Giving this a bump to pair it with the other post I just made. It's nice to visit my stupidity from more than a decade ago, when we had two threads of analysis running concurrently...

Hi guys,

After getting Megabase 2006 yesterday, I noticed a totally new (to me!) way of playing the Blumenfeld when looking at some of Volokitin's games.  It looks very interesting to me, and I'm even starting to be tempted to play the Blumenfeld!  Have a look:



Dautov,R (2610) - Volokitin,A (2594) [E10]
Bundesliga 0304 Germany (13.1), 28.03.2004

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 c5 4.d5 b5 5.Bg5 exd5 6.cxd5 d6 7.e4 a6 8.a4 Be7 9.Nbd2 Nxd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.axb5 0-0 12.Bc4 Nb4 13.0-0 Bb7 14.bxa6 N8xa6 15.Re1 Nc7 16.Ra3 Qf6 17.Qb3 Ne6 18.Qc3 Qxc3 19.Rxc3 d5 20.exd5 Bxd5 21.Bxd5 Nxd5 22.Ra3 ½-½



Kozul,Z (2640) - Volokitin,A (2652) [E10]
SLO-chT Celje (3), 30.11.2004

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 c5 4.d5 b5 5.Bg5 exd5 6.cxd5 d6 7.e3 a6 8.a4 b4 9.Nbd2 Be7 10.Qb3 0-0 11.h3 Nh5 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Bc4 a5 14.0-0 Nd7 15.Rfe1 Nb6 16.e4 Nf4 17.e5 Bb7 18.exd6 Qxd6 19.Ne4 Qh6 20.Nxc5 Nxc4 21.Nxb7 Qg6 22.g3 Qd3 23.Qxd3 Nxd3 24.Re4 Ncxb2 25.d6 Rfb8 26.Re7 Nc4 27.Nd4 Ra6 28.d7 Kf8 29.Re2 Raa8 30.d8Q+ Rxd8 31.Nxd8 Rxd8 32.Nb3 Nde5 33.Kg2 f6 34.f4 Nd3 35.Kf1 Rc8 36.Rd1 Nc5 37.Nxc5 Rxc5 38.Rd8+ Kf7 39.Rd7+ Kg6 40.Kf2 Nb6 41.Rb7 Nxa4 42.Ree7 Kf5 43.Rxg7 Ke4 44.Rge7+ Kd3 45.Rxh7 Nc3 46.h4 Kc2 47.h5 b3 48.h6 b2 49.Rhe7 Rh5 50.h7 f5 51.g4 fxg4 52.Kg3 a4 53.Kxg4 Rh2 54.f5 a3 55.f6 a2 56.Rxb2+ Kxb2 57.Rb7+ Kc2 58.Ra7 Rxh7 59.Rxa2+ Nxa2 60.Kg5 Nc3 61.Kg6 Rh4 62.f7 Rg4+ 63.Kh6 Rf4 64.Kg7 Ne4 65.f8Q Rxf8 66.Kxf8 ½-½



Avrukh,B (2652) - Volokitin,A (2671) [E10]
GRE-chT 34th Ermioni Argolidas (9), 11.07.2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5 5.Bg5 exd5 6.cxd5 d6 7.a4 b4 8.e4 Be7 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Re1 Bxb5 12.axb5 Nbd7 13.Nbd2 Nb6 14.Bf4 Qd7 15.Qe2 Nh5 16.Be3 f5 17.exf5 Qxf5 18.Bxc5 dxc5 19.Qxe7 Nf4 20.Qg5 Qxg5 21.Nxg5 Nd3 22.Re7 Nxd5 23.Rd7 N5f4 24.Nde4 c4 25.g3 h6 26.gxf4 hxg5 27.b3 Rxf4 28.b6 Rxe4 29.Raxa7 Rxa7 30.bxa7 Re8 31.Rb7 cxb3 32.Rb8 b2 33.Rxe8+ Kf7 34.a8Q b1Q+ 35.Kg2 Nf4+ 36.Kg3 Qg1+ 37.Kf3 Qd1+ 38.Kg3 Nh5+ 39.Kg2 Nf4+ 40.Kg3 Ne2+ 41.Kf3 Nf4+ ½-½

What do our resident Blumenfeld experts say about 5.Bg5 exd5 6.cxd5 d6?  A database search reveals that it hasn't scored well overall, but looking at the recent games of higher rated players makes it look playable, and more interesting than the queen trade that occurs after 5...Qa5+.

The other line I've been looking at is:

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 Bg5 exd5 6 cxd5 d6!? 7 e4 a6 8 a4 Be7 9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 axb5 Bxb2 11 Ra2 Bf6 12 Nbd2 0-0 13 Bd3 Bb7 14 0-0 axb5 15 Rxa8 Bxa8 16 Bxb5

Przewoznik claims White is better with a straightforward plan involving Nc4, Nfd2, f2-f4, and e4-e5, but easier said than done.  Take the following, blunt line as an example: 16 ... Nd7 17 Nc4 Nb6 18 Nfd2 Qc7 19 f4?! Bd4+ 20 Kh1 f5.  I like Black here.  Thoughts?

I'll want to make sure that 10 Qc2, preserving the tension isn't too dangerous, but this looks plausible for Black.  It's interesting that the B on f6 is so frequently such an important part of Black's position. An argument, I suppose, for playing the Benoni or Benko instead...

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5 4 d5 b5 5 Bg5 exd5 6 cxd5 h6 7 Bxf6 Qxf6 8 Qc2 d6 9 e4 a6 10 a4 b4 11 Nbd2

What is Black's best here?  Raetsky & Chetvenik suggest 11 ... Nd7 (they reason that 11 ... Bg4 is bad after 12 e5 dxe5 13 Ne4 Qf4 14 Nfd2 Bf5 15 Bd3 Bxe4 16 Nxe4 as in Chernin-Miles, Tunis 1985), but offer only 12 Bd3 in reply for White.  This move has been played twice: in their stem game, Van der Strict-Ikonnikov, Belgium 2001, and in Petrosian-Kholmov, Moscow, 1957, and Black won both games, but Przewoznik suggests that both 12 Be2 and 12 Nc4 provide White with a good game.   

Maybe I should just back up, though.  How does Black respond to 5 Bg5 ?

Ah, that's a pity.  Well, I'm going to try and pick MNb's brain about some of the critical lines, and I hope you won't hesitate to join in.  I won't try too hard to convert you though -- my experience with the benoni has been that after committing to Nf3, many (most?) players refrain from d5, so you should certainly wait until you're happy dealing with these deviations before jumping in.  At the same time, I score very well against these anti's with a variety of set-ups, so I don't complain too much.

I guess providing the moves would also have cleared things up, thanks MNb!

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1114504280/15 (at the moment, just a couple of notches below this thread) deals with some of these move orders and various replies for anti-benonis.

I'll try and return us to the Blumenfeld, but maybe it would make sense to consolidate these discussions in the 'other' Blumenfeld thread (http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1083864169;start=all)
especially since the opening seems to be assigned there.

We're drifting rather rapidly away from the Blumenfeld altogether, but I guess it's useful to concern oneself with early alternatives.  What about 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5 4 e3 ?

4.Nc3 cxd4 also has the possibility of a direct transposition into some of the early c5 nimzo lines.  Indeed, I think it looks pretty good for Black in either case, and maybe that transposition is best play from White.  But it might depend a bit on your nimzo repertoire, here.  I think that White's alternatives might have been mentioned elsewhere, perhaps in one of the anti-benoni threads.

(In case it is unclear, for the nimzo, I have in mind the lines where White plays an early g3 as the transpositional bridge.)

This does get tricky.  I had imagined making the Nimzo-Indian the main plank of my defense to 1 d4, but needed a response to 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3.  I may still opt for the Queen's Indian, but the Blumenfeld realy appeals.  But it does seem as though committing to 3 ... c5 means that Black should prepare not only 4 d5 b5, but also 4 Nc3 d5 and the Semi-Tarrasch.  For correspondence chess, this kind of preparation is less immediately onerous, as less memorization is required, but I'll have to think seriously about the compatibility of these various positions when it comes to middlegame ideas (it makes the QID seem more attractive, though I'm not sure I'm ready to give up on the Blumenfeld)...

MNb wrote on 03/27/06 at 02:29:27:


MNb: Thanks again for sharing this game.  8 e4 looks awful and 12 ... Bb4+ is a nice move.

I was interested, though, in your comment after move 6 that Black should only enter into the Blumenfeld after Nf3, and that got me to thinking about a couple things:

1. Why?

2. It seems as though Black can enter into the Blumenfeld through either a Benoni approach (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 e6) or through a Nimzo-QID (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5 4 d5 b5).  All roads eventually lead to Rome, I suppose, but is there any merit to one over the other?  It would appear that the Nimzo-QID would ensure that White plays Nf3 first.  Presumably, one needs to have the Nimzo ready in case 3 Nc3 is played, but it also seems to avoid the anti-Benoni lines.

I've now read in a couple of places NCO (Burgess) 1.d4 (Palliser) that "the Blumenfeld deserves to be more popular" -- I'll check later when I have a chance, but I think something very similar to that appears in both.  I was never sure whether that was an indication of surprise on the part of the author, or some sort of backhanded compliment (in case that phrase doesn't translate well: meaning that the Blumenfeld is not good, but worse opening are more popular).

I wonder, with HgMan, whether it would be worth learning, and I am finally on the verge of actually sitting down and figuring out whether it would be a reasonable choice.   As a result, I am a bit curious as to why MNb has given it up -- is it because of a particular critical variation, or simply in order to have a more generic response to d4 (and not have a Nf3/Nc3 split in one's repertoire)?

I think everyone has dabbled in the Blumenfeld at one time or another, it almost became semi-respectable one time.

I agree that the Blumenfeld is synonomous with the Benoni, but isn't it usually covered here as a daring Defence? At any rate, enjoy Black's play in the great scrap: Tregubov-Ward, Reykjavik 2006.

MNb wrote on 04/05/06 at 02:33:25:


I withdraw my original statement. I had originally based my defense of the position on 14.Nf2 Nxf2 15.Kxf2 but have just noticed that, instead of 15....Ng6 Black has a powerful piece sac in 15....Be7. If White takes with 16 fxe5 then I don't give much for his chances after 16...0-0. If he declines with 16.Kg1 then his position looks most unpleasant after 16...c4 17. fxe5 Bc5 18.h4 d3+ 19.Kh2 0-0.

Ah well, I'm sorry I ever doubted you    , and I count myself fortunate that my opponent didn't find this continuation.

HgMan wrote on 03/26/06 at 15:11:27:


You'll find it in the "Daring Defenses" section.

Typo. Please read 14.Qd2 instead of 14.Qd3.

Yes I have. NIC has published the following game with analysis in yearbook 66 or so:

Kögeler-MNb,
corr NBC H-428 (about 1998)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 e6 5.dxe6 fxe6 6.Nf3 d5
This move order is not correct. Black only should play the Blumenfeld after White has played Nf3.

7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.e4?
One can find this recommendation in several older sources. But White is already lost.

8...d4 9.e5 Ng4 10.Ne4 Bb7
The goal of a gambit is not to grab back the pawn at the first occasion. I find it amazing, how many Black players have played Nxe5 and lost.

11.Bd3 c4 12.Nxd4 Bb4+
My refinement of Przewoznik's analysis.

13.Nc3 Qh4 14.Qd3 Nxe5 15.Bf1 o-o
The game is over. After 16.g3 Qh5 17.f3 Nxf3+ 18.Nxf3 Bxf3 19.Rg1 Qe5+ 20.Be2 Rad8 21.Qc2 Ne3 22.Bxe3 Qxe3 23.Rf1 Bg2 White resigned.

As I have switched to another active Black opening since then, I will be happy to share my ideas on the Blumenfeld.