This barnburner of a game is worth watching and re-watching due to its sporting and aesthetic value as well as the prestige of the participants. Here are four video presentations of the game with comments by presenters rated 2200, 2400, 2600, and 2800 (Kingscrusher; IM Andrew Martin; GM Suat Atalik; and GM Hikaru Nakamura, respectively).
Here is the database that I use with SCID: MILLBASE <--click to download
Just finished a club tournament with 5.0 / 7 against mostly experts, and picked up a few rating points to 2076. I made videos of my last four games from this tournament, which were also the most interesting. The videos are approximately 25 minutes each. By appearances, 1...c5 doesn't seem to accomplish nearly as much as White's opener, 1.e4. Black will need to make at least two more pawn moves to release both bishops and three moves to get castled, while the Black king's residence in the center will carry its own risks. Thus White's most ambitious approach is to "gambit" a central pawn for undefined but rather long-term attacking chances, via the mainline with 2.Nf3 and 3.d4. However, the typical streetfight after opposite-sides castling is not to every 1.e4 player's taste. In addition to contesting d4 immediately with 2.c3, White has a number of "closed" setups that more or less ignore Black's control of d4 for the time being. White can play the Closed Sicilian, Grand Prix, "Big Clamp", 2.Na3!?, or King's Indian systems. One of the more radical options is 2.a4!?!? which must be proof that being White means being able to get away with virtually anything short of losing material. It appears the basic idea of 2.a4 is to meet any a7-a6 with a4-a5 to clamp down on b6, and to meet Nc6 or d6 with Bb5 in order to direct play into Rossolimo channels where the a4-pawn, by defending White's bishop, is not so ridiculous. FM Stefan Buecker has published an interesting article featuring 2.a4!?!?, and started a messageboard discussion including a commented PGN of the following game. I am sure that after skimming the linked sources, you will "know" more about this quirky opening than any Sicilian player in a 100 mile radius. For a super-lean repertoire, 2.a4 looks like an interesting option for those who would like to take up 1.e4 in an afternoon or to prepare an anti-Sicilian in a single sitting. I note that FM Buecker has also published on offbeat repertoire lines in the Open Game, French, Caro-Kann, and Pirc/Modern. While on this topic, I should mention that the Kenilworthian also has articles on, e.g., the French "Monte Carlo variation" and the Caro-Kann "Apocalypse Attack", that could serve the same purpose.  I ran an engine match between Stockfish and Critter on my old 32-bit laptop. Stockfish won the match, but Critter won the first game in a model demonstration of a central pawn majority in the QG exchange variation. This was the best game of the match, although marred by Black's aimless shuffling with the king and knights. Critter's play however appears very "human" and strategically clear. Style-wise I find that Critter plays like Topalov and seemed to sac an exchange in virtually every other game. Critter finds much more dynamic compensation than Stockfish, making Critter extremely useful for analysis. I am also impressed with both engines for their efficient use of system resources. Stockfish uses in general half as much RAM as Houdini, and Critter uses half as much RAM as Stockfish. Additionally, on both of my computers (old/XP and new/Windows7), Houdini continues to throttle the CPU at 100% if the GUI is closed while the engine is running. Because of this I have actually removed Houdini from my computers. The purpose of this article will not be to spell out variations, but to describe an organizational approach to studying and managing a serious queen-pawn repertoire. Black's defenses in terms of quality and frequency can be grouped into three tiers. First Tier, 60-70% of your games and study time: 1. KID / Benoni, Hungarian, Seirawan (Bd3), or Four Pawns 2. Nimzo, Reshevsky 3. QGD, Exchange (pt.1, pt.2, pt.3, pt.4, pt.5) 4. Slav, Exchange Defenses in the First Tier are common enough to justify playing a relative mainline. Proponents of these venerable defenses are usually very experienced to have seen everything before and not to fear big theory. To promote efficiency I only considered anti-KID variations that apply equally to the Benoni so as to kill two Angry Birds with one stone. I also settled on the Exchange Slav to avoid the labyrinthine Slav and SemiSlav. Second Tier, 20-30% of your games and study time: 5. Dutch, 2.Nc3 6. Grunfeld, Romanishin 7. Benko, Dlugy attack 5.f3 8. QGA, 3.e3 The Second Tier defenses tend to inspire fanatical devotees at the club level, who thanks to excellent repertoire materials for Black tend to be fairly knowledgable and booked up. So I purposely went for sidelines that strike me as being atypical for the opening and/or easier for White to play intuitively. Third Tier, 10% of your games and study time: 9. Budapest / Fajarowicz gambit (pt.1, pt.2) 10. Tarrasch / Schara gambit 11. Chigorin / Albin gambit 12. Baltic The Third Tier defenses generally rely on early tricks and/or early confrontation in the center. As a result, the play is generally very forcing from the get go, meaning that Black has few ways to deviate from established lines without just being clearly worse. In turn, it is relatively practical to prepare a reliable line fairly deeply since Black's responses are predictable and limited.  Ten facts you may not know about Volodya Kramnik:
I was cleaning out an old box and came across this memorable blitz game score against (what was then) a new opponent, Steve, during his first visit to the club last summer. He had just finished terrorizing my buddy, who basically sicced me on him with a knowing nod and a crowd gathered around to watch. We ended up splitting our 4 games and walked away after a firm handshake as chess friends. Our first game had plenty of ultra-violence and crowd reaction, so I had bothered to scribble down the raw game score and stick it in a box for posterity. :-p Topalov ventured against Kamsky the obscure Romanishin line with 7.Bf4 against the Grunfeld in their Candidates game today. I have mentioned this very same (rare) variation at this blog! Topalov deviated from Schiller's recommendation (feels surreal to type that, yes) by going 8.Qa3 instead of 8.Qc2. (See Schiller's e-book at the top of page 3.) Of course, Topalov's further experiment of 0-0-0 and h2-h4 amounted to either wishful thinking or disrespect against a lionhearted defender like Kamsky. Also see GM Henrik Danielsen's video analysis of the game at chessdom.com | Author2076 USCF. ArchivesDecember 2011 CategoriesAll |
(show chess board)
(hide chess board)
RSS Feed