Schliemann-Jaenisch

Line with 7... Qd5

Last update: (mm/dd/yy hh:mm:ss)

(Position after : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.Nc3 fe4 5.Ne4 d5 6.Ne5 de4 7.Nc6 Qd5)

The move 7...Qd5 attacks both white's offensive pieces and is an idea of Moehring. Some authors regard 7...Qd5 better than the classical 7...Qg5.

A little statistics

I did some statistics on the 7... Qd5 games in my Schliemann-Jaenisch database, which consists (last count in April 2000) of 960 games.

In 322 games black played 7... Qd5. In 126 games white won (39%), in 112 games black won (35%), so 82 games were drawn (26%).

In almost all (315) games 7... Qd5 was followed by 8.c4... Only in 7 games white played 8.Na7...

"Of course no one plays 8.Na7...!" says Tseitlin on page 110. "8.Na7 c6 9.c4 Qc5! loses a piece."

"Of course no one plays 8.Na7...!" say Shamkovich & Schiller on page 76. "8.Na7... is not playable due to 8... Kd8! 9.Nc8 Qb5 winning."

"Of course no one plays 8.Na7...!" says New In Chess magazine. "8.Na7 c6 9.Nc8 Qb5 10.Qg4 Kd8... and white loses his knight."

Three authorities explain with three different lines why white should not play 8.Na7... But the moves they give to prove their point do not convince me! In fact I hope black players will follow their advice when I play 8.Na7... against them, because white wins in all of their lines!

Anyhow, white should not play 8.Na7... but for different reasons. Here's some analysis to prove my point.

A little analysis on 8.Na7...

On the home page of the Amsterdam Chess Club Isolani I found in 1997 the following analysis (and added some notes of my own):

The line 8.Na7 c6

First we look at the move 8... c6 (although it is given by most authors as the refutation of 8.Na7... we will demonstrate here that this move does the opposite: it paves white's road to victory!).

8.Na7 c6 9.Nc8...

Only in one game the line Tseitlin gives (9.c4...) was played, but the score does not prove his point that the line is lost for white: 9.c4 Qc5 10.d4 Qa7 11.Qh5 g6 12.Qe5 Kf7 13.Qh8 Bg7 14.Qh7 Nf6 15.Qh4 cb5 16.c5 Be6 17.a3 Bc4 and in this difficult position (where he has three pawns and a rook for a knight and a bishop) white consumed too much time figuring out the best way to hold on to his advantage (0-1 Ricciardi - Haas cr 1991). A continuation might have been: 18.Qg3 Nd5 (or 18...Qa4 19.Qc7 Kg8 20.Bd2 Dc2 21.Qb7... with an advantage for white) 19.b3 Bd4 20.bc4 Ba1 21.cd5 Qc5 22.Qg5... with a clear advantage for white.

9... Qb5 10.Qg4 Kd8 11.Qf4! ...

And all of a sudden white does not lose his knight! In all lines the knight escapes or can be swapped against a black piece. White comes out with two extra pawns and black has to find ways to repair the damage done to his king's castle.

Looking at this analysis it seems that Tseitlin's and NIC's 8... c6 is not the correct move to refute 8.Na7... (on the contrary!), and that Shamkovich & Schiller might be right with their 8... Kd8, so let's check that line.

The line 8.Na7 Kd8

8.Na7 Kd8! 9.c4!...

But not 9.Nc8?... as Shamkovich & Schiller suggest, because of 9... Qb5 10.a4 Qa6 (not 10... Ra4 11.c4! Rc4 12.Ra8... and white wins easily) 11.b3 Nf6 12.Bb2 Rc8 and white is worse indeed.

9... Qg5 10.Nc8 Qg2 11.Rf1 Kc8! 12.Qh5 Nf6 13.Qf5 Kb8

And now it is white's turn to find ways to repair the holes on f3 and d3, since he has no means to continue an attack on the black king. I think black looks good in this position, so white should indeed not play 8.Na7...

The line 8.Na7 Bd7

And why was 8...Bd7 not mentioned at all by those who condemned 8.Na7..? It seems like a logical move to refute 8.Na7... Let's take a closer look where white might improve on the game we follow here:

8.Na7 Bd7 9.c4 Qg5 10.Bd7...

An improvement might be 10.d4 Qg2 11.Qh5 Kd8 12.Qg5 Qg5 13.Bg5 Ne7 14.Bd7 Kd7 15.Nb5... with a small advantage for white.

10... Kd7 11.d3...

Perhaps white can play 11.O-O... with the following idea 11...Ra7 12.d3 Qg6 13.de4 Kc8 14.Be3... White is better developed now and has three pawns for a knight.

11... Qg2 12.de4 Ke7 13.Rf1 Qe4 14.Be3 Ra7 15.Qe2 Kf7

Since the rook is lost anyway, black could have tried: 15...Ra2! 16.Ra2 Qb1 17.Qd1 Qa2 18.Bc5 Ke8 19.Qh5 Kd8 20.Bf8 Qb2 21.Qf7 Nf6 22.Qe7... (not 22.Bg7... because of 22...Re8 23.Kd1 Qe2 24.Kc1 Qf1 25.Kb2 Re2 and white will be mated) 22... Kc8 23.Qg7 Qc1 24.Ke2 Qc4 25.Ke1 Qc3 26.Ke2 Qe5 and black is much better.

16.Ba7 Bb4 17.Kd1 Qf5 18.Bd4 Nf6 19.Bc3 Bc3 20.bc3 Re8 21.Qd2 Qf3 22.Kc1 Re2 23.Qd4 c5 24.Qd2 Rd2 25.Kd2 Ne4

And white resigned (0-1 Desiatov-Ruderfer 1966).

...To be continued as soon as I finished my analysis on this line...

© Jos Heesen / Jos' Chess page