5

I'm a Caro-Kann player who is coming up against the line 1. e4 c6 2. c4.

This line has a few names, such as the "Anti Caro-Kann" and the "Quasi Panov-Botvinnik".

The books recommend 2...d5. Afterall 1...c6 prepared 2...d5. But the line 2...d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Qxd5 leads to a move down variation of the regular Panov-Botvinnik, so the books recommend after 4. exd5 to play 4...Nf6 to eventually regain the pawn.

My question is, can black feasibly side-step these tricky variations with 1. e4 c6 2. c4 b5(!?). Does this reach a playable middlegame for black?

Improve this question
0

This is a creative idea but unfortunately it does not look playable. After 7 minutes, Stockfish 5 gives the position after 2... b5 as +.87. This means that white is up a pawn for very little compensation.

Improve this answer
  • 7
    Oh gosh... can't believe... asking engine for evaluation after 2nd move! 0.87, yay! And what about all those theoretical positions with even over 1.0? Like some of King's Indian? Seriously. – Pijotrek Oct 7 '14 at 20:28
  • 3
    This is nothing like the King's Indian. You dropped a pawn. – Cleveland Oct 7 '14 at 20:30
  • 3
    And you need a chess engine here? After 2nd move? – Pijotrek Oct 7 '14 at 20:31
  • 4
    It seems to me that you could answer a question about 1. Nf3 f5 2. e4 the exact same way you just did and it would not be obviously wrong. The question asked if it would lead to a playable middlegame and an engine evaluation is a perfectly valid way to answer that. You could have written your own answer instead of commenting on mine with antagonistic sarcasm. – Cleveland Oct 7 '14 at 20:40
  • 3
    @user3447603, to reiterate part of Cleveland's previous comment, why not simply post your own contrasting answer along the lines you've suggested? That would be a most welcome addition to the thread. – ETD Oct 8 '14 at 0:07
2

I noticed you posted you'd mostly found answer for yourself in the comments, but...it reminded me of when I faced this while trying out the Caro-Kann.

It doesn't look like ...b5 works to me, either. If I were white I would play cxb5 and then let Black decide if and how to take back. There is no hurry to take on c6. The knight on b8 looks restricted, and a move such as ...a6 to force White to decide what to do with the b5 pawn wastes a move, and Black can't even get Benko-ish pressure on the a/b files unless ...c5 is played (which also gives up a move,) since White can just take back with bxc6. If black plays ...Qb6, then Nc3 (or even a4) defends the b5-pawn enough.

So from what I see Black doesn't get enough development for the pawn, and White has a pretty easy game with Nc3, d4, Nf3, etc.

When I played Black I found another pawn sac worked rather well: 4 ... Nf6 and while White can play Bb5+, Black can get it back. ...Bd7 5. Bc4 Qf7 6. Na3 Nxd5 as 7. Bxd5 Qe5 gets the bishop. This seems like a straightforward and low-risk way to equality.

Improve this answer
0

b5 looks HORRIBLE. If there were not a pawn on c6, you could play a6, like in the Benko, but here, a6 would be answered by bc with a winning position.

It really does just drop a pawn for nothing as you gain no development advantage, or positional trumps.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy