Thing is not to try and threaten something. The minors will pick up some pawns along the way anyway, but for the moment they need to keep the defenses tight.

Gazza won 4-2, I think. Sure Google'll do the business for you; it was reported at the time.

Curious article. I always have difficulty with this methodology since presumably most times when people give up the exchange they do it because they think they have compensation. I would therefore expect such a method to undervalue material advantage.

Prophetic conclusion though, because of course Kasparov did play an odds match against Terry Chapman, at - was it two pawns and move? Hard to say what TC's rating would have been, since IIRC he'd not played for a long time but trained quite specifically for the match.

I don't know about instruction! Merely an alternative theory, I would have said. But it's a good question about sources: no, I don't - you'd think someone would have treated the subject in a theoretical sort of way. Is there something in Watson perhaps? Or one of Peter Wells' Strategy columns in ChessBase magazine?

Really, Markovich? I would have said the reverse; I would have thought the power of a queen was precisely that it can be in two places at once, as it were.

Perhaps open/closed positions are a false distinction - what the minor pieces need most of all is stability.

Ptero wrote on 01/15/07 at 21:46:28:


Just about chess, not this system.  I think that if you want to win with three minor pieces against the queen, you need an open position.  The queen is a very local piece, like an ultra-powerful knight.  In a closed position, you risk being overwhelmed locally.  Better for the three pieces if play is across the whole board, I opine.

Markovich wrote on 01/15/07 at 19:45:35:


In 1999, Ponamariov won some nice games in this line with the white pieces but seemed to stop playing it shortly after this.  Not too long ago, I'd seen suggestions that maybe Black should prefer 9...Ra5 to 9...Bb4+ (first Burgess in his book 'The Taimanov Sicilian' and later Watson in a review of the same book http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson31.html) but apparently 9...Bb4+ remains the main line.

I think it's a fascinating line.  Maybe the reason it's not chosen more often by White is that, with the resulting positions being so unbalanced and unclear, there are safer ways to play for an advantage.

Markovich wrote on 01/15/07 at 19:45:35:


Rizzitano follows Vorobiov-Beshukov, 2002, where 13...g6 is played instead. (Remember that this is a complete games type of book.) In the notes, 13...Kf8?! and 13...Be5!? are analysed. He acknowledge the Semkov/Delchev analysis but suggests 18.Bd3!? instead of 18.Bb3 and gives a line where he thinks white have a slight edge.

I think you're right. This is an important line. Some might play 5...a6 to avoid it but then the exchange variation becomes more attractive.

I have just started to play the Taimanov. Just in CC and blitz, so far. I've only met it once when I won quickly. But I think this line needs to be thoroughly analysed. The material is quite unbalanced and the right plan for black is not obvious.

Note: I actually found another game of mine played at the ICC. Played a year ago before I even started to look at the Taimanov.