Daring Defences for June 2004
|
GM Glenn Flear |
I'm including a special feature reviewing recent developments in the Neo-Grünfeld this time. The positional-lines of 3 g3 don't always appeal to dynamic duelers. Which lines are recommended? See below!There's no room for the Dutch Defence this time nor the more traditional lines of the Grünfeld Defence, but there are games for fans of the English, Budapest and Benko.
To download the June '04 games directly in PGN form click here: 
English Defence
The second strongest Englishman gives the "English" a go in Game One but soon regrets his opening choice! Markus plays a fine game but his technique lets him down just when a famous win was within his grasp. The opening choice 3 Nc3 and 4 e3 deserves respect as Black's efforts to avoid going into a Nimzo (i.e. not 4...Nf6) haven't been that convincing so far. Perhaps Short's play can be improved by 9 (or 10) ...Nge7, or, if not, by choosing 4...Bb7 5 Ne2 f5. Further practical tests are required for Black players to determine the right approach.
In Game Two Young plays 5...c5 in the following position:
            
|
This strong natural move is surprisingly a novelty, but as Mikhalevski's 6 d5 is shown to be dubious it means that Black can obtain a good game in this fashion. So in a nutshell: 4 Qc2 Bb4+ 5 Nd2 is rendered harmless by 5...c5.
Budapest Gambit
My January 2004 update examined the main line of the 4 Nf3 Bc5 Budapest in some detail including the line played in the high level encounter Game Three. I'm sticking by my conclusion that 12 Ne4 doesn't seem that dangerous for Black.
Benko Gambit
In the Benko after the moves 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5, White often avoids Black's 'initiative for the pawn' bind by playing the non-committal 4 Nf3. Black then has to make an important decision as to how he intends to continue.
Although 4...g6 is logical enough, White can create complications with 5 cxb5 a6 6 Nc3 axb5 7 d6 that don't suit everyone.
Here we cover two more solid options for Black 4...Bb7 (Game 4) and 4...b4 (Game 5) where the Benko Declined arose in both cases by transposition.
In Game 4 Black soon got into difficulties because he didn't follow Kinsman's route to equality. So 5 Nfd2 should be met by 5...bxc4 as White can't then maintain his centre.
In Game 5 the critical variation following 4...b4 is tested again but Black holds firm and had excellent chances to win the ending.
In the third and final Benko game (Game Six) one of the main lines is scrutinized. The game and notes raise more uncertainties than answers, partially because I'm not that familiar with the subtleties of the variation!
|
|
Black's last move, 12...Ng4, is frowned upon in many quarters because of 13 Qe2 (see the notes) and yet the less ambitious 13 Re2 is often preferred. As is often the case in these type of positions its not clear if Black was able to generate enough compensation or not, but he was able to provoke his opponent to make mistakes in the time scramble.
My advice is to be wary about playing 12...Ng4 unless you're happy about Black's chances after 13 Qe2 Nge5 14 Nxe5! Nxe5 15 f4. Preferable for the 'unhappy' is the respectable 12...Qa5 and even 12...Qc7 followed by ...Rfb8 isn't bad either.
The Neo-Grünfeld
When White plays an early g2-g3 and Black meets this with ...d5 we call this the 'Neo-Grünfeld':
|
|
Transpositional possibilities and various move orders complicate the task for the defence and for building a repertoire. In general the kings are tucked away early on and so play takes place in the centre and on the queenside with pressure along the long diagonals being a typical feature.
Pavel Tregubov is a regular practitioner of g3 and he seems to have a few ideas up his sleeve. The cxd5 and Nge2 variation is highlighted in Game Seven and represents a good example of his prowess. In response to 6...Nb6 (in the notes), he breathes new life into an old line creating problems for Nepomniachtchi, whereas in the main game Belov tried the sharper 6...Nb4 against him but then struggled all game before scraping a draw. Tregubov's play suggests that Black has to play precisely in order to avoid getting into trouble.
In Game Eight Black countered rapidly with 7...c5 and obtained a reasonable game. The only way that White could have destabilized this solid choice was 14 a4, gambitting a pawn for active play.
In Games 9 and 10 Black prefers 7...Nb6 followed by ...Nc6, hitting back at the centre with his pieces.
The spectacular exchange sacrifice that occurred after the diagram position in Game Nine has been seen before but that doesn't make Black's defence any easier!
|
|
It's too early to write-off a principal defence but 12...Qc7 is a worthwhile alternative if 12...Bf5 proves to be lacking.
In Game 10 Aronian's 14 Rb1 is hardly spectacular but this new move sidesteps a couple of alternatives where the theory seems to be more or less acceptable for Black. In the game Black never quite equalized and eventually White's cramping d-pawn advanced to d6 with powerful threats.
The ...c6 and ...d5 defence 'asking for a symmetrical variation' may not seem appropriate in a 'dynamic defences' review but some like a sound alternative from time to time.
In Game 11, Navara-Mamedyarov, White was able to keep a nominal edge in the symmetrical variation following 7 cxd5. Although he tried very hard Navara couldn't win the rook ending and even blundered (on move 42) throwing away the draw.
As for the theory, 7 cxd5 isn't very much for White but after the most testing 10 Bf4 Black has to decide whether to play first and foremost for solidity (see Georgiev-Nunn in the notes) or, as in the game, to try to get some activity. Tregubov's 7 b3 is best met by 7...Ne4 in my opinion.
Don't forget to keep the questions rolling in, especially if there's a line that you would like clarifying.
Glenn Flear
If you have any questions, either leave a message on the Daring Defences Forum, or subscribers can email me at Glenn_Flear@chesspublishing.com.