| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2005 02:18:24
From: Ron
Subject: Tarrasch defense question
|
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.de ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7
8.0-0 0-0 9.dc Bc5 10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6
the main line is 12.Nd5 Qd8
but to me, 12. Ne4 looks much stronger, because it takes away black's
powerful dark-square bishop. eg 12. ... Qd6 13.Nxc5 Qxc5.
Removing a pair of minor pieces, especially black's unopposed
dark-squared bishop, seems strongly in line with white's strategic goals
in the opening. It cuts down on black's counterplay and moves closer to
an endgame.
Yet 12.Nd5 is the main line. Why?
-Ron
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2005 08:33:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tarrasch defense question
|
>It cuts down on black's counterplay and moves closer to
>an endgame.
I remember Spassky saying once that the d4 pawn actually became
stronger in those sort of positions. I have been playing this line as
Black since - ummm - 1975 or so, and am always thrilled when white
takes the bishop. Nd5 is really hard to meet. I remember when it was a
new move, and I lost quite a few games against it. It provides white
with a persistent although small advantage that is hard to break.
It does get you closer to an endgame, but it also gets Black closer to
a d3 push, which, supported by rook/queen and other pieces, can be
quite devastating for white, especially since white thinks he must have
the advantage. Usually it should equalize, but the white player who
thinks he must be better may make that small mistake, such as letting
the d pawn become passed!
I understand your confusion. Unless you play IQP positions a lot, it is
hard to understand the logic in them sometimes. Baburin's book on Pawn
Structures is the best read. Also look at Saian's old book on the
QGD, which really explains the theory of the Tarrasch very well. Even
after 30 years of improvements, the basic ideas remain the same, and
Saian has some really neat games.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2005 06:51:28
From:
Subject: Re: Tarrasch defense question
|
Hello,
After : 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.de ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7
8.0-0 0-0 9.dc Bc5 10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 both moves (12.Nd5 and
12.Ne4) are logical and have been played by many stronger players.
1) 12.Ne4 have been played by Petrosian, Stefanova (women world ch),
shall, ...
2) 12.Nd5 has more practical experiences including Karpov, Kasparov,
Ivanchuk.
---------------
I suppose that not all exchanges are in white favour in this position,
there are many endings where white has a little edge but black can
equalize. To know what pieces exchange and what not ... is high level
strategy.
In that case the black square bishop has no special activity (he now
only defend d4) and the white knight can have (or not) better
prospects. But sometimes that bishop can be very strong later in
conjunction with the other bishop.
question can convert in ... to exchange or not?
If you prefer not to exchange your knight, maybe d5 is a better square
for the kinght. But, as practice shows, both moves have their
supporters.
AT
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2005 14:38:58
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: Tarrasch defense question
|
In <[email protected] >,
Ron wrote:
> After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.de ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6
> 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.dc Bc5 10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6
Should be: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd5 ed5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6
7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.dc5 Bc5 10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6
> the main line is 12.Nd5 Qd8
> but to me, 12. Ne4 looks much stronger, because it takes away
> black's powerful dark-square bishop. eg 12. ... Qd6 13.Nxc5 Qxc5.
Should be 12. ... Qe7 13.Nxc5 Qxc5 :-)
After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cd5 ed5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6
7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. dc5 Bxc5 10. Bg5 d4 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Ne4
Qe7 13. Nxc5 Qxc5 14. Rc1 Qb6
then both
15. Qc2 ( 5/15/1 ) 59.5238 %
15. Qd2 ( 9/11/4 ) 60.4167 %
have scored fairly well for White,
But in the main line after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cd5 ed5
5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. dc5 Bxc5 10. Bg5 d4
11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Nd5 Qd8
then
13. Nd2 ( 202/174/54 ) 67.2093 %
has scored even better :-) ...
> Removing a pair of minor pieces, especially black's unopposed
> dark-squared bishop, seems strongly in line with white's strategic
> goals in the opening. It cuts down on black's counterplay and moves
> closer to an endgame. Yet 12.Nd5 is the main line. Why?
>
Good points; but I guess that as long as the pawn is on d4, the
Bc5 is passive. Certainly in the Nd5 main-line White is playing
beautifully thematic fiancetto- and d5- type moves.
Disclaimer: alas, I'm no Tarrasch expert...
Regards, Peter
--
TAS/DPIWE/CIT/Servers hbt/lnd/l8 6233 3061 http://www.pjb.com.au
And how sweet a story it is, when you hear Charley Parker tell it
- Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
|
|
