Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp (Read 13258 times)
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2908
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
And the winner is ...!
Reply #12 - 11/19/09 at 16:03:03
Post Tools
René Olthof and Peter Boel, editors of the New in Chess Yearbook series, have  studied the entries for the Chesspublishing.com Opening Competition and have come to the following conclusions:

"The theme has turned out to be quite suitable for this competition on account of its freshness. No new games seem to have been played with this move yet, and the position contains positional as well as tactical elements.
After S. Bücker withdrew his reply #3, 6 candidates remained:

1. Reply #4 8...Nbd7N 9.Rg1 Bb7 (or 8...Bb7 9.Rg1 Nbd7) 10.g5 Ne4 Papageno (GER) 2. Reply #6 8...Ne4N Keano (Manchester) 3. Reply #7 8...Ba6N Willempie (NED) 4. Reply #8 8...Nxg4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.cxd5 Qb4N Matemax 5. Reply #9 8...Nxg4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Nxd5 Qd6 12.Nc3 Nc6N  gewgaw (Europa) 6. Reply #10 8...Nxg4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Nxd5 Qd6 12.Nc3 Nc6 13.Bg2N S.Bücker (GER)

Replies #7 (8...Ba6, Willempie) and #8 (10...Qb4, Matemax) have been successfully countered on the forum.

The winner is gewgaw with Reply # 9. His idea is a good improvement on  the stem game Barbero-Vegh (1988), where Black could have been in trouble.
Bücker's attempt to show a white advantage with 13.Bg2 (Reply #10) is  valid, but for the moment gewgaw's line still stands.

Second prize goes to Papageno with Reply #4. His approach with a quick
8/9...Nbd7 followed by 10...Ne4 is according to classical Tartakower  patterns. His idea is also well-founded and attempts to refute it have  been more or less successfully countered. There is still plenty to  research here.

Third prize is shared by Reply #6 (8...Ne4, Keano, Manchester) and S. Bücker, who has indicated the critical reaction 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.g5. Milen  Petrov has indicated that 8...Ne4 was recommended by Daniel King on a  'Power Play' DVD is not a disaster in this situation."

Congratulations to the winners, and well done to everyone who contributed to the thread! Smiley
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2908
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #11 - 11/02/09 at 13:28:01
Post Tools
Many thanks for all the excellent ideas!
I intend to stop this thread now, and close the competition, so if anyone has anything to add could they please do it very soon! Wink
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1362
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #10 - 10/31/09 at 19:22:59
Post Tools
Herewith I withdraw my nomination from reply #3. As pointed out by MilenPetrov in the chat thread, GM King had criticized 8...dxc4 and expressed his opinion that White is better. If White's advantage is so obvious, my idea can't be important. On the other side, 8...Nxg4 has always been one of the critical lines, and it has been improved further by gewgaw's 12...Nc6.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5 0–0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.g4 Nxg4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Nxd5 Qd6 12.Nc3 Nc6 (nominated by gewgaw)

Here it is difficult to recommend something for White. Thanks to his active pieces Black has many tricks, for example 13.Be2 Re8! 14. h3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Rxe3 16.Kf2 Nxd4! 17. Kxe3?? Nf5+ 18.Kf2? Qg3+ 19.Kf1 Ne3 mate!!.

13.Bg2!, my new nomination.

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *


13...Bb7

After 13...Re8 White can safely castle short. Castling short also comes into consideration against 13...Bf5 or 13...Rb8, while 13...Qg6 may be countered by 14.Qb1. And 13...Bd7 14.h3 Nf6 15.Ne5 is another point of White's play. In each of these cases White has a slight advantage.

14.Nh4! Nf6

(a) 14...h5 15.Nf5 Qe6 (15...Qf6 16.h3) 16.Qb1! (16.h3? Nxf2) and White is better.
(b) 14...Bc8 15.h3 Nf6 16.Qf3 etc.
(c) 14...f5 15.Qd2.

15.Rg1! Rfd8

Or 15...Rfe8 16.Qd2 Qxh2 17.Rh1 with similar ideas.
15...Qxh2 16.Rh1 Qd6 17.Nf5 Qd7 18.Bh3 (threat: Nxh6+) is very unpleasant for Black.

16.Qd2 Qxh2

Else White castles long and plays f4, with fine chances. For the sacrificed pawn, White now gets excellent attacking chances.

17.Rh1 Qd6 18.0-0-0 Qe6

(a) 18...h5 19.Nf5 Qf8 20.Rdg1
(b) 18...Ne8 19.Bd5 Qf6 20.f4 Na5 21.Ne4 Qe7 22.Ng6 Qd7 23.Bxb7 Nxb7 24.Ne5 Qf5 25.Ng3 Qh7 26.Nh5 +/-.

