Opening Originals: Strong Sidelines for Club Cats

me.

Part I

Mrs. Majesty’s Magnificence

Once upon a time, a strong blitz player began our game with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Qa4 (D).

I lost that game, believe it or not. Part of the problem was I spent about two minutes pondering my third move! The truth is I was simply stunned. Black’s third move is usually automatic: in this structure, it is either 3…d5 or 3…Bb4. For those torturous two minutes, I kept staring at the board as if frozen by witchcraft: I simply could not make my intended moves. How was I to transpose to a position I felt comfortable with? With the clock ticking, I could not reason my way through it.

Moves like this have an inspiring effect on me. I hit the books and databases hard when I come across such stuff. Most of the time, I do not find much worth reporting. 3.Qa4 is great for blitz, may even be effective as a one-off in an action tournament, but is almost certainly unsuited to serious competition. That is how it is with most exotic moves, of course, but every now and then one comes across a genuine gem, a diamond in the rough.

Part I is written in honor of 3.Qa4. It is dedicated to early queen moves that pack a punch. Enjoy!

Chapter 1

Anti-Alapin: 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5!?

This fascinating move was introduced by that brilliant inventor Siegbert Tarrasch, the scope of whose impact on this book can be fathomed from a passing glance at the Table of Contents. He played it against none other than Simon Alapin himself, in Vienna 1898. Amazingly, their treatment of the position still constitutes the main line, over 100 years later!

Let’s have a look at the inaugural game, an absorbing battle, with an opening ahead of its time:

(1) Alapin – Tarrasch

Vienna 1898

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5 (D)

In today’s parlance, we might describe this move as concrete. This means we bracket principles and attend directly to its consequences: White’s intention to establish a dual pawn center is disrupted.

3.Nf3 Nc6

This position most frequently arises by transposition, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Qa5, (see game 3). With the move order played in this game, Black can choose another logical third move, like 3…d6, which I prefer. The idea behind 3…d6 is to restrain the advance of White’s e-pawn, so that Black can attack it gainfully with 4…Nf6. In those lines, a bit of early simplification tends to occur, and Black seems to equalize comfortably (see games 5, 6).

4.Na3

Not surprisingly, this is a typical development for this knight in the Alapin. Denied its natural square c3, the knight nevertheless makes it way to the center, intending c4 (or, in some cases, b5). Here this move appears to make even more sense, since the knight will land on c4 with tempo, driving Black’s queen away.

4…e6

The logic is unmistakable, explaining why we are still following this path over 100 years later. Black prepares to expand in the center himself with …d5, in the process retrieving the tempo White picks up by attacking his queen, since Black’s d-pawn will threaten White’s knight. This also rushes White into 5.Nc4, since delaying might leave the knight stranded on the rim after …d5. This means that White cannot keep the threat of Nc4 hanging over Black with a threat is stronger than the execution mentality; rather, things are clarified immediately.

5.Nc4 Qc7 6.d4 cxd4

The immediate 6…d5, accepting an isolated d-pawn, leads to lively and even less explored play, where Black has the idea of sacrificing his d-pawn for activity (see game 4).

7.Nxd4!?

White understands that he will not get his flexible pawn duo in the center anyway, since 7.cxd4 is met with an immediate 7…d5, challenging the hegemony of White’s pawn center (see game 3). Therefore, he opts for piece activity.

7…a6

Black defends the b5-square against a potential knight invasion there, in the process adopting a Kan Sicilian pawn structure. A modern Kan tabiya arises after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Qc7. (D)

Comparing positions, we can see that the knight on c4 provides both pros and cons: on the one hand, it is less stable; on the other, it dangerously targets the weakened dark-squares in Black’s position. Therefore, logical is 7…Nxd4 8.cxd4 b5, immediately dislodging the knight. For 7…Nxd4 8.Qxd4, see the next game.

8.Bd3

. After 8…Qxc6 9.e5, Black should certainly not play 9…d5?, as in the game Doric-Martinovic 2009, which leads to a losing position after 10.exd6 b5 11.Be2!+−, since Black’s problems on the diagonal force him into variations that do not recover his material deficit, but rather 9…b5 10.Nd6+ Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qe4+!, with an unclear position.

If Black wants to get frisky, avoiding simplification and yielding the bishop pair, he can opt for 9…Nh6!?, as was chosen by IM Drabke in Asmundsson-Drabke 2005. With all the holes in Black’s position after 10.Bxh6 gxh6, it is hard to believe that White is not objectively better, but Black succeeds in creating a thoroughly unbalanced and complicated game. In the aforementioned game, Black took home the full point, albeit against a weaker opponent than himself.

8…b5

Of course, Black’s last was also preparation for this, which gives Black space and counterplay, while picking up a tempo on White’s knight, which is now forced to abdicate its powerful post. If I had to hop around this much with my queen’s knight right out of the opening, I would seriously consider simply placing it on c3 in the future!

9.Ne3 Nf6 10.0-0 Bb7 11.Nf3 Bd6! (D)

Black seems clearly to have the more menacing minor piece placement. The opening is basically concluded, and Black has achieved equality and some initiative.

12.Re1 Ne5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Nf1

No rest for the wicked! I wonder if Simon Alapin himself was regretting his eponymous pawn move, 2.c3, at this point – the cause of all his queen knight’s present troubles.

14…0-0 15.Qe2 Bc6 16.Bg5 Rfe8 17.Qe3 h6 18.Bh4?!

From a pragmatic perspective, White should trade, since Black’s knight now becomes a nuisance to White’s kingside.

18…Nh5 19.Bg3

The computer wants 19.g3, but it is beyond most mortals, even 100+ years later. It is just too ugly, stranding the dark-square bishop on h4 and weakening the light squares around White’s king.

19…Nf4

Over a hundred years later, the idea of shifting focus and battling on all sides of the board is second nature. 19…Nxg3! nabs the bishop pair and wins time. After 20.hxg3 b4!, Black’s dark-square bishop rules unchallenged and the queenside pressure confers a risk-free advantage. It was a simple and strong plan, but maybe in those days it would have been viewed as a moral surrender, abandoning the attack on the king!

20.Bc2 g5

In for a dime, in for a dozen. This certainly was not the risk-free approach, as mentioned above, but it is the entertaining one!

21.Nd2!

White aims to trade Black’s dominant dark-square bishop.

21…Qd8?

Today, the idea of the minority attack is already a cliché. 21…Reb8 intending …b4 comes to mind immediately, again with the idea of creating meaningful pressure against White’s queenside.

22.Nf3 f6 23.Nxe5 fxe5 24.f3!

This is the point: White’s dark-square bishop will not remain quarantined on the kingside forever, nor will it trade for Black’s knight, improving Black’s pawn structure. It will simply redeploy. In the meantime, White’s pawn chain from g2-e4 fights against Black’s light-square bishop.

24…Kh8 25.Qc5 Qf6 26.Qd6 Rg8

Although technically Black should have played for a minority attack on the queenside, his cruder (from today’s standards) plan of attacking White’s king is not without danger. On full display for the remainder of the game is the wide gap in the arsenal of defensive techniques between players of that era and our own: a topic of great historical interest to me, for one.

27.a4 Raf8 28.Bd3 h5 29.axb5 axb5 30.Rf1?!

Nh3+? 33.Kh2!, when the threat to the e5-pawn sends Black back.

30…h4 31.Bxf4 gxf4 32.Kf2? (D)

A romantic notion: the king defending itself on the open plain! Recall that these were the days of Wilhelm Steinitz, the first world champion, who offered the beginnings of defense theory in chess, and proclaimed boldly that the king could defend itself! 32.Kh1, however, is the truth. Black has no clear way to break through, as White can pile defenders on g2.

32…Rg5 33.Rh1?

White plays, it seems, without a firm concept. 33.h3 at least takes Black’s h-pawn out of the impending onrush.

33…h3! 34.gxh3?

It was high time to bring up the reserves: 34.Rag1, with far greater resistance.

34…Rfg8 35.Ke1

Now it is too late: 35.Rag1? Rxg1 36.Rxg1 Qh4+, and Black wins White’s rook.

35…Rg2 36.Be2 Bxe4! 37.fxe4 f3 38.Bf1 Rg1 0-1

The utter lack of coordination on White’s first rank, along with the imminent invasion of Black’s queen, spells doom.

(2) Michalczak – Sandipan

Dieren 2008

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Na3 e6 5.Nc4 Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4

Sandipan simplifies immediately, improving on Tarrasch’s 7…a6.

8.Qxd4!?

White continues in the spirit of playing with the pieces which animated his choice on move 7. 8.cxd4 was played in Potapov-Schiendorfer 2009, which continued 8…Nf6!? (8…b5!?, as pointed out in the notes last game) 9.e5 Nd5 10.Bd2 b5 11.Ne3 Bb7!= (D).

Black simply develops, recognizing that he will not lose a pawn to a capture on b5, since he is x-raying White’s g-pawn. In the game, White continued with yet another queen’s knight move, 12.Nc2, after which he can hardly pretend to be better, and the game was soon agreed drawn.

8…Nf6?

It strikes me that Sandipan played this whole game in a somewhat cavalier manner, perhaps because he was paired down.

Black should first drive White’s knight away from the strong c4-square with 8…b5! After 9.Ne3, Black can play 9…Nf6. He is unconcerned about his b-pawn, as 10.Bxb5 affords Black some tempi .

Black’s pieces are excellently placed, while White’s are very awkward. Black is about to blast open the center with …d5, opening diagonals and files. He would have a powerful initiative indeed. (D)

9.e5

Now White takes a firmer grip on some tender squares in Black’s camp.

9…Bc5 10.Nd6+?

Prematurely releasing the pressure, which could have been increased palpably with 10.Qh4 Nd5 11.Qg3. Black cannot respond to this by castling, as 11…0-0 is refuted with 12.Bh6, but creating further dark-square weaknesses with 11…g6 overtaxes Black too greatly, as he cannot cover them all, and White can start to infiltrate, beginning with 12.Bh6. Black would be in a very difficult way.

10…Bxd6?!

This is another cavalier move. 10…Qxd6, forcing a trade of queens, is definitely better. Black minimizes the fall-out from his positional weaknesses by simplifying the position. It is not a blunder, just a fancy way to trade queens, as White’s queen cannot avoid capture too.

11.exd6 Qc6 12.Bh6

This is precisely the kind of pressure White can apply given his optimally centralized queen, and that Black could have prophylactically avoided had he played 10…Qxd6.

12…0-0 13.0-0-0 Qe4

Black returns to the proper path, trading queens.

14.Bg5 Qxd4 15.Rxd4 b6 16.Bd3 Nd5 17.Be4 Ba6 18.Be7?!

A strange use of his turn. Of course, White cannot win a pawn with 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Rxd5, since Black skewers rook and pawn with 19…Bb7, but a simple developing move like 18.Re1, or 18.Kd2 threatening 19.c4 both seem to advance White’s cause, unlike the move chosen in the game.

18…Rfc8 19.Bxd5 exd5 20.Kd2 f6 21.h4 Rc4 22.b3 Rc5 23.h5 Kf7 ½-½

Surely it was GM Sandipan who offered the draw here and FM Michalczak, who was the significant underdog and who may have felt that the opposite-color bishops made the position drawish anyway, accepted. Since we are speaking of an endgame position here, I will not offer any significant analysis, as this is not my purpose in this book, except to mention a favorite quote of mine from Fire On Board, by world-elite GM Shirov:

"Endings with opposite-color bishops can, in my opinion, be regarded as a little-explored field of chess theory. Amateurs are of the opinion that these endings ‘always’ end in a draw, and that wins can be regarded as exceptions…

But in practice, one side wins so often that the question suggests itself: which is the exception, and which the rule?"

Indeed, to me it seems White is clearly better here, controlling more space, employing more active pieces, and having the better pawn structure.

(3) Jakubiec – Movsesian

Pardubice 2007

GM Sergei Movesesian is a world elite GM and a leading specialist in this line. He is also the rating favorite in this game, and so we can reasonably interpret his choices as oriented toward maximizing his chances to win.

In 1999, during the FIDE knockout world championship tournament, Garry Kasparov famously referred to Movsesian as a chess tourist. Of course, this comment can be interpreted in various ways. In this game, though, Movsesian displays a style of which Kasparov, the archangel of truthseeking in chess, would probably disapprove. Indeed, by objective standards, many of Movsesian’s middlegame moves appear unnatural, and even inferior. But if the psychological context is imagined, and the result taken into account, we can see the mark of a shrewd schemer at work.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3

This game involves a transposition, as c3 is delayed.

2…Nc6 3.c3 Qa5

This position could arise after 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5 3.Nf3 Nc6.

4.Na3 e65.Nc4 Qc7 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4

The natural recapture.

7…d5

So yet again, White is denied his dream of establishing a flexible and strong pawn duo in the center.

8.exd5 exd5 9.Ne3 Nf6 10.Bd3 Bd6 (D)

On the one hand, it seems Black has the more natural set-up. White’s knight on e3 blocks his own dark-square bishop. There is no question that black has equalized, while maintaining a large number of pieces on the board with which to display superior chess ability. On the other hand, White’s knight is centralized, and keeps watch on some tender light squares, like f5. As in the game, White can develop piece pressure on Black’s kingside.

11.0-0 0-0 12.a3 h6 13.b4 Be6 14.Bb2 a6 15.Rc1 Rac8 16.h3 Kh8!

Movsesian baits his lower-rated opponent, hoping White will act prematurely and create weaknesses. Of course, more natural were either 16…Bf4, restricting White a bit thanks to the pin, or the prophylactic 16…Qb8.

17.Nh4 Rfd8 18.Nhf5 Bf8 19.Qf3 Nh7 20.Ng4 Qb6 21.Rc5

Egged on by Black’s provocation, White has gone all in. Undeniably, the rook is immune from capture, at least for now, as opening White’s dark-square bishop’s diagonal is suicide. Nevertheless this display of flashiness was entirely unnecessary. Black’s psychological strategy is working to perfection.

21…Re8 22.Qg3 Rcd8 23.Nge3 Nf6 24.Qh4 Ng8! (D)

Black continues his provocative play, making sure that White has nothing concrete to capitalize on. As the tension builds, the lower-rated player is the first to crack.

25.Qg3 Qa7 26.Rd1 g6 27.Nh4 Qb8

Again and again, Black plays on White’s nerves. A mere move ago, Black’s queen seemed entirely cut-off from the action. White has been trying, with a frustrating lack of success, to build an attack again Black’s king. Suddenly, Black offers to trade White’s main attacker for a piece that was completely offside just a moment ago. Such a trade would be psychologically very difficult to come to grips with for White, and he predictably eschews it. Nevertheless, a small but simple advantage was to be gained with 28.Qxb8 Nxb8 (28…Rxb8 drops the d5-pawn) 29.Rb7, infiltrating with the rook. White’s vaulting ambition is the cause of his demise in this game.

28.Qf3 Be7 29.g3 Bxc5

Now, when the time is right, Movsesian suddenly grabs at the material advantage. He will manage the tactics, and come out with real chances for a win. Unsurprisingly, White is dispirited, and Movsesian quickly consolidates.

30.dxc5+ d4 31.Qg2 Kh7 32.Nc4 Bd5

The rest is easy. Movsesian is up material, and dominates the center. A successful attack feels like a distant dream.

33.f3 Bxc4 34.Bxc4 Rd7 35.f4 Nf6 36.Nf3 Re3 37.Bd3 Qe8 38.Bc1 Ree7 39.f5 g5 40.Kh2 Kg7 41.Bb2 Qd8 42.Qf2 Ne5 43.Nxe5 Rxe5 44.Bc4 Ne4 45.Qg1 Nc3 46.Rd2 Kf8 47.g4 Re3 48.Qf1 Qc7+ 49.Kh1 Ne4 0-1

(4) Kristensen – Mortensen

Denmark 1992

This game took place in the 1992 Danish Championship. Kristensen was already a very mature master, and has since earned the IM title.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Qa5 4.Na3 e6 5.Nc4 Qc7 6.d4 d5!? (D)

It is interesting that Tarrasch did not choose this line, given that he was such an advocate of isolated queen pawn positions. Black is willing to sacrifice his d-pawn outright in this continuation to gain time and active development. This occurs eventually in the game, but could have occurred sooner, as early as move 10. See the next note.

7.exd5 exd5 8.Ne3 Nf6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Be2

After this eminently natural sequence, White is presented his first opportunity to win the d-pawn free and clear. After 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.Qxd5 Qb6, White needs to invest even more tempi to protect f2. (D)

, for instance, Black holds the advantage, as White simply cannot complete his development and castle, since 14.Bd3 runs into the elegant refutation 14…Rxd3! 15.Qxd3 Bxf2+ 16.Kf1 Rd8 17.Qe2 Rd1+! 18.Qxd1 Bc4+, winning White’s queen.

Although White has technically enough material for the queen after 19.Qe2 Bxe2+ 20.Kxe2, the complete lack of harmony of White’s army and the precarious position of his king mean a sizeable advantage to Black. Black can begin his assault with 20…g5!, disrupting the apparent solidity of White’s position. White’s bishop cannot capture, as b2 hangs, and 20.Nxg5?! is met with 21…Bh4, when Black threatens both a queen invasion at f2, and to capture White’s knight, followed by forking White’s king and bishop with …Qb5+. The long and short of it is that if Black plays energetically, White does not have time to consolidate his position.

The above highlights the dangers of accepting Black’s pawn sacrifice. Of course, the analysis engines can capture this pawn worry-free, as they see everything, but needless to say it is exceptionally dangerous for a human player.

For theoretical purposes, though, White should play 13.Qh4, which would be a novelty, defending f2 and preventing Black from castling queenside. It seems the position is roughly balanced there, with Black having compensation but arguably not more for the pawn. Again, it is virgin territory, so we would need some games from strong players to see how it could play out.

10…Be6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nc2

The principled strategy: White takes control of the square in front of the passed pawn, preventing its advance. One recalls Nimzowitsch’s famous dictum: First restrain, then blockade, finally destroy!

12…Qb6 13.Nfd4 Ne4

Black also follows vintage IQP strategy, outposting his knight on the phenomenal e4-square.

14.f3 Nd6 15.Kh1 Nf5 16.Nxf5 Bxf5 17.b4 Bf2

Black continues to contest the important d4-square, preventing White’s knight from hopping there.

18.Bd3 Bxd3 19.Qxd3 Bh4!? (D)

In the active spirit of the opening! Black will not waste time holding d5; instead, he readies himself to invade with his rook along the central files. I do not recall whether Nimzowitsch provided any guidance about how to play if the holder of the isolated pawn simply abandons it!

20.Qxd5

Understandably, a person can only ignore hanging fruit for so long, but though the engines may waver between an evaluation of equal and slightly better for White, for the humans who contested this battle, it was just eight short moves from White’s acceptance of the sacrifice to his resignation.

The issue to consider here is not the computer’s pronouncements, but the margin of error: by opening the central lines and losing time that could be put to completing development, White puts himself on the brink of ruin. If he can walk the tightrope like a machine, he may come across to the other side, but for a human being this is rarely possible.

20…Rfe8 21.Rb1?!

21.Bf4, developing, was necessary.

21…Re2 22.Qd3 Rae8 23.c4?

23.b5!, freeing the b4-square for White’s knight, maintains a fragile balance. The game continuation demonstrates why White needs this square.

23…Qd8! (D)

Whitle’s queen was holding the entire edifice together. Without it, Black’s domination will yield material fruit. The notion that Black would voluntarily offer a trade of queens right after sacrificing his pawn probably never occurred to White. A wonderful conception!

24.Qxd8 Bxd8 25.Na3

There is no longer any way to avoid material loss. 25.Rb2? Bf6−+.

25…Rxa2 26.b5 Na5 27.Rd1 Be7 28.Rd2 Bxa3 0-1

Although the line from the source game Alapin-Tarrasch (game 1) remains the main line (in good part because of the prevalence of the transpositional possibility 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Qa5), the pure Alapin move order, 2.c3, gives Black another interesting possibility on the third move – namely 3…d6. This has been my preference, as it restrains White’s e-pawn, preparing to attack it with a quick …Nf6.

(5) Pressman – Lowinger

Connecticut 2012

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Qa5 3.Nf3 d6 (D)

As mentioned, with 3…Nc6, Black transposes to the more popular position, usually arising from 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Qa5, that we explored in the previous games.

My choice, 3…d6, keeps the game on less trodden paths. Its logic is plain, preparing 4…Nf6 to attack White’s e-pawn, which cannot benefit from the usual defense of Nc3. 3…d6 was also played by Croatian GM Kozul, a player I much admire, as he is also the main proponent of The Quiet KID! (chapter 9)

4.Na3

As in the previous games, White’s knight aims for c4. 4.Bc4 is the focus of the next game. 4.Bc4 is an aggressive and interesting alternative (see game 6).

4…Nf6 5.e5 dxe5 6.Nxe5

The obvious move, but White’s pieces do not make a good impression. Black begins to develop with the offer of trading, slowing White down. Black has already equalized fully.

6.Nc4 Qc7 7.Ncxe5 e6 8.d4 Bd6 9.Bd3 0-0 and a draw was agreed in Zhigalko-Roiz, 2003. Returning to my game:

6…Nbd7 7.Bb5 a6 8.Nxd7

There was simply no way to increase the pressure