Tim Harding Two Knights 2.Pdf

The Kibitzer

Two Knights Defence without Tears:

Part 2

Last month I began my survey of some lines in the Two Knights Defence (1

e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6). I emphasised in Part 1 that this is an opening

where a player or student can easily become overwhelmed by the mass of

unclear complications that can arise. Publications that pile example on

example, omitting no practical example tactical detail do have their place -

for advanced and correspondence players. However, they leave the majority

of readers not being able to see the wood for the trees.

The Kibitzer

Tim Harding

My objective in this series of articles is to give an overview of the Two

Knights. If you want detailed examples to analyse, you can then download the

games from my website and study them. This file now contains material of

the variations discussed this month in addition to the games already in the file

last time. Here is the URL: http://www.chessmail.com/freegames.html.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5

Before we get on with the main topic of the article, there are two digressions

relating to Kibitzer.

Firstly, I asked readers for the source of Dr Tarrasch’s famous “duffer’s

move” put-down on 4 Ng5 and several of you gave me the answer. The

colorful phrase used by Tarrasch, not easy to translate into English is “ein

richtiger Stümperzug”. A “Stümper” is not an Australian cricket

wicket-keeper but (according to my dictionary) is a botcher or bungler or

clumsy fellow.

The most detailed comment came from Stefan Bücker, editor of the German

theoretical/historical magazine Kaissiber . He informed me that Tarrasch's

remark was made in his Die moderne Schachpartie , e.g. 2nd. ed. (Leipzig

1916), p.294, commenting on 4 d3 in Salwe-Schlechter (Carlsbad 1907):

“Wohl nicht so energisch wie d2-d4 oder 0-0, aber sicherlich viel besser als

der so häufig an dieser Stelle gemachte Zug Sg5, den ich für einen richtigen

Stümperzug halte.”

Which I loosely translate as follows “Probably not as energetic as 4 d4 or 4

0-0, but surely much better than the move so frequently made in this position

4 Ng5, which I hold to be a real bungler’s move”.

Modern theory doesn’t often agree with Tarrasch. For example in his 1965

book on Open games in his 4-volume openings series, GM Ludek Pachman

wrote that:

file:///C|/Cafe/Tim/kibb.htm (1 of 13) [4/10/2001 9:12:14 AM]

The Kibitzer

“Opinions about the soundness of the move 4 Ng5 have often changed over

the course of time. While it found little approval with Dr Tarrasch... in

modern practice, it is considered a very sound continuation, even the best

reply to 3...Nf6”.

It was preferred by the 7th Correspondence World Champion Yakov Estrin,

who enjoyed playing the resulting positions with either colour both in postal

and regular play, while in recent GM practice, for example, GM Alexander

Morozevich has been employing this move against the Two Knights.

4...d5 5 exd5 ( See Diagram )

My second digression, before I go on

to discuss 5...Na5 and 5...Nd4,

concerns the Lolli Variation 5...Nxd5 6

d4 which was briefly mentioned last

month.

Dan Heisman tells me he has a lot of

new analysis to show that Black’s best

line is not 6...Bb4+ or 6...exd4 but

rather to “fall into the trap” by

6...Nxd4. Then after 7 c3 he should

play not 7...Ne6? 8 Qxd5 but either

7...f6 or 7...b5. His new electronic book

from Pickard & Son, dealing with the Fegatello and Lolli variations, will

include his proof of this and I look forward to it. Mr Heisman also points

out that his Traxler electronic book is not just an encyclopaedia of old

games and analysis but contains more new (computer-assisted) analysis

than most opening books

Now for the heart of this article. This second part covers the lines where

Black, after 4 Nf5 d5 5 exd5, employs either the standard 5...Na5 move.

I had originally intended to include the 5...Nd4 Fritz Variation (possibly

reaching the Fritz via 5...b5) in this article also but by the time I had

completed 5...Na5 this Kibitzer was already longer than the last. Since

5...Nd4 in itself is quite a big subject, it will be reserved for a third and

final part of the series next month.

Both 5...Na5 and 5...Nd4 answer the threat from White’s d-pawn by

moving the Knight while 5...b5 counter-attacks the white Bishop. I am

going to look at 5...Na5 first because it is the move that obtains the most

coverage in books, and is played most often of Black’s options against 4

Ng5. Also, I suspect that I shall find it hard to maintain my “wood not the

trees” approach so easily when dealing with the Fritz, which is almost pure

tactics. However, I will try.

5...Na5 ( See Diagram )

file:///C|/Cafe/Tim/kibb.htm (2 of 13) [4/10/2001 9:12:14 AM]

The Kibitzer

With 5...Na5 Black avoids losing a

tempo and plays to get developed

before launching a full-blooded tactical

bout. This probably explains why it is

more popular than the alternatives.

6 Bb5+

This check is virtually forced. It is

possible for White to concede the

Bishop pair by 6 d3 but this move is

hardly in keeping with the previous

aggression. Black should answer 6 d3

by 6...h6 7 Nf3 e4 when 8 Nd4 can be

met by 8...c6 and the piece sacrifice 8 dxe4 Nxc4 is unsound. So White

plays 8 Qe2 Nxc4 9 dxc4 and now Morphy’s move 9...Bc5 (hindering

Nd4) is still considered best.

6...c6

There is a strange reluctance to try Polerio’s move 6...Bd7!? which has not

really been tested or refuted yet. The upside for Black is that he may very

easily regain his pawn without compromising his queenside pawn

structure. The downside is that the pawn on d5 cramps him, and leaves the

a5-Knight vulnerable with no move at present. For both sides, this

variation is relatively unknown territory so if Black prepares 6...Bd7 he

could score well with it, and White needs to be aware of the possibility.

( See Diagram )

If White exchanges Bishops then after

7 Bxd7+ Qxd7 Black immediately

regains his pawn with a good game

(Ciric-Nesis, corr 1982) so 7 Qe2 is

necessary. Then Black has a choice

between 7...Be7 and 7...Bd6. The

former move keeps open the possibility

of capturing early on d5, whereas the

latter secures the e5-pawn and intends

to “play around” the advance d-pawn.

It also sets a trap.

Morozevich-I.Sokolov, Sarajevo 1999,

went 7 Qe2 Bd6 8 Nc3 0-0 9 Bxd7 (Avoiding the trap 9 0-0? Nxd5! 10

Bxd7 Nf4 11 Qg4 h5 12 Qh4 Be7.) 9...Qxd7 10 a3!? (If 10 0-0 then 10...b6

or 10...c6.) 10...b6 (necessary to save the Knight) 11 d3 (If 11 0-0 instead,

then 11...Nb7 12 b4 a5! according to Jozsef Palkovi, not 11...Rae8 12

Qa6!) 11...c6?! 12 b4! Nb7 13 dxc6 Qxc6 14 Nce4 Nd7? (14...Be7 leaves

White somewhat better.) 15 Qf3 Be7?! 16 Nxh7! and White won. As

Palkovi shows in his 2000 book Zweispringerspiel bis Traxler

Gegengambit , all this happened before in a 1996 Spanish game

Arnold-Iruzubieta, which doesn’t say much for GM Ivan Sokolov’s

preparation! Maybe he was misled by the fact that the Spanish game was a

file:///C|/Cafe/Tim/kibb.htm (3 of 13) [4/10/2001 9:12:14 AM]

The Kibitzer

short draw but Morozevich improved on it. Instead of 11...c6, Palkovi says

11...Rae8 is the right move since Qa6 is not possible in this line.

English GM Glenn Flear prefers to play 7...Be7. Then after 8 Nc3 0-0

White often chooses the safe 9 Bxd7. However, when he doesn’t hold the

gambit pawn he doesn’t really obtain winning chances e.g. 9...Qxd7 10 0-0

(if 10 d3 Nxd5) 10...Rfe8. On the other hand, 9 0-0 leads to obscure

positions. Herbrechtsmeier-Nunn, Bundesliga 1985, went 9...Bg4!? 10

Qxe5 Bd6 but this may not be good enough. Instead 9...c6 10 dxc6 Nxc6

seems to offer compensation. It may seem strange to avoid ...c6 earlier and

then play it after all, but White’s move Qe2 is not especially constructive.

Returning to 6...c6 , play invariably goes 7 dxc6 bxc6 reaching the next

diagram. ( See Diagram )

White must now either retreat the

Bishop or pin the c-pawn along the

diagonal. We look at the latter

possibility first.

8 Qf3

White tries to induce either a passive

defence of the c-pawn or else the

incorrect exchange sacrifice 8...cxb5?!

9 Qxa8. Instead Black can reply with a

move that was analysed by an English

prisoner-of-war in a Japanese camp

during World War II:

8... Rb8!?

It would now be foolhardy in practice (whatever your computer might say)

to grab the second pawn at c6. After 9 Bxc6+ Nxc6 10 Qxc6+ Nd7 White

has no piece in play except his Queen and the g5-Knight which is under

attack. Black will bring out his King’s Bishop, castle and then enjoy a big

lead in development and open lines.

Therefore the prudent move is to retreat the Bishop:

9 Bd3

Not to e2, because you could have done that last move if you wanted. Now

we have a fairly unusual position that Black (in his enthusiasm for the

Bxc6+ lines) may have neglected to study. I have never had any

experience with this line but it looks to me that White’s pieces are placed

awkwardly and his influence on the centre is reduced because his d-pawn

is blocked.

Play could go 9...h6 10 Ne4 (one of the points of this 8 Qf3, 9 Bd3 line)

10...Nd5 and it is reckoned that Black has just about enough play for the

pawn.

However, it is understandable that some players are not altogether

file:///C|/Cafe/Tim/kibb.htm (4 of 13) [4/10/2001 9:12:14 AM]

The Kibitzer

convinced by this variation. Instead of Colman’s 8..Rb8, the new move

8...h6!? is gaining credence. Now White cannot answer 9 Bxc6+? Nxc6 10

Qxc6+ because after 10...Bd7 both Queen and Knight are en prise. Maybe

9 b4!? is possible, since after 9...Bxb4 10 Bxc6+ Nxdc6 11 Qxc6+ Bd7 12

Qc4 White threatens both the b4-Bishop and mate on f7. However, Black

has a simple answer in 12...Qe7 13 a3 Ba5 14 Ne4 Nxe4 15 Qxe4 0-0

when White has zero development and Black’s chances look good. This

analysis comes from Heyken and Fette but I imagine Spassky may have

been the first person to discover this.

Van der Wiel-Spassky, Reggio Emilia 1985-86, went instead 9 Ne4 and

after 9....Nd5 White’s pieces do not look well placed.

Personally as White, I prefer to stick to the main line (after 5...Na5 6 Bb5+

c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 ), namely:

8 Be2

Black invariably kicks the advanced Knight back now by

8...h6

when I play 9 Nf3

I know that Steinitz invented 9 Nh3!? and that Bobby Fischer revived it,

but when I play 4 Ng5 against the Two Knights I usually try to avoid

artificial moves. Only fluid moves that consistently develop pieces, create

threats or challenge the centre really fit into the picture as I see it. ( See

Diagram )

I have no experience with 9 Nh3 and

do not presume to know what is

Black’s best line. It’s tempting to chop

off the Knight on h3 at once but that is

probably what White wants you to do.

On the principle that “the threat is

stronger than the execution”, the move

Bxh3 is best postponed. 9...Bd6 is

possible but not as popular as 9...Bc5,

while even 9...Nb7 comes into

consideration. If you want to know

more about this line, study the famous

games Steinitz-Chigorin and

Fischer-Bisguier; the latter is in My Sixty Memorable Games .

The usual move 9 Nf3 threatens the black e-pawn so there follows:

9...e4 10 Ne5

I don’t mind my opponents making these supposedly tempo-gaining

moves like ...c6, ...h6 and ...e4 because all they are really doing is creating

holes and pushing my pieces (especially the Knight) to where they want to

go. Take a look at the diagram. ( See Diagram )

file:///C|/Cafe/Tim/kibb.htm (5 of 13) [4/10/2001 9:12:14 AM]

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: