IS THIS REALLY PLAYABLE?

How should one even begin to annotate such a move? It looks so awful – a beginner’s blunder, but after considerable reflection I’m coming to the conclusion that 3...Qe5+ is playable in all lines. It all started back in 1999 when an Italian IM called M. Belli ventured 3...Qe5+ against me in a casual game at the Internet Chess Club. I was baffled that I couldn’t seem to get any advantage at all either during the game or in analysis afterwards. Research turned up several games from the 19th Century by Preston Ware but as he lost the whole lot that wasn’t much help. Assorted U10 championship games only added to Black’s misery. Yet somehow, instinctively, I felt that there was promise in Black’s idea and since then my analysis indicates that this silly Queen move really does set White some problems. Some positional points have to be noted right at the beginning:

1) Black is hoping to drag the White King Bishop to e2, a less active square than c4.
2) In the 3...Qa5 variation Black’s Queen often goes to c7. Counting the tempi we find that …Qxd5-a5-c7 is exactly the same as …Qxd5-e5-c7.
3) The variation is all about QUALITY development. White streaks ahead but does he end up with his pieces on the right squares? Black is carefully observing what White is doing and reacts accordingly.

4.Be2 c6

4...Qd6? is complete rubbish and was dealt with very severely in this recent miniature: 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.d4 Bxf3 7.Bxf3 Nc6 8.0–0 0–0–0 9.Nb5 Qe6 10.d5 Qf6 11.dxc6 Rxd1 12.cxb7+ Kb8 13.Rxd1 e6 14.Be3 Qxb2 15.Bxa7 mate, Vachier Lagrave-Shakibi, France (simul) 2003. The PATZER variation taken to extremes!

5.Nf3 Qc7 6.d4 Bf5

TRYING TO SET UP A SAFE CARO-KANN FORMATION

7.d5

I’ve had this several times at ICC against decent opposition. White thinks the time is ripe to try and blast Black out of the sky. However Buckley and I have discussed this position and Black’s reply is accurate, cold-blooded and good.

7.Ne5 is most critical. White aims for Bf4, which will highlight the exposed position of the Black Queen. He also threatens g2-g4 and h2-h4 should Black venture …Bg6. After 7...Nd7 (7...e6?! 8.g4 Bg6 9.h4 is White’s basic idea. Now 9...Bb4 10.Bf4 Qd8 11.a3 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Qd5 13.f3 leaves White with a clear advantage) White can try A. 8.Nxd7 and B. 8.Bf4.

A. 8.Nxd7 Qxd7 9.0–0 0–0–0 (9...Nf6 10.Be3 e6 =) 10.Be3 e6 11.d5 Nf6! 12.Bxa7 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Bb6 Re8 is unclear.
B. 8.Bf4 Nxe5 9.Bxe5 Qb6 gives us the position in the diagram.

WHITE TO MOVE

White has now tried B.1. 10.Qd2 and B.2. 10.Na4.

B.1. 10.Qd2 e6! (I think this is best. Completely unappealing is 10...Qxb2 11.Rb1 Qxc2 12.Qxc2 Bxc2 13.Rxb7 e6 14.0–0 Ne7 15.Rc1) 11.0–0–0 (11.0–0?! f6 12.Bf4 0–0–0 favors Black) 11...Nf6, unclear.

B.2. 10.Na4 when another break takes us to: B.2.a. 10…Qd8?! and B.2.b. 10…Qa5+.

BLACK TO MOVE

B.2.a. 10...Qd8?! can’t be recommended. The continuation of the following brief, recent game is unsavory: 11.Nc5 Qb6 12.0–0 e6 13.b4 Nf6 14.Rb1 a6 15.a4 Bxc5 16.bxc5 Qa5 17.Rxb7 Qxa4 18.Bd3 Bxd3 19.Qxd3 0–0 20.Rfb1, A Skripchenko-L Tolhuizen, Aosta 2003. A dreadful position for Black whose Queen is in jeopardy.

B.2.b. I think that 10...Qa5+ is better here, forcing the pace. White must then make a choice and I give some of my own analysis: 11.c3 (11.Nc3 Nf6 12.0-0 Nd7 13.Bg3 e6 =) 11…f6 (11...0–0–0 12.Nc5 e6 13.b4 favors White) 12.Bg3 e5 (12...0–0–0 13.b4 Qd5 14.0–0 e5, unclear) 13.dxe5 Rd8 14.Qb3 b5, unclear. Of course this is all virgin ground.

Natural seventh move alternatives such as 7.Bc4 will be commonplace if you give the PATZER variation a try. In my opinion they don’t give Black any tremors: 7...e6 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.Ne5 Bb4 10.Bd2 Nbd7 11.0–0–0 Bxc3 (11...Nb6 12.Bb3) 12.Bxc3 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Nd5 14.Bd2 0–0–0 15.g4 Bg6 16.f4 h5!, Rendle-J Rogers, England 2003. Black has counterplay.

7...Nf6! 8.dxc6

8.0–0 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 cxd5 10.Qxd5 e6 leads to nothing for White. Fritz even suggests that Black might be able to take on c2 – a challenge I wouldn’t relish but you know what computers are like...

8...Nxc6 9.Nb5 Qb8

A SOLID POSITION

What is wrong with Black’s position? He has an extra central pawn and is ready to repel boarders with ...a7-a6.

10.Nbd4 Bd7 11.0–0 e5

Black is already a bit better.

12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Re1 Bd6 14.Bd3 0–0

I like Black. He has to exercise a modicum of care on the kingside but as long as that is forthcoming he has no problem with any piece and the pawn on e5 continually threatens to advance.

15.Ng5 Qc7 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Rad8 18.Qe2 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 f5 20.Qe2

Webb is doing the best that he can to minimize his disadvantage but Black’s next move underscores his initiative and thereby the advantage.

20...e4! 21.h3 Rde8 22.b3 f4 23.Qc4+

That was the only move with ...f4-f3 looming.

23...Qxc4 24.bxc4 Bc5 25.a4 Rf5!

White’s a bit tied up so Buckley anticipates Ba3 and prepares in the event of a Bishop exchange to bring his Rook into the action on c5 or a5.

26.Ba3 e3

There was something to be said for the calm 26...Kf7 27.Red1 Bxa3 28.Rxa3 Rc5 29.Rb3 b6 too.

27.Bxc5 Rxc5 28.fxe3 Rxe3 29.Rxe3 fxe3 30.Re1 Rxc4 31.Rxe3 Rxa4 32.Re7 Rb4

Of course, this is ghastly for Webb. How does he stop that passed pawn on a7?

33.c3

Also losing for White is 33.Kf2 a5 34.Ke3 a4 35.Kd2 Rb1 36.Kc3 a3 37.Re8+ Kf7 38.Ra8 b5!.

33...Rb6 34.c4 a5 35.c5 Rb5 36.Rc7 a4 37.Rc8+ Kf7 38.Rc7+ Ke6 39.c6 Kd6 40.Rxg7 Kxc6, 0-1. Fascinating stuff!

So far we’ve looked at 7.d5, 7.Ne5, and 7.Bc4 (after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe5+ 4.Be2 c6 5.Nf3 Qc7 6.d4 Bf5). Now let’s analyze the very natural 7.0-0 e6 8.Re1 Nd7.

BLACK STAYS FLEXIBLE

The outline of Black’s idea is becoming clear: he’s delaying the development of his kingside pieces waiting to see how the game takes shape.

9.Bg5

Lots of White players will play this move.

9…Be7

I believe this equalizes immediately. The provocative 9…Ngf6?! runs into 10.d5!

BLACK TO MOVE

Black has to watch out for this one all the time! Goldstern loses faith in his position. 10...cxd5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 (11...Nxf6 12.Nd4 Bg6 13.Bb5+ gives a very strong attack.) 12.Nd4 Bg6 13.Ndb5 Qc5 14.b4 Qc6 15.Bf3 Kd8 16.Qe2 Bxb4 17.Rad1 Bxc3 18.Bxd5 Qc5 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Rxd7+ Ke8 21.Qxe6+ Kf8 22.Nxc3 Re8 23.Qxf6+, 1–0, U Rauch-F Goldstern, Germany 2001. A cautionary tale which is worth playing over several times.

10.Bxe7

Or 10.Qd2 0–0–0 =.

10...Nxe7 =.

A FEW MORE THOUGHTS ON 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe5+ 4.Be2 c6.

Either 5.d4 or 5 Nf3 will feature in 90% of PATZER games. I must have played over a hundred games on ICC using 3…Qe5+ and one can almost guarantee this reaction. Bottom line: When White hits the Queen she retreats to c7. Here are a few more lines that prove just how resilient the Black position is:

5.d4 Qc7 and now

A. 6.Bf3 Bf5 7.Nge2 e6 8.0–0 Nd7 9.Rb1 Ngf6 10.Re1 Bd6 11.Ng3 Bg6 12.Nce4 Bxe4 13.Bxe4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4, Zhao Jun-S Buckley, Oropesa del Mar 2001.

BLACK TO MOVE

Buckley’s in action again and it is now a complete mystery why Black didn’t play 14...Bxh2+.

B. 6.Nf3 Bf5 7.0–0 e6 8.Be3 Nd7 9.Qd2

Another plan which, unless it’s connected with queenside castling, doesn’t cause me too much concern.

9...Ngf6! 10.h3 Bd6

I wonder whether Black can take time out for 10...h6!? here?

11.Nh4 Bg6 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.a3 Nb6 14.Rad1 Nbd5 15.Nxd5 cxd5 16.Bb5+ Kf8 17.Bd3 Nh5 18.Rfe1 Bh2+ 19.Kh1 Bf4 20.Rc1 g5 21.c4 dxc4 22.Rxc4 Qb8 23.Rec1 g6 24.Be4 Kg7 25.d5 Bxe3 26.Qxe3 Nf4 27.Rc7 Rh4 28.Qc3+ Kg8 29.Qf6 Qe8 30.Qxg5 Qd8 31.Qxd8+ Rxd8 32.Rc8 Rxc8 33.Rxc8+ Kg7 34.d6 e5 35.d7 Ne6, 1–0, I Cheparinov-Garcia Ortega, Andorra la Vella 2002.

C. 6.Bg5 Nf6 7.Qd2 Bf5 8.Nf3 e6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nh4 Bg6 11.f4 Bd6

AN IMPROVEMENT

Sometimes it’s better to play simply. I suggest this is a clear improvement over 11...f5?! 12.0–0 Nd7 13.a3 Bg7 14.Rad1 0–0 15.Kh1 Rad8 16.Qe3 Nb6 17.Nf3 Bh5 18.Ne5 Bxe2 19.Nxe2 Nd7 20.b4 Bxe5 21.fxe5 Kh8 22.Qh6 Rg8 23.Nf4 Rg7 24.Rd3 Rdg8 25.Rb1 a6 26.c4 b6 27.c5 b5 28.Rbb3 a5 29.Rh3 a4 30.Rbd3 Qd8 31.Rh5 Nf8 32.d5 cxd5 33.Rdh3 Qe7 34.c6 Qd8 35.Qf6 Qxf6 36.exf6 Rg4 37.g3, 1–0, S Conquest-G Spain, Hamilton 1999.

12.g3

White has nothing after 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.g3 Nd7 =.

12...Nd7, unclear.

Mixed results then against 4.Be2 as one might expect, but no refutation, no clear advantage – nothing even close.