Being a database programmer, perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised when I recently dreamt I had to develop a chess database. But it wasn’t an ordinary chess database.

Carceri XIV – Giovanni Battista Piranesi

I was told by a faceless person to make a chess database of all chess games ever played. If that doesn’t sound like much, it’s because that was not all. The man told me it must also contain all chess analyses ever made, as well as every comment, opinion or text ever written about any move. It would be a database of all existing chess knowledge -an endless chess library. It was like making the chess version of Jorge Luis Borges’ Total Library. The ultimate Mega Database – an entire chess universe.

I started by collecting all existing chess books ever written – both ancient manuscripts and newly printed books. I visited all chess libraries in the world and went through all privately owned chess book collections. But this clearly wasn’t enough. I had to visit every chess player in person to ask for any scoresheets of games that they had in their possession. Then, I went through all local club magazines and internet blogs to find games I missed. This reminded me that I had to get all chess magazines as well. And, of course, I downloaded all digital books, DVD’s, game analyses and instruction guides on chess.

When I had rubricized all material and put it in a more or less logical order, I started thinking about how to put everything in a database. It didn’t take me long to realize I wouldn’t be able to use existing chess database software. It would just be too impractical. For 1.e4 alone, hundreds if not thousands of comments somehow had to be entered in the database, and this can’t be done with a regular database program. While it is possible to add comments in different languages in some software, you can’t add comments by different sources – at least not dynamically.

So I started thinking about how to develop this chess database myself. Basically it had to contain many more dimensions than the current ones – in fact, it had to have an infinite amount of possible entries for comments and analyses. All published praise of 47…Bh3!! and 23…Qg3!! had to be entered into the database somehow. Actually, it should also be possible to add multiple annotation symbols, because perhaps some commentators had awarded these moves not with two, but only with one exclamation mark (a grave sin, I must say). The database design must take this into account as well.

With the help of data warehouse design techniques, I was able to establish which dimensions my database should have. Obviously there should be dimensions with information about the sources (the books themselves), and information related to the games, or game fragments. This could be players’ names, the year in which it was played, where it was played, and so on. The moves and sub variations (including move number, to keep track of things) should be stored in a different dimension (or, in its technical term, a ‘fact table’). Any game, including its sub-lines, could develop like a garden of forking paths, leading to an infinite amount of moves.

'Datavault' model of a data warehouse

The same was obviously true of comments. But there was an additional problem: comments could not only be related to moves, but also to people who had written them. in his books, Kasparov often refers to older authors, for example. At this point in my dream, my faceless principal interrupted my musings. He ordered me to also store all information about the people who had written the annotations: what use would the project otherwise be? This implied I had to include all biographies of chess commentators in my database. And of course, the commentators could also be chess players themselves, so they should also be linked back to the players and games dimensions.

When I had finished my design – or at least thought I had – a long-feared question arose in my head: where to start? Which data should be put into the database first? Would it be wise to work ‘backwards’ in time, starting with the most recent chess books and adding entries in the database for every name, move or comment that returned a blank? Wouldn’t it be wiser to start with the first chess manuscripts – the recent reconstruction of Francesch Vicent’s mysterious treatise, the surviving games of Ruy Lopez, or perhaps even the first ancient Arab chess problems?

In the end, I decided it wouldn’t really matter – it was a Sisyphus job in any case – and so I started with a game collection from 2010. It happened to be a new book on Capablanca. Slowly but steadily I worked my way back. Then I realized I had forgotten something crucial. Within comments, there could also be references to other works – references to database entries that didn’t exist in my digital library yet! I was suddenly faced with what is sometimes called ‘orphans’ – database references that can’t be traced back (anymore) to their primary dimension. In order to proceed, I had to put all titles in the system first. And so I started again.

My success didn’t last long. I soon found out that many chess authors use references to non-chess related literature all the time. Kasparov quotes Ilf & Petrov, Donner quotes Nietzsche. Once you start paying attention to it, chess and literature are completely intertwined. To be complete, the entire world literature should be included in the list as well. And that’s only the beginning of a myriad of problems. For instance, how to deal with references to literature that has been lost over the centuries?

I now realized the entire Total Chess Library idea would be quite pointless without having access to each and every chess book ever written; every game or analysis – including those that have been destroyed, mutilated, lost for good. I was trapped in a labyrinth I had created myself.

Then I woke up, of course. While I cycled to work, I thought about what use such a megalomanic project could be. Nobody would ever be able to use this monstrous database. The information would be sitting there in some kind of super computer without anyone ever touching it. At first I felt anger, then sadness. Then I felt like nothing had really changed. It was just like work.

As I switched on my laptop at work and opened the data warehouse environment I was currently working on, I remembered the words from another Borges story, The Library of Babel:

At that time it was also hoped that a clarification of humanity’s basic mysteries — the origin of the Library and of time — might be found. It is verisimilar that these grave mysteries could be explained in words: if the language of philosophers is not sufficient, the multiform Library will have produced the unprecedented language required, with its vocabularies and grammars.

For four centuries now men have exhausted the hexagons … There are official searchers, inquisitors. I have seen them in the performance of their function: they always arrive extremely tired from their journeys; they speak of a broken stairway which almost killed them; they talk with the librarian of galleries and stairs; sometimes they pick up the nearest volume and leaf through it, looking for infamous words.

Obviously, no one expects to discover anything.

New:  Grandmaster Repertoire Volume 6 – Lubomir Ftacnik .

In this latest volume of the outstanding Grandmaster Repertoire series acclaimed expert GM Lubomir Ftacnik presents a complete repertoire for Black in the Sicilian. The backbone of the repertoire is the favourite variation of those who want to attack: the Najdorf!

Have a look at this  432 pages cannonball of a book.

New: Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4, Volume 13.

The latest volume of this acclaimed series, by Alexander Khalifman, is devoted mostly to the English Attack in the Najdorf Sicilian. The author points out the essence of all important positions and explains themes and plans clearly. Perfect for all levels of chess.

Please have a look at it here!

We have just received: Chess Informant 107.

The latest volume of Chess Informant contains: 736 games played between
September and December 2009, the most interesting combinations and endings, studies, tournament standings and cross tables, the creative output of Magnus Carlsen and much more..!

This book is a must for every competitive player!

Chaque mardi, le maître international canadien d'échecs Jean Hébert nous propose sa lettre d'information HPE.

During my holidays I received a lot of chess books from various publishers. There’s lot to look forward to! One of the most interesting books is the latest volume of John Watson’s ambitious project to explain and analyse all chess openings. But the book became much more than just another opening manual.

Two years ago, I wrote a generally positive review of Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 3 (I also liked the first and second volumes), but in the fourth part of his series (published by Gambit), Watson goes a step further than he had gone before. In fact, he’s returning to some of his favourite chess themes, which were also discussed in his most famous books Secrets of Grandmaster Strategy (1998) and Chess Strategy in Action (2003).

This fourth volume begins conventionally enough, with two very solid chapters on the Réti Opening and an excellent overview of black kingside fianchetto systems such as ‘Tiger’s Modern’ and the Averbakh Variation (although I didn’t know it was called that way) starting with 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4, but then Watson switches to a more experimental way of explaining openings. In the chapter called ‘Modern Queenside Fianchetto’, he discusses various (you’ve guessed it) queenside fianchetto systems from the perspective of both Black and White. This means he not only writes about the Owen Defence (1.e4 b6) and the English Defence (1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6), but also about Larsen’s Opening (1.b3).

True to his style, Watson clearly explains the differences between playing the queenside fianchetto with Black and playing it with White. the author thereby takes a look at Ilya Odessky’s recent book on 1.b3 (which I reviewed last year) as well and comes up with some sensible improvements. For instance, in the line 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 (Watson: “This is certainly the usual continuation in both the Owen and the English Defences: when the f-pawn can’t be captured, it makes sense to use it to break up the opposing centre.”) 5…f6 Odessky gave 6.Nh3

a ‘dubious’ sign (?!) because of the line 6…Nge7 7.fxe5 fxe5 8.0-0 Bf5! after which 9.Qh5+ and 9.Bxc6+ are unconvincing, but following Watson’s suggestion 9.c4 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.d4!? with the threat c4-c5, White seems to be on top.

After this chapter, the book steers into even more broad-ranging waters, starting off with a chapter on gambits (in general) in which Watson discusses and explains gambits as diverse as the Göring and Morra Gambit, the Millner-Barry Gambit, various Wing gambits (both with b2-b4 and g2-g4), the famous Evans Gambit and, of course, the Benkö Gambit.

This chapter contains good stuff (although I don’t think serious gambit-players or gambit-busters will find too much shockingly new in it), but I was even more intrigued by the book’s next chapter, called ‘f-Pawns and Reversed Openings’. I’m sure some people would dismiss it as too philosophical for an opening book, but many fragments – however digressive they may appear to the practical player – had me on the edge of my seat:

The study of reversed openings will increase your understanding of what can and cannot be achieved in openings. Many chess players are mathematically oriented, with a facility for logical thinking. So it’s only natural to assume that there must be some way to make use of an extra move. After all, chess moves have value, and you wouldn’t voluntarily give a move away under normal circumstances. However, as we’ve talked about throughout these volumes, the worth of an extra move isn’t a straightforward matter. In reversed positions of the English Opening, for example, it’s remarkable how seldom White can actually claim to have the better game. For one thing, any advantage is limited by the fact that he will usually be playing what are essentially defensive or counterattacking lines. In addition, there’s a paradoxical benefit of not having to move, in that Black gets a better look at what his opponent is up to and is able to react accordingly. (…)

Stepping outside the practical realm, this difficulty (of converting a move into something of value) is also revealing about the nature of chess itself. The paradox of information applies to every move, whether in a reversed position or not. In some sense, however sound and logical a move is, it contains the risk of leaving you worse off! That enormously magnifies the complexity and subtlety of the game. If advantages and disadvantages were additive in some linear fashion, chess would be a minor game at best. But we have geniuses who do little else but study and play chess from the time they are five years old into their forties, and they make multiple mistakes in nearly every game, often quite serious ones! As an exercise, set up a reversed opening and try to find ways to make even modest improvements to your position without destabilizing something elsewhere on the board. You’ll find that the most trivial-seeming change always seems to show up in one or another line of analysis where you’re least expecting it.

Watson then goes on to explain the subtleties of the Dutch Defence and the Bird Opening (1.f4) in lucid fashion, but as said, he also discusses other reversed openings such as the Ponziani (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) which Watson points out, after 3…f5!? is in fact “a Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) with reversed colours and as if Black had an extra …c6!” Or what about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5, which the entire world knows as the Schliemann or Jänisch Defence of the Ruy Lopez, yet is described by Watson as…

[A] Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) in which White has the extra move Bb5. Strange to say, this would hurt White if he tried the standard remedy to the Vienna position, which is 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5?! (5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nf6 is about equal) as 5…Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6 (in the reversed position, White’s bishop is still on f1, so this tempo-gain isn’t possible) 7.Bc4 (having come this far, White normally tried the unclear piece sacrifice 7.Nc3 cxb5 8.Nxe4) 7…Qa5+ followed by 8…Qxe5 wins a pawn. (…)

OK, I can’t resist one more example:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4

Now we have a reversed Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5), with Black a whole tempo down. The Classical can be a pretty active system, so let’s see if White can make good use of the extra tempo.

4.Nf3 (…) 4.f4 has White playing the Schliemann Defence to the Ruy Lopez but with the extra move Bc4. The problem is that this gives Black the tactic 4…Nxe4! Then if White follows the normal Vienna Game strategy of 5.Qh5 (…), Black plays 5…0-0!, a move unavailable in the Vienna Game. (…)

4…Bxc3 5.dxc3 d6

The last reversal: Black has played the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and apparently given White much better development than he gets in the reversed position. But in fact, Black doesn’t generate many powerful attacks in the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and in this reversed position, White has nothing to be particularly excited about.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I have seen this funny perspective applied in Vienna or Ruy Lopez text books before. Similarly, the chapter ‘Symmetry and its Descendants’ offers a refreshing point of view to infamously ‘boring’ openings such as the Petroff and the Four Knights Game. The chapter on ‘Irregular Openings and Initial Moves’ continues in this vein. What are irregular or ‘unorthodox’ openings anyway? Watson points out that

[t]he Trompowsky Attack 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 has become popular and universally accepted, but one could argue that 2.Bg5 itself is not an ‘orthodox’ move; on the flip side, the form of the Torre Attack with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 is orthodox by the classical standards of development, but it isn’t very popular any more. In a similar way, classically oriented openings such as the Ponziani Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) and the Hungarian Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7) are orthodox in strategic terms, but rare in master practice; today, they could legitimately be called ‘irregular’.

Apart from this terminology issue, there’s what’s Watson calls ‘the appeal of the irregular’:

You make counterintuitive moves, waste time, or sacrifice pawns, and yet some not-so-obvious factor is working in your favour to give you positive chances. It’s a break from the drudgery of ‘correct’ play and following those tired old principles. Even if you don’t secure the better game, you can at least irritate your opponent and present him with multiple opportunities to go wrong. The most entertaining irregular openings also contain tactical traps into which one innocent victim after another falls.

These are not trivial, run-of-the-mill observations. Many opening book authors and even chess-improvement books fail to mention these human and very recognizable aspects of chess openings, even though keeping them in mind might help avoid some well-known mistakes in practical play. Thus, for instance, the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5!?

in the Nimzovich Opening, which is played by some fairly strong members of my local chess club and which Watson also mentions in his book, is not just ‘irregular’, ‘ugly’ and ‘bad’, but does contain some ‘not-so-obvious factors’ working in Black’s favour. White should be aware of this or he will get tricked, as I’ve personally seen many times.

Actually, I was particularly interested in what Watson wrote about the Nimzovich Opening because I sometimes play it myself and because I’ve seen lots of crazy analysis over the past years from enthusiastic club members. Crazy analysis which are often not so bad for Black as they look on first sight! And indeed, to his credit, Watson doesn’t dismiss the opening easily at all and calls it “one of the best of the irregular openings versus 1.e4.”

One of the lines Watson analyses is 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Ng4 4.d4 d6 5.h3 Nh6.

His nuanced look at even such an obscure line is characteristic of his approach:

Black has a pretty ugly position that nevertheless has some merits. His decentralized knight is an undoubting disadvantage, but he has prospects of chipping away at White’s centre, after which that piece might be reintroduced by …Nf5. Of course, White can hardly complain about his prospects, but he shouldn’t expect too much from the capture Bxh6, which gives up the bishop-pair. 5…Nh6 introduces a wide a range of eccentric possibilities that are typical of irregular openings.

Watson now analyses no less than four alternatives for White, but in the end concedes that “Black’s position is within playable boundaries”. This is rather more realistic than my own initial opinion (”absolutely horrible for Black”) of this particular variation! (To my defence, I pretty soon realized that things were not so simple once I started studying the line in more detail.) I hope this small digression shows to what lengths Watson is willing to go to illustrate the versatility of various lesser known opening lines.

The book’s penultimate chapter on ‘Choosing and Preparing Openings’ is equally insightful, although some advices may of course sound familiar to readers who’ve bought other recent books on more general aspects of opening play. To my delight, Watson also quotes the great Korchnoi who “bluntly” said that if you want to improve your chess, you should play a new opening. Interestingly, Watson also recommends playing blitz games as a way of practising your opening preparation (”in sensible, non-addictive quantities”).

Watson ends his book with yet another philosophically-inclined chapter on the future of openings. Unavoidably, there are some echoes from his earlier books here, but it’s useful and entertaining all the same. Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4 is a book any chess lover should have a look at – if not for its openings, then surely for its general awesomeness.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4
• Read more book reviews

The Bulgarian is an aggressive player. But the Catalan doesn't bring about a quick victory

Topalov-Leko, Amber Blindfold 2008. Concluding our look at the Catalan, White to play.

RB When you see that the player with the move is Topalov you immediately start thinking tactics – quiet, careful improvement is not the Bulgarian's style. So, using the player's identity as a clue, and with an additional hint provided by the absence of a knight on f6, my eye is immediately drawn to 1 Ng5, with the twin threats of 2 Qxh7 mate and 2 Bxb7.

Let's have a look at how Black might counter: 1...g6 might not be as bad as it first appears. After 2 Bxb7 Rb8 both the bishop and knight are en prise. Here I would be tempted to play 3 Bc6, rather than retreat the bishop all the way back to its defensive post at g2, and try to maintain it there, cramping Black's queenside pawns. Black might be better off playing 1...Bxg5, in which case 2 Bxb7 Rb8 also allows the same idea of taking advantage of Black's backward c-pawn and light-square weakness with 3 Bc6.

DK Unmasking the Catalan bishop is a common tactic. Here it does not force the win of material, but allows White to take a firm hold of the position. 1 Ng5 Bxg5 (Ronan is wrong about 1...g6 because 2 Bxb7 Rb8 3 Ne4 Rxb7 4 Qc6 Rb6 5 Qxd7 wins) 2 Bxb7 Rb8 3 Bc6 was the game continuation. Black's backward c-pawn is a long-term problem: he could easily find himself condemned to passive defence. That's why Leko countered with 3...Nb6 4 Rd1 Qd6 5 Bg2 e5, but after 6 Nc3 (threatening Ne4) 6...f5 (preventing Ne4 but weakening the king) 7 dxe5 Qxe5 8 Nd5 Nxd5 9 Rxd5 White was still in control. See online for the rest of the game.

If you play the Catalan with White, don't expect a quick victory, but enjoy the space advantage, the solid king position and the sound pawn structure. Last week we recommended Play the Catalan by Nigel Davies (Everyman Chess, £14.99). For more advanced players, Grandmaster Repertoire 1 d4 Volume One by Boris Avrukh (Quality Chess, €24.99) has an excellent section on the Catalan.

chess@guardian.co.uk

Just out: The Semi-Tarrasch Defence, Volume 1.

GM József Pintér surveys the very popular Semi-Tarrasch De­fence, within the framework of 64 games. He does not restrict his analysis to the initial stage of the game, but allows insight into the mysteries of the middle and endgame too.

More titles by József Pintér here.

1. Chess Opening Essentials Volumes 1, 2, 3 & 4
The Ideas & Plans Behind ALL Chess Openings
by Dimitri Komarov, Stefan Djuric, Claudio Pantaleoni
SAVE 10%: Our Price: € 108,86 € 97,95
more info…

2. Chess Openings for Black & White, Explained
Completely Revised and Updated 2nd Editions
by Lev Alburt, Roman Dzindzichashvili, Eugene Perelshteyn
SAVE 20%: Our Price: € 49,90 € 39,95
more info…

3. Grandmaster Repertoire 1 & 2
1.d4 volume 1 + 1.d4 volume 2
by Boris Avrukh
SAVE 10%: Our Price: € 54,90 € 49,50
more info…

4. The Complete 1000 Series
Excellent training material,
by Jozsef Pinter, Andras Meszaros
SAVE 20%: Our Price: € 180,75 € 145,00
more info…

5. 5. Smyslov’s Best Games, Volumes 1 & 2
Games played between 1935 – 1957
by Vasily Smyslov
SAVE 20%: Our Price: € 65,90 € 52,75
more info…

La recensione trattata quest’oggi ci vale da spunto per presentare ai Lettori di Soloscacchi un curioso episodio legato alle pagine del volume che stiamo per presentare. Si tratta ormai di un vero “classico”, uno dei libri più interessanti ed appassionanti tra le tante monografie sui finali. L’opera dedicata ai Finali di Torre di Grigory Levenfish e Vasily Smyslov, Autori che non hanno certo bisogno di presentazioni ed i cui nomi costituiscono da soli garanzia sufficiente per collocare quest’opera sul piedistallo che merita.
La prima edizione dell’opera risale al 1957 ed è in grandissima parte frutto dello sforzo e delle ricerche individuali di Levenfish, Smyslov infatti non ha mai avuto difficoltà ad ammettere che ne ha curato solo la revisione generale e la sistemazione organica del lavoro. Di fatto il connubio tra questi due grandi scacchisti ha prodotto un’opera che è stata tradotta in ogni nazioni in cui sia mai stato stampato un libro di scacchi e non così numerosi sono i libri che posson vantar un simile primato.
Lo studio di questo finale, a detta dei grandi giocatori “il finale più difficile tra tutti i tipi di finali”, quello la cui comprensione segna inequivocabilmente il raggiungimento della maturità nel processo evolutivo del giocatore professionista, viene in quest’opera dei due Autori sovietici trattato in modo completo ed esaustivo appoggiandosi anziché ad esempi stereotipati a situazioni invece di carattere generale onde render più facilmente assimilabile la già di per se complicata materia da parte del lettore. Così “Il Re è tagliato fuori, il Pedone è in sesta traversa”; oppure “Il Re è tagliato fuori orizzontalmente”; “Lotta contro il Pedone in quarta, teraza e seconda traversa”; “La difesa frontale” son solo alcuni dei titoli dei paragrafi che ben rendon l’idea del modo originale con cui gli Autori si sforzano nel vincer l’innata resistenza del semplice appassionato a meccanizzare le idee ed i concetti separandoli dal processo di generalizzazione mediante posizioni tipiche. E proprio questa è di fatto la caratteristica che ha reso l’opera di Levenfish e Smyslov un’opera innovativa per i tempi e la cui originalità e freschezza, a più di cinquant’anni di distanza, è ancora intatta e universalmente riconosciuta, sia dai giocatori di vertice che dal semplice appassionato che si affaccia per la prima volta verso il meraviglioso e affascinante universo dei finali. E questi meriti, i pregi di quest’opera, sono tanto più alti quanto più si tiene in considerazione il fatto che quelli di Torre sono i finali che con maggior frequenza si presentano nella pratica di gioco. E appunto gli esempi tratti da partite di torneo giocate da celebri giocatori abbondano nelle pagine di questo stupendo trattato rendendo gradevole e mai noiosa la lettura e lo studio dell’argomento nonché di sicuro beneficio pratico per il giocatore di ogni livello.
Tra i tanti esempi tratti dalla pratica magistrale e meravigliosamente analizzati nelle pagine di questo libro eccezionale ne abbiamo individuato uno particolarmente curioso e singolare.
Si riferisce all’epilogo di un incontro giocato tra il nostro Stefano Rosselli del Turco ed il grande Aaron Nimzowitsch. Il Campione italiano in partita giocò la mossa logiacamente più ovvia e naturale finendo per perdere in maniera istruttiva laddove il metodo che avrebbe consentito di raggiungere una posizione di patta viene invece illustrato in modo didatticamente chiaro e illuminante.

Stefano Rosselli del Turco

Aaron Nimzowitsch

D’accordo, ma dov’è il mistero? direte voi…

l'edizione italiana

Be’, intanto la particolarità del fatto è duplice: in primo luogo gli Autori collocano nel tempo la partita come giocata nel 1926 al torneo di Semmering, particolare ripreso da tutte le fonti successive, da Averbakh all’Enciclopedia belgradese sui finali, così come tutte le successive traduzioni del testo nelle svariate edizioni, da quella inglese della Batsford a quella spagnola sotto i tipi Martinez Roca finanche a quella italiana, la più recente, di Mursia.

Solo alcuni database invece riferiscono l’incontro al torneo di nove anni successivo disputato a Zurigo, nel 1934, e che ha visto l’indiscusso successo di Alekhine. Per inciso in quello stesso Torneo svizzero Nimzowitsch, ormai al declino del suo fulgore, ha siglato, nella partita contro Lasker, un altro capolavoro partorendo quello che Hannak, autore di una pregevolissima biografia di Lasker, definisce come “un monumento nella teoria dei finali di Cavalli”, ed alla cui analisi Paul Keres, nel suo preziosissimo “Practical Chess Endings”, dedica diverse pagine di approfondimento.

La seconda particolarità del finale tra Rosselli e Nimzowitsch citato da Levenfish e Smyslov consiste nella trasposizione di alcune mosse che si diramano dalla 78ª del Bianco: Levenfish e Smyslov riportano la linea 77…e3+ 78.Rg3 quale quella effettivamente giocata in partita (e con loro i succitati testi cronologicamente successivi in ordine di pubblicazione), mentre per esempio altre fonti (tra cui l’archivio di Chessbase) citano come linea giocata la: 77…e3+ 78.Rf3 etc. Notiamo peraltro che la circostanza rilevata assume un puro aspetto storico dato che il valore didattico dell’esempio non è in alcun modo inficiato dalla trasposizione contestata.

Ecco l’analisi di Levenfish e Smyslov di questo misterioso finale di Torri…

72.Re2? (perde); 72.Th8! (patta)

72.Re2?

la mossa che perde!

Assicura la patta invece la continuazione: 72.Th8! Ta2+ [72...e4 73.Td8+ Re5 74.Te8+ Rf4 75.Tf8+ Rg5 76.Re3 con parità] 73.Rg1! Re4 74.Txh4+ Rf3 75.Th8 e4 76.Tf8+ Rg3 77.Rf1 con facile patta

72…Ta2+ 73.Rd1

[73.Rf3 e4+ 74.Rg4 Tg2+ 75.Rxh4 [75.Rf4 Tf2+] 75…e3 76.Th8 e2 77.Te8 Rd4 78.Rh5 Rd3 79.h4 Tg3 con vittoria del Nero] [73.Rf1 Re4 74.Txh4+ Rf3 75.Rg1 e4 76.Th8 e3 77.Tf8+ Re2 78.h4 Ta4 79.Th8 Tg4+ 80.Rh2 Rd3 81.Td8+ Td4]

73…Re4 74.Txh4+ Rd3 75.Re1 e4 76.Th8 Ta1+ 77.Rf2 e3+

Quale fu la mossa effettivamente giocata in partita dopo 77...e3+?

78.Rg3

Quale fu la mossa effettivamente giocata in partita? 78.Rg3 oppure 78.Rf3?

[78.Rf3 Tf1+ 79.Rg4 e2 80.Td8+ Rc4 81.Te8 e1D 82.Txe1 Txe1 83.h4 Rd5 84.Rf5 Th1 0-1]

78…e2 79.Td8+ Rc4 80.Te8 e1D+ 81.Txe1 Txe1 82.h4 Rd5 83.Rg4 Th1 0-1

l'Edizione inglese dell'opera

l'edizione spagnola dell'opera

Semmering in una foto dell'epoca

Semmering 1926: i partecipanti al torneo

Semmering 1926: la classifica finale

Zurigo in una fotografia dell'epoca

Zurigo 1934: i partecipanti al torneo

Zurigo 1934: classifica finale

We have just received: Mastering the Chess Openings – Volume 4.

This final volume of the series covers a wide variety of opening structures and variations not seen in the earlier volumes. Author John Watson helps you to greatly increase your understanding of them and become a better player along the way.

Please have a look at the contents here.

SOS – Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 12 is just out!

And you know what that means: with just a minor investment of time you can throw your opponent
off balance, right at the start of a game. But it also means danger, because others may use
these tricky weapons against you!

You can order SOS 12 here.

Quality Chess has published the first volume of a new series:
The Cutting Edge 1 – The Open Sicilian 1.

The idea is to identify the most important theoretical battlegrounds of the moment and then analyse as deeply as possible in search of improvements. This book offers state-of-the-art opening theory.

Please have a look at the variations covered!

Just in from our printers: Chess Opening Essentials 4.

The final volume of the Chess Opening Essentials series focuses on 1.c4 / 1.Nf3 / Other First Moves. It gives a flavour of how every opening works and explains the similarities with other openings as well as the differences.

An indispensable tool for understanding the basics.

Available Friday: Boris Avrukh’s long-awaited Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -1.d4 volume 2

On the 616 pages of this latest volume of the outstanding Grandmaster Repertoire series, Boris Avrukh covers the King’s Indian, Dutch, Grunfeld, various Benonis, Benko, Budapest Gambit and other minor openings.

Please have a look at this engaging repertoire book.

Boost Your Chess 1, The Fundamentals is the latest volume of Yusupov’s award-winning training course, that started with three volumes in the Build Up Your Chess series. Despite the fact that this book has almost the same cover as Build Up Your Chess 1, it’s an entirely new volume in the series.

It’s the way to a higher level of chess understanding!

1. New In Chess issue 2010/1
The World’s Premier Chess Magazine by The NIC Editorial team
NIC’s Caf? – Carlsen Claims London Chess Classic – A Country for Old Men – Roulette Chess – Alexander Grischuk Russian Champion – Alexander Alekhine’s Paris Years – Kortchnoi-Spassky Reunion – Chess Metaphors – Old Hands and Young Talents – Just Checking – did they play your opening? In this issue games with the following openings were annotated by world class players read more…

2. New In Chess: The First 25 Years
An Anthology, edited by Steve Giddins
Ever since its launch in 1984, New In Chess has been the most popular and widely-read chess magazine in the world, with a readership that ranges from world champions to the humblest club player. No other magazine in chess history can boast such a glittering array of world-class grandmasters amongst its regular contributors. Now, to mark the 25th anniversary of the read more…

3. Revolutionize Your Chess
A Brand-new System to Become a Better Player, by Viktor Moskalenko
A breakthrough in chess teaching by Former Ukrainian Champion and experienced chess coach Viktor Moskalenko. A new concept which teaches players how to develop their personal skills and presents five new basic rules for improving at chess. Moskalenko’s Five Touchstones provide players with tools to assess any position. Club players are shown how to get a read more…

4. Attacking Manual 1 & 2
SAVE 10% on volume 1 & 2 Combined, by Jacob Aagaard
Jacob Aagaard explains the rules of attack (the exploitation of a dynamic advantage), balanced between understandable examples, and deep analysis. Where Volume One was about the laws of dynamics, the font of all attacks. Volume Two deals with weak kings, sacrifices, various minor attacking themes, intuitive sacrifices, opposite castling, modern king hunts, and read more

5. Chess Strategy for Club Players
The Road to Positional Advantage by Herman Grooten
AWARDED: ChessCafe 2009 Book of the Year! With this book, International Master Herman Grooten presents to amateur players a complete and structured course on: how to recognize key characteristics in all types of positions, how to make use of those characteristics to choose the right plan. His teachings are based on the famous “Elements” of Wilhelm Steinitz, but Grooten read more…

Chaque mardi, le maître international d'échecs canadien Jean Hébert nous propose sa lettre d'infos échiquéennes.

A la Une cette semaine: À l'aube du départ

Paris, en route vers le tournoi de Cappelle-la-Grande qui commence samedi. Le fait que je sois fébrile depuis au moins une semaine indique à coup sûr que je ne suis pas un véritable joueur professionnel. Ceux-ci voyagent constamment à l'année longue d'un tournoi à l'autre et doivent très certainement avoir développé une accoutumance qui doit réduire considérablement leur niveau d'anxiété. Ce n'est pas exactement mon cas. Suis-je bien préparé pour ce tournoi et celui qui suivra à Cannes (dans le cadre du "Festival des Jeux") ?

Je le saurai bientôt, mais je peux d'ores et déjà affirmer que tout en étant mieux préparé que jamais (ce qui n'est pas énorme vu que je me suis toujours présenté aux compétitions sans préparation spéciale), je réalise que colmater un répertoire d'ouvertures pour le préparer à affronter une opposition de niveau GM représente une tâche colossale. Difficile en quelques semaines ou même quelques mois de compenser pour des années de négligence (justifiée...) à ce chapitre.

• La newsletter n°6 volume 3
• S'inscrire ou accéder aux archives
• Retrouver Jean sur le Webzine Jeux en Tête
• Pour toute correspondance à "Hébert parle échecs"
• Acheter le livre référence de Jean Hébert dans notre boutique

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

We have just received from Quality Chess: Attacking Manual 2.

Two years after his first Attacking Manual, Jacob Aagaard is back on the attack with this second volume. It covers the rules of attack, explained through understandable examples, and deep but clear analysis.

Volume One dealt with the laws of dynamics. Its successor deals with weak kings, sacrifices, various minor attacking themes, intuitive sacrifices, opposite castling, modern king hunts, and enduring initiative.

Aagaard discusses items such as destroying the defensive structure, the pin, overloading, intuitive sacrifices and included diagram previews to get more involved to the subject before reading the subsequent chapters.

“This double-volume work has been seven years in the making; with the publication of the revised and expanded Volume One and this volume, I have fulfilled a major personal ambition.” — Jacob Aagaard

If you want to improve your attacking skills, just click here.

• La newsletter n°5 volume 3
• S'inscrire ou accéder aux archives
• Retrouver Jean sur le Webzine Jeux en Tête
• Pour toute correspondance à "Hébert parle échecs"
• Acheter le livre référence de Jean Hébert dans notre boutique

2007-2010 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

Russell Enterprises has just published: Back to Basics: Openings.

In this latest volume of the Back to Basics Series, the well known Danish chess writer and ChessCafe columnist, IM Carsten Hansen presents an introduction to understanding and playing chess openings.

With an overview of the most important opening variations, examples of good and bad opening play, opening traps and problems to solve,
chess openings and its major principles are covered thoroughly.

This book will help you enhance your understanding and give you guidelines on how to best study and play chess openings, reaching
good, playable middlegame positions.

Many games are lost as a result of a player’s poor grasp of even the most basic principles of opening play. By studying Back to Basics: Openings, you will be on your way to better results for a long time to come.

Chess openings can be simple! Please have a look here.

We have just received from Everyman: Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch.

In this latest volume of the Dangerous Weapons series, Richard Palliser, James Vigus and Simon Williams take a refreshing look at the Dutch Defence, one of Black’s most ambitious and dynamic answers to 1.d4

Let me give you the title of some chapters:
– Block with the Rook!
– Targeting that Advanced f-pawn
– Don’t be Tricked into the Leningrad
– The Leningrad Dutch, Christmas Tree Style
– Team up a Quick b2-b4 with e2-e3
– Encouraging d4-d5 in the Classical
– The Old Faithful: 7…a5!

Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch supplies plenty of good material, to choose from. No matter which side of the board you are on.

For the new and up-to-date Dutch weapons, reload here!

• La newsletter n°3 volume 3
• S'inscrire ou accéder aux archives
• Retrouver Jean sur le Webzine Jeux en Tête
• Pour toute correspondance à "Hébert parle échecs"
• Acheter le livre référence de Jean Hébert dans notre boutique

2007-2009 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

• La newsletter n°2 volume 3
• S'inscrire ou accéder aux archives
• Retrouver Jean sur le Webzine Jeux en Tête
• Pour toute correspondance à "Hébert parle échecs"
• Acheter le livre référence de Jean Hébert dans notre boutique

2007-2009 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

• The most interesting find probably was this review by Baburin at Chess Cafe.
• Niggemann offers a review in German by Thomas Schian in Rochade Europa. See below for a translation.
• The information at Amazon - and in particular the reviews - is always interesting. The reviews cannot always be trusted - sometimes there seem to be organized campaigns - but frequently you get an impression of the quality of a work.

 Con Castaldo, Molina, Pulito, Gallucci e Pepino!

La Società Scacchistica Torinese comincia la festa per il centenario della fondazione con un torneo Scheveningen

La parola “Scheveningen” indica: a) una ridente cittadina olandese con un carcere; b) una variante della difesa siciliana che tutti conoscono ma che in realtà pochi conoscono bene; c) un tipo di torneo. A Torino, dove sentivano il bisogno di cominciare l’anno nuovo spendendo questo termine enigmatico (enigmatico per i non scacchisti e forse per i non olandesi), hanno scelto l’opzione c. Insomma, hanno organizzato un torneo Scheveningen che dal 3 al 10 gennaio 2010 opporrà cinque baldi giovanotti indigeni a cinque scafati professionisti stranieri. L’obiettivo è duplice: permettere a qualche giocatore piemontese di fare una norma di maestro internazionale e, in seconda battuta, dare il via ai festeggiamenti per il centenario dalla fondazione della Società Scacchistica Torinese (altrimenti detta Sst), un circolo noto, fra le altre cose, per il bar interno (gestito da Michele Cordara) e per le Olimpiadi del 2006 (portate in Italia da Michele Cordara e da qualche altro sfaccendato).

Sotto la Mole c’è penuria di giocatori con pedigree Fide: l’unico maestro internazionale è Spartaco Sarno, che nemmeno gioca per la Sst nel campionato a squadre. Un po’ pochino per la quarta (o terza?) città italiana e per uno dei più “grandi”, dei più “antichi”, dei più “attivi” eccetera eccetera circoli di scacchi del Bel Paese. I cinque paladini savoiardi sono il mf Folco Castaldo (che non è di Torino ma è di Ivrea che tanto è nella stessa provincia e poi averne uno così bravo non guasta, diamine), il mf Fabrizio Molina (che vive in provincia di Bologna ma che è a tutti gli effetti un torinese, è cresciuto a Torino, spesso torna a Torino, ha frequentato il circolo di Torino sin da quando andava alle elementari e ancora oggi, ogni anno, manda alla Sst la sua brava quota di iscrizione), i maestri Alberto Pulito ed Alessio Gallucci e il candidato maestro Enrico Pepino. Questo è il “Turin Team”: il meglio del meglio dei giocatori attivi nella capitale subalpina. Come? Manca Sarno? Beh, lui è già mi ... Poi c'è “World Team”, che è composto come segue: gm Igor Naumkin (Russia), mi Milan Mrdja (Croazia), mi Virgilio Vuelban (Filippine), wg Margarita Voiska (Bulgaria), mi Zivojin Ljubislavlievic (Serbia).

Siccome tutti sanno come funziona un torneo Scheveningen, non ci affanneremo a spiegarne il meccanismo: i giocatori di una parte incontrano i giocatori dell’altra e così via. Basterà sapere che i turni in programma sono dieci, e che il sito della Sst (www.scacchisticatorinese.it) dovrebbe trasmettere in diretta almeno una partita se non due. Naturalmente nessuno sa come andrà a finire. I forestieri, se guardiamo il punteggio elo, sono strafavoriti, ma non è detto che qualche giocatore autoctono non riesca a fare il colpaccio. Magari Castaldo, che non lo dice mai nessuno ma è un signor 2400. O Molina, che ha esperienza da vendere. O il talentuoso diciottenne Gallucci. Oppure, perché no?, i bravi Pulito o Pepino (e così li abbiamo elencati tutti …).

Forse a questo punto si potrebbe riferire che la Sst nacque nel novembre del 1910 in un elegante Caffè del centro storico, che il suo primo campionato sociale fu vinto dall’ingegner Felice Germonio, che nel 1912 promosse un match per corrispondenza con il chess club di Edimburgo, che nel 1914 ricevette una visita di Tarrasch e blabla; ma a pensarci bene è meglio fermarci qui perché tanto, a parte i problemi di spazio, chi proprio volesse saperne di più può attendere l’uscita del libro che racconterà tutto per benino: il volume verrà dato alle stampe a metà del 2010 nel quadro delle tante iniziative previste a Torino per il centenario.

Il calendario degli incontri, QUI

Chess has a storied history. There are many theories of its origin stemming from either India or China and going to Persia through the Middle East across the Sahara and into Europe. Some say that chess went through Central Asia and into Eurasia. Regardless of where chess started and how it got there, the form the Moors brought into Spain appears to be the precursor to the form that we play now.

Today there is a question circulating… it pertains to the apparent changing of the guard in chess. With the retirement of Garry Kasparov, the changing of the guard had begun. The transition was not a smooth one and a scramble ensued within the disjointed chess world. Before Kasparov, several Soviet champions drew inspiration from Mikhail Botvinnik who became a symbol of the Soviet School of Chess. There would exist a single line of domination for 50 years effectively ending with Kasparov. Vladimir Kramnik had this to say about the World Champion:

Botvinnik’s example and teaching established the modern approach to preparing for competitive chess: regular but moderate physical exercise; analysing very thoroughly a relatively narrow repertoire of openings; annotating one’s own games, those of past great players and those of competitors; publishing one’s annotations so that others can point out any errors; studying strong opponents to discover their strengths and weaknesses; ruthless objectivity about one’s own strengths and weaknesses.

In the modern era, there were a lot of new talented players and the chess behemoth representing the Soviet Union was led by Anatoly Karpov followed by Garry Kasparov. The era from Botvinnik to Kasparov represented the glory years of the Soviet tradition and it remains an important time in chess history.

While many of the strongest chess nations were once a part of the Soviet empire, does the “Soviet School of Chess” still reign supreme in the face of rising powers such as China and India? One may believe the proof is still evident when approximately 70% of the world’s top 100 players are from Russia and the former Soviet republics. However, there are some changing trends.

The trend of globalization has brought about a “chess wave” and currently the top three players are from Norway, Bulgaria and India. When Viswanathan Anand (right) became World Champion, it signaled a new era. Certainly a different time from when there was at least one “K” in the top ten for three decades.

As the largest Soviet remnant, Russia has not scored an Olympiad medal in three straight Olympiads and its players no longer dominate tournaments as before. In addition, tournament winners span a variety of countries. The former Soviet bloc still represents an influential and formidable tradition, but what has become of the “Soviet School of Chess”? Does it still exist? Did it ever exist in the magnitude of its reputation?

During the recent FIDE World Cup, there were 27 players from Russia competing out of 128. Nearly eighty-percent of the total players were from the former Soviet bloc. The tournament was won by a veteran from Belarus, Boris Gelfand, who now plays for Israel. Despite the high percentage of players from the outset, Russia did not place a player in the final match. However, the last eight players were from the “Soviet tradition”. Perhaps one can argue that the tradition is alive, but there are also other developments indicating that the balance of power is shifting. Does it remain a monolithic ideology or is it a deep-seated culture that has diverged into different approaches to chess?

Back in 2006, Vladimir Kramnik complained about the lack of young talent coming up in Russia. He remarked that the veterans were indeed very strong, but needed to make way for young players with great stamina. Other nations in the former Soviet bloc seem to be thriving despite their small size. The Ukraine won the Olympiad in 2004 and Armenia has won in 2006 and 2008. Azerbaijan recently won the European Team Championship. Each of these teams have young stars making of a great part of their success. Of course, we cannot forget that both Israel (#3 in the world) and the U.S. (#8) consist of a number of of Soviet emigres.

Russia’s Peter Svidler and Vladimir Kramnik at the 2008 Olympiad in Dresden. These two elite players work to bridge the gap of the old and new. Photo by Daaim Shabazz.

If one has to answer whether the Soviet School is still relevant, there is no question that it is very much a force. However, times are changing and the method of assimilating mass amounts of knowledge in a short time (to reach a critical analysis) has overtaken the method of deeply analyzing select classic games and positions. Other regions have proved that other techniques can be used with great effect. Many of the promising juniors being produced today are from many parts of the world who do not have the benefit of a rich chess culture, yet they are making a mark and entering the upper echelon with improvised techniques.

If we look at the rise of China, there may be an argument that there is a “massification” of talent, but that argument has not panned out yet. China has a very well-defined system for producing talent… a strong player as national trainer (GM Ye Jiangchuan) and government support. The number of players they produce is selective, yet all of the players appear to be very strong and well-prepared. Liu Wenzhe wrote a book about the “Chinese School of Chess” but it is not clear how close that model is being followed today.

The nation has created a powerhouse in less than 30 years and its women have dominated chess for more than two decades. China currently holds the #5 ranking (behind Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Azerbaijan). They have produced four 2700s and have a cadre of young strong players who are unrated and indeed ready to enter the chess stage. Li Chao and Yu Yangyi showed great promise in the FIDE World Cup, not to mention Hou Yifan, a legitimate talent.

Wesley So represents a new era of chess players. Photo by Galina Popova courtesy of FIDE.

India has the benefit of a great icon in World Champion Anand and perhaps more of a massification effect in terms of young talent. We are witnessing the “Anand Effect” or “Anand Boom” similar to what happened in the U.S. with Bobby Fischer. India has excelled in many of the age group world championships and in 2008 won both the boy’s and girl’s junior titles. Overall, India is now ranked as the #6 federation (counting the top 10 players). The players have strong support from the corporate sector, but internal rankling could slow process.

Vietnam and the Philippines have begun to show promise with young talent such as Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son and Wesley So, respectively. Cuba has led the way in showing that there are other methods for producing elite players and have Lenier Dominguez. Iran has also made tremendous strides in producing strong talent. In North America, there is Hikaru Nakamura who has soared over 2700 and is has developed a unique approach to chess development.

What does all this mean? It means that while the Soviet School of Chess still has tremendous influence in terms of chess training, literature and tradition, methods are evolving quickly. The methods still show results, but is perhaps losing ground. Kramnik has made such comments in a 2006 interview when asked about the rising Russian players.

With regard to Russia I am not aware of the most recent developments; actually it is Evgeny Bareev who is working with the main players in his school. But unfortunately I don’t see much talent coming from our country and this is scaring for me as we shall not get any younger. Some of the players in this team already played in 1994, so you need some new blood at some point and at the moment I can’t see who can bring some new resources to the team. OK, we have some good players such as Malakhov, we have Jakovenko, but they are not much stronger than the rest of the guys. Bareev is already 40 you know, but I hope that he will be able to prepare in his school some young players for the Olympiad in two years time in Dresden. (Link)

In Dresden, it was not to be. Armenia would take gold again on the strength of Levon Aronian and Gabriel Sargissian. Israel took silver and the U.S. took the bronze. For the time being, Russia, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia will keep the tradition strong, but how long can we continue to identify success as a result of the “Soviet School”?

Garry Kasparov was perhaps the first player from the Soviet School to make effective use of the traditional methods along with the use of databases. Players like Ruslan Ponomariov, Teimour Radjabov and Sergey Karjakin are steeped more in the information age than previous generations, but one can still see the influence of the Soviet tradition. The idea of studying classic games is invaluable as are the deep studying of middlegame positions, but the means by which that is done will change drastically. Younger players are finding other ways to practicalize their preparation.

Viktor Korchnoi has been very critical of the new generation by saying that too much reliance is placed on computers and databases. One thing for sure… computers and databases are here to stay. Other nations are certainly benefiting from the mass amount of data, powerful engines and access to strong players on the Internet. In interviews, Anand has described the role of computers in “leapfrogging” and leveling the field.

I think that happened with chess. I think that is exactly right. Not only in India but there has been a sort of levelling in the world. The rest of the world has been able to catch up with Russia much faster than it would have had these things not come into play. And now I would say even the expertise is being levelled because you have computers that are so strong. I mean most programs on a PC would beat almost any grandmaster. Even when I play, or any top GM, we have to really concentrate to have a chance. If you are casual, the machine is too strong. So you have such a strong computer with which you can work, all your doubts can be cleared much easier. That is why the sport has become much younger. The time needed to accumulate a certain amount of experience and understanding has dropped. So yes, first the lag in information, then the lag in expertise or knowledge and geographical boundaries through the Internet. Each of these things we have bypassed. We are still as far away as we used to be, but we have bypassed them. (Link)

The methods as taught by many Soviet trainers will still have some relevance, but will require some adaption if they are going to continue to be affective against players who require speed and volume of many games over the depth and critical analysis of fewer games. The Soviet School as we know it will never be the same. Eventually, it will have to give way to a more dynamic pedagogy. It’s going to be exciting to see where the world of chess is headed.

Are chess books getting better? Take the first volume of The Complete Hedgehog by Sergey Shipov: although I’ve read many books on the Hedgehog system, I think this is the best one by far. It’s more accessible, better explained, better written, it’s much more interesting for readers who do not play the Hedgehog at all, and it’s funny on top of that. Now, did they make such chess books in the 50s and 60s or even the 70s and 80s? I, for one, haven’t seen them too often.  

If chess books in general are really improving over time, it would be another example of the incorrectness of the widely held opinion that everything becomes worse and worse over time. (Here’s a very interesting essay on the decline of violence over time.) One of the explanations for this in the world of chess books is, of course, that there are simply more chess authors around. Another reason is that chess education has improved a lot. Yet another is that it’s much more important to write in an appealing, accessible style because of the arrival of new media such as chess videos and online lectures. I guess all are valid, and I think we should be glad that we’re living in such interesting times. These days, it’s possible to be extremely enthousiastic about a chess book almost every month.

The Hedgehog is surely one of the most difficult and fascination opening systems around, confusing and often frustrating thousands of chess fans around the world, not only club players  but also strong masters. Still, grandmaster Sergey Shipov, editor-in-chief of the well-known Russian website www.crestbook.com shows that such ignorance can actually become a force and a source of joy once you’re willing to embrace the principles of the Hedgehog with full conviction.  The Complete Hedgehog, published by Mongoose Press, is one of those rare chess books that are both enthusiastic and completely honest.

So what is the Hedgehog? I’ve never seen a better explanation than the one Shipov provides in the introduction:

Opocensky-Saemisch
Bad Pistyan 1922

Observe: four of Black’s pawns have lined up along the sixth rank (sometimes they are joined by the g- and h-pawns) and with their short, strong spines (thus ‘hedgehog’, not ‘porcupine’!), they control the fifth rank in front of then. The hostile armies complete their reorganizations inside the space set aside for them. White has four ranks, Black three. The appearance of a pawn or a piece usually signals the start of sharp conflict, in which the winner will be the one who is better prepared. Besides the outward resemblance, these kinds of setups also resemble the woodland creature in the way they deal with an enemy who is superior to them in spatial measurement: Black spends a great deal of time in strictly defensive maneuvers [sic], under cover of his pawn-spines, in order to find the right moment to leap out suddenly and bite White. (…)

The possible permutations of the Hedgehog position are huge, many of them without any real theoretical significance. Thus, for example, I remember that in my school days, when facing weak opposition, I used to play the weirdest Hedgehog positions in blitz games. For instance, I might open a game as White with 1.a3, followed by 2.b3, 3.c3, 4.d3, 5.e3, 6.f3, 7.g3, 8.Bg2, 9.Ra2, etc., regardless of what Black played, reaching a very strange and non-viable version of the Hedgehog. (…) The Hedgehog is a garden of branching paths that suddenly can come back together as one. The problem of transposing or combining variations prevents us from describing these Hedgehog setups in encyclopedic fashion – that is, move after move. So the logical approach is to divide them up, not accordin to openings, but by the pawn structure that exists after the development of the pieces is completed.

This is a lengthy quote, but some very important things can be extracted from it. First of all, the reader will note Shipov’s style: often personal and anecdotal, and he’s not afraid to make lively analogies look more than just a play with words. In this respect, I was often reminded of Ilya Odessky’s book on 1.b3, which I also reviewed and liked a lot. Is it me or are Russian authors often funnier than Western European chess book writers? Well, perhaps not: a second thing that becomes clear from the above excerpt is that Shipov adopts a completely different style than Alexander Khalifman’s book series Opening Repertoire for White according to Kramnik, which also deals (Vol. 2) with the Hedgehog.

Khalifman’s series - not exactly ‘funny’ but very good nevertheless – does use a rather ‘encyclopedic’ approach to explain openings, and from Shipov’s explanation it becomes clear why, in my mind, Khalifman doesn’t always succeed here.  (By the way, Shipov’s book unfortunately does not have a bibliography, so I don’t know whether he was implicitly referring to Khalifman here.) At any rate, Khalifman in his book does not attempt to explain what the Hedgehog really ‘is’, anyway, primarily focused as he is on variations and moves. A book that does try to explain the system from a more conceptual, almost philosophical point of view is Mihai Suba’s classic The Hedgehog. The main difference between Shipov’s and Suba’s book is, in my view, that Suba still doesn’t go all the way in describing the Hedgehog as a holistic concept that can be applied to entirely different openings than just the English after 1.c4 or 1.Nf3.

To illustrate what I mean, here are two positions from Shipov’s chapter ’Getting to the Hedgehog Opening Structure’:

These are positions from the Paulsen Sicilian and the King’s Indian Defence - both resulting in Hedgehogs. However, this is not the end of it. The fact that the Hedgehog can result from many different openings doesn’t mean it should always be expected. In fact, even one of the players aims for a Hedgehog-type setup, this is not enough. As Shipov explains:

In order to reach the required structure, one only needs to exchange Black’s c-pawn for White’s d-pawn and allow White to occupy the center. (…) I should warn my young and impressionable readers that Hedgehog structures can occur only if both sides are willing; so there’s no point in studying the Hedgehog with the aim of making it your principal system for Black, because ‘wicked’ opponents might not allow you to set it up at the board. (…) And so, obtaining the Hedgehog depends first of all on White’s desire to attack Black’s apparently passive and vulnerable position.  

This is the kind of explanation that I missed in the book by Suba, who often seems merely overjoyed by the fact that the Hedgehog should appear at all in a game, and that it should always be the right strategy. Shipov himself dismisses such wet dreams best, when he reproaches his youthful self for trying to reach the Hedgehog at all times:

No, my friends – one should not make a fetish out of the Hedgehog, striving to set it up in every situation regardless of the consequences. (…) Chess is rich in possibilities, and can’t be restricted to a catechism of spiny little beasties. 

So what exactly are the characteristics of the infamous Hedgehog – in other words, what makes it such a feared, complex and respected system? Well, you should really read the entire chapter Shipov devotes to the ‘Hedgehog philosophy’, but here are a few of Shipov’s main points:

• “In the Hedgehog, Black operates in guerilla style: avoiding direct contact, he hides in the bushes, observes his foe, waits, and then attacks at the most unexpected moment.”
• Contratry to what common chess wisdom teaches about cramped positions, in the Hedgehog, “exchanges are bad for Black, because they decrease his fighting potential.”
• “Right away, and with no regrets, I will tell you that, in the larger sense, the Hedgehog is a risky opening.”
• In the Hedgehog, Black “sets up a solid wall of pawns, behind whose protection he can arrange a universal piece placement that’s guaranteed to be a good one.”
• Psychology plays an important role: “When [White] takes over the center without a struggle, he gets a feeling of superiority, regardless of his rating. (…) It’s a drive that frequently leads to an unprepared attack.”
• “The Hedgehog displays only an insignificant part of its possibilities. Its handlers must calculate many variations during the course of the game, and consider many nuances, the vast bulk of which never will turn into actual moves. (…) Literally at every move, the players must examine Black’s possible breaks with … b6-b5 and …d6-d5, as well as White’s active possibilites. (…) So time scrambles are an objective necessity for those who play the Hedgehog.”
• “Those who feel uncomfortable in close quarters – in elevators, for example – should not be playing the Hedgehog. (…) The blood of the Hedgehogger must run cold as ice – at least, until a certain moment arrives…”

At this point, perhaps you think I am giving away the contents of the book already. Well, not exactly: all my quotes are from the first 20 pages only, and the book has over 500. The rest of the book, of course, is more concrete and deals with variations and moves. The main focus of these lines is on the so-called ‘English Hedgehog’, arising after 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 Be7.

The book then divides into two main chapters: the classical continuation 7.d4 and the more modern system starting with 7.Re1. And Shipov deals wonderfully with the relevant games and variations and especially its ideas. Here’s an example of his clear way of explanations (and his talent for picking good examples):

DeFirmian-Zivanovic
Smederevska Palanka 1981

Let’s study this position carefully. The knight on c5 is pinned, the c6 square is weak: the white knight is heading there. Black’s king is far from the battlefield, so the invasion of White’s rook at d7 or d6 could be very dangerous. In addition, there’s a real weakness: the b6-pawn. White’s knight is very strong on e5; he also has a pawn majority on the queenside, with the possibility of creating a passed pawn there. All these nuances, taken together, define White’s advantage in this endgame as tangible and stable.

16…Bf8

The most natural reply. Black unpins the knight on c5 and draws the sting from the white knight’s leap to c6. In that case, Black would reply …Rd8-c8 and the rogue would be forced to retreat.

17.Bxc5! Yet another unpleasant surprise!

17…Bxc5 On 17…bxc5 White would also answer 18.Na4!, when the weak c5-pawn becomes a permanent weakness. (…)

18.Na4! A very unpleasant sortie from Black’s point of view. The ‘b6+Bc5′ construction is now under pressure.

 However, a warning seems appropriate. The book is mainly devoted to systems where after 7.Re1, Black does not play the critical moves  7…d5 or 7…Ne4 but instead strives for a ‘real’ Hedgehog with the black pawn on d6. All we read about these lines is this:

 The advance 7…d5 is the most logical move, from the standpoint of the principle of fighting for the center. After 8.cxd5, Black has two cardinally different paths. On 8…exd5 9.d4 0-0 10.Bf4 Na6, we have a standard Queen’s Indian type of structure. This is a great theme for a different thick book, and would probably also be best handled by a different author. In the variation 8….Nxd5 9.e4 Nb4 10.d4, a sharp clash of pieces begins in the center, which you may get a first-hand look at from the classic game B.Larsen-S.Gligoric, Bled 1979.

About 7…Ne4 we get just one variation and the assertion that “the continuation 7…Ne4 may be labeled perfectly safe; but it still doesn’t lead to a full-fledged Hedgehog.  The positions it produces are empty and boring – like a dinner without salt and pepper: tasteless!” To his credit, Shipov is the first to admit that this selection is biased and decided by taste rather than objectivity. Still, I can imagine readers who want to know all inside-out details of the Hedgehog will be disappointed by this omission. Shipov hasn’t written a compendium but a personal account, and readers who are more interested in objective variations only, should probably think twice before buying this book.

There are probably more things to this book that could be called a little odd: sometimes, the translation seems a bit forced (’the player of White‘ isn’t really a conventional way of indicating players). As said, there’s no bibliography and neither is there an index of variations (which is particularly impractical what with all the possible transpositions, although perhaps it’s done on purpose to avoid the ‘encyclopedia’ image). Finally, I have been unable to figure our what we are to expect from part 2. Shipov mysteriously (or vaguely, depending on your state of mind) ends the final chapter Looking into the Future, with the words “Time will tell! And everything will find its place…” and his Conclusion with “Play the Hedgehog! More to come…”. I honestly don’t know what to make of this.

But frankly, it doesn’t really matter. The Complete Hedgehog vol. 1 is a great book, probably the best ever on its subject. Shipov is a highly entertaining author, a true master in explaining ideas and the underlying stragies and psychology. And all this is written in an unmistakenly humouristic, erudite and personal style that distinguishes him from many of his predecessors; in short: Sergey Shipov is your ideal chess instructor.  Now go buy his book and enjoy your holidays.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of The Complete Hedgehog vol. 1
• Read more book reviews

Chess is interesting, and chess openings are interesting too. There is nothing scary about opening theory, but there is nothing sacred about it either. This is the message Paul van der Sterren wants to give his readers in his 468-page book Fundamental Chess Openings, published by Gambit. He succeeds wonderfully in bringing this message home.

A casual reader, superficially browsing through the Dutch GM’s latest book, may easily get confused by it. Suppose he lands on page 296, where the Marshall Gambit of the Ruy Lopez is explained. After 14 moves, the following well-known position is reached:

Van der Sterren writes:

This position illustrates the character of the Marshall Attack very well. White’s position is not exactly bad, but he will have to work hard to catch up on his piece development and for the moment his extra pawn has no significance. An opponent with a good eye for attacking chances is likely to put no end of obstacles in his way.

15.Be3 is the traditional move. Black then continues 15…Bg4 and after 16.Qd3 he has 16…Rae8 17.Nd2 and now 17…f5 or 17…Re6, to name just a few of the more characteristic ideas. In order to prevent this easy attacking plan, the ingenious 15.Re4 has been tried. This prevents Black from playing 15…Bg4 and gives him the opportunity of blundering his queen by 15…Bf5?? 16.Rh4. After the equally ingenious 15….g5 (based on 16.Bxg5?? Qf5) this too leads to a fierce and unpredictable battle.

And this is all the author writes about this tabiya of one of the most popular variations in modern chess. What are we to make of this? Well, before accusing Van der Sterren of lack of depth, we should read what he writes in the introduction. First, he states the perfectly obvious: that the amoung of opening knowledge required really depends on your ambition and the amount of time you’re willing to spend on chess. Then comes the interesting part:

But there is another aspect of studying opening theory to be mentioned. Anyone with even the slightest intellectual bent of mind (and which chess-player isn’t?) may find getting to know a little bit about opening theory very interesting. Even without any ambition to improve your results and independent of your level of play, you may simply find the study of openings very enjoyable. You may also discover that this has absolutely nothing to do with memorizing variations or the need to occupy yourself with chess more than you want to. This sheer fun is in my view an essential element of studying opening theory.

I don’t know about you, but this is music to my ears. Van der Sterren here expresses what I’ve always thought myself but were never eloquent enough to express, namely that the study of opening theory doesn’t have anything per se to do with the practical aspect of playing chess. Don’t listen to bores who tell you that studying chess openings is or is not good for your chess. That’s simply irrelevant! It’s just fun to know stuff about chess openings. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins (who said it about science), “chess opening theory is interesting, and if you don’t agree, you can f*** off!”

Once you take on this state of mind and let go of any practical objections, leafing through Fundamental Chess Openings is a real joy. I’ve always stayed as far as I could from the Catalan Opening, but after reading what Van der Sterren says about it, I already feel I understand so much more about it that I might actually try it myself some day. (And even if I don’t, I’ll be able to enjoy Kramnik’s games a lot more!) Let me quote one relevant part in some detail:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0

Black now faces the same choice again: 6…dxc4, 6…c5 or 6…something else; which is best?

6…c5 is again very likely to transpose to a Tarrasch after 7.cxd5 exd5. There is also the Closed Catalan, where Black develops his queenside without either taking on c4 or playing …c5. This idea may be pursued with either 6…Nbd7 or 6…c6. The two moves often transpose. An important scheme of development is to play … b6 with an eye to developing the queen’s bishop to b7 or a6 depending on where White puts his queen’s knight (Nc3 leaves c4 undefended, which makes … Ba6 an attractive option.) After Black completes his development (for instance …. Bb7, … Nbd7 and … Rc8) the liberating …c5 comes into view again. Another idea is to play … c6 followed by ….b5. White’s main plan is to open the centre by playing e4 at some point.

The Open Catalan approach is still available, although taking on c4 now is very different from taking on c4 two moves ago. In fact 6…dxc4 is one of the most popular variations of meeting the Catalan. The idea is to counter the plausible 7.Qc2 with 7…a6. This leads, after 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2 Bb7

to a type of position that we have already encountered in the 4…dxc4 5.Qa4+ variation. Again, Black is aiming at completing the development of his queenside by playing …Nbd7 and …c5. White has tried to prevent this or at least to make it as unattractive as possible in numerous ways, the most direct being 10.Bf4 and 10.Bd2 Nbd7 11.Ba5. Still, hundreds of games at the highest level have shown that White must be a supremely good positional player to squeeze any advantage from this line. (…)

For me, an obvious ignoramus in the Catalan, the idea behind the manoeuvre Bd2-a5 was already a big eye-opener, while I also liked the way Van der Sterren links various ideas to variations encountered before in the book. The only problem I have with the way the material is presented is that the Catalan Opening actually does not have a chapter of its own: it’s in the chapter on the Queen’s Gambit Declined, with the move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3. This is slightly counter-intuitive to me, but perhaps I have been conditioned too much by old-fashioned opening manuals who treated the Queen’s Gambit and the Catalan as entirely different complexes.

Van der Sterren himself seems aware of this, since he writes after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3: “This is the most popular way of introducing the Catalan, although an immediate 3.g3 is also not bad.” However, it’s somewhat confusing to read just one move further (after 3…Nf6 4.g3): “This, the basic position of the Catalan, is reached via many roads. Perhaps the most common one is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 (4.Bg2 is equally sound and is likely to transpose after just a few moves.)” Well, maybe it’s best to ignore this kind of confusions, although in my experience somebody’s bound to take advantage of it sooner or later in a practical game.

Another minor point of criticism is also inherent to the book’s concept: because it mostly lacks concrete variations, it’s also not exactly cutting-edge. This is sometimes just a pity, because there’s so much beautiful chess to show! To give just one example, in the Gothenburger variation of the Sicilian Najdorf (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 h6!? 9.Nh4 g5 10.fxg5 Nfd7) in my opinion it’s really not an option to NOT mention White’s sharpest and most famous move here, 11.Nxe6! (played for the first time by Keres, Spassky and Geller in 1955 in the city that in fact gave its name to the entire line) but there you go.

Fundamental Chess Openings is conspicuously called FCO on the cover, trying to build on the ’stickiness’ of earlier book titles such as ECO (Encyclopedia of Chess Openings), NCO (Nunn’s Chess Openings) and BCO (Batsford Chess Openings). FCO was first published in Dutch (a 3-volume series under the rather less hip name of The World of the Chess Openings) a few years ago. I think it’s a good thing that it now has a broader audience, because the concept of the book is really charming and also somewhat revolutionary. Most opening books teach you how to play it and how to be succesful with it. Van der Sterren teaches you how to have fun. Which do you prefer?

Links

• Get yourself a copy of Fundamental Chess Openings
• Read more book reviews

L'émission de Chess & Strategy en partenariat avec Variantes !

2007-2009 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

The following “research of winners of the GBO through the decades” is a follow up of a publication made by Robert Oresick and credited to MACA Publications Coordinator George Mirijanian at the Boylston Chess Club Weblog on 10/26/09.

.

I went Thursday night to the BCF and in one hour I gathered a lot of information from our Chess Horizons collection, but sadly I found we are missing two issues from 1983 Volume 15, issues #5 & 6 where the winner(s) of GBO from that year are named.

.

I would like to call all the readers of this weblog if anyone has and could spare such issues to the BCF to get in touch with me in order to obtain them if it is possible.

.

I want to apologize if I have misrepresented the proper chess titles or have omitted them for these distinguished past winners; I did not pay attention to these details.

.

Possible reviewing to newspapers in the Boston Area from 1969 to 1949 will yield more names to this list.

.

.

2009 SM Denys Shmelov

2008 FM William Kelleher

2007 WIM Ester Epstein

2006 Avraam Pismenny, FM John Curdo

2005 Avraam Pismenny, Leonid Tkach

2004 Avraam Pismenny

2003 IM Igor Foygel, FM John Curdo, Jack Stolerman, Patrick Sciacca

2002 FM Charles Riordan

2001 Henry “Hal” Terrie

2000 IM Igor Foygel

1999 GM Alexander Ivanov, IM William Paschall, NM Mark LaRocca

1998 GM Sergey Kudrin

1997 FM John Curdo

1996 GM Alexander Ivanov, IM Jonathan Yedidia

1995 GM Alexander Ivanov

1994 GM Alexander Ivanov

1993 NM Charles Hertan, NM Chris Chase, FM John Curdo, Nassr Abbasi

1992 FM Igor Foygel

1991 IM Jorge Zamora Jr.

1990 GM Alexander Ivanov, Bijan Haririan

1989 IM Vivek Rao

1988 GM Alexander Ivanov, NM Mark Ginsburg, NM Charles Hertan, Brian McCarthy

1987 NM Ilya Gurevich, FM John Curdo, Gary Nute

1986 Michael Wilder, NM Sandeep Joshi, NM Mark Ginsburg, NM Aki Kanamori

1985 NM Charles Hertan, NM Ilya Gurevich

1984 GM Arthur Bisguier

.

1983 “BCF lacks Volume 15 issues #5 & 6 - Chess Horizons”

.

1982 IM Igor Ivanov, GM Roman Dzindzihashvili

1981 FM James Rizzitano

1980 FM John Curdo

1979 GM Lev Alburt, GM Arthur Bisguier

1978 FM John Curdo

1977 FM John Curdo

1976 NM Daniel Harrington

1975 Frank Thornally

1974 NM Allan Savage

1973 NM John Peters, NM Daniel Harrington

1972 NM John Peters, NM William Robertie, IM Norman Weinstein

1971 FM John Curdo, IM Norman Weinstein, Imre Barlay

1970 NM Daniel Harrington

1969 ……………………….

1968 Daniel Harrington

.

1967 -1949…………………

.

1948 Gehard Katz, Charles Reams

1947 Harlow Daly

1946 Gehard Katz

1945 Milton Kagan

1944 Weaver Adams

1943 Milton Kagan

1941 Gehard Katz

1940 Oscar Shapiro

1939 Weaver Adams

1938 Weaver Adams

1937 Harlow Daly, Harry Lyman

1936 Sidney Coggan

1935 Weaver Adams

1934 Harlow Daly, the first winner of the GBO

Bernardo Iglesias

Last Tuesday, in the Max Euwe Centre in Amsterdam, publisher Hanon W. Russell and author Karsten Müller officially presented their brand new book on Fischer: Bobby Fischer – The Career and Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion. ChessVibes was there to film the presentation and ask the author a few questions.

Bobby Fischer – The Career and Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion is a brand new, one-volume collection of Fischer’s official match and tournament games. All (yes, all) of these games were annotated by the author Karsten Müller, the German grandmaster who is famous for books such as Fundamental Chess Endings and How to Play Chess Endgames (with Wolfgang Pajeken), as well as his column at ChessCafe.

European distributor New in Chess invited both the authour and the publisher, Hanon W. Russell of Russell Enterprises, to hold the official presentation in the Max Euwe Centre in Amsterdam. The crème de la crème of Dutch chess was there, including GMs Jan Timman, Hans Ree, Genna Sosonko and Yasser Seirawan. ChessVibes was invited too, and I created the following video in which Karsten Müller and Hanon Russell tell about the book – which of course we will soon review here as well.

Elite trainer Mark Dvoretsky, and one of his best-known pupils, grandmaster Artur Yusupov have written the fifth and final volume of the series The School of Future Champions: Secrets of Creative Thinking.

Based on courses given to talented young players throughout the world, the series started with Secrets of Chess Training and was followed by: Opening Preparation, Endgame Technique, and Positional Play.

Volume five deals with various creative aspects, such as the calculation of variations and the development of intuition. It also explores the psychology of taking decisions, both when attacking and when defending.

Like all the books in the series, this concluding volume contains contributions by other leading trainers and grandmasters, as well as games by pupils who have attended the courses.

If you don’t want to miss this excellent book, please look here.

We have just received from our friends at Mongoose Press in Massachusetts: The Complete Hedgehog, Volume 1.

The Hedgehog is a thoroughly modern defense where concepts and understanding are more important than plain memorization. It can be played against e4, d4 or c4 and is a respected weapon in Black’s armory.

Tal, Larsen, Karpov and Kasparov, have played this opening. Sergey Shipov draws on decades of experience playing this defense, andhas written much more than a simple opening manual full of variations.

Shipov not only explains strategic themes, typical formations and move-order subtleties, along the way he also teaches one of the most important skills in chess: how to evaluate a position.

Garry Kasparov says about The Complete Hedgehog: “I highly recommend this book because it investigates strategic concepts instead of being limited to mere reactions.”

Please have a look at this brilliant book.

“The book can be read on several levels – as a dramatic story, or as providing insights into opening theory, or as great games enhanced by deep analytical annotations. Kasparov succeeds triumphantly in illuminating every aspect of this historic struggle. He is establishing as formidable a reputation as an author, as he did as a player.” The English Chess Federation’s 2009 Book of the Year Award went to Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-85.

Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part 2 – Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985, published last year by Everyman, has won the English Chess Federation’s 2009 Book of the Year Award. In this book Garry Kasparov analyses in depth all pre-1984 games with Anatoli Karpov (including one simul!) and the Moscow clashes from 1984 and 1985, giving his opinions both on the political machinations surrounding the matches as well as the games themselves. For more information on the book we gladly refer to our review by Arne Moll.

ECF judges R. B. Edwards, J. Farrand and D. Friedgood write:

This volume is the second in the series Kasparov is writing on the development of chess since the 1970s. The first, Revolution in the 70s (Everyman) concentrated on developments in opening theory during that time. The second and third volumes will concentrate on Kasparov’s 5(!) epic matches with Karpov for the world title. The volume under consideration covers the first two, the first of which involved no fewer than 48 games and was unfinished, the second a mere 24,which finally established Kasparov as world champion.

Kasparov has written earlier in the 1980s about some of these matches. But here, he writes in the preface “I now see many situations more deeply, through the prism of my life experience…….My commentaries have become more frank, and far more accurate. But the evaluation of individual moves will take into account the psychology of the struggle!” All this is reflected in the book, plus lengthy descriptions of the background to the matches and in particular Kasparov’s views of the controversial first match termination.

The book can be read on several levels – as a dramatic story, or as providing insights into opening theory, or as great games enhanced by deep analytical annotations. Kasparov succeeds triumphantly in illuminating every aspect of this historic struggle. He is establishing as formidable a reputation as an author, as he did as a player.

Finally, Everyman have produced the book to the same high standards they have used throughout the series.

Ivan Sokolov’s Winning Chess Middle Games (New in Chess) was the judges universal second choice. The other books in this year’s shortlist were Eliot Hearst and John Knott’s Blindfold Chess (McFarland) and John Cox’ The Berlin Wall (Quality Chess).

Previous winners of the ECF Book of the Year: From London to Elista by Evgeny Bareev and Ilya Levitov (New in Chess, 2007), San Luis 2005 by Alik Gershon and Igor Nor (Quality Chess, 2007), Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics (New in Chess, 2006), My Great Predecessors Part 4 by Garry Kasparov (Everyman, 2005), Pal Benko My Life, Games and Compositions by GM Pal Benko and IM Jeremy Silman (Siles Press, 2004), My Great Predecessors Part 1 by Garry Kasparov (Everyman, 2003), Fundamental Chess Endings by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht (Gambit, 2002), Victor Korchnoi’s My Best Games Vol 1: Games with White by Viktor Kortchnoi (Edition Olms, 2001) and Queen’s Gambit Declined by Matthew Sadler (Everyman, 2000).

Starting Out: the Scandinavian has just arrived.

On the 320(!) pages of this latest volume of the Starting Out series, Jovanka Houska covers all the main lines of the Scandinavian, which has firmly established itself as an opening to be reckoned with.

The author, a Scandinavian expert herself, shows us that it’s relatively easy to learn and play because in many cases Black can rely upon the same system of development regardless of how White proceeds.

Because of the simplicity of the “big idea” fundamental to the opening, the Scandinavian (or the Centre Counter as it is also known) is an ideal opening choice for improvers, club players and tournament players.

The lines which you need to memorize are highlighted in this book and literally everything you need to know about this opening, whether you are employing it with Black or facing it with White, is revealed.

Your way to starting out the Scandinavian (only € 19.95), starts here!

Smyslov-Botvinnik, 5th game World championship 1958. Black's king is in check. Should it move up to c5 or back to c7?

DK Two books on world championship matches made it on to our shortlist for book of the year. Kasparov vs Karpov 1986-1987 (Everyman Chess, £30) written by Garry Kasparov, is an automatic choice. This is the latest volume in the former world champion's monumental series, and this time he dissects the matches in London/Leningrad 1986 and Seville 1987.

Kasparov's detailed analysis of the games is admirable but I skimmed them and just read the story – it's gripping. Gorbachev had just come to power and was implementing his policies of glasnost and perestroika in the face of conservative opposition. In that context the result of these matches had enormous significance: Kasparov was the outspoken outsider, Karpov the loyal communist. Which image would the Soviet Union be projecting to the world? Kasparov alleges – and backs up with strong evidence – that there were spies in his camp passing information to Karpov, backed by the KGB. Some of the episodes could have come straight from the pages of a le Carré novel.

Botvinnik-Smyslov, Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958 (New In Chess, €28.95 ) is another reminder of a great chess rivalry. The annotations are mainly by Botvinnik and are characterised by his typical "objectivity" (read harshness). These notes were, of course, written in the pre-computer era, which means fewer variations than many contemporary books. That's a relief. I'd rather have a few well-chosen words than blocks of indigestible moves.

In the position above, Botvinnik was short of time and played the reflex 1… Kc5, following the general rule that kings should be as active as possible in the endgame. But Smyslov replied with 2 Kd3, and checkmate with b4 was unavoidable. Black should have tried 1…Kc7, and he still had chances to save the game.

}chess@guardian.co.uk

L'émission de Chess & Strategy en partenariat avec Variantes

Amis joueurs et joueuses d'échecs, Bonjour. Nous vous proposons aujourd'hui un quatrième rendez-vous pour progresser aux échecs. Cette chronique, intitulée "Au Pays des Livres", s'adresse à tous les joueurs, du débutant au maître.

Pour ce quatrième épisode, place à l'actualité avec un ouvrage retraçant les matchs de championnat du Monde d'échecs entre Karpov et Kasparov. Nous vous recommandons ce second volume consacré à la rivalité échiquéenne la plus longue de tous les temps. En effet, Karpov et Kasparov ont passé, en durée cumulée, l'équivalent d'une année entière face à face devant un échiquier.

2007-2009 © Chess & Strategy - tous droits réservés

We are delighted to be able to announce that Quality Chess has just published: Grandmaster Repertoire 3 – The English Opening volume 1.

After the bestseller: Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4 by Borish Avrukh, we are now taken on a grandmaster tour through the English Opening by the Romanian Grandmaster and award-winning author Mihail Marin.

This first volume covers 1.c4 e5, which we know as the reversed Sicilian. After decades of experience playing and analysing the English, the author now reveals his own white repertoire based on 1.c4 followed by 2.g3.

In the 33 chapters on 477 pages every significant variation and all of the key ideas are covered, the theory is state-of-the-art and has been tested against grandmasters and above all: many novelties are suggested!

The clear presentation of this book and Marin’s lucid explanations, on how to play the resulting positions, will undoubtedly contribute to an complete understanding of the English Opening, for players of all levels.

Please have a look at this thorough and engaging repertoire book.

As a fairly decent club player, I have always been impressed with club members, whether higher or lower rated than me, who were able to quickly evaluate basic endgames as ‘elementary’ draws or wins. I must admit I have always had difficulties remembering and truly understanding even the most basic endgames. That’s why I was happy to read two recent guides taking seriously precisely those kind of endgames. 

I grew up with Averbakh’s classic Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (translated into Dutch as What Every Chess Player Should Know Of The Endgame) and although (or perhaps because) I reread this manual, which was about 100 pages in total, about once a year, I still hesitate whenever I encouter an elementary endgame and hear kibitzers confidently proclaim the position a draw or a win. There are so many exceptions and subtleties in these endings that I always wonder whether these kibitzers are merely bluffing or if they’re actually much more brilliant than their rating suggests.

Typically underestimated endings, at least in my experience, are ones involving a rook vs. pawn. I’ve often encountered versions of the following position in casual analysis, when both players concluded a draw after just a few seconds of looking at it and moved on to the next position. The solution still makes me feel humble after all those years. It features in two recent books on elementary endgames, John Nunn’s Understanding Chess Endgames, published by Gambit, and Bruce Pandolfini’s Endgame Workshop (Russell Enterprises). Both books aim at the chess player with little or no endgame knowledge, which makes them perfect for comparision.

Here’s what Nunn says:

R. Réti, 1922
We have already made the point that the attacker is better off when the kings are on opposite sides of the pawn. This fact can lead to some subtle play.

1.Rd2! White can only win by losing a tempo with his rook, so as to gain the opposition at the critical moment. 1.Rd3! d4 2.Rd1 is equally good, but not 1.Rd1? d4 2.Kd7 Kd5 and now White is in zugzwang. After 3.Kc7 Kc5 or 3.Ke7 Ke5 Black can keep his king on the same side of the pawn as the white king, while 3.Rd2 brings the rook too close to Black’s king and leads to a draw after 3…Kc4 4.Ke6 Kc3 (gaining a crucial tempo) 5.Rd1 d3 6.Ke5 d2 7.Ke4 Kc2.

1…d4 2.Rd1! The point. White’s rook manoeuvre means that Black loses the opposition and is thus in zugzwang himself. (…)

Pandolfini shifts the pieces three files to the right (with the kings on g5 and g7, a black pawn on g4 and the white rook on g2), saying:

In [this position] it’s a matter of making Black commit, while also making sure that, later on, time won’t be lost if the rook’s attacked by the black king. Right now the rook’s on a bad square, being assailable by the black king from f3 and h3. With 1.Rg1! however, anticipating an eventual, time gaining attack by the enemy king at either f3 or h3, White ensures the rook’s safety at a later critical moment, while getting a meaningful opposition and that leads to a win. (…) 

Although both explanantions are, in my opinion, quite good, there are several interesting differences to note: first of all, Nunn doesn’t mention any ‘bad squares’, whereas Pandolfini leaves the zugzwang word out of his explanation. Also, since Réti’s original study starts with a pawn on the 5th rank, the move 1.Rd2! looks even more difficult to understand given the fact that the black king can’t ‘assail’ (in Pandolfini’s words) the white rook from d1 either, while Pandolfini’s version with 1.Rg1! focuses on the aspect of the black king annoying the white rook only. You see, even in this position there are many ways to think about the problems at hand. The longer I think about it, the more I find that both versions complement each other perfectly, and you really need to see them together to truly understand the ins and outs of the position.   

In general, Nunn’s book delves a little deeper in the positions, expecting a bit more effort from his readers, as in the above example, but what Pandolfini lacks in depth, he makes up for with insightful remarks and thoughtful practical advice. This is no doubt due to the fact that John Nunn - also known as ‘the Doctor’ - is very much like a scientist in much that he does and writes, and Pandofini - known as the trainer of Josh Waitzin and for his role, played by Ben Kingsley, in the movie Searching for Bobby Fischer - a coach. Here’s an example from Pandolfini that I really liked, especially because 99,9% of all chess authors wouldn’t ever consider analysing it.

In all situations, you should endeavor to play the best move, if you can figure out what it is. Thus in [this position] , White  can mate in two moves by playing 1.Raa7, bringing up the back rook to double on the seventh rank. After Black plays the forced reply 1…Kd8, either rook mates by checking along the eigth rank, thereby keeping the two-rook (double rank) cutoff intact. Be correct, but it’s also okay to be practical, especially if you’re a developing student. Let’s say you’re very nervous and can’t think, whether because of shortage of time on the clock or for some other unsettling reason. For [this position], as many newcomers quickly pick up, you can gain control of the situation by shifting your rooks far away from their target, so that the enemy king can’t annoy them.

Obvious though it is to most players, the advice given here is actually very valuable, I think. I’ve seen dozens of reasonably strong players failing to switch to ‘practical mode’ in examples such as these, losing on time while trying to find the best move when a more practical approach doesn’t require thinking at all. Unfortunately, Pandofini has a habit of being a bit overlong on such occasions, and he goes on in the same fashion for two more paragraphs, now really stating the blatantly obvious - even, I’m sure, for those who’ve learned the rules just minutes ago - before concluding with another useful maxim: ‘rooks work best from far away’. 

Another minor quirck about Pandolfini’s book is the following. I always like to know the origin of a position, such as whether it’s a problem, a composition or an example for practice. It helps to frame these endgames in terms of objective strength, and it can even help players (such as myself0 overcome doubt and even shame over not immediately resigning in such positions. Nunn always mentions composers and players (his examples are often very recent, giving the book a disctinctly ‘modern’ feel), but Pandolfini for some reason doesn’t deem this necessary. True, he sometimes does briefly say who was involved in a position, but even here he often omits year and place as if these are irrelevant for the student’s task. I feel this is at least an underestimation of how chess memory works.

Cheparinov – Navara
Wijk aan Zee 2006
Isn’t it wonderful that Navara played on for 19 moves in this position before throwing in the towel? Such examples (in Nunn’s book), and especially the status of the players involved, may help people realize how untrivial this ending is, and perhaps stop them from instantly resigning instead of trying if the opponent knows his theory.  Pandolfini takes a different, typically more elaborate, approach in explaining the mating path. He devotes 8 pages to ‘interrelated nets’, ‘corresponding triangles’ and hypothenuses.

Since he’s an experienced trainer I assume his method works for students, but it all seems way a bit too complicated and theoretical for me – you just need two or three basic positions and a lot of practical experience before it hits you. Nunn, on the other hand, takes the other extreme and, while devoting 4 positions to this ending, explains only one generic concept in it. In general, Nunn seems a bit uninterested in explaining such ‘obvious’ stuff, while Pandolfini takes a bit too little for granted in his will to make everything totally clear.

Ideally, readers interested in basic endgames should read both books and make the comparisons themselves. The material covered in this books is excellent, but then again, many similar books from the past (such as Averbakh’s classic, or the recent 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesus de la Villa Garcia) cover pretty much the same stuff. There’s no revolutionary new way in which these new authors present their material compared to the older works, in my opinion. The only difference is, for Nunn, that he includes lots of recent examples, and for Pandolfini that he explains the positions is more detail aimed at the truly ignorant reader. As for the ideas presented - it’s all been done before.

For this reason, I feel both books are a bit expensive for what they have to offer. Nunn’s Understanding Chess Endgames comes at $24,95 and Pandolfini’s Endgame Workshop costs $19,95 (both books have slighty over 200 pages.) My conclusion is that if you don’t have a basic endgame guide yet, you might as well buy one of these two (or buy a second-hand edition of one of the classics for a lesser price). But if you do possess such a volume already, you better save your money for something more original.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of Understanding Chess Endgames
• Get yourself a copy of Endgame Workshop
• Read more ChessVibes book reviews

Starting Out: the Trompowsky Attack has just arrived.

On the 269 pages of this latest volume of the Starting Out series, Richard Palliser covers all the main lines of this ambitious opening and he includes tips, notes and warnings to help the reader understand their chosen lines.

Few openings allow White to stamp his authority on the game as early as the Trompowsky. After 2.Bg5, the King’s Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Modern Benoni, Grünfeld or even the Benko Gambit are being side-stepped.

The Trompovsky is not hard to learn and it can be used as a surprise or a full-time opening to be employed against 1.d4 Nf6. This makes it an ideal opening for improvers, club and tournament players of all levels.

Garry Kasparov has enjoyed successes with the Trompowsky in his many simultaneous exhibitions, and players as Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Michael Adams and Antoaneta Stefanova are still playing it today.

You can learn from the inspiring games of these and many other leading grandmasters and become a Trompovsky expert yourselve.

It’s easy to become spoiled. In my review of Kasparov’s book on his first two matches against Karpov (1984-1985), I expressed the hope that his next books would be as great as the first. But now that Kasparov has written about his 1986-1987 matches, I find myself so used to the level of his books that it seems quite tedious to praise his new book all over again. So in this review, I’ll look at some different aspects of the book apart from its obvious quality, also in the light of the upcoming K-K match in Valencia.

Kasparov vs Karpov 1986 – 1987 is the 3rd volume of the “Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess” series published by Everyman Chess. In a way, the second of Kasparov’s new match books is even more interesting that the first one, especially because of the ‘87 match. After all, the 13th World Champion had already written about both his 1984 and 1985 (and 1986) matches with Karpov before, whereas he had (to my knowledge) not written about the ‘87 match in Sevilla before. In fact, my only reference to this match was a Dutch match book by Hans Böhm that appeared shortly after the match. However silly it may seem, it’s interesting to make a comparison between this match book and Kasparov’s comments on the match – if only to see how historic perspective has changed in 22 years.

Kasparov’s’ original match book about the 1986 match, held in London and Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), is an acclaimed masterpiece of ultradeep analysis, praised by almost all chess journalist as the most elaborate chess book of all time. What has changed in the more then 20 years since Kasparov’s first analysis book appeared? Fortunately, in the new edition Kasparov himself indicates the changes compared to the London-Leningrad Championship Games edition (published by Pergamon in 1986).

The first minor change is the fact that original Russian text (Dva Matcha) seems to have been translated anew. For instance, in the first game, after the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 Kasparov wrote in 1986:

In spite of the change of colour compared with the previous match, in the very first game I again employed an opening which was new for me. This surprise must have been much more stunning to Karpov than my employing of the g2-g3 variation against the Nimzo-Indian Defence throughout the entire 1985 match.

Which in 2009 has become:

Again, as in the previous match, in the very first game I emplyoyed an opening that was new to me. This surprise should have stunned Karpov no less than my employment of the g2-g3 variation in the Nimzo-Indian Defence throughout the 1985 match.

Secondly, Kasparov has greatly extended his opening analysis of the games, often quite revealing.

Kasparov-Karpov
London m (6) 1986

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Bg4 8.c4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Nxd4

11.Qe3+

In 1986, Kasparov merely wrote: “A new attempt to gain an opening advantage. The path chosen by me a year earlier – 11.Re1+ Be7 12.Qd1 – led to a simplification of the position.”

The Kasparov of 2009 has no more novelties to hide, and he writes candidly about the possibilies his team investigated in this position:

An attempt to fight for an opening advantage, which was new for that time. The line chosen by me a year earlier – 11.Re1+ Be7 12.Qd1  Ne6 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Bb5+ c6 15.Nxd5 cxb5 16.Qb3 0-0 (…) led to the simplification of the position and a draw. Already in the 21ste century Yuri Dokhoian and I analysed 16.Bf4!? (…) Nxf4 17.Rxe7+ Kf8 18.Re5 Qd6 19.Qd2! but I was not able to employ this bold idea, which a few years later overwhelmed Black in the game Naiditsch-Kramnik, Dortmund 2008. (…) However, before my fourth match with Karpov it transpired thhat the greatest problems are posed by 11.Qh3! dxc4 12.Bxc4 Be7 13.Bg5! (…) But in 1986 the natural move 11.Qh3, strangely enough, was overlooked by both players! We concentrated our analysis on the variations with 11.Qe3+, although at a pre-match training session back in the spring I expressed my scepticism about White’s chances: Black retains an extra pawn and a solid enough position. But Dorfman actively tried to persuade me of the promising nature of White’s position, putting forward seemingly convincing arguments: the black king is kept in the centre and very unusual play begins.

The book is full of such revelations, often interweaved with intrigue and psychological analysis. Let’s have a look at just one of many memorable moments in the 16th match game, the most famous battle of the ‘86 match and probably one of the most complicated games in the history of chess. It not only shows Kasparov’s self-criticism and the new discoveries compared to the 1986 book, but also his attitude towards his old rival.

Kasparov-Karpov
Leningrad m (16) 1986

This is the position after 25…Nbd3?. After this move, Kasparov could have gained the upperhand by means of the move 26.Qc2! but instead he went 26.Ng4? It’s interesting to see what Kasparov writes about this emotional moment:

(…) Thus, after spending more than an hour, Karpov made a serious mistake, but I failed to exploit it. (…) According to Karpov, he suddenly discovered that the prepared invasion at d3 was merely a bluff because of 26.Qc2! but, on failing to find anything better, he nevertheless followed this path. But, fortunately, ‘Kasparov took him at his word’ and missed a winning possibility. I have serious doubts about the sincerity of these words. In a bad position it cannot be denied that bluff is a normal thing, but is Black’s position really so hopeless? I cannot believe that during the game Karpov did not consider invading at d3 with the knight from c5. And yet, after 25…Ncd3, as we were able to establish above, White has no advantage. So why did Karpov nevertheless play 25…Nbd3? The answer suggests itself: he overlooked 26.Qc2! and found the move later, after the conclusion of the game. 26.Bxd3 Nxd3 27.Rxd3 cxd3 28.Nd7 leads to the same draw as after 25…Nbd3 but now Black has 26…cxd3… Stop! Isn’t there that the riddle is concealed? Perhaps Karpov wanted to avoid a forced draw?

In the book Dva Matcha I even attached an exclamation mark to 26…cxd3, thinking that the advantage was now with Black: 27.Nc6 Rxb2 28.Bxb2 Qxb2 29.Re8(??) d2! 30.Ne7+ Kh7 31.Qh5 Qa1+ 32.Kh2 d1=Q 33.Qf5+ g6 34.Qxf7 Qg7 etc. But after 29.Nb1! Black still has to demonstrate that he has sufficient compensation for the exchange (…) and therefore 27…Ra8 28.b4 Qa1 is safer, with equality. (…) In short, the only really dangerous move for Black was 26.Qc2! and Karpov most probably said that he had seen this move at the board, merely in order, after alluding to his supposedly bad position, to vividly describe his desperate ‘heroism’, his indomitable fighting spirit.

If you think this sounds quite shall we say ’unfriendly’ towards Karpov, you’re right, but Kasparov’s tone of voice is a lot more mature than in ‘86, when he wrote about this positions things such as:

Here, to my surprise, Karpov thought for a long time – another point in the game which is difficult to explain. We can hardly expect a candid explanation from the Ex-Champion, and therefore we can only guess at the reasons (…). But fortunately Kasparov took him at his word, and missed a winning possibility… Well now, the question of Kasparov taking him at his word will be considered a little later, but for the moment, my dear Analoty, allow me to question the sincerity of your words…  

Kasparov’s description of the London/Leningrad match is still gripping after all those years – filled with emotion, doubt and also pride. People who already own the 1986 book should definitely buy the new version, not only because of its analysis but also because of the detailed documenting of the proceedings and intrigues surrounding the match, about which I have decided not to reveal anything (partly because I can’t judge its relevancy, partly because it reads like a good detective novel which shouldn’t be spoiled.)

As far as I can tell, what Kasparov writes about the 1987 match in Seville, with its gripping final two games, is mostly new and therefore extremely interesting indeed. Even if we completely ignore the almost heroic efforts of both players in this match and its subsequent drama, candidly evoked by Kasparov, any chess player should be curious what the 13th World Champion has to say about the games themselves.

The first thing I looked up was Kasparov’s description of the 11th match game, with Karpov infamously blundering an exchange in a winning position… at least, that’s how I thought the evaluation of the position was, based on my only official account of this match (apart from the clippings from Dutch newspapers that I collected during the match), namely the book Wereldtweekamp Schaken ‘87 in Sevilla by Hans Böhm, containing analyses of several prominent Dutch chess players.

Karpov-Kasparov
Seville m (11) 1987

In the above mentioned match book, GM Sosonko describes how he was commenting this game for the live audience in Seville, saying: ’Karpov is preparing  the move 35.Rc6, a good positional move, increasing the general pressure and … but wait a minute, that’s impossible. Black plays 35…Na5 and the rook has no squares.’

Karpov did play 35.Rc6?? after which Kasparov showed his incredulous face to the world and played the winning knight move.

Well, according to Sosonko, Karpov was close to winning in this position, and Kasparov’s powerless king moves probably even annoyed Karpov to the point of thinking ‘I’m gonna finish him off!’. Perhaps, Sosonko muses, that’s how this blunder was born. I’ve always assumed that Sosonko’s interpretation must have been quite close to the truth, and the whole episode has become something of a historical mini-tragedy in my mind. Amazingly, Kasparov paints a completely different picture in his new book. After 34…Bb6, he writes:

Black has at last carried out his long-planned regrouping (with the idea of 35.Bxb6 axb6!) and he can breathe a sigh of relief… There was no severe time-trouble that day: we each had about 14 minutes left.

35.Rc6??  Blundering the exchange. I had a strange premonition that this move would be played, and Karpov made it very confidently! Thus the rook, with the distinctive shape of the ancient Seville tower, played a particular role in the Seville match. (…) ‘Of course, 35.Bf2 was essential, still retaining some advantage for White’ (Taimanov). But 35…Rf8 36.Rxf8 Kxf8 37.Bxb6 Nxb6 would have led to a drawn knight ending (…).

Here are a couple of possible conclusions from the above quote:

• During the game, the players didn’t think the position was winning for White
• The correct evaluation of the position after 34…Bb6 is a draw
• Kasparov’s face pulling was triggered not by Karpov’s blunder but by the fact that his premonition suddenly came true

Kasparov’s account of his bad form and personal problems during the match, and how he conquered them in the end, were a revelation to me, too. (For one, you didn’t hear much about this in the newspapers at the time.) In the second half of the book, it’s interesting to note that Kasparov praises his eternal opponent a lot, and is especially critical towards his own attitude in this period of his life. Note the difference with the first part: apparently, some things from the ’86 match still bother Kasparov, making him still emotional after all those years, even though he’s trying real hard to be more objective and less sarcastic now. It will be interesting to see the two lions going at it again in Valencia, Spain, where they will play an exhibition match this september. After reading Kasparov’s book, I finally have more understanding for J.H. Donner’s statement in the same Dutch match book) when he wrote:

Karpov is probably the best player, but Kasparov is meaner. So it’s not that strange that he’s the official world champion. But what does that mean, now that we really have two of them?

I must admit I was too much of a Kasparov fan at the time to see any truth in this statement, but now I’m thinking it really was Karpov’s match more than it was Kasparov’s. It’s almost unbelievable he pulled it off in the 24th game, but then again, you would that expect that from the best player in the world, wouldn’t you? Read the amazing story of  a modern-day resurrection in Seville for yourself - you’re sure to be gripped by it, whether you already knew it or not.

Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986 – 1987 is an instant classic, of course. It contains the highest possible level of chess annotations (Kasparov has been analysing these positions for decades!), always connected to present-day opening theory, and intriguing psychological analysis. Of course, there are moments where Kasparov is a bit annoying, weirdly superstitious or simply arrogant, but who wouldn’t forgive such an author for these trifles? I just felt that all I could do was give a few examples of why this book is so fascinating. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll now go back to my chess set, where the position of the 16th game of the 1986 match is still on the board. You see, I’ve been trying to understand this position for 23 years now without any result, but I finally feel I might actually succeed…

Links

• Get yourself a copy of Kasparov vs. Karpov 1986 – 1987
• Read more ChessVibes book reviews

Opening books and even more opening books: does it ever stop? Not likely, looking at the pile of opening books that have come out recently. In this review, I will look at a small selection of the sample from four different major publishers. But first I’d like to pose a question I have wondered about for as long as I can remember.

Suppose you dislike all this ‘modern theory’ discussions about the Najdorf Sicilian, the Marshall Defense or the Botvinnik Slav. Boring! You decide to play something ‘fun’, something ‘off-beat’. Something ‘creative, yeah! You pick an opening that looks like fun, say the Sokolsky (1.b4). (Why not?) Now what do you do? Here are two options: 

1. You look at some games from strong players, just to get a feel for the typical positions and ideas, and then without much further ado start playing it and have as much fun as possible.

2. You buy as much books as you can (well, at least one really good one) about the opening you selected and start to delve deeply into the intricacies of this new choice of yours, in order to be prepared as much as possible for all possible ways your opponent can react to your off-beat line.  

Personally, I’ve never understood why people would want to go for option 2. I mean, they wanted to be free from all these piles of theoretical knowledge, right? Isn’t buying thick and well-researched book about off-beat openings something of a paradox? But fortunately, it isn’t my job to tell you which option to choose, only to tell you which books are good and which aren’t.

As you’ve probably guessed by now, these thoughts came into my head while reading Jerzy Konikowski & Marek Soszynski’s new book 1.b4 - Theory and Practice of the Sokolsky Opening, published by Russell Enterprises Inc. - a very good book, in case you’re wondering.

In almost 300 pages, Konikowski and Soszynski sketch a rather subtle picture of the Sokolsky opening, which is both not as silly as it looks and not as wild as many people think. The authors are enthusiastic and objective – usually a winning combination – and their book is also full of interesting historical games. They’re also very honest about their approach (the book isn’t meant for white players only), and open about the fact that just last year, another book on the Sokolsky (Play 1.b4 by Lapshun and Conticello, 2008) has appeared:

We did not have sight of it until May 2008, by which time we had virtually completed all our analysis for the present work. Twenty-six of our illustrative games (…) happened to be in their selection of main games too. However, very little in their book prompted us to change our own content.

Moving on to the actual analyses of the book, what I found interesting as a frequent 1.b4 player myself, is that the authors spend a considerable amount of pages on lines that I never considered to be worthy of serious analysis, such as 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6!? which to me has always looked decidedly silly. After all, why weaken your kingside while you can also defend e5 with your d-pawn or take on b4 with tempo?

It’s true that nobody has ever tried this move against me yet, but after reading this book, I think I might try it myself as black some day! The point is, as I should have realized a long time ago, that after 2…f6, Black threatens to take on b4, winning time to play d7-d5, building a strong pawn center as early as move 3. (The authors suggest the interesting pawn sacrifice 3.e4!?, but they’re objective enough to acknowledge that black is probably fine if he knows what he’s doing.)  Also, taking on b4 (2…Bxb4) doesn’t only come with pluses, as the authors explain as follows:

Exchanging the b-pawn for the e-pawn should be in White’s favour since it gives him a central pawn majority and increases the scope of his dark-squared bishop. However, Black counts on a development advantage and on mobilizing his forced aggressively.

This is just one example where 1.b4 – Theory and Practice of the Sokolsky Opening, has taught me something fundamental about this interesting line (and chess openings in general!) that I didn’t know as consciously yet. If you like detailed analysis of both highly tactical and solidly positional ideas you can surprise your opponents with, this is definitely the book for you. For players who just like a general overview of the ideas before playing (or combatting) it, this book is also a fine choice, but it may be a bit too detailed. 

Two recent opening books that cannot be accused of being too detailed, are part 2 and 3 in the Chess Essentials series, published by New in Chess. In part two, all 1.d4 d5 and Queen’s Gambit openings are discussed, while part three deals with Indian Defenses. Since both books contain just under 300 pages, a totally different approach has been taken by the three authors (Stefan Djuric, Dimitri Komarov and Claudio Pantaleoni). The audience they’re writing for are ‘club players who want to understand what’s going on in the opening of a chess game’. 

To make clear the main variations, ideas and the most important players, the publishers have used a few interesting, less conventional methods. The key positions of each opening are displayed in red (yes, red) diagrams. The name(s) of the inventors are in a bold, red font, and references to other sources or sections of the book are also in red.  At first, I found this a bit confusing, but after a while I got used to it and actually found it very useful for finding my way around the books.  

So how do the authors explain ‘what’s going on’ in each opening? As an example which will be useful in this review later on, let’s consider the Dutch Defence (1.d4 f5) which they discuss in part two:

The idea of this move is to prevent 2.e4. Compared to the more natural 1…d5 or 1…Nf6, development will suffer. But in compensation, the advance f7-f5 lays the groundwork for an attack against the white king (which will almost always castle kingside) that is rarely offered by the more classical alternatives.

This is a pretty good start, in my opinion. Also good is that they recommend 2.g3! as ‘without doubt’ White’s best reply: not only is it something which may still be something of a surprise to players who almost automatically push their c-pawn on move 2, but it also shows that the authors aren’t afraid to take a firm stand when necessary.  (Both Karpov and Kasparov have occassionally played 2.c4.) 

However, in this kind of book setup, as the opening progresses and play gets more complex, the descriptions tend to become less firm als also less clear. The authors offer the following explanation for the Stonewall Dutch (which I will bring back to its essence for clarity’s sake):

1.d5 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 d5

Black can also play this move, which characterises the variation after … Be7 or …c6. Given that in recent times Black prefers the variation with …Bd6, we will look at the move when it is played at this point in the game so as to maintain normal convention. 5.Nf3 is White’s usual choice at this stage of the game, and we will discuss it soon. However, there is an important alternative that has an even better performance:

5.Nh3!

(…) Experience has taught us that the best configuration for the white knights is when they are on d3 and f3, from where they both bear down on e5; this placement is even more powerful after an exchange of the dark-squared bishops. In both cases [Nb1-d2-f3; Nf3-e1-d3 and Nb1-d2-f3; Nh3-f4-d3 - AWM] White needs 5 moves to get his knights to d3 and f3. However, in the second case, if Black plays …Bd6 – as he so often does – White has the option to exploit the weakness on the dark squares with Bf4. Naturally, this is only the case if the knight is still on h3, from where it can take the black bishop without compromising White’s pawn structure with gxf4 (…)

 5… c6 6.0-0 Black almost always proceeds with

6…Bd6 Given that this bishop is often exchanged on f4, the classical 6…Be7 has a certain logic. In this case, White can still seek to exchange off the dark bishops with 7.b3 0-0 8.Ba3 Bxa3 9.Nxa3, but then his knight finds itself away from the action.

7.Bf4 Be7!? Paradoxical-looking, but in reality logical: the f4-square is no longer available for the h3 knight. (…)

Several things can be said about this extremely interesting fragment. Let’s start with a small point: there’s a comma missing in the comment after 4…d5 between ‘variation’ and ‘after’, without which the whole sentence doesn’t make sense. This adds to the confusion which is sure to arise in the next lines: why does Black prefer … Bd6 in recent times when the main line the authors give leads to unclear play, and when 6…Be7 has ’a certain logic’? Why, if 5.Nh3 scores so well, are games where Nf3 is played so much more frequent? Aren’t there some tricky move-order things going on here? What if White plays Nh3 (or Nf3) later, or earlier, and what happens to the ‘normal convention’ when Black delays the move d7-d5? There is an answer, but it’s a complex one – too complex for this book, as it turns out: I will discuss it in the next paragraph. 

However, let’s not forget the good things of the above passage: readers are made aware of the possibility of Nh3 instead of Nf3, the questions of when, whether (and how) to exchange dark squared bishops, they’ve learned a valuable lesson about how the post e5 should be occupied and, later on, they do get a flavour of some of the interesting complications that can arise in this opening. However, the explanations are increasingly shallow as the game progesses and this can lead to confusion or even annoyance. This is a necessary evil of such books, of course, and players who do not care for such trifles will find Chess Opening Essentials 2 and 3 to be valuable and easy-accessible guides to the basic ideas of all major chess openings.

In case you’re intrigued by the Stonewall problems mentioned above, I can heartily recommend Win with the Stonewall Dutch by Sverre Johnson and Ivar Bern, recently published by Gambit. This book is an enthusiastic and solid invitation to, as Vladimir Kramnik put it, ‘one  of only a few openings where Black achieves an immediate advantage in space’.  It contains a detailed overview of the main lines (divided into 12 ‘lessons’), lots of illustrated high-level games and a lot of useful excercises. Move-order issues are handled with care – something such extreme much care, that new confusion arises! Regarding the Nf3/Nh3 discussion, it turns out to be inseparable from the c4/no c4 question – a question which is ignored altogether by Djuric, Komarov and Pantaleoni. If White goes c4 on one of his first moves, Black shouldn’t play 4…d5 at all, but 4…c6 first, and only then decide whether to go …d5 or …d6:

1. d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4. c4 c6! Black tries to discourage White from playing 5.Nh3 by indicating that he might go for …d6 and …e5 instead of a Stonewall structure. This plan takes advantage of the fact that Nh3 doesn’t control the e5 square. (…)  

Please note that I don’t want to show that Chess Opening Essentials is wrong, just that it’s impossible to be precise and complete in such books. Anyway, there is no such thing as a perfect opening book, because Win with the Stonewall Dutch is also a bit unclear on some points, as I will try to show now. The authors discuss the inaccurate move 4…d5 after which they indeed recommend 5.Nh3. Their explanation of the question Bd6/Be7 starts off in a similar was as the previous one, and then adds important information to it:

4…d5?! 5.Nh3! c6 6.0-0 Bd6

Black intends to meet 7.Bf4 with 7…Be7 and then try to prove that it is to Black’s advantage that the f4-square is occupied by a bishop (taking the square from the h3-knight). However, 6…Be7!? is a logical alternative. (…) 7.b3 0-0 and now 8.Ba3 Bxa3 transposes to the main game, but 8.Bb2!?, intending to play for the classical set-up with knights on f3 and d3, is logical as it’s harder for Black to prepare …c5 with …b6 and … Bb7 when the bishop is on e7. (…) With the bishop on e7 it’s hard to find a good square for the black queen. If Black plans …b6 and …Bb7 he needs something to protect the e6 pawn, which will be attacked by the knight when it reaches f4. (…)

7.b3!?This is one of the relatively few options which Black can avoid with the 4…c6 move-order. The ensuing play should remind you of certain themes from Lesson 1 [which discussed the variation 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.b3 - AWM] . White succeeds in exchanging dark-squared bishops on a3, but with the knight on h3 (instead of f3 as in Lesson 1), Black can create counterplay in the centre with …e5. 7.Bf4 is the main continuation, transposing to Game 41 after 7…Be7 8.Qc2.

Although I couldn’t find any flaws in the above explanation, I must admit the authors still lost me at some point. And when I saw that Game 41 starts off with 4…c6 5.Qc2 (instead of 5.Nh3), I realized I would have to put a lot more work into this opening before it all would make sense. Win with the Stonewall Dutch is not only an enthusiastic book about an interesting and fun opening – it is also a very difficult and high-level book for serious chess students who not only are interested in this particular opening but in chess strategy in general. Highly recommened.

I started this review with a question, so I may as well end with one. Which do you think is heavier: the fiftheenth and latest edition of Batsford’s Modern Chess Openings, or my new Sony Vaio laptop (without battery)? Well, it’s a very close call, but the book still triumphs the machine, making it still slightly more convenient for the tournament player to pack your BCO instead of any light laptop with a database and opening book. Of course, BCO is more than just a digital book with lines and evalutations, but my guess is books this like won’t be around for too much longer. This doesn’t mean BCO isn’t a good book: it’s still an extremely well-researched piece of work which gives a both compact and detailed overview of the current opening theory.

It’s impossible to do a proper review of this massive 700+ page book, so as a final excercise, let’s look at what BCO has to say about the Stonewall and the Sokolsky. BCO doesn’t delve into the discussion of whether to play c4 or not, and simply gives 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 as the tabiya of the Stonewall Defense. After this, both 5.Nf3 and 5.Nh3 are analysed. After 5.Nh3, they give both 5…Be7 and 5…Bd6 (but not 5…c6). After Be7,they analyse the line with 7.b3 and 8.Bb2 (instead of Ba3) – it’s the same as Johnsen and Bern. 5…Bd6 (not mentioned by Johnsen and Bern) is ‘a good alternative’ according to BCO, leading to a position where ‘White’s edge is small’ after 12 moves. I’m afraid it all leaves me in a state of utter bewilderment.

As for 1.b4, BCO’s main line is actually 1…e5 2.Bb2 f6 after which they, too, suggest the pawn sacrifice 3.e4!?, though it does in the end lead to an advantage for Black. Confusing? Well, maybe one shouldn’t take opening books too seriously. Sometimes it’s much better to just play chess and worry about theory after the game.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of 1.b4 – Theory and Practice of the Sokolsky Opening
• Get yourself a copy of Chess Essentials Volume 2
• Get yourself a copy of Chess Essentials Volume 3
• Get yourself a copy of Win with the Stonewall Dutch
• Get yourself a copy of Batsford Modern Chess Openings
• Read more ChessVibes book reviews

If you could use some fresh, ready-to-go opening ideas, then here is good news: SOS – Secrets of Opening Surprises, Volume 11 is out!

SOS means completely new and unusual opening ideas, early deviations from the regular lines in mainstream openings. With an SOS you will throw your opponent off balance and gain valuable time on the clock.

In this latest volume of SOS you’ll find contributions of famous players such as Aagaard, Rogozenco, Mikhalchishin, Tiviakov, Kogan and many others, all edited by Mr SOS, IM Jeroen Bosch.

All the SOS’s in Volume 11 are brand new, never having appeared before, anywhere!

Please, have a look at all the variations covered in SOS 11.

You can order SOS 11 here.

An important moment in chess publishing: Garry Kasparov has written the next episode of his historic clashes with Anatoly Karpov.

The third volume of Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess has just been released. It covers the third and fourth matches (1986-1987) in which the two rivals continued their battle for the World Championship.

Who doesn’t remember the 1986 sensational final stages? Kasparov lost three games in a row to see his comfortable lead vanish and, with one game to go, regained his composure just in time.

In 1987, again, the end was nerve-racking. Karpov only needed a draw
in the last game to regain the title, but it all turned out differently after
a two-day thriller.

Kasparov gives you the inside story, the background details of the games and the matches, as well as in-depth analyses of the games themselves.

Please have a look at Kasparov – Karpov: the 3rd and 4th Matches.

The first week of July is always an important moment for those of you who didn’t subscribe to New In Chess Magazine yet.

Because NOW you can get the complete 2008 year volume at a very attractive price !

You only pay €49.95 for 8 volumes with over 800 pages of the very best in chess. The 2008 complete volume includes:
– the special collector’s issue on Bobby Fischer
– Vasily Ivanchuk’s super score in Sofia
– Anand-Kramnik World Championship special
– Garry Kasparov’s exclusive columns
– annotations by the world’s greatest players interviews, portraits, full colour pictures, essays, columns, book reviews, history, endgame studies, opening surprises and much more!

Jeremy Silman called it “the best chess magazine of all time.”

Carsten Hansen said: “a fantastic magazine (..) unparalleled and beyond comparison.”

Save up to 25% on 5 issues of New In Chess Magazine here.

1. Jeroen Bosch, "The SOS Files" (offering recent games with lines discussed in previous editions), pp. 8-21
2. Dorian Rogozenco, "The Blumenfeld Gambit" (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5 5.Bg5 b4), pp. 22-28.
3. Jeroen Bosch, "The Lewis Gambit" (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d4), pp. 29-33.
4. Dimitri Reinderman, "The Retreat Variation" (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8), pp. 34-40.
5. Adrian Mikhalchishin, "Steinitz’s Anti-French" (1.e4 e6 2.e5), pp. 41-43.
6. Arthur Kogan, "Slav: the Bellon-Murey Variation" (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 a5), pp. 44-53.
7. Jeroen Bosch, "Slav: a Marshall Gambit of Sorts" (1.d4 d5 2.c3 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 Bb4 5.Bd2), pp. 54-59
8. Alexander Finkel, "Queen’s Fianchetto in the Alekhine" (1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.b3), pp. 60-65.
9. Igor Lysyj, "Grünfeld Indian: Kruppa Variation" (1.d4 d5 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bg5), pp. 66-72.
10. Igor Khenkin, "SOS in a Flexible Caro-Kann" (1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e5 Ne4), pp. 73-78.
11. Sergey Tiviakov, "Queen’s Indian: Double Fianchetto" (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Bb7 5.Nc3 g6), pp. 79-88.
12. Adrian Mikhalchishin, "Sicilian: Romanishin Variation" (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.c4), pp. 89-92.
13. Jeroen Bosch, "Modern Provocation" (1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 Nc6), pp. 93-99.
14. David Navara, "Tricky Line vs the Slav" (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5.Qd3), pp. 100-115.
15. Alexander Finkel, "Taking Chances in the Volga" (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb4 e6), pp. 116-122.
16. Or Cohen, "Petroff for Beginners" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4), pp. 123-134.
17. Jeroen Bosch, "Winning Ugly in the Tarrasch" (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bg6 f6), pp. 135-143.

Nakamura-Friedel
Position after 8.Bd3!?

Nakamura-Friedel
White to play and win.

• Nick DeFirmian, "ICC Chess FM Game of the Day, Round 9: Nakamura - Friedel"
  Excellent and detailed GM commentary, practically move by move, directed at a broad range of players. Typically this is by subscription only, but for the US Championship they have made it available for free. Best with Internet Explorer. Follow the links on the left for additional Game of the Day coverage. I especially recommend the commentary on Nakamura's round 7 win over Akobian.
  
  
• Dennis Monokroussos, "Hikaru Nakamura, 2009 US Champion"
  Monokroussos has also annotated a game each round and this final post on the championship links to notes on Nakamura - Friedel as well as previous posts.
  
  
• The St. Louis Chess Club's tournament site
  The St. Louis Chess Club is simply gorgeous and doing everything right. Their website embeds video coverage of each round. The last video includes an interview with Nakamura where he comments on the Friedel game.
  
  
• ICC's ChessFM Channel on YouTube
  Features all of the videos embedded at the tournament site, available in HD.
  
  
• Jennifer Shahade, "Nakamura 2009 US Champion"
  The USCF offered very good round by round coverage of the news.
  
  
• Dylan Loeb McClain, "Nakamura Wins Second US Championship"
  News and some annotated games from The New York Times chess blog.
  
  
• "Hikaru Nakamura is the US Champion" from ChessBase
  Excellent photographs and the PGN file of all games.
  

Dangerous Weapons: The Pirc and Modern has just arrived.

In this latest volume of the Dangerous Weapons series, Richard Palliser, James Vigus and Colin McNabon present some shocking ideas in these dynamic, interrelated defences.

World Champion Viswanathan Anand, for instance, teaches how you can castle into the Argentinean Attack and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov uses a cunning sidestep against the sharp Austrian Attack.

If you are looking for ideas for White facing the Pirc or the Modern, this book also includes chapters such as ‘An Early Lunge’ (2.h4), ‘Not the 150 Atttack’, and the ‘Delayed Spike’ (6.g4).

Actually there is really too much to mention just here, so if you want
to find out more about 224 pages of heavy armor, click here.

? L'opera prima di John Cipollina!

E? per Scacchierando motivo di grande orgoglio che l?impegno di divulgazione a favore della crescita degli NC stia raccogliendo ?grandi successi. Oggi proponiamo l?opera prima del grande John Cipollina, un lavoro prezioso e immaginifico.

?

Viviamo in un periodo di grande fervore scacchistico: il popolo degli NC si sta moltiplicando e spera giustamente e meritatamente in risultati degni di candidatura e di rilevanza magistrale. Presto turbe di neofiti esuberanti si riverseranno nei tornei dando l' assalto a fortezze inespugnabili, armati dell' incoscienza temeraria e della sicurezza traballante tipiche dell' NC.

Ma come fare per poter andare in loro aiuto? O meglio, come fare per soccorrere l' inesperto tra i meandri del gioco più bello e forse più complicato che l' uomo abbia mai inventato? Certo troppo comodo dire "studia di più le aperture", "studia approfonditamente il mediogioco e i finali", "non serve studiare le aperture", "studia solo i finali", "riguardati le partite giocate", "leggi questo", "leggi quello", "Dvoretsky è insuperabile", "il Ponziani è un pò superato", "Berliner non capisce una cippa" etc etc.

Sono consigli buoni presi singolarmente ma tutti insieme generano solo confusione e sconforto, e il vero NC ha bisogno di ben altro. Signori qui serve un Concentrato , una Guida, una Summa per poter veramente comprendere l' arte scacchistica e soprattutto per risparmiare tempo e fatica: la soluzione è la collana "I Bignami degli Scacchi". In poche righe sarò in grado di concentrare il vero significato delle opere scacchistiche più gettonate, dopotutto chi di noi invece che leggersi "I Promessi Sposi" non ha ripiegato sull' omonimo Bignami per sostenere l' interrogazione: chi se ne importa dei riflessi del lago o del vento che tira, l' importante è sapere che ci troviamo nel Lago di Como ed è inverno. Ed è con questo spirito che dovrete accostarvi alla lettura dei Bignami degli Scacchi, uno spirito lucido, pragmatico, solido , fiducioso e moderno!

-

"Pensa come un grande maestro" di Alexander Kotov

Il tutto si riduce alla scelta di tre mosse candidate e alla successiva analisi fino a trovare qualcosa di soddisfacente. Un pò quello che fanno i computer con la differenza che utilizzano un pò più di tre candidate. Quello che c'è da sapere è che:

1. le tre candidate che scegliete saranno tutte e tre errate;

2. anche se aumentate il numero delle candidate difficilmente ne troverete una che sia buona;

3. se trovate una buona candidata sarà sicuramente sbagliata l' analisi successiva;

4. se trovate una buona candidata e analizzate tutto correttamente nel frattempo vi sarà caduta la bandierina e sarete rimasti chiusi nell' area di gioco da soli.

-

"Teoria e pratica degli squilibri" di Jeremy Silman

Questo è facile facile....

Avete un cavallo e il vostro avversario ha un alfiere ? E' uno squilibrio.

Avete 3 pedoni contro 6 dell' avversario ? E' uno squilibrio.

Avete uno o due pezzi in meno dell' avversario? E' uno squilibrio.

Avete 200 o 300 punti Elo in meno dell' avversario? E' uno squilibrio.

La lista sarebbe lunga ma credo che ci siamo capiti!

-

"School of chess excellence" di Mark Dvoretsky

Si tratta di una collana di 5 volumi di difficoltà mostruosa infatti nel 1999 ha vinto il "premio Ballbreakerovsky" per la variante più lunga con all' interno il maggior numero di sottovarianti : 2 pagine e 28 parentesi. Ho un amico FM che dopo aver letto tutti e cinque i volumi si è dato alla dama. Serve soprattutto per fare bella figura parlandone con altri scacchisti che, come voi, non l'avranno letta.

-

"Il sistema" di Hans Berliner

L' autore si vanta di aver praticamente risolto il gioco degli scacchi asserendo che anzichè 1.e4?? è meglio 1.d4!! Sotto i colpi di questo genio crollano miseramente tutte le difese come il Gambetto di Donna, la Grunfeld o la Slava, c'è quindi il rischio di ottenere delle vittorie col bianco ma l'importante è tenere i piedi per terra, ricordarsi che siete NC e che siete quindi in grado di perdere indipendentemente dal tipo di apertura. Il vantaggio sta nel fatto che se invece avete il nero potete dire che il vostro avversario conosceva alla perfezione il libro.

-

"Capire gli scacchi mossa dopo mossa" di John Nunn

Raccolta di partite spiegate letteralmente mossa dopo mossa, è utile perchè spesso quando un GM abbandona l'NC pensa che lo faccia perchè ha finito il tempo e invece l' autore prosegue nell' analisi e spiega che c'è matto imparabile in 2 o addirittura in 3 mosse. E' difficilmente Bignamizzabile ma potete vantarvi di averlo letto , magari in sede di analisi spiegando a tutti a cosa servono le mosse che giocate. Ad esempio potete aprire 1.d4 e dire ad alta voce "questa è buona perchè controllo e5 e c5 e libero donna e alfiere camposcuro", poi dopo la terza o quarta mossa fingete un improvviso calo di voce e il gioco è fatto.

-

"60 Partite da ricordare" di Bobby Fischer

Tranquilli non è una minaccia, le partite non ve le dovete imparare a memoria ma sono già raccolte nel libro. Mi raccomando, ricordate che le partite sono tutte dell' autore e che nel libro ci sono molti più aneddoti e commenti sugli avversari che sulle partite. Se qualcuno vi chiede un giudizio voi tracciate un profilo di Fischer in parti uguali fra il genio invincibile e lo stronzetto egocentrico. Quello che non mi torna è il fatto che Fischer le abbia vinte quasi tutte per il tempo?

-

"New traps in the chess opening" di Al Horowitz

E' una raccolta di 175 trappole infernali che consentono di guadagnare materiale o addirittura mattare l' incauto avversario nelle primissime mosse. Sono molto carine anche se non proprio indicate per l' NC in quanto:

1. non è detto che con un paio di pedoni in più l' NC riesca a vincere;

2. non è detto nemmeno che con un paio di pezzi in più l' NC riesca a vincere;

3. in tre anni che ce l' ho nessuno è caduto in nessuna delle 175 trappole infernali;

4. potreste accorgervi di averle già incontrate nei panni dell' incauto avversario mattato nelle primissime mosse;

5. Chi è Al Horowitz?

-

"Scuola di scacchi" di Pietro Ponzetto

Qui dovete fare molta attenzione miei cari NC, in quanto questo libro dovrà essere per voi quello che è l' aglio per i vampiri: dovete starci il più alla larga possibile perchè potrebbe insegnarvi efficacemente qualcosa. Se vi capita di parlarne con qualcuno dovete sapere come comportarvi distinguendo sulla base del divario tecnico con il vostro interlocutore:

1. se lo reputate più forte di voi liquidate il tutto con un "il Ponzetto è un pò superato" e ci fate bella figura;

2. se lo reputate più schiappa di voi ditegli di starci il più alla larga possibile.

-

"Elementi di strategia scacchistica" di Mario Leoncini

Valgono più o meno gli stessi concetti espressi per "Scuola di scacchi" con la differenza che non potete dire che è superato, perchè se non sbaglio è del 1996. In sostanza alla larga anche da questo se no imparate a giocare, e se ne parlate con qualcuno più forte di voi ditegli che è il libro che usate per insegnare a vostro figlio o alla vostra ragazza.

-

"Capire le aperture" di Stefan Djuric, Dimitri Komarov e Claudio Pantaleoni

Si tratta di una collana di tre volumi sui tre tipi di aperture 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4/1.Cf3 e minori. E' un' opera di poco aiuto per l' NC in quanto ogni volume presenta alcuni problemini.

Vol.1 Tutto su 1.e4

Vi spiega tutto per una decina di mosse e poi stop...ma non vi preoccupate tanto dopo 10 minuti non vi ricorderete nemmeno il nome dell' apertura, altro che dieci mosse!! L' importante sarà impiegare bene sul campo frasi come "il nero ha compenso ma è oggettivamente difficile valutarne la portata", "rimane l' impressione che il bianco abbia qualche chance in più" o "il nero a gioco corretto dovrebbe riuscire a equilibrare il gioco". Si tratta di frasi vere e valide sia per il GM che per l' NC e il loro impiego a dismisura farà aumentare la vostra popolarità e credibilità all' interno della comunità scacchistica.

Vol.2 Tutto su 1.d4

Ha il problema di avere più pagine (ciò fa aumentare sensibilmente il peso e il costo) che rendono difficile l' utilizzo fisico/meccanico del libro: tende a chiudersi con gran facilità, specie se tenuto con una mano sola. Risulta così impossibile l' utilizzo contemporaneo di libro/scacchiera e se provate a utilizzarlo blindfold non riuscireste ad andare oltre la copertina.

Vol. 3 Tutto su 1.c4 1.Cf3 e minori

Figuriamoci se un NC si può accostare ad una apertura minore!

-

La carrellata finisce qui miei cari NC, spero di esservi stato di aiuto. Ora devo andare, ho in ballo una partita per corrispondenza che non mi fa chiudere occhio: pensavo di avere compenso ma mi è rimasta l' impressione che , a gioco corretto, il bianco abbia qualche chance in più?

Alla prossima, John Cipollina

?

Solo una piccola chiusa: non sempre si valuta il sacrificio che tracciare la strada al grande sviluppo degli NC comporta. E? questo il caso del grandissimo John Cipollina: nel rivisitare tanti testi scacchistici per trarne la superba sintesi condotta ha assimilato, suo malgrado, alcuni scampoli di sapere scacchistico e, tanto inopinatamente quanto involontariamente, si è trovato a passare seconda nazionale. John si è immolato perché altri potessero attraversare indenni i meandri della nostra editoria: mi permetto di esprimere la più profonda gratitudine per la sua opera.

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.

Authored by notable chess educators Igor Khmelnitsky, Michael Khodarkovsky and Michael Zadorozny, and editorialized by Pete Tamburro, the materials provide teachers with mechanics to lead a group of beginning students from the rudiments of chess rules to the ability of playing a full game in a competent manner. Combined, they bring a 21st Century approach to teaching one of the oldest strategy games in existence.

The authors have produced an exceptionally user-friendly curriculum so that teachers can help their students improve the educational experience in so many rich and rewarding ways, said editor Pete Tamburro.

Susan herself is developing the structured curriculum, personally teaching many of the courses along with other top chess players and professional instructors who will be joining the faculty as the school grows. Polgar Chess University is initially offered in this format:

* Courses identified by level—Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced
* Three general courses, one at each level, run concurrently
* Course lessons are prerecorded lectures that may be viewed at your convenience
* A new lesson in each course is offered each week, on Mondays
* Earlier lessons may be retrieved from the library at no extra cost
* More specialized courses, along with special guests and events, are planned for the future

Dear Chess Friend,

Our SPRING SALE is on, wich means fabulous savings on a wide range of high quality products.
All these titles, at 50 % OFF, only until April 19:

SOS Volume 4	The Modern Morra Gambit	Timman: Power Chess With Pieces	Yearbook 83	Tactics In The Chess Opening 4
Yearbook 77	Engaging Pieces	New In Chess 2005 complete (8 issues)	Danish Dynamite	E.Lasker: Common Sense in Chess
Wonderboy Magnus Carlsen	Fearsome Four Pawns Attack	A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames	Jeremy Silman: Amateur’s Mind	Yearbook 79
V.Bologan Selected Games	Yearbook 84	Chess Bitch	How to Think in Chess	Jan Timman On the Attack
Moral Victories - Tartakower	Hooked on Chess	MATTEN 4 (Dutch)	Back to Basic: Tactics

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: