TORRE ATTACK
or
THE OBNOXIOUS LEGACY OF A CHESS GENIUS

by Manuel Monasterio

While the Torre Attack is definitely not the sharpest way to play with White, it is particularly bothersome to meet with Black if you are, like me, a dynamic minded sort of guy. With this approach White is sending you the following meta-message: “I will remain as solid as I can, and the weight of the proof will rest on you. If you want to play for more than a draw, well, be my guest … if you overplay your hand it will be me who will have all the chances!”

This is the kind of tacit dialogue that speaks through the Torre today, although in its early times, when theory of the line was not so well mapped, this was not the case. Nowadays, the Torre is a safe alternative for those players who either are too lazy to study more topical lines, or just want to play for a draw against a stronger opponent.

As many of you, I had to find something to get away from the usual Torre routine, which tends to produce games as the following:


Peter Peto - Manuel Gerardo Monasterio [A47]
IECG email, 08.09.2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 e6 3.Nd2 c5 4.e3 b6 5.Ngf3 Bb7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0–0 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.Re1 cxd4 10.exd4 Nbd7 11.a4 a6 12.Nc4 Re8 13.Qe2 Qc7 14.h3 Nf8 15.Rac1 Nd5 16.Bd2 Bc6 17.b3 Qb7 18.Ng5 Nf6 19.f3 Qc7 20.Ne4 Ng6 21.Nb2 Nh5 22.Be3 d5 23.Nf2 Bd6 24.Qc2 Bh2+ 25.Kh1 Nhf4 26.Ng4 Nxd3 27.Nxd3 Bd6 28.Nge5 Bb7 29.Nxg6 hxg6 30.Qd2 Qd8 31.Bf4, ½–½.

Let us make it clear that Black did not have any problem whatsoever in maintaining equality in this game, but White’s solid, waiting approach, is rather difficult to meet if you are really out for blood, and such positions tend to dry out very soon, producing situations with no realistic chances for either player.

I will give suggestions for all the available forms of the Torre Attack that we can face, and that means two direct lines and one delayed approach, which I have baptized as follows:

The Pure-Torre: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6! 4.Bh4 which will be Part I

The Trompo-Torre:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6! 4.Bxf6, which may also appear from a Trompowsky where White chooses to play an early Nf3. This will be presented in Part II of this article.

And I will finally cover the delayed approach, which was favored by the late GM Tony Miles and by his British colleague GM Mark Hebden:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 b6 4.Bg5

Here White is trying to play e4 in one move, and I have baptized this system as the Colle-Torre, and although it may not be considered really dangerous from a purely theoretical point of view, it has its fine points that must definitely be known if you want to play successfully with Black. Indeed, it is very probable that Mark Hebden began playing this system because of the difficulties to break black’s position in the Pure Torre line that I will be describing in this article.

Readers may have noticed that the repertoire that I am suggesting is for those players who use to play the Nimzo/Queen’s Indian/Bogo-Indian complex against 1.d4. King’s Indian\Grunfeld guys will not have many problems anyway, because although still respectable, the Torre approach against g6 lines is less fearful.

As most of you already know, this opening is the brainchild of Carlos Torre Repetto (1905-1978), a Mexican world-class player who, probably because of mental problems, couldn’t blossom toward his full strength. One can easily imagine the heights that he could have reached, looking at his positive score against Marshall, Reti, Gruenfeld and Saemisch, and his equal scores against Emmanuel Lasker (including Torre’s legendary win with his opening against the German titan at Moscow, 1925) and Tartakower. Indeed, if we take a look at the Moscow tournament quoted, we may see Torre coming 5/6 among 21 of the strongest players of his day, and the feat is even more awesome if we remember that Torre was then just 20 years old!

We will be following a game played by the Italian correspondence player Giancarlo Marcotulli, against whom I have been lucky enough to have a plus score (+2 =4) – by the way, three of the draws are games I played with White using 1.e4, with Giancarlo showing me his superb understanding of 1...e5, where he easily neutralized my play and even got the upper hand.

Mario Guimaraes (2383) - Giancarlo Marcotulli, (ITA) (2267) [A46]
CL1–2002.18.02, 29.09.2002
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bh4 d6!

The “!” sign attached to Black’s last move is for coming out of the routine play that we all know too well in the Torre-Nimzo (…b6, …Bb7, …c5, etc.)

5.e3

A)
5.c3 is obviously also legal, but Black’s plan follows unhindered with 5...Nbd7. Just as a reference of this we can quote Hug - Halkias, Gothenburg 2005: 5.c3 b6 6.e3 g5 7.Bg3 Nh5 8.Bb5+ c6 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.Nbd2 Bb7 11.a4 a5 12.0–0 Qc7 13.Qe2 Bg7 14.Ne4 Nxg3 15.Nxg3 Nf6 16.Nd2 h5 17.Nge4 Nxe4 18.Nxe4 g4 19.Nd2 c5 20.f4 f5 21.dxc5 bxc5 22.Bb5+ Kf7 23.e4 Bf6 24.Rae1 Kg7 25.exf5 exf5 26.Nc4 Be4 27.Ne3 d5 28.Bd3 Qd7 29.Rd1 d4 30.Kh1 Rhe8 31.Bb5 Qf7 32.Bxe8 Rxe8 33.Nc4 Bf3 34.Qd3 Be2 35.Qxf5 Bxc4 36.Rfe1 Be2 37.Qxc5 Bxd1 38.Rxd1 Qe6 39.Rg1 d3 40.Qxh5 Rh8 41.Qc5 g3 42.Rf1 Rxh2+ 43.Kg1 Qe2, 0-1.

I am not implying that White is worse from the initial position, just illustrating Black’s possible approach.

White can also play:

B)
5.h3, intending to preserve his two prelates, but the loss of time may be exploited by Black as follows: 5...Nbd7 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.e3 0–0 8.c3 Rb8! 9.Qc2 b5 10.Be2 c5 and already Black has some initiative as in Bellin-Epishin, Gibraltar 2003, which was converted by the strong GM as follows: 11.0–0 a6 12.Rfd1 Qc7 13.Rac1 Bb7 14.a4 Rfc8 15.axb5 axb5 16.dxc5 Qxc5 17.b4 Qb6 18.Nd4 Ba6 19.Qa2 Ra8 20.e4 Ne5 21.Ra1 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Bxh4 23.Qa5 Qb8 24.Qxa6 Rxa6 25.Rxa6, 0-1.

White can even try the un-thematic:

C)
5.Nc3 g5 6.Bg3 Nh5 7.e3 (7.e4 Nd7 8.Bc4 a6 9.a4 Qe7 10.0–0 Bg7 11.Re1 Nxg3 12.hxg3 0–0 13.Nh2 c6 14.Ng4 Qd8 15.Bb3 d5, =, Torre - S.B.Hansen, Calvia 2004) 7...Bg7 8.Nd2 Nxg3 9.hxg3 a6 10.Be2 Nd7 11.g4 d5! 12.Bf3 Nf6 with equal chances as in Cicak-Agrest, Skara 2002.

Finally, in the first game played with Black’s plan, White immediately committed his stallion – keeping in hand the direct e4 thrust as follows:
5.Nbd2 g5 6.Bg3 Nh5 7.e4 Bg7 8.c3 Qe7 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.0–0 Nxg3 11.fxg3 0–0 12.Qe2 b6 13.Ba6 c5 14.h3 Bxa6 15.Qxa6 Nb8 16.Qd3 cxd4 17.cxd4 Nc6 18.Rac1 Rac8 19.a3 d5 20.e5 f6 21.exf6 Bxf6 22.Rce1 Bg7 23.Re2 Qd6 24.Kh2 Rce8 25.Rfe1 e5 26.dxe5 Nxe5 27.Rxe5 Rxe5 28.Nc4 Rxf3 29.gxf3 Qc5 30.Rxe5 Bxe5 31.Nxe5 Qf2+ 32.Kh1 Qe1+ 33.Kg2 Qxe5 34.Qg6+ Qg7 35.Qe6+ Kh8, ½–½, Schussler-Pachman, Hamburg 1980.

5...g5!

This is the complement to Black’s whole plan; he goes after the two Bishops.

6.Bg3 Nh5

If Black prefers to wait with this move until White plays his b-Knight to d2 – avoiding the plausible maneuver Nfd2 – he may try to do so playing first 6...Nbd7, but in neither case is Black in any uncommon danger, as the arising positions are rich and full of possibilities for both sides, as we shall see below.

7.Bd3

Now or in the next move White may play c4, which shall produce a different type of position well known in practice. If he does it now, the Bishop could even go to e2 instead of d3. Let us see just one example from many:

7.c4!? Bg7 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.Be2 Qe7 (an important move in Black’s strategy)
10.Nd2 Nxg3 11.hxg3 0–0 12.Qc2 c5 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Nb3 b6 15.Bf3 Rb8 16.0–0 Ba6 17.Be2 Rbc8 18.Rfd1 Nb7 19.Nd2 Na5 20.Nde4 Rfd8 21.b3 d5 22.Nd2 dxc4 23.Nxc4 Nxc4 24.bxc4 Bxc4 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 26.Rd1 Qe8 27.Ne4 Bd5 28.Qd3 Qa4 29.Bf3 g4 30.Nd6 Rc3, 0–1, Ivan Rozum, (2411) – Ildar Khairullin, (2567) Chigorin memorial, 2007.

7...Bg7 8.Nc3

8.c4 c5 9.Nc3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Nc6 11.d5 exd5 12.cxd5 Ne7 13.Qc2 a6 14.a4 Bd7 15.a5 Rb8 16.Nd2 0–0 17.Nde4 Nc8 18.Qb3 b5 19.axb6 Rxb6 20.Qc2 a5 21.Nd2 Rb4 22.Nc4 f5 23.Nxa5 f4 24.gxf4 gxf4 25.e4 Qg5 26.Kf1 Ne7 27.Nc4 Ng6 28.f3 Ne5 29.Nxe5 Qxe5 30.Ra7 Rfb8 31.Ra2 Qd4 32.Nd1 Ba4 33.Qe2 Bxd1 34.Qxd1 Rxb2 35.Rxb2 Rxb2 36.Be2 Qb4 37.Bd3 Rd2, 0–1, Sucher- Kohlweyer, Liechtenstein op, 2000.

And as an example of a more restrained policy on White’s part, with subsequent opposite castling, we may see the following (by transposition): 8.Nbd2 Qe7 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.c3 a6 11.0–0–0 b5 12.Nb3 0–0 13.Nbd2 Nxg3 14.hxg3 c5 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Bc2 Rb8 17.Nd4 Bd7 18.Rh5 b4 19.c4 f5 20.g4 fxg4 21.Qxg4 e5 22.Nf5 Rxf5 23.Bxf5 Nd3+ 24.Kc2 Nxf2 25.Qf3 Bxf5+ 26.Qxf5 Rf8, 0–1, Stefanova – Kiril Georgiev, Recklinghausen, 1998.


8…Nc6 9.Ne2

9.Nd2 Nxg3 10.hxg3 e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.e4 c6 13.g4 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 e4 16.Bxe4 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bg7 18.Kf1 0–0 19.Bf5 Qa5 20.Nc4 Qxa2 21.Ne3 Re8 22.Rb3 b6 23.Kg1 Qa5 24.Bxc8 Raxc8 25.Rh3 Rc3 26.Rxc3 Qxc3 27.Rf3 Bd4 28.Qe2 Bxe3 29.Rxe3 Rxe3 30.fxe3 a5 31.e4 a4 32.Qa6 a3 33.Kh1 Qb2, 0–1, Marzano – Lexy Ortega, Rome ch 1997 (a very simple example from the Cuban GM against a much weaker opponent).

9…f5 10.h3 Nb4 11.Bc4 0–0

The clearest sign of the soundness of black’s strategy is that he already has no interest in getting the two Bishops, as now white’s position simply lacks sufficient coordination and his pieces have little scope. On the other hand Black, whose army is well centralized, cannot be worse.

12.Bh2 Nf6 13.Bb3 a5 14.a3 Nbd5 15.c4 Ne7 16.Nc3 b6 17.Bc2 Bb7 18.Qe2 Qd7

Perhaps better was 18...Qe8 directly, but maybe Marcotulli was waiting for his opponent to commit his king to the kingside first.

19.0–0 Qe8 20.Nd2 g4!

The kind of “human” move that a computer wouldn’t make nor calculate accurately beforehand.

21.f3

I don’t like this move. If this is the best that White has available, then something has gone definitely astray in his strategy.

21…gxh3 22.gxh3 Qh5 23.Qg2 Kh8 24.Kh1 Rg8 25.Ne2 Nd7 26.Bg3 e5 27.Rg1 f4

You just cannot allow Marcotulli this sort of position with any expectancy of survival.

28.exf4 exd4 29.Be4 Nc5 30.Bxb7 Nxb7 31.Bf2 Nc5 32.Ng3 Qf7 33.Rae1 Nd3, 0–1.

In the next installment we will continue surveying suggestions to fight against this “obnoxious” legacy from the great Mexican master!