That may be why in round three, where I was Black against Hans Hauke (1838), my opponent came up with an apparent-novelty.
 |
| I have just played 8...Be6 |
*****
*****
*****
*****
Known moves are 9.Bg5, 9.0-0, 9.Bd2 and 9.a4, but HH went for the bishop-pair with 9.Na4!?
After the further moves 9...d5!? 10.Nxb6 axb6, Black is already at least equal, and probably has an edge, according to Stockfish18 and Dragon1, despite the game opening up.
 |
| A quick glance at the position suggests why this is so - Black has four pieces developed (rook, bishop and two knights) against White's two (bishop and knight) |
*****
*****
*****
*****
Rather than continue with 11.exd5, which is the engines' choice, but leaves White further behind in development, HH played 11.Bg5?, but had no good answer to 11...dxe4.
Note that the manoeuvre 9.Na4!? d5 10.Nxb6 axb6 cost White two tempi. Not only that, but Black's a pawn became a more-valuable b pawn, more than offsetting a loss of flexibility as a result of contracting doubled pawns. In addition, half-opening the a file gave Black pressure against White's a pawn.
Note that the manoeuvre 9.Na4!? d5 10.Nxb6 axb6 cost White two tempi. Not only that, but Black's a pawn became a more-valuable b pawn, more than offsetting a loss of flexibility as a result of contracting doubled pawns. In addition, half-opening the a file gave Black pressure against White's a pawn.
LESSON: the bishop-pair is important, but so are tempi, and judging which is more important in any given position can be tricky.
No comments:
Post a Comment