Starting aggressively again, and finishing it off in the endgame, Vladimir Kramnik grabbed the lead in Moscow today by beating Peter Svidler. Although flu like symptoms among some players have been reported, so far Kramnik seems least affected.

The Tal Memorial takes place November 4-18 in Moscow, Russia. The category 21 round-robin has Viswanathan Anand (India, 2788), Levon Aronian (Armenia, 2786), Magnus Carlsen (Norway, 2801), Vladimir Kramnik (Russia, 2772), Peter Leko (Hungary, 2752), Boris Gelfand (Israel, 2758), Vassily Ivanchuk (Ukraine, 2739) Alexander Morozevich (Russia, 2750), Peter Svidler (Russia, 2754) and Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine, 2739).

The first four rounds of the round-robin are held in hotel “National” on November 5, 6, 7 and 8. Rounds 5-9 take place in the Main Department Store GUM on Red Square. The time control is the classic 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour and then 15 minutes plus 30 seconds increment to finish the game. The rounds begin daily at 15:00 Moscow time which is 13:00 CET.

Round 4

We received confirmation from the Carlsen team that Magnus is having some flu like symptoms, and according to Mig, Kramnik isn’t feeling 100% either in Moscow. However, the former World Champ doesn’t seem affected at all and gave another impressive show today, beating Svidler in coffeehouse style and using exemplary endgame technique.

White’s “patzer plan” of rushing with the h-pawn and exchanging Black’s fianchetto bishop (isn’t that suppose to backfire with Black pressing in the centre?) worked out surprisingly well in this Exchange Grünfeld; at least over the board Svidler couldn’t find a good antidote. He tried his luck in an endgame a pawn down, and at first he seemed to get some compensation but as soon as the White rooks became active it was over.

The top encounter (if not all games are, at the Tal Memorial) Carlsen-Aronian started quite interesting, and was heavily debated during our live commentary, but they drew relatively quickly. This was a most welcome course of events for the top seed, who will have the rest day to recover.

Not much fireworks in the other drawn games either; Leko-Ivanchuk did start promising but they too called it a day as soon as the position was even. Tomorrow’s the only rest day after which the players will switch venues, from hotel National to the Main Department Store GUM on Red Square. Kramnik has showed some very good chess and is the deserved leader after four rounds.

Games round 4 [IM Robert Ris]

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Following an excellent idea of Georg in the comments, we try to write something about Mikhail Tal every day.

Mikhail Tal played countless crazy games, but one of the craziest was surely the game he played against the young readers of the Soviet magazine Pionerskaya Pravda in 1968. The readers called themselves ‘White Rook’ in this game. In it, Tal employs the Traxler Gambit as Black – basically, he sacs a rook as early as move four hoping to create complications against the white king. After the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Kg1 Qh4 8.g3 Nxg3, over 20,000 readers sent in their moves each time it was their turn.

The game was also heavily analysed and numerous discoveries were found during the course of more than fourty years. In the legendary Dutch chess book Chess curiosities (1974), Tim Krabbé devotes many pages to the game, which strangely didn’t make it into Tal’s Life and Games.

The game was also analysed by Smyslov and still later by Alexander Khalifman in his Tal biography, but probably the most famous analysis was done by a Soviet chess junior called Vadim Brodsky, who made a fantastic discovery in the ‘endgame’ which appeared after move 26.
Here, Tal erred with 26…Ng3+? and after some more adventures the game was subsequently drawn. But a few months after the game was played, Brodsky found that Black can win with 26…Nf4+! 27.Kh6 Rg6+ 28.Kh7 Rg7+! 29.Kh6 Kg8! and Black mates next move. Sadly, most modern engines find this line within seconds. We can only wonder what the great magician from Riga would have thought about this development.

(Arne Moll)

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN

Avec toutes ces vidéos, j'avais oublié de vous faire plancher ce mois-ci. J'avais été un peu échaudé par votre faible participation du mois dernier... Nous allons voir ce dont vous êtes capables ce mois-ci. Dans cette position, vous avez les noirs et devez trouver comment prendre l'ascendant. Le début est assez simple, mais je vous demande de vous mettre dans la peau d'un grand maître, authentique génie des échecs, et de me donner une proposition de suite sur 10 coups. Les réponses les plus satisfaisantes recevront un ebook, grand classique de la littérature échiquéenne, le livre d'Alburt "Chess openings for Black, explained" (2005).
Voici la position. Soyez brillants ! Pendant ce temps-là, je vous concocte une vidéo sur la Traxler dont vous me direz des nouvelles...

Je suis toujours dans mon vidéo trip duquel je n'ai pas encore attéri. Vous avez toujours l'air d'apprécier, si j'en juge sur le nombre des connexions. Croyez moi, quand la vie est difficile pour vous, cela fait chaud au cœur. Ici, je vous propose ma vidéo la plus longue (plus d'une heure !) où je fais ce que je voulais faire depuis longtemps : un rappel des principales lignes de la défense des 2 cavaliers avec 4.Cg5,d5, incluant l'attaque fegatello. Je ne pouvais pas faire l'impasse puisque je suis hépatologue ! Ce rappel concerne les 10 premières minutes et ceux qui aiment les commentaires sur les ouvertures peuvent s'arrêter là. Je leur promets un tome II consacré à la Traxler, pour laquelle j'ai une tendresse particulière. Quant aux autres, rien ne les empêche de tout voir (le faible niveau sonore et les quelques bâillements s'expliquent par le fait qu'il était tard dans la nuit !) - ça vaut bien une émission de divertissement racoleuse de TF1 !-  ou de plancher sur quelques positions où vous devez trouver les coups gagnants avec les noirs : à 27'21" ; à 41'41" ; à 47'49" par exemple. C'est assez basique mais tout de même très spectaculaire ! Merci de continuer à me faire confiance et à m'encourager... Et à bientôt pour la suite !

Décidément, je ne me lasse pas de la Traxler, 2 ans après mes premiers pas avec cette ouverture rapportée dans mon recueil. Elle me donne toujours des émotions fortes, comparables à celles qu'on ressent dans une rencontre sportive de haute intensité. J'ai joué la position qui suit pas plus tard que la nuit dernière, juste après avoir dévoré le livre de Spielmann "l'art du sacrifice aux échecs", dont je vous parlerai prochainement en détail. Ce livre a eu pour effet de me donner une envie irrépressible de "combiner" et cela ne s'est pas fait attendre : pas moins de 4 parties jouées avec à chaque fois de jolies pointes tactiques... qui feront l'objet d'exercices ultérieurs. La position provient d'une Traxler, donc, et mon adversaire s'est totalement laissé pièger dès l'ouverture, perdant une pièce et me donnant une avance confortable... Mais cela n'enlève rien à la combinaison finale que je vous propose de retrouver ici.

Réponse : quiconque a un peu l'habitude constate que le roi blanc est en très mauvaise posture, entouré qu'il est de cases interdites. On parle alors de réseau de mat et c'est donc bien une combinaison de mat forcé qu'il fallait trouver. Ici, tout s'enchaîne à merveille en cherchant systématiquement les coups forcés : 21...Fd3+ 22.Rb4 Pour l'instant, c'était facile. Maintenant, il faut continuer dans le même esprit et la seule façon de continuer les coups forcés est de jouer le sacrifice 22...Fa5! 23.Rxa5 est forcé et le mat est imparable. Il y a la façon Fritz : 23...c6+ 24.Rb4,a5+ 25.bxa6,Db6+ 26.Cb5,Dxb5+ 27.Ra3,Txa6#. Et il y a la suite de la partie, que je trouve plus jolie : 23...b6+ 24.Rb4,a5+ 25.bxa6,Txa6 menaçant 26...Ta4#. Sur 26.Fc6 suit 26...Ta4+!! 27.Fxa4,Da8 suivi de 28...Da5# et sur 26.Cb5, joué dans la partie, suit 26...Ta4+ 27.Rb5,Dd7+ 28.Fc6,Fxc4#

Everybody has a favourite chess move. Many just love 23…Qg3. Tim Krabbé’s favourite is 16…Nc6. According to British Chess Magazine, it’s 47…Bh3. And a member of my local chess club is obsessed by the move 7.Ke3! in the Traxler Counter-Attack. These are all highly spectacular moves. My own favourite is the very modest queen-shuffle 2.Qe2.

I’m talking about the little-known Chigorin Variation of the French Defence, which arises after 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2.

I still remember the moment when I first encountered this move. I stumbled upon it in an old volume on chess strategy by Euwe and Kramer and, incomprehensibly, the authors didn’t comment on the move at all! I couldn’t understand what was going on, and was very frustrated about it. The quoted game was Chigorin-Tarrasch, 1893 and this frustrated me even more: how could such an outstanding player like Mikhail Chigorin play this absurd move?

Baffled at first, I started hypothesizing that White must have some idea with it, and I supposed (correctly, as it turned out) that it was to prevent d7-d5. But this didn’t make much sense either. First of all, Black could still play 2…d5 and after 3.exd5 Qxd5 he would have a position from the Scandinavian Defence with a rather strange Queen on e2, would he not? Secondly, even if Black couldn’t play d7-d5, it hardly seemed worth misplacing the queen just for that.

As always, things turned out to be not so easy. I started stuyding the line and discovered many things; mostly that, of course, the white king’s bishop could simply go to g2 and wasn’t so blocked after all. The game would then look much like a reversed King’s Indian. Also, if Black played Nc6-d4 at some point, chasing the queen even further over the board, the knight could be forced to retreat with tempo by c2-c3, making a nice ‘hole’ for the Queen on c2 in the process. It seemed there was actually some positional basis for Qe2 and this showed me in a profound way what a deep and rich game chess is.

Nowadays, it’s of course well-known that Qe2 and the idea to develop the bishop to g2 is a kind of prelude to later King’s Indian positions. Being a French player myself, I too sometimes face the move 2.Qe2 and in my experience, white players indeed usually strive for a quiet KID-like setup, apparently in an attempt to deviate from better known lines such as after 2.d3. Alexei Suetin, in his classic 1982 mongraph on the French, writes of the move:

It may be looked upon as the forerunner of the modern openings strategy which in semi-open systems aims at achieving a King’s Indian position with opposite colours, e.g. in the variation 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 etc.

Similarly, Gligoric, Uhlmann and Botvinnik (The French Defence, 1975) note:

Tchigorin’s [sic] move, 2.Qe2, can transpose to the King’s Indian Attack (in which White’s queen usually plays to e2) but by playing his moves in a different order Black can bypass the K.I.A. setup and take a more aggresive stance.

And the great Kasparov, in the first part of My Great Predecessors, says the following of the line (as played in the game Chigorin-Teichmann, Hastings 1895):

Chigorin demonstrated all the basic ideas of the set-up with the X-ray bishop at g2 and symmetrical pawns on e4 and e5: restriction of the knight at c6 by c2-c3, manoeuvre of the knight to c4 (…) This was the style of the future! Many decades later the King’s Indian Attack became fashionable.

Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934)

Now, I must make a personal confession. Although I really love the move Qe2 for all its initial weirdness, I don’t like the stereotyped moves that usually follow after it! White often automatically plays g3, Bg2, Nf3 and 0-0, then goes for d3 and/or c3 and he reaches ‘normal’ King’s Indian structures. Played this way, the system loses all its charm, at least for me. It’s just another boring KID with reversed colours! Therefore, in this article I will take a different point of view than the (however highly esteemed) opinions quoted above. In an attempt to stop this cliché treatment of the move Qe2, I will show that Mikhail Chigorin played it with many different ideas in mind as well, and that it’s not such a boring setup at all. In fact, Chigorin played the move to deviate from stereotyped chess to force the opponent and himself to think right from the start of the game.

In 1893, the Russian Mikhail Chigorin and the German Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, two of the strongest players of those days, played a 22-game match in St. Petersburg (Chigorin’s home town) against each other. It was not an official title match, but the stakes were high. It was a clash not just of chess giants, but of chess schools. As Raymond Keene describes the situation in The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory:

Steinitz’s games had taught the chess world much but certain eccentricities persisted in the old master’s conception of opening play, which could not satisfy an idealogue and purist such as Tarrasch. For the first time, we now see the multiplicity of Steinitzian options narrowed down and pruned. Variations and moves are ‘incorrect’ for general and logical reasons and Chigorin’s objections (in his games with Tarrasch) that his incorrect or ugly moves are actually quite viable were more or less ignored. That was until Nimzowitsch came along to renew the challenge to Tarrasch, and until (much later) Soviet writers rediscovered Chigorin as the ideological father of Russian chess, finding that his ‘ugly’ moves, too, had a scientific basis.

The final score of the match was +9 -9 =4. The games were famously analysed by Tarrasch in his masterpiece Dreihundert Schachpartien (300 chess games). In all-but-one of Chigorin’s white games, the ‘ugly’ Qe2 line was played, making this historic match the ‘creation story’ of this particular variation. But according to Tarrasch himself, Chigorin wasn’t the first to have played the move. In his comments to the first game, Tarrasch writes:

This move was no surprise for me, I had seen it already in a game by Pollock, but given it no attention. It has no other value than to prevent the usual methods of play, and to lead to a difficult, closed game for both. Such experiments are usually allowed to white without huge risks.

Tarrasch's first comment on Qe2 in his book 'Dreihundert Schachpartien'

So far, I have not been able to dig up this game by Pollock, but it must exist, as it is also mentioned in the official match book by Albert Heyde (Der Schachwettkampf zwischen Dr. S. Tarrasch und M. Tschigorin, Ende 1893).  Can a reader locate it? (Interestingly, Kasparov quotes Chigorin mentioning how he got the idea for 2.Qe2 from a game he played - as Black - against Steinitz in their 1892 match in which Steinitz also played Qd1-e2 to prevent d7-d5: ‘It was this that gave rise to my initial plan with g2-g3, Bg2 and d2-d3, which was later varied’. Didn’t Chigorin know the Pollock game while Tarrasch did? An why, if he already had the idea, didn’t Chigorin play this setup on the first opportunity he got - the second match game - in the match against Tarrasch?)

In any case, Heyde makes a very important observation about these games, which is also important for our pursuit:

The games with this opening which were played in this match are the most interesting. In these, Chigorin tries a move tried in America - by Pollock if I’m not mistaken - 2.Qe2, which is well underestimated by most players.  Admittedly, Chigorin himself did not immediately find the right continuation, since in the defence with 2…Be7, the queen move gains in strength only by means of 3.b3 and 4.Bb2.

Here’s the thing. I’ve played the logical move 2…Be7 (preparing d7-d5) myself a number of times against 2.Qe2, and on none of those occasions did my opponent go for b3 and Bb2. In all cases, White automatically went g3, Bg2 and d3, without even thinking. I find this very strange. If you play such an interesting move as Qe2, why follow up with such boring schemes?

But let’s not overhaste things. After all, Tarrasch himself didn’t play 2…Be7 until the 10th match game. In the first four games, he played 2…c5. And as already briefly mentioned, Chigorin didn’t play the g3, Bg2 and d3 setup until the second time he got the line on the board. Chigorin’s first attempt went as follows (comments are by Tarrasch):

Chigorin - Tarrasch
St. Petersburg (m/2), 1893

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 ‘With this, Black switches to a Sicilian game, in which the position of the white queen on e2 in any case can’t help the attack.’

3.Nc3 ‘This is, on account of the however insignificant threat Nb8-c6-d4, not good and lays the foundation of later problems. White should play g2-g3, as in the 4th and 6th games of the match, and not rob himself of the possibility to chase away the enemy knight with c2-c3.’

3…Nc6 4.Nf3 a6 5.g3 ‘The wing development of this bishop was of course already intended with Qe2.’

5…Nd4 6.Qd3

At this point, we get a marvellous example of Tarrasch’s famous sarcasm: ‘One sees, Chigorin has learned a lot from Steinitz, perhaps too much. In any case it was more natural to withdraw the queen to d1 and continue the game with d3, Be3, Bg2 etc.’ In the end, Tarrasch got a beautiful position indeed, but unfortunately, he got mated.

Well, never mind that Black got a good position out of the opening - what’s important for us is to note is that White wasn’t playing the typical KIA moves here. It shows that the move can also be used to achieve interesting, different kind of positions. Tarrasch himself understood this point well when he wrote, in that other famous book of his, Die Moderne Schachpartie (1916): ‘The one idea of this unusual move is that it complicates the game and makes it more difficult.’

Although Tarrasch obviously was no fan of Qe2, I think it does show that Tarrasch values the move not as a way for White to reach a certain kind of standard setup, but to make play interesting. And this can be done in many more ways than just one! In a way, Tarrasch acknowledged this also by varying his own setup as Black during the match. For instance, even though he reached a perfectly fine position (and a classic victory) in game 6 after 2…c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nd4 5.Qd3 Be7, he played differently with 4…Be7 in the 8th game, ‘to take a new course as soon as possible’.

Let’s now turn our attention to the line described above by Albert Heyde.

Chigorin-Tarrasch
St. Petersburg (m/12), 1893

1. e4 e6 2.Qe2 Be7

While searching for contemporary sources in the Max Euwe Centre in Amsterdam, I discovered that at the time, opinions about how to play this line varied considerably. In the november 1893 issue of the Deutsches Wochenschach magazine, the text move is regarded as the ’simplest and securest’ reply to White’s concept. On the other hand, in the same issue of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, 2…c5 is considered ‘clearly the best answer to this untheoretical move’. 

In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right. For instance, The Handbuch des Schachspiels by P.R. von Bilguer (1922) mentions that Steinitz considered best a setup with …c5, Nc6, d6, Nf6, Be7 and 0-0, later followed by d6-d5. Euwe (Theorie der Schaakopeningen, 1953) does likewise. Suetin (1982) and Psakhis (The Complete French, 1992) also prefer 2..c5, and so does Uhlmann (Französisch - richtig gespielt, 2004). It has also been the choice of players such as Morozevich, Bareev, Jussupow and Kortchnoi., but I wonder if it was just an ‘autoreply’ or if they actually considered 2…Be7, which I personally find more esthetic.

In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right

3.b3 ‘A creative reply, directed against d7-d5′ - Tarrasch.

3…d5 4.Bb2 Bf6 Tarrasch’s notes are worth quoting in full:

The normal development would have been 4…Nf6, after which Black must ruin his king’s side by means of 5.exd5 exd5 (5…Qxd5 is not good for Black) 6.Bxf6 gxf6. Because of this, I chose the bishop’s move in all games with this opening. This further provokes the advance of the e-pawn, which is almost always more unpleasant for Black on e4 than on e5. In general, central pawns are best advanced only two squares, and because of this 4…d4 isn’t good; White would attack the pawn several times with c2-c3, Nf3 etc, and the end force the exchange.

An interesting discourse, but it’s interesting that Chigorin appears not to have intended 5.exd5 at all! In three later games, he chose 5.Nc3 or 5.e5. The latter move, by the way, was also played against Grandmaster Rafael Vaganian in 1998. It seems these positions have not lost all relevance after all…

5.e5 Later in the match, Chigorin deviated with 5.Bxf6. But according to Kasparov, who analyses some of these games in his already mentioned My Great Predecessors vol. 1, taking the bishop is inferior to the text.

5…Be7 This position also occurred in the 14th match game. On both occasions, Chigorin played

6.Qg4 after which Tarrasch played the amazing 6…Bf8

A unique position: on move 6, Black has ‘completed’ his bishop manoeuvre with Bf8-e7-f6-e7-f8! According to Tarrasch,  this is better than weakening the king’s side with g7-g6. He writes: ’One can’t blame the bishop now for making four moves; of course, taken together these are wasted. But because of the move e4-e5 Black has the opportunity to develop play on the queen’s side well, and start an attack there, while not much can happen to him on the king’s side.’

In my opinion, this manoeuvre also shows that Siegbert Tarrasch wasn’t only the dogmatist he has often been called , but also, like Chigorin, an empiricist who liked to experiment. Recall the Keene quote, or what Robert Wade (in his well-known book Soviet Chess) had to say about it:

Dogmatic as benefits a teacher and a methodist, Tarrasch tried to explain chess in an uncomplicated mechanical fashion rather similar to the way in the same period that the universe was explained. Just as small exceptions upset the rules to which the universe supposedly conformed, small exceptions required the rules propounded by Tarrasch to be modified. Chigorin was a non-confirmist, just as Nimzowitsch became in the days of the twentieth century preceding World War I.

Well, that may be so, but I fail to see what’s so ‘conformist’ about making four bishop moves in your first six moves, ending up on f8 anyway! (By the way, in an internet game from 2004, Alexander Repritsev played 6.h4!? against the well-known grandmaster Sergey Shipov, so we’ll never know if the grandmaster analyst also intended Tarrasch’s non-comformist move Bf8…)

But this wasn’t the end of it. The idea of attacking g7 by means of Qg4 inspired Chigorin in 1899 to play (against Showalter) the even more radical 3.Qg4!?! after 2…Be7. The game continued in ‘Winawer style’: 3…Nf6!? 4.Qxg7 Rg8 5.Qh6 and White won - all of which goes, I hope, to show the potential versatility of the move Qe2.

And even if Black doesn’t play 2…Be7 but the more popular 2…c5, White can still play differently than a standard King’s Indian Attack setup with Nf3 and g3. This time, it was Géza Maróczy who found out how. In early 1904, after 2…c5 he played the move 3.f4 against Swiderski, postponing the development of the white squared bishop to a more suitable moment.

Two months later, during the famous Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament, Chigorin himself caught Maróczy’s idea and tried it two times (against Showalter and Marco). He lost both games, though, and generally was in poor shape in those days. (He did win $67,50 for his final result, according to the tournament site.)

Still, despite this bad experience with 3.f4, the move was regularly seen in tournament pratice. It was employed by Paul Keres in the 1930s, and after that occasionally used by strong players. Admittedly, most white players later went for a KIA setup anyway (but now with the standard move f4 included already), but not always. Canadian IM Lawrence Day, for instance, has played the position with considerably more gusto, trying, after 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 g6 the move 5.Na3!? and after 4…Nge7 our good old plan 5.b3!? And as a perfect example of how the system can be played in a creative fashion, consider the beginning of the following game:

Day - Stonkus
Toronto open 1995

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c3 b5 6.g4!? Nxg4 7.Qxb5 Be7 8.Rg1 Bh4+ 9.Ke2

and White won.

Now, according to my database, 3.f4 is still only White’s third most popular move behind 3.Nf3 and 3.g3, but not too long ago, it has also caught the attention of the creative British top grandmasters Nigel Short and Luke McShane. Short employed the move twice in his 1997 FIDE knockout match against Viktor Kortchnoi, while McShane, too, has played it against Kortchnoi. (Short told me that he had played the move mainly because he ‘must have been desperate’. Well, even better, for apparently he hoped that  Chigorin’s move would somehow bring back his usual creativity!)

Nigel Short, who admitted playing 2.Qe2 only because he was desperate...

The strong Belarus grandmaster Alexei Fedorov has also played 3.f4, and guess what - he played b2-b3 two moves later. I consider all of this sufficient proof that Chigorin’s Qe2 is not just ’some move’ to enter a King’s Indian Attack in a less theoretical way, but has independent value as a system. However, to my knowledge, no monograph or theoretical survey has ever been written about the variation in over 100 years! Why is this?

Is it because White’s move still just looks too silly to take seriously, as Tarrasch used to think? Or is it because people think it’s just another boring (when you’re playing black) or easy (as white) way to arrange your pieces without actually having to think the first few moves? I hope I have convinced you that this was not the fate Chigorin intended his variation. He played it as a way to start a chess game in an interesting, creative way. When I first saw the move Qe2, I thought it was a great big mystery.

Now I know it still is.

There’s a good index of games and another for variations. The bibliography is extensive and shows over 40 sources, impressively ranging from Land and Water (an early London magazine) to recent New in Chess Yearbooks.

However, adding this line to your repertoire could prove to be a case of ‘all or nothing’; to make the most of the material offered here, one would have to devote considerable attention and effort.

For those prepare to take the plunge, there’s no doubt that this is a deep and very thorough work which is very unlikely to be surpassed as the ultimate reference work on 3...Qd6.

New in Chess Yearbooks
Volume 89 and Volume 90

246 pages each
New in Chess

New in Chess Yearbooks appear four times each year. The format is a settled one and each volume follows a familiar structue.

This provides all readers with an opportunity to respond to anything from previous Yearbooks. The correspondence comes from all over the world, with titled players and top authors freely joining in the debate.

Sosonko’s Corner

GM Sosonko’s regular column is a good read and offer good advice, such as ‘Don’t Panic’ when faced with something new in the opening. That is the subject of his article in Yearbook 89.

Surveys

The real meat of the Yearbook is obviously to be found in this section. There is typically a prose introduction followed by a selection of very recent top-level games, complete with deep annotations (using symbols rather than words in the vast majority of cases). There’s good use of photos too, one per survey and most of which were new to me.

32 opening lines are covered in volume 89 and 33 in volume 90. Highlights from the former include ‘The Variation That Decided The World Championship’, in which Peter Lukacs and Laszlo Hazai take a good look at this key position from the Semi-Slav.

Kramnik - Mamedyarov

Nice Rapid 2008

From volume 90, GM Eingorn’s survey on 7...Kf8 in the Winawer and Nikolay Ninov’s analysis of the Traxler Gambit are particularly interesting.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2

‘In contrast to the classical continuations 7...Qc7 and 7...0-0, Black’s strategy here is based on a completely different logic and White has to try and demonstrate (not in words, but in deeds) that the opponent’s voluntary rejection of castling has substantial significance. One of the best replies is considered to be 8 Bd2, which is directed against the standard manoeuvre ….Qd8-a5-a4 and at the same time does not allow the complications which are possible after 7 a4 Qc7 8 Nf3 cxd4.’

It would be quite possible to spend a huge chunk of one’s life analysing The Traxler. The author focuses on lines resulting from a strong ninth move:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5 5 Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6 Kf1 Qe7 7 Nxh8 d5 8 exd5 Nd4 9 d6!

‘…which is definitely the best winning attempt in my opinion.’

Brain-twisting positions are commonplace in this opening, such as this one:

…when Black’s best move is apparently 22...Ne1+!!

The point is that these Yearbooks are not afraid to spend time and effort on unusual variations as well as all of the popular main lines. With a few volumes in one’s library it would be possible to start to build up a very impressive repertoire based on the high level material on offer.

Some of the comments betray a sign of the times, such as this one from Paul Boersma, during a survey on the Queen’s Indian in volume 89.
‘For uneducated or younger players I should perhaps add that Nimzowitsch was a nervous grandmaster of the first quarter of the twentieth century who invented many positional ideas/terms regarded as superfluous in our era of computers.’

Book Reviews

GM Glenn Flear inhabits the final section of the Yearbooks and is given six or so pages to convey his thoughts on recent chess books.

Volume 89’s reviews, under the umbrella title of ‘Cherry Picking’, takes a good look at five opening books.

‘All the authors below are cherry-picking for us, but can we rely on them having a discerning taste for fruit?’

The amusing titles continue in Volume 90 with ‘Never Mind The Quality…Feel The Width’. Once again five opening books are assessed, including New in Chess’s own edition of ‘The Black Lion’ (which will be given a full review here very soon).

New in Chess Yearbooks are impressive tomes and will definitely be of benefit to stronger players. Average club players will probably find them tough going and a on the deep side…

…which allows my segue neatly into this series:

King’s Indian Defence

White has just played 13 Nc3-b5

The strategic concept is to eliminate the fundamentally important c8 bishop after 13...a6 14 Na7. Do not forget that Black’s chances of successfully attacking the kingside are reduced to practically zero without the light-squared bishop, which supports …g5-g4 and attacks the h3 point. This is true not only in this line but for all the Mar del Plata variations.

The tactical justification for the move lies in the fact that after 14...Rxa7 15 Bxa7 b6 16 b4 Bb7 17 c5 dxc5 18 Rc1, every attempt to capture the bishop on a7 has failed.

However, unfortunately for White, after the simple 13...b6! The knight move is shown to be a waste of time.’

The examples quoted are both typical of those found throughout these books.

Learning the moves in conjunction with the relevant ideas and plans is clearly a good way to develop a firm understanding of the openings.

These books are ideal for improving club players, including keen juniors. Even experienced players will find them useful as a starting point if they intned to add more openings to their arsenal.

Yearbook 90 has just arrived!

In this issue of The Chess Player’s Guide to Opening News
you will find answers to urgent quenstions like:

– what was the most original gambit of the year 2008?
– will KingLoek finally admit defeat in the Botvinnik Slav?
– is the Berliner Variation of the Two Knights out of business?
– has Erwin l’Ami refuted Rybka in the Classical Nimzo?
– what were Perenyi’s ideas behind his all-out Attack on the Najdorf?
–can Black still hope for a win in Tiger’s Modern?
– how did the Senior World Champion rejuvenate the Morozevich French?
– with what gambit did Kasparov combat the Scandinavian in simuls?
– have Naiditsch and Bacrot succeeded in killing the Marshall Attack?
– has Nikolay Ninov found the ultimate Anti-Traxler plan?
– have new horizons opened in the sharp Leningrad Dutch?
– with what obscure variety of the Staunton Gambit can you catch Topalov?
– and much more!

“Fantastic value for money”, is what the British Federation for Correspondence Chess said about the Yearbook.

Pleas have a look at the full contents of Yearbook 90.