A New Look at the Tayler by David Kane
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A New Look at the Tayler by David kane I: Introduction The Tayler Variation (aka the Tayler Opening) is a line that has been unjustly neglected, in my view. The line is of surprisingly recent vintage though it is often confused with the Inverted Hungarian (or Inverted Hanham Defense), a line which shares the same opening moves: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Be2: The Inverted Hungarian is an old opening, dating back to the 1860ʼs, at least. Tartakower played it a few times in the 1920ʼs with mixed results, using the continuation, 3...Nf6 4. d3: a rather unenterprising setup for White. In 1981 British player, John Tayler (see biographical note), published an article in the British publication Chess (vol. 46) on a line he had developed stemming from the sharp 4. d4!?. This is a move which apparently no one had thought to play before, and one that transforms the sedate Inverted Hungarian into something else altogether. Technically, it is really the Tayler Variation to the Inverted Hungarian Defense rather than the Tayler Opening, though through usage, the terms are interchangeable for all practical purposes. As has been so often the case when it comes to unorthodox lines, I first heard of this opening via Mike Basman when he published a cassette on it back in the early 80ʼs (still available through audiochess.com). Tayler 2 The line stirred some interest at the time but gradually seems to have been forgotten. The final nail in the coffin was probably some light analysis published by Eric Schiller in Gambit Chess Openings (and elsewhere) where he dismisses the line primarily due to his loss in the game Schiller-Martinovsky, Chicago 1986. After that, the line seemed to all but die out. However, my own analysis (with the aid of Rybka 3 and Hiarcs 12.1) indicates that this judgment may have been a bit too hasty- more on that later. I have continued to play the line since the mid 80ʼs with very good results- in fact it has been my main weapon against 1. e4 e5. and I expect it to remain so for some time. In the box with the aforementioned cassette, Basman included a copy of Taylerʼs article from Chess magazine. Unfortunately, I have misplaced the article, but I did take extensive notes at the time. This present article is based on those notes, some of Basmanʼs analysis from his tape, and my own research and extensive experience with the line. This then will serve as an introduction to those unfamiliar with the line and hopefully revive some interest among those of you familiar with it but perhaps under the impression it has been busted. II: An Early Deviation Before we get to the main lines, letʼs examine an instructive early deviation. Looking at the first diagram again, you can see In contrast to the Ruy Lopez or the Italian Game, the bishop on e2 looks rather passively placed and also blocks the e-file on a square that potentially compromises the defense of the e- pawn in some lines. But this passive placement has a few positives going for it as well. Psychologically, it may (and frequently does) spur Black to be overly aggressive or to dismiss the system as innocuous. More concretely, the bishop is not a target on e2 as opposed to the more “normal” lines of the aforementioned Ruy Lopez and Italian Game positions where this bishop is frequently a target. This corresponds to Basmanʼs “Non-exposure” theory where he contends that placing certain pieces on passive squares may have compensating factors such as not allowing the enemy to gain tempi from harassing the piece were it on a more exposed square or not allowing a useful piece (such as the White squared bishop) to be exchanged off too early. Also, White has incurred no weaknesses save from the temporarily unprotected e-pawn. But how is White going to engage in any kind of enterprising play? The answer lies below. But first, letʼs look at an early deviation that a lot of lower rated players will play here: 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Be2 Bc5?! this natural but impulsive move allows the hoary fork trick: 4.Nxe5! Tayler 3 Now Black has a choice of 4...Nxe5 5. d4! where White gets a good game regardless of Blackʼs reply, or the slightly better 4...Bxf2 5. Kxf2 Nxe5 where White has a choice of good moves, 6. d4, 6. Rf1 and perhaps the strongest, 6. Re1 which can all be played here with a good game for White. After 6. Re1 (diagram below), many of my ICC games have continued in tragicomic fashion: 6...Qh4+ 7. Kg1 Qxe4?? 8. d4 Ng6 9. Bf3 1-0 Instead of the suicidal 7...Qxe4 Black can essay 7...d6 with a playable position though White still has the better chances overall. Itʼs interesting to note that this fork trick would not be possible with the bishop on c4 because after 4...Nxe5 the knight would be hitting the bishop on c4. The position of the bishop tucked away on e2 gives the opening certain tactical possibilities not available with the bishop on a more exposed post. The downside is that White may have to lose a tempo to get the bishop off the e-file at some point. Assuming that Black isnʼt silly enough to fall for any of that, most of your games will feature 3...Nf6 which will bring us to the main lines discussed next. III: The Main Line Variations After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2 Nf6 and now the energetic move that characterizes the Tayler proper, 4. d4!?, we reach a major crossroads: Tayler 4 Black must reply 4...ed to have any hope of equalizing. If instead 4...Nxd4?! 5.NxN ed 6.Qxd4 and White is ahead in development with better central control. Similarly, if 4...Nxe4 5. d5 followed by 6. Nxe5 and White has the better game. So continuing on after the more or less compulsory 4...ed, after 5.e5!? we reach the main position of the Tayler Variation: Like many other similar double king pawn openings, Black can equalize from this position in a few lines, but he must tread a careful path through some sharp complications first; not necessarily an easy task for even strong players as my game with IM Mike Valvo demonstrates (section A3). Although White is sacrificing a pawn in some lines, he has clear compensation in most cases and at worst, does not seem to incur any disadvantage out of the opening in any known variation. Letʼs take a look. From the diagram above, Black has three reasonable replies: A: 5...Ne4 B: 5...Nd5 C: 5...Ng4 A: 5...Ne4 Tayler 5 This is the variation that was the primary focus of attention back in the 80ʼs and was considered the main line at the time. Blackʼs knight is well centralised but may experience difficulties on the e-file. Tayler gives: 6. 0-0!? and from here, Black has played: A1: 6...Be7 A2: 6...d6 A3: 6...Bc5?! A4: 6...d5! A1: 6...Be7 6...Be7 this is Rybkaʼs choice in the position but it doesnʼt seem to work out that well i.e. 7. Nxd4 Nxe5 8.Nf5 Bf6 (perhaps better is 8...g6 with an edge for White) 9. Qd5! c6 (or 9...Nd6 10. Nxd6 cxd6 11. Qxd6 +/=) 10. Qxe4 d5 11. Nxg7+! Bxg7 12. Qb4 (diagram below) computers give this is as equal - White has better pawn structure, better development and a safer king against Blackʼs better center. A2: 6...d6 This was once thought to refute the opening due to lines like 7. Bb5 dxe5 8. Nxe5 Qd5! where Black is at least equal. Instead, White should play 8. Re1! f5 (now 8...Qd5? is well met by 9. c4! with a clear advantage to White) 9. Nxe5 Qf6 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Bc4 (diagram) and White has compensation. Tayler 6 A3: 6...Bc5?! This attempt by Black to hang on to his booty is popular OTB, but it causes Black big problems due to the lack of good escape squares for the knight on e4. i.e. 7. Bd3! d5 (7...f5?! isnʼt much better: 8. Bxe4 fxe4 9. Ng5 Nxe5 10. Nxe4 Bb6?? {...Qe7 is better but after 11. Bg5 Qf8 12. f4! White has good attacking chances} 11. Bg5! and Black is losing his queen) 8. exd Nxd6 9.Re1+ and here Black can play 9...Be6? 10.Ng5! Qd7 (the surprisingly common panic reaction, 10...0-0?? is bad due to 11.Bxh7 Kh8 12.Qh5 and Black is lost) 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Qh5+ and White picks up the bishop on c5 as in Kane-Krause ICC 1996. Or instead of the horrible 9...Be6 he can try 9...Ne7 10.Qe2 and now Kane- Mike Valvo (IM) 1996 continued 10...Nf5? (diagram) Qe5?! 0-0?? (...Bd6!) 12. Qxc5 where White was winning thanks to the double blunders. Instead of the inaccurate 11. Qe5? White could have won rather straightforwardly with 11. Bxf5! Bxf5 12. Qb5+ and White picks up a piece. A4: 6...d5! Tayler 7 As is so often the case in double king pawn openings, when Black finds the right moment to play ...d5 he can usually equalize as he does here. 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Bb5 and we reach a well known position from the Two Knightʼs Defense/Scotch Gambit normally reached via 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.