Way back when I read How to Think Ahead in Chess: The Methods and Techniques of Planning Your Entire Game by Horowitz and Reinfeld the book lead me to believe that winning with the Stonewall was easy; it wasn’t.
The book deals with one opening for white, the Stonewall Attack, and the Sicilian Dragon (OK) against 1.e4 and Lasker's Defense (good and simple) to the Queen's Gambit Declined for black.
Of course, these days the Dragon has a whole lot more theory than was ever presented in the book, but Lasker's Defense remains a solid and fairly easy way to meet 1.d4.
The concept of the Stonewall Attack seems simple enough, but for some reason black never rolled over and died like the examples in the book. After a bunch of losses I gave it up.
I have Andrew Soltis’ book on the Stonewall (a much better one!) and he says, “The Stonewall...is one of the simplest to play and yet it is one of the rarest to be found in tournaments...at least on the master level.”
As often happens with these kinds of books, the authors only give games where your opponent obligingly falls in with your plans and the authors often ignore refutations and stronger lines in order to prove their point. This is not the case with Soltis.
In these so called “system openings", claims to the contrary, you cannot avoid the study of variations. In the case of the Stonewall Attack you cannot play it by simply posting your pawns on c3, d4, e3, and f4 and then deploying your pieces in typical Stonewall fashion with Bd3, Nf3-e5, Nbd2, Qe2 or Qf3, O-O, etc. No, you have to play moves that respond to what your opponent is doing.
Here’s my lucky win against what appeared to be a fairly strong opponent on Chess Hotel who I managed to beat with the Stonewall.
[Event "Chess Hotel (10 min + 10 sec)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2023.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tartajubow"]
[Black "Anonymous"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D00"]
[Annotator "Stockfish/Komodo"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[EventDate "2023.??.??"]
{Stonewall Attack} 1. d4 d5 2. e3 c5 {This pretty much precludes the Colle and
the Stonewall because now if 3.Bd3 c4} 3. Bd3 (3. dxc5 Nc6 4. c3 a5 5. Bb5 {
is equal, but the position is nor what white wants if he intends playing the
Stoneneall or Colle!}) 3... e6 (3... c4 {Of course...you can't argue with
Capablanca!} 4. Be2 Nc6 5. f4 Bf5 6. Nf3 e6 7. O-O Bd6 8. c3 {White is lucky
if he has equality in this position. Kreymbourg,A-Capablanca,J New York 1911})
(3... Nc6 4. c3 e5 5. dxe5 Nxe5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Qxd5 Bxb5 8. Qxe5+ {is equal.
Garaev,S (2293)-Stupak,K (2227) Minsk 2005}) 4. f4 {Why white avoid c2-c3 and
black ...c5-c4 is a mystery.} Qb6 (4... g6 {I've always liked the fianchetto
against the Stonewall and Colle ever since I saw a game (which I cannot
remember!) by Euwe decades ago.}) 5. c3 {Now things are starting to look
familiar.} Nc6 6. Nf3 Nh6 {An odd square for the N, but there is no way for
white to take advantage of it.} 7. O-O Be7 8. Qe2 {Rather pointless. Why not 8.
Nbd2?} c4 9. Bc2 O-O 10. e4 {A demonstration in the center is all white has.} (
10. h3 {intending a K-side advance does not seem to lead to anything
worthwhile.} Nf5 11. Qf2 Bd7 12. g4 Nd6 13. Ne5 Nxe5 14. dxe5 (14. fxe5 Ne4 15.
Qg2 f6 {is good for black.}) 14... Ne4 15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Nd2 Qc6 {Black is
better.}) 10... Re8 11. Ng5 {Not bad, but keeping a spatial advantage with 11.
e5 was a little better.} g6 {A mistake that weakens the Ks position.} (11... e5
{This is the equalizer.} 12. fxe5 (12. exd5 {is an error, but it does lead to
a messy situation where a lot could go wrong for either side.} exd4 {
Threatening a discovered check, so...} 13. Bxh7+ Kf8 14. b3 Bxg5 15. Ba3+ Be7
16. d6 g6 17. dxe7+ Kg7 18. Bxg6 d3+ 19. Qf2 Qxf2+ 20. Rxf2 Kxg6 {with
complications that should favor black.}) 12... Nxe5 13. Nf3 Nd3 14. Bxh6 (14.
Bxd3 {For the moment white must avoid this.} cxd3 15. Qxd3 dxe4 16. Qxe4 Bf5 {
with an active position.}) 14... Qxh6 15. Bxd3 cxd3 16. Qxd3 dxe4 17. Qxe4 {
Black is a P down, but his two Bs should be enough compensation.}) 12. Nd2 {
This develops, but it's too slow.} (12. e5 Bxg5 13. fxg5 Nf5 14. Qf2 Bd7 15. h4
{and white's K-side attack should prove very dangerous.}) 12... dxe4 (12... e5
{as previously noted would have kept black in the game. That said, things get
very complicated tactically!} 13. fxe5 (13. Nxf7 {This is not quite sufficient.
} Nxf7 14. fxe5 Ncxe5 15. exd5 Bg4 {Black is better.}) 13... Bxg5 14. Qf2 Nxe5
15. Nxc4 dxc4 16. Bxg5 Nhg4) 13. Nxc4 Qc7 14. Nxe4 Nf5 15. g4 {Planning a P
assault.} (15. d5 {is an interesting tactical shot.} exd5 16. Nf6+ Bxf6 17.
Qxe8+ Kg7 18. Bxf5 dxc4 19. Bxc8 Rxc8 20. Qe4 {and white has stolen the
exchange.}) 15... Ng7 16. f5 {Playing 16.Ne3 first was stronger. Maybe in th
future there will be an additional sacrifice on f5!} exf5 (16... gxf5 17. Bf4
Qd8 18. Ned6 {should prove decisive.}) 17. Bf4 Qd7 18. gxf5 Nxf5 {White can
start feeling confident of victory.} 19. d5 {More solid would have been 19.Rae1
} Qd8 {This loses quickly.} (19... Qxd5 $16 20. Nf6+ Bxf6 21. Qxe8+ Kg7 22. Ne3
Nxe3 23. Qxe3 {White is up the exchange, but black is not without some play on
the K-side.}) 20. dxc6 bxc6 21. Rad1 {Bringing the last piece into play and
black's Q has nowhere to go.} Bd7 22. Be5 f6 {Trying to break the grip on the
dark squares around his K.} 23. Rxf5 {Asd mentioned in the note to white's
15th move.} gxf5 24. Qg2+ Kf7 25. Bb3 {The threat of a discovered check is
always a nasty one!} (25. Ned6+ Bxd6 26. Nxd6+ {and there's a mate in 16!} Kf8
27. Bf4 Qb6+ 28. Kh1 c5 29. Rg1 Bc6 30. Be4 Bxe4 31. Nxe4 Qb7 32. Qg8+ Ke7 33.
Rg7+ Kd8 34. Bc7+ Qxc7 35. Qd5+ Kc8 36. Qxa8+ Qb8 37. Qc6+ Kd8 38. Qd7#) 25...
fxe4 (25... Be6 {also runs into mate.} 26. Ned6+ Bxd6 27. Nxd6+ Kf8 28. Bf4
Bxb3 29. Bh6+ Ke7 30. Qg7+ Ke6 31. Qf7+ Ke5 32. axb3 Re7 33. Qh5 Qg8+ 34. Kf2
Qd5 35. Bf4+ Ke6 36. Rxd5 Kxd5 37. Qxf5+ Re5 38. Qxf6 Re2+ 39. Kxe2 Re8+ 40.
Nxe8 Kc5 41. Qd4+ Kb5 42. Nc7+ Ka5 43. Qc5#) 26. Nd6+ Kf8 27. Qg8# {White got
far more out of the opening than he should have!} 1-0
No comments:
Post a Comment