TARRASCH DEFENCE-I
THIS MONTH'S COLUMN deals with an aggressive way to meet the Queen's Gambit1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4!?, the Hennig-Schara Gambit (ECO code D32). This gambit, or counter-gambit, can be quite effective. In its early days it was employed by Alekhine and Tartakower and quite a few Soviet masters also tried it. It might appear to be primarily suited to rapid-play events but in fact has been equally successful in both over-the-board and correspondence events, and there is good reason to believe that the gambit has a sound positional and dynamic basis. When preparing this article, I reflected that there was one very solid opponent whom I met with Black in three successive years in the Irish CC Championship. He drew twice and the game I won was the one in which I played the gambit. He got confused in the complications, gave up the bishop pair, returned the pawn to simplify and I won the endgame. So you don't always have to play for mate though of course it's pleasant when something like the following happens: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qxd4 Nc6 6 Qd1 exd5 7 Qxd5 Bd7 8 Qd1 Nf6 9 Nf3 Bc5 10 e3 Qe7 11 Bb5 (Not White's best.) 11...0-0-0 (Black can castle either side in this gambit but queenside is more aggressive and usually better.) 12 Qe2 a6 13 Bxc6 (If 13 Ba4 g5! with interesting complications.) 13...Bxc6 14 0-0 (My opponent tried 14 Bd2 here, which is better and unclear.) 14...Ne4! 15 Bd2 Nxc3 16 bxc3 (16 Bxc3 Bb5) 16...Qe4! 17 c4 Rd6 18 Bc3 Rg6 19 Kh1 Rxg2! 0-1 Kuznetsov-Lerner, USSR 1977. So I thought it might be interesting to do a ChessBase "opening report" on the gambit. The statistics, with over 1000 games with the gambit in my reference database, should be quite significant Black scores above average (47%). Games (whatever result) are shorter than average. The two main moves 5 Qxd4 (as above) and 5 Qa4+ are played with almost equal frequency. As we shall see, they can and often do lead to the same position a little further on. I don't want to waste time arguing about names. On the continent of Europe the name of Schara is often given first and Eric Schiller's 1992 monograph is entitled "Von Hennig-Schara Gambit" which is perhaps strictly correct. He says that "Schara was the first to do any serious analysis of the line and Von Hennig introduced it into serious tournament play." Schiller has a game from him played in 1929.
Anton Schara used the gambit to defeat Ernst Gruenfeld in a short game played in Vienna in 1918 which isn't in Schiller's booklet. Perhaps it wasn't a serious game but here it is: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qxd4 Nc6 6 Qd1 exd5 7 Qxd5 Bd6 8 Bg5 Nge7 9 Qd2 f6 10 Bh4 Qb6! 11 Nf3 (11 Qxd6? Qxb2) 11...Bb4 12 e3 Bf5 13 Bc4 Na5 14 Bd3 Rd8 15 Nd4 Nac6 16 Nxf5? Nxf5 17 Bg3 Nxg3 18 hxg3 Ne5 19 Bb5+ Qxb5 0-1. The game won by the other author of the gambit went as follows. J. Benzinger - Heinrich von Hennig Duisburg II, 1929 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 The Tarrasch Defence, but with a twist in mind... 4 cxd5 cxd4!? Instead of the standard recapture. 5 Qxd4 White can also give check here. We will look at that later. 5 dxe6? sets the trap 5...dxc3? 6 exf7+ Ke7 7 fxg8N+ Rxg8 8 Bg5+ 1-0 (D.Fidlov-Albert Maier, USA corr 1959) but Black gets a good game with 5...Bxe6! as has been proved on most of the few occasions that White has tried that fifth move. 5...Nc6 A characteristic move in this counter-gambit - Black gains a tempo thanks to the pin on the d-file. In the earliest game in my database, Frank Marshall-Howard, Sylvan Beach 1904, Black played 5...Nf6? and White won quickly (he replied 6 e4). 6 Qd1 exd5 7 Qxd5 White almost invariably accepts the gambit. One of my opponents did choose 7 Nf3 here (similar to the 7 e3 seen in ViakhirevChepurnov, St Petersburg 1912!) but I won comfortably. If he leaves the pawn untouched, hoping to exploit the weak isolated dpawn characteristic of the Tarrasch Defence, the tempi lost with the queen are bound to benefit Black. Euwe played 7 Nxd5 in a game played in Holland in 1920 but this move is inaccurate and Black can equalise with 7...Nf6 e.g. 8 Nc3 Be6 9 Bd2 Qb6 10 e3 Rd8 11 Bb5 Bb4 12 Nge2 0-0 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 0-0 Bxc3 15 bxc3 Ne4 16 Nd4 Nxd2 17 Qxd2 c5 18 Rab1 Qd6 19 Rb7 cxd4 20 cxd4 Qa6 21 Rb2 Rb8 22 Rxb8 Rxb8 23 d5 Qd6 24 e4 Bd7 25 h3 a6 26 Rc1 Qe5 27 Re1 h6 28 f4 Qb2 29 Re2 Qxd2 30 Rxd2 Rb4 31 Re2 Bb5 32 Re3 Rb2 33 e5 Rxa2 34 f5 Rd2 35 d6 f6 36 exf6 gxf6 37 Re6 Rd1+ 38 Kh2 Kf7 39 Re7+ Kf8 40 Re6 Kg7 41 Re7+ Kg8 42 Re6 a5 43 Rxf6 a4 44 Rg6+ Kh7 45 Re6 Rd2 46 Kg3 a3 47 Re7+ Kg8 48 Ra7 a2 49 f6 Bc4 50 Ra3 Rxd6 01 T.Hradeczky - K.Szeles, Hungary 1972. If instead White plays 8 Nxf6+ Black even got the better of it by 8... Qxf6 9 a3 Bc5 (as recommended by Demuth & Konikowski, in "Fernschach" 1987) 10 Nf3 0-0 11 e3 Bb6 12 Be2 Rd8 13 Bd2 Bg4 Alv.Garcia- Ana Russek, Guarapuava 1991. Euwe's opponent played 7...Be6!? when 8 Nc3 Nf6 would transpose to the Hungarian game, but the Dutch player (A.Koning) chose 8...Qxd1+ and lost. If White meets 7...Be6 by 8 e4 then 8...Bxd5 (8...Nf6!?) 9 Qxd5 Qxd5 10 exd5 Bb4+ 11 Bd2 Bxd2+ 12 Kxd2 0-0-0 was given as equal in New In Chess Yearbook 36.
(From the last diagram) 7...Be6?! The main move is 7...Bd7; see below. In this case, Black heads directly for the endgame. White sometimes plays 5 Qa4+ to rule out this idea but it is not particularly dangerous anyway and we shall look at the modern main lines shortly. 8 Qxd8+ Rxd8 9 e3 White can also play 9 g3 or 9 Bd2. 9...Nb4 10 Bb5+ Ke7 11 Ba4?! This allows Black to get a good game. Smyslov preferred 11 Kf1 here in a well-known game against Estrin and 11 Ke2 in another one against Aramanovich. 11...Bc4! 12 Nge2 b5 13 Bd1 Nd3+ 14 Kf1 b4 15 Ne4 (15 Na4? Nf4) 15...f5 (15...Nf6!? 16 Nxf6 Nf4! was suggested in NIC Yearbook 36.) 16 N4g3 g6 17 Bc2 Bg7! 18 Bxd3 Bxd3 19 f3 Rc8 20 Ke1 Nf6 21 Nf4 Bc2 22 Bd2 a5 23 Rc1 Nd7 24 Nd5+ Ke6 25 Nf4+ Kf7 26 b3 Bb2 27 Kf2 Bxc1 28 Rxc1 Ne5 29 h4 Rhd8 30 Be1 Nd3+ 31 Nxd3 Bxd3 32 Ra1 Rc2+ 33 Kg1 Rdc8 0-1. Now let us look at the main line of the gambit. The following diagram was reached in about 40% of the 1000+ games that with the Henning-Schara that I found in my main database. This position (which arose in the Kuznetsov-Lerner game given above) can be reached by two move-orders a) 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qxd4 Nc6 6 Qd1 exd5 7 Qxd5 Bd7 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 Nf3 Qe7 b) 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 Nf3 Qe7 Note that this the same position arises after Black's 7th move in each case, although both sides have made some moves in a different order depending on whether White gives the check on a4 or not. His queen gets back home to d1 after making four moves in either case: these wasted tempi are crucial to Black's compensation. (He can try to put his queen somewhere else but after 9 Qb3 Be6! Black gets good compensation for his pawn.) I think it is time to see what "the world" knows about this gambit. The new "Nunn's Chess Openings" is usually quite a good first source for seeing what top theoreticians think White should play to refute the gambit. The first encouraging thing is that Graham Burgess (who wrote this section) doesn't find a refutation - the main line just ends in a small advantage for White ("plus over equals") which White usually gets in other lines of the Queen's Gambit anyway. In the 7...Be6 line, Burgess follows the Smyslov idea of 11 Kf1 mentioned above. In the main line, which they give via the 5 Qa4+ route, Burgess recommends 11 Be2 giving these variations: a) 11...0-0 (hoping for positional compensation) is reckoned inferior on account of 12 0-0 Rfd8 13 a3 Rac8 (Ravinsky's old move 13...Bf5 hasn't been doing so well lately either.) 24 b4 Bg4 15 Qb3 Bd6 16 Bb2 with clear advantage to White (plus over minus) in Nissi-Aulaskari, Finnish Corr Ch 1993. b) 11...0-0-0 12 0-0 g5 is row 1 on page 391, leading to two possibilities for White. b1) 13 b4 Bxb4 14 Bb2 (14 Qb3 Be6 15 Bc4 Rd3 unclear) and now
14...Kb8!? and ECO's 14...Rhg8 are suggested while 14...g4 is met by 15 Nd4 with transposition to line b2. b2) 13 Nd4 g4 (13...Qe5!? is offered as an option with no further comment.) 14 b4 (or 14 Bb5!?) 14...Bxb4 15 Qb3 Nxd4 16 exd4 Bc6 17 Nb5 with the slight advantage to White assessment already mentioned. In this line, 15 Bb2 is also considered15...h5 16 Ncb5 (16 Rb1!?) 16...Kb8 17 Qa4 a6 18 Nxc6+ Bxc6 19 Bxf6 Qe4!= (See Diagram). Actually until Black's 19th move this is PolugaevskyI.Zaitsev, Alma-Ata 1969, and Black's brilliant 19th was a suggestion by the Romanian master Samarian who made a great study of the Tarrasch Defence. After 19...Qe4! Black gets a tremendous attack for the piece sacrificed. V.Bronznik - P.Cech, Prague 1993, continued 20 f3 Qxe3+ 21 Kh1 Qxe2 (21...Rd2!?) 22 Qxb4 Rd2! (Kholmov's improvement on 22...gxf3 which was Samarian's main line.) 23 Qf4+ Ka8 24 Nc7+ Ka7! (Schiller only considers 24...Kb8 here.) 25 Bd4+ b6 26 Bf2 gxf3 27 g3 Rhd8 and now White collapsed by 28 Rab1? Qxf2! 29 Nb5+ Ka8 0-1. Bronznik should have tried 28 Rae1 when after 28...Rd1 29 Kg1 Rxe1 30 Rxe1 Rd1 31 Qb4 Rxe1+ 32 Qxe1 Kb7 the eventual result will be a drawn opposite coloured bishop ending. Note in both lines b1 and b2, that White does not play passively. In order to regain the initiative, he gives back the gambit pawn by the advance b2-b4, to deflect a black piece and open the b-file for a counterattack against the black king. White used to play 11 a3 to prepare b4 (this was the main line in ECO D, 2nd edition) but the move is rather slow. In that variation Black can consider castling kingside or can follow the usual plan and meet the eventual b2-b4 by ...Bc5-b6. Unfortunately, although Black has a lot of tactical opportunities that can lead to victory against inferior defence, there is as yet no clear improvement for Black in Burgess's main line with 13 Nd4 g4 14 b4 Bxb4 15 Qb3. One possibility for Black is to delay castling and play 11...g5!? 12 0-0 g4 13 Nd4 h5 which has had some successes. For example, the 1967 USSR correspondence game Lisov v. Shkurovich Hazin continued 14 Bb5 h4 15 Bxc6 bxc6 16 e4? Qe5 17 Nf5 Rd8 18 Qc2 g3 19 h3 gxf2+ 20 Kh1 Nh5 and White resigned because of the threat 21...Qxf5! 22 exf5 Ng3+ and Black mates on move 25 with a knight underpromotion! Of course White can improve on this; one possibility is to play 12 Nd4 when if 12...g4 13 Nxc6 Bxc6 14 Bb5 as given in ECO (following Bagirov-Kurdryashov, USSR 1969). Black's best may be 12...0-0-0 returning to the normal lines with 11...0-0-0. So let us try harder to revive Black's chances in line b2 above. After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 Nf3 Qe7 11 Be2 0-0-0 12 0-0 g5 13 Nd4 g4 14 b4 Bxb4 15 Qb3 Nxd4 16 exd4 let's play 16...Be6! (instead of 16...Bc6) (See Diagram)
In Schiller's monograph, on page 11, the following over-optimistic assessment appears: "Black's advanced development and initiative are worth more than a pawn, so White gives up a pawn in an effort to equalize". Tozer-Schiller, Peterborough 1986, went 17 d5?! Nxd5 18 Nxd5 Bxd5 19 Bc4 Bc6! and Black went on to win in the ending. Unfortunately Schiller doesn't say what Black should do against the calmer 17 Qb2. It's not as if it is an unknown or new move. This was in fact the old main line when the model game PortischVelimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979 (mentioned in ECO), went 17 Qb2 Nd5 18 Nb5 Kb8 19 Bc4 Ba5 20 Bd2 Bxd2 21 Qxd2 Qf6 22 Qa5 a6 23 Bxd5 Bxd5 24 Qc7+ Ka8 25 a4 Rc8 26 Qg3 and here 26...Qc6!? would have been = according to analysis published at the time. Instead of 18 Nb5, NCO cites 18 Nxd5 Rxd5 19 Bf4 Bd6 20 Bxd6 Qxd6 21 Rfb1 b6 (21...Qd7? 22 Ba6!) 22 a4 with a clear advantage in Prudnikova-Voiska, Azov women's interzonal 1990, from Informator 50. So which is right? Schiller's gung-ho view of Black's chances, Burgess's dismal view of his prospects or something in between? Look at the diagram again. Black is level on material now. White's d-pawn is as weak as Black's g-pawn if not more so. Black is slightly better developed too; the problems are the safety of his king and the possible awkward pin by Bg5. If this can be solved, or if he can give up the g-pawn to revive his attack (with hopes of collecting on d4 later) then the line should be playable again. It's impossible to find a better move than 17...Nd5 but after 18 Nxd5 instead of the rook recapture Black can offer the g-pawn by 18...Bxd5! e.g. 19 Bxg4+ (or first 19 Bf4 Bd6 20 Bxg4+ transposing) 19...Kb8 20 Bxg4+ Kb8 21 Rfe1 Qf6 (instead of the Informator line 21...Qh4 22 Bxd6+ Rxd6 23 Qa3 Rg6 24 Bf3). Except for being a pawn down, Black's position is fine; White's queenside threats are history. Now an email game continued 22 Bxd6+ Qxd6 23 Bh3 (a suspicious move which, as soon transpires, doesn't succeed in securing g2) 23...Rhg8 24 Rab1 Bc6 25 Rbd1 Qd5 and suddenly Black's pressure focused on g2 has brought a tangible result. White collapsed with 26 f4 Qf3 27 Rc1 Bd5 28 Rc3 Qxf4 29 Rce3 Bc6 30 Rd3 Rde8 31 Rc1 Re2 32 Qd2 Qf2+ 0-1 M.Rice- H.Daurelle, IECG 1997. This line may not be the ideal solution for Black but it does show that writing off Black in the main line of the Hennig-Schara is just as misleading as making overoptimistic claims for his chances. There isn't space in a column like this to analyse every critical line in such detail so I am going to do two things. One is to present here with notes some little-known games, mostly where Black wins; the other is to make available for download on my website a collection of over 200 Black wins in the gambit. The games are available in PGN and in both new and old ChessBase formats at http//www.chessmail.com/freegames.html and they will be there until the next Kibitzer column is posted, if not longer.
If there is sufficient reader interest in this topic, I may look at more lines in the gambit either next month or later in the year. The games posted at the Chess Mail website don't include any correspondence games, since they will be among those made available on our forthcoming database CD in August, but I give a few here with light notes. Laks - Aramanovich Czechoslovakia-USSR corr, 1956 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qxd4 Nc6 6 Qd1 exd5 7 Qxd5 Bd7! 8 Nf3 Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 e3 Qe7 11 Bd2 Rd8 12 Be2 00 The kingside castling option is useful sometimes, as here where White was planning to mobilise his queenside. White's moves don't make so much sense when the king runs away. 13 0-0 Bf5 14 a3 Ng4 15 Qa4 Nce5 16 Rad1 Bd7 17 Qc2 Nxf3+ 18 Bxf3 Qh4 19 h3 Ne5 20 Bxb7 Bxh3 21 gxh3 Not 21 Qe4 Bg4! 22 Qxe5 Bd6 23 g3 Bxe5 24 gxh4 Bxd1 25 Rxd1 Bxc3 26 bxc3 Rd7 and in view of the coming ...Rfd8 White will lose a bishop and remain the exchange down - 27 Bc6 Rd6-+. 21...Qxh3 22 Bg2? This loses at once. The critical line was 22 Qe4 Rd6 23 Ne2 which is unclear according to CCgrandmaster Hermann Heemsoth, in Fernschach. 22...Nf3+! 23 Bxf3 Bd6 0-1. McLardy - Timperley corr (England), 1965 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qb3 Bc5 10 Nf3 Qe7 11 Be2 0-0-0 12 Bd2 Bf5 13 0-0 g5! 14 Nd4 Nxd4 15 exd4 Rxd4 16 Bxg5? Accepting the pawn is a blunder. White should have played 16 Be3 Rd7 (16...Rb4 17 Nd5) 17 Bxc5 Qxc5 18 Rac1. 16...Rg8 17 Bxf6 Qxf6 18 Bf3 b6 19 Nb5 Rd3 20 Nxa7+ Kb8 21 Nc6+ Kc7 22 Qa4 Rxf3 23 Nb4 Again Black crashes through: 23...Rxg2+!! 24 Kxg2 Rxf2+! 25 Rxf2 Be4+ 0-1 Black wins usually, but not always, come on the kingside. The following game is reminiscent of the famous "Appointment at Samara" story where a man meets Death in the market. "Is your friend not with you today?" asks Death; "No, he had a dream that he would have an accident so he went to Samara to avoid it." "That is strange," answers Death, "for tonight I have an appointment in Samara". The white king here has a premonition of disaster on the kingside at move 17, so flees to the other wing and meets Death there!
K.Strand - H. Sabel Norway-Finland corr. 1990 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qb3 Bc5 10 Nf3 Qe7 11 a3 0-0-0 12 Qc2 Kb8 13 Be2 g514 b4 g4 15 Nh4!? A Belyavsky suggestion. 15...Bb6 16 Bb2 h5 17 0-0-0? 17 0-0 would indeed have been safer. 17...Rc8 18 Nf5 Bxf5 19 Qxf5 a5 20 b5 Nb4! 21 Kb1 Rc5 22 Qf4+ Bc7 Black is winning for if 23 Qd4 Be5 24 Qd2 Bxc3 25 Bxc3 Ne4. 23 axb4 Bxf4 24 bxc5 Be5 25 Na4 Bxb2 26 Nxb2 Ne4 27 Rc1 Nxf2 28 Rhe1 Rc8 29 e4 Rxc5 30 Rxc5 Qxc5 31 Bc4 Qb4 0-1. I had better show one White win. Black doesn't have things all his own way and cannot afford to play inferior variations. Dr Vojin Savic- Matyas Berta Belgrade-30 jubilee corr, 1979 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 8 Nf3 Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 e3 Qe7 11 Be2 0-0-0 12 0-0 g5 13 b4 Be6?! Declining the pawn does not stop White from developing an attack. 14 Qa4 Bxb4 15 Nb5 a6 16 Bb2! Bd7 Also 16...axb5 17 Bxb5 gives complications favouring White. 17 Rac1 Kb8 18 Nc7! Kxc7 If 18...Nd4 to attack the queen, then19 Nxa6+ bxa6 (19...Ka8 20 Nc7+ and 21 Qa8 mate) 20 Qxa6 Nxe2+ 21 Qxe2 and White wins eventually. 19 Bxf6 Qxf6 20 Qxb4 Rdg8?! Better 20...Kb8 despite 21 Qb6. 21 Rfd1 Rg6 22 Rxd7+! Kxd7 23 Qxb7+ Ke8 24 Nd4 Nd8 25 Rc8 Qd6 26 Qe4+ Qe7 27 Nc6! Rxc6 28 Qxc6+ Qd7 29 Qxa6 Kf8 30 Qh6+ Ke8 31 Rb8 Qd5 32 Qf6 Rg8 33 Bb5+ Kf8 34 Rxd8+ 1-0 Finally, one more elegant Black win. Glikshtein - Boris Shkurovich Hazin corr, 1970 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 Nf3 Qe7 11 Bc4 An unusual and not very relevant move. 11...0-0-0 12 0-0 Bg4 13 Qe2 Ne5 14 Bb3 a6 15 e4 Rd3! 16 Nd5 Nxd5 17 Bxd5 Rxd5!? 18 Qc2 If 18 exd5 Nxf3+ 19 gxf3 Qxe2. 18...Rd7 19 b4 Or 19 Nxe5 Qxe5 20 b4 Qxa1. 19...Bxf3 20 gxf3 Rc7 21 bxc5 Nxf3+ 22 Kg2 Qf6 23 Be3 Nh4+ 24 Kg3 Qf3+! 25 Kxh4 Re8 26 Rg1 Rxe4+ 27 Qxe4 Qxe4+ 28 Kh3 f5 29 Raf1 f4 30 Bd2 Qf3+ 31 Kh4 Rc6 0-1. That was rather a nice attacking game, I thought, but in his autobiography, Shkurovich Hazin regrets the opportunity he missed at move 16 to win in even more spectacular fashion. In the diagram position, he says he should have played 17...Rxf3!. The variations given by Shkurovich Hazin are a) 18 gxf3 Nxf3+ 19 Kg2 (19 Kh1 Qe5) 19...Nh4+. b) 18 Qc2 Qc7 and now b1) 19 gxf3 Nxf3+; b2) 19 b4 Bd4 20 Qxc7+ Kxc7 21 gxf3 Nxf3+ 22 Kg2 Bxa1 23 Bf4+ Be5-+. b3) 19 Bg5 Rh3!! by analogy with the famous combination in Pillsbury-Lasker, Petersburg 1896. 20 Bf4 Nf3+ 21 gxf3 (21 Kh1 Rxh2+) 21...Qxf4! 22 Qxc5+ Kb8 and now b21) 23 Rfc1 Qxh2+ 24 Kf1 Qh1+ 25 Ke2 Qxf3+ 26 Kd2 Qe2 mate; or b22) 23 Rfd1 Qxh2+ 24 Kf1 Qh1+ 25 Ke2 Qxf3+ 26 Kd2 Qe2+ 27 Kc1 Qxd1 mate; or b23) 23 Rfe1 Qxh2+ 24 Kf1 Bxf3 and mates on h1.
TARRASCH DEFENCE-II Hennig-Schara Gambit Revisited THIS MONTH'S COLUMN is a follow-up, in response to reader requests, to last month's article on the Hennig-Schara Counter-Gambit1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4!?, (ECO code D32). If you didn't read that yet, you can find it in the The Chess Cafe Archives. (See Diagram) To summarise what we have learned so far, this is an interesting pawn sacrifice which usually leads to White coming under pressure if he castles kingside. No clear refutation is demonstrable and theory suggests that the slight advantage White may get in the main lines is no greater than he is likely to achieve in the quieter lines of the Tarrasch Defence proper (4...exd5) or the orthodox Queen's Gambit. On top of which, the risks for White are much greater: the penalty for blunders or ignorance of theory tends to be high and Black wins quite a high proportion of games, often quickly. Last month's column included two correspondence games won in combinative style by Russian master Boris Mikhailovich ShkurovichKhazin. This player always likes to play in an attacking style, especially with Black, and he should not be confused with Abram Khasin, the FIDE IM and correspondence GM from Moscow, whose style is somewhat different. Shkurovich-Khazin published a very enjoyable little autobiography in 1997 under the title "Kombinatsiya - shakhmat bolshevstvo" ('Combinations - magical chess'), which is full of pretty finishes and clever ideas in sidelines of gambits. The Two Knights Defence and Spanish Marshall Attack feature among these. At the back there are many positions on which you can test your own powers of vision and analysis. Shkurovich-Khazin has played this gambit with 4...cxd4 not only in correspondence tournaments but also in over-the-board events in Russia, and in a simultaneous display against the great Viktor Korchnoi, played in Leningrad in January 1970. This was a few years before Korchnoi's defection to the west when he was already in the top 10 players in the world. Korchnoi-Shkurovich-Khazin Simultaneous display, Leningrad, 1970 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qxd4 Nc6 6 Qd1 exd5 7 Qxd5 7 Nxd5 Be6 8 e4 Bxd5 was analysed in the June Kibitzer. Here is an example of Black's alternative8...Nf6!? 9 Nxf6+ Qxf6 10 Nf3 Bb4+ 11 Bd2 Rd8 12 Qc2 Bxd2+ 13 Nxd2 0 0 14 a3 Nd4 15 Qb1 Qf4! 16 b4 Rc8 17 Bd3 Rfd8 18 Qb2 (See Diagram) Now Black finished off prettily by 18...Nc2+! 19 Ke2 Rxd3!! 20 Kxd3 Rd8+ 21 Kxc2 Rxd2+ 22 Kc3 Rxb2 23 Kxb2 Bc4! 0 1 KalyaminShkurovich- Khazin, St Petersburg 1992.
Returning to the normal 7 Qxd5, as played by Korchnoi, the game continued 7...Bd7 8 e3 Nf6 9 Qb3!? This used to be considered an inferior move but it seems to have attracted much attention in recent years. It's interesting to note that Karpov has played it in a tournament game. When Kasparov had to meet the Hennig-Schara in a simul, he played the regular move, 9 Qd1, as we shall see later. (See Diagram) 9...Bc5 I wrote last month that after 9 Qb3 Be6! Black gets good compensation for his pawn, but I am not certain now that this assessment is right and 9...Bc5 has usually been preferred in practice. There are other possibilities too, such as 9...Bb4 to be followed by ...Be6. However, 9...Be6 is certainly interesting. Play can go 10 Qxb7 Nb4 11 Nd4 Rb8 12 Qxa7 Ra8 13 Qb7 Rb8 with a possible draw by repetition of moves (perpetual attack on the queen). So if White wants to play for a win, he will choose 10 Qa4, e.g., 11 e3 0-0 12 Be2 a6 13 0-0 b5 14 Qc2 (probably better than 14 Qh4 as in Van der Sterren-Kuijf, Dutch ch 1987) and now 14...Rc8 15 Ng5 led to a White win in Hort-Cuartas, Dortmund 1982, but this needs more examination; Hort was by far the stronger of the two players and maybe Black missed something. One suggestion is 14...Nb4 but then after 15 Qb1 h6 16 Bd2 Bg4 17 Rd1 Qe7 18 a3 Konikowski prefers White. However, there is another possibility for Black after 10 Qa4. AnastasianNadanian, Panormo (Greece) 1998, went10...a6 (logical) 11 Ne5 Rc8 12 a3 b5 13 Nxc6 Rxc6 14 Qd1 Qc7 15 g3 Rd6 16 Qc2 Qc6 17 e4 Rd7 18 Bg5 Be7 19 Be2 Bh3 20 Rc1 0-0 21 Bf1 Qe6 22 Bxh3 Qxh3 23 f3 Re8 and the fact that White cannot castle causes him long-term troubles that compensate Black for the pawn sacrifice. Nadanian won on time in a roughly level but complicated position at move 38. 10 Nf3 Perhaps this is a lazy move and 10 Bg5 could be more critical. Then after 10...0-0 White should play 11 e3 h6 12 Bxf6 Qxf6 13 Ne4 Qe7 14 Nxc5, maybe with some advantage for White according to Dutch correspondence grandmaster Ger van Perlo. He points out the trap 11 Ne4? Nxe4!! 12 Bxd8 Bxf2+ 13 Kd1 Rfxd8 when nasty things are about to happen to White's king. A postal game Pappier-Van Perlo, Lewkowitz Memorial B, 1994, was taking an interesting course (10 Bg5! 0-0) 11 Rd1 Na5 12 Qc2 Qb6 (Better than 12...Ng4 as played in Valenzuela - Sommerbauer, Elista ol 1988) 13 e3 Bg4 14 Be2 Rfc8 15 0-0 Bb4 16 Rd4 [16 h3 Bh5 17 Qd3 Bg6 18 Qb5 Bxc3!] 16...Bh5 17 Rfd1 Ne8 18 Bh4 [18 Ne5 Bxe2 19 Qxe2 f6!?] 18...Bg6 [18...Bc5 19 Rd5 Bg6 20 Qd2 Qb4 21 a3 Qb3 22 Rxc5! Rxc5 23 Nd4] 19 Bd3 Bxc3 20 bxc3 Nc4 21 Bxg6 hxg6 22 Qb3 Qxb3 23 axb3 Na5 and in spite of a pawn less, Black has sufficient counterplay according to Van Perlo. Unfortunately, a few moves later, his opponent was diagnosed with a terminal illness and the game was
not completed. 10...Qe7 Black's concept in this game is much more aggressive than the plan seen in the following game from Informator 49. 10...0 0 11 Be2 Be6 12 Qa4 Qc7 13 0 0 Rad8 14 Bd2 Ng4 15 Rfd1 Bd6 16 g3 Qe7 17 Be1 f5 18 Nd5 Qf7 19 Ng5 Qh5 20 h4 Bc8 21 Nf4 Bxf4 22 Rxd8 Nxd8 23 Qxf4 Nc6 24 Qc7 1 0 Karpov-Hector, Haninge 1990. Of course, our main game was played in a simultaneous display. Presumably at normal time limits Korchnoi would have found a better plan against the coming pawn storm than is now seen. 11 Be2 g5 12 Nd5 Nxd5 13 Qxd5 g4 14 Nd2 Be6 15 Qe4 f5 16 Qa4 0 0 0 17 0 0 h5 18 Nb3 Bxb3 19 Qxb3 h4 20 Qc2 Qe5 21 a3 Bd6 22 g3 (See Diagram) 22...Kb8? This precautionary move retains a strong attack but Black could have played more strongly. Shkurovich-Khazin regrets that he didn't see 22...hxg3 23 fxg3 Rxh2!! removing the obstacles in the path of his queen. As 24 Kxh2 allows immediate checkmate, White would have to play 24 Qxf5+ Qxf5 25 Rxf5 Rxe2 when Black has an extra piece and should easily win. 23 f4 Qf6 24 Bc4 hxg3 25 hxg3 Rh3 26 Qg2 Rdh8 27 Bd5 Rh2 "At first sight, 27...Qh6 wins at once, but after 28 Qd2 Rxg3+ 29 Kf2 (29 Bg2 Qh1+ 30 Kf2 Rxg2+) 29...Qh2+ 30 Ke1 Qxd2+ 31 Bxd2 White holds on", according to Shkurovich-Khazin. 28 Qxh2 Rxh2 29 Kxh2 Qh6+ 30 Kg1 Qh3 31 Bd2 Qxg3+ 32 Bg2 Bc5 33 Rf2 Bxe3 34 Bxe3 Qxe3 35 Kf1 Nd4 36 Rd1 g3 37 Rfd2 Qxf4+ 38 Kg1 Qe3+ 39 Kh1 Qh6+ 40 Kg1 «-« (See Diagram) Here Black offered a draw, which was accepted. Korchnoi then asked "Why didn't you play 40...Qe3+ 41 Kh1 Nf3! 42 bxf3 Qxf3+ and advance the black f- and g-pawns?" to which S-K replied "I wanted a draw, like Petrosian". Early in the game, Shkurovich-Khazin said to Korchnoi" I often play the Hennig-Schara" and Korchnoi replied "I also". I was curious about this and went to look in my database and library for examples of Korchnoi employing this counter-gambit. I couldn't find a single one where he was Black - not surprising since Korchnoi is notorious for gobbling other people's pawns rather than giving up his own. Maybe in his early years he had played it? I did find one game of his played with White in a tournament a decade later; see the notes to the next game. I looked up some other famous masters in my database, too, but I couldn't find one game where Fischer, Petrosian, Spassky or Tal had been involved in a Hennig-Schara. However, somebody was brave enough to play it against Kasparov and the resulting game is of some theoretical importance.
Kasparov,G (2825)-Netzer,J Simul, Colmar, 1998 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 Qa4+ Bd7 6 Qxd4 exd5 7 Qxd5 Nc6 Reaching the regular 5 Qxd4 line by transposition. 8 Nf3 Shkurovich-Khazin's experience with the Hennig-Schara reveals that White often plays inferior moves, either out of ignorance or in the hope of getting Black out of his preparation. For example a) 8 Bg5 Nf6 9 Qd2 h6 10 Bh4 g5 11 Bg3 Qa5 12 Bd6? 0 0 0 13 Bxf8 Rhxf8 14 0 0 0 Bf5 15 Qe1 Nd4 16 e4 Nxe4! 17 Nxe4 Qxa2! 18 Qc3+ (if 18 Nf6 Qb1+ 19 Kd2 Qxb2+ 20 Ke3 Rfe8+ 21 Nxe8 Rxe8#) 18...Nc6 19 Bd3 Bxe4 20 f3 (20 Bxe4 Qa1+ 21 Bb1 Rxd1+ 22 Kxd1 Qxb1+ +) 20...Qa1+ 21 Kc2 Qxd1+ 22 Kxd1 Rxd3+ 23 Kc2 Rxc3+ 24 Kxc3 Bg6 0 1 Kurshin-Shkurovich Khazin, Leningrad 1967. b) 8 e4 is a trap White often falls into, especially below master level. This pawn belongs on e3 to shield f2, as we shall now demonstrate with two cases. After 8...Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 White has unsuccessfully tried b1) 10 Bg5 Qb6 11 Qd2 0 0 0 12 Na4? Bxf2+! 13 Qxf2 Qa5+ 14 Nc3 Qxg5 15 Nf3 Qa5 16 h3 Nxe4 17 Qc2 Ng3 18 Rg1 Bf5 19 Qc1 Rhe8+ 20 Kf2 Ne4+ 21 Nxe4 Bxe4 22 Be2 Qb6+ 23 Kf1 Kb8 24 Qc3 Nb4 25 Nd2 (Now comes the decisive combination.) 25...Rxd2 26 Qxd2 Qf6+ 27 Bf3 Bd3+ 28 Kf2 Re2+ 29 Qxe2 Bxe2 30 Kxe2 Qxb2+ 31 Ke3 Nc2+ 0 1 Ershin v. Shkurovich Khazin, Leningrad 1975. b2) 10 Nf3 Qb6 11 Be3 Bxe3 12 fxe3 Qxe3+ 13 Qe2 Qb6 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Nd5 Nxd5 16 exd5 Nb4 17 Qc4+ Kb8 18 Qf4+ Ka8 19 Kb1 Qg6+ 0 1 Ganev-Shkurovich Khazin, Pavlikeni 1989. White resigns because he has fallen into the famous mating pattern known as Philidor's Legacy20 Ka1 Nc2+ 21 Kb1 Na3+ 22 Ka1 Qb1+ 23 Rxb1 Nc2#. Now we return to Kasparov's game. 8...Nf6 9 Qd1 Bc5 10 e3 Qe7 (See Diagram) An important turning point which we also discussed last month when we looked at 11 Bb5 among other moves. 11 Be2 11 a3 is sometimes seen and it's interesting to see Korchnoi played this line in a master tournament (later than the simul game shown earlier). 11...0 0 0 12 Qc2 g5?! (12...Kb8! is correct as in Strand-Sabel, in the June Kibitzer.) 13 b4 g4 14 bxc5 gxf3 15 Nb5!ñ This game shows the difficulties Black gets into after queenside castling if he loses the initiative. It is aggravated by not having a dark-squared bishop and his attack is ineffectual when the white K can escape to the left wing. 15...Ne5 16 Nd6+ Kb8 17 Bb2 Bc6 18 g3 Nd5 19 0 0 0ñ f6 20 Bh3 Qc7 21 Be6 Ba4 22 Qxa4 Rxd6 23 Bxe5 fxe5 24 Qc4 Rxe6 (The knight
cannot move because of Rxd6.) 25 Rxd5. White has a clear extra pawn now that minor pieces have vanished from the board. He won in the end but the sequel was unconvincing, maybe because of a time scramble (1 0 in 36 moves, Korchnoi-O.Rodriguez Vargas, Rome 1981). 11...0 0 0 12 0 0 g5 13 b4 White returns the gambit pawns to gain time and open lines. Last month's article looked at 13 Nd4 in detail and showed that Black's chances are better than is generally believed. 13...Bxb4 In Savic-Berta (June Kibitzer) we saw Black lose with 13...Be6?! but he fares no better in this game. Kasparov seems to know the most critical variations as a rule! 14 Qc2 (See Diagram) Last month's column only mentioned the unclear lines 14 Bb2 and 14 Qb3. Since Kasparov won the present game fairly easily, we must ask how can Black improve now? Well, I found five other games in my database with 14 Qc2 and Black won all of them! Statistics tend to be very unreliable in such cases, especially where master players are not involved. Do they stand up to close inspection? Let's see. 14...g4 I also found examples of 14...Rhg8, 14...Qc5 and 14...Kb8 but pushing the g-pawn seems the natural move. a) 14...Rhg8 15 Rb1 g4 16 Nd4 Nxd4 17 exd4 Bxc3 18 Qxc3+ Bc6 19 Bb5 Qd7 20 Bxc6 Qxc6 21 Qa5 Kb8 22 Bf4+ Ka8 23 Rfc1 Qa6 and Black is under pressure though he may have just enough resources to draw. In Sickles-Braun, Nassau ch 1988, White even managed to lose because he played 24 Qf5?! and later avoided a possible draw by repetition. Simply 24 Qxa6 bxa6 25 Bc7 would be in White's favour because the extra black pawn is worth nothing with the present pawn structure. Black cannot play 25...Rxd4 because of 26 Be5. b) 14...Qc5 was seen in a postal game Loch-Lang, 1989, but after 15 Bb2 Nd5 White blundered by 16 Nxg5? which loses a piece in the end after 16...Nxc3 17 Bxc3 Qxc3 18 Qxc3 Bxc3 19 Nxf7 Bxa1 20 Rxa1 Rhe8 21 Nxd8 Rxd8 and soon 0 1. No doubt Kasparov would have played a sensible move like 16 Rfc1 with some advantage to White. c) 14...Kb8 seems a sensible move but a black win with it was equally unconvincing. After 15 a3 Bd6 16 Nb5 g4 White just threw away material by 17 Nxd6?? in Caron-Rate, Val Maubuee 199017...gxf3 18 Bxf3 Qxd6 and soon 0 1. Instead White should move the knight but after 17 Nfd4 Nxd4 followed by ...Rc8 the position looks about =. 15 Nd4 15 Ne1 looks a bit passive but may be playable. A Dutch postal game
went 15...h5 (15...Qe5!? could be better) 16 Nd3 Bxc3!? 17 Qxc3 Ne4 18 Qb2 h4 and 0 1 (Schouten-De Jong, corr 1989). White's position isn't resignable so he presumably withdrew or lost on time. For example 19 Rb1 threatens mate in one and after the most promising reply 19...Bf5 it is hard to decide whose chances to prefer; it could go either way in practice. 15...Nxd4? Black's rating was 1730 so it's not surprising that he goes wrong. This move fits in with White's plans far too well by stripping the black king of defenders. Pawn-grabbing should be the last thing on Black's mind here - especially against Kasparov! 15...h5 looks more like the right idea, although Kasparov would doubtless have played better than White in the following game16 Bd2 Kb8 17 Ncb5 Bxd2 18 Qxd2 Ne4 19 Qb2 g3 20 Rab1 gxf2+ 21 Kh1 Nxd4 22 Nxd4 b6 23 Nb5 h4 24 Rxf2 Nxf2+ 25 Kg1 Qxe3 0 1 K. Pastor jr-Cech, Brno 1990. Cech is a strong player so this line deserves more analysis and tests. 16 exd4 Kb8 17 Bf4+ Ka8 18 Nb5 Bxb5 19 Bxb5 Rxd4 20 Be3 Rdd8 21 Rac1 Bd6 22 Qa4 Bb8 23 Rfe1 Qd6 24 g3 h5 This attacking move comes far too late and Kasparov closes in for the kill. 25 Rc6! Qe5 26 Ra6 Rd4 Desperation. 27 Qxd4 1 0. Finally, last month I posted on my website a collection of over 200 Black wins in the gambit. These games are available in PGN and in both new and old ChessBase formats at http//www.chessmail.com/freegames.html. I have now added several more games, including all the games mentioned in these two articles and they will be there until about the middle of August when the next Kibitzer column is due to be posted.
Hennig Schara Gambit Everyone has favourite systems, and we all try to defend openings that get a bashing. Even some pretty decent openings come in for a bashing every now and again. Take the King's Indian Defence, or the Sicilian Dragon. Then again, if you're going to play a fighting opening, then you will also have to fight to defend your opening's reputation. The system that I have a soft spot for is the Hennig Schara Gambit. When I was a young player, Kasparov was not yet World Champion and was playing the Tarrasch Variation of the Queen's Gambit (among other fighting systems). It was back then in the mid 80's that I first really became aware of the Tarrasch and the amazing piece play that black can generate at the expense of pawn weaknesses. Certainly at club level a player who is good with active pieces should consider openings such as the Tarrasch which offer excellent play for the expense of a pawn.
Black immediately challenges the centre, and after 4.cxd5 exd5 we will have a position where white can give black an isolated queen's pawn. In fact, positions with an isolated queen's pawn for black were those championed by Kasparov on his way to the World Championship in 1984. He successfully used the defence against Beliavsky, Korchnoi and Smyslov, and even used it against Karpov in their first match in 1984. Here is (essentially) the deciding game in the 1983 Candidates Final. It left Kasparov 8-4 ahead against Smyslov, needing only a draw to progress which he duly scored in the next game.
The mainline goes 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4!? [The Gambit] 5.Qxd4 Nc6 [While white's queen grabs a central pawn, black is able to develop quickly and aggressively] 6.Qd1 exd5 7.Qxd5 [Now white will be a pawn up out of the opening, but with the centre wide open it's anybodys game] 7..Bd7 [Black can play a pawn down in a queenless position as well which is also interesting. 7..Be6!?] 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.Qd1. So here's the main tabiya. After 9..Bc5 black has excellent minor piece deployment, and to add a further random feature to the game, black most often castles queen side to whites king side castling.
The Hennig Schara is a variation of the Tarrasch Queen's Gambit and we get to it after the moves, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4 [4..exd5 is the 'normal' move]
In this position, white can take on d4 and still have 2 defenders of d5, which means that white is winning a pawn if they want to. The open position, and swift and easy development give black plenty of chances to fight for an initiative and an advantage. So a typical sequence might be 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd1 exd5 7.Qxd5 [Winning a pawn] 7..Bd7 Black avoids a queen exchange and develops another piece off the back rank. Often, black will castle queen side in this opening, and launch a huge attack on the king side. Black intends to develop with gain of tempo by Nf6 hitting the queen and then Bc5 hitting f2. The most common move here is 8.Nf3, but in a recent game
from the Untergrombach Open played 5/1/15 white played the novelty 8.Be3, putting his bishop in front of a central pawn.
It's an ugly sort of move at first glance, but when I thought about it, Be3 prevents black's favoured development of the dark squared bishop to c5, blocks the c-file, develops a piece, and doesn't exactly hinder the f1 bishop which will probably develop to g2. In the game Cofman (2162)-Bongatz (2141) there followed a fairly natural sequence, 8..Nf6 [winning time developing and attacking the queen] 9.Qd2 Bb4. Developing the dark squared bishop to pin white's knight seems a reasonable developing move and brings about the position above. Black has a mighty lead in development, but is a pawn down. It's a very interesting position to work out if white can safely untangle and remain a pawn ahead, or whether black's activity is worth more than a pawn. As an exercise, I think it would be good to play loads of games from this type of position for both black and white to try to better understand the requirements of the position. White is solid but awkward with a pawn plus, black has all the play but has to justify being a pawn down. This poition reminds me of a line I've been playing against the Evans Gambit, the StoneWare variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bd6 Black accepts the pawn, places his bishop on an ugly square where it protects e5 and asks the question of white, what exactly have you got for your pawn? And then, of course, there is the Bd3 retreat in the main line of the Two Knights Defence where white retreats a bishop to an ugly square to control a vital central spot. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3 hese types of positions are becoming a part of modern chess, and as much as we old classical players blanch at the thought of playing such an anti-positional move as placing a bishop in front of a central pawn, if there is a specific reason for doing so, then we should judge the move on its own merit, not on the general principal. Saying that, I think if I came up against 8.Be3 in the Hennig Schara, I'd be a happy black player. The game in the Hennig Schara continued with 10.a3, which I'm not sure is the best move in the position. Black traded on c3 which may also not be best. 10..Qa5, 10..Ne4, and even 10..Ba5 may all come into consideration, and the thought of this position is giving me the urge to dig Stockfish out to analyse the positions. In the meantime, here's the game which was a real long battle, ending in a pawnless rook versus knight ending.
