|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
The Bishop's Opening Explained Reviewed by Rick Kennedy
The Bishop’s Opening is the Gumby of King pawn openings. Bend it this way, you have the Vienna Opening. Bend it that way, you have the Giuoco Piano. Give it a twist, you have the Petroff. Give it another twist and you have the Two Knights Defense. Squash it flat and you get a Philidor’s Defense. Unroll it and you have a Four Knights Game. Pull it to its limits and you can wind up with a closed Ruy Lopez. Snap it, and you get a King’s Gambit. The opening’s flexibility once moved Tim Harding, (whose out-of-print pioneering study thirty years ago is still worth searching for) to title one of his 1998 “Kibitzer” columns “What Exactly Is the Bishop’s Opening?” Luckily, we now have Gary Lane to explain. The Bishop’s Opening Explained is the prolific International Master’s second book on the topic, having written Winning with the Bishop’s Opening in 1993. The new title packs more than an ordinary update might, as Lane candidly admits the earlier book had been written on a now-extinct Amstrad word processor – and the data disks have since been lost, in any event! Fortunately Lane plays and likes 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4, and he sets out to educate the club and tournament player anew on how to “dictate the pattern of play from as early as the second move ” (back cover blurb).
The book’s format is a familiar one, that of annotated games (67 in this case) grouped in chapters by variation. Covered are the expected Paulsen Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6), the Urusoff Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4), the Boden Kieseritzky Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3), and Unusual Replies (2…f5, 2…b5, 2…c6); as well as transpositions to the Closed Two Knights Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3) and Closed Giuoco Piano (1.e4 e5 2Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5). In addition, The Bishop’s Opening Explained has three chapters on Vienna Opening lines (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 & 3.Nc3), one on the Evans Gambit Accepted (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4) and one on the Evans Gambit Declined (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.b4 others) – all not covered in Winning with the Bishop’s Opening, where there was a greater emphasis on the Closed Giuoco Piano. (About 80% of the games in Explained were played after 1993, when Winning appeared.) Each chapter has a short History section at the beginning, and an explanatory Conclusion at the end. Never a widespread favorite amongst modern Grandmasters, the Bishop’s Opening was, nonetheless, revived in the 1960s by Bent Larsen, and again in the 1980s by John Nunn, among others. Adams, Anand, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Morozovich and Short have all tried their hand at it at one time or another. Some masters found it a useful way to avoid the Petroff Defense, which was annoyingly drawish at the time, or to play a quiet Giuoco Piano or Two Knights. They didn’t seem to mind the fact that they often entered an equal middlegame – as long as they knew the positions and strategic ideas better than their opponents and were confident about outplaying them, they had their “+/=”. This is the same edge Lane aims to give his readers. (We are, after all, talking about Gary Lane’s The Bishop’s Opening Explained, not Weaver Adams’ legendary White to Play and Win.) Presenting an opening by way of a collection of games gives the reader a sense of the flow of the play, the middlegame positions reached and the typical endgames. When the author uses his own games to illustrate, he can share what he was thinking at critical points in the game. Compared to the less fashionable, but more complete, opening analysis by variation, such as that found in Harding’s Bishop’s Opening (1973) or the Bishop’s Opening chapter in Emms’ Attacking with 1.e4 (2001), occasional transpositions can be missed, or unusual or new moves left out. It is up to the annotator to decide how many games and which variations are important enough to include in the notes. I think Lane is successful in presenting a well-rounded “explanation” of the Bishop’s Opening which will be of value to club and tournament players – those new to the opening, and those already familiar. The Bishop’s Opening Explained is not, however, encyclopedic. This means first off that readers are encouraged to keep their earlier books on the opening, as coverage of lines varies from book to book, and all will retain some lines that others have dropped or overlooked. The Paulsen Defense is given good coverage in nine games (including one by Kasparov with white) and can be illustrated by one of Lane’s efforts, against Henris in Brussels 1995: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 a5 6.a3 a4 7.Ba2 Bd6 8.Nc3 dxe4 9.Ng5 0-0 10.Ngxe4 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Be7 12.Qh5 Nd7 13.0-0 Qe8 14.f4 Ra5 15.Bd2 Rb5 16.Bc4 Rxb2 17.fxe5 Rxc2 18.Rxf7 Rxc4 19.Rxf8+ Qxf8 20.dxc4 g6 21.Qe2 Nxe5 22.Bc3 Bg4 23.Qe3 Qf5 24.Ng3 1-0 Lane gives a half-dozen game to illustrate a transposition into the Two Knights’ Defense. Here is one of his games with some of the aforementioned “tricks”: Lane – Paterson, Sidney 2002: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.0-0 f6 7.Re1 Bg4 8.Nxe5 fxe5 9.Qxg4 Nf6 10.Qe6+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Bxe7 12.Bb5 0-0 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Nc3 Bd6 15.h3 Nd5 16.Ne4 Nb4 17.Re2 c5 18.Be3 Na6 19.b3 Rad8 20.a4 g6 21.Bg5 Rb8 22.Nf6+ 1-0 Five games (one-third of the number of Italian Game games in the earlier Winning with the Bishop’s Opening) illustrate the Closed Giuoco Piano, and again, here’s a Lane game: Lane – Erwich, Antwerp 1996: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bb3 Bb6 8.Re1 Na5 9.Bc2 Ng4 10.d4 f5 11.h3 fxe4 12.Bxe4 d5 13.Bg5 Nxf2 14.Bxd8 Nxd1 15.Bxd5+ Kh8 16.Be7 exd4 17.Bxf8 dxc3+ 18.Kh2 cxb2 19.Re8 Be6 20.Rxa8 Bxd5 21.Ba3+ Bg8 22.Bxb2 Nxb2 23.Nc3 c6 24.Re1 1-0 There are seventeen games covering various lines in the Vienna Opening, where the author prefers the sequence 1.e4, 2.Bc4 & 3.Nc3 (although sometimes he gets in d2-d3 as well). He likes the “Vienna Copycat” line 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Qg4, and of course has some games on the Frankenstein-Dracula variation 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxe4 4.Qh5. By comparison, transposition into the King’s Gambit Declined seems tame: Lane – Jackson, British Championship 1989: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d3 Bc5 5.f4 d6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Na4 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nd4 9.Qd1 b5 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Nxc5 exf4 12.Nb3 Ne6 13.0-0 g5 14.g3 fxg3 15.Bxg5 gxh2+ 16.Kh1 Nxg5 17.Qh5+ Ke7 18.Qxg5 Rf8 19.Nd4 Qe8 20.e5 dxe5 21.Qxe5+ Kd7 22.Qf5+ Kd6 23.Rae1 1-0 You can see that Lane not only likes and analyzes the Bishop’s Opening – he plays it and enjoys it as well! I took a peek at two gambits that caught my eye, the Boden-Kieseritzky and the Urusoff. (Lane’s conclusion on the Evans Gambit – he gives over a dozen games – for those of you who are wondering: “The Evans Gambit is still a viable option and particularly suited to past time-limits. Therefore give away your pawns and win!”) After 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3 Lane gives some background:
Capturing the Knight with 4…Nxc3 leads to main lines of the Boden-Kieseritzky. Play continues 5.dc f6 (best) and here Lane prefers 6.Nh4 over the alternative 6.0-0. (This is a switch from 1993, based in part on a 17-move loss by White in a 1994 game – given in the book.) After looking at the four games presented in the chapter, I would have to say that the author’s evaluation of the gambit is “unclear,” as the History section ends with a moan “…I suspect White is left struggling to justify the pawn sacrifice…” while the Conclusion crows “An improved way to handle the position after the pawn sacrifice is revealed in Rublevsky – Scetinin [Pardubice 1992] where the grandmaster playing White wins in style.” Notes to that game point out that after 6…g6 7.f4 Qe7 8.f5 Qg7 9.fxg6 hxg6 10.Qg4 Kd8 11.Qg3 Nunn’s Chess Openings sees the position as unclear, while Lane sees White as having compensation. In fact, while the sidelines in the annotations often feature a material advantage for Black, White is always credited with having enough counterplay. This may be a bit discouraging for those who want to see a clear “+/-” for White, or it may be somewhat encouraging for those who are tired of seeing the gambit dismissed out of hand. There are safer alternatives for Black in 4…Nd6 and 4…Nc6. Lane touches on both, although interested players might want also to see what Schiller and Watson have to say about the moves in their The Big Book of Busts (1995) and Survive & Beat Annoying Chess Openings: The Open Games (2003) if they want to avoid sliding from an equal game to one with a disadvantage. Of course, while The Bishop’s Opening Explained gives a good introduction to the spirit and the play of the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit, it is not encyclopedic, and those who wish to wield that sword and shield and emerge victorious ought to look at more games (my collection is over 600) and do some analysis of their own. A niggling example: after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.dc f6 6.Nh4 g6 7.f4 club players are likely to see the very reasonable move 7…c6 – What’s one more pawn move, especially if it helps build the pawn center? – which was dismissed by Lane (and others elsewhere) in 1993, based on analysis by Hooper in his Complete Defense to 1.e4 (1966): 8.f5 d5 9.fxg6 dxc4 10.Qh5 Kd7 11.g7 Bxg7 12.Bh6 with a clear advantage to White. Games in the 80s and 90s have suggested, however, that White does better with the straightforward 12.Qg4+ Kd7 13.Qxg7+ Nd7, picking up the piece and tying up Black’s Queenside, even if the Queens eventually come off of the board. White has compensation for his pawn, but it is hard to see the “clear advantage.” Furthermore, 9…Bg7 (instead of the greedy 9…dxc) seems to maintain Black’s full pawn center and after 10.Bb3 h5 11.0-0 Na6 12.Be3 a draw was agreed to in Steinert – Moller, corr 1992. Wouldn’t 10.Bd3!, however, give White dynamic chances? It’s all lots of fun, and in the spirit of Tseitlin and Glazkov, in their The Complete Vienna (1995) when they say that the Boden-Kieseritzky “deserves more detailed investigation” – about 150 years after Boden started to do so. As for The Bishop’s Opening Explained, it does not mention 7…c6. I will give the final word on the Boden-Kieseritzky to IM Harding with whom Lane would no doubt agree:
Although in The Bishop’s Opening Explained, Lane usually follows 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 with 3.d3 or 3.Nc3, he makes exceptions for gambit play – the Evans, the Boden-Kieseritzky, and the Urusoff. The latter is reached after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4.
This position, from Avrukh – Skripchenko Lautier, Anibal Open, Linares 2001, drew the comment:
The difficulty with playing the Urusoff Gambit is not a lack of attacking chances for the club and tournament player (Harding writes of “the eternal appeal of the Urusoff Gambit’) but that it can be avoided, after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 ed 4.Nf3, if Black plays 4…Nc6, transposing into the Two Knights Defense, or after 4…Bc5 with hopes to transpose to the Max Lange Attack. Lane helpfully presents a line to deal with each dodge, with the sage caveat that the Max Lange ought be side-stepped, as it “is only suitable for those with plenty of time to study.” Again, the chapter is an introduction and a warm-up, not the full story. My only “complaint” is that the author is a bit light on mentioning early alternatives like 3…d5, 3…c6, 3…Nc6, 4…d5, and 4…Bb4+. Some can transpose into lines Lane gives, some do not. (The most complete analysis of the Urusoff Gambit these days can be found, of all places, in Müller and Voigt’s Danish Dynamite (2003) – sub-titled Explosive Gambits: the Danish Göring, Scotch and Urusov.) Beginners, improving players, and Class tournament players new to the topic should both enjoy and learn from Lane’s latest effort. If you’ve been playing the Bishop’s Opening successfully for years, and have several resources on your shelf, the book might be worth purchasing for completeness’ sake, but it is likely not essential. (Borrow it from one of your buddies and see if it’s got what you need. If it does you can always go out and buy it, right?) If The Bishop’s Opening Explained
leaves you convinced that 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 should be added to your repertoire,
and you want to gain an even deeper understanding (eventually your club
mates will force this on you when they get tired of losing and do some
research themselves), you might also want to look up Harding’s many
“Kibitzer” columns (www.chesscafe.com)
on the Bishop’s Opening, the Urusoff Gambit, the Frankenstein-Dracula
variation, etc. Harding has mused about updating his Bishop’s Opening
book, and we can only hope he finds the time! Also, be sure to visit
Michael Goeller’s wonderful and complete Bishop’s Opening website at
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/urusov/bishops/index.html. I
also would recommmend Dany Sénéchaud’s online article on the
Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit at
http://www.mjae.com/boden-kieseritzky.html. It’s in French, but if
you can’t or won’t wrestle with that, the analysis is worth checking out all
by itself.
|
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
