Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/21/12 at 14:02:33:


After 8...Bc5; alternatives will be dealt with elsewhere

What makes the 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3!? variation at the class level so important is how many strong players got it wrong. In Gunsberg-Chigorin, Havana, 1890 and Gunsberg-Lasker, London, 1892, the players of the Black pieces both played the plausible continuation 8…Bc5?! After 9.O-O White seems better.

In the first game, play continued 9…O-O 10.Nc3 Bb6 11.Be2 Nd5 12.d3 Nb7 13.Nf3 Bc7 14.Re1 f5 15.Nd2 Mistakes like this permitted Chigorin to win. With 15.Bf1 Houdini has this as +/= to +/- Clearly Gunsberg got outplayed in the middlegame. His loss is not the fault of the opening. Here is a major reason that Chigorin won. 15…Nc5 16.Nf1? Why cede the initiative? 16.Nc4 is about equal but White continued to run his position downhill eventually losing. 

In the second game, 8.Bd3 Bc5 9.O-O Nd5 10.Nf3 Nf4 11.Nc3 O-O 12.Be2 Nd5 (Lasker lacks a plan) 13.Nxd5? Just Ne4 is +/= to +/- but 1/2-1/2

It is surprising that the basic drawbacks of 8…Bc5 aren’t fully recognized. The Two Knights’ player will argue that there is “long term” compensation here but a good test of this compensation is Molner (2453)-Sevillano (2490), Lubbock, 2011. Can anyone find any bad ideas by Black?

8.Bd3 Bc5 9.O-O O-O 10.Nc3 Bd4?! 11.Be2 Bf5 12.d3 +/= White has made normal and obvious moves leading to a slight plus. Black now tried 12…Rb8 and White responded 13.Nf3.

If White wants to drive the Bishop back perhaps a better way is Na4/c3. It should be pointed out, though, that White is still better after 13.Nf3. Houdini and Fritz see very little compensation for the pawn after13.Na4 which is consistent with the other two games. Houdini and Fritz were allowed to crunch for two hours. Fritz reached a depth of 22 and evaluated the position as +/- after either 13...Re8 or 13...Qc7

Houdini after 13...Nb7 or 13...h6 or 13...Qc7 evaluates the position as +/=.

8...Nd5 and 8...Ng4 make more sense IMO.