I was going to look at some Najdorf theory, but it really is daunting to get into if you haven't looked at any over the past 25 years. Unfortunately I gave up the Najdorf just as Nunn and Short were pioneering the English Attack which had been known as the Byrne System before the 1980's. The latest issue of New in Chess magazine contains one Najdorf game, an English Attack between Anand and Topalov from the recent Norwegian super tournament. In the magazine, the first 14 moves get no commentary which doesn't really help me understand the nuances of this opening. So I've decided to leave the Najdorf for another day when I feel up to the challenge of wading through the reams of games and analysis.
Instead I saw a game from TWIC which featured the h3 move that Kramnik used last year in the Scotch Four Knights Opening. The position comes after the moves:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Nxc6 [Someone fell for 6.Ndb5? last week which works well in the Sicilian Pelikan, but here loses material after 6..a6 when white's best is to drop back to d4 with his knight, losing the e4 pawn] 6..bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 cxd5 9.0-0 0-0
The mainline here is 10.Bg5 which seems like a natural enough move, but last year Kramnik used the move 10.h3 against Aronian in the 2012 Tal Memorial. That game ended in a draw, though it seemed as if Aronian was under a little pressure. Since then the line has come under top level scrutiny, with Karjakin, Morozevich, Wang Hao and Anish Giri playing this position for white among others. I have a database of recent games, and in 100 games from September 2012 until now white has scored 59% with the move 10.h3. Funnily enough, running Stockfish for 10 minutes on my laptop just brings up a level score for this position, -0.08 with 10..c6 as it's main move and 10..Re8 as the main alternative. Well these are 2 of the top 3 moves, but neither score particularly well for black. The move that is performing the best for black at the moment is the "pass the ball back to white's court" 10..h6. The obvious idea behind white's tenth move is to prevent black from using g4, especially for his bishop. So the prophylactic 10.h3 secures white's queen along the d1-h5 diagonal, and means that white will develop the queen to f3 most likely. So by playing 10..h6, black deprives white of the most natural move for their dark squared bishop, g5. White can still develop the dark squared bishop to f4 which is a pretty good square. Usually white develops the queen first 11.Qf3.
I guess this position is a vital one to understand. White has the better structure and white's pieces seem more centrally directed. After white plays Bf4 and connects rooks it will be time to plan on how to bring about the demise of black's centre. Because black's central pawns, whether they are on c6/d5 or c5/d5 are annoying and holding on to a lot of space. Black may have to work a bit harder with the pieces to coordinate them properly, but black's pieces have great shelter from the central pawn mass. Black has 2 natural files for the rooks, the semi open b-file, and the open e-file, and the possibility, at least temporarily, of shattering white's queen side by exchanging on c3. Saying that, giving up the bishop pair for pawn weaknesses is not a risk free strategy in this type of position.
The most high profile game played from this position is the all GM clash Quesada-Bacallao Cuban Ch 2013.
11..Re8 12.Bf4 c6 [interesting that black does not trade dark squared bishops by 12..Bd6. This plan seems to be scoring well for white. Also the c6 pawn prevents white's knight from using b5] 13.Ne2?! [Now I don't want to start criticising GM's for their moves (lol) but 13.Rfe1 seems to make a lot more sense, challenging the e-file, as played int he game Zelcic-Bayer Austria 2013. In that game, white simply centralised his rooks, and only regrouped his knight after black had played Bb4-d6, so as to recapture on f4 with the knight or transfer it to the king side] 13..Ne4 [Throwing the knight into the centre, taking advantage of white's last move. Also notice that white cannot develop a rook to the e-file for the moment] 14.Rad1 Qf6 15.c3
Black's bishop needs to retreat, but where to? In the game it dropped back to f8 but it certainly could have stayed more active on either c5 or d6.
15..Bd6 [and white can hardly play 16.Bxd6 Qxf3 17.gxf3 Nxd6 with an excellent game for black] 16.Rfe1 and black can force a similar structure to the last note after 16..g5!? 17.Bxd6 Qxf3 18.gxf3 Nxd6 and black is better
15..Bc5 [Covering both d4 and f2, though the down side is that that black will not be playing Rb8 in a hurry] 16.b4 Bb6 17.a4 [This queen side expansion is probably what black was wary of in the game] 17..a6 [17..a5 allows white to push 18.b5 undermining black's centre; 17..g5 is not so good here as after white's bishop retreats, a queen swap will not favour black eg. 18.Bh2Qxf3 19.gxf3 Nf6 20.a5 Bd8 and black's pieces have been pushed uncomfortably backwards] 18.c4! I think this move keeps white in the game eg. 18..Be6 19.c5 Ba7 20.Be3, a nice regrouping taking control of the d4 square and keeping the balance, though maybe not much more.
All in all an interesting little look at what seems an innocuous move. I'll leave you with a database of games :)
Showing posts with label four knights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label four knights. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Four Knights Opening
Labels:
four knights,
kramnik,
new in chess,
Openings,
theory,
TWIC
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
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.
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.
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!!
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!
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 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





