Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) I still remember a defence called Tartakower! (Read 34285 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #82 - 05/21/11 at 16:09:48
Post Tools
My first game with the Tartakower:

Kazmierczuk,Z - MNb [D58]
em WS/H/267, 2011

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Qe2 c5 11.Bg3 Ne4 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Rad1 Nxg3 14.hxg3 c4 15.Bf5 Nf6 16.Ne5 a6 17.g4 b5 18.a3 Ne4 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Qc2 Qd5 21.f3 exf3 22.Rxf3 Bg5 23.Rdf1 Kh8 24.Bd7 Kg8 25.Bf5 Kh8 ½-½



To please everybody I have given the notation too. For castling 0-0 should be changed in O-O, ie capital of o.
As the reader will notice I disagree with Sadler that 13...Ndf6 should be best. I initiated counterplay on the Queen's wing as quickly as possible, arguing that my pair of Bishops would become active as soon as White opens the position.
  

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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #81 - 01/26/11 at 00:19:17
Post Tools
The position is just unclear to me after 14. cxb6 Qxg2 15. 0-0-0 Qb7. That's the sort of position I'd need to dig really deeply in to come to any conclusion.

Immediate impression is that black is probably okay.

Good find. 6...b6 might be good to go.

If black is going to use the 7...Ba6 contninuation 8. Qa4 will most definitely need to be seriously checked as well (8...Bb7 leaves a position where white "gained Qa4 - who knows whether it is good/bad).

I'll do some work on 8. Qa4 and post what I find.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
huibui
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 82
Location: Ulm
Joined: 12/14/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #80 - 01/26/11 at 00:02:04
Post Tools
After checking some more lines in the "Smyslov-Endgame" I agree that Black should be able to equalize completely with careful play.

I also discovered another idea, which might be a bit more important: After your 7.Qc2-line and your 11.Bg3-improvement, I think Black can equalize:

11...c5 12.dxc5 (Td1 Nxc3 13.Qxc3 cxd4 14.Rxd4 Qc8 =) Nxc3 (the other moves like ...Nb4 don't work) 13.Qxc3 Qd5!

Now White can either castle or take on b6 to give g2. Black seems to be very fine in either case. As I didn't find any meaningful improvement for White before move 13 either I would suggest that 7.Qc2 is not a problem for Black.

So, is there anything wrong with the 6...b6-line, apart from the very low probability to actually win a game with Black?  Wink
  

You tell the young people of today that...
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #79 - 01/24/11 at 20:52:57
Post Tools
In my experience it's very normal for those structures to see white's initiative dissipate, having been on both the white and black side of them. That's why when I saw 16...Nb7 I doubted white had anything real, especially after defending it against all the engine's different tries, and all resulting in equality.

That doesn't mean the line isn't a good practical try, but theoretically it doesn't pierce black's armor.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
huibui
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 82
Location: Ulm
Joined: 12/14/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #78 - 01/24/11 at 11:45:07
Post Tools
Well, after

16...Nb7 17.Nb5 a5 (17...Rfd8 18.Rxd8 Nxd8 19.a3 +=) 18.Rac1 Rfd8 19.Nd4 Be4 (19...Bd5 20.Bc7 Rd7 21.Nb5 Bc6 22.Rxd7 Bxd7 23.Rd1 +=) 20.a3 (20.f3 Be4 =) Rac8 21.f3 Bd5 22.Kf1 (22.Kf2?! f6! =) Bd6

Black does seem to be very close to equality. Still, the moves leading to that position as well as the end position itself might not be completely trivial to find/hold.

17.Bb5 might be another try, getting the other bishop off. ...Bxb5 18.Nxb5 Rfd8 19.Rxd8 Nxd8 20.a3 doesn't look terrifying, but still some accuracy is required to play this type of ending, I guess.

I certainly wouldn't like to play this ending against a strong technical player who wants to beat me, although you are probably right that this line doesn't pose theoretical problems to (or is it "for"??) Black.

For MNb's line:

After 7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Be2/d3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 c5 10.0-0 I guess you want to play the straight forward 10...cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Qe2. Maybe White has a slight pull here, as the black queen doesn't have a comfortable spot, while 13...Bc5 14.Rfd1 Qe7 15.Bb5 Bxb5 16.Nxb5 Rfd8 17.a3 shows that the Bc5 isn't completely safe either.

Edit: 10...Nc6 might be a better try to equalize against 7.Rc1+8.Be2/d3. After 11.dxc5 Qxd1 12.Rfxd1 Bxc5 the position of the Smyslov-Endgame has been reached, with 12.Ne5 being replaced by 12.Rac1 Nc6.

Checking this position (the one before 12.Ne5 in the Smyslov-game), 12.Nb5 might be enother critical try there.
  

You tell the young people of today that...
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #77 - 01/24/11 at 01:42:31
Post Tools
I see. Then credit goes to Hönlinger, who used the idea to draw against Eliskases back in 1932.
I will take a closer look at this.
  

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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #76 - 01/24/11 at 01:27:37
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/24/11 at 01:25:39:
BPaulsen wrote on 01/23/11 at 21:27:29:
9...Nbd7 is inaccurate, it belongs on c6 in the 5. Bf4 QGD line. 9...c5 is correct.

Thanks a lot. I would never have thought of this. Is this your own idea? I am asking because as far as I can see 9...c5 never has been played before.


Smyslov's from a very closely related position (the one I've been discussing with huibui).
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #75 - 01/24/11 at 01:25:39
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 01/23/11 at 21:27:29:
9...Nbd7 is inaccurate, it belongs on c6 in the 5. Bf4 QGD line. 9...c5 is correct.

Thanks a lot. I would never have thought of this. Is this your own idea? I am asking because as far as I can see 9...c5 never has been played before.
  

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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #74 - 01/23/11 at 21:39:47
Post Tools
huibui wrote on 01/23/11 at 10:34:31:
A rather obvious improvement on Larsen-Smyslov is 13.Nd7. After ...Nxd7 14.Rxd7 Na5 15.Be2 I don't think Black has equalized, e.g. ...Rfd8 16.Rad1 Rxd7 17.Rxd7 and with his active rook White seems to be better, or 15...Bc6 16.Rdd1 Rfd8 17.Nb5 with some pressure.


After 15...Bc6 16. Rdd1 Nb7 I'm having a very hard time seeing how white maintains the pressure.

If you've got a solution then I'll agree that white has a small edge.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #73 - 01/23/11 at 21:27:29
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/23/11 at 10:56:16:
MNb wrote on 01/22/11 at 22:06:40:
7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bd3 and 8.Be2 give me headaches.


BPaulsen wrote on 01/22/11 at 22:19:19:
Both 8. Bd3 and 8. Be2 are met by 8...dxc4 as usual.

That's what I thought as well. To me White seems to have an improved version of the regular Tartakower after 7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nbd7 10.0-0 c5 11.Qe2 (no reason to exchange queens). Compare Piket-Van der Sterren, NEDch 1991, where White played Bh4-g3 voluntarily.
Also compare


9...Nbd7 is inaccurate, it belongs on c6 in the 5. Bf4 QGD line. 9...c5 is correct.

Quote:
In this 5.Bf4 variation the bishop is already on that diagonal, while 10.Bg3 dxc4 doesn't provide equality. As the rook is already on c1, shouldn't that be enough for a nice plus?


In the Tartakower version the Nbd7 is typically committed earlier, which makes a very significant difference.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #72 - 01/23/11 at 10:56:16
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/22/11 at 22:06:40:
7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bd3 and 8.Be2 give me headaches.


BPaulsen wrote on 01/22/11 at 22:19:19:
Both 8. Bd3 and 8. Be2 are met by 8...dxc4 as usual.

That's what I thought as well. To me White seems to have an improved version of the regular Tartakower after 7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nbd7 10.0-0 c5 11.Qe2 (no reason to exchange queens). Compare Piket-Van der Sterren, NEDch 1991, where White played Bh4-g3 voluntarily.
Also compare

BPaulsen wrote on 12/24/09 at 22:53:59:
In regards to the Tartakower - I think white can get a small pull via the 8. Bd3/10. Bg3 as seen in Rizzutano's QGD book.

In this 5.Bf4 variation the bishop is already on that diagonal, while 10.Bg3 dxc4 doesn't provide equality. As the rook is already on c1, shouldn't that be enough for a nice plus?
  

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
 
huibui
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 82
Location: Ulm
Joined: 12/14/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #71 - 01/23/11 at 10:34:31
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 01/23/11 at 05:21:21:
My file shows 11. Bg3 instead of the game continuation as being the way forward, with white getting a small pull after a number of engine assisted variations. Since 7...Ba6 is extremely rare I didn't give it much more effort, or think it particularly troublesome.


Nice idea. I had high hopes on 11...c5, but after 12.dxc5 Nb4 13.Qe4 Nd3+ 14.Ke2 Nxc5 15.Qxa8 Black's attack doesn't seem to work.

Quote:
Any edge to be had in the endgame with 9...c5 is fleeting at best. See Larsen-Smyslov, Petrosian Memorial 1999.

That also applies to if Mnb's move order with 7. Rc1 Bb7 8. Bd3/Be2 dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 (that may in fact be a slightly worse version of the same endgame for white, but still just equal).


A rather obvious improvement on Larsen-Smyslov is 13.Nd7. After ...Nxd7 14.Rxd7 Na5 15.Be2 I don't think Black has equalized, e.g. ...Rfd8 16.Rad1 Rxd7 17.Rxd7 and with his active rook White seems to be better, or 15...Bc6 16.Rdd1 Rfd8 17.Nb5 with some pressure.

Quote:
I've used it just for practical purposes, but black has two paths that are about the same.

The two continuations I have in mind are:

#1) 7...Nh5 8. Bd3 Nxf4 9. exf4 b6 10. b4 c6. Black just uses bxc5, Qa5, Ba6, and then mass exchanges on the b-file. Black has to screw up badly in order to lose (it has happened before, ie: Sargissian-Ehlvest, but improving black's play is far from difficult).

#2) 7...c6 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. 0-0 Qc8 12. h3 Qb7, and black's fine. This happens to be the main line.

I usually prefer lines I use as white to force black into a more narrow coridoor if he's going to prove equality, instead of having choices. For this reason I prefer 7. a3, and 7. Qc2 over 7. c5 when faced with 6...Nbd7.


Thanks for your opinion.
  

You tell the young people of today that...
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #70 - 01/23/11 at 05:21:21
Post Tools
huibui wrote on 01/23/11 at 00:58:12:
After 7.Qc2, have you found an improvement for White against 7...Ba6? The only game in my database is Khalifman-Pigusov, Sochi 1989, and Black seems to equalize rather effortlessly there.


My file shows 11. Bg3 instead of the game continuation as being the way forward, with white getting a small pull after a number of engine assisted variations. Since 7...Ba6 is extremely rare I didn't give it much more effort, or think it particularly troublesome.

Quote:
After 7.Be2/d3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Bb7 9.0-0 Black can play 9...a6 or try to defend the endgame after 9...c5 10.dxc Qxd1, but in both cases White seems to be better.


Any edge to be had in the endgame with 9...c5 is fleeting at best. See Larsen-Smyslov, Petrosian Memorial 1999.

That also applies to if Mnb's move order with 7. Rc1 Bb7 8. Bd3/Be2 dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 (that may in fact be a slightly worse version of the same endgame for white, but still just equal).

Quote:
By the way, what do you think of White's chances after 6...Nbd7 7.c5? It puts psychological pressure on Black, for practically denying any active counterplay (except for the control over the a-file, which usually turns out to be of rather limited importance), and even strong players loose these blocked positions from time to time (remember Nyback-Carlsen? http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1521609).


I've used it just for practical purposes, but black has two paths that are about the same.

The two continuations I have in mind are:

#1) 7...Nh5 8. Bd3 Nxf4 9. exf4 b6 10. b4 c6. Black just uses bxc5, Qa5, Ba6, and then mass exchanges on the b-file. Black has to screw up badly in order to lose (it has happened before, ie: Sargissian-Ehlvest, but improving black's play is far from difficult).

#2) 7...c6 8. Bd3 b6 9. b4 a5 10. a3 Ba6 11. 0-0 Qc8 12. h3 Qb7, and black's fine. This happens to be the main line.

I usually prefer lines I use as white to force black into a more narrow coridoor if he's going to prove equality, instead of having choices. For this reason I prefer 7. a3, and 7. Qc2 over 7. c5 when faced with 6...Nbd7.

Quote:
One way to play the position might be the Nh5-xf4-thing, which almost any engine wants to see, but there Black's counterplay seems to be limited even further, as e5 is firmly under White's control...


Black isn't really trying to stir up counterplay so much as nullify anything white may have.

If black had to play Nh5xf4 I would have more hope for white's positive prospects than I do, but the ability to simply use line #2 is discouraging.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
huibui
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 82
Location: Ulm
Joined: 12/14/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #69 - 01/23/11 at 00:58:12
Post Tools
After 7.Qc2, have you found an improvement for White against 7...Ba6? The only game in my database is Khalifman-Pigusov, Sochi 1989, and Black seems to equalize rather effortlessly there.

After 7.Be2/d3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Bb7 9.0-0 Black can play 9...a6 or try to defend the endgame after 9...c5 10.dxc Qxd1, but in both cases White seems to be better.

By the way, what do you think of White's chances after 6...Nbd7 7.c5? It puts psychological pressure on Black, for practically denying any active counterplay (except for the control over the a-file, which usually turns out to be of rather limited importance), and even strong players loose these blocked positions from time to time (remember Nyback-Carlsen? http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1521609).

One way to play the position might be the Nh5-xf4-thing, which almost any engine wants to see, but there Black's counterplay seems to be limited even further, as e5 is firmly under White's control...
  

You tell the young people of today that...
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #68 - 01/22/11 at 22:19:19
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/22/11 at 22:06:40:
7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bd3 and 8.Be2 give me headaches.


Both 8. Bd3 and 8. Be2 are met by 8...dxc4 as usual.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #67 - 01/22/11 at 22:06:40
Post Tools
7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bd3 and 8.Be2 give me headaches.
  

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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #66 - 01/22/11 at 21:39:04
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/22/11 at 21:22:06:
BPaulsen wrote on 12/24/09 at 22:53:59:
Also worth mentioning is 6...b6 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Bd3 Qa5+ as an interesting black try for equality. The problem is 7. Qc2 leads to a position with a slight pull for white anyway.

It's more than a year ago that you wrote this, so is this still your view? I have looked at this as it is an interesting gambit indeed. Neither looks 7.Qc2 frightening to me after 7...c5 but I haven't found a way even close to equality after the logical 7.Rc1. If Black doesn't play ...c5 then pawn c7 is an eternal weakness; if Black does White wins more or less a tempo as the bishop is already on f4.
What do you think?


Yes, it's still my view.

7. Rc1 Bb7 8. cxd5 Nxd5! =. See Dautov's annotations to Rustemov-Tregubov, FIDE K.O 2000.

7. Qc2 is designed to avoid this due to the Bxh7 possibility after Nxd5. The positions can be assessed as +=/=, but black is fighting an uphill battle.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #65 - 01/22/11 at 21:22:06
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 12/24/09 at 22:53:59:
Also worth mentioning is 6...b6 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Bd3 Qa5+ as an interesting black try for equality. The problem is 7. Qc2 leads to a position with a slight pull for white anyway.

It's more than a year ago that you wrote this, so is this still your view? I have looked at this as it is an interesting gambit indeed. Neither looks 7.Qc2 frightening to me after 7...c5 but I haven't found a way even close to equality after the logical 7.Rc1. If Black doesn't play ...c5 then pawn c7 is an eternal weakness; if Black does White wins more or less a tempo as the bishop is already on f4.
What do you think?
  

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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #64 - 01/22/11 at 01:25:06
Post Tools
Kant wrote on 01/21/11 at 23:51:36:
BPaulsen wrote on 01/17/11 at 20:28:50:
BabySnake wrote on 01/17/11 at 11:10:04:
BPaulsen wrote on 01/17/11 at 10:01:51:
Theory has crystallized in the 6...Nbd7 line (unlike the 6...c5 line which has seen a few changes), so I doubt anything recent has come up since there hasn't been anything noteworthy for white over the last few years, the theoretical evaluation remains unchanged. The best white can hope for is equal positions where he might be able to outplay weaker opponents - not very inspiring.

I don't recall what issues of NiC covered it since I got rid of them some time ago after putting all the analysis into chessbase. You're on your own for that one.


The Ilic articles are from 2001, 2003 and 2004 which seems quite old for this line? So perhaps they are not the ones you mentioned a while ago.


It's not old for this line. The theory has crystallized, and there haven't been any significant theoretical changes in 6...Nbd7 since 2001. Even the lines given in Dautov's database from 2001 still hold up the exact same for black. The only changes in the 5. Bf4 QGD have occurred in other black tries.


So why do you play 5.Bf4 if 6...Nbd7 is such a good response?


Because there's nothing better.

Any white player nowadays has to be able to play everything against the QGD, because there's not much of an edge to be found anywhere (5. Bg5, 5. Bf4, or lesser alternatives).

The Exchange is possible, but doesn't guarantee anything more versus the Alatortsev move order. The Catalan is another try, but black isn't struggling theoretically in a couple lines.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Kant
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Strong FM, 2400+ USCF

Posts: 8
Joined: 01/21/11
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #63 - 01/21/11 at 23:52:14
Post Tools
How about 5...dxc4 in response to 5.Bf4?  I think Sadler and Crouch mention this move as deserving further investigation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kant
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Strong FM, 2400+ USCF

Posts: 8
Joined: 01/21/11
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #62 - 01/21/11 at 23:51:36
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 01/17/11 at 20:28:50:
BabySnake wrote on 01/17/11 at 11:10:04:
BPaulsen wrote on 01/17/11 at 10:01:51:
Theory has crystallized in the 6...Nbd7 line (unlike the 6...c5 line which has seen a few changes), so I doubt anything recent has come up since there hasn't been anything noteworthy for white over the last few years, the theoretical evaluation remains unchanged. The best white can hope for is equal positions where he might be able to outplay weaker opponents - not very inspiring.

I don't recall what issues of NiC covered it since I got rid of them some time ago after putting all the analysis into chessbase. You're on your own for that one.


The Ilic articles are from 2001, 2003 and 2004 which seems quite old for this line? So perhaps they are not the ones you mentioned a while ago.


It's not old for this line. The theory has crystallized, and there haven't been any significant theoretical changes in 6...Nbd7 since 2001. Even the lines given in Dautov's database from 2001 still hold up the exact same for black. The only changes in the 5. Bf4 QGD have occurred in other black tries.


So why do you play 5.Bf4 if 6...Nbd7 is such a good response?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #61 - 01/17/11 at 20:28:50
Post Tools
BabySnake wrote on 01/17/11 at 11:10:04:
BPaulsen wrote on 01/17/11 at 10:01:51:
Theory has crystallized in the 6...Nbd7 line (unlike the 6...c5 line which has seen a few changes), so I doubt anything recent has come up since there hasn't been anything noteworthy for white over the last few years, the theoretical evaluation remains unchanged. The best white can hope for is equal positions where he might be able to outplay weaker opponents - not very inspiring.

I don't recall what issues of NiC covered it since I got rid of them some time ago after putting all the analysis into chessbase. You're on your own for that one.


The Ilic articles are from 2001, 2003 and 2004 which seems quite old for this line? So perhaps they are not the ones you mentioned a while ago.


It's not old for this line. The theory has crystallized, and there haven't been any significant theoretical changes in 6...Nbd7 since 2001. Even the lines given in Dautov's database from 2001 still hold up the exact same for black. The only changes in the 5. Bf4 QGD have occurred in other black tries.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BabySnake
Full Member
***
Offline


Opening repertoire construction
underway

Posts: 174
Joined: 10/21/10
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #60 - 01/17/11 at 11:10:04
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 01/17/11 at 10:01:51:
Theory has crystallized in the 6...Nbd7 line (unlike the 6...c5 line which has seen a few changes), so I doubt anything recent has come up since there hasn't been anything noteworthy for white over the last few years, the theoretical evaluation remains unchanged. The best white can hope for is equal positions where he might be able to outplay weaker opponents - not very inspiring.

I don't recall what issues of NiC covered it since I got rid of them some time ago after putting all the analysis into chessbase. You're on your own for that one.


The Ilic articles are from 2001, 2003 and 2004 which seems quite old for this line? So perhaps they are not the ones you mentioned a while ago.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BabySnake
Full Member
***
Offline


Opening repertoire construction
underway

Posts: 174
Joined: 10/21/10
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #59 - 01/17/11 at 11:05:02
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 01/17/11 at 10:02:20:
We have updated this. Smiley


What do you mean please?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1422
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #58 - 01/17/11 at 10:02:20
Post Tools
We have updated this. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #57 - 01/17/11 at 10:01:51
Post Tools
Theory has crystallized in the 6...Nbd7 line (unlike the 6...c5 line which has seen a few changes), so I doubt anything recent has come up since there hasn't been anything noteworthy for white over the last few years, the theoretical evaluation remains unchanged. The best white can hope for is equal positions where he might be able to outplay weaker opponents - not very inspiring.

I don't recall what issues of NiC covered it since I got rid of them some time ago after putting all the analysis into chessbase. You're on your own for that one.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BabySnake
Full Member
***
Offline


Opening repertoire construction
underway

Posts: 174
Joined: 10/21/10
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #56 - 01/17/11 at 09:55:35
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 12/24/09 at 22:53:59:
slates wrote on 12/24/09 at 14:46:57:
BPaulsen wrote on 12/22/09 at 22:33:12:
5. Bf4 isn't even close to as drawish as the Lasker/Tartakower, even in black's best defense to 5. Bf4 (5...0-0 6. e3 Nbd7).


Has this move (6...Nbd7) become more popular now, then? Most of my QGD book sources claim that 6...c5 is the mainline due to Black suffering in alternatives such as ...Nbd7. Most of this 'suffering' is apparently spatial, but nonetheless I can't find much approval of 6...Nbd7 in any of my books.


The three books (2000,2000,2007) I have all cite 6...c5 as the main line, but given a trio of NiC articles on 6...Nbd7, in addition to Dautov's comments in his database (2001) on 5. Bf4 I'm led to believe white has achieved += after 6...c5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Qc2 Nc6 9. a3 Qa5 with 10. Nd2, but cannot demonstrate anything after 6....Nbd7, after the three main choices of 7. c5, 7. Qc2, and 7. a3. 7. c5 is definitely the best try in my opinion, but I'm not sure white has anything concrete there after 7...Nh5. Also worth mentioning is 6...b6 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Bd3 Qa5+ as an interesting black try for equality. The problem is 7. Qc2 leads to a position with a slight pull for white anyway.

Not surprisingly, Adams chose 6...Nbd7 against Kramnik in the London Classic recently, which ended in a draw.

In regards to the Tartakower - I think white can get a small pull via the 8. Bd3/10. Bg3 as seen in Rizzutano's QGD book, but I think it's really the Lasker's Defense that white has failed to show absolutely anything against.


The trio of NiC articles on 6...Nbd7 that you mention, are they the ones written by Ilic in YBs 61, 68 and 70?

Are there more recent NiC articles on this line?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #55 - 05/18/10 at 00:58:37
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 12/22/09 at 21:57:09:
These days the Tartakower is an excellent surprise weapon imo.


Sometimes numbers speak for themselves. In my database I found slightly more than 8000 games with the Tartakower (position after 7...b6) and more than 30 000 games with the Volga-Benkö.
  

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
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1749
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #54 - 01/25/10 at 11:57:11
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/25/10 at 09:19:25:
"Winning Chess Middlegames"? I may have to purchase that particular book  Undecided


If you pay the Tartakower from either side, it is a must-have.
  

"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #53 - 01/25/10 at 09:19:25
Post Tools
"Winning Chess Middlegames"? I may have to purchase that particular book  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4233
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #52 - 01/24/10 at 20:46:03
Post Tools
11...c5 is well-regarded by Sokolov.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #51 - 01/24/10 at 20:18:47
Post Tools
OK my apologies then, you are very meticulous in entering this stuff from the books to your database! I have to admit this "simple easy equalizer" has escaped my attention, and apparently also the two 2600+ Gms who played a game in 2009 - Tegubov-Meier continued 11.0-0 Qe7!? (another interesting continuation which is covered in my old Jangava book). Tregubov won a game playing against the hanging pawns. And no my engine doesnt give the simple ...a5 move I mentioned as the 2nd suggestion, more like number 5 or 6! Its not a position engines are much use for anyway but useful to check your not dropping a piece. Anyway I will give the early 11...c5 some serious attention, and if it does indeed work out I am in your debt as up to now I´ve never played that way. Is 11...c5 recommended somewhere else? I think the only QGD book I dont have is the Rittizano one.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #50 - 01/24/10 at 18:02:54
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/24/10 at 14:33:05:
I see whats happening now. For "theoretical standing" substitute "what it says in my Khalifman book" because you've just literally copy and pasted the Khalifman suggestion against 16...c5 (I just went to the trouble of getting the book from my top shelf). Going back over your other posts they also bear a remarked similarity - you wouldnt ever think of giving a bit of credit to the authors?


It's in my database on the QGD, and I don't keep bibliographies of my personal files on openings. You see, there's an invention called Chessbase, you should try it some time.

If that's who it originated with, so be it.

Quote:
Khalifman is just one source of "theory", now a bit dated, and the line he recommended then has never caught on amongst GMs so that must tell you something. The phrase "do as I play not as I say" springs to mind.


Apparently you haven't caught on to the fact that the Tartakower hasn't been appearing at GM level as much due to the Catalan, and prevalence of 5. Bf4 QGDs in GM play of late. The drawishness of Lasker's Defense is another reason for 5. Bg5's dip in popularity.

And aside from that, 11. 0-0's popularity is further hurt by the fact ...c5 is equal. Wow, what a concept! White's not playing into a line where black has a known equalizer, amazing!

If I were simply taking from Khalifman I wouldn't have posted corrected evaluations in the 11. 0-0 c5 line. Maybe you should try finding something else to scapegoat.

Quote:
Incidentally the Khalifman line with Bh3!? I dont think Black has any problems: 16...c5 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Qa3 Rc8!? (simple move like 18...a5 is also not bad) 19.Bh3 Bxc3!? is possible intending 20.bxc3 Rc7 and counterplay against c3. Anyway my own preference is not for 16...c5, I prefer to wait, but its possible.


Don't attach a "!?" to the first recommendation a computer spits out. It's also obvious you're basing your moves and evaluation on what the computer is giving, too. Seriously, mentioning something "simple" like 18...a5, when it's just the second choice listed.

Quote:
regarding 11...c5 as a simple and easy equalizer, I agree that is playable although if it is simple or easy (for both sides) I'm not sure, but its another argument against the 11.0-0 move-order. The "main-line" Tartakower is still 11.b4


The original post you responded to was about 11. 0-0. 11. b4 is irrelevant to anything I have posted.

And 11. 0-0 c5 is a completely easy equalizer for black, and is the argument against 11. 0-0. Unless you care to demonstrate how white can improve. And please don't give me a Rybka suggestion attached to a "!?", I can do that myself, thanks. I can also list the second move it gives as interesting to go along with it.

Quote:
Update: For some reason you have modified your post now to remove the Khalifman suggestions after 18.Qa3


Because it was irrelevant, and Bh3 isn't necessarily the best move on the following turn, whereas Qa3 is actually a critical idea (instead of Qc2). My QGD database has taken from Khalifman, Rizzutano, and others (various annotated games, even Sadler's old book, etc.). No big surprise in this particular variation Khalifman's analysis pops up here since few theoretical works place any emphasis on 11. 0-0 these days, and due to good reason - 11...c5 kills its theoretical importance.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #49 - 01/24/10 at 14:33:05
Post Tools
I see whats happening now. For "theoretical standing" substitute "what it says in my Khalifman book" because you've just literally copy and pasted the Khalifman suggestion against 16...c5 (I just went to the trouble of getting the book from my top shelf). Going back over your other posts they also bear a remarked similarity - you wouldnt ever think of giving a bit of credit to the authors?

Khalifman is just one source of "theory", now a bit dated, and the line he recommended then has never caught on amongst GMs so that must tell you something. The phrase "do as I play not as I say" springs to mind.

Incidentally the Khalifman line with Bh3!? I dont think Black has any problems: 16...c5 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Qa3 Rc8!? (simple move like 18...a5 is also not bad) 19.Bh3 Bxc3!? is possible intending 20.bxc3 Rc7 and counterplay against c3. Anyway my own preference is not for 16...c5, I prefer to wait, but its possible.

regarding 11...c5 as a simple and easy equalizer, I agree that is playable although if it is simple or easy (for both sides) I'm not sure, but its another argument against the 11.0-0 move-order. The "main-line" Tartakower is still 11.b4

Update: For some reason you have modified your post now to remove the Khalifman suggestions after 18.Qa3
« Last Edit: 01/24/10 at 17:38:26 by Keano »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #48 - 01/24/10 at 14:17:08
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/24/10 at 12:52:40:
Sorry Keano, I am not interested in your explanation either. What I want to know more about is this.
You claim that Black can maintain winning chances.
BP claims that White can force Black to accept a highly drawish position.

Now how much has Black to compromise to play for a win? More than in the Slav Meran or the KID for instance? You both already have provided some sample lines, but I would not mind seeing more.


My claim is that black either has to accept drawish equality, or a slightly worse position in order to preserve winning chances in the line with 11. 0-0. That's markedly different from "forcing" black to accept it.

Black's winning chances in the Tartakower are markedly less than sharper openings, because he takes considerably fewer risks. I'd put the winning chances of the Tartakower on par with the Queen's Indian Defense. A lot of dull equality in the most critical lines, and black suffering with a slightly worse position when he tries to play it for a win.

Quote:
After 11...Re8 12. Qb3 c6 13. Re1 Nd7 14. Rad1 Nf8 15. Bf1 Ne6 16. g3 Black can also play the immediate break 16...c5!? which may be good enough for equality, but I prefer delaying this break for a while with 16...g6 and ...Bg7 or Kramniks 16...Qc7. Its more provocative this way, for example after an e4 break by White sometimes its possible to allow the advance e4-e5 instead of the simple recapture, but the idea is that when the ...c5 break comes Black will have everything in order. Its no Lasker defence this stuff!


16...c5 is not good enough for equality, sorry. 17. dxc5 Nxc5 18. Qa3 is enough for an edge. It's a textbook example of a premature ...c5 break.

16...Qc7 17. Bg2 Rad8 18. Rd2, and black has no active play. He sits, he waits for white's e4, because his own ...c5 is restrained. Black is solid, and passive - that means he requires a white mistake for winning chances, because he's not actually doing anything himself.

That leaves your 16...g6 - it does nothing to stop white from playing the same ideas as against 16...Qc7. 17. Bg2, ...c5 is restrained (black's source of counterplay), and white can once again time e4.

You obviously really like the Tartakower, so obviously that's not going to dissuade you from playing it regardless of the theoretical standing of it, judging by your comment about theory earlier.

The 11. 0-0 line is not exciting in the slightest, but 11...c6 (or your 11...Re8 move order - same exact thing) is not the hardest theoretical test. 11...c5 is a simple and easy equalizer, but boring. That's just how it is some times.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #47 - 01/24/10 at 13:22:11
Post Tools
Well to be honest the continuation given by BPaulsen (11...Re8 12. Qb3 c6 13. Re1 Nd7 14. Rad1 Nf8 15. Bf1 Ne6 16. g3 ) is not exactly a line in the Tartakower that gives Black any problems as far as I am concerned - is this the Khalifman recommendation or where is this coming from? I think the Kramnik 1.Nf3 series recommended some line like this for White although it was far from convincing. I know it was played in Piket-Kramnik but also in plenty of other games, without White really demonstrating anything significant. Black has many plans available besides Kramniks ...Qc7, which seems to just vacate d8 for the rook. I think I actually played this position before and put my rook on c8 then played ...g6, ...Bg7 (anticipating Whites possible pawn break e4). It is a quiet maneuvring game as you can see, if Black can time the ....c5 break correctly then he should be on the right path. I think regards the other 2 openings you mentioned (Meran and KID) its true Black has more winning chances there, but also more losing chances! In the Tartakower the battle is only starting up, and also remember that Black has 2 bishops which can be handy later, even with the IQP - check out several devastating wins with the Tartakower by Geller (who is really the man responsible for the Tartakower comeback). Geller curiously dropped the KID to take up the Tartakower - a bit of a change!?

After 11...Re8 12. Qb3 c6 13. Re1 Nd7 14. Rad1 Nf8 15. Bf1 Ne6 16. g3 Black can also play the immediate break 16...c5!? which may be good enough for equality, but I prefer delaying this break for a while with 16...g6 and ...Bg7 or Kramniks 16...Qc7. Its more provocative this way, for example after an e4 break by White sometimes its possible to allow the advance e4-e5 instead of the simple recapture, but the idea is that when the ...c5 break comes Black will have everything in order. Its no Lasker defence this stuff!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #46 - 01/24/10 at 12:52:40
Post Tools
Sorry Keano, I am not interested in your explanation either. What I want to know more about is this.
You claim that Black can maintain winning chances.
BP claims that White can force Black to accept a highly drawish position.

Now how much has Black to compromise to play for a win? More than in the Slav Meran or the KID for instance? You both already have provided some sample lines, but I would not mind seeing more.
  

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
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #45 - 01/24/10 at 12:25:55
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/24/10 at 12:12:41:
Could you guys stop bickering about this trivial subject? BP is formally right - Keano has edited his post. The content hasn't basically changed though. Keano's explanation sounds acceptible, it has happened to me as well.
Get back to chess, will you?

Good idea...I generally only modify posts within a few minutes of posting, which I think is acceptable practice as my first version usually has severaly typos. I noticed some forums only allow modification within 5 mins of posting, and this is not a bad idea either. In the present case though what happened was we were both online and I created an entirely new post while BPaulsen was presumably editing his - and to cap it off his post appeared on a new page so he couldnt see that there was a new post added, so I can see how the confusion arose. I would never edit a post if I saw a new post submitted with new content, bit of integrity!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #44 - 01/24/10 at 12:12:41
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 01/24/10 at 05:48:04:
You editted it, as witnessed by the fact that what I quoted is markedly different from what's now posted.


Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:32:04:
I think you´ve just mis-read my post - I said b4 and Qb3 were both critical, how could ...Re8 be critical, this is getting ridiculous.
[/quote]

Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:32:04:
I think you´ve just mis-read my post - I said 12.b4 and 12.Qb3 were both critical (because you originally said b4 was not critical), how could ...Re8 possibly be critical, although it is the best move-order in my view


Could you guys stop bickering about this trivial subject? BP is formally right - Keano has edited his post. The content hasn't basically changed though. Keano's explanation sounds acceptible, it has happened to me as well.
Get back to chess, will you?
  

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
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #43 - 01/24/10 at 12:07:10
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/24/10 at 11:49:01:
No I edited a previous post adding more information and not deleting, what happened was I created a new post just before you created yours at the top of this page. You must have created your post and then not gone back to check if anybody had got in any new posts before you since yours came up at the top of the page. Anyway as I said before no point in going round in circles, we are arguing about semantics and its not even interesting anymore.You have a high-flung opinion of the mystical oracle of theory and I hope you remain happy with your "+=" assesment, since you seem quite definite about it.


This all started with your response to a theoretical line I mentioned.

It's pretty easy to stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "I can't hear you!" when you realize you were off-base in the first place.

And yes, I trust theory in that particular variation. As I said earlier - just because theory evaluates something a certain way doesn't mean people won't play it.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #42 - 01/24/10 at 11:53:04
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 01/24/10 at 01:11:12:
19. ed Qf4 20. Rc1 Qxd4 21. Qxd4 Bxd4 = (Onischuk) was given in ECO; Sokolov extends it with 22. Rfd1 Bc5 23. Bc6 Nf6 "with a drawn endgame."


Interesting - 19...Qf4 looks better alright, I`ll have to look at this whole line with Ne5 again. Since the practical results were so bad I had given up on it, but as you say yourself another question is if its worth the hassle allowing it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #41 - 01/24/10 at 11:49:01
Post Tools
No I edited a previous post adding more information and not deleting, what happened was I created a new post just before you created yours at the top of this page. You must have created your post and then not gone back to check if anybody had got in any new posts before you since yours came up at the top of the page. Anyway as I said before no point in going round in circles, we are arguing about semantics and its not even interesting anymore.You have a high-flung opinion of the mystical oracle of theory and I hope you remain happy with your "+=" assesment, since you seem quite definite about it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #40 - 01/24/10 at 05:48:04
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 19:35:24:
No - I edited nothing. I created a new post which was posted before yours. As for the rest of your post it makes no sense to me and I disagree with the premise so theres no point in continuing going round in circles.


You editted it, as witnessed by the fact that what I quoted is markedly different from what's now posted.

Your premise is that you can play for a win in the Tartakower by maintaining tension in a theoretically slightly worse position, instead of trying to equalize. That can be done from any opening, and the Tartakower is not unique in this regard - that is a practical issue, not theoretical.

Hardly anything for white to fear from a theoretical standpoint, at any rate. White should fear equalizers he can't avoid (ie: 11. 0-0 c5) if he's seeking an edge, but my goal was to point out that white can play a line in which black's equalizer leads to dull equality. White players are definitely not going to fear black playing lines that give him a slight advantage.

Your Re8 isn't critical theoretically after 11. 0-0 Re8 12. Qb3 c6 13. Re1, because it transposes directly into another line that's evaluated as giving white a slight advantage (namely: 11...c6 12. Qb3 Re8 13. Re1).

That's the point. Black's choice is dull equality, or a slightly worse position with practical chances. If you think it's rich enough that you can play for a win from there, fine, but that's not a theoretical issue. You're confused because you entered a theoretical discussion trying to talk about practical issues (ie: playing for a win).
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4233
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #39 - 01/24/10 at 01:11:12
Post Tools
19. ed Qf4 20. Rc1 Qxd4 21. Qxd4 Bxd4 = (Onischuk) was given in ECO; Sokolov extends it with 22. Rfd1 Bc5 23. Bc6 Nf6 "with a drawn endgame."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #38 - 01/23/10 at 22:46:34
Post Tools
In that line Krasenkov suggests 19.exd4"!?"  Qd6 20.Ne3 and this looks more awkward for Black to me. I'm not sure who is right about the other position after 19.e4, it honestly looks very murky to me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1304
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #37 - 01/23/10 at 04:25:59
Post Tools
I agree with Keano that the 14.Ne5 line is critical for Black and best avoided with 12..Re8.  Kasparov says this in MCII, calling 12..a5 "premature."

Kylemeister is, of course, right that Sokolov gives 12..a5 an exclam based on the line 13.b5 c5 14.Ne5 Qc7 15.Ng4 Nd7 16.Bf3 Rad8 17.Nxd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 cxd4 19.Rc1 Qd6 20.e4 Nc5 21.f4 d3 22.Rc4 Re8 with "strong counterplay," but is this really right?  In Rizzitano's Chess Explained book, he looks at this line, stopping at 22.Rc4 and noting that White's mobile pawn duo give him an advantage.  Here's a diagram so you can judge for yourself:


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


But why get into this messiness when 12..Re8 seems to be OK for Black?      
 



 
   

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4233
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #36 - 01/22/10 at 17:43:13
Post Tools
Believe it or not, in "Winning Chess Middlegames" (maybe it came out in late 2008), his main line after 14. Ne5 is ...Qc7 15. Ng4 Nd7! 16. Bf3 Rad8! 17. Nxd5 Bxd5 18. Bxd5 cd 19. Rc1 Qd6 20. e4 Nc5 "and Black has strong counterplay, for example:  21. Rc4 d3 22. f4 Rfe8."  He writes rather glowingly of White's chances against other ways of playing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #35 - 01/21/10 at 20:57:08
Post Tools
he said to allow the Ne5 line? I find that hard to believe - what book is this? And more importantly how does he improve on the existing games and analysis in chesspublishing? It seems far more practical to prevent Ne5 as those lines are looking solid anyhow and the latest GM games have gone that way.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4233
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #34 - 01/21/10 at 20:10:29
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 19:37:07:
Daniel wrote on 01/21/10 at 18:24:07:
I've also never seen anything particularly convincing against 11. b4 c6 12. 0-0 a5 13. b5! c5 14. Ne5!

Delaying a5 leads to trouble as shown in numerous Karpov games and 11... c5 is groveling.


That is an awkward line - Vaganian drew it but its one reason why ...Re8 should be played before ...a5 avoiding Ne5 - Karpov-Short is the key game there.


Well, Ivan Sokolov seemed to be of the opposite view in his book of last year.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #33 - 01/21/10 at 19:37:07
Post Tools
Daniel wrote on 01/21/10 at 18:24:07:
I've also never seen anything particularly convincing against 11. b4 c6 12. 0-0 a5 13. b5! c5 14. Ne5!

Delaying a5 leads to trouble as shown in numerous Karpov games and 11... c5 is groveling.


That is an awkward line - Vaganian drew it but its one reason why ...Re8 should be played before ...a5 avoiding Ne5 - Karpov-Short is the key game there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #32 - 01/21/10 at 19:35:24
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:48:35:
You editted your post yet again - just because a pair of GMs have a preference for the move doesn't mean the move has independent theoretical significance. Not even Kasparov can change the fact that 12. Qb3 produces the exact same positions as 11...c6.

The only difference between Re8 and c6 on black's 11th move is that white's b4 works better against the former than the latter. That's it, the end. b4 only becomes a critical move when black plays in such a way that doesn't force white to be accurate.


No - I edited nothing. I created a new post which was posted before yours. As for the rest of your post it makes no sense to me and I disagree with the premise so theres no point in continuing going round in circles.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Daniel
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 169
Joined: 05/29/06
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #31 - 01/21/10 at 18:24:07
Post Tools
I've also never seen anything particularly convincing against 11. b4 c6 12. 0-0 a5 13. b5! c5 14. Ne5!

Delaying a5 leads to trouble as shown in numerous Karpov games and 11... c5 is groveling.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #30 - 01/21/10 at 15:48:35
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:32:04:
I think you´ve just mis-read my post - I said 12.b4 and 12.Qb3 were both critical (because you originally said b4 was not critical), how could ...Re8 possibly be critical, although it is the best move-order in my view since there is no real need for ...c6 yet until b4 is played. The positions in the 12.Qb3 line are quite rich and both sides can play for a win there.


I'll quote you again since you edit your posts.

That's fine you like 11...Re8 - it still has zero independent theoretical signifcance after 12. Qb3. It produces the exact same positions as 11...c6, but 11...c6 renders 12. b4 completely harmless instead of it being a relevant option. All 11...Re8 does is give white more choices.

And that's fine you think the positions are rich - a position doesn't have to be theoretically equal for someone to play it and like it. Obviously many players of many different openings as black are perfectly willing to enter lines that are +=.

You editted your post yet again - just because a pair of GMs have a preference for the move doesn't mean the move has independent theoretical significance. Not even Kasparov can change the fact that 12. Qb3 produces the exact same positions as 11...c6.

The only difference between Re8 and c6 on black's 11th move is that white's b4 works better against the former than the latter. That's it, the end. b4 only becomes a critical move when black plays in such a way that doesn't force white to be accurate.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #29 - 01/21/10 at 15:41:00
Post Tools
Ok enough - we are going back and forth and my head is spinning. Obviously all move-orders will have advantages and disadvantages depending on personal preference. 11..Re8 is a popular move amongst GMs (Asrian and David both prefer it) but evidently you know better than them and everyone else.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #28 - 01/21/10 at 15:37:47
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:32:04:
I think you´ve just mis-read my post - I said b4 and Qb3 were both critical, how could ...Re8 be critical, this is getting ridiculous.


b4 is only an additional option provided by a move order that isn't even considered theoretically significant by itself, namely your 11...Re8.

12. Qb3 will transpose to a line that is actually considered critical (11...c6).

12. b4 is not a critical move against 11...c6, hence why 11...c6 is regarded as more accurate as an attempt to implement the strategy "Modern GMs" use, as you put it.

I have no idea why you insist on talking about a variation that has very little independent theoretical significance to the Tartakower, and then acting like b4 is a big deal to the 11. 0-0 variation.

Do you actually think the fact white can make b4 critical in less precise move orders by black is a big deal?
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #27 - 01/21/10 at 15:32:04
Post Tools
I think you´ve just mis-read my post - I said 12.b4 and 12.Qb3 were both critical (because you originally said b4 was not critical), how could ...Re8 possibly be critical, although it is the best move-order in my view since there is no real need for ...c6 yet until b4 is played. The positions in the 12.Qb3 line are quite rich and both sides can play for a win there.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #26 - 01/21/10 at 15:25:07
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 15:01:30:
I`ll say no more. Dont like your tone, or your hints! (after 11...Re8 12.b4 and 12.Qb3 are equally popular and both "critical" to the whole system - a system in which funny enough plans are quite important)Obviously I know nothing about this line and will have to scrap it immediately forthwith.


11...Re8 has no independent significance from 11...c6 after 12. Qb3 c6, which is evaluated as += after 13. Re1 Nd7 (13...Na6 will transpose to 13...Nd7, the N simply takes a different course) 14. Rad1 Nf8 15. Bf1 Ne6 16. g3 Qc7 17. Bg2.

So much for 11...Re8 being "critical to the whole system" when it's actually just a transposition to 11...c6 after 12. Qb3 c6.

12. b4 is an additional option provided what may possibly be an inaccurate move order by black (11...Re8), given 11...c6 limits white's options while still producing the same exact position.

And don't start talking about tone when you run into a thread, make a one sentence comment, are asked for analysis that supports your comment, and then proceed to start talking about vagueries instead.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #25 - 01/21/10 at 15:01:30
Post Tools
I`ll say no more. Dont like your tone, or your hints!(after 11...Re8 12.b4 and 12.Qb3 are equally popular and both "critical" to the whole system - a system in which funny enough plans are quite important, 12.Qb3 can also be answered by ...c6 as Asrian did in Turin olympiad and follow-up with ...Nd7-f8,..Bc8 and re-route the bishop) Obviously I know nothing about this line and will have to scrap it immediately forthwith. For what its worth I still think the old b4 move is more critical to the system in general but obviously its personal preference.

BPaulsen wrote on 01/21/10 at 14:39:04:
Nobody's talking about the 11. b4 variation, either.


Those positions come about from the 2 move-orders, somethimes 11.b4 and sometimes 12.b4. Perhaps you´d be so good as to suggest what you intend after 11...Re8
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #24 - 01/21/10 at 14:39:04
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 13:53:18:
The line you give goes back to eternity and was played in all the K-K matches - modern GMs who play the Tartakower these days dont usually go in for ...c5 (here or in the line with b4) because Black has hardly any winning chances at all. The modern way is a combination of ...c6 and ...Re8 and after b4 Black plays ...a5. There are other plans too such as ...Qe7 followed by ....Rd8. You really need to look at some games, its not possible to analyse everything out on a forum (and there are always alternatives available to Black - one of the nice things about the Tartakower), Black can indeed win.


The "modern way" promises black a slightly inferior position with some tension in the 11. 0-0 line. That includes both 11...Qe7 with 13...c6 and 11...c6. Feel free to give some actual critical variations where you believe black has not only secured full equality, but has winning chances after either continuation involving ...c6.

The fact you even mention white playing b4 in the 11. 0-0 line makes me believe you're trying to talk about general ideas instead of concrete variations (hint: b4 is not a theoretically critical move that white plays in the ...c6 variations of 11. 0-0!).

Nobody's talking about the 11. b4 variation, either.

Saying black can produce winning chances by trying all kinds of different plans is a practical matter, not theoretical.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #23 - 01/21/10 at 13:53:18
Post Tools
The line you give goes back to eternity and was played in all the K-K matches - modern GMs who play the Tartakower these days dont usually go in for ...c5 (here or in the line with b4) because Black has hardly any winning chances at all. The modern way is a combination of ...c6 and ...Re8 and after b4 Black plays ...a5. There are other plans too such as ...Qe7 followed by ....Rd8. You really need to look at some games, its not possible to analyse everything out on a forum (and there are always alternatives available to Black - one of the nice things about the Tartakower), Black can indeed win.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #22 - 01/21/10 at 13:02:34
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 01/21/10 at 12:24:01:
BPaulsen wrote on 12/26/09 at 13:58:10:
White can just as easily rock the game to sleep in the Tartakower via the 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. 0-0 variation, with black having no choice but to accept either a slightly worse position in sub-optimal continuations, or dry equality after 11...dxc5 12. dxc5 Bxc3 13. bxc3 bxc5 14. Rb1 Qc7 15. Ne5 Re8 16. Nd3 (white can spice up the game with 16. Nxf7!? Qxf7 17. Bh5 g6 18. Bxg6 Qxg6 19. Rxb7 Rd8, but I've analyzed that out to a draw by repetition).


Not really correct - Tartakower remains rich enough to play for the win with Black.


Let's see some actual analysis that backs up your claim.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2839
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #21 - 01/21/10 at 12:24:01
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 12/26/09 at 13:58:10:
White can just as easily rock the game to sleep in the Tartakower via the 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. 0-0 variation, with black having no choice but to accept either a slightly worse position in sub-optimal continuations, or dry equality after 11...dxc5 12. dxc5 Bxc3 13. bxc3 bxc5 14. Rb1 Qc7 15. Ne5 Re8 16. Nd3 (white can spice up the game with 16. Nxf7!? Qxf7 17. Bh5 g6 18. Bxg6 Qxg6 19. Rxb7 Rd8, but I've analyzed that out to a draw by repetition).


Not really correct - Tartakower remains rich enough to play for the win with Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #20 - 12/26/09 at 13:58:10
Post Tools
Daniel wrote on 12/26/09 at 11:14:42:
Tartakower is a great choice.  Don't play the Lasker.  You want to actually win some games as black.


White can just as easily rock the game to sleep in the Tartakower via the 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. 0-0 variation, with black having no choice but to accept either a slightly worse position in sub-optimal continuations, or dry equality after 11...dxc5 12. dxc5 Bxc3 13. bxc3 bxc5 14. Rb1 Qc7 15. Ne5 Re8 16. Nd3 (white can spice up the game with 16. Nxf7!? Qxf7 17. Bh5 g6 18. Bxg6 Qxg6 19. Rxb7 Rd8, but I've analyzed that out to a draw by repetition).

Ultimately white decides how interesting the game is, whether it's the Lasker or Tartakower.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Daniel
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 169
Joined: 05/29/06
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #19 - 12/26/09 at 11:14:42
Post Tools
Tartakower is a great choice.  Don't play the Lasker.  You want to actually win some games as black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #18 - 12/26/09 at 07:04:11
Post Tools
TN wrote on 12/26/09 at 03:38:05:
Quote:
#2) The main line for 9. Qc2 in the Lasker isn't 9...Nxc3 in the resources I have. The main line is 9...c6 10. Bd3 [10. Nxe4 dxe4 11. Nd2 (11. Ne5!?) f5 12. c5 e5 =] Nxc3 11. Qxc3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nd7 13. 0-0 b6 and black has held his own comfortably. Does Grivas cover black's main move there, or just the sideline with 9...Nxc3 you mentioned? The immediate thought that comes to mind is black looks worse after 11. Ne5, even opting to lose the right to 0-0 after 11...Qb4+ with 12. Kd1, which would force black into the line Grivas covered.


9...Nc3 is more common than 9...c6 according to my database, which is surprising since 9...c6 is more flexible. I found a route to an advantage with the very interesting 11.a3!?, which reaches the main lines with a useful extra tempo if Black takes on c4, but not enough to seriously trouble Black as his position is very solid.


It just seemed like the books I had all put emphasis on 9...c6 being the theoretical move - I'd imagine 9...Nxc3 being more popular in practice because 9. Qc2 is relatively rare, and they're caught unprepared.

I think the critical line for white to demonstrate something is the line you mentioned with:

9. Qc2 c6 10. Rc1 11. a3!? Nxc3 12. Qxc3 dxc4 13. Bxc4 b6 14. 0-0 Bb7 15. Be2 (TN's improvement over Atalik's 15. Rfd1).

As of right now it looks like black should be able to gradually equalize after either the immediate 15...c5, or putting one of the rooks on c8 first (Rfc8/Rac8). I'll have to investigate, but my immediate thought is the inclusion of a3 shouldn't alter black's ability to equalize in this particular line in similar fashion to the main line Lasker's Defense - it'll be gradual, but white can't stop it. I'll make a future post to elaborate further on my findings.

It'll take some time to pull over the 5. Bf4 related lines, so I'll respond to them in due time. The only thing of note I have right now is my effort has been spent on 5. Bf4 0-0 6. a3 b6 7. e3 Bb7 8. Bd3 c5 9. dxc5 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Bxc5 and I've had trouble finding anything that doesn't go nowhere in the end for white.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TN
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 3385
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #17 - 12/26/09 at 03:38:05
Post Tools
Quote:
#2) The main line for 9. Qc2 in the Lasker isn't 9...Nxc3 in the resources I have. The main line is 9...c6 10. Bd3 [10. Nxe4 dxe4 11. Nd2 (11. Ne5!?) f5 12. c5 e5 =] Nxc3 11. Qxc3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nd7 13. 0-0 b6 and black has held his own comfortably. Does Grivas cover black's main move there, or just the sideline with 9...Nxc3 you mentioned? The immediate thought that comes to mind is black looks worse after 11. Ne5, even opting to lose the right to 0-0 after 11...Qb4+ with 12. Kd1, which would force black into the line Grivas covered.


9...Nc3 is more common than 9...c6 according to my database, which is surprising since 9...c6 is more flexible. I found a route to an advantage with the very interesting 11.a3!?, which reaches the main lines with a useful extra tempo if Black takes on c4, but not enough to seriously trouble Black as his position is very solid.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 Ne4 8. Bxe7
Qxe7 9. Qc2 c6 10. Rc1 Nd7 11. a3 $5 {In my view, this brainchild of Volkov's
is more accurate than 11.Bd3 or 11.Be2.} Nxc3 (11... Ng5 $6 12. Nh4 $1 Ne4 13.
Nxe4 Qxh4 14. Nd6 $14) 12. Qxc3 Re8 (12... dxc4 13. Bxc4 b6 14. O-O Bb7 15. Be2
$1 {(an improvement over Atalik's suggested 15.Rfd1) and White has a small
edge but not enough to seriously trouble Black who has no weaknesses.}) 13. h3
$1 $146 dxc4 14. Bxc4 (14. Qxc4 e5 15. Be2 exd4 $11) 14... e5 15. O-O (15. dxe5
{is a different kettle of fish:} Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Qxe5 17. Qxe5 Rxe5 18. Ke2 $14 {
and the position is a draw with best play but White has all the chances as he
will occupy the key d-file and achieve a strong minority attack with b4 and
later b5.}) 15... e4 16. Nd2 Nf6 17. Qc2 $14 {and I prefer White's game. The
idea behind 17.Qc2 is to stop 17...Be6, exchanging the bishops to complete
development.}
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 3385
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #16 - 12/26/09 at 03:34:39
Post Tools
Due to an error with my ChessBase I can't attach a PGN file, so I'll attach my analyses in this post.

Quote:
6...a6 immediately comes to mind given 7. c5 Nc6 8. e3 Ne4! (Dautov's exclam.) is a line Dautov marks as unclear. 7. e3 would tranpose into 6. e3 a6, but without white playing the best line against it (namely 7. Qc2, instead of a3), in which case black might be okay. I'll have to check...


[Event "Urumia op 2nd"]
[Date "2008.08.30"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Ibrahimov, Rasul"]
[Black "Ghane Gardeh, Shojaat"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2537"]
[BlackElo "2415"]

1. Nf3 e6 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 (6. a3 a6 7. e3 dxc4 {
This move has some merit as Black can follow up with a later ...b5, but White
should keep a comfortable edge due to his superior central control.} (7... Nbd7
8. c5 {- game}) (7... b6 $6 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Bd3 {is a much improved Carlsbad
position for White.}) (7... c5 {is thematic, but insufficient after} 8. dxc5 $1
Bxc5 (8... dxc4 9. Bxc4 Bxc5 10. b4 Be7 11. Qc2 $1 {gives White a powerful
initiative as he is miles ahead in development.})) 8. Bxc4 b5 (8... Nh5 9. Be5
Nc6 10. O-O f6 11. Bg3 Nxg3 12. hxg3 {leaves Black in a very passive position.}
) 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Qc2 $1 {favours White, who will follow up with 11.b4 and
achieve a stable positional edge. If Black tries to stop this with} c5 $5 {,
then} 11. dxc5 Bxc5 12. Rd1 Qb6 13. O-O {gives White the initiative due to his
lead in development.}) 6... Nbd7 {6.a3 prevents this move due to 7.Nb5! which
gives White a comfortable edge.} 7. a3 (7. c5 {is more common.}) 7... a6 8. c5
{This sort of position is very comfortable for White - he has a space
advantage on the queenside, more active pieces and Black has no active
counterplay because White has too many pieces preventing the ...e5 break.} Nh5
(8... Ne4 9. Bd3 f5 10. Ne5 {is a great Stonewall for White.}) (8... c6 {has
been played, but} 9. Bd3 b6 10. b4 a5 11. O-O (11. h3 $5 {makes sense but in
my opinion White should not feat ...Nh5}) 11... Nh5 12. Qc2 Nxf4 13. exf4 g6
14. g3 {and Black's position leaves a lot to be desired - he risks getting
squashed.}) 9. Bd3 Nxf4 10. exf4 Re8 11. Qc2 Nf8 12. O-O Bd7 13. b4 {White is
already clearly better - Black has no active plan and White can build up on
the queenside to his leisure.} Qb8 14. Ne5 Rd8 ({In hindsight, Black should
have stopped White from opening the centre with} 14... g6 {although his
position remains suspect.}) 15. f5 $1 $16 c6 16. Rae1 Bf6 17. fxe6 Bxe6 18. f4
Qc7 19. Nb1 Re8 20. Nd2 Rad8 21. Ndf3 Qc8 22. h3 Be7 23. Ng5 Bxg5 24. fxg5 Ng6
25. Nxg6 hxg6 26. Bxg6 fxg6 27. Qxg6 Qd7 28. Qh5 Bf7 29. g6 Bxg6 30. Qxg6 Re4
31. Rxe4 dxe4 32. Qxe4 Qxd4+ 33. Qxd4 Rxd4 34. Rf3 a5 35. Rb3 axb4 36. Rxb4 Rd3
37. Rxb7 Rc3 38. a4 Rxc5 39. Rb1 Kf7 40. Ra1 Ra5 41. Kf2 Ke6 42. Ke3 Kd5 43.
Kd3 Ra7 44. h4 Ra5 45. g3 Ra6 46. a5 Kc5 47. Kc3 g6 48. g4 Kb5 49. Kd4 c5+ 50.
Kd5 Kb4 51. Rb1+ Ka4 52. Kxc5 1-0

Conclusion: 6.a3 a6 is better for White, and the positions with the a3-b4-c5-d4-e3-f2 pawn chain offer few prospects for Black.

Quote:
Also, in your 6...b6 variation I'm not sure black's best is 8...dxc4, since 8...c5 would be more thematic, and how black is usually supposed to handle the position. Even in the line you gave, however, I'm not sure white is better after 9...Nbd7 with either Nh5 or c5 to follow depending on white's response...
#1) 5. Bf4 0-0 6. a3 b6 7. e3 Bb7 8. Bd3 c5 and I can't find anything for white that doesn't fizzle out quickly after either 9. cxd5 or 9. dxc5.


1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. a3 b6 {If Black doesn't
want to transpose to the main lines with 6...c5 then this is the best
alternative, which was recommended by Kaufman. However, White should still
keep a small edge.} 7. e3 Bb7 (7... c5 {is interesting when} 8. dxc5 bxc5 9.
Bd3 Bb7 (9... Bd6 10. Bg5 $1 {is good for White, since} Nbd7 11. cxd5 exd5 12.
Nxd5 h6 13. Nxf6+ Nxf6 14. Bh4 {doesn't give Black enough for the pawn.}) 10.
O-O Nbd7 (10... Nc6 11. cxd5 Nxd5 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. Qc2 g6 14. Be2 $14 {and
Rybka doesn't think White has more than a symbolic edge but I disagree - White
will play Rfd1 and Rac1 and can exploit the weakened dark squares with Bh6 and
Qc3. White can also prepare a timely e4 to break up the hanging pawns, and b2
can be easily defended.}) 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Qc2 c4 13. Be2 {and with both a
d4-outpost for the knight and the d5-pawn as a potential target, White is
better. Rybka likes Black's bishop pair after} Nh5 14. Bg3 Nxg3 15. hxg3 Qa5 {
, but the weakness of d5 and White's superior minor pieces give him the edge
after} 16. Rfd1 Nf6 17. Nd4 {, with Bf3/Nf5 and b3 being two worthwhile ideas.}
) 8. Bd3 (8. cxd5 $5 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 Bxd5 {is suggested by Rybka but is innocuous
due to} 10. Qc2 c5 11. dxc5 bxc5 $1 12. e4 Bb7 {and with ...Nc6-d4 coming,
White has no edge. If White avoids e4, then ...f5 gives Black sufficient
counterplay.}) 8... dxc4 (8... c5 {is better here than after 7...c5, since
after} 9. dxc5 {Black does not have to transpose to 7...c5 with 9...bc5 10.0-0
but can instead play 9...Nbd7 or 9...dc4.} Nbd7 $5 {I rather like this move,
sacrificing a pawn for a lead in development and some initiative, although
White still keeps a plus with best play.} (9... dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qc8 $1 11. O-O
Qxc5 12. Qe2 Nbd7 13. Rac1 $14 {Kaufman. Rybka claims it's equal after} Bxf3
14. gxf3 Qh5 {, but it is obvious to the human eye that White's bishops are a
strong asset and Black also has some weak squares on the queenside.}) 10. cxd5
(10. c6 Bxc6 11. O-O dxc4 (11... Nc5 12. Ne5 Bb7 13. Be2 Nfe4 $11) 12. Bxc4 Qc8
13. Qe2 {looks nice for White, but he has no edge after} Nh5 $1 14. Rfd1 Nxf4
15. exf4 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Qxc4 17. Rxd7 Bf6 $11) 10... Nxd5 11. Nxd5 Bxd5 12. c6
$1 Bxc6 (12... Nc5 13. c7 $1 Qd7 14. Bc2 $16) 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qc2+ Kg8 15.
Qxc6 Nc5 (15... Rc8 16. Qb5 Rc5 {(this is necessary as Rd1 was threatened)} 17.
Qe2 Qc8 (17... e5 $5 18. b4 exf4 $1 {(the best practical chance)} (18... Rc8
19. Bg3 e4 20. Nd4 {and I agree with Rybka that Black has no compensation for
the pawn.}) 19. bxc5 fxe3 20. Rd1 Qc7 21. fxe3 Bxc5 22. O-O {and White has
excellent winning chances with Nd4 coming next.}) 18. O-O Rc2 19. Qb5 {and
Black has compensation owing to his more active pieces but I would much rather
be in White's shoes. Once he gets his rooks to the c- and d-files, he will
have good winning chances.}) 16. O-O $1 (16. Rd1 Nd3+ 17. Kf1 Rc8 18. Qb5 (18.
Qe4 $6 Rc1 19. Rxc1 Nxc1 20. Nd4 Nb3 $1 $36 {is fine for Black - White's king
is very vulnerable and already he has to think about how to secure the draw.})
18... Rc1 19. Rxc1 Nxc1 20. Nd4 Bf6 21. Be5 Bxe5 22. Qxe5 Qa8 $11) 16... Rc8
17. Qb5 a6 18. Qb4 (18. Qc4 b5 19. Qe2 Qd3 {gives Black ample compensation as
his chances of eventually regaining the pawn are high.}) 18... Nd3 19. Qb3 Nxf4
20. exf4 Qc7 (20... Bf6 $5) 21. Qe3 $14 {and I slightly prefer White.}) 9. Bxc4
Nbd7 {This logical move was suggested by Bryan Paulsen, which is equivalent to
Kaufman's given 9...Bd6 and 9...c5: Black is solid but White keeps a small and
stable edge.} 10. O-O c5 (10... Nh5 11. Be5 $1 (11. Bg3 $6 {justifies Black's
play and indeed he should equalise with} a6 12. Rc1 b5 13. Bd3 Nxg3 14. hxg3 c5
$132 {with a full share of the play and perhaps more.}) 11... c5 (11... Nxe5 {
may well be best:} 12. dxe5 $1 (12. Nxe5 Nf6 13. f4 {with the intention of f5
also looks promising for White but I prefer 12.de5 since it takes the sting
out of a ...c5 advance.}) 12... Qxd1 13. Rfxd1 Rfd8 14. Nb5 $14) 12. d5 $1 {(a
thematic answer to ...c5)} exd5 13. Bxd5 Bxd5 14. Qxd5 Nhf6 15. Qb3 $1 (15. Qb7
Qc8 16. Qxc8 Raxc8 17. Rfd1 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 {also gives White an edge, albeit
not enough to really trouble Black.}) 15... Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Bd6 17. Nc4 {and
White's kingside majority is more mobile than Black's queenside majority,
which gives him the advantage. Play could continue} Qe7 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Nxd6
Rxd6 20. Rxd6 Qxd6 21. Rd1 Qe6 22. Qa4 a5 23. e4 $14 {and White has nagging
pressure along the d-file and on the queenside.}) 11. dxc5 (11. d5 {isn't as
convincing here:} exd5 12. Nxd5 Bxd5 13. Bxd5 Nxd5 14. Qxd5 Nf6 15. Qe5 Re8 16.
Rad1 Qc8 {and White has no edge.}) 11... Rc8 (11... Qc8 {is slightly better
for White - see 8...c5 9.dc5 dc4 10.Bc4.}) (11... Nxc5 12. Qc2 Rc8 (12... Qc8
13. Rfd1 $14) 13. Rad1 Ncd7 14. Qe2 $14) 12. Qe2 (12. Qc2 $6 {is inferior due
to} Bxf3 13. gxf3 Rxc5 14. Bd3 Nd5 $1 {when I prefer Black's position.}) (12.
Rc1 $5 Nxc5 13. Qc2 Nce4 14. Rfd1 Qe8 15. Nxe4 Bxe4 16. Qb3 {and Rybka
underestimates White's chances - he has a stable advantage because Black's
f8-rook is out of the game, and his pieces have no targets while Black's
queenside pawns are vulnerable to attack. White can pile up the pressure with
Ne5, when c6 is quite weak.}) 12... Nxc5 (12... Bxc5 $6 13. Ba6 $1 Bxa6 14.
Qxa6 $16) 13. Rfd1 Nd5 (13... Qe8 14. Ne5 $14) 14. Rac1 Nxc3 (14... Bf6 $6 15.
Nb5 $1) 15. Rxc3 Bd5 16. Bxd5 exd5 {and White can keep a small edge in a few
ways, the best of which is probably} 17. Be5 $1 $14 *

Conclusion: Black has a solid position in the 6...b6 line, but with accurate play White keeps a small edge. Bryan's ideas are interesting but no better or worse than Kaufman's suggestions.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #15 - 12/26/09 at 00:46:19
Post Tools
Alright, did some research.

#1) 5. Bf4 0-0 6. a3 b6 7. e3 Bb7 8. Bd3 c5 and I can't find anything for white that doesn't fizzle out quickly after either 9. cxd5 or 9. dxc5.

#2) The main line for 9. Qc2 in the Lasker isn't 9...Nxc3 in the resources I have. The main line is 9...c6 10. Bd3 [10. Nxe4 dxe4 11. Nd2 (11. Ne5!?) f5 12. c5 e5 =] Nxc3 11. Qxc3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nd7 13. 0-0 b6 and black has held his own comfortably. Does Grivas cover black's main move there, or just the sideline with 9...Nxc3 you mentioned? The immediate thought that comes to mind is black looks worse after 11. Ne5, even opting to lose the right to 0-0 after 11...Qb4+ with 12. Kd1, which would force black into the line Grivas covered.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #14 - 12/25/09 at 07:52:27
Post Tools
TN wrote on 12/25/09 at 05:26:55:
6.a3 is a more accurate move order, so as to meet 6...Nbd7 with 7.Nb5! Ne8 8.e3 when White is slightly better. If 6...c5, 7.dc5 Bc5 8.e3 gets White to the main line (6.e3 c5 7.dc5 Bc5 8.a3), whereas 6...b6 7.e3 Bb7 8.Bd3 dc4 9.Bc4 is slightly better for White.

@BPaulsen

I agree, except for the last comment. Grivas wrote a recent survey in Yearbook 90, where he claims that White obtains a small advantage in this line with 8.Be7 Qe7 9.Qc2 Nc3 10.Qc3 c6 11.Rc1.


Thanks for the lead on Lasker's, definitely something to investigate. I'd sunk my time into the traditional main line involving 9. Rc1 trying to find even a nibble, and was unaware that an early deviation (9. Qc2 is pretty early for the Lasker!) might be giving something.

I'll have to take a close look at 5. Bf4 0-0 6. a3, the impression that immediately comes to mind is some of the other sidelines at black's disposal after 6. e3 that aren't so good should be better here, since a3 isn't always a move white wants to play.

6...a6 immediately comes to mind given 7. c5 Nc6 8. e3 Ne4! (Dautov's exclam.) is a line Dautov marks as unclear. 7. e3 would tranpose into 6. e3 a6, but without white playing the best line against it (namely 7. Qc2, instead of a3), in which case black might be okay. I'll have to check...

Also, in your 6...b6 variation I'm not sure black's best is 8...dxc4, since 8...c5 would be more thematic, and how black is usually supposed to handle the position. Even in the line you gave, however, I'm not sure white is better after 9...Nbd7 with either Nh5 or c5 to follow depending on white's response.
« Last Edit: 12/25/09 at 09:38:30 by BPaulsen »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TN
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 3385
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #13 - 12/25/09 at 05:26:55
Post Tools
6.a3 is a more accurate move order, so as to meet 6...Nbd7 with 7.Nb5! Ne8 8.e3 when White is slightly better. If 6...c5, 7.dc5 Bc5 8.e3 gets White to the main line (6.e3 c5 7.dc5 Bc5 8.a3), whereas 6...b6 7.e3 Bb7 8.Bd3 dc4 9.Bc4 is slightly better for White.

@BPaulsen

I agree, except for the last comment. Grivas wrote a recent survey in Yearbook 90, where he claims that White obtains a small advantage in this line with 8.Be7 Qe7 9.Qc2 Nc3 10.Qc3 c6 11.Rc1.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #12 - 12/24/09 at 22:53:59
Post Tools
slates wrote on 12/24/09 at 14:46:57:
BPaulsen wrote on 12/22/09 at 22:33:12:
5. Bf4 isn't even close to as drawish as the Lasker/Tartakower, even in black's best defense to 5. Bf4 (5...0-0 6. e3 Nbd7).


Has this move (6...Nbd7) become more popular now, then? Most of my QGD book sources claim that 6...c5 is the mainline due to Black suffering in alternatives such as ...Nbd7. Most of this 'suffering' is apparently spatial, but nonetheless I can't find much approval of 6...Nbd7 in any of my books.


The three books (2000,2000,2007) I have all cite 6...c5 as the main line, but given a trio of NiC articles on 6...Nbd7, in addition to Dautov's comments in his database (2001) on 5. Bf4 I'm led to believe white has achieved += after 6...c5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Qc2 Nc6 9. a3 Qa5 with 10. Nd2, but cannot demonstrate anything after 6....Nbd7, after the three main choices of 7. c5, 7. Qc2, and 7. a3. 7. c5 is definitely the best try in my opinion, but I'm not sure white has anything concrete there after 7...Nh5. Also worth mentioning is 6...b6 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Bd3 Qa5+ as an interesting black try for equality. The problem is 7. Qc2 leads to a position with a slight pull for white anyway.

Not surprisingly, Adams chose 6...Nbd7 against Kramnik in the London Classic recently, which ended in a draw.

In regards to the Tartakower - I think white can get a small pull via the 8. Bd3/10. Bg3 as seen in Rizzutano's QGD book, but I think it's really the Lasker's Defense that white has failed to show absolutely anything against.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #11 - 12/24/09 at 14:46:57
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 12/22/09 at 22:33:12:
5. Bf4 isn't even close to as drawish as the Lasker/Tartakower, even in black's best defense to 5. Bf4 (5...0-0 6. e3 Nbd7).


Has this move (6...Nbd7) become more popular now, then? Most of my QGD book sources claim that 6...c5 is the mainline due to Black suffering in alternatives such as ...Nbd7. Most of this 'suffering' is apparently spatial, but nonetheless I can't find much approval of 6...Nbd7 in any of my books.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tripler64
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/10/09
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #10 - 12/24/09 at 11:37:16
Post Tools
In the words of Father Dougal: "Right you are there, Ted."

Happy Christmas (not meant ironically.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 621
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #9 - 12/24/09 at 10:56:36
Post Tools
Tripler - I was being ironic on Mr. Adams.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tripler64
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/10/09
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #8 - 12/24/09 at 10:03:33
Post Tools
Adams is "weak"?? That is absurd.

The TMB is very solid (a favourite of Spassky and later Karpov) - quite how it got its TMB name is a mystery. Tartakower played it first, but Makogonov was they player who did the groundwork on it - he's an underrated player (not in the Elo sense, but he was in the Top 10 in the 1940s;
Bondarevsky did some work to refine it further (he was Spassky's trainer in the 1960s) but really it should be called the Makogonov Defence to the QGD.

It's true that it's been deeply worked out unlike Bf4 and some modern lines of the Catalan. The Exchange Variation
(especially the Botvinnik/Kasparov line with f3) is slightly unpleasant for Black; I haven't seen any top GM games with this for ages. The minority attack doesn't scare well-prepared players and W prefers the h3 lines these days. Players today want to fight and in this respect the QGD Exchange at the higher levels can only mean a draw for Black. The Nimzo-Indian is better against 3.Nc3. (Petrosian said after 3.Nf3 b6 White has nothing.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #7 - 12/24/09 at 09:40:03
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 12/23/09 at 09:16:31:
There might be a new book out soon about it, though, unless it's been cancelled...


Well, I wonder what's happened to that? John Cox hinted that he might be writing just such a book but that was quite a long time ago now and there's been no word since to substantiate it, so perhaps the project was indeed cancelled. Shame.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 621
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #6 - 12/24/09 at 08:31:15
Post Tools
Nigel Short has used it as his main defence , but you might recall Kramnik also playing it successfully too. Interestingly some weak GM (Mickey Adams) has given up his QID for this and won 3/3 . Good move !!
Definitely very sound- not much literature on it but plenty of high class games.
Side note: Lasker's defence is very sound too.

However, the exchange variation should be avoided unless you know what your doing- nimzo move order but you will need an anti-Catalan system.

I would love an update on this line in Ruslan's opening reviews (his other QG updates were excellent)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #5 - 12/23/09 at 12:02:40
Post Tools
To avoid the nasty QGD exchange line with Ne2 (instead of Nf3) I think the correct move order for Black is:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6:

a) 3.Nc3 Bb4 - playing the sound Nimzo

b) 3. Nf3 d5 and transposing to the TMB-line (if 4.ed5 White has restricted his possibilities with 3.Nf3)

The man to follow today is certainly Nigel Short - I remember he does not like Bf6 played by White because Black nets the bishop pair. Even if the position is somewhat blocked in the long run Black may get dynamic counterplay.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
F22
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 306
Joined: 07/16/09
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #4 - 12/23/09 at 11:13:45
Post Tools
Pingudon wrote on 12/22/09 at 21:55:28:
Long, long ago I bought a book about the slav. I tried it because I wanted to surprise my friends... everyone played the Tartakower. Fischer, Spassky, Kortchnoi, Petrosian played it a lot. Sometimes we wanted to play a different line to avoid the Tartakower at all cost! That defence was just TOO good. But now it is played very seldom. What has happened? Is it too passive? Is it weak? Is it just fashion? Is it because of the Catalan? Has it been refuted? I would love to hear your comments. Thanks a lot!


By Tartakower I think you mean the Tartakower-Makaganov-Bondarevsky system (TMB): 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 b6

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


Now first you forgot Kasparov. He contributed a great deal to this opening and he played it with both colors (this became his main defense in his first two matches with Karpov). Kasparov was also very fond of the capture 7. Bxf6 in the above line.

The second point is that if you want to play QGD (any line not just TMB) you have to accept the fact that White might play the exchange variation. Even with Petrosian's 3. ... Be7 these lines are not easy for Black (that is why so many people wait until White plays Nf3 and only then transpose to QGD lines).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2879
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #3 - 12/23/09 at 09:16:31
Post Tools
I thought it was the Exchange variation that's taken over the mainline status and of course the Semi-Slav's popularity has also reduced the chance of it appearing on the board.

There might be a new book out soon about it, though, unless it's been cancelled...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #2 - 12/22/09 at 22:33:12
Post Tools
The reason people seem to think it's seldom played nowadays is frankly because 5. Bg5 in the QGD has been sliding in popularity in comparison to 5. Bf4 and the Catalan amongst the elite. Does either one objectively offer white something more? No. Do they both prevent drawish simplifications? Yes. Are they less worked out? Yes.

5. Bf4 isn't even close to as drawish as the Lasker/Tartakower, even in black's best defense to 5. Bf4 (5...0-0 6. e3 Nbd7).

The Catalan, of course, has a number of very complex lines, and black doesn't have a clear road to drawish equality there as of right now.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10141
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
Reply #1 - 12/22/09 at 21:57:09
Post Tools
These days the Tartakower is an excellent surprise weapon imo.
  

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
 
Pingudon
Senior Member
****
Offline


Hi chess friends!!

Posts: 271
Joined: 10/04/06
Gender: Male
I still remember a defence called Tartakower!
12/22/09 at 21:55:28
Post Tools
Long, long ago I bought a book about the slav. I tried it because I wanted to surprise my friends... everyone played the Tartakower. Fischer, Spassky, Kortchnoi, Petrosian played it a lot. Sometimes we wanted to play a different line to avoid the Tartakower at all cost! That defence was just TOO good. But now it is played very seldom. What has happened? Is it too passive? Is it weak? Is it just fashion? Is it because of the Catalan? Has it been refuted? I would love to hear your comments. Thanks a lot!
  
Back to top
GTalk  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo