Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Fajarowicz; 3..d6!? (Read 11108 times)
CraigEvans
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #9 - 04/26/09 at 17:40:19
Post Tools
I've played the Fajarowicz on and off for years, and have never felt convinced by it.
As far as I can see, 4.a3 d6 5.Qc2 gives white a good position and a pawn - Goldstern - Joller (1999) continued with 5...d5 6.cxd5 Qxd5 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Nc3 Nxc3 9.Qxc3 Bf5 10.Bg5 Bc5 11.e3 Bb6 and black eventually won. However, white's position is good and he is a pawn up.

The game continued 12.Bc4 Qe4 13.O-O O-O 14.Bf4 h6 15.Nd2 Qc2 16.Qxc2 Bxc2 17.e6! fxe6 18.Bxe6+ Kh7 19.Rfc1 (perhaps Rac1 is more natural) Bd3 20.Bg3 Rad8 21.Nc4 Rfe8 22.Nxb6 Rxe6?! 23.Bxc7! Rde8 24.Nd5 Be4 25.Nc3 Bf5 26.Rd1 R6e7 27.Bd6 Rf7 and, to my eyes, white looks clearly better here, even discounting his two pawn advantage. The game concludes quite bizarrely, 28.e4 Be6 29.Nd5 Rd8 30.Bc7 Re8 31.Bg3 Ref8 32.h4?! Bg4 33.f3 Bxf3?? (what black was thinking he'd gain from this sacrifice I really don't know) 34.gxf3 Rxf3 35.Kg2 Rb3 36.Rd2 Na5?! (Rff3 looks marginally stronger, but at this point it should hardly matter) 37.Rc1 b5 38.Rc7 Nc4 39.Re4 a5 40.a4!! Nxb2 41.Be5 Nc4 42.Rxg7+?! (Bxg7!! is game over) Kh8 43.Nf6!!!!!!!!!!! Kxg7 0-1. One of the finest blunders I have ever seen, with my silicon friend giving the white position if he had found 42.Bxg7.

Still, the rest of the game is more for amusement than anything else. I'm intrigued to know how black stays afloat here. Moskalenko gives a game after 9...Bg4 where white blunders on the next move; whilst the work is a labour of love, his treatment of certain lines is very, very sketchy, and this is one. 10.Bf4 is far more critical, and he should have devoted more than a few lines to it.

10.Bf4 O-O-O 11.e3 and now he suggests 11...Be7, giving 12.Be2 g5! 13.Bg3 h5 14.h3 Be6 "and black has a dangerous attack for the pawn", and mentioning that 12.Bc4 Qe4 13.Be2 asks "another good question".

I would suggest that this is a critical position for the variation. Bizarrely, according to Chesslive.de at least, the move 11.e3 is a novelty, with white normally continuing with h3 or Rc1, which have not done well in practice. 11.e3 seems to make sense though, and after 11...Be7 12.Be2! (I consider 12.Bc4 Qe4 13.Be2 inferior, since black at some point will possibly want to play his queen here anyway, so why give him a tempo) g5 13.Bg3 h5 14.h3 Be6 15.Rd1 Qe4 and white has gained two tempi over the 12.Bc4 line. Now 16.Nd2! looks playable since my original thought of 16...Rxd2 looks insufficient after 17.Kxd2! Qxg2 18.Kc1 and white can untangle after 18...h4 Rh2!.

Therefore, after 16.Nd2, black should probably play Qa4. Here, if white wants to prove he is better, I think he has to man up and play 17.O-O!?, and the question is how dangerous black's attack really is after 17...h4 (17...g4 18.h4 doesn't accomplish too much) 18.Bh2 - and I'm not convinced black has much here.

Are there any improvements here that I'm not aware of? Otherwise, I remain unconvinced by 4...d6 and by the Fajarowicz in general.

  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #8 - 03/13/09 at 00:23:49
Post Tools
I had already noticed your thorough analyses on the Latvian Gambit - impressive work! Some remarks on an interesting side-line will follow in a few days. - Regarding the Fajarowicz Gambit, there will soon be an article by Lev Gutman in a Yearbook which should give you the best possible basis for further investigations.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #7 - 03/12/09 at 21:38:40
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/12/09 at 18:51:06:
4.Nf3 isn't critical because of 4...Bb4+ (cf. Kaissiber 16, pp.56f.). Harding's book was fine, but now it is dated. The reference work today is Lev Gutman's "Gewinnen mit dem Fajarowicz-Richter-Gambit", Melle 2005 (in German; 250 pages in small print). For the Batsford edition Gutman had researched and analyzed the Faj for three years, the German edition took another year and contains many improvements. Difficult to say why Moskalenko ignored Gutman's book. Today 4.a3 d6 seems critical.


Thanks Stefan. I have not Gutman's book but if nowadays 4.a3 d6 is critical ( instead yours 4.Nf3 Bb4+ which usually trasposes to Classical line with 4...Nc6 indeed ) I suggest 5.Nf3!? again, besides Harding's 5.Qd5!? or relatively best 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Be3!.

Are you allright ?

PD. What's your opinion on long LG forum "Latvian gambit refuted (in Spanish)" and move 10,b4!, indeed ?

      See also

http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/leton1.htm
http://www.ajedreznd.com/2008/Apend.doc
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1382
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #6 - 03/12/09 at 18:51:06
Post Tools
4.Nf3 isn't critical because of 4...Bb4+ (cf. Kaissiber 16, pp.56f.). Harding's book was fine, but now it is dated. The reference work today is Lev Gutman's "Gewinnen mit dem Fajarowicz-Richter-Gambit", Melle 2005 (in German; 250 pages in small print). For the Batsford edition Gutman had researched and analyzed the Faj for three years, the German edition took another year and contains many improvements. Difficult to say why Moskalenko ignored Gutman's book. Today 4.a3 d6 seems critical.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #5 - 03/12/09 at 14:17:21
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/12/09 at 02:30:35:
SWJediknight wrote on 03/11/09 at 20:49:03:
Harding rightly condemns 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 (leading to the same position as 4.a3 d6 5.Nf3 Nc6) as White gets a large plus in that line. 4...d6 avoids this problem.


What am I missing? Aren't 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nf3 d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.e3 Nc6 7.a3 and 4.a3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.e3 exactly the same? So how exactly does 4...d6 escape Harding's condemnation?


In the order 4.a3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 Harding quotes 6.Qc2! (instead of 6.exd6 Bxd6 etc. )

In the order 4.Nf3 d6 Harding quotes 5.Qc2! but as is seen in the notes of Mayo-Herms is not so dangerous for Black.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10515
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #4 - 03/12/09 at 02:30:35
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 03/11/09 at 20:49:03:
Harding rightly condemns 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 (leading to the same position as 4.a3 d6 5.Nf3 Nc6) as White gets a large plus in that line. 4...d6 avoids this problem.


What am I missing? Aren't 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nf3 d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.e3 Nc6 7.a3 and 4.a3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.exd6 Bxd6 7.e3 exactly the same? So how exactly does 4...d6 escape Harding's condemnation?
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 4..d6!?
Reply #3 - 03/11/09 at 23:13:23
Post Tools
Yes indeed 4.Nf3 d6 5.a3!? seems more effective.

By transposition, after 5...Bf5 in Tim Hardings' book ( page 155 ) he says it " may be slight White adventage ", but Moskalenko thinks White must to play the fianchetto 6.g3!? ( instead of 6.e3 Nc6 7.exd6 Bxd6 as in our game by trasposition again ) and we have some games about, specially Levin-Gutman, German ch., 2001; if f.i. 6..Nc6 7.Nh4!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #2 - 03/11/09 at 20:49:03
Post Tools
The title should read 4...d6- just to be pedantic!

An interesting idea.  Harding rightly condemns 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 (leading to the same position as 4.a3 d6 5.Nf3 Nc6) as White gets a large plus in that line.  4...d6 avoids this problem.

Since the line 4.a3 d6 5.Nf3 Bf5 is still critical, though better for Black than 5...Nc6, I suggest that 4.Nf3 d6 should be met by 5.a3 transposing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1387
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
Reply #1 - 03/11/09 at 00:46:25
Post Tools
Impressive. Worth looking at.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
AMM
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 110
Location: Barcelona - Spain
Joined: 11/08/07
Gender: Male
Fajarowicz; 3..d6!?
03/09/09 at 20:45:40
Post Tools
Enclosed you can see a remarkable attacking game played in Spain some years ago and published in recent book of Budapest gambit by Viktor Moskalenko It would be interesting on suggesting some lines to confirm their validity. Is an speciality of USA NM Jim West, and I myself have added many theoretical lines for the comprehension on whole variation.


Mayo,M. Herms, J.; Spain, 2004


1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nf3 d6!?

The typical break in the Fajarowicz; the idea is to attack the pawn on e5 and to create an exit for the c8 bishop with Bf5.Usual is 4...Nc6 of course

5.exd6

Accepting the gambit is risky for White so he should look at another ten (!) possibilities; for instance, some of them:

A) 5.g3 Nc6 and
B) 5.e3 Nc6 both transposes to the line on Faja with 4Nc6, and they are good for Black

C) 5.Nbd2 Nc5 ( I dont agree West idea 5Bf5 directly of his games vs. Szuper, Lustig and Privman, so 6.Nxe4 Bxe4 7.Ng5 Bg6 8.e6! fxe6 9.Nxe6 of Diedam-Scharff, GER Oberliga, 1986 and now after 9Qe7 10.Nf4! White get the advantage ) and now best choice is 6.g3!? Nc6 transposing to a well-known Main Line in the Faja via 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Nc6 6.g3 d6. White idea is to occupy d5, although the plan is a little slow and does nothing to show up the disadvantages of the knights placement on d5. Black knight controls some important squares, in particular impeding the advance e2-e4 and it turns out in a lot of variations to be well c5 placed in a semi-blockading position behind the White c-pawn.

On the other hand if for instance. 6.Nb3 Ne6 ( 6Ne4 7.Qd5 ) 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.c5 of Sanchez Criado-Herms, Barcelona, 2006; then 8..Nxc5 9.Nxc5 Bxc5 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Bf4 Bb4+!

D) 5.Qd5!?
and now instead of 5Nc5?! 6.Bg5! of Gareev-West, Liberty Bell op. 40, 2009, Black can try 5f5 6.exd6 ( 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Nxe4 7.Bf4 Nxc3 8.bxce dxe5 7fxe4 8.Qxe4 dxe5 9.a3 Qf6 ) 6Nc6 7.e3 Nc6 ( 7c6 ) 8.a3 Qe7 9.Qd1 Be6 10.Be2 g5 with counter play; Gerke-Gegner, Dortmund, 2000.

E) 5.Qc2!?
is recommended by Tim Harding in his book The Fighting Fajarowicz as the best move. Though 5Bf5 is bad analyzed so after 6.Nc3! d5 ( Black has lost a tempo already, but 6Ng3 7.e4 Nxh1 8.exf5 dxe5 9.Be3! ) 7.cxd5 Bb4? When 8.Qa4+! +- of Uhle-Glasewald, corr., ICCF World Cup 8/9, 1990 is a major improvement on Tseitlin & Glazkov 8.Qb3; but also 7Nxc3 8.Qxf5 Nxd5 9.Bd2 or 9.a3 are advantageous for White.

Tseilin & Glazkov give 5Nc5 as the best reply, and also was played in Rogers,I-Rogers,C; Gold Coast op, 1999 but their analysis is not so correct and after 6.b4 Ne6 7.a3 dxe5 ( Even I suggest 7..a5!? ) 8.Nxe5 not 8Qd4? by simple 9.Bb2, if not 8a5! according Fritz9 or Hiarcs10. Maybe White best chances are 6.Bg5!? or 6.Nc3 dxe5 7.Be3.

Probably best choice for Black is Vasconcellos's line 5d5 6.cxd5 Qxd5 7.Nxc3 Nxc3 8.Qxc3 Nc6 ( Teoria e Prctica do Gambito Budapeste, page 43 )

5...Bxd6

Threatening to terminate White by 6Nxf2! 7.Kxf2 Bxg3+ and 8Qxd1

6.e3

Now if 6.Qc2 Bf5 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 0-0 = Vasconcellos, F.

But its possible 6.Nbd2 Bf5 and 7.e3 Nc6 8.Be2 Qf6 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 with compensation Gonzalez-Carpintero, Las Palmas, 1992; or 7.g3 Qe7 ( 70-0 ) 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Bg2 Nc6 10.0-0 with slight White advantage, Martin Valentin-Herms, Spain, 2007

6Nc6 7.a3

7.Be2 Bf5 ( 70-0; 7Qf6: 7Bg4!? ) 8.0-0 Qf6 9.Nbd2 0-0-0 of Slajs-Korostenski, Ceske Budejovice op., 2000 is a previous transposition to Gonzalez-Carpintero, Las Palmas, 1992 with 6.Nbd2, so 9Nc5 10.Nb3 is a small plus to White ( Rohde-Splane, San Mateo rapid, 1990), by transposition too

7...Bf5

A desirable position for any FG player. Black will soon gain the upper hand thanks to his good development. Another positional idea is 7a5!?

8.Be2 Qe7

An even more aggressive move is 8Qf6!?, taking control of the f6-a1 diagonal. For example 9.0-0 0-0-0 10.Qb3 g5! ( this might be the stem game of the strong plan g5-g4, followed by Bxh2+; the alternative is 10Qg6!? ) 11.Nc3 g4 12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Nd2 ( 13.Ne1 Qh6!? 14.g3 f5 -+ ) 13Bxh2+ 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Rxd2 ( 15Bxg2! is the classical Lasker-Bauer continuation ) 16.Bxd2 Ne5 17.Qc3 f6 18.Qd4 of Fronczek-Hoffmann,R; Baden-Alsace junior match, 1996; and now the winning move was 18Nf3+!

9.Nbd2 0-0-0 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Qa4 g5!

This powerful resource increases Blacks initiative

12.0-0 g4!

Attacking the only White piece that defends the kingside

13.Nd2 Bxh2+!!

Some themes known since Romantic Age keep returning. Minor pieces are sacrificed to break open the enemy fortress.

14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Bxg2!

Today, the idea of this fabulous attack is still alive

16.f4

If 16.Kxg2 Qh3+ 17.Kg1 g3 ( or 17Ne5! ) 18.Nf3 Rhg8 19.e4 gxf2+ 20.Kxf2 Rg2+ 21.Ke3 Qh6+

16gxf3

16Rxd2!? 17.Bxd2 Be4 -+

17.Bxf3 Bxf3 18.Rxf3 Qe1+!

Cutting of the kings road to safety is the key of victory

19.Nf1 Rhg8+ 20.Kh1 Qh4+ 21.Nh2 Qg5 0:1

White gets matted.
« Last Edit: 03/10/09 at 13:40:53 by AMM »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo