Transposition Gone Wrong: Attempting to reach the Benko Gambit

Happy New Year! May 2018 bring us the best chess... Also, fame and fortune.

I love playing the Benko Gambit as Black, so I try to reach it whenever I can. But it doesn't always go so smoothly. Normally the Benko Gambit is reached after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5:

Typically White will play cxb5 at some point, and Black will respond with a6 (a pawn gambit), and White can choose to take the pawn with bxa6 (gambit accepted--the most common response) or to push with b6 (gambit declined). When the gambit is accepted, Black will fianchetto the king's bishop, put the knight on f6, play d6 (some players prefer e6), castle kingside; White will typically get e2-e4 in (even though this is not an e4 opening). A position like this might arise:

Black will eventually recapture the a6 pawn, and White will have a passed a-pawn, but Black will have tremendous activity on the queenside, with moves like Bxa6, Nbd7, Qb6, Rfb8 (after Black castles kingside), etc. Note that in the "old main line", which I don't particularly fancy, Black plays Bxa6 before White plays e4, so that when White plays e4, Black responds with Bxf1, and White plays Kxf1 and will manually castle their king with g3 and Kg2.

I've had quite a bit of success playing the Benko as Black. This graph shows the win percentage (in green), draw percentage (in blue), and loss percentage (in red) by opening when I play a rapid or classical game (> 8 minutes) as Black on lichess.org. In fact, my highest win percentage comes from games where I've played the Benko (10 games, win percentage = 80%; see middle of the graph):

So I'm somewhat justified in trying to reach this opening when I can. Against 1. e4, there are a few ways to try to reach this opening. An uncommon one is the St. George defense, with 1. e4 a6 (since both e4 for White and a6 for Black are moves in Benko lines). A more common opening that allows one to hope to reach a Benko position is the Robtasch (or "Modern") defense with 1. e4 g6, which is what I played in this game (incidentally, notice that the Robatsch seems to be one of my worst openings in the graph above). In this game I was facing a stronger opponent (2142 blitz on chess.com), and we reached the following position after 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 a6 4. c4 d6 5. Nc3 Nd7 6. Be2 c5:

Up to here I've played all moves that are consistent with the Benko so that I can transpose into it were the opportunity arise. And we're really close to it: If White plays d5, I'll respond with b5 and we will have reached a position consistent with the Benko gambit. But my opponent doesn't have to humor me, and indeed he chose not to, and simply played 7. O-O. But I was not ready to give up though I should have been, and I played 7. ... b5? 8. cxb5:

And here I played a move that would simply be impossible to play in the Benko gambit since White would have played d5 earlier. I played the ridiculous-looking 8. ... cxd4?! 9. Nxd4 axb5?? (9. ... a5) 10. Bxb5:

And once the smoke has cleared, this is not a Benko gambit, and White has two connected passed pawns on the queenside! (With a normal Benko gambit White would only have a passed a-pawn.) Stockfish gives White a two-pawn advantage at this point, and my opponent went on to kick my butt. I later gave up one of my knights for his two pawns but it was already too late.

So, lesson learned: Don't part with all three of the c-, b-, and a-pawns in the Benko Gambit, because White will have two connected passed pawns on the queenside. It seems obvious, but I had to learn the hard way.

The full game is available here:

Trap in Torre Attack & Game of the Day #2

As I said in my latest article, I am trying out openings for White that involve 1. d4 and an early Bg5 (the Trompowsky, Torre and Veresov attacks; just for the record, I don't think I like the Veresov very much). I played a game two days ago that involved a Torre Attack (1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5), and tried to set up a trap for my opponent who unfortunately didn't fall for it.

I heard of the trap from GreenCastleBlock (Matt Pullin, a USCF expert) on YouTube. The trap starts with 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 e6 4. e3 Be7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nbd7 7. Nbd2 b6 (7. ...O-O is also booked) 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qa4 O-O 10. Ne5 (D):

White is hoping for 10. ...Nxe5 11. dxe5 Nd7?? (11. ...Nh5 +/=) 12. Qh4!, and Black either gets mated or loses a Rook. Matt Pullin says in his video that he won two games with this opening at the same tournament in 2000. His video is available here (I strongly suggest GreenCastleBlock's videos on YouTube).

As for me, I wasn't so lucky, but the game that followed was exciting. It's an opposite-castling game, in which both sides attacked. I give a more or less short analysis of the game, with some interesting moves. Here it is:

[LINK REMOVED]

Panov Formation

The Panov formation gets its name from Panov (duh), who played it for the first time in 1929 in a game against Mudrov, as White. As you maybe already know, Panov has a line in the Caro-Kann Defense named after him, the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, which goes 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4. The Panov formation is characterized by the pawn-chain formed by d4 and c5, and Black generally has his own pawns on e6 and d5.

-

The game continued: 4. ...Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bf5(?) 7. c5! (Diagram)

-

-

It is GM Andrew Soltis in Pawn Structure Chess (which will be the subject of a future book review) who annotates 6. ...Bf5 with a "?". He writes that White would have thought twice about playing 7. c5 had Black played 6. ...Bg4!, since in the Panov formation, the d-pawn is a permanent weakness in a fixed center. We will see that attacking the d-pawn is one of the three main options Black has against that formation.

So, why did White play c5 ? Let's look at the pawn structure which defines the Panov formation:

-

-

We see that White has excellent outposts on e5 and d6, which means for him "excellent use of the black squares in the middlegame and a trump in the ending" (Soltis). Indeed, according to Soltis the reason as to why Bf5 is not nearly as good as Bg4 is because it lacks control over the dark squares (notice that Bg4 would have removed the f3-knight's capacities of defending the dark squares). The main drawback -- besides the fixed backward d-pawn -- is that it is Black who has the potential now to make any pawn-move to contest the center, with ...b6 or ...e5.

Black has three main plans:

1. contest the center with ...e5;
2. contest the center with ...b6;
3. attack White's d-pawn with Bf6 and Ne5 (or simply play Ne4 and f5 and attack on the kingside).

White doesn't have to fear ...e5 all that much, because it comes with its own consequences: after dxe5, White has gotten rid of his backward d-pawn and has created an isolated d-pawn on Black's camp, thus having an outpost on d4. Whether White's c5-weakness is better or worse than Black's d5 isolated pawn depends on your style of play (and your opponent's) I guess.

As for ...b6, White has two main options: he can take it with cxb6 or let Black capture on c5, and in both cases White can control the c-file with heavy pieces; or he can support his c-pawn with b2-b4, and maintain a passed c-pawn. (But beware!, use your head before playing b2-b4: ...a5 could make it look kind of bad, because a3 doesn't always succeed in defending the b4-pawn, if your rook on a1 is not protected and would thus be captured after ...a5xb4 axb4. Make sure your a-pawn wouldn't be pinned.)

Note that the Panov formation doesn't have to come from a Caro-Kann Defense. Even Black can obtain a Panov formation. For example, in the Tarrasch Defense of the Queen's Gambit Declined: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 c5 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 h6 8. O-O Be6 9. Be3 Ng4 10. Qd2 c5 (Diagram)

-

Caro-Kann Defense, Advance Variation: 3. ...g6 Line

The Caro-Kann Defense is known as one of the most solid systems against 1. e4, and a good one too against ruthless attackers. It also tends to offer a good endgame for Black, who generally ends up in a pawn structure similar to the one in the Scandinavian defense after 1. e4 d5. Note that the great Karpov is a big fan of the opening.

The Caro-Kann, as you most likely know, starts out with 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5. From there, White has three main choices, which are 3. Nf3, 3. exd5 and 3. e5. We will talk about the Advance Variation, 3. e5 :

-

This is a reasonable line for both players. In the PGN from the PGNMentor.com website (see article PGNMentor.com PGN Library), a total of 12 042 games are to be found. Of them, 41,1% were won by White, whereas Black won 30,7% of them -- the 28,2% left were drawn.

In my own practice (I play the Caro-Kann), the Advance Variation is what I meet the most. But as White, when confronted to the Caro-Kann, I never play that. I find that it lacks flexibility, and that it's hard to keep that central bind for a long time anyway -- but that's another story. What interests us is the Black side here.

This can pose some problems for Black. If he doesn't react properly, he will get spatially crushed. The main idea in the Caro-Kann is to allow Black's light-squared Bishop on c8 to develop before closing the pawn structure with e6. Notice that initially, that's the main difference with the French Defense (1. e4 e6). So it makes sense that Black's main move is 3. ...Bf5 :

-

That line has been played almost exclusively in response to the Advance Variation: 10 367 games out of 12 042 followed with 3. ...Bf5 (86% of the games!). And yet, it is not the line that statistically scores best! White won 41,0% of the games, whereas Black won 30,7% of them (28,3% were drawn). Unfortunately, for those who are afraid of moves like g4 (attacking that f5-Bishop) and h4, the 3. ...Bf5 is not an option.

So what are the other options? The second most popular response is 3. ...c5, which was played in 1 177 games out of 12 042 (9,77% of the games). At this point, the decision as to whether you prefer 3. ...Bf5 or 3. ...c5 is more of a stylistic decision, because results in practice are very similar for both lines. The latter scores perhaps slightly better: W 38,4% ; B 32,0% ; Draw 29,7%.

I find the third option for Black much more interesting though. It has been played a mere 214 times (1,78% of the games), but is the third most popular response nonetheless. Of course I am talking about 3. ...g6 :

-

This line makes things much more exciting. The draw percentage drops by 4%, and is now of 24,3%. That 4% though, it is Black who takes it home: White won 40,7% of the games, and Black, 35,1% -- the highest percentage for Black's wins so far. Moreover, this gives kind of a problem to White. White isn't used to dealing with Black's light-squared Bishop, but now it is still waiting to get developed! For instance, 4. Nf3 Bg4, and e6 is coming. Note that Black isn't afraid of exchanging his Bishop for the Knight, because the position is closed and Knights are said to be slightly better than Bishops in closed position, and that anyway, given the e6-d5-c6 formation, Black could consider his light-square Bishop to be his bad Bishop.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Black's other Bishop is going to get on g7, an incredible diagonal given White's pawn structure. Black can push his c-pawn to c5 whenever he wants, and White might just start to regret 3. ...e5 altogether. I have played many games with the 3. ...g6 line, and have had very good results.

Other third moves for Black include (in order of frequence): 3. ...Na6, 3. ...e6, 3. ...h5, and 3. ...Qb6. Although only played in 22 games out of 12 042, Qb6 led to 6 wins for White, but 8 wins for Black (and 8 draws). Maybe Qb6 is worth an investigation, who knows...

P.S.: 3. ...e6 leads to disaster;
P.P.S.: Karpov plays 3. ...Bf5, so it can't be all that bad :)

Queen sacrifices in openings

Queen sacrifices are fairly rare, and one might say that they're generally made in mating combinations. Still, some openings involve Queen sacrifices, and some of them are even established in theory. Here are three lines in which one of the players sacrifices their Queen -- note that the two first ones have been reasonably tried in practice, whereas the last one is neither popular nor efficient; more like a eye-candy, if I might say.

1 – In the Kholmov Variation of the Pirc Defense

In this line, White sacrifices his Queen and two pawns for two Knights and the dark-squared Bishop.

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 White’s last move is called the Kholmov Variation. 4. … Bg7 Just so you know, instead of Bg7, or at any point with that configuration still on the board, Black has the possibility of 4. … Nxe4 5. Bxf7+ Kxf7 6. Nxe4 =. 5. Qe2 Nc6

6. e5! Nxd4 7. exf6! Nxd2 8. fxg7 Rg8 9. Ngxe2 +=

(9. …Rxg7 10. Bh6 Rg8 11. O-O-O +=)

White scores excessively good with that line. With 129 games from Chesslive, White scores an impressive 74 wins, 35 losses and 20 draws (W 57,36% ; B 27,13% ; Draw 15,50%). Instead of entering that variation, Black should simply play 6. … exd5 or 6. … Nd7, with perhaps even a slight advantage.

2- In the Saëmisch Variation of the King’s Indian Defense

In this line, it is Black who sacrifices his Queen for a pawn and two Bishops, with relatively acceptable results, although White still scores better.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 Nh5 8. Qd2 Qh4+ 9. g3 Nxg3 10. Qd2

10. … Nxf1 11. Qxh4 Nxe3 +=

Out of 184 games from Chesslive, White wins 86, loses 54 and draws 44 (W 46,74% ; B 29,35% ; Draw 23,91%). As we can see, this line has been slightly more tested than the one in the Kholmov (this one is still booked at move 11 where it is not in the Kholmov at the moment of the Queen sacrifice, given that Black did not play the best moves).

3- In the Botvinnik Variation (Main Line) of the Semi-Slav defense

This one is here more for the anecdote that will follow than for the actual line. Chesslive gives only 8 games with the Queen sacrifice in this line, with 7 wins for White and only 1 mere loss. The line goes thus :

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. g3

This is still booked, and g3 enters the Anti-Meran Gambit / Lilienthal Variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined. Chesslive shows 990 games after g3, ranging from 1944 to December 2007. Lilienthal seems to be the first one to have used it – against Botvinnik himself – and lost… anyway. In this position, Chesslive gives only 9 games (0.09% of the 990 games) that continued with 11. … b5, which GM Soltis annotates with "?".

The interesting story behind it is that GM Vladimir Bagirov played as Black in this position in 1971, and White answered with the less forcing 12. Ne2, and Black eventually won the game. This game is the only one out of the 9 games reaching 11. …b5 which did not lead to the Queen sacrifice.

GM Bagirov was once again confronted with the position in 1980, with more disastrous results, where he did indeed sacrifice his Queen. So, instead of 12. Ne2 after 11. …b5 (see Diagram above), White answered with 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Bxd8 Kxd8 14. Bg2 f5 15. exf6(ep) Ndxf6??

_

GM Bagirov is reported to have said that he had chose this line because all the manuals gave the advantage to Black, and that he had prepared the continuation 16. Qe2 Nd6 17. Bxc6 Rb8. But then, he was thrown off when his opponent played 16. Bxe4 Nxe4 17. Qf3!, winning instantly. Four of the 8 games that got to 13. …Kxd8 followed this exact variation, one of them as recently as 2003 (Black resigned on his 17th move).

Remember : 8 games that got to the Queen sacrifice, 7 of them were won by White. So you know what I suggest? I might surprise you but… don’t play it as Black.