|
|
|
Inside Chess Yasser Seirawan
|
Inside Chess, 1988/5 In Search of the Elusive TN by IM Jeremy Silman When masters sit down to study openings, they do much more than simply memorize moves. They strive to understand the ideas behind them. They plow through typical endings the openings give rise to. This much is obvious. What is not so obvious is that masters also spend a great deal of time attempting to find theoretical novelties - their very own TNs - that will knock the socks off their opponents. I admit that finding a new move is very satisfying; I also acknowledge that the work preceding its discovery is excruciating. Picture the following scenario: After countless hours of analysis, you come up with a new move. On Day One you're feeling optimistic. A killer, you think. Move over, Bobby. On Day Two you do some more analysis. Wow. It looks even better. You finish your day's labor in a state of great excitement. That evening, on your way to the opera, you walk by the board. Your mouth drops open. My God, you think - what if he simply does that!? All social activities forgotten, you once again hunch over the pieces. Your wife is screaming. You can't hear her. You see that your new move fails dismally, that you are a blithering idiot, that you have just wasted days wracking your brains over a double question mark blunder. It was with this scenario in mind that I recently sat down to analyze Eisterer-Tichy, 1986, published in a European chess magazine. The opening was a popular line of the Nimzo-Indian in which Black played a new (or so I thought) idea involving the sacrifice of a pawn: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Ne2 cxd4 6.exd4 d5 7.c5 e5!?
At this point White played 8.a3? (the magazine's question mark - I'm innocent). The game continued: 8...Bxc3+ 9.Nxc3 exd4 10.Nb5 0-0 11.Be2 Ne4 12.Qc2 Nc6 13.Bf4 Qf6 14.Bg3 Bf5 15.Bd3 Ne5 and White's disastrous opening play soon led to resignation. Naturally, this game spurred me on to further study and I set about analyzing the critical reply: 8.dxe5 Suicidal for White is 8.Bg5 Nc6 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxd5 O-O. 8...Ng4 9.Nf4
Trying to unscramble his pieces. Other tries are a) 9.a3? Bxc5 10.Nd4 and now Shirazi clones might consider 10...Nxf2!? 11.Kxf2 Qh4+ 12.Ke3 O-O with a strong attack; Black might also try 10...Nxe5 or the simple O-O, both of which show White's ninth move to be insipid. b) 9.f4 Bxc5 10.Nd4 Nc6!? (also playable is 10...Nxe5 11.Nb3 Ned7 12.Nxc5 Nxc5 13.Qxd5 Qe7+. The moves 10...O-O and 10...Qb6!? are other tries.) 11.Bb5 O-O! and Black has excellent prospects. c) 9.Bf4 Nc6 10.Bg3 d4 11.a3 Ba5 12.b4 dxc3 13.bxa5 Qxa5 is another unattractive possibility for White. 9...d4 Also adequate is 9...Bxc5 10.Bb5+ Nc6. The obvious 9.O-O should also be given attention. 10.Qa4+ The try 10.e6 O-O 11.exf7+ Kh8 is good for Black. The second player can also get away with 10...dxc3 11.exf7+ Ke7 12.Nd5+ Qxd5 13.Qxd5 cxb2+ 14.Kd1 bxa1=Q 15.Qd6+ Kxf7 16.Bc4 Ke8 when Black wins. Also interesting is 10.Bb5+ Nc6 11.Bxc6+ (11.Qa4 transposes into our main line) 11...bxc6 12.Qa4 Rb8! 13.a3 (or 13.Nd3 dxc3 14.Nxb4 Qd4) 13...dxc3 14.axb4 Qd4! 15.O-O (or 15.Qxc6+ Bd7 16.Qd6 Qxf2+ 17.Kd1 c2 mate) 15...cxb2 16.Bxb2 Qxf4 and once again White would like to start over. 10...Nc6 11.Bb5
The critical position. 11...Bd7! 12.Bxc6 Not the best but certainly the most tempting! The move 12.e6!? needs to be looked into. However, safest–and perhaps best–is 12.O-O! dxc3 (12...Bxc5 13.Ne4 Qe7 is an attempt to win: 14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.exd6 Qxd6 16.Re1+ Kf8 unclear; or 14.Nxc5 Qxc5 15.b3 unclear. Bad for White is 14.Nd5 Qxe5.) 13.Bxc6 Bxc5! 14.Bxd7+ Qxd7 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 with equality. 12...Bxc3+! 13.bxc3 Bxc6 14.Qxd4 Qh4!
Black stands better since 15.g3 is met by 15...Qe7. Needless to say, I was quite happy with this line. The analysis was done, the variation looked sound, and everything was in order. However, something kept nagging at the back of my brain. Because 8.dxe5 had appeared in a respected magazine, with notes, I hadn't followed my usual procedure of checking out the move's status in the Encyclopedia. I did so now. Imagine my consternation when I opened the book and saw 8.a3 - the move assigned a question mark by the magazine - recommended as White's best move! I looked some more. More surprises: The move 8.dxe5 was ignored altogether; the move 8...Ng4 was evaluated as "unclear." I sank deep into my shirt. The Encyclopedia's analysis ran as follows: 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Nxc3 exd4 10.Qxd4
In the magazine, White played 10.Nb5? rather than this more intelligent recapture. After 10.Qxd4, Black has problems to solve. The analysis continued 10...O-O 11.Bb5! Bd7 12.O-O Bxb5 13.Nxb5 Nc6 14.Qd3 Ne4 15.b4 and White stood better in Lutikov-Antoshin, USSR, 1959. After burning the magazine, I calmed myself and sat back down again to see if Black could secure equality. Hours later, with the moon high in the night sky, I came up with this: 10...Nc6 11.Bb5 O-O 12.Bxc6 bxc6 O-O h6
From this critical position, White has several options. He can play b4 and place his bishop on b2. He can put his knight on d4. He can play for a kingside attack with Bf4, Rfe1, and Re3. Black, too, has options. He can challenge White on the e-file by ...Re8, and if White captures with Rxe8, then ...Nxe8 followed by ...Nc7 and ...Ne6 is possible. He can try an immediate ...Ne8-c7-e6. He can play ...Be6, ...Nd7, and ...Qf6. Or he might consider ...Bf5, ...Re8, and ...Ne4. So does 7...e5!? work or not? I honestly don't know. I do know that if Black can find a setup that equalizes after 8.a3, then 7...e5!? is a complete answer to a once-popular white system. I also know that if 7...e5!? doesn't work, it will go in the junk heap with a thousand other flawed TNs and I will have wasted a lot of time. Whatever the outcome, I am secure in this knowledge: First you go to the opera; then you analyze. Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily. Readers' Responses Richard from the Netherlands - Grandmaster Walter Browne played the move 7...e5 on three occasions. After 8 de5 Ng4, Onischuk played 9 Nd4 in 2001. |
Purchases from our shop help keep ChessCafe.com freely accessible:
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book
Review] [Columnists] © 2010 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
