|
|
|
Opening Lanes Gary Lane
|
Good Omens There are times when you do not wish to follow the latest fashion in chess openings. If you want to be a pioneer, then delve into the past to come up with something that can be improved for modern times. Daniel Valio from Brazil has been looking for a twist in the opening and found one after only two moves. His question is simple and short: "What about the Alapin's Opening 1 e4 e5 2 Ne2?" The opening sounds bizarre, but it has an intriguing history. The main idea of the Alapin Opening is to play f2-f4 as a sort of delayed King’s Gambit. This was apparently analysed by Carl Mayerhofer (1828–1913) in 1849 and later played by Alapin in Manchester in 1890 using the move-order 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Ne2. It would certainly work as a surprise weapon and is almost guaranteed to gain time on the clock thanks to a bemused opponent staring at 2 Ne2. Alexi Kornev-Mieczyslaw Bakalarz Warsaw 2005 1 e4 e5 2 Ne2
The starting point of the Alapin. 2...Nf6 This is the book move to fight the opening by attacking the e-pawn. 3 Nbc3 The modern treatment is to defend the e-pawn before contemplating advancing the f-pawn or more likely to play g3 with a Vienna game, which is explored in the next main game. The direct response with 3 f4 has been tested: a) 3....Bc5 4 fxe5 Nxe4 5 d4 Bb6 6 Be3 (the chances are probably equal, but I suspect Black would have used up more time on the clock trying to work out 2 Ne2) 6...Nc6 7 Nd2 Nxd2 8 Qxd2 d6 9 exd6 cxd6 10 0–0–0 0–0 11 Nf4 Bf5 12 Bd3 Bxd3 13 Qxd3 d5 14 Qf5 Ne7 15 Qg5 Rc8 16 Kb1 Qd7? (instead 16...h6 is roughly equal) 17 Nh5 Ng6 18 Qf6! 1–0, J.Cubas-M.Herrera, Mar del Plata 2006. b) 3...Nxe4 this has to be the critical continuation: 4 d3 (after 4 fxe5 Nc6 5 d4, I reckon 5...d6 favours Black) 4...Nc5 5 fxe5 d5 (maybe 5...Nc6 is worth a go because the obvious reply 6 d4? is revealed to be wrong upon 6...Qh4+ 7 g3 Qe4 with the better position) 6 d4 Ne4 7 Nd2 Nxd2 8 Qxd2 c5 9 Nf4 Nc6 10 dxc5 Bxc5 11 Qxd5 Qe7 12 Nd3 Bb6 13 Bf4 Bg4 14 Be2 Bxe2 15 Kxe2 Rd8 16 Qb5 (16 Qe4 should be met by 16...0–0 leaving White's position in tatters, allowing Black to exploit the exposed white king) 16...0–0 17 Kd2 Nd4 18 Qa4 Ne6 19 Be3 Bxe3+ 20 Kxe3 Qg5+ 21 Kf2 Qd2+ 22 Kg1 Qe3+ 23 Nf2 (23 Kf1 walks into 23...f6 when the threat of a check by the king's rook leads to a black victory) 23 ..Rd2 24 Rf1 Nf4 0–1, J.Cubas-C.Sega,Santos 2004. c) 3...Nc6 4 fxe5 Nxe4 5 d3 Ng5 (5...Nc5 is a better choice) 6 h4 Ne6 7 d4 d5 (Black stops White forking the knights with d4-d5, but White must be happy with getting his opponent out of his comfort zone) 8 Nbc3 Be7 9 g3 f6 10 exf6 Bxf6 11 Be3 0–0 12 Bg2 Ne7 13 0–0 c6 14 Qd2 g6 15 Bh6 Ng7 16 Bg5 led to equal play and the game was eventually drawn in J.Cubas-L.Lipiniks, Asuncion 2006. 3...Nc6 4 f4!? One has to admire the Russian grandmaster for following in the footsteps of Alapin by playing this provocative pawn advance. 4...d5 It is time travel in the time-machine to see the game S.Alapin-M.Chigorin, Vienna 1898, which saw Black try 4...exf4 when the game continued 5 d4 Bb4 6 d5 Nxe4 (if Black wants to keep things simple, then 6...Ne5 is reasonable, when 7 Bxf4 d6 is roughly equal) 7 Bxf4 (7 dxc6? wins a piece, but leads to disaster upon 7...Qh4+! 8 g3 fxg3 9 Nxg3 Nxg3 10 hxg3 Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Qxh1 wins) 7...Bxc3+ 8 bxc3 Ne7 9 Qd4 Nf6 10 c4 (instead 10 0–0–0 d6 is double-edged, but probably better for Black) 10...d6 11 Ng3 Nf5 (11...0–0 looks sensible to keep the options open) 12 Nxf5 Bxf5 13 Be2 0–0 14 0–0 Qd7 (or 14...Bxc2 15 Qb2 Bg6 16 Bg5 with good compensation for the two pawns) 15 Bd3 Bxd3 16 cxd3 Rfe8 17 h3 Nh5 18 g4?! (this merely weakens White's protective pawn cover, although after the more measured 18 Bh2 Black can maintain the initiative upon 18...Re2 19 Rf2 Qe7) 18...Nxf4 19 Rxf4 Re2 20 Rf2 Qe7 21 Raf1 f6 22 Rxe2 Qxe2 23 Rf2 Qe5 with advantage to Black who is a pawn up and no worries about counterplay. 5 fxe5 The modern treatment, but good luck to anyone who wants to revive the line 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 fxe5 Nxe5. And now the old lines continue 7 d4 (7 Nxd5?! it is probably not a good idea to encourage the black queen into a strong central role: 7...Qxd5 8 d4 Nc6 9 c3 Bd6 (9...Be7, intending the surprising ...Bh4+, looks like a useful move because g2-g3 would allow ...Qxh1) 10 Nf4 Qg5 11 Qe2+ Ne7 12 Qb5+ Qxb5 13 Bxb5+ Bd7 14 Bxd7+ Kxd7 15 0–0 led to an equal ending in S.Alapin-P.Leonhardt, Vienna 1908) b) 7 d4 Ng6 8 Nxd5 (I prefer 8 g3 aiming for a kingside fianchetto rather than exchanging knights and allowing the black queen a good square) 8...Qxd5 9 Nf4 Qe4+ (the queens will soon be exchanged after the check and the game will be level, but if Black is more adventurous, then 9...Nxf4 10 Bxf4 Be7 is worth a try, when 11 Bxc7?! is tempting to win a pawn, but after 11...0–0! Black has terrific play because the white king is stuck in the centre and if Be2 to cover the e-file, then the g2-pawn can be taken by the black queen. For instance, 12 Bg3 Bg5 13 Be2 Qxg2 winning) 10 Qe2 Bf5 11 Qxe4+ Bxe4 12 Bd3 Bxd3 13 Nxd3 0–0–0 14 Be3 with equal opportunities, S.Alapin-H.Caro, Vienna 1898. Finally, 5 d4 is the sort of bizarre move that should appeal to the adventurous spirit of Alapin players. Admittedly, after 5...exd4 6 Nxd4 dxe4 7 Bb5, White has managed to gambit a pawn for very little, so keep this line solely for Internet games. 5....Nxe4 6 d4
6...Be7 Bakalarz is understandably keen to get his pieces out and safely castle kingside. However, I think he should have been more positive by testing 6...Bb4! to pin the knight. For example, 7 a3?! Bxc3+ 8 Nxc3 Qh4+ 9 g3 Nxc3 10 gxh4 Nxd1 11 Kxd1 Bg4+ 12 Be2 Bxe2+ 13 Kxe2 Nxd4+ when Black is a pawn up in the ending. b) 7 Bd2 Bxc3 8 Bxc3 0–0 intending f7-f6 with the advantage. 7 Nxe4 dxe4 8 c3 f6?! It might seem like a good idea to weaken White's extended pawn chain, but there is no need to hurry, especially when you only have a knight developed. The alternatives 8...0–0 and 8...Bg4 should be considered. 9 Nf4! The big threat is Qh5+, which is surprisingly awkward to defend against. 