Je ne peux m'empêcher de donner une partie très intéressante qui s'est terminée par une déconfiture des Noirs. J'avais été très impressionné par le jeu de mon adversaire que j'avais déjà rencontré lors d'un open à Paris. Najib Draoui a dépassé la barre des 2400 Elo FIDE à ce jour.
Draoui Najib (MRC) (FIDE 2278)
Fournier Frederic (FRA)
Cappelle-la-grande FRA
Cappelle-la-grande FRA
27/02/2003, Open, ronde 7
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. dxe5 fxe4 5. Ng5 d5 6. c4 Bb4 7. Nc3 d4 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 e3 10. f4 c5 11. Bd3 Ne7 12. O-O Bf5 13. g4 Bxd3 14. Qxd3
14... b6? [Et voilà l'erreur fatale, la réponse ne s'est pas faite attendre. J'ignore encore pourquoi la réponse évidente 14...Nbc6 ne s'est-elle pas manifestée à ce moment là. J'avais longuement analysé 14... Qc8? mais 15. f5! (15. h3? Nbc6 16. Ne4 O-O 17. Nxc5 Nxe5 18. fxe5 Rxf1 19. Qxf1 (19. Kxf1 Qf8 20. Ke2 Qf2 21. Kd1 Rf8-+) 19... Qxc5 20. Qe1-+) 15... Nbc6 16. cxd4 cxd4 17. Bb2± Nxe5? 18. Qxd4+-; il restait donc pour les Noirs 14... Nbc6!? 15. e6 dxc3 16. Qxd8 Rxd8 17. Nf7 e2 18. Re1 Rd1 reste complexe mais tout n'est pas perdu pour les Noirs] 15. Ne6! Qd7 16. f5 [16. Nxg7 Kf8 17. e6+-] 16... Nbc6 17. Nxg7 Kd8 18. e6 Qd6 19. Bxe3 [19. Bxe3 Kc7 20. cxd4 cxd4 21. Rad1 Kb7 22. Bxd4 Rhg8 23. Bf6+-] [1:0]
HERE MY NOTES ON www.chesspublishing.com during Spring/2006:
RépondreSupprimerThe sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3 d6 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe4 or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 is cited in some of the classical works I know, at least in "Winning with the Philidor" (Kosten, 1992) and "The Philidor Countergambit" (West, 1996), but in this point they don't say anything on 5..Nf6, the correct answer instead of 5..d5. This last move is also known in Latvian gambit circles from long time ago as dubtious, not only for 6.Nxe5!?, if not also specially on 6.Neg5 h6 7.Nf7! - indeed, it is not Motwani's reccomendation, the move is known from a game Stepanov-Maljutin, Moscow, 1992 -.
The reply 5..Nf6 is the only correct one and it has been tried by M. Downey ( first LG World Tournament champion ), Holland S. De Jong and I myself (!?). In "Myers Opening Butlletin", Maurits Wind already reccomended 6.Nxf6+ gxf6! but the line was already known by Alapin and Zuckertort who analyzed 6.Qe2 and 6.Bd3 respectively - I don't see anything after 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6 8.Bxf6 gxf6 either or even 7..gxf6!? -.
After 5..Nf6 6.Nxf6 gxf6! ( it's easy to imagine logical 6..Qxf6?! is dubtious after 7.Bg5 ) I have 13 games in my base. It would be appropiate to think on benefiting relatively on Black King's broken flank after 7.Nh4 but 7..Be6 8.Qh5+ Bf7 doesn't anything, Hence, 7.dxe5 is played awaiting 7..fxe5? 8.Ng5! ( 8.Bc4 h6 still with some defence ) 8..Qf6 9.Bc4 with attack according Polugaievsky and played in Schwertel-Burghardt, corr., 1990-91, but, of course, the correct way is 7..dxe5!.
Now the changes of Queens it is not suitable for White, the position is innocuous and Black's King have not any danger in the centre. Some examples:
8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Be3 Bg4 10.h3 Ba6 11.0-0-0 Nd7 12.Kb1 Bd6 13.Nd2 Ke7 (Sebastian-Hector, Spain, 1989, 0-1,39)
8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bd3 Be6 10.0-0 Nd7 11.Nh4 c6 12.Bf5 Bxf5 13.Nxf5 Kc7 = (Gnirk-Melchor, corr. ICCF thematic, 2004-06)
8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bd2 Bc5 or 9..Bg4 (Maurits Wind)
Another tries:
8.Bd3 Nc6? 9.Bd2 Be6 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Qe2 Rg8 12.Rfe1 0-0-0 = (Drüke-Downey, corr. LG thematic, 1990)
8.Bd3 Nc6? 9.Ng5!! fxg5 10.Qh5+ Kd7 11.Bxg5 Be7 12.Bf5+ ( or 12.Bb5!? Qg8 13.0-0-0+ Bd6 14.Bf6 is even better) 12..Kd6 13.0-0-0+ Nd4 14.Bf4! +- with a very strong attack (Leko-Tornyai, Keckskemet, 1992, 1-0,22)
but 8.Bd3 Bg4 ( or 8..Be6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Be4 Qd6, but not firstly 8..Nc6? by 9.Ng5! again ) 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.Bd2 ( 10.Be3 Qd5 = ) 10..Nd4 ( 10...Dd7 too ) 11.Qe3 ( some better 11.Qe4 ) 11..Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qd7 ( 12...Qd5!? ) 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 = (Schmidt-Lenz, Platz, 1996).
The most interesting ( and exciting ) games, almost identical, was:
8.Nd2!? Be6 9.Qf3 Bd5?! 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Be3 c6 12.0-0-0 Nd7 13.Rxd5!! cxd5 14.Qh5+ Kf8 15.Bb5! Nb6 16.Rd1 with:
a) 16..h6 17.Qg6 Rg8 18.Ng3 Bc5 19.Nh5 Be7 20.Bxh6+ Rxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kf7 22.Rd3 Rg8 23.Rf3 Rxg2 24.Rxf6+ Kg8 25.Ng3 Qh7 26.Qg5+ 1-0 (Krantz-Downey, corr.,1990-91), and
b) 16..Kg8 17.Rd3 Bf8 18.Be8! Qe7 19.Bc5 1-0 (De Jong-Melchor, corr., ICCF thematic, 1998-99)
Of course, it is necessary to improve Blak's play; a simple idea is 9..Nc6 10.Bb5 Qd7 with idea Bg4 and / or 0-0-0 ( also 10..h5!? 11.0-0 Be7 ) 11.Ne4 ( 11.Qxf6 Rg8 12.0-0 Be7 and 0-0-0 with clear compensation ) 11..0-0-0! 12.Nxf6 e4!?.
Another idea: 9..c6 10.Ne4 Nd7 ( 10..Bg7 11.Bh6! ) 11.Be3 Qa5+
As you can see there is a nice game with 6..Nf6, so I don't understand somebody gave up with 4.Nc3 ...
In any case, besides works of Kosten and West I know the book and analysis by Schiller and Watson in “Survive & Beat annoying chess openings –The open games-“ (2003) too, and certainly, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 ( or 2..f5 3.d4 d6 ) 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 d5 6.e6 is one of the best replies against the gambit, …but no definitive either !?.
Essentially the whole variation is quite well analyzed on Watson long analysis and even in the Bilguer (!) Bible of past century and even some of the model old games are already valid at present, but “Bubu13” I will try to demonstrate that the variation is completely viable:
A) 6..Nf6?! of Pollock-Bird, Bradford,1888, In accordance with Kosten and West point of view, after 7.Nf7 Qe7 8.Nxh8 Bxe6 –unclear, Mechkarov-, and assuming knight on h8 is captured, “his strong centre will provide good compensation for the exchange” ( Kosten dixit ) but I am not completely sure for instance after 9.Nc3 g6 ( or 9..c6 ) 10.Bg5! c6 ( 10..Qg7? 11.Nb5! ) 11.f3 exf3 12.Qxf3 Bg7 13.Bd3 and 0-0 with strong preassure on e and f files.
B) 6..Bc5?! with two important deviations:
- 7.Nc3 Nf6! 8.Nf7 Qe7 9.Nxh8 Bxe6 with idea of ...Nc6 and 0-0-0 unclear ( Hugh Myers ), 7..c6 is also possible but very complicated 8.Nf7 Qf6 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Bxe6 11.Nxh8 and now not 11..g6? ( Kosten ) 12.Qd4, neither 11..Qg5?! 12.Qd2 Nf6 ( Mlotkowski ) 13.Ne2! Nbd7 14.Nf4 Ke7 15.Qb4+ c5 16.Qxb7 Rxh8 17.Bb5; and finally if 11..Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh6 ( Kosten ) 13.Ne2! with idea of Nf4 and if 13..Qxe3 then 14.Qd4
- 7.Nxe4! Be7 8.Qg4 ( 8.Ng5!? Kosten, 8..Bxg5 – 8..Qd6!? - 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qg5 West, and now I would suggest 10..Nf6!? 11.Bd3 Bxe6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Re1 Qd7 13.b3 with a small pressure ) 8..g6 9.Ng5 Nf6 ( 9..Nh6 10.Qh4 Bf8 West “The Dynamic Philidor Countergambit” page 43, and now I suggest 11.Qd4 Rg8 12.Nc3 c6 13.Bd3 White advantage ) 10.Qa4+ c6 11.Nf7 Qb6 12.Nxh8 Ne4 13.f3 Bh4+ 14.Kd1 Qf2 15.Be2 Qxg2 16.Rf1 and now I don’t understand 16..Nf2+ 17. Kd2 Bf6 1/2 - 1/2 ( draw !!) in Geenen-Henris, Belgium Ch.,1995 so if 18.Ke1! Nh3 19.Nf7 Qxh2 20.Qg4 Na6 21.Nd6+ and White wins with his extra Rook !; also if f.i. 16..Qg5+ 17.f4 Qg2 18.Nc3 Bxe6 19.Qd4 +-. James West in a very long analysis ( page 42 ) with 16..Bxe6 claims Black compensation after: 17.Be3 Nd7 18.Nd2 ( 18.Nf7! Bxf7 19.fxe4 avoiding ..Bg4 as in 18.fxe4 Bg4! is best even !?, analysis ) 18..Nf2+ 19.Kc1 Ng4 20.fxg4 Qxe2 21.Qf4 0-0-0 ( with compensation, West ), but I don’t see any counter play after 22.Qf3! Qxf3 ( if not 23.Nf7 ) 23.Nxf3 Bf6 24.Bg5
C) 6..Bb4+ the intermediate check with the idea on playing the same variation of 6..Bc5 without the possibility of 7.Nc3 is very well-known from a game Sax-Kosten, Hastings 1990-91. English player analyzes the game deeply in his own book “Winning with the Philidor” ( pages 24-25 ) but I would like to add something more ...
After 7.c3 Bc5 8.Nxe4 Be7 9.Ng5 Bxg5 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qxg5 he himself discredit 11..Nf6 because of 12.Bd3 and now instead of 12..0-0 where I would suggest 13.f4! indeed, I would play better 12..Bxe6 directly, and thus if 13.0-0 0-0 14.Re1 Qd7 15.Be3 Nc6 16.Nd2 I see only a slight advantage for white, but no more. Ideas like Kosten’s recommendation 14.Bxg6?! would be dubious now with the Black Bishop on e6 and the possibility ..Bf7 at any time. On the other hand, paradoxically in the game 11...Qxg5 12.Bxg5 was played, and now Kosten recommend 12..c6 as the best move, but I CONTINUE with 13.c4! Ne7 14.Nc3 Bxe6 15.0-0-0 with a clear advantage
D) 6..Nh6 the most old and logical move it is rather complicated, but White has the upper hand if he follows Schiller & Watson analysis. James R. West have tried to improve in his own book ( pages 16-17 ), but he doesn’t get. The lineal way is 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ngxe4! ( other moves allow Black to continue with ..Qf6 and ..Bc5, but perhaps it’s interesting 8.Be3!? of Mortensen-Hvenekilde, Politiken Cup, 2001 or 8.Be2!? so in both cases 8..Qf6?! is bad; thus 8.Be3 Qe7 is the only chance, or 8.Be2 Be7 9.Bh5+ and now not West’ 9..Kf8?! due to 10.Nf7! Nxf7 11.Bxf7 Na6 12.0-0, if not 9..g6 10.Nxh7 Bxe6 11.Bxg6+ Bf7 12.Bxf7+ - 12.Qh5 Qd6 – 12..Nxf7 13.Qg4 Nd7 unclear, or 11.Bxh6 gxh5 12.Qxh5+ Bf7 13.Qf5 Rg8 very unclear again. Analysis ) 8..dxe4?! 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qe5 Rg8 11.Bg5! Lowenthal’s move 11..Bg7 12.e7 and now:
- 12..Qb6 13.0-0-0 Bd7 ( unclear, Alapin ) follows 14.Qxe4 Nf7 15.Bh4 with idea Bc4; Black pieces are very, very uncoordinated. Moreover, I don’t understand Kosten 13..Nd7 when 14.Qe6! Rh8 15.Bc4 is awful, +-
- 12..Qd2+ 13.Kxd2! Bxe5 14.Bxh6 g5 ( J. West, pointed as ! even ) 15.h4 gxh4 16.Rxh4 Rg6 and now 17.Bf8!? Rd6+ 18.Ke3 Bxc3 19.bxce Bf5 20.Be2! ( Watson ), but even why not 17.Be3, West only give long analysis on 17.Bf4, but 17.Be3!? is totally correct: if 17..Bf5 18.Rh5; if 17..Nd7 18.Nxe4 and finally if 17..Rd6+ 18.Kc1 and Nxe4 followed by Bd3.
However, Kosten wrote the alternative 8..Nf5!? in 1996, I know two games with this move, one between two Spanish Candidate Masters, and the other one more important so it follows exactly most part of Kosten analysis, though they are incorrect, indeed. After
9.Ng5 Qf6 10.Bd3 h6 ( he says 10..Bxe6 is also OK, but 11.0-0 Bd7 besides 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Nxh7! West, also 12.Re1+ Be7 13.Qe2 0-0 I suggest 14.Nxh7! Kxh7 15.Qxe7 Re8 16.Bxf5+ Qxf5 17.Qh4+ with a clear advantage ) 11.Qf3 g6 12.g4! hxg5 13.gxf5 and now 13..Bb4? is met by 14.Rg1! and I think white has a decisive advantage, f.i. 14..Bxc3+ 15.Kf1!. Black has an important amelioration with 13..gxf5! 14.Qxf5 Qxe6+ 15.Qxe6+ Bxe6 16.Bxg5 Kf7 solving all the problems !! so perhaps the variation 6..Nh6 is perfectaly playable !?..., don’t “Bubu13” ?
Any suggestions?.
More information in “Virginia Chess newsletter” http://www.vachess.org/newsletter.htm
Issues 2000/3 and 2002/2.
If anyboby wants to get a Chessbase file on Philidor Countergambit, I can send you.
Email amelchor@eresmas.net Alejandro Melchor