Exeter Chess Club: The Modern Italian Game

Bishop's Opening, and the Modern treatments of the Giuoco Piano and Two Knight's Opening.

Table of Contents

Bibliography Bishop's Opening, Tim Harding [Chess Player]

Simple Chess, Michael Stean [Faber]

Secrets of Grandmaster Play, Nunn and Griffiths [Batsford]

The Open Game in Practice, Anatoly Karpov [Batsford]

Winning with Bishop's Opening, Gary Lane [Batsford]

Introduction

Let us open 1. e4 and after 1...e5, 2. Nf3

All square?

As many juniors already know, we can continue with moves like Bc4, d3, Nc3 and Be3/Bg5 followed by O-O, White has achieved an easy development.

However, this system of development puts no pressure on Black whatsoever, and Black's only task is to keep up with White's development.

For example, after 2. Nf3 Black might reply 2...Nc6, then after 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 (Giuoco Pianissimo) we can try

6. Be3 Bb6 when Black has an easy game, while after
6. O-O Bg4! White may even feel that the King has been committed too soon (7. h3 h5!).
6. Bg5 may give Black a few ways of going wrong.

But basically the impression is that this game with Knights on their natural squares of c3 and f3 is not a difficult system for Black to equalise against because Black can develop easily.

In order to put early pressure on Black, White cannot use the pieces alone. Plan A must include development by d2-d4 at some point. This will put pressure on the Black Pawn at e5 and give a few more possibilities for both sides.

The immediate 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 leads to release of central tension and denies White the opportunity of ever achieving a 'perfect' centre with Pawns on e4 and d4. This is a perfectly reasonable opening (Scotch Game), but perhaps we can do better.

Preparing d2-d4 with c2-c3

Supporting the d4 Pawn with c2-c3 seems a good idea, so that ...e5xd4 can be met with c3xd4. Then our Knight on b1 could go to c3 anyway.

However, 3. c3 (Ponziani's opening) has been thought for a long while to offer White little: it is a well-motivated move but for the moment does not restrict Black at all. Black can make an immediate nuisance by either

3...Nf6 or perhaps even
3...d5, when the natural

4.exd5 Qxd5 cannot be met by tempo-gaining 5.Nc3.

The old Italian Game with c2-c3

There can be little objection to the Italianate 3. Bc4, which

restricts ...d5,
enables castling by White, and after
3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

These are well-known lines, which perhaps do not offer White much more than equality in theory, but in practice usually lead to an open game where Black has lots of chances to go wrong.

This old-fashioned Italian Game, concentrating on fast development and attacking play, is a great choice for your first chess opening system.

Euwe Max - Van Mindeno H [C54], It "AVRO", Netherlands, 1927
PGN Reader: game 1 (PGN Reader: Chessboard by Don Fong)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6 10.Re1 0-0 11.Rxe4 Ne7 12.d6 cxd6 13.Qxd6 Nf5 14.Qd5 d6 15.Bg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Qxf7+ 1-0

However, this is not the way most folk play the opening these days.

If there is a problem with 3. Bc4 it is 3...Nf6 (Two Knights' Defence), which does not allow us to play 4. c3 / 5. d4.

4. d4!? (the Max Lange Attack) can be tried as a reply, but this again detracts from the goal of setting up Pawns on d4 and e4.

Garcia C - Taulbut Shaun M It active, 1982 game 2

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Nc3 dxc4 8. Rxe4+ Be7 9. Nxd4 f5 10. Bh6 Kf7 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. h4 Be6 15. Rxe6 1-0
Again, the play is open and unclear, which is fine for those with an adventurous spirit and a good memory (for this line is very well researched), but we may prefer to avoid this.

Getting to d4 in two moves: the modern Italian Game

However, if after 3...Nc6, 4. d3 seems an admission of failure, this may be only a temporary setback.

4. d3 may be followed by protecting the e-Pawn (with Nbd2, or castling and Re1), and then we can play c2-c3 and d3-d4 as originally planned. This slightly delayed occupation of the centre may be stronger than doing so immediately, because it is more solid.

