Caro-Kann: Panov-Botvinnik Attack

Chessgames.com gives an impressive winrate for white of 37.8% in the panov botivinnik attack out of 2430 games, suggesting that the mainlines are in need of improvement. My impressions from looking at recent games are that most black wins appear to be due to at least one of four things: 1. White trying something dubious like c4-c5. 2. White trading off his/her pieces early on. 3. Black choosing a structure similar to what I have presented above. 4. Black playing the g6 lines and fianchettoing in front of his king.

In short, it looks like black doesn't do well with the traditional main lines.

Rykba 2.3.2 gives the final position in my previous post exact equality at 6 ply which suggests that it is a reasonable approach. I haven't analysed the other lines with a computer yet. There might be some stronger resources earlier on for white than what I have shown but I will leave them for others to find.

Sidelines also have the advantage of being less common and therefore the opponent will probably have less experience with them - a definite plus for over the board play.

Well AngryMacrophage, will arguing with 2200 do any good?

There is something fishy about chess.com statistics, its a relatively small selective database but Panov- Botvinnik is being used by players who are among the worlds elite, if there was an obvious flaw in the line as you suggest, do you really think proffesional players whose livelihood depends on chess would insist on playing it?

Beware of the Gunderam Attack by White

Metaknight251 wrote:

and what is that transpo?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

It begins with White playing c5. Look it up. There are tons of videos on it on you tube.

http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/B13_Caro_Kann_Defense_Panov_Attack_Gunderam_Attack

FirebrandX wrote:

transpo wrote:

Beware of the Gunderam Attack by White

Faced it many times in blitz and never knew it was an actual 'attack'. To be honest, I didn't find it to be anything to worry about. Just like the game explorer shows, I'd fianchetto kingside and have a comfortable game. Really if white wants anything from the Panov, the pawn needs to stay on c4. For example, I'm far more tense over 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 than I ever felt over 5.c5

____________________________________________________________________

Gotta know it though. If it takes you by surprise White's alternate plan of attack (establish a 3 v 2 pawn majority on the Queenside) will kick your butt.

The thematic ...e5 brake takes the terror out of the premature 5.c5 of the Gunderam Attack,  as every Russian schoolboy knows.  See the Soltis book on pawn structure chess for specifics.

blake78613 wrote:

The thematic ...e5 brake takes the terror out of the premature 5.c5 of the Gunderam Attack,  as every Russian schoolboy knows.  See the Soltis book on pawn structure chess for specifics.

_____________________________________________________________________________

The important fact is that you are playing mostly American Schoolboys. Most of them don't know the thematic e5 like every Russian schoolboy does.

That's not a reason. If a line is flawed, you cannot recommend it with the explanation "the opponent probably doesn't know how to play it".

The line isn't flawed. Nobody here wrote that the line is flawed. If it were flawed no one would play it because it puts White in a losing position.

It simply doesn't maintain the tension in the center in order to put pressure on Black with a different plan of attack.

The Gunderam is a plan of attack where White's initial goal is to obtain a substantial space advantage on the Queenside which in due course will lead to the creation of a healthy passed pawn.

zerogravity77 wrote:

Thanks, I think I might actually go woth that line. But I'm just wondering if white can play anything other then Qb3

After 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6

White's games database responses are:

6.Qb3    1624 games

6.cxd5. 1180. "

6.Bg5. 623 "

6.c5

6.Bf4

6.h3

6.Be3

6.Bd3

6.Be2

6.b3

6.g3

6.Qd3

6.Qf3

6.Qa4

6.f4

As you can see White has a wide range of playable choices.  The alternatives to 6.Qb3 that have been played most often are:

a) 6.cxd5 played in 1180 games

b) 6.Nf3  played in 623 games

By far Black's soundest procedure in the Panov is 5...e6.  The critical d5-point is now sufficiently protected to allow Black to complete his Kingside development easily with ...Be7 and ...0-0. There are 11000 games in the database where Black plays 5...e6.

The alternatives 5...g6, which you are considering playing, and 5...Nc6 are variations that require much greater technical and tactical mastery than the main line with 5...e6.  Also, that Black runs the risk of laning quite suddenly in an unfavourable position.

                                                                                                             With my next post I will explain what I mean in detail regarding, '...much greater tactical and technical mastery..." in detail and lots of variations critical

5...Nc6 is currently Black's most reliable answer to the Panov. Then 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Nxd5 Nxd5 8.Qb3 has been analysed to boredom (and an actual draw), while 6.Bg5 dc4 7.Bxc4 h6! is also very heavily analysed down to move 30 or so. Black has to be booked up, but IMHO he has perfectly adequate play.

As I wrote, there are 11000 games in the database that continue 5...e6. There are 6480 games that continue with 5...Nc6, and only 3639 games that continue with 5...g6.

Estragon wrote:

transpo wrote:

As I wrote, there are 11000 games in the database that continue 5...e6. There are 6480 games that continue with 5...Nc6, and only 3639 games that continue with 5...g6.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Estragon wrote:

True enough, but of little significance.  Database stats are generally unreliable.

For example, back in the late '60s and early '70s, the Sicilian Poisoned Pawn was all the rage.  Nearly half of all master games (granted, a much smaller number in those days) were Sicilians and half of those were Nadjorf PP.  New moves were being found in almost every tournament. 

So a move might become popular and rack up great results but then, suddenly, someone would discover the refutation and it would disappear.  This happened to any number of ideas for both White and Black, it was THE critical line of the time and very volatile.

But if you rely on statistics, most of those moves which turned out eventually to be bad had very good scores before being refuted.  Since they quickly disappeared from play thereafter, their stats may still show a strong result to this day.

To the extent you can find out anything from database stats, it is best to restrict the inquiry to games played within the last several years.  That way you eliminate the old popular lines which finally disappeared for good reasons.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

What you write about general stats is true enough. One detail, the Najdorf PP was given up by White because the extensive practice as evidenced by thousands of games proved that Black's apparent violation of the opening principle, "thou shalt not go pawn hunting in the opening, especially not with your Q", could not be irrefutably be punished by White inflicting many losses to Black. In fact, the opposite happened, the Najdorf PP produced draw after draw, after draw.

Digging down into the statistics for most recent completed tournament year 2011 I found the following:

1. 5...Nc6 played by player playing the Black pieces rated 2500+ the number of games played in 2011 were a total of 39 games.  White wins 8, Black wins 4, Draws 27

2. 5...e6 played by a player playing the Black pieces rated 2500+ the number of games played in 2011 we're a total of 41 games. White wins 10, Black Wins 7, Draws 24

3. 5...Nc6 played by a player playing the Black pieces rated under 2100 in 2011 were a total of 39.

4. 5...e6 played by a player playing the Black pieces rated under 2100 in 2011 were a total 41 games.

As I wrote before, "...By far Black's soundest procedure in the Panov-Botvinnik is 5...e6. The critical d5 point is now sufficiently protected to allow Black to complete his Kingside development easily with ...Be7 ...0- 0." Regarding the 5...g6 and 5...Nc6 variations you should know that they require much greater technical and tactical mastery than the main line (5...e6) and that Black also runs the risk of landing quite suddenly in an unfavorable position. This statement is backed up by pfren, "...Black has to be booked up...".

check this out.

I guess it's just you.

Playing WITH and AGAINST an IQP is a very complex business, which all really good players have worked at.

Actually, I am not in a position to say if the IQP is "good", or "bad". There are so many factors to judge, and so many different strategical concepts, that a statement like "the IQP is good/bad" is just foolish.

Suffice to say that I am happy to play both sides of an IQP, because what matters there is not theoretical lines, but rather the players positional understanding. I am (certainly enough) no genius, but after having lost many games against an IQP, or having an IQP, I think I got wiser... much wiser.

I play both side of the IQP and want to understand it better.

aijan thanks for the idea I was actually considering that

This is incorrect. Lose a few anti-IQP positions and you will know. IQPs have very powerful dynamic potential. You have to outplay your opponent to win, so it's like any other opening in that sense.