The sources giving white a safe edge after 1c5 e5 2Nc3 etc, not sure what you mean by 5...e6, are selling books, black has a playable position and f5 is quite ambitous for black. (Edit can see mean 5...e5 by 5...e6 now).
Botvinnik system as black: Why is this not more popular?
Sort:
Sep 19, 2018
0
#3
Check my post #2 of this thread:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/free-member-game-analysis-from-gm-jesse-kraai-broadcast-live-on-twitch-1
... in which I play the Botvinnik as Black against White's c3 / d4 idea in the Closed Sicilian.
Bovinnik has actually played the system with black in WCH. I'm not at all sure if I remember correctly but I have some vague memories having read somewhere that this was big surprise at the time and considered very unorthodox. If this is true it may well mean that this was the first game where he used the setup.
I'm not sure why it's not more popular with black. May just be that the normal systems with e6+Ne7 are considered very solid for black. I've seen Nh3+f5 (even as a pawn sacrifice) mentioned as a possible antidote for white but not sure how dangerous that really is. Surely there are many variations in closed Sicilian where e5 is perfectly viable option.
My 5...e6 in my initial post was a typo, TwoMove. Sorry about that; I will correct it. I meant 5...d6. Also, I am specifically talking about the Botvinnik system against a Closed Sicilian type setup, so in the case of 1 c4 e5 etc., I'm referring to when black adopts a reversed Closed Sicilian setup, playing the setup that white would normally make in the Closed Sicilian. Playing c4 and e4 against other setups, I can't say much about, as I haven't looked into them, so my focus in this thread is actually concerning the very narrow, Closed Sicilian type setup with the e-pawn moved two squares, king's fianchetto, queen's knight developed to c3/c6, etc. And then asking the question, if white's setup is effective in the English, what effectiveness really goes away when black does the same against the Closed Sicilian?
Thank you Shakaali for your post and the example game. It is a bit helpful, particularly in seeing how white reacted to black's setup. I have seen sources talk about how when white plays the Botvinnik, black is often trying to play ...f5-f4, but it is tough to achieve satisfactorily, and so, black ends up being relatively passive, just developing his pieces, but not having a real pawn break/advance that would allow him to put solid pressure on some area of the board, whereas white does have prospects of at least doing something, hence where the "safe edge" can come into play.
However, of course it is possible to try to play in the center instead of forcing through the f-pawn, and sources I looked at seemed a bit dismissive about that. For example, ...Nd4 was not a strongly recommended idea. In your example though, Shakaali, with colors reversed, white does try to get play in the center with Nd5, get a pawn to d5, and later on play f4. I'm wondering if these kinds of ideas have more promise when you have the extra tempo available, compared to just trying to push forward on the kingside in vain. Although, white did lose the game you showed, so who knows 
Anyway, thanks for the input, everyone. Of course my initial post wasn't a comprehensive list of everything that could happen in this system, but just a summary of the challenges that black faces, to which he may or may not have an equalizing answer. To put it bluntly, I am trying to see if black actually gets an advantage, not just equality, with the ...c5 ...e5 setup against the closed, given that white perhaps gets an advantage with colors reversed.
Sep 21, 2018
0
#6
Marin has very optimistic evaluations for all sorts of different type of Botvinnik sytems in his books on the english. Meanwhile Botvinnik himself was happy playing games against it, and winning, for example http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032783.
@DeirdreSkye: As it applies to my question, I take that to mean that the ...c5, ...e5 setup for black is either worse for black or only equal. But is there something specific on which you base that assessment? If that is the case, I'm interested to see what that is, because in fact, I don't play the English, Sicilian, or 1 e4, but I was wondering if in the Closed Sicilian (with black adopting a Botvinnik setup) white will get similar difficulties that black can when colors are reversed. That would be interesting to me to learn.
@TwoMove: Interesting. A lot of times I get the impression that black can develop his pieces up to move 12 or so, but then the question is, what then? Benko played in the center in that game, and ended up pushing f2-f4, but I'm wondering what Botvinnik's plan was if white played on the queenside instead. f4 opens up lines for black's developed pieces, but if white does not play this, then black has to find another way to generate activity. ...f5-f4 still looks difficult to achieve... unless maybe he plays it as a sacrifice? Seems like white's pieces are too active for black to get a convincing attack. Although, playing ...Nd4 at some point doesn't seem so bad, and black could then play ...c6 and even ...d5. For some reason the sources I have make a big deal about how the d4 square often doesn't help black, but it isn't very specific about it.
