DrKibzwang wrote on 06/22/07 at 02:02:46:


When I was young and played the Modern Benoni, the books called the White setup with Bd3 and Nge2 the "Penrose vs Tal Line", after their game from the 1960 Olympiad (although if memory serves, Ojanen vs Keres was the actual stem game).  It's been many years since I played the Benoni, and a quick google suggests that it's called the "Penrose Attack" these days.

Philip Stuart Milner-Barry was one guy, not two ....
Wilkes-Barre especially does not count, because the variation was invented by a Czech monk named Traxler.
The Hort-Antosjin is not really named after that game, as Hort himself later played it as Black on several occasions.

A few other candidates:
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Von Hennig-Schara Gambit
Von Jänisch-Schliemann Gambit
Geller-Tolusj Gambit

and of course: the Caro-Kann!

Hi,

try the wayback webarchive, looks to work for me:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060422162911/http://www.ajedrez-de-estilo.com.ar/ad...

The following is the third article on the Antoshin Dutch by Hebert Pérez García. The notes and analysis are solely his.

Dutch Defense – Antoshin Variation, Note Three
By Hebert Pérez García 
Translated by Mitchell A. Stern

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 c6 5.g3 Qc7 6.Bg2 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4 It is also possible to reach this position through a different move order. Modern theory indicates that white cannot obtain any advantage in the opening if he opts for the alternatives 9. Qc2, 9. Bd2 or 9. Na4 instead of 9. Qb3, which we have examined in the previous articles

I) Let’s look at 9. Qc2

(1) Reshko - Safarov [A86]
USSR, 1977
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 d6 4.Bg2 c6 5.Nf3 Qc7 6.Nc3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4 9.Qc2 e4!? an invention of Antoshin [Black can also play 9...0–0 see the games Matlak-Kuczynski and Ignatiev-Chechelnicki below] 10.Nd4 0–0 [It is also worth considering 10...Qf7 11.b3 Bc5 12.Rd1 Na6 13.a3 0–0 14.Na4 Be7 15.f4 Nc7 16.Bd2 with mutual chances. S.J. Arambel - H. Pérez García, Olavarría 1974] 11.a3 [Another possibility is 11.Bf4 Qf7 12.Na4 which was suggested by M. Botvinnik. Nevertheless, Bulgarian theoretician Minev's suggestion of 12...Be7 followed by 13...Be6 and Nbd7, or 13...Nbd7 and Nc5 or Nb6, appears to alleviate black of any problems] 11...Bc5 12.e3 Qf7 13.Qe2 Nbd7 14.b4 Bxd4 15.exd4 Nb6 16.c5? [According to Botvinnik, white should sacrifice a pawn with 16.d5!? with compensation due to positional pressure along the a1–h8 diagonal. In any case, black's position is not worse] 16...Nbd5 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.Be3 Be6 19.Qd2 Rae8 20.a4 h6 21.Ra3 g5 22.f4 exf3 23.Bxf3 f4 24.Bf2 Bh3 25.Re1 Ne3! by means of offering a pawn, black assures himself decisive control of the f-file and, consequently, victory 26.Bxe3 fxe3 27.Rexe3 Rxe3 28.Qxe3 g4 29.Qxh6 Qf5 and white resigned 0–1


(2) Ignatiev - Chechelnicki [A86]
USSR, 1964
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 d6 4.Bg2 c6 5.Nf3 Qc7 6.Nc3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4 9.Qc2 0–0 10.a3 Be7 11.e4 f4 12.gxf4 exf4 13.e5 Ng4 14.Qe4 Nd7 15.Ne2 Nc5 16.Qc2 Nxe5 17.Qc3 Ng6 18.Ned4 a5 19.Re1 Bf6 20.Bd2 Rd8 21.Rad1 Bg4 22.Bc1 Qc8 23.Qc2 Nh4 24.Nxh4 Bxd1 25.Rxd1 Rxd4 26.Rxd4 Bxd4 27.Nf5 Qd8 28.Bxf4 Nd3 29.Bd6 Ne1 30.Qe4 Nxg2 31.Be7 Bxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Qd2+ 33.Kf3 Ne1+ 34.Kg4 Qg2+ 35.Qxg2 Nxg2 36.Kf3 Ne1+ 37.Ke2 Re8 38.Kd1 g6 39.Nh6+ Kg7 40.Bg5 Nf3 41.Bf4 g5 42.Nf5+ Kg6 43.Nd6 Re1+ 0–1

(3) Matlak,Marek (2390) - Kuczynski,Robert (2450) [A86]
POL-ch, 1987
1.Nf3 f5 2.d4 d6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6 5.0–0 Qc7 6.c4 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Qc2 0–0 10.a3 Be7 11.Rd1!? a5 12.Na4 Ne4 13.Be3 Nd7 14.c5 Ndf6 15.Nb6 Rb8 with an initiative for white 16.Qc4+ Kh8 17.Ng5 Nxg5 18.Bxg5 f4 19.gxf4 h6 20.fxe5 hxg5 21.exf6 Rxf6 22.Nxc8 Rxc8 23.Rd3 Rh6 24.Rh3 Qe5 25.Rd1 Bxc5 26.Qc3 Qxc3 27.Rxc3 b6 28.Rh3 Rxh3 29.Bxh3 Rf8 30.e3 Be7 31.Bg2 c5 32.a4 Rd8 33.Rxd8+ ½–½

II) 9. Bd2

(4) Ignatiev - Bronstein,David [A86]
Kislovodsk, 1968
1.c4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d6 4.d4 c6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Bg2 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4 9.Bd2 after this game, people began to consider 9. Bd2 with a line of play which is somewhat active for white 9...e4!? 10.Nd4 Na6 white was threatening, among other things, 11. Nxe4, taking advantage of the undefended bishop 11.Rc1 0–0 12.a3 Bc5 13.Bf4 Qf7 14.b4 Bb6 15.c5 Bc7 16.e3?! [Better was 16.Bxc7 with an equal position] 16...Bxf4 17.gxf4 Be6 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.Ne2 Rad8 20.Nd4 Qf7 21.Qe2 Rxd4! An interesting positional sacrifice worthy of meticulous study. Bronstein has excellently judged that his knights will dominate the board and that he will win the f4-pawn, further supporting a formidable attack against the enemy king. In the game, Ignatiev found no solution for his problems, perhaps an astute computer program can offer us some better defense for white. I leave it to the leader to subject this game to stringent analysis; it is really worth doing so. 22.exd4 Nd5 23.Qd2 Nac7 24.Rfe1 Re8 25.Re3 Nxf4! Of course, there is no need to immediately recover the exchange. Bronstein now skillfully converts his advantage 26.Bf1 Qf6 27.Bc4+ Kh8 28.Kh1 Ncd5 29.Bxd5 Nxd5 30.Rh3 h6 31.Rg1 f4 32.Qd1 f3 33.Rhg3 g5 34.Qd2 Nf4 35.Re1 a6 36.Re3 Qf5 37.Qc2 g4 38.Rg1 Nd5 39.Rge1 h5 40.Rg1 h4 and white resigned 0–1

III) 9. Na4

(5) Buj,P - Perez Garcia,H [A81]
Buenos Aires, 1975
1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.c4 d6 5.Nf3 Qc7 6.Nc3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.0–0 Bb4 9.Na4?! Personally, I don't think that the activity that white undertakes on the queenside justifies the freedom that he gives black in the center and on the kingside. It is a doubtful strategy without any future. This game provides a good example of why. 9...Qe7! 10.a3 Bd6 11.Qc2 0–0 12.c5 Bc7 13.b4 Kh8 14.Bb2 e4 A typical advance which generates strong activity in the center and on the kingside 15.Nd2 e3 16.Nc4 exf2+ 17.Rxf2 Ng4 18.Rf3 Be6 19.e4 Nd7 20.exf5 Bd5 21.Rd3 Rxf5 The knight on a4 is pathetic, completely removed from the game. Already black is ready to triumphantly invade through the f-file. 22.Rd2 Qf7 23.Bxd5 cxd5 24.Nd6 Bxd6 25.cxd6 Rf8 26.Qd3 Nde5 27.Qe2 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Nxd2 29.Qxg4 h5 and white resigned 0–1

Great!

I was almost getting tempted to attempt to translate it myself relying on the help of some online automatic translator on the net and post it here, but now I think I'll spare you that sight!

Quote:


Am I the only one hoping AmateurDragoneer will complete his gracious act of translation? - Judging from the first effort the translation was very well done and the text quite enlightening!

Hoping for a sequel! Would pretty please with sugar on top help?

No problem. I actually had a lot of fun doing it. I've been pretty busy this week so the next one may have to wait until the weekend, but don't worry, I will get to it!

According to a review of the new CD "The Dutch defence Leningrad system by Boris Schipkov A86-A89" at

http://www.chessmail.com/books/elburg83.html

"From  the interesting  Antoshin variation 1.c4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d6 4.d4 c6 5.Bg2 Qc7 I found around 84 games where four of them are excellent analysed, maybe a interesting alternative?" (sic)