JonathanB wrote on 02/26/13 at 13:11:05:


It does seem one of those Grandmaster mysteries. Looking at a number of games, you get the impression that sometimes White will waste the tempo with Qe2 before provoking Bxf3. In other games, White plays c4 and Black just goes in for the usual Caro style blockade, regardless of the extra tempo against the Qe2 line. Perhaps a player of Qe2 will annotate one day why they prefer it to c4. It's a variation where a number of the players with either colour are stronger than the authors who have written about it.

Hi JonathanB.
Yes...sorry...my variations were for 9.Re1 oo inserted.
Sometimes i wander analyzing other sub-variations (mainly transpositions) and finish loosing
memory about the actual position.

A) 9.Re1 oo leads to position assessed in my previous post

B) 9.b3 oo (of course Black is playing plan for Re8 and a later e5)

B1) 10.c4 Re8 (the immediate 10..Bxf3 leads to c7-c6 or c7-c5 pawn move where Black has no real clear cut counterplay) 11.Bb2 b6 12.Qe2 Bxf3! (despite lot of of tempo with b6,Black engineers the wished trade of one pair of minor pieces) 11.Qxf3 c5= Kapengut-Holmov,URSS 1978 (Psakhis)

B2) 10.Bb2 b5!? Bologan's idea...I suppose for a prophylaxis move vs c4 and an idea of controling c3 with a later b4

Alternatives seem pointless because they don't hinder c4:

10...a5 is one plan from game Adams-Dreev,Manille 1992 as given by McDonald&Harley book and Bologan/Gufeld

10...Re8 11.c4! (11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Qd5 the point when there is no c4 pawn) b6 (11..Bxf3 transposes to usual lines  Shirov-Chernin,Groningue 1993 (Gufeld)) 12.Ne5 Qe2 +=

10...Bxf3 11.Qxf3 c6 12.Rfe1 Re8 (Bb4 is not available here because of Re2/Re3 and a later a3 with a total control of the e file for White)

C) 9.Qe2 Bxf3 (9....oo 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Qd5 (11..Nd7 12.Qh5!) 12.f4 Nd7 13.c3) 10.Qxf3 c6 Karjakin-Gelfand,Odessa 2008 (chesspublishing, update janvier 2008) 11.Re1 oo 12.c3 Re8 13.Bf4 +=

D) 9.c4 Bxf3! (9...oo 10.Bf4! (10.Re1 Bb4; 10.b3 Re8 11.Bb2 b6 12.Ne5 Bb7 and 12.Qe2 Bxf3 transposes to Kapengut-Holmov,URSS 1978; 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Nd7 12.Qh5!? g6 13.Qe2 (13.Qh6 with the idea Nh5:  Black has the defence Re8 with the idea Bf8) Nxe5! =) +=) 10.Qxf3 c5 (vs 10...c6, White uses plan with b3/Bb2/Re1) 11.Be3 Qb6= White is busy to defend his d4 pawn.

E) 9.c3 (maybe the sign Black can wait and try a slow developement with b6) oo 10.Re1 b6 see my previous post (where I can add 11.Qe2 Bb7 12.Ng5 +/-) or 10...Bxf3 11.Qxf3 c6 12.Bf4 Re8 Volokitin-Nakamura,Lausanne 2005 (Eingorn) 13.Rad1 Nf8 14.a3 Nd5 (Dom) instead of 14..Ng6 Leko-Seirawan,Istambul 2000 (Inf 80)

JonathanB wrote on 02/23/13 at 17:53:52:


I guess that the immediate positional win (bishop pair) by 10.Qe2  Bxf3 11.Qxf3 is more valuable than other choices.

A) 10.Qe2 Bxf3!?  (10..b6 the natural way of developping the queenside, if you except 10..Re8 playing for e6-e5 pawn advance - 11.Ba6 Rb8 12.c4 Bb7 13.Bxb7 Rxb7 14.Ne5 Karpov-Stojanovic,Valjevo  2007) 11.Qxf3 c5 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Be2 a5 14.c3 Qb6 Tsehkovsky-Anastasian,Moscou 1989 (Psakhis)

B) 10.c3 (novelty from game Sokolov-Suba,Anvers 1996 (Inf 67)) Bxf5 (10...b6!?=) 11.Qxf3 c4 12.Bf4 Re8 (Volokitin-Nakamura,Lausanne 2005 (Eingorn)) 13.Rad1 Nf8 14.a3 Nd5 15.Be5 Ng6=

C) 10.c4 or 10.b3 Bb4

D) 10.Bd2 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 c5 12.Qxb7 cxd4 13.Ne4 Nd5 14.Qa6 Ne5 16.Bf1 Qc7 17.Rac1 Rab8 and Black has plenty of activity on the queenside

In the D) line, Black can delay the bas bishop trade playing for example: 10..Re8 11.Qe2 (11.c3 b6 12.Qe2 Bd6! 13.Ba6 e5=) Bxf3 12.Qxf3 c5 13.Qxb7 (13.Bc3 Nd5= (Suba's isea according to Psakhis)) cxd4 14.b4 Rb8 15.Qxa7 Bxb4 16.Bxb4 Rxb4=  Hellers-Hodgson,Reykjavik 1990 (Psakhis)

kylemeister wrote on 02/23/13 at 18:08:46:


which book?

I notice that Neil McDonald gave 9. c4 0-0 10. b3 in the book in which he was writing for the white side ...