|
I’ve noticed there’s been a bit of interest on the Forum recently (from Bibs and others) in the Modern Steinitz, so I thought I’d open a couple of new threads on it. This one is intended to be general, but also to focus on the Modern Fianchetto Variation (C79) as played by Keres; the other one will be on the older Rubinstein Variation (C75) and the interesting Bronstein Variation (C76). Here, I've considered only 5 0-0 and 5 c3, since the possible move orders and transpositions here alone are quite baffling enough for me. (I’m certainly not suggesting other people should be so limited, though!)
I’ve asked ‘What’s wrong with it?’, since this variation of the Spanish has a somewhat controversial reputation. A few years ago now, Paddy (I think it was -- he’ll correct me if I’m wrong) teasingly related that an English GM (?; he didn’t say who ...) had told him there wasn’t likely to be a book written on this line since it was felt White had at least one route to a safe advantage. That, however, was pre-Mamedyarov ... More recently, Topnotch, in another thread, recommended for White the line Leko has twice used to beat Mamedyarov at Corus: 5 0-0 Bd7 6 d4 ed 7 Nd4 b5 8 Nc6 Bc6 9 Bb3 Nf6 and now: 10 Nc3 0-0 11 Re1 0-0 12 a4 (2006), or 10 c4 Be7 11 Nc3 0-0 12 Re1 (2008). Black, however, has move orders which rule this out.
Mainline MFV theory (such as there is!) begins after, to cite just one rather arbitrary move order, 5 0-0 Bd7 6 c3 Nf6 7 d4 g6 8 Re1 b5 9 Bb3(!) Bg7. Matulovic-Keres went [u]10 h3[/u] 0-0 11 Bg5 h6 12 Bh4 and Black held the balance with 12 ... Qe8! (a common theme) 13 a4 Nh5. Against [u]10 Nbd2[/u], Nigel Davies has succeeded with 10 …0-0 11 Nf1 h6 (idea 12 ...Re8), while [u]10 de[/u] Ne5! 11 Ne5 de is, I believe, meant to be OK for Black after 12 Bg5 h6 13 Bh4 0-0 or 12 Be3 Qe7 13 f3 0-0. My ancient notes suggest a White edge after [u]10 Bg5!?[/u] h6 11 Bh4 0-0 12 a4!?, but I’d like to ask what’s wrong with, say, 12 …ed here (13 cd g5!?).
Move orders can be critical here. For example, after 5 0-0 Black is unlikely to start with 5 …g6?! since 6 d4 is strong, whereas after 5 c3, 5 …g6 looks playable. As Leko’s line shows, Black must, of course, always be prepared for a quick d2-d4. But after 5 ...Bd7 6 d4, instead of taking Black could play 5 ...Nf6 -- how then can White advantageously stop him reaching mainline positions? Even supposing he can, Black might also have 5 ...Nf6, since 6 d4 b5!? (6 …Bd7!?) 7 Bb3 (7 de de is nothing?) Nd4 8 Nd4 de 9 c3 dc 10 e5 c2 is meant to be unclear. (There’s also 5 …Ne7, but that’s another story/thread.)
So -- what’s wrong with the Modern Steinitz?
|
Pages: 
The Modern Steinitz -- what's wrong with it? (Read 58635 times)
