From: mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Joel Benjamin reviews Tseitlin's book on the Schliemann!
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:53:22 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.chess
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

Swill:  Winning With The Schliemann? 

by GM Joel Benjamin 
                       
[this article will appear in the 64 pp. end-of-year special issue of
_Chess Chow_ magazine...here's a sneak preview of this important
theoretical piece...in its entirety! - MG]

Opening books are packaged in various ways.  The most
trustworthy books tend to have the catch words "Complete" (such
as in John Nunn's The Complete Pirc or John Fedorowicz's The
Complete Benko; if you see "Compleat," forget it, the author is
too pretentious) or "For the Tournament Player" (as in Nunn's
Najdorf for the Tournament Player).  On the lowest level we see
the phrase, "Let's Play the ..."  These books may be helpful for
teaching the ideas and basic variations, but don't count on them
for hardcore analysis.  Somewhere in the middle we have the more
complicated "Winning with the...."  These books are harder to
evaluate.  They are basically designed for players 1600-2200 (a
very rough estimate of course), and are generally written from
one side's point of view.  Though some books hold up fairly well
under scrutiny  (Andrew Martin's Winning With The King's Indian
is an example), there is clearly a potential problem of, as
George Bush would say, the "objectivity thing."

[heading:  "Losing With the Schliemann"]

The less respectable the opening, the more dangerous this
proposition.  The Schliemann (or Jaenisch) Defense (1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5!?) is an opening on the fringe of soundness. 
It has never been wholly refuted, but hear me now and believe me
later, if you play this opening expect to have a huge hole
punched in your pet line every now and then.  Because of its
wild, tactical nature, the Schliemann is easy to present in a
very appealing way.  When everything goes right, you hit the
jackpot.  Of course, if white plays accurately, you can die a
horrifying death-- a scenario which authors may not wish you to
see.  Thus the task of writing an objective treatise without
losing too much of the opening's appeal is a difficult one.
                     

Mikhail Tseitlin's _Winning With The Schliemann_ (Maxwell
MacMillan 1991) totally fails to uphold white's side of the
argument.  NM John MacArthur pointed out to me a deeply disturbing
aspect of the book:  Every method of play for black is
considered satisfactory for black.  In an opening that is
borderline dubious to begin with, you would expect to see some
lines that cannot be recommended.  The message I got is that
Tseitlin isn't analyzing with a critical eye.  Therefore, I
decided to trust nothing, and had a rather easy time refuting a
number of highly crucial variations.

[header: "Mainlining"]

I turned my attention to the lines evolving from 4.Nc3, white's
sharpest response.  I was interested to see what Tseitlin had to
say about one of the main lines: 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 dxe4
7.Nxc6 Qg5 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.f4 Qh4+ 

(in recent years 9...Qxf4 has become increasingly poular) 

10.g3 Qh3 11.Ne5+ c6 12.Bc4 Bc5 13.d3 Ng4 14.Nf7 

   [14.Qxe4 Nf2 15.Bf7+ Tseitlin gives an illustrative game in
which white scored a crushing victory,
(Heemsoth-Konstantinopolsky, Corr. 1977-78) yet in the analysis
section he does not suggest an answer to white's fifteenth.] 

14...Bf2+ 15.Kd1 e3 16.Qf3 Nf6 17.f5  

[diagram after 17. f5]
         

This all may look weird to Schliemann neophytes, but it is a
crucial test of the viability of 9...Qh4+.

Now Tseitlin advocates

17...Nd5 ("!")

which he claims to be an improvement on 17...Rf8.  This
assessment is quite mistaken, for a variety of reasons.  Let's
start by looking at  Tseitlin's continuation:  
                      
18.Bxd5  cxd5 19.Nd6+ Kd7 20.Nxc8 Re8 21.Qxd5+ 

21...Kxc8 22.Ke2? (Necessary was 22.Qc5+ Kd7 23.Qd4+=--Tseitlin)
22...Qg4+ 23.Qf3 Qa4 24.b3 Qd4 25.Rb1 Qc3 0-1, Balashov-Hramov
corr 86/89.
                      
But as Ron Wieck pointed out, white can continue with 26.Rb2. 
Wieck opined that white looked alright, maybe better.  

[diagram after 26. Rb2!]

It's not the prettiest move in the world, but it stops all of
black's immediate threats.  Black has trouble bringing his other
rook into play, and white has the idea of bringing his queen to
c4 to simplify.  Let's also not forget white's two extra pawns. 
I hesitate to say white is winning, but black still has
something to prove.  I suspect that Balashov (assuming it's GM
Yuri) had some important business to attend to and had to
forfeit the game, or perhaps landed in the hospital from a
drunken binge and likewise had to concede.  His capitulation
certainly wasn't caused by the position.

So white survives playing the crassest possible moves.  But he
has a host of alternatives.  Instead of grabbing a bishop
blocked by its own king, how about 20.Nb5 Re8 21.Nd4  

[diagram after 21. Nd4!]   
                        
Here the knight defends e2 and f5, while the unfortunate
placement of black's king hampers his play. 

But wait-- white has an even more logical continuation: 

 18.Nd6+ Kd7 19.Ne4  

  This simple continuation ought to have been considered. 
Black's king, if I may belabor the point, is on a stupid square
and black can't prevent white from liquidating his major trump. 
And it ain't rocket science-- I found this continuation in one
minute while hanging out with the distribution manager. 

[diagram after 19. Ne4! - caption is "Not rocket science"]

19...Rf8 

Pretty much forced.  

20.Nxf2

My first thought was 20.f6 Nxf6 21.Bxe3 Nxe4 22.Qxe4 Bxe3
23.Qxe3 consolidating, but 20...Kd8 could get messy.

20... exf2 21.Qxf2 Rxf5 22.Qe2

 Once again, black's king is in the way.

22...Kd8 23.Re1

 White has the initiative and a pawn. 

  

Which brings us back to the theoretical move,  17...Rf8. 
Tseitlin cites the line 18.Bxe3 (18.Nd6+ was played in the
well-known game Nunn-Rumens, London 1877) Qg4 19.Nd6+ Kd7 20.Ke2
Qxf3+ 21.Kxf3 Bxe3 22.Nxc8 22...Bc5 23.Be6+       Kc7 24.d4 Bxd4
25.c3 "which Maric suggests is very good for white. "  This
assessment should be challenged as after 25...Nd7 26.cxd4 Raxc8
27.Bxd7 Kxd7 Black preserves chances for a draw"-Tseitlin) Why
inheaven's name should white trade his powerfully posted
bishop?  Even so, any time you take an extra pawn into an
endgame your opponent might draw, I would say you have a "very
good" position.  Maybe there is a problem in translation, but
the note is puzzling indeed.



Black maintains his chances only with the move 22...Bh6!, as
reformed Schliemannhead IM Ilya Gurevich showed me.  After
23.Be6+ Kc7 matters are not so clear; black intends to trap the
knight beginning with ...Nf6-d7.



So Tseitlin is wrong all the way around in his evaluation of the
critical position after  17.f5.  Annoyingly, he treats positions
that hang with each move much too superficially, failing to
consider obvious and important alternatives. 



I'll mention one more line where the reader can be led astray by
Tseitlin.  The variation 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. Nc3
fxe4 5. Nxe4 Nf6 is considered a critical Schliemann offshoot
these days.  Korchnoi gambled with it in his Candidates Match
with Timman, and though he lost, it wasn't the opening's fault. 
White has many choices, but it is certainly natural to continue
with 6. Nxf6+ Qxf6 7. Qe2, because black is virtually forced to
gambit a pawn with 7...Be7.  Tseitlin gives the line 8. Bxc6
dxc6 9. Nxe5 Bf5 10. d3 O-O 11. O-O Rae8 12. Nc4 Qg6 13. Kh1 Bc5
14. Be3 b5 15. Qd2 Be7 16. Ne5 Qf6 17. f4 Bd6 18. d4 Bxe5 19.
dxe5 (better is 19. fxe5) 19...Qg6 20. c3 Be4 21. Rad1 Qg4 =+,
Silva-Mik. Tseitlin, Odessa 1976 (Wedberg assesses this position
as =).



This line looks, as Fedorowicz might say, "a little ridiculous."
 How can black equalize by shuttling his bishop back and forth
while white develops?  I thought of the move 16. Na5, and I
wondered, what is black doing?  The knight is only temporarily
offside for one mmove; it is ready to retreat to b3 and cover c5
or advance to b7 to harrass a bishop.  I don't see much
compensation for black, after, for instance, 16...Bd6 17. f4 Qh6
18. Nb7.



A much better continuation for black is 12...b5! 13. Ne3 Bd6,
and white has much more difficulty unraveling. The position has
kind of a Marshall Attack feel to it.  The move 12...b5, I'm
told, will appear in an upcoming book by Schiller and
Shamkovich.  If this line is a truly representative sample, you
might be better off waiting for S&S to come out. 



In the meantime, I wouldn't bother with Tseitlin's book.  He
reads a bit too much like a used-car salesman.



If readers at home want to write such a book themselves, here
are a few suggestions for dishing out swill:



1. Use dubious games with positive results as your stem games

2. over-optimistic evaluations

3. Conclude each chapter with a convincing-looking victory


 THE END

   [copyright _Chess Chow_ magazine 1992]

   [presented to the rec.games.chess user community for their
   entertainment!]

   [for more information about _Chess Chow_ magazine, please
   contact Grandmaster Joel Benjamin at 212 580 0343].
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess