Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower? (Read 4280 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10151
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #19 - 07/18/16 at 17:58:55
Post Tools
"I am not sure what you mean here."
If White can prove a clear edge after ...h6 and ...b6 with Bd3 and Rc1 it's likely that White also can after ...b6 without ...h6 with Bd3 and Rc1. If Marin thinks Black's position playable with the pawn on h6 perhaps it's also playable with the pawn on h7. Perhaps.
And perhaps Black can even try to transpose by answering Rc1 with h6. That depends on how strong Bf4 and Bxf6 are.
  

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
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1310
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #18 - 07/18/16 at 15:42:02
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/18/16 at 01:35:23:
Do Marin and Stoica think Black's setup playable after 11.Rc1 (iso Sokolov's 11.Qc2 c5 12.Rad1) ?


Marin clearly thinks Black's position is playable after 11.Rc1.  He presumably thinks Black's position is also playable after 11.Qc2/12.Rd1 because he has invited this position in his own games.  He does not, however, comment on White's 11.Qc2/12.Rd1 set up in his CBM videos or his game annotations.


Quote:
That would be encouraging. See, the first Kasparov-Beljavsky game from the 1983 match is an example of Black rather wanting the pawn on h7. After 14.Ng4 (iso 15.Ng4) Black could have played Bh4 15.g3 f5. The same for the topical 5th game. With the bishop on g5 iso h4 Black could have played 12...Ne4 iso 13...Ne8. Not that I claim this will save Black's case (for not playing ...h6). Right now I lack the time and energy for the necessary systematical research. Maybe a few months later.


I am not sure what you mean here.  Marin is advocating the ...exd5 Tartakower, but only with ..h6 in.  So his games and analysis don't make the case for omitting ...h6, except perhaps by analogy.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10151
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #17 - 07/18/16 at 01:35:23
Post Tools
I suppose that Marin against Ionescu after 8.Qc2 (iso 8.Rc1) would have played ...c5 immediately. The other move order surprises me more.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Be7 8.e3 0-0
How would Marin have met 6.Bf4 ? A queenside fianchetto looks highly suspicious to me.

Do Marin and Stoica think Black's setup playable after 11.Rc1 (iso Sokolov's 11.Qc2 c5 12.Rad1) ? That would be encouraging. See, the first Kasparov-Beljavsky game from the 1983 match is an example of Black rather wanting the pawn on h7. After 14.Ng4 (iso 15.Ng4) Black could have played Bh4 15.g3 f5. The same for the topical 5th game. With the bishop on g5 iso h4 Black could have played 12...Ne4 iso 13...Ne8. Not that I claim this will save Black's case (for not playing ...h6). Right now I lack the time and energy for the necessary systematical research. Maybe a few months later.
  

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
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1310
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #16 - 07/17/16 at 17:03:19
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 07/17/16 at 07:59:40:
LeeRoth wrote on 07/17/16 at 00:42:04:
Mikhail Marin has been making a case for 8..exd5 in ChessBase Magazine.  He points out that Beliavsky's move order was faulty -- Beliavsky insisted on an early ..c5, which allowed Kasparov to get in Ne5.  Marin thinks ..Nbd7 first is necessary, which is what Petrosian had played.  One still gets the sense that 8..Nxd5 is better than 8..exd5, but 8..exd5 may not be as bad as previously assumed.  BTW, Marin always plays this line with an early ..h6 in.  7..exd5 (without ..h6) doesn't seem as good and, as some of Radulov's old games show, probably doesn't equalize.   


Cox (2011) noted that after 8...ed 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. 0-0 Nbd7, Ivan Sokolov (2009) considered 11. Qc2 c5 12. Rad1 as "the way to make White's advantage clear."  I'm aware of a Yearbook article by Marin and Stoica (2015) which evidently focused on the version with 11. Rc1 and the possibility of reaching it by a move order with early ...Nbd7.


He recommends an early ..Nbd7/..h6 in CBM too.  But not sure why exactly (I think it has something to do with the Exchange Variation?) or that it actually avoids the Qc2/Rad1 set up.  For example, in CBM 155, Marin shows his game against Lupulescu, which went 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Be7 8.e3 0-0 9.Bd3 b6 10.0-0 Bb7 11.Qc2 c5.  Lupulescu now played 12.Rfd1, but 12.Rad1 would have reached White's optimum set up.  Against Neverov, Marin also played a move order that would have allowed 11.Qc2/12.Rad1.  In other games, Marin has waited for White to play Rc1 before playing ..b6.  For example, against Ionescu, Marin played: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 h6 6.Bh4 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Rc1 b6 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0 c5 11.cxd5 exd5.  But White could had played 8.Qc2, when 8..b6 would allow a later Rad1. 

« Last Edit: 07/17/16 at 21:59:57 by LeeRoth »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4245
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #15 - 07/17/16 at 07:59:40
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 07/17/16 at 00:42:04:
Mikhail Marin has been making a case for 8..exd5 in ChessBase Magazine.  He points out that Beliavsky's move order was faulty -- Beliavsky insisted on an early ..c5, which allowed Kasparov to get in Ne5.  Marin thinks ..Nbd7 first is necessary, which is what Petrosian had played.  One still gets the sense that 8..Nxd5 is better than 8..exd5, but 8..exd5 may not be as bad as previously assumed.  BTW, Marin always plays this line with an early ..h6 in.  7..exd5 (without ..h6) doesn't seem as good and, as some of Radulov's old games show, probably doesn't equalize.   


Cox (2011) noted that after 8...ed 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. 0-0 Nbd7, Ivan Sokolov (2009) considered 11. Qc2 c5 12. Rad1 as "the way to make White's advantage clear."  I'm aware of a Yearbook article by Marin and Stoica (2015) which evidently focused on the version with 11. Rc1 and the possibility of reaching it by a move order with early ...Nbd7.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1310
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #14 - 07/17/16 at 00:42:04
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/12/16 at 17:02:07:
Cox: "it's hard to say that the pawn recapture (8...exd5 with the pawn on h6 - MNb) is bad. Everyone quotes one of the Kasparov-Beliavsky 1983 candidates games ..... it might be well suit a tough-minded player who prefers to avoid theory. It was, after all, good enough for Petrosian on several occasions."


Mikhail Marin has been making a case for 8..exd5 in ChessBase Magazine.  He points out that Beliavsky's move order was faulty -- Beliavsky insisted on an early ..c5, which allowed Kasparov to get in Ne5.  Marin thinks ..Nbd7 first is necessary, which is what Petrosian had played.  One still gets the sense that 8..Nxd5 is better than 8..exd5, but 8..exd5 may not be as bad as previously assumed.  BTW, Marin always plays this line with an early ..h6 in.  7..exd5 (without ..h6) doesn't seem as good and, as some of Radulov's old games show, probably doesn't equalize.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1310
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #13 - 07/17/16 at 00:20:04
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/15/16 at 13:27:25:
MNb wrote on 07/12/16 at 17:02:07:
5...h6 allows Black to play 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 as 5...O-O 6.e3 b6 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Rc1 Be6 11.Bd3 c5 loses a pawn due to 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Qc2. So Black should play 7...exd5 instead, which is much less solid.


kylemeister wrote on 07/12/16 at 18:05:36:
I notice that 11...Rc8 was given long ago by Filip as leading to +=, continuing 12. 0-0 c5 13. dc bc 14. e4.  That's comparable to a line with ...h6 in and ...Nd7 instead of ...Rc8.

I suppose that a player in a fighting mood as Black won't find this attractive.


Agreed.  Without ..h6 in, this 7.cxd5 Nxd5 line isn't much fun for Black. 

After 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxd5 exd5, I might prefer 10.Bd3 Be6 11.Qc2 when 11..h6 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.O-O c5 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.Nd4 has to be good for White. 

10.Rc1 is good too and after 10..Be6 11.Bd3 Rc8 12.O-O c5 then I looked at 13.e4 right away and think White is better there too. 

Interestingly, the only book recommendation I found was in Play 1.d4, where Richard Palliser gives 11.Qa4 c5 12.Qa3 Rc8 13.Bb5 a6 14.Bd3 Ra7 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.b3 a5 17.O-O Na6 18.Bxa6 Rxa6 19.Rc3 Kf8 20.Rfc1 c4 21.Qb2 Rac6 22.Nd4, following T.Petrosian-Trikaliotis, Siegen ol 1970.      
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1310
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #12 - 07/16/16 at 23:30:52
Post Tools
To expand a bit on earlier posts, Black should generally play ..h6 in the Tartakower before castling.  The reason why is somewhat related to White's move order. 

The key situations arise when White waits to move his e-pawn.  For example, in the 3..Be7 variation: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 or in the 4.Nf3 variation: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5.   

In these move orders, 5..h6! is played to avoid the line that Pantu gave earlier:  5..0-0 6.Qc2 h6 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.e4 dxe4 9.Qxe4.  White now threatens Bd3, which is awkward for Black according to Kasparov. 

After 5..h6, White can still try 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.e4, but Black now has Geller's line:  7..dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nc6 9.Nxf6 Qxf6 10.Qd3 b6 11.Qe4 Bb7 12.Ne5 0-0-0! This is why Black waits to castle. 13.Nxc6 Rd6 14.Nxa7 Kb8 15.Qe5 Kxa7 with full comp for the pawn. 

If instead of the above lines, the game follows the standard ECO move order -- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 -- where White already has e3 in, it doesn't seem to matter if Black plays ..h6 or ..0-0 on move 5 or 6.  Play will just transpose either way.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 3393
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #11 - 07/15/16 at 22:22:35
Post Tools
A good rule of thumb in the opening is 'When they pin you with Bg5/...Bg4, ...h6/h3 is almost always handy, because if they retreat the bishop, they lose the option of moving back along the diagonal, and you gain the option of ...g5/g4 later'. Such an argument works well in the QGD, after of course you play ...Be7 or ...c6 to make sure you aren't losing the d5-pawn. An exception is the Cambridge Springs, where you want their bishop on g5 for certain ...Ne4 tricks.

The other exception is when they can meet ...h6 with Bf4 to move order Black into a worse version of the Exchange QGD. That only tends to be a problem when Black has already played ...c6 though.

This is all purely from memory but it serves me well in OTB games.
  

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10151
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #10 - 07/15/16 at 13:27:25
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/12/16 at 17:02:07:
5...h6 allows Black to play 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 as 5...O-O 6.e3 b6 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Rc1 Be6 11.Bd3 c5 loses a pawn due to 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Qc2. So Black should play 7...exd5 instead, which is much less solid.


kylemeister wrote on 07/12/16 at 18:05:36:
I notice that 11...Rc8 was given long ago by Filip as leading to +=, continuing 12. 0-0 c5 13. dc bc 14. e4.  That's comparable to a line with ...h6 in and ...Nd7 instead of ...Rc8.

I suppose that a player in a fighting mood as Black won't find this attractive.
  

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
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4245
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #9 - 07/14/16 at 23:31:56
Post Tools
Pantu wrote on 07/14/16 at 21:02:21:
According to Kasparov on his QGD DVD for chessbase it is more accurate to play it before castling (and all the top guys do this).


Even further back, Edmar Mednis wrote in a book from the 1990s,  "As recently as ten years ago, Blacks tended to play it on move 6, i.e. after 5...0-0 6. e3.  Lately the overwhelming number of GMs play it immediately."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pantu
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/30/06
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #8 - 07/14/16 at 21:02:21
Post Tools
bobbyh64 wrote on 07/14/16 at 06:14:38:
I was just wondering if currently it matters if Black castles before playing ...h6.


According to Kasparov on his QGD DVD for chessbase it is more accurate to play it before castling (and all the top guys do this).  Kasparov gives the line:

1.d5 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 0-0 6.Qc2!? with the point 6...h6 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.e4!

If black dispenses with ...h6 you can be committed to the orthodox with Qc2 (aka the Rubinstein Variation).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bobbyh64
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 273
Joined: 05/15/08
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #7 - 07/14/16 at 06:14:38
Post Tools
I was also curious if it makes much difference if you play ...h6 before castling in the Bxf6 line. This line looks a bit scary:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 h6 6. Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Qd2 dxc4 8. e4 c5 9. d5 exd5 10. e5

But if Black castles first, this is a possible line:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e3 h6 7. Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Qd2 Nc6 (or 8...dxc4 or 8...a6), and White has played e3 instead of e4 in one go as in the previous line.

Is 6.e3 best in this line though? In a 1995 game between Kramnik and Short, Kramnik played 6.Qc2 h6 7.Bxf6 (Sadler gives this as !) 7...Bxf6 8.Rd1 c5, and he seems to think Black is fine here.

I was just wondering if currently it matters if Black castles before playing ...h6.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4245
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #6 - 07/12/16 at 18:05:36
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/12/16 at 17:02:07:
5...h6 allows Black to play 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 as 5...O-O 6.e3 b6 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Rc1 Be6 11.Bd3 c5 loses a pawn due to 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Qc2. So Black should play 7...exd5 instead, which is much less solid.


I notice that 11...Rc8 was given long ago by Filip as leading to +=, continuing 12. 0-0 c5 13. dc bc 14. e4.  That's comparable to a line with ...h6 in and ...Nd7 instead of ...Rc8.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10151
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Omit 5...h6 in the Tartakower?
Reply #5 - 07/12/16 at 17:02:07
Post Tools
5...h6 allows Black to play 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 as 5...O-O 6.e3 b6 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Rc1 Be6 11.Bd3 c5 loses a pawn due to 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Qc2. So Black should play 7...exd5 instead, which is much less solid.
However I always have been intrigued by three remarks of Sadler and Cox.

Cox: "it's hard to say that the pawn recapture (8...exd5 with the pawn on h6 - MNb) is bad. Everyone quotes one of the Kasparov-Beliavsky 1983 candidates games ..... it might be well suit a tough-minded player who prefers to avoid theory. It was, after all, good enough for Petrosian on several occasions."

Sadler: "The light-squared bishop is not on the c8-h3 diagonal anymore. This means that the light squares around the black king are not covered b this bishop. Thus f5 is available to a white piece, while f7 is less protected than if the bishop were on e6. Thus consider the situation after White plays a plan with Bb1 and Qd3 threatening mate on h7. The natural, indeed only, defence is g7-g6. If the h-pawn were still on h7 then the softening move h2-h4-h5 would have no effect."

Sadler: "The move h7-h6, while giving Black some room on the kingside, does weaken the kingside light squares and the g6-squares in particular. Consequently, for example, a knight that comes into e5 cannot be driven away by ...f7-6 as the knight can then simply hop into g6.

Finally there is the line 5...h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.O-O Nbd7 10.Bg3!? which is not possible after 5...b6 etc.

Apparently in several lines Black rather would have the pawn on h7.

Words are one thing, concrete lines something else. I'm not sure if White can punish Black for not playing ...h6. The critical line might be 5...O-O 6.e3 b6 7.cxd5 (7.Bd3 allows Nbd7, which does reasonably well in practice) exd5 8.Bd3 Bb7 (Be6 is said to be better, but results are disastrous) 9.O-O. Comparing with the variation with ...h6 and Bh4 included might yield some interesting insights.
Still being able to play ...Nxd5 is the decisive factor.
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo