The Amazing Sicilian Najdorf

I can trace my improvement up to beyond the 2000 level back to when I started playing the Sicilian Najdorf for both white and black. Back in those days the English Attack was in it's early days, and was usually called the Byrne System, the Sozin hadn't been countered by Nbd7-c5 as a main weapon, and the Bg5 main lines had not been analysed as deeply as they are now. Of course, compared to other openings the Najdorf was investigated very deeply, even back in the early 1980's, and I remember getting my hands on a copy of Nunn's book on the opening. I think this may have been the last openings book I bought. Soon after Nunn's Najdorf book, NIC Yearbooks started to appear with regular contributions on the Najdorf, and I discovered that Nunn's brilliant book was full of holes. Even I had managed to prove some things wrong, and I remember talking to GM Peter Wells about this, and his reaction was something like 'of course, all opening's books are full of holes'.

While Nunn's book inspired me, it also disillusioned me when it came down to opening study. Perhaps this was a good thing in as much as I worked harder on other parts of my game. However, it also meant that I never really deeply understood any opening systems, which is something that can take your game to another level. It is probably too late for me now to start working on opening systems with any ambition, though I was fired up by a Najdorf I played at my local club the other week. I was white and after playing 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 I took a think to work out what line I wanted to play. In the end I went back to the move I played 30 years ago, 6.Bg5, which leads to some of the craziest positions in the whole of chess.

From here, the game can go in a lot of directions.

1. Polugaevsky 6..e6 7.f4 b5 I used to play this for black!
2. Poisoned Pawn 6..e6 7.f4 Qb6
3. A line that wasn't popular when I last played the Najdorf, but seems to be doing well is 6..Nbd7 7.Bc4 Qb6
4. My opponent played the main line move, 6..e6 7.f4 Be7. Black breaks the pin on f6, and develops. Couldn't be simpler. Both sides improve their pieces with 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O Nbd7

Back in the early 80's it was almost automatic to play 10.g4 in this position, though looking through the database I see 10.Bd3 scores better, though with a lower amount of games. I stuck with the main move, and I remember feeling somewhat nostalgic as I looked at the position. Unfortunately, my opponent didn't play the best move and succumbed quickly, which is an occupational hazard of playing such a sharp opening as the Najdorf. The mainline goes 10..b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7

I know that the most popular move in the position is 13.f5, though I always used to play 13.h4 in this position. I seem to remember seeing some games of Ljubojevic playing in this way which impressed me, so I took the move up. I have also used the unusual 13.Rg1 once, in the Victorian Championship 2006 against Dusan Stojic. While still a great player, at the time Dusan wasn't as formidable as he is now, and I was to happy to walk away with a draw in that game. I wonder which move I would have chosen? I seem to remember thinking about 13.h4 during the game but who knows what I'd have done? Hopefully I'd have continued like Ljubojevic did in this game breaking through on e6 and bringing the light squred bishop into effect on the h3-c8 diagonal. Maybe even a little sacrifice a la Ljubo! Enjoy...

A couple of Ideas in the Opening

I've been easing myself into opening theory by looking at Michael Yip's Budapest Chess News (BCN). I've had a breeze through some games, and a couple of ideas have come to me from just looking briefly at his database.

The first position that grabbed my attention came from a Bird's opening. Now, I'll admit that I know very little about Bird's Opening (1.f4), but the game Capaliku-Hambleton Forni di Sopra 2013 needs very little theoretical knowledge. The game starts with the moves 1.f4 d5 (I'm with it so far) 2.b3 Nh6

For those of you who don't like the usual opening ideas, this should appeal! There have actually been some games played from a reverse position to this (ie, the Dutch) starting 1.d4 f5 2.Nh3. I admit to knowing nothing about this line either! Anyway, the Hambleton game continued 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.e3 Nf5 5.Bb2 e6 6.Be2 Nd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Ne5 [8.c4 seems more in keeping with the Bird's generally] 8..Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Nxe5 10.fxe5 c6. Obviously, there could have been different moves up to this point, but this is the position that interested me.

So as white what should be played here? To me, white has 3 main options, 11.c4, 11.d4, or 11.e4. In the game 11.d4 was played, but I see more point in advancing on the central light squares. 11.c4 with the intention of developing Nc3 behind it seems a pretty reasonable idea. 11.e4 looks to undouble the central pawns. A sample line is 11..dxe4 12.Qxe4 Bc5 13.Kh1 Qg5 14.d4 Qe3 15.Re1 Qxe4 16.Rxe4 Rd8 17.c3 with a playable position for both sides.

Anyway, back to the game and after 11.d4 the game continued 11..0-0 12.Nd2, when Michael Yip suggests 12..Bg5 as an improvement over the game continuation of 12..Qa5.

I think it shows the strength of BCN that Michael Yip is prepared to stick his neck out, and try to improve on the games of strong players. Studying games, and by studying I mean critically analysing them, is the best way for players to improve their knowledge. It is hard work, but most rewarding. It is a good idea to work through some great annotated games so as to get an idea of what is expected in analysing a game. Try game collections by Botvinnik, Alekhine, or Karpov, or tournament books such as Zurich 1953, or Piatigorsky Cup 1966 to see some great annotations. When you've looked through games analysed by top players, then have a go at doing it yourself. The more you do it, the better you will get! Let's look at this move 12..Bg5!?

 - 13.Rf3 [Yip mentions this] 13..Qa5 [13..c5!?] 14.c4 f6 with advantage to black according to Michael, and I'm not arguing with him about this.

- 13.e4 [This is the move that interests me, because if white can rid himself of his weak e3 pawn, then his position shouldn't be that bad. Michael doesn't mention this move] 13..Ne3 [I don't think this is necessarily an easy move to find, but others don't impress: 13..Bxd2? 14.exf5 and white has great attacking chances on the king side; 13..Be3+ 14.Kh1 Nxd4 15.Qxe3 Nxc2 16.Qc3 Nxa1

and here, white has the excellent 17.Ba3!! (thankyou Stockfish) taking control of the key diagonal. In the case of 17.Rxa1, black has 17..Qe7 followed by c5; 13..dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxd4 15.Qg4 Be3+ 16.Kh1 and white has great activity, especially directed at black's king in compensation for the pawn] 14.Rfc1 f5! [Trying to open the f-file now that white has taken his rook away] 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Re1 Bxd2 17.Qxd2 f4

 So here's the end of my analysis line. Black is probably a bit better, because the knight seems better than white's bishop. Saying that, if white can manage a c4 and d5 type break then anything could happen. Of course, if white does play c4, then d5 will be almost obligatory, or the d4 pawn will be weak, but I think that both sides would feel they have a chance from this position.

 I have found Michael's analysis and work very useful as I ease myself into the crazy world of opening theory. In fact, I have to admit that it's a bit ironic that my interest in opening theory comes just after I give up playing internationally rated chess. Oh well, with some work on my openings I might be able to make a big come back at some stage :D

The Najdorf is a favourite with theorists, and as such is a nightmare for someone who is out of the loop. For example, the last time I looked at any Najdorf theory, the variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7 was considered a bit dubious for black. Now it seems like a viable alternative. I seem to remember white plays 7.Bc4 hoping for possible sacrifices on e6, f7 or d5. So I was a bit surprised when the game Paravyan-Mekhitarian Golden Sands 2013 continued 7..Qb6 [I think 7..Qa5 is the main move here] 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.0-0 e6

Here white has the thematic sacrifice 10.Bxe6 [Not played in the game, or mentioned by Micheal Yip] 10..fxe6 11.Nxe6 [when black must lose time as white threatens to fork on c7] 11..Kf7 [11..Qb6 is strongly answered by 12.Nd5 when black has the miserable choice between 12..Qa7 or 12..Nxd5 13.exd5 when white's rooks will come to the b and e-files with devastating effect]

And now white has the fantastic 12.a3!! threatening to trap black's queen.

Now I'll be honest, I didn't find the 12.a3 move but I did find 10.Bxe6 while looking at the game. I checked the move with my engine, which also liked it, and asked chessbase 12 to find the novelty in the position. To my delight, 10.Bxe6 has been played before in an online game on the playchess server. Amazingly, the white player did find the 12.a3 move in the game, though the 2600+ rating suggests he wasn't a patzer like me. Anyway, the moral of the story is that studying openings can be fun, is not necessarily about memorising ideas, but rather about finding themes, and tactical ideas which prevail in certain openings. Once this understanding has been mastered, or while it is being mastered, variations can be examined, and opening knowledge can be built up.

Amazing Online Resource

Yesterday, I tried my hand at opening writing which went pretty well besides putting an apostrophe on the wrong place. I guess like anything else the more one practices, the better one will get, so I'll keep taking a look at openings in the future. One thing I am determined to do is get to grips with the Najdorf. It's an opening that I used to play, and I have tried to play on the white side, though certainly not from a critical perspective. To be honest, I'm not that interested in the Najdorf (or any other opening for that matter) to buy a book on the subject. I prefer to learn openings from playing, and analysing games. I might then use a monograph as a reference once I have some ideas of my own. I've always believed that this method avoids the hype and dogma that opening books invariably contain, and keep me thinking for myself and looking for positions that attract me, rather than positions which are supposed to be theoretically preferred. This is important as a good position and a comfortable position are not the same thing. Some players prefer static advantages, whereas others look for dynamic features in positions.

One person who is putting a lot of work into their chess is Canadian Michael Yip. Yip lives in Budapest and writes his fantastic blog, Budapest Chess News (BCN). If you haven't checked it out yet, then definitely take a look. Yip writes mainly about chess in his native Canada, and his residence of Hungary. But there is so much more than that. He produces a monthly file with heavily analysed games, that can be downloaded from Kevin Spraggett's site. He also has 3 other blogs, all about opening theory which he updates almost daily. These blogs cover 1.e4, 1.d4, and other openings. This tremendous work is absolutely free, and is well worth a look for anyone wanting to start out with some theoretical knowledge. I, for instance, will be using Yip's coverage of the Najdorf as my basis for studying this opening.

So today, I downloaded the July issue of BCN and haven't yet had a good look through it. There are about 120 heavily analysed games in the file that is stored in chessbase format. Take a look at Yip's coverage of the Najdorf between Caruana and Nakamura from the recently concluded Tal Memorial.




This is an amazing dedication to chess and chess writing, which inspires me to do more as well. I doubt that I will be able to put as much into studying the opening of the game as Michael Yip has, but I still intend to do more than I was previously doing. Watch this space!

Opening Study

Ok, so I'm curious. How much opening study do you do? What percentage of your time is spent studying openings compared to looking at other aspects of chess? I will admit that as I've got older, it has become a less consuming part of my chess study and I now spend more time looking through games, working through tactical puzzles, and looking at endgames. I have some vague opening ideas that have been picked up over the years, but to be honest, I'm no expert on any opening.

Now I guess this brings some good and bad. On the plus side, it makes me quite flexible and imaginative. I'm not tied to theoretical systems, and am not trying to uphold the honour of certain variations. I play a number of different openings, all equally averagely, and just kind of find myself in a middlegame position all of a sudden, which I just start working on over the board. As FM Bill Jordan once said to me "you can only be out-theoried by one move" as when you make that move which your opponent doesn't recognise they are also on their own to some extent. Of course, this is a simplification of the issue, as studying opening systems should enable players to develop feel for typical positions as well as knowing the best theoretical lines. On the down side I don't get many cheap points in games and have to work hard at the board from fairly early on in games. While my general understanding of chess might not be that bad, my specific understanding of certain openings will be poor meaning that I am missing chances of getting the best start to games.

The Tarrasch

So the question is, 'am I bothered about it'? Well in some ways yes, but generally no. I am well past the stage in my life where I have that many goals to achieve in chess, and virtually none of my goals are to do with playing myself. However, as I've started playing less chess, and less seriously, I've found that I'm enjoying looking at theoretical works more. I have started playing games on chess.com using a time limit of 3 days per game, and have started studying openings through that, like I imagine correspondence players do, though I would never consider myself one of them! I've also been working with stronger kids than in the past, and I could really do with helping them with openings as well as other parts of their game.

Sicilian Najdorf

So I've decided, at the age of 46, I'm going to start looking at openings again (probably the first serious opening study I've done in the past 25 years!). I will share some ideas here, though of course, you'll have to be ready to accept the openings that I choose. And talking about choosing, the whole subject of openings is pretty massive, so finding a starting point is a pretty daunting prospect. So I'll even tell you where I'm going to start looking. I'm going to try to go in depth into the following openings:

- Tarrasch Variation of the Queen's Gambit
- Four Knight's Opening
- Sicilian, especially Najdorf (my great favourite as a junior).

I think these systems offer a wide range of styles of play, from opposite side castling to isolated queen pawns, gambits to near symmetrical systems, pawn minorities, pawn majorities, and broken pawn structures compensated by pieces. I find these imbalances, and I suppose balances, the main interest in the opening and where it leads us to in the middlegames. I'll be playing these systems a lot as well, so if you do play me in a tournament, or online, there's a good chance I'll play one of these openings, if allowed. I remember back in the 1970's or early 80's in the UK, IM Mike Basman announcing that he would be playing 1.b4 or 1.g4, and the same things in reverse when he played in tournaments, allowing players to prepare for him. I think that was a pretty amazing thing to do, so I'm basically doing the same thing. Well almost, as I get bored easily by openings, so I apologise in advance if you've prepared one of those systems against me and I come up with something completely different! Of course, you can be content that I won't know that opening better than any other system I play!!

Four Knight's Opening

I will gratefully accept any help and analysis on these openings, and once I start publishing some opening ideas, I'll gladly accept criticism of them. Watch this space, and let's get these openings understood!

A Day Off in Sao Paulo

I also had a day off which I spent with my lovely wife, Caroline.It isn't often that we get days off together, and chess tournaments seem to be the same. Because as Sao Paulo had a day off, the men's Grand Prix in London and the women's Grand Prix in Ankara were in full swing. The London Grand Prix is struggling through mid tournament and has seen a lot of draws so far. It's a big shame that 2 of the tournament's young stars, Nakamura and Giri,  seem to be in terrible form. However, the tournament leader, Boris Gelfand is only at +2 so a lot could happen yet with 5 rounds still to go.

The women's tournament has created far more exciting chess, with top seeds Muzychuk and Koneru leading the way on 7.5 from 10 games. With just one round to go these 2 lead by half a point from Xue Zhao, and one of these 3 will be the winner. They have all played each other so it is anyone's tournament. In the last round, the most fascinating game to my mind was the continuation of the theoretical duel between Tatiana Kosintseva and Wenjun Ju in the main line of the Sicilian Najdorf. This was an opening that was all the rage when I was young. I remember buying a book on the Najdorf by John Nunn in about 1982 and being enthralled with it. Nunn then revised his book and updated it and when it was published I became disillusioned with the Najdorf and opening theory in general due to the increase in size of the book and the knowledge needed to play this sharp opening.

Before looking at this game, yesterday I set this puzzle:

This was from the game Nedezhda Kosintseva-Vojinovic Gaziantep 2012. What move did black miss here? If black had found the amazing 30..Qe4! white could have resigned. Black threatens 31..Qxg2 mate and if 31.Qxe4, then 31..Rxf1+ leading to mate as well. The Kosintseva twin was lucky that her opponent missed 30..Qe4 and after an eventful rest of the game, it ended in a draw.

After the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. g4 b5 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. g5 Nd7 13. f5 a critical position in the Najdorf has arisen.

I remember looking at this position in some detail in my teens and thinking deeply about the options 13..Bxg5, 13..Ne5 and 13..Nc5, the last of which was always seen as the mainline. A couple of years ago, the move 13..O-O appeared, and has proved a favourite of Chinese player Wenjun Ju. She has played it a number of times, including games against both Kosintseva sisters at the Nalchik women's Grand Prix in 2011 and Russian women's legend Alexandra Kosteniuk in a rapid event in 2011.

Nedezhda Kosintseva played very conservatively with 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.Qe3 when confronted with this move and lost. Two days later, Tatiana played more aggressively with 14.Rg1, though black proved to have adequate counterplay and the game ended in a hard fought draw. Kosteniuk followed the same plan as Tatiana, and again the game ended in a hard fought draw. The soundness of the move 13..O-O was given a big boost by its employment by 2700 super GM David Navara earlier this year.

Obviously this line was expected by Tatiana Kosintseva as she came out with the novelty 14.Qh5. The idea seems very simple, trying to prove that 13..O-O is too risky to play and going straight for the black king. The Russian seemed to be in charge of the tactics, and 10 moves later was completely won, with black resigning on move 30. A great attacking game, and perhaps the last time the Chinese player will venture the risky 13..O-O for a while.




I can't remember who said chess is 99% tactics but openings like the Najdorf certainly bring out the truth of this statement. Another opening that does is the King's Gambit which is where the other position from yesterday originated. You see, I had a look at Marin's book, "Beating The Open Games" and after reading the introduction and first chapter on the King's Gambit, decided to look at some games in the King's Gambit. I had just downloaded the latest TWIC, and the only game starting with 1.e4 e5 2.f4, was between 2 club players. However, just because games aren't between top players, it doesn't mean that interesting positions can't be reached and analysed, like the one from yesterday.

White has so many tempting moves, and sometimes when there are a number of choices, it makes it difficult to find the right choice. White here played 16.Neg5, no doubt heading for f7, but perhaps would have struggled if black had taken on g5. The first move which tempted me was 16.Ne5 heading for g6 instead. After 16..Nxe5 17.dxe5 Qe7 I really would have liked to have opened the h-file but I can't see how to do it. White's position looks promising, but no more. So, how about opening the h-file straight away? Black has real problems after 16.Bg5!! as 16..hxg5 loses to 17.h4!, and 16..Ne7 and 16..Qd7 lose to 17.Ne5. So I guess that leaves 16..Nf6, but white can just take 17.Nxf6 leaving black in a hopeless position.