B 12: Caro-Kann Defence, The Advance Variation

Sasa Velickovic
Chess Informant Deputy Editor-in-Chief

 

Before the nineties, The Advance Variation of the Caro-Kann Defence was a system where White was striving to positionally maintain a slight advantage due to a favorable central pawn structure, without a risk of allowing Black any counterplay. Nowadays, there is a palpable change in the way things happen in this highly fashionable opening (although it seems that the pendulum of popularity has of recently swung the other way towards the 3. Nc3 lines), as the computer analyses inevitably led to wondrous transformations of the critical lines. White players were the first to take advantage of such developments, using the opening preparation as a means of fetching them easy points by the handful. Naturally, it eventually began to work for both sides, and White could no longer safely take the sting out of Black’s attempts to not surrender tamely.

Given the above reasons, Chess Informant Editorial Board has decided to do an encore after a gap of ten years from Seirawan’s outstanding work on the first edition of the B 12 Monograph. The purpose of the new monograph is to offer a detailed up-to-date coverage of the B 12 lines without unnecessary overlaps with the previous edition. Without displaying a bias towards one side or the other, this article previews adventurous twists and turns that may arise in the 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. Be3 Qb6 line. The analytical work flowed from my keyboard with great ease and pleasure, and I hope that it will bring the readers at least an inch closer to the truth.

B 12

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. Be3 Qb6

 

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

 
1

c41

Nbd23

0–0

Nb35

Nc5

Bc4

Nd3

Rc16

Bd5

with compensation

Qb22

Ne74

Nbc6

0-0-0

dc4

Nd5

Qa3

h67

ed58
2

Nc3

Nb510

Nc712

Na8

Qc1

Nd213

0–015

Rfc1

Rc1

unclear

Qb29

c411

Kd7

Bc2

Bb4

Ba314

Qc1

Bc1

Ba4
3

. . .

0–016

Nh418

Rb120

Ng6

Qd2

a3

f4

Bf3

and White is slightly better

Nc6

c417

Bg619

Be7

hg6

Qa5

a6

b5

Rd821
4

. . .

. . .

Nb5

dc5

Qc223

Rfc124

Nfd426

Nc6

Nd6

with compensation

. . .

Qb2

Rc822

Qc2

Bc2

Bg625

Kd727

bc6

Rc7

1
7. b3 Nc6 8. 0–0 cd4 9. Nd4 Nd4 10. Bd4 Bc5 equal; M. Boehnisch – B. Starck, DDR (ch) 1979; 7. dc5 Bc5 [7... Qb2 (M. Cisneros – Fos Santacreu, Mislata 1996) 8. Qd4 Qd4 9. Nd4 Nc6 unclear] 8. Bc5 Qc5 9. Qd4!? Nd7 10. Nc3 a6! 11. Qc5 Nc5 12. Nd4 Ne7 13. f4 h5 14. 0-0-0 Rc8 15. Rhe1 (Topalov – Illescas Cobdoba, Leon 1996 see 67/(164)) Bg4 equal; Illescas Cobdoba

2
7... Bb1?! 8. Rb1 dc4 9. d5! Nd7 10. 0–0 Ne7 11. de6 (Lukin – V. Orlov, Saint Petersburg 1995 see 65/(125)) fe6 12. Bc4 and White is superior Lukin; 7... dc4 8. Nbd2 Bd3 9. Bd3 cd3 10. dc5 a) 10... Qb2? 11. Qa4 Nd7 [11... Nc6 12. Rb1 Qc2 13. Qa3 with the idea 0–0, Rfb1] 12. 0–0 and White is superior, with attack; Yudasin – P. Gagliardi, Montecatini Terme 1998; b) 10... Qa6 11. b4 Ne7 12. Qb3 Nd5 13. 0–0 Qb5 14. a3 and White is slightly better; Kovalevskaya – Zimina, Saint Petersburg 2001

3
8. 0–0?! Qa1? 9. Qb3 and White is winning; V. Grechihin – A. Kuzin, Russia 2000; 8... Nc6! unclear Lukin

4

8... Nd7?! 9. 0–0 Ne7 10. dc5 Ne5 11. Ne5 Qe5 12. Nf3 Qc7 13. Nd4 a6 14. Qa4 Qd7 15. Qd7 Kd7 16. cd5 ed5 17. Nf5 Nf5 18. Bg4 g6 19. Rab1 Kc7 20. Bf5 gf5 21. Rb6 and White is winning; C. Pereira – F. Johanson, Internet 2000; 8... Nc6 9. cd5 ed5 10. dc5 d4 [10... 0-0-0 11. 0–0 and White is slightly better; A. Grosar – I. Sitnik, Sentjur 1996; 10... f6 11. ef6 (11. Nb3!?) Nf6 12. Nb3 0-0-0 13. Nbd4 Nd4 14. Qd4 Qd4 15. Nd4 Bg4 16. Rc1 Be2 17. Ke2 Re8 18. Rhd1 and White is slightly better; G. Muttoni – W. Whitcomb, Internet 1998] 11. Nc4 Qb4 12. Bd2 Qc5 13. Rc1 Qd5 14. Qb3 [14. Ng5 with initiative; R. Bagirov] Qd7 15. 0–0 with compensation with initiative; H. Sislian – H. Reschke, Deutschland 1996

5
10. cd5 Nd5 11. Nc4 Qc2 12. Rc1 Qd1 13. Rfd1 0-0-0 unclear; R. Bagirov – Magem, Metz 1999 see 75/108

6
14. Ng5 Rd7 15. Bd5 ed5 16. Nf4 h6 17. e6! fe6 18. Nge6 g5 19. Nf8 Rf8 20. Ne2 equal; Macieja

7
14... Be7 15. Bd5 Qd3! [15... ed5 16. Nc5 Bc5 17. Rc5 and White is slightly better] 16. Bc6 Qd1 17. Rfd1 bc6 18. d5! [18. Rc6 Kb7 with compensation] Rd5 only move 19. Rd5 ed5 20. Nd4 Bd7 21. Nc6 Bc6 22. Rc6 and White is slightly better; Volokitin – Macieja, Ohrid 2001 see 82/110; 14... Kb8!? (Macieja) unclear

8

16. Nf4 g5! 17. Nh5 Be7 18. Ng7!? Bd3 19. Re1 unclear Volokitin; 16. Nc5! Bc5 17. Rc5 Kb8 18. Nd2! [18. Qd2 Be4! unclear] Qa2 19. Qf3!? [19. Qc1 Nb4! unclear; Volokitin – Macieja, Silivri 2003 see 88/71] Be6 20. Nb1 Nb4 21. Nc3 Qa6 22. Rb1 Rc8 23. Rb4 Rc5 24. dc5 Qa3 25. Ra4 Qc3 26. Qd1 (Volokitin) Bf5 with compensation

9
7... c4 8. b3!? Bb4 9. Bd2 Qa5 10. Na4

a) 10... Bd2 11. Qd2 Nc6 [11... Qd2 12. Kd2 cb3 13. ab3 Nc6 14. Bb5 and White is superior, with the idea Nb6, Ra7] 12. c3 [12. Qa5 Na5 13. Kd2 and White is slightly better; Lopez Nadal – Aparicio Navarro, Zaragoza 1994] Rb8 13. 0–0 Nge7 14. Nh4 [14. Bd1 0–0 15. b4 Qd8 and White is slightly better] 0–0 15. Nc5! [15. Nb2?! b5 16. g4 Be4 17. f3 Bg6 and White is slightly better; Okhotnik – W. Sapis, Marianske Lazne 1989 see 47/(181)] Rfd8 16. g4 Bg6 17. f4 b6 18. Na4 and White is superior; W. Sapis; b) 10... c3 11. Be3 Ba3 12. Bc1 Be7 13. Bd3 b5 14. Nc5 Bd3 15. Nd3 Nc6 16. a4 and White is slightly better; O. Coclet – S. Salgaocar, corr. 1999

10
8. Bd2 Qc2 and Black is slightly better; H. Schmidt – M. Breuer, Deutschland 1999; 8. Qb1 Qb1 9. Rb1 with compensation; Comet – Chess Tiger, Paderborn 1998

11
8... Na6 9. dc5 Bc2 10. Qd4 Qd4 11. Nfd4 Ba4 12. Nd6 Bd6 13. cd6 and White is slightly better; C. Quinones – J. Yanez, Peru 1997; 8... Kd7 9. Rc1 [9. dc5 Qc2 10. Qc2 Bc2 11. Rc1 Ba4 12. Nd6 Bd6 13. cd6 Nc6 14. 0–0 f6 15. Bd4 a6 1/2 : 1/2 F. Hindermann – A. Vitouch, Tallinn 1997] c4 10. Nd6 Bd6 11. ed6 f6 12. 0–0 b6 13. Nh4 with compensation; B. Galstian – H. Tikkanen, Cannes 1997

12
9. Rb1 Qc2 10. Qc2 Bc2 11. Rb2 Ba4 12. Nc7 Kd7 13. Na8 Kc8 14. Ng5 [14. Bd1 Bc6 15. a4 Ba3 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. a5 Be7 unclear; Qin Kanying – Karpov, Beijing 1998] Nh6 15. Bd1 Ba3 16. Rb1 Bd1 17. Rd1 unclear; M. Calzetta – M. Vilar, Saint-Vincent 1999

13
12. Kf1 Bc3 13. Qb2 Bb2 14. Re1 Nc6 15. Bd1 Bg6 [15... Bd3 16. Be2 Bg6 17. h4 h5 18. Bc1 Bc3 19. Bd2 Bd2 20. Nd2 Nge7 and Black is superior; R. Hasangatin – A. Bayev, Moscow 1996; 17. Nh4!?] 16. Ba4 Nge7 and Black is superior; A. Samoilov – E. Bataev, Russia 2000

14
12... Bc3 13. 0–0 Bg6 14. Bc4 dc4 15. Nc4 Qb4 16. Bd2 Qc4 17. Bc3 Ne7 18. Qa3 Qa6 19. Ba5 and White is winning; E. Egorov – A. Bayev, Russia 1999

15
13. Qb2 Bb2 14. 0–0 Ba1 15. Ra1 Nc6 and Black is slightly better

16

8. Na4!? a) 8... Qa5 9. c3 cd4 10. Nd4 Nd4 [10... Nge7 11. Nc5! and White is slightly better, with initiative] 11. Bd4 and White is slightly better; L. Pantaleoni – U. Gebhardt, corr. 1991; b) 8... Qc7!? 9. Nc5 [9. dc5 Bg4!? unclear] Bc5 10. dc5 Bg4!? unclear; 8. dc5!? Bc5 [8... Qb2 9. Nb5 0-0-0 10. Nfd4 and White is slightly better with initiative; K. Trygstad – E. David, Gausdal 1997] 9. Bc5 Qc5 10. Nb5 Ke7 [10... Rd8 11. c3 Qe7 12. Qa4 a6 13. Nbd4 Qd7 14. Nc6 Ne7 15. Nfd4 Nc6 16. Nc6 Rc8 equal; A. Cioara – Zs. Karacsony, Miercurea Ciuc 1998] 11. Nbd4 Nh6 12. 0–0 Rhc8 13. c3 Kf8 14. Nc6 bc6 15. Nd4 Qe7 16. Qd2 equal; Moroz – P. Kaczorowski, Bydgoszcz 1990

17
8... cd4?! 9. Nd4 Nd4 10. Bd4 Qa5 11. Bb5 [11. Nb5!? and White is superior] Kd8 12. g4 Bg6 13. f4 Bb4 14. f5 Bc3 15. bc3 Qb5 16. fg6 hg6 17. Rf7 Ne7 18. Rb1 Qc6 19. Qf3 and White is superior; R. Hammel – K. Kell, Deutschland 1996; 8... Rc8 9. Na4 Qc7 10. Nc5 Bc5 11. dc5 Nge7 12. c3 0–0 13. Qa4 a6 14. Rfe1 Ne5 15. Ne5 Qe5 16. Bf4 Qe4 17. Qe4 Be4 18. Bd6 Rfe8 19. g4 and White is slightly better; E. Szalanczy – J. Menzel, Dortmund 1987

18

9. b3 Qa5 [9... cb3? 10. ab3 Nge7 11. Nb5 Ng6 12. c4 Be7 13. c5 and White is superior; Iordachescu – S. Guliev, Nikolaev 1995 see 65/(125)] 10. Bd2 Bb4 11. Qe1 b5 12. a3 Bc3 13. Bc3 Qb6! [13... Qd8 14. a4! a6 15. Ra2 Nge7 16. Bb4 0–0 17. Bc5 and White is superior; Ibragimov – Ivacic, Bled 1995 see 65/(125)] 14. Qd2 Nge7 15. Rab1 [15. Rfb1 0–0 16. bc4 dc4 17. a4 b4 18. Bb4 Rab8 19. a5 Qb5 20. Bc5 Qb1 21. Rb1 Rb1 22. Ne1 Bc2 unclear; Granda – Magem, Pamplona 1995/96 see 65/(125)] 0–0!? 16. bc4 dc4 17. Bc4 bc4 18. Rb6 ab6 with compensation; Nijboer – Magem, Linares 1995 see 65/125; 9. Rb1!? Qa5 [9... Nge7?! 10. b3 and White is superior; I. Bern – I. Dahl, Gausdal 1990; 9... Bb4 10. Nh4 and White is slightly better; An. Rodriguez – V. Llanos, Buenos Aires 1996] 10. Nh4 Bg6 11. a3 0-0-0 12. Qd2 Be7 13. Ng6 hg6 14. b4 Qc7 15. b5 Nb8 16. b6 ab6 17. Nb5 Qd7 18. Na7 Kc7 19. Rb2 Nc6 20. Nb5 Kc8 21. Rfb1 and White is slightly better; M. Paragua – M. Cervinka, Paris 1998

19
9... Nge7 10. b3 and White is slightly better; D. Rores – J. Ragnarsson, Internet 2000

20
10. Ng6 hg6 11. Rb1 Qa5 12. a3 Nge7 13. b4 Qd8 unclear; G. Markovic – Ma. Lazic, Jugoslavija 1995

21
16. g4 and White is slightly better; Short – Burmakin, Moscow (rapid) 1995 see 65/(125)

22
9... c4 10. Nc7 Kd7 11. Na8 Bc2 12. Qc1 Qc1 13. Rac1 Bg6 14. Nh4 b5 15. Ng6 hg6 16. a4 b4 17. Bc4 dc4 18. Rc4 Nge7 19. Rfc1 and White is superior; A. Palecha – D. Shkuran, Ukraine 2000; 9... 0-0-0 10. dc5 Qc2 11. Qe1 Qa4 [11... Qe4?? 12. Ng5 Qe5 13. Nf7 and White is winning; V. Menoni – E. Mariano, Montecatini Terme 2000] 12. Nd6!? [12. Nbd4 Nge7 13. Bb5 with compensation; Ch. Scholz – S. Prange, Deutschland 1996] Bd6 13. cd6 with compensation, with attack

23

11. Nd6 Bd6 12. cd6 Qd1 13. Rfd1 with compensation; M. Nuding – R. Boehm, Leimen 2001; 11. Qe1 a) 11... Bd3 12. Nfd4 [12. Nbd4 Nd4 13. Nd4 see 12. Nfd4] Nd4 13. Nd4 Qc4 14. Rc1 Qa6 15. Bd3 Qd3 16. Qb4 [16. c6 b6 17. Rc3 Qa6 18. Qb1 with compensation, with initiative; Lima – M. Maia, Rio de Janeiro 1999] Qa6 17. Nb5 and White is superior with attack; Volokitin – F. Takhirov, Baku 1999; b) 11... Qa4 12. Nfd4 Nd4 [12... Bg6 13. Nd6 Bd6 14. Bb5 Qa3 15. ed6 Nf6 16. Bc6 bc6 17. Ne6 fe6 18. Bc1 Qa6 19. Qe6 and White is winning; M. Sandien – H. Malkoc, Deutschland 1994] 13. Nd4 a6 14. Nf5 ef5 15. Qb1 Qd7 16. Rc1 with compensation

24
12. Rac1 Bg6 13. Nd6 Bd6 14. cd6

a) 14... Kd7 15. Nd4 Ne5 16. Rc8 Kc8 17. Rc1 Kb8 [17... Kd8 18. Rc7 and White is winning; A. Musaeva – U. Epshtein, Russia 1996] 18. Bf4 Nd7 19. Rc7 e5 [19... Ngf6 20. Ba6! and White is winning] 20. Ba6 ed4 21. Rb7 Ka8 22. Rd7 Nf6 23. Rc7 and White is winning; b) 14... f6 15. Nd4 fe5 16. Ne6 Nf6 with compensation

25
12... Be4 13. Nfd4 a6

a) 14. Nc6!? Rc6 15. Nd6 [15. Na7 Rc7 16. c6 bc6 17. Ba6 Ba3] Bd6 16. cd6 Kd7 see 14. Nd6; b) 14. Nd6 Bd6 15. cd6 Kd7 16. Nc6 Rc6 17. Rc6 bc6 18. Ba6 f6 19. f3 Bg6 20. Bb7 fe5 21. Rc1 Nf6 [21... d4 22. Bd2 Kd6 23. Rc6 Kd7 24. Rc8 and White is winning; S. Shevchenko – G. Sodol, Odessa 2000] 22. Ba7 Kd6 23. Rc6 Kd7 24. a4 and White is superior

26
13. Nd6 Bd6 14. cd6 f6 with compensation

27
13... Ne5 14. Na7 Rc5 15. Bb5 with compensation

Sasa Velickovic