19.d5 Qe8 20.e4 Ne7 21.Rdg1 and White has an advantage.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 628
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #9 - 10/06/09 at 21:43:19
Post Tools
Nomination 12. ...Nc6

I thought about moves like 8. ... Ne4 or even 8. ... Nh7, because the possibility g4-g5 at any moment annoyed me and I stubbornly wanted to control square g5, but it seems g4-g5 is always possible to get dirty compensation at least. So I came to the conclusion, if g4-g5 is that annoying, then why not taking this pawn and  started digging up the game Barbero – Vegh.
The point why I´m optimistic about black´s chances, is the immediate trade of the darksquare bishops in move 9. In comparison to g2g4 ideas like in the Shabalov-Shirov attack in the Slav or Shirov´s g2g4 in the Philidor, where white can hope for an advantage due the bishoppair, this possibility doesn´t exist. Another point is, that black is slightly ahead in development, so why not open up the position?!  When I use the term “unclear”, I think both side have their chances with lots of different possibilities.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5 0–0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.g4 Nxg4 9.Bxe7
[9.Rg1 Bxh4 10.Rxg4 Bf6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Rg3 c5 black is better]
9...Qxe7 10.cxd5
[10.Rg1 Nf6 11.Ne5 Nbd7 12.Qf3
a) 12.Qc2 Bb7 13.f4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 c5 black is better;
b) 12.f4 dxc4 13.Bg2 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Nd5 15.Nxd5 Qh4+ 16.Kd2 exd5 17.Bxd5 Rd8 (17...Rb8!? 18.Qe1 Qxe1+ 19.Raxe1 b5 20.Kc3 a5 unclear) 18.Bxa8 Qf2+ 19.Qe2 Rxd4+ 20.exd4 Qxd4+ 21.Ke1 Qxg1+ 22.Qf1 equal; 12...Nxe5 13.dxe5 Ne4 14.Nxe4 (14.cxd5 Nxc3 15.d6 cxd6 16.Qxa8 d5 17.bxc3 Qc7 18.f4 Bd7 19.Qxf8+ Kxf8 black is better) 14...dxe4 15.Qf6 Qxf6 16.exf6 g6 17.c5 Rd8 18.c6 e5 black is better; 10.Qc2 Bb7 11.Rg1 dxc4 12.Rxg4 (12.Be2 Nf6 13.0–0–0 c5 black is better (13...Nc6!?) ) 12...Bxf3 13.Rg3 Qf6 14.Bxc4 Nc6 15.a3 Ne7 16.Bd3 Rad8 17.Ne4 Bxe4 18.Bxe4 e5 19.d5 Nxd5 20.0–0–0 c6 21.Rdg1 Rd6 22.Rxg7+ (22.h4 Rfd8 23.h5 Kf8 and black is better) 22...Qxg7 23.Rxg7+ Kxg7 black is slightly better]
10...exd5 [10...Qb4 11.Qc2 Bb7 12.Be2 exd5 (12...Bxd5 13.a3 Qe7 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Rg1 Nf6 16.Nh4 with attacking chances) 13.Rg1 Nf6 14.0–0–0 with attacking chances]
11.Nxd5 [11.Rg1 Nf6 12.Ne5 (12.Qb3 c5! 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Bb7 15.Qh5 (15.Qf5 Nd7 16.Bd3 Nf6 (16...g6?? 17.Nh4+-) 17.Ne5 (17.Qf4 Bxf3 18.Qxh6 g6 19.Bxg6 fxg6 20.Rxg6+ Kf7 21.Rg7+ Ke8 22.Rxe7+ Kxe7 23.Qf4 Ne4 24.Qe5+ Kf7 25.Rc1 Kg6 26.dxc5 Rae8 27.Qc7 bxc5 28.Qc6+ Kh7 29.Qc7+ Kh6 30.Qc6+ Kh5 31.Qd5+ Kh4 32.Rc4 Rd8 33.Rxe4+ Kh3 34.Qb3 Rg8 35.Kf1 Rd1+ 36.Qxd1 Bxd1 37.Re7 black is slightly better) 17...Rfd8 18.0–0–0 (18.Qf4 Kf8 19.Qg3 Ne8 20.0–0–0 cxd4 unclear) 18...cxd4 19.Qf4 Nh5 20.Qf5 equal Nf6 21.Ng4 Kf8 22.Nxf6 Qxf6 23.Qxf6 (23.Qh7 dxe3 24.fxe3 (24.Rge1 Rac8+ 25.Kb1 Qxf2–+) 24...Qe5µ) 23...gxf6³) 15...Kh8 16.0–0–0 (16.Bd3 Nd7 17.Nh4 Qf6 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.Nxf5 cxd4 20.Nxd4 Nc5 21.Be2) 16...Nd7 17.Bc4 cxd4 18.Rxd4 Rac8 19.Kb1 Be4+ 20.Ka1 Rc5³) 12...Nbd7 13.f4 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Ne4 black is slightly better]
11...Qd6 12.Nc3
[12.Nf4 Re8 13.Nd3 Nc6 black is slightly better]

