Kompliant Karo in New In Chess
In the 2009#7 issue of New in Chess, Nigel Short presents a Caro-Kann sideline that I tried as well in USCL action.
Caro-Kann Foxy Two Knights Foxy Deviation Line with 6. Be2!?
1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3
Fischer used to play this just to get away from the tedious main lines. Can the bishop pair count? He certainly did not do well versus the likes of Keres (three times) in his early career (such as twice at the mammoth all play all four-times Bled Candidates ’59) when he coupled this idea with g2-g3, fianchettoing. It was just too easy for black to play.
Fischer-Keres 0-1 Bled ’59 Part One
Fischer-Keres 0-1 Bled ’59 Part Two
Finally Fischer draws, Fischer-Keres 1/2, Bled ’61
5…Nf6 6. Be2!?
No fianchetto! An interesting try.
Give up the center? Why?
The essence of this particular Caro deviation. White hopes for a miscue and in fact gets it right away!
6…dxe4 (?) 7. Nxe4 Nxe4 8. Qxe4.
In one game, Short-Gagunashvili (2564) Calcutta Open 2009, there followed 8….e6 9. O-O Nbd7 and now Short found the “move of Frolov” (from 1990): 10. b4! with a significant edge. In Merida 2001, Short had played 10. d4? versus Vishy Anand and got nothing, but Short and Rybka are both correctly enthused by 10. b4! – a nice move.
In the main game annotated in his article, Erwin L’Ami at the London Staunton Memorial 2009 played 8…Qd5 9. Qg4 Nd7 10. O-O Nf6 11. Qa4 Qe4 12. Qxe4 Nxe4 13. Re1 and black had not equalized.
So far so good, right? However there is a problem. Black’s 5h and 6th move combination is rather obviously not very good. The essence is that there is no reason to rush to give up the center; doing so makes the two bishops count more (especially in the “Frolov Improvement Line” mentioned above).
I run into an Improvement
Try instead the move order from MG (ARZ) – L. Kaufman (BAL), USCL 2009,
1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 e6! 6.Be2 Nf6!
Ye Olde Bricke Walle
This move sequence for black on moves 5 and 6 is so obvious in hindsight.
Where does it come from? The games Fischer was tortured (see above links) vs Keres! Simply maintain the center with a rock solid game. White has nothing that I can see! So do I complain to Short, Short’s opponents for gilding this apparently attractive path, the NIC Editor for running the article without the improvement, or Larry Kaufman for being too prepared? Or am I missing some hidden improvement? To my mind, Kaufman’s moves look logical and what are my bishops doing? Larry assists with Rybka programming and development, maybe this improvement is just “oude kuch” (stale cake, as they say in NIC Dutch language) to him and I stepped in some NIC doo doo.
Arrghhhh.
See the USCL website for the rest of my crazy game. I tried an early pawn advance which didn’t work at all. The only thing I’ll say about that one is that black missed a nice knockout with 19…Nc5! with the very nasty idea of Nc5-b3, winning.
Spot the Problem
From the USCL website, a preview of tomorrow’s playoff match:
New Jersey Knockouts (9.0 – 2.0) vs 
New York Knights (6.0 – 5.0)
New Jersey receives Draw Odds
All Time Series Record: (New Jersey leads 3 – 2)
Starts at 7:00 PM ET Time Control – Game in 90 with 30 second increment
| New Jersey Knockouts | New York Knights | ||
| GM Joel Benjamin: 2641 | GM Giorgi Kacheishvili: 2666 | ||
| IM Dean Ippolito: 2535 | GM Pascal Charbonneau: 2560 | ||
| SM Mackenzie Molner: 2446 | NM Matt Herman: 2275 | ||
| Sean Finn: 2114 | NM Yaacov Norowitz: 2354 | ||
| Avg Rating: 2434 | Avg Rating: 2464 | ||
| New Jersey Total ——- | ——- New York Total |
Astute readers will notice the problem: “NJ Receives Draw Odds.” Far too great an odds in a 4-person match (this is obvious, right?). Recently I canvassed readers for alternate solutions – how to give a slight edge to the team with the higher seed. The collective braintrust is still working. See the comments section of my prior post.
And in Marketing News of the Weird
My blog received a “comment”:
“[random site] is currently in the progress of choosing chess blogs/clubs to receive recognition from [random site] as Top Resources. This award is not meant to be anything other than a recognition that your blog/Clubs gives information about tactics that directly or in directly raise Chess awareness. Simply place the award banner code on your site and your resource will be listed as a Top CHESS Resources on [random site] once you place it. [random site] is a Private Global Chess Server which offer FREE Chess Games and Guidelines for learning chess and whose goal is to promote Chess (which game has lost his fan base) through the spread of information globally. Thank you for your dedication to your Club/blogs. Please reply me back with the subject line as your URL to avoid spam and to make sure that you only get the award banner.”
I have a better idea. Random Site must recognize my blog as the primary chess knowledge source in the known universe and place that accolade in an obnoxious scrolling LED style banner on their home page. Then I will make a link to my new friends and my deserved accolade. But the real take away lesson – when you have a bad position, just think to yourself “which game has lost his fan base ” and tell yourself it’s not yours.
Mystery Photo
Mystery
Test Your Eastern Bloc Humor
Rate this on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being “huh?” and 10 being “Mirthful indeed!”
What do you call one Russian? –A drunk.
What do you call two Russians? –A fight.
What do you call three Russians? — A Party cell
What do you call one Jew? –A financial center.
What do you call two Jews? –The World Chess Championship.
What do you call three Jews? –Native Russian Folk Instrument Ensemble.
What do you call one Ukrainian? –A partisan.
What do you call two Ukrainians? –A partisan cell.
What do you call three Ukrainians? –A partisan cell with a traitor in
their midst.
Tags: Anand, Caro, Gagunashvili, Kaufman, L'Ami, NIC, Rybka, Short, USCL
IM Mark Ginsburg Presents A Personal Chess History 
November 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
Draw odds didn’t help much this year… the team with draw odds, when they won, won 3-1 or bigger. The team without draw odds won 3 of the 6 matches.
November 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
It still looms large; influencing and contributing to big scores – other team has to basically hara-kiri…
I think it’s too big an odds, period in only a four board match.
There must be better ways to assign a small, yet significant, edge to the higher seed. One good idea, that I saw elsewhere in the blogoverse (I think SF’s site comments) is a *five* board match in the playoffs – more chess is better – and give the higher seed 3 whites. That’s a much more sensible idea.
December 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
Well well well, guess who the mystery photo is…Its me. Thank you for getting my comment. It was in the beginning just a way to show moral support to my dad. I would prefer if we kept the whole”mystery girl” thing, its fun. Thank you very much, and good luck dad, or mark ginsburg.