The most important test in this position is, of course, the simple 4...d5: if this equalises then White will have to try something else. In fact, it seems that after 5. exd4 Nxd4 6. O-O and 7. Re1 Black can experience some difficulty defending the e-Pawn. So this idea of d3, c3 and only later d4 seems quite playable.

Also, after 3...Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3! we enter similar lines. The main variations of the Giuoco Piano with 5. d4 are well-explored and well-known, so your opponent may equalise without much thought if they know the book lines, whereas these lines with d3 are less familiar and offer more scope for original play.

In any event, the system with c3 and d3 may be more interesting than a Four Knights' type of system with Nc3 and d3. The Queen's Knight can play first to d2, which looks a little slow, but, because the centre is solid, it can then plan grand tours like Nd2-c4-e3-d5 or Nd2-f1-g3-f5, or some other combination like Nd2-f1-e3. If a general King's-side push is being considered, once the King's Knight on f3 moves, the Queen's Knight can pop around from d2 to f3.

There has been much Grandmaster interest in this apparently slow style of playing these old openings. What can Black do in response to this plan?

Plans for the d-Pawn for both sides in the modern Italian Game

We have considered four central formations for White above:

d3 only (with Nc3), which in itself may be too slow
d4 only, which in itself may be too early
c3 and d4, which may be vulnerable to ...Nf6
d3 and c3 with d4 later, which may be the best plan so far

Black of course has all these plans available from the other side:

...d6 and ...Nc6
...d5 only
...c6 and ...d5
...d6 and ...c6 (with maybe ...d5 later)

Because Black may be trying only to equalise, lack of aggression in these different plans may be no great drawback.

White is going to stick the King's Bishop on c4, while Black has yet to commit it to a square: ...Bc5 is natural, ...Be7 is solid, and some folk have tried it on g7.

This combination of different possible plans by White and by Black is rather interesting. It is this strategic complexity and relatively slow unfolding of plans which has led to a growth of interest in these lines, together with a re-appraisal of some old variations.

The modern Italian Game and the Bishop's Opening

One last point: I have introduced these lines from a move order with 2. Nf3. But it may be interesting to play 2. Bc4 instead: the Bishop's Opening.

After 2. Bc4 we can reach the same lines after either

2...Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 or
2...Nc6 3. Nf3 or
2...Nc6 3. d3 Bc5 4. Nf3.

Are there advantages to playing 2. Bc4 instead of 2. Nf3? In the early 1980s when interest was growing in 2. Bc4, Petroff's Defence (the reply 2...Nf6 to 2. Nf3) was proving to be a good equalising try for Black at all levels of chess.

The Bishop's Opening move order obviously avoids this defence, and one or two others besides (like Philidor's Defence and the Latvian Gambit). So, yes, there may be practical advantages in starting out with 2. Bc4.

The growth of interest in Bishop's Opening actually began with Bent Larsen's researches in the 1960s. [He wanted to get into a line of the Vienna Opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. d3 without encouraging the wild 3...Nxe4 4. Qh5, so introduced the line with 2. Bc4.]

He discovered, amongst other things, that after 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 Black has no easy time of it.

The other theoretical development, published in a little Tim Harding book, was a series of correspondence games by

Koch in which he showed that the supposed equalising line 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 led to a position in which, hypermodern style, Black was left defending an overambitious centre against strong pressure from White's minor pieces.

There are old-fashioned 'Italian' and gambit approaches to Bishop's Opening - for example, White can essay the

Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3!?] or the
Urusoff Gambit [1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4!?],

both of which have yet to be refuted and the latter actually claimed a scalp of the young Karpov. But here I am interested mostly in the modern treatments.

The Bishop's Opening and the Ruy Lopez

Before getting stuck into the details, there is another general point to consider.

The strategically heavyweight lines of the Ruy Lopez are generally reckoned to be one of the most important battle-grounds in chess, being complex and offering White good chances to play for an advantage, and, indeed, giving both sides chances to win. These positions in fact have parallels in the modern lines of the Bishop's opening.
For example, the main lines of the Ruy Lopez include

the old Tchigorin Defence:
and the modern Breyer system:

Now, positions similar to these can readily be reached through Bishop's opening. After:
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 h6 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. Re1 Bf8 10. Nf1 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 [Kosten-Cooper, 1988: game 5] ...we have a formation similar to the Tchigorin.

To find a parallel system to the Breyer we can try:
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6 6. c3 Nbd7. game 6

These parallels help explain the GM interest in the old Bishop's opening. The differences between the parallel lines lie principally in White's more restricted route for the Bishop: Bf1-c4-b3-c2 rather than Bf1-b5-a4-b3-c2 in the Ruy Lopez, chased by Black's a- and b-Pawns. Whether these advances represent Queen's-side counterplay more than Queen's-side weaknesses has yet to be resolved!

Pawn formations in Bishop's opening

What is going on strategically in Bishop's Opening types of positions? You will find layers of tactical details (like the attack on f7) when you look at master games in this opening, which can obscure what is going on underneath the surface.

The easiest way to think about the plans in different lines is to consider the Pawn formations. If White succeeds in playing d3, c3 and d4 we create a tense pawn formation (a), in which the tension can be resolved in a number of ways. Before White can do this, it is possible for Black to set up such a formation, so we have all the possibilities available to both sides.

The possibilities of a quick shift to another formation will be better handled by the side with the more advanced and more flexible development.

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy Lopez)

The tension may even be added to by Black playing ...c5, analogous to the Tchigorin line. In the long term, the adjacent central Pawns should confer a space advantage, so exchanges should be avoided by the side trying to maintain them.

Black may resolve the tension by playing ...e5xd4 (c3xd4) which results in an unbalanced position where White has an extra central Pawn (b).

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP unopposed

These adjacent Pawns in a more open position confer a bigger advantage but in a more open position may be more vulnerable to attack e.g. along the e-file.

White may resolve the tension in the first formation, by playing either

d4-d5 (giving a closed centre (c) with an advanced d-Pawn), or by playing
d4xe5 (...d6xe5) with a balanced, semi-open KP centre.

(c) (d) Closed centre with advanced d-Pawn.

The advanced d-Pawn gives a space advantage, particularly on the Queen's-side.

To play for a win the c-Pawn and maybe b-Pawn should be advanced, to sieze more space and perhaps open lines on that side.

The opponent may consider an advance of the f-Pawn to undermine the d-Pawn and counter-attack on the King's-side.

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

This is a very common formation in KP openings. If neither side can achieve a sharp advance of the f-Pawn, play will be dominated by piece play on either wing.

There are natural posts for Knights on d5 and f5 (d4 and f4 for Black), and if Black's c-Pawn has pushed to c5 earlier, the d5 point is even more attractive. Control of the d-file is a good idea but can usually be countered, resulting in exchanges. Occupation of the mutual outposts f5 and f4 by Knights is less straightforward to counter, and while your opponent is sorting out that threat, it may be that you can get the d-file then.

If Black anticipates the d3-d4 advance with ...d7-d5, after e4xd5 and ...Nf6xd5 we have a semi-open unbalanced KP centre (e), typical of the Steinitz variation of the Ruy Lopez with colours reversed.

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

The e-Pawn confers a space advantage and attacking prospects on the King's-side, which may be added to by f2-f4. The e-Pawn is exposed on the half-open file, and should be restrained (e.g. by ...Re8) from breaking open lines for the attack by e4-e5. Black's break ...d6-d5 is a natural plan to dissolve the centre.

If neither side ventures d4/...d5, then we have a balanced, closed KP centre (f).

(f) balanced, closed KP centre

Unless one side or the other goes for a pawn break we get a slow game where play on the wings is dominant:

on the Queen's-side we may see a pawn rush, but on the King's-side we are more likely to see more modest plans like the occupation of f5 or f4 by a Knight.

The flexibility of the Bishop's Opening is such that you can end up playing any of these Pawn formations, and playing each side of the unbalanced ones [a,b,c and e] as either White or Black!

Interestingly, White often ends up playing against a Black preponderance in the centre. Let's see:

Variations with (a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy Lopez)

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 Bb6 5. d4 Qe7 6. O-O d6 [closed Giuoco Piano]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 [Paulsen's Defence with ...d5]

Variations with (b) Double Pawn centre, KP unopposed

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Bb3 Be6 9. Nc4 h6 10. Re1 Ne7 11. d4 exd4 12. cxd4 Ba7 [Speelman-Yusupov, 1989/90: game 8]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 Be6 7. Bg5 Qa5 8. O-O Nbd7 9. exd5 cxd5 [Nunn-Murey, 1982: game 9]

Variations with (c) Closed centre with advanced d-Pawn.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.Bb3 Be6 8.Bc2 h6 9.Re1 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Qc7 11.d4 Rfe8 12.h3 Nf8 13.c4 Ng6 14.d5 [Kasparov - Georgadze,1979: game 10]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 Bd6 6. Nc3 d4 [Nunn-Kortchnoi, 1981: game 12]

Variations with (d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. Bb3 d6 7. c3 d5?! 8. Nbd2 a6 9. Qe2 dxe4 10. dxe4 [Kosten-Cooper, 1989: game 13]

Variations with (e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 d5 4. exd5 Nxd5 [Larsen-Berger, 1964: game 14]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Be7 4. Nf3 d6 5. O-O c6 6. h3 Nbd7 7. a4 O-O 8. Re1 Nc5 9. Nc3 h6 10. d4 exd4 11. Nxd4 [Vogt-Tseshkovsky, 1981: game 15]

Variations with (f) balanced, closed KP centre

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d6 [Paulsen's Defence with ...d6]

This flexibility and variety is the final clue to understanding the GM interest in the old Bishop's opening - because it can be interpreted in a fully modern way by both sides.

Variations of Bishop's Opening.

After

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4

Black can adopt a variety of systems. The Black King's Knight nearly always goes to f6, so assume 2...Nf6 will be played. White responds 3. d3 to play in the modern style. Now Black has a choice:

3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

3...Nc6 (Two Knight's Defence)

3...c6 (Paulsen's Defence to the Bishop's Opening)

3...Bc5 (Giuoco Piano)

3...Bc5 4. Nf3 usually transposes to the Giuoco Piano. Black can be expected to play ...Nc6 and ...d6.

We can see a typical interpretation of this line by Karpov below, but the most precise move-order as far as I am aware is seen in the game Torre-Kamsky: game 19, where White avoids having to defend against ...Nf6-g4 by playing h2-h3 (then Nd2-f1-e3) by playing Nd2-c4-e3.

3...Nc6 (Two Knight's Defence)

3...Nc6 4. Nf3 invites the Two Knights' Defence, assuming Black does not play ....Bc5. Black can play ...d6 or ...d5.

Playing ...d5 immediately seems to leave Black's e-Pawn exposed (Nunn-Garcia: game 20). Although if White prepares d2-d4 with an early c2-c3, Black may show the d-Pawn is weaker after ...d5 (Yudasin-Ivanchuk: game 22).

So White does best to preserve options until Black shows where the d-Pawn will go (Kosten-Cooper: game 13).

Black cannot successfully delay entirely a move of the d-Pawn (Taulbut-Rumens: game 21), nor trick White by playing ...d6 and then ...d5 (Kosten-Conquest: game 25).

3...c6 (Paulsen's Defence to the Bishop's Opening)

3...c6 4. Nf3 is a pure Bishop's Opening, a line known as Paulsen's Defence. Black can play ...d5 or more modestly with ...d6. 4...d5 5. Bb3 leaves Black defending a big centre in a complex middle-game (Nunn-Murey: game 9). Black cannot seem to simplify without disadvantage (Taulbut-Westerinen: game 27, Larsen-Nunn).

Because of this, Black may prefer to play modestly in the style of Philidor's Defence, with ...c6 and ...d6. This is rather playing White's own game, thinking about ...d5 in two moves. White has some prospects of advantage (Vogt-Chekhov: game 30) in a slow position.

Contents

Introduction

All square?
Going for d2-d4?
Preparing d2-d4 with c2-c3
The old Italian Game with c2-c3
Getting to d4 in two moves: the modern Italian Game
Plans for the d-Pawn for both sides in the modern Italian Game
The modern Italian Game and the Bishop's Opening
The Bishop's Opening and the Ruy Lopez
Pawn formations in Bishop's opening
Variations of Bishop's Opening.

Back to Chess Coaching Page

HTML and PGN by Puddles, omdalen@ix.netcom.com

This document (bishopop.html) was last modified on 6 Jan 97 by

Dr. Dave