IMJohnCox wrote on 11/10/09 at 23:40:51:


Of course, the debate about the Two Knights with 4 Ng5, especially the traditional main line with 4...d5 5 exd5 Na5, has been going on since at least the Steinitz-Chigorin argument (Black definitely won that one) and in some ways is symbolic of the struggle between static and dynamic factors which one could argue is really at the very heart of the game of chess.

In the White camp (extra pawn, better structure, offside black knight, so White is better...) we find such titans as Steinitz, Fine, Fischer and Short, joined recently by younger players who have grown up trusting the computer more than the judgement of their “great predecessors”: Morozevich, Nakamura, Sutovsky...

In the black camp (space, open lines, activity + initiative = sufficient compensation) we find giants such as Chigorin, Tarrasch, Lasker, Keres, Botvinnik (!), Bronstein, Gligoric, Tal, Beliavsky, Romanishin...

We also find some players who are willing to take either colour: Timman, Ivanchuk, Kariakin...

There is no doubt that Black has an easier life with 3...Bc5 and that 3...Nf6 makes greater demands on Black’s energy and creativity – the onus is on Black to prove that he has sufficient dynamic compensation. Thus, since 3 Bc4 remains far less popular in master chess than 3 Bb5, it is entirely reasonable for most of the professionals to reduce their preparation burden by choosing 3...Bc5, rather than invest a lot of time preparing 3...Nf6 when this work might only occasionally prove useful.*

Similar reasoning explains many of the opening trends among today’s professionals (exemplified by the rise of the Slav and the decline of the King’s Indian). Dynamic lines tend to require far greater preparation and maintenance, especially in our age of the computer, and so it is natural for masters to want to reduce their work load, or at least leave some time to work on other aspects of their game (e.g. visit the bar). ** 

Thus the general trend, certainly in all-play-all tournaments, seems to be back towards the “press with White, make a draw with Black” approach. ***

John’s viewpoint seems to me to be unduly pessimistic and perhaps just a touch over-influenced by computer evaluations. Of course, he might well be proved right about the Two Knights, but I think that would be a sad day indeed for our beloved game of chess.

* [At lower levels one sees 3 Bc4 much more often, Whites are often not well prepared and defend poorly, so there is greater worth in preparing 3...Nf6 in depth, for utilitarian as well as chess-educational reasons].

** [There are only a few top players like Ivanchuk who seem to be prepared to play almost anything.]

*** [Of course in Swisses one still needs to win some games with Black to finish amongst the top prizes.]

PS Thank you for your kind words, John!

I think we are in complete agreement (bummer ) even about the dramatising.

Paddy wrote on 11/06/09 at 19:09:55:

I quite agree with this advice about the pianissimo. However the advice about castling is imo a bit too strong
Castling is ok when you have d4 covered as white or d5 as black. Also there is sometimes the possibility of going berserk (as far as that is possible in this variation) of going h3 and g4 if after 0-0 black plays Bg4. 
Still this is basically also what I taught when I trained some kids and it indeed scores heavily as in the tournaments under 12 this variation is very common (I'd say as common as the sicilian at GM level). 

Btw there is also a very fun line in the Canal after 5 Nc3 d6 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bxf6 (if 7 Bh4 black imo is already slightly better) Qxf6 8 Nd5 Qg6 (Qd8 is the old main line and is quite sterile). You invite white to play Nxc7+ on the next two moves and both times it is bad. Estrin analysed this line quite well in his Giuoco book (ancient by now).

Some characteristically excellent advice from Paddy there.

However, in my opinion 3...Nf6 against the Italian is only practical if you are the type of player who doesn't mind being a pawn down for nothing in particular.  It may well be theoretically viable, but some people just don't like that. And the higher up the tree you get, the more 4 Ng5 you'll see.

I'd also agree that 3...d5 against the Ponziani is not a very practical choice. 3...Nf6 4 d4 exd4 a la Hebden (ca 1980, anyway) is a possibility, maybe.

And IMHO 3 ...g5 against the King's Gambit is simply best and must be played. The notion that White players will all be terribly well prepared for this move and gagging for it to be played is not, in my experience, true. Some will and these should be dealt with in some other fashion (eg 1...e6; they always hate that), but most have no particular idea any more than Black does.

As to the Scotch I think it's a matter of taste, although there is a lot of truth in Watson's observation that 4...Bc5 is 'the reason everyone gives it up, in my experience'.

Gufeld and Stetsko's 2001 book on the Giuoco is rather good, I opine.  It mainly concerns the closed forms, and illustrates a number of good plans for Black.  I found it educational.

If you play the Two Knights you have the option of putting your bishop on e7, then striving for ...d5 (or not).  This works well too, but when I was playing 1...e5 I took to meeting 4.d3 with 4...Bc5, since this seemed like a better move to me.  Unfortunately 4...d5 is not quite sound, but I suspect it can be played at the club level.  Marshall says in his game collection that he often played 4...d5 in spite of its shakiness, since he preferred to reach an open position.

smrex13 wrote on 11/05/09 at 05:23:43:

A good reason to prefer 3...Nf6 iso 3...Bc5. Of course you should enjoy 3...Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 or b5.
Your problems are easily dealt with: 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4! 5.Nxe4 (5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 with a majority in the centre and the pair of bishops) d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6 8.d4 exd4 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qxd4 0-0 11.0-0 Re8 and this probably still is equal. The idea to initiate an attack with the manoeuvre Re8-e6-g6 combined with ...c5 and ...Bb7 is attractive.
After 4.d3 you can fianchetto indeed, but also play a la the Marshall Gambit with Be7, 0-0 and in caso of x.Bb3 or x.c3 the pawn sac ...d5.

If you still want to play the Italian 3...Bc5 instead after 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 the general rule to make your play interesting is to prepare ...f5.
But I don't have a remedy for the Italian Four Knights.

smrex13 wrote on 11/05/09 at 05:23:43:


I've had a similar experience, but playing ...g6 instead of ...Nf6 made it a lot more fun to play black in those kind of structures. If interested, you can check out the Kenilworthian blog for their article series on ...g6 systems in the Open games.

I pretty much agree.  Definitely 5...Bxd4.  Black's winning chances are better than in the Max, though they exist there as well.  I would not play 5...exd4 unless I wanted to make a deep study of the Max, with the intention of being better prepared than my White opponents.

Call me old fashioned, but I like the 2...exf4 path to the Modern.  The Bishop's Gambit is nothing to fear.  But playing 2...d5 first is fine.

What is the best 4th move against the Scotch is a vexed question.  In principle it simply must be 4...Nf6, but Black's life hasn't been so easy over the years.  Still, it's a much better winning try, I opine.

Ponziani, you expect this?  But I like the more aggressive 3...d5.

What to play against the Spanish is the $64 question.