TORRE ATTACK 3
or
THE OBNOXIOUS LEGACY OF A CHESS GENIUS

By Dr. Manuel Gerardo Monasterio

We have finally arrived at the last part of this article, which features the so called “Hebden Torre” because of its advocacy by the English GM Mark Hebden. I have re-baptized it as the “Colle-Torre”, and the initial position is as follows:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3

Now I had to do some really independent research to find something reliable that doesn’t comply with white’s intentions. Let me explain myself further. What we do not want – at least I don’t want it! – is to go back to those lines that White knows by route, as I explained at the beginning of my first article (see game Peto-Monasterio). Black is OK, but White is doing the thing he likes unhindered. Besides, White has some little tricks that require even further study (all according to the creator, Mark Hebden, who has been called a “tricky customer” by one of his countrymen).

I will assume that you, like me, do not like to concede White the comfortable positions he’s seeking. Threfore, I took a look at lines were Black develops the Queen to b6, but those seem to contradict my first aim (“reliability”). To confirm this you can find the game Mamedyarov-Nyback 2003 in any database, where the strong and knowledgeable Tomi boy was convincingly destroyed. The plain facts are that black’s structure is a huge liability.

I believe that my suggestion is both safe and interesting. Black won’t be doing anything extreme, but at least he gets to push his own agenda and doesn’t have to meekly follow white’s.

And the move is...

3...b5!? 

I believe that this is a good way of “punishing” White for not playing immediately in the center. By the way, it is interesting to notice that this position usually comes from 1.d4 (or 1.Nf3) 1…Nf6 2.Nf3 (or 2.d4) 2…b5!?, now, e6 is a natural part of black’s plan, but c3 is certainly not white’s most topical counter in the position. White, of course, can now enter into the London with 4.Bf4, but …b5 is precisely the move I recommend against the London when White plays an early c3 (instead of the usual e3).

Now we will follow the game:

Klaus Gawehns (2461) - Michael Schulz

 IECC, 10.12.1998

4.Qb3

This was the move chosen in the first game in which this position arose, but it is nothing special, and I prefer to get into the London with 4.Bf4. Instead, 4.Bg5 still playing “a la Torre” is viable, but rather insipid. Now after 4.Bg5 Black can play in a classical manner, as in  Aage H.Petersen - Vernon Dilworth EU-ch ICCF corr, 1978, where the British Master won as follows: 4...Bb7 5.e3 a6 6.Bd3 c5 7.Nbd2 Qb6 8.e4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nc6 10.Be3 Bc5 11.Nc2 d5 12.exd5 Ne5 13.Be2 Nxd5 14.Bxc5 Qxc5 15.Ne4 Qc7 16.0–0 Rd8 17.Qc1 Ng6 18.f3 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 0–0 20.c4 Ndf4 21.c5 Qa7 22.Qe3 Nxe2 23.Qxe2 Bxe4 24.Qxe4 Qxc5 25.Rad1 Qe5 26.Qxe5 Nxe5 27.Ne3 Rd3 28.Rfe1 Rfd8 29.Kg1 f5 30.Rxd3 Nxd3 31.Rd1 Kf7 32.Nc2 Ke7 33.b3 Rc8 34.Rxd3 Rxc2 35.a3 g5 36.b4 h5 37.h3 Ra2 38.Kf1 h4 39.Kg1 Kf6 40.Re3 e5 41.Rc3 Ke7 42.Kf1 Kd6 43.Rd3+ Ke6, 0-1.

Black can also try a more agressive approach, as the Romanian Master Nanu did on two occasions:

4...h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Ne4 7.e3 b4 8.Bd3 bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Bg7 11.Nbd2 d5 12.Rb1 c5 13.Bb5+ Bd7 14.Qa4 c4 15.e4 0–0 16.Bxd7 Nxd7 17.e5 Nb6 18.Qc2 Qe7 19.0–0 Rfb8 20.Nh2 Qa3 21.f4 Na4 22.Rfc1 Rb2 23.Rxb2 Qxb2 24.Ng4 Qxc2 25.Rxc2 h5 26.Nf2 g4 27.Nd1 Bf8 28.Kf2 Rb8 29.Ke2 Ba3 30.Ke3 Kg7 31.f5 Bf8 32.fxe6 fxe6 33.Rc1 Nb2 34.Nf2 Rb6 35.Rb1 Kg6 36.Ke2 Bh6 37.Nd1 Nd3 38.Rxb6 axb6 39.a3 b5 40.Nb1 Kg5 41.Ne3 Bf8 42.Nf1 Bh6 43.Nbd2 Nb2 44.Nb1 Kf5, 0-1, Olimpiu Urcan (2160) – Ciprian Nanu, (2400) Deva 1999.

4...h6 5.Bh4 Bb7 6.Nbd2 a6 7.e3 Be7 8.Bd3 g5 9.Bg3 g4 10.Nh4 h5 11.h3 d6 12.Qe2 c5 13.e4 cxd4 14.cxd4 Nc6 15.Nb3 Nb4 16.Bb1 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4 18.Qxe4 d5 19.Qe2 Bxh4 20.Bxh4 Qxh4 21.a3 Nc6 22.g3 Qf6 23.hxg4 hxg4 24.Rxh8+ Qxh8 25.Qxg4 Rc8 26.Rc1 Qh1+ 27.Kd2 Qh6+ 28.Kd1 Ke7 29.Rc5 Qh1+ 30.Kc2 Qh7+ 31.Kc1 Qd3 32.Qd1 Qe4 33.Qd2 Nxd4 34.Qg5+ Kd7 35.Rxc8 Qe1 mate. Vlad Ungureanu (2274) - Ciprian Nanu (2380) ROM-ch 2000.

Now we come back to Qb3, a move with appalling practical results for White.

4...a6!

4...c5?! was played in the stem game of the variation with Qb3, in 1936, between Fuss and Opocensky, where Black won because he was the stronger player. From my experience with similar positions arising from the Semi-slav, I can tell that …c5 is too hasty and must be avoided for the time being. 4...a6 instead, leads to interesting play for Black.

5.a4

Almost the exclusive choice in the few games played from this position, although I would prefer to stay away from it and instead try 5.Bg5 as in Gruenberg-Doncea, Martisor Cup 2002, where Black lost after 5...Bb7. I would prefer to play 5...h6 6.Bxf6 (…g5 would follow 6.Bh4) 6…Qxf6 7.Nbd2 d5!? with complex and rich play.

5...bxa4

A quite correct and most direct approach. Also possible is 5...b4!?  6.cxb4 (6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.e4 Bb7 9.Nbd2 d5 10.exd5 Bxd5 11.Bc4 Bxf3 12.Nxf3 Bd6 13.0–0 Nc6 14.Qc2 0–0 15.Bd3 bxc3 16.bxc3 Ne7 17.Bh7+ Kh8 18.Be4 Rab8 19.Bd3 a5 20.Nd2 Nd5 21.Ne4 Qe7 22.Bc4 Nb6 23.Ba2 e5 24.dxe5 Qxe5 25.g3 f5 26.Nd2 Rbe8 27.Rad1 Bc5 28.Nb3 Nxa4 29.Nxc5 Nxc5 30.Rd5 Qe4 31.Qd1 Qe7 32.Qd4 Ne6 33.Qe5 Ng5 34.Qxe7 Rxe7 35.Rxa5 Re2 36.Bd5 f4 37.h4 Ne4 38.Bxe4 Rxe4 39.Rc5 Rf7 40.Kg2 Ra4 41.g4 f3+ 42.Kg3 Rff4 43.h5 Rxg4+ 44.Kxf3 Rgc4 45.Rxc4 Rxc4 46.Rc1 Rh4 47.c4 Rxh5 48.Ke4 Kg8 49.Rd1 Rh4+ 50.Kd5 Rf4 51.c5 Rxf2 52.Kc6 Rf5 53.Rd7 h5 54.Rxc7 h4 55.Re7 h3 56.Kd6 Rf6+ 57.Kd5 Rf1 58.Re2 g5 59.c6 Rc1 60.Re5 h2 61.Rxg5+ Kf7 62.Rh5 h1Q+ 63.Rxh1 Rxh1, 0-1, S.Sitanggang-Y.Wan, Singapore 2007) 6...Nc6 7.b5 axb5 8.e3 bxa4 9.Rxa4 Rb8 10.Qd1 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 0–0 12.Bd3 d5 13.0–0 Bd7 14.Ra1 Bd6 15.e4 dxe4 16.Nxe4 h6 17.Qe2 Nb4 18.Bb1 Bb5 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6 20.Qe4 Qf5 21.Rd1 Qxe4 22.Bxe4 Rfd8 23.Bd2 Bd3 24.Bxb4 Bxe4 25.Bc3 Bxf3 26.gxf3 Rb5 27.Ra5 Rdb8 28.Rda1 Kh7 29.h3 Bb4 30.Rxb5 Rxb5 31.Bxb4 Rxb4 32.Ra7 Rxb2 33.Rxc7 Kg6 34.Kg2 Rb4 35.Rd7 Rb5 36.Ra7 Rg5+ 37.Kh2 Rd5 38.Ra4 Kf6 39.Kg3 Rg5+ 40.Kh2 Rb5 41.Kg3 Rd5 42.f4 Rb5 43.f3 Rb1 44.Rc4 Rd1 45.Ra4 Rd2 46.Rb4 Kg6 47.Ra4 Kf6 48.Rb4 Ra2 49.Rb5 Ra6 50.Rc5 Rd6 51.Rc4 Rd7 52.Ra4 Ke7 53.Kg4 g6 54.Kg3 Kd6 55.Kf2 Kc6 56.Ke3 Rb7 57.Kf2 Kd5 58.Kg3 Rc7 59.Rb4 Ra7 60.h4 h5 61.Kf2 Rd7 62.Kg3 Rc7 63.Ra4 Rb7 64.Kf2 Kd6 65.Kg3 Ke7 66.Kf2 Rd7 67.Kg3 Kf6 68.Rb4 Rd5 69.Ra4 Rb5 70.Rc4 Ra5 71.Rb4, ½–½, Gabriele Mileto (2210) – Igor Efimov (2455), ITA-chT UISP Montecatini Terme  1996.

6.Rxa4

6.Qxa4 c5 7.g3 Qb6 8.Nbd2 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bb7 10.Bg2 Nc6 11.0–0 d5 12.Nb3 Bd6 13.Bd2 0–0 14.Rfc1 Ne4 15.Ba5 Nxa5 16.Nxa5 Bc8 17.Rc2 Ra7 18.e3 Bd7 19.Qb3 Bb4 20.Qa2 Bb5 21.Bf1 f6 22.Nb3 Bd7 23.Ne1 Rb8 24.Nd3 Be7 25.Ndc5 Be8 26.Qa5 Nxc5 27.Nxc5 Qd6 28.b4 Bd8 29.Qa3 a5 30.bxa5 Rxa5 31.Qc3 Rxa1 32.Qxa1 Qb6 33.Qc3 Kf7 34.Bd3 Be7 35.Kg2 Rc8 36.h4 g6 37.Be2 e5 38.h5 Bd7 39.hxg6+ hxg6 40.Rc1 Bxc5 41.dxc5 Qe6 42.Rh1 Bc6 43.Qa5 Kg7 44.Qa7+ Qd7 45.Qxd7+ Bxd7 46.Ra1 Kf7 47.Ra7 Ke6 48.e4 Rxc5 49.exd5+ Ke7 50.Bd3 f5 51.g4 Rxd5 52.Be2 Kf6 53.gxf5 gxf5 54.Ra6+ Kg5 55.Ra2 Bc6 56.f3 Kf4 57.Kf2 Rc5 58.Rb2 e4 59.fxe4 fxe4 60.Rb8 Rc1 61.Rf8+ Ke5 62.Ke3 Rc3+ 63.Kd2 Rb3 64.Rd8 Bd5 65.Re8+ Kd4 66.Rd8 Rb2+ 67.Ke1 Ke5 68.Rf8 Ba2 69.Rh8 Kd4 70.Rh7 Be6 71.Ra7 Rb1+ 72.Kd2 e3+ 73.Kc2 Bf5+, 0-1, Peter Gsteu-Franz Gavor, AUT-ch 2001.

6...d5

A simple equalizer. 6...c5, which leads to murkier positions, was played succesfully in Gorenstein-Mazukevich, Spartak 1963.

7.Bg5 Nbd7 8.e3 c5 9.Nbd2 Bd6 10.Be2 0–0

Black’s presence in the center is enough to give him fully equal play. Develping the “ominous” c8-beast won’t be a problem.

11.0–0 Qc7 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.Rfa1 c4 14.Qc2 Bb7 15.Bf1 Ng4

Black is already somewhat better in this position.

16.g3 f5 17.b3 cxb3 18.Nxb3 Rac8 19.Na5 Ba8 20.c4

An ill adviced move, a fact that was far from easy to forsee. Exchanging the c3-pawn for the a6-pawn was the correct choice, perhaps by means of 20.Nb3 with a somewhat balanced position. 

20…dxc4 21.Bxc4 Bd5 22.Qe2 Qf7 23.Bxd5 exd5 24.Qxa6 f4!

The blow missed by White. So strong that indeed White ... resigned. Any capture on f4 would be followed by …Bxf4 with an irresistible attack. 

All in all, I think we have introduced a fighting repertoire for Black against the obnoxious legacy from Torre. Stay connected, in my next installment I will survey the Accelerated Dragon. Is it true – as our illustrious columnist van der Weide proclaimed – that it is dead?