9...Bf5 The problem of Black not developing properly is illustrated if he tries to steal a pawn with 9...fxe5, in view of 10 Qh5+ Kf8 (if 10...g6, then 11 Nxg6 is very strong) 11 Ng6+ hxg6 12 Qxh8+ wins. I guess that Black thought he could play 9...0–0, but 10 Qh5 is really strong because the casual 10...fxe5? allows 11 Bc4+ Kh8 12 Ng6 checkmate. 10 exf6 Bxf6 11 Qb3 It could be argued that the opening has been a success for White, who now has a very nice position. The threat to the b7-pawn is complimented by the ability of the queen to prevent Black from castling kingside. 11...Qd6 12 Qxb7 Rb8 13 Qa6 e3?! This is trying to be too clever. Once again, Black needs to be able to bring his king's rook into play and make sure his king is safe in the corner. So 13...0–0 is the best choice available. 14 Bxe3 0–0 The logical move might well be 14...Rxb2, but 15 Bb5 is a killer reply, when 15...Bd7 runs into 16 0–0–0 and amazingly the black rook has no good escape squares. 15 Bc4+ Kh8 16 0–0 Rxb2 Black has won back a pawn, but it is still White who has the material advantage and the initiative. 17 Bd5 Rb6 18 Qc4 Ne7 19 Bf3 Bc8 20 Qd3 Kornev has adjusted his pieces in order to consolidate his advantage. 20...Ba6 21 c4 Rb4 22 Rac1 Bg5 23 Nd5 Bxe3+ 24 Nxe3 Rd8 25 Rfd1 Qf4?
26 Qa3 1–0 Black gave up because White will win a piece; if 26...Rb6 to guard the bishop on a6, then it allows 27 Qxe7. I think the lunge with the f-pawn to reach a version of the King’s Gambit is a bit risky, so a transposition to the Vienna Game is more likely. Mark Tseitlin-Wolfgang Humer Wattens 1991 1 e4 e5 2 Ne2 Nf6 3 Nbc3 Nc6 4 g3 Bc5 5 Bg2
The transposition means the position is now recognisable as the Vienna Game. The normal move-order is 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 g3 Nc6 4 Bg2 Bc5 5 Nge2. 5...d6 A popular alternative is 5...a6, so that 6 Na4 can be answered by 6....Ba7. Also possible is a) 6 0–0 d6 7 h3 0–0 8 Kh2 (it looks odd, but White wants to avoid the pin on the g1–a7 diagonal in order to advance the f-pawn) 8...b5 9 a3 Bb7 10 f4 Re8 11 d3 with roughly equal play, A.Sitnikov-A.Zubarev, Poltava 2008. b) 6 d3 d6 7 0–0 Be6 8 Bg5 h6 9 Be3 Bxe3 10 fxe3 Ne7 11 d4 led to a level position in N.Burnoiu-M.Marin, Predeal 2006. 6 Na4 Be6 It really is too late to play 6...a6 and hope to hide the bishop. The game M.Lyell-O.Magyar, Budapest 2009, saw 7 Nxc5 dxc5 8 d3 Qd6 9 0–0 Bg4 10 f3 Be6 11 f4 Ng8?! (11...0–0–0 looks reasonable with equal chances, as Black can try to play ...c5-c4 to avoid being severely restricted upon f4-f5) 12 f5 Bd7 13 Be3 f6 14 c3 0–0–0 15 Qc2 Be8 16 Rfd1 Bh5 17 h3 Bxe2 18 Qxe2 Nh6 19 Rac1 Rd7 20 Qf2 with the brighter prospects. 7 d3 Qd7
8 h3!? A standard idea in this line to stop ...Bh3 and the exchange of light-coloured bishops. The drawback is that White cannot safely castle kingside, as otherwise the h-pawn will be vulnerable; instead, White will play f2-f4-f5 to shoo away the bishop on e6. Also possible is 8 Nxc5 dxc5 9 Be3 b6 10 h3!? (once again this mysterious move found in the main game is played to confuse Black) 10...Ng8 11 f4 f6 12 Qd2 led to a level position in P.Tombette-J.Svenneby, Internet 2001. 8...h6? A cautious approach to stop Bg5, but it adds little to Black's position. 9 f4 g6? It looks obvious to stop f4-f5, but in fact it directly leads to a Black loss. 10 fxe5 Nxe5
Of course, 10...dxe5? is ruled out because of 11 Nxc5. 11 Nac3! 1–0 Black resigned rather than see his position fall apart because White will win a piece after 11...Nc6 12 d4 Bb6 13 d5 and once again the pawn fork will prove to be fatal, or 11...Bb6 12 d4 Nc4 13 d5 trapping the bishop. Maybe it is time for 2 Ne2 to come back into fashion. Richard Moody Jr. from the USA has been reading an old chess book and discovered something wrong. He writes "BCO 2 devotes an entire page to the sharp Berliner Variation of the Two Knights' Defense, but the analysis, I believe, misses the boat. Based on a game I played against Fritz 8, the Berliner Variation appears to be the fastest win for White in any major opening in chess. Here are the starting moves: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nd4 6 c3 b5 7 Bf1 Nxd5 8 Ne4 Qh4 9 Ng3 Bg4 10 f3 e4 11 cxd4 Bd6 12 Qe2! (The Muir idea - much stronger than 12 Bb5+) 12...Be6? is book according to Fritz 8, but it loses. Somewhat better is to try to avoid losing too much material with 12...Bxg3+ 13 hxg3 Qxh1 14 Qxb5+ Bd7 15 Qxd5 +/-) Black could try 12 Qe2 O-O, but 13 fxg4 is just too much material to give Black any chance of equalizing. If 13...Bxg3+, 14 Kd1+- or 13...Nb4 14 Nc3. Is the Berliner Variation cooked, even though it is endorsed by Former Correspondence World Champion Hans Berliner and World Champion Garry Kasparov, editor of BCO 2?" I think the Berliner Variation is not deceased, just merely stunned. I have to admit that with the use of computers it is possible to find holes in old analysis and I am sure that BCO2 has plenty of them. This is mainly because when it was published in 1989 nobody was using computers to check analysis. Garry Kasparov’s name might have been on the cover, but that was a marketing ploy. Admittedly, in the first edition he did make a contribution and in fact recently his hand-written notes were sold at auction to a chess collector. However, I don’t suppose even he had time to look at every line. This job was left to his co-editor Raymond Keene and inside the book it states that Jon Tisdall wrote the introductions and the advisor was Eric Schiller. At the time the book was a firm favourite of tournament players looking for a handy reference book. Then again, Hans Berliner to his credit has been good at backing up his lines with the help of computers, but now aged eighty and living in Florida, he is a little less active in the chess world. Jan Timman-Enis Arikok Zurich Simultaneous 1988 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nd4 6 c3 b5
The position might already look a mess, but this has all been played before. Indeed, a lot of the ideas come from old correspondence games where players would study such position for hours, and even days, to come up with the best move. 7 Bf1 Nxd5 8 Ne4 Qh4 9 Ng3 Bg4 10 f3
10...e4 This amazing move was first played in the game Estrin-Berliner, World Correspondence Championship 1965-8. This is why it has been dubbed the Berliner Variation. 11 cxd4 Bd6 12 Qe2!?
This was originally suggested by the American player Walter Muir. It looks strange, but there is a certain amount of logic behind the idea. The e-pawn is pinned, the king has an escape square on d1, and if Black falls for the line 12...Bxg3+ 13 hxg3 Qxh1, then 14 Qxb5+ is very good for White. The main alternative 12 Bxb5+ will be examined in the next game. 12...0–0! I think this is the right way to continue. Mr Moody's computer tried 12...Be6, which is what Berliner suggested himself in his The System published in 1999. I think its only merit is if White answers 13 fxe4, allowing the line 13...Nb4 14 Na3 0–0–0, which is incredibly complicated and people are still arguing the case for White and Black. Here a couple of examples of 12...Be6: a) 13 Qf2 Nb4 14 Bxb5+ c6 15 Nxe4 Qxf2+ (15...Qe7 16 a3 Nc2+ 17 Kd1 cxb5 18 Kxc2 is also good for White) 16 Kxf2 cxb5 17 Nxd6+ Kd7 18 Nxb5 Nc2 19 d5 Bf5 20 N1a3 Nxa1 21 Nd4 Bd3 22 Ke3 Bg6 23 d3 Rhe8+ 24 Kf2 Re5 25 Be3 Rae8 26 Nc4 Rxd5 27 Rxa1 Bxd3 28 Na3 1–0, P.Canizares Cuadra-J.Jimenez,Internet 2007. 13 Nc3 (a solid, reliable move as played by Mr. Moody) 13...Nxc3 14 dxc3 Bxg3+ 15 hxg3 Qxh1 16 Qxb5+ Kf8 (or 16...Bd7 17 Qd5 Rd8 18 Qxe4+ Kf8 19 Kf2 just looks good for White) 17 fxe4 Rc8 18 Bf4 c6 19 Qc5+ Kg8 20 0–0–0 Qh2 21 Ba6 Rf8 22 d5 Qh5 23 Qxc6 and White was winning, Moody-Fritz 8, 2009. 13 fxg4 Nb4 The obvious 13...Bxg3+ fails to impress upon 14 Kd1! c6 (after 14...Rad8, then 15 Nc3 is the right answer and White is fine) 15 Nc3 Rac8 16 Nxe4 Bc7 17 d3 Qd8 18 Qf2 a5 19 Bg5 f6 20 Bd2 Bb6 21 Nc5 Re8 22 Kc2 1–0, A.Popov-W.Sabobo, Internet 2005. 14 Kd1 Timman would have been playing many games at once in this simultaneous display, so it must have been a nightmare to come up against the ultra-sharp Berliner variation. In this position Mr. Moody suggests 14 Nc3 and it does look good. I suppose that after 14...Nc2+ 15 Kd1 Nxa1 16 Nf5 Qd8 17 b3 White is just better. 14...Bxg3 15 hxg3? This works out badly so maybe someone can try 15 Nc3. 15...Qxh1 16 Nc3 f5 Black just defends the e-pawn to maintain the tension. Also 16...Rfd8 looks energetic, when a sample line runs 17 Nxe4 Rxd4 18 Nf2 Qh2 with an edge for Black. 17 a3 Nd3 18 Kc2
Timman needs a couple of extra moves to untangle his pieces, but to his credit Black is relentless in his pursuit of the exposed white king. 18...b4! 19 Nd5 b3+ 20 Kxb3 20 Kb1 is once again met by 20...fxg4 with a great game. 20...fxg4 21 Ne3 Rf2 It might be better to bring the queen into the attack with 21...Qh5. 22 Qxg4?! 22 Qd1 looks uncomfortable, but in difficult circumstances it might be the only hope. After, say, 22...Rb8+ 23 Ka2 Qh6 Black still has to work for victory. 22...Rxf1 23 Nxf1 Qxf1 24 Qxe4 Nxc1+ 25 Kc2? At first sight it seems that 25 Rxc1 signals game over in favour of White upon 25...Qxc1 26 Qxa8+, but 25...Rb8+ saves the day, when 26 Kc2 Qb5 leaves the position roughly equal. 25...Qc4+ 26 Kd1 Rf8 27 d3 Or 27 Rxc1 Rf1+ 28 Qe1 Rxe1+ 29 Kxe1 Qxc1+ is humiliating for the simultaneous player. 27...Nxd3 28 Kd2 Nc5 0–1 I think 12...0-0 gives Black hope in a very complicated line, unless of course anyone has more home preparation to reveal to the rest of us. Therefore, I suspect it is still best for White to play the main line with 12 Bxd5+. Simon Jeric-Franc Rodman Kranj 2004 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 b5 6 Bf1 Nd4 7 c3 Nxd5 8 Ne4 Here are a couple of wild lines that have also been played: 8 cxd4 Qxg5 9 Bxb5+ Kd8 10 Qf3 and 8 Nxf7 Kxf7 9 cxd4 Nf4!? 10 dxe5 and the verdict is that both lines are messy. 8...Qh4 Or 8...Ne6 when 9 Bxb5+ Bd7 10 Bxd7+ Qxd7 11 0–0 favours White. 9 Ng3 Bg4 10 f3 e4 The alternative 10...Nf5 has a poor reputation: 11 Bxb5+ Kd8 12 0–0! Bc5+ 13 d4 exd4 14 Ne4! a key move; now Black is in serious trouble: 14...Nfe3 15 Qa4 Nb6 16 Qa5 d3 17 Nxc5 Nxf1 18 Kxf1 Qxh2 19 Nxd3 gave White an excellent game in B.Marinovic-S.Djosic, Belgrade 2008. 11 cxd4 Bd6 12 Bxb5+
This is considered the main line and I think it is still doing well for White. 12...Kd8 13 0–0 exf3 14 Rxf3 14 Qb3 is an intriguing idea at this point. 14...Rb8 15 Bf1
I like this move, which has the seal of approval from grandmaster Sax. The debate from decades ago centred on 15 a4 and play might continue a) 15...c6? 16 Bxc6 Bxf3 17 Qxf3 Qxd4+ 18 Kh1 Rc8 19 Nc3 Rxc6 20 Qxd5 Qf2 21 Nge2! Kc7 22 d4 Bxh2 23 Bg5! 1–0, M.Jovcic-G.Koshnitsky,Correspondence 1969. b) 15...a6 and now 16 Bf1 Re8 17 Nc3 c6 18 Nxd5 cxd5 19 d3 Re6 20 Rb1 Ke8 21 Be2 (21 Be3 might be an improvement) 21...Bxf3 22 Bxf3 Bxg3 ½–½, J.Kiss-L.Egri, Budapest 2003. b2) 16 Be2 Bxf3 17 Bxf3 Qxd4+ 18 Kh1 Qh4 19 Kg1 Qd4+ 20 Kh1 Qh4 ½–½, A.Mendes da Costa-Y.Yuan, Tuggeranong 2006. If someone is looking for something different, then 15 Be2!? needs testing on the Internet. For example, 15...Bxf3 16 Bxf3 Qxd4+ 17 Kh1 Bxg3 18 hxg3 Rb6 19 d3 Ne3 20 Bxe3 Qxe3 21 Bg4 h5 22 Bh3 Rxb2 23 Nc3 and I prefer White despite the activity of the black rooks. 15...Bxf3?! Black should contain his natural instinct to grab back some material, because White can soon develop smoothly. In the past interest has centred on the line 15...Re8 16 Nc3 and now a) 16...c6 17 d3 (perhaps 17 Nxd5!? cxd5 18 d3 is worth a try) 17...Nxc3 18 bxc3 Rb5 (the blunt threat is to play...Rh5) 19 Be2? (19 d5! is a tougher test of Black's imaginative idea, when 19...Rxd5 20 Qa4 Rh5 21 Bf4 is good for White) 19...Rh5 20 Nxh5 Qxh2+! (instead 20...Bxf3? is refuted by 21 Bg5+ Qxg5 22 Bxf3 with a big advantage) 21 Kf2 Qh4+ 22 Kg1 Qh2+ 23 Kf2 ½–½, V.Fedorov-Pejrik, USSR 1975. b) 16...Nb4 17 d3 Bxf3 18 Qxf3 Nc2 19 Rb1 Qxd4+ 20 Kh1 Bxg3 21 Qxg3 (21 hxg3 to avoid back rank checkmate threats is more sensible. For example, 21...Qxc3 22 bxc3 Rxb1 23 Bd2 with the better chances) 21...Qxc3! (it seems outrageous to sacrifice the queen, but otherwise White will soon consolidate and win) 22 bxc3 Rxb1 23 Qg5+ f6 24 Qd5+ Kc8 25 Qf5+ Kb8 26 Bd2 Re2 27 h4 Rxd2 28 Kh2 Ne3 29 Qxh7 Rxf1 30 Qg8+ Kb7 31 Qb3+ Ka8 32 Qg8+ ½–½, G.Sax-S.Wagman, Montecatini Terme 1998. c) 16...Nf6 17 d3 Bxf3 18 Qxf3 Qxd4+ 19 Kh1 Qh4 20 Nce2 Ng4 (Black has to make the most of the initiative because of the material deficit) 21 h3 Ne5 22 Qf5 h6 23 Ne4 g6 24 Qf4 Qxf4 25 Nxf4 g5 26 Nd5 f5 27 Nxd6 cxd6 28 b3 Rb5 29 Nf6 Rf8 30 d4 1–0, K.Pilgaard-M.Outerelo Ucha, Pontevedra 2002. 16 Qxf3 Qxd4+ 17 Kh1 Re8 18 Nc3 White starts to catch up on developing and this is another crucial phase, because Black must try and stop the plan. 18...Re1? 19 Nce2!
19...Qf6 A sad necessity. The problem is that 19...Qe5 to defend the knight runs into 20 d4 Qe6 21 Bg5+ when the discovered attack on the e1 rook is fatal. 20 Qxd5 Rxf1+ 21 Nxf1 Qxf1+ 22 Ng1 Rb5 23 Qf3 Rf5 Or 23...Qe1 24 d4 Kc8 to avoid Bg5+ 25 Qxf7 winning. 24 Qxf1 Rxf1 25 g3 1–0 Finally, Jeff Tannenbaum from the USA has come up with a crafty transposition: "In rely to your August 2009 column, I'm curious why Matt Lasley from the USA, who was looking to transpose to the Scandinavian, didn't try 1 e4 d5 2 Nc3 dxe4 3 Nxe4 Qd5 4 Nc3 Qa5, etc. By taking the pawn and attacking the knight with the queen, Black would be trying to transpose to the line he expected after 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5. The tempo spent by Black taking on e4 is made up for by the retreat of the white knight back to c3." The reader is absolutely correct. 1 e4 d5 2 Nc3 dxe4 3 Nxe4 Qd5
I think Mr. Tannenbaum is quite correct to suggest this idea and the likely move is 4 Nc3 Instead 4 d3 e5 or 4 Qf3 Nc6 is equal. 4...Qa5 transposing to normal lines. Opening Lanes is based on readers’ questions. Do you have a question about a particular opening line? Baffled by a branch of the Benoni or Budapest? Submit your questions (with your full name and country of residence please) and perhaps Gary will reply in his next ChessCafe.com column... Yes, I have a question for Gary! © 2009 Gary Lane. All Rights Reserved. Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily. Readers' Responses Michele from Italy - I had a look at your latest column and have read something about the Alapin opening. I am very interested about it, could you suggest some books about the opening? Gary Lane - I do not know of any book, but maybe other readers can help. Perhaps it is more likely to be in books discussing 1 e4 e5 and maybe years ago there was more interest as a way of delaying the King's Gambit. N. Earl from New Zealand - Apart from ECO, the only tome on Alapins Opening that I know of is a book of the same name written by Denis Druash and published by Chess Digest in 1984. Daniel from the USA - I think something got deleted from Mr. Moody's post. The follow-up on what happens after 12...Be6 is missing. See here where Berliner was asked about this very point: "Did Berliner know about 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2? ... here is his response (!!): Well; that is an interesting move and may very well be best. My trouble is that I am 77 yrs old and not the analyst I used to be. I have spent a couple of hours on this and my current take is that 13.- Nb4; 14. Na3,e:f3; 15. g:f3,O-O-O is best. Now we have one of those typical situations in which black is a piece down but White's position is not too enviable. Based on my theories, I would have to vote for black to at least draw, but it would be more comforting to have a more detailed analysis. That is the best I can do at this time. Hans B." |
Purchases from our shop help keep ChessCafe.com freely accessible:
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book
Review] [Columnists] © 2009 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
