1999 games: one between Crafty 16.2 and Crafty 16.1, and another between Crafty 16.3 and Crafty 16.3.

Bezgodov’s conclusion after the three chapters:

The move 2…Nc6 is the most natural for Black and the most probable for someone who has to play against the surprising 2.a3 idea for the first time. It might seem to you that black prevents 3.b4 in that fashion.  We already know that to be false, though…! White sacrifices a pawn and possibly a second one and creates powerful and annoying threats for his opponent. It is quite possible that the most essential feature of this original gambit is that it leads to non-standard original positions.

After the counter-strike at the center 1.e4 c5 2.a3 d5 (Chapter 6) White plays 3.ed, and after 3…Qxd5 he can play 4.Nc3 as in the Scandinavian Defence, with advantage.  Again, the offer of a pawn with b2-b4 is an important theme, as Bezgodov notes after 4…Qd6 5.b4 cb 6.ab Qxb4:

It is quite possible that your opponent might like to snatch enemy pawns. He will gobble that one as well. It is a well known fact that affections usually require sacrifices! Meanwhile the most probable sacrificial goat in this position will probably be the black king at the end.

Should Black prefer 3…Nf6, Bezgodov recommends 4.Bb5+ and still sees White with the edge.  Those familiar with the similarly-themed Marshall variation of the Scandinavian defense – 1.e4 d5 2.ed Nf6 – will notice that in Bezgodov’s line Black’s position is weakened by the fact that pawns cannot move backward, and so he is unable to play …c6.  (There is still plenty to explore here: a decade ago Hugh Myers mentioned 3.Nc3, 3.Bb5+, 3.d4 and 3.Nf3 as possibilities.)

At this point I am tempted to refer to 2.a3!? as “a high class waiting move,” but I digress…

Chapter 7 addresses the Alekhine Defense-style defense, 1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nf6.  Bezgodov likes White after 3.e5 Nd5, and especially after 4.d4!?  Another way of looking at the variation is that Black has chosen to play into a line for White in the English opening that is considered dubious, i.e. 1.c4 e5 2.Nf3?! e5 3.Nd4 – which would suggest, by analogy, that 4.Nc3 in the Bezgodov line might also be good for White.  He touches upon 4.c4!? (“White’s immediate chase of the black knight has certain advantages”) which was seen in Van Duijn – van den Brink (4…Nc7 5.b4 b6 6.d4 cd 7.Qd4); and 4.Nf3 Nc6, but he does not look at the thematic pawn sacrifice 5.b4 cb 6.ab N5d4 from Day - Sigurjonsson 1967 which continued in a sprightly (or should I say goblinish?) fashion: 7.c3 Na6 8.d4 e6 9.Ng5 h6 10.Qh5 g6 11.Qh3 Be7 12.Ne4 d5 13.exd6 Bxd6 14.Nxd6+ Qxd6 15.Qf3 Nc7 16.Ba3 Qd5 17.Qf6 Rh7 18.Nd2 Qf5 19.Qh4 Nd5 20.Ne4 g5 21.Nd6+ Kd7 22.Qg3 Qc2 23.Rc1 Qa2 24.c4 Nf4 25.Qc3 e5 26.dxe5 Nxe5 27.Qxe5 Qxa3 28.Qe8+ 1-0

White’s advantage does not seem very large to me in some of the Chapter 7 lines although Bezgodov’s conclusion is “[4.d4] is very dangerous for Black and that makes me happy, because I am the author of this line.  Black has problems to equalize even after he plays the best.”  In any event, enthusiasm and a better understanding of the positional and tactical themes in the opening and ensuing middlegame has to count for something for White, especially in blitz.

A small point, which will likely already be obvious to many readers: while reading through the chapters – especially when encountering long lines of annotated play that turned out to be analysis, rather than a game – I guessed that Bezgodov might be using a chess program to help him explore, giving the software the black pieces and taking the white ones himself.  That seemed to be confirmed by 1.e4 c5 2.a3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cd 5.Qxd4 Nb6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 d5 8.ed Qxd6 9.Nc3 which leads to a position which may be slightly better for White – but after the very-computer-like 9…f5?! (“a serious weakening of Black’s position”):

White moves on to a happy ending.  Of course, I firmly believe that all chess analysts and writers should seek the assistance of the strongest silicon assistant available to them – it’s just that, as far as Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!? is concerned, I had to update my image of The-Author-Hard-At-Work-In-A-Lonely-Room to something like A-Jedi-Knight-Playing-Against-C3PO (or some such).  It would be a mistake to assume that all lines played by a chess droid would have equal standing before the Force.

According to van Duijn, Black’s best defense to his opening comes after 1.e4 c5 2.a3 g6 and Bezgodov appears to agree.  Van Duijn’s way of playing the line is shown in a blitz game against Hans Ree: 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nge2 e6 6.0-0 Nge7 7.Ba2 b6 8.d3 Bb7 9.f4 – a quiet system, like playing against the English Opening with colors reversed, and having the ability to hide the light-squared white bishop at a2, while keeping the enemy pieces away from b4.  Bezgodov (Chapters 8 & 9) prefers a different approach, either offering a pawn again with 3.b4 (as played in Berry – Fecteau, correspondence 1967) or 3.c3 (as played in Day – Sokolov, Hoogovens 1970).  He also suggests, with some analysis, that 3.d4!? cd 4.c3!? with a transposition to a Smith-Morra Gambit after 4…dc 5.Nxc3 may be playable for White, as his lost tempo (a2-a3) is offset by Black’s playing into a line (…g6) that is inferior vs the Smith-Morra.  (This can also come from another line Bezgodov gives: 1.e4 c5 2.a4 g6 3.c3 Bg7 although he misses the transposition 4.d4!? cd 5.Nf3 dc 6.Nxc3)  Over all, if Black does not go pawn-grabbing (paging Fred Reinfeld…), he may well wind up in a quiet position like the following – although consider Bezgodov’s comment, following:

This position has been tested numerous times in games between Kroshk – Gabelbissen, Internet 2004.  White kept winning every game with ease.

Again, here, Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!? has lots of words – some puzzled me, like a reference to “the renowned expert of the system GM Varavin”-- and lots of moves -- to #30 in at least one line – and the conclusion on the line is not surprising:  “It is important to note that the move a2-a3 proves to be quite useful for White in many positions!”

Chapter 10 and 11 focus on 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6.  Of course, the gambit line 3.b4 cb 4.ab Bxb4 (at least as old as Jaenisch, 1844, out of the classical Wing Gambit order, 1.e4 c5 2.b4, etc.) has come under Bezgodov’s scrutiny, and he prefers to follow up with 5.Bb2 (Razinger – Eliskases, Ebensee 1933; Day – Zagar, Toronto1968) rather than 5.c3 (Jaenisch – but also Capablanca, Marshall, Spielmann, Alekhine, Keres, Berry, Lutz…).  His idea after 5…Bf8 is the surprising 6.Ra3 which he awards “!!”  Against 5…Nf6, he gives 6.e5 Nd5 7.c4 and again offers the exchange against either 7…Nc7 or 7…Nb6. Black’s best? 7…Ne7:

This is a very solid move and White has serious problems after it!  The black knight has retreated to a comfortable square and it is now ready to assist in the defence of the kingside. The exchange sacrifice 8.Ra3, which is very good after moves like Nb6 or Nc7 does not work here. What should White play?

Bezgodov burns the midnight oil and comes up with 8.Na3!!  Bezgodov answers 1.e4 c5 2.a3 e6 3.b4 d5 with 4.ed ed 5.Bb2 .  His comment on 3…b6 is interesting:

This is a small concession by Black. The famous grandmaster and writer D. Bronstein used to play the gambit 1.e4 c5 2.b4!? quite often.  It was amazing that he considered the calm 2…b6 move to be Black’s best reply.  He even thought that Black was already slightly better after that!  I am however not quite inclined to agree with that assumption…

Despite apparently being a move behind Thomas – Hindle, England, 1963 (1.e4 c5 2.b4 b6 3.bxc5 bxc5 4.Nf3 Bb7 5.Nc3 e6 1-0, 31) White “has excellent tactical resources.”

Chapter 12 focuses on an even calmer line, 1.e4 c5 2.a3 d6, the kind of thing that would be frustrating for a player who has feasted on earlier chapters.  Even after 3.b4, White must work hard to create direct threats – and, again Bezgodov shares the results of his analysis.

The final chapter touches on “rare lines” including 1.e4 c5 2.a3 a6, where, fittingly, Bezgodov improves upon Mengarini – Murray, New York, 1966 3.b4 e5 4.Nf3 Qc7 5.Bb2 Nc6 with 6.Bc4!?

Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!? is a very enjoyable book – every page has new ideas from a grandmaster who is very excited about what he has discovered.  I recommend it to anyone who faces the Sicilian Defense.  Club players will not only enjoy having a “secret weapon” in their opening repertoire, they will learn again about the positional and tactical ideas that come with sacrifices offered, accepted, or declined.  I especially would like to see stronger players – even masters and grandmasters – give Bezgodov’s ideas a serious look, instead of merely scoffing and wandering off.  If we are fortunate, the author may soon be able to sit down with the games that are beginning to show up in “The Week in Chess”, at ChessBase’s online database, and at Chesslab, update his analysis, fold in the history and ideas of van Duijn, Mengarini et al, and begin working on a second edition.

A number of people very generously shared their time in providing information, history and games that helped me complete this review.  They should be mentioned by name.  I am thankful to Roel van Duijn, whose articles in Schaaknieuws were an enlightenment, and who shared some background of his experience with 1.e4 c5 2.a3!?  I am indebted to Hans Ree, whose Chess Café article, “Roel’s Gambit,” shed a warm light on Mr. van Duijn, and who put me in touch with the innovative Dutch player.  Likewise, I am thankful to Peter Arseneau, Executive Director of the Chess Federation of Canada, who helped me contact IM Lawrence Day.  The perspectives of Mr. Day, both in his e-mails and in the notes at www.chessgames.com, clarified some of the “Canadian Connection” to the opening; and he, in turn, pointed me toward Jonathan Berry, another practitioner of the opening.  I owe chess researcher and historian John S. Hilbert thanks for providing two new-to-me 1.e4 c5 2.a3 games by Ariel Mengarini that helped cement the chess explorer’s link to the line.  A tip of the hat to Tim McGrew, of Chess Café’s “Gambit Cartel,” who serves me as a chess and writing role model – he also gives everything I send him a professorial once-over.  To chessfriend Paul Keiser, who shared his own analyses of the opening, and who sent me Schaaknieuws and Rand Springer articles – as ever, I am in your debt.  Finally, I greatly appreciate the great efforts of “Grandmaster Gone Wild” Alexei Bezgodov, for bravely going where no grandmaster has gone before in writing Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!?, and to IM Semko Semkov, managing director of Chess Stars Ltd., who arranged to send a review copy of the book to my Chessville editor – and thus started me on this great journey.  Gens Una Sumus.
 

Index of All Reviews

search tips

The
Chessville
Chess Store

Reference
Center

The Chessville
 Weekly
The Best Free
Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!

Subscribe
Today -
It's Free!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives

Discussion
Forum

Chess Links

Chess Rules

Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store