|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Chessville
From the
|
NIC Yearbook 71 (2004) Reviewed By Prof. Nagesh Havanur
Nothing provides richer fare for the jaded palate of a seasoned tournament player than the NIC Yearbook. Openings of every kind, from the sublime to the bizarre, may be found here. What is more, variations on the same theme are discovered by avid readers, and shared by one and all. Consider the following lines in which a prelate makes merry on the long diagonal even as his monarch comes to grief: Franco-Polish Gambit 1.e4 e6 2.d4 b5?! Inspiration or madness? 3.Bxb5 Bb7 4.Bd3 f5 5.exf5 Bxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.fxg6 Bg7 8.gxh7+ Kf8 9.Ne2! Stronger than 9.hxg8=Q+ Kg8 9...Nf6 10.Qh4 Bxh1 11.Bg5 Nc6 12.Nd2! Black’s forces are in disarray. (Analysis by Herbold.) English Defence 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 f5 4.exf5 Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Bg7 7.Qf5 ! Nf6 8.Bh6! Bxh6 9.gxh7 Bxh1 10.Qg6+ Kf8 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Nh3 Qf8 13.Bg6+ Ke6 14.Qf4 d5 15.Bf5+ Kf7 16.Ng5+ Ke8 17.Qxc7 1-0 (Broeder-Wegener, corr. ICCF Cup 1984) Larsen’s Opening 1.e3 e5 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Bd6 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxg7 Qh4+ 6.g3 fxg3 7.Bg2 gxh2+ 8.Kf1 hxg1Q+ 9.Kxg1 Qg5 10.Bxh8 Bg4! Black has the initiative to compensate for the exchange. As usual, this Yearbook offers 33 opening surveys along with trademark features like Forum, Sosonko’s Corner and book reviews. The Sicilian Defence is well-represented by seven surveys and each article comes up with refreshingly new ideas. A case in point is the following game in which both sides chase knights: English attack 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Nbd7 9.g4 b5 10.g5 b4 11.Ne2 Nh5 12.Qd2 h6 13.gxh6 Not 13.Qxb4? d5 13...g6 14.0-0-0 a5 15.Kb1 Nhf6 15...a4 16.Nbc1 Qb8 is also possible. 16.Ned4!
An astonishing positional piece sacrifice that originated in the game Spasov-Ponomariov, Bled 2002. 16….exd4 17.Nxd4 Qc7? 17...a4 had to be tried. If 18.Qxb4 d5 19.Qe1 dxe4 20.Nxe6 fxe6 21.Qg3 g5! 18.Bb5! Bc4 19.Ba4 0-0-0 20.Nc6 Nb6 21.Bxb6 Qxb6 22.Nxd8 Qxd8 23.Qg5 !Be7 24. e5! 1-0 (Van den Doel-Stocek ,Plovdiv 2003). The French Defence is represented by four surveys, two of them dealing with MacCutcheon variation and the others dealing with the Exchange Variation and the Winawer Variation. Hopefully, in the near future, I would like to do justice to the ongoing debate over these lines. In QP openings Black continues to find rich resources for counter-play. The following variation would have warmed the cockles of the late Dr.Tarrasch: Tarrasch Defence 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Bf4!? (instead of the usual 11.Be3) Bg4 12.h3 Bd7 13.Ndb5 a6 14.Nc7 d4!
15.N3d5 More prudent than 15.Nxa8 dxc3 16.Nc7 cxb2 17.Rb1 g5 18.Bd6 Bf5 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.e4 Bxe4 21.Re1 Bxb1 22.Rxe7 Bxa2 23.Nd5 b1Q 24.Nxf6+ Kg7 25.Qxb1 Bxb1 26.Nh5+ Kg6 27.Rxb7 Kxh5 28.Bxc6 Bd3 Black is a pawn up and White will have to fight for a draw. 15...Nxd5 16.Nxd5 Rc8 = The name Mikhail Rytshagov does not ring a bell for many chess enthusiasts. He is best known as a loyal second of GM Shirov. In his article in the Yearbook he pays a tribute to a brilliant discovery by Sutovsky. Grünfeld Defence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Rc1 dxc4 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.Nge2 Qxc5 10.Qb3 Nc6 11.Nb5 Qh5 12.Ng3 Qh4 13.Nc7 e5! 14.Bxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxa8 Bd7 16.Nc7 Bc6 17.Nd5 Kh8!
This is what Sutovsky found. 18.Nxf6 Bxg2 19.Rg1 Bc6 20.Bd5 Bxf6 21.Bxc6 bxc6 With a powerful attack. This brings us to the only unsatisfactory feature in the Yearbook: the review of the book Opening for White according to Anand :1.e4 (Chess Stars 2003). In his review Glen Flear endorses the analysis of the Latvian Gambit by the author Alexander Khalifman. To my knowledge Anand has never encountered the Latvian Gambit in serious grandmaster play. Nor has he commented on the gambit in his numerous writings. Any line offered for White against the Latvian gambit in this book is not according to Anand, but according to the author Alexander Khalifman. This important distinction should be borne in mind by every reader. Latvian Gambit (Ed.: For a detailed treatment of this opening, see the article Latvian Gambit Revisited.) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 The Leonhardt variation. 4… fxe4 5. Nc3 Qf7! An ingenious recommendation of Gunderam, an expert on offbeat openings. 6.Ne3 Not 6.Nxe4 ?? d5 7.Ne5 Qf5 winning the knight. 6… c6 7.d3! Better than 7.Nxe4 d5 8. Ng5 Qf6 9.Nf3 Bd610.d4 Ne7 11. c4 0-0 = 7… exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bc5 10.Na4 Bd6 11.c4 Ne7 12.Nc3 Be6 Here White has a significant plus according to both Khalifman and Flear. However, in this line Black can play the better move 12… 0-0! (TN) 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Nexd5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 Nc6 16.Nc3 Be5. Black has active play for the sacrificed pawn as shown in the stem game Sakai –Elburg, corr. 2002. Currently, experts like Alejandro Melchor are trying to rehabilitate the other line, 9….Bd6, also discredited by Khalifman and Flear. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6.Ne3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nexd5 cxd5 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bg4 15.Qd2 Qh4 16.Qe3 Khalifman's idea. 16...Nbc6 17.Nxb7 Rab8!
Now:
In all these lines, it is Black who threatens to assume the attack. It is a pity that Khalifman is unaware of the stronger move 16.b4!
An idea of Strautins. White threatens to play Bb2, Oc3, and also b5. To his credit the reviewer, Glenn Flear, knows this line and quotes it with approval. The response of Latvian Gambit players to Strautins’ line is to pre-empt it by deviating a little earlier. The following variation analyzed by Melchor shows how it can be done: 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Nexd5 cxd5 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Nbc6!?
A recommendation of Franz Destrebecq. 15.Rf1 Bg4 16.Bxh7+ Kh8 17.Rxf2 Bxd1 18.Be3 d4 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.Bg1 Kxh7 21.Rxd1.Nf5 22.Nxf5 Rxf5 23.h3 Rb5 24.b3 Re5 25.Bxd4 Re2 White is a pawn up, but Black is not without counter chances in this kind of ending. In all fairness it should be acknowledged that the Latvian Gambit takes up only a fraction of Khalifman’s book, and it should not be judged on the basis of his treatment of this gambit alone. Moreover, Flear is a fair critic, and his reviews do offer insights. Reviewing the NIC Yearbook always leaves with me a sense of dissatisfaction. At the end of the day one only wishes one had chosen a lot more valuable ideas from this work. Surely, a case of embarras de richesse.
Recommended.
|
Advertise to Single insert:
The
|
|||||
|
|||||||
