A New Look at the Tayler by David kane I: Introduction Technically, it is really the Tayler Variation to the The Tayler Variation (aka the Tayler Opening) is a Inverted Hungarian Defense rather than the Tayler line that has been unjustly neglected in my view. Opening, though through usage, the terms are The line is of surprisingly recent vintage though it interchangeable for all practical purposes. is often confused with the Inverted Hungarian (or Inverted Hanham Defense), a line which shares As has been so often the case when it comes to the same opening moves: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. unorthodox lines, I first heard of this opening via Be2: Mike Basman when he published a cassette on it back in the early 80ʼs (still available through audiochess.com). 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 The Inverted Hungarian is an old opening, dating main weapon against 1. e4 e5. and I expect it to back to the 1860ʼs, at least. Tartakower played it a remain so for some time. few times in the 1920ʼs with mixed results, using the continuation, 3...Nf6 4. d3: a rather In the box with the aforementioned cassette, unenterprising setup for White. In 1981 British Basman included a copy of Taylerʼs article from player, John Tayler (see biographical note), Chess magazine. Unfortunately, I have misplaced published an article in the British publication the article, but I did take extensive notes at the Chess (vol. 46) on a line he had developed time. This present article is based on those notes, stemming from the sharp 4.d4!?. This is a move some of Basmanʼs analysis from his tape, and my which apparently no one had thought to play own research and extensive experience with the before, and one that transforms the sedate line. This then will serve as an introduction to Inverted Hungarian into something else altogether. 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 Tayler 2 on a square that potentially compromises the Now Black has a choice of 4...Nxe5 5. d4! where defense of the e-pawn in some lines. But this White gets a good game regardless of Blackʼs passive placement has a few positives going for it reply, or the slightly better 4...Bxf2 5. Kxf2 Nxe5 as well. Psychologically, it may (and frequently where White has a choice of good moves, 6. d4, does) spur Black to be overly aggressive or to 6. Rf1 and perhaps the strongest, 6. Re1 which dismiss the system as innocuous. More can all be played here with a good game for concretely, the bishop is not a target on e2 as White. opposed to the more “normal” lines of the aforementioned Ruy Lopez and Italian Game After 6. Re1 (diagram below), many of my ICC positions where this bishop is frequently a target. games have continued in tragicomic fashion: 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 impulsive move allows the hoary fork trick: 4.Nxe5! 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. Tayler 3 III: The Main Line Variations After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2 Nf6 and now the In practical terms, with best play, I believe from energetic move that characterizes the Tayler this position that Black can achieve equality in proper, 4. d4!?, we reach a major crossroads: some 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 in section A3. Certainly, although White is sacrificing a pawn in many lines, White has clear compensation in most cases and certainly does not incur any disadvantage out of the opening. Here Black has three reasonable replies: A: 5...Ne4 B: 5...Nd5 C: 5...Ng4 Black must reply 4...ed to have any hope of equalizing. If instead 4...Nxd4 5.NxN ed 6.Qxd4 and White is A: 5...Ne4 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: This is the variation that was the primary focus of attention back in the 80ʼs and was considered the Tayler 4 main line. Blackʼs knight is well centralised but compensation. 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) A3: 6...Bc5?! computers give this is as equal but White has This attempt by Black to hang on to his booty is better pawn structure, better development and a popular OTB, but it causes Black big problems safer king to counter against Blackʼs better center. 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. exd5 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- IM Mike Valvo 1996 continued 10...Nf5? (diagram) 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 (now8...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 clear Tayler 5 Qe5?! 0-0?? (...Bd6!) 12. Qxc5 where White was winning thanks to the double blunders. Instead of the inaccurate 11. Qe5? White could and we reach a position from the Two Knightʼs have won rather straightforwardly with 11. Bxf5! Defence/Scotch Gambit normally reached via 1. Bxf5 12. Qb5+ and White picks up a piece. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. O-O This position is considered playable for both sides/ dynamically equal. A4: 6...d5! Summary of 5...Ne4: Blackʼs path to equality is relatively narrow here and in general White gets good play in most lines with full compensation in the lines where he sacrifices a pawn.