Tuesday, September 3, 2013

A Dutch gambit part 2

Do you know what a topplayer like Kramnik does on a restday just before he will play the first game of the worldcupfinal? Fishing see e.g.chessvibes ! Despite it is a very popular sport in Russia (my Russian father in law is also an ardent practicer), a lot of people were surprised that a professional like Kramnik wasn't busy the whole day with preparing the game. This however doesn't mean that Kramnik didn't care much about the result but rather that he believed resting was more important than plugging for hours on the computer. This is possible on the condition that the preparationwork was made earlier so maximal some refreshing of the memory had to be done. So preparing a game for Kramnik doesn't mean memorizing intensively green moves as I described in my previous blogarticle but rather a relax reviewing of some notes and mainly resting.

Easier said than done but how could Kramnik know in advance that Dmitry Andreikin would be his opponent in the final? Well for sure he didn't know in advance which automatically means that he studied all possible openings in his repertoire prior. Strong players make sure that they have a profound knowledge of all possible systems against their repertoire. A similar sound can be heard on chessmasterschool where grandmaster Andrei Istratescu (same person from my artcile  met een kanon op een mug schieten) states that a lot of players reach a limit because they don't do sufficient efforts to complete their repertoire. Important hereby is to note that the word ' complete' is stated in capital letters. A limited study of the theory causes weaknesses and a chain is only that strong of its weakest link. Besides reinventing the wheel is senseless and very timeconsuming.

From the intro we can deduct that preparing a game based on green moves is certainly not a professional approach. The usage of green moves could be compared with reading a bookreview instead of the book itself. We all know that reading the book is much better but sometimes we don't have or don't want to free the time. A similar remark was made by Kara in the comments of my blogarticle van patzer naar gm intro en calculation. Stefan Docx's remark was also witty when he heard in the bookstand that I was searching for green moves. The remark must have been something like "In the Dutch there are many green moves." 

There is of course a double meaning in this remark. My preparationmethod (based on green moves) as my stubbornness to stick to my rather dubious Dutch defense (with a lot of green moves for white) is considered amateurish. He has right of course but today I can not or do not want to spent time in a more professional approach. I have a full time job and a young family which I give priority. So I just do what I please with my stopgaps like green moves or playing somewhat dubious openings like the Dutch. 

If you play 20 years a somewhat dubious opening like the Dutch then there is the big advantage that you've encountered somewhat every possible system already. Moreover contrary to e.g. Najdorf or Gruenfeld, the Dutch is much less subject to theoretical novelties. Geert Van der Stricht told me after Open Gent that in 2000 he was completely up to date with the Najdorf but in recent years theory has changed so fast that it also became for him an impossible task to know all possible variations. In other words each disadvantage has an advantage. In the continuation of this article, I will extricate a recent example in which like in my former blogarticle een hollands gambietje I will use my years experience of the Dutch to get a quick advantage in the opening. I chose as title "A Dutch gambit part 2" as we will discuss a gambit with a strong relationship with the gambit of part 1.

The oldest game in my personal database against the h3 system of the Dutch dates from 1998. My very brief knowledge of this system was at that time based on the book Dutch Defense from Larry Christiansen and Jeremy Silman published in 1989. In the book was mentioned that accepting the sacrifice was dangerous for black and safer was d5.
[Event "Open Gent 3de ronde"] [Date "1998"] [White "Van De Werken, H."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "2015"] [BlackElo "2270"] [PlyCount "48"] 1. d4 f5 2. h3 Nf6 3. g4 d5 4. g5 Ne4 5. Bf4 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 {(After the game I mentioned that I spent a lot of time on c5 which is also recommended by Fritz 5. The played move is obviously also safe and black has already equality.)} 7. e3 O-O 8. h4 c5 9. c3 Qb6 10. Qb3 Nc6 11. Nbd2 Bd7 12. Ne5 Nxe5 13. Bxe5 Nxd2 14. Kxd2 Qc6 15. Be2 b5 16. a3 a5 17. dxc5 Qxc5 18. Qc2 b4 19. cxb4 Qxc2 20. Kxc2 axb4 21. axb4 Bxb4 22. Bc3 Bd6 23. f4 Rfc8 24. Kd2 Bc6 1/2-1/2'/>
From above game I learned not to wait with c5 as that defines my counterplay. Only in 2003 there was a followup . A French expert of this system challenged me with a refined move-order but I found a good anti-dote and overtook the initiative later. If I remember well then this game was published in the perished magazine Vlaanderen Schaakt.
[Event "Open Plancoet 4 de ronde"] [Date "2003"] [White "Legrand, S."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "2187"] [BlackElo "2274"] [PlyCount "98"] 1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. h3 d5 4. g4 e6 $5 {(Accepting the pawnsacrifice is probably also possible but then black must show a lot of courage as practice shows that blacks defense is not light.)} (4... fxg4 $5 5. hxg4 Bxg4 6. Ne5 Bf5 7. Bh3 Bxh3 8. Rxh3 Nbd7 9. Qd3 c6 10. Nc3 $44) 5. gxf5 exf5 6. Rg1 g6 $5 {(Qd6 is recommended by Fritz and is an interesting alternative with chances for both sides.)} 7. c3 $5 $146 {(Only Bg5 has been played before in an unimportant amateur-game. White chooses for a quiet solid setup. Also interesting is Bf4.)} Bd6 8. Bh6 Qe7 9. Nbd2 $5 {(A logical development-move. White has again interesting alternatives with Qb3 and Bg5 but I can not find immediately an advantage. )} Nbd7 $5 { (I choose for a natural development of my pieces. Fritz recommends the quick Nc6 but it is unclear if it really gives better chances than Nbd7. )} 10. e3 $5 {(More aggressive is c4 but therefore not necessarily better. ) } Ne4 $5 {(Nb6 recommended by Fritz, is maybe also playable but does not look very attractive to me. )} 11. Be2 $5 {(A3 and c4 are good alternatives but neither give any advantage. )} (11. a3 $5 Ndf6 12. c4 c6 13. cxd5 Nxd5 14. Bg2 Nxd2 15. Qxd2 f4 16. Bg5 fxe3 $11) (11. c4 $5 dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nb6 13. Bb3 Bb4 14. Qe2 Be6 15. Bxe6 Nxd2 16. Nxd2 Bxd2 17. Kxd2 Qxe6 18. Qb5 c6 19. Qb3 Qxb3 20. axb3 $11) 11... Ndf6 12. Qb3 $5 {(White tries to improve slowly his position but maybe this is too slow as whites king stays long in the center which gives black extra counterchances. C4 is an aggressive continuation but neither without risk. )} (12. c4 $5 dxc4 13. Bxc4 Bd7 14. Qc2 O-O-O 15. Nxe4 fxe4 16. Ng5 Ng8 17. Bxg8 Bb4 $13) 12... c6 13. a3 $5 {(Immediately c4 has the disadvantage that b4 becomes available for the black bishop.)} (13. c4 $5 dxc4 $1 14. Bxc4 b5 $1 15. Bf1 Be6 16. Qc2 Bd5 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Qe2 Bxf3 19. Qxf3 $15) 13... Nxd2 14. Nxd2 f4 $6 {(With blacks king still in the center, this looks to me a bit too aggressive. More simple is to complete the development with Be6 with some advantage. )} (14... Be6 $1 15. O-O-O (15. c4 O-O-O 16. O-O-O Bh2 17. Rg2 Bc7 18. Bg5 h6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. Kb1 g5 $15) 15... O-O-O 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bxf6 Qxf6 18. c4 Bc7 19. Kb1 Rhe8 20. Bd3 $15) 15. Bxf4 $6 {(White forgets to profit from blacks risky move. After the game-continuation whites pawnstructure becomes a ruin. )} (15. c4 $1 fxe3 16. Qxe3 (16. Bxe3 O-O 17. O-O-O Bf5 18. Rde1 Qc7 19. Bg4 Bxg4 20. hxg4 Bh2 $13) 16... Qxe3 17. fxe3 Kf7 (17... Bxh3 18. Bg7 Kf7 19. Bxh8 Rxh8 20. Nf3 Bf5 $13) 18. Nf3 Re8 19. Ng5 Ke7 20. Bg7 Bf5 $13) 15... Bxf4 16. exf4 Bxh3 17. O-O-O $6 {(Now black gets sufficient time to complete his development with a big advantage thanks to whites very weak f-pawns. Better is Rg3.)} (17. Rg3 $1 Be6 18. Re3 O-O-O 19. Qa4 Kb8 20. Qb4 Qxb4 21. axb4 Bg4 22. Kf1 Bxe2 23. Rxe2 Nh5 $15) 17... O-O-O 18. Bd3 Qc7 19. f5 Bxf5 20. Bxf5 gxf5 21. Kb1 Rhg8 22. Qc2 $6 {(More precise is direct f3 as the queen has little future on c2.)} Qf4 23. f3 h5 24. Nb3 Nd7 $2 { (The engines recommend that after taking on g1 black can win the f-pawn. During the game I found it too risky as white can infiltrate on the 7th rank but a computer always defends cool and shows that black has nothing to fear. )} (24... Rxg1 $1 25. Rxg1 Qxf3 26. Ka2 Ne4 27. Rg7 Qf2 28. Qxf2 Nxf2 29. Rh7 Ne4 30. Rxh5 Rf8 31. Rh3 f4 32. Rf3 $19) 25. Qf2 h4 26. Rxg8 Rxg8 27. Rg1 $2 {(The rooks are the final drawing chance so exchanging them is not the best decision. Better is Rh1 but it is evident that the extra h-pawn guarantees black a big advantage.)} Rg3 28. Rxg3 hxg3 29. Qe2 Qg5 30. Qe8 Kc7 31. Nc5 Nxc5 32. Qe5 Kd7 33. dxc5 g2 $2 {(I miss in timetrouble the K.O. After Qg8 white has just a few checks and the g-pawn decides. )} 34. Qd6 Ke8 35. Qb8 Kf7 36. Qc7 Kg6 37. Qd6 Qf6 38. Qg3 Qg5 39. Qd6 Kf7 40. Qd7 $2 {(In this minefield it is no surprise that white makes a wrong step. Correct was Qc7 but even then it is not clear if white can hold the position on the long term. )} (40. Qc7 $1 Qe7 41. Qg3 Qxc5 42. Qxg2 Qe3 43. Qg3 f4 44. Qg4 Kf6 45. Ka2 d4 $17) 40... Qe7 $1 {(A risky decision with little time remaining but a correct one.) } 41. Qxf5 Qf6 42. Qd7 Kg6 43. Qg4 Qg5 44. Qe6 Kg7 45. Qd7 Kf6 46. Qd6 Kf5 47. Qf8 Qf6 48. Qc8 Qe6 49. Qf8 Kg6 {(White resigned as there are no more checks. )} 0-1'/>
Despite that I made a good result with d5, I started later to doubt if the opening was well played. In the book Win with the stonewall Dutch published in 2009, was stated that the plan with Bf4 was very efficient in this sort of stonewallpositions which explains why I tried something very different in the next game. The game became extremely sharp with naturally a number of mistakes.
[Event "Interclub Temse - Deurne"] [Date "2010"] [White "Dijckmans, B."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "2188"] [BlackElo "2313"] [PlyCount "61"] 1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. h3 e6 {(In 2003 I played against a French specialist with success d5. However in the book Win with the stonewall Dutch, this move was advised against due to Bf4 followed up with e3 after which white can claim a small advantage. It is not fully clear to me if this is true but never mind. It is pretty clear that e6 leaves more options open so that black can find in a more easy way playable variations. )} 4. g4 b6 $6 {(The British grandmaster Williams Simon Kim recommended this move in one of his Dutch books but it looks very risky to me. Besides in 2007 Williams himself suffered a heavy defeat with this move. Better seems d5 and returning to my game against Legrand Stephane or play the rather unknown Ne4 with similar ideas. )} 5. Bf4 $6 {(It is not clear to me and neither to the engines if this is the best square for the bishop. The more direct gxf5 seems to give good chances to keep some advantage. )} Bb7 6. Nbd2 Nc6 $146 {(I consider this novelty as an improvement on the earlier played alternatives.)} 7. Rg1 fxg4 $6 {(An interesting idea but I have my doubts about the correctness. Somewhat more precise seems afterwards Qe7. The pawn of c7 is of course poisoned due to d6 and the bishop on f8 can be developed via g7. )} 8. hxg4 Bd6 9. Bxd6 cxd6 10. e3 Qe7 11. c3 O-O-O 12. Bb5 Nd5 13. Qa4 Kb8 14. O-O-O Nc7 15. Be2 Rdf8 16. Qa3 $6 {(After this move black can liberate himself. More critical is e4 with some pressure. )} Rf7 $6 {(I decide to play via the half-open f-file. This plan is a bit too slow and the more direct e5 is better. )} 17. Ne4 $6 {(This is an unstable square for the knight. With the very precise g5, removing the critical f6 square and at the same time discouraging h6, white would have retained the better prospects. )} Rhf8 18. Rg3 Nd8 19. Neg5 Rf6 20. e4 Rf4 21. e5 Ne8 22. exd6 Nxd6 23. Ne5 Rxf2 24. Nxh7 Rxe2 $6 {(In severe mutual timetrouble inaccuracies and even mistakes can not be avoided anymore. Here Be4 was correct with equal chances.)} 25. Ng6 $4 {(This looks immediately winning for white but there is a spectacular resort. Correct was Nxf8 which I recommended after the game but a clear win can not be quickly found. )} (25. Nxf8 $1 Bc6 $1 26. Nfg6 Qg5 27. Kb1 Ne4 28. Rh3 $14) 25... Rc2 26. Kb1 Be4 27. Nxe7 Rd2 28. Kc1 Rc2 29. Kb1 Rd2 $4 {(With less than 20 seconds remaining I can not calculate properly anymore the complications and choose for a perpetual check. A missed chance of course but maybe objectively the best as I could have lost easily with time if I avoided the draw. )} 30. Kc1 Rc2 31. Kb1 1/2-1/2" />
The most important lesson which I learned, was that black better chooses for d5 once white has played g4. In a recent game of Open Gent I was able to show my acquired knowledge. I answered g4 immediately with d5 and I didn't wait with c5 but played the move from the moment it became playable. 
[Event "Open Gent 2de ronde"] [Date "2013"] [White "Hannaske, A."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A80"] [WhiteElo "2045"] [BlackElo "2344"] [PlyCount "52"] 1. d4 f5 2. h3 Nf6 3. g4 {(A more precise move-order is likely first Nf3. )} d5 4. Nf3 {(In 1998 I met the weak g5 in Open Gent in my game against Van de Werken.)} c5 {(Not a prepared novelty but board-inspiration. In 2003 I won against Legrand in Open Plancoet with e6. To my big surprise this move is also recommended by Houdini and even recently tested with success in a correspondence game. )} 5. g5 $6 {(A weak response as white releases the tension too quickly in the center which permits black to generate a lot of activity. Better are c4, dxc5 or gxf5 with unclear complications. )} Ne4 6. dxc5 $6 {(Black gets the center for free. Better are c3 or c4.)} e6 7. Be3 Nc6 8. c3 Bxc5 $6 {(The less materialistic e5 was even stronger to push f4 a.s.a.p. in the position. )} 9. Bxc5 Nxc5 10. e3 $6 {(More precise is Nbd2 as e3 only invites black to play f4.)} O-O 11. Nbd2 e5 {(Honestly this was not a planned gambit. I was looking at f4 in this position which is also strong but suddenly noticed that I could activate my bad bishop with e5. I was lucky as only after I played the move, I noticed that i got a lot of activity for the pawn. )} 12. b4 Ne4 13. b5 Ne7 14. Nxe5 Qc7 15. Nef3 $6 {(Nd3 was necessary to prevent blacks next move although after Qxc3 black also has a big advantage. )} f4 {(I do not skip a second chance. When I executed this move, Stefan Docx passed by and spontaneously started to laugh. He obviously read my blogarticle De hollandse schaakanekdote.)} 16. Nxe4 dxe4 17. Qb3 Kh8 18. Nd4 fxe3 19. fxe3 Qg3 20. Kd2 Bd7 21. Be2 Nf5 22. c4 Rad8 $2 {(As the white king stranded in the center, it is clear that white has a difficult position. I chose to play in the center but engines correctly indicate that a6 is stronger.)} (22... a6 $1 23. bxa6 Rxa6 24. Rhf1 $5 Rd8 $1 25. Nxf5 Bxf5 $19 {(The open position, combined with the unsafe king ensures that white can not avoid further material losses. )}) 23. Rhg1 $2 {(Better resistance can be put up via the precise Raf1 but I admit this is rather a computer-move. )} (23. Raf1 Be6 $5 24. Kc1 Nxd4 25. exd4 Qxg5 26. Kb1 e3 27. h4 Qg2 $5 28. Qxe3 Bf5 $15) 23... Qe5 $6 { (Even stronger is Qf2.)} (23... Qf2 $1 24. Rae1 (24. Qc3 Nxd4 25. exd4 Bg4 $1 $19 {(I missed this idea.)}) 24... Nxd4 25. exd4 Qxd4 26. Kc1 Bxh3 27. Rd1 Qe5 $19) 24. Kc2 Nxd4 25. exd4 Qxd4 26. Rg2 $6 {(A blunder in an already very difficult position. Qc3 would have permitted to continue. )} Qxa1 0-1'/>
This was obviously not a perfect game but it does show why it can be advantage on my chesslevel to play the same opening for many years on the condition that you stay alert and are willing to learn from each game.


No comments:

Post a Comment