Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................ 7
Part I: First Things First 1 Repertoire Development (And How to Use this Book)..............11 2 Familiarization............................................................................. 15 Part II: A Simple Mini-Repertoire (SmR) for the Phoenix 3 The Sharp Variation..................................................................... 25 4 Basic Strategy Guide: Black Avoids the Sharp Variation............ 39 5 Simple Lines: Black Avoids the Sharp Variation......................... 49 Part III: Additional Weapons 6 A Special Line against 10…e5 11.e4 Bg4..................................... 63 7 A Special Line against 10…Qc7 11.b5 Na5................................ 71 8 A Special Line against 10…Qc7 11.b5 Ne5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5........ 77 9 A Special Line against 10…Qe7.................................................. 83
Part IV: Reference Analysis 10 The Mainline with 11…Bg4......................................................... 91 11 The Mainline with 11…dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Bd6...... 113 12 The Mainline: other responses to 11.e4.................................... 131 13 10…Ng4..................................................................................... 147 14 10…Qc7...................................................................................... 155 15 10…Qe7..................................................................................... 177 16 10…b6........................................................................................ 187 17 9…Be7........................................................................................ 197 Part V: Practice Sharp Variation.......................................................................... 229 Black Avoids the Sharp Variation.............................................. 237 Special Lines............................................................................... 245 About the Author................................................................................ 258 Colophon............................................................................................ 259
Preface
A
s I was wrapping up The Moment of Zuke in the spring of 2009, I came upon an interesting idea for the White side of the c3-Colle that was similar to the “Phoenix Attack” I had written about for the b3-Colle. In both cases, White looks to get an improved reverse Meran-type position by biffing Black’s Bishop. As TMoZ was nearly finished, I figured the best thing to do was put some provisional discussion in a bonus tract of that work and plan on writing a more comprehensive treatment at some later date should further investigation suggest it had merit. Turns out, there was something to 9.b4, so I wrote up a “Quick-Start Guide” and promised readers that a monograph on this line, which I dubbed the Koltanowski-Phoenix, was in the works. Unfortunately, the fiery bird would have to stay “in the works” for quite a while, and interested readers likely wondered why it was taking so long to escape its ashes. Blame science. Or, rather, blame shoddy science textbooks. See, after getting married and taking a short break from writing, I decided it would be a grand idea to start working on a book—Science Myths Unmasked—devoted to exposing science myths and misconceptions, many of which are still taught in American science textbooks. As a science editor at ExploreLearning.com, I come across these frequently. Examples include “veins are blue because the deoxygenated blood they carry is blue,” “a candle goes out when put under a glass after it consumes all the oxygen inside,” “electric charge can only move in a circuit if there is a complete path connecting one pole of the battery to the other, “ “molecules in gases move
The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack
faster than molecules in liquids,” “clouds form when air rises because hot air holds more water than cold air,” and “airplanes can fly because of Bernoulli’s principle.” I planned on writing that book while doing analysis on the KoltanowskiPhoenix. Then I could hope to get the Phoenix book out sometime in mid2010, about a year after publicly announcing it was in the forge. What I didn’t expect was for the science project to grow into a 3-volume work as I found more and more commonly taught errors in standard textbooks. So much for releasing the Phoenix book in 2010. I hope those who have waited over 2 years for this volume will not find themselves disappointed. As always, I look forward to your feedback (David@zukertort.com) and hope to see you at the Colle System Players Forum: www.zuke-dukes.com/forum. David Rudel Charlottesville, Virginia
chapter
•1
Repertoire Development (And How to Use This Book)
T
his book has two goals:
• Provide a guide allowing c3-Colle system players to play a superior response (the Koltanowski-Phoenix) to the two most critical lines of that opening. • Make a case for the general viability of the Colle-Koltanowski (when equipped with the new line) to those who may consider changing their opening. Conspicuously missing from the list is “provide an improved (complete) repertoire for c3-Colle system players.” I presume that most readers already play some variant of the Queen’s Pawn Game and already have implements in their toolshed for addressing the various (important!) pet defenses the intrepid Colle System player must frequently face. Adding material covering these variations would have added over 250 pages to the work, a half-ream that many readers would find largely unrelated to their needs. Fortunately, there is no lack of resources for any players looking to firm up their repertoire. Combined, Richard Palliser’s two Colle System books provide responses to every major defense with the important and lamentable exception of the Dutch. A one-volume reference that does not cover lines as deeply, but does include the Dutch, exists in the form of Sverre Johnsen’s update to Aaron Summerscale’s A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire. My own recommended lines to alternative defenses, including the Dutch, are described in the two-volume set Zuke ‘Em and The Zuke ‘Em Companion, the latter of which should be out in early 2012.
11
The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack
Most serious Colle System players know that these side variations cannot be underestimated, and much of your opening study time should be spent working on responses to defenses that take the game outside traditional Colle territory (e.g., 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6; 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 b6). While the Colle System is sturdy enough to be played against almost anything Black throws out, your results will improve significantly once you learn superior antidotes to the common anti-Colle responses. With those considerations in mind, this book is organized to minimize the amount of time you need to spend studying the K-P before playing it. The meat of the book is divided into three sections that serve different goals: 1. A Simplified mini-Repertoire (SmR) equipping you with the minimal information necessary to begin using the line in your repertoire. It focuses on the critical, sharp variation and gives simple responses to many alternate continuations. Some lines do not have any satisfactory, simple response, in which case the chapter sketches the basic strategy White should use. 2. An Additional Weapons section, each chapter of which is an individualized lesson detailing an improvement you can add as you have time. These are upgrades from the “simple, easy-to-learn-and-play� lines in the SmR described above. 3. A Reference Analysis section that has nitty-gritty analysis for each line and gives interested readers some idea of how the game is likely to evolve with good play from both sides. The first two parts are the most important for initial study. When first learning the opening, you may only occasionally dip into the Reference Analysis chapters to see how a given continuation might go or to compare a game you played with my analysis. As you master the basic contours of the K-P, you will have more and more reason to refine your comprehension by studying the lines in that section. Hitherto, the K-P has not been played often, and this presents special complications. If I only covered the lines that have been played in highlevel games up to this point, the book would be slim indeed. I preferred to write a more comprehensive book that addressed continuations that had
12
Repertoire Development
not earlier seen the light of day. A great deal of computer analysis went into finding reasonable defenses, heretofore untried, that were worthy of prepared response. My hope is that doing so will allow the work to better withstand the test of time. Another challenge attendant on writing a book about a young (toddler, really) opening is that there simply are not many illustrative games to use. I’m hopeful the various possible continuations discussed throughout the Reference Analysis chapters will constitute a functional substitute. One final note on move order bears mention. In The Moment of Zuke, I describe how Colle-Koltanowski players may be well served by playing Nbd2 before Bd3 (i.e., 1.d4, 2.Nf3, 3.e3, 4.Nbd2) because it gives them more flexibility in meeting some Black replies, in particular an early Q-side fianchetto. I have used this move order throughout the book.
13
chapter
•2
Familiarization Ashes and Rebirth in the Colle System
M
odern chess takes a fairly dim view of the “Queen’s Pawn Game,” loosely defined as any system playing d4 and e3 without c4, and it is easy to forget (or never be told) that conventional wisdom about how White should proceed after 1.d4 did not always consider an immediate c4 vastly better than e3. Admittedly, c4 was consistently favored even in the early 20th century. The 1927 World Championship between Capablanca and Alekhine was practically a study on the Orthodox defense to the QGD. Still, it must be remembered that e3 did not look tremendously out of place even at the highest levels. Indeed, Alekhine played it against Euwe in the 1935 World Championship match at a point where he was certainly looking for a win. (Euwe went on to win that match.) Furthermore, Edgard Colle and George Koltanowski won international tournaments in the ’20s and ’30s playing e3 regularly. Colle’s performances were particularly impressive, finishing first ahead of Tartakower, Euwe, Maroczy, and Rubinstein in various tourneys. In 1924, Colle played a match against Euwe. It featured 8 games with no draws. Colle won 3; Euwe won 5. Kolty practically stopped playing competitive chess after coming to America in 1940. He promoted the game rather than playing it professionally, giving exhibitions and lively performances throughout the country. His tireless devotion to writing about chess rather than playing it might be one reason that the Colle System grew in popularity among weaker players while it declined at the top level. It also benefited from the great popularity of Irving Chernev’s Logical Chess Move by Move, which implicitly advocated it as a sound system for White. Esteemed editor, writer, and correspondence player, C.J.S. Purdy also suggested the Colle System as a good choice for new players.
15
The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack
Largely because of Kolty’s writings, the Colle System developed into a full-fledged repertoire during the mid-20th century. Instead of using the exact same setup against every Black option, antidotes and variations were worked out to meet various anti-Colle lines. Many of these antidotes were made available in Smith and Hall’s tremendously popular opening manual, Winning with the Colle System first published in 1987. Most tournament games between untitled players in those decades are no longer available for review, so it is hard to do a statistical study on the Colle System’s success during that period if one wishes to limit the data to games between equally strong players. However, there is good reason to believe that White was doing fine with the Colle, and the system remained popular among amateurs. Then 1990 occurred. 1990 was to Colle players what 1979 was to practitioners of the Grand Prix attack. It was in 1979 that the legendary Mikhail Tal unleashed the Tal Gambit on IM Bill Hartston (1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 Nf6!!). Tal did not win, yet his play in that game essentially put 2.f4 in a coffin overnight. In the Colle’s case, Jeremy Silman played the villain in a match against IM Doug Root, perhaps the strongest perennial c3-Colle player in the world at the time. For decades the two critical lines in the Colle were 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bd6 7. 0-0 0-0 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.e4 Qc7 10.Qe2 and 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5 4.Bd3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7. 0‑0 0-0 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.e4 Qc7 10.Qe2. Since it doesn’t matter whether Black’s Bishop starts out on d6 or e7 before taking on c5, both lines generate the same position, shown below.
!@@@@@@@@# $‰xıxzRx% $P∏Qzx∏P∏% $zx˜x∏Nzx% $xzB∏xzxz% $zxzxπxzx% $xzp∫xñxz% $πpznœpπp% $rzbzx®kz% ^&&&&&&&&*
16
Familiarization
Prior to 1990, Black and White would normally spar over e5, and White hoped to get either a winning K-side attack or an attractive middlegame, isolating the d-pawn by playing exd5 after Black’s Knight moves to g4 to help defend e5. Instead of bothering to defend e5 with ...Bd6 or ...Ng4, the most popular moves by a wide margin, Silman played 10…h6! The genius of this move is that one of White’s basic threats (isolating the d-pawn) cannot occur until Black’s Knight moves to g4, but he cannot be absolutely forced there without e5, at which point White can no longer isolate the pawn. Thus, Silman simply removes the primary danger posed by the e5 advance, and White’s opening fizzles. The Bishop on c5 is the silent key to this defense. First, as long as the Bishop is on c5, White has trouble exploiting Black’s quiet move: he cannot play the natural Re1 because ...Ng4 hits the f-pawn a second time. Note that White cannot get around this with h3 because then ...Nh5 (threatening ...Ng3!) is harsh. Furthermore, as long as the Bishop stays on c5 it isn’t on d6, and as long as the Bishop is not on d6, Black’s Knight can stay on f6 without fear of being forked by e5. 10...h6 had been played a handful of times earlier, including twice in correspondence play by Robert Reynolds, who wrote about the move in the December 1986 edition of The Chess Correspondent. But Silman was a wellknown, strong player and a popular writer with a large audience, so his use of the move demanded notice. Smith and Hall discussed the move in the second edition of their book, which happened to come out the same year Silman’s match was played. They labeled the move as poor and dismissed it with a quarter page of discussion. Turns out, Smith and Hall were wrong. Shockwaves did not go through the Caissa-sphere like they did in 1979; professional chess players did not care enough about the Colle for the development to cause a great deal of buzz. However, in repertoire books for Black and other places where players look to find solutions to annoying openings, 10...h6 was suggested more and more as the Colle-Koltanowski crusher.
17
The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack
It would be hard to overestimate the effect this has had on results, at least in the mainline of the Colle. I searched a large database for Colle System games played in 1991 and afterward. Among those games reaching the Colle System’s central tabiya the most common move (about 30% of all games) was 10...Bd6, after which White has scored a staggering 61%. Unfortunately, the second most popular move (about 25% of all games) is 10...h6!, after which White has scored a dismal 35%. Counting all games other than those continuing 10...h6, White scored a pleasant 57%.
From Bad to Worse Lamentably, it turns out that 10…h6! (a good move to be sure) is not even needed to avert the K-side attack White has planned. Silman rained on the Colle parade by neutralizing the K-side attack, but it turns out that Black does not need to prepare a defense against that K-side attack so long as he keeps his Bishop on c5, preventing White from playing Re1. Let’s look at the position arising after 9...Qc7 10.Qe2 if we give White a free move so he can play 11.e5 Ng4 12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg8 14.Qxg4 Qxe5:
!@@@@@@@@# $‰xıxzRx% $P∏xzx∏Pz% $zx˜x∏xzx% $xzB∏Qznz% $zxzxzxœx% $xzpzxzxz% $πpznzpπp% $rzbzx®kz% ^&&&&&&&&*
White’s attack is hampered by three things: • Black’s Queen is on e5. • White has neither a Rook on e1 nor a pawn on e5. Generally he needs one or the other for the classic Bishop sacrifice to work. • White’s Queen was not able to go immediately to h5 because she had to take the Knight on g4 first.
18
Familiarization
Based on these deficiencies, we find that Black can get away with playing 10…b6!!, and White is already worse. In the obvious line, 11. e5 Ng4 12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg8 14.Qxg4 Qxe5, Black’s defenses are adequate. Palliser quotes analysis by Bronznik: 15.Qh5 Qf5 16.Ndf3 Ba6! (only available due to 10…b6) 17.Rd1 (attempting to remove a bunch of squares from Black’s Queen and then play g4, forcing an exchange on g6 that leaves e6 vulnerable) 17…Be2 18.Re1 Bxf3 19.Qxf3 Qxf3 20.Nxf3, saying the position is “about even.” That might be so, but I think White is on the wrong side of “about even,“ and Black has better ways of responding to the threat of g4. For example, 17…Bd3 threatens …Bc2 while allowing the Bishop to retake on g6. 17…Rae8 may be best since then Black would look forward to 18.g4?! Qg6 19.Qxg6 fxg6, when …Be2! is a real threat. For this reason, Bronznik has suggested White consider 11.b3 instead, reasoning that after the natural 11…Bb7 12.Bb2, he is prepared for whatever Black may attempt. This would at least put White back in the “comfortable equality” category. The problem is that Black does not need to play nice. Instead of 11…Bb7, he could play 11…a5!
!@@@@@@@@# $‰xıxzRx% $xzQzx∏P∏% $zP˜x∏Nzx% $PzB∏xzxz% $zxzxπxzx% $xπp∫xñxz% $πxznœpπp% $rzbzx®kz% ^&&&&&&&&*
11...a5 stops b4, killing White’s hope for central play. Threatening to open the a-file with …a4? Nah, that’s a threat, of course. But 11…a5 causes a more profound problem relating to Black’s Bishop on c5. In the lines that would naturally arise after the tamer 11…Bb7 12.Bb2, White depends on the disrupting b4‑b5!
19
The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack
pawn incursion to displace Black’s well-positioned Q-side pieces. This can be rather powerful if White does it after getting a pawn on e5, removing the d6‑square from the Bishop. So, not only does White have to consider a possible …a4, but Black’s a-pawn keeps him from executing a key b-pawn lunge and severely constricts his play in the coming middle game.
A New Hope — Enter the Phoenix We have seen that e5 does not give White a sound attack, but rather leaves him with a rickety e-pawn that is hit three times after Black responds ...Ng4. Hence, one has to wonder at the value of 9.e4, which blocks White’s prized Bishop. Indeed, I believe it is time for Colle Players to put 9.e4 on the burn pile, allowing a new Colle Attack to rise from its ashes. What do you have in mind? I’ve given some indication of how the Bishop on c5 causes so many problems for White in this line. I propose putting the question to this Bishop before White plays e4 and commits his Queen. In the attack I’m advocating, White delays developing his Queen, which can be rather well posted on her home square. Furthermore, if Black chooses to play his Queen to c7, White’s ability to play f4 (supported by the pawn still on e3) can be critical. Let’s go back to the position after 8…Bxc5:
!@@@@@@@@# $‰xıQzRx% $P∏xzx∏P∏% $zx˜x∏Nzx% $xzB∏xzxz% $zxzxzxzx% $xzp∫pñxz% $πpznzpπp% $rzbœx®kz% ^&&&&&&&&*
Instead of 9.e4, I’m suggesting White play… 9.b4!!
20
Familiarization
White plans on turning the position into something closer to a reversed Meran. It is actually not too far from the solution I’ve proposed elsewhere to fix the Colle-Zukertort mainline. Rather than play solely for an e4-break, White will put his Bishop on b2 and threaten both c4 and e4. Black can make it difficult to pull c4 off any time soon, and he can match White’s threat of e4 with his own e-pawn march. Nevertheless, combining the two favors White because the dissolution of the center makes the c4-break (when it finally comes) more deadly. Interestingly, Colle himself played the Phoenix against Max Euwe in his 1924 match. That game concluded 9…Bd6 10.a3 e5 11.e4 Bg4 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Ne4 Be7 14.b5 Na5 15.c4 Nf4 16.Bxf4 exf4 17.Qc2 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Rc8 19.Rad1 g6 20.Nc3 Bxa3 21.Kh1Bd6 22.Rg1 Nxc4 23.Qb3 Na5 24.Qd5 Rc5 25.Qa2 Rh5 26.Bxg6 hxg6 27.Rxg6+ Kh8 28.Rdxd6 Qe7 29.Nd5 Qe5 30.Rh6+ Rxh6 31.Rxh6+ Kg7 32.Rh4 Rd8 33.Rg4+ Kh8 34.Nxf4 Qe1+ 35.Rg1 Qc3 36.Qe2 Rg8 37.Ng2 Nb3 38.Qe4 Qf6 39.Qd5 1-0. Between 1924 and today, 9.b4 has been played a few dozen times. Let’s step through what has typically occurred in the continuation I advocate in this work. 9…Bd6 Black plays this retreat rather than ...Be7 about 85% of the time. 10.Bb2 e5 This natural move was chosen by GM Sakaev, GM Karlsson, GM Wedberg, IM (now GM) Appel, IM Isaev, and the strong German Dirk Sebastian all within the last decade. It is more frequent than all other moves combined. 11.e4 dxe4 11…Bg4 is the other common play, but 11...Be6 has been played by a couple strong players. 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 f5
21
The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack
!@@@@@@@@# $‰xıQzRx% $P∏xzxzP∏% $zx˜Bzxzx% $xzxzP∏xz% $zpzx∫xzx% $xzpzxñxz% $πbzxzpπp% $rzxœx®kz% ^&&&&&&&&* Black’s King is vulnerable
In general, White should respect the strength of Black’s e/f-pawn phalanx. However, in this particular situation, Black is kept too much on his heels to do much with it. White has a few promising possibilities after 14.Bd5+ Kh8: • 15.c4 is good, presenting problems on both sides of the board. • 15.Bc1!? is deeper than it looks. On the surface it threatens 16.Ng5, but the real point is that Black does not have a good way of stopping it. 15…h6 does not stop 16.Ng5 (16…hxg5?? 17.Qh5#) and after 15…f4, White may be quite happy pulling his Bishop back with 16.Bb2!, figuring Black has now robbed himself of …e4, which is generally a major source of counterplay here. White can target the backward e-pawn easily. • But the strongest play is 15.b5!, giving White a furious attack. MiltnerAppel, 2004-2005 Bundesliga continued 15…Ne7 16.c4 Ng6 17.h4! Nxh4?! (17…e4! 18.Ng5 Bf4 makes White work harder) 18.Nxe5 Qg5?! (18…Bxe5 removes the dangerous Knight and allows Black practical attacking chances after 19.Bxe5 f4! with …Qg5 next) 19.f4 Bc5+ 20.Bd4 Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4 Qf6 22.Rad1, and White is completely dominating. 15…e4!, likely Black’s best chance against 15.b5! is met by 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.Bxc6 Rb8 18.Ng5! Rxb2 19.Qh5, and Black will lose material. I sincerely believe that 9.b4!!, which I’m dubbing The Koltanowski-Phoenix Attack, is the battlefield upon which C-K players must wage war in the coming decades. Let the ashes of 9.e4 fuel the next century of Colle games!
22