The Giuoco Piano Revisited

After playing an interesting blitz game on the black side of the Giuoco Piano, I decided to do a little (light) analysis.

The game proceeded:



The usual Moller Attack move is 9.d5, which gets all of the analysis in most books. (9.bxc3 is not in my copy of ECO, Beating The Open Games by Marin, or a few other books.)

Already, I was out of book and had a choice. Two ideas came into mind. The first was the natural 9. ... d5. However, I was a little curious about the piece sacrifice 10.Ba3!?.



My second reaction was simply 9. ...0-0. The thing that worried me about it was white simply playing 10.d5 before black gets the chance.



I went with 9. ... 0-0 in the actual game, and luckily my opponent didn't play 10.d5.

9.dxc3 still left an impression on me, and I couldn't wait to get to the bottom of it.
After a little digging, I found a book with a few lines on the book (The Giuoco Piano by Gufeld and Stetsko). Also, with the aid of a computer, I was able to dig a little deeper in the previous analysis.

9.dxc3 0-0 ?! (not book) runs into 10.d5! Na5 11.Bd3



11. ... f5 12.Re1 and 11. ... Nf6 12.Re1 (12.d6!?) both give white a slight advantage.

Therefore, black's correct response to 9.dxc3 is 9. ... d5!.

10.Ba3 is what worried me here. It turns out that this move was played by Steinitz against Lasker in a World Championship!



10. ... dxc4 seems essential, as does 11.Re1.



Here Lasker tried two moves. He first played the real test 11. ... f5. I'll cover that later. Lasker's second attempt, and the one considered best by Gufeld and Stetsko, is 11. ... Be6!?.



12.Rxe4 Qd5! 13.Qe2 0-0-0 14.Ne5 Rhe8 was played. The authors say "Black has achieved a clear advantage."

In fact, this position:



is almost dead equal in spite of the material (according to the engine)!!!

That leaves only one more try for an advantage against 10.Ba3.

10.Ba3 dxc4 11.Re1 f5! (Lasker's first choice and the best move).



Here white must play 12.Nd2.

Black has two tries.

1.) 12. ... Kf7 was Lasker's choice.



The game proceeded 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Rxe4 Qf6! 15.Qe2.



This is a very wild position where black oddly only has a slight advantage!
Even Oleg and Stetsko say white has compensation for the material. I was playing around with this position, and there are a lot of ways for black to go wrong.

The computer line that follows is really something too.
15. ... Bf5 16.Qxc4+ Kg6 17.Re3



I know if I were black, I'd feel really uncomfortable with my king on g6.
Black has a slight edge, but the conversion is going to take a lot of work.

Now, here is black's second attempt at the advantage.

2.) 12. ... Be6!



This may be a new move!!!

13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Rxe4 Qd7 leads to two variations.



2.A.) 15.d5 0-0-0 16.Rxe6 Qxd5 17.Qg4 h5 gives black an edge.



2.B.) 15.Qh5+ !? g6 16.Qg5



Black must find 16. ... Kf7! 17.Rf4+ Kg8



Here the white attack is finally over.

Conclusion 9.bxc3 with the idea of 10.Ba3 is a very wild deviation from the usual 9.d5. It may give the right attacking player a good chance to catch someone unprepared. On the whole, it doesn't appear to be totally sound (despite it's use by Steinitz). The engine's 12. ... Be6 seems to be a really good attempt at refuting the whole variation.

I thought ancient dinosaur openings like the Guioco Piano were completely played out and that that nobody who is good plays it expecting to win. That only sentimental old-timers play it.

Are there actually any effective theoretical novelties (TN) still to be found in it? I find it hard to believe.

Originally posted by homedepotov
Are there actually any effective theoretical novelties (TN) still to be found in it? I find it hard to believe.

If we knew they wouldn't be novelties 😛

Originally posted by homedepotov
I thought ancient dinosaur openings like the Guioco Piano were completely played out and that that nobody who is good plays it expecting to win. That only sentimental old-timers play it.

Are there actually any effective theoretical novelties (TN) still to be found in it? I find it hard to believe.

If this is just one variation from one game, imagine the possibilities! Old variations that were dismissed because of a winning tactic at the end may have refutations after all!

By the way, they felt the same way about the Bishop's Opening in the 60's and 70's, but Larsen surprised a few GM's with some new fresh ideas in those dinosaurs too. 🙂

Nice piece of analysis. I've always liked the Giuoco Piano. It's not as boring as people think. Lately I've been playing 4...Qe7 and maintaining my pawn on e5. It's an older defense but solid and it gets away from white's preparation for the usual Nf6.

Originally posted by KneeCaps
Nice piece of analysis. I've always liked the Giuoco Piano. It's not as boring as people think. Lately I've been playing 4...Qe7 and maintaining my pawn on e5. It's an older defense but solid and it gets away from white's preparation for the usual Nf6.

I like that one too. It's called the Strongpoint Variation, I think, because black simply strongpoints/focuses on e5. I think Alekhine had a nice game or two with it.

Interesting, since the main line d5 (instead of bxc3) is over-analysed and seems compeletely refuted (many lines leading to a black advantage)

Some books recommending the moller gambit just said the contrary : here is what soltis sayd "9.d5! this move overturned opinions on the giuco. When Steinitz had revived 7.Nc3 at hastings 1895 his idea was to play 9.bxc3 and on 9...d5! respond with 10.Ba3. e believed black had nothing better thn 10...Be6 11.Bb5 Nd6 as in a Steinitz-schlechter game. However, Steinitz learned the hard way that his analysis was faulty. (...)black accepted the temporary sacrifice and ended up a clear pawn ahead "

Since soltis' analysis doesn't seem convincing, 9.bxc3 might become the best practical choice, especially against well booked black players ! (even though objectively the whole 7.Nc3 moller gambit seems to be unsound)