Caro-Kann: Campomanes Attack? | NO! Play like Mikhail Tal! 🤩
#carokann #campomanesattack #mikhailtal #brilliant
I recently played a rather interesting game with the White pieces where Black responded with the Caro-Kann Defense, and then entered the Campomanes Attack (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6). I was a bit surprised when I saw it as the knight on f6 is clearly vulnerable to an attack with e5, and the knight is then forced to move again, with all positions a bit suboptimal. On analysis after the game, Stockfish agrees and the chess.com analytic engine rates the move as an inaccuracy, though noting that it is a named move.
Curious, I wondered, just who exactly was Campomanes? The rabbit hole ended up being rather interesting! Florencio Campomanes was the controversial 7th FIDE President who in his earlier days in his peak chess playing years between the mid-1950s to mid-1960s, was the chess national champion of the Philippines, and represented the Philippines at five Chess Olympiads.
He was elected as the President of FIDE in 1982 and held the position to 1995, and it was during his tenure that we saw the abandonment of the 1984-85 World Championship match between Karpov and Kasparov, and then in 1993, the splitting of world chess between FIDE and the Professional Chess Association. It's worth reading the short Wikipedia biography about Campomanes as one of the sections specifically notes that he has been accused of being a KGB asset in support of his candidacy for FIDE President. 🤯
Politics has ever been entrenched in international chess!
However, why is this move called the Campomanes Attack? To be frank, it's a bit obscure, but there is one recorded game where Campomanes used this variant of the Caro-Kann Defense in 1960 against no other than GM Mikhail Tal! Moreover, with the date, Tal would have been in top form having only recently become the world chess champion after defeated Botvinnik earlier in the year!
I cover the Tal vs Campomanes (1960) game briefly in my video, and the PGN is below. It is of no surprise that Tal crushes Campomanes and it's a great demonstration of Tal's daring attacking style, with a brilliant sacrifice and combination at the end!
Tal vs Campomanes (1960): https://www.chess.com/analysis/library/3oXHx9RHev
In my game, after Black's knight was threatened by e5, Black jumps their knight to the centre of the board, and we immediately trade down. This effectively results in Black losing a point of tempo and getting doubled e-pawns. Not disastrous by any means, but also not great. Moreover, it's unclear what tactical opening advantage Black was seeking with the Campomanes Attack.
On move 7, I play an aggressive provocative move (7. f3?) which Stockfish calls a mistake. This is as I'm opening the dark square diagonal to my king and would be at risk of Qh4+. However, I made a calculation that this was "probably" fine, as it's like some of the positions in the Vienna Gambit, as long as you're willing to move the king and give up on the right to castle.
Next move, (8. g4) which is another aggressive expansion on the kingside, attacking Black's bishop which is at risk of being trapped. Black does respond with the expected (8... Qh4+) but after (9. Kf1), I'm basically fine and Black's bishop is still being attacked. They step their bishop back (9... Bg6) and interestingly on analysis, this was the last move that had ever been played before on the Lichess community database in this line, and apparently my next move was a novelty. I was pleased to discover that Stockfish considered this the most accurate move (10. Qe1), inviting Black to trade queens, and if not, they would have to lose tempo by undeveloping their queen (10... Qd8).
The following few moves involve the building of a tenuous defensive position with my White king still in the centre, and the building of a scrappy attack! Out of the opening, I'd built a strong palisade of pawns along the dark squares, cutting the board in half. With accurate play, Black could form a winning attack, but they never quite managed the complicated position to get the single step of tempo. On the other hand, I was forming an attack of my own, and like the Tal vs Campomanes game, the attack was down the h-file.
On move 23, I made a critical move (23. Ng5). Technically, this blunders a long sequence of forced mate in fifteen moves [-M15], but it required Black to find a brilliant rook sacrifice with Rf4. Luckily, my opponent was not Tal, and indeed, succumbed to the pressure along the h-file by trading their bishop for my knight (23... Bxg5+ 24. hxg5). This was a blunder for Black and the evaluation when from [-M15 → 0.00]!
The next move was similarly unclear for Black, and they possibly thought that they had one turn leeway so developed their other rook (24... Rac8), but this was a terminal blunder [0.00 → +M9]. How quickly the tables can turn! A bit like the Tal game, the opened files now allowed me to chase Black's king with rooks and queen and I achieved what must have seemed like an unexpected ladder mate out of nowhere on move 28. Good game, GG!
The big takeaway from this game that the Campomanes Attack is probably not a great side-line for the Caro-Kann player!