12...Nc6 ! Nomination! My improvement to the game Barbero – Vegh. Black should develop his pieces as soon as possible to put pressure on the centre, Bc8 seems less effective on b7, very often it´s better to develop it on the c8-h3 diagonal .

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

13.Rg1
[13.d5 Nce5 14.Nxe5 (14.Rg1 Qb4 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Be2 Qxb2 17.Rc1 Re8 18.Qd2 Qxd2+ 19.Kxd2 Rd8 (19...Bb7 20.f4 Nd7 21.Nb5 Rad8 22.Rxc7 Nc5 23.d6 a6 =+ ) 20.f4 Ng6 =+) 14...Qxe5 (14...Nxe5 15.Be2 Bb7 16.f4 Ng6 17.Qd4 c6 18.Rg1 cxd5 19.0–0–0 Rac8 unclear) 15.Rg1 (15.Qd2 Nf6 16.0–0–0 Bg4 17.f4 Qd6 18.Re1 Rfd8 19.Bg2 Qc5 20.e4 c6 21.h3 Bh5 unclear) 15...Nf6 (15...f5 16.Rg3 Nxh2 17.f4 Qe7 18.Qe2 Nxf1 19.Qxf1 Rb8 20.Qc4 Qc5 21.Qxc5 bxc5 22.0–0–0 Kf7 23.Rdg1 Rg8 24.Kc2 =+) 16.Qf3 Bb7 17.0–0–0 Rad8 18.Bc4 (18.Bg2 b5 (18...a6!?) 19.Qg3 Qxg3 20.hxg3=) 18...Rfe8 19.Rg3 Ne4 20.Nxe4 Qxe4 21.Rd4 Qxf3 22.Rxf3Re5=(22...Kf8=) ;
13.Be2 Re8 (13...Nf6 14.Rg1 Bf5 (14...a6 15.e4 white is better) 15.Bd3 Be6 16.Qe2 (16.e4 Nxd4 black is better) 16...Nd5 17.Ne4 Qb4+ 18.Qd2 f5 19.Nc3 Nxc3 20.bxc3 Qa4 unclear ) 14.d5 (14.a3 Bb7 15.Nb5 Qe7 unclear) 14...Nce5 (14...Ne7!?) 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Rg1 Bf5 17.Qd2 Ng6 18.0–0–0 a6 19.Rg3 b5 20.Bd3 Bxd3 21.Qxd3 Rad8 =+]
13...Re8
[13...Nf6 14.Bb5 Bf5 15.Bxc6 Qxc6 16.Ne5 Qe6 17.f4 Rad8 unclear]
14.d5 [14.Rg3 Nf6 15.Bc4 (15.Bd3 Nb4³; 15.Bb5 a6 16.Bxc6 Qxc6=) 15...a6 16.Qc2 Be6 (16...Bg4!? 17.Qg6!? Re6 18.Bxe6 Qxe6 19.Qd3 Nb4 20.Qe2 Re8 21.Kf1 Bh3+ 22.Kg1 Nh5 23.Rxh3 Qxh3 24.Ne5 c5 25.Qf3 Qxf3 26.Nxf3 cxd4 27.Nxd4 Nd3=) 17.Bxe6 Qxe6 18.a3 Nh5 19.d5 Qf6 20.Rh3 (20.dxc6 Nxg3–+) 20...Nf4 21.Rg3 Nh5=; 14.Nb5 Qb4+ 15.Qd2 Nxe3 16.fxe3 Rxe3+ 17.Kd1 Rxf3 18.Rxg7+ Kxg7 19.Qg2+ Kf8 20.Qxf3 Bd7 =+; 14.Bb5 Bd7 (14...Bf5 15.h3 Nf6 16.Qe2 Nb4 17.0–0–0 c6 18.Bc4 b5 19.Bb3 a5 =+) 15.Bxc6 (15.d5 Nce5 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Qe2 b5 19.0–0–0 Rab8 unclear) 15...Qxc6 (15...Bxc6? 16.Rxg4+-) 16.Qe2 b5 17.Nxb5 (17.a3 a5 18.Nxb5 Re7³ (18...Nxe3 19.fxe3 Qxb5 20.Qxb5 Bxb5=) ) 17...Rab8 18.a4 a6 19.h3 axb5 20.hxg4 bxa4 =+; 14.Be2 Bf5 15.d5 Nb4 16.Rc1 Nf6 17.Nb5 Qxd5 18.Qd4 (18.Nxc7 Qxd1+ black is better) 18...Qxd4 19.Nfxd4 Bd7 20.Nxc7 Rac8 21.Rc3 Re5=]
14...Nce5
[14...Nxe3 15.fxe3 Rxe3+ 16.Be2 Ne5 unclear]
15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Qh5 Qf6 17.Rg3 Bf5 18.0–0–0 a6
[18...Bg6 19.Qe2 Nd7 20.Bh3 Nc5 unclear]
19.f4 Ng6 20.Bd3
[20.a3 Nh4 =+]
20...Bxd3 21.Rxd3 b5 =+

Summa summarum:
Black has very often the edge; white seems far away to get use of the open g-file;
8.g4 is ambitious, but too slowly.
  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #8 - 10/06/09 at 13:41:36
Post Tools
"Clearly the first move we should have a look at is accepting the challenge (8...Ng4)" (Rene Olthof)

Well that's what I tried coming up with an improvement on Barbero-Vegh, Budapest 1988:

After:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.g4 Nxg4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.cxd5 Barbero-Vegh, Budapest 1988

I suggest 10...Qb4!N (nomination)

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

Now I had a look at the following variations - the conclusion is that Black has at least equality if not the better game in the end!

Mainline: 11.Qc2 - looks the most logical for White

a) 11.Rg1 Qxb2 12.Rxg4 Qxc3+ 13.Nd2 exd5∓ is a white desaster

b) 11.Qb3 Qxb3 12.axb3 Bb7 13.Bg2 Bxd5 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Rc1 Na6= but I think the position is more even for Black - he is still a pawn up, White has some compensation

c) 11.Rc1 Qxb2=+ White probably has to exchange queens the next moves]

d) 11.Qd2 exd5 12.Nxd5 Qd6 13.Nc3 Bb7 14.d5 c6=

11...Bb7 12.Rg1 Nf6 13.Ne5 Nxd5 14.a3 Qe7 Black prepares for the manoeuvre Qe4-g2

14...Qd6?!  not protecting g7  15.Qe4 Nc6 16.Qg2 looks dangerous for Black

15.Nxd5

15.Qe4 Nd7 16.Bd3 (16.Qg2 g6=+17.Nxg6 ?! fxg6 18.Qxg6+ Kh8 19.Qxh6+ Qh7 20.Qxh7+ (20.Qg5 ?? Rg8) 20...Kxh7 21.Ne4 Rg8 22.Ng5+ Kh6∓) 16. ... f5 17.Nxd5 exd5=+ (17...Bxd5 18.Ng6 Qe8 19.Qf4 Rf7 20.b4 may give White some chances in murky water) 18.Qf4 Nxe5 19.dxe5 c5 (19...Kh8 may even be better - not allowing Qh6 next move) 20.Rg6 (20.Qxh6 Qxe5) 20...Rae8 21.Qxh6 Qxe5 22.O-O-O Re7=+ White is stopped and Black a pawn up

15...Bxd5 16.e4 Bb7 17.O-O-O c5=+ Who is attacking now? Wink

Edit: For my answer to T. Kosten's suggestion 11.Nd2 see the "Chat thread"
« Last Edit: 10/06/09 at 16:22:11 by Matemax »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #7 - 10/05/09 at 17:00:53
Post Tools
I'd like to add my own idea. There is probably a huge hole in the analysis somewhere (trouble with the chess software, I think it should install, the setup program thinks otherwise Roll Eyes), but if not it should give black a very good game.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.g4 and here I think 8..Ba6(nomination) may be worthy of investigation. Afaik it has never been played or suggested, but to me it looks logical. Black threatens to pick up the c- or g-pawn when he wants. Another idea is to annoy the f1-bishop and to play the Lasker move at some point to simplify (it would seem others have the same idea).
So
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.g4 Ba6
and now:

The direct attempt -9.g5 Ne4, wich imo is bad.
a) 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Nd2 hxg5 followed by f5 or somesuch. Black is a pawn up and it certainly isnt going to be white who will attack on the kingside
b) 10.gxh6 Bxh4 11.hxg7 Bxf2 12.Ke2 Bxc4 13.Qd3. I jsut put this one in for fun Wink
c) 10.cxd5 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxf1 12.Kxf1 exd5 seems equal to me. Alternatively white could sac a piece for three pawns, but black wins one back.

9.Rg1 Not sure what the best answer is, but they all look good to me:
a1)9.. Ne4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Nd2 f5 looks decent
a2)9.. g5 10.Bg3 Ne4 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Nd2 f5
a3)9.. c5 also may be worth a punt.

9.cxd5 Bxf1 10.Kxf1 Nxd5 also looks good after something like 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nxd5 exd5

Hopefully I will be able to analyse a little more later on, but for now this shoudl do.
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2847
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #6 - 10/05/09 at 16:25:23
Post Tools
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.g4
and here I propose 8... Ne4!? (nomination)

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

I´ll need to back this up with some analysis but for now I´ll just say that this mix of Tartakower and Lasker seems a logical approach to Whites caveman attack. After 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 Black will swap on c3 if allowed then play ...Nd7 -f6 to make his king feel more secure (that is provided the advance g5 and reply ..hxg5 is already played), then at the appropriate moment play ....c5 and begin looking at the poor White king left in the middle of the board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4245
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #5 - 10/03/09 at 19:42:18
Post Tools
I certainly like the classic look of Papageno's suggestion.  Regarding Heine Nielsen's Italian-QGD analogy, I would suggest that a quite possibly relevant difference is that the center is less fluid in those Pianissimo positions.

(oops, apparently "misplaced")
« Last Edit: 10/04/09 at 18:00:46 by kylemeister »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Papageno
Senior Member
****
Offline


FM

Posts: 299
Location: Germany
Joined: 06/12/08
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #4 - 10/02/09 at 22:20:15
Post Tools
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.g4
and here I propose 8... Nbd7N 9. Rg1 Bb7 10. g5 Ne4! (nomination)

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
While already the 8th move is a novelty, the real point is this centralization of the knight by 10... Ne4 and the temporary pin (along e7 to h4). Please notice that Black intentionally refrains from ...dxc4 in move 8 and 9 in order to first strengthen his control over the center and especially the important square e4. Thus, Black gains just enough time to consolidate his King's side within the next few moves, say after 11. Qc2 g6 12. O-O-O Nxc3 13. bxc3 h5 He just doesn't allow any open lines at his king's side in most lines. So his main plan is to block the pawns by playing g7-g6 and h6-h5 in some order. Following, he has good chances to develop counterplay at the queen's side and in the center. This is a new and easy-to-learn setup for Black which takes the sting out of White's main attacking plan with Rg1 and g4-g5.


Here are some arguments to back up this line (or plan):

I. Discussing the 8th move of Black.
Black can achieve this setup by either 8... Nbd7N 9. Rg1 Bb7 or 8... Bb7 9. Rg1 Nbd7N. This doesn't seem to me to make too much of a difference, even if White wanted to switch to Peter Heine Nielsen's attacking plan (Bxf6 followed by h4 and g5). Both 8... Nbd7 9. Bxf6 Nxf6 10. g5 hxg5 11. Nxg5 and 8... Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 Bxd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 should be satisfactory for Black. I think you can choose either way.

II. White's 10th move alternatives.
It's unlikely that White really wants to delay the advance g4-g5 here.
a) 10. cxd5 Nxd5 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. g5 Nxc3 13. bxc3 hxg5 14. Nxg5 Nf6 15. Bd3 Rac8 Black is ready to open up the game by means of e6-e5 or c7-c5 while the Nf6 defends everything nicely.
b) 10. Qc2 dxc4 leaves the Nf3 hanging.
c) 10. Be2 c5 (or 10... dxc4 11. g5 Ne4 12. Nxe4 Bxe4 13. Bxc4 g6 14. Nd2 Bd5 15. Bxd5 exd5 16. Qf3 c6 17. Qf4 Re8 intending Nd7-f8-e6) 11. g5 Ne4 12. cxd5 exd5 are o.k. for Black.

III. The real test is whether White has any promising alternatives at move 11. Possibly, to get out the pin Be7-h4 and open up the king's side somehow. But I think Black is again doing all right in all these lines:

a) 11. gxh6? Bxh4 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. Nxh4 (or 13. hxg7 Re8 14. Nd2 Nf6) 13... Qxh4 14. Rxg7+ Kh8 does not lead anywhere. Black is just a piece up with his King in no danger. Nevertheless, Black always has to be at the lookout for such ideas in the next 2 or 3 moves. But I think with circumspect play there is no reason to be afraid of such unmotivated piece sacrifices.

b) 11. Bd3 g6 12. cxd5 (12. Qc2 wants to go for sacs on g6 but this should not work against an adaequate defense) 12... Nxc3 13. bxc3 Bxd5! 14. e4 Bb7 15. Qd2 c5 White has built up a nice center but Black is ready to challenge it. I especially like the idea of 13...Bxd5 to keep the bishop alive. Besides, White has a lasting problem where to hide his king.

c) 11. Nxe4 dxe4 12. Nd2 is hardly convincing. Black again has the thematic 12... g6 13. Qg4 h5 at his disposal closing the king's side but most likely more convincing is here 12... hxg5 13. Qg4 f5 14. Qg2 Kf7 15. Bxg5 Bxg5 16. Qxg5 Qxg5 17. Rxg5 Rh8 18. h3 Kf6 with a nice endgame advantage.

d1) 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Bh3!? is an insteresting try, threatening Bh3xd7 and gxh6. I was somewhat worried about Black's defense here but finally I decided that the thematic 12... h5 is very reliable and again closing the king's wing. A sample line might be 13. Qa4 Nxc3 14. bxc3 c6 15. Bg3 g6 16. Bf4 Re8. As seen so often before, Black is ready to untangle in the center and on the queen's side while his king is in the safer position.

d2) 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Qd3 White puts d5 under pressure. Here either the solid 12... Nxc3 13. bxc3 g6 followed by h6-h5, or the more adventurous line 12... c5!? 13. Nxd5 hxg5 14. Nxe7+ Qxe7 15. Bxg5 Nxg5 16. Nxg5 cxd4 17. O-O-O dxe3 etc. when after some exchanges a black knight can defend on f6 and is hardly challenged there.

d3) 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. Nd2 g6 For some reason computers propose for White 14. Qg4 h5 15. Qg3 but again the white attacking chances have vanished and 15... c5 starts counterplay.


These lines might not appear too fancy or flashy but they are just meant to provide a solid setup for Black against 8.g4!? I'm looking forward to playing this from the black side of the board.
« Last Edit: 10/03/09 at 13:08:11 by Papageno »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1362
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #3 - 10/01/09 at 04:52:56
Post Tools
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.g4!? dxc4 9.Rg1

Better than 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 Bb7 11.g5 hxg5 12.hxg5 Bxg5 13.Bxc4 (P. H. Nielsen - V. Georgiev, Dresden 2008). After 13...Bh6! (instead of the game continuation 13...c5 14.d5 Bh6) I don't see an advantage for White.  

9...Bb7

(a) 9...Nh7 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Bxc4 gave White a plus in J. Converset - M. Guimaraes, corr. 2002 (IECG).

(b) There are several other continuations. 9...g6 may be objectively best, when White is only slightly better after 10.g5 (more solid: 10.Bxc4 Bb7 11.Qe2 a6 12.Bd3) 10...Nd5 (10...Nh7 11.Bg2 c6 12.Ne5) 11.Qc2, e. g. 11...Nc6?! 12.a3 Ba6 13.Ne4 Na5 14.Ne5 Kh8 15.Nf6 16.gxf6 g5 17.Bg3 Qxf6 18.h4!. - The text move, Black's most active reply, transposes to 8...Bb7 9.Rg1 dxc4, given as unclear by René Olthof in his comment on C. Caminade - T. Gouret, Val Maubuee 1990. However, instead of Olthof's 10.Bxc4, White has a better move:

10.g5! (nomination)

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *


10...Ne8

(a) 10...Nh7? 11.gxh6 Bxh4 12.Rxg7+ Kh8 13.Qc2 f5 14.Ne5 +/-.

(b) 10...hxg5 11.Bxg5 c5 12.Ne5 cxd4 13.exd4 +=, for example 13...Re8 14.Bxc4 Nc6 15.Ba6! Bxa6 16.Nxc6 Qc7 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Qf3 Bb7 19.Qg3 e5 20.0-0-0.

11.Bxc4 Nd6

The critical reply. After 11...Nc6 12.a3 White is just a bit better, and 11...g6 12.Ne5 hxg5 13.Qc2! Ng7 14.0-0-0! is another strong gambit line: 14...Bd5 (14...Nf5 15.d5! or 14...gxh4 15.d5!) 15.Bg3 +=, since the development of Nb8 is a problem: 15...Bxc4 16.Nxc4 Nd7? 17.d5 Qc8 18.dxe6 Nxe6 19.Nd5 Bd8 20.h4 +/-.

12.d5!

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *

12...g6

Alternatives:

(a) 12...Nf5 13.gxh6! Bxh4 (13...Nxh4? 14.hxg7) 14.hxg7 Re8 15.Ng5! Bxg5 16.Qh5 Bh6 17.dxe6 Rxe6 18.Qxf5 +-.

(b) 12...c5 13.gxh6 Bxh4 14.dxe6 Nxc4 15.Rxg7+ Kh8 16.Qc2 f5 17.Rxb7 Nxe3 18.Qe2 +/-.

