Novelty in the Hennig Schara

There are some openings I have a soft spot for and the Hennig Schara Gambit is one of those. I've written about it before, and enjoy looking through games in this lively opening. You don't tend to see the Gambit at the very top level, and a lot of players use move orders to prevent the Hennig Schara. This week's TWIC features a game with a strange new move in the Hennig Schara. Now I'm not saying the move is good, but it is interesting!

The Hennig Schara is a variation of the Tarrasch Queen's Gambit and we get to it after the moves,

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 [4..exd5 is the 'normal' move]

In this position, white can take on d4 and still have 2 defenders of d5, which means that white is winning a pawn if they want to. The open position, and swift and easy development give black plenty of chances to fight for an initiative and an advantage.

So a typical sequence might be 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5 7.Qxd5 [Winning a pawn] 7..Bd7

Black avoids a queen exchange and develops another piece off the back rank. Often, black will castle queen side in this opening, and launch a huge attack on the king side. Black intends to develop with gain of tempo by Nf6 hitting the queen and then Bc5 hitting f2. The most common move here is 8.Nf3, but in a recent game from the Untergrombach Open played 5/1/15 white played the novelty 8.Be3, putting his bishop in front of a central pawn.

It's an ugly sort of move at first glance, but when I thought about it, Be3 prevents black's favoured development of the dark squared bishop to c5, blocks the c-file, develops a piece, and doesn't exactly hinder the f1 bishop which will probably develop to g2. In the game Cofman (2162)-Bongatz (2141) there followed a fairly natural sequence, 8..Nf6 [winning time developing and attacking the queen] 9.Qd2 Bb4

Developing the dark squared bishop to pin white's knight seems a reasonable developing move and brings about the position above. Black has a mighty lead in development, but is a pawn down. It's a very interesting position to work out if white can safely untangle and remain a pawn ahead, or whether black's activity is worth more than a pawn. As an exercise, I think it would be good to play loads of games from this type of position for both black and white to try to better understand the requirements of the position. White is solid but awkward with a pawn plus, black has all the play but has to justify being a pawn down.

This poition reminds me of a line I've been playing against the Evans Gambit, the StoneWare variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bd6

Black accepts the pawn, places his bishop on an ugly square where it protects e5 and asks the question of white, what exactly have you got for your pawn?

And then, of course, there is the Bd3 retreat in the main line of the Two Knights Defence where white retreats a bishop to an ugly square to control a vital central spot. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3

These types of positions are becoming a part of modern chess, and as much as we old classical players blanch at the thought of playing such an anti-positional move as placing a bishop in front of a central pawn, if there is a specific reason for doing so, then we should judge the move on its own merit, not on the general principal.

Saying that, I think if I came up against 8.Be3 in the Hennig Schara, I'd be a happy black player. The game in the Hennig Schara continued with 10.a3, which I'm not sure is the best move in the position. Black traded on c3 which may also not be best. 10..Qa5, 10..Ne4, and even 10..Ba5 may all come into consideration, and the thought of this position is giving me the urge to dig Stockfish out to analyse the positions. In the meantime, here's the game which was a real long battle, ending in a pawnless rook versus knight ending.

Understanding Compensation

I realise that I am overly materialistic as a chess player, and my understanding of compensation is pretty weak. I'm not sure why this is, as when I was younger I enjoyed sacrificing and attacking chess. I guess that my sacrifices were always based on attacking or tactical ideas, and not on positional ideas. I tend to be a pawn grabber who tries to hold on to material. Is it possible to remedy this situation, or is it even necessary?

Of course it is important to fully understand all aspects of the game, and to be able to apply those ideas in your games, but I really have no problem adopting a style of play. And I suppose I am always going to be taking poisoned pawns, or defending against gambits. One gambit that I've never looked at too deeply is the Evan's Gambit, at least not in terms of working out a black repertoire.

As a lazy...oops, sorry, I mean time constrained player, I'm looking for repertoire choices that are easy to understand and not too complex to learn. The only trouble is, cutting corners and taking easy to learn lines can often mean playing inferior positions.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4!?

So white just gives up a pawn? What does white get for it? For the pawn, white will get a lead in development and an attack against some key squares and lines in black's position. The more white wins I see, the harder I find it to choose a line for black to play. When I was young, the Evan's was not considered fully sound and so was not seen around too much. That was changed in the 1990's when Kasparov, among others, started to play it. For players of my generation, it is still difficult to accept it is fully sound, but proving it isn't sound is something else.

4..Bxb4 - It is possible to decline the gambit, though against my nature. 5.c3

The question is, where should the bishop retreat to, a5, c5, e7, d6? Funnily enough, the latter move is the one I have been choosing as a repertoire, 5..Bd6 or the Stoneware Defence. But I have found it difficult to play this system. I have recently seen a game with Nakamura on the white pieces, where black has an extra pawn but can do hardly anything, an excellent example of compensation for a pawn.

Games like this do nothing to inspire me to play this variation. Black grabs a pawn, and then takes a pounding, hoping that white's haymakers don't connect and somehow he emerges a pawn ahead. I think I have to put some work in to find something a little more active.

I recently played games where I underestimated my opponent's compensation, sat back and allowed them to gain more than adequate compensation for a pawn investment.

I was black here against Bill Jordan and expected Bill to take my e4 pawn re-establishing material equality. Instead Bill played 15.Nd5 using his development advantage to create threats. For the rest of the game I was unable to fully develop my queen side, and although we both traded blunders later in the game, I lost the game mainly due to Bill's more active pieces.

Until I understand the concept of compensation for material I will always struggle with positions like this, but playing and thinking about them can only help improve my understanding.