Among the mid-19th century contemporaries of Alexander Petrov and
Carl Jaenisch were gifted masters like I.S. Shumov, V.I. Mikhailov
and S.S. Urusov who contributed many new ideas which broadened and
deepened opening theory. In 1859-1861 Shakmatny Listok
published Urusov's Guide to the Study of Chess which continued
the analytical investigations of Petrov and Jaenisch and in which he
published numerous discoveries in the opening and ending. Sergey Semyonovich Urusov (August 3, 1827 – November 20, 1897)
was a leading 19th century Russian player and self-published amateur
mathematician. His brother Dmitry Urusov (1829-1903) was also a
strong player. Urusov was a member of the Russian nobility, holding
the title of Prince and an officer in the Tsarist army. In 1853 he
played a few games against Alexander Petrov who was visiting Saint
Petersburg; the score is usually given as 3–1 in favor of Petrov
though sources vary. The same year he won a match against Ilya
Shumov by 4–3, and again in 1854 by a score of 12–9. Also in
1854, he drew a match against Carl Jaenisch by a score of 2-2. As an Army officer he fought in the Crimean War in 1854–55 and was
awarded the Order of Saint George for bravery during the Siege of
Sevastopol. During the war he met Leo Tolstoy and the two became
friends. They later fell out after Tolstoy left the Russian Orthodox
Church. Following the Crimean War, he left the army and devoted himself to
chess. There were few organized tournaments at the time, so his chess
activity consisted primarily of individual matches. He was considered
the second strongest Russian player after Petrov, who beat him again
in 1859 by a score of +13 −7 =1; the same year he won matches
against Shumov and Viktor Mikhailov. He drew a match against the
Austrian Ignatz Kolisch in 1862, who was one of the strongest players
in the world at the time, and defeated the strong German player
Philipp Hirschfeld in 1866. In 1878 he retired from chess and
bequeathed his collection of chess books to Ilya Tolstoy. The Urusov Gambit in the Bishop's Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4) is named after Sergey S. Urusov. You don't see this
gambit very often these days, but in the last 4 years or so I have
played it in correspondence game nine times and scored +5 -0 =4 with
it. White's compensation is mainly piece activity and open lines, so
white must play very actively and precisely to force a concession
before black can catch up on development. Some good analysis on the
gambit can be found HERE. In all my analysis I relied heavily on
analysis by Michael Goeller found in this link. Also, in the games that were played a few years ago I used
several different engines as well as Rybka's Monte Carlo analysis. In
Monte Carlo analysis you start with a position and then Rybka plays
hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of games against itself at lightening
speed in order to give a rough idea of the results. I have of
necessity had to trim out literally reams of analysis on the opening
in the attached game, but engine analysis seems to indicate that the
Urusov Gambit is much better than its reputation. A lot of the notes
on the opening of this game came from Goeller's site as well as
several engines that were available at the time the game was played.
Two
good videos on the Urusov can be found on Youtube. HERE and HERE
Engines have pretty much ruined CC even on sites where they are not allowed and playing on sites where they are allowed is fruitless if all you have is a laptop and Stockfish. The number of draws is really high. I checked my last 5 tournaments on LSS and out of 105 games there were only 25 decisive games (23.8 percent). I did a little better, scoring +6 -4 =20, but only having a decisive result in one third of your games makes things pretty boring. On the other hand, maybe it's not completely pointless playing on engine sites. What's interesting to me were the openings because I've been experimenting with some unusual ones and I was interested in seeing how they fared in engine play. Here are some of the more unusual openings and defensesI've played in recent games.
As White: Closed Sicilian (+2 -0 =3) Urusov Gambit (+3 -0 =4) Four Knights Opening (+1 -0 =1) Stonewall Attack (+0 -0 =3) 1.a4 (+1 -0 =2) The following openings were all played once and resulted in draws: Irregular Sicilian (2.a4), Irregular (1.e4 e5 2.g3), Sicilian (2.Na3), Grob Attack, Blackmar Gambit, Vienna Game, Bishop's Opening, Evan's Gambit Accepted
As Black: Ruy Lopez Schliemann +0 -1 =1 QP Opening (2.Bf4) +0 -1 =0 The following defenses resulted in draws: Budapest Gambit, QGD Chigorin (2 games), Giuoco Piano (4 games), Irregular (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 a6), Elephant Gambit (2 games), Baltic Defense, Cornstalk Defense (1.d4 a5)
So, looking at the offbeat stuff, you can see that they did not fare as badly as their reputations might suggest. The Urusov Gambit results are the most surprising! It can be reached via various move orders. The most popular is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 but in can also be reached via the Scotch. Tim Harding wrote of it, “The Urusov Gambit is actually an interesting challenge for analysts and a good training ground for players wanting to improve their understanding of tactics.”
Some of the other weird stuff like 2.Na3 against the Sicilian, Elephant Gambit ( 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5) and a4 on the first move as either white or black worked pretty out well, too. I suspect this is because engines still don't play the openings very well without access to a “human” book. Or do they? Maybe some of this weird stuff is better than humans have believed. For now though, that's the appeal of correspondence chess played with engines...how much extravagance in the opening can I get away with? The following game features what is called the Ware Opening, or for some reason the Meadow Hay Opening, and white was too extravagant, but won due to the difference in their ratings.What it does indicate is the difficulty one may having in facing this weird stuff. There's no immediate refutation and unless one has a good positional understanding and is tactically alert, it's easy to misplay the position and allow your opponent to equalize. I can sympathize with black in this game because one time an IM blundered a piece at move 8 against me and I knew I had him. That's when I got real nervous and tried to be cautious. In my caution I started seeing boogie men, got befuddled and lost the piece back. After that, well...you know what a 2500 rated IM did to me. According to Wikipedia the Ware Opening attacks the b5-square and prepares to bring the a1-rook into the game. The b5-square is non-essential and if Black plays 1...e5, the f8-bishop prevents the development of the white rook for the moment. The reply 1...e5 also gains space for Black in the center, a typical objective of most openings but one completely ignored by the Ware Opening. An experienced player using the Ware Opening will usually meet a response of 1...d5 or 1...e5 with 2.d4 or 2.e4, respectively, since a reversed Scandinavian or Englund Gambit would be unsound here. At some later point the move a5 will be played, followed by Ra4 (as Ra3?? invites ...Bxa3 Nxa3 with a definite advantage for Black). All this mumbo-jumbo means that the Ware Opening is normally played only by beginners. In the 2012 World Blitz Championship, 1.a4 was employed as a little joke by Magnus Carlsen against Teimour Radjabov, who during the blitz championship two years earlier had told him "Everyone is getting tired. You might as well start with 1.a4 and you can still beat them." The game soon turned into a sort of Four Knights Game where Carlsen finally prevailed.
Complex positions are the only way to play for a win is a quote from ICCF SIM Kostas Oreopoulos of Greece who is rated 2490. There is a site called LIPEAD, a non-profit Peruvian association affiliated with ICCF that represents ICCF in Latin America, that has a two part series by Oreopoulos in which he describes how to prepare and maintain an opening repertoire for correspondence chess using the Aquarium program. The articles warn that it is an involved and difficult task and it assumes you have a fair working knowledge of Aquarium because it uses the program’s IdeA feature. PART 1PART 2 ChessPub also an old discussion on using IdeA. With Interactive Deep Analysis you start with a position called a root node and the program will keep exploring possibilities and build a tree from that position for as long as you want it to run. You can mark moves as good, bad, dubious, interesting, etc. The program won’t analyze the ones marked bad and will spend extra time on those marked as good or interesting. According to the description of IdeA, instead of analyzing the same position forever, it behaves like a strong chess player analyzing a position. If you ever studied Kotov’s Think Like a Grandmaster, you no doubt remember his well known advice to identify candidate moves and methodically examine them to build an “analysis tree.” That’s how IDeA works. I will throw this in about Kotov’ book. According to the late James R. Schroeder, this book, which caused a sensation when first published in the US by Kenneth Smith, was written because Kotov was weak with Ns, but he wasn’t aware of it and so created an artificial system which he hoped would avoid blunders. Schroeder claimed that because Kotov was weak when it came to playing with Ns he sometimes misjudged a position. The purpose of IDeA is to dig deeply into a position and return as much information about it as possible. IDeA keeps its analysis in a tree structure which is unlimited in size and the user can browse at will, even while the analysis is in progress. And, you can stop the analysis and go back later and it will pick up where it left off. You can do neither of those things with the Infinite Analysis feature in other programs. As I have mentioned in previous posts, I find Aquarium difficult to use and somewhat confusing; one has to read page after page in the manuals just to learn how to perform basic stuff. So, for me, I have done nothing more than tinker with IdeA because most of my correspondence chess has been played on LSS in rapid tournaments and line most players I don’t spend a lot of time selecting moves. Most people play whatever move the engine suggests after only a few minutes of analysis, but I do like to experiment a little bit. Because everybody is playing pretty fast and a lot of opponents have a ton of games going, you can experiment with unusual openings. One such opening has been the Urusov Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4) and my current score with it is +6 -0 =5 (including one opponent who lost twice against it)! The Urusov might be a good IdeA project, but if you read the articles you’ll see why I am reluctant to bother with doing it!
Back in October, I published an article titled Is Opening Theory Wrong About the Urusov? I relied heavily on analysis by Michael Goeller found on his site HERE. It’s interesting that in Victor Bologan's Black Weapons in the Open Games: How to Play for a Win if White Avoids the Ruy Lopez, he thinks it’s too dangerous for black to accept the gambit! In all 11 of my engine assisted games nobody declined it, so it would seem Bologan is correct. According to my modified version of the opening book that came with Fritz, in OTB play black accepted the gambit with 3...exd4 over 75 percent of the time and the percentage results for white are +39 -33 =28. Accepting the gambit with 3...Nxe4 is even worse: white scored +69 -16 =15. If black declines the gambit with 3...Nc6 white does even better, scoring percentage-wise +63 -18 =19.
The Fritz opening book has zero lines in which black has a plus score. Of course, those statistics are no doubt skewed because the Urusov isn’t played by titled players so the results are not always related to the choice of opening. But, what the stats do show is that unless you’re playing titled players, the Urusov has a lot going for it! Declining the gambit with 3...Nc6 is interesting because it leads to a line also discussed by Michael Goeller called the Perreux Variation of the Two Knights Defense. For a fascinating discussion of this line visit HERE and HERE. I have also seen this opening classified as the Bishop’s Opening, Ponziaini Gambit. After toying with Aquarium’s IdeA on the Urusov it appears that theoretically the best move for black is to accept the gambit, but accepting it, based on Bologan’s advice and my results in quick games, black might do better with the Perreux Variation despite the horrible results shown in the Fritz opening book. I let Fritz do a deep position analysis on the Perreux Variation using both Stockfish 10 and Komodo 10. The deep position analysis feature in Fritz is good for getting deep and detailed analysis of a critical position, and is especially interesting for correspondence players. DPA generates a detailed analysis tree for a given position and you can determine how deep and broad the tree should be and what moves should be included or excluded from the analysis. It’ similar to IdeA, but, as mentioned, once you stop the analysis, that’s it; you can go back and pick up where you left off. The move most chosen by humans after 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 Nc6 is 4.Nf3 which according to the DPA with Komodo and Stockfish results in equality. Instead, they both prefer 4.d5. Here is an interesting game by a couple of masters using the Bishop’s Opening Perreux Variation where white played 4.d5.
In the game white managed to establish a winning position. But, as often happens, even with masters, white did not follow up correctly and lost. At move 23 he missed a chance to win a piece and soon reached a position where there was only one move that wins...26.Rxe4. Had white’s tactical antenna been out he might have seen a signpost or two that there may be a winning tactic available. At move 23 black’s B had limited mobility. And, at move 26 the alignment of black’s N, B and Q coupled with the pin on the N was suggestive. Refer to my post Tactics, the Pornography of Chess
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 {If black takes either P it's the Urusov Gambit.}
3... Nc6 {Theoretically not the best, but it's the safest. } 4. d5 {4.Nf3 exd4
is the Two Knights Defense.} 4... Ne7 5. Nc3 Ng6 {White has several promising
choices:6.Bg5, 6.Nf3, 6.Nfe2 and if he is feeling especially aggressive 6.h4,
which is preferred by Stockfish. } 6. Be3 Bb4 7. f3 d6 8. Nge2 Nh5 {The
alternative plan is 8...Nd7 and 9...O-O hoping to play ...Nc5 and ...f5, but
it does not work out well for black} 9. Qd2 h6 10. O-O-O {White is
considerably better because of the awkward positioning of black's pieces. }
10... Qf6 {Castling was better.} 11. Bb5+ Ke7 12. Rhf1 a6 13. Bd3 b6 14. g3
Bc5 15. Kb1 {Even better was f4 although there is nothing wrong with this
waiting move.} 15... Nf8 {Black does not realize his Q is in danger. Better
was 15...Kf8 allowing the Q to retreat. In any case black's position is
unenviable. } 16. f4 Bg4 {Now white can play 17.fxe5 and then after 17...Qxe5
18.Bxf4 gxf4 he will be able to rip apart black's position with e5.} 17. Rf2
exf4 {This only helps white. For better or worse he had to try the defensive
17...Nd7. } 18. gxf4 Ng6 {This does not prevent the breakthough advance of
white's e-Pawn, but there was nothing for black to do. } 19. e5 {Of course
black can now win a P with 19...dxe5 20.fxe5 Qxe5 but if he does his K is left
wide open to attack. } 19... Qh4 20. Rdf1 f5 21. Bxc5 bxc5 22. exd6+ cxd6 23.
Nc1 {This turns out to be a mistake that allows black to equalize. White
could have taken advantage of the huddle of black pieces on the K-side to win
a piece beginning with 23.Ng1 and 24.h3. If black prevents 24.h3 trapping his
B with 23...Bxh3 then white draws the Q away with 24.Nxh3 followed by 25.Qe1+
and Qe6. } 23... Kf7 {Black slips up here. With 23...Bh3 he could have
rendered h3 toothless and his Q can retreat to f6 helping with the defense.
White should now play 24.h3 although it is not as effective as before because
after 24...Bxh3 25.Rh2 Qg3 black has managed to avoid the worst. } 24. Re1
{After this white's initiative has slipped away and black is able to take
advantage of it to gain the advantage. } 24... Nhxf4 25. Ne4 fxe4 {He should
have played 25...Rhd8. This move is suicide because it exposes his K. The
hint that there might be a tactical shot for white is in the pin on the N and
the alignment of three black pieces on the 4th rank. With 26.Rxe4 Nxf4
27.Qxf4+ Kg8 28.Rxe4 white wins easily as both the B and d-Pawn are
threatened. } 26. Bxe4 {There is only one road to victory here and that's
26.Rxe4! Both this and 26.Rxf4+ lead down the road to defeat. } 26... Kg8 27.
Ref1 Re8 28. Rxf4 Nxf4 29. Qxf4 Qf6 {Well played. With this black takes
advantage of the position of white' B and at the same time forces the exchange
of Qs leaving him the exchange and a P ahead.} 30. Qxf6 gxf6 31. Bg6 Rd8 32.
Nd3 Be2 33. Rxf6 {He may have held out longer with 33.Rf2. } 33... Kg7 34.
Re6 Bg4 35. Re4 h5 36. Nf4 Rdf8 {White has managed to trap his own B and after
the smoke clears he will be a piece and a couple of Ps down} 0-1
A couple of years ago I posted information on the Dimock Theme Tournament which featured the Urusov Gambit. The main line of the Urusov Gambit is reached after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3. The Rutgers Website has a detailed analysis. Michael Goeller also has some excellent analysis on the Urusov (also the Two Knights Defense and the Bishops Opening) on his site. Another resource discussing the Urusov (in French) can be found HERE. The Urusov has been popular among attacking players for nearly 150 years. Adopted by Schlechter, Tartakower, Caro, and Mieses, the opening claimed victims among the best defenders of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including Steinitz and Lasker. By 1924 there was enough interest in the line that a thematic tournament was organized in New York featuring Marshall, Torre, Santasiere and four local New York masters. After the Dimock Theme Tournament the Urusov’s popularity waned until correspondence players began exploring the opening's many forcing lines and Yakov Estrin (World Correspondence Champion from 1975 to 1980) published several monographs that carried the analysis well into the middlegame. Estrin's analysis revealed an equalizing method for Black (with Panov's 4....d5) and suggested that some of the lines might end in equality with best play.
Recently I decided to give it a try in an LSS tournament because I had looked at the games and analysis and became intrigued by its possibilities. Also, I wanted to experiment with the Rybka engine’s Monte Carlo Analysis Method, something I had not been able to do previously because I didn’t have a Rybka engine. I succeeded in playing the Urusov in two games, winning one and the other is still in progress. I am fighting for a draw in that one. This post contains only some of the analysis that resulted. In one game after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Black chose 4…Nc6 which according to the engine opening book is the most popular, but I think it’s already mistake. White’s 4th move threatens to advance with e5, forcing the Knight to e4, where it is vulnerable to attack. So while 4…Nc6 is the most popular, it doesn't seem logical in view of the fact that it does not prevent White from playing the move he wants to play, namely 5.e5. Monte Carlo Analysis statistics seem to bear this out as White scored +180 -104 =92.
In the other game Black chose the Panov line: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5! 5.exd5 Bb4+. On move 8, after a lot of deep positional analysis and Monte Carlo analysis, I selected the less popular 8.Nc3 instead of 8.bc3. MC analysis showed 8.Nc3 as yielding better results for White, but the further course of the game would seem to indicate that two factors influenced the outcome: the shallow depth (7 ply) and the fact that Deep Rybka 4w32 is not as strong as Houdini and Stockfish engine, resulting is less accurate results.
Against Panov’s 5…Bb4+ I was unable to avoid a slightly inferior position. In fact, as late as move 20 or so I did a Shootout with Houdini 2 and White scored +0 -1 =3. Hardly conclusive, but it illustrate the difficulty White has against Panov’ idea.
I won the game where my opponent played 4…Nc6 and am struggling to hold the draw against Panov’s 5…Bb4+. Conclusion: I think the Urusov is good to play over the board for those that like gambits. You could find yourself in trouble IF your opponent is booked up on the Panov idea, but that’s probably not going to happen. It could also be played in correspondence chess on places like ICCF and LSS, but with engines being allowed on those sites, you will have to search really deep to find a way for White to equalize if you run into the Panov variation.
If you are looking for an opening project to tinker around with you can try searching for something for White after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 d5 5.exd5 Bb4+! Who knows, you could get a variation named after yourself.
I recently became the owner of The Life and Games of Carlos Torre by Gabriel Velasco.
Carlos Jesus Torre Repetto (November 29, 1904 - March 19, 1978) was born in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, but spent much of his early life in New Orleans where he was mentored by Edwin Z. Adams, a New Orleans, Louisiana, amateur who wrote to Capablanca that after he had learned to play chess he improved by watching better players at the club and playing over games until he "finally learned to play a little." As he told Capa, his interest consisted principally in mentoring Torre.
Torre later published his famous combination that was supposed to have occurred in a game he lost against Adams, but it has been determined that the combination was probably never played in the game. You can read chess historian Edward Winter's discussion of the game HERE.
Torre quickly improved by playing at the Manhattan and Marshall Chess Clubs in New York City. His style was Classical and he is most famous for the Torre Attack (1.d4, 2.Nf3 and 3.Bg5).
He first came to international attention when he played in the great New York 1924 tournament and impressed everyone with the high quality of his speed chess and analytical ability. The website Chessmetrics.com places Torre as eighth in the world following his tour of Europe. He was awarded the Grandmaster title in 1977.
Torre's career was cut short by mental illness. After his breakdown in 1926, Torre spent much of the remainder of his life hospitalized. His breakdown was supposedly the result of a letter from his fiance calling off their marriage. Reuben Fine visited Torre many years he had retired and found that he still played a good game.
His weakness was that he feared losing and often offered draws even when he had an advantage. His feeble excuse was it was because of his inexperience. However, it's possible that, as NM James R. Schroeder opined, because of his mental condition he may have been simply too fatigued to continue playing after several hours.
As for the book, which was published 21 years ago, it is well printed with only one column per page and the diagrams are excellent. But, of the 105 games many of them are poorly played or worthless exhibition games.
The reason is that a selection of Torre's games is actually pretty slim. He played in only four international tournaments and scored a modest +25 -11 =31. Lamentably a lot of Velasco's analysis is worthless and his comments fatuous, but some of his historical observations are interesting.
In the following game from the New York 1924 Dimock Theme Tournament, Torre defeats the redoubtable Frank Marshall in a Urusov Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4).
The Urusov is a plucky gambit that I have tried in several engine assisted games in correspondence tournaments and have found it to be quite playable, not to mention entertaining!
Harold Dimock of New London, Connecticut, was a prominent chess philanthropist of the 1920s and donated the prizes. Along with other members of the Marshall Chess Club, he sponsored several theme tournaments: the Vienna, Evans Gambit and the Sicilian Wing Gambit.
The seven players in the Dimock tournament were the strongest members of the Marshall Chess Club. Marshall was the reigning US Champion, Torre was the Western Open and New York State Champion. Anthony Santasiere was a frequent participant in tournaments in the New York area and was a Romantic at heart so his participation in this event was a natural.
Erling Tholfsen was the Marshall Chess Club champion. Rudolph Smirka had been the NY State Champion in 1923 and 1927 and because of his work schedule he was unavailable to play during the week and so by special arrangement his games were played on weekends.
Horace Bigelow was described by The New York Times of 1924 as the Oxford University star, but today is best remembered for his columns in the American Chess Bulletin and for his introduction to Reti's book Masters of the Chessboard. Hermann Helms described Bigelow's games as the most spectacular in the tournament.
Bruno Forsberg was a frequent competitor in New York area tournaments and he finished fifth in the New York State Championship of 1930. Due to illness he withdrew near the end of the tournament and forfeited games to Torre, Santasiere and Tholfsen.
By the way, Marshal and Torre were friends and they traveled together on Torre's European tour in 1925 when they both played in tournaments in Baden-Baden, Moscow and Marienbad. In the tournament meeting between the two Torre had the advantage, scoring +3 -1 =4.
Frank Marshall - Carlos Torre
Result: 0-1
Site: Dimock Theme Tournament, Marshall Chess Club
Date: 1924
Urusov Gambit
[...]1.e4e52.♗c4♘f63.d4 This gambit actually dates back to about 1750 when it was discovered by Ponziani. but ir wasn't analyzed until 1857 when Sergey Urusov took an interest in it. 3...exd4 I have reached this position 12 times in correspondence play (engine assisted) and have scored +6 -0 -6!!
3...♘xe4 This coffeehouse move can lead to some sharp play, but it favors white. 4.dxe5 Larsen recommended 4.Qf3 which is just plain bad. (4.♕f3d55.♗xd5♗b4+6.c3♕xd5 Black has a huge advantage.) 4...c65.♕e2 Black has two plausible move (5...Qe7 and if 6.Qxe4 d5) and 5...Nc5) both of which leave white slightly better.
4.♘f3♘xe4 The main line is 4...Nc6 transposing into either the Scotch Gambit or the Two Knights Defense. 5.♕xd4♘f6 Against 5...Nc5 Keres recommended 6.Bg5 while Urusov opted for 6.Ne5. Engines seem to have no preference. 6.♘c3
6.♗g5♗e77.♘c3c68.O-O-Od59.♖he1♗e610.♗d3♘bd711.♕h4♘c512.♘d4♘g813.f4♔f8 Very weak.. Black is equal after 13...Bxg5 14.b4 white is superior. Torre-Tholfsen, same event.
6.♗g5♘c6 Torre's excellent idea. 7.♕h4 In this case this is not good. Black is only slightly better after 7.Qe3+ 7...d58.♗d3♘b49.O-O♘xd310.cxd3♗e711.♘bd2O-O Black is better. Tholfsen-Torre, same event.
6...♘c6 In correspondence games I have reached this position twice and have scored two wins.
6...c6 This is Stockfish's first choice. 7.♗g5d58.O-O-O♗e79.♕h4 Initially Stockfish does not think too highly of this move and gives black a slight advantage, but subsequent play proves the move to be satisfactory. 9...O-O10.♗d3h611.♖de1hxg512.♘xg5g613.♕h6♗d614.h4♗f5 Correct was 14...Bg4 equals. 15.♗xf5gxf516.g4 wiht a strong attack and black's game quickly collapsed.
6...♗e77.♗g5O-O8.♕h4 Obviously I like this move! 8...d6 Too passive. Better was 8...d5. 9.O-O-O♗f510.g4♗e611.♗d3g612.♘d4♘bd713.f4♗xg414.♖de1♖e815.♖hg1 White's attack soon prevailed.
7.♕h4♗b4
7...d58.♘xd5♘xd59.♕xd8+♘xd810.♗xd5c611.♗e4♘e6 with equality. Rios,C (2204)-Mosquera,M (2375)/Bogota 2009
8.O-O Being a P down Marshall seeks rapid development even though the text move allows a weakening of his P-structure.
8.♗g5♕e7+9.♔d1♗xc310.bxc3d611.♖e1 is equal. Tiitta,S (2224)-Kiik,K (2452)/Jyvaskyla 2006
8...♗xc39.bxc3O-O10.♗d3♘e7 This excellent move bolsters his K-side defense. 11.♗g5♘g612.♕g3d5 Torre intends to return the P in exchange for positional superiority.
12...d613.♘h4♘h514.♕e3♕e8 This positional approach was also a solid continuation.
13.♖fe1
13.♗xf6♕xf614.♕xc7♗g415.♘d4♘f4 looks good for black even if the engines think the position is equal.
13...h614.♗xf6♕xf615.♕xc7♘f416.♕e5♕xe517.♖xe5 The ending is equal. Chances in this ending are about even. 17...♗e618.g3 18.Bf1 was played in Samuels-Torre, but in that game tremendous pressure on the doubled Ps, so here Marshall tries to find the least disadvantageous line. 18...♘xd319.cxd3♖ac820.♖c1♖c521.♘d4♖fc822.f4 Hoping for one of his famous Marshall swindles.
22.c4 was objectively best as after 22...dxc423.♖xc5♖xc524.♘xe6fxe625.♖xc4 the position is roughly even.
22...♗g4 Forcing the win of the c-Pawn which also serves as a the centralized Ns support.
22...♖xc323.♖xc3♖xc324.f5 equalizes...for example 24...♗c825.♘b5♖c1+26.♔f2♔f827.♖xd5
23.c4 It would have been somewhat better to centralize his K with 23.Kf2 23...f624.♖e7dxc425.dxc4
25.♖xb7 is much worse as after 25...♖d526.♘b5cxd327.♖xc8+♗xc828.♖b8♖c529.♔f2♖c2+30.♔e3d231.♖xc8+♖xc832.♔xd2a6 black's advantage is a winning one.
25...♖xc426.♖xc4♖xc427.♘b3♖c228.h4♖xa229.♖xb7a5 Black has achieved a relatively easily won ending. 30.♘d4a431.f5♖d232.♘e6 (32.♖b4a333.♘b3♖d1+34.♔f2h5−+) 32...♗xf533.♘xg7♖d734.♖b5♗d3 White resigned. Not flashy, but a solid performance by Torre as he never allowed Marshall a chance. (34...♗d335.♖a5♖xg736.♖xa4♖xg3+37.♔f2♖h3 wiht an easy win.)
