D50k — QGD: Semi-Tarrasch, Old Pillsbury Variation

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c5 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.Qxd4 * ● Trait aux Noirs

Ouverture — Centre mobile

♔ Point de vue Blancs

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

abcdefgh

Plans. cxd5 (Capture en d5, Occuper le centre — 29 % des parties) ; Bxf6 (Fou actif (mobilité 6) — 26 % des parties) ; Qd1 (Prépare O-O-O — 16 % des parties) ; Qh4 (Prépare O-O-O — 11 % des parties) ; e3 (Libérer Bf1, préparer Bd3 — 7 % des parties).

♚ Point de vue Noirs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

hgfedcba

Plans. ...Nc6 (Menace d4, Développer b8 — 57 % des parties) ; ...Be7 (Fou actif (mobilité 5), Développer f8 — 41 % des parties).

Avantages

Faiblesses

Diagonale active

Plans

Structure de pions

	♔ Blancs	♚ Noirs
Pions doublés	—	—
Pions isolés	—	—
Arriérés	—	—
Chaînes	—	● e6→d5, f7→e6
Passés	—	—
Majorité	● aile dame 3v2	—

Cases

	♔ Blancs	♚ Noirs
Cases fortes	● f4 (2v0), ● b5 (2v0), ● e5 (2v0)	—
Cases faibles	● e4	—
Centre	● d4 (1v0), ● e5 (2v0)	—

Colonnes et diagonales

	♔ Blancs	♚ Noirs
Semi-ouvertes	● d	● c

Pièces

	♔ Blancs	♚ Noirs
Bf1	● Bf1 Non développé (mob. 0)
Bg5	● Bg5 Actif (mob. 7)
Bc8		● Bc8 Non développé (mob. 1)
Bf8		● Bf8 Non développé (mob. 5)
Paire de fous	● Oui	● Oui
Non développées	3 (● f1, ● a1, ● h1)	5 (● b8, ● c8, ● f8, ● a8, ● h8)

Sécurité du roi

	♔ Blancs	♚ Noirs
Statut	● Au centre	● Au centre
Droits de roque	O-O / O-O-O	O-O / O-O-O

Thèmes

	♔ Blancs	♚ Noirs
Phase	Ouverture
Centre	mobile
Ruptures	● e2-e4	—

Partie
1904 Cambridge Springs – Round ? – Pillsbury, Harry – 1-0 – Lasker, Emanuel – G29 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 Ne5
1904 Cambridge Springs – Round 6 – Pillsbury, Harry – 1-0 – Lasker, Emanuel – G27 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 Ne5
1904 Cambridge Springs – Round 6 – Pillsbury, Harry – 1-0 – Nelson-Lasker, Emanue – G11 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 Ne5
1905 St Petersburg – Round 1 – Duz-Khotimirsky, Fedor Ivanovich – 0-1 – Znosko-Borovsky, Eugene – G5 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 f5
1905 St Petersburg – Round 1 – Znosko-Borovsky, Eugene – 0-1 – Izbinsky, Stefan – G15 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 Qb6 9. Qxf6 Rg8 10. Qf4 Qxb2
1907 Carlsbad – Round 1 – Cohn, Erich – 0-1 – Teichmann, Richard – G3 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e4 Nc6 9. Bb5 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6
1907 Ostende II – Round 5 – Cohn, Erich – 1-0 – Johner, Paul – G60 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e4 dxe4 9. Bxf6 Qxd4 10. Bxd4 exf3
1912 It (Men) Bad Pistyan CZE – Round 13 – Cohn, Erich – 0-1 – Rubinstein, Akiba – G55 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nc6 9. Qa4 O-O 10. Be2 Be6
1936 New York ch-USA – Round 11 – Dake, Arthur William – 1/2-1/2 – Fine, Reuben – G33 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nc6 9. Bb5 O-O 10. Qa4 Bd7
1938 Ch (Men) Argentina ARG – Round 15 – Guimard, Carlos E – 0-1 – Grau, Roberto G – G10 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 Ne5
1939 Buenos Aires ol f-A – Round 6 – De Souza Mendes, Joao – 0-1 – Winz, Victor – G106 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 d4 9. O-O-O e5 10. e3 Rg8
1939 Buenos Aires ol f-A – Round 8 – Lundin, Erik – 0-1 – da Silva Rocha, Adhemar – G167 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. d4 d5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Qxc4 Qb6 10. O-O-O Bd7
1942 Duras 60 Memorial – Round 10 – Junge, Kai – 1/2-1/2 – Foltys, Jan – G43 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nc6 9. Bb5 O-O 10. Qa4 Qd6
1951 Bucharest GMT 2nd – Round 10 – Florian, Tibor – 0-1 – Karastoichev, Emil – G40 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 Be7
1951 Marianske Lazne zt – Round 1 – Szabo, Ladislav – 1-0 – Heidenfeld, Wolfgang – G90 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. d4 d5 4. Nc3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 Bb4 9. cxd5 exd5 10. e3 Be6
1959 CAN Ch – Round 3 – Fuster, Geza – 1-0 – Joyner, Lionel – G6 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 c5 4. Nc3 d5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 O-O 9. Bb5 Nc6 10. Qa4 Be6
1965 Hungary – Round 1 – Barczay, Laszlo – 1-0 – Dely, Peter – G16 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 O-O 9. Be2 Nc6 10. Qa4 h6
1965 Hungary – Round 1 – Barczay, Laszlo – 1/2-1/2 – Lengyel, Laszlo – G39 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nc6 9. Qa4 O-O 10. Rd1 Be6
1966 Havana – Round 1 – Fuster, Geza – 0-1 – Pereira Cuellar, Miguel – G21 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. Qh4 dxc4 9. Rd1 Bd7 10. e3 Be7
1966 Havana CUB – Round 2 – Martinez Diaz, Juan Ramon – 1/2-1/2 – Lengyel, Levente – G16 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e4 Nc6 9. Bb5 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6

D50k — Pseudo-Tarrasch Variation, Primitive Pillsbury Variation (1904)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c5 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.Qxd4

Les coups candidats

6…Nc6 — 57.0% (57 parties)

Ambassadeurs : Fuster, Geza (1x), Witt, Laszlo (1x), Florian, Tibor (1x), Karastoichev, Emil (1x), Szabo, Laszlo (1x), Heidenfeld, Wolfgang (1x), Chistiakov, Alexander (1x), Gusev, Nikolay N (1x)

6…Be7 — 41.0% (41 parties)

Ambassadeurs : Fuster, Geza (2x), Dely, Peter (2x), Barczay, Laszlo (2x), Donner, Jan-Hein (1x), Eken, Max (1x), Hartleb, Glenn E (1x), Kluger, Gyula (1x), Molnar, Istvan (1x)

6…Nbd7 — 1.0% (1 parties)

Ambassadeurs : Sandulescu, Gheorghe (1x), Dobrea, Eugen (1x)

6…Bb4 — 1.0% (1 parties)

Ambassadeurs : Melo, Silvio Sa De (1x), Oliveira, Lincoln Robert Lemo (1x)

Analyse statistique des coups candidats

Répartition par niveau Elo (% des parties)

Tranche Elo	N parties	6…Nc6	6…Be7	6…Nbd7	6…Bb4
<1800	12	50%	50%	—	—
1800-2200	32	66%	31%	3%	—
2200-2600	15	87%	13%	—	—
2600+	1	—	100%	—	—

Évolution par décennie (% des parties)

Décennie	N parties	6…Nc6	6…Be7	6…Nbd7	6…Bb4
1950s	8	38%	62%	—	—
1960s	9	44%	56%	—	—
1970s	4	50%	50%	—	—
1980s	6	50%	50%	—	—
1990s	13	46%	54%	—	—
2000s	30	63%	37%	—	—
2010s	24	58%	33%	4%	4%
2020s	6	100%	—	—	—

Tendances récentes (2010s → 2020s)

Coup	2010s	2020s	Δ
6…Nc6	58%	100%	▲ +41.7%
6…Be7	33%	0%	▼ -33.3%
6…Nbd7	4%	0%	▼ -4.2%
6…Bb4	4%	0%	▼ -4.2%

Parties historiques

6…Nc6 — 57.0% (57 parties)

1951 — Florian, Tibor vs Karastoichev, Emil — 0-1 — Bucharest ROU
1951 — Szabo, Laszlo vs Heidenfeld, Wolfgang — 1-0 — Marianske Lazne zt
1959 — Chistiakov, Alexander vs Gusev, Nikolay N — 1-0 — Leningrad RUS
1960 — Fowell, Richard vs Blackstone, John — 0-1 — San Jose, CA USA
1960 — Chistiakov, Anatolij vs Shashin, Alexsander A — 1-0 — Moscow RUS

6…Be7 — 41.0% (41 parties)

1950 — Donner, Jan-Hein vs Eken, Max — 1/2-1/2 — Beverwijk Beverwijk NED
1950 — Molnar, Istvan vs Monostori, Lajos — 1-0 — Budapest HUN
1955 — Westra, Roelof D vs Andrade, Ledaiane Vicente De — 1-0 — Montreal CAN
1956 — Fuster, Geza vs Hartleb, Glenn E — 1/2-1/2 — Oklahoma City, OK USA
1959 — Fuster, Geza vs Joyner, Lionel — 1-0 — Montreal CAN

6…Nbd7 — 1.0% (1 parties)

2011 — Sandulescu, Gheorghe vs Dobrea, Eugen — 1/2-1/2 — Sarata Monteoru

6…Bb4 — 1.0% (1 parties)

2011 — Melo, Silvio Sa De vs Oliveira, Lincoln Robert Lemo — 1-0 — Recife