English Chess Forum

A routine case of trying to bash the King down the f file. One threat is to play f5-f6, then Qc3-d2-h6-g7 mate. I suppose Black has to play .. f6, but it's still the case as Black, that you are trying to identify the threats and fend them off.

Because it's far easier for white to build up a kingside attack from that position than it is for black to do anything meaningful.

Where is White's "pleasant initiative" here?
r1bqr1k1/p2p1pbp/2np1np1/2p3B1/2B1P3/2N2N2/PP1Q1PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 11

Again, try to do something meaningful as black. White has better-placed pieces and chances of a kingside attack.

And once the backward d6 pawn falls (as it will at some stage), the pawn on c5 is instantly vulnerable.

Is it not already close to winning for White? White to move would take the d6 pawn. Black to move seems to only have the moves 1...Qc7 or 1...Ne5 or 1...Na5 (or even 1...h6 or 1...d5), and you would suppose White has something concrete after those moves. Why would the annotator stop and assess the position here as a "pleasant initiative"? Surely a few more moves should be given?

Fritz 5.32, incidentally, evaluates the position as -0.25, and recommends 1...Bb7 for black.

Silly computer. Giving up the d6 pawn and trying to win the e4 pawn - that will never work...

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Fritz 5.32, incidentally, evaluates the position as -0.25, and recommends 1...Bb7 for black.

So what has it got after 2.Qxd6?

NickFaulks wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Fritz 5.32, incidentally, evaluates the position as -0.25, and recommends 1...Bb7 for black.

So what has it got after 2.Qxd6?

2...Na5, to be followed by ...Qb6.

1...Bb7 2.Qxd6 Na5 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.e5 presumably fails to something, or peters out to equality.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:1...Bb7 2.Qxd6 Na5 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.e5 presumably fails to something, or peters out to equality.

I was wondering if anyone would follow up on this. Would the time spent analysing this position (followed by use of a computer engine) be useful or not? i.e. Is this a good training position? Is it another position from a Grivas book (mentioned earlier in the thread)?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Is this a good training position?

A pragmatic way of answering that question would be to establish if a position with similar themes was likely to arise in your own games.

Trying to work out the opening from the position, it looks as if it might be one of the more modern interpretations of the Benko. Black has played b5xc4 and White retook with the Bishop. Also Black left out an early .. d6 and White tried to take advantage of this with d5-d6. If the assessment with the help of the engine is equal, that's practical knowledge to 1 d4, 2 c4 players and Benko ones of what ideas are available in those types of positions. Particularly it seems the initial glance of "crushing for White" is nowhere near true.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:1...Bb7 2.Qxd6 Na5 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.e5 presumably fails to something, or peters out to equality.

4.e5 probably loses to 4. ... Nc4. Instead White's 4.Ne5 is better.

1. Bb7 isn't a very good attempt. Black should instead try 1... Na5 2. Bxf7+ Kxf7 3. Nd5 (3. Bxf6 Bxf6 4. Qd5+ Kg7 5. Qxa8 Bxc3 6. bxc3 Nc6 7. Rfb1 Qe7 8. Rb8) 3... Kg8 4. Nxf6+ Bxf6 5. Qd5+ Kg7 6.e5 , which engines shuffle to =.

It's not an easy position to analyse, is it? Jack has already checked it with an engine. Are there any other strong players around who might be willing to give their view on whether this is an easy position to assess (the position in the diagram above)? And what they think the verdict should be?