Zherebukh-Caruana
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1870173

A bit from Victor Mikhalevski in Chess Publishing:  "Here, in the diagram position after 20.Bg5, Caruana tried to surprise his opponent with the extremely rare 20...Bg7, instead of the common 20...Be7. However, the former Ukrainian GM was up to the task and outplayed one of the top players in the world in nice style. A great positional achievement from Zherebukh! This game may serve as a model game, proving 20...Bg7 to be dubious. Black should play 20...Be7, as he did on many previous occasions."

HgMan wrote on 11/18/07 at 15:12:18:


The Breyer runs 
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 0-0 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7

In the 1950s and 1960s, White would punt 11 c4 which leads to positions that aren't normal Spanish ones. More recently, playing  "normally" with 11 Nbd2 is more popular. 

Any thoughts why? 

HgMan wrote on 12/29/18 at 05:54:15:


Yeah, this took me back to the '70s.  I recalled 13. b3 having been considered best.  For instance in annotating Browne-Gligoric in the Wijk aan Zee 1975 tournament book, Kavalek gave it as "!".  His note read in part:  "A good waiting move.  White does not yet commit himself to moving the QN to the K-side.  He may eventually close the centre without allowing Black to play P-QB5.  Also, before he moves his knight over, he wants first to make the situation on the Q-side clear.  Later he may fix the Q-side, creating a solid pawn chain QR5-QN4-QB3, or he can concentrate his forces on the weak QNP.  Black must not go to sleep, because if he does he may find himself in an unpleasant situation as Svetozar discovered in our game at the Nice Olympiad in 1974."

After several years away, I have been revisiting the Breyer. I'm especially interested in exploring an old Gligoric favourite:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 c5!?

Databases show the odd game among GMs that suggest that 12...c5 is innocuous enough, but does it have any surprise value? Or just another solid expression of Breyer themes?

13.d5 c4 14.Nf1 a5 15.Ng3 Qc7 looks comfortable enough for Black.

Fool's errand? Better to stick with 12...Re8 ? Or might this be worth mucking about with?

Wouldn't be at all surprised if the end position was to be found on Cheparinov's laptop.
Impressive display.

I remember getting a rather tough lesson in this line a few years ago, when I was wondering whether the Breyer might be some sort of related improvement on my habitual Pirc. 
McShane-Vigus, London 2005, went 15 b3 Bg7 16 d5 Qe7 
(the move Short had just preferred over 16...Rc8 - albeit unsuccessfully - against Leko. Instead 16...Nb6 17 Rb1 might be irritating for Black) 
17 Be3 c6 18 c4 Rec8 19 Nd2 
(19 Qd2 a5 20 Rac1 Nc5 21 Bxc5 dxc5 had worked out very well for Black in Efimenko-B.Socko, Hastings 2004/5, and during my postmortem Speelman grimaced at the general suggestion of Bxc5 by White and said that this would nearly always be a concession - well, compare that new Alekseev game...) 
19...Nc5 20 a3
(I was a bit too elated about the modesty of this move - he obviously thought ...a5 would quickly undermine his pawn chain if he forced the knight back immediately)
20...Qc7?
(20...a5 was fine, and probably also 20...Qd8 with the same idea as my move - to control b6, thus enabling me to threaten ...bxc4 because he wouldn't be able to recapture with the knight)
21 b4 Ncd7 22 Rc1 bc 23 dc Bxc6 24 Nxc4
- of course, the queen is now horrible on c7, and I see that I'm basically a few tempi down compared to the Alekseev game. Even in a 'slow' position that's too much, and the subtleties of the Breyer do need plenty of study.

Bibs wrote on 12/20/08 at 22:29:44:


Black's game looks fairly straightforward and has nice flow to it.  I expect we'll be seeing less 15.b3 in 2009...

I do recall Gligoric being the victim of "a5 + hurricane" a couple of times, against Fischer and Kavalek (though the first one wasn't a Breyer).  Indeed a stark contrast with your position, though.

Certainly looks odd to me.  I know of White playing a5 in the Breyer, but in a much different kind of position, as in a Fischer-Spassky ('72) game.   

This reminds me of a comment by Kavalek, annotating a Breyer game in the '70s (when "everybody" was playing it) -- "Having the wind blowing from only one side gives Black better sailing possibilities, unless that wind becomes a hurricane."

I'm flattered that you think my comments are worth reading, never mind worth heeding.  I should preface my comments by stating that I have not yet faced 15.b3, and as a result have not given this line careful attention.  Nevertheless, I suspect that I would be inclined to play 15.b3 Bg7 16.d5 Rc8.  Witness this older game from Nigel Short, which I find rather persuasive:

[Site "Skanderborg"]
[Date "2003.10.10"]
[White "Kasimdzhanov,Rustam"]
[Black "Short,Nigel D"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.b3 Bg7 16.d5 Rc8 17.Bg5 c6 18.c4 h6 19.Be3 Nb6 20.Rb1 cxd5 21.cxd5 Nbxd5 22.exd5 Nxd5 23.Bd2 f5 24.Nxf5 gxf5 25.Bxf5 Rb8 26.Rc1 Qf6 27.Be4 Qe6 28.Qc2 Kh8 29.Qd3 Ne7 30.Bxb7 Rxb7 31.Rcd1 Rd7 32.Bc3 Nc6 33.Kh1 Qf7 34.Nh4 d5 35.Nf5 Rf8 36.g4 Rfd8 37.Rc1 Bf6 38.Nxh6 Qh7 39.Nf5 d4 40.Bd2 Ne7 41.Qf3 Nxf5 42.Rc6 Rd6 43.Rxd6 Rxd6 44.gxf5 Rd8 45.Kh2 Rf8 46.Bb4 Re8 47.Qc6 Qf7 48.Bd2 Bg7 49.f4 Rf8 50.Bb4 Rg8 51.Qe6 Qh5 52.f6 Qf3 53.Qg4 Qf2+ 54.Kh1 Bh6 0-1

In his TWIC Theory piece from March 2008, IM Malcolm Pein calls this the "fallback position," instead of 15...d5, which he analyzed in-depth.  The main staple of the Breyer is Black's flexibility: the knights are able to swing to both the kingside and the queenside to combat White's assault on both wings, while the bishops are similarly able to fight on both sides of the board.  It strikes me that 15...d5 opens the position too soon; Black has time available to organize his pieces better for the inevitable opening of the position, so why not take advantage of it?  15.b3 Bg7 16.d5 Rc8 seems to allow for that.  Short's play above is rather instructive, as is Harikrishna's nice win against Karjakin (Karjakin-Harikrishna, ESP CEClub Final 2008).

Berg-Butnorius, Gibraltar 2008 offers the darker side of this line for Black, but even here, I can't help thinking that Black might have improved somehow.  

[Site "Gibraltar"]
[Date "2008.01.22"]
[White "Berg,Emanuel"]
[Black "Butnorius,Algimantas"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.b3 Bg7 16.d5 Rc8 17.c4 c6 18.dxc6 Rxc6 19.cxb5 axb5 20.Bd3 b4 21.Bb5 Rc5 22.Ba4 d5 23.Bg5 d4 24.Qd2 Qc7 25.Qxb4 Rc8 26.Rac1 h6 27.Bxd7 Nxd7 28.Bd2 Bf8 29.Rxc5 Nxc5 30.Rc1 h5 31.Bg5 Qb8 32.Qb5 Nxe4 33.Nxe4 Bxe4 34.Qxb8 Rxb8 35.Nxe5 Ra8 36.Nd7 Ba3 37.Rd1 Bf5 38.Rxd4 Bb2 39.Rd2 Bc3 40.Rd5 Rxa2 41.Nf6+ Kg7 42.Nxh5+ Kh7 43.Nf6+ Kg7 44.Ne8+ Kh7 45.Bf6 Bxf6 46.Nxf6+ Kg7 47.Ne8+ Kf8 48.Nd6 Be6 49.Rb5 Ra1+ 50.Kh2 Ra2 51.f3 Rb2 52.Nc4 Rb1 53.Kg3 Rc1 54.Ne5 Rb1 55.b4 Rb2 56.Rb8+ Ke7 57.Rb7+ Kf6 58.Nd3 Rd2 59.Nc5 Bf5 60.h4 Rc2 61.Nd7+ Ke6 62.Nf8+ Kf6 63.Nh7+ Kg7 64.Ng5 Bd3 65.Rxf7+ Kg8 66.Rd7 Bf1 67.Rd8+ Kg7 68.Ne6+ Kf6 69.Nf4  1-0

My instinct is that I would be happy to defend this line--and, indeed, more comfortable doing so than I might against 15.b3 d5.  So, in short, my answer to your queries is: I don't know, but it might be worth looking elsewhere...

I'm happy to discuss 15.b3, but it seems that Black is finding ways to respond effectively (witness Victor's most recent update, although Wells and others have pointed to this line in the past).

In my correspondence experience, I have almost only faced the older mainline: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Be3 Nc5

A couple of examples:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Qd2 h5 20.Bxc5 This just can't be right, but I found it tougher to face than I had anticipated.  Ponomariov has played this way for White, and it seems to have some merit 20...dxc5 21.Nf1 Qc7 22.Red1 Bd6 Maybe not the right plan 23.Ne3 Qe7 24.Rdb1 Reb8 25.b3 cxb3 26.Rxb3 c4 27.Rb2 Ba3 28.Rbb1 Bd6 29.Qc1 Qe8 30.Nf1 Bc8 31.Qg5 Nh7 32.Qh4 Bd7 33.Qg3 Qe7 34.Ne3 Qf6 35.Kh1 Qf4 36.Qxf4 exf4 37.Nf1 f6 38.N1d2 Ng5 39.Nxg5 fxg5 40.Nf3 bxa4 41.Rxb8+ Rxb8 42.e5 g4 43.hxg4 hxg4 44.exd6 gxf3 45.Bxa4 1/2-1/2

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Ra3 Bit of an early diversion from the mainline 19.Qd2 Nfd7 20.Qe2 Qc7 21.Rea1 Nb6 22.axb5 axb5 23.Rxa8 Rxa8 24.Rxa8 Bxa8 25.h4 Bb7 26.h5 Bc8 27.Qd2 Kh7 28.Nh2 Nba4 29.Bd1 Qd8 30.Ng4 Bxg4 31.Bxg4 Be7 ! I kind of liked this plan, but then maybe mis-stepped later; I thought for awhile that I might have some winning chances. 32.hxg6+ fxg6 33.Bxh6 Bh4 34.Be3 Bxg3 35.fxg3 Nxe4 36.Qc2 Nec5 37.Qf2 Kg7 38.Bc1 Qf6 39.Qd2 g5 40.Qe2 Nd3 41.Be3 Ndxb2 42.Bd7 Qg6 43.Qg4 Qb1+ 1/2-1/2 

Neither game has any particular theoretical value in themselves, but I think they are suggestive of how solid Black's position is.  I'm finding I'm having the typical Ruy Lopez experience: tough defense for the first 20-30 moves and then Black looks a bit better.  Enough to convert for the win?  Not yet, but a couple more games look good for me at the moment and I'm still developing a "feel" for the Breyer...

I´m not following you there - this is the sequence:

23.Qd3 Nb4 24.Qf3 Be7 25.Bf5! Black is in big trouble.

If 25.Bb1?! then 25....Ne4 may indeed be strong.

yes 23.Qd3! was what I thought basically was the refutation - there was some analysis by Kavalek online in the Washington Post somewhere - actually I think Kavelek was more or less quoting Navara analysis. I think instead of Grischuks Bb1?! the move Bf5! is a killer.

By the way Breyer fans need not panic about all of this, since instead of ...d5 Kasmsky was playing ..a5!? successfully - after all the whole concept of the Breyer is to play positionally - why go into this madness even if Black can escape with a draw.

LeeRoth wrote on 05/15/08 at 16:24:58:


Time flies! 2006, oh well. Didnt know there was a Hazai survey in 2007 - also as I recall there was some online Shipov analysis somewhere. Not one of my lines but be curious to know if it is in fact refuted or not.

Keano wrote on 05/15/08 at 15:59:57:


This was the 2006 Tal Memorial.  According to Lukacs and Hazai, it was Mamydarov who forgot his home analysis, not Grischuk.  After the game, Mamydarov said he had forgotten his analysis because he has so many variations.  However, he does not believe that White has anything more than a draw.  In the game itself, Mamydarov missed 25..Ne4, got a bad position and was lucky to draw.  BTW, Lukacs and Hazai surveyed this line of the Breyer in a 2007 issue of ChessBase Magazine and concluded that there is no final verdict on it.

How did karpov used to do it ...h5 or ...Kh7? This was one of his main lines as a junior.

Incidentally as I remember from the Tal memorial last year the other line with 15.b3 Black will have to play more clasically because the 15....d5?! idea was eventually refuted - mind you it is not easy beecause even Grischuk forgot his original analysis and Mamydarov survived with a draw again - but gave up the line after the game.

For what it's worth, Portisch faced this same variation some years later against Jan Timman and managed to win:

[Event "Reggio Emilia 8485 27th"]
[Site "Reggio Emilia"]
[Date "1984.12.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Timman,Jan H"]
[Black "Portisch,Lajos"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C95"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Rf1 Bg7 20.Qd2 Kh7 21.Nh2 Nxa4 22.Bxa4 bxa4 23.Rxa4 a5 24.f4 h5 25.fxe5 dxe5 26.Bg5 Ba6 27.Rf3 Qb6+ 28.Qf2 Qxf2+ 29.Rxf2 Bb5 30.Ra1 Nd7 31.Rxf7 Kg8 32.Raf1 Rf8 33.Rxf8+ Bxf8 34.Nf3 Ba4 35.Be3 Bc2 36.Ng5 Be7 37.Rf2 Bd3 38.Nf1 Rb8 39.Nh2 Bxg5 40.Bxg5 Bxe4 41.d6 Rf8 42.Rd2 Kf7 43.Be7 Ra8 44.Re2 Bd5 45.Kf2 Ke6 46.Nf3 Bxf3 47.Kxf3 Nc5 48.g4 Nd3 49.Ke3 hxg4 50.h4 Rb8 51.Rg2 Rxb2 52.Rxg4 Nf4 53.h5 Rg2 54.Rh4 gxh5 55.Rh1 a4 56.Rd1 Re2+ 57.Kf3 Kf5 58.Rd5 Nxd5 59.d7 Nf4 0-1

I'll need to look at this game a little more carefully, though...

Unless you're playing a strong player, in which case they're likely to find it tough going to break down your position.

I seem to recall when 19...Kh7 was the usual move there.  It seems that 19...h5 became the more usual move after a rather striking Spassky-Portisch game in 1977 (in which Black played 19...Kh7 and lost), but I wonder if it is really better.  Nigel Davies wrote in 2005 of 19...Kh7, "What interests me about this move is that it was Gligoric's choice in a more recent game in 1999, and I tend to think he understands such things quite well."

Thanks!   

I did play through a number of Breyer games and will definitely return to it for further study.  I've been working through Marin's recommendations in the Chigorin--and am really enjoying them.  I've managed to get a number of games in these lines in a couple of correspondence tournaments and am acquiring a good feel for them.  I suspect that in a future tournament, I'll want to adopt another line.  I'm still going back and forth on the Breyer and the Smyslov.  I've read it several places, but am certainly recognizing in practice that knowing the plans for multiple Closed Ruy Lopez lines is a distinct advantage...

HgMan wrote on 12/06/07 at 00:48:58:

The "Oxford companion to chess" tells us: "suggested by Breyer around 1920 and neglected until the 1960s when it became one of the accepted lines"

Articles in NIC Yearbooks from the last years:

YB 66: In memoriam the breyer
YB 68: The resurrection of the breyer?
YB 75: Long live the breyer! 
YB 82: Modern technology

Another question: why is this line called the Breyer?  Did Gyula Breyer ever actually play it?

tafl wrote on 11/19/07 at 11:49:20:


23 pgs for the Breyer is kinda superficial considering all the various lines available for this complicated system. Basically there are 2 major parts - 10.d4 which is the main line and the Pilnik or Argentine variation where white chooses 10.d3 instead.

I didnt read the part on 10.d3 as i'd expected most people wld play 10.d4 which I feel is the more 'natural' continuation. Under that section alone there were seperate chapters dealing with white playing 13.a4 only or 13.b4 only or 13.a4 &14 b4  etc not to mention sub lines where black pays c5 or not. Overall its quite a slow moving system for both sides with the some mainlines for each section reaching some 20 moves. Thats what made me give up the Breyer eventually, preferring something more energetic like the open for instance. But the breyer is definitely more flexible than the chigorin.

Only know of books for white. The treatment in Khalifman is I think the best atm and quite extensive.

Given the number of new books on the Ruy Lopez for both sides, does anyone know if a repertoire book on the Breyer is on the way?  What is the status of the Breyer at present?