QGD, Symmetrical Defense

     While checking offbeat defenses the QGD, the Symmetrical Defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5) drew my attention. It was analyzed as far back as 1604 but was studied by the Austrian players Hans Haberditz, Hans Muller and Ernst Gruenfeld. Today most theoreticians think white’s advantage is too great and the best black has is a draw. Of course, it can transpose into the Tarrasch variation if white wants to go that route.

     White usually plays 3.cxd5 when it is not advisable for black to play 3...Qxd5 because white gets a big lead in development. Instead, black should play 3...Nf6 intending to recapture on d5 with his Knight. White should be able to maintain the advantage with either 4.Nf3 or 4.e4 though. 

     One of the games I came across was the following amusing Spielmann debacle. 

     Rudolf Spielmann (1883-1942) is well known. His opponent is lesser known. Hans Fahrni (1874-1939) was a Swiss master. In 1892 he was joint Swiss champion. His best results were: 1909, first ahead of Tartakower, Alapin and Spielmann in a Munich quadrangular tournament and first place in 1911 at San Remo. 

     In 1916, he began suffering from psychosis…a generic term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality.” He was hospitalized, but after his release, he had a relapse. 

     In this game Spielmann played a horrible continuation and Fahrni handed him an ignominious defeat.

 

 

     The game was played in the Barmen Meisterturnier A 1905. For the most part, it was a three-way race between Cohn, Swiderski and Forgacs, with occasional challenges from others. 

     The first two were tied for the lead after round 9, but Cohn lost to Swiderski in round 10 and was always a bit behind after that. 

     Forgacs, recovering from a slow start, caught Swiderski in round 11. Round 16 proved critical. 

     Cohn lost to Spielmann, who found his form for this game after losing five in a row! Perlis, going up against tail-ender Pettersson (who had scored one draw in 15 games), slowly frittered away an endgame. That ended their challenges and Swiderski collapsed and lost his last two games while Forgacs won his last two games and took the tournament by a full point. 

     Although Spielmann’s play in the following game was hardly perfect, the game is a good example of why the Symmetrical Defense is not a good choice. 

[Event "Barmen Meisterturnier B"] [Site ""] [Date "1905.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Hans Fahrni"] [Black "Rudolf Spielmann"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D02"] [Annotator "Stockfish 16"] [PlyCount "53"] [EventDate "1905.08.14"] {D06: Queen's Gambit: Symmetrical Defense} 1. d4 {[%mdl 32]} d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 Nc6 {This is a poor decision because it costs black too much time. Transposing into the Tarrach Defense with 3...e6 would have been better.} (3... dxc4 { is the only other viable alternative, but it is not entirely satisfactory.} 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 a6 {etc.}) (3... e5) 4. cxd5 Qxd5 5. Nc3 Qd8 {The only reasonable move.} (5... Qd6 6. Nb5 Qb8 7. d5 {is not very appetizing for black. }) 6. d5 {White already has a significant advantage.} Nb8 (6... Nb4 {is a losing move.} 7. e4 a6 8. a3 Qa5 9. Bd2 {Black has trapped his own N. Galochkin,S-Rafalski,K (1550) Pardubice 2006}) 7. e4 {Black has a serious lack of development and his next mover only makes matters worse because it allow white the opportunity to open up the position. However, even after, say, 7... g6 black's position is pretty bad.} e6 8. Bb5+ {White is winning!} Bd7 9. dxe6 fxe6 10. Ng5 Qb6 (10... Qe7 {is no better.} 11. Bxd7+ Qxd7 12. Qxd7+ Nxd7 13. Nxe6) 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Qf3 Nh6 13. Qf6 {Black could safely resign at any time.} Bxb5 (13... Rg8 14. Qxe6+ Qxe6 15. Nxe6 {There is no way to meet the threat of Nxc7+}) 14. Qxh8 Nd7 15. Nxb5 Qxb5 16. Nxe6 Qb4+ 17. Qc3 Qxe4+ 18. Qe3 Qb4+ 19. Bd2 {[%mdl 32]} Nf5 20. Ng7+ Kd8 21. Qe8+ Kc7 22. Bxb4 Rxe8+ 23. Nxe8+ Kd8 24. Bc3 Kxe8 25. O-O-O b5 26. Rhe1+ Kd8 27. Ba5+ {Black finally resigned. This game is a good argument for not playing the Symmetrical Defense!} 1-0