Introducción
Francesa - Variante MacCutheon
Francesa McCutheon - How to play against 1.e4 - Neil McDonald (2008)
Tras la secuencia 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Cc3 Cf6 4.Ag5 Ab4 nos encontramos en la variante MacCutheon de la defensa Francesa.
Las líneas principales para las blancas en esta posición son:
- 5.e5 h6 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3 Ce4 [C12-6/14] Línea principal
Otras líneas menores o poco efectivas son:
- 5.e5 h6 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 Ce4 [C12-5]
- 5.e5 h6 6.Ae3 Ce4 [C12-6/7]
- 5.e5 h6 6.exf6 hxg5 [C12-5]
- 5.exd5 Dxd5 [C12-4]
- 5.Ad3 dxe4 [C12-3]
- 5.Cge2 dxe4 6.a3 Ae7 7.Axf6 Axf6 [C12-2]
The MacCutcheon is a good sharp opening. You can't
tell me any different, although certain people have tried.
I've heard it called ugly, strategically unsound or even
just plain weak. These people don't know the same
opening I know. Perhaps I'd be a little more worried about
these criticisms, if I were the only player to ever play the
MacCutcheon in an important game. A quick roll call
shows that I'm not.
Down through the years, the opening has been played
by Capablanca (against Maroczy), Tarrasch (against
Lasker), Schlechter (against Marshall), Marshall (in his
match against Lasker), Tartakower (against Steiner),
Reti (against Bogolubow and Lasker), Alekhine (against
Capablance, New York 1924), Keres, Bronstein,
Reshesvsky (in their national championships) and
Petrosian (against Fischer) to drop just a few names.
If players such as they were willing to use the Mac-
Cutcheon against competition like that in events such
as those, I guess I can risk it in a weekend swiss. Still, it
makes one wonder why, if the opening was once so
popular, it has fallen into disuse. What happened? Was
it busted? Does chess theory maintain that the
MacCutcheon ought to be collecting dust?
I hope to answer these questions by examining
current theory and by presenting some examples from
current master practice. Obviously, what's fashionable
in chess often depends on what the great players of the
day are playing. Currently, the only grandmaster that
plays the MacCutcheon with any degree of regularity is
the Netherlands' Ree.
I choose to look at that as a blessing. It helps my
confidence to know that there aren't any TNs floating
around that I don't know about. Who wants to open the
latest New In Chess only to find their pet variation
busted? Or, worse yet, maybe you don't get New In Chess
and your next opponent does!
Besides, let's face it, most of us only have so much
time to budget for opening preparation. Do you think your
opr)onent will be booked up on the MacCutcheon or on the
Winawer? You want to play the Winawer? Go right
ahead, but remember to keep current! If you study the
lVlacCutcheon, you'll be reasonably certain of knowing
more than your opponent does, and absolutely confident
of knowing at least as much.
None of this matters, of course, if the opening gives
you a bad game, but who said anything about getting a
bad game? Believe me, I hate getting crushed as much
as anyone. My experience has led me to conclude that by
playing the MacCutcheon, I can almost always get a
complicated game. Please note that I'm not promising a
better game, only a complicated one.
If you don't like complicated openings with evalua-
tions that end up with an infinity sign or phrases such
as "with chances for both sides", close this book. The
MacCutcheon is not for you. Perhaps you're one of those
Sicilian snobs, who think there's the Sicilian and then
there's all those other defenses. Maybe you think that
"fighting defense" is merely a euphemism French players
use to hide the fact that they get a cramped position and
a bad bishop to boot.
I challenge you to play through these games. They
certainly aren't perfect, they don't qualify as master-
pieces, and it might be stretching the truth to call them
brilliant, but they are complicated, hard fought, and very
often original. I'll settle for that.
I have come to believe-rightly or wrongly-that I get
at least one chance for a "shot" every time I play the
MacCutcheon. Sometimes I miss it and sometimes it
isn't enough to win, but it is almost always there for me,
Remember the MacCutcheon!
5
if I can only find it. (A shot, by my definition, is a sharp,
surprising move that causes your opponent to re-evaluate
his or her thinking.)
In practical terms, if you can manage a shot in an
already complicated position, you can bank on one of the
following to occur:
1. Your opponent will pretend he or she wasn?t upset
by it, move Quickly and blunder. (It really does happen.)
2. Your opponent will recover his or her equilibrium,
calmly study the position, and make a second rate move
anyway. This leaves you ahead on the clock as well as on
the board.
3. Your opponent will recover, play the best move,
and the game will still be complicated with chances for
both sides.
If you had your pick, you might be tempted to choose
one of the first two options, but in all honesty, it is option
three that leads to the most memorable games. In the
final analysis, I believe that what most chess players
want, every bit as much as a victory, is a terrific game
that they can show to everybody they know.
In any case, all I ask of an opening is to leave me in a
complicated position with good piece play in the middle
game. I have never felt that chess games should be
decided by the relative size of the players' libraries. If you
agree with that, then you may want to give the
MacCutcheon a try.
Perhaps you're still unsure. Why take my word for it?
I'm merely some random national master without any
kind of reputation whatsoever. Everyone tells you that
you shouldn't trust anyone's analysis unless they are a
grandmaster. Some go one better. They say, don't trust a
grandmaster's analysis either. Still, this is what some
respected chess personalities have written about the
MacCutcheon:
6
Remember the MacCutcheon!
Reuben Fine: "White's attack boomerangs here (in
what was thought at the time to be the refutation of the
MacCutcheon), he is compelled to adopt some more quiet
line, but can secure no advantage in that event." The
Ideas Behind the Chess Openings.
Larry Evans: "The MacCutcheon Variation gives rise
to unusual positions where White is frequently obliged to
forfeit the privilege of castling in order to try and wrest
an advantage." My 60 Memorable Games.
Bobby Fischer: "The MacCutcheon variation, [gives]
rise to immediate complications." My 60 Memorable
Games.
I. A. Horowitz: "4...B-N5...leads to the interesting
MacCutcheon variation. This line offers good tactical
possibilities for Black but has some strategic drawbacks."
Chess Openings Theory and Practice.
Ken Smith: "Compared to 4.. .B-K2, the MacCutcheon
variation results in much more complicated positions
which demand exact and concrete calculations." Chess
Digest.
Estrin & Panov: "The MacCutcheon variation 4.. .B-
N5 leads to very sharp and complicated play, and was
especially popular in the 1930's." CCO.
I can only speak for myself, but if Fischer thought it
was complicated, then I think anyone I'm likely to play
against will find it complicated too. I find it interesting
to note that Fischer faced the MacCutcheon twice
(according to Bobby Fischer's Chess Game, Wade &
O'Connell, eds.) and had one win and one loss. His loss
was to Petrosian and his win found its way into his My
60 Memorable Games.
Furthermore, any opening that was popular in the 30s
and unpopular in the 80s is likely to have a certain
surprise value. I'm not recommending that you play the
MacCutcheon simply for surprise value, but I do believe it
Remember the MacCutcheon!
7
helps to increase its effectiveness. Invariably, I've come
out of the opening with an advantage on the clock.
I fully realize that I am unqualified to give definitive
evaluations of opening positions. I don't intend to! I also
realize that I cannot possibly compete with the quality of
work of a Minev or Watson. (Where were they when I
was learning the French?)
My intention is simply to popularize a currently
unpopular variation. If I could look down a row of boards
in a tournament one day and see a MacCutcheon for
every second Winawer, I'd feel that I'd made a contri-
bution to chess, which is all I could possibly hope for.
I wish to acknowledge the special efforts of
Stephen Fortini, who assisted me with the Macintosh
computer; John Peterson, who provided excellent
feedback on my first draft; and my wife Margrit, who did
my proofreading and provided me with the support and
encouragement I needed.
I also want to thank Lou Petithory, Ray Gaudette,
and Dr. Edmund Staples for their early encouragement
and to those players of the now defunct King St. Chess
Club in Northampton, Massachusetts who helped me
fine tune the MacCutcheon.
Lastly, a special and belated thank you to my
father, Arthur W. Eade for bringing home a now com-
pletely battered copy of Nimzovitch's My System.
James Eade,
National Master
March, 1990
Chapter 1
You're a French Player First
Before we set ourselves the task of learning the
MacCutcheon we must understand, to paraphrase
Tarrasch, that before the MacCutcheon the gods have
placed the French. It is entirely possible for White to
avoid the MacCutcheon. It is only one weapon and the
French player needs several. You must be able to play
against the exchange variation, the advance variation,
the Tarrasch variation and the Steinitz, as well as other
less frequently played alternatives.
It would be unconscionable for me to present the
MacCutcheon to a non-French player, convince them
that the opening is for them and then leave them to
discover the pitfalls of the French for themselves.
"It isn't easy being a French player," Rodney
Dangerfield might say.
From Billy Crystal we might hear, "Kids, don't try this
at home. I am a professionaL"
The drawbacks are real. Black frequently is cramped
for space and almost always (willingly!) saddles him or
herself with a bad bishop. These are not the actions of
sane men and women! A mystique has developed over
the years that sets apart the French player from the
average chessplayer. The French player is willing to twist
and squirm for hours in order to get in a freeing move
that most other openings take for granted.
Before you take up the MacCutcheon (and by
definition the French) -you must ask yourself whether
you are willing to endure the social stigma associated
with it. You will almost certainly hear condescending
remarks from players of the Sicilian, Petroff, Ruy Lopez, or
10
Remember the MacCutcheon!
Caro-Kann defenses and you must be able to persevere
despite it. Slowly, however, this attitude is changing.
Moreover, the change has recently been accelerated by
the publication of Watson's Play the French arId Minev's
The French Defense. In my Opi11ion, both of these books
belong in every player's library.
Nikolay Minev begins his introduction to his
wonderful book by stating "The French Defense today is
in its Golden Age." My experience bears this out. I have
seen this not only in over the board Swiss tournaments
but also in my correspondence games.
I started a new section of Golden Knights correspon-
dence tournament about the same time as I played in
the 1986 National Open in Las Vegas. Five of the six
games in the Golden Knights section and four of the five
games in the National Open were French Defenses. This
had convinced me of the truth of Minev's claim even
before I had read it.
I believe more and more players are learning what we
long time French players have been saying all along: "The
Frerlch is a fighting defense!"
I have always maintained that 1...e6 is the most
ornery of defenses. After all, ] .e4 occupies the e4 square
and stakes a claim to the d5 square. Both 1...e5 and
1...c5 let White get away with this blatant spatial
conquest. With 1.. .e6, however, Black at the earliest
opportunity sends a message to White, that "not only is
your claim to d5 disputed, but on my very next move I'm
going to fight you over e4". None of this "you go about your
development and I'll go about mine" stuff for the player of
the French Defense!
I am aware that this also applies to the Caro-Kann. It
is also true that, later in their careers, both Nirnzovitch
and Botvinnik decided that the Caro-Kann was a better
defense (partly because it accomplishes the same
objectives without accepting the bad bishop). I happen to
Remember the MacCutcheon!
11
agree with them in purely objective terms. This is a
pleasant difference between human chess players and
their machine counter-parts. I'm under no obligation to
play the objectively best move. I can play what interests
me instead.
The French Defense is not only a rich source of new
ideas but by its very nature leads to interesting and
difficult positions. The French player is not looking for
symmetry and disdains clarity where both sides can go
unhindered about their oh-so-obvious plans.
I think Watson deserves a tremendous amount of
credit for debunking the myths surrounding the French.
Time and again he demonstrates the ability of the
second player to generate sufficient counter play for full
equality. Watson, however, never turns his attention to
the MacCutcheon. His French is the French of the
Winawer.
There is nothing wrong with this, and in many ways
it is again 0 bjectively best but I have gone down that road
and wish to write of a fork that Watson has not taken.
Although Minev covers the MacCutcheon (he covers
almost everything) I still believe it to be largely
unfamiliar to the majority of chessplayers, even those
that normally play the French.
I have my own style, of course, and find it best
represented by the MacCutcheon. I think it is worth
examining how I came to play the MacCutcheon before
we proceed to evaluate its current theoretical standing.
As a young player, I sought after complications. My
favorite opening evaluation was "unclear." I had com-
plete confidence in my ability to solve, or at least, survive
these positions. I assumed that a player with a higher
rating was better in the opening and ending but not
necessarily in the middle game. I felt that I was almost
anyone's equal in tactics. So much for modesty!
12
Remember the MacCutcheon!
My choices for opening systems were based on this
single prime directive: Create chances! The openings I
chose sought to delay the inevitable first crisis from the
opening until the middle game. I wanted nothing more
from an opening except to escape it and, ideally, to escape
it with complications.
I've played Sicilians, Winawers, Nimzos, Ragozins,
anything and everything that promised an unbalanced
position. I've sworn by and discarded any number of
opening systems, and I'll bet that you have too. The one
opening that survived this period and remains to this
day as part of my opening repertoire is the MacCutcheon.
It may be important to point out that Aron
Nimzovich's My System was one of my earliest chess
books and dominated my thinking for many years. When
a friend of mine found that out, he looked at me with an
amazed expression and said, "No wonder you play
perverted openings!" Of course, this player felt that way
about anything other than the Najdorf Sicilian.
It was Nimzovitch who taught me, and perhaps
thousands of other players, the French Defense. His
analysis and games made a deep and lasting impression
upon me. His contributions to the opening theory are well
documented. Of course, his bias towards 3.e5 cannot be
overlooked. (Relatively few players answer my French
with anything other than 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2.)
I suppose it is somewhat redundant to state that my
opening choices revolved around the Nimzo-Indian and
what has come to be called the Nirnzovitch-Larsen
attack. For a while, as Black, I was answering almost
everything with e6, d5, Bb4. This led me, naturally, to the
Winawer.
Somewhere along the line both the Nimzo-Indian and
the Winawer became very popular and then heavily
analyzed. They were "my" openings but people started to
know them, as well as, or even better than I did. Games
Remember the MacCutcheon!
13
began to be decided in the opening according to who had
done their homework better.
What was worse, people began to avoid them
altogether. Players with the White pieces began to play
3.Nf3 against the Nimzo and 3.Nd2 against the French.
Suddenly, I was without my two most comfortable
weapons. If they did play 3.Nc3, you could rest assured
that they were heavily "booked" on the Winawer. It was
the search for an alternative to the Winawer and a
reluctance to abandon the French that ultimately led to
my "discovery" of the MacCutcheon.
I should also mention that although it took me a very
long time to recognize his influence, Botvinnik also
played a powerful role in both my adopting the French
and staying with it. I think I suppressed his influence
because I liked to fancy myself to be more like Tal than
Botvinnik. I even went so far as to lump Botvinnik in
with Tarrasch as a merely scientific type (anyone that
knows Nimzovitch also knows what a putdown that is).
Yet, Botvinnik often played the French. His 100
Selected Games is a chess classic and contains many
French Defenses. Certainly his personality was a turnoff,
but he did manage to synthesize the Tarraschian and
Nimzovitchian schools, at least for me.
He taught that to win with the Black pieces one
usually had to accept some sort of strategic weakness
almost right off the bat. If one wanted good piece play,
one had to give up something in the center or perhaps
accept a pawn weakness. You couldn't have it all. The
point was to get something in return for whatever it was
that you were giving up. If you are going to accept a
cramped position, you'd better have good long range
prospects in the middle or endgame, for example.
This made intuitive sense to me. I discovered that
although Nimzovitch was a pioneer, he failed to retain
his objectivity. He made the leap from "It's playable" to
14
Remember the MacCutcheon!
'Black is winning" a little too frequently. He overcom-
pensated against overwhelmingly hostile peer pressure,
which is understandable, but it doesn't make it the
truth. Botvinnik was more reserved and perhaps more
technically accurate.
After I had digested this lesson from Botvinnik, I no
longer rejected an opening system simply because the
pawn structure looked bad, or because White's attack
"looked" overwhelming. This psychological foundation, or
one like it, must be in place before one can give the
MacCutcheon a fair chance. I'll be the first to admit, it
looks bad. Fortunately, it plays a whole lot better than it
looks.
The recent Kasparov-Karpov matches have cemented
this concept in my mind. Kasparov especially has an
incredible feel for what he calls the Udynamic
equilibrium" of chess positions. He knows when piece
play compensates for a pawn minus and when it doesn't.
He plays the games where both sides have equal chances
without it being the least bit drawish. What to most of
us is "unclear" appears to be second nature to him.
It is my contention that the MacCutcheon is an
opening in the spirit of the Nimzovitch-Botvinnik-
Kasparov style, at least as I understand it. If one merely
plays over the main variations one is given the
impression that White's kingside attack cannot fail.
White inflicts a gaping hole into Black's kingside pawn
structure and appears to have winning piece sacrifices at
his fingertips.
Yet the truth is something very different. Fine notes
that the line thought to refute the MacCutcheon in his
day rebounds back against White, while Horowitz
remarks that the variations with Qg4 and Bd3 are no
longer played to attack Black's king, but rather to achieve
a safe, sound position for White!
Remember the MacCutcheon!
15
It has been my experience again and again that if
White gambles on a quick kingside kill, Black will come
crashing through on the queenside first. Bear in mind
that this is not one of those cases where White attacks
against Black's king and Black attacks against White's
queenside pawns. In a typical MacCutcheon, both sides
are king hunting!
It is not suprising, to me at least, that one of Fischer's
60 memorable games is a MacCutcheon. In that game,
and in many others, both sides always appear to be only
one move away from a knockout. The more aggressive
White attempts to be, the more chances Black has.
Part of the MacCutcheon's charm, for me, has been
the low regard players with the White pieces seem to
hold for it. It is almost considered to be a joke opening.
Often they assume their attack on the kings ide will play
itself. This overconfidence as much as their lack of
familiarity with the opening led to many of my early
successes.
Objectively establishing the viability of the variation
is the main task of this book. Beyond that, I wish to
convey some of the sheer delight that the opening holds
in store for those willing to employ it, but I have no
intention of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. If you
want to play the MacCutcheon, be prepared! The sword
cuts both ways, as the last chapter is intended to
illustrate.
Above all, remember the chief drawback of the
MacCutcheon: One cannot always play it. If you play the
MacCutcheon, you play the French!
Francesa - Variante MacCutcheon