Looking at it, it seems like black's position is well-developed, he has a fair share of the center, so he should have a good position. It's just that it's not always easy for me to find a specific approach for black to actually confirm this, some kind of way to make progress/improve his position. And the sources I look at don't make a big effort to answer this, probably because they are looking at it more from white's perspective.
Sep 22, 2018
0
#8
In typical Botvinnik style in his notes to game he is very specific what his plans were, and what intended to do. If took his notes as the absolute trueth you might think white was doomed from an early stage. In the discussion to the game a Andersson v Keene game is mentioned were white apparantly got the advantage by playing f4 earlier than the more famous game. Marin might recommend something entirely different. Either way don't think the position is decided at move 7, which in a reversed situation is the recommended case for playing e5 against the closed sicilian with Ne2. In the closed sicilian with Nf3, or Nh3 and the extra tempo, there might be some way for white to put black under pressure with the e5 setup.
Well, I just have an opinion about an opening A person can think an opening is better, worse, or equal for one side, and they will give their reasons for that opinion, and they may or may not be correct. It's standard stuff, and GMs are very "guilty" of it too, with their own pet openings and preferences, etc
And remember, I have said a number of times that I am speaking of playing c4 and e4 (or ...c5 and ...e5) against a Closed Sicilian setup, and did not say anything about playing it against any other setup. Maybe the confusion is because I said Botvinnik system? I just use Botvinnik's name as I thought it might make it easier to put a name on the variation I am talking about, but I do not mean the term to imply that I am recommending to play it versus any setup the opponent plays whenever possible. I laid out the point at which I thought black had trouble finding a plan, and that's not a bad reason to get the impression that that side stands worse. But I would be very happy for someone to show me this plan(s) as it's unfortunately somewhat of a mystery to me
Anyway, I do find it kind of cool that Marin seems to be saying something similar to what I'm saying, guess I'm in good company . Of course in that quote, that's a Botvinnik setup versus something else, not versus a Closed Sicilian setup, so it's not quite the same as my thread. But, yes, he and I can very well be wrong, no doubt about it.
Hmm. Well, I did say in my first post that my question is given in the title. I did get more specific about my meaning of "Botvinnik system" later in the post, but if you're going strictly by just what's in the title, I guess it might look like I'm talking about playing the Botvinnik with both colors against anything the other side does. I guess that was a miscommunication on my part, as I am not claiming anything of the sort. Sorry about that.
Elubas wrote:
Thank you Shakaali for your post and the example game. It is a bit helpful, particularly in seeing how white reacted to black's setup. I have seen sources talk about how when white plays the Botvinnik, black is often trying to play ...f5-f4, but it is tough to achieve satisfactorily, and so, black ends up being relatively passive, just developing his pieces, but not having a real pawn break/advance that would allow him to put solid pressure on some area of the board, whereas white does have prospects of at least doing something, hence where the "safe edge" can come into play.
However, of course it is possible to try to play in the center instead of forcing through the f-pawn, and sources I looked at seemed a bit dismissive about that. For example, ...Nd4 was not a strongly recommended idea. In your example though, Shakaali, with colors reversed, white does try to get play in the center with Nd5, get a pawn to d5, and later on play f4. I'm wondering if these kinds of ideas have more promise when you have the extra tempo available, compared to just trying to push forward on the kingside in vain. Although, white did lose the game you showed, so who knows
Think Smyslov was surprised in that game so it's entirely possible that the Nd5+c3+d3 plan is not ideal. In any case I think that e5 is playable move in many closed Sicilian positions but may be better against some white setups than others. I think that in any case people who play closed Sicilian with white are not trying to win out of the opening but rather to get complicated fight that suits their style.
Here is Spassky (quite succesfully in fact but that may be because he is Spassky) demonstrating that plan with f4+f5 I mentioned.
Sep 23, 2018
0
#12
Alexey Dreev put it succinctly:
"[T]he Botvinnik system (5...dxc4) and the variations in it are tremendously complicated with plenty of tactical tricks (All of them however, are so well-analyzed that the top-level chess players are playing it only very rarely lately, because the danger of losing right in the opening stage is too great.)"(Sic)
The Moscow and Anti-Moscow Variations: An Insiders View (2010) p.9.
Dreev prefers the Moscow and Anti-Moscow variations, which are also extremely complex, but at least Black has a pawn for his troubles in most lines.
Sep 23, 2018
0
#13
You're right. I was on my phone and didn't read the question properly.
There are too many "Botvinnik systems" out there.
Regarding the Botvinnik system in the English, it's as popular as most systems.
Shakaali wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Thank you Shakaali for your post and the example game. It is a bit helpful, particularly in seeing how white reacted to black's setup. I have seen sources talk about how when white plays the Botvinnik, black is often trying to play ...f5-f4, but it is tough to achieve satisfactorily, and so, black ends up being relatively passive, just developing his pieces, but not having a real pawn break/advance that would allow him to put solid pressure on some area of the board, whereas white does have prospects of at least doing something, hence where the "safe edge" can come into play.
However, of course it is possible to try to play in the center instead of forcing through the f-pawn, and sources I looked at seemed a bit dismissive about that. For example, ...Nd4 was not a strongly recommended idea. In your example though, Shakaali, with colors reversed, white does try to get play in the center with Nd5, get a pawn to d5, and later on play f4. I'm wondering if these kinds of ideas have more promise when you have the extra tempo available, compared to just trying to push forward on the kingside in vain. Although, white did lose the game you showed, so who knows
Think Smyslov was surprised in that game so it's entirely possible that the Nd5+c3+d3 plan is not ideal. In any case I think that e5 is playable move in many closed Sicilian positions but may be better against some white setups than others. I think that in any case people who play closed Sicilian with white are not trying to win out of the opening but rather to get complicated fight that suits their style.
Here is Spassky (quite succesfully in fact but that may be because he is Spassky) demonstrating that plan with f4+f5 I mentioned.
Yeah, one thing I notice is that white (in the Closed Sicilian) has to make a decision about where to put the king's knight. For example with the king's knight on f3, perhaps it's much harder to get kingside counterplay compared to the knight being on h3 or e2. The knight on e2 also gets out of the way of the f file for white's rook, and could replace a knight on c3 if that knight moves or gets exchanged. A lot of nuances are apparent with each choice of development for this knight, and it could make the difference between what plans work and which ones don't.
Hello. So my question is given in the title. I am referring to the Botvinnik system that white can play in the English, e.g., 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 e4 d6 6 d3 f5, with 5 e4, as well as the deployment of the g1 knight to e2 being the main things characterizing the setup. Sources that I have seen tend to give the impression that white has a safe advantage in these lines, as he makes it hard for black to generate counterplay (e.g., there is a lot of control over the f4 square, making it hard for black to play ...f5-f4, to make progress for a kingside attack) and can plausibly get play on the queenside later on, meanwhile the hole on d4 is very hard for black to exploit. And I tend to agree that these positions are better for white -- black doesn't have a lot to do and will just try to defend against what white does.
But against the Closed Sicilian, black can do the same kind of setup that white does in the Botvinnik, it seems. He can place his pawns on c5 and e5, and in a Closed Sicilian, white will often have the same setup that black has in the Botvinnik. A possible line is 1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d3 e5. I have seen an early ...e5 mentioned for black in the Closed Sicilian, but not very often, and it seems like it's thought of more of as a sideline to just putting the pawn on e6. But if white can get a safe advantage in the Botvinnik, why can't black do the same here? I know that the extra tempo can often have a big impact on the initiative, but in this case with the center locked, I'm not sure how white could do something drastic to make the tempo really count. I don't see how that tempo will change the fact that counterplay on the kingside is hard to generate against black's solid wall. I would have thought that this would be a popular setup if the Botvinnik for white is so effective.
So, if by chance there is anyone who has some knowledge about these openings, I would love to hear their take on this. Or just in general, how much is the extra tempo for white likely to make a difference in the ensuing play. Thanks.