Transpo Tricks in Chess E-Book

Andrew Soltis

• Herausgeber: Batsford
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 397

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

 In chess, a transposition is a known position reached by a different move order than usual – a less obvious way of getting to somewhere you want to go, leading to confusion for your opponent. Every chess player has a number of them in his arsenal, and they are used most often in openings. There are transpositional tricks in all openings, but this is the first book devoted to them. As the book covers all the key openings variations it can be used by most chess players. The introduction explains what transpositions are and why they're invaluable, followed by 8 chapters discussing transpositions, illustrated by some notorious examples from top-flight matches. Chapters are divided by opening group – Double e-pawn openings; Sicilian Defense; Other Semi-Open openings; Double e-pawn openings; Indian openings; Other 1 d4 openings; Reti, English, 1 g3. The benefits and drawbacks of each set of move orders are discussed throughout.   This is an ideal book for all club players and is written by one of the best chess writers in the world today.

Leseprobe

First published in the United Kingdom in 2007 by

B T Batsford An imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd The Old Magistrates Court 10 Southcombe Street W14 0RA

Copyright © B T Batsford 2007

Text copyright © Andrew Soltis

The moral right of the author has been asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

First eBook publication 2013 eBook ISBN 9781849941051

Also available in paperback Paperback ISBN 9780713490046

This book can be ordered direct from the publisher at the website: www.anovabooks.com

Contents

Introduction

Chapter One:     Double KP Openings

Chapter Two:     Ruy Lopez

Chapter Three:  Sicilian Defense

Chapter Four:   Semi-Open Games

Chapter Five:    Double QP Openings

Chapter Six:      Indians

Chapter Seven:  Dutch Defense and Flank Openings

Index of Opening Variations

Introduction

Openings have become so complex and convoluted that we’ve forgotten our basic goal in them. The reason we pick, say, 1 e4 over 1 d4 – or 11 h3 rather than 11 e3, for that matter – is simply to reach a middlegame we want to play.

Unfortunately, our opponents are making choices too, in order to reach the middlegame they want to play. It’s rarely the same middlegame.

How do you get the one you want? Unfair as it may be, you can’t rely on your legendary positional skill, your better-than-Fritz calculating ability or your iridescent personal charm. What you can use is trickery – the trickery of transposition.

Consider this opening: 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 f6 4 0-0 xe4 5 d4, the main line of the Ruy Lopez’s Berlin Defense.

In 99 of 100 games Black continues 5…d6 or 5…e7 and life goes on.

But lurking in the warren of footnotes of ‘book’ is 5…a6!?. It’s usually followed by the comment ‘If 6 a4, then 6…b5 7 b3 d5 transposes to the Open Defense.’

Since it’s a footnote we take little notice. After all, 5…a6 ‘just transposes.’ That tells us it doesn’t really matter because it only leads to some other opening, something irrelevant on that page.

But 5…a6 has been a valuable weapon for players from Paul Morphy to Vasily Ivanchuk. Its power lies in how it gets Black where he wants to go – to the Open Defense – and avoids what he wants to avoid – the Exchange Variation (3…a6 4 xc6).

Finesses like that are rarely appreciated except when they make new ‘book’. That was the case in Botvinnik-Capablanca, A.V.R.O. 1938, an instantly famous game that began 1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 c3 b4 4 e3 d5.

White’s 5 a3 xc3+ 6 bxc3 seems obvious today. But in 1938 it was a masterstroke. ‘The idea of the move is typically modern – to transpose into a favorable variation which would not be reached in any normal manner,’ Reuben Fine wrote.

In truth, there is a normal manner, the discredited 4 a3 xc3+ 5 bxc3 d5?!, which allows White to rid himself of a doubled pawn. Botvinnik used 5 a3! to trick Capablanca into that favorable version of 4 a3.

We don’t judge transpositions by the same standard as we do other moves. An original opening idea, a TN as they’re called, is evaluated by the new position it creates. But a transposition by definition reaches an old position, as 5 a3! brilliantly did. Instead, you should judge it by its effects, especially:

How it degrades your opponent’s choices or improves your own

A basic strategy in any opening is to increase the options at your disposal. Take this familiar position.

This is a ‘tabia,’ that is, a standard starting point in a major opening. In this case it’s a tabia that has served as the launching pad for thousands of Dragon Sicilians, which often continue 10…e5 and …c8/…c4.

But in a 1997 game, Anand-Ki.Georgiev, Black tried 10…a5!?. White quickly appreciated the difference: After the natural 11 b3 Black could transpose into more familiar lines with 11…c8 and 12…c4 13 xc4 xc4. But 10…a5 gives Black an extra option, …xb3+, that he may employ depending on White’s next few moves. In other words, Black gets to choose whether he wants to transpose with …c4 or not.

Instead of trying to figure out how dangerous …xb3+ would be White made a practical choice, 11 e2!. This is a counter-finesse. It takes away Black’s extra option and leaves the knight with nothing better to do than go to c4.

This had a bonus effect because a move order finesse can also be judged by:

How it unnerves or confuses your opponent

Objectively, 11 e2 is no better than 11 b3. But psychologically it was a potent blow – and transpositions typically have greater psychological power than objective strength.

After 11…c8 12 b1 Black couldn’t bring himself to play the best move, 12…c4, because it would create the middlegame White wanted to play. Black had more or less decided, when he passed up 10…e5, that he didn’t want that middlegame.

So he chose a very different policy, 12…a6?. In the Dragon such slow moves often prove fatal, as in this case:

13 g4! b5 14 h4 e6 15 a3 h5 16 g5 hxg4 17 h5! gxh5 18 xh5 c5 19 fxg4 xc3 20 xf6 xf6 21 xc3 c4 22 xc4 bxc4 23 xc4 and White won.

This shows how transpositions play tricks not just with move order but with your opponent’s equanimity. When he realizes he is being dragged into your middle-game, he may lose the normal composure that players enjoy in the opening, when they confidently rattle off the first 15 moves. Players who lose their confidence make mistakes.

Let’s go back to 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 f6 4 0-0 xe4 5 d4 a6. Giovanni Vescovi was rated No. 60 in the world when he first saw that position from the White side, in 2005. He decided not to be tricked into the Open Defense.

But that meant choosing 6 xc6?!, which turned out to be a prelude to a worse idea, 6…dxc6 7 e2 f5 8 g4? g6 9 h4.

Black could have refuted that with 9…d7! 10 xe5 xd4, as Johannes Zukertort played way back at London 1883 (!).

Vescovi spent 40 minutes to find that dubious line. That leads to a another criterion of a transposition. It can be measured by:

How it gets your opponent to think

The real battle of the opening begins when you can force your opponent out of his book knowledge. Only then does he risk making errors and spending costly minutes.

That was case when Vishy Anand was Black in a speed playoff game at a big-bucks event in 1994. In the Petroff Defense, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 d4 xe4, his opponent failed to play 4 d3, the move considered virtually automatic. He played 4 xe5!? instead.

Anand began calculating furiously, trying to find out what was wrong with White’s move. But there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just unfamiliar. After spending two of his precious five minutes, he played 4…d6 5 f3 d5 and reached a book position.

This was a case of a move whose major benefit was simply to give the other player something to think about. Typically, these moves do not reduce his options. Rather they increase them, giving him more to consider.

There really isn’t much value, for example, to 1 d4 c6 and then 2 c4 d5 compared with the normal route, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6. But this order, employed by Anatoly Karpov among others, gets White debating with himself over whether he knows more about the Caro-Kann (2 e4) than the Slav. Or what he would do about 2 c4 b5!?. A strange move order can do that.

A ‘something to think about’ move can cost your opponent more than minutes. It can prompt a bad decision. The most drastic recent example of that befell Vladimir Kramnik in what was then the most important game of his life, the final game of a 1994 Candidates match.

His opponent, Boris Gelfand, opened with 1 c4 and there followed 1…c5 2 c3 f6 3 g3. This position had occured gazillions of times before – but never to Kramnik. As routine as 3 g3 was, it confused him. He replied 3…d5 4 cxd5 xd5 and then on 5 g2

…he played 5…e6?? ‘almost without thinking,’ according to his opponent. Kramnik was assuming he would transpose, after 6 f3 c6, to another tabia that is quite good for Black.

But 6 xd5! cxd5 7 b3 won a pawn (7…c4 8 b5+), the game and the match. The confusing effect of 3 g3 set back Kramnik’s world championship aspirations for several years.

And there’s a fourth way of evaluating a crafty transposition, by:

How it preserves your mental health

We all have to deal with an ever-expanding amount of book analysis. Almost as bad as trying to memorize all that at home is trying to remember it at the board. This can be maddening.

We’d love to cut down the amount of book we need to know and still reach the middlegames we like. The best ways to save our midnight oil – and our sanity – is through transpositions. Consider the main line of the Winawer French, 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 c3 b4 4 e5.

The familiar path is 4…c5 and then 5 a3 xc3+ 6 bxc3 e7. But White has numerous sidelines such as 5 dxc5, 5 d2, 5 g4 and 5 f3. Theory regards these as not quite as good as 5 a3. But in practice they are dangerous to an ill-prepared Black.

Rather than spend hours studying them. Black can play 4…e7!. This used to be purely a prelude to 5 a3 xc3+ 6 bxc3 b6. But Wolfgang Uhlmann showed that 6…c5! was a simple transposition to the 4…c5 main line. Black gets the benefits of the normal move order without having to agonize over the 4…c5 sidelines. It’s the ‘mental hygiene’ move order.

Every transpositional trick has to be judged by a balance sheet: What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? Which order counts more? Some, like 4…e7, may have more plusses than minuses. Other’s like Kramnik’s 5…e6?? are disastrous.

But the vast majority are somewhere in between. The bottom line is not whether they give you a superior position but whether it’s a position you want to play. Ideally, it’s also one your opponent wants to avoid.

Consider 1 e4 c5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6 5 c3 d6 and now 6 h3 e6 7 g4. This transposes into a conservative version of the Keres Attack, in which White relies on a slow buildup with g2, rather than g4-g5.

However, Andreikin-Kosteniuk, Tomsk 2006 went 7…a6 8 g5 d7 9 h4.

This is another book position from the Keres Attack – but White has lost a move because he spent two tempi to get his h-pawn to h4. A lost tempo should make a huge difference.

But what mattered most was Black’s unfamiliarity with Keres-like positions. After 9…de5?! 10 e3 b5?! she was worse and after 11 xc6 xc6 12 d2 b7 13 f4 c7 14 f2 b8 15 a3 d7 16 f5 e5? 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 h3 she was lost. White’s objectively bad 8 g5? worked brilliantly as a transposition. It was really 8 g5!.

‘IT JUST TRANSPOSES’

Some opening positions can come about from two, three or more logical orders. Books – and even experienced players – tend to dismiss an alternative route because ‘it just transposes’. But each route is likely to have benefits and liabilities that a shrewd transposer knows to evaluate. Take this position from the Taimanov Sicilian. It’s White’s move and when it was analyzed, by Mark Taimanov, in the 1972 edition of ECO he claimed Black wins.

In fact, White has a good reply, 10 f5!. The critical line is 10…e7!, which forces 11 xg7+ f8 12 xc5 xc5+ 13 h1 xg7 14 e5.

Whether this is sound is in dispute and that means both White and Black may be interested in reaching the diagram. There are three quite reasonable routes to it.

One is 1 e4 c5 2 f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 c6 5 c3 c7 6 e3 a6 7 d3 f6 8 0-0 and now 8…b4 9 f4 c5. But if Black seeks the diagram this order is seriously flawed: White has a strong alternative in 9 xc6! and 10 a4.

The second route is forcing. Black attacks the h-pawn with 8…d6. White’s instinct is to meet the threat with a threat, 9 f4. But he realizes Black isn’t going to allow 10 e5. So he’ll be aware that Black is planning to transpose, with 9…c5! to the diagram, and may look instead for alternatives such as 9 h3.

The third route, 8…e7!?, is the most deceptive. An experienced Sicilian player in White’s chair would recognize that the thematic move is 9 f4. He would see that the natural 9…d6 transposes into a book Scheveningen. So he’ll play 9 f4 – allowing Black to reply 9…c5 and get where he wanted to go. Of the three, 8…e7 may be Black’s best route to the diagram.

THE LURE OF THE FAMILIAR

There are players, like Uhlmann, Lajos Portisch and Mihai Suba, who used finesses of move order solely to reach the middlegame they want. There are others, like Bent Larsen, who also use them as ‘confuse-moves’ to pose puzzles or to get their opponents to think. And then there are tricksters.

The trickster looks for the crafty way to reach the middlegame he wants. He knows, for example, that when opponents are confronted with an unfamiliar move, they are strongly, even irrationally, tempted to look for a way to reach a recognizable position.

Laszlo Szabo fell victim to that temptation in the 1953 candidates tournament when his game with Paul Keres began 1 d4 d5 2 f3 f6 3 c4 dxc4 and then 4 c3 and 4…a6.

That was unfamiliar to him. But he remembered getting a very good game once with 4 a4+ bd7 5 c3 a6. After studying the position for a while he played 5 a4+, seeing that 5…bd7 would transpose.

A stunned Keres took 15 minutes to make sure he wasn’t dreaming. Then he played 5…b5! and won easily (6 xb5? d7).

A much more common, and less painful, error occurs when a good player takes the easy way out of an unfamiliar position and transposes to a recognizable one. He may do this even if he suspects – or knows for certain – that he is playing an inferior move.

You’ve seen this happen when a 1 e4 player meets 1…c6 with 2 f3. He knows that books recommend 2 d4!. But about half of all 1 e4 c6 games continue 2 f3 because White wants to transpose to the familiar (2…e5).

Similarly, when a 1 d4 player faces 1…d5 2 f3 c6 3 c4 e5?!, he is likely to transpose into the Albin Counter Gambit, 4 dxe5?! even though he suspects 4 xe5! is better.

The trickster exploits that foible of human nature. The rest of us have to be willing to punish him for taking such liberties. For example, 1 e4 c5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6 5 c3 g6.

This order gives Black all the tactical benefits of an Accelerated Modern Dragon without allowing the Maroczy Bind as the Accelerated does. But there is a big minus – 6 xc6 sentences Black to either a dubious middlegame (6…bxc6 7 e5) or a no-fun endgame (6…dxc6 7 xd8+).

Nevertheless the trickster will weigh the risk of being squeezed to death in a Maroczy Bind against the risk of White playing 6 xc6!. The odds are on his side. A database check finds White played 6 xc6! less than a third (327 of 1,000 games) of the time. Even super-GMs like Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal played the inferior 6 e3 to return to a position they knew.

Examples like that should tell you to beware those words ‘it just transposes.’ There is usually a plus, a minus, an extra option to consider. If you don’t, you are allowing your opponent to control the direction of the opening. And the price may be ending up in the middlegame he wants.

Chapter One: Double KP Openings

Trickery begins with the oldest openings, like the King’s Gambit Accepted. Today’s theory says the KGA (1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3) is no longer dangerous because of 3…d5 and then 4 exd5 f6 with equal chances.

If that makes Black happy, he should consider the ‘something to think about’ order of 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 exf4!?, as played by Anatoly Karpov and Artur Yusupov.

What is there to think about? Well, for starters, White wonders whether he should head into the book line with 4 f3f6 or try 4 f3, which transposes into the Breyer Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 d5 4 exd5. But the Breyer is harmless and Black can even try the sacrificial 4…f6 5 b5+ c6!?, recommended by Yacov Estrin.

This order can upset a Bishop’s Gambiteer. There are few 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 c4 players who are comfortable in KGA positions, which they would reach by playing 4 f3 in the diagram.

So they’ll look at 4 c4 and realize it transposes into an ugly Bishop’s Gambit – 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 c4 and then 3…d5 4 exd5 rather than the recommended 4 xd5.

That’s a psychological trap because White doesn’t really stand badly after 4 exd5!?f6 5 c3 and then 5…c6 6 d4. He has simply transposed into the main line of the normal Bishop’s Gambit, that is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 c4 f6 4 c3 c6 5 d4 d5 6 exd5. But it takes a lot of clock time to figure that out over the board.

If Black doesn’t like the …d5 KGA or wants more than equality he can aim for this:

It’s a tabia that’s been studied since the 1860s and today is regarded as excellent for Black (8 g3 h3! 9 f2 f6! or 9 gxf4 d7! 10 f2 f6).

But Black can’t force his way to it from the traditional 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 order. He needs to use misdirection.

Bobby Fischer’s try was 3…d6 and then 4 c4 h6! 5 d4 g5 6 0-0 g7 7 c3 c6 reaches the tabia.

The problem with 3…d6 is that 4 d4 threatens 5 xf4 before Black can put his kingside house in order with both …g5 and …h6. His best is 4…g5 5 h4 g4 after which 6 g5? f6! is unsound but 6 g1 leads to double-edged play.

There is no objectively better move than 4 d4. But there is a more confusing one, 4 c3!?.

The natural 4…g5 falls into a trap because 5 h4 transposes into a better-than-usual version of Allgaier Gambit (5…g4 6 g5 h6 7 xf7 xf7, rather than 6…f6 7 h3 gxh3 8 h5+).

In contrast with the normal Allgaier, 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 g5?! h6 6 xf7 xf7 7 c4+ d5!, White has an extra move, c3, which is better than Black’s extra …d6?!.

Viktor Korchnoi claimed that 4…h6! favors Black in the diagram. It may be his best but after 5 d4 g5 6 g3! we’ve reached a position that often occurs in KGA lines and the evaluation is at best fuzzy.

For example, 6…fxg3 7 hxg3 g7 8 c4 and 8…g4 9 f1 d7 10 d3, Gallagher-Jurgens, Bad Worishofen 1994. Remember the 6 g3 position. We’ll see it again.

Black can try to improve on the Fischer defense with the neglected 3…h6, again seeking that good-for-Black tabia. This can confuse White unless he knows that 4 d4 g5 and 5 c3! d6 6 g3! reaches the fuzzy line.

That leaves us with 3…g5. The Romantic-era continuation was 4 c4 g4 but 4…c6! clears a path to the tabia.

Black invites 5 0-0 g7 6 d4 h6 and so on. Once White plays 4 c4 he can’t insert h2-h4 effectively because 5 h4? g4! 6 g5 boomerangs badly after 6…e5! 7 b3 h6 8 d4 hxg5 9 dxe5 g7.

The best answer to 3…g5 is supposed to be 4 h4, which rules out the tabia after 4…g4 5 e5. However, the analysis of that position is immense and White may be tempted by the confuse-move 4 d4. Then 4…g4 5 xf4!? gxf3 6 xf3 is an unusual Muzio-like line that served Alexander Morozevich well.

The safe response is 4 d4 h6 since 5 h4 g7 6 g3 g4! is promising for Black. But 5 c3! and 5…d6 6 g3 puts us in the fuzzy position again.

BISHOP’S GAMBIT

If your opponent is a Bishop’s Gambiteer, you have good reason to fear he’s better prepared than you, a lot better. The careful transposer will answer 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 c4 with the forgotten favorite of Mikhail Tchigorin, 3…c6.

Black can then meet the natural 4 f3 with 4…g5!, reaching that good form of the KGA that we considered in 3 f3 g5 4 c4 c6!. This is a psychological plus because, as noted before, Bishop’s Gambiteers are often uneasy in a KGA.

The bonus is that White has some natural but bad responses, such as 4 c3? which allows a strong 4…h4+ 5 f1 c5. Whether White has an edge after 4 d4 f6 5 e5 d5! is murky (6 b3 e4).

VIENNA GAME

There are two types of Vienna players. The first don’t want to memorize volumes of Ruy Lopez theory. The second is booked up and prepared to inflict volumes of Vienna theory on you, such as with 1 e4 e5 2 c3 f6 3 c4 xe4 4 h5.

Against either kind of opponent it may pay to be devious as early as 2…d6!?.

This looks prohibitively passive. But White has to be careful since 3 f4 exf4 and then 4 f3 h6! 5 d4 g5 is that fuzzy KGA again.

White’s best is probably 4 d4 or 4 c4. But few Vienna players are familiar or comfortable with KGA lines in which Black gets to play …h4+.

Well, what about 3 c4? Then 3…c6 leaves White to decide whether to allow 4 d3 a5!? or plunge into another unfamiliar KGA (4 f4 exf4 5 f3 h6 or 5…g5 6 h4 g4 7 g5 e5).

Instead, he may assume that simple development, 4 f3, will punish 2…d6. That transposes into a Hungarian Defense after 4…e7!?. The Hungarian has a stodgy, I-can-defend-any-cramped-position reputation but it’s based on White expanding with c2-c3 and d2/d4 or b3.

Expansion like that isn’t possible here and it’s doubtful he has more than an optical edge after 5 0-0 f6 6 d4 g4! or 5 d4 f6 6 h3 0-0 7 0-0 d7 8 d5 cb8 (Movsesian-Efimov, Pula 1997).

There’s much more experience with the other ‘beginner’s move,’ 2…c5, which has been put to good use by Karpov, Bent Larsen and Vasily Smyslov. Books used to claim Black is already worse in view of 3 f3c6 4 xe5! xe5 5 d4.

But Black has a good alternative in 3…d6! since 4 d4 exd4 5 xd4 e7 or 5…c6 heads toward a reasonable version of the Scotch Game after 6 e3, 6 b3 or 6 xc6 f6.

For example, 5…c6 6 e3 b6 7 d5 f6 8 xb6 axb6 9 f3 0-0 10 c4 d5!. Or 10 c4 e8 11 c2 d7 12 d2 de5 13 e2 e6 14 b3 f5 with good play for Black in Zarnicki-Bianchi, Buenos Aires 1989.

White can stay in Vienna mode with 3 f4. Then 3…d6 is a King’s Gambit Declined in which White has forsaken c2-c3, his most ambitious plan in the KGD, and books disagree about his chances for advantage.

There is also 3 g3, which transposes into a main line of Louis Paulsen’s variation. Black’s only minus is relinquishing the book-recommended defense (1 e4 e5 2 c3 f6 3 g3 d5!). So 2…c5 has no major drawbacks or benefits and is more of a ‘something to think about’ move.

CENTER GAME

Most players who meet 1 e4 with 1…e5 know that 2 d4 exd4 3 xd4 c6 4 e3 is neutralized by 4…f6 5 c3 b4 6 d2 0-0. That’s about all that anyone remembers. But White has a confuse-move in 5 d2.

This often has the effect of scaring Black into another defense, such as 5…e7 6 c3 0-0 7 0-0-0 – that is, transposing into the less ambitious 5 c3 e7 6 d2 0-0.

But this is primarily a bluff because if Black meets 5 d2 with 5…b4! White has nothing better than transposing into the book line with 6 c3!.

The other finesses in the Center Game arise if Black is afraid of a line that hardly anyone knows about. This is 5 e5!?, rather than 5 c3 or 5 d2. That seems to just lose a pawn but 5…g4 6 e4 gxe5? allows 7 f4.

To play 4…f6 with confidence Black should know a little about crazy lines like 6…d5 7 exd6+ e6 and then 8 a6 or 8 e2! f6 9 dxc7 xc7.

But he can save himself a lot of worry and/or study by picking another fourth move. One is 4…b4+, with the idea of reaching the equalizing book line after 5 c3 f6. The drawback is Black may have to face White’s extra options, such as 5 c3 a5 6 c4 or 6 g3.

Black’s other alternative in 4…e7.

Then 5 c3 f6 transposes into that 4…f6 5 c3 e7 line, as Boris Spassky and Alexander Alekhine did.

But there’s another wild card for Black to worry about, 5 g3 and then 5…f6 6 e5, which Paul Keres said favors White, or 5…f6 6 c3 ge7 7 d2 as in Ziemacki-Fatyga, correspondence 1992 (7…d6 8 0-0-0 e6 9 f4).

So Black has to decide whether the drawbacks of 4…b4+ or 4…e7 outweigh the merit of avoiding the rare 4…f6 5 e5!?.

DANISH GAMBIT

The Danish is a blood relative of the Goring and Scotch Gambits. The Danish has the poorer reputation of the three but White can try to improve with 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 and now 3 f3!?, rather than the Danish 3 c3.

This succeeds after 3…c5 4 c3 dxc3? 5 xc3 when he’s transposed into 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 xc3 c5? 5 f3, a ludicrous defense to the Goring Gambit. (But 3…c5 4 c3 d5 or 4…e7 in the diagram are virtually untested.)

Another version of the Goring arises after 3…b4+ and then 4 c3 dxc3 5 xc3. This forgotten variation is quite playable after 5…c6 6 c4 d6 7 g5 xc3+ 8 bxc3 e5 and now 9 b3 h6 10 f4! hxg5 11 fxe5 e7 12 d5 dxe5 13 xg5!.

The main benefits to 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f3 are forcing Black to start thinking at move three and preventing him from playing a Petroff, e.g. 3…c6 4 xd4 or 3…c5 4 xd4 c6.

Black’s chief alternative is 3…f6. Then 4 e5 is another Petroff line, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 d4 exd4 4 e5, that Black has been avoiding for years (by playing 3…xe4!). It’s not a bad line but few Black players will know the theory and that makes 3 f3 a worthy weapon against a Petrofessional.

BISHOP’S OPENING

Independent lines in the Bishop’s Opening are somewhat rare today. Instead, 2 c4 is used primarily as a route to the Vienna or Giuoco Piano that allows White to seek or avoid specific Vienna and Giuoco positions.

He benefits from 2 c4 if he likes 2…c6 3 c3 f6 4 d3 or 2…f6 3 d3 c6 4 c3 but doesn’t want to try to get there via the Vienna because of the chaotic 2 c3 f6 3 c4 xe4!?.

Note that after 1 e4 e5 2 c4 f6 3 d3 and the natural 3…c5:

Then c3 gets White into a Vienna without having to face 2 c3 f6 3 c4 c6 4 d3 b4 or 4…a5. Black retains those options with the more precise 3…c6!. There’s a reason they say ‘Knights before bishops.’

The other direction White can go after 2 c4 is towards the Pseudo-Lopez. That is a Ruy Lopez-like system that can begin 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c4 followed by 4 d3, 5 c3 and bd2, 0-0, b3 and eventually d3-d4.

It has many of the benefits of a regular Lopez, minus the 30 tons of published theory. The primary virtue of using 2 c4 to reach those positions (2…f6 3 d3 c6 4 f3) is that White avoids the Petroff.

PHILIDOR’S DEFENSE

Books used to ridicule the Philidor because of White’s space advantage. But young masters are challenging that view. To them the key issue is how to reach this tabia.

The traditional order, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 d7, named after the U.S. Civil War major James Hanham, allows White to win the two bishops, 4 c4 c6 5 0-0 e7 6 dxe5! dxe5 7 g5 xg5 8 h5.

Aron Nimzovich helped popularize another sequence, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 f6. This is more likely to get Black to the tabia (4 c3 bd7 5 c4 e7) because few opponents are willing to wade into the 4 dxe5 xe4 5 d5 complications.

If Black is concerned about 4 dxe5 he should consider offering an endgame, because even fewer Whites will trade queens after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 e5!?. Emanuel Lasker used this version in a world championship match against David (‘I detest endgames’) Janowsky. Today’s players, like Michael Adams, are more confident on the Black side of 1 e4 d6 2 d4 f6 3 c3 e5!?.

Now 4 f3bd7 transposes to Nimzovich’s line and 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 xd8+ xd8 is a slightly worse endgame, e.g. Vaisser-Rontaine, French Championship 2006 went 6 c4 b4! 7 d2 e7 8 f3 c6.

Black was soon equal (9 ge2 bd7 10 c1 b5! 11 e2 d6 12 a4 b4 13 d1 a5), then better (14 e3 b6 15 d3 g6 16 b3 fd7 17 c3 bxc3 18 xc3 f6 19 b2 c5) and eventually won.

Note that the 1…d6 orders have the added benefit of cutting down White’s 1 e4 e5 options, such as 2 f4, 2 c4, 2 c3 and so on.

There’s a separate chapter in Philidor theory in which Black gives up the center, such as in 1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 exd4 and then 4 xd4 g6 or 4…f6 5 c3 e7.

White can try to exploit this with Henry Bird’s 4 c4!?.

A key point is that 4…c6 5 xd4 is a fine Scotch Game. And 5 c3 dxc3 6 xc3 transposes into a good Scotch Gambit. It’s as if Black met 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 xc3 with 5…d6 6 c4.

The test of 4 c4 is 4…f6. In the first ECO Lev Polugayevsky gave 5 g5 d5 as favoring White (6 exd5 h6 7 f3 b4+ 8 c3 dxc3 9 a4+ and wins).

On the same page he considered 1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 f6 4 g5!? exd4 5 c4 d5 and called it equal. It’s the same position.

Better, after 4 c4 f6 5 g5, is 5…e6. This dates back to Paul Rudolf von Bilguer, who thought 6 xe6 fxe6 7 xe6 e7 (8 c8! xe4+ 9 e2) was even. To modern eyes this looks like a slight White edge. Therefore 4 c4!? is more than just a confuse-move.

Observe that in traditional (1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6) orders, White can try 3 c4 with the idea of 3…d7 4 0-0 e7 5 d4. In this way he avoids 3 d4 exd4 and traps Black in the inferior Hanham line.

Better is 3…e7! 4 0-0 f6 which leaves White with a tiny edge after 5 e1 0-0 6 c3 bd7 7 d4. More ambitious is 3…f6!? 4 g5 d5 5 exd5, which reaches a Two Knights Defense in which Black is a tempo behind.

But the missing tempo is …c6, which may benefit Black since the knight is not attacked here. He can create an unclear position with 5…h6 6 f3 d6 or 6…e4 7 e2 b4 8 c3?! 0-0! (Miguel Najdorf).

PETROFF DEFENSE

The Petroff is so annoyingly solid that a frustrated White will be sorely tempted to transpose into another opening. The Paulsen brothers popularized 1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 c3 to reach a Four Knights Game, for example.

Their 19th Century colleagues tried 1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 d4 exd4 and 4 c4 in an effort to get into a Two Knights (4…c6), which is terra incognita to a Petroff player. But the critical line is 4…xe4!, the dubious Prince Yurosov Gambit.

These days 3 d4 xe4 is more common, and theory says the chances are roughly balanced after 4 d3 d5 5 xe5. Yaacov Murey’s discovery, 4…c6, enables Black to avoid this. It’s based on 5 xe4 d5 6 d3 e4, which appears to be sound.

If White wants to avoid Murey and seek a main line he can do it with 4 xe5!?.

Then 4…d5 5 d3 transposes into the main line as if 4 d3 d5 had been played.

This order gives Black an extra option, 4…d6!? 5 f3 d5. He’s transposed into the ‘other’ Petroff, the 3 xe5 line, which White presumably wanted to avoid when he chose 3 d4. This skirmishing – Murey’s 4…c6, the preemptive 4 xe5 and the counter-finesse 4…d6 – has nothing to do with finding the objectively best move but rather seeking the position in which your opponent will be most uncomfortable.

The ‘other’ Petroff is the most popular today and it runs 3 xe5 d6 4 f3 xe4 5 d4 d5. The Smyslov alternative, 5…e7 6 d3 f6, has a stodgy reputation because 7 h3 leaves Black’s QB without a good sqaure. Then 7…0-0 8 0-0 d5 transposes to a favorable Exchange French in which h2-h3 is an extra move.

White can try to trick his opponent into the Smyslov line via an order popularized by Alfonso Romero Holmes, starting with 5 d3!?. Then 5…c5 6 e2 gives him 7 d4 with tempo. So 5…f6 6 0-0 e7 7 h3! is more common.

White reaches a Smyslov after 7…0-0 8 c3 d5 9 c2 e8 10 d4. It’s a more conservative form of it because White has given up on the useful c2-c4. But it’s also a much more modest position for Black than many Petroff players can tolerate.

The best challenge to 5 d3 is 5…d5 and then 6 e2 e7. A typical case was Romero Holmes-Garcia Padron, Las Palmas 1991: 7 0-0 c5 8 e1 xe2 9 xe2 e6 10 d4 c6 11 c4! b4 12 c3 0-0 13 a3! xc3 14 bxc3 b6 15 e5 d8 16 a4! f6 17 g4 and White won.

A later Petroff tabia begins with 3 xe5 d6 4 f3 xe4 5 d4 d5 6 d3 followed by some Black mixture of …g4, …e7 and …c6. But the order is in dispute. In the definitive 19th Century authority, the Handbuch, Emil Schallop recommended 6…e7 7 0-0 c6 followed by …g4. But others argued for 6…c6 7 0-0 e7, or even 6…g4 7 0-0 c6 and …e7 as Carl Schlecter recommended in his version of the Handbuch.

We can dispense with the last order, since 6…g4 allows 7 e2! with an edge after 7…e7 8 0-0 c6 9 b5! and xc6+, or 7…f5 8 h3 h5 9 g4!.

Garry Kasparov said 6…c6 7 0-0 e7 8 e1 g4 was fine for Black.

On 9 c4 Black has 9…f6 10 cxd5 xf3! with a good game. But he added that White gets an initiative if he undermines the knight a move earlier with 8 c4!.

That’s why Karpov preferred 6…c6 7 0-0 g4 in their 1985 match, so Black could meet 8 c4 with 8…f6!? Then 9 c3 is considered best (9…b4 10 g5! or 9…dxc4 10 xc4 e7 11 d5!) and the results of 9…xf3 10 xf3 xd4 11 h3 have been in White’s favor lately.

The bottom line is that no order is universally endorsed. Jan Timman and Alexander Belyavsky like 6…c6/7…e7 while Vishy Anand, Vladimir Kramnik and Alexey Shirov preferred 6…e7/7…c6 – and Yusupov plays both.

Another tabia arises after, say, 6…c6 7 0-0 e7. White usually chooses between undermining the e4-knight with 8 c4 or attacking it with 8 e1. Isaac Kashdan had success in the 1930s with a line that runs 8 c4 b4! 9 cxd5 xd3 10 xd3 xd5 11 e1 f5.

The Kashdan line still holds up well today, and if Black likes it he can try to reach it even after 8 e1. He does that with 8…f5, rather than the popular 8…g4.

Then 9 c4 b4 10 cxd5 xd3 transposes to what Black wants – which White probably doesn’t as he could have sought it directly with 8 c4.

PONZIANI OPENING

The Ponziani (1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c3) gets no respect today. But if Black is caught off guard by 3 c3 he can bail out with 3…f6 4 d4 d6.

There doesn’t seem to be anything in 5 c4 xe4!, so 5 b5, transposing to the old Steinitz Defense of the Ruy Lopez, is played most often.

The Steinitz is regarded as a clumsy antique but this is a Steinitz in which White has played conservatively (1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 d6 4 c3?! f6 5 d4 instead of 4 d4!).

This order was a favorite Ponziani evasion for GMs like Smyslov and Yefim Geller and it has no major drawbacks, e.g. 5…d7 6 0-0 e7 7 e2 0-0 8 d1 e8 (threat of …xd4!) 9 d5 d8 11 c4 c6 11 a4 b5! as in Manik-Mokry, Olomouc 1998.

But if, on the other hand, Black knows his way in a sharp line of the Scotch Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 f6!? 5 e5 e4) he can transpose into it from the Ponziani by means of 3… f6 4 d4 exd4!.

SCOTCH GAME

White can get into a major Scotch variation via the Four Knights (1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c3 f6 4 d4 exd4 5 xd4). If that’s a position he wants to play, this is the best order because 4…b4?! is dubious. In contrast, in the traditional Scotch order, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 exd4 4 xd4 Black can avoid this line via 4…c5, among others.

There are several finesses in the Four Knights line after 5…b4 6 xc6 bxc6 7 d3.

Now 7…d5 8 exd5 cxd5 9 0-0 0-0 10 g5 is played with almost robotic uniformity and is very slightly in White’s favor or even, depending on whom you read. But there are several diversions starting with 8…e7+!?.

Theory has gone back and forth about the value of 9 e2. In any case, against an opponent who likes to keep queens on the board, 8…e7+ has obvious merits.

But if White is happy in an ending, he can try to force it by meeting 8…cxd5 with 9 e2+!? so that 9…e7 transposes. There are extra benefits when an endgame-hating Black plays 9…e6 (10 b5+! d7 11 c6 d4 12 e4) or 9…e7 (10 g5 0-0 11 0-0-0!? with better-than-usual chances).

Black can anticipate this and rule out endgames through another route to the tabia devised by Georg Marco, 7…0-0 and then 8 0-0 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 g5. This appears to be the most exact – and the most deceptive since White will begin thinking about 8 g5 and the threat of 9 e5. Black is worse after 8…d6, so 8…d5:

Black’s point is 9 e5 e8! and White is the one surprised, e.g. 10 f4? g4 11 e2 f6 (12 exf6 gxf6 13 h3 fxg5 14 hxg4 xg4! 15 xh7+ g7 and he resigned in Candela-Korneev, Ponferrada 1997).

If White spots that and heads instead towards the tabia, with 9 exd5, Black can use an extra option, 9…xd5!. This hits at g5 and g2 and after 10 xf6 e6+ and 11…xf6 he stands well.

These days Black is more concerned about the standard Scotch order, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 exd4 4 xd4 and then 4…f6 5 xc6 or 4…c5 5 xc6. For that reason, he can try to reach the Four Knights version with 4…b4+!?.

Now 5 c3 f6 transposes to it, and considering the current view of theory, that would be a small victory for Black. The obvious objection to 4…b4+ is 5 c3. Then 5…c5 6 e3 b6 reaches a book position – from 4…c5 5 e3 – but with an extra c2-c3 for White.

Who benefits? White gets added protection of d4. But he loses one of the major assets of the Scotch, the knight hop from c3 to d5. Recent practice indicates Black is OK after 7 f5 xe3 8 xe3 f6 because White cannot defend the e-pawn with c3 (and 9 d2 allows the equalizing 9…d5). Or 7 c4 d6 8 0-0 f6 9 d2 e5! 10 e2 0-0 11 h3 e8 as in Goloshchapov-Brodsky, Hoogoveen 2006.

And what about the standard order, 4 xd4 c5 5 e3, threatening xc6? Much midnight oil has been spent on 5…f6. The mental hygiene alternative is 5…b6!.

Now 6 c3 d6 and 7…f6 or 6…f6 transpose to a solid Four Knights/Scotch line. For example, Sveshnikov-Mi. Tseitlin, Budapest 1989 went 6 c3 d6 7 g3 f6 8 g2 0-0 9 xc6 bxc6 10 xb6 axb6 with equality.

Another trendy line is 4…f6 5 xc6 dxc6 5 e5. Black can avoid that with 4…f6. Then he is trying to reach, not avoid, the 5 e3 c5 position. This order has the added benefit of dodging another difficult line, 4…c5 5 b3.

The best try at punishing 4…f6 is 5 b5 c5 6 e2. But the verdict is out on 6…b6 or 6…d8 (and …a6).

At one time the fate of the Scotch seemed to hinge on the soundness of 4…h4. Today there’s doubt that the queen move is even playable. Its fate depends on how we evaluate this tabia.

The final word on 7…xc3+ 8 xc3 or 8 bxc3 is still to be written. But equally important is finding White’s best way to the diagram. There are four routes.

(a) 5 c3 b4 6 db5 xe4+ 7 e2 gets there. But Black does much better with 6…a5! and …a6, e.g. 7 e2 a6 8 d4 xc3+ 9 bxc3 f6 10 xc6 dxc6 11 e5 g4 (Renteria-Miktov, Minneapolis 2005). For that reason White should prefer:

(b) 5 c3 b4 6 e2! and then 6…xe4 7 db5. If Black varies with 6…f6 7 0-0 xc3 then 8 f5! is potent, e.g. 8…xe4 9 d3 g4 10 f3! a4 11 bxc3 0-0 12 xg7! with a winning attack in Karjakin-Malinin, Sudak 2002.

But White may opt for 5 b5 because it is more forcing and seeks something better than the diagram. For example:

(c) 5 b5 xe4+ 6 e2 b4+ 7 1c3 gets to the diagram. But White can improve with 7 d2!, with elaborate lines following 7…xd2+ 8 xd2 e5 9 f4!, for instance.

(d) Black can try to improve with 5…b4+ since 6 1c3 xe4+ 7 e2 transposes. But again the bishop interpolation, 6 d2!, is better and reaches (c) after 6…xe4+ 7 e2.

The main problem with 5 b5 is 5…c5 and then 6 e2 d4, when White doesn’t reach the diagram or prove a clear edge. As it stands now, (b) may be the most accurate.

FOUR KNIGHTS GAME

The main Four Knights line for most of the last century was Johannes Metger’s ‘unpin’, after 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c3 f6 4 b5 b4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3:

Black breaks the pin with 6…d6 7 g5 xc3 8 bxc3 e7 and …d8-e6/…c5 sets up a dark-square blockade. This is Black’s best way to play for a win in the Four Knights, since Akiba Rubinstein’s 4…d4 allows a draw-minded White 5 xd4 exd4 6 e5.

There are ways for White to avoid the Metger – and still play to win – and other ways for Black to seek it. White’s sidestep is 7 e2, which has been revived by Daniel Campora, who showed that White’s edge in a symmetrical position (7…e7) is something he can work with.

For example, 8 c3 a5 9 g3 g6 10 d4 c6 11 d3 e8 12 h3 b6 13 e1 h6 14 c2 c7 15 e3 e6 16 c1! ad8 17 a4 a5 18 f5 d5 19 xg7!, Campora-Baron Rodriguez, Lanzarote 2003.

Black can avoid this by capturing on c3 earlier. Reuben Fine did it with 6…e7 7 g5 xc3 8 bxc3. To avoid the drawish 8…d6 9 xc6 he played 8…d8!:

Now 9 d4 d6 is the Metger position. If White starts the knight maneuver with 7 e2, Black has 7…d5!?, e.g. 8 exd5 xd5 9 g3 f4 10 d4 g6 11 c3 d6, Levenfish-Alatortsev, Moscow 1940.

Nevertheless the more popular method is to delay …e7, as in 6…xc3 7 bxc3 d6 and 8 g5 e7). This was a favorite order of Frank Marshall and Smyslov.

GIUOCO PIANO/TWO KNIGHTS

There’s a recognized boundary after 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c4 that separates the Giuoco, 3…c5, from the Two Knights, 3…f6. But the border is often blurred by transposition.

With 3…c5 Black is avoiding certain lines, such as 3…f6 4 g5, which have good reputations, or even the questionable Max Lange, 3…f6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 c5 6 e5!?.

White can try to push Black into the Lange via 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c4 c5 and now 4 0-0. Castling was once ridiculed but today it’s often seen as an alternate route to the Pseudo-Lopez (4 0-0 f6 5 d3). There is also 5 d4!?.

Now 5…exd4 6 e5 lands Black in the Lange he presumably wanted to avoid. If he still feels that way, 5…xd4! and 6 xd4 xd4 7 g5 d6 8 f4 e7 or 8…e6 is the antidote. But Yakov Estrin argued that White had reasonable chances. What’s certain is that this is much better than 4 d4 xd4 5 xd4 xd4 6 f4? (6 0-0 transposes) d5! 7 exd5 h4+ 8 g3 h3, which favors Black.

Because 3…c5 makes no threat White has more freedom than in the Two Knights. He can head towards the Pseudo-Lopez with 4 d3, 4 c3 or 4 0-0 while retaining other options.

Theory says 4 c3 can be met by 4…f6 or 4…e7 5 d4 b6. But if holding e5 as a strong point is Black’s intent, it’s more precise to play 4…b6. Then 5 d4 e7, as the Berlin Pleiades played, transposes.

The rationale for 4…b6 is that …e7 is not as useful as …b6 in the Pseudo-Lopez. White can change his mind after 4…e7 and switch to 5 d3 with idea of hitting the vulnerable queen later on with e3-d5 or f5. The minus to this order is that after 4…b6 5 d3 Black will have lost a tempo if he feels …a6 and …a7 are necessary later on.

Note that 3 c4 c5 is a route to the Canal Variation (4 c3 f6 5 d3 d6 6 g5!?), one of the most promising Giuoco lines. White can’t reach it via the Four Knights because of 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c3 f6 4 c4? xe4! and he needs Black’s cooperation in the Vienna order. However, he can get to it in the Two Knights Defense, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c4 f6 if he avoids 4 c3? xe4! and plays 4 d3! and then 4…c5 5 c3.

In a standard Two Knights order, 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c4 f6 4 g5, there are two offbeat but related lines, 4…d5 5 exd5 d4 and 5…b5. They don’t look at all alike. Yet they transpose after 5…d4 6 c3 b5! 7 f1! and 5…b5 6 f1! d4 7 c3.

Black’s choice should depend on which line is likely to provoke a bad response by White, such as 5…b5 6 dxc6?! bxc4 7 e2 h6 8 xe5+ e7 which favors Black. Hans Berliner revived 5…b5 in his world postal championship run, explaining that 5…d4 ‘is less clear’ after 6 c3.

Another move order issue in the Two Knights concerns the periodically revived 4 d4 exd4 5 e5 d5 6 b5 e4 7 xd4.

It was once assumed Black must reply 7…d7, Paul Morphy’s move, after which 8 xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 c5 and 10