While in open positions most of the times I know what to do and I can easily recognize decisive factors (weakened king, misplaced pieces, ecc.), sometimes I found closed positions difficult to understand and to deal with. I don't have many guidelines, nor I found many on books or on the web: the most common thing that I read is that "When the centre is blocked, the game develops mostly on the wings" but it's quite a general assertion. Recently I tried to do some work on my own by studying some games that I have played.
I am posting a game that I played two months ago where the position was quite blocked. I commented it extensively, and I asked some specific questions about closed positions, I hope you can answer at least some of them. My opponent is Giuseppe Andreoni, a strong aggressive player who is 23 years old (I'm 39) and who is my friend since a long time. That was a FIDE rated tournament played in Rome, the time rate was 90 minutes x 40 moves + 15 minutes to finish + 30 seconds/move.
Thank you in advance
About closed positions
-
Giulio Simeone
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
- Location: Rome, Italy
About closed positions
Last edited by Giulio Simeone on Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 22611
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: About closed positions
The game is in the line introduced by Nigel Short twenty years ago, which became high theory in the Caro and might threaten to put the defence out of commission. One of the many plans for White is just to seize and hold space on the premise that Black will eventually try to break out. The idea of Bg4 to threaten x f3 was tried in a later context by Karpov against Anand back in 1991. It has its points as Black struggles to find squares on the king side for his pieces. Both the KN and the KB would like the e7 square whilst the KN and the QB both want f5.
I've never been convinced that Black has a plan in the Caro, the winning method often seems to be to provoke White into doing something inaccurate.
I've never been convinced that Black has a plan in the Caro, the winning method often seems to be to provoke White into doing something inaccurate.
-
IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 5167
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
- Contact:
Re: About closed positions
I'm not normally a Caro-Kann player, so I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, but I'd say you were a bit too eager to exchange your "bad" bishop. Such a piece can have an awful lot of activity if it's outside the pawn chain, as yours was.
-
John McKenna
Re: About closed positions
Giulio, what Jack says above makes sense to me - your bishop moved twice and your knight thrice to exchange the white sq. bishops. You did not lose much time in doing that but why bother?
Roger rightly mentions Karpov, what was his idea? After 5... Ne7 6.O-O he played the sharp c5 against Shirov in Vienna, 1996. Shirov met it with the aggressive 7.c4... Karpov won in 40. (Later in the same tourney Shirov tried 7.dxc5 against Teske,1-0 in 25.)
The questions about your friend's 14.g3, and if you should try 15... Qb5 are "!?"
Roger rightly mentions Karpov, what was his idea? After 5... Ne7 6.O-O he played the sharp c5 against Shirov in Vienna, 1996. Shirov met it with the aggressive 7.c4... Karpov won in 40. (Later in the same tourney Shirov tried 7.dxc5 against Teske,1-0 in 25.)
The questions about your friend's 14.g3, and if you should try 15... Qb5 are "!?"
Last edited by John McKenna on Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
John McKenna
Re: About closed positions
Small correction to my above post - both black's N & B moved three times to exchange the bishops (and bring white's Q to e2, which Giulio thinks is a good sq.) All a bit pedestrian compared to Karpov's 'plan'.
But, perhaps Giulio was wary of his friend's aggressive penchant?
By the way, it would be interesting to see Karpov face Shirov's 7.dxc5.
But, perhaps Giulio was wary of his friend's aggressive penchant?
By the way, it would be interesting to see Karpov face Shirov's 7.dxc5.
-
John McKenna
Re: About closed positions
Stylistic question about my above post - shouldn't I have used tendencies instead of 'penchant'?
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 22611
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: About closed positions
This is probably the game I was thinking ofJohn McKenna wrote: Roger rightly mentions Karpov, what was his idea?
Whilst there's nothing wrong with 7 c3, 7 Be3 is now regarded as a more accurate treatment.
There are now many games in the Short system of the Advance Caro, containing a variety of ideas for both players. As with all games with no immediate tactics or direct attacks on the King, both players are trying to improve their positions and be on the alert for opportunities to do something.
-
Giulio Simeone
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
- Location: Rome, Italy
Re: About closed positions
I think that Roger has got the point when he observes that black's pieces hamper each other on the kingside. Short's system is conceived to maximize Black's difficulties, for example on 4. Bd3, that eliminates the "strong" black bishop, black can achieve equality more easily.Roger de Coverly wrote:The game is in the line introduced by Nigel Short twenty years ago, which became high theory in the Caro and might threaten to put the defence out of commission. One of the many plans for White is just to seize and hold space on the premise that Black will eventually try to break out. The idea of Bg4 to threaten x f3 was tried in a later context by Karpov against Anand back in 1991. It has its points as Black struggles to find squares on the king side for his pieces. Both the KN and the KB would like the e7 square whilst the KN and the QB both want f5.
Black's pieces hampering each other on the kingside has two main consequences:
1. Black has to move the same pieces twice or thrice - even Karpov does!
2. Exchanges are good for black, two people in a small apartment feel better than four people.
That being said, I don't doubt that that are better ways for black to develop and that Karpov plays better than me
Some time after the game with Andreoni, I studied exactly the line with 5. ...Ne7 and 6. ...c5, it's an interesting line. As for Jack's observation
It's true, when black plays 3. ...Bf5 this bishop is well placed, and probably 6. ...Bg4 doesn't work well because it isn't wise to exchange the only piece that has developed so far. In addition to the things that I already said, though, I observe that when white chases that piece away from f5, it hasn't many good squares. In fact, a possible strategy against 3. ...Bf5 is to "hunt" that bishop with g4 and h4 ("The bayonet attack") not to talk of the variations in which the knight attacks it from g3, h4 or d4. All in all, it doesn't seem so a good bishopIM Jack Rudd wrote:I'd say you were a bit too eager to exchange your "bad" bishop. Such a piece can have an awful lot of activity if it's outside the pawn chain, as yours was.
Thanks to everybody!!
-
John McKenna
Re: About closed positions
I accept what Giulio says about moving his minor pieces in the opening - they were in a such a small apartment that the KB & KN were on the roof (Pc6, Pd5 & Pe6).
So it was necessary to open a window - Ph6 or h5 - and eventually a door with Pc5. Giulio opened the window wide with Ph5 and played 18... c5 then seemed to have a playable position. His friend replied 19.c3 (but could have tried 19.c4 if he wanted to be aggressive) then 20.h3 - to put black off playing O-O? And is 20... c4 really too commital?
So it was necessary to open a window - Ph6 or h5 - and eventually a door with Pc5. Giulio opened the window wide with Ph5 and played 18... c5 then seemed to have a playable position. His friend replied 19.c3 (but could have tried 19.c4 if he wanted to be aggressive) then 20.h3 - to put black off playing O-O? And is 20... c4 really too commital?
-
Paul Cooksey
Re: About closed positions
I suppose as a known Caro-Kann player I should give an opinion
I hope everyone will forgive the extremely long post, and we don’t establish I’m wrong about everything. Maybe I should get a no comments blog!
I’d like to talk about 3 positional things, and then the game:
1. Space matters
If I had to summarise the Short system in two words, they would be "Space Matters". One of the important things proved in the early 90s was that even in simplified positions white often keeps an edge. Even with a few exchanges, it can still be difficult to find good squares for the black pieces.
It is a big strategic risk to allow white to maintain a space advantage, without putting some pressure on the white position. Black really needs to attack the white pawn chain.
Karpov liked ne7 then c5, but most top players now play c5 immediately. As Roger says, the plan with c3 is rather out of fashion. So White more often plays c4, blowing up the centre. He trys to prove not only has black wasted a tempo on c7-c6-c5, but also that the bishop is misplaced on f5, and has left the queenside weak. So in fact, the Short system often leads to a very open game. I see Giulio has looked at the lines with an early c5, he might find he is comfortable playing these sharp positions.
2. Pressure on d4
Classically the best way to attack the pawn chain is at d4. Given Black can hope to put his knights on c6 and f5; it is an excellent way to stay active using the squares that are available.
I understand Roger’s point:
Using another tennis analogy in the Caro-Kann Black is not trying to hit winners, but rather is playing a baseline game. But he is trying to do more than just get the ball back over the net; he is trying to get the ball back in the corners with spin.
3. Black’s light squared bishop
Suba famously said “bad bishops protect good pawnsâ€, meaning that, for example, although black can lose games in the French because of his bad bishop, that same bishop ensures that the e6 and d5 pawn chain is stable in the middle of the board. Those pawns are the basis of blacks play in most French lines.
The Short system takes advantage of the fact that getting the bishop outside the pawn chain has some drawbacks as well as some big advantages. It is critical to keep some control of the light squares on the kingside, particularly f5. So swapping off the light square bishop is actually often risky.
White sometimes plays f5 attacking the base of the pawn chain, in classical Nimzowitch style, in the French. It is a dangerous plan. But in the advance Caro, with the light squared bishop gone, it can be crushing. You don’t see people playing a quick f5 against Karpov, Anand or Dreev. But that is because they guard the light squares very carefully.
4. The game
I am bit critical of 6...Bg4. The main reason is not because the move itself is bad but because I think it is more important to play c5, to get some pressure on the white position. As Jack says, the bishop has good prospects on f5. But also it is not always an achievement to get rid of the bad bishop; the light squares are weaker with it gone.
So I thought Bg4 and Nh4 were risky, Black is falling behind in development and swapping pieces that help defend the kingside. I think Andreoni could have seriously considered trying to blow black off the board with g4 and f5. But he plays a little more slowly.
After move 15, Giulio asks “Should I be afraid of a kingside attack with Kg3,h3,g4 and f5“. I think, yes, definitely! White is often safe to attack on the kingside, even after castling kingside, in the Short variation. He has pieces on that side of the board controlling lots of squares. Maybe all the squares, if the pawns push black back from f5. White’s king isn’t in any real danger, now or later. Black has no way to get pieces in. I might even question h5, as creating a weakness where white intends to attack, rather than restraining white. But it is a move which always needs fine judgement.
The game Short-Ljubojevic 1992 is a classic example of white attacking in front of his king, with a brilliant finish.
Of course in the game black’s position is not so bad he should get squashed. But he really needs to keep pressure on the centre to stop white playing the slow motion kingside attack. Pressure on d4 will also stop white manoeuvring so easily. His pieces may not be great at move 15, although they are not so bad. But with his extra space, if white is given a free hand to reorganise, he will be able to find good squares and will be much better.
I would criticise qc6 and c4. Finally Black played c5 but instead of reorganising to put maximum pressure on d4, he immediately took off the pressure. B5 is just a mistake in my opinion, but perhaps an instructive one. I think Giulio underestimated how strong whites control could be on the kingside at move 15. I think maybe he did not fully take account of how well white’s pieces controlled the squares, ensuring both his king is safe and he could attack. In the same way I think he overestimated blacks chances on the queenside. Black doesn’t yet have enough pieces on the queenside, whereas because of his extra space white could quickly swing over his rooks, and could have moved his minor pieces if necessary. Piece placement remains important even in closed and semi-closed positions. And the space really does matter!
I keep saying it, but I really think pressure on d4 was the right plan. A queenside pawn storm later maybe, if white has been tied down to d4 and all Blacks pieces put on their best squares, but not yet.
Anyway - more than enough already! I hope some of this was useful to Giulio, and did not sound too critical, it was not a bad game. I hope Geoff wasn’t too bored by all this talk of plans with no tactics!
I hope everyone will forgive the extremely long post, and we don’t establish I’m wrong about everything. Maybe I should get a no comments blog!
I’d like to talk about 3 positional things, and then the game:
1. Space matters
If I had to summarise the Short system in two words, they would be "Space Matters". One of the important things proved in the early 90s was that even in simplified positions white often keeps an edge. Even with a few exchanges, it can still be difficult to find good squares for the black pieces.
It is a big strategic risk to allow white to maintain a space advantage, without putting some pressure on the white position. Black really needs to attack the white pawn chain.
Karpov liked ne7 then c5, but most top players now play c5 immediately. As Roger says, the plan with c3 is rather out of fashion. So White more often plays c4, blowing up the centre. He trys to prove not only has black wasted a tempo on c7-c6-c5, but also that the bishop is misplaced on f5, and has left the queenside weak. So in fact, the Short system often leads to a very open game. I see Giulio has looked at the lines with an early c5, he might find he is comfortable playing these sharp positions.
2. Pressure on d4
Classically the best way to attack the pawn chain is at d4. Given Black can hope to put his knights on c6 and f5; it is an excellent way to stay active using the squares that are available.
I understand Roger’s point:
But I think black does go a bit further than provocation. Black can put some pressure on the white position, and must do so. In the advance variation, pressure on d4 is an excellent way. It ensures white has to play accurately. Karpov proved white really has to be very accurate in a lot of seemingly simple positions, or black can be better.Roger de Coverly wrote: I’ve never been convinced that Black has a plan in the Caro, the winning method often seems to be to provoke White into doing something inaccurate.
Using another tennis analogy in the Caro-Kann Black is not trying to hit winners, but rather is playing a baseline game. But he is trying to do more than just get the ball back over the net; he is trying to get the ball back in the corners with spin.
3. Black’s light squared bishop
Suba famously said “bad bishops protect good pawnsâ€, meaning that, for example, although black can lose games in the French because of his bad bishop, that same bishop ensures that the e6 and d5 pawn chain is stable in the middle of the board. Those pawns are the basis of blacks play in most French lines.
The Short system takes advantage of the fact that getting the bishop outside the pawn chain has some drawbacks as well as some big advantages. It is critical to keep some control of the light squares on the kingside, particularly f5. So swapping off the light square bishop is actually often risky.
White sometimes plays f5 attacking the base of the pawn chain, in classical Nimzowitch style, in the French. It is a dangerous plan. But in the advance Caro, with the light squared bishop gone, it can be crushing. You don’t see people playing a quick f5 against Karpov, Anand or Dreev. But that is because they guard the light squares very carefully.
4. The game
I am bit critical of 6...Bg4. The main reason is not because the move itself is bad but because I think it is more important to play c5, to get some pressure on the white position. As Jack says, the bishop has good prospects on f5. But also it is not always an achievement to get rid of the bad bishop; the light squares are weaker with it gone.
So I thought Bg4 and Nh4 were risky, Black is falling behind in development and swapping pieces that help defend the kingside. I think Andreoni could have seriously considered trying to blow black off the board with g4 and f5. But he plays a little more slowly.
After move 15, Giulio asks “Should I be afraid of a kingside attack with Kg3,h3,g4 and f5“. I think, yes, definitely! White is often safe to attack on the kingside, even after castling kingside, in the Short variation. He has pieces on that side of the board controlling lots of squares. Maybe all the squares, if the pawns push black back from f5. White’s king isn’t in any real danger, now or later. Black has no way to get pieces in. I might even question h5, as creating a weakness where white intends to attack, rather than restraining white. But it is a move which always needs fine judgement.
The game Short-Ljubojevic 1992 is a classic example of white attacking in front of his king, with a brilliant finish.
Of course in the game black’s position is not so bad he should get squashed. But he really needs to keep pressure on the centre to stop white playing the slow motion kingside attack. Pressure on d4 will also stop white manoeuvring so easily. His pieces may not be great at move 15, although they are not so bad. But with his extra space, if white is given a free hand to reorganise, he will be able to find good squares and will be much better.
I would criticise qc6 and c4. Finally Black played c5 but instead of reorganising to put maximum pressure on d4, he immediately took off the pressure. B5 is just a mistake in my opinion, but perhaps an instructive one. I think Giulio underestimated how strong whites control could be on the kingside at move 15. I think maybe he did not fully take account of how well white’s pieces controlled the squares, ensuring both his king is safe and he could attack. In the same way I think he overestimated blacks chances on the queenside. Black doesn’t yet have enough pieces on the queenside, whereas because of his extra space white could quickly swing over his rooks, and could have moved his minor pieces if necessary. Piece placement remains important even in closed and semi-closed positions. And the space really does matter!
I keep saying it, but I really think pressure on d4 was the right plan. A queenside pawn storm later maybe, if white has been tied down to d4 and all Blacks pieces put on their best squares, but not yet.
Anyway - more than enough already! I hope some of this was useful to Giulio, and did not sound too critical, it was not a bad game. I hope Geoff wasn’t too bored by all this talk of plans with no tactics!
-
Christopher Kreuzer
- Posts: 10823
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: About closed positions
I've very tempted to post some games I played as White against the Caro-Kann recently, where I played an early Bd3, swapped off the White squared bishop, and tried to do something with the, er, space. The second game (round 4 from the U170 London Chess Classic 'B' - 11/12/2012) wasn't that instructive, but the game a week or so before that went:
I'd never seen that position before in my life, and I eventually played 7.Qxa6 and won after a bit of a strange game. Is that 5...Qa5+ and 6...Qa6 manoeuvre some sort of theory?
I'd never seen that position before in my life, and I eventually played 7.Qxa6 and won after a bit of a strange game. Is that 5...Qa5+ and 6...Qa6 manoeuvre some sort of theory?
-
Richard James
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
- Location: Twickenham
- Contact:
Re: About closed positions
50 games in BigBase2012, mostly low level, with Black scoring 69%.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I've very tempted to post some games I played as White against the Caro-Kann recently, where I played an early Bd3, swapped off the White squared bishop, and tried to do something with the, er, space. The second game (round 4 from the U170 London Chess Classic 'B' - 11/12/2012) wasn't that instructive, but the game a week or so before that went:
I'd never seen that position before in my life, and I eventually played 7.Qxa6 and won after a bit of a strange game. Is that 5...Qa5+ and 6...Qa6 manoeuvre some sort of theory?
The idea of Qa6 stems, I believe from this game:
-
Giulio Simeone
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
- Location: Rome, Italy
Re: About closed positions
Thanks a lot Paul Cooksey for your detailed analysis of the game and for your considerations on the opening. That's exactly what I looked for, a clear explanation of the strategical ideas that can be beyond a closed game such as the one I posted. A computer can give you thousands of variations, but can't give you a conceptual lesson like that. I think it will be much useful to me, as soon I will have time I will replay the game at the chessboard and I will try to assimilate the concepts you have so clearly explained. Furthermore, I saw that you are a 2273 FIDE Master, so you surely know what are you talking about.
-
Giulio Simeone
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
- Location: Rome, Italy
Re: About closed positions
John McKenna wrote:I accept what Giulio says about moving his minor pieces in the opening - they were in a such a small apartment that the KB & KN were on the roof (Pc6, Pd5 & Pe6).
Yes, but that day it snowed heavily (snow is white!) and so the only refuge avaliable on the roof was a very small mansard, the f5 square. The bishop and the knight couldn't both refuge in that mansard, and so at least one of them had to sacrifice himself!! The chessboard isn't exactly an house, but that's more or less what happened on this game Exactly, I had to open a door especially for letting the queen have more space - we know that women are more demanding than men. Shortly after that, though, I made the mistake of locking that door once and for all with c4, then my opponent helped me to unlock that door, but at the price of a pawnJohn McKenna wrote:So it was necessary to open a window - Ph6 or h5 - and eventually a door with Pc5. Giulio opened the window wide with Ph5 and played 18... c5 then seemed to have a playable position. His friend replied 19.c3 (but could have tried 19.c4 if he wanted to be aggressive) then 20.h3 - to put black off playing O-O? And is 20... c4 really too commital?
)-
Giulio Simeone
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:06 pm
- Location: Rome, Italy
Re: About closed positions
Christopher, I have played this manoeuvre many times in tournaments and thousands of times on FICS. I think that the point is that the white queen is very well placed in d3 as it looks both at the queenside and at the kingside, and can't be threatened by the black bishop any longer. So it is better to chase it away from the board, once Black has wisely exchanged queens the ideas that I tried to follow in the game with Andreoni work much better: often black can successfully play c5-c4 and b5-b4, and place a strong knight in f5. Just last Sunday I won an interesting game with this variation, at the end the pawn storm on the queenside restrained white's play in a fatal manner.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3 Bxd3 5.Qxd3 Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Qa6
I'd never seen that position before in my life, and I eventually played 7.Qxa6 and won after a bit of a strange game. Is that 5...Qa5+ and 6...Qa6 manoeuvre some sort of theory?