Years ago, Eric Schiller (acclaimed author ... 🙄 ) wrote a book on the Janowski Indian Defense. I'm fairly certain that Janowski may have dabbled with it, but it never actually got that name. (I could be wrong.)
Anyway, I didn't buy the book, but over the past, I have tried it occasionally.
This is the basic start:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5 !? (or ?!)
The position just seems to beg for a refutation. (For instance, Qb3 ideas or f3 and e4 ideas just seem to come to mind.)
Bf5 with a pawn on d6 is a rare bird, but I have seen it done even in a few lines of the King's Indian Defense.
Back to the topic at hand ...
White has a near tactical refutation of the whole variation on move 4!
4.e4 !? almost destroys the whole variation (as I just noticed while analyzing a finished game of mine).
Position After 4.e4
If black isn't paying attention, he could land in serious hot water here with 4. ... Nxe4 (?!) .
What follows is white nearly blowing black off the board with a forced series of beautiful tactics. If black didn't have a perfect response to every move, the game would be over from the opening! I found it entertaining, and hopefully you will too.
I loved the way the tactical attack kept producing new ideas and the way the defense met them in that variation.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsAfter 12.Be3 e6 13.Rc1 Nf6 the position still seems to favor white. However, it would take a grandmaster to get anything more than a draw out of this game from here I think.
Years ago, Eric Schiller (acclaimed author ... 🙄 ) wrote a book on the Janowski Indian Defense. I'm fairly certain that Janowski may have dabbled with it, but it never actually got that name. (I could be wrong.)
Anyway, I didn't buy the book, but over the past, I have tried it occasionally.
This is the basic start:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3 ctical attack kept producing new ideas and the way the defense met them in that variation.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsI have this book. Schiller only considers 4. ... Bxe4 after 4. e4.
Years ago, Eric Schiller (acclaimed author ... 🙄 ) wrote a book on the Janowski Indian Defense. I'm fairly certain that Janowski may have dabbled with it, but it never actually got that name. (I could be wrong.)
Anyway, I didn't buy the book, but over the past, I have tried it occasionally.
This is the basic start:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3 ctical attack kept producing new ideas and the way the defense met them in that variation.
He considers the following line without branches until move 9, where he covers 9.. ... Be7 and his own idea, 9. ... Qb8.
Here's his stem game:
I should add that 4. f3 is the most common response, but 4. g3 is probably the strongest.
It makes strategic sense to place the light-squared bishop on the long diagonal and aimed at the black queenside after black's light-squared bishop has abandoned it.
Can only find a couple of Janowski games with this line though he does
appear to be the first strong player to try it. (v Alekhine in 1924...Alekhine played 4.g3)
(Tal played it 4 times.)
Shirazi Kamran played it at the top level in the 1980's on numerous occasions.
The initial position.
Had appeared 156 times on RHP with White winning 87 games.
Nobody on RHP has tried 4.e4
Paul's line after 4.e4 Nxe4 is attractive but Black's moves are not too difficult
to find, even for weaker players who tend to find OTB 'the only move' if their back is
against the wall tactically and there is only one move to find.
Their chief weakness is when the 'attack' is unclear and there are a few plausible moves
or they kick off the sacrificial tactics without seeing all the cute defences.
They are vulnerable to their own ideas.
OTB 4 e4 has been tried with all the Black players playing 4...Bxe4.
This game produced a fairly tactical display after 4...Bxe4.
U.Bode(2250) - U.Floegel (2275) Germany 1990.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThat seems to lead to an interesting playable position. Indeed, g3 may be the real killer. That book and the one on the Dzindi Indian were two that I almost ordered years ago. I got a little untrusting of Schiller though from his other books. If I remember correctly, his book on the From leads you right into a book refutation with not much improvement. I think the g5 variation of the From is a total bust against someone prepared. I had given up on the From entirely until I saw Larsen playing the Nf6 variation in his book. But that's another story ... 🙂
I have this book. Schiller only considers 4. ... Bxe4 after 4. e4.
He considers the following line without branches until move 9, where he covers 9.. ... Be7 and his own idea, 9. ... Qb8.
Here's his stem game:
[pgn][Event "Lloyds Bank op 11th"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "1987.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Bonin, Jay R"]
[Black "Fedorowicz, John ...[text shortened]... eenside after black's light-squared bishop has abandoned it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Nice game! When something gets sacrificed on f2, there's always entertainment.
Can only find a couple of Janowski games with this line though he does
appear to be the first strong player to try it. (v Alekhine in 1924...Alekhine played 4.g3)
(Tal played it 4 times.)
Shirazi Kamran played it at the top level in the 1980's on numerous occasions.
The initial position.
[fen]rn1qkb1r/ppp1pppp/3p1n2/5b2/2PP4/2N5/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB ...[text shortened]... o. The threat of Qb8 mate and Qc5/b4 mating on e7 was enough for Black to resign.}[/pgn]
I had forgotten about Shirazi. There was a time when I printed out all of his games that I could find and went over them. He has a style all of his own, just like Basman, Suttles, and to a lesser extent Miles. I played a lot of 1 minute games with Shirazi at ICC years ago. They were all great fun.
A repertoire with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5 and 3.Nf3 Bg4 (employed by Tartakower) may be an interesting quick fix for OTB preparation against 1.d4.
I trust the Bg4 line a lot better though.
The e4 sacrifice in the original post (with Qf3) is similar to this:
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsThe Schiller book was only $6, and I was still disappointed.
That seems to lead to an interesting playable position. Indeed, g3 may be the real killer. That book and the one on the Dzindi Indian were two that I almost ordered years ago. I got a little untrusting of Schiller though from his other books. If I remember correctly, his book on the From leads you right into a book refutation with not much im ...[text shortened]... ely until I saw Larsen playing the Nf6 variation in his book. But that's another story ... 🙂
Nowadays you can use chessbase and a decent engine, and combine an opening report with the "repertoire" format print out, and put together a better opening monograph by yourself.
Your response to Geoff is very cogent, in that the Janowski Indian (the Buchman Indian?) does work against 3. Nc3, but you need something else against 3. Nf3.
Originally posted by vivifyIf we are thinking about the same position, he plays e6 to defend d5 (the center pawn) and lets white have b7 (wing pawn). Qb3 is a fork of sorts.
I don't understand why black allows 8.Qxb7, rather than protecting that pawn. Is there some tactical reason for it?
Originally posted by vivifyBlack has to get out of check and protect his Knight on a4 so 7...Qd7 is the only way to do both and the pawn can't be protected at the same time.
I don't understand why black allows 8.Qxb7, rather than protecting that pawn. Is there some tactical reason for it?
P.S. I was looking at the original post.