From: spin@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Jeremy Spinrad)
Subject: Richter, but not Rauzer, Question
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:54:36 GMT


   I have a question about an opening move which arose during a 
Quickchess tournament recently. I have recently become disenchanted with
the Alapin (c3) system against the Sicilian, so I decided off the top of
my head to revert to my previous continuations. My opponent, rated in the
high 2100s, played a "classical" Sicilian, and I played as follows:

1. P-K4 P-QB4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. P-Q4 PxP 4. NxP N-B3 5. N-QB3 P-Q3
6. B-KN5 P-K3

   At this point the normal continuation is Q-Q2, the Richter-Rauzer. I
always have avoided this, since there is too much book knowledge necessary
to learn it. My intent was to play Richter's pawn sacrifice (the original
motivation for B-KN5) 7.NxN PxN 8. P-K5, which has the virtue of getting my 
opponent out of book while I am still in book, and produces some interesting
games. However, my time spent studying the Alapin system had made me 
forget many of the lines, and I was uneasy about playing the gambit against
a higher rated opponent. This put me in the unusual position
of actually studying a classic opening position over the board. I
remembered that Nunn mentioned that 6 ... P-K3 is played normally to avoid
the doubled pawns (though some people prefer the line 6 ... B-Q2, which means
that the doubled pawns are by no means fatal), so the move 7. N(4)-N5 seemed
like an obvious try.
   The game continued 7 ... P-QR3 8. BxN NPxB 9. N(5)-Q4. I was comfortable
with this continuation; I would rate it at +/- though I could be persuaded
otherwise. When I went home, I was surprised to find that 7. N(4)-N5 is not
in either of my 2 opening books, Horowitz or MCO-12, even though a number of
other continuations are mentioned at move 7. I studied this with a third 
party, and came up with such possibilities as 7 ... Q-N3, and later the
fascinating 7 ... B-K2. 7 ... B-K2 would only be found over the board by a
very strong player, or a weak player who didn't notice the threat at all.
The point of 7 ... B-K2 is that after 8. BxN BxB 9. NxP+ K-K2 black has 
a very nice looking attack for the pawn (which I believe 10. NxB would make
even stronger). 
   Questions: what is the book continuation after 7. N(4)-N5 ? Is the gambit
with 7 ... B-K2 sound?

   Having posed a chess question, I would also like to put in my two cents
on Bobby Fischer. I certainly don't want to start a new thread, so all
replies to me only please. 
   Fischer was a classic case of a genius walking on the edge of paranoia. He
fell off the edge into complete paranoia for 20 years (the filling stories, or
beckoning Korchnoi into the limousine while crouched on the floor make this
clear). Sadly, there are many geniuses who have done this, whether in chess, 
math, art, etc. Is there any precedent in any field for a genius returning to 
the edge of sanity after years of complete insanity, or are we witnessing
something entirely new here? If it has been done, how successful
were they in their "second life" in their field?
   Finally, an explanation of how I can be a "Jew for Fischer". I feel he is
insane, and probably always will be; however, you have to root for him to 
wrestle his personal demons to a draw and become "functional" again. I wish 
his paranoia was against something more socially acceptable, such as aliens 
tapping his brain waves, but we don't always get to choose this. Remember that 
Fischer is not a David Duke profiting from hatred, or a young skinhead who 
wants to kick heads, but is a deeply disturbed person who could have been 
living a comfortable life, and instead has lived hand to mouth because he 
thought people were trying to get him.

Jerry Spinrad