From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Mark Ginsburg on Sicilian Dragon & Scheveningen (_Chow_ upload)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:12:27 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

"Marksist Revisionism"

by IM Mark Ginsburg

[this article appeared in the Dec 1991/Jan 1992 issue of _Chess Chow_
 which is Vol I, Issue 5:  our first 48 pp. bimonthly.  All the previous
 issues had been 24 pp. monthlies except for the first issue, a 
 classic 20 pp. collectors item.]
                                                                      
Readers:  keep Volume I,  Issues 2 (Dragon) and 4 (Scheveningen)
handy as I amend and expand analysis that has already appeared
in _CC_.

Sicilian Dragon, Yugoslav Attack 

At a Milbank, Tweed meeting GM Patrick Wolff mentioned a very
important improvement for Black on move 18 in the game
Sherzer-Shirov (CC No. 2 July 1991, pp. 12-14).

 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3
Nc6 8.Qd2  O-O 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.h4 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.O-O-O h5 13.Bg5
Rc5 14.g4 

 Premature?  Well, if it is, we have to give it a "?" and look
at the more solid alternatives on moves 13 and 14.  At any rate,
there's always 9. O-O-O.

 14...hxg4 15.Bxf6

Adorned with a '!' in CC, July  1991.

 15...Bxf6 16.f4 

CC already touched on the weak 16. h5? g5.

 16... Nc4 17.Qd3 b5 18.e5 

 [diagram]

caption:  The scene of a rare Shirov miscue

18...Bg7?? 

A losing blunder which netted Shirov a  ... win, in
Sherzer-Shirov. _CC_, July 1991, shows how white could have won
that game.    

The improvement, which a Brazilian master found vs. GM Wolff at
the World Youth Teams 1991, is 18...dxe5!.  For example, 
19.Ndxb5 Bxb5 (Steering for a rook-down ending with monstrous  
compensation in the form of the kingside passers) 20.Qxd8 Rxd8
21.Rxd8+ Kg7   

 [analysis diagram]

caption:  only white is filled with trepidation  

  Wolff and Frias like black, a rook down, after 22. Nxb5 exf4
and who can disagree?  22. fxe5 also does not impress; black  is
then only an exchange down with the same strong kingside 
majority.  Wolff's game went 22. Ne4 Rc7?!, and Patrick points
out that 22...Bc6! is stronger.  Sherzer and Wolff tried a blitz
match from the diagrammed position with Alex getting blanked and
losing a Chinese dinner.  The conclusion is that Alex honestly
thought the variation was good for white and never tried to
"bluff" anybody.  



 Getting back to Sherzer-Shirov, 

 19.h5 dxe5 20.Ndxb5 Nxb2  21. Kxb2? was played with white
losing eventually.

However, (to reiterate a moot point) we know from July that 21.
Qxd7! Bxd1 22. Bxf7+! does the trick.  With white's  pawn
already on h5, endings after 21...Qxd7 no longer offer black a
haven.  

Revisionist Conclusion:  Back to the drawing board for people
who like 14. g4. 


Scheveningen, 6. f4 Be7 7. Bb5+!?

Now let's look at the line I mentioned briefly in the September
1991 issue, page 19.  Danny Edelman pointed out to me in
Connecticut (at the Greater NY Open) that, after the opening
moves

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.f4 Be7 7.Bb5+!?

 7...Bd7! is, in fact, playable.   This point is very important
for Scheveningen move order fanatics since black retains
development options for his N/b8.   Let's look at this more
closely to see if white can  get any sort of edge out of the
upcoming forcing sequence:

8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Nd5  

9...Ng8 is out of the question, of course.

[diagram]

caption:  A juncture of import

 10.Nxd5 

The only testing move.  KnightStalker defused    10. Qg4 with
the calm 10...Nxc3! introducing several clever tactical motifs. 
For example, if 11. Qxg7? Bf8! 12. Qxh8 Qd4+, or 11. bxc3 Qc7!
12. Qg3 Bh4!.  Actually, the last variation needs expanding for
mere mortals.  White almost turns the tables after 11. bxc3 Qc7
12. Qg3 Bh4 13. Qxh4 Qxc3+ 14. Kf2 Qxa1 15. Ba3, threatening 16.
Qe7 mate and the BQ/a1.  Did KnightStalker goof?  Nope,
15...g5!! seals white's fate.

          [r.g.c note:  Gary Crum, a reader from Louisville, KY
          found a clever white win in the above Knightstalker analysis.
          Does anyone else see it?  But this does not change the
          conclusion that black stands well - all he has to do is
          not blunder with 12...Bh4??]

10...exd5 

Here 11. e6? is a blank shot and is easily met by 11.... Bxb5
12. exf7+ Kxf7 13. Nxb5 Bh4+ 14. g3 Re8+.  

[diagram]

caption:  Analysis after 14...Re8+ : white's king is the worse off. 

Continuing, 15. Kf1 Qd7! among other things is quite strong. 
Let's go back to the main line.

11.Bd3  

The alternative 11. Bxd7+ [Joel] 11...Qxd7 12. O-O is not as
harmless as it appears.  Black runs into unexpected difficulties
in the line 12...Nc6 13. Nf5! which sets the trap 13...O-O?? 14.
Qg4! winning.  What happens on 13...O-O-O!? though?

  

More work is needed here, especially on the simpler 12th move
alternative 12...Bc5.

[diagram after 11. Bd3]

 

A.  11...Qb6!? 

Black's fortuitous placement of the bishop on d7 means the
knight on d4 really is hanging. 

There are many alternatives:

B.  11...Bc5 I originally thought this move was best (since
11...Nc6 is too passive)  but it allows a hidden resource for
white and therefore isn't so safe.  The material further
subdivides:

b1. On 12. Nb3 or 12. Nf3, 12...Bb6 is not impressive for
white to say the least.  

b2. Also, 12. Nf5 is pseudo-aggression which black can deal
with calmly: 12...O-O 13. Qg4 (Or 13. Qh5, the reply is the
same) 13...Bxf5 14. Qxf5 g6 White runs out of gas with his
e-pawn a glaring liability and his king still in the middle.

b3. 12.c3?? loses instantly:  12...Bxd4 13. cxd4 Qh4+ and since
the brilliant 14. Kf1 Qxd4 15. e6 is foiled by 15...Qf6+, white
is lost.

b4. 12.Be3! This move involves an interesting   gambit. 
12...Qb6 The only logical followup. 13. c3 Necessity as virtue.
13...Qxb2 14. O-O Very dangerous for black!  14...Qxc3? There is
no safe way by now for black to bail out, but the text allows a
decisive opening of lines. 15. Rc1 Qa5 and now white can either
go crazy or win:

b41. 16.Bb5? Getting  carried away but it does get exciting for
a while. 16...Bxd4 17. Rc8+ Ke7 Unfortunately the bishop on e3
is pinned so this attempt fails for  white. 18. Rxf7+ (There is
no hope after 18. Qxh8 Bxe3+) 18...Kxf7  19.Qh5+ (19. Qf3+ Ke7
wins.) 19...g6 20. Qf3+ Bf5 Oh no, ...Qa5-e1+ is happening. 
White resigns,  not even bothering with 21. Qxd5+ Kg7 22. Qxb7+
Nd7. 

b42. 16. Rxc5! Qxc5 17. Nf5 Uh-oh.  White is invading on d6 or
g7 and can win as he pleases.

C.  11...Nc6?! Strengthens the center at the cost of allowing
white's king to escape.  In the resulting position, the e-pawn
is  not weak and white maintains initiative. 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13.
O-O-

D.  11...O-O!? daring white to walk into the d4-g1 pin with 12.
O-O.  12. Be3!?, 12. Qh5!?

[r.g.c. note:  David Griego wrote us a letter after this article came
out pointing out that black has the clever 11...Bb4+! which really
messes white up - take a look!]

Let's return to variation A, with 11...Qb6!?

A1.  12. c3  Nc6 The advantage over the 11..Bc5 line is now
clear:  white's e-pawn is under immediate fire.  Black is more
than OK. 

A2. 12. Be3 (This gambit doesn't have the same force as it did
after  11...Bc5). 12...Qxb2      13. O-O Bg5! Ah-hah.  A
defensive trick. 14. Bxg5 Nothing better. 14...Qxd4+ 15.Kh1 Nc6
Weathering the storm with a smile.

A3.  12. Nf5  This is neutralized by 12...Bxf5 13. Bxf5 Nc6!,
and if 14. Qxd5 Rd8.



Revisionist Conclusion:   6. f4 Be7 7. Bb5 Bd7 is viable and
needs tests.   



Postscript:  Our man on the InterNet, Elliot Winslow, mentions a
relevant game I. Rogers-S. Velickovic, London 1990, where 6. f4
Be7 7. Be3!? was played (in an attempt to get the safe attacking
formation with 8. Qf3, 9. O-O-O as in Tal-Larsen, Candidates
match 1965).  Velickovic did not oblige and struck quickly in
the center with 7...O-O 8. Qf3 e5!? 9. Nf5 Bxf5 10. exf5 Qa5 11.
O-O-O Rc8 12. Nd5 Bd8! 13. Kb1 Nc6 14. c3 exf4 15. Bxf4 Ne5 16.
Nxf6+ Bxf6 17. Qd5 b5! 18. g4 (18. Qxb5 Qc7 with
compensation-Rogers) and now, instead of the weaker 18...Qa4?!,
best would be 18...Nxg4! 19. Rg1 Ne5 20. Be2 unclear, as given
by Rogers in Informant 50.



Do readers know of any practical tests of 7. Bb5+!?  If not,
perhaps someone would be so kind as to play it.  So far, I am
resisting having KnightStalker play itself to further the theory
in this line.

   THE END


   ********************

   OK, R.G.C. fans, that's enough for now.

   Hope you enjoyed it.  -Mark

   ********************


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess