On the value of understanding transpositional possibilities in chess
One of the most remarkable aspects of chess is its capacity to show you how little you still know after even 20+ years of playing and studying the game. Browsing the late Yuri Razuvaev's Key Concepts of Gambit play,I came across a position that I realised I'd seen before.
After 12. h4
The idea h4, referred to as 'My own gambit' by Razuvaev, the product of personal inspiration way back in 1966 ('the innovation of a whole chess lifetime!' to quote its creator slightly out of context), is an attacking idea that black struggles to defend against. If you're wondering why the word 'gambit' is in parentheses in my title, it's because, for me, that word implies danger, risk for the gambiteer. Razuvaev's h4, even though it offers black a pawn (that black would be ill-advised to take), is just a good idea. Put the position into the engine and stockfish's verdict is that of a slight though not unsubstantial advantage for white.
I may have seen this idea before, in games like Andrei Sokolov - Larry Christiansen, Dubai 1986, and Timman - Anand, Moscow 1992, yet it clearly never occupied much time in the forefront of the chess part of my mind. Perhaps this is in part due to the fact both of those games were draws. (As Razuvaev laments, an idea's popularity often stands or falls on whether or not it results in high profile success, rather than on its objective quality.) But what I previously hadn't realised was just how many different openings can lead to the same or similar position to that above, and Razuvaev's powerful h4.
You can get to the position leading to Razuvaev's gambit via:
A) The Semi-Tarrasch Queen's gambit: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c5 5. cd Nxd5 6. e3 Nc6 7. Bc4 cd 8. ed Be7 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Re1 Nxc3 11. bxc3 b6 12. h4.
B) The Benko and Modern Benoni denied by white, and the Queen's and Bogo-Indian refused by black, AKA the symmetrical English: 1. d4 (or 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 e6) Nf6 2. c4 c5 (or 2... e6 3. Nf3 c5) 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 d5 5. cd Nxd5 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Bc4 cd 8. ed Nxc3 9. bxc Be7 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Re1 b6 12. h4.
C) The Panov-Botvinnik Caro-Kann, Pseudo-Panov, Scandinavian gambit, or ...c6 Vs. 1. c4: 1. e4 (or 1. c4 c6 2. e4. Or 1. e4 d5 2. ed Nf6 3. c4) c6 2. c4 (this move order, the Pseudo-Panov, represents the most direct, even crudest attempt to get to the position. The Panov proper: 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. ed cd 4. c4 Nf6 gives black more options) d5 3. ed Nf6 4. Nc3 cd 5. cd Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Bc4 Nxc3? (A lazy move. Here black should play 7... Nb6 8. Bb5 g6 to be assured of equality) 8. bc e6 9. d4 Be7 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Re1 b6 12. h4.
D) The Sicilian (yes, really). The following game demonstrates an unlikely move order that Jacob Aagaard in his editorial update on Razuvaev's text drolly observes is 'worth a separate investigation'. Ivanchuk, Vassily - Sutovsky, Emil, Tsaghkadzor 2015: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Be2 Nf6 5. 0-0 d5 6. ed Nd5 7. d4 Nxc3 8. bc Be7 9. Re1 0-0 10. Bd3 cd 11. cd b6 12. c3 Bb7 13. h4!
E) The Queen's Gambit Accepted: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dc 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 and so on.
F) All of the above beginning 1. Nf3: and so on.
From all these different points of departure that can all arrive in the same place, or so near to the same place that the same h4 idea applies (see: 'what makes certain openings superior to others'), it's obvious that the Razuvaev position/gambit is one worth knowing. Not only does it result in an attacking initiative for white, it has a universal quality that means, as line C above suggests,black will often walk into it practically by accident.So analyse it before everyone else does. But before you go to the database or the Razuvaev book, here's a typical game, featuring a typical Razuvaev Nxe6 sacrifice, to further sell the idea: