Mr. Ugur Ozgu asks:
While I was looking for an answer to the Caro-Kann Defense as White, I found this line:
1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Nc3 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Bc4 O-O
What’s your opinion?
Silman replies:
The line you are asking about is well known: 1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5 (I always preferred 2…e5 3.d4 d6, taking White into positions that might not be to his taste) 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.Qa4+ (5.Nc3 often transposes into the Panov Botvinnik Attack. 5.Bb5+ is a whole other story!) 5…Nbd7 (5…Bd7!? is also very interesting) 6.Nc3 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Qb3 0-0 9.Bc4 Qa5 10.a4 a6 11.Qa2 Nb6 12.0-0 Rd8 13.d3 Nfxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bd2 Qc5 16.d4 Qd6, =. Demakov-Khlian, Sochi 2004.
Two other examples:
6…a6 7.Nf3 g6 8.d6!? exd6 9.Bc4 (9.d4!?) 9…Bg7 10.Bxf7+? Kxf7 11.Ng5+ Ke7 12.0-0 Ne5 13.d4 Nf7 didn’t give White enough for the piece in Jobava-Goloshchapov, Dubai 2004.
6…g6 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0 9.d3 Nb6 10.Qb3 Bg4 11.Ne5 Bf5 12.0-0 Rc8 13.Re1 Nfd7 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.a4 Nxc4 16.dxc4 Bd3, =, Jivkov-Rustemov, Internet blitz 2004.
Grant asks:
My question is this: How does a player go about forming the most cogent plans with optimal winning chances? I have read HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS, THE AMATEUR’S MIND, and the COMPLETE BOOK OF CHESS STRATEGY, so I’m aware that you’ve heard students claim they have mastered your thinking technique before, but I feel that to some level this is proven in my case, since I have attained an expert rating in CC in just three years of playing chess. But the plans I form don’t often prove winning against opposition between 1800-2200. It seems that I am unable to put the imbalances together in the single clearest plan with the most winning chances. That is, I draw too many games and pursue small static advances that seem to have relationships to each other but that I cannot manipulate into a killing force.
Below is a game you can paste into an engine. Or not. It will give you an idea of my play. I am White.
Silman replies:
Why would I paste this into an engine? Engines, in general, are not good teachers … they can’t help you understand positional concepts, nor can they change my initial perceptions of the position (unless there is some tactical nonsense … but that’s not the issue here).
Here is Grant’s game with “off the top of my head” notes.
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b5 3.Bg2 d5?
A horrible move, showing us that Black didn’t understand the point of his 2nd move.
4.0-0
Tempting was 4.d4, clamping down on the c5-square and on e5.
4…Nc6??
Beyond horrible. This blocks the c-pawn (something you usually don’t want to do in d-pawn or flank openings) and places the Knight on a poor square (if White follows with d4).
5.d3
Not bad if White intends to follow up tactically. Otherwise, 5.d4 humiliates the c6-Knight move and gives White an obvious advantage.
5…e5
Take an honest look at this position. White has a lead in development, his King is safe while Black’s is still in the center, and the …b7-b5 advance has left Black with both positional and tactical problems. You need to recognize these things and jump on them! Then, instead of drawing so many games, you would simply wipe this kind of opponent off the board in short order.
6.Nbd2?
Much too slow. Instead, 6.c4! plays for serious punishment. Why? Let me repeat: Because Black’s King is still in the middle, he is behind in development, and he is facing tactical problems along the h1-a8 diagonal. In such positions, one must OPEN the position up as quickly as possible. One sample: 6…bxc4 7.dxc4 e4 (7…d4? 8.Nxe5 wins) 8.Ng5 h6 9.cxd5 with a huge advantage
Your moves show you are playing “without an opponent.” In other words, you’re doing your prearranged setup without paying attention to the blunders the other side is making.
6…Bc5 7.e4
By allowing Black to close the position, you let give him time to mend some of the fences he’s broken. Though not as tasty as a move ago, 7.c4 is still quite nice.
I would also take a long look at some other very interesting moves like 7.d4!? or 7.a4!? when 7…b4 8.d4! is even more promising.
7…d4 8.a4 b4?
Sigh. Black closes the side of the board where he should be seeking play. Instead, 8…bxa4 had to be tried.
9.Nb3
I’m not quite sure why the Knight belongs on this square. Attacking a piece doesn’t qualify as a reason. Besides, the Bishop was VERY poorly placed on c5, so you’re just chasing it to greener pastures.
With 8.a4 you wisely closed the queenside (which was where Black wanted to play) and gained access to c4. However, you seem to ignore the winning of this square.
On top of all that, the closed position makes White’s basic plan clear: your pawns point to the kingside so f2-f4 is the move you wish to play (followed, if possible, by f5, g4, h4, g5, etc.). Remember: you want to play on the kingside with PAWNS first in closed positions!
9…Be7 10.a5 0-0 11.h3 Qd6 12.Nfd2 Nd7 13.Qh5
HORRIBLE! You don’t seem to realize that closed positions call for pawns before pieces (gaining space and allowing the Rooks to take part in the battle). Not knowing this makes most of your following moves meaningless. 13.f4 is the right way to go.
That’s enough of this game (13…Nf6 14.Qd1 followed).
Beware of ICC ratings! They tend to mean very little (except to the individual’s ego), and often mislead a player into thinking he’s far stronger than he really is.
Also remember that recognizing the imbalances is one thing (and gives a player much need guidance), but using them properly is very difficult. In this game you failed to make use of the dynamic opportunities given to you – dynamics and tactics must go hand in hand with positional chess.
| 