Player # 1 (1600) - Player # 2 (1600)
[B10]
Opening Traps - Caro-Kann # 1
Pensacola, FL (USA) 04,08,2003.
[A.J.G.] **********************************************************************************
(This page is completely
TEXT-SCORE ... you will need a chess
board.)
Click here
to see an explanation of the symbols I use. ********** A funny little trap that a {former}
Internet student sent to me. He
claimed that it happened in one of
his games, and I guess anything is
possible.
(But forgive me if I
remain a little doubtful. It took me
quite some time to find this in one
of my nearly 30 books on opening
traps.)
This is Trap # 79, (page # 99); from
the excellent book by Master (and
also a real chess celebrity!) ...
Bruce Pandolfini. ("More Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps,
Volume 2.") (This is not an actual game - as
far as I know - but a chess trap. Although many traps started as
a game between two players.) ********************************************************************************** 1.e4 c6; 2.Nc3!?,
A developing move ... but one
that can (and often will) cost
White a tempo - especially when
(and if) Black plays a later pawn advance of (...d7) ...to-d5-d4.
So is this good/playable? Yes!
---> Do I recommend it? Hmmm, not
really.
---> "Should I play this?" That's
entirely up to you!!
[ The normal continuation is: >/=
2.d4 d5; with a good game for both parties
from this position. ] 2...d5!;
Black should NOT be deterred from
his planned counter-strike
on the
center of the board.
[ Playable is: 2...g6!?;
but I can't really say that this
is a completely reliable system. ] 3.Nf3!?,
A perfectly reasonable and normal
developing move.
White controls the center, gets a
piece off the back row, protects the
King and also prepares castling ...
all with this one move.
Play has now transposed to the "Two Knight's Variation." (For lack of a better name?)
This is a tricky line ... that even GM's
have gone astray in. (But White does
NOT get his normal advantage that
he gets in the main lines ... at least,
in my opinion.)
[ After 3.d4!? dxe4;
4.Nxe4, we have - once again - transposed
back into the main lines. ] 3...d4!?;
(Hmmmm.) {Diagram?}
Black 'gains' a tempo by forcing
White's Knight to move. But you
should also remember that this
move cost Black a tempo as well.
The move also takes the pressure
OFF White's e4-square. So this
move definitely has its pluses ... AND
its minuses!!
My only (other) question would be: Is Black forcing the White Knight
to move ... to a better square?
Another concern Black should give a
GREAT deal of thought to: Is this pawn push going to allow White
to play a King's Indian Defense with
colors reversed? And won't Black
be down like TWO or THREE tempi ... as compared to the 'normal' lines of the K.I.D.? ***
[ The main line of this variation is:
3...Bg4!?;
4.h3 Bxf3!?; 5.Qxf3, "+/=" {Diagram?}
when White probably maintains
a (very) slight advantage.
[ See MCO-14; page # 188-189,
columns # 49 through col. # 54.
{Mainly cols. # 49 - 51.}
See all applicable notes as well. ]
I must have at least 10 books on
the Caro-Kann Defense.
My favorite,
even though it is a little dated, is the
following book:
"The
Caro-Kann: Classical 4...Bf5" by GM
G. Kasparov
and
IM Aleksander Shakarov.
Copyright (c) 1984, Macmillian
Publishing Company.
{Collier?} ISBN: 0-02-011490-7
(I like this book better than many
of the other books I have
purchased
on the Caro-Kann in the last 20
years. Of course
it does not cover
anything but the move ...Bf5 on
move four.)
Another good book - whose
coverage of the Caro-Kann is
VERY
good, nearly encyclopedic, is:
"Nunn's
Chess Opening's," by GM John Nunn.
(But this book also is getting old
and really needs to be
updated.)
The latest GM example I could find
in the database was:
F. Vallejo Pons - Victor Bologan;
it Pamplona, ESP; 2002. ] *** 4.Nb1!?,
(dubious?)
Pandolfini does not comment ...
at this particular point, but this looks a little strange and unusual
to me.
(I think Ne2 is the normal
line here.)
Was White (overly) concerned that
Black might push his d-pawn to d3?
White's Knight has been returned
to its home square ... for no good
reason, as far as I can see. ***
[ A superior way to play this line
would have been:
>/= 4.Ne2! c5!?;
5.d3!?, {Diagram?}
I like this ... although most books
condemn it as too passive.
(Supposedly it is better for White
to play Ng3 at this point,
but I am
not really 100% convinced.)
( According to theory, a better
line for White is as follows:
>/= 5.Ng3, (!)
5...Nc6; 6.Bc4 e5; 7.d3 Be7; 8.0-0 Nf6;
9.Nh4!?, {Diagram?}
GM P. Keres - GM S. Tartakower;
The 'Two Countries' Match.
(France vs. the U.S.S.R.)
Paris, FRA; 1954.
[ See ECO-B, page # 92,
lines [B10], {Filip} section # 3;
row # 16, and also note # 82. ] )
5...Nc6; 6.g3 e5; 7.Bg2 Nf6;
8.0-0 Be7; 9.c4! 0-0;
10.Ne1!? Bd7;
11.h3 Qc8; 12.Kh2 a6!?; 13.f4 b5;
14.b3,
"~" {Diagram?}
A.J. Goldsby - NM D. Barrows;
The U.S. Open, (USA); 1977.
White went on to win a long and
very difficult game.
(White's
position resembles an improved
King's Indian
Defense, but with
colors reversed.) ] *** 4...f6?!;
(Maybe - '?')
A horrid little move.
I suppose Black wants to play
...e5; but this is simply one pawn push too many! (Black also
severely weakens his King-side
with this move.)
[ According to one (very old) book
that I have, Black
should play:
>/= 4...c5; 5.Bc4 Nc6;
6.a3 e5; 7.d3 Be7; 8.Nbd2,
8...Nf6;
9.h3 0-0; 10.0-0, "+/= {Diagram?}
and White has a small advantage.
(No source is quoted, and I could
not find any games
in the database
from this particular position.) ] 5.Bc4!,
If Black is going to be so nice as to
send White an invitation to completely
dominate a key diagonal, (and a lot
of light-colored squares to boot);
then the first player should be polite
and simply accept. *******
[ Another trap book gives:
5.c3!? d3?!;
(Maybe - '?')
{Diagram?}
A terrible move - that is given an
exclam in another
little book!
6.Qb3!, {Diagram?}
A large improvement over the
trap in the book.
(The trap goes: </= 6.Nd4? e5; "=/+" etc.
But the
moves are so inane, I will not
reproduce
them here.)
6...e5; 7.Qc4 Bg4; 8.Qxd3 Qxd3;
9.Bxd3 Nd7;
10.Bc2,
"+/=" (Maybe - "+/") {Diagram?}
and White is simply a pawn up.
(Analysis line ... by yours truly.) ***
White could also play d3. This
move looks very harmless,
but sets
a nasty trap as well:
5.d3!? c5;
6.g3 e5?; {Diagram?}
Risk for no reason. By playing the
move ...Nc6 first,
Black avoids any
problems or sacrifices on e5.
7.Nxe5?!, {Diagram?}
The author of one trap book
praises this move.
(He gives
it an exclam.) But it is not even
clear if this
sacrifice is sound.
(Much better would be:
>/= 7.Bg2 Bd6; 8.Nbd2 Ne7; 9.Nc4 Bc7;
10.a4 0-0; "=" {Diagram?}
when Black stands no worse,
at least in my opinion.)
7...fxe5; 8.Qh5+ g6??; {Diagram?}
This move is just a blunder.
( With simple moves like:
8...Ke7; 9.Qxe5+ Kf7; 10.Qf4+ Qf6; "/+" {Diag?}
Black escapes the checks, and
comes out on top. )
9.Qxe5+ Kf7; 10.Qxh8 h6; 11.Qe5 Nc6;
12.Qf4+, "+/-"
... "and White has won enough
material to win the game."
(From: "The Little
Book of
Chess Traps.")
But the whole thing is simply
unsound!! ] ******* 5...Bg4?,
Simply dreadful.
I guess the idea is Black would like
to play this, then ...Nbd7; and follow
this up with ...e5.
(Maybe then Black
will develop his King-side?)
But its too slow ... and bad to be
any good. (Emanuel Lasker once
said: "Knight's BEFORE Bishops." While not true all of the time - the
Ruy Lopez is an obvious exception;
this nugget of wisdom is right the
majority of the time.)
[ Black had to try something like:
>/= 5...b5!?;
6.Bb3 a5!?; 7.a4, "+/=" when White has a small
advantage in this position. ] 6.Ne5!,
(thematic)
Simply brilliant. A beautiful and a
logical refutation to the second player's inconsistent play.
[ Or 6.h3!? Bc8!;
7.d3, "+/=" and White is still better. ] 6...fxe5[];
This is - obviously - forced.
[ Of course Black could not play: 6...Bxd1??;
7.Bf7#, which is a relatively simply
mating pattern. ] 7.Qxg4,
'±' 7...Qd6?; (Maybe - '??')
{Diagram?}
Why this turkey of a move?
Pandolfini's traps are all culled from
actual play, so I bow to his knowledge
here ... but this is one silly move.
(Perhaps the idea is to prevent
White from playing Qe6?)
[ My {former} student gives the
following line ...
claiming it represents the best play, or forced
moves ...
for both sides:
>/= 7...Nd7!?;
8.Qe6 Nh6; 9.d3 Qa5+?!;
10.Bd2!?,
{Diagram?}
A simple move.
( >/= 10.Nd2!, '±' )
10...Qd8??; {Diagram?}
This is a blunder.
(Black should try ...Qb6;
... ... ...
or
possibly consider resignation!!)
11.Bxh6 gxh6??; 12.Qf7#.
] Now White wins simply with:
8.Qc8+ Qd8; 9.Bf7+ Kxf7; 10.Qxd8, ("+/-")
{Diagram?}
and White has an overwhelming
material advantage. *** The great teacher & author
says:
"Black makes several questionable
moves. Advancing the f-pawn weakens Black's position and wastes
time. Developing the Queen Bishop
is premature.
Defending with the
Queen fails. That's enough to lose
most chess games." - NM Bruce Pandolfini.
RELATED ZAP:
1.d4, d5; 2.c4, e6; 3.Nf3, c5; 4.dxc5, Bxc5; 5.Nbd2, dxc4; 6.Nxc4, Bxf2+; 7.Kxf2, Qxd1. ("-/+")
(Queen's Gambit Declined.) |
