Eric Prie - Queen's Pawn Opening - A White Chameleon.pdf - CHESS SZACHY Książki 6 Golubev - chesschempion

Queen’s Pawn Opening

Prié Attack

QP 9.1 (D00)

A White Chameleon

by Eric Prié

1. d4

In all their wisdom, the classics

recommended using the first

move to set foot in the centre and

threaten to put the second pawn

there as well. But is this a univer-

sal law?

After 1.e4 c5 there is the dy-

namic Bezgodov idea 2.a3 and

3.b4 – see his Survey in Year-

book 74 – but this lies outside the

scope of this Survey. The ques-

tion is: can such modest rook

pawn moves be feasible to reach

a good reversed system?

‘Chromatically’, 1.e4 with 2.h3

seems to work well against the

two moves that hinder 2.d4,

1...e5 and 1...c5. Which is nor-

mal, as controlling the f5 and g4

squares hinders the development

of the enemy light-squared

bishop, as we regularly see in the

Ruy Lopez or the Rossolimo

Sicilian...

So what about 1.d4? After 1...d5

2.c4 White must already be pre-

pared for a myriad of black alter-

natives. A highly popular one

nowadays is the Chameleon

(Chebanenko) Variation 4...a6 in

the Slav Defence, which is a use-

ful move that exerts pressure on

c4 without hindering the devel-

opment of Black’s own light-

squared bishop.

Now we reach the esoteric use of

the a-pawn: If 1.e4 goes well

chromatically with 2.h3, the

same may go for 1.d4 with 2.a3

and ...a6, when Black has a pawn

on d5.

2. a3

TsLdMlSt

jJj.jJjJ

._._._._

_._J_._.

._.i._._

i._._._.

.iI_IiIi

rNbQkBnR

One of the greatest mysteries of

the chess game is the practice of

playing with reversed colours.

Why, for instance, when the

Dutch is a ‘living’ defence

against 1.d4 (1.c4, 1.Àf3), is the

Bird Opening 1.f4 a rara avis in

master practice, like so many

other reversed systems?

Well, it’s all a question of

rhythm! The opening is a dy-

namic and subtle thing, swinging

harmoniously between action

and reaction. The black player

systematically adapts himself to

what White undertakes, and in

systems with reversed colours

that produce equal positions, the

advantage of the first move will

quickly fade away.

So is there not a single reversable

defence that can serve to break

out of this process? A kind of

remedy for all ailments, hyper-

economical from the viewpoint

of theoretical investment, since it

is based on a Black system?

Eric Prié

Multiple Purposes

Let’s examine the move 2.a3!? in

reply to all Black reactions to

1.d4.

A) 1.d4 Àf6 2.a3?!

TsLdMl.t

jJjJjJjJ

._._.s._

_._._._.

._.i._._

i._._._.

.iI_IiIi

rNbQkBnR

2...e6 3.c4 c5 4.Àf3 is pleasant

for White. He intends Àc3 and

e4 to play against a Hedgehog

system in which the critical line

1.d4 Àf6 2.Àf3 c5 3.c4 cd4

4.Àd4 e5!? is avoided. In the line

2...e6 3.c4, 3...b6 4.Àc3 would

207

be an improved version of the

Petrosian Variation of the

Queen’s Indian, where White

avoids the Bogo-Indian 1.d4

Àf6 2.c4 e6 3.Àf3 Ãb4 as well

as 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Ãb4 and the

move ...Ãa6, while at the same

time he keeps his king’s knight

flexible. The problem is, how-

ever, Black’s reply 2...g6! or

2...d6 since against black

squares set-ups, the control of

the b4 square is generally of

lesser importance, and White

usually does not have to support

his b-pawn with a2-a3 if he

wants to advance it two squares,

like in the Bayonet Attack of the

King’s Indian or the main line of

the Old Indian.

B) 1.d4 e6 2.a3!

Black’s light-squared bishop is

already locked inside its pawn

chain;

B4) 2...f5 3.c4 Àf6 4.Àc3

Ãe7?! (Black should really

transpose to the English Defence

with 4...b6 5.Àf3 Ãb7) 5.©c2!

(opening the attack on the light

squares without having to fear a

check on b4; on 5.Àf3 Àe4!? is

an interesting possibility)

Black’s other main line is

3...Àf6 4.Ãg5 Ãe7 (4...c5 5.c3;

4...h6! 5.Ãf4 Ãd6) 5.e3 h6

6.Ãf4 0-0 7.Àbd2 b6 (7...Àh5

8.Ãe5 Àd7 9.g4) 8.Àe5 Ãb7,

Prié-D.Adams 2004/05, and

now 9.h4!.

C2) 2...Ãf5 3.c4 e6 4.Àc3 c6

(2...Ãf5!? 3.c4 e6 4.cd5!? ed5

5.©b3 Àc6 6.Àf3 Àa5 7.©a4 c6

8.e3!?, a5Ø) 5.Àf3 Àd7 (5...Àf6

6.©b3 ©b6 7.©a2 Àe4) 6.Ãf4,

transposing into C65;

C3) 2...a6!? 3.Ãg5!? h6 4.Ãh4

c6 5.e3 ©b6 6.©c1 (preferable

to 6.Õa2), eliminating the criti-

cal idea 6...e5? 7.de5, as the

black queen has no check on h4

now!

C4) 2...h6. This is not the

counterpart of 2.a3. At the very

least, White is playing an im-

proved London system with c4,

for instance 3.Àf3 and now:

C41) 3...Ãf5? 4.c4!, and now

4...c6? is no good because of

5.cd5. Now, after 5...Ãb1 6.Õb1

©d5 White has the equivalent of

an advantage of two tempos, as

the a2-pawn is not hanging and

White can move the queen to the

best square at once with 7.©c2!.

e2-e4 is threatened and there are

concrete problems cropping up

for Black: 7...Àf6 8.e3 threaten-

ing Ãc4, Àe5 or Ãd3 and e4, and

sometimes b4, which can be in-

terposed to provoke ...a6.

On 5...cd5, White plays 6.©b3;

or 4...e6? 5.©b3 (no point in ex-

changing on d5 first when the

black queen cannot go to b6)

5...Àc6 6.©b7ê, as Black no

longer has ...Ãb4 anymore, e.g.

6...Àa5 7.©a6 Àc4 8.©c6.

After 4...dc4 5.Àc3 Àf6 6.e3,

White wins back the pawn in a

considerably improved version of

the QGA or a Slav in which

White has played a3 instead of al-

lowing a weakness on b4 with a4.

C42) 3...Àf6 4.Ãf4 c5?! (the

thematic reaction; 4...Àc6 was a

TsLdM_.t

jJjJl.jJ

._._Js._

_._._J_.

._Ii._._

i.n._._.

.iQ_IiIi

r.b.kBnR

5...0-0 6.Àf3 d5 (e2-e4 was

coming) 7.Ãf4, with a

‘Trashcan-Stonewall’ with

White’s bishop outside the pawn

chain – Game 2.

TsLdMlSt

jJjJ_JjJ

._._J_._

_._._._.

._.i._._

i._._._.

.iI_IiIi

rNbQkBnR

The move 1...e6 is a multi-

ple-purpose one, avoiding the

Trompowsky and keeping many

options open. But now 2.a3! is

very useful, as White can play

c2-c4 without allowing ...Ãb4,

and e2-e4 is not ruled out yet.

B1) 2...b6?! 3.e4 Ãb7 4.Àc3 is

the best line for White in any

case in the English Defence;

B2) 2...Àf6 3.Àf3, with the

idea of c2-c3, and Ãg5, probably

transposing to the Torre-

Trompowsky Attack or 3.Ãg5

c5 4.dc5 Ãc5 5.e3, which is how

Antoaneta Stefanova plays the

Trompowsky with 2...c5, see

Game 1;

B3) 2...c5 3.c3, possibly fol-

lowed by b2-b4; this is the Re-

versed Chameleon, but here

The Prié Attack Proper

The real Prié Attack is intro-

duced when Black plays 1...d5,

so:

C) 1.d4 d5 2.a3.

C1) 2...e6 3.Àf3 (Games 3-9),

and now:

Black’s first main possibility is

3...c5 4.c3 Àc6 5.Ãf4 Àf6

(5...©b6? was Prié-Flear, Mar-

seille 2005, and now, with 6.b4!,

White realized the Prié idea most

powerfully, which also features

in the ‘regular’ Slav Chame-

leon!) 6.e3 Ãd6. Now Prié-

Flear, Narbonne 2005, went

7.Ãg3 0-0 8.Àbd2 a6 9.Ãd3

Õe8 10.Àe5 Ãe5 11.de5 Àd7

12.©g4!? Àde5 13.Ãe5 Àe5

14.Ãh7 ®h7 15.©h5 ®g8

16.©e5 f6, and Black has the

centre and a strong bishop, but

his king remains exposed. Yet to-

day I would prefer 7.Ãd6!? ©d6

8.Àbd2 0-0 9.b4 b6 10.Ãb5.

208

TsLdM_.t

jJjJl.jJ

._._Js._

_._._J_.

._Ii._._

i.n._._.

.iQ_IiIi

r.b.kBnR

TsLdMlSt

jJjJ_JjJ

._._J_._

_._._._.

._.i._._

i._._._.

.iI_IiIi

rNbQkBnR

Survey QP 9.1

rapid game Prié-Hamdouchi,

where 5.e3 g5 6.Ãg3 Àe4 7.Ãb5

Àg3 8.hg3 Ãg7 9.Àe5 ©d6 was

interesting, but Black lost be-

cause his position contained too

many holes) 5.Ãb8 Õb8 6.dc5,

and Black will not see his pawn

back;

C5) 2...e5? 3.de5 Àc6 4.e4

(Prié-Guadalpi, 2004, Game

13). A gigantic advantage on the

clock in a reversed Lemberg

Variation, and soon a large ad-

vantage instead of pleasant

equality with reversed colours.

C6) 2...Àf6 3.Àf3, and now:

C61) 3...g6 4.c3 Ãg7 5.Ãf4

There is a game Shipov-Volkov,

Moscow 1996 (Game 14), in

which Black took on the same

set-up as White in our line, with

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Àf3 Àf6

4.Àc3 a6 5.g3 Ãf5!?, and won. It

was analysed in Glenn Flear’s

book on the Slav Chameleon.

With a similar set-up (in various

move orders) I myself have won

several games with Black.

C62) 3...a6!? (this seems more

accurate than 2...a6) 4.Ãf4

(4.Ãg5 Àe4 5.Ãf4 Ãf5 6.Àbd2

e6ì) 4...Ãf5 5.e3 e6 6.c4 (with

the move 2.a3 White has avoided

...Ãb1, followed by Ãb4)

6...c5!? 7.dc5! Ãc5 8.Àc3 Àc6

9.cd5 Àd5 10.Àd5 ed5 11.Õc1

Ãb6 12.Ãd3 Ãg4 13.0-0 0-0

14.b4, with advantage for White;

this is miraculously similar to

Dorfman-Vaisser, Aix-les-Bains

2003, and Leko-Kramnik,

Brissago 2004 – Games 15-16!

C63) 3...Ãf5?! (Game 12)

4.c4! c6 5.cd5! cd5 6.©b3 ©b6

7.©b6 ab6 8.Àc3 Àc6 9.Ãf4 e6

10.e3, with a pleasant advantage

for White (Prié-Kahler). The

b-pawns are doubled and iso-

lated, Black has abandoned

square b5 and White’s bishop is

outside the pawn chain. All these

factors will make White happy in

the

of playing c7-c5 more quickly

and possibly recapture on c5

with the knight) 4.Ãf4 g6 5.h3

Ãg7 6.e3 0-0 7.Àbd2 (Prié-

Flear, Lattes 2005) 7...b6!? 8.c3

Ãb7 9.©b3! Àe4 10.Õd1!, con-

trolling e5. White loses two

tempi with a3 and h3. This en-

ables him to develop freely but is

too slow for a real advantage;

C65) 3...c6. The prophylactic

move which will allow Black to

equalize without specific prob-

lems by allowing the natural de-

velopment of his queen’s bishop

out of the pawn chain. What is

White able to gain out of the ope-

ning then? This is what we shall

see in the next issue!

TsLdM_.t

jJj.jJlJ

._._.sJ_

_._J_._.

._.i.b._

i.i._N_.

.i._IiIi

rN_QkB_R

Conclusion

The Prié Attack with 1.d4 and

2.a3 is applicable against all

Black replies on the first move,

except maybe for 1...Àf6, after

which a White 2.a3 serves no

real purpose after 2...g6!. And

the set-up with 2…Àf6 and

3…c6, which we shall deal with

in the next Survey, also seems

perfectly viable for Black. In all

other cases, this modest little

move is quite useful, and not

only to gain time on the clock!

For those who like an uncom-

mon strategic struggle, this ope-

ning holds plenty more than just

surprise value.

The combination of g6 and d5 is

dubious as the fianchettoed

bishop is biting on the granite of

an enemy pawn wall. It’s not a

Closed Catalan, where Black’s

queen’s bishop is locked inside

the pawn chain and cannot con-

tribute to the important control

of square e4 (Games 10-11).

endgame

(10...Àh5?

11.Ãc7);

C64) 3...Àbd7 (with the idea

Multiple Purposes

1.d4 & 2.a3

T_LdMs.t

jJ_Sl._.

._._J_._

_._J_Jj.

._Ji._._

i.i.iNb.

.iBn._Ii

r._Qk._R

14.a4?! [14.0-0 Àg6 15.e4 de4 16.Àe4

fe4 17.Ãe4Å Àf4 18.Àg5 (18.Ãf4 gf4

19.Ãg6 ®f8 20.©e2 Ãf6 21.Àe5 Ãe5

22.de5 Õh4 23.g3 ©g5 24.®h1) 18...Ãg5

19.Ãf4 Ãf4 20.Ãg6 ®e7 21.Õf4 ©b6º]

14...Àg6 15.e4 de4 16.Àe4 fe4

17.Ãe4 Àf4 18.Ãf4 gf4 19.Ãg6

®f8 20.©e2 Ãh4 21.g3 Ãg3

22.®d2 Ãh4 23.Õaf1 ©b6 24.®c1

Ãf6 25.Àd2 Õh4 26.Õhg1 ©c6

27.Ãe4? ©a4 28.©g2 ®e7 29.Àf3

Õh8 30.Àe5 Ãe5 31.de5 ®d8

209

Prié,Eric

Rustemov,Alexander

Bastia rapid 2004 (3)

1.d4 e6 2.a3 Àf6 3.Ãg5 d5 4.e3

Ãe7 5.Àd2 Àbd7 6.f4 c5 7.c3 h6

8.Ãh4 g5! 9.fg5 Àh7 10.Àgf3 hg5

11.Ãg3 Àhf8 12.Ãd3 c4 13.Ãc2 f5

32.Õf4 ©b5 33.Õf7 ®c7 34.Õd1

Õd8 35.©g7 a5 36.h4 Õa6 37.h5 ...

[The rest of the game score is missing.

White played a reversed Stonewall – which I

haven’t played since because of the present

game – with the bishop outside the pawn

chain, allowing the sharp reaction 7...h6

8.Ãh4 g5! 9.fg5 Àh7. This was a wild

game in which 2.a3 proved useless] 0-1

12.0-0-0 [Slightly optimistic. Simpler was

12.Õf1!] 12...Àf2 13.g5 Àg4 14.Àh4

Àh6 15.Àf3 [15.Àg6!? Àg4 16.Àe5

(better was 16.©d2 hg6 17.h3 Àe3

18.©e3 c5!º) 16...Àe3 17.©e2 Àd1

18.©h5 ©e7 19.g6 (19.Õd1 Àd7)

19...h6!º 20.Àf7 (20.Õd1 ©g5) 20...Àc3

21.©h6 Àa2 22.®b1 ©f6 23.©h7 ®f8

24.Àd6 Õe7 25.©h6 ©g7î] 15...Àg4

[15...Àf7 16.h4] 16.©d2 e5 17.h3

Àe3 [17...ed4 18.hg4 dc3 19.©c3 Õe3

20.Õh7! d4 21.Àd4 ®h7 22.Õh1 ®g8

23.Õh8! ®h8 24.Àf5 ®g8 25.©g7X]

18.©e3 e4 19.Õde1! Ãe6? [19...Õf8

20.cd5 cd5 21.Ãc2 f4 22.©f2 ef3 23.Õe5;

19...Õe6!? (Fritz) 20.h4 with interesting

compensation for the pawn] 20.cd5 Ãf7

[20...cd5 21.Ãb5] 21.Ãe4 fe4 22.Àe5

[22.Àe4! Àd7 (22...®g7 23.d6 Ãd5

24.Àfd2) 23.dc6 bc6 24.Àe5] 22...Ãd5

[22...cd5 23.h4 Àc6 24.Àf7 ®f7 25.h5]

23.h4 Àd7 24.Àg4 ©e7 25.h5 gh5

26.Õh5 Õf8 27.g6! hg6 28.Õh6

©g7 [28...®g7 29.Õg6 ®g6 30.©h6

®f7 31.©h5 ®g7 32.Àe3 ©f7 33.Õg1

®f6 34.Õf1 ®g7 35.Àf5 ©f5 36.Õf5å]

29.Õeh1 Õf3 30.©g5 Õf5 [30...Ãf7

31.Àe4] 31.Õh8

attacking a5; 19...Õc8? 20.Àe7] 20.Õfe1!

Õe8 21.e4! de4 [21...b3 22.©c3 de4

23.d5 ©d5 24.Õed1 ©c6 (24...©e6

25.Õd7! ©d7 26.©c4) 25.©c6 Õc6 26.Õc6

Àe5 27.Õb6] 22.Õe4 [‘!’] 22...©e4

23.©c4 Õe6 24.©a6 h5 25.©b7

[25.©a5 Õc6 26.©a8 Àb8 27.©b8 ®h7

28.Õc6 ©c6 29.©b4ê] 25...Àf8 [25...h4

26.©d7 hg3 27.Àe5! gf2 28.®f1]

Prié,Eric

._._.sM_

_Q_._.j.

._N_Tj._

j._._._J

Ij.iD_._

_._._.i.

.i._.iI_

_.r._.k.

Baruch,Andrew

England tt-2 2004/05 (4)

1.d4 e6 2.a3 f5 3.c4 Àf6 4.Àc3 Ãe7

[4...d5 5.Ãf4 (a typical Trashcan Stonewall for

Black, with White’s queen’s bishop outside its

pawn chain. White should obviously play c2-c4

and develop the queen to c2, eyeing f5 and

the c-file, all possible because after 2.a3

White controls square b4. White has

postponed Àf3 as it may be more useful to

play f2-f3 and Àge2, in case a black knight

appears on e4) 5...Ãd6 6.Ãd6 ©d6 7.e3å]

5.©c2! d5 6.Ãf4 [Leaving the knight on

g1 for the moment also gives White the extra

option, in case of an exchange on d6, of first

f2-f4 and then Àf3 and possibly c4-c5!?. It

amazes me that in such positions, many white

players (1500 to 40 according to my

database) prefer g2-g3 above Ãf4, to hinder

the development of the black queen’s bishop

on the long diagonal, even when Black has

already committed himself to 4...d5 instead of

4...Ãb4. Moreover, in the Stonewall with

g3-Ãg2, the white queen’s knight is often

automatically developed to c3, where it exerts

no pressure whatsoever on Black’s position]

6...c6 7.e3 0-0 8.Ãd3 g6 [8...Àbd7

9.cd5! cd5 (9...Àd5 10.Àd5 ed5 11.Ãf5

©a5 12.®f1ê Õf5 13.©f5 ©b5 14.Àe2

©b2 15.©b1) 10.Àb5 ©a5 11.©d2]

9.Àf3 Àe4 10.Ãh6 Õe8 11.g4! Ãh4

26.Àd8! h4? [27.©f7ê; 26...©b7

27.Àb7 Õe2 28.b3 Õd2 29.Àa5 Àe6

30.Àc6 Àd4 31.Àd4 Õd4 32.a5! Õd6

(32...Õd3 33.a6 Õb3 34.Õa1) 33.®f1 ®f7

34.®e2 ®e6 35.Õc5 g6 36.Õb5 Õa6

37.Õb6]

1-0

Prié,Eric

Prié Attack Proper

1.d4 d5 2.a3

Apicella,Manuel

France tt 2005 (3)

1.d4 e6 2.a3 d5 3.Àf3 Àf6 4.Ãg5

Ãe7 5.e3 0-0 6.Àbd2 Àbd7 7.Ãd3

17.Àe4 de4 18.Àe5 Àe5 19.Ãe5

Ãg5 20.Õa2 f6 21.Ãg3 f5 22.Ãe5

to support the 12.b4 push here]

Prié,Eric

Sharif,Mehrshad

France tt 2004 (10)

1.d4 e6 2.a3 [This move is absolutely

logical after Black’s compromising 1...e6,

which closes in his light-squared bishop. The

motif of playing c2-c4 without allowing a

bishop on b4 gave me the ‘Prié idea’] 2...d5

[2...b6 3.e4 Ãb7 4.Àc3; 2...c5 3.c3; 2...Àf6

cd4 (4...d5 5.dc5 Ãc5 6.e3) 5.Àd4 Àc6

Àf6 4.Ãg5 Ãe7 5.e3 b6 6.c4 0-0

10.Ãa6 Õa6 11.0-0 c6 12.Àe5 b5

TsLdT_M_

jJ_._._J

._J_J_Jb

_._J_J_.

._IiS_Il

i.nBiN_.

.iQ_.i.i

r._.k._R

½-½

Prié,Eric

Pons Carreras,David

Catalunya tt-2 2005 (7)

1.d4 e6 2.a3 d5 3.Àf3 Àf6 4.Ãg5

Ãe7 5.e3 Àbd7 6.c4 Àe4 7.Ãe7

210

Survey QP 9.1

13.Ãc4 e5 14.d5 cd5 15.Ãd5 e4 16.Àd2

18.Ãb3Ç] 12...dc4 13.Ãc4 b6

Ãd7 25.Ãd3 Àd6 26.f4 f6 27.®f2

®f7 28.®e1 h6 29.®d2 e5 30.Àe2

®e6 31.Àc3 Ãc6 32.g3 g5 33.Ãe2

Àe4 [Control of the b4 square has its

points after having played c2-c4, leaving the

a5-e1 diagonal open]

[2.a3 has permitted White to make the

surprising recapture towards the centre

c3xd4!, because the b4-square was under

control]

½-½

22.Ãf6] 20.Àf3 [20.Ãd8 Õd8 21.Àf3

[2.a3 has been useful because it delayed a

black counter on the queenside with ...c4

and ...b5 and especially as it allowed, if

necessary, the recapture toward the centre

with square b4 firmly under control] 1-0

Prié,Eric

Adams,David

England tt-2 2004/05 (10)

1.d4 d5 2.a3 e6 3.Àf3 Àf6 4.Ãg5 [If

one has grasped the spirit of the concept,

White now plays against a black Colle,

which is always pleasant, with or without

a2-a3!] 4...Ãe7 [4...c5 5.c3; 4...h6 was

better, with the idea 5.Ãf4 Ãd6] 5.e3 h6

6.Ãf4 0-0?! [6...Àh5 7.Ãe5 Àd7 8.c4

(watch out for the knight on h5!) 8...Àe5

7.Àbd2 b6 [7...Àh5 8.Ãe5 Àd7 9.g4!]

8.Àe5! [Signalling the attack. Black cannot

afford to play f7-f6 on account of the hole

on g6] 8...Ãb7

½-½

Prié,Eric

Flear,Glenn

Narbonne-Plage rapid 2005 (5)

1.d4 d5 2.a3 [The great test against the

GM 1...d5 expert] 2...e6 3.Àf3 c5 4.c3

Àc6 5.Ãf4 Àf6 6.e3 Ãd6 7.Ãg3

10.Ãb5] 7...0-0 8.Àbd2 a6 [8...Õe8

[9.b4!? b6 10.Ãd3 Õe8 11.dc5 (11.0-0?!

Ãg3 12.hg3 e5 13.b5 Àd4! 14.cd4 e4)

11...bc5 12.e4] 9...Õe8 10.Àe5 Ãe5

behind White’s last five moves, but if I had

to do it again, I would have chosen the

alternative given after White’s 7th move;

Dobrev,Nanko

San Sebastian 2005 (7)

1.d4 d5 2.a3 Àf6 3.Àf3 e6 4.Ãg5

Ãe7 5.e3 h6 6.Ãh4 [6.Ãf4!] 6...0-0

7.Àbd2 b6 8.Àe5 c5 9.c3 Àfd7

10.Àd7 Àd7 11.Ãg3 cd4 12.cd4

a5 13.Õc1 Õa7 14.Ãb5 Àf6

so large but very pleasant advantage!]

15...Àe8! 16.Àf3 Àd6 17.Ãd3 Õc7

Õf7 29.ed5 ed5 30.Àh4 f5 31.Àg6

®h7 32.Àh4 g5 33.Àf3 g4 34.Àh4

Ts.d.tM_

jLj.lJj.

.j._Js.j

_._Jn._.

._.i.b._

i._.i._.

.iIn.iIi

r._QkB_R

pieces. Maybe 9.h4 would have been more

accurate, to attack with the pawns

immediately. The control of square e4 does

not seem important when the white bishop

is not yet on d3] 9...c5 10.c3 a5

[Another important tempo lost] 11.h4!

Àfd7 12.Ãd3 [12.Ãh6 Àe5 13.de5 gh6

more than a draw by repetition, since

escape] 12...Àc6 13.Õh3! Àde5

[13...f6 14.Àc6 Ãc6 15.Ãh6] 14.de5

when Fritz quickly switches from a black to

a white advantage when the mating attack

appears on its horizon] 15...Ãa6

16.Ãc2 Õfd8 [16...Õfe8 was a tad

17.Õg3 Ãf8 [17...®f8 18.Õg7! (there’s

T_._T_M_

_J_._Dj.

J_._Lj._

_.jJj._.

._._I_.q

i.i._._.

.i.n.iIi

r._.r.k.

._._._._

_.rL_Tm.

._._._.j

_._J_._.

Jl.i.jJn

_._B_.i.

.i._.i.i

_._._.k.

the centre with d5-d4 was preferable,

although White will attack with f2-f4]

22.Õe3 [22.f4 de4 23.Àe4 Ãd5 24.Àg3

[Now White obtains a strong attack]

211

39.gf4? [39.Ãg6!! Ãd6 (39...Õe7 40.Ãf5

Õe1 41.®g2 f3 42.Àf3 gf3 43.®f3)

40.Õb7 Õe7 41.Ãf5 Ãe8 42.Õe7 Ãe7

43.Ãg4å] 39...Ãd6 40.Àf5? [40.Õb7

Ãf4 41.Ãg6 Õe7 42.Ãf5 Ãg5 43.Àg6

Õe1 44.®g2 ®f6 45.Ãd7 ®g6 46.Ãa4Ç]

40...Ãf5 41.Õf7 ®f7 42.Ãf5 Ãf4

Eric Prie - Queen's Pawn Opening - A White Chameleon.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: