Latest Updates:
Normal Topic C01: Winawer-Exchange Corus B  2008 - Smeets-Short (Read 1450 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Winawer-Exchange in Corus B  2008 - Smeets-Short
Reply #1 - 01/27/08 at 20:39:05
Post Tools
A certain Herman van Engen wrote about the McCutcheon Exchange in the Dutch magazine Schaaknieuws, june 2004 (nr. 13). He thinks 5...Qxd5 6.Bxf6 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 gxf6 safer: 8.Qd2 Qa5 eg Magem Badals-Glek, Cap d'Agde 1996 and Lanka-Hellers, DEU 2000 (Black should have played ...h5 at move 12 or 13 according to HvE).
After 6...gxf6 (iso Bxc3+) HvE thinks 7.Qd2 imprecise because of Bxc3+ again. He prefers 7.Nge2 first and only then 8.Qd2.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dom
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 903
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 01/11/03
Gender: Male
C01: Winawer-Exchange Corus B  2008 - Smeets-Short
01/26/08 at 11:33:09
Post Tools
One line of the Winawer-Exchange occurred in recent game Smeets-Short,Corus B Wijk aan Zee 25/01/2008. Reference is Chessbase Express review here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4411

Start of game is the forever young line McCutcheon, but after 5.exd5!? the games deviates to a system played for decades since Marockzy-Capablanca, San Sebastian 1911. During long period of time the system was agreed as a good weapon for White versus Winawer line, and Psakhis gave the following assessment in Play The French: "So Black still has to find a way to full equality after 5.ed!?,a move so innocuous at first sight"

Short replied to the Exchange with 5...Qxd5 instead of 5...exd5 reaching lines of the Exhange where the simple 6.Qf3 (Pillsbury move) will give similar lines to the game, except White is already a little better.

After 5..Qxd5 6.Bxf6 (6.Nf3 is not logical: 6..Ne4! 7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.bx3 Nxd2 9.Qxd2 and now 9..Nd7 or 9..oo ; Lasker-Znosko Borovskij, Saint Petersburg 1909 (ECO) ; Schlechter-Mashall,Ostende 1907 (Suetin)) a question arises "playing Bxc3+ or not ?" (Psakhis)

Answer was given by history: 6...Bxc3 (Alekhine recommendation working well in Capablanca-Snosko  Borowsky St Petersburg 1913) 7.bxc3 gxf6 8.Qd2! The improvement of the game Capablanca-Alekhine,NewYork 1924   (8.Qg4 Bd7!? Jenni-Glek,Bad Woerishofen 2001 ( Klick onChesspublishing forum) ; 8.Nf3 b6 or 8...Bd7)

I gave history reference because after 6...gxf6, Smeets played the rare move 7.Qg4 and with the queen here, Smeets has not the opportunity to transpose to classical games given above or to go for the Bogoljubow variation arising after 7.Qd2 Qa5 and 8.Nge2! and for example: Capablanca-Bogoljubow,NewYork 1924

Following moves of the games seem to lead for no advantage for White, except the small one that White can long castle and Black has to let his king in center: 7.Qg4 Nc6 8.Ne2 Bd7 9.ooo Qa5 10.Qg7 Ke7

What do you feel about 7.Qg4: bad deviation of main lines or missed improvement in middle game ?  Huh

... and thanks to Neil McDonald for publishing some of my lines in the Poisoned Pawn var ( I din't reply to cut the analysis...but  16...Nd5 17.g5 Kb8 18.h4 Rh8 19.Rh3 Nb6! and the knight trip to c5 is way of defence for Black vs the h-pawn advance  Cool )  ... I will attach a PGN in a future thread for the complete PP variation and another one for the Korchnoi gambit (last Christmas I read quickly Korchnoi's two books about his famous games)
« Last Edit: 07/30/11 at 14:53:21 by dom »  

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can never live long enough to make them all yourself.”  - Groucho Marx
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo