What's new in the French Defence
|
A hearty welcome to the February 2003 Update. Two days after I had written how great the Rustemov Variation is looking and posted my January update I turned on my computer, downloaded the most recent games...and- horror of horrors!- I saw the Rustemov absolutely crushed in a critical game at the Aeroflot open. Had I been writing a book, it would have been too late to call it back from the printers: my comments on the Rustemov would have been out-of- date literally before the ink was dry- or indeed before the ink was wet on the page in the first place. Alas, that is the fate with books: if there is a mistake in a chess book it stays there forever, unless there is a second edition-and those seem to take at least eight years to appear. |
Chess writers are historians, not prophets, and cannot predict the future. The only prophets are Kasparov and other great chess theorists, who provide the ideas which won't be known to the general chess public until they have been used, successfully or otherwise, in battle.
Download PGN of February '03 French games
Winawer Mainline 7.Qg4 0-0 8.Bd3 Qa5 [C18]
I would put GM Emil Sutovsky into the category of great theorists. Rated 2651, he was a Second of Shirov's in his match with Kramnik [ which it could be said that Shirov was ill fated to win: he gained the unfulfilled promise of a match with Kasparov rather than the generous loser's prize money!] Sutovsky plays sharp, uncompromising chess and his opening ideas reflect this. In this month's game he plays a very surprising pawn sacrifice which proves too much for Goloshchapov to handle at the board. Having had the chance to study it, I feel confident that Black had a route to full equality.
Have a look at Sutovsky - Goloshchapov.
Winawer Mainline 7.Qg4 0-0 8.Bd3 Nbc6 [C18]
A recurrent theme this month seems to be how to play against an opponent who is looking for a draw. When facing a less experienced opponent, GM Apicella, an expert on the 7...0-0 variation as both colours, naturally wants to play a lively game rather than defend passively. So he declines the chance to exchange queens and enter a very slightly worse endgame. The result is a smooth victory, but analysis indicates that he was taking a risk. Have a look at Delorme - Apicella.
Winawer 4.Bd3 [C15]
A rule of chess theory is that a player often reacts badly to a surprise, even if he is a Kasparov or Kramnik. Despite the fact that I regard 4.Bd3 as uncritical, Black- rated 2425- gets a losing position as early as move eight because he doesn't know the variation. Here is Bauer - Sedina.
Tarrasch 3...Be7 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bd3 c5 7.c3 Nc6 [C05]
The game given here actually has the move order 3...Nf6, but you will find this line in the 'elegantly titled' 3...Be7 not 4.Bd3 or 5.Bd3 roadmap.
As I've remarked before, there is a lot of analysis on this line, but if White can make it work then he has solved the problem of what to do against both 3...Nf6 and 3...Be7-which means he has saved himself from having to learn a lot of alternative theory.
This month I can offer you the tremendous fight Nisipeanu - Volkov.
Tarrasch 3...Be7 4.Bd3 [C03]
It's good to see Alexander Morozevich returning to the French after experiments with 1...e5 and the Sicilian. After all, it was the French that made him famous. Here we see a great positional/tactical display from the World's leading expert on the 3...Be7 variation. Enjoy Zagrebelny - Morozevich.
Tarrasch 3...c5 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.exd5 exd5 [C08]
GM Pavlovic often comes up with new ways of attacking the French. Here he finds an original piece deployment and is rewarded with a straightforward win. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced. Check out the analysis in Pavlovic - Bukal.
Classical 4.Bg5 dxe4 [C11]
Here we see a model win by Mikhail Gurevich against a player who exchanges off pieces at every opportunity in the hope of gaining a draw. My experience is that it is OK to play for a draw against a better opponent as long as you succeed in getting it- if you don't then you are left looking stupid and feeling annoyed with yourself for being so cowardly.
Have a look at Efimov - Gurevich.
French Exchange [C01]
We are still on the theme of what to do against a so called 'draw merchant'.
There are three ways to respond as Black if a weaker player tries to kill off the game by playing the French Exchange. The first is to react with a wild attacking line. I've tried that approach and it doesn't work! The second is to agree a quick draw: that's not as bad as the first scenario, but it still doesn't make you feel good. The third approach is to be patient and wait for something to happen. This month I've selected games in which two strong Grandmasters- Apicella and Kindermann- win in apparently contrasting styles as Black. Yet the foundation of their success was the same in both cases: they waited until the moment arrived when they could show their tactical or positional superiority. You can find these games by clicking on Piroth - Apicella.
2.a3 /2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 [C00]
It seems that subscribers are interested in the most offbeat of variations. Here is an email I received from Paul Cumbers with the heading '2.a3!? (and other silly b4 gambits)'- his words, not mine!
«Hi Neil,
I'm sure there used to be some useful advice on the French website about that tricky gambit which goes 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4!?, but I can't seem to find it anymore. I had some success with it myself as White before deciding it was cheap and nasty, but I can't remember why!
Have you ever seen 2.a3!? played against the French?? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere. The idea is similar to the above gambit, but White hopes to retain extra options by not playing Nf3 so early (e.g. f4 or Qg4). Play can go 2...d5 (or 2...c5 3.b4!?) 3.e5 c5 4.b4!? etc. I once had to face this line as Black over the board and tried 4...d4!? here, but still succumbed. I even had the cheek to play 2.a3!? once myself as White, and won a bizarre game in which the first 5 moves were all pawn moves!: (2...d5 3.e5 d4!? 4.b4 a5 5.b5 a4!?).
In his book on the French, Suetin even mentions the line 2.f4 d5 (2...c5) 3.e5 c5 4.b4!?, (recommended by Collijn). At the moment my gut reaction is that all these b4 ideas look rather dubious from White's point of view, although I can't back this up with anything. I must confess to being in the unsatisfactory position of not relishing the prospect of sitting on either side of the board in each case! Any advice?»
Looking through the database, I see that someone once had the temerity to play 1.a3 e6 2.e4 against the great Emanuel Lasker in a simul'.
At the recent Hastings Challengers tournament I happened to face 4.b4, but as I point out in the notes, my preparation proved worse than useless! The German player Michael Schulz can probably claim to be the world's leading expert on this line having played it against the likes of Kindermann and Barsov. For analysis of the mainline 4.b4- and even 2.a3- click on Schulz - McDonald.
Here is a general query from a young subscriber:
«My name is Tony Chen, a 4th grade student from Salt Lake City, Utah. My current USCF rating is about 1660. I wish to learn some chess tips from grandmasters. Could you please give me a chess tip?
Thank you very much,
Tony»
The most important thing is to play as much as possible, preferably against slightly stronger players. Lots of players find it useful to work through puzzle books to sharpen up their tactics. You mustn't cheat!
Chess strength needs daily practice, just like physical sport. If you don't practice the skills you lose them.
Another thing I would say is that you should try to take defeat well. Not only because that is the right thing to do, but because after beating you your opponent will be very happy. So rather than being angry and walking away it is a good moment to ask him nicely if he will look through the game with you. Probably he'll be willing to show you enough of his ideas that next time you will beat him! Good luck in your efforts to become a chess superstar.
1.e4 e6 2.f4 [C00]
This month's dip into the history of the French was inspired by the following query from Jonathan Munnell:
«I have eventually come across White players who feel the need to burden me with... 1.e4 e6 2.f4!? ...What the crap. They choose to play some boring exchange after 2...d5 3.exd5 exd5 only I am unsure of what to play other than developing pieces like, Bd6, Nf6 and maybe pining the white knight at f3 and then playing Nbd2. I am also unsure of how to attack or advance on the center since white has the pawn on f4.
Thank you for your website and for chesspublishing.com. I also wanted to thank you for your books on the French. Mastering the French is the most instructive French book ever written. Good luck on your "non" chess book. I hope it comes out well and carries success after print. Thanks again.»
Janos Loewenthal, the Hungarian born theoretician who has given his name to a variation in the Sicilian, once began a game 1.e4 e6 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 against Elijah Williams in their match in 1851. Why did he like 2.f4?
It seems to me that two answers are possible. One is that these games were played in the age of the King's Gambit. So players were playing according to the model 1.e4 e5 2.f4 when they ventured 2.f4 or 3.f4 against the French.
The other explanation is that players genuinely thought that getting a grip over the e5 square was more important than the weakening of the e4 square. We may be sceptical these days, but if Loewenthal couldn't correctly judge the position then it can't be obvious.
Here then is the game between Loewenthal and Williams. Incidentally, Williams came third in the first ever international tournament held in London, also in 1851, behind Anderssen and Wyvill. Up until then casual games at Chess Cafes and formal matches had been the way to decide the relative strengths of players.
Williams wasn't quite as strong as Kasparov, but he clearly understood positional chess.
Well I'll have to say goodbye for now. My thanks to everyone who wrote to me. Enjoy your time with the French!
Best Wishes,
Neil