Ametanoitos wrote on 02/21/10 at 07:58:49:


It's been some years since I myself played the Tarrasch, but when I did I played it with 9...cxd4.  9...c4 just does not look like chess to me, which no doubt says something about my limitations as a player.

After 12.Rc1, which indeed is a challenging line for White, Rizzitano in Chess Explained: The Queen's Gambit Declined declares that 12...Bf8 13.Na4 Bd7 14.Nc5 Bxc5 15.Rxc5 Qe7 16.Qc1 Qe5! is adequate for Black.  He also thinks that 16.Rc1 Ng4! is equal.  He suggests 16.Nxc6 bxc6 17. Rc2 Ne4 18. 18.Qd4 a5 19. Rfe1 and claims a slight advantage for White.  Using Markovich's Much-Mocked Evaluation System (http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1266527927), I would say "=w", that is, scant winning chances for either side, but White's play is easier.

@cheesemate: I went to look for my copy of Keilhack so that I myself could re-post the chess idea you posted and partially repair my standing in your esteem, but I can't find it and I actually think that I must have boxed it away.  I decided that I'm not going to haul out my boxes and crack them open over this.

I am deeply regretful for butchering your post; it's very easy to click on "modify" when you mean "quote"; but by now I am past caring about Keilhack's prose or about your concerns over my fairness or integrity or whatever the hell it is that concerns you about me.

There was some variation involving Qa4 at some point covered in a NiC some time back in the main line Tarrasch that also looked highly promising. I wish I could remember it, it's been a long time...

I think the ...c4 variation is the way to go, but Schandorff did a good job for white on that...

For the rest of us who just want to learn about the Tarrasch, might you repost the lines that got accidently deleted?

motörhead wrote on 02/20/10 at 15:13:06:


I fail to see that I am setting myself up as a judge of German prose, something that I could hardly do.  I'm saying that the prose in question departs from the dry old "chess German" that I am capable of reading and that it appears to do so by means of voluble, informal expressions.  That is illegitimate, I really do fail to see why.  So I'll stand by what I said.

But if a German speaker would say, "No, you ignorant idiot, he's not voluble or informal, he's using a Hegelian vocabulary," or, "No you buffoon, he's making allusions to Goethe," I with my miserable command of German would have to assume that they were right.  It's all I can do to get on the right train on the Deutsche Bahn, you know?  So if Keilhack's writing is not in fact informal, then I jolly well stand corrected.

motörhead wrote on 02/20/10 at 15:13:06:


In the first place, I'm not judging Keilhack's book, I am merely saying that since I was unable to understand him, I found him unuseful.  Unfortunately my  command of your language in no way resembles yours of mine.

I feel terrible about butchering your post by mistakenly using my moderator's power to edit it.  I deleted the chess variations that you so generously put up.  My apologies again, but others might benefit if you could find the time to put these ideas again. 

I noticed Kotronias picking up the Tarrasch also - very interesting! It would seem he agrees with Avrukh that after 9.Bg5 c4 is the way to go - its a strange line that one. The line Avrukh recommended with 9.dxc5 and Na4 I agree with Watson and the others who are not completely worried by it, so theoretically it seems like the Tarrasch is in decent shape.

Sandman wrote on 12/02/09 at 17:00:43:


I think the very best book on the Tarrasch isn't available in English - Harald Keilhack's "Die Tarrasch-Verteidigung". It is simply the best book on an opening I have ever seen. Keilhack in some variations even explains the specks of flies on the board.

And I'm not alone to praise it. The "pope" of chess-literature, John Watson, wrote in TWIC "I was completely taken aback by the depth an insightfulness of Keilhack's coverage ... pays equal attention to all lines of the Tarrasch ... gives complete explanations of issues which have been neglected for years in the literature ... useful for any player over about 1700, and might well exite the interest of grandmasters. The prose in this book is brillant" Amen.

So first of all I'm interested, whether Avrukh has Keilhack on his list of references (if there is one), just because Keilhack may have just been there before. Perhaps not in the concrete position but in the ideas behind the lines. 
Keilhack doesn't shy back to correct even Kasparow (but he has his own explanation on why Kasparow failed - that Kasparow throws in some analytical mistakes by free will just to confuse his opponents).

Well, yes, Keilhack's masterpiece is from 1993. I have the second edition from 2003, which simply is the first edition + an epilogue, 5 pages long and introduced with [translated] "The theory of the Tarrasch-Defence since 1993 has changed less than many [may] think". The very last sentence in that second edition is [translated] "The crucial question is: What will be the future of the pawn d5?" If you should name the core of the Tarrasch in one short sentence then this is it.

To your question. On 4.dxc5 Keilhack gives 4...d4 5.Ne4 Bxc5 as played in Knezevic - Keilhack, 1993. I think your 5...Nc6 is too slow and passive. What after simply 6.e3 ? To get back the pawn, you have to part with the pair of bishops - btw. Black could force it with Nd6+. So 6...Bxc5 anyway 7.Nxc5 Qa5+ 9.Bd2 Qxc5 10.exd4 Qxd4 and now 11.Bc3 or 11.Qc2. Black has no hold in the center while White has two bishops and 3:2 pawns on the queen's side.
The game went on with 6.Nf3 (6.Nxc5 Qa5+ 7.Bd2 Qxc5 leads to nearly the same [structure]) 6...Bb4+ 7.Ned2 Nc6 8.a3 Bxd2+ (8...Be7!? 9.b4!?) 9.Bxd2 e5 Black's position looks strong but he has to act carefully due to White's pair of bishops 10.e3 a5 11.exd4 exd4 12.Qe2+!? Nge7 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.Bc3 Nf5 15.g4 Re8 16.Qc2 Qf6 were the next moves - quite lively.

With the variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bf4 you touch a soft spot of opening theory. To most GMs it seems "obvious" that only 6.g3 leads to a resourceful game. To us amateurs the developing move 6.Bf4 is more natural, "simple and straightforward development, resulting in a strong bloc of centralised pieces to restrain Black's typical isolani-based counterplay" says Keilhack. But it isn't dealed with to much because it is often top GM's practice to click away games below an ELO rating say 2500 or even 2600. Thus 6.Bf4 for them tends to be irrelavant. But not for us. Nevertheless at least in the "small ECO" it only is a footnote. A fact you can find quite often if you browse through the opening theory.
Keilhack has 6...Nf6 7.e3 on two pages. Overall he says that Black's play should be based on the slightly weakned diagonal a5-e1 (a quite usful hint for amateurs, I think). He offers the closed 7...c4 (resulting in slight advantage for White if he plays exactly) and the active and open 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 that Keilhack himself played at least two times. The song of the position remains the same: What about the isolated pawn d5? White has tested 9.Nxc6 (Rubinstein), 9.Be2 (Speelman, Eingorn) and 9.Bb5 (Schlechter, Korchnoi) all of which tend to a more or lesse fragile equality where active counterplay has to cure the positional weakness. I only browsed through the lines of the book but it seems to me, that there is plenty of live in the normal 6.Bf4 (as the indicated players may show) as is in the main line 6.g3... 

cheese

Abby's article?