Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Cambridge Springs - Panczyk and Ilczuk (Read 1507 times)
FreeRepublic
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 92
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: Cambridge Springs - Panczyk and Ilczuk
Reply #4 - 07/11/18 at 14:38:06
Post Tools
TD wrote on 07/11/18 at 07:54:21:
Paulsen in "Chess Developments Semi-Slav 5 Bg5" gives 16...Ng6!= followed by f6.


Thanks. Yes that's good.

White can avoid that with 16.Rd4, instead of 16b3 that I originally gave. 16Rd4 hits the e pawn in addition to defending the c pawn.

Now black can win the exchange at the expense of two pawns, but I'm not sure it's a bargain: 16Rd4 f6 17Bf4 c5 18Rxe4 Bf5 19Rxe5 fxe5 20Bxe5.

Or black can play 17...Rfd8 instead. 16Rd4 f6 17Bf4 Rfd8 18b3 c5 19Rxd8 Rxd8 20Bxe5 fxe5 which has transposes to the line I provided earlier.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TD
Senior Member
****
Offline


Feyenoord forever!

Posts: 367
Location: Rotterdam, NLD
Joined: 02/12/11
Re: Cambridge Springs - Panczyk and Ilczuk
Reply #3 - 07/11/18 at 07:54:21
Post Tools
Paulsen in "Chess Developments Semi-Slav 5 Bg5" gives 16...Ng6!= followed by f6.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 92
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: Cambridge Springs - Panczyk and Ilczuk
Reply #2 - 07/11/18 at 05:32:16
Post Tools
Justinhorton wrote on 02/21/08 at 22:01:27:
So - is there anything wrong with 11.Ncxe4 that Panczyk and Ilczuk didn't know? Or did they give the right line when the book was published in 2002, but nobody else has noticed?


I think they gave the best, though not the most interesting, line. Here is what I have in my notes:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nf3 Qa5 7. Nd2 Bb4 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Be2 e5 10. dxe5 Ne4 11. Ncxe4 dxe4 12. Rd1! Nxe5 13. O-O Bxd2 14. Qxd2 Qxd2 15. Rxd2 Be6!? 16. b3!? f6!? 17. Bf4 Rfd8!? 18. Rd4!? c5!? 19. Rxd8+ Rxd8 20. Bxe5 fxe5 21. Rd1 Rxd1+ 22. Bxd1 Bd7

Stockfish says white is better, but has no plan for improving white's position. Sure white is better in a static sense. However I don't think white can win this.

White can play otherwise and get more chances, but black gets more chances too.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
winawer77
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 219
Joined: 03/31/07
Gender: Male
Re: Cambridge Springs - Panczyk and Ilczuk
Reply #1 - 02/25/08 at 18:21:11
Post Tools
I think that the Cambridge Springs is the perfect blend of solidity and dynamism, I'm amazed that it is not played more often.

Meeting 7.Nd2 is key - I have always followed Panczyk and Ilczuk with 7...dxc4 although I find the positions a bit similar to the 6.Bxf6 Moscow, although maybe slightly more passive. This made me look at the traditional mainline a bit more, especially as someone played it against me a few weeks ago. I think that White does have an edge in P & I's main line, but it is hardly anything for Black to worry about. Can't find much in the way of practical examples though.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Justinhorton
Full Member
***
Offline


Kingpinista

Posts: 237
Joined: 10/27/06
Cambridge Springs - Panczyk and Ilczuk
02/21/08 at 22:01:27
Post Tools
In their book, Panczyk and Ilczuk favour the line 7.Nd2 bxc4 because they consider 7...Bb4 8.Qc2 O-O 9.Be2 e5 10.dxe5 Ne4 11.Ncxe4 good for White (p.161).

However, in the ChessPub ebook on the QGD (p.170) it's considered that 10.dxe5 doesn't give White much - and a line beginning with 10...Ne4 11.Ndxe4 is given.

So - is there anything wrong with 11.Ncxe4 that Panczyk and Ilczuk didn't know? Or did they give the right line when the book was published in 2002, but nobody else has noticed?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo