Shaun Trussler writes: My question concerns a static vs. dynamic advantage that occurs in a game between Botvinnik and Ragozin (5th match game, 1940). The position arises from the English opening after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 e4 5.Nd2 Bb4 6.e3 0-0 7.Be2 Re8 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d6 10.f3. I will preface my question, which occurs a few moves later, with some of Botvinnik's comments. At this point he says:


"White consistently pursues his attack on the KP. It transpires that Black cannot hold the centre: 10...Bf5 11.fxe4 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bd3, and because of the double threat 14.Rf4 and 14.Bxe4 followed by Rxf7 Black will have no time to play ...g6 and ...f5," (i.e. 13...g6 14.Bxe4 Rxe4 15.Rxf7 Kxf7 16. Qf3+) consolidating e4 for himself."

But Botvinnik overlooks Black's reply 11...Nxe4! (Lonoff-Frankle 1974) when according to MCO-13 "Black easily maintains control of e4. If 12.Rxf5? Nxc3 13.Qf1 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 Nxd4 wins." This line is found immediately using Deep Fritz 7 after playing 11.fxe4 and subsequently 12.Rxf5.

Continuing the game, we have: 10...exf3 11.Bxf3 Rxe3 12.Nb3. At this point Botvinnik states that if Black plays 12...Rxc3 then: "Naturally, 12...Rxc3 would also be followed by 13.Bg5! and then Qd2, and Black would be quite helpless." In the actual game Ragozin instead played 12...Re8 and obviously perceived a danger in taking the pawn. It seems to me that White must use his initiative to quickly create a decisive attack (fast play) for if Black can hang on and neutralize White's attack (slow play), White will lose the game due to Black's material advantage. However, even with the help (or hindrance) of Deep Fritz 7 it was difficult for me to find a decisive winning line(s) for White after 12...Rxc3 and 13.Bg5. Perhaps this is one of those cases where a deeper positional understanding than Deep Fritz possesses is required to obtain a winning game for White. Of course, there is also the unlikely possibility that Botvinnik overlooked some of Black's resources and made an oversight just as he did earlier when missing Black's 11...Nxe4. So finally my question is, if as Botvinnik says, Black is helpless, how should White proceed?

My analysis actually starts after 12...Rxc3 13.Bg5 Rxc4 since I was interested in the consequences of Black's pawn grabs (DF7 actually rates 13.Bxc6 higher than Botvinnik's 13.Bg5 if you start from 12...Rxc3). Here is DF7's evaluation of the position after 13...Rxc4, when running for just over 9 hours: 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Qd2 d5 16.Be2 f5 17.Rae1 Be6 18.Rf3 Qf6 19.Bxc4 dxc4 20.d5, = (-0.25).

At this point White (according to DF7) doesn't show a winning position even though it shows approximate equality when White is down by 3 pawns. Here is DF7's analysis after re-evaluating from 20.d5:

20...Rd8 21.Rg3+ Kh8 22.Nc5 b6 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Qe3 f4 25.Rf3 Qd4 26.Qxd4+ Nxd4 27.Rxf4 Rxd5 28.Kf2 -+ (-1.47).

So in this position, which to me looks highly tactical, DF7 can't find a win and assesses Black with an advantage at this point. Assuming Botvinnik's original assessment is correct how would you proceed as White after 13.Bg5?

Silman Replies:

An interesting theoretical question! This isn't just about openings, but also about how computers have changed our evaluations of "unclear" positions in recent years.

In the not so old days, many positions were listed as unclear. In a way, this was code for, "I'm too lazy to figure out the position's truth, so try your luck with either side, or work like a dog at home and find out what's really going on." Now, when players have to check such lines in depth with powerful playing programs, "unclear" simply isn't good enough since one side or the other might well be dead lost!

In the case of "unclear" positions that feature material disparity, things actually do get a bit less clear since computers love the taste of extra wood, while an intrepid explorer might discover that a computer assessment of -1.50 can go into freefall when the machine suddenly realizes that all the material in the world won't save it's King from a searing mating attack (previous assessments having hit the wall of its event horizon).

Your main question is actually about the very complicated (unclear!) position in the diagram (this occurs after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 e4 5.Nd2 Bb4 6.e3 0-0 7.Be2 Re8 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d6 10.f3 exf3 11.Bxf3 Rxe3 12.Nb3 Rxc3 13.Bg5)


Many authorities continue to claim a significant advantage for White, but Carsten Hansen (in The Gambit Guide to the English Opening: 1...e5) takes a more measured approach by saying, "White is two pawns down, but has sufficient compensation in view of his attacking chances and the exposed black rook on c3."

Actually, this position got tested in Adamski-Knaak, Zinnowitz 1973: 13...Ne7!? 14.Qd2 Rxc4 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Be2 Rc6 17.d5 Rb6 18.Rxf6 Nxd5 19.Rxf7! (19.Rf3 can lead to a position featuring an armada of pawns vs. a Knight: 19...Be6 20.Rg3+ Kh8 21.Bc4 Nf6 22.Qg5 Ng4 23.Qxd8+ Rxd8 24.Bxe6 fxe6 25.Rxg4)


19...Kxf7 (19...Nf6 20.Rxf6 Qxf6 appears to lead to equality after 21.Rf1 Qe5 22.Re1 d5 23.Bf3 Qf5 24.Bxd5+ Be6 25.Rxe6 Rxe6 26.Nc5) 20.Qxd5+ Be6 (White also has plenty of play after 20...Kg7 21.Bc4 Qe7 22.Qg8+ Kh6 23.Rf1) 21.Bh5+ (21.Rf1+ is also interesting) 21...Ke7 22.Re1 Qg8 23.h3?? (23.Qc4! was the way to go. A draw results after 23...Rc6 24.Qh4+ Kd7 25.Rxe6 Kxe6 26.Nd4+) 23...Rf8 24.Bg4 Rf6 25.Kh2 c6 26.Qa5 h5 27.Qxh5 Rb5 28.Qh4 Re5 and Black went on to win.

It seems to me that White does indeed have enough compensation for the sacrificed material, but the play is extremely complex. Does either side have an actual advantage? I might be able to answer this if I spend weeks with the position. However, that's not going to happen. So, let's settle for "unclear."

If we take a step backwards (enriched by the knowledge that giving up all those pawns allows Black to bail out of many situations by tossing ballast out of his balloon), perhaps the retro 12.Nb1!? deserves a serious look (the Knight stood terribly on b3 anyway). Now 12...Re8 13.Bg5 with the idea of Nb1-d2-e4 is very dangerous for Black, while trying to find compensation by sacrificing the Exchange via 12...Qe7 13.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 14.Kh1 leaves Black struggling for a draw.

By the way, you can't fault poor Botvinnik for thinking that Black wouldn't be able to defend this position. Chugging about with the Rook while White rips open black's King has a certain suicidal air to it. However, his intuition -- telling him that the position after 11...Rxe3 had to favor White -- might well have be right on.

For those of you that play either side of the position after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4, or for those that find the complications attractive (and might wish to incorporate the variation into your own repertoire), here's a nutshell look at the recent state of theory.

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4

And here Black has two promising continuations: A) 4...e4 and B) 4...exd4.

A) 4...e4

At one time this had a rather dubious reputation. However, when White discovered some new ideas against 4...exd4 in the late 90s, many players took a fresh look at 4...e4 and found it to be perfectly acceptable. In fact, Alex Raetsky and Maxim Chetverki in ENGLISH ...e5 say 4...e4 is probably the "easiest route to equality."

5.Nd2

Best. Other moves:

1) 5.Ng5 h6 (5...Bb4 is also playable) 6.Ngxe4 Nxe4 7.Nxe4 Qh4 8.Qd3 (8.Nc3 Qxd4, =) 8...d5 9.Nc3 (9.cxd5 Nb4 10.Qb1 Bf5 11.Nd6+ cxd6 12.Qxf5 g6 13.Qf4 Nc2+ 14.Kd1 Qxf4 15.Bxf4 Nxa1 with a clear advantage for Black in Smirin - Johannessen, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) 9...dxc4 10.Qxc4 Qxd4 11.e3 Qe5, =.

  2) 5.Ne5 is rarely seen. Black equalizes easily after 5...Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Qe7 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.e3 c5 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bf5.

5...Bb4

5...Nxd4 6.Ndxe4 Ne6 7.g3 (7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.g3, +=) 7...Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bg2 d6 12.0-0 Bd7 13.Nc3 Bc6 14.Nd5 a5 with ...Nc5 to follow left White with nothing more than a very tiny plus in Botvinnik - Flohr, Moscow/Leningrad 1933.

6.e3

Raetsky points out that the crazy looking 6.Ndb1 doesn't give White anything after 6...d5 7.Bg5 e3 8.Bxe3 dxc4 9.f3 0-0.

6...0-0 7.Be2 Re8

Petrosian's plan 7...d6 also deserves consideration: 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qe7 10.Kh1 Bf5 11.f3 Qd7, =.

8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d6 10.f3 Bf5!

10...exf3? 11.Bxf3 Rxe3 12.Nb3?! Rxc3 13.Bg5, Adamski-Knaak, Zinnowitz 1973, leads to a complicated position with chances for both sides. However, 12.Nb1!? appears to place Black under serious pressure.

11.fxe4

11.f4 Qc8 12.d5 Nb8 13.h3 Bxh3 14.gxh3 Qxh3 15.Kf2 Qh2+ 16.Ke1 Qg3+ 17.Rf2 Qxe3 with good comp for the piece -- Raetsky.

11...Nxe4!

Also possible is 11...Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bd3.

11...Nxe4 12.Rxf5

White should satisfy himself with 12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Bd3 Qe7, =. 

12...Nxc3 13.Qe1 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 Nxd4 15.Qf2 Nxf5 16.Qxf5 Rxe3 with advantage for Black.

B) 4...exd4 5.Nxd4

5.Ne5 is rarely seen. Black equalizes easily after 5...Bb4 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Qe7 8.Nxc6 dxc6 9.e3 c5 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bf5.

5...Bb4

5...Bc5, a favorite of the legendary Paul Keres, is also interesting but perhaps a bit better for White after 6.e3.

6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 and now Black has two different ways to handle this position: B.1) 7...Bxc3+ and B.2) 7...0-0.

B.1) 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Ne5

An instructive maneuver. Black intends to break the pain via ...Ng6.

9.f4!?

This sharp move earned many admirers in the mid to late 90s, but now it's no longer feared.

The old move, 9.e3, is also common, when Black can make use of a plan that doesn't center around ...Ng6 (of course, 9...Ng6, the classical plan, is also okay): 9...d6 10.f3 Qe7 11.Be2 g5 12.Bf2 h5 13.Qc2 h4 with chances for both sides in Van Doeland - Raetsky, Cappelle la Grande 2002. In the game, White quickly went wrong: 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Qxf5 Rh5 16.Qc2 (16.f4 g4 17.Qb1 Ned7 18.Qxb7 Rb8 19.Qxc7 h3 "Gives Black wonderful compensation as the white pieces are not playing together" -- Raetsky) 16...g4 17.0-0-0 Qe6 18.Qb3 0-0-0 with advantage for Black.

9...Ng6

9...Nxc4? 10.e4 is asking for trouble.

10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.g3 Nf8

Swinging the Knight around to c5 -- it was no longer doing anything on g6.

12.Bg2 Ne6 13.0-0 0-0 14.e4 d6 15.Qd2 Nc5 16.Rae1 Rb8 17.Re3 Bd7 18.Nb3 Nxb3 19.axb3 Bc6 20.Qd4 a6 21.Qxf6, 1/2-1/2, Kramnik - Karpov, Las Palmas 1996.

B.2) 7...0-0 8.Rc1

8.e3 Re8 9.Rc1 Nxd4 (both 9...Ne5 and 9...g5 are also playable) 10.Qxd4 c5 11.Qd1 (11.Qd6 g5 12.Bg3 Ne4! 13.Qxh6 [13.Qd3 d5 14.cxd5 Bf5] 13...d5 14.cxd5 [14.Bd3 d4 15.Bxe4 Rxe4 16.Rd1 Bg4] 14...Bg4 15.Bc4 [15.Bd3 Qxd5 16.Bxe4 Bxc3+ 17.bxc3 Rxe4 wins for Black according to Bosch. For example, 18.0-0 Re6 19.c4 Qd8 and the white Queen is trapped] 15...Re6 and white's Queen was trapped in Bosch - Van der Poel, Dieren 2001 since 16.dxe6 Qd2+ 17.Kf1 Qxc1+ 18.Nd1 Qxd1 is mate) 11...g5 12.Bg3 d5 13.cxd5 Qxd5 14.Qxd5 Nxd5 15.h4 Bg4 16.hxg5 hxg5 17.Bb5 Re7 18.f3 a6 19.Bf1 Be6 20.e4 Nf4 21.a3 Ba5 22.Bf2 b6 =, M Gurevich-Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2002.

8...Nxd4

An idea of Korchnoi's, which has led to some very impressive results for Black.

9.Qxd4 g5 10.Bg3 c5 11.Qd6 Ne4


12.Qd3

Other choices:

1) 12.Qd5 Re8 13.f3 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Nxg3 15.hxg3 Qb6 16.e4 Re6 17.Rd1 d6 and according to Sutovsky, Black is better.

2) 12.Qxh6 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.a3 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 Rxa3 (Simpler is 15...Nxg3 16.hxg3 Rxa3 17.e3 d6 18.Bd3 Be6, =) 16.Bc7 f5 17.f3 Nxc3 18.Bxb6 Na4 19.Bc7 Rf6 with equal chances in Lukacs-Zo. Varga, Budapest 2001.

12...d5 13.Qxd5

  13.cxd5 (13. a3 Nxc3 14. axb4 Na2!) 13...Bf5 14.Qc4 b5 15.Qb3 a5 16.f3 a4 17.Qd1 a3 18.fxe4 axb2 19.exf5 Qxd5! and Black wins.

13...Qe7 14.Qe5

No better is 14.e3 Rd8 15.Qe5 Qd7 16.Qd5 Bxc3+ 17.bxc3 Qe8 18.Qe5 Qxe5 19.Bxe5 f6 20.Bg3 Rd2 21.f3 Nxg3 22.hxg3 Rxa2 23.Rxh6 Kg7 with an excellent endgame for Black.

14...Qxe5 15.Bxe5 Re8 16.Bg3

16.Bc7 Bf5 17.a3 Nxc3 18.axb4 cxb4 19.Bd6 Re6 20.Bc5 (20.bxc3 b3) 20...Na4 21.Bxb4 Nxb2 22.e3 Nd3+ 23.Bxd3 Bxd3 and only Black can try for a win.

16...f5 17.f3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Ba3 19.Rb1 f4 20.Bf2 b6 21.g3 Bf5 22.Rb3 Bc1 23.gxf4 Rad8 24.e4

24.fxg5 Bd2+ 25.Kd1 Bxg5+ 26.Ke1 Bc2.

24...Bd2+ 25.Ke2 Rxe4+ 26.fxe4 Bg4 mate, Solieveld-Sutovsky, Amsterdam 2002.