|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Dealing with d4 Deviations Fighting the Trompowsky, Torre, Blackmar-Diemer, London, Colle and other Problem Openings Reviewed by Michael Jeffreys
“I begged
Everyman Chess to let me write this book.” –John Cox (pg. 6) I’m not sure why it took so long, but finally here is a new book out covering the non-mainline d4 openings. There have been books written on the Trompowsky and the Veresov [Editor's Note: See The Trompowsky by Nigel Davies, and Winning With the Trompowsky by Peter Wells], but nowhere could you find suggestions for what to do against many of these so called “off beat” openings all in one book… until now. (There is the Foxy Openings video by IM Andrew Martin called, “Annoying d-pawn openings,” but that came out in 1996!) And I must say, it’s about time! While new books on the Ruy or the Sicilian seem to come out almost every other month, there hasn’t been anything new written on, for example, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit since 1999 (by Rev. Tim Sawyer). And yet, as you can see from the quote above, John Cox had to beg Everyman to let him write this book. Honestly, I don’t understand why the chess publishers have waited so long to address this woefully under-covered area of opening theory. (Of course, you could subscribe to Chess Publishing.com, which is really the only current source of coverage of these lines, but I’m talking about a book that you can hold in your hands!) So, what are the d4 deviations? They are:
Cox admits openly in the book’s introduction that there were six reasons why he had failed to do well against these openings in the past: 1. The most obvious point—I didn’t actually have a repertoire at all against, say, the Colle. You just play chess, right? Develop the pieces and equalize.
2. I was bored by these openings: I didn’t consider them interesting.
3. Not only did I not consider them interesting, I didn’t consider them dangerous.
4. A less obvious point, this: to combat these openings successfully requires a good knowledge of many structures. A good chess education, in fact.
5. I didn’t experience the adrenalin surge I got defending ‘my’ openings.
6. Lastly, I wasn’t playing set-ups I was happy and had experience with. I suspect that more than a few chess players suffer from one or more of the above ‘afflictions.’ It’s sort of like if you don’t see your enemy's big stick out in the open, than he must not have one (as opposed to say, the Sicilian, when as soon as you see 1…c5, you know you’re in for a fight). And then comes the next flawed bit of thinking that leads one down the road to doom: “I can just play anything against these weak openings.” This said, I think more and more Black players are starting to realize that they had better have something prepared, in advance, to these so called “innocuous” openings. So, they go to their bookshelves to find some recommendations, and they find…very little! Thus it would appear that this new book should be eagerly awaited by the chess community, as even if you don’t play any of these openings, odds are you face them from time to time. With all this in mind, let’s take a look at Dealing with d4 Deviations, and see what Mr. Cox has to offer.
Since I play this opening, I was quite interested to see what Cox recommended as Black’s best defense. His suggestion? 2…e6!? Says Cox: “The most natural move, really, certainly for Nimzo/Queen’s Indian types. Black refuses to allow his pawn formation to be damaged and declines also to put his knight into e4 and allow White various f3/e4 ideas…” (By the way, this was also the recommended move that IM Andrew Martin gave against the Trompowsky on the aforementioned “Annoying d-pawn” video.) Now, the natural 3.e4 can no longer be recommended as 3…h6 4.Bxf6 (forced, as 4.Bh4? costs White a valuable center pawn after 4…g5 and 5…Nxe4) 4…Qxf6 leaves Black with a perfectly fine game. White’s pawn center simply is not quite enough compensation for having giving up the bishop pair. The current move for White here (as given by, ironically, IM Andrew Martin on his new DVD on the Trompowsky) is the solid 3.e3., which Cox seems to concur with as the best move as he says it scores better in his database than does 3.e4. He then gives 3…h6 4.Bh4 c5 with play transposing into a Torre attack after either 5.c3 or 5.Nf3. Cox’s recommendation for both sides leads the game into solid play where he’s right that White doesn’t really get much. Indeed, Cox goes so far as to, in the last sentence of chapter one, refer to White’s set-up as “these rather dull white systems.” But not so fast, Mr. Cox! White does not have to play as you suggest. And this is why I prefer Martin’s recommendation on his DVD on the Tromp where White castles queenside and throws his kingside pawns forward at Black’s king! Against this plan Cox doesn’t give any recommendations, so if White “plays it straight” and castles kingside you’re fine, but if he “switches it up” and goes queenside, you will be on your own. I suspect that more than a few Black players are going to be in for a nasty surprise after we Tromp players spring IM Martin’s suggestion on them. While a book like this can’t cover everything, I would have liked Mr. Cox to at least give one recommendation against White’s plan of castling queenside.
Who says 2.Bg5 can only be played against 1…Nf6? In the Pseudo-Tromp, White plays it against 1…d5 as well! Both GM Mickey Adams and, of course, GM Julian Hodgson have played this opening. Cox recommends Black immediately put the question to the bishop with 2…h6. There follows 3.Bh4 c6 and now Cox gives two moves for White: 4.Nf3 and 4.e3, saying, “Often enough these lead to the same thing: the former only has independent significance if White intends a controversial gambit, which in line with my churlish policy I suggest you decline.”
Anyway, after 4.Nf3 Qb6 5.Qc1 Cox likes 5…Bf5, and after 6.c4 e6 7.Nc3 Be7 we get...
Adams, Michael (2738) - Bocharov, Dmitry (2569)
30.Nxd5 Nxd5 31.Rxc8 Qe6 32.Rc6 Qe7 33.Rc1 h5 34.Bc4 Qd6 35.b5 h4 36.gxh4 gxh4 37.Rf5 Qd7 38.Qf2 Nxe3 39.Rxf7+ Rxf7 40.Qxf7+ Qxf7 41.Bxf7 Kxf7 42.Kf2 Nf5 43.Nb4 e3+ 44.Ke1 Nxd4 45.Nc6 Nxc6 46.Rxc6 Be7 47.a4 Ke8 48.Ke2 Bc5 49.Rc7 1–0 Not only did Bocharov lose this game playing 5…e5, but so did Nigel Short against Adams in 1992. This is why Cox recommends playing the solid 5…Bf5 followed by 6…e6, and Black doesn’t have any problems, which seems about right.
As in the Tromp, Cox recommends immediately putting the question to the bishop with 3…h6. Now if White plays 4.Bxf6, after 4…Qxf6 5.e4 we have transposed into the above Tromp line that is no longer seen as giving White an edge. So White should save his bishop and play 4.Bh4 and now Cox suggests 4…d6:
According to my Fritz Powerbook 2004, 4…d6 and 4…c5 both score 57%, with the latter being more than twice as popular as the former. By the way, back in 1995 GM Plaskett put out a Foxy Opening Video on the Torre. In it, he gives two games with 3…h6 and 4.Bh4, and in both Black played 4…c5. Noteworthy is that the player of the Black pieces in one of the games was Kasparov! And playing against him as White? The late Tony Miles! It was a very interesting game which ended in a draw. Okay, after Cox’s 4…d6, he gives four moves for White: 5. h3 (making a space for the Bishop on h2 if/when Black goes after it); 5. Nc3 (developing the knight to its best square and guarding e4); 5. Nbd2 (developing the knight to a more passive square and guarding e4, but not blocking in the c pawn); and the solid 5. e3. At this point there is no “best move,” and it’s just a matter of personal preference. However, keep in mind that Cox does advocate that Black “hunt” down White’s dark squared bishop with an eventual g5 and Nh5. By the way, IM James Rizzitano makes an interesting observation about the Torre in his excellent book, Understanding Your Chess (pg. 147):
Says Cox:
Actually, I have been playing this system for years without knowing what it was called. It just made sense to me to strong point d4 with my c3 pawn, play Nbd2, and then go for e4 in one move. Cox recommendation for black here is 3…b6, obviously intending to place the light squared bishop on b7 and gain control of the e4 square. After 4.Bg5 Bb7 5.Nbd2, White is threatening e4, so Black breaks the pin with 5…Be7. And now Cox gives three tries for White: 6.h4!? This certainly looks eccentric, but Cox mentions that Hebden did have some success with it. (Indeed, Powerbook 2004 says that White has scored 79% with it!) 6.Qc2 White again looks to support e2-e4 6.e3 White simply gives up on advancing the pawn to e4 for the time being. This last move, 6.e3 is the most popular choice here. White solidifies his center, will finish his development, get castled, and only then play for a pawn break.
The main omission by Cox in this section that I can see is that he doesn’t give any suggestions for Black if they want to play a King’s Indian Defense. Since the London is one of the main “d4-deviations” against the K.I.D., I would have expected him to give some suggestions in this line. Since this review is starting to get long, I will not comment on the rest of the chapters, but just give diagrams/moves:
The Bottom Line First, the good news: I am happy that a book has finally come out to address these so called, “d4 deviations.” The book is nicely laid out and has a convenient index on the last page that lists all of the main variations. Furthermore, Cox does give Black a pretty straightforward way to handle some of White’s main set-ups. However, now comes the bad news. There is simply no way to give adequate coverage to all the openings this book is trying to cover - certainly not in 144 pages. I mean, Peter Wells book on the Trompowsky (Batsford, 2003) is 240 pages alone! Perhaps Cox should have left out the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and covered the other openings in more detail. After all, the kind of player that plays the London is not very likely to play the BDG. However, players such as myself play a sort of mixture of Tromp, Torre, Colle and occasionally London set-ups, so greater coverage of these openings, to my mind at least, makes more sense. Also, for some reason, the book feels a little too “clinical” for me. What I mean by this is that although the author writes about the chess moves okay, I didn’t really get a feel for him as a player/person. Now, you may argue that since this is an opening book, most are buying it simply for the moves, and thus don’t really care about who is writing them… but I disagree! I think these days readers want and expect more from their chess writers. For example, IM Andrew Martin comes across very friendly/personable because he seems like he’s talking directly to you as he throws in stories and anecdotes about the games to spice things up a bit. While Cox does a good job in the introduction of listing the reasons why he used to not fair so well against “d4 deviations,” I would have liked him to share more of himself (and perhaps a few of his own games) throughout the text.
As a player who plays the White side of these types of set-ups, do I fear
Cox’s recommendations? No, but the good news for Black is that if indeed you
were “playing by the seat of your pants,” you now have some
suggestions/plans/set-ups you can follow. I can recommend this book simply
because there is nothing else really available on this material, and
although it’s certainly not a bad book, the truth is I wanted to like it
more than I did. On a scale of 1-10, Dealing with d4 Deviations
gets a 7.5.
|
The Chessville
The
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
