Ugly Duckling for White, Beautiful Swan for Black
I noticed a really ugly variation in the CyberVerse, 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4?, presented/espoused by Dana Mackenzie [DM] with some Fritz peppered in. Let’s check the Caissic horror.
Note: recently (November 2009) Mackenzie tried to espouse this variation once again with a new set of recommendations; I’ll label the new attempts DM-1109 and deal with them accordingly in the body of this article. To give an executive summary: logic will deal with the new tries as well. 🙂
The atrocity (kudos for bravery, though) starts out with the particularly unaesthetic lunge
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4? Eww! The Aesthetics Police are mobilized! As a general rule of thumb, if a move looks disgusting, there is a reason. 🙂 Or, as the Soviet School of Chess likes to say, Pawns-Do-Not-Move-Backward. I think this easy to grasp Soviet principle has been responsible for over 100,000 Swiss System defeats of American players. A corollary: If you are leaving gaping holes in your position, you had better be doing it for immense material gain and/or checkmate.
Position after 4. g4? – Ewww!
4…Be4! The cowardly 4… Bd7 can be well met by the simple 5. c4! e6 6. Nc3 Ne7 and white could’ve tried 7. Qb3 here to press his future-WC opponent, David Bronstein – Tigran Petrosian, USSR Ch. 1959, Tbilisi. That game was drawn after some adventures. 4…Bg6? is just weak with white scoring well in many games after either 5. h4 or 5. e6. Black should force more dark square weakenings before retreating.
5. f3 Bg6 6. h4
Note 11/11/09: DM-1109 says:
My second and more important argument is White can avoid Ginsburg’s line by playing a different move order! I did not realize this when I wrote my original series of posts on Bronstein’s Folly (formerly the Homo Erectus Variation). The move order I would now like to recommend is 4. … Be4 5. f3 Bg6 6. Ne2.
Response: why is Dana infatuated with this ugly position? 6. Ne2 is not a scare move. To me it harkens back to the bad old days when Americans were one of the most poorly prepared players on the international stage (shades of old US-USSR radio broadcasts). Black can play any sensible move, for example 6…e6 7. h4 h6! and as any Caro player knows, if you have a hiding square for your bishop and have e7-e6 in as well, you’re happy. For some strange reason, Mackenzie only considers the provocative and unnecessary 7….h5?! there. Why? 7…h6! is fine. Example (and you don’t need special prep to see this is good for black): 7…h6! 8. h5 Bh7 and …c7-c5 is coming. It’s a French WITH the queen bishop outside the pawn chain WITH senseless weaknesses created by white. I have noticed that Mackenzie often goes wrong in his optimistic lunge analyses by not considering the best moves for black. This occurred here too; he did not consider the most obvious Caro move 7…h6!
Humorous epilog: blindfold I started wondering why not 6. Ne2 e6 7. Nf4 first (then h2-h4) to cause problems to black’s bishop. Only on setting up the board did I then see 7. Nf4? Qh4+ oops!
We now return the programming to the original post.
6…h5! DM correctly points out 6…h6 is much weaker.
7. Ne2 DM correctly points out that 7. e6? Qd6! is bad for white. But keep this motif in mind, it will bite white on the rear repeatedly in the variations that follow.
7… hxg4 8. Nf4 Bh7! Black adheres to the Soviet principle, Do-Not-Give-Opponent-Anything.
Position after ice-cold Soviet refutation-mode 8…Bh7!
9. fxg4
DM labels 9. e6 (?) “Top Choice of Fritz”. But what Fritz? 9. e6? looks terrible after the simple 9…fxe6
10. fxg4 (10. Nxe6 Qd6! 11. Nxf8 Qg3+! and white is feeling ill) 10… Qd6! (this pesky idea again) 11. Nc3 and already black can break with 11… e5 12. dxe5 Qxe5+ 13. Be2 d4! and white is in a total shambles. Notice in these lines how Soviet logical this is. “e6 gives me d6; I will use it.” Thus have so many American players gone down the drain.
Note 11/11/09 : DM-1109 says the following:
I have two arguments to make against Ginsburg [ ….] First is that in his refutation, 4. … Be4 5. f3 Bg6 6. h4 h5 7. Ne2 hg 8. Nf4 Bh7! 9. e6 fe 10. fg Qd6! he does not consider White’s answer 11. Qe2. If he was thinking of 11. … Be4 12. Rh3 e5? then he would run into 13. de Qxe5 14. Ng6. However, I am not going to press this argument too hard because I think that Black can play more patiently with 11. … Nd7 and still be doing quite well for the basic reasons that Ginsburg outlines.
Response to DM-New: 9. e6? gets a BIG FAT JUICY QUESTION MARK – it’s a terrible move! Why? Because in the above line 11. Qe2 runs headlong into 11…Na6! and this is completely embarrassing to white. Black is doing fine with 11…Nd7 but 11…Na6 preparing Nc7 is even stronger. 11…Na6! 12. Qxe6 Nb4 is a comfortable plus for black; 12. Nxe6? Be4! is even worse; and on the insipid 12. a3 simply Nc7 and castles long and black should convert to the full point with no particular difficulties.
9…e6 10. g5 DM says “Fritz says white has to play 10. g5 to distract black from his counterplay.”
This pawn move, not developing, is, to say the least, not scary. Once again, this position looks completely miserable for white after 10..Ne7. Black can also play 10…Be4 and 11. Rh2 Ne7 12. Nc3 Nf5 13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. Bg2 Qxd4 looks like a fizzle-out draw.
For example, 11. Nc3 Nd7 12. h5 and now either 12…Bf5 (or even the wild 12… Nf5 13. g6 Bxg6!
14. Nxg6 fxg6 15. Qg4 Qe7 16. Bg5 Qb4 17. O-O-O gxh5 18. Rxh5 Nxe5!! cross-pin) are fine for black. White’s position is riddled with holes and black has no difficulties developing. An amusing Soviet-style variation: 12. h5 Bf5 13. Be3 c5! 14. Bd3 cxd4 15. Bxd4 Qb8! 16. Qe2 (16. g6 Nxe5 with an edge) 16..Nc6! and black is just logically attacking the guys white has strewn about while centralizing his minors at the same time. It’s a cold shower for white.
On white 10th move alternatives, such as 10. Nc3, black can simply play 10…Nd7 11. Be3 Bb4 and he faces no problems. It is white that has to watch out for sudden Be4 incursions.
Conclusion: 4. g4? is, in the late, great, IM Victor Frias’s words, “a steaming pile of malooch.”
Let’s bring back the Fantasy Variation 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3! (less holes).
Bravo, Chess Opening Bloggers
I enjoy chess opening discussions (good, bad, and unclear lines) alike of the sort presented by Dana and Michael Goeller over at the Kenilworthian. It’s nice how the CyberVerse leads to rapid idea generation, refutation, and idea refinement (of course, chess engines play a big part). Keep ’em coming!
And for something Different: Chess Rental
Chessqueen83 (on ICC) set up this Rental and what a nice one it is. Available now for your chess and non-chess needs!
Search Engine Terms
This is how people found my site.
| Search | Views | |
|---|---|---|
| the watchmen | 31 |  |
| “bruce rind” | 3 | |
| tholians | 2 | |
| russian writer mark ginsburg | 2 | |
| keres attack | 2 | |
| cochrane gambit | 2 | |
| strange chess openings | 2 | |
| lone pine 1976 petrosian | 2 | |
| chessgames.com | 2 | |
| yakov yukhtman | 2 | |
Yesterday
| Search | Views | |
|---|---|---|
| the watchmen | 38 | |
| cochrane gambit | 3 | |
| jennifer shahade collins kids | 3 | |
| dogs fighting | 2 | |
| im mark ginsburg | 2 | |
| “arthur bisguier” | 2 | |
| example of a friendly letter | 2 | |
| keres attack | 2 | |
| nite owl watchmen | 2 | |
| kramnik | 1 | |
Tags: Caro-Kann, Dana MacKenzie, Kenilworthian, Malooch, Michael Goeller, Victor Frias
IM Mark Ginsburg Presents A Personal Chess History 
October 23, 2008 at 7:51 pm |
I’m delighted that you took a look at my Caro-Kann analysis, and I hope that your readers will, too! This is the Internet at its best.
It’s very helpful to me to see what an IM sees as the critical line here, and why. I noticed that you picked precisely on a subvariation where I was relying on Fritz’s “judgement” rather than on my tournament experience. So I will have to take a more skeptical look at those Fritz lines. This doesn’t mean I agree with you yet.
If you were horrified by this line, I’m sure you will be horrified by some of my other pet lines. Should be a lot of fun.
The original poster takes all the risks! That’s what starts the ball rolling. I myself have lost many times to Soviet-style players (we used to call them “robots”) playing USA-style craziness – like this variation 🙂
By the way, I really like your blog and I’ve referred to it a few times in my own. Your readers might want to check out my posts “Chess, Baseball, Nixon, 1974” (April 19) and “Chess Memories, 1980s Edition” (May 10) and “Richard Delaune, Chess Gentleman” (July 1), for example.
I have more excellent Delaune stories that I need to organize as well as a pivotal game from the 1982 Md. State Championship. Richard was always one of the last players in the playing hall in every round, working very hard to overcome his opponents in impenetrable endings.
February 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
[…] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 g6 5. e5 Ng4 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. h3 Nh6 8. g4?? OMFG. What a horrible move. She gives up her light square bishop then opens up the d5-h1 diagonal to create a “fake bind” against the black knight on h6. I wasn’t there, but Pons may have glanced at her with a pitying “you’re a beginner” look. Pawns-don’t-move-backward. The last time I saw a hideous lunge like this was the “fugly” Caro varation discussed in a prior post. […]
April 7, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
Hi !! 😉
My name is Piter Kokoniz. Just want to tell, that I like your blog very much!
And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
Sorry for my bad english:)
Thank you!
Piter Kokoniz, from Latvia
November 1, 2009 at 10:49 am |
[…] e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4? LOL! This move is weak! It’s hard to find a GM game where white plays a bad move on move 4! White […]
November 1, 2009 at 11:30 am |
[…] e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. g4? LOL! This move is not good! White ‘forgets’ to play the mainline 4. Nc3 first covering e4. An ideal risky line in USCL […]
November 2, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
[…] A huge lemon! Too soon! I’ve seen this move a lot from players who thought they were playing main line Advance, but it turns out that the preparatory move Nb1-c3 is not just cosmetic! […]
November 6, 2010 at 9:56 am |
[…] huge lemon! Too soon! Before we go on, read this article from 2009. 4. g4? – Known to be bad from 2009 USCL Action – […]
March 7, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
[…] than the “Caveman Variation” 4. h4. IM Mark Ginsburg noticed my posts and wrote a great post of his own claiming to refute 4. g4!? He was the person who called this variation “Fugly,” which I […]