TAL GAMBIT DECLINED: 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.e5
Chris asks:
I’ve got your book on the Sicilian Defense. In the chapter on meeting the Grand Prix Attack, you suggest playing Tal’s Gambit. I’ve followed your advice and won many games with this gambit, however, in my last game the moves went as follows – 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.e5. What’s up with 3.e5? To make a long story short, I lost. I looked through your book for a refutation but to no avail. The more I looked at 3.e5 the more I liked it (for white). It gains a lot of space, cramps black’s position making it difficult for him to easily develop. Yes, the move 3.e5 does weaken the f5-square, but how to take advantage of that?
I’d be very interested in what you have to say or suggest – this position certainly will arise again and I’d like to have some general ideas or plans mapped out.
SHOULD BLACK FEAR THIS MOVE?
Silman replies:
After the pawn push to e5, White has no more than equality, and can easily find that he’s worse in the blink of an eye. Yes, 3.e5 does gain space. And yes, it might seem visually worthwhile. But the fact is that Black is under no pressure whatsoever, and his own space gains on the queenside, control of the f5-square (which you astutely noted), and counterplay in the center give Black a comfortable game by move three!
All this, though, is just gibberish if you don’t know how to handle the position. We’ll look at a few examples after comparing the position in question to a few other similar situations.
FRENCH DEFENSE: After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6, the tempting move 5.f4 is known to be a mistake since Black’s pressure against d4 is allowed to freely increase after 5…Qb6 6.Nf3 Nh6 when an upcoming …Nf5 will prove extremely bothersome. The exact French Defense position after 5.f4 can also arise from our Sicilian move order after 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.e5 Nc6 4.Nf3 e6 5.c3 Qb6 6.d4 Nh6.
Also in the French Defense, Black’s one problem is his bad light-squared Bishop. After 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.e5 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bf5 or 4…Bg4, Black gets all the advantages that the French Defense offers, without its greatest negative.
CARO-KANN: After 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 White is creating the pawn structure under discussion. Here too, Black can swing his Bishop to f5 (or even g4 if White brings his g1-Knight out too early). However, Black’s pawn is on c6 and not c5, which means that Black will be a tempo down compared to the lines already described. In general Black doesn’t mind losing that tempo because his light-squared Bishop’s freedom is (hopefully) worth the price. But the pawn on c6 doesn’t pressure the center, and this gives White real chances to get a little something from the opening (which explains why this advance variation against the Caro-Kann is so popular nowadays).
In our Sicilian line, Black is getting all that juicy French Defense central counterplay AND the light-squared Bishop is free as in the Caro-Kann. In other words, this whole line is quite useless for White. Nevertheless, I think you’re right in saying that you’ll see it again since it’s a natural move that will prove attractive to the rating group (1700 and below) that you generally face.
The following examples (note that the players are not world beaters – really strong players wouldn’t dream of touching this line) should give you more than enough ideas and general themes to play Black’s side with confidence.
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.e5 Nc6
It’s also possible to toss out an immediate 3…Bf5. Two examples:
1) 4.Bb5+ Nc6 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.d3 e6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Be3 Rb8 9.b3 h5 10.Nbd2 Nh6 11.h3 Bg6 12.Qe2 Nf5 13.Bf2 h4 14.0-0-0 Qa5 15.a4 c4 16.dxc4 Ba3+ 17.Kb1 and White resigned without seeing 17…Qc3 with a forced mate. G Chinello [1681] – N Ronchetti [2217] Italy 2003.
2) 4.Ne2 e6 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.d3 h5 7.Be3 Nc6 8.a3 h4 9.Ne2 Nh6 10.Nd2 Be7 11.Nf3 Qc7 12.Bd2 Nf5 and Black was better in H Smith [2111] – A Tairova [2221], World Championship for girls under 12, 2003.
Notice how strong Black’s Knight is when it reaches f5. This is a theme you’ll see repeated throughout all these examples.
4.Nf3
A lot of amateur’s will find 4.Bb5 attractive, but it’s actually quite inoffensive: 4…e6 (Or 4…Bd7 5.Bxc6 Bxc6 6.d4 e6 7.c3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Ne7 9.Nf3 h5 10.Nc3 Nf5 11.a3 Be7 with a very comfortable position for Black in Z Jusic [2412] – A Brkic [2419], Rabac 2003) 5.Bxc6+ bxc6 6.Nf3 Ne7 7.d3 Nf5 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nc3 Ba6 10.Ne2 Qb6 11.Kh1 h5 12.a4 h4 13.a5 Qc7 14.Qe1, Kivimaki – Uusi, Kuopio 1991, and now 14…c4 promises Black the superior game. Note that he can always “castle by hand” via …g6, …Kf8-g7. Notice how the doubling of the pawns didn’t bother Black at all.
Another possibility is 4.c3 Bf5 5.d3 e6 6.Be2 f6 (Very sharp. Simple and good is 6…Nh6 since 7.g4?? fails to 7…Nxg4 8.Bxg4 Qh4+.) 7.Bh5+ g6 8.Be2 c4! (In the game R Venci [2305] – M Jovicic [2325], Yugoslavia 1990, Black tried a very unclear piece sacrifice: 8…fxe5 9.g4 Qh4+ 10.Kd2 e4 11.gxf5 gxf5. The game was eventually drawn but Black was facing almost certain death for quite a while. In my opinion, 8…c4 gives Black an easy game without any muss or fuss.) 9.dxc4 fxe5 10.Nf3 exf4 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.Qxd5 exd5 13.Bxf4 0-0-0, =.
After 4.Nf3, we come to a parting of the ways. Black can try 1) 4…e6, 2) 4…Bf5, or 3) 4…Bg4. Each one of these moves assures Black of a good game.
1) 4…e6
Black decides that this simple move assures a favorable French Defense. And he’s right!
5.d3 Nh6 6.Be3 Qb6 7.b3 Nf5 8.Bf2 Qb4+
This check happens to be best in this position, but the thematic move would be 8…h5 (stopping g2-g4 and assuring the Knight a happy life on f5).
9.Qd2
Else Black takes the f-pawn for free.
9…Qxd2+ 10.Nbxd2 h5
Fritz suggests 10…Nb4 11.Kd1 d4 with …Nd5 to follow. Nevertheless, after 10…h5 Black has a beautiful position.
11.c3 Be7 12.a3 f6 13.d4 cxd4 14.cxd4 fxe5 15.fxe5 g5 16.h3 Bd7 17.b4 0-0-0 18.Nb3 g4 19.Nfd2 g3 20.Bg1 Bg5 21.Nf3 Bh6 22.Bd3 Nce7 23.Ra2 b6 24.Nc1 Kb7 25.Ne2 h4 26.b5Rc8 2.Nd2 Be8 28.Nb1 Bh5 29.Nbc3 Rhf8 30.Rc2 Ng6 31.Nc1 Nf4 32.Bf1 Bg6 33.Nd3 Nxd4 34.Bxd4 Nxd3+ 35.Bxd3 Bxd3 36.Rb2 Rc4 37.Rb4 Rfc8, 0-1, CG Hilton – M Franklin, England 1962.
2) 4…Bf5 5.d3 e6 6.h3 h5 7.g3 Be7 8.Bg2 Qb6 9.Nc3 Nh6 10.Ne2 0-0-0 11.a3 Bg6 12.c3 c4 13.d4 Na5 14.Nd2 Nf5 15.Kf2 f6 and Black had an obvious advantage and went on to win in V Riego Prieto – R Araya, Pan American Championship, 1987.
3) 4…Bg4
How can this move be bad?
5.c3
5.Be2 e6 6.0-0 c4 (6…Nge7 7.c3 Nf5 is also good) 7.d4 cxd3 8.cxd3 Qb6+ 9.Kh1 Nh6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nf5 12.Kh2 Ncd4 13.Qa4+ Qc6 14.Qxc6+ bxc6 15.Bd1 h5 16.Nc3 g6 17.Ne2 Bc5 18.Nxd4 Bxd4 19.Ba4 Kd7 20.Rb1 Rab8 21.b3 Rb6 22.Bd2 Rc8 23.Rbc1 Be3 24.Rc2 Bxd2 25.Rxd2 h4 26.Rc1 Nd4 27.Kg1 Rg8 28.Kf2 g5 29.Ke3 Nf5+ 30.Kf3 gxf4 31.Kxf4 Rg3 32.d4 Ne7, 0-1, C Loebel – R Luckow, Schleswig Holstein, 1989.
5…e6 6.d3
Lematschko [2325] – Borek [2060], Laender Cup 1990 saw the higher rated player end up in very bad position after 6.h3 Bh5 7.Be2?? Bxf3 8.Bxf3 Qh4+ 9.Ke2 Qxf4 10.d4 Qh4, though Black eventually found a way to lose.
6…Be7 7.Be2 Nh6 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Na3 h5 10.Nc2 d4 11.c4 Qc7 12.Qe1 a5 13.a3 a4 14.Bd2 Na5 15.Bxa5 Rxa5 16.Nd2 Ra6 17.Bf3 g5 18.Be4 gxf4 19.Rxf4 Bg5 20.Rf2 Be3 21.Bxf5 Bxf2+ 22.Qxf2 Bxf5 23.Qg3 Rb6, 0-1, B Hansen-E Meyer, Chicago 1973.
I don’t think you’ll be afraid of 3.e5 anymore after looking over these games.
|
