The Resilient French - Does 24…g5 Really Work for Black?

In my previous article I left it where I (as black) had just played 24…g5?! I said I didn’t think it worked for me and there was a simple plan of 24…Rb8 that was much better. Well, having looked a little closer I’m no longer sure that 24…g5?! is as bad as I used to think; however, I still think 24…Rb8 was the right move to play because it is a promising plan involving no risk to black.

We start from the first diagrammed position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here I have just played 24…g5?!

Now the obvious threat is to play 25…g4 forking white’s queen and rook, so white can’t just ignore this. My thinking was that after (say) 25.Qg2 g4 26.Bf2 Kh8 27.Rh5 (see second diagram)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

white’s rook is trapped and must drop off sooner or later. Note that there are other lines in which the white rook ends up on h5, and I thought the same applied in all of them. The question is, how is black to actually round up and capture the rook, when it on h5? I now think black actually can’t achieve this.

I (as black) need to find a way to attack the rook, and it seems I have two pieces that can do this: my queen and my light squared bishop. However, white can just play Ng3 defending the rook, and it’s no good attacking it with the queen! Also, my light squared bishop is defending my pawn on f5, and even if I bring my queen’s rook over to defend it, white can again play Nc3; this means the moment my light squared bishop leaves its current diagonal, white can just take my f5 pawn with his rook. In addition, white also has the resource Bh4, exchanging off my dark squared bishop to allow the white rook onto h4.

Conclusion: the tactics behind my …g5 thrust do not work!

The Resilient French - Moving Forward

It’s been a while since I posted and article on this blog, mainly due to having been on holiday for a while. In this article I want to pick up from the last article The Resilient French - Returning to the Game. In this article I looked at the game up to the exchange of knights on c3 which resulted in the position in the first diagram.

This position was reaches after the moves:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 a6? 4.a3 Nc6 5.Be3 Nf6 6.e5 Ne4 7.Bd3 f5 8.Nge2 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.f3 Nxc3 11.bxc3

I then went on to discuss how, at the board in the game, I was concerned about c3-c4 levering against my centre. However it seemed that actually I didn’t need to worry about it because I could play …Na5 and if white played cxd5 I could recapture with the queen (maybe even getting some pressure by playing …b5 and …Bb7 at some point).

In the first diagrammed position I actually played 11…Bg5!? to free my position. A similar theme has been discussed in previous articles - i.e. I analysed whether or not I could play this move instead of exchanging knights, and the answer turned out to be it wasn’t really a good idea. However here I think the idea is OK - whether it is necessary or not is another thing; I suspect I could have just got on with activity on the queen’s side, by simply playing 11…Na5 and the usual sort of plan, for example: 11…Na5 12.Qe1 b5 13.Nf4 Nc4.

However 11…Bg5!? is what I played, and my opponent’s reply bewildered and please me: 12.f4?! This, as far as I can see just gives white a bad bishop. In passing I think there is an irony here, because in the French Defence black accepts that the light squared bishop will be bad, at least in the classical sense (although in some variations black tries to exchange the light squared bishop off quite early on). The difference is that, although black’s light squared bishop lacks mobility, it does an important job and therefore isn’t really a bad piece! The important job is, of course, defending the pawn on e6 and therefore playing an important strategic role in black’s game! By contrast, in the first diagrammed position, white’s dark squared bishop doesn’t seem to have a job to do.

The game continued:

12…Be7 13.Rf3

white signals the intention to play for a hack attack…

13…Bd7 14.Rh3 b5 15.Nc1 g6

White has cleared a path for the queen with 15.Nc1 - albeit at the cost of blocking in the queen’s rook, and needing to spend a move freeing it. Therefore I deemed it necessary to spend time preparing a defence. We now have the second diagrammed position.

I think 15…g6 was a setback for white; I think the next few moves will back up that statement. The queen can not get to h5 anymore and I can’t see a way for the hack attack to proceed - at least no way that gives me anything to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

The game continued:

16.g4 Na5 17.Qf3 c6

See the third diagram.

I remember sitting at the board and coming to the conclusion I had to play 17…c6. After white played 17.Qf3 I saw the threat of gxf5, which would force me to take back with my g-pawn - taking back with my e-pawn would leave my d-pawn hanging - and taking back with my g-pawn is something I did not want to do; having said that I think this is something I need to come back and look at later, because white’s king would be exposed as well as mine, so unless white actually has a way to win it could prove double edged! Anyway, at the board I decided I wanted to keep my king covered and so defended my d-pawn. At first it bothered me that I couldn’t play the freeing …c5 break, but then I started to feel quite happy: I don’t have to worry about doing anything quickly, and if this is the best white can come up with, well, surely I have reason to feel happy with my position. I decided I would simply defend against white’s attack, and then try to work out a plan for counterplay. The game continued:

18.Ne2 Nc4 19.Bxc4 bxc4 20.Kh1 Rf7 21.gxf5 exf5 22.Bf2 Be6 23.Bg3 Qf8 24.a4

This gives the fourth diagrammed position:

I have no idea what white’s bad bishop is doing on g3 - surely it would be better on e3 where it doesn’t obstruct the g-file.

In this (fourth diagrammed) position I actually went in for chaotic tactics with 24…g5? I think this was actually a bad idea - i.e. the tactics don’t work for me, but one of my reasons for looking at this game was to try to get to the truth about this.

Objectively though, I think white’s attack has run out of steam and I could have just played 24…Rb8! as white can’t oppose this rook’s infiltration. For example: 24…Rb8 25.Bh4 Bxh4 26.Rxh4 Rb2 27.Ng1 Rxc2 is just one possible line.

Anyway, I’m going to leave it there for now. This leaves the same at a point where I’m ready to look at the tactics after 24…g5. As I say, this was certainly now called for. Also I don’t think the tactics work, but it will be fun finding out the truth!