(c) 12...Nxc4 13.gxh6 Bxh4 14.Rxg7+ Kh8 15.Qd3 transposes to the position in our main line (after 16.Rg7), only with a move less for both sides.

(d) 12...h5 13.Bb3 Nf5 14.Bg3 Nxg3 15.hxg3 +=.

(e) 12...Nd7 13.Bd3 Re8 (13...exd5? 14.gxh6) 14.dxe6 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Ne5 16.Qd5 Nxd3+ 17.Qxd3 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 hxg5 19.exf7+ Nxf7 20.Qxd8 +=.  

13.Qd3 Nxc4 14.gxh6 Bxh4

14...Nxb2? 15.Rxg6+ Kh8 16.Qd4+ f6 17.Rg7! Bb4 18.Ne5! fxe5 19.Qe4 +-.

15.Rxg6+ Kh8 16.Rg7 f5 17.Qxc4 Bf6 18.Rd1!

But not 18.0-0-0? Bxd5 19.Nxd5 exd5 20.Rxd5 Qe8!, when 21.Nh4?? Bxh4 22.Qxh4 fails to Qc6+.

18...e5

(a) 18...Bxd5 19.Nxd5 exd5 20.Rxd5 Qe8 21.Nh4 +-.

(b) 18...Bxg7 19.hxg7+ Kxg7 20.Nd4 Qe7 21.Nxe6+ Kf7 21.Nxc7 +/-.

19.Ne4! Bxg7

19...fxe4? 20.Ng5! Bxg5 21.Qxe4 followed by Qh7 mate.

20.hxg7+ Kxg7 21.Neg5 Rf6

Neither 21...Bc8 22.Qh4 Rh8 23.Qg3 +/- nor 21...Qe7 22.Ne6+ +/- is an improvement.

22.Ne6+ Rxe6 23.dxe6 Qxd1+!

23...Qe7 24.Nxe5 a5 25.a3 Be4 26.Qc3.

24.Kxd1 Bxf3+

White has an advantage, but the ending remains difficult. For example: 25.Kd2 Kf6 26.Qh4+ Kxe6 27.Qh6+ Kd7 (27...Kd5 28.Qh3 Be4 29.f3) 28.Qf6 Be4 29.f3 Bd5

(a) 30.Qxe5 Kc6 31.e4 (or 31.Qxf5 Nd7 32.e4 Bxa2) 31...fxe4 32.fxe4 Bxa2 33.b3 Kb7 34.Qb2 Bxb3 35.Qxb3 Nc6 36.h4 a5! =.

(b) 30.Qxf5+!? Kd6 31.Qf6+ Be6 32.Qd8+ Kc6 33.Qe8+ Bd7 34.Qxe5 Kb7 +=.
« Last Edit: 10/01/09 at 09:37:41 by Stefan Buecker »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2908
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #2 - 09/26/09 at 01:59:36
Post Tools
Not Before the Game!

a letter by Peter Heine Nielsen

QO 7.1 (D58) YB 91

I was happy to see the coverage of 8.g4 in the Tartakower QGD in Yearbook 91, and especially the history of the variation.


* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
It’s a fun line, and despite possibly not entirely sound, still quite resting on logic. In the Italian Game, for example, it’s well known that playing ...h6 and castling early is punished by g4! – or, more often, h3 followed by castling runs into ...g5! So why not in the QGD too? I would like to correct the anecdote mentioned on page 145, as it got mixed up in translation. Magnus did indeed show his disbelief in the variation, but not before the game, as I would never show him such aggressive ideas. Most likely he would turn it into some dry technical position anyway. Magnus couldn’t really conceal his laughter when he saw me play it during the round. Gelfand came up to my board often, and seemed genuinely impressed.

Peter Heine Nielsen
Arhus, Denmark

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2908
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
Reply #1 - 09/26/09 at 01:57:52
Post Tools
Here is the YearBook 91 survey:

Queen’s Gambit Declined
Tartakower Variation QO 7.1 (D58)

More g4 please!

by René Olthof

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Be7
4. Nf3 Nf6
5. Bg5 h6
6. Bh4 0-0
7. e3 b6
8. g4


* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

It’s not just a trend, it’s a virus – playing g2-g4 in the opening between move 4 and 8. I’m not sure when it started and who started it. Perhaps in the early 1990’s with Shabalov’s 7.g4 in the Semi- Slav. Shirov followed suit in the Philidor with his 5.g4 gambit and there is also Zviagintsev’s 4.g4 in the English.
In the FORUM Section of Yearbook 67 I pointed out that even the venerable Queen’s Gambit was not immune to this hyper-aggressive bug. In Bergez-Schekachev, Creon 2000, White flashed out with 5.g4.

