Caro Kann - Panov Attack
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:17 pm
It has always seemed to me that so many opening books, whilst often excellent in their way, tend to neglect, or minimise, the significance and playability of alternative lines of play in standard openings, even where these lines are very natural and superficially very hard to refute.
No doubt a large part of the reason for this is the limitation on the size of books necessitated by commercial considerations, and the fact that the authors are struggling to produce their drafts on time. An examination of every reasonable possibility in every position would make opening monographs ludicrously lengthy. But sometimes the omissions are so glaring as to be maddening.
A case in point is the position that occurs in the Panov Attack against the Caro Kann after:- 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Qb3 Bg7 7. cxd5 00 8. Be2 etc.
Every book I have come across about the Caro, such as Jacob Aargaard's "Easy Guide to the Panov-Botvinnik Attack" (Cadogan, 1998) to take a prominent example (and all general opening monographs as well for that matter) take it as read that after 6. Qb3 black has to play 6...Bg7, gambitting a pawn for uncertain compensation. He may well wish to do that, but there seems no reason why he cannot simply hold with 6...e6.
Admittedly at first sight the move is slightly suspect because he is leaving his dark squares a bit weak and you feel that white must have some really convincing refutation of this move, but some explanation for the unplayability of the move would be nice. Yet it is never given.
I have now subjected the move to deep computer analysis and there seems to be absolutely no reason to suggest the move is unplayable. Even 6...dxc4 may be playable, and the two variations can easily transpose into each other.
Fritz's analysis indicates that 6...e6 is probably no way inferior to the regulation 6...Bg7. So why never any mention of it in the scholarly tomes?
I have tried to attach the relevant Chessbase file so that readers can judge for themselves but it doesn't seem to allow me to do so. if anyone can tell me how I would be only too happy to upload it.
No doubt a large part of the reason for this is the limitation on the size of books necessitated by commercial considerations, and the fact that the authors are struggling to produce their drafts on time. An examination of every reasonable possibility in every position would make opening monographs ludicrously lengthy. But sometimes the omissions are so glaring as to be maddening.
A case in point is the position that occurs in the Panov Attack against the Caro Kann after:- 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Qb3 Bg7 7. cxd5 00 8. Be2 etc.
Every book I have come across about the Caro, such as Jacob Aargaard's "Easy Guide to the Panov-Botvinnik Attack" (Cadogan, 1998) to take a prominent example (and all general opening monographs as well for that matter) take it as read that after 6. Qb3 black has to play 6...Bg7, gambitting a pawn for uncertain compensation. He may well wish to do that, but there seems no reason why he cannot simply hold with 6...e6.
Admittedly at first sight the move is slightly suspect because he is leaving his dark squares a bit weak and you feel that white must have some really convincing refutation of this move, but some explanation for the unplayability of the move would be nice. Yet it is never given.
I have now subjected the move to deep computer analysis and there seems to be absolutely no reason to suggest the move is unplayable. Even 6...dxc4 may be playable, and the two variations can easily transpose into each other.
Fritz's analysis indicates that 6...e6 is probably no way inferior to the regulation 6...Bg7. So why never any mention of it in the scholarly tomes?
I have tried to attach the relevant Chessbase file so that readers can judge for themselves but it doesn't seem to allow me to do so. if anyone can tell me how I would be only too happy to upload it.
