ForumHelpSearchMy ProfileSite InfoGuests InfoRepertoireLinks
The great thing about a column like this is that you see how many opening variations are playable. I've always been skeptical of pronouncements that this or that opening is 'weak', or that some longstanding variation is 'refuted'. Having watched chess practice over many years, it shouldn't come as a surprise to me that Black's play is so flexible in the Pirc, Caro Kann, Alekhine's, and Scandinavian Defences. But I'm still amazed how many ways there are to arrange the pieces when basic structures are still unresolved. Even when I indicate that I prefer a particular way of playing some variation over another, that tends to be a provisional opinion; it seems to me that when we say that one opening is 'better' or 'worse' than another, we're talking more about the difficulty of playing it in practice than some ultimate theoretical assessment.

Download PGN of July '07 1 e4 ... games


Alekhine's Defence

What is this all leading up to? With regard to the above, I think that my optimism has grown about the future of the Pirc, Caro-Kann, and Scandinavian. After dealing with the usual slight disadvantage that characterise most Black openings, the defender can generally see his way to full equality or something well within drawing bounds. Ultimately, I also believe this about Alekhine's Defence. But I always seem to be worried about this or that variation of 1 e4 Nf6. First, although there are many ways of playing against the main 4 Nf3 lines, many of them seem to have a particular weakness. That's not so bad, because I think that satisfactory lines do exist, it's just hard to pin one down. Next there's that stupid Voronezh line with Nc3/Be3/Rc1/b3. At first I thought that it was the latest fad, a dangerous line that would be quickly solved. That didn't turn out to be the case. Fortunately, John Cox keeps coming up with good ideas, and perhaps they suffice. But I have lingering doubts. On a practical level, I think that Black can find some way to keep his disadvantage to a minimum.

Now it's the Four Pawns Attack. As a young idealist, I used to play both sides of the Four Pawns; even then, I thought that Black was walking a tightrope. This month we have the game Sjugirov - Baburin, Arvier 2007. The closer I looked at it, and at what John Cox and others say in the archives, the more surprised I was that White stood so much better in some of the traditional lines.

I never knew that this old and stodgy main line was so difficult for Black. See my almost excessive notes as I search for something worth playing, and fail. Add this to the troubles Black's having in the early sharp lines with d5, and you start thinking about the less respectable lines, perhaps having doubts about those as well.



Pirc Defence

Again, I get carried away with analysis of a variation that just has to be okay for Black. Or does it?

This little-played push didn't even achieve a true advantage in Gashimov - Moran Llera, Sanxenxo 2007; Black had a perfectly fine game until he was thoroughly outplayed by his opponent, but he did have a deficit of almost 700 rating points!

The Classical Pirc was contested in Khamrakulov - Karimov, Tashkent 2007.

This position looks normal, but it is quite rare and not considered by theory. That's mainly because the Pirc is so flexible; there must be 100s of logical sequences in the first 10 moves, all with slight differences.

Spraggett - Jakobsen, Andorra 2007 tested the Austrian Attack with 5...0-0 6 Be3 b6 7 Qd2 Bb7:

Black is still having a difficult time meeting 8 e5! . Perhaps he should sacrifice a pawn with ...c5 a move earlier, although analysis indicates that he might not get adequate compensation.

There are enough Be3 systems in the Pirc to confuse anybody, and more ways still to get to them. Stellwagen - Bosboom, Hilversum 2007 features the traditional setup with h3, Be3, and Nf3:

In this double fianchetto variation, Black truly lacks space and White tries to exploit it immediately by e5. A little more patience might have helped, but in any case White prevailed.

Nisipeanu - Svidler, Aerosvit 2007 is a short draw which I've used as a vehicle to continue our discussion of h3/g4 lines:

White launches a version of what James Vigus calls the 'Archbishop Attack'. Svidler responds with the ...d5 idea mentioned in this column. He probably even had a small advantage by move 10.



Scandinavian Defence

No one seems to know how to beat the Scandinavian!

In Cuartas - Mohota, Barbera del Valles 2007, White played a main line, achieved a stable position for his bishops and by patiently reorganising them (and not exposing himself to attack), he managed to develop pressure on Black's kingside.

An awful lot of players talk skeptically about the 3...Qd6 system, yet it's surviving very nicely.

In Topalov - Nisipeanu, MTEL Sophia 2007, Black has used the move ...c6, rather than ...a6, to protect against Nb5, and to restrain White's centre. For his part, White has more space and better development, but he isn't able to do much with them. Nisipeanu equalised fairly easily, and won on a major blunder.



Till next month, John

Please post you queries on the 1 e4 ... Forum, or subscribers can write to me at johnwatson@chesspublishing.com if you have any questions or queries.