1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 a6
The Kan (Paulsen) is another somewhat rare (though
the list of its practicioners includes Kasparov, Karpov, Fisher, Petrosian,
and Tal) yet extremely fascinating variation of the Sicilian.
Its main virtues are its flexibility - Black waits
before playing ...d6, keeping open the option of developing his f8-bishop
to either c5 or b4 while maximizing the activity of his queen, which goes
to c7; and, unlike in the closely related Taimanov (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4
cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6), he waits before playing ...Nc6, giving the bishop on
b7 more scope and keeping open the option of developing the b8-knight to
d7 (In the Maroczy Bind positions arising from the Taimanov, for example,
Black often repositions the knight on d7 via b8!) - and its solidity -
as in the Taimanov, Black is well-poised to respond to any of the various
active plans which White may attempt.
The Kan's main drawback is its passivity and the
consequential difficulty of playing for a win against a White player content
to maintain his bind.
Nevertheless, white must be careful to restrain
both ...b5 and ...d5; and, as Mortazavi says in "Winning With the Kan",
"one of the hardest things in chess is to do nothing without losing control
over your position".
The following game, Jadoul-Karpov, Brussels 1986,
is a very striking example of this from the highest level of play:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5
d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be7 9.Be2 O-O 10.O-O b6 11.Be3 Bb7 12.Qb3 Nd7
13.Rfd1 Nc5 14.Qc2 Qc7 15.Rac1 Rac8 16.Nab1 Ne5 17.Nd2 Ncd7 18.a3 Rfe8
19.b4 Nf6 20.h3 Ng6 21.Qb1 Ba8 22.Na4 Rb8 23.Bf1 h6 24.g3 Nd7 25.Bg2 Rbc8
26.Nb3 Qb7 27.Qa2 Qb8 28.c5
White's patience finally snaps and he somewhat
clumsily lunges forward on the queenside. Note how Black's pieces are perfectly
placed for the counter-attack: the bishop is on a8 thereby preventing White
from gaining a tempo with Na5 and c5-c6 and the knight is on g6 where it
aids the cause of ...h5-h4. -[Mortazavi]
28...b5 29.Nb2 Nf6 30.Qb1 h5 31.Na5 dxc5 32.bxc5
h4 33.g4 Nf4
"-+" - [Mortazavi]
34.Bxf4 Qxf4 35.Nd3 Qc7 36.Qb4 Nxe4 37.Bxe4
Bxe4 38.Qxe4 Qxa5 39.c6 Bxa3 40.Ra1 Qc3 41.Ne5 Bb2 0-1
Back to our game.
5.c4
As it turns out, the immediate 5.c4 has been superceded
by 5.Bd3 as the main line against the Kan. White will play c2-c4 in either
case, but after 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Qc7 7.Be2 (The only way to give 5.c4 an
independent existence, though 7.Bd3 is hardly inferior, as Black will normally
subsequently settle for a transposition to the main line with 7...Nc6)
Black can make a not insignificant issue of White's e-pawn with either
7...b6 8.Be3 (or 8.0-0 Bb7 9.Qd3) 8...Bb7 9.f3 (This is actually not a
tremendous concession, as Black is always quite well-equipped to react
to any White play originating with f2-f4, and as the solidity of White's
e-pawn resulting from f2-f3 enables him to focus his attention elsewhere.
More on this theme later.) or the more common 7...Bb4, when play might
continue 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d6 10.Ba3 Nxe4, as in Hector-Spasov, Chartres
1990, with tremendous complications; whereas the advantages of White having
his bishop on e2 vs d3 ([1] It stays out of the way of a ...Ne5; [2] It
can be repositioned to f3 after f2-f4) do not significantly (or perhaps
at all) outweigh its disadvantages (on d3, the bishop adds to White's kingside
pressure). This conceptualization is, of course, an oversimplification
- 5.c2-c4 is, after all, still quite frequently seen - but I do currently
like the lines resulting from 5.Bd3 better than the lines resulting from
5.c4.
5...b6
I have only been able to locate one game with
5...b6, and that was only after a considerable search. Sokolov-Lutikov,
USSR 1981, continued 5...b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Nc3 d6 8.f4 Nf6 9.Bf3 [+=].
What about, in the above line, 7...Bb4 instead
of Lutikov's 7...d6? White's best would probably be 8.f3 (8.Qd3 Nf6 9.Bf3
d5 looks good for Black), when Black would continue with 8...Qc7 9.0-0
Nf6. This position is similar to the position after 5...Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Nc3
b6 8.Be3 Bb7, one difference being that Black's bishop may turn out to
be awkward on b4 should Black want to play ...d6. This consideration, however,
may not merit much weight, as Black willingly parts with his bishop in
several variations, even in the absence of winning White's e-pawn. For
example, Fischer-Portisch, Varna OL 1962, went 5.c4 Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Nc3
Bb4 8.Nc2 (Apparently, this game led to the bad reputation of 8.Nc2) 8...Bxc3+
9.bxc3 Nc6 10.f3 0-0 11.Ba3 Rd8 12.Bd6 Qa5 13.Nb4 Ne8 etc., when Black
does not stand badly and went on to draw.
In fact, looking through several games in this
opening reveals a striking lack of consensus regarding the merit of ...Bb4.
After 5.c4 Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Nc3, 7...Bb4 is indeed the main line ("I would
personally still play a pure Hedgehog against the early c4 variations but
modern theory does recommend 7 .. Bb4! as the 'antidote' to White's system"
-[Mortazavi]), but many Black players refrain from ...Bb4 altogether (for
example: 7...b6 8.Be3 Bb7 9.f3 Be7 etc.). Despite this, a common alternative
for White is 6.a3. If the merits of ...Bb4 are so debatable that not everyone
plays it, why prevent it with 6.a3?
Perhaps one answer to this question lies in the
relative insignificance of time in this opening. Check out Torre-Karpov,
Bad Lauterberg 1977:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.c4
Qc7 6.a3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Rc1 Ne5 10.Be2 Ng6
What was that knight manoever all about??
11.O-O b6
There is a good reason behind this developing
plan. Black leaves his d-pawn on its original square, which allows him
to create an illusion of counterplay along the b8-h2 diagonal and on the
kingside, but more important is the fact that his e-pawn on e6 is not weakened
and therefore the advance of White's f-pawn, f2-f4-f5, is not dangerous.
Meantime, Black has been able to defend against a queenside squeeze by
c4-c5 and White cannot exploit the fact that Black has left the king in
the center. -[Karpov]
12.f4 O-O 13.b4 Bb7 14.Bd3 Rac8 15.Nb3 d6
16.Qe2 Rfe8 17.h3 Nd7 18.Qf2 Ba8 19.Rc2 Qb8 20.Rfc1 Bh4 21.g3 Bd8 22.Nd2
Bf6
It is quite difficult to comment on all these
manoevers, because they are only general preparations. Yet, since nobody
has chosen any positive plan, this waiting game plays a very important
part. What kind of a plan should one choose anyway? A break on the queenside?
A kingside attack? Or perhaps just keep the balance in the center and wait?
Well, all this depends on the character and taste of a chess player. -[Karpov]
23.h4 h6 24.h5 Ngf8 25.g4 Nh7 26.e5 dxe5 27.g5
exf4 28.Bxf4 Be5 29.g6 fxg6 30.hxg6 Bxf4 31.gxh7+ Kh8 32.Rf1 Rf8 33.Be4
Ne5 34.Qg2 Nxc4 0-1
Wow, Karpov is good!!
All in all, I think that the lack of popularity
of 5...b6 is due not to its objective demerit but rather to the fact that
it offers no significant advantages over the main lines. 5...b6 6.Be2 Bb7
7.Nc3 Bb4 would be no improvement over other lines, since if Black wants
to play ...Bb4, he can do so with 5...Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.Nc3 Bb4; and if Black
wants to provoke f2-f3, he can do so with 7...b6 8.Be3 Bb7; while after
5...b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Nc3 d6 Black has completely failed to make an issue
of White's e-pawn, when his subsequent position, while maintaining the
normal Kan property of solidity and thus being far from horrible, lacks
even the normal Kan position's meagre level of activity.
6.Nc3 Bb7 7.g3?
I thought that I was very precisely taking advantage
of Black's lack of hustle in attacking e4. In fact, the presence of White's
bishop on the f1-a6 diagonal is necessary, as in its absence c4 would become
rather weak.
Of course, White should play either 7.Be2 or 7.Bd3.
I did not like 7.Bd3 for two reasons:
1) after ...Nc6,
White must do something about his d4-knight.
2) Black may eventually
be able to play ...Ne5.
|
Apparently, however, neither consideration should
worry White in the least, as evinced by the popularity of 5.Bd3. First
of all, ...Nc6 can always be adequately met with Nxc6, even when Black
has yet to move his b-pawn!! I've always considered such an exchange to
be a cardinal sin for White in the Sicilian, but that in these positions
it is not is demonstrated by the fact that, after 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0-0 Qc7 7.Qe2
d6 8.c4, 8...Nc6, while playable, is not particularly popular on account
of 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Nc3 Be7 11.Be3 c5 12.f4. Furthermore, not only can ...Ne5
be prevented with f2-f4, but, after ...Ne5, ...Nxd3 would relieve White
of his bad bishop. In Mainka-Lau, Dortmond 1991, Black repeatedly passed
on the opportunity to make such an exchange: 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0-0 Qc7 7.Qe2
d6 8.c4 Nbd7 9.Nc3 Ne5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Rac1 Bd7 12.b3 h6 13.Bh4 Qc5 14.Nf3
Ng6 etc.
I did not like 7.Be2 because 7...Bb4 would force
8.f3, but, as we have seen previously, by playing 5.c4, White has committed
to giving Black a chance to force this move, which is in fact not a large
concession on White's part.
Apparently, Polugaevsky has developed and popularized
a system against both the Kan and the Taimanov in which White plays f2-f3
regardless of whether Black forces it and continues with Be3, Na3-c2, Qe1-f2,
and expansion (via a3, b4, and perhaps a timely c5).
7...Qc7 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.Nc2?
After 9.Nc2, White definitely stands at least
slightly worse. What about 9.Nxc6? With an advantage in space, white naturally
wants to avoid exchanges; furthermore, after 9.Nxc6 Qxc6, both e4 and c4
are particularly weak. On the other hand, 9.Nxc6 does give White an important
tempo, indicating that the move merits consideration; and, in fact, a tactical
analysis reveals it to be best.
After 9.Nxc6 Qxc6, White has:
a) 10.b3? Bb4 11.Bd2
Bxc3 12.Bxc3 Qxe4 13.Bxg7 (13.Qxe4 Bxe4 14.Bxg7 Bxh1 15.Bxh8 f6 and White's
bishop is trapped: 16.0-0-0 d5, 17...Kf7, and 18...Ne7) 13...Qxh2 14 Bxh8
Qxh2 and Black is winning.
b) 10.Bg2 (Best)
10...Rc8! (10...Nf6 11.0-0 Rc8 12.b3 and White is fine, since 12...Bb4
can be answered with with 13.Nd5; 10...Bb4 11.Bd2 (11.0-0 Bxc3 {else 12.Nd5}
12.bxc3 Rc8 is tougher to evaluate, but White may stand fine there as well.
In any case, this line is unnecessary for demonstrating the superiority
of 9.Nxc6 over 9.Nc2) 11...Rc8 12.b3, when 12...b5 is met with 13.cxb5,
while otherwise White continues with 13.Rc1 and stands well.) 11.Be3 (11.b3
b5 [--++]) 11...Bb4 12.Rc1 Nf6 13.f3 (Unfortunately necessary, as after
13.0-0 Bxc3 14.Rxc3 Nxe4 White does not have a satisfactory follow-up.),
when White has no more than a microscopic disadvantage.
9...Rc8 10.b3
This ambitious but weakening move leads to an
endgame somewhat better for Black. Inadequate would have been 10.Bg2 Ne5
11.b3 b5; but a viable alternative for White to this endgame arising after
10.b3 would have been one of the very passive and very congested positions
arising after either 10.Ne3 Nf6 (10...Bb4 11.Bd2 Nd4 12.Qd1 f5 13.f3 Nf6
14.Bg2 and White is holding on nicely) 11.f3 or 10.Bd2. My current judgment,
however, is that White's problems would have been greater in either of
those positions, and that 10.b3 was in fact best.
10...b5
Incidentally, my opponent played this move immediately.
(Actually, he played the entire opening very quickly.) While my current
assessment is that it is Black's best move, it is not the case that in
the Kan in general, unlike in the Kalashnikov, ...b5, when playable, is
invariably correct.
Here is how Mortazavi puts it: "[...b5] is similar
to ...d5 in that it challenges White's pawn structure, but on its own,
rarely achieves much more. Black's pieces are no more or less liberated
and the only beneficial consequence is that one of White's d5 defenders
is removed. Indeed, it is fair to say that ...b5 is often played as a preparatory
measure to play ...d5 as White's protection of the d5 square is lessened.
In general, White is much more likely to allow Black to play ...b5 than
...d5".
Mortazavi goes on to show several games in which
white exploits the weakening of b4 and a5 which results from ...b5.
11.Bb2 bxc4 12.Qxc4 Qa5
OTB, White's problems became apparent for the
first time after this move.
13.Qa4
The only move:
a) 13.Be2 Nb4 and
14...Nxc2+.
b) 13.Bg2 Nb4 14.Qe2
Nxc2 15.Qxc2 Bb4 16.Rc1 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4 18.Qxe4 Bxc3+ 19.Bxc3 Rxc3 and
White has no successful continuation.
c) 13.Qe2 Nd4! 14.Nxd4
Rxc3 [--++].
d) 13.Qd3 Ne5 14.Qe3
(else 14...Nf3+ or 14...Rxc3) 14...Bc5 [--++].
13...Qb6?
My opponent likewise played this move almost immediately.
Black should have settled for the slightly better endgame arising after
13...Qxa4 14.Nxa4, when he would have had his choice from the following:
a) 14...Ne5 15.Bxe5
Rxc2 16.Bd3, when White is doing well.
b) 14...Na5 15.Bd3
accomplishes nothing for Black.
c) 14...Bb4+ 15.Ke2
Nf6 16.Bg2, when again White stands fine.
d) 14...Nb4 (best,
though 14...Nf6 15.f3 Nb4 would transpose) 15.Nxb4 Bxb4+ 16.Ke2 (16.Kd1
Bxe4 17.Bxa6 Ra8 18.Bb5 Bxh1 19.Bxg7 Bc6 20.Bxc6 dxc6 21.Bxh8 f6 and after
22...Kf7 and 23...Ne7 Black will win White's trapped bishop) 16...Nf6 (16...Bxe4
17.f3 Rc2+ 18.Ke3 and Black, unable to defend against both 19.fxe4 and
19.Bxg7, is lost) 17.f3, when Black is slightly better
After 13...Qb6, the game is equal.
14.Be2
Awkward but necessary (i.e. 14.Bg2 Ne5 15.0-0
Bc6) and not bad, as Black's bishop is subsequently tied to the defense
of a6, ensuring that White's queen is safe.
14...Nb4
Of approximately equal merit was 14...Nf6 15.0-0
Be7.
15.Nxb4 Bxb4 16.Rc1 Bxe4?
Best was 16...Nf6 17.0-0 0-0 (17...Nxe4 18.Nxe4
Bxe4 19.a3 [++--]; 17...Bxc3 18.Bxc3 Nxe4 19.Bxg7, when White would stand
better on account of Black's permanently exposed king), with equality.
After 16...Bxe4, White has a considerable, though
certainly not decisive, advantage.
17.0-0 Bb7??
The losing blunder. After the necessary 17...Bc6
18.Qxa6 Qxa6 19.Bxa6 Rb8 (19...Ra8 20.Nb5 Kd8 [20...Bxb5 21.Bxb5 Nf6 {21...Ne7
22.Bxg7 should be decisive} 22.Bxf6 gxf6 23.Rc7 Rd8 24.Rd1] 21.Bxg7 Rxa6
22.a4 [++--]), 20.Nd5 would lose to 20...exd5 21.Bxg7 f6 22.Bxh8 Kf7, since
White's trapped bishop cannot be saved. Hence, White, who, with his lead
in development and two connected outside passed pawns stands much better,
should mobilize his queenside pawns with 20.a3.
18.Nd5!
Black subsequently does not obtain enough play
for the exchange.
18...exd5 19.Bxg7 Bc5 20.Rce1
Ne7
21.Bxh8 d4 22.b4 Bxb4 23.Rb1
Nd5
24.Rfe1 Kd8
After 24...Bxe1 25.Rxb6 Nxb6 26.Qxd4 Black would
be unable to deal with both 27.Qxb6 and 27.Qe5+.
25.a3 Bc6
Perhaps 25...Bxe1 would offer more resistance,
though after 26.Rxb6 Nxb6 27.Qxd4 Black's scattered pieces and exposed
king would make White's queen extremely powerful and should ensure him
of an easy win.
26.Qd1 f6
26...Nc3 27.Bxd4.
27.axb4 Kc7 28.Bg7 Nc3 29.Qd2
Re8
30.Bf3 (40; at time control),
1-0. |