The Origin
I believe all this time a predecessor has been totally over looked. Gerardo Barbero is an Argentinean grandmaster who moved to Europe in the mid-1980’s. Or, more specifically, he moved to Hungary. In the 13th Elekes Memorial (emlekverseny in Hungarian), held in May 1988, Barbero anticipated this trend and at the same time took it to the next level avant la lettre. Not just g2-g4, when Black’s king’s bishop had moved, but g2-g4 when the pawn on g7 was actually covered. And lo and be hold, against the Tartakower Variation, imaginably the most solid of all opening lines and the trusted choice of many world champions. Just think of the stir this must have caused!
So I asked Endre Vegh, Barbero’s most esteemed opponent, about his recollection of this game. Much to my astonishment Vegh, a fine theoretician, couldn’t recall any fuss. ‘Our game was really a long time ago.’ Sure, but perhaps Barbero shared some inside information about the origin of 8.g4, I wanted
to know. Nada. ‘I’m al most sure Barbero didn’t tell me anything special about this move. I have a good memory for such things and I would have remembered!’

The Theoretical Merits
With the first protagonists unable to provide further information (Barbero sadly passed away at an early age in 2001), it will be difficult to discover more about the history of 8.g4, so why not concentrate on its theoretical merits?
Clearly the first move we should have a look at is accepting the challenge (8...Ng4), simultaneously stop ping the further advance of the bold foot soldier, and incidentally also the move played by Vegh at the premiere.
Barbero regained his sacrificed pawn on d5 and then rapidly cleared the long diagonal on move 12-14. He missed his big chance on move 15. Clearly this is not a case where accepting the pawn sacrifice is the way to go.

Parrying a Flank Attack
There is a general rule that says ‘flank attacks should be parried in the centre’. This strategy can be implemented in three different ways that all make perfect sense. Black can put the bishop on the long diagonal (8...Bb7), he can strike out in the centre (8...c5), or open the long diagonal (8...dc4). All three moves have only been played a few times, so there is little practical support for one continuation or the other. In the three over-the-board games the crisis peaked around move 15, with both sides having their chances. At last year’s Olympiad in Dresden, Peter Heine Nielsen showed this line to the Great Carlsen, who supposedly was not impressed at all. Nielsen then decided to let his pieces do the talking – his win over Bulgarian IM Veselin Georgiev, a representative of the International Committee of Silent Chess (ICSC), the federation for the Deaf, spoke louder than words. Remarkably no colleague has followed in Hansen’s footsteps.

Conclusion
I am sure we won’t have to wait an other 20 years for a few more games with 8.g4. Now is the time to experiment. More g4 please!
  

niccomp.pgn ( 6 KB | 62 Downloads )
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2908
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
ChessPublishing.com 10th Anniversary Theory Comp
09/26/09 at 01:54:43
Post Tools
To celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the start of ChessPublishing.com we have decided to hold another theoretical competition, along the lines of Stefan Buecker's previous ones on the ChessPub.com Forum, but this time it is our Dutch friends from New in Chess who have chosen the subject and generously provided the prizes.

Peter Boel, Managing Editor, wrote: "We've looked at subjects for your anniversary competition, and we think the QGD Tartakower with 8.g4 might be a suitable starting position 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.g4!?


* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

There was a survey on this line by René Olthof in YB 91, and a letter by Peter Heine Nielsen in the Forum Section of YB 92 (p. 10), who calls it 'a fun line' (ED: see these two in the posts that follow). In view of the current trend to play g2-g4 in 'all' openings this may be suitable."

Rules:

The usual rules apply: Forum members are invited to post (= nominate) their proposal (only one per member) in this thread of the competition, from the beginning till the end of October 2009. To make it clear that a concrete move (or perhaps a plan) is nominated, please highlight the word "nomination” in your post. It should be an idea that improves either White’s or Black’s chances over the existing theory, as presented in the pgn file of the competition. It is possible to withdraw a nomination and then nominate something else. It may be an unknown or underestimated game (not necessarily played by the member himself), or a new idea, accompanied by a short analysis.

The Two Threads:

This main thread of the competition is for nominations and valuable information on the topic while the second thread (to keep the overview in the main thread) is for anything else related to the competition: chat, refutations, etc.

The most interesting ideas will be selected by New in Chess and the winners will receive the following prizes:
1st: A year's subscription to the NIC Yearbook
2nd: A copy of your choice of SOS
3rd: a copy of The Chebanenko Slav According to Bologan
I may also throw in one or two ChessPub subs if I consider the suggestions sufficiently interesting!! Wink

I have posted this a week before the start of the competition to give everyone time to find some ideas. The next two posts contain the original NIC article and games, and the letter from Peter Heine Nielsen
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo