6...Nd7 seems to be a specialty of Maxim Turov's. His games are quite instructive. It may be that his grasp of the ensuing positions is superior to 6...Nd7 as an independent choice, but the results are heartening. The move also gets some treatment in Dangerous Weapons: The Caro-Kann. It's in a section with 6...Qd5. We analyzed that a bit above. I doubt there's anything wrong with it, but I also recall that it failed to grab me.

Several months later, I have played the Caro-Kann consistently against 1.e4. In maybe a dozen games, however, only one wasn't an Advanced or Panov-Botvinnik Attack. Which is to say that I haven't had much opportunity to try the Bronstein-Larsen. To make matters worse, the lone opponent had to withdraw from the tournament prematurely for health reasons. The game looked like this:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.c3 Nd7 7.g3 Nb6 8.Bg2 h5 9.Nf3 Bg4 10.O-O h4 11.h3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Bd2 Qc7 14.Qc1 e6 15.Re1 Nc4

I'm not sure my play was terribly convincing, but I suspect Black can hold. More research and preparation to come...

I'm just trying to catch up. Hasn't 13....,c5 already been played on move 11 ?

HgMan wrote on 09/16/17 at 21:23:09:


I noticed that there is an entire book (by Sergey Kasparov) about doubled pawns (Chapter 1: ...gxf6).

https://www.russell-enterprises.com/rei-publications/doubled-pawns

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/59725effbebafb...

Dink Heckler wrote on 10/02/17 at 12:26:36:

It helps to know yourself. I noticed that whenever I played hypermodern openings with black, I was wanting to put a pawn in the center at the earliest opportunity, even if it was premature. (For instance, ...e7-e5?! in this Bronstein-Larsen thing.) Once I figured that out, I changed to putting a pawn in the center on move one: 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5. My life in the black openings became much easier. It's true that lower-rated whites get a greater chance to draw, but at least I get to practice the endgame.

Dink Heckler wrote on 10/02/17 at 12:26:36:

On the flip side, this can be potentially confusing for the white player. At every move they have to consider that black might lash out. Constantly analyzing +/- positions that don't appear on the board might mess with their objectivity. I can see certain "optimistic" players doing quite badly with white.

Dink Heckler wrote on 09/29/17 at 11:56:16:


Fair enough - although I would compare it to the Pirc. Most top players dont really respect that either, but the GMs who play it like it precisely because of that.

At the end of the day we dont all have to play the number one sound choice otherwise every single tournament would be Berlin Defences and Marshalls, Petroffs etc.

The advantage of the ...gxf6 line for me is that it immediately creates an imbalance. It would be a useful line to have up the sleeve IMO.

Interesting stuff in this thread, but it doesn't really seem to move the needle on the long-held consensus - fishing for practical chances in a slightly dubious position. Which is fine, as long as we recognise what we're up to.

Fair assessment?

15.Bf4 appears more persuasive.

I'll have to refer to Jansa's work to engage with it more thoroughly, but the line he mentions is an important one. It's the same one that Negi recommends. Maybe the combination of the two is what has persuaded players to revert back to ...Bf5.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 Qc7 7...e6 frequently transposes, but I'm not sure about the queen move as being necessary at this point. I assume it's claiming the diagonal before White plays Bf4, but this is hardly a worry. 8.0-0 Nd7 9.Nh4 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 e6 11.c4 0-0-0 12.g3 Rg8 13.d5 Negi recommends 13.Qh5 Nb6 14.b3 h6 (what about 14...Bb4, which isn't mentioned?) 15.Be3 Qe5 14.Qf3 exd5 15.cxd5 Qxd5 16.Qxd5 cxd5 17.Be3 was Jansa-Hracek (Prague 1984)

White looks pretty good—and this is a problem line for Black. One option is to go back to the drawing board and trying 6...Bf5 (more on which another time). But does Jansa offer any discussion of 11...Bd6 ? Negi doesn't. One simple line:

11...Bd6 12.g3 Nf8 13.Qh5 Ng6 14.Nxg6 fxg6 15.Qh3 f5 16.Re1 Qf7 This looks more appealing to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

In short, 6.Nf3 frightens me a good deal more than 6.c3. It seems as though Black has resources against 6.c3. The best include 6...Bf5 (the longstanding mainline) and 6...Nd7, which is surprisingly effective.

Against 6.Nf3, things are less clear. Part of this, I think, stems from an uncertainty in how to proceed. Negi offers good lines here for White, though his recommendations against both 6...Bf5 and 6...Bg4 leave something to be desired. The latter seems to be the principled move: White offers up the knight to be pinned. The former, however, is popular amongst the Bronstein-Larsen's most experienced proponents (though maybe this is hoping to transpose to other lines).

Yeah the practical element is quite important - while I was arguing for White's chances earlier in the thread I do have a not so nice score against it (especially in blitz and rapid).

HgMan wrote on 09/24/17 at 16:11:04:

In this line I'd suggest 18.Bxh5 Rh8!? (instead of 18...Qh4). My own main line would be something like 18.a5 Nd5 19.Bxh5 Rh8 20.Qe2 0-0-0 21.Ng2 Qd7 22.Bg5 Re8 23.c4 Nb4 24.a6 followed by 25.d5. However the results remain foggy. Black's pieces are placed in the center - in particular the future Nd3 -, and White has fewer and fewer pawns. The edge claimed by the engine may be meaningless.

The whole h5 idea looks fine to me. Surely for "OTB" chess. Maybe for correspondence chess not so much. An open position and many tactical possibilities means that White can probably "surf" to a draw if he wants.

HgMan wrote on 09/24/17 at 02:56:55:


Oops. Confusing in the name of clarity. The line above should read 9...Nb6. I am ashamed. 

Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/23/17 at 21:27:20:


This does look troublesome (though I'm not overly committed to 6...h5). I think the main problem in all these variations is Black's lack of development. It's simply not possible to develop any counterplay.

Is 13...Bd6 an option, instead of the fairly obvious 13...Be6 ? 14.c4 Bc7 15.a5 Nd7 16.f4 f5 17.a6 bxa6 18.Qh3 Nf8 19.Nc2 Rb8 20.b4 h4 Maybe Black gives the pawn back with ...a5. This looks unappealing, but not horrible.

I wondered if 15...Qh4 was an improvement, but not really. 16.fxe4 fxe4 17.g3 Qh3

For the sake of clarity, this building off the following line: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nf6+ gxf6 6.c3 h5!? 7.Bc4 Nd7 8.Qb3 e6 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.Be2 Rg8 11.0-0 e5 12.a4! e4

Keano wrote on 09/22/17 at 21:32:52:

The position after 12.dxe5 fxe5 is surprisingly good for Black. I tried to refute it, but without much success. Black's pieces are very active, and in one attempt that looked good at first White finally was checkmate. If the move 12.dxe5 was forced, your creative solution would probably be stronger than all our other attempts against Ne2-g3 &h4.

However, it seems to me that the critical move is 12.a4!.
Black can then try:

(a) 12...a5 13.Re1 and Black's prospects to develop and find some shelter for his king look dim.

(b) 12...Bh3 13.Ng5

(c) 12...Be6 13.Qc2 Bh3 14.g3 Bxf1 15.Bxf1 followed by a5-a6. Black has won the exchange, yet it's very difficult to play.

(d) 12....e4 13.Ne1 Be6 14.Qc2 f5 could be relatively best. 15.f3 Qd5 16.a5 Nc8 is a possible continuation. In my opinion rather +/- than +=.

On further examination, here's what frightens me the most:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.Nf3 which shouldn't cause much grief 6...Bf5 7.Bd3!? Bg6 8.0-0 Qc7 9.c4 Nd7 10.d5! There's nothing outwardly problematic here beyond the fact that Black is about to get wiped off the board in very short order. 0-0-0 11.Be3 c5 12.Be2 Kb8 13.Rc1 f5 (13...c5 is better) 14.c5 Nxc5 15.Bxc5 e4 16.Bd4 exf3 17.Bxh8 fxe2 18.Qxe2 Bd6 19.Bf6 Bxh2+ 20.Kh1 Bf4 21.Rc4! 1-0 Matulovic-Larsen(!!) (Hastings 1972). I'm coming to terms with the fact that Larsen didn't actually play B16 particularly well. His efforts are far less theoretically significant or consistent than Bronstein's. Or Turov's, for that matter.

In short, I think there are some obvious improvements that can be made to Black's play in the game above, but rather than the 6.c3 lines with a fianchetto or with 7.Ne2 as previously discussed, I find this very natural 6.Nf3 and the rapid c2-c4 try more potentially dangerous. The absence of a bishop on c4 makes Black's thematic Nd7-b6-d5 seem slow and awkward and irrelevant. The natural try is 6...Bg4, but I think it's interesting that Turov has shifted to ...Bf5 away from ...Bg4. Nevertheless:

6...Bg4 7.Be2 Qc7 8.Be3 Nd7 9.c4 e6 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Qa4 Kb8 looks okay for Black.

I just looked at Turov's games. 6...Nd7 also looks completely viable and interesting. What I like about this whole opening is it seems like there is plenty of room for creativity and expression.

I also found it interesting that instead of 6.c3 when White plays 6.Nf3 instead of the universally recommended 6...Bg4 Turov simply replies 6...Bf5 and seems to get on just fine.

HgMan wrote on 09/22/17 at 22:53:19:


Interesting. I have attended lectures/training sessions with GM Turov twice, and both times he showed a Caro-Kann game ... but alas with Capablanca's 4...Bf5 main line, not 4...Nf6.

Does he play both lines? And the Bronstein-Larsen more as a surprise weapon or against weaker opponents, perhaps?

I spent a good portion of the afternoon with Maxim Turov's games, and especially his tries with 6.c3 Nd7!? He makes the Bronstein-Larsen look very very easy. More so than 6...h5--though it frequently transposes, I think his games offer a valuable model.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 09/20/17 at 16:51:55:


I appreciate this thought. But I wonder if the other rook to g8 at move 21 makes a tangible difference? 21...Rdg8 22.Qf3 f5 (I think my favourite part about playing the Bronstein-Larsen is being able to lash out with ...f5 twice in one game!). But maybe Black still has a tricky endgame after 23.Rfd1 f4 24.bxc6

HgMan wrote on 09/19/17 at 02:58:05:


7...e5!? Jeremy Silman doesn't like this idea for Black, which is understandable. Optically it looks all wrong. But with a bit of patience, Black might be able to uncover some counterplay. 8.Ng3 Be6 The point, I guess. Black tries to open the position while providing some cover for the king along the opening e-file. 9.Be3 Qc7 10.Bd3 Capitalizing on the departure of Black's bishop from this diagonal. As Silman notes, "the e4 and f5 squares are now in White's hands. Black's game is already very bad." 10...Nd7 11.O-O O-O-O 12.Qh5 ( 12.Qf3 h5 13.Bf5 was eventually drawn in Altshuler-De Carbonnel (ICCF WC05/final 1965). 12...Kb8 may not be as bad as Silman claims. 13.Rfd1 Bd6 14.Nf5 exd4 15.Bxd4 Be5 16.Bc2 Rdg8 This is playable for Black. In fact it looks rather good.

Not a critical line under discussion, but I stumbled across this lovely miniature from David Bronstein last night, which I think demonstrates the potential for activity in Black's position. I thought the 10...f5 & 11...Qh4 was a particularly pretty idea worth knowing about.

Aseev-Bronstein, Moscow 1982
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.O-O e6 10.h4 f5 11.h5 Qh4 12.Qf3 Bd6 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.Re1 Bxg3 0-1

Keano wrote on 09/21/17 at 19:09:33:

Or perhaps your idea is too fast? 

Personally I like e7-e6 too, but now I think 11...0-0-0? is just premature. It seems better to delay castling: 11...e6! 12.b4 Qc7 13.a5!? (13.b5?! is hardly possible here; 13.Nxh5 a5!; 13.Bd3 Ne5!) 13...Bd6 14.Nxh5 a6!. Freezing the structure is more urgent than castling. For example: 15.g3 0-0-0 16.Nf4 Be4 17.Bf3 f5, and there is nothing wrong with Black's position.

There are circa a dozen games with 11...e6 in the database, but none of them problematic for Black.

First line:
15.Qb3 Bd6 16.dxc6 Qxc6 17.c4 Qb6!? but proaly you avoid the endame with something like 18.Qe3 and a5 is coming?

I looked at 15.Qb3 c5 16.a5, didnt like that either for Black

Maybe my ...Kb8 is just too slow. It looked good on the board but the engines have made a mockery of me.

At this moment I am thinking to go back and look at HgMan's original line...

fdunne wrote on 09/20/17 at 21:30:21:


14.b5 e6(!) Flexibility is the watchword.

I claim an excellent game for Black. ....Bd6Xg3 is coming and I dont see any clear attack for White.

In this line after 13.0-0 I have a new suggestion to throw into the ring

13...Kb8! (Prophylaxis against the Bc4 move, ...e5 will come next)

Black seems to get reasonable play to me, but no doubt the engines will come up with the next refutation

Just punning. "Silicone" is not the same as "silicon".

HgMan wrote on 09/19/17 at 01:07:51:
Silicone friends are not usually known for giving good chess advice.

Indeed: Engel lost two games with the same 11.0-0

[Event "WC10/final (7884)"]
[Site "ICCF Post"]
[Date "1978.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sanakoev, Grigory K. (RUS)"]
[Black "Engel, Klaus Eberhard (GER"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B16"]
[EventDate "1978.??.??"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ gxf6 6. c3 Bf5 7. Ne2 Nd7 8.
Ng3 Bg6 9. h4 h5 10. Be2 Qa5 11. O-O e6 12. Bf4 O-O-O 13. b4 Qa3 14. Qb3 Qxb3
15. axb3 e5 16. Be3 a6 17. f4 exf4 18. Bxf4 Nb6 19. Bd2 Re8 20. Rf3 Bd6 21. Kf2
Nd5 22. Re1 Bxg3+ 23. Rxg3 f5 24. Rf3 Nf6 25. Bf4 Re4 26. Rc1 Rhe8 27. Bd3 R4e7
28. c4 Ne4+ 29. Kg1 Kd7 30. b5 axb5 31. cxb5 Nf6 32. bxc6+ bxc6 33. Bg5 Re1+
34. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 35. Kf2 Re6 36. Bxf6 Rxf6 37. Rf4 Kd6 38. Ke3 Bh7 39. Bc4 Ke7
40. Rf2 Rd6 41. Rd2 Rg6 42. d5 f4+ 43. Kf2 cxd5 44. Bxd5 Rg4 45. Bf3 Rxh4 46.
Kg1 Bf5 47. Rd4 Ke6 48. b4 Ke5 49. Rd5+ Ke6 50. b5 Bg4 51. b6 Bxf3 52. gxf3
1-0

Stockfish jumped straight to 15.Bc4 and stayed there. That surprised me: you're right that it doesn't look intuitive at all. But if our silicone friends can see it, it's safe to assume it's what to expect in correspondence chess.

The line above looks pretty good for Black. The next step is to determine whether or not Black can improve and acquire greater counterplay. There seem to be a few places in that line where Black could try and get creative...

One potential line (which starts to look a little hairy):

6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.h4 h5 10.Be2 Qa5 11.a4 O‑O‑O 12.b4 Qc7 13.O‑O e5 14.b5 Nc5 15.Bc4 f5 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.bxc6 f4

...and then I have no idea what's going on.

Was having a look:

6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.h4 h5 10. Be2 Qa5 11.a4 O-O-O 12.b4 Qc7 13.a5 e5! 14.a6 b5(!)
15.O-O Nb6

Looks like decent play for Black to my eye.

Edit: if still a bit of a mess 

The line I recall from way back had Black playing 6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 (with the possibility of a later ...e5 in one go).

MNb wrote on 09/16/17 at 21:40:25:


(Hello, old friend). I didn't reply, because I hadn't sat down with it. My instinct is that Black needs to swing the queen out to a5, to make White think twice about castling queenside too quickly. But I'd need to look at some specifics. It seems as though ...h6 runs Black into some trouble—I think I prefer ...h5. But: more actual lines to follow.

The nice thing about correspondence is you can trot out the same line in 4-6 games at a time without losing the "surprise value." The advantage is the opportunity to really work on a particular opening or two. Games are usually hidden until they are finished.

But it did get me wondering: I'll have to look, but do any of the books on pawns and pawn structures treat playing with doubled pawns as an advantage? Baburin?  Marovic?

I think you're right. It seems to me that there are some general middlegame and endgame characteristics to a number of these positions that would reward greater familiarity. And are probably just enough to throw off the first player with less preparation. I would also note that engines seem to really like White in most lines. Disproportionately so. Which is especially nice for the correspondence player. It's nice to see that +1.02 drop to +0.35 over the course of a half-dozen natural moves. In correspondence chess, there's so much room for sub-optimal moves from White with that kind of mis-evaluation.

Botvinnik is usually a good model to follow.

Viking wrote on 09/12/17 at 21:29:13:


One of these perhaps? In fact, I'm inclined to retract my comments in the previous post about the bishops looking a little passive or stale.

Horberg-Botvinnik (Stockholm 1962)
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 de4 4. Ne4 Nf6 5. Nf6 gf6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bf4 Nd7 8. Nf3 e6 9. O-O Nb6 10. Bb3 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. c4 Bg7 13. g4 Bg6 14. Re1 O-O 15. Kh2 a5 16. a4 f5 17. Qd2 fg4 18. hg4 c5 19. Bh6 cd4 20. Bg7 Kg7 21. Kg2 d3 22. g5 Nd7 23. Qf4 Rc8 24. Rad1 Nc5 25. Ba2 f6 26. Qg4 fg5 27. Ng5 Qf6 28. Ne6 Ne6 29. Re6 Qf2 30. Kh1 Rf4

Ciocaltea-Botvinnik (Hamburg 1965)
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 de4 4. Ne4 Nf6 5. Nf6 gf6 6. Be2 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8. O-O Bg7 9. Re1 O-O 10. Bf4 Qb6 11. Qc1 Nd7 12. a4 c5 13. Be3 Qc7 14. Bf4 Qa5 15. Bd2 Qc7 16. Bf4 Qa5 17. Bd2 Qd8 18. Bh6 Rc8 19. Bg7 Kg7 20. c3 Qc7 21. Qe3 Bg6 22. a5 cd4 23. Nd4 a6 24. f4 e5 25. fe5 fe5 26. Nf3 f5 27. Rad1 Rce8 28. g3 Re7 29. b4 f4 30. gf4 Rf4 31. Bf1 Nf6 32. h3 Bh5 33. Be2 Kh8 34. Kh1 Ne4 35. Kh2 Ref7 36. Rd5 Rf3 37. Bf3 Bf3 38. Qb6 Qb6 39. ab6 Nc3 40. Rde5 Bc6 41. Re7 Re7 42. Re7

If you go for 6.c3 Bf5 - make sure you are booked up for the dangerous 7.Ne2!?

In general may a development to Bg7  be an interesting thought if you are looking for something "fresh". Reminds me of an old Botvinnik(?) game - although I am not able to find it right now

HgMan wrote on 09/12/17 at 20:52:01:


Also interesting and playable I think.

For correspondence though what about some return to sanity - the plan of ...Bg7 and ..0-0 is also quite solid I think:

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ gxf6 6. c3 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8.g3 Nd7 9. Bg2 Bg7 10. Nh4 Bg6 11. O-O O-O

Black is solid and can look for his chances when White pushes

Keano wrote on 09/11/17 at 19:46:36:


Correct. Qb3 is the obvious threat. With the bishop blocked the black position is not very attractive.

Keano wrote on 09/12/17 at 12:31:14:


I think you're probably right. As Black, I remain interested in 6.c3 Bf5 7.Nf3 e6 8.g3 h5 9.Bg2 Be4 as perhaps the best h5 advance.

HgMan wrote on 09/12/17 at 02:43:34:


Yes. I was looking at it and I am more worried by 8.Qb3(!) forcing me to lock in my bishop with 8....e6. This seems a little bit too passive for Black for my liking.

Keano wrote on 09/11/17 at 19:46:36:


Doesn't 8.Nf3 work? Develop normally? 8...Nb6 9.Bb3 a5 10. a4 or 0-0 both look pretty straightforward. Black's h5 pawn looks a little silly at the moment—and it's going to take some time for Black to be able to mount much along the half-open g-file. Hard not to like White here.

Viking wrote on 09/11/17 at 19:23:57:


6.c3 h5 7.Bc4 Nd7 what is the idea for White - you want Qb3 to block in my bishop?

Fllg wrote on 09/10/17 at 08:24:13:


6.c3 h5!? is interesting