 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Caro–Kann Defence" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(July 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Moves | 1.e4 c6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECO | B10–B19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Origin | Bruederschaft (journal), 1886 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Named after | Horatio Caro andMarcus Kann | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parent | King's Pawn Game | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheCaro–Kann Defence is achess opening characterised by the moves:
The Caro–Kann is a common defence against1.e4. It is classified as aSemi-Open Game, like theSicilian Defence andFrench Defence, although it is thought to be more solid and less dynamic than either of those openings. It often leads to goodendgames for Black, who has the betterpawn structure.
Black prepares to contest thecentre with 2...d5. Unlike the similarly motivated French Defence, the Caro–Kann does not hinder the development of Black's light-squared bishop. It comes at the cost of atempo, however, because Black has to play 1...c6 beforepushing the pawn to c5, whereas Black can push c7–c5 in one move in the French Defence. White can combat the Caro–Kann in several different ways, often gaining a space advantage; additionally, Black has less mobility and can lag indevelopment.
The Caro–Kann remains a popular opening in top level chess, being employed by among othersAlireza Firouzja,Vladislav Artemiev andDing Liren; it is the favorite opening of popular Chess YouTuberGothamChess.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |           | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The opening is named after the English playerHoratio Caro and the Austrian playerMarcus Kann, both of whom analysed it in 1886. Kann scored an impressive 24-move victory with the Caro–Kann Defence against German-British chess championJacques Mieses at the 4thGerman Chess Congress in Hamburg in May 1885:
After 2.d4d5 the most common moves are 3.Nc3 (Classical and Modern variations), 3.Nd2, 3.exd5 (Exchange Variation), and 3.e5 (Advance Variation).
3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2 usually transpose into each other after 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4. Since the 1970s, 3.Nd2 has increased in popularity to avoid the Gurgenidze Variation (3.Nc3 g6) and to retain the option of 4.c3.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |    | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The most common way of handling the Caro–Kann, the Classical Variation (often referred to as the Capablanca Variation after Cuban world championJosé Raúl Capablanca), is defined by the moves: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 (or 3.Nd2) dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5. This was long considered to represent best play for both sides in the Caro–Kann. White usually continues: 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3. Although White'spawn on h5 looks ready to attack, it can prove to be a weakness in anendgame.[2]
Much of the Caro–Kann's reputation as asolid defence stems from this variation. Black makes very few compromises inpawn structure and plays a timely c6–c5 to contest the d4-square. Variations with Blackcastlingqueenside gave the Caro–Kann its reputation of being solid but somewhat boring. More popular recently are variations with Black castlingkingside and even leaving his king in thecentre. These variations can besharp and dynamic.
Here is abrilliancy illustrating White's attacking chances when the players castle on opposite sides in the Classical Variation:
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Another solidpositional line, this variation is characterised by the moves: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 (or 3.Nd2) dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7. It has been played by and named after the first, seventh, and twelfth world championsWilhelm Steinitz,Vasily Smyslov andAnatoly Karpov, but is now most commonly known as the Modern Variation. The short-term goal of 4...Nd7 is to easedevelopment by the early exchange of a pair of knights without compromising the structural integrity of Black's position.
Play is similar to the Classical Variation except that Black has more freedom by delaying the development of his bishop, and is not forced to play it to the g6-square. This freedom comes at a cost, however, as White enjoys added freedom in taking up space in the centre, and often plays the aggressive 5.Ng5!? where Black's development is brought into question as well as the positional weakness of the f7-square. The famouslast game of theDeep Blue versusGarry Kasparov rematch where Kasparov committed a knownblunder and lost was played in this line. Black must also beware of the quick matingtrap for White, 5.Qe2 Ngf6?? 6.Nd6#, but after 5... Ndf6, Black enjoys a solid position.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Black has voluntarily opted for an inferior pawn structure and a practical necessity of castling queenside, while gaining dynamiccompensation in the form of the open g-file for the rook and unusually active play for the Caro–Kann. It is generally considered somewhat unsound, though world championship challengerDavid Bronstein and former world championship candidateBent Larsen employed it with some success.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Viktor Korchnoi played 5...exf6 many times (including his firstworld championship match withAnatoly Karpov), and this line has also been employed byUlf Andersson. Black's 5...exf6 is regarded as sounder than 5...gxf6!? of the Bronstein–Larsen Variation and offers Black rapid development, though also ceding White the superior pawn structure and long-term prospects (Black has to be cautious that the d-pawn is now a potentialpassed pawn in the endgame).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The Gurgenidze Variation is 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6. Black prepares tofianchetto the bishop on g7, creating pressure against White's d4-pawn. After 4.Nf3 Bg7 White usually plays 5.h3 to prevent the ...Bg4 pin. This variation, originated byBukhuti Gurgenidze, led to a rise in the popularity of 3.Nd2 during the 1970s. After 3.Nd2, 3...g6 is met by 4.c3, when the fianchettoed bishop has little to do because of a dark squared pawn chain. 3.Nd2 will usually transpose into the Classical Variation after 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Black is waiting for an opportunity to develop his queenside bishop without giving up his d5-pawn: 4.Nf3 Bg4, often switching into a"French" structure after moves like 5.Be2 e6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.e5 Nfd7 followed by c5, Nc6 and Qb6. Other options for White are the transpositions into the Exchange or the Advance Variation (with Nc3 and ...a6).[5]
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The variation that follows 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 has gained popularity after having previously been widely regarded as inferior for many years, owing chiefly to the strategic demolition thatAron Nimzowitsch (playing as White) suffered at the hands ofJosé Capablanca in one of their games at the New York 1927 tournament.[6]
The Advance Variation has since been revitalized by aggressive lines such as the Bayonet Attack (4.g4) or the Van der Wiel Attack (4.Nc3 e6 5.g4), a popular line in the 1980s and later favoured by Latviangrandmaster (GM)Alexei Shirov, or the less ambitious variation 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.Be3, popularised by English GMNigel Short and often seen in the 1990s. Another less popular but aggressive line is 4.h4, the Tal Variation,[citation needed] popularised by GMMikhail Tal.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The variation that follows 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 is an important alternative and avoids the weight of theory associated with 3...Bf5. It was used byMikhail Botvinnik in his1961 match versusMikhail Tal (though with a negative outcome for Botvinnik – twodraws and a loss). The line was christened the "Arkell/Khenkin Variation" in the leading chess magazineNew in Chess yearbook 42 in recognition of the work these two grandmasters did and the success they were having with the variation. In comparison to the French Defence, Black lacks thetempo normally spent on 1...e6; however, White can only exploit this by the weakening of his own centralbind with 4.dxc5 when Black has good chances of regaining the pawn.
The Exchange Variation is 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The Exchange Variation begins with 4.Bd3 (to prevent ...Bf5 while still developing) 4...Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4 Bg4 7.Qb3. This line is considered to offer White a slightly better game and was tried byBobby Fischer. Thepawn structure resembles aCarlsbad structure withreversed colours, so some of the strategic ideas are analogous to theQueen's Gambit Declined, Exchange Variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The Panov–Botvinnik Attack begins with the move 4.c4. It is named afterVasily Panov and the world championMikhail Botvinnik. This system often leads to typicalisolated queen's pawn (IQP) positions, with White obtaining rapid development, a grip on e5, and kingside attacking chances to compensate for the long-term structural weakness of theisolated d4-pawn. The major variation in this line is 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3, when Black's main alternatives are 6...Bb4 (a position often transposing into lines of theNimzo-Indian Defence) and 6...Be7, once the most common line. 6...Nc6?! is inferior as it is favourably met by 7.c5!, after which White plans on seizing the e5-square by advancing the b-pawn to b5, or by exchanging the black knight on c6 after Bb5.
The Fantasy Variation, also known as the Maróczy or Tartakower Variation, 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3, somewhat resembles theBlackmar–Diemer Gambit. 3...e6 is probably the most solid response, preparing to exploit the dark squares via ...c5, though 3....g6 has been tried byYasser Seirawan. GM Lars Schandorff and GM Sam Shankland both prefer 3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bc4 Nd7 7.0-0 Ngf6 8.c3 Bd6 with play being sharp and double-edged, though recent theory suggest that 7.c3! is more critical, giving a small objective advantage for White. Interesting, though probably insufficient, is 3...e5. This so-called 'Twisted Fantasy Variation' aims to exploit White's weaknesses on the a7–g1 diagonal, an idea similar to 3...Qb6, a variation championed byBaadur Jobava. Related to the Fantasy Variation are the gambits 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3, originated bySir Stuart Milner-Barry, and 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 (von Hennig).
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The Two Knights Variation 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 (or 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3) was played byBobby Fischer in his youth, but has since declined in popularity. White's intention is to benefit from rapid development as well as to retain options regarding the d-pawn. Black's logical and probably best reply is 3...Bg4. After 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3, the positional continuation, Black has the option of 5...Nf6 or 5...e6. The Retreat Line 4...Bh5 isplayable but Black must be careful. InNoteboom–Mindeno 1927 Black lost quickly after 5.exd5 cxd5 6.g4 Bg6 7.Ne5 a6? (7...Nc6 is necessary) 8.h4 d4 9.h5! dxc3 10.hxg6 cxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 12.Bxd2 and Black must losematerial.[7]
This variation sets a trap: playing along the lines of the Classical Variation gets Black in trouble after 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 (4...Nd7 is playable) 5.Ng3 Bg6?! (5...Bg4) 6.h4 h6 7.Ne5 Bh7 (7...Qd6 may be best) 8.Qh5! g6 (forced) 9.Bc4! e6 (9...gxh5?? 10.Bxf7#) 10.Qe2!? (10.Qf3!) with a huge advantage for White. Now 10...Qe7! is best. Instead,Lasker–Radsheer, 1908 andAlekhine–Bruce, 1938 ended quickly after, respectively, 10...Bg7?? 11.Nxf7! and 10...Nf6?? 11.Nxf7![8][9]
After the moves 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3!? (Goldman Variation), White's position is sound according toGraham Burgess.[10]
2.c4, the Accelerated Panov Attack, is an effective move for White. Black will probably play 2...d5 (see1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5). This can transpose to the Panov–Botvinnik (B14, given above, with 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4) or Caro–Kann (B10, with the double capture on d5). Alternatively, Black may play 2...e5, the Open Variation (see1.e4 c6 2.c4 e5). The 2.c4 line can also arise by transposition from theEnglish Opening: 1.c4 c6 2.e4.
The Hillbilly Attack,[11][12] 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4?!, is most often played by weaker players unfamiliar with the Caro–Kann Defence. If 2...d5 3.exd5 cxd5, Black has simply gained atempo on the bishop. Nevertheless, GMSimon Williams has experimented with this move, following it up by gambiting the pawn with 2...d5 3.Bb3!?[13]
A relatively unknown try is 1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Ne5!?, sometimes referred to as the Apocalypse Attack. Despite its oddity, this line carries a deceptive amount of venom, e.g. 4...Bf5? immediately runs into trouble after 5.Bb5+, when Black must lose a tempo and the bishop pair with 5...Bd7 (5..Nd7?? 6.Qf3 is disastrous for Black). The game can continue 6.Qh5 g6 7.Nxd7! Nxd7 (7...gxh5?? 8.Nf6#) 8.Qxd5, where White wins a pawn and enjoys a stronginitiative. This variation is similar to the traditional Exchange Caro–Kann (in which playing Ne5 is one of White's goals) with the added benefit that the pin ...Bg4 has been sidestepped entirely. After 4...Nc6, White may proceed with d4 and Bb5, responding to ...Qb6 with c4 (the Neo-Panov-Botvinnik Attack) and to ...Bd7 with Nxd7 to acquire the two bishops, or he may play in aStonewall fashion with d4, c3, Bd3, and f4 in some order. While 4...e6 is a perfectly acceptable Black response—and appears to be the most often played—the response 4...g6! is critical, allowing Black flexibility in fighting for e5.[14]
Other lines are ineffective or doubtful. These include 2.d3, the Breyer Variation; 2.b3, the Euwe Attack; 2.b4, the Labahn Attack; 2.g4, the Spike Variation; and 2.Ne2, the Bohemian Attack.
TheEncyclopaedia of Chess Openings has ten codes for the Caro–Kann Defence, B10 through B19:
Bibliography
| Outline | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | |||||||||
| History |
| ||||||||
| Rules | |||||||||
| Terms | |||||||||
| Tactics | |||||||||
| Strategy | |||||||||
| Openings |
| ||||||||
| Endgames | |||||||||
| Tournaments |
| ||||||||
| Art and media | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
