The Kibitzer 
by Tim Harding

A Pot-Pourri of d4 Openings

I have been looking at a variety of openings lately, as I had to
review the new 14th edition of Modern Chess Openings. As the
review on my own Chess Mail website pinpoints, editor GM Nick
De Firmian seems to have done a fair job on 1 e4 openings but his
coverage of queen's pawn openings leaves a lot to be desired.

I certainly cannot recommend that anyone buy this book as their
sole or principal openings reference if they open with 1 d4. One of
my current correspondence games is already out of that book after
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bf4, a line which in my experience is the
regular choice of some amateurs.

Generally speaking, this kind of attack does not work so well
against masters, but it is the amateurs who buy books like MCO
who need guidance on how to meet it.

Here is an example of how it can all go horribly wrong for Black.

Pavel Blatny - E. Guindy Gausdal, 1992

1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bf4 e6

The alternative 3...c5, envisaging an early ...Qb6, is also playable.

4 e3 c5 5 c3 Nc6 6 Nbd2 Be7

6...Bd6 is probably better. After 7 Bg3 0-0 8 Ne5 Qc7 9 Bd3 b6 10
f4 White has won a lot of games although he probably should not
have a significant advantage against watchful defence. Instead of
10 f4, I once played 10 Nxc6 but this proved innocuous.

7 Bd3 0-0 (See Diagram)

8 Qe2 a6? 9 h4

As Black is playing passively, Blatny decides to commit to an all-
out attack.

9...b5 10 Ne5 Bd7 11 Rh3 c4 12 Bc2 b4 13 Rg3 Kh8 14 Nxc6
Bxc6 15 Be5 Bd6? 16 cxb4 Bxb4 (See Diagram)

17 Rxg7! Bxd2+ 18 Kd1 1-0. Black resigned in view of 18...Kxg7
19 Qg4+ Kh8 20 Qh5 (threatening Qxh7 mate) 20...Kg8 21 Bxf6;
18 Kxd2 also wins.

British master Michael Franklin has been winning games with 1 d4
Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 Bf4 all his life; that isn't in MCO 14 either. In
general, the coverage of lines in which White plays 1 d4 followed
by 2 Nf3 is thin to non-existent.

Michael Franklin - Hans Ree England-Holland, 1964

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 Bf4 Bg7 4 e3 0-0 5 Nbd2 d6 6 Bc4 Nbd7 7
h3 Qe8 8 0-0 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Bh2 Qe7 11 e4 Nh5 12 Qe2 Nc5
13 Qe3 c6 14 Rfe1 (See Diagram)

This position illustrates some of what White can achieve with this
opening. The Bishop on h2, tucked away against exchange by a
Knight, usually comes to life later. The other Bishop has also done
its original job and now retreats. Franklin explained that this multi-
purpose move: (a) allows the Bishop back to f1 to defend the
kingside; (b) from f1 the Bishop will support a queenside pawn
advance; and (c) Black's efforts to play...f5 are inhibited by
pressure against e5.

14...b5 15 Bf1 Na4 16 b3 Nb6 17 Rac1 Nd7 18 c4 b4 19 c5 Nhf6
20 Nc4

The Knight reaches a strong post. Black never quite equalises in
this game.

20...Ne8 21 Na5 Nb8 22 Qd2 f6 23 Qxb4 Nc7 24 Qa3 g5 25 Nc4
g4 26 hxg4 Bxg4 27 Nd6 Bxf3 28 Nf5 Qe8 29 gxf3 Qh5 30 b4
Bh6 31 Rcd1 Kh8 32 Bc4 Bf4 33 Bxf4 exf4 34 Kf1 a5 35 Ke2
axb4 36 Qb2 (See Diagram)

Threatening Rd8!

36...Ra3 37 Bb3 Nb5 38 Qxf6+! 1-0.

Another line where MCO offers absolutely nothing to the reader is
the Symmetrical Defence to the Queen's Gambit. After 1 d4 d5 2
c4 the reply 2...c5 just is not mentioned. However, the defence
(which can lead to some interesting positions if correctly handled)
was analysed by Rubinstein and his pupil O'Kelly de Galway in
some detail in the 1940s. It occasionally appears in modern GM
play, with Westerinen (for example) trying it several times. Many
books don't give correct lines against it, although Nunn's Chess
Openings can be trusted here.

The following game was annotated in some detail in both
Informator 58 and New In Chess 7/1993 but it seems the winner
did not know some of O'Kelly's games in the line.

Viktor Korchnoi - Jeroen Piket, Antwerp, 1993

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c5 3 cxd5 Nf6! 

Rubinstein's move, which offers a pawn sacrifice in some lines.
Without this move, 2...c5 is just bad. (See Diagram)

4 dxc5

This move seems to be chosen in most cases, but 4 Nf3, 4 e4!? and
the innocuous 4 Nc3 are also seen.

The most interesting alternative is 4 e4, which was awarded ?! by
Pachman, but actually might be White's best line, all depending on
the outcome of 4...Nxe4 5 dxc5 (5 Bc4 Qa5+! = ECO) 5...Nxc5
(Necessary, said O'Kelly; 5...Qa5+ 6 Bd2! Nxd2 7 Qxd2 Qxc5 8
Nc3 O'Kelly, or 8 Na3 Bd7 9 Rc1 Qb6 10 Nc4 Qh6 11 f4 Na6 12
Ne5 H.Olafsson-Westerinen, Reykjavik 1997) 6 Nc3 (or 6 Nf3 e6
7 Nc3 exd5 8 Qxd5 Portisch-Bronstein, Monte Carlo 1969)
O'Kelly claimed this is approximately equal, but Nunn's book
claims a clear White advantage by 7 b4 Nca6 8 a3.

4...Qxd5 5 Qxd5

5 Bd2!? (Podgorny) is recommended by Pachman and other
sources but is lacking in practical proofs. I am not aware of any
O'Kelly suggestion against this.

5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qa3 e5 7 b4 b6 8 Nc3 Qc6 9 Nf3 bxc5 10 Nxe5
cxb4 11 Nxc6 bxa3 12 Ne5 Bb4 13 Bd2 0-0 14 Rb1 a5 was equal
in Lanz-Haberditz, Vienna 1945.

5...Nxd5 (See Diagram)

This is the critical position, said O'Kelly; Black has two tempi for
the pawn sacrificed.

6 e4

Euwe's suggestion 6 Bd2 was played in a friendly postal game
Estrin-O'Kelly, 1959-60, annotated by O'Kelly in his little book
"34-mal Schach-Logik". Historically, this game was a most
interesting theoretical test of the line, featuring two postal world
champions. After 6...e5 7 Na3 (recommended by Hans Mueller and
Pachman) 7...Na6! (a move overlooked by theory) there was tense
play: 6 8 e4 Ndb4 9 Rc1 Bd7 10 Bxa6 Nxa6 11 b4 b6 12 c6 Be6 13
Nb5 Bxb4 14 Nf3 Bxd2+ 15 Nxd2 Ke7 16 Nc4 Nb4 17 Nxe5
Nxa2!. Estrin had to play well to get a draw in the endgame.

6...Nb4 7 Na3 e5!

7...e6 had been played in Korchnoi-Gusev, 1956, as Piket was
probably aware when doing his preparation.

8 Nf3

Szabo-O'Kelly, Groningen 1946, went 8 Be3 a6? (a waste of time)
9 Nf3 f6 10 Nd2 Be6 11 Bc4 Bxc4 12 Ndxc4 Bxc5? 13 Bxc5
Nd3+ 14 Ke2 Nxc5 15 Nb6 Ra7 16 Rac1 1-0. The story goes that
when O'Kelly returned home to Brussels, Rubinstein was
extremely angry at this misuse of his line and said"You have
disgraced my variation in the eyes of the world!". Various
suggestions to improve Black's play were made, especially
8...N8a6 9 Bxa6 Nxa6 (9...bxa6!?) 10 Nb5 Bd7 11 Nd6+ Bxd6 12
cxd6 Bc6 13 f3 Kd7 14 Rd1 Rhd8= Hans Mueller. According to
Pachman, 8 Bd2! Bxc5 9 Rc1 would give White the advantage. 8
Nf3 does not seem to cause problems for Black, as Piket now
showed.

8...f6 9 Bd2 N8c6 10 Bb5 Bxc5 11 Ke2 Ke7 12 Rhc1 b6 13 Nc4
Ba6 14 Bxa6 Nxa6 15 Ne3 Bxe3 16 Kxe3 Rhc8 17 Rc4 Nd8 18
Rac1 Rxc4 19 Rxc4 Ne6 20 b4 Nac7 21 g3 Nb5 22 Nh4 g6 23 f4
Nd6 24 Rc1 b5! 25 f5?! (See Diagram)

25...Nc4+! 26 Rxc4 bxc4 27 fxe6 Rd8 28 Ng2 Rd3+ 29 Ke2 Ra3
30 Ne3 Rxa2 31 Nxc4 a6 32 h4 Kxe6 33 Kd3 Ra1 34 Be3 Rb1 35
Bc5 Rb3+ 36 Kc2 Rxg3 and Black won the endgame in another
ten moves: 37 Na5 Rg4 38 Nc6 Rxe4 39 Nb8 a5 40 Kd3 Rxb4 41
Bxb4 axb4 42 Na6 b3 43 Nc5+ Kf5 44 Kc3 Kg4 45 Nd7 Kxh4 46
Nxf6 h5 0-1.

The Symmetrical variation has even been played against Kasparov!
Here is how he met it.

G. Kasparov - F. Casares Galicia, 1991 

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c5 3 cxd5 Nf6 4 Nf3 cxd4 (See Diagram)

5 Qxd4

If 5 Nxd4 Nxd5 a form of English Opening arises. After 6 e4 Black
has tried 6...Nb4 7 Qa4+ N4c6, and 6...Nf6 7 Bb5+ Bd7 but the
best is probably 6...Nc7! 7 Nc3 e5 8 Ndb5 (Timman-Miles, Niksic
1983) although White has an edge.

5...Qxd5 6 Nc3 Qxd4

Bisguier once recommended 6...Qa5!? here.

7 Nxd4 a6

Here Nunn's Chess Openings gives 7...Bd7 8 Ndb5 Na6 9 e4 e5 10
Bg5 Bb4 11 0-0-0 Bxc3 12 Nxc3 Nc7 13 Bc4 Bc6 14 Rhe1 Ne6=
Stohl-Votava, Mitropa Cup, Portorozh 1998.

8 g3

Nunn's book suggests 8 Bg5.

7 Nxd4 a6 8 g3 e5 9 Nc2 Bd7 10 Bg2 Bc6 11 0-0

After 11 e4! The Black position is hard to play (O'Kelly); Kasparov
plays the whole opening in a non-confrontational, even Karpovian,
style - probably because his opponent is not a grandmaster and he
didn't feel he needed to do anything special to win.

11...Bxg2 12 Kxg2 Nc6 13 Bg5 Be7 14 Rfd1 Rd8 15 Bxf6 Rxd1
16 Rxd1 Bxf6 17 Ne3 

White has a clear positional advantage. (See Diagram)

17...0-0 18 Rd7 b5 19 Ne4 Rc8 20 Nxf6+ gxf6 21 Nf5 Kf8 22 e3
Rd8 23 Rc7 Nb8 24 Kf3 Ke8 25 Ke4 Rd7 26 Rc8+ Rd8 27 Nd6+
Kd7 28 Rxd8+ Kxd8 29 Kd5+- Ke7 30 b4 Kd7 31 Ne4 f5 32
Nc5+ Ke7 33 a3 f6 34 f4 e4 35 Nb3 Nd7 36 Kc6 1-0.

In my next example, from the Slav Defence, I later discovered that
I had found a big improvement for Black at the board.
Unfortunately White can easily avoid it.

Jim McCarthy - Tim Harding Irish Championship, 1995

1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 c6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 f3 Bb4
8 e4 Bxe4 9 fxe4 Nxe4 10 Qf3

This is an old drawing line. Nowadays White usually plays 10 Bd2
leading to difficult positions with three pawns for a piece.

10...Qxd4 11 Qxf7+ Kd8 (See Diagram)

12 Bxc4??

I don't know if my opponent was playing for a win or just forgot
the right move. A well-known trap is 12 Qxg7?? Bxc3+ 13 bxc3
Qf2+ 14 Kd1 Nxc3 mate 0-1 Przepiorka-Cheron, The Hague 1928.
White's correct move is 12 Bg5+! when: 

(a) 12...Nxg5! 13 Qxg7 Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 Qxc3+ and now (a1) The
continuation generally cited in the books is 15 Ke2 Qc2+ 16 Ke1
Qc3+ with a draw (Beliavsky-Steinberg, USSR 1971). It is not
quite clear whether either player can afford to avoid this. (a2) 15
Kf2 Ne4+ 16 Ke2 Re8 17 g3 Kc8 18 Bh3 Qd2+ 19 Kf3 is a risky
line for White said Glenn Flear in his book on the Slav; in my
database, Black sometimes wins and sometimes draws.

(b) Avoiding the perpetual by 12...Kc8?! was once advocated by
Pachman but now may be refuted. White plays 13 Qxe6+ (not 13
Bxc4? Nxg5 Vidmar-Mikenas, Prague 1931) 13...Nd7 14 Qxd7+!
(14 Nxd7 Bxc3+ 15 bxc3 Qxc3+ 16 Ke2 Nxg5! 17 Nb6+ Kc7 18
Nxa8+ Kb8! Troianescu) 14...Qxd7 15 Nxd7 Nxc3 16 bxc3 (16
Bd2 Re8+ Taimanov) 16...Bxc3+ 17 Kd1 Bxa1 18 Nc5! b6 19 Ne6
b5 20 Be2. A draw was agreed here in Ehlvest-T.Petrosian, Tallinn
1983, but 20...a6? 21 Rf1! h6 22 Bh4 Kd7 23 Nc5+ Kd6 24 Nb7+
Ke5 25 Bg3+ Ke6 (25...Kd4 26 Kc2 Rae8 27 Rd1+ Ke3 28 Rxa1+-
Sosonko) 26 Bg4+ Ke7 27 Bd6+ Ke8 28 Bh5+ Kd7 29 Re1 1-0
was Sosonko-Torre, Tilburg 1982. Markov & Schipkov's book on
the Slav suggests 20...Bf6.

When I got home after the game, I looked up the line to see if 12
Bxc4 had been played before. Most books do not mention the
possibility. In a German book by Taimanov, I found the
continuation 12...Qxe5 13 Bf4 (Here 13 0-0!? Qc5+ 14 Kh1 Qxc4
15 Rd1+ needs more analysis, maybe Black wins?) 13...Bxc3+ 14
Ke2 Ng3+ 15 Kf2 Ne4+ 16 Ke2 Ng3+ 17 Kf2 Ne4+ draw
(Shabalov-Bagirov, Jurmala 1987). Maybe this game was a pre-
arranged draw? Evidently, Taimanov had not looked closely at the
position. When I was confronted with 12 Bxc4 over the board, I
had to work it out for myself and found a much stronger move.

12...Rf8! 13 Bg5+

Apparently the only move. If 13 Qxe6 (or Qxg7 or Qxb7) then
13...Bxc3+ 14 bxc3 Qf2+ 15 Kd1 Nxc3 mate.

13...Nxg5 14 Qxf8+ Bxf8 15 Rd1 (See Diagram)

15...Qxd1+?

Black is two pawns ahead but must be willing to return one to
complete his development and reach a won endgame. The Queen
capture on d1 is inaccurate, but fortunately my opponent didn't spot
the mistake. 15...Bc5! (and if 16 h4 Ke7! 17 Rxd4 Bxd4 18 hxg5
Bxe5 19 Rxh7 Nd7) is the correct route to the win; this shows that
12...Rf8 refutes 12 Bxc4.

16 Kxd1

Whoops! White has the threat h4!

16...Bd6

Necessary.

17 h4?

17 Re1! is unclear. Now White is lost again.

17...Bxe5 18 hxg5 Ke7 19 Rxh7 Nd7. Now Black is much better
and soon won after further weak play by White who was already in
time trouble.

Dr Hans Berliner, the 5th CC World Champion, got quite a lot of
bad publicity when Gambit Publications brought out his book The
System. A lot of this concentrated on a particular line in the
Gruenfeld Defence, which he claimed to have refuted.

I do not normally play 1 d4 but entered two minor correspondence
tournaments last year with a view to seeing how Berliner's
recommendations worked out in practice. In all, I had ten games
with White but, such were my opponent's early choices, only in one
game was I able to get any specific guidance from the book after a
very early stage. Here it is.

Tim Harding - Jonathan Mutton BFCC Open Preliminary P-
473, 1999

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7
Bc4 0-0 8 Ne2 c5 9 Be3 Nc6 10 Rc1 cxd4 11 cxd4 Qa5+

My opponent had evidently read the book reviews and heads for
the critical line. This player had been a finalist in 1998 British
Championship, so he must be fairly strong although he didn't score
very well in that event.

12 Kf1

In MCO-14 this move gets a "?" mark with the comment "The
most difficult move to meet, but not the best... White should play
12 Bd2 Qa3 13 Bc3 Rd8 with equal chances".

12...Qa3!

The critical move, mentioned in several criticisms of Hans
Berliner's book The System as a serious omission from the text. Dr
Berliner replied with an article published in Chess Mail magazine
(also later on my website) where he discussed in detail how he
thought White should meet this move. The present game reached
the critical position after I got Berliner's text, but my opponent
soon came up with an idea not analysed in the article!

13 Rc3!

MCO gives only 13 Qd2 Rd8 14 d5 Ne5 leading to advantage for
Black, following Ftacnik-I.Gurevich, Biel 1993.

13...Qd6

If 13...Qb4, "White might be able to just play a3 and get back into
the main lines" (Berliner).

14 h4! (See Diagram)

Berliner's move. In three previous games found in my database,
White played 14 f3 (e.g. Browne-Kudrin, Philadelphia 1992) or 14
Qd2.

14...Bg4

This was not one of Berliner's "five possibilities" considered in
Chess Mail 7/99. Maybe Black missed the point that...Bg4 is
usually only good in this line when the reply f2-f3 is met
by...Qxe3. On the other hand, maybe this is a shrewd choice
enabling Black to recapture on g6 with the f-pawn in some cases.
He could play....Be6 at once but maybe hopes that forcing f2-f3
will weaken my position. On the other hand, it does enable the
Qe1-h4 manoeuvre in some lines.

15 f3 Be6 (See Diagram)

I informed Dr Berliner of the progress of my game after I had
played my next move. As expected. he was very condemnatory
of...Be6 and said it just showed Black didn't understand the
position"White just plays h5 etc." However, I am not so sure about
this. Black has options like...Ne5 as well as a possible...Bxc4.

16 h5?!

Dr Berliner said I should have played 16 Bxe6 Qxe6 17 d5 Qd7 18
Rc1 (or 18 Qc1!?). My move doesn't seem to give any advantage.

16...Rad8 17 hxg6 fxg6 18 Qc1 Bxc4 19 Rxc4 Rf7 20 Bf4 Qd7
21 Be3 e6 22 Bg5 Re8 23 Qb2 Rb8 24 Qc3 Rc8 25 Bh6 (See
Diagram)

25...Bf6

An interesting rook sacrifice could have arisen here after 25...Bxh6
26 Rxh6 Qd6 27 Qe3 Rfc7 28 f4 Nb4 29 Qh3!? Rxc4 30 Rxh7
Rc1+ 31 Kf2 (31 Nxc1?? Qxf4+) 31...Nd3+ 32 Ke3 or 32 Kg3
although a draw is the likely result.

26 a4 a6 27 a5 Bd8 28 Rc5 Bf6

I wasn't sure what my opponent was playing for here. Does he
think he can avoid the repetition (28...Be7 29 Rc4 Bd8 30 Rc5
Be7) and win? I don't have a kingside attack but if I can get a
tempo to bring my king's Rook to the queenside, the nature of the
position will change.

29 Kf2 Rd8 30 e5 Be7 31 Rc4 Qd5?! 32 Nf4 Qxa5?

Black's 31st move should have been retracted. He seems to have
lost interest in the game and is playing without proper calculation.

33 Nxe6 Qxc3 34 Rxc3 Rd5?!
                    
34...Re8 was necessary but White is now on top.

35 Rb1 Bd8 36 Rxc6 1-0.

Black stopped answering and I was awarded the game, but he is
clearly lost (36...bxc6 37 Rb8 Rfd7 38 Bg5).

This game is inconclusive for the value of Berliner's suggestion.
Certainly White is not worse after 14 h4 but maybe Black has more
resources than he allows.