The Marshall Attack, as White

I've been looking into playing the Marshall Attack for white, seeing if there's a line which provides survival into the endgame and allowing the extra pawn to pay dividends.

I've come up with the following:

After accepting the gambit, the key position appears on move 15. Move 15 gives White a deep dilemma - whether to exchange on d5 or not. This is a difficult question - W's light-squared bishop on b3 is one of W's only active pieces, and has active play where B plays f5. 

In the line above, I've looked at exchanging the bishop for the knight. The idea is that the e3 square is important to W's defence. Whilst this significantly weakens the light squares around W's king, B's LSB is not in a position to immediately exploit this and the isolated d5 pawn is a significant weakness. Qf3 takes advantage of this, and B must play actively and not simply defend the pawn. 

If not, then it seems W can easily deflect the attack by swapping darksquared bishops:

In such a position, B's initiative has been blunted and the LSB is hindered by the weak d5 pawn. Plans for White would include moving the knight to the nice outpost on c5 via d2-b3-c5, activating the a-file rook via a4, and targetting the d5 pawn. B may try to weaken W's pawn structure via b4 but that doesn't look too worrying. More likely, he'll play to push on the kingside. Of course, W should be wary of Bf5-e4, exploiting the weak light squares around W's queen. W should then try and take Queens off the board, 

Regardless, back to more active lines for B. The two main options seem to be Bg4 or Bf5. Bf5, aiming for e4, seems dangerous, especially if followed by Rae8. 

W wants to take an extra pawn on d5 as the price for weak light squares around their king. W's pieces are still underdeveloped and comparatively bad, but W's ability to block the e-file via Be3 and protect some of the light squares via Nd2 may be enough to hold on. 

One example of this is after Bf5, where the d2 knight appears to save the game by holding onto e4. 



This position is, of course, by no means ideal as W's position is still tangled, given his bishop on e1. But if W can hold on, the passed d pawn will become the decider. 

Black might also not swap rooks, for example: 

Which is also by no means clear.

My conclusion then is that swapping the lightsquared bishop on move 15 is a difficult and dangerous decision to make, and commits W to defending until the endgame, if he can survive until then. The light squared weakness will become quite significant if W isn't conscious of it, and W's dark squared bishop simply can't compete. But certainly things are not clear for B either.

LINKS TO RESOURCES: 

All chess diagrams created using the WiseBoard Chess Board Editor: http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php

Games inserted using the amazingly simple instructions of Nikolai Pilafov: http://chesstuff.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/how-to-publish-chess-game-on-your-blog.html 

http://chesstuff.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/html-code-generator-for-blogs.html

An Introduction to the Gajewski Gambit (Part 1)

I came across a nice little gambit for Black in the Ruy Lopez recently. Its called the Gajewski Gambit, after GM Gajewski, and was a recent innovation in 2005. Much like the Marshall Attack, B gambits a pawn for accelerated development and the initiative. The gambit's inception is below:


The quiet 7. ... d6 lures W into thinking all is well, having avoided the Marshall. Of course, the Marshall continues

7. ... O-O
8. c3 d4!

(see right)

Where Black plans to lose the e4 pawn but develop his bishops to hit h2, forcing weaknesses in W's castled position and taking advantage of his under development

Back to the Gajewski Gambit. After

7. ... d6
8. c3 O-O
9. h3 Na5

W's moves are all natural. W plays to his plan to strike on d4 with c3, and prevents the annoying Bg4 pin with h3. But with Na5, B takes advantage of the importance W attaches to its light squared bishop. After 9. ... Na5 10. Bc2 the usual c5 push is delayed in favour of d5. Previously c5 has been played, to gain space and put pressure on W's queen side. Instead, d5 gambits a pawn to take control of the e4 square, which is annoying for W. As the game above demonstrates, if W accepts the pawn, his underdeveloped pieces can become a liability. Whilst the B knight is temporarily displaced on a5, the c4 looks tempting for it. B also has compensation for the pawn in the chronic underdevelopment of W's pieces on the queenside.

It appears to me then that the key decision for W in the Gajewski is move 10. The important distinction between this and the Marshall, however, is the positioning of W's light-squared bishop, and B's queenside knight. Oh, and there's a pawn on h3.

This difference is significant as W no longer has to capture on e5 with his knight along the open e file. W's kingside is also weakened a little with the pawn on h3. The position of B's knight on a5 also has the effect of allowing B to play e4. With his knight no longer threatened by exd5, B's response can be a little bit more flexible.

W has other options than accepting the pawn, however. As examined below, W may play d5. Other options that may be playable by W include b4, a4, d3, Qe2, Ng5, g4 and d4. I'd like to examine each of these in detail in subsequent posts. But for the moment, here are my initial thoughts

• It seems to me that d3 might be the most solid response, but after dxe4 dxe4 Bb7, W may  have a bit of difficulty holding on to the e4 pawn.

• Kicking the knight with b4 pushes it to c4 or c6 (a knight on b7 doesn't seem right). c6 seems like the natural square, supporting a potential d4 push. However, c4 allows the c pawn to come into play for B. I think I like c4 better. Definitely  needs more thought though.

• The thematic Ruy Lopez a4 is an option which shouldn't be immediately dismissed, but potentially loses the light-squared bishop after dxe4. Perhaps Nxe5 might save it, given Bd6 could be met with d4.

• Qe2 suffers from the same difficulty of potentially losing the LSB, but similarly Nxe5 may prove the saving grace. The difference is after Bd6 d4 Bxe5 dxe5 there's no Queen trade available. Bg5 also becomes playable in both positions.

• I won't give much thought to Ng5 or g4 - they're options, but I don't think they're good ones!

• Here's a game looking at d4. 

A similar idea to the above was used with dxe4 Nxe5 being supported by the d4 pawn. c5 certainly makes the position dangerous for W!



Of course, the above games are anything but clear and incredibly complex. The main advantage, though, is that I hopefully would be more familiar with the position then my opponent, allowing me more time OTB to think of more complications! Some of the decisions above shouldn't be taken lightly (the queen for a rook and a piece!), but seem to be to be very exciting. The N + R v Q imbalance arising from the Gajewski is fascinating! All in all, it looks like a great gambit.

LINKS TO RESOURCES: 

All chess diagrams created using the WiseBoard Chess Board Editor: http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php

Games inserted using the amazingly simple instructions of Nikolai Pilafov: http://chesstuff.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/how-to-publish-chess-game-on-your-blog.html 

http://chesstuff.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/html-code-generator-for-blogs.html

The Nimzo-Indian: Samisch Variation (Part 1)

What, Why, How?!

I've decided to keep a log of the chess that I study, all in one place online. Currently, I have about 4 different places that I'm taking note - two notebooks, a notepad, in word documents, on a dropbox folder. This has proved counterproductive when I want to go back to review things. Thus, the purpose of this blog is to centralise my study of chess.

I've recently had some trouble playing black against d4. About a year ago, I decided to drop my response  to d4, the Queen's Indian Defence (QID), as it would leave me in passive positions or just down material. I'm looking now to learn the Nimzo-Indian Defence (NID).

The Nimzo-Indian is a hypermodern opening - the focus is not on simply planting pawns in the centre, but keeping flexibility and controlling the centre with pieces. A key focus of the NID is the e4 square and stopping White from occupying it with his pawn.

The Nimzo-Indian Defence

The NID begins

1. d4 Nf3

2. c4 e6

This is the first divergence point. What I didn't realise is that the QID results if White attempts to avoid the NID, with Nf3 b6. This is a nuance I didn't appreciate! 

3. Nc3 Bb4

Black fights for the e4 square by locking down the knight and hopes  to weaken W's position by doubling his pawns.  

B avoids d5 here, which leads to the Queen's Gambit. I'm not such a big fan of the Queen's Gambit, but haven't really studied it that much. My book tells me, however, that 'Black has a meagre choice of plans in his struggle for equality, let alone counterplay' (Gligoric 1985)

 This is the first point of divergence, and where I may need to spend the most time! It appears to me the most common responses may be e3, a3, Qc2. I suppose White could try Qb3, g3, Nf3, Bg5 also.

The Samisch Variation 

I'll look at the 'Samisch Variation' first. This is where White plays a3. 

4. a3 Bxc3

5. bxc3

The idea being that White now has a positional weakness in the doubled c pawns. This is a thematic idea, showing its head in most of the NID variations. Black is happy to let the game continue to the endgame, where these doubled pawns will be a significant weakness. However, White has strong play in between, and this variation appears to be very dangerous for Black (See GM Gserper's Article on Chess.com)

White's plan is to construct a strong pawn centre and use it to launch a kingside attack, which can often be decisive. The idea is to use the central pawns to gain space, to enable W to launch a kingside pawn storm, or to suffocate B. W has the advantage of more centre pawns, and he has the bishop pair. 

As compensation, B has doubled W's pawns, has created weaknesses on c4, c3, b3 and a4, and has forced a waste of tempo by W with a3. 'B's most sensible strategy is to look for his chances in the endgame, not in the middlegame' (Gligoric 1985)

The opening is named after Friedrich Samisch, a German GM born 1896. 

Responses from Black: d6-e5

To take one example from GM Gserper's post (omitting his analysis - it may be accessed via the link):

Not to disrespect the players, but to me, 5. ... d6 seems a bit too passive. I suppose the idea is to allow the light squared bishop (LSB) out, but given the pawn in e6, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fact. I'll look at this in a second, but perhaps 5. ... b6 or 5. ... O-O might be stronger, holding on to e4 a bit longer. 10. ... Ne8 seems to be a badly placed knight, but at that stage, there doesn't seem to be any good squares for B's LSB, and f5 might be his only active play. 

This game also shows that f3 is a thematic response to the NID, as is the e4, f4 advance. A similar game to this is Samisch v Grunfield (1929 Karlovy Vary). This makes me think I might avoid the d6-e5 plan. As Gligoric says, this is neither the most flexible nor the most energetic method. Black should attempt to block up the position without such moves.

Plans for B include to fianchetto the LSB, play c5 to lock the c pawns in place, and d5. Instructive is Rubinstein v Alekhine from 1914, where this plan is carried out. The move order is different, but transposes to a Samisch-type position by move 8.

Looking at the above position after W's move 8 (right), I get the feeling that timing is super-important in the NID. The position on the right is an important divergence point. If B plays passively, such as via 8. ... O-O, he finds a mass of pawns pushing him back in the centre. Thus, B must strike while the iron is hot to prevent e4, with d5. This also gives him a bit of breathing space, allowing him to put his queenside knight on d7. 

As a side note, I'm not sure how I feel about the d4, e4, d5, e5 pawn formation. For me, regardless if I'm W or B, it makes me a little uncomfortable to constantly be checking if I'm going to lose a pawn in the centre or not. In the past, I've played similar positions and come out a pawn behind. Perhaps this is something in the NID I'll have to get used to.

I must also say, the position after move 16 (right) looks a bit uncomfortable. At first glance, the two centre pawns for White threatening to rush forward seem very menacing. But the B's pieces are all directed at these centre pawns, and Alekhine plays exceptionally well in picking off the pawn on e4. It would take a lot of patience and cunning to look at this position and find 16. ... Ba6. 

The next example makes me reconsider the strength of the d6-e5 plan. 

8. ... c5 seems a bit stronger than Qe7, forcing d5 which prevents the queenside knight from getting to a5 (where it can hit c4) or g6 (eyeing f4). Another option for W is Ne2, which might be a bit stronger. The other important move was f5, which either locks the LSB up or opens the f-file for B. The knights become more important with the c pawns locked up, so perhaps d6-e5 might be worth revisiting if followed by c5. 

Anyway, that's all for now, I'll be back! :-)

Links to Resources: 

Svetozar Gligoric, Play the Nimzo-Indian Defence (Pergamon Press 1985)

All chess diagrams created using the WiseBoard Chess Board Editor: http://www.apronus.com/chess/wbeditor.php

Games inserted using the amazingly simple instructions of Nikolai Pilafov: http://chesstuff.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/how-to-publish-chess-game-on-your-blog.html 

http://chesstuff.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/html-code-generator-for-blogs.html