Winning with the Caro-Kann

Mark Van der Hoorn - Nicolas Croad
Summer Cup, Wellington 2008

1.e4 c6

Some people think the Caro-Kann is a drawing opening however their judgement is often based on elite level chess which is quite different from games between non-master players. I think that the Caro-Kann is excellent for use against lower rated opposition (who might be trying to dull the game down) because there are no symmetric pawn structures and there are several different ways to play the opening. Mark also plays the Caro-Kann so he was also facing the challenge of creating pressure against his own defence though he would typically choose the Larsen variation 4...Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 if he was black.

2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 e6
10.Bf4 Qa5+ 11.Qd2!?

The most obvious choice was to transpose into the old main-line of the Capablanca variation with 11.Bd2 Qc7. This has been considered less dangerous than the similar position with white having a pawn on h5 instead of h4, however it has the slight advantage that now it would be extremely dangerous for Black to castle kingside because white will almost certainly be able to play Ng5 whenever he pleases with the pawn on h4.

After the game we also discussed the possibility to play 11.Kf1 (or even 11.Ke2) with the idea of artificially securing the king with Kg1 and keeping an attacking rook on the h-file. Still this plan looks rather too artificial to cause Black serious problems.

11...Bb4!?

Maybe the most simple reply was 11...Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Ngf6 and the position is completely level as neither position has any significant weaknesses or clear plans. I was trying to discourage Mark from castling queenside and I didn't feel that the position could be too bad as otherwise 11.c3 would be a strong reply to 10...Qa5+ forcing a similar situation.

12.c3 Be7 13.b4 Qa6 14.Qe2

This move is not very incisive, it was possible to put significant pressure on the Black position with 14.Nh5! Ndf6! 15.Nxg7+ (15.Ng3 Nd5 16.Nh5 Ndf6! =) 15...Kf8 16.Nxe6+ fxe6 17.Ne5 Rh7 18.Rh3 which can only be judged as unclear, because it is almost impossible to see how Black is going to break free or White is going to develop the initiative.

After the game we also looked at 14.Ne2 Ngf6 15.O-O O-O 16.Ng3 when I believe Black has equalised but no more and there is still a game to play.

14...Qxe2+ 15.Kxe2 Ngf6 16.Kd3?!

This move is a little naive as centralising the king turns out to be not very appropriate. Eventually the White king comes under fire and after Black's reply a White rook becomes occupied with a very menial defensive task.

16...Ng4!

17.Rhf1?!

It was probably better to correct the earlier error and play 17.Ke2.

17...O-O 18.Ne4 Rfd8 19.Bc7 f5!? 20.Nc5?

This loses a pawn which Mark simply missed. Much better is 20.Ned2 when the position remains roughly level though Black can take the initiative. An interesting follow up is 20...e5 21.Bxd8 e4+ 22.Kc2 (22.Nxe4 fxe4+ 23.Kxe4 Rxd8 is excellent for Black.) 22...Rxd8 and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange. This might be refuted by 22.Ke2! Rxd8 23.Ng1 Bxh4 24.g3 when Black has a pawn for the exchange but no immediate threats.

Better though less incisive is 20...Rc8 21.Bf4 (21.Bg3 g5!) 21...a5 and now if 22.a3 axb4 23.axb4 Nxf2+ wins a pawn so Black has achieved a reasonable amount of play to compensate for the slight weakness of the e6 pawn.

20...Nxc5+ 21.bxc5 Rd7 22.Bg3 Bxc5 23.Rae1 Kf7

It would be possible to criticise this move which sets up a potential knight fork on the e5 square
however this would be completely unreasonable. There is no danger of this tactic succeeding because there is no way to simultaniously oust the knight from g4 and setup the threat. In the absence of this tactic Black should use the piece with the least potential (the king not the rook) to defend the weakness on e6.

24.Nd2 b5!

Stopping the white knight from reaching c4 and creating an excellent post for my own knight on d5.

25.Nb3 Bb6 26.f3 Nf6 27.Re5

After the game Mark pointed out the tactical shot 27...Bc7 which may have won the exchange. During the game I relied on his calculation and assumed that he had not left such a tactic on (I was surprised by his next move because of this) but I believe that my judgement was correct in any case. After 27...Bc7 28.Nc5! White may end up with an exchange less but the remaining minor piece configuration makes the conversion process significantly more difficult. Actually since I must exchange my bishop for the knight once the White knight goes to the c5 square I didn't want a rook occupying that square either which explains my next move.

27...Nd5 28.Re2?!

Since winning the exchange doesn't make my task easier White should have used this to advantage and followed up with 28.Rfe1 Re8 when the rook is not quite so well placed as the game.

28...Rc8 29.c4

This leads to further exposure to the White king however otherwise ...c5 is expremely strong.

29...bxc4+?!

During the game I also considered 29...c5! 30.cxd5 c4+ when Black has excellent winning chances but I could not bring myself to sacrifice in such a nice position. Had I been more aware of the principal of two weaknesses I might have decided my chances were not so great in the game and that the sacrifice was entirely justified. Here for example 31.Kd2 Rxd5 32.Nc1 b4! the White pieces are so tied up it is clear that Black has compensation for the sacrificed material.

Once you realise that Black is not going to capture the d4 pawn because it is actually blocking the White pieces at the moment the strength of the Black position becomes clear. White can't do anything to stop Black playing a7-a5-a4 and preparing a breakthrough for the two queenside passed pawns. For example 33.Be1 a5 34.Kc2 Bxd4 or 33.Re5 a5 34.Rxd5 exd5 35.Re1 a4 and I can't see how White is going to deal with the passed pawns.

I can justify however that my choice was quite practical however. For example only examining this after the game did I realise that Black should not seek to capture the d4 pawn on move 32 because this opens lines for the White bishop allowing it to come to the queenside to deal with the pawn storm on that side.

30.Kxc4 Rb7 31.Rfe1?!

31.Bd6 stops the immediate ...c5 break and makes it much more difficult for Black to advance. Probably I can't break through with only one weakness to the White position (on d4) and a second one must be found or created. Still even now I can't really find a dangerous plan for Black to follow up with.

31...c5 32.Rxe6

I had not really considered Marks last move which stretches a difficult position too thin. In these situations something usually turns up.

Better was 32.dxc5 Bxc5 33.Nxc5 Rb4+ 34.Kd3 Rxc5 but Black is a clear pawn ahead here, the e6 pawn is immune 35.Rxe6 Rc3+ 36.Kd2 Rd4+ 37.Ke2 Kxe6 wins, while 35.Bd6 gets mated after 35...Rc3+ 36.Kd2 Rd4#.

32...Ne3+!

With the rooks split I can win the exchange on e6 at any time.

33.Kd3

If 33.R6xe3 cxd4+ 34.Kd3 dxe3 wins a whole exchange.

33...c4+ 34.Kd2

After 34.Kxe3 cxb3 35.Kd3 b2 36.R6e2 Bxd4 37.Kxd4 b1=Q 38.Rxb1 Rxb1 White only loses the exchange but winning here should not present significant problems.

34...cxb3 35.R1xe3 bxa2

Significant further material loss can not be avoided so Mark resigned.

0-1

Lessons from this game
a) The principal of two weaknesses is a significant component in the selection of a winning plan. Here I felt that my position was near to winning before playing 29...bxc4+ but I didn't use this principal to decide on a winning plan following my chosen move and this lead to an over-estimation of my position and the selection of an inferior move.
b) It is preferable not to defend against ghosts. I was able to make a good defensive move 23...Kf7 not restricting the mobility of one of my rooks because I was being concrete about the threat of a knight fork on e5. This paid off in the game because my rook was never forced to defend the weakness on e6.
c) Sometimes a pawn should not be captured when it is blocking the lines for the opponents pieces and/or forces them to defend it. In the line beginning 29...c5 this principal turns a marginal sacrifice of a piece for three pawns into a powerfull one of a piece for two pawns.

Trying to learn from your games...

Recently I participated in the 115th New Zealand Championship. To cut a long story short I was not very happy with my performance in the event (it was a disaster 4.5/11) and I want to examine all my games from this event. I also noticed that I have not been doing a particularly good job of creating instructive annotations in the Blog so far. Up to this point I would consider it a collection of interesting games with brief notes. I intend to improve this in the future starting with this game from round 1 of the latest club tournament.

Martin Hill - Nicolas Croad
Summer Cup, Wellington 2008

1.f4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.g3 d6 6.Bg2 e6 7.O-O Nge7 8.d3 O-O 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 Rb8 11.Nd1 b6!?

Up till this point we have been following the main-line of the Closed Sicilian. I was happy with this transposition from the Birds opening as I know this opening reasonably well and considered it gives Black good prospects to play for a win without taking considerable risk. My last move however perhapse requires some comment. I did spend some minutes trying to find a less passive looking alternative. The move itself is prompted by the variation 11...b5 12.c3 Nxf3+ 13.Bxf3 b4 14.c4 and here I thought Black lacks counterplay having closed the queenside while the d6-d5 break is made difficult by the poorly defended c5 pawn. Now if White plays 11.c3 then after 11...Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 d5 13.e5 d4 Black is certainly no worse. This was my plan however since Black could also play 12...f5 here with some pressure on the White centre it may be that 11...b5 12.c3 Nxf3+ 13.Bxf3 f5 was a quite reasonable alternative though here I would still prefer to have the pawn back on b6. I certainly feel that with White playing moves such as 11.Nd1 b6 can't be a poor move despite it's relative lack of speed.

12.h3?

Martin goes wrong immediately. Maybe he was trying to follow up using ideas with which he was familiar but 12.g4 is possible immediately, so why not get on with it. Black will respond with 12...f5 to be followed by Bb7, Qd7 and Rbe8 as necessary putting more pressure on the White centre.

Another decent alternative would have been to play along the lines of 12.Ne1 Bb7 13.c3 Nc6 14.d4 cxd4 15.cxd4 d5 16.e5 when Black is equal but probably no better.

12...f5 13.Nh2 e5 14.c3 Ne6 15.Nf2

15...d5?

I was trying for too much from the position and ended up throwing away most of the advantage. Instead 15...exf4 16.Bxf4 Nxf4 17.Qxf4 fxe4 18.Qxe4 d5 gives Black a slight advantage because of the Bishop pair.

The best move however was 15...Bb7 after which the White centre is close to collapsing while Black has nothing to stop him adding more pressure with ...Qd7 and ...Rbe8 as necessary. For example 16.fxe5 Bxe5 leaves White with problems over his g3 pawn because 17.g4 f4 wins a piece for Black while 17.Nf3 Bxg3 18.Nh1 fxe4 19.dxe4 Bf4 leaves White with more weaknesses than Black's d6 pawn can compensate for. Meanwhile after 16.Nf3 exf4 17.gxf4 Qd7 black piles on the pressure and it is not clear how White is going to resist.

This is an excellent example of why it is a good idea to include all your pieces in an attack whenever possible.

16.fxe5 Bxe5 17.Bh6 Rf7

The exchange sacrifice 17...Bxg3 18.Bxf8 Nxf8 provides Black with quite a lot of compensation for a minimal material investment but can hardly be justified from a practical viewpoint.

18.g4! f4

Also quite reasonable was 18...dxe4 19.dxe4 Qxd2 20.Bxd2 f4 with a nice endgame for Black however with only an advantage on the board it is probably better to keep as many pieces as possible on the board for the moment.

I was not entirely happy about the move 18...f4 because though it does gain a strong pawn on f4 it also shuts down most of my play but it does have one major advantage. White is forced to undertake something here or simply be left with a bishop shut out of play at h6. Another alternative was 18...fxe4 19.dxe4 Bf4 20.Bxf4 Nxf4 21.Bh1 but here I thought Black has no tangible advantages and so it is not clear what to play for.

A friend has pointed out to me that activity counts for something and that is exactly what Black

has here, a whole pile of activity. He took this last variation a little further and discovered that my intuition was right. I should have been suspicious of the move f4. It just didn't feel like my advantage was being increased by it. His variations 18...fxe4 19.dxe4 Bf4 20.Bxf4 Nxf4 21.Bh1 Ba6! 22.Re1 dxe4 23.Qxd8+ Rxd8 24.Bxe4 Rd2 25.Rb1 Ne2+ 26.Kg2 Rxf2+ 27.Kxf2 Nxc3+ and Black comes out a pawn ahead. The alternative 22.Rd1 Ne2+ 23.Kg2 Qc7! 24.Nf1 Rbf8 seems to be winning as well.

I was in fact looking at the start of this variation during the game but didn't look further than the move 21.Bh1 which is not nearly far enough to decide between this and the game move. Of course with this new information in mind it is possible to improve the defence for White as well.

Instead of 21.Bh1 White should play the bettern 21.Bf3 when the bishop covers the knight check on e2 so 21...Ba6 22.Rfd1. The white pieces are still precariously placed but I don't see a way to increase the activity ratio of the Black to White pieces so it looks like White will consolidate eventually.

19.Nf3 Bc7 20.d4!

Definitely not 20.Ng5 Nxg5 21.Bxg5 f3 22.Bh1 Qd6 and the weakness of the White king position rears it's ugly head suddenly. If White does nothing however Black will play d4 with the simple follow up Nc6 and g5 so White must act sharply.

20...cxd4 21.cxd4 dxe4 22.Nxe4 Nd5

23.Nfg5 Nxg5 24.Bxg5

24.Nxg5 Re7 25.Ne4 Qd7 was an equally decent alternative. It is clear that the knight sitting on d5 and the threats produced by ...Ne3 will eventually provide Black with an advantage so Black will simply look to quell the White initiative waiting for that moment to arrive. It should be mentioned that I was on the verge of time-trouble here with my opponent having 40+ minutes still on his clock. I had been using my time and he had not been thinking too long to this point in the game.

24...Qd7 25.Rae1?!

White needs to increase or maintain the initiative to stay in the game at the moment and this move doesn't create any more threats but allows Black to complete his development. Better was 25.Nc3 Ne3 26.d5! Bb7! 27.Be4 and the game remains highly unclear and interesting.

25...Bb7

Finally I develop the light squared bishop. Note that 25...Ne3 26.Nf6+ Rxf6 27.Bxf6 Nxf1 is not a very good exchange as I lose my blockader on d5. I noticed here that there was virtually no danger of White setting up a fork (with Nf6+) because in order to oust my knight on d5 he must first move his own from e4.

26.Rf2 Kg7 27.Bh4 Ne3 28.Nf6 Qe6

There are many traps around here.
28...Qd6?? 29.Bxb7 Rxb7 30.Ne8+ wins the queen.
28...Qd8?? 29.Nh5+ wins the queen.
28...Rxf6?? 29.Bxf6+ Kxf6 30.Rxe3 wins the exchange.

29.d5 Qd6 30.Qd4 Qe5 31.Qxe5 Bxe5 32.g5

32...Bd4?

Throwing away lots of the advantage. If I had more time here I might have acted more calmly and realised that the knight on e3 and weakness of the white isolated pawn are not temporary factors. Black can take some time and play 32...Rd8 when 33.Rd2 Bd6 34.Ne4 Bb4 35.Nc3 Nc4 is a good indication of how difficult the White position is.

33.Rd2?!

Much better was 33.Rxf4 Nc2+ 34.Rxd4 Nxd4 when Black has the exchange but for a pawn less than during the game. I got the impression that Martin missed by reply here.

33...Nc2+ 34.Rxd4 Nxd4 35.Bf2 Nf5 36.Be4 Nd6?

Here it was a good time to relieve the pressure by returning the exchange. 36...Rxf6 37.gxf6+ Kxf6 38.Bxf5 Kxf5 though there are basically no winning chances provided by Black's extra pawn here.

37.Bd4 Kf8 38.Bf3 Rd8 39.Bg4 Ne8 40.Be6 Re7 41.Bc3 a5 42.b4 Nc7

43.Re5?

43.bxa5 Nxd5 44.Nxd5 Bxd5 45.Bb4! is winning for White so Black is forced to play 44...Rxe6 45.Rxe6 Bxd5 46.Rf6+ Kg8 47.axb6 with a very difficult endgame, probably losing for Black.

43...Nxe6 44.dxe6 Rd3 45.Nd7+ Ke8 46.Nf6+ Kd8 47.Be1 Re3

Exchanging White's last rook leaves him with no hope of saving the game. Notice how the un-opposed light squared bishop does multiple 'defensive' chores. It stops both the White queenside passed pawns and limits the knight's choice of movement. The opposite colored bishops actually make the exchange much easier for Black to realise here.

48.Rxe3 fxe3 49.bxa5 Rxe6 50.axb6 Ke7

Of course not 50...Rxb6 51.Ba5

51.Bb4+

The move 51.Ba5 is no better because of 51...Re5 winning the pawn on g5.

51...Kf7 52.Ng4 Rxb6 53.a3 Re6 54.Nh6+ Ke8 55.Ng4 Ba6 56.Nf6+ Kd8 57.Nxh7 Rc6 58.Nf6 Rc1+ 59.Kg2 e2 60.Ba5+ Kc8 61.Nd5 Bb7

This is even more clear than the alternative 61...e1=Q 62.Bxe1 Rxe1 63.Nf4 Re5 64.h4 and White captures Black's last pawn.

62.Kf2 Bxd5 63.Kxe2 Rh1 0-1

Lessons from this game:

a) If your attack is not quite there yet and one piece is not participating then it is a good idea to find a way to introduce that piece as well. It doesn't really matter what the target of the attack is (queenside, kingside, attack on the centre). This is of course a variation on the rule, 'Include all your pieces in the attack'. Try giving Black the move 15...Bb7 and then playing through the variations which follow to see multiple examples of this being true.

b) Unless there is some way to drive them away well placed pieces constitute a significant and durable advantage. During this game I under-estimated and then over-estimated my position with the moves 32...Bd4 and 36...Nd6 because I failed to appreciate this. There was no need to rush in the first position because of these advantages and I should have acted immediately in the second because of White's increasing threats.

c) A well placed and un-challenged bishop can perform several duties at once. Here the light squared bishop acted as both defender and attacker in the endgame making it extremely easy for me to realise my exchange advantage (after 47...Re3). In this particular situation my rook was free to roam the board creating threats all over because the bishop easily handled all the defensive duties leaving the rook with none.