{"id":1027,"date":"2023-09-28T17:50:53","date_gmt":"2023-09-28T15:50:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skolasachu.softmedia.cz\/?p=1027"},"modified":"2023-09-30T16:46:42","modified_gmt":"2023-09-30T14:46:42","slug":"cozio-defence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skolasachu.com\/en\/coziova-obrana\/","title":{"rendered":"Cozio Defence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Or rather, the Cozio-Steinitz Defence of the Spanish Game arises after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Ne7. <\/strong>The following contribution serves as a taster for the \u201ablack\u2018 database, which you can order and purchase on the Chess School website in the Services section.<\/p>\n

I must admit that although I had some awareness of this system already as a junior, for many years \u2013 in line with the then prevailing opinions of world-renowned monograph authors \u2013 I considered the defence incorrect, similar to Smyslov's Defence 3\u2026g6 or the so-called Alapin system 3\u2026Bb4. However, times have dramatically changed and when playing Black 3\u2026Ne7<\/strong> \u201athey \u2018risk\u201a of course more than the initial slight disadvantage in the position. Well, but let us ask: does Black have certain equality, for example in the much better-known classical or Cordel Defence 3\u2026Bc5? If you do not want to be \u2018overwhelmed forever by Berlin variations', or embark on 3\u2026a6, how then to deal with the Spanish Game? To obtain decent playable and less known positions?<\/p>\n

The idea to look at the Cozio-Steinitz Defence was prompted for me only by one of the most beautiful games played at the World Cup in Baku, Lagard vs. Praggnanandhaa. Well, then everything happened all at once! First, I carefully analysed the game myself, compared my findings with several video analyses, and began studying the system properly from the start.<\/p>\n

I therefore offer the result of my work to the esteemed reader, and here I present a small taster of what can be found in the compiled database, among other things. So let's get to it!<\/p>\n

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Ne7<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It is usually named Cozio Defence<\/strong> after the 18th-century Italian chess player Carlo Cozio. However, looking into monographs we rather encounter (just like with 3...d6) the name of the first world champion, for example in the game Blackburne,J-Steinitz,W, Vienna 1873. The Prague native actually played much earlier, and later even in key encounters!<\/p>\n

Statistically, it is probably today the 6th most popular move, which in 'popularity' even surpasses Bird's system 3...Nd4 and is \u201abravely\u2018 climbing higher on the ranking!<\/p>\n

Of course, behind this otherwise old move today we also find names of the absolute world elite, but in the vast majority of cases these are blitz or rapid games.<\/p>\n

Old literature was generally much more prone to various positional deficiencies of pieces or pawns, and from today's perspective obviously completely insufficiently concrete. Thus, it can be read there not only that the move is inferior (which at the time could still be considered a euphemism), because it not only restricts movement but directly blocks both the strongest piece and the close ally in arms, the bishop on f8.<\/p>\n

\u201eBut it is enough to play Ne7-g6 and the deficiencies instantly disappear with added value, because the key outpost of the structure, the pawn on e5, is protected a second time!\u201c we would probably answer today.<\/p>\n

The Cozio-Steinitz Defence naturally came back into prominence at a time when new and new (sometimes barely) viable ways are sought to deviate as soon as possible from the notoriously well-known theoretical paths. Moreover, it turned out that it certainly cannot be labelled worse than a number of classical defences of the Spanish Game (classical defences = Black responds differently than 3\u2026a6). Thus, Black by using a long-forgotten and archived defence does not \u201aoverdo it\u2018 in any way.<\/p>\n

Analogy, bluff or trap?<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Before we move further in our taster, I would like to entertain but mainly educate the reader with one story<\/em>. At the same time, we will be able to assess what is nowadays already permissible, even if in the eyes of most still inferior, and compare this with our new, quite playable idea, the Cozio-Steinitz Defence.<\/p>\n

Let us first look at two diagrams:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

While in the first we see one of the quite common positions of the Cozio Defence after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7 4.d3 Ng6<\/strong> (in my work we prefer 4\u2026a6), in the second diagram something strange<\/em>. has happened. Black played the Berlin Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6<\/strong>, White replied with the so-called anti-Berlin 4.d3<\/strong>, after which Black responded with the sneaky 4\u2026Ne7<\/strong>! \u201eWhat is that supposed to be?\u201c the reader might ask, and it is not unlikely that they will be surprised twice. A concrete-thinking chess player immediately sees the undefended pawn on e5, but then also condemns the \u201awaste\u2018 and loss of time (after all, Black will probably lose at least one more tempo), while a deductive type of player will probably think in the opposite order, but with the conclusion \u2013 the summary \u2013 being the same: a weak move, actually nonsense.<\/p>\n

But how is it possible that such moves were played even in serious games by top-class chess players and permanent members of the 2700 club such as super grandmasters Richard Rapport or Wesley So? The former even in 2021 in a serious game against the 16th world champion Carlsen!<\/p>\n

The paradox is that in training for many years<\/strong> I used the anti-Berlin with 4\u2026Ne7<\/em> as a classic example of bluffing<\/strong>. White cannot (as even a less knowledgeable reader can easily find out) take the pawn on e5 5.Nxe5?<\/strong>, because after 5\u2026c6<\/strong> loses a piece.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

How to actually define a bluff? We all know what it is Trap<\/strong>. If you set it as a trap, your opponent has two options: 1\/ to fall into the trap and harm themselves (in practice this leads to a sharp negative turnaround for the \u2018fallen\u2019 side) or 2\/ to see through the trap, in which case the game continues with the evaluation of the position unchanged! Bluff<\/strong> (bluff) however differs from a trap at point 2<\/em>! If the opponent sees through the bluff, there is also a turnaround, but this time to the disadvantage of the active side (that is, the one who set the bluff).<\/p>\n

Sometime in the 1980s, I think I saw exactly the same diagram in one of Suetin\u2019s booklets. It represented a classic example of a bluff (in fact, it was listed among the first and therefore clearest examples). Of course, for more than 20 years I have been explaining the difference between a trap and a bluff to more advanced pupils using this example, also explaining that in practice it is only correct to bluff in specific situations; for example, if the sporting result does not matter whether we draw or lose (last round of a tournament, team competition\u2026).<\/p>\n

Although practice and finally even the computer show that the move 4\u2026Ne7<\/strong> is a trap <\/strong>a not a bluff<\/strong>, because the evaluation of the position is not at all tragic afterwards, on the other hand we must state that \u2018our\u2019 Cozio-Steinitz Defence, although it contains no trap, represents a more flexible placement of knights and Black has much higher chances for a fully legitimate game.<\/p>\n

Study and examples<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

For readers, I have prepared the following scheme in this preview of the system, which will be more or less followed in the complete database. First we will taste charming miniatures<\/strong>, then we will dive into the whirl of complications of the key model game (and the main variation of the system) Lagard vs. Praggnanandhaa<\/strong> and we will conclude the examples with games in which White responds either classical<\/em> 4.d4<\/strong> or conversely modern<\/em> 4.h4<\/strong>.<\/p>\n