First, thanks to Tim and Alan for their comments on the line previously analysed. Looking at it now I believe Tim is right and I was right to play 10…Nxc3 - although the play I followed it with was poor, although my opponent let me off the hook.
In the position in the first diagram
I actually played 10…Nxc3. I remember making the assumption that white would take back with the knight, but instead white took back with the pawn, playing 11.bc. This does of course make perfect sense because white now has two pawns with which to lever against the black pawn centre - at least that’s what it looks like optically. Black’s centre looks solid, but against two white c-pawns it is actually quite fragile! In the game I played 11…Bg5? White played 12.f4? and I dropped the bishop back to e7, content for white to have a bad dark squared bishop. See second diagram.
You could argue that my light squared bishop is also bad, in true French Defence tradition. However, I would argue that my "bad" bishop is doing an important strategic job - i.e. it is defending the e6 pawn and hence indirectly helping to support the solid pawn centre.
Here I was expecting white to either play c3-c4 or to prepare it (although it looks like preparation would be time consuming). I the second diagrammed position white actually played 13.Rf3 which surprised me, but I now see that 13.c3-c4 could be met by 13…Na5, and if white continues 14.cd (attempting to begin the dismantling of the black centre) then 14…Qxd5, and white is poorly positioned to harass the white queen.
Having said all that, I think in line with Tim’s suggestion, I should just have played (after 10…Nxc3 11.bc) 11…Na4 immediately taking control of c4 and preventing c3-c4.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
