ChessPub Forum - Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence

(UTC)

ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › Daring Defences to 1. d4 › English Defence › Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence

(Moderators: proustiskeen, CraigEvans, Hadron)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2]

Topic Tools

Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence (Read 28109 times)

linksspringer Senior Member Offline Posts: 376 Joined: 09/25/07	Re: Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence Reply #4 - 08/23/10 at 12:18:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	Quote: Sadly in his new book "1.d4 - Ratgeber gegen Unorthodoxe Verteidigungen" Bronznik recommends one of the most ambitious and dangerous lines against our marginal defence. After 1.d4 b6 2.e4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nge2! his main line is 5...c5 6.d5! when he quotes the well known game Speelman - Basman, Brighton 1984, and comes to the also well known verdict += / more than sufficient compensation. What really worries me is that he also busts the more solid side line 5...d5 6.e5 Ng8! (Only move, 6...Nfd7?! 6.Nf4 +/-, idea 7.Nxe6) 7.Nf4 c5 8.O-O Nc6 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.Re1 Nge7 (Lalic - Gawehns, NRW-Liga 2002), when instead of Lalic's 11.Bd2 he recommends 11.Nb5 Ng6 (11...Nc8 12.c4 +/-) 13.Nxd5! exd5 14.Qh5! and proves with some computer checked lines that White gets a strong and probably decisive attack. So it looks like 7...c5 is a mistake and should be replaced with the meek 7...Qd7, for instance 8.O-O Nc6 with a playable position (+=). Thanks for sharing this! FYI, this line was previously discussed in this thread, a lot to read there: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1231205187 Some quick thoughts: * keeping the position closed with Qd7/Nc6 actually suits me fine (I play 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nc6 as well). * 6...Nfd7 6.Nf4 Qe7 7.Nb5 Kd8! is perhaps not too bad. * I think 6...Ne4 deserves more attention. 7.Bxe4 dxe4 and the very few games in the databases have Black play ...f5 much too early. It seems to me that even if White wins e4, at the very least converting that pawn against the bishop pair is going to be extremely difficult. Does Bronznik discuss 6...Ne4 ?


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence Reply #3 - 08/23/10 at 11:44:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	I've always thought that after 4.c4, 4...Bb4 5.Bd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Qf6!? is only a little bit better for White, and gives Black decent counterplay. After 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nge2(!) c5 6.d5, Black should probably avoid taking on d5 and instead play 6...Na6 7.a3 Nc7, which is still better for White, but not by much. Also, after 5...d6!?, White's kingside pieces are sub-optimally placed (f4 and Nf3 is more critical), although White keeps a small edge. The 5.Nge2 variation is better for White, but so are many of the other variations of the Owen's Defence. The aim of the variation is not to equalise but to achieve juicy complexity where Black can play for the win in an original position.

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Hehmer Ex Member	Re: Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence Reply #2 - 08/23/10 at 10:16:33	Post Tools	Print Post
	TN wrote on 08/23/10 at 09:42:34: What if Black prefers 4...Bb4? Good news for you! Bronznik doesn't even mention that move. Apparently his sources were Bauer's book and Gawehns' articles in Kaissiber. Both avoid the line 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.c4! by playing 3...Nf6 instead and then you can't prevent the line with 5.Nge2.


	IP Logged

TN God Member Offline Posts: 3420 Joined: 11/07/08 Gender:	Re: Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence Reply #1 - 08/23/10 at 09:42:34	Post Tools	Print Post
	What if Black prefers 4...Bb4?

	All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
	IP Logged

Hehmer Ex Member	Warnig to the very few adherents of Owen's Defence 08/23/10 at 09:29:02	Post Tools	Print Post
	Sadly in his new book "1.d4 - Ratgeber gegen Unorthodoxe Verteidigungen" Bronznik recommends one of the most ambitious and dangerous lines against our marginal defence. After 1.d4 b6 2.e4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nge2! his main line is 5...c5 6.d5! when he quotes the well known game Speelman - Basman, Brighton 1984, and comes to the also well known verdict += / more than sufficient compensation. What really worries me is that he also busts the more solid side line 5...d5 6.e5 Ng8! (Only move, 6...Nfd7?! 6.Nf4 +/-, idea 7.Nxe6) 7.Nf4 c5 8.O-O Nc6 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.Re1 Nge7 (Lalic - Gawehns, NRW-Liga 2002), when instead of Lalic's 11.Bd2 he recommends 11.Nb5 Ng6 (11...Nc8 12.c4 +/-) 13.Nxd5! exd5 14.Qh5! and proves with some computer checked lines that White gets a strong and probably decisive attack. So it looks like 7...c5 is a mistake and should be replaced with the meek 7...Qd7, for instance 8.O-O Nc6 with a playable position (+=).


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

Topic Tools

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Bookmarks:

« Board Index ‹ Board Top