Sverre's Chess Corner

Killer Opening Repertoire Reviewed

2012-01-23T08:59:00.000+01:00

Today I received a newsletter from Chessville informing me that Bill McGeary has reviewed "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire":

The review is in general favourable and contains no big surprises. In my opinion the reviewer somewhat misses the mark when he writes:
"Another thing is that the book is dated. Certainly the material in this book is very good, but a number of the lines have evolved a great deal since the first edition. Johnsen writes that only six new games appear in this edition and only one was taken out, also that some games were expanded."
My objection is that the main updating went into the notes and not into the games selection. Sean Marsh' review in Marsh Towers comes closer to my point of view: "Opening the book at random, I discovered an average of five post-1998 game references per double-page spread. Despite the outward appearance, showing (at first glance) the book to be more or less the same as the old edition, it is clear that Sverre has put a lot of work into creating this new edition, while keeping his footsteps very discrete."

Anyway, the review is mostly positive and for those too busy to look up and read the entire review, I quote McGeary's concluding words:
"I like this book a lot and would recommend it to players in the 1700-2100 range. At club level the material will be a heavy winner and in local tournaments nearly as potent. The most valuable aspect for readers of the book is seeing how the opening flows together as the piece arrangements work with the selected pawn structures. A perfect book for improving players in the rating range I mentioned."

These words certainly were true for the original edition and I hope I have contributed to the book's longevity.

Quality King's Gambit Now for March

2011-12-17T17:28:00.001+01:00

Another delay for Quality Chess' King's Gambit book. Now they are heading for March. I expect more delays but obviously something is happening as there now is a new cover:

It looks good but I still think the King's Gambit should wear something more classical.

King's Gambit Delayed Again

2011-11-28T16:01:00.000+01:00

In their updated publishing schedule, Quality Chess announces another delay for Shaw's book on the King's Gambit, which was previously announced for December.

A pity - a good fireside book would have been an added delight for the Christmas holidays.

Veresov Books

2011-10-19T15:00:00.002+01:00

Some time ago a reader asked for advise on (Richter-) Veresov books. Unfortunately there is in my opinion no really good book on the Veresov. The dedicated books that I am aware of are:

A Ferocious Opening Repertoire
Author: Lakdawala
Publisher: Everyman 2011
Cyrus Lakdawala is a good writer. I find his style somewhat chatty but for many subjects that fits very well. Unfortunately he was probably not the right author for this subject. Not because it actually was his brother that used to play the Veresov but because Cyrus (possibly in contrast to his brother Jimmy) doesn't seem very interested in exact variations and tactical complications but prefers to discuss strategy and pawn structures.

My assessment: ****

The Veresov: Surprise Your Opponents with the Tricky 2 Nc3!
Author: Davies
Publisher: Everyman 2003
I may have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog but I must admire Davies for the consistent high quality on his products (including his electronic ones). This too is a quite good book although not terribly ambitious. The author offers some sensible advice on how to select a Veresov repertoire but his analytical input seems relatively modest.

My assessment: ****

Richter-Veresov: the Chameleon Chess Repertoire

Authors: Gufeld and Stetsko

Publisher: Thinkers’ Press 1999

This book is an interesting documentation of a struggle between a publisher who really wants to make a good book and a pair of authors who really want to make some fast bucks. The result is uneven and not really good but there are hidden nuggets of gold. Gufeld was a strong player and when pressed he was able to present good analysis.

My assessment: ***

The Veresov Attack

Authors: Smith/Hall

Publisher: Chess Digest 1994

This book is full of inaccuracies and the publisher has attempted to transform a magazine article to a book by adding lots of white space.

My assessment: **

Queen's Pawn: Veresov System
Author: Bellin
Publisher: Batsford 1983
Bellin is one of my favorite authors, and I really like this old book which combines good prose with well selected analysis and game fragments. Unfortunately it's now so old that it's mainly a collectors' item.

My assessment: *****

Richter Veresov System

Author: J.Adams

Publisher: The Chess Player 1978

In 1978 - before the time of game databases - this was quite a useful book. It contains a lot of well organized games and game fragments (some of them of rather low quality) and hardly any words or analysis.
It should be added that the cover of my copy looks a bit better.

My assessment: **

Scale:
******: Perfect
*****: Very good
****: Good workmanship
***: Worth the money
**: Only for collectors
*: Stay away!

A Challenging Subject

2011-10-14T13:48:00.000+01:00

The King's Gambit seems to be an extraordinary difficult subject.

First the publication date of Quality Chess' book on the King's Gambit again was delayed. Now it's scheduled for December (the book's info page has not yet been updated). Obviously this may have been a tactical delay in order to prevent Taylor from referencing the QC book in his competing book.

The response was quick and predictable. Now it's Taylor's book that is delayed with eigth months and scheduled for August 2012. Quality's counter move is not hard to suggest...

However, somehow I don't think tactical considerations are the main reason for these delays. More likely the problems are analytical obstacles. The two principal challenges for anyone writing on the King's Gambit are:

Black has got unusually many playable defences. They are not all equally strong but they are Black's choices and he may have prepared them well.
The established mainlines in the Kiezeritsky and Fischer defences may be fine for White in theory. However, they are quite difficult for White to handle and don't appear appealing to the typical aggressive KG player.

I will not at all be surprised if these books are delayed again. So now I am pondering the consequences for my own KG plans. The ideal situation would be to publish without any competing books at all, but that obviously isn't an option. The second best option seems to be to publish shortly after the main competitors, being able to build on their efforts. That would involve a lot of patience but as a matter of fact I have ideas for how to fill the wating time.

The Muzio Family

2011-10-08T21:20:00.003+01:00

Chess nomenclature is a difficult subject in general and in particular within the King's Gambit. For most practical players it is also a relatively uninteresting subject. So I will try to keep such discussions to a minimum in my coming King's Gambit book. However, I want what little I include to be as correct as possible. Therefore I will give the subject some coverage on this blog in the hope that knowledgeable readers may correct anything wrong or even debatable.

In this entry I will try to identify and name White's positional piece sacrifices after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5.

I: The Polerio Attack

4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0! gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)

The Polerio Attack, may be considered head of the Muzio Family. It is generally regarded as fairly respectable. However, it's quite possible that correct play leads to a forced repetition (which theoretically isn't a good result for White).

II: The Lolli attack

5 Bxf7+? Kxf7 6 Nxe5 (D)

The Lolli Attack is the black sheep of the Muzio family. White gives up his bishop instead of his knight and wins some time. Unfortunately White has insufficient compensation as Black after 6...Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 starts winning his tempi back. The Lolli may be acceptable as a blitz or coffee house weapon but is probably unplayable above mediocre club level chess.

III: The Ghulam Kassim Attack

4 Bc4 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)

This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 d4 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the Ghulam Kassim Attack after the Indian player who published analysis on it around 1826 (at least the publication seems to have been available in 1843). It may transpose to a (probably good) variation of the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but White may also consider castling queenside.

IV: The MacDonnell Attack

4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)

This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 Nc3 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the MacDonnell Attack. It may transpose to the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but is more likely to merge with the Ghulam Kassim Attack after a quick d4 and queenside castling.

V: The Rosentreter Attack

4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)

This is the Rosentreter Attack which obviously is closely related to the Ghulam Kassim Attack, to which it may quickly transpose with an early d4.

Instead 5 Bc4 would lead to the Ghulam Kassim Attack while 5 Nc3 would lead to the Sørensen Attack (below).

VI: The Sørensen Attack

4 Nc3 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)

This position I believe should be called the Sørensen Attack but I assume that some will argue that it should rather be the Quaade Attack. I am not at all sure what's correct and will try to look at bit deeper into the matter. My reasons for preferring Sørensen over Quaade are:

The mainline in the Quaade variation is 5 Ne5. It may even be argued that this knight move is the idea behind 4 Nc3 (as it is more or less unplayable in the Rosentreter variation, 4 d4).
In Bilguer's Handbuch, the line is attributed to Sørensen.

Instead 5 Bc4 would have transposed to the MacDonnell Attack.

This classification I think is the easy part of the Muzio nomenclature. The real challenge is to find good classification principles when the lines merge (as they tend to do). Maybe I will return to that subject in a future post.

Cover Uncovered

2011-09-22T14:35:00.001+01:00

Taylor's King's Gambit book now has a cover:

I cannot say I find it beautiful. I think the King's Gambit should wear something more classical. However, it probably draws a potential buyer's attention and that's quite an important feature.

I have so far not paid much attention to cover design but I have been very pleased with the covers by Wolff Morrow that Gambit Publication has provided for my books. That attitude will quite soon have to change as the books I plan to publish will need covers. The classic and relatively easy solution is a picture of the subject position on a good-looking wooden chess set. Unfortunately that will not draw a lot of attention, so I will need to add a twist. I will keep my eyes open.

On the Horizon

2011-09-10T08:33:00.002+01:00

There are at least two new King's Gambit books on the horizon before my own book hopefully will be available some time in late spring 2012.

First in the row is John Shaw for Quality Chess with simply 'The King's Gambit':

The book is scheduled for October 2011. However, it has now been delayed so many times (and even changed author) that I take the announced publishing date with a grain of salt.

I have more confidence in the content. Quality Chess have sometimes delivered products with surprising gaps in the material but their analysis has always been excellent.

Next out is Timothy Taylor for Everyman Chess with 'Attacking Chess: The King's Gambit'. Judging from the Everyman site it hasn't yet got a cover design. The book is scheduled for January 2012 (in EU) and as far as I know Taylor has generally kept his deadlines. His analysis tend to be lighter and somewhat less trustworthy QC's but often thought provoking. I look forward to seeing his effort.

How will the existence of these two influence the sales potential for a third book? I must admit that I don't know. One point in my favour is the fact that I probably will be able to list these competing books in my bibliography. Reviews and publishing order will certainly influence the sales numbers. My gut feeling is that those who already love the King's Gambit will open their pockets and buy all new material but maybe the financial uncertainity even will influence this part of the economy?
Another factor is the position and reputation of the chess publishing companies. How easy will it be to convince London Chess Center, Niggemann, New in Chess or Chess4Less to promote a book from a new publishing company. I am eager to find out!

A Brief Return to Chess Blogging

2011-09-06T13:32:00.002+01:00

My apologies for letting this blog sleep for so long with no explanation. I will return for some months now and some time in the spring 2012 I hope to move to a more appropriate forum for my future chess writing.

Quite likely a lot of my next postings will be about the King's Gambit (D).

I am working on a manuscript on this fascinating opening now. I feel I have a lot of good content but I am struggling with the organization of the material. And of course there is always the danger that essential variations are refuted during analysis.

For now I don't have any co-author but I hope that will change in the coming month.

PS: I am using a new set of tools to produce diagrams. I expect there will be some test and trials for the next few days.

The Queen's Pawn Family 2 - Krause Variation

2010-11-26T07:11:00.004+01:00

If you want to make your Queen's Pawn Opening an all round weapon, you may have to face the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5!? (D).

Now Lakdawala recommends 3.c3 in order to reach the London safely, and that may also be the best attempt for those hoping for something related to the Torre. For Colle players, 3.e3 is the obvious choice. Unfortunately it's less clear that this will give White an edge than the Nimzo move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 - after all Black hasn't blocked his light-squared bishop.

However, none of these moves appears particularly threathening to Black's opening. It could be argued that Black is too optimistic trying to take on White's role in the early phase of the game. If that's the case, White now should play energetically in order to punish Black's arrogance. White's critical moves in the diagram position probably are:

A: 3.dxc5
B: 3.c4
C: 3.g3
Let's look a little deeper:

A:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.dxc5
White is playing a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted. I will not go into much detail here, as this move was the repertoire choice in "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". I will only point out one omission and one important alternative for White:
3...e6
3...Nc6?! probably is dubious and wasn't mentioned in the Killer Repertoire. One interesting attempt at refutation is 4.a3 a5 5.Nc3 and now:
a) 5...e6 6.Na4!? seems sufficient to keep the c-pawn.
b) 5...Nf6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Nxe5 Bxc5 8.Nd3 also gave White a safe extra pawn in Bogdanovich-Hubel, Crailsheim 1998.
c) 5...d4 probably is too optimistic: 6.Nb5 e5 7.e3 Bg4 8.Be2 (even stronger may be 8.exd4 exd4 9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Nd6+ Kf8 11.Bf4) 8...Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Bxc5 10.exd4 Bxd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.0–0 with an obvious advantage for White in Matlak-Orsag, Karvina 1992.
4.e4!?
This is an important alternative to 4.c4 which was recommended in the Killer Repertoire.
4...Bxc5
It seems White can keep an advantage after 4...Nf6 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.Bd3:
a) 6...Bxc5 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.0–0 Nbd7 9.Bf4 a6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Rad1+ += Kharlov-Cifuentes Parada, Leeuwarden 1994.
b) 6...Qxc5 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Be7 9.Be3 Qa5 10.a3 a6 11.Qe2 0–0 12.Rfd1 Qc7 13.Bg5 b6 14.Ne4 Bb7 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7 17.Qd3+ Kg8 18.Qxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxd7 Bxb2 20.Rb1 Bxf3 21.Rxb2 Be4 22.Rxb6 Bxc2 23.Rbb7 += Ki.Georgiev-Seirawan, Brussels 1992.
5.exd5 exd5 (D)

In this fairly typical IQP position it seems chances are roughly even. That doesn't mean it cannot be a good practical choice for a good technician. If White makes it to the endgame, he probably will have something to play for.
5...Qb6 probably is too optimistic: 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Qb5+ Kf8 8.Qxb6 axb6 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.0–0 += Ruck-Balog, Hungary 2008.
6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.0–0 Nge7 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.Nb3 Bd6
Also 9...Bb6 seems fine: 10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Qd6 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Rad8 14.Bf4 Qf6 15.Qd2 h6 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Nf5 18.Qd2 d4 = A.Sokolovs-Howell, Germany 1996.
10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Re8 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Qc7 14.Ng3 Rad8 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Be3
Chances were equal in P.Nikolic-Leko, Horgen 1994.

B:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)

3.c4
With this move White offers Black to play the Tarrasch Defence.

3... cxd4
Instead the Tarrasch would arise after 3...e6. This old defence has, as far as I know, a sound theoretical standing, but many of the resulting positions are hard to defend against skilled opposition. More independent alternatives are:

a) 3...Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 must be a shade better for White. A recent example is Kovalyov-Gomez, Dresden 2008 where Black was close to equality after 6...Qa5 7.Ne5 Nc6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.g3 Bb7 10.Qa4 Qxa4 11.Nxa4 c5 12.f3 e6 13.e4.

b) After 3...dxc4 4.d5!? may be critical (4.e3 e6 leads to a quiet line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted). Two recent examples are:

b1) 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.e4 exd5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.Bxc4 0–0 9.0–0 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Nbd7 = Akopian-Shirov, Ohrid 2009.

b2) 4...e6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.Qxd5 Qxd5 7.Nxd5 Bd6 8.Nd2 Ne7 9.Nxc4 Nxd5 10.Nxd6+ Ke7 11.Nxc8+ Rxc8 12.g3 Nb4 13.Bh3 Rd8 14.0–0 N8c6 15.Be3 Leitao-Matsuura, Santos 2007.

4.cxd5 Nf6

Black should avoid 4...Qxd5 5.Nc3, e.g. 5...Qd8 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 8.Nd5 Kd8 9.Nb6 Ra7 10.Bf4 Nd7 and now Rybka points out that 11.Ne6+! fxe6 12.Be3 would have been the most efficient, even if White has several ways to a big advantage.

5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 (D)

This is typical for what White can expect in this line. The pawn structure is symmetrical but White is somewhat better developed. It seems likely that Black can equalize with some care but White can create some difficulties. One sample continuation is:

8.g3 Bd7 9.Bg2 e5 10.Nb3 Bc6 = Landa-Ovetchkin, Krasnoyarsk 2007.

C:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)

3.g3
This quiet move attempts to play a reversed Gruenfeldt Indian. The only problem is that there is no black knight to exchange on c6, so if White hopes for a genuine Gruenfeldt a tempo up, he has to bide his time.

3...cxd4

3...Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.0–0 e6 6.a3 b5 7.Bg5 Bb7 8.Nc3 h6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nxb5 Qb6 12.Nc3 +/- Young-Akobian, Chicago 2009.

4.Bg2

4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb3

4...Nf6 5.0–0 (D)

In a sense this is a critical position. Should Black play the obvious developing move 5...Nc6, allowing White to have his desired Reversed Gruenfeldt?

5...Nc6

This is Black's most popular move but there are alternatives:
a) I don't know why 5...Nbd7!? is untested. Black threatens ...e5, so 6.Nxd4 e5 is natural. Then one possible line is 7.Nb3 Nb6 8.Nc3 Be6 9.f4 with complicated play.

b) 5...h6 is a bit strange but on second thought it seems useful to avoid the potential Bg5 pin. After 6.b3 g6 7.Bb2 Bg7 8.Nxd4 0–0 9.c4 dxc4 10.bxc4 Qb6 11.Qb3 Na6 12.Nd2 Nd7 13.N2f3 Ndc5 gave equal chances in P.Nikolic-P.H.Nielsen, Wijk aan Zee 2005.
c) 5...g6 is natural. Then 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.c4 0–0 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nb3 e6 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qc7 12.Rb1 with unclear play in Graf-Shomoev, Warsaw 2005 is one sample line.

6.Nxd4 e6
That's the problem when White tries to play a sharp line with colours reversed. You will usually find that Black opts for a non-critical line which nevertheless gives good chances of equality. White has scored massively after 6... e5 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8. c4, but partly that may be because the white players have very clearly outrated their opponents. One recent and typical example is 8...Be7 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5 e4 11.Qa4 O-O 12.Rad1 Qb6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rxd5 Qxb2 17.e3 with a very clear advantage to White in Burmakin-Lochte, Bad Wiessee 2008.

7.c4 Bc5 8.Nb3 Be7 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.bxc3 Bf6 13.Rb1 Bxc3 14.Ba3 += Romanishin-Salmensuu, Linares 1999.

A New Barry Idea

2010-07-30T17:24:00.001+01:00

These days I am reading Cyrus Lakdawala’s “Play the London System”. It’s an interesting read and I will probably return to the subject.

Our understanding of one opening is often influenced by our understanding (or lack of such) of other openings. I was curious when I saw Lakdawala briefly discard Black’s traditional mainline in the Barry attack (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 is the relevant London move-order) with the explanation that ‘7.dxc5 transposes to a favourable Reversed Catalan’ and some relatively brief variations. I must admit that the Catalan is not my field of expertise so I had to take a closer look at his variations - in particular as I had explored this line when researching ‘A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire’ (and concluded that Summerscale’s 7.Ne5 probably still is White’s best try):

7...Qa5

This is the most popular reply and the only one mentioned in the book although 7...Nbd7!? has been played by Khalifman among others.

8.Nd2!

The exclamation mark is by Lakdawala and the move probably is White’s best try.

8...Qxc5

This is clearly most popular. Somewhat mysteriously Lakdawala gives the rare 8...Ne4!? as his main line. After 9.Ncxe4 dxe4 10.0–0 Nc6 11.c3 f5 12.Nb3 of Hodgson-Gullaksen, Stavanger 1989 he concludes that Black doesn’t have enough for his pawn.

9.Nb3 Qb6 10.Nb5!

Again the exclamation mark is by Lakdawala. White has also tried 10.0-0, 10.a4 and 10.Nxd5?!.

10...Ne8! (Dia)

This is not mentioned in the book but has been played by Hebden and Lars Bo Hansen among others and is given an exclamation mark by Ftachnik in Megabase. Lakdawala only mentions 10...Na6 11.Be5! and White probably is better as ‘Bd4 is in the air’. The move is far from obvious but as there clearly are some threaths to c7 it's not particularly surprising either.

11.Qxd5

What else? Black was threatening ...e5 as well as ...Bxb2.

11...Bxb2 12.Rb1 Bg7 13.0–0 Nc6 14.c4 (Dia)

Not 14.N5d4? e5! 15.Nxc6 bxc6 and Black wins.

So far everything seems very natural if not entirely forced. Now it seems Black has at least two ways to equalize (as a matter of fact Rybka also thinks 14...a6!? and 14...e5 look OK):
A: 14...Bf5 15.Rbd1 Nf6

Or 15...Nb4 16.Qd2 Na6 17.Nc3 Nf6 18.Qc1 Rac8 19.Be5 Be6 20.Bd4 Qb4 = L.B.Hansen-Djurhuus, Reykjavik 1995.

16.Qc5 e5 17.Bg3 Ne4 18.Qxb6

Rybka claims that 18.Qa3 is equal. That may well be right; the position looks somewhat strange and I find it hard to evaluate.

18...axb6 19.Ra1 Rfd8 and in Akselrod-Salinnikov, Tomsk 2003 Black was clearly better thanks to his activity.

B: 14...Nf6 15.Qc5 e5! 16.Bg3 Ne4 (Dia)

This too looks fine for Black who is active and has the bishop pair.
a) 7.Qxb6 axb6 18.a3 Bf5 =+ Rogers-Fedorowicz, Groningen 1990.

b) 17.Qa3 and now 17...Nxg3 18.hxg3 Rb8 (18...Rd8?! 19.c5 +/- Klimets-Gerasimovitch, St Petersburg 2002) 19.c5 Qd8 20.Rfd1 probably is a little better for White. However, Rybka thinks that 17...Bf5 as well as 17...Be6 is at least OK for Black.

Conclusion:
I have not found a path to advantage for White after 7.dxc5. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but Lakdawala's explanation clearly isn't sufficient for me. Maybe someone who knows more about the Catalan (and consequently more about the Reversed Catalan too) can point me in the right direction?

The Queen's Pawn Family 1 - Overview

2010-07-29T08:36:00.010+01:00

I have somewhere promised an overview and comparison of the so-called Queen's Pawn Openings (also known as D-pawn Specials or even D-pawn Deviations). That is basically all White's alternatives to the Queen's Gambit and the Catalan. In this first part I will only give a list and some brief comments.
Group IA: 1.d4 d5, alternatives to 2.Nf3 and 2.c4

1...d5 is an older move than 1...Nf6, so this is the classical starting position for the Queen's Pawn Openings. By deviating at this early point White makes sure that the game will be played on his homeground.

a) 2.g3?! - A poor relative of the Catalan. Black can equalize by an early ...c6 and ...Bf5.
b) 2.e3 - Introduces the Stonewall Attack (Bd3+f4+c3). A critical line is 2...Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6.
c) 2.Bf4!? - The Neo-London. By some experts considered to revitalize the classical London system.
d) 2.Bg5!? - The Hodgson Opening. Frequently used as a companion system to the Trompowsky.
e) 2.e4?! - The Blackmar Diemer Gambit (BDG). Not entirely correct but many prefers to decline the pawn offer with 2...e6 (French) or 2...c6 (Caro Kann).
f) 2.Nc3!? - Normally leads to the Veresov Opening after 2...Nf6 3.Bg5 but 2...Bf5 may be best.
g) 2.a3!? - The Prie Opening. White argues that 2...c5 is too risky and all D-Pawn Specials are inferior (the more so a move down).
h) 2.c3?! - A sly but slow move which may lead to the Colle, the London or the Torre. 2...Nf6 followed by 3...Bf5 should equalize.
i) 2.Nd2 - Normally leads to some kind of Colle after 2...Nf6 3.e3.
j) 2.b3 - May lead to a Colle Zukertort but I cannot see how White can benefit from delaying e3 and Nf3.
k) 2.h3?! - A joke move favoured by some London players who will follow up with Bf4 and reach an only slightly inferior London.
l) 2.f4?! - A too primitive attempt to play the Stonewall Attack. 2...Nf6 followed by 3...Bf5 at least equalizes.

Group IB: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.e3

2.Nf3 is a sound and flexible move and the starting point of most Queen's Pawn openings. Black has a few interesting alternatives to 2...Nf6, such as 2...c5 and 2...Bf5!? but most alternatives, including 2...c6 and 2...e6 allow White to go ahead with his planned set-up.

a) 3.g3?! - An inferior version of the Catalan 3...Bf5 or 3...c6 followed by 4...Bf5 equalizes.
b) 3.Bg5?! - An inferior version of the Torre. 3...Ne4 equalizes.
c) 3.Bf4 - The classical London System. 3...c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qc2 Bf5 is probably equal.
d) 3.Nbd2 - A rare path to the Colle. 3...Bf5 probably equalizes.
e) 3.c3!? - Lakdawala's path to the London. The idea is to meet 3...c5 with 4.dxc5 and most other moves with 4.Bf4.
f) 3.Ne5 - A possibly underestimated attempt to reach a Stonewall Attack (with f4. White hopes to fight for an advantage after 3...Bf5 4.c4.
g) 3.a3 - A version of the Prie System.
h) 3.b3?! - Usually an attempt to reach the Colle Zukertort system. 3...Bf5 equalizes comfortably.
i) 3.Nc3 - Looks similar to the Barry Attack but is rather pointless as long as Black hasn't played ...g6.
j) 3.h3?! - Normally another way to reach a slightly inferior London system after a delayed Bf4.

Group IC: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5, alternatives to 4.c4

After 3.e3 we are in Colle territory, and might reasonably stop at that, noting that 4.c4 would still be a (harmless) Queen's Gambit. However, the Colle comes in different flavours too:

a) 4.dxc5 - This is an attempt to play the Queen's Gambit accepted a tempo up but 4...e6 probably gives theoretical equality.
b) 4.b3 - This is not White's most promising variation of the Colle Zukertort. After 4...Nc6 5.Bb2 Bg4 Black is equal. Also Kaufman's 4...cxd4, taking advantage of the fact that Bc1 not can use two diagonals, makes sense.
c) 4.c3 - Heads for the (Classical) Koltanowski Colle. The interesting question is whether Black now should play the modest 4...e6 or the more ambitious 4...Nc6.
d) 4.Nbd2 - A seemingly sensible Colle move that isn't even mentioned in several works on the Colle.
e) 4.Bd3!? - A slightly provocative attempt to stop ...Bf5 and keep open both the b3 and c3 options. The critical reply of course is 4...c4!?
f) 4.a3!? - An attempt to reverse colours - perhaps planning dxc5 followed by b4 and c4. But is a3 really useful after 4...cxd4 5.exd4?
g) 4.Ne5 - White intends to follow up with f4, Bd3 and c3, reaching a Stonewall Attack.

Group ID: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6, alternatives to 4.c4

This is the traditional starting position of the Colle. It should be noted that this position is at least as likely to appear from the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5. White can still return to lines of the Queen's Gambit with 4.c4 but within the Colle there are these options:

a) 4.Be2 - A reversed Queen's Gambit Declined. Solid for Black but unambitious for White.
b) 4.b3 - Reveals White's plan to play a Colle Zukertort earlier than necessary.
c) 4.c3 - Reveals White's plan to play a Colle Koltanowski earlier than necessary.
d) 4.a3 - Attempts to play a Queen's Gambit Accepted a tempo or two up after 4...c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.b4 but that's hardly sufficient for an advantage.
e) 4.Ne5 - White intends to follow up with f4, Bd3 and c3, reaching a Stonewall Attack. Probably more promising with Black's light-squared bishop locked in than the 3...c5 version.
f) 4.Nbd2!? - A seemingly sensible Colle move that isn't even mentioned in several works on the Colle.
g) After the main move 4.Bd3 and the extremely natural 4...c5 White has these options:
g1) 5.c4 - Still a Queen's Gambit (a rather harmless Tarrasch)
g2) 5.0–0 - A provocative attempt to keep options open. 5...c4 6.Be2 b5 is the critical line.
g3) 5.b3! - The Colle Zukertort, a legitimate try for an advantage even at GM level.
g4) 5.c3 - The Colle Koltanowski, actually a reversed Slav and quite dangerous for the unprepared.

Group IIA: 1.d4 Nf6, alternatives to 2.Nf3 and 2.c4

With his first move Black displays a less compromising attitude than 1...d5 does. This can be seen as a reason for White to avoid a theoretical confrontation. However, it must also be said that it is probably harder for White to fight for a real advantage without an early c4 if Black knows what he is doing.

a) 2.g3 - An inferior attempt to reach the Catalan. Black is equal after 2...d5 followed by ...c6 and ...Bf5.
b) 2.Bg5 - The Trompowsky. Now almost mainstream and occasinally tested at the highest level. White will frequently capture the f6 knight if that doubles Black's pawns but also setting up a Stonewall with pawns on c3, d4, e3 and f4 makes sense.
c) 2.c3 - Extremely flexible and extremely tame. One idea is to meet 2...g6 as well as 2...e6 with 3.Bg5 (which both may be categorized as Trompowskys).
d) 2.Bf4 - A somewhat experimental branch of the Neo London. 2...c5 and 2...d6 must be the critical lines.
e) 2.Nc3 - After 2...d5, 3.Bg5 is the Veresov Attack. Not very popular for the moment but that may be about to change.
f) 2.Nd2 - Used to be a favorite of Varga's. White to some extent threatens 3.e4 and after 2...d5 3.Nf3 we have a Colle (IBd).
g) 2.e3 - A possibly inferior version of the Stonewall Attack. 2...g6 is supposed to be strong but White can pretend he is playing a reversed French vs. King's Indian Attack.
h) 2.f4 - An ugly attempt to play the Stonewall Attack. 2...d5 followed by 3...Bf5 possibly is the simplest solution but also a plan including ...d6 and ...e5 looks tempting.
i) 2.g4 - The Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit. Almost certainly unsound but White has some practical chances after 2...Nxg4 3.e4.
j) 2.a3 - This attempt to reach a reversed QP opening doesn't make much sense after 2...g6.
k) 2.b3 - May lead to a Colle Zukertort but I cannot see how White can benefit from delaying e3 and Nf3.
l) 2.f3 - May lead to a Blackmar Diemer Gambit after 2...d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3. Probably 3...e6 is a simpler cure. 2...g6 3.e4 d6 is a Pirc.
m) 2.h3 - Looks rather pointless but if White follows up with Bf4 and Nf3 he will probably reach a playable London position.

Group IIB: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.g3

Nimzo- and Queen's Indian players may have a tougher task against the D-pawn Specials, (in particular the Colle) than others. Against this move-order the Colle Zukertort probably holds prospects for a small advantage.

a) 3.e3 - White heads for some branch of the Colle but may need other ideas against 3...b6 and 3...c5.
b) 3.Bg5 - The Torre System
c) 3.Bf4 - An important branch of the London System
d) 3.c3 - A tricky move, keeping open options to enter the Koltanowski Colle, the London or the Torre.
e) 3.Nbd2 - Possibly an underestimated branch of the Colle. Black must decide whether he considers e4 a threat or not.
f) 3.a3 - Another branch of the Prie System. White takes on Black's role with a marginally useful extra tempo.
g) 3.b3 - Heads for a Colle Zukertort but White gains nothing by revealing his plan too early.
h) 3.h3 - Another joke path to a playable if uninspiring London set-up.
i) 3.Nc3 - Looks similar to the Barry Attack but is rather pointless as long as Black hasn't played ...g6.

Group IIC: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.g3

The King's Indian is one of the toughest tests for any Queen's Pawn System. Black develops quickly and has various ways to challenge the centre. Lines with ...d6 followed by ...e5 or ...c5 probably are the most challenging but quieter lines with ...d5 are also available.

a) 3.e3?! - The Colle hasn't got a great reputation against the King's Indian, as Black can force ...e5 with relative ease. However, 3...Bg7 4.b4!? may well be OK for White.
b) 3.Bg5 - Purists will say that this isn't strictly speaking the Torre Attack. The Torre versus King's Indian (which it's sometimes called) probably is slightly less promising than the 2...e6 version.
c) 3.Bf4 - The third major branch of the London System.
d) 3.c3!? - Delays the decision of where (if?) to develop the dark-squared bishop but there is little to be gained as White will soon have to commit himself anyway after 3...Bg7 or 4...0-0.
e) 3.Nc3!? - introduces the Barry Attack after 3...d5 4.Bf4 (or a version of the 150-Attack after 3...Bg7 4.e4).
f) 3.Nbd2 - Heads for a Colle after 3...d5 4.e3 or a quiet Modern after 3...Bg7 4.e4.
g) 3.h3 - Once thought to be the most accurate move-order for White to play the London System against the King's Indian. However, the move is too slow to stop the ...Nfd7 and ...e5 plan.
h) 3.b3 - Has been played by Smyslov and Portisch but is mainly a modest way of getting the pieces out.
i) 3.b4!? - The Arkell System - at least if White keeps his c-pawn back and plays Nd2-c4, trying to restrain ...e5. I believe there is also a name for the more traditional approach with an early c4 but that line must belong to the King's Indian complex.

That's all folks! (well, I am sure I have forgotten something, so I expect to edit and update the overview)

The plan now is to take a closer look at some of the systems (mainly the Colle London and Torre), comparing them and perhaps suggest how some systems can be combined. I have also started collecting bibliographies.

Updated September 1st
I included some lines given by an anonymous reader.

Killer Repertoire in French

2010-07-19T13:14:00.004+01:00

I must admit I was surprised today to discover that "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire" has been translated to French.

The new title is "Répertoire d'ouvertures efficace" which I assume must mean "An Efficient Opening Repertoire". The subtitle "pour joueur d'échecs paresseux" I think must mean "for lazy chessplayers". A little less bloodthirsty than the original English title.

As you can see, also the cover is a little less aggressive. I prefer Wolff Morrow's artwork, but the French one is quite nice too, in a very different way. Can anyone tell me the name of the artist (I assume his signature can be seen below the drawing, but I am unable to read it)?

I am proud to now have been translated to two major European languages, and hope Gambit Publishing or the French publisher Olibris will be kind enough to send me a few copies.

Update July 21st
I found this advertisment which includes a review. My French is quite poor but I will try to translate the conclusion:

Autre atout de l'ouvrage, le choix des parties illustratives, jouées par des joueurs qui ne sont pas des grands-maîtres. Une autre bonne idée car c'est bien ce qui se passe pour la majorité des tournois d'échecs pour nous autres amateurs. Avouons-le tout bonnement, c'est une idée géniale !

Another asset of the work is the choice of illustrative games, played by players who are not Grandmasters. This is a good idea because for us amateurs this is what occurs in the majority of chess tournaments. Let us acknowledge that this simply is a brilliant idea!

Well, I hope that isn't too inaccurate. Please inform me if you can improve the translation. Anyway, "Chess & Strategy" appears to also be a chess vendor, so the 'review' cannot be expected to be very critical and I will not read too much into it.

Chessville Reviews Win with the Stonewall Dutch

2010-07-10T09:21:00.001+01:00

After a few long periods of dormancy, Chessville now seems to be fully activated again. Today I noted a review of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' by Bill McGeary.

As the reader can easily confirm, McGeary is fairly detailed and in general quite positive. I will just quote his conclusion:
I am sure that new ideas and valuations in lines have likely already come to light since the publication of this book, but it remains an excellent work for a player looking to bring the Stonewall into their armory. Because of the strength of the writers, and the complexity of material, this book might be a bit bewildering for players below the 2000 level, and even some above, yet it could well act as one of the steps along the road upward.

My apologies to my readers for letting this blog become a list of reviews of my books. Some genuine chess content will appear in the near future.

Donaldson's Review of A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire

2010-06-29T14:35:00.002+01:00

Yesterday I noticed that John Donaldson's review quoted at Gambit's info page is now available in Northwest Chess Magazine. Is it a coincidence that there now is a reader's review of 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' by 'Northwest' at Amazon.com?

The magazine seems to be a nice product with a pleasant blend of games, analysis and local tournament information. It's not 100% clear to me exactly which area the magazine covers but it seems to be produced in Seattle, US.

Unexpectedly I am having another busy week. I expect to be blogging more frequently the next couple of months.

Update July 5th
Now the review is also available at Silman's Chess Reviews. The review is identical but I believe the readership is far greater.

Play the London - pdf Extracts

2010-06-22T14:12:00.002+01:00

Just briefly noting that there are now pdf-extracts from Lakdawala's 'Play the London System' at Everyman's chess book site.

I note with some surprise that the book now has reached 256 pages, which is 64 more than the last time I checked. It is still hard to judge how much analytical content there is and how well organized it is. However, the book still seems promising and I am pleased to note that the introduction contains a good portion humour.

Chess Cafe Reviews the Killer Repertoire

2010-06-03T07:25:00.010+01:00

In his influential monthly chess book column - Checkpoint, Carsten Hansen yesterday reviewed (among others) "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire" under the heading 'Happy Days for Queen's Pawn Enthusiasts'. Generally his review is favourable and his conclusion is:

'However, the meat of the book is on the Colle and Colle-related set-ups, and in those chapters the book really proves its worth. Overall, it is an easily approachable book; the repertoire is by and large not too difficult to follow, even if some of the surprise value has been eliminated by the original book being on the market for more than ten years. In many ways, this present work is a considerable upgrade over the original, and, even by today's high standards for opening books, it is a very good book. It can be enjoyed by players rated up to around 2000.'

He awards the book with three stars (out of a maximum of four). I obviously would have liked one more star but cannot really complain. According to the Rating Chart three stars is 'good' and four stars 'excellent'. So when Hansen says it is 'very good' I will assume the extra star was within shooting range.

I don't really agree that the chapters on the Colle (Zukertort) are the core of the book. As I see it, the book's starting point is the Barry Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4). With this as a basis it adds other low-theory systems - including some Colle related systems - in order to supply the reader with a complete 1.d4 repertoire. However, this is mainly a question of perspectives and in support of Hansen's view it must be admitted that Colle-related systems take up at least 68 of the book's 192 pages.

I note with interest that Hansen recommends the book for players up to 2000. In his 'Introduction to the First Edition' from 1998, Summerscale writes: 'This book is aimed primarily at club-level players with a playing strength of up to about 2200 Elo (or 200 BCF)'. I briefly considered commenting upon this when writing my 'Updater's Notes' as I had a feeling that today's 2200 players generally prepare a bit deeper than they did a decade ago. When I after all decided not to comment on Summerscale's original estimate, it was because I felt that in general the added material compensated for theory's development.

What I really don't understand is this remark:

'There are even some bizarre recommendations towards the end of the book, such as how White is to meet 1 d4 d6, where the book recommends 2 e4, which allows Black to take the game to a Pirc or Modern Defense or even the Philidor after 2..Nf6 3 Nc3 e5 4 Nf3. I can't see too many club players, who employ the Colle as white, also going for 2 e4, which changes the entire nature of the game.'

This is a bit mysterious as 2.e4 clearly isn't a bizarre move in itself. It leads to a positions of a different nature than the Colle but so do many other of the books proposed lines. Hansen's point must be that allowing a transposition to the Pirc, Modern and Philidor doesn't fit well with the rest of the book's proposed repertoire. This criticism would make sense if there wasn't a full chapter in the book on the 150-Attack against the Pirc and Modern.

Summerscale's original work didn't mention 1...d6, and I must admit that I too originally missed this gap in the repertoire. So when Gambit's editorial staff pointed this out and suggested 2.d4 and a condensed repertoire to cover the non-Pirc lines, I was happy to accept their suggestion. The only sensible alternative seemed to be 2.Nf3, when 2...Bg4!? would require some analysis as well as some prose discussing the strategic points of Black's ...Bxf3 option. In addition there also was 2...f5!? which didn't quite fit into the proposed repertoire against the Dutch.

So in my opinion the only bizarre aspect of 1.d4 d6 2.e4 is the book's attempt to offer a repertoire against the Czech and the New Philidor in half a column. This clearly isn't sufficient to be well prepared in the professional sense of the word. But for the sub-2200 readers it doesn't seem too bad. 1...d6 is after all only Black's 6th most popular move and will normally lead to the Pirc. The Czech (3...c6) seems to be out of fashion (I think there are theoretical problems in the 4.f4 lines) and not that hard to face unprepared anyway. That leaves the Philidor which is an interesting opening where Black has good prospects to outplay a weaker player in the middlegame. However, it's mainly Black that has to be careful in order to survive the first 15 moves.

When re-reading the text on Black's non-Pirc options I notice one unfortunate omission. After 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3, Black may try the Antoshin variation 4...exd4 5.Nxd4 Be7, which isn't mentioned at all. However, this too is a very quiet option where White scores well above average, so if a reader should happen to meet it and lose the game, I would expect him to blame his own middlegame play rather than the book.

Relay Chess

2010-05-30T20:36:00.001+01:00

There are countless chess variants; obscure and popular; weird and playable. In an earlier entry I listed some of my favourites. However, I now realize that I forgot an important category of games - those variants that (mostly) retain the standard rules but add an element of physical skill. Chess Boxing seems to be the new big thing and I have already had an entry on Kung Fu Chess. I suppose Drinking Chess (Shots Chess) is still the best known, and may return to this activity as well as the related Valhalla tournaments in a later entry. However, for now I will concentrate on variants better suited for younger players.

If you ever need an outdoor activity for young chess players, then Relay Chess may be the solution. The main rules are:

Relay chess is a competition between two teams. On each team there should be somewhere between three and seven players. The teams don’t necessarily have to have the same number of players but the players should keep their place in their team's queue.
The teams are placed some distance away from a chess board. The distance should be sufficient to make it difficult for the players to see what’s going on. Preferably there should be an arbiter near the board.
Use a chess clock with a reasonable amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes for each team), so that the players will have to run and move quickly in order not to lose on time.
The player first in the white row runs to the board, makes his first move and presses the clock. As soon as the white player has pressed the clock, the first player on Black’s team may start running.
A player who has completed his move should immediately return and take his place (at the back of the queue). The next player on his team may not start his run before the previous player has returned (and the player on the other team has completed his move and pressed the clock).

In addition it may be a good idea to agree on this (but remember that this should be fun and don’t spend too much time on the finer points of the rules - a rematch is usual the perfect way to resolve a discussion):

Should the players be allowed to inform their team about their latest move and the position on the board or give advice? Shout advice to the player at the board?
What happens if a player makes an illegal move? Stumbles over the board? Loses a piece on the ground?

I hope to add some pictures to this entry in a few days as there is an informal Norway-England competition coming up.

Coming next: Basket Chess.

German Review of the Killer Repertoire

2010-05-21T08:03:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I stumbled over a very interesting German language blog 'Schachtraining' (yes, it means chess training) with a brief review of 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire'. If you read some German, you could do worse than following this apparently frequently updated chess blog.

For those not reading German, here is an attempt to translate the summary:

"Die meisten der vorgestellten Systeme können ohne großen Aufwand erlernt werden und erfordern nur geringe Variantenkenntnisse. Selbstredend dürfte dadurch sein, dass der Spieler demzufolge keine großen Stellungsvorteile erhoffen darf , aber die Solidität sichert ihm zumeist ausgeglichenes Spiel. Ein Repertoire für Praktiker auf Vereinsniveau. Wer im Besitz der Erstausgabe ist und die Systeme im Repertoire hat, wird voraussichtlich mehr von spezialisierter Literatur profitieren, anstatt das Update zu erwerben."

"Most of the systems presented can be adopted quite easily and demand only modest knowledge of exact variations. This may be due to the systems offering no sizable opening advantage but their solidity will at least ensure you equal play. A repertoire for practical players at club level. Presumably, if you already have the first edition and have adopted the repertoire you will profit more from specialist literature than from getting this update."

(My German is to a large extent based on the language's similarity with Norwegian and contains an element of guesswork. So any improvements/corrections will be appreciated.)

I don't quite agree with this conclusion and may add some comments at a later point.

Killer Repertoire in Marsh Towers

2010-05-06T10:43:00.001+01:00

In his chess reviews today, Sean March among other reviews "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". The potential buyer can also find a snapshop from one of the new games I added and his impressions regarding the extent of the update. I don't think his estimate of 5 new game references on a double spread is far off but I know that the changes are far from uniformly distributed.

Marsh has certain doubts about some of the repertoire choices but seems quite satisfied with the update and concludes:
"This is a neat little book which can provide serious ammunition for keen club players."

Elburg reviews "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire"

2010-04-29T11:07:00.001+01:00

Only this Monday afternoon I got hold of some copies of the revised "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". Since then I have been very busy and haven't really had the time to examine the book closely. My first impression is that most (possibly all) of my late corrections/additions made it to the final varsion.

Today I found the first review of the book at John Elburg's chess reviews. As expected he is quite positive. My guess is that Gambit on their info page will only quote his concluding line:
Conclusion: Impressive update!

Elburg points out that there is no bibliography and thinks this would have been useful for the reader. Well, he may be right. However, as a matter of fact I originally wrote a quite extensive bibliography but eventually decided to skip it as it would either have been somewhat misleading or would have needed a lot of comments. For instance it would have been somewhat misleading to list the large number of books that I consulted only to find out that they had nothing new to offer.

Elburg also mentions my analysis on Trygstad’s 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7!? which may be the part where I did the most analytical work (or more precisely: where I had Rybka slaving for the longest time).

As a matter of fact only a tiny fraction of my analysis was actually included in the book. Initially I spent a lot of time trying to find a way to a clear advantages in the semi endgames resulting from Williams' mainlines in Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. However, although I succeeded finding some quite promising paths, the positions remained difficult and there was a very real risk that Black would be better prepared for these positions. There were also space issues to be taken into consideration (the book's 192 A5 pages have been utilized more fully than I have ever seen in a chess opening manual). So in the end - just before the final proofs had to be sent - I retraced a few steps, searched for moves that Williams had ignored, and was happy to find a quite promising option that could be covered within the space available. Now I look forward to analytical feedback from Dutch players.

Killer Chess Opening Repertoire Available

2010-04-05T10:35:00.003+01:00

According to Gambit Publishing's Infopages, 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' is now available. I don't know why Gambit now has the copyrights to the book (the previous edition was an Cadogan/Everyman book). Although I am listed as a co-author I really was more of an editor as my instruction from Gambit was to leave the original content unchanged wherever reasonable. Summerscale was not involved in the update; I don't know why and presume he must be busy with other matters.

What I did was mainly adding recent game references and analysis wherever appropriate. However, this in turned forced a considerable restructuring of the book, as some of the notes were already overly long. I believe this was a fortunate necessity as it made the book a more comfortable read. Now the book is 192 A5 pages - an increase of 48 pages or roughly a third of the original 1998 version. I didn't do a lot of independent analysis but I did spend a lot of hours together with Rybka on a few critical lines.

Now I am quite eager to get my hands on a copy - not least because of the cover artwork which looks great from the web images. Unfortunately, I fear my copies will take some time to arrive as deliveries to Norway have taken surprisingly long time lately.

Note
This entry was updated on April 8th, 2010. My apologies for making at least one of the comments below looking a little strange.

Vasily Smyslov 1921 to 2010

2010-03-31T22:49:00.001+01:00

World Champion 1957-1958, Vasilly Smyslov died the 27th March this year. He was one of the strongest players of all times and as late as in 1983, at the age of 62, he made it to the final in the Candidate finals (where he put up strong resistance against the young Kasparov).

Differences in style are often exaggerated by authors and journalists. Smyslov was often said to have a harmonious or universal playing style. Well, that's probably as true for him as for almost all top players.

Here is an example of him outplaying a weaker opponent, and it indeed looks simple. You may ask why I don't show a titanic struggle against Botwinnik or Kasparov. The answer is simply that I analysed this game when preparing a lesson on 1.g3, and I liked it.

V.Smyslov - M.Fuller, Politiken Cup (Copenhagen) 1980
1.g3

Smyslov was a versatile player who mastered most openings - including the possible transpositions between them.

1...g6 2.Bg2 c5

An invitation to a Closed Sicilian...

3.e4 (Dia)

...which Smyslov accepts. However, this exact position is less likely to arise from 1.e4 c5 2.g3, as then Black has 2...d5, which probably equalizes.

3...Bg7 4.Ne2

4.c3 may be slightly more flexible but after 4...Nc6, 5.Ne2 would transpose. We now have a position that could also arise from the move-order 1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 (an old Keres favourite).

4...Nc6

Now we reach positions that more frequently arise from 1.g3 c5 2.Bg2 Nc6 3.e4. A more independent line is 4...d6 5.c3 Nf6, when Karjakin-Carlsen, Wch blitz Moscow 2009 continued 6.d4 0–0 7.0–0 Nc6 8.h3 e5 9.Be3 cxd4 10.cxd4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Ne5 12.Nc3 Nc4 with equal chances.

5.c3

This can be said to be the point of White's set-up. By holding back his queen's knight, he is able to better control the d4 square.

5...e5 6.0–0 Nge7 7.d3 d6

Or 7...0–0 8.a3 d5 when Dorfman-Magerramov, Beltsy 1979 somewhat surprisingly continued 9.exd5!? Nxd5 10.c4!? (these ideas are well known from the King's Indian with reversed colours) 10...Nc7 11.Nbc3 Bf5 12.Ne4 Ne6 13.Be3 Ncd4 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Bd2 h5 16.b4 and White's position had more potential.

8.a3 Be6

A famous encounter continued 8...0–0 9.b4 b6 10.f4 exf4 11.gxf4 d5 12.e5 Bg4 13.h3 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 f6 15.b5 Na5 16.Nd2 fxe5 17.fxe5 Rxf1+ 18.Nxf1 Nb3 19.Rb1 Nxc1 20.Rxc1 Qc7 21.Re1 Rd8 with equality in Keres-Fischer, Candidates Curacao 1962.

9.b4 Qd7 10.Be3 b6 11.b5 Nd8 12.c4 (Dia)

12...0–0

12...Rb8 13.Nbc3 f5 14.f3 0–0 15.Qd2 Nf7 16.a4 h6 17.a5 g5 18.axb6 axb6 19.Ra6 += Fuller-Franklin, Brighton 1980.

13.Nbc3 Bh3 14.Bxh3 Qxh3 15.a4 f5 16.Bg5 f4

Black is untitled and not quite in Smyslov's league but a strong player who uses the tactical resources available to fight the grand old man.

17.f3 fxg3 18.hxg3 (Dia)

18...Bh6 19.Qd2 Bxg5 20.Qxg5 Rf7 21.a5 Ne6 22.Qg4

You could be forgiven for assuming that this queen exchange is an admission and expect the g-pawns will be a weakness in the endgame. However, as will soon be evident, the doubled pawns can not be attacked, they neutralize Black's kingside pawns, cover some useful squares, and the extra open file proves quite useful.

23...Qxg4 23.fxg4 Rxf1+ 24.Kxf1 Nc7 25.Kg2 (Dia)

25...g5?!

This creates a new weakness and simplifies White's task. After 25...Nc8 26.Nd5 Nxd5 27.exd5, White's advantage is also huge, and he can combine play in the a-file with ideas of a5-a6, completely immobilizing a knight on c8.
26.Nd5 Ncxd5 27.exd5 bxa5 28.Rxa5

White is now clearly better - maybe even winning as Black has no counterplay.

28...e4!

This probably is Black's best try, weakening c4 and taking away the e4-square from White's pieces. An example of more passive defence would be 28...Nc8 29.Nc3 Rb8 30.Na4 h6 31.Ra6 Kf8 32.Rc6 Ke8 33.Rc7 and Black is helpless.

29.dxe4 Nc8 30.Ra6 Nb6 (Dia)

31.e5!

In a sense this is the counterpart of Black's 28th move, weakening c5 and gaining access to e4 again.

31...dxe5 32.Kf3 Nxc4 33.Ke4 Rd8 34.Nc3 Rd7 35.Rc6 Kg7 36.Rxc5 Nd6+ 37.Kxe5

White is a healthy pawn up and has the more active pieces.

37...Kf7 38.Ne4 Nxe4 39.Kxe4 Re7+

39...Ke7 40.Ke5 is not better.

40.Kf5 1–0

I am not sure whether Black lost on time or resigned in view of lines like 40...h6 41.d6 Re1 42.Rc7+ Ke8 43.Rxa7 Rb1 44.b6! Rxb6 45.Ke6 Rb8 46.Rh7.

Killer Sample Available

2010-03-29T23:46:00.004+01:00

A pdf sample from 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' is now available.

It's just a few pages - the Table of Contents and two games featuring the Barry Attack. The first game is Hebden - Nunn, Hastings 1996/7, which gave White's opening system a lot of publicity and then it's Brousek - Rivest, corr. 2003 which is a more recent attempt to keep White's initiative alive.

Table of Contents

Symbols 4
Introduction to the First Edition 5
Updater’s Notes 6
1 Barry Attack 9
2 150 Attack 43
3 Colle-Zukertort System 68
4 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3: Beating the Anti-Colle Systems 92
5 Classical Queen’s Indian 121
6 Anti-Benoni 137
7 Anti-Dutch 2 Bg5 167
8 Odds and Ends 186
Index of Variations 191

Book of the Year Update

2010-02-27T20:15:00.000+01:00

'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' was indeed shortlisted to ChessPublishing's Book of the Year contest.

Both the two other finalists are from Quality Chess:

Marin's Grandmaster Repertoire: The English Opening. Since the first voting session, Quality Chess has announced that this series will become a trilogy (not two volumes as originally announced).

Schandorff's Playing the Queen's Gambit.

Surprisingly there have been considerably fewer votes in this final voting session than in the preliminary one (only 50 when I write this entry). Maybe those who voted for books that are now eliminated are not voting in this session (one very good reason would be not having read those left). In that case the final result may be very close to the preliminary one.

What is clear, is that with so few votes in total, every vote will count. The voting closes in a couple of days. So if you like 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', and is a ChessPublishing member, please give it a vote (again)!

Stonewall Review by Stephen Gordon

2010-02-05T11:53:00.003+01:00

Some time ago 3C's excellent book review section was taken over by IM (soon to be GM) Stephen Gordon. The immediate effect seemed to be a slowing down of the number of reviews but now there are ten new, mostly rather short reviews on offer. Gordon's reviews seem to be useful and he has demonstrated that he dares to warn if a book isn't suited for everyone.

One of the books examined this time is "Win with the Stonewall Dutch" which is briefly but quite favorably reviewed. The conclusion is: "A book I could recommend to anyone looking to mix things up against 1.d4 players!".

Identical Mates?

2010-02-04T17:23:00.003+01:00

When I recently co-authored a booklet on mating combinations, I included what I called a 'Mating Alphabet' with 29 frequently occuring mating themes (the Norwegian alphabet has 29 letters). One of my advisors asked me whether I had considered a more theoretical approach, taking the basic properties of each mate more into consideration. My answer was that, yes I did, and quickly decided that a more pragmatic approach probably would be more useful for our targeted audience. Let me illustrate my reasoning with a set of positions:

Position 1

Position 2

Position 3

I suppose that from a theoretical point of view, they are all three more or less identical. In practical play, however, I will claim that each of them has independent value, as they all occur in quite different kinds of positions.

This, of course, doesn't imply that I find categorizing checkmating patterns an idle pastime without any practical value. On the contrary I find it a very interesting angle for further study and probably quite educating for an advanced student. As a matter of fact this may be a subject to which I will return in the near future.

Opening Book of the Year Nomination

2010-01-31T23:28:00.002+01:00

At the Chesspublishing Forum there is now a pre-voting for their first 'Opening Book of the Year' contest where 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' is among the nominated books. There are still some days before the voting closes. However, the voting seems to have slowed down and our book appears to have fair chances to be one of the three books to make it to the second round of voting. At the moment of writing it has collected 21 out of 131 votes and is in the second place after Marin's excellent 'The English Opening -Volume 1'.

In my opinion such a contest makes a lot of sense as opening books very rarely win any of the yearly chess books awards. That's probably only to be expected as books in this category by nature are even more technical than other chess books, normally have a rather short shelf life, and probably most importantly: usually only are of interest to players employing the opening in question.

There of course is no way to make such a voting contest entirely fair or even to completely avoid cheating, so it should be taken for what it is: entertainment. That being said, the Chesspublishing forum probably is the web's best chess discussion forum and the nominated books are all good, so we are sure to get a deserved winner.

If you are a registered ChessPub member (or want to join) and like 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', please give it a vote!

A Line with Personality

2010-01-29T15:26:00.004+01:00

For the time being one of the very few chess tournaments I play is the team tournament for companies in Oslo - 'Sjakkalliansen'. It's a relatively informal event but there are some GMs and IMs on the top boards. The games generally are of low quality as they are played on Wednesdays evenings after a full day's work and are unrated. However, sometimes I try to sit down and calculate variations in order not to completely lose touch with tournament chess. And sometimes the openings are interesting, hinting where I need to put in some work.

This Wednesday I was reminded of an opening line I considered adopting myself some years ago.

Sv.Johnsen-B.Byklum, Sjakkalliansen 2010

1.d4 d6

The Neo Old Indian.
2.e4

Probably 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8 is the line in which I have scored best with Black lately.
2...Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 (Dia)

This is an interesting idea. I have never liked 3...g6 (the Pirc), and 3...c6 (the Czech) seems to be in theoretical trouble. I am not 100% satisfied with 3...a6 (which I have recently renamed 'the Lynx') or 3...Nbd7 (the Lion).

4.dxe5

4.Nf3 may be a more practical choice, but I am no longer well prepared for the Philidor mainlines.

4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4
This must be best, developing a minor piece with a threat.

6...Be6

This is the move that gives the line its personality. 6...Bb4 is a different story leading to positions where Black is quite close to equality:

a) 7.Bd2 Ke7 8.a3 Bd6 9.Bg5 Be6 10.Nd5+ Bxd5 11.Bxd5 c6 12.Ba2 h6 (12...Rd8) 13.Bxf6+ Kxf6 14.0–0–0 Bc7 15.h4 += Smeets-Beliavsky, Amsterdam 2009.

b) 7.Nf3 Nbd7 (7...Nc6 8.Bxf7 Nxe4 9.0–0 Ke7 10.Nxe4 Kxf7 11.c3 Be7 12.Bg5 += Beliavsky-Solak, Murska Sobota 2007) 8.Bxf7 Nxe4 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Ke7 11.Bb3 Ndc5 12.Nxe5 Be6 13.Nf3 Nxc3 14.Be3 N5e4 15.0–0 c5 16.Rfe1 ½–½ Rublevsky-Radjabov, Almaty blitz 2008.

7.Bxe6 fxe6 (Dia)

This is the big idea. Black somewhat downgrades his pawn structure but the pawns are in a closed file and not easy to attack, and he gets some compensation:

The e-pawns cover important central squares (e5, e4, f4 and f5) and allows Black to concentrate on flank play.
The open d- and f-files enhance Black's grip on e4 and f4.
Black's king is relatively safe and useful in the centre.

However, what's perhaps even more important in practical play is the fact that we have a somewhat unusual pawn structure with which Black is likely to have the more experience. Inexperienced players are quite likely to overestimate White's chances and may press too hard for an advantage which in reality is very small.

8.f3 Bd6

The main alternative 8...Bc5 9.Na4 Bd6 10.Be3 leads to a subtly different position. Probably the knight is better off on a4 than on c3:

a) 10...b6 11.Nh3 Ke7 12.Nf2 c5 13.b3 Nc6 14.Nd3 Nb4 15.Kd2 h6 16.Nab2 Nc6 17.Nc4 Bc7 18.c3 += Gomez Esteban-Zvjaginsev, Terrassa 1996.
b) 10...Nfd7 11.Nh3 Ke7 12.Nf2 Nc6 13.Nd3 Nb4 14.Nxb4 Bxb4+ 15.Ke2 b5 16.a3 Bd6 17.Nc3 a6 18.a4 += Vaisser-Epishin, Novosibirsk 1993.
c) 10...Nbd7 11.0–0–0 Ke7 12.Nh3 b5 13.Nc3 Rhb8 14.Nf2 b4 15.Ne2 a5 unclear Gipslis-Moskalenko, Alushta 1993.

9.Be3 a6

It was only after this move I fully realized that Black plans to expand with ...b5 and ...c5 rather than with ...c6 and ...a5-a4 as he usually does in similar positions with the pawn on f6 rather than on e6.

10.0–0–0

I found this more flexible than immediately deciding where to develop my king's knight. However, transpositions are very likely:

a) 10.Nge2 Ke7 11.0–0–0 Nc6 12.Rd2 ½–½ Aroshidze-Gelashvili, Sort 2007.
b) 10.Nh3 Nc6 11.0–0–0 Ke7:
b1) 12.Nf2 ½–½ Aroshidze-Gelashvili, Benasque 2007.
b2) 12.Nb1 h6 13.Nd2 b5 14.c3 ½–½ V.Gurevich-Savchenko, Cappelle la Grande 1994.
b3) 12.Ne2 b5 13.Nf2 Rhf8 14.Nd3 Nd7 15.Kb1 Na5 16.b3 Nb7 17.Rhf1 Rf7 18.Bg5+ Kf8 19.Bc1 Kg8 20.Bb2 ½–½ Mamedov-Ftacnik, Saint Vincent 2005.

10...Ke7 11.Nh3
11.Rd2 Nbd7 12.Nge2 Rhd8 13.Rhd1 Bc5 14.Rxd7+ Nxd7 15.Rxd7+ Rxd7 16.Bxc5+ Kf6 of Beliavsky-Fridman, Enschede 2005 seems unclear to me (but may have been crystal clear for Beliavsky).
11...b5 12.Nf2 (Dia)

12...h6?!

This may not be a big mistake but it reduces Black's options on the kingside so he will no longer be able to generate much activity himself.

After 12...Nbd7 13.Rd2 (13.Ne2!?) 13...Rhb8 (13...Nb6 14.b3 Rhb8 15.Kb2 Nfd7 16.Rhd1 h6 17.Ne2 Bb4 18.c3 Bd6 19.f4 exf4 20.Nxf4 += Nevostrujev-Zemerov, Novosibirsk 2002) some examples of play are:

a) 14.Ne2 a5 15.Kb1 h6 16.Rhd1 a4 ½–½ Ovetchkin-Maletin, Nizhnij Tagil 2007.
b) 14.Kd1 Nb6 15.Bxb6 Rxb6 16.Ke2 Nd7 17.Ncd1 Rbb8 18.Ne3 += S.Reppen-Markosian, Tromsoe 2007.
c) 14.h4 Nb6 15.b3 Nbd7 16.Kb2 a5 17.a4 bxa4 18.Nxa4 Nb6 19.Nxb6 cxb6 20.Rhd1 +/- Karjakin-Kodinets, Internet blitz 2003.

13.h4 Nc6 14.Nd3 Nd7 15.h5 Rhf8 16.Rh3 Rf7 17.Ne2

After Black's 12th move g6 is a weakness, so I was considering f3-f4.

17...Na5 18.Bf2

I like this retreat. The bishop cannot stay in both the attractive diagonals (a7-g1 and h4-d8) but at least it can threaten to enter both.

18...Raf8 19.c3 Nc6 20.Kc2 a5 21.b3 Ra8 22.Rg1 Raf8 23.Bh4+ Nf6 24.Bf2 (Dia)

In reality this is a draw offer. It suited me well, as I was tired and my opponent was clearly higher rated than me. So speculating how to proceed playing for a win is mainly an academic exercize:

a) Rybka initially likes 24.Rg3 (which was one of my ideas when playing 16.Rh3) but when I follow up Rybka's suggestions it doesn’t seem to lead anywhere.
b) In the post mortem I suggested 24.g4 but I quickly got a position without potential. I wish I could remember the lines because now, in company with Rybka, 24...Kd7 25.g5 hxg5 26.Bxg5 seems moderately promising.
c) My next post mortem suggestion was 24.Ra1 Ra8 and now 25.g4. This looks promising after 25...a4 26.b4 but 25...Kd7 26.a4 b4 must be OK for Black.

24...Nd7 25.Bh4+ Nf6 26.Bf2 Nd7 27.Bh4+ ½–½

Mating Combinations in Norwegian

2010-01-20T11:09:00.000+01:00

Title: Sjakk og matt

Authors: Svetoslav Mihajlov and Sverre Johnsen
Pages: 88
Language: Norwegian
Publishers: Self-published
Pdf extract

In a week or so the booklet 'Sjakk og matt' (Check and Mate) will be available in Norway. It is mainly a collections of mating combinations created by Svetoslav with some supporting prose (in Norwegian) by me. There is also a preface by GM Simen Agdestein, chess responsible in NTG - the Norwegian College of Elite Sport.

The combinations are based on exercizes that Svetoslav created when he a year ago assisted as a chess coach during my chess club's tournaments for kids, (every Monday 18.00-20.00 in Bogstadveien 30 in Majorstuen, Oslo). One of the nice things with mating combinations is that there is no point discussing the solution - a mate is a mate and ends the game.

I hope the book will be a useful addition to Norwegian chess literature which for obvious reasons is not very extensive.

Play the London System Announced

2010-01-14T10:46:00.001+01:00

Everyman Chess has now officially announced 'Play the London System' by Cyrus Lakdawala. It is scheduled for September 2010 in the US and October 2010 in Europe, but Everyman hasn't exactly stuck rigorously to their publishing scheme the last year. At 192 pages it will be be of similar size as our 2005 work.

With this information I will take new contact with Gambit Publishing and suggest they publish an updated version of 'Win with the London System' early in 2011. There almost certainly will be an update but its extent is unclear (as is the timing).

Two More Stonewall Reviews

2009-12-10T17:47:00.008+01:00

Yesterday I noticed two more reviews of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' on the net:

Donaldson's review is now available on Silman Chess. I suspect it has already been published somewhere (possibly in print) a couple of months ago, as Gambit's infopage has already quoted it for some time.
In Dansk Skak Union's 'Skakbladet' (available as a pdf-file for download) there is a review (in Danish) by Peter Heine Nielsen.

Donaldson's review focuses more on the opening than on the book. That happened all the time with 'Win with the London System' with a lot of reviewers stating that the book was fine but the subject boring. Fortunately Donaldson likes the Stonewall and quotes Kramnik's endorsing but slightly dated statements in Dvoretsky's 'Positional Chess'.

I found Peter Heine Nielsen's review very interesting. The great Dane is generally considered one of the best prepared GMs around. He has not been playing a lot lately but being a second for Anand and Carlsen is not less prestigious than some tournament wins. He points out that the Stonewall to some extent a Norwegian specialty and is of course right. All the early Norwegian GMs (Agdestein, Gausel, Djurhuus, Tisdall and Østenstad) played it regularly in the late eighties and early nineties (usually in combination with the French) and I think the main reason its popularity slowly declined in Norway was the fact that most of these players got less active on the tournament circuit.
Below you can see the original text (in danish) and my attempted translation.

En fremragende bog. Ud over forfatterne fungerer Leif Erlend Johannessen som rådgiver, og Simen Agdestein har skrevet forord og været involveret i kapitlerne med illustrerende partier. Agdestein selv har haft stor succes med den hollandske stonewall og beskriver godt de typiske planer. Stonewall er en strategisk åbning med stor dybde, og netop derfor har en af bogens forfattere, Ivar Bern brugt den med succes i kskak, hvor han vandt VM-titlen.

An outstanding book. In addition to the authors, Leif Erlend Johannessen has been an advisor and Simen Agdestein has written a preface and been involved in the chapters with illustrative games. Agdestein has had great success with the Dutch Stonewall himself and describes the typical plans well. The Stonewall is a strategical opening with great depth and exactly for this reason one of the authors - Ivar Bern - has used it successfully in correspondence chess where he won the World Championship.

Computerne tror oftest på Hvid, men forstår ikke altid de atypiske stillinger, hvor Sort måske har optisk svage felter og en dårlig løber, men i virkeligheden står udmærket. Ikke blot rehabiliterer de en undervurderet åbning, men de gør det med inspirerende kapitler bakket op med personlige erfaringer fra førende eksperter. Og selv om de vedkender sig deres inspiration fra Jens Kristiansens berømte artikel om åbningen her i Skakbladet, fornemmer man, at her videreformidles en slags fælles norsk skakforståelse.

The computers normally prefer White but don't always understand the atypical positions where Black has optical pawn weaknesses and a poor bishop but in reality has an excellent position. Not only do the authors rehabilitate an underestimated opening - they even do so by means of inspiring chapters supported by the personal experiences of leading experts. And although they admit being inspired by Jens Kristiansen's famous article on the opening here - in the 'Skakbladet' - you can sense that they are conveying a kind of common Norwegian chess perception.

Peter Heine Nielsen

Block with the Rook

2009-12-04T16:40:00.017+01:00

I am not sure how the publishing companies reason about the matter, but as an author it seems an obvious advantage to be able to build on other authors' analysis; that is to have a recent work on your subject available. In order to do so, you need in practical terms to publish your work 3-4 months later than your competitor. This may seem a lot but you must calculate at least six weeks for typesetting and printing and you will frequently need one week to get hold of a newly published book.

I have for some time been curious about what Everyman would offer in their Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch: Dazzle your Opponent! Some of the answer is now available as downloadable pdf-files at their website.

I was not very surprised by their suggestions of 1.d4 f5 2.Nh3!? and 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.h3!? as weapons for White. While it was obviously impossible to devote much attention to these lines in 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', I noted that both lines had some sting while researching the book. The Everyman team probably will poke some holes in our very limited coverage of these lines but that's the nature of chess analysis (and I doubt that either of the lines will become very popular at master level).

More of a surprise was their suggestion of 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7!? (Dia) for Black.

In our Stonewall book we decided to recommend 2...g6 as it seemed less theoretically volatile, so in this line there is no overlap between the books. However, in the forthcoming revised edition of Summerscale's 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' we recommend exactly this line for White.

Before agreeing to update the Summerscale book I set the condition that if it turned out that his 2.Bg5 analysis was getting shaky, I would replace his analysis with something less tactical (4.e3/4.Bg3 and 3.Bf4!? were the obvious candidates). However, I could find no major problem with his recommendation of 4.e4 and sent Gambit a manuscript based on 4.e4, including some analysis on 4...Rh7 (which Summerscale didn't mention in his original book). My conclusion (based on Rybka 3.0 and a friend who for some time hoped that 4...Rh7 solved all Black's problems in the 2.Bg5 variation) was that 4...Rh7 was close to lost for Black.

Now I must say I am a bit anxious to see what Williams' 21 pages of analysis offer. Unless I am very unlucky I will have his analysis available for the final proof-reading stage of the Killer book. In the meantime, here is a game that Williams needs to improve upon in his analysis:

Daniel Gormall - Simon Williams
EU Union Ch (Liverpool) 2006

1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7 5.Qh5+ Rf7 6.Nf3
6.Bxg5 hxg5 7.Nf3 probably is less exact. Black was somewhat better after 7...Nf6 8.Qg6 Nxe4 9.Ne5 Nd6 10.Be2 e6 11.Bh5 Qe7 in Alzate-Rodi, Buenos Aires 2005.
6...Nf6 7.Qg6 Nc6 8.Bxg5!?
8.Bc4 seems promising.
8...fxe4 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 hxg5 11.exf6 exf6
11...e6 may be better. The chances after 12.Nd2 Qxf6 13.Qxf6 Rxf6 14.Nxe4 Rf5 15.Bd3 Bg7 16.c3 was roughly equal in Kharitonov-Gajewski San Agustin 2003.
12.Nc3 Bb4 13.0–0–0 Bxc3 (Dia)

14.Bc4!
This seems to secure White the better chances.
14...Bxb2+ 15.Kxb2 Qe7 16.h4! d5?! 17.Bxd5 Qe5+ 18.c3 Be6 19.Bxe6 1–0

The Original Killer Repertoire

2009-12-02T09:57:00.002+01:00

Do you know the original 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire'? It used to be one of my favorite chess opening books and when Gambit asked whether I was interested in updating it, I jumped at the opportunity.
The original work was a fairly slim volume at 144 pages. It has been out of print for some time now and as usual that causes the price offers on Amazon and e-Bay to skyrocket. I would expect that trend to be reversed or at least reduced by the arrival of the revised edition but you never know. There will almost certainly be someone who swear by the original edition and find all additions to detract from the book's value.

So in order to prepare myself for the coming slaughter, I went searching for internet reviews of the 1998 edition. I seemed to remember a review by a GM on the British Chess Federation's website but was unable to find it. I was also unable to find any review of the book at Silman's large depository so I ended up with a surprising meagre catch:

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.

In his book 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' the English GM Summerscale presents an interesting, unusual, aggressive and rather complete opening repertoire for White. The initial moves are 1.d4 and 2.Nf3. Against the Grünfeld and the King's Indian Summerscale offers the Barry Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3), against the Pirc and Modern defences he recommends 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be3. Here he also examins variations without ...Nf6 for Black. The Queen's Gambit is avoided by means of the Colle-Zukertort set-up (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3). Of course Summerscale also discusses various Anti-Colle systems. Then follows a chapter on the Queen's Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7 5.0-0 c5 6.c4), the Benoni (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3) as well as the Dutch (1.d4 f5 2.Bg5). In the final chapter various sidelines are examined.

The offered repertoire parts fit well together and make a rather complete repertoire. The killer repertoire contains relatively few theoretical variations. Nevertheless there no doubt are books that treat some of the lines in more detail. This may also be the reason why Summerscale only recommends his own book for players rated up to 2000 Elo. All taken into account the book offers White an unusual but yet correct and aggressive repertoire for the price of 45 Deutsche Mark. However, you will need some basic English reading skills in order to understand Summerscale's explanations.

Thomas Schian, Rochade Europa 04/99

PS
My apologies for neglecting this blog for the past couple of months. I first had a very busy October and then was a bit apatic in November. I now plan to resume blogging as normal.

Another German Stonewall Review

2009-11-16T15:21:00.005+01:00

I noticed that Schachversand Niggemann now quotes Schachwelt's review of "Win with the Stonewall Dutch" (in German). Schackwelt appears to be a new German language chess magazin that started up in September this year. They also offer an "Issue 0" from August 2009 as a free download. As far as I can see this must be an excellent buy for anyone who can read German.

I can't find any way to link directly to Niggemann's review page, so I give the text below with my attempt at a translation.

Ein Repertoire aus schwarzer Sicht behandelt "Win with the Stonewall Dutch". Das Autorengespann besteht aus Sverre Johnsen (ELO 2171), Ivar Bern (ELO 2328, IM und Fernschachweltmeister) sowie GM Simen Agdestein. Die beiden letztgenannten sind jeweils auch mit einigen eigenen Partien vertreten. Die Idee das Wissen von ein oder zwei starken Spielern zu nutzen und einen enthusiastischen Amateur die Fleißarbeit machen zu lassen ist reizvoll und war schon in "Win with London System" ganz erfolgreich. Im Vorwort wird dargestellt, wer für welche Themen verantwortlich war. Allerdings bleibt es an manchen Stellen trotzdem unklar, wessen Meinung man bei "I" oder "We" jetzt liest, oder ob es sich etwa um die Meinung des Amateurs aufgrund einer Engine-Beurteilung handelt.

A repertoire from Black’s point of view is what "Win with the Stonewall Dutch” offers. The author team consists of Sverre Johnsen (Elo 2171), Ivar Bern (Elo 2328, IM and Correspondence Chess World Champion and GM Simen Agdestein. The two last ones are represented by some of their own games. The idea to utilize the knowledge of one or two strong players by making an enthusiastic amateur do the hard labour is beautiful and was quite successful already in "Win with London System". In the preface it’s made clear who was responsible for the different subjects. Nevertheless there are several places were it’s unclear whose opinion is expressed by “I” or “We” and whether it is the opinion of an amateur based on a computer evaluation.

Nach drei einführenden Partien folgt die Theorie in 12 Kapiteln. Sieben davon behandeln weiße Aufbauten mit g3, zwei Kapitel weiße Aufbauten ohne g3. In zwei weiteren wird auf weiße Abweichungen im zweiten Zug (2. Sc3, 2. Lg5, 2. e4, 2. g4) eingegangen. Das letzte Kapitel behandelt weiße Aufbauten ohne d4, in denen der Stonewall-Aufbau als kritisch gilt. Beginnt Schwarz mit der Zugfolge 1. d4 e6, kann er sich die letzten drei Kapitel sparen, muss aber dann mit 2. e4 (Übergang zu Französisch) rechnen. Jedes Kapitel beinhaltet: Eine Übersicht über die Partien, Kommentierte Musterpartien, eine Übungsaufgabe, sowie eine Theorie-Übersicht. Den Kern bilden kommentierte Partien, in denen Schachwissen rund um die Eröffnung vermittelt wird. Die Autoren legen dabei vor allem Wert auf das Verständnis und gehen trotzdem auf Feinheiten z.B. bzgl. der Zugfolge ein. Das gelingt sehr gut, jedoch ist eine Menge Arbeit erforderlich. Meistens werden eine oder mehrere Möglichkeiten für Schwarz vorgestellt. Die Hauptempfehlung steckt in den Musterpartien, teilweise aber auch in der Theorie-Übersicht oder gar in der Besprechung der Übungsaufgabe. Wer sich jedoch die Mühe macht, wird die entstehenden Strukturen besser verstehen, so dass das Buch durchaus auch für den Weißspieler interessant ist.

After three introductory games the theory follows in 12 chapters. Seven of these treat white set-ups with g3, two chapters are on white set-ups without g3. In two further chapters White’s second move deviations (2 Nc3, 2 Bg5, 2 e4, 2 g4) are examined. The last chapter takes care of set-ups where White doesn’t play d4, in which the Stonewall is considered critical. If Black uses the move-order 1.d4 e6 he can save himself the last three chapters but must be prepared for 2.e4 and the French defence. Each chapter contains: An overview of the games; annotated illustrative games; an exercise and a theoretical survey. The games are the core around which the chess knowledge is communicated. The authors primarily emphasize understanding but nevertheless go into details regarding – for instance – move-orders. This succeeds very well but requires an effort by the reader. Mostly one or more alternatives are offered for Black. Mostly the main recommendation can be found in the illustrative games but occasionally also in the theoretical survey or even in the comments to the exercises. Anyone who invests the required work will gain a better understanding of the occurring structures, making the book an interesting option even for those playing the white side.

Mit freundlicher Genehmigung
Prof. Dr. Matthias Willems, Schachwelt 1/2009

This entry was updated November 20th 2009.

Stonewall Omissions III

2009-10-10T01:53:00.001+01:00

In the long and somewhat tangled Chess Publishing Forum thread on our Stonewall book, there is a question about move-orders in the 2.Nc3 line: How should Black react to 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.e3!? (Dia), planning a delayed capture on f6 and possibly saving a tempo by keeping the bishop on f1 (planning to meet ...Na6 with Bf1xa6 rather than Bd3xa6).

This question is justified as the move 4.e3 is not even mentioned in our book. It has been played quite frequently but doesn't seem to have much independent significance against our suggested plan of action. After the consistent 4...c6 I would think that White's best try for an edge is transposing back to 4.Bxf6 lines with 5.Bxf6 exf6 6.Qf3 g6. However, there are a few independent tries:

5.Qf3?!
This is TalJechin's main suggestion. As far as I can see (I am having some minor problems with my ChessBase installation) the move is untested. It indeed makes some sense as the queen quite often goes to f3 in the 4.Bxf6 lines. However, the queen move isn't highly evaluated by Rybka and seems to fail achieving anything for quite concrete reasons (given below).
Other tries are:
a) After 5.Bd3 Na6, 6.Bxf6 or 6.Bxa6, probably transposing to lines covered in the book appears best as 6.Qf3 Ne4! looks strong.
b) 5.h3 looks very slow. However, after 5...Na6 6.Bxa6 actually gains a tempo over some lines where White plays Bf1-d3xa6, so Black may prefer 5...Qa5!?, hoping to use the ...Ba3 trick suggested elsewhere in the book after 6.Bxf6 exf6.
c) Other moves like 5.Nf3, 5.Nh3, or 5.Qd2 are certainly possible but I fail to see any clear idea behind them.
5...Ne4!
I am not convinced that 5...Qa5!? 6.Bxf6 exf6 7.O-O-O b5!? 8.Bxb5!? is quite as strong as Rybka thinks it is. But why go deeply into lines like that when the active knight move looks so simple and strong?
6.Nxe4
After 6.h4, 6...Qb6 looks stronger than the immediate capture on c3.
6...fxe4
Also 6...dxe4 7.Qh3 Qa5+ 8.c3 Be6, planning ...Bf7 and ...h6 looks OK.
7.Qg3 Qa5+ 8.c3 Bf5 (Dia)

The position is quite interesting but I think it's already possible to conclude that Black is fine as he has more space and is not behind in development.

So, is this an omission?
Yes, probably it is. Foreseeing that a reader would be curious about the untested 5.Qf3 and related lines would have been quite difficult. But there should at least have been a sentence saying something like 'After 4.e3 c6, White probably has nothing better than 5.Bxf6, transposing back to our main line'.

Check Chess Check

2009-10-09T07:07:00.003+01:00

I am still too busy for any substantial blog entries. However, this time I am very pleased to refer to another site. The Chess Check site which seems to be based on their monthly Chess Check e-zine was brought to my attention by Gambit's infopage on 'The Ruy Lopez: a Guide for Black', which quoted John Lee Shaw's review of that book. I enjoyed the review, which had a nice personal touch, as well as the rest of their e-zine.

I already look forward to their October Issue which is planned for October 31st!

Addendum November 2nd
I am happy to note that the October issue was delivered on time and seems to be another enjoyable publication.

Five Stars from Carsten Hansen

2009-10-07T07:48:00.002+01:00

In his October book review at Chess Cafe, Carsten Hansen gives five stars (out of five possible) to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. I shall not give lengthy quotations as it's all available online but I can't resist duplicating his conclusion:

This book is incredibly well-written and it makes the theory of this opening extremely accessible. The authors are honest and objective in their appraisal of the individual lines, which makes the book a perfect tool for the study of this fascinating opening. If you have not already bought this book, it is time to do so now. For those who need a new weapon against 1 d4, this book makes an excellent case for it to be the Stonewall Dutch.

My assessment of this book: *****

As this in my opinion was the voice of the last of the major chess book reviewers, I will not be holding my breath for any more reviews. But if I should stumble upon any more, I most likely will mention it in this blog.

In a week or two I probably will take up my normal (irregular) blogging again - hopefully with some analytical content.

The Future of Kung Fu Chess

2009-09-30T07:45:00.001+01:00

I never intended this blog to be just a collection of reviews and references to other sites. But for another two weeks I don't expect to have much time available. Therefore I today refer my readers to the excellent Streetham & Brixton blog which has some news on Kung Fu chess, which is one of the relatively few chess variants I enjoy. Apparently Tempest is the place to go for Kung Fu Chess enthusiasts.

It may not be an easy game to implement, but in my opinion Kung Fu chess deserves a place on at least one of the major servers (like ICC, Playchess or FICS). Or - on second thought - maybe that is turning the argument on its head? Maybe I should wish Tempest good luck in their attempts to become a major chess server?

Flear Reviews Win with the Stonewall Dutch

2009-09-28T21:42:00.001+01:00

I am not sure who is the most influential online chess book reviewer. John Watson and Jeremy Silman are two hot candidates with Carsten Hansen as a possible contender. However, for paper based reviews I am quite convinced that Glenn Flear who writes the review section of New in Chess' Yearbooks must top the list. Therefore I was very happy to see him recommend 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' in Yearbook 92. He opens his review, which takes up almost an entire page, charmingly modest:
"Although I have been covering the Stonewall Dutch for chesspublishing.com for several years, I don't claim to really understand it that well. This book could be exactly what I need to bring my erudiation up to shape!"

Flear then goes on quoting and referring to Agdestein's foreword concluding this part of his review as follows:
"The theory is sufficient detailed for anyone wanting to know what has happened before but, unlike many lines which can be worked out at home, the Stonewall is 'an opening for those who like to fight there and then'. An ideal choice for players with limited memory capacity but great fighting spirit!"

There follows some more kind words about the book's disposition and content before he sums up:
"Highly revealing and a definite for anyone who doesn't really comprehend the Stonewall Dutch, which means (be honest now!) just about everyone."

All I can do in return is recommending Yearbook 92. In my opinion the review section is worth the price of the book alone. And as added bonuses there are 33 theoretical surveys, Sosonko's Corner and the Forum. Definitely a must buy!

Nothing but Praise from Watson

2009-09-15T07:00:00.004+01:00

I was very pleased to see Watson's recent reviews at The Week in Chess. Not only does he give 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' unconditional praise, but he adds weight to his evaluation by stating that 'The Dutch has been a part of my recent writing (Mastering the Chess Openings again), and I got a chance to look at this book closely.'

As a special bonus Watson on the subject of the Ruy Lopez returns to my previous book with Leif Johannessen, 'The Ruy Lopez: a Guide for Black'. I take the liberty to lift the relevant text from his lengthy review:

In an earlier column I reviewed Sverre Johnsen's & Leif Johannessen's The Ruy Lopez: A Guide For Black, which promotes the Zaitsev Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8. That book is a complete repertoire after the move 3...a6, that is, it includes solutions to the Exchange Variation and White's alternatives from moves 4-10. I consider it the best 'Ruy Lopez for Black' book in general, because in addition to great theoretical detail and a good choice of variations (see below), it has a huge amount of material on ideas and themes, strategy in the Ruy, and how to prepare and practice openings.

I have nothing to add!

More Norwegian Stonewall Reviews

2009-09-02T07:55:00.002+01:00

There is a new Norwegian review of 'Win with Stonewall Dutch' at Nettavisen's chess pages.
There also was a review in the new issue (4/2009) of 'Norsk Sjakkblad'.
Unfortunately I am extremely pressed for time these days so I will not attempt to quote, translate or comment on these for some days.

Dutch - Open Games

2009-08-27T14:26:00.029+01:00

There have been some analytical reactions to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' and I am planning to at least briefly comment on most of them and offer some analysis if relevant. However, I am still quite busy so I must deal with them slowly and one by one. Today I will look at what I believe must be one of the simpler issues.

A reader on the Chess Publishing forum thinks that in Lesson 12 after the moves 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4!? e6 we should have dealt with the move 4.d5 (Dia). For the context I should mention that this position is discussed in Exercise 12 where the student is supposed to analyse the line independently, then check his analysis with a computer program and finally consult our suggested solution.

To my surprise I see that 4.d5 was originally suggested by a poster I have reason to believe is a fairly strong player. Yet I humbly disagree and assume the move was suggested somewhat light-heartedly - possibly for the fun of playing 2.d3, 3.d4 and 4.d5. That kind of fun can occasionally work well in closed positions. But in this case the Dutch leads to relatively open play.

In my opinion 4.d5 might reasonably have been discussed in some detail if it had belonged in an earlier lesson. However, after having dealt in some details with the comparable line 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 (Dia) in Lesson 9, (where we opine that 3.d5 is unlikely to be a threat to Black's opening as it violates basic opening principles) I honestly don't think that this should be necessary. Black's extra tempo somewhat reduces his number of options but should not at all be difficult to use in a positive way.

Exercise 9 dealt with the highly tactical line 3...exd5 4.Qxd5 d6 5.Ng5 Qe7 6.Nxh7 (Dia)

Here Black has an important choice between 6...c6 7.Qb3 Rxh7 8.Qxg8 Rh4 as in an interesting game by Miles and 6...Rxh7 7.Qxg8 Rh4 8.Qb3 Nc6! as in a more recent game by Jussupow.

Having studied these positions it should be clear to any student that 4.d5 is, frankly speaking, a quite poor move. The main point is that after 3./4. d5 Black has the option to open the centre, reaching a kind of position where the pawn structure and even the number of pawns is of less importance than piece activity and direct tactical threats. As a result Black, as any analysis engine can confirm, has not one but a number of ways to reach a satisfactory position.

a) Rybka 3 likes the gambit line 5...Nf6!? 6.Qxf5 d5 7.Qd3 Bc5 and thinks that Black has full compensation. I am not sure that all programs will agree as some are very materialistic but most humans will find that Black has clearly the better practical chances here.

b) If you don't like sacrificing pawns 5...Bb4+ 6.c3 Nge7 7.Qd3 Bc5 is a simple way to complete development and reach a fully satisfactory position. Rybka considers that White is very slightly better here but I cannot really see why.

c) 5...d6 probably is even stronger. Black threatens to develop with tempo on White's exposed queen and 6.Ng5 (which is critical in the parallel position with Black's knight still on b8) is meaningless for at least two reasons:

c1) 6...Qf6 looks strong as the consistent 7.Nxh7? (Dia) loses to the slightly surprising 7...Qd4!.

c2) For practical purposes 6...Qe7 (Dia) may be even stronger as White may be tempted into 7.Nxh7 (what else?) 7...Be6 8.Qb5 0–0–0 9.Nxf8 Rxf8 when Black has more than compensation for his pawn. Rybka says '=+ (-0.34)' at search depth 14 but I suspect that White is lost.

White obviously should look for alternative 6th moves, but then Black will follow up with 6...Nf6 and e.g. 7...g6 and a very comfortable Leningrad position.

Disclaimer

This analysis is based on my own evaluations, supported by some Rybka input, and I have not consulted my co-author who was the book's analytical authority.

The Stonewall Reviewed in Norwegian

2009-08-21T12:10:00.005+01:00

The national Norwegian television company NRK has a story and a review of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' in their sports section today. I am too busy right now but maybe I in the near future - as a service for non-Norwegian readers - will attempt a translation of the conclusion.

Stonewall Omissions II

2009-08-16T14:16:00.019+01:00

While the more or less 'professional' reviewers have all been very kind to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', there have been some critical remarks by what may possibly be called 'Dutch enthusiasts'. I will have a look at one of these reviews which can be found at Chess Publishing Forum.

In the thread 'New Book - Win with the Stonewall Dutch' a poster called 'Ametanoitos' in post #18 starts a debate. I will not go into analytical details as I think the analysis provided mostly speaks for itself. I will rather comment on his points from an author's viewpoint.

Ametanoitos doesn't trust our recommendation 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 Bb4+ 4.c3 Bd6 because in his notebook he some years ago wrote 'Do not trust the ...Bd6 idea'. He doesn't remember his exact analysis but found that following some suggestions that were recommended as leading to equality (in some other books) didn't quite equalize against natural moves. So he instead decided to go for 3...d6.

Well, a book cannot reasonably be expected to agree with every reader's preferences. 3...Bb4+ has been by recommended by various books and played repeatedly by Dutch specialists Gleizerov, Ulibin and Simons so it doesn't seem likely it's that bad.

On page 168 we say that 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.h4 'looks unsound and is likely to backfire after 4...Nf6.' Ametanoitos claims that 'this is not as bad as they say' and gives some examples demonstrating that the line can be quite dangerous but none of them with our recommendation 5.Nc3 Ne4.

Firstly I must say that our comment wasn't meant to be a total condemnation of the line. In my vocabulary there is a difference between 'looks' and 'is'. I would be surprised if this line offers White an advantage against sensible play but I have been surprised before. More importantly I again fail to see how this can be a weakness of the book. I will admit that we in addition to 6.Nxe4 might well have added the game Gohlil-Keitlinghaus, 2nd Bundesliga 2002 which continued 6.Qd3 d5 7.Qe3. However, there is always a matter of space and the line doesn't look frightening. I honestly think you should be able to reach a playable position against such a line without any concrete preparation.

Then Ametanoitos moves on to a main variation: 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 5.0–0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Qc2!?:

Firstly he is not satisfied with our 'recommendation' 7...Nbd7, offering the game Taimanov- Lisitsin, Leningrad 1949 which continued 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nc3 a6 10.Bf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 0–0 12.Na4 with a quite clear advantage to White.

Well, I must agree that the position after 12.Na4 is not pleasant for Black and that the reader deserves guidance. It's a bit strange that we overlooked this game even if it's a bit old. Most likely we missed it because the game begun 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2 Nd7 5.g3 Bd6 6.Bg2 f5 7.0–0 Ngf6 thus only merging with our repertoire in the last minute. Another possibility is that we sorted the games according to rating and forgot to check for 'pre-Elo' games - that happens from time to time.

Then it must be pointed out that 7...Nbd7 isn't strictly a 'recommendation'. Rather we point out that this is how Black could respond if he prefers to leave his king in the centre against Bf4 lines (which White may still enter). With this basic premise in mind I will suggest that 11...b5!? is a very natural try for Black. Actually, after allowing Rybka chew on the position until it reaches 18 plys' depth it has 11...b5 on top ahead of 11...0-0 with the evaluation '= (0.23)'. That may not be ideal for Black but it's the kind of positions you sometimes have to be content with playing Black. Maybe I in a future entry will elaborate on the value (or lack of so) of these Rybka or Fritz evaluations.

Next Ametanoitos is unhappy that we after our recommendation 7...0-0 doesn't mention Cox' suggestion in 'Starting Out: 1.d4', 8.Ne5!?.

I Plead Guilty!

This line should have been covered. I don't really know how we missed it but must assume I got too carried away mapping possible transpositions between 7.Qc2, 7.Nc3 and 7.Bg5 and missed some independent lines.

As can be seen from our bibliography, Cox' book wasn't among our sources. My chess library is quite extensive (3/4 of it has been deported to my parents' home for space reasons) but it doesn't contain that book and I didn't really consider buying it for the sake of writing this Dutch book. That may have been a mistake as I have been informed that the book is quite good. Nevertheless, this is not a sufficient explanation as there have been 42 games played, some of them with strong white players and with well known Stonewall experts on Black's side (Vaisser among others).

That being said, I am not really impressed by the move's pure chess qualities. In this position Rybka is greatly helped by its inability to understand the concept of 'consistency' and happily suggest 8...c5! (Dia) with what seems like instant equality.

As you can see for yourself this is just the start of the debate on the forum. I will follow up with another entry or two but not really enter the analytical discussion.

A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire on the Loose

2009-08-12T05:46:00.010+01:00

Gambit Publishing has now released their coming titles for the winter. There are quite a few interesting looking books on the horizon.

To me, the most interesting one is an update of Aaron Summerscale's classic ' A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' which is scheduled for March 2010. I can honestly say I was surprised to see my name listed as a co-author as my task just was to bring this 11 years old book up to date. However, in retrospect Gambit's decision seems the only reasonable one. The book has been quite heavily updated and it would not have been fair to mr. Summerscale to list him as sole author.

Another surprise was that the book - as the only one on their new list - will be in Gambit's small format (A5 - 210x145 mm). I have no idea why this decision was made but it must somehow be related to the fact that even after the update the book is relatively light weight.

I am again pleased with the cover which certainly must be another Wolff Morrow creation. His style is quite recognizable and the theme fits the title quite nicely.

My apologies to everybody waiting for blogs with an analytical content - be it the Stonewall or the Noteboom. I am working but I am working slowly and the days go by.

More Stonewall Reviews

2009-08-09T22:24:00.009+01:00

Some more Stonewall reviews for the archive:

Jeremy Silman - author of 'How to Reassess Your Chess' - is probably right when claiming to have the greatest online collection of chess book reviews. I always follow his (and his staff's) reviews as they usually are quite detailed and well written. However, if I hadn't been alerted by an e-mail from my publishers, this time he might have stayed under my radar for some days by adding a review of our Stonewall book just one day his other August reviews. There may at this site also be another review of our book by John Donaldson as indicated on Gambit's infopage. I have however been unable to locate this review.

Chessvibes has a growing collection of reviews. Some of them are slightly controversial (see 'Play 1.b3) but all seem fair and well thought out by a reviewer who really has worked with the books in question. This time Arne Moll considers 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' together with a few other books: Openings, openings, openings. As far as I can see his review is very favourable. He points out that there are some very complicated move-order issues in the variation 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 and that he had trouble following our explanations. This is not strange, as this really is a complex issue. For practical purposes this may not be too much to worry about as:

4...d5 is quite playable for Black and the book gives what I believe is sufficient guidance even if Black should be move-ordered into the lines resulting from this move-order.
Following 4...c6, White will mostly play either 5.Nh3 when Black can play for ...d6 and ...e5 or 5.Nf3, leading to positions considered after the move-order 4.Nf3.

Below the review is a quite interesting discussion where readers discuss whether those playing unusual openings really want to read thick tomes on their favorites.

There is also a review in Dutch by Gerard Rill at the chess shop 'De beste zet'. Written Dutch is relatively easy to understand for a Norwegian who can also read German (spoken Dutch is something entirely different!) but I am not sure I understand everything. Below follows an attempt to translate his conclusion:

Is there then nothing negative to remark about this book? Actually I can think of only one thing: the old masters of the Dutch are not taken into consideration. In order to understand the Dutch not only the current stand of theory is important but also how it was developed, for instance during the games of the World Championship match between Botwinnik and Bronstein in 1951.

Finally: To whom can I recommend this book? Firstly naturally to all French players. Further to black players who enjoy immediately going for the throat of White's king after 1.d4. Against weak opposition this certainly produces surprisingly quick results. But especially it can be recommended to everyone who like to play openings where understanding is more important than memorization.
Good luck with it!

Alas, when it comes to details and single words I must admit that this is all guesswork based on similarities. For instance I am quite confident that 'het begrip van de stelling' must mean 'understanding of the position'. I am not equally sure that 'hoofd hoeft te leren' means 'emptying your head' (and - assuming that this is correct - that this in turn means memorizing) but it seems quite likely. Maybe someone who actually knows the language can correct me?

Addendum August 14th
I did some changes and corrections to the translation above in order to reflect the comments by Shrek below and an e-mail from IM Gerard Welling. It's still not a word by word translation (never a good idea) but now probably a little closer to the meaning.

Elburg on Win with the Stonewall Dutch

2009-07-28T07:24:00.005+01:00

I am for the moment struggling with the Noteboom and some Stonewall lines and just note in passing that another review of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' has appeared. This time it's John Elburg - a little early with his reviews of August 1st. His review is positive (as they almost always are - even for quite poor books) and contains some useful information for potential buyers. Unfortunately he this time has missed the fact that Ivar Bern is a co-author (mentioning only Sverre Johnsen and Simen Agdestein). It's a pity that Elburg's command of the English language is lacking to the extent that it will be hard to find a complete sentence to quote. My guess is that Gambit on the book's info page will go for:
Conclusion: A very important reference work of the Dutch Stonewall!

Stonewall Omissions I

2009-07-24T10:43:00.006+01:00

So far all reviews of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' have been very positive. Nevertheless some readers - presumably experienced Dutch players - have expressed disappointment that some lines have been omitted or received insufficient coverage. Some of these reactions are in my opinion very well founded while others appear a bit strange. I will return to the specifics in later entries (my brain is in holyday mode and I don't have a lot of Internet access). However, first I would like to share some thoughts and information about how the size and content of a book is decided.

Our contract with Gambit for 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' specified that the book should be 192-208 B5 (= large format) pages. This was what the publishers considered the ideal size, taking the intended audience and the book's retail price into account (contrary to what some theory buffs may believe a bigger book may well sell less).

What we actually delivered was the maximum 208 pages plus a little more as we also fully spent the extra 10% that one of Gambit's staff informed us could normally be squeezed in by typographic means. This we did despite knowing perfectly well that the effect might be crowded pages considerably less inviting to the eye than a more spacious lay-out. Thankfully, the result instead was a great looking book of 223 pages. A good deal for the customer but probably not so great for Gambit Publishing who no doubt had to pay extra for printing these extra pages with no possibility to raise their announced price.

My message? Well, just pointing out that in order to add something to the (already oversized) book, we would have had to deduct something too. I am well aware that this could have been done without the book suffering greatly but must say that I am quite fond of what we decided to keep.

First English Reviews

2009-07-20T11:02:00.003+01:00

During the week-end there appeared two reviews of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. I'm fairly busy now and they both speak for themselves so I just note that they both are positive and contain very little if any criticism and give the links:

Marsh Towers is a very nice site which impressively delivers its 100th chess books review.
I have no idea how many chess books reviews the British Chess Magazine can boast but I guess they top the list. The July Stonewall review is by the editor, John Saunders.

There are also some comments that come quite close to a review at Thomas Johansson's chess book page (this page opens an ad and at least one pop-up). I will return to this as it raises some questions that deserve to be answered.

I will also eventually have a look at some of the questions raised in this thread at Chess Publishing discussion forum.

The Stonewall Reviewed

2009-07-10T12:29:00.009+01:00

Another Stonewall review in German is available at Freechess.Info. This review too is very positive. However, curiously it seems more enthusiastic about the Stonewall Defence than about the book. Well, as a matter of fact choosing a fitting subject IS an important part of writing a good book and the Stonewall has a lot of good qualities.

As this still is an English language blog I will attempt another translation (Red = German; Green = English):

Der Stonewall ist schon eine fabelhafte Eröffnung!

Als Nachziehender baut man sich mittels der immer gleichen Anfangszüge c6, d5, e6, f5 nebst Sf6 auf. Anschließend noch flugs den Läufer auf d6 manövriert, kurze Rochade und ab geht die Luzi (wie zum Beispiel in der Partie GLÜCKSBERG - M. NAJDORF Warschau 1935: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Sf6 3.Sc3 e6 4.Sf3 d5 5.e3 c6 6.Ld3 Ld6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Se2? Sbd7 9.Sg5? L:h2+ 10.Kh1 Sg4 11.f4 De8 12.g3 Dh5 13.Kg2 Lg1 14.S:g1 Dh2+ 15.Kf3 e5! 16.d:e5 Sd:e5+ 17.f:e5 S:e5+ 18.Kf4 Sg6+ 19.Kf3 f4 20.e:f4 Lg4+ 21.K:g4 Se5+ 22.f:e5 h5 0-1 ).

The Stonewall is a marvellous opening!

Black always sets up the same formation: c6, d5, e6, f5 and Nf6. Then the bishop goes to d6, short castling and off we go (as for instance the game Glücksberg-Najdorf, Warsaw 1935).

Damit die Anwendung des Stonewalls in der Praxis nicht wie das Hornberger Schießen ausgeht (1564 kündigte der Herzog von Württemberg seinen Besuch in Hornberg an. Ein Wächter sollte den Gast per Hornsignal voranmelden, damit man zur Begrüßung Böller- und Kanonendonner abfeuern konnte. Zweimal gab er jedoch falschen Alarm. Als der hohe Gast dann wirklich kam, hatten die Hornberger buchstäblich "ihr Pulver verschossen", und so begrüßten sie den Herzog mit einem lauten "Piff-paff" aus tausend Männerkehlen.) haben Sverre Johnson (sic.), Ivar Bern und Simen Adgestein (sic.) das vor mir liegende Buch geschrieben. Es befasst sich aus der Sicht des Schwarzen mit dieser Eröffnung, die bereits Botwinnik regelmäßig anzuwenden pflegte und die im Repertoire führender Großmeister (Short, Dreev, Moskalenko) zu finden ist.

In order to prevent the practical use of of the Stonewall from outcomes as in the "Hornberg shooting" - a German saying for all bullets being shot elsewhere - Sverre Johnsen, Ivar Bern and Simen Agdestein have written the book which lies in front of me. It examins from Black's viewpoint this opening which already Botwinnik played regularly and which is in the repertoire of leading contemporary grandmasters like Short, Dreev and Moskalenko.

In 12 Kapiteln und mehr als 60 ausgewählten Musterpartien + zusätzlicher theoretischer Übersichten führen die Autoren den Leser an eine leicht zu erlernende Eröffnung heran. In der Tat ist die schwarze Strategie entwaffnend einfach als auch brandgefährlich! In jedem Kapitel gibt es mehrere kommentierte Partien die auf Besonderheiten und wichtige Haupt- und Nebenvarianten hinweisen.

The authors introduce the reader to an easy-to-learn opening in 12 chapters and more than 60 selected Illustrative games and additional theoretical overviews. Black's strategy is actually as simple as it's dangerous! In every chapter there are several annotated games which point out important features as well as main- and sub-variations.

Geschriebenes Wort und Analyse sind wohltuend ausgewogen und strapazieren den Leser nicht unnötig mit ellenlangen Variantenverästelungen. Neueste Entwicklungen wurden genauso berücksichtigt wie vergleichbare Publikationen, ebenso wurden die angefertigten Analysen sorgfältig geprüft und von diversen Engines „abgesegnet“. Im Grunde genommen ist dieses Buch ein komplettes Schwarzrepertoire gegen alles außer 1.e4, die Autoren geben Empfehlungen gegen 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Sf3 und 1.b3/1.g3.

The prose as well as the analysis are comfortingly well balanced and don't bother the reader unnecessarily with overly long variations. Recent developments as well as comparable publications are taken into account. The resulting variations are carefully tested and checked by various computer engines. The authors give recommendations against 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3 and 1.b3/1.g3 so in reality this is a complete black repertoire for everything except 1.e4.

Für wen ist das Buch zu empfehlen?
- Für Spieler mit wenig Zeit für das Eröffnungsstudium da im Stonewall das Wissen um Pläne und Strategien wichtiger ist als einzelne Züge.
- Für Spieler, die mit Schwarz um die Initiative kämpfen wollen ohne unnötige Risiken einzugehen.
- Für Spieler, die schon lange auf der Suche nach einem vernünftigen Schwarzrepertoire gegen alles außer 1.e4 sind.
Wie gesagt, der Stonewall ist eine fabelhafte Eröffnung.
Das Buch ist übrigens auch fabelhaft und deswegen ein Daumen hoch von meiner Seite!

For who can this book be recommended?
- For players with little time for opening preparation, as in the Stonewall understanding of plans and strategies is more important than single moves.
- For playes who like to seize the initiative with Black without taking unnecessary risks.
- For players who for a long time have been looking for an opening against everything except 1.e4.
As already said: The Stonewall is a marvellous opening.
The book is incidentally also marvellous and I give it thumbs up!

I hope this translation is not too far off the mark. The text contains some idioms that are unfamiliar to me and help from the readers would be appreciated!

Updated July the 15th:
I have adjusted the translation based on some feed-back from Stephan Busemann. Thanks!

First Stonewall Review

2009-07-08T06:24:00.017+01:00

I was expecting John Elburg to be first before British Chess Magazine. But it turned out that Deutscher Fernschachbund (BdF) - the German Correspondence Chess Federation was the first to deliver a regular review of our Stonewall book. The reviewer is very positive (even though he has some reservations regarding the subject. As it's in German here is an attempt to translate (Red = German, Green = English):

Schachbücher aus der Feder von Fernschachspielern sind rar. Dies gilt besonders, wenn der Autor zu den besten in der Welt zählen soll. So ist bei "Win with the Stonewall Dutch" beim Namen der Verfasser ein erstes Ausrufezeichen zu setzen, denn Co-Autor ist Ivar Bern, 17. Fernschach-Weltmeister. Mitverfasser ist Sverre Johnsen, Simen Agdestein hat ebenfalls beigetragen. Die hochgesteckte Erwartung in die Qualität des Werkes, besonders in seine Akkuratesse, wird dann aber beim Lesen des Rückentextes auf die Probe gestellt. Man hat es tatsächlich geschafft, den Namen Ivar Berns in Ivan Bern zu verstümmeln.

Chess books from the pen of correspondence chess players are rare। This is in particular so if the author is among the best in the world. This is the case with " Win with the Stonewall Dutch". The names of the authors earn a first exclamation mark, because the 17. correspondence chess world champion - Ivar Bern - is a co-author. The other co-author is Sverre Johnsen and Simen Agdestein has likewise contributed. However, the high expectations to the quality of the work - in particular its accuracy - are challenged when reading the back text of the book which succeeds in mutilating the name Ivar Bern into Ivan Bern.

Das Material zum holländischen Stonewall aber wird dann sehr solide dargestellt. 64 Partien, fünf davon vom Ex-Weltmeister selbst gespielt (+4, -0, =1). Mit den zwei weiteren Fernschachpartien beträgt deren Anteil insgesamt mehr als zehn Prozent.

The material on the Dutch Stonewall, however, is presented very solidly. Out of 64 games, five are by the Ex-World Champion (+4, -0, =1). Together with two further correspondence games this category altogether totals more than ten per cent.

Der Aufbau der insgesamt 12 Kapitel mutet etwas ungewöhnlich an. Den Anfang macht eine ultra-kurze Übersicht ("Lesson Overview") zum jeweiligen Thema. Dieser folgen mehrere ausführlich kommentierte Partien. Auffälig an diesen Partien ist, dass die Autoren so etwas wie ein FAQ-System eingearbeitet haben. So wie man es von derartigen Systemen kennt, erscheint im Text ein "Q" (für "Question", = Frage) und eine Fragestellung aus der Warte des Lesers, beides kursiv gedruckt. Mal geht es dabei um allgemeine Dinge zum System, dann um spezifische Stellungsfragen und dann wieder um Pläne, Einschätzungen etc. Die Antwort wird jeweils unmittelbar gegeben. Den Partien sowie der diesen nachgestellten Zusammenfassung der aus ihnen abzuleitenden Erkenntnisse schließt sich eine dem Leser gestellte Übung an. Nun erst, das Kapitel abschließend, wird die Theorie in allgemeiner Form dargestellt.

Die Kapitel haben folgende Inhalte:

The structure of the altogether 12 chapters is somewhat unfamiliar. An ultra short overview ('Lesson Overview') introduces the respective topics. These are followed by several games annotated in detail. What is peculiar is that in these games the authors have included something reminding of a FAQ system. As you may recognize from similar systems in the text there appears a "Q" (="Question") and then a question from the viewpoint of a reader, both in italics. Sometimes the question concerns the system in general, at other places specific position or plans, evaluations etc. In each case the answer is directly given. The games and the subsequent summaries of the insights derived from them are followed by exercises for the reader. Only then, closing the chapter, the theory in general form is offered.

The chapters have the following contents:

1. 7. b3: Einführung
2. Das kritische 7. b3 De7 8. Se5!
3. 7. Dc2, 7. Sc3 und seltene 7. Züge
4. 7. Lf4
5. Abspiele mit einem verspäteten Lf4
6. Frühe Abweichungen
7. 4. c4 mit Sh3
8. 2. c4: Abspiele ohne Fianchetto
9. 2. Sf3: Abspiele ohne Fianchetto
10. 2. Sc3 und 2. Lg5
11. Staunton-Gambit und seltene zweite Züge
12. 1. c4, 1. Sf3 und 1. g3.
{translation of the Table of Content}

Den Abschluss des Werkes bilden die Lösungen auf die Übungen in den einzelnen Kapiteln, ein Varianten- und ein Spielerverzeichnis.

The book concludes with the solution to the exercizes from the previous chapters and indexes of variations and players.

Die abschließende Einschätzung des Rezensenten zum Werk soll in dessen eigenen FAQ-Stil erfolgen: F: Sind Sie der Ansicht, dass dieses Buch zum Kauf empfohlen werden kann? Ja, dieser Ansicht bin ich. Es gibt einen umfassenden Überblick über den holländischen Stonewall und zeichnet sich durch einen genügenden Tiefgang aus. Wenn der Partieerfolg des Lesers ausbleiben sollte, wird dies an dessen eigenen Fehlern und vielleicht auch dem nicht ganz gesunden Eröffnungssystem liegen, nicht aber an "Win with the Stonewall Dutch".

The reviewer's concluding evaluation of the work will be in its own FAQ style:
Q: Is it your opinion that this book can be recommended to buy? Yes, this is my opinion. The book offers a comprehensive overview over the Dutch Stonewall and is also sufficiently deep. If the reader isn't happy with his results, he must blame his own mistakes or a opening system that may not be completely sound, but not " Win with the Stonewall Dutch".

I am not entirely happy with this translation so quite likely I will try to improve it one of the first days.

Updated July the 15th and July the 24th:
I adjusted the translation based on some feed-back from Stephan Busemann on the 15th of July and again on the 24th due to his explanation. Thanks!

Repertoire Choices and Consistency

2009-06-29T10:09:00.013+01:00

Sometimes interesting thoughts and debates deserving to be read 'get hidden' in the comments to old entries. In this blog entry one anonymous reader (it's hard to say how many of the 'Anonymous' are the same poster) is generally very positive to our book. However, he points out a missing move-order option and some related challenges.

Dealing with transpositional options is an eternal challenge for repertoire books. A good repertoire may well be inconsistent if you in a certain position have a choice between a move X that will lead to a position you have to face anyway (by transposition) and a move Y which may be better but takes some effort to analyse. Going for move X is rational as it saves you some labour but in chess your first priority should be to play the best move.

Whether you should go for the independent option (Y) or not, must depend on at least three factors:

How satisfied are you with the positions resulting from move X?

How much better can move Y really be?

How complicated are the variations following move Y?

Anonymous' main point occurs after the first moves of the mainline 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6: (Dia)

Here we mention 7.b3 Qe7 and now:
- 8.Bb2 (when play may continue 8...b6 9.Ne5) and
- 8.Ne5 (when 8...0-0 9.Bb2 b6 is a possibility).

However, there also is a related possibility:

- 7.Ne5 0-0 8.b3!? (when 8...Qe7 9.Bb2 b6 transposes to the lines above).

We agree that this is a natural move, and although it is very rare and not tested in high-level encounters, it deserved a mention. An author should not only look at what has been played by strong players but also scan the position for other 'normal looking moves', trying to foresee what his readers may wonder at.

The anonymous reader concludes that in order to have a consistent repertoire against all of White's various combinations of b3 and Ne5, it's necessary to play ...b6 lines against all of them. I disagree with that conclusion. A completely ...b6 based solution is certainly possible, and fully recommended if you trust your analysis after 7.b3 Qe7 8.Ne5 0-0 9.Bb2 b6!? 10.cxd5 exd5. However, this line is based on untested analysis and it's also possible to meet each of the three lines with a specific reply, even if only one of them involves an early ...b6:
a) 7.b3 Qe7 8.Bb2 b6 9.Ne5 Bb7! which has for a long time been considered fine for Black.
b) 7.b3 Qe7 8.Ne5 0-0 9.Bb2 Nbd7!? planning ...a5 (as Moskalenko does).
c) 7.Ne5 0-0 8.b3 Nbd7(!), securing an edge in development and planning ...dxc4 followed ...e5.

As a matter of fact, even if I am tempted to go for the ...b6 solutions, against line c) I would seriously consider 8...Nbd7 as it seems strategically simpler.

Lessons to be learned

Being 'too consistent' - trying to transpose whenever possible - may cost you some advantageous options.

Transpositions rarely are just transpositions; normally there is a trade of options. You stop some options and allow others.

Noteboom RAM

2009-06-23T14:07:00.006+01:00

For several reasons (which I may disclose later) I have become interested in the Noteboom variation. The variation can occur from several move-orders but one of the more common is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 Bb4 6.e3 b5 7.Bd2 a5 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 11.bxc4 b4: (Dia)

The position is extremely unbalanced and it looks like a position where a lot of RAM will be very useful. I suspect that objectively White is at least somwhat better. But in order to make use of his chances he must know what he is doing. Black scores very well in my database - probably because in most games he is the more experienced Noteboom player.

I am no expert on the line but would like to collect some essential games and annotate them on this blog. My annotations will mainly be based on van der Vorm and van der Werf's out-of-print monograph and Rybka's output.

Some candidate games so far are:

Kasparov-Tyomkin, Tel Aviv (sim) 1994 and
Oei-Van Wissen, Leeuwarden open 1993, illustrating White’s attacking possibilities supported by his huge pawn centre.
Lin Weiguo-Stangl, Beijing 1995, illustrating the power of Black’s connected queenside passers.
Thieme-Van der Worm, Leidschendam 1994, showing why White should be careful meeting ...e5 with dxe5.

Could any readers help me with more (or better) candidate games - in particular recent ones with at least one strong player involved?

The Stonewall Has Reached Norway

2009-06-22T22:06:00.003+01:00

Finally I got my hands on a physical copy of 'Win With the Stonewall Dutch'!

It arrived in the mail today together with 12 other copies and looked exactly as well as I had hoped. Wolff Morrow's artwork on the cover adds considerably to the first impression. There's a tournament in my club so it didn't take me long to get rid of most of the copies. Now I have one for my own library and one for my mother's collection.

I have not yet had the time to check with our correction list but it seems that almost all of our last minute additions made it to the print files. Thanks to editor Graham Burgess and type-setter Petra Nunn!

I was not so happy to spot 3 typos. Fortunately they were all fairly minor and none of them will confuse the reader or influence his repertoire or understanding in any way. I have an agreement with Gambit not to publish any updates or corrections to the book so I will not disclose them now. However, one of them is quite annoying so I will ask the publishers to correct it in an entry here (in a suitable context). One of the typos was missed by all proof reading eyes. Another I believe made it to the printer outside the normal proof-reading process. The third and most annoying one probably crept into the book as a result of the proof-reading/final checking.

More Stonewall RAM

2009-06-15T11:53:00.011+01:00

The Maroczy-Tartakower game was excluded from our Stonewall book mainly because it didn't really match our recommended repertoire. Today's game might have made it had it been in the databases (or had my memory been a bit more consistent). I only remembered it when annotating Tartakower's brilliancy. The reason it is missing in BigBase/MegaBase may be that the game information is unreliable. Different sources offer different years and different spellings for White's name. As for tournament/event I have no idea.

Glinksberg - Najdorf

Warsaw 1928

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5?!

4...Bb4 is fine for Black.

5.e3

As mentioned elsewhere 5.Bf4 is very good for White.

5...c6

Black can more safely reach this position from the move-order 4.e3 d5 5.Nf3 c6.

6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0–0 0–0 (Dia)

This position is fairly attractive for Black who has won a number of short games.

8.Ne2!?

This move has been criticized but probably wrongly so as Beliavsky has played it recently. Our book only mentions 8.b3 and 8.Qc2. Another option is 8.Ne5, planning the stodgy counter-Stonewall with 9.f4.

8...Nbd7

A more recent game went 8...Ne4 9.Ne1 b6 10.f3 Nf6 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Bd2 Qd7 13.Rc1 Ba6 14.Qb3 Rc8 15.Rxc8+ Qxc8 16.Bb4 Bc4 17.Qa3 Bxb4 18.Qxb4 Nc6 and Black was fine in Beliavsky-Vydeslaver, Kallithea 2008. It is symptomatic that Beliavsky couldn't win against his presumably weaker opponent.

9.Ng5? Bxh2+!

This isn't quite as simple as it seems. Black must have calculated quite far or trusted that the neccessary resources would present themselves as play developed.

10.Kh1

The obvious point was 10.Kxh2? Ng4+ and Black wins an important pawn. Now he threatens to trap the bishop with g3 as well as Nxe6.

10...Ng4 11.f4 Qe8 12.g3 Qh5 13.Kg2 (Dia)

White is now ready to pick up the bishop with moves like Nf3 and Rh1.

13...Bg1! 14.Nxg1

Any other capture loses immediately.

14...Qh2+ 15.Kf3 e5!

This is the key to Black's combination. The threat is ...e4 so White has no choice.

16.dxe5 Ndxe5+!

Remarkably Black succeeds in sacrificing all his minor pieces in this game which has been called 'The Polish Evergreen' (or Immortal or something like it).

17.fxe5 Nxe5+ 18.Kf4 Ng6+ 19.Kf3 (Dia)

In early calculations it may have been reassuring for Black to have a draw as a back-up. But does he actually have anything more than a repetition?

19...f4!

This obviously lets the light-squared bishop into the game. What's less obvious is that the rook too joins the attack.

20.exf4 Bg4+! 21.Kxg4 Ne5+! 22.fxe5 h5# 1–0

Lesson to be Learned:

Never underestimate Black's light-squared bishop in the Stonewall.

Another Stonewall Extract

2009-06-14T10:28:00.004+01:00

I am scanning the web for reviews of our new Stonewall book. So far I have found nothing, and I don't really expect anything resembling a review for a couple of weeks yet. Nevertheless there turned up something interesting.

For some weeks now, Gambit has offered a pdf extract from 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. Today I noticed that Niggemann offers another extract from the book. I have not figured out how to link directly to the relevant page but if you go to their homepage, then choose Online-Shop and Neuigkeiten, scroll down to the Stonewall book, click it and then choose 'Katalog', you will find my entire Preface. The text is a bit confusing as there are first two paragraphs from the publisher's blurb and then my text starts without any heading or explanation. The extract from the Preface starts with the sentence: 'I have for a long time been fascinated and mystified by the Stonewall Dutch'.

A Silly Little Move

2009-06-10T09:00:00.004+01:00

From time to time I add another small chapter to my Veresov manuscript. Whether it will ever become a chess book I have no idea. One deciding factor will be the analytical conclusion of some critical lines. However, occasionally I start looking at moves that really don't belong in a serious chess book. That's when I turn to this blog.

A couple of days ago I started looking at 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.a3?!. (Dia)
The reason I even noticed the possibility was Giddins' very readable 'How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire' in which he mentions the line 4.f4!? e6 5.a3!?, a speciality of British correspondence expert A.M. Steward.

4.a3 appears a silly move but after 4...c5 5.dxc5 it’s not at all clear that Black can win his pawn back. The position arising after 4...e6 5.e4 (5.f4 transposes to Steward's line) 5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 (Dia) must be worse for White than similar French lines (Burn and Rubinstein) but may still be somewhat easier to play for White:

a) 9.Qd2 c5 10.Nf3 0–0 11.0–0–0 cxd4 12.Qxd4 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 += Schinzel-Pinkas, Bydgoszcz 1976.
b) 9.Nf3 0–0 10.Qe2 (10.Be2 e5! is at least equal for Black) 10...c5 11.0–0–0 cxd4 12.Rxd4 e5 13.Rd2 Re8 14.Qe3 a6 15.Be2 Qe7 16.Bc4 h6 17.Re1 += Schweber-Quinteros, Villa Martelli 1996.

Whether you find such positions attractive or not is to some extent a matter of taste. From a practical viewpoint it must be taken into account that some black players may dislike them. Quite possibly Black must look into the untested 4...c6 or 4...h6 if he is looking for a more interesting path to equality.

Rubbish? I honestly don't know, but now I can with a clear conscience exclude these lines from my manuscript!

Another Step Forward

2009-06-09T06:57:00.004+01:00

Today I noticed that 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' has been promoted from 'Forthcoming Books' to 'New Gambit Chess Books'. There is no more information about distribution in Europe and the US, but I assume that will be added soon.

I really look forward to holding it my hands. Not only because I love books - and my own in particular - but also because I am curious how much of our last minute additions actually made it into the book.

Stonewall RAM

2009-05-29T07:41:00.004+01:00

What makes a strong player, and how can you best improve your playing strength?

Opinions vary and there obviously are more than one ingredient. However, most authorities agree that one essential requirement is to understand a certain number of positions and games really well. This is the main message of two interesting books:

It goes without saying that knowing a certain number of games related to your opening repertoire is a particularly important part of your chess education. This obviously is one of the ideas behind the 'Illustrative Games' concept which dominates modern opening books.

'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' offers 64 illustrative games which are all quite close to the book's recommended repertoire for Black. However, there of course are many other games containing useful Stonewall ideas which don't quite fit into our recommended repertoire.
Among the 59 games listed in Ziyatdinov's book there is a Stonewall game that didn't make it to our Stonewall book but deserves to be studied. Myself I first saw it in Reti's 'Die Meisters des Schachbretts':

Maroczy - Tartakower, Teplitz Schoenau 1922
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.a3?!
This is a little too slow. Black will not play ...Bb4 as long as White can meet it with e3 and Nge2.
4...Be7
Our Stonewall book concentrates on lines with ...Bd6 rather than ...Be7.
5.e3
The Dutch is normally more attractive for Black when White avoids the g3 systems - partly because he can more easily develop his queenside but also because White's kingside tends to be more vulnerable.
5...0–0 6.Bd3 d5
The Stonewall formation. Also development with ...b6 is quite attractive against early e3 lines.
7.Nf3 c6
This too generally is a part of the Stonewall set-up. In this position it may not be strictly necessary but Black is preparing to redeploy his bishop to d6.
8.0–0 Ne4
This is a part of the ancient attacking plan formerly associated with the Stonewall. Black starts attacking on the kingside with a knight, a bishop, two major pieces and possibly a couple of pawns while his queenside is left dormant.
9.Qc2 Bd6
This is the best position for Black's dark-squared bishop once White's exchanging options Bf4 or Ba3 have been eliminated. The loss of a tempo has little significance because of White's slow mobilization.
10.b3 Nd7 11.Bb2 (Dia)
This is a fairly typical Stonewall position with e3 rather than g3.
11...Rf6
This is the old-fashioned Stonewall attack. Black goes directly for the king, leaving his queenside pieces undeveloped.
12.Rfe1 Rh6 13.g3 Qf6 14.Bf1 g5
The g-pawn is an important attacking unit. The weaknesses left behind are not important if Black can just keep his initiative going.
15.Rad1 g4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Nd2 (Dia)
If White can only find the time to play Bg2 and Nf1 his kingside will be quite safe and he will be ready to attack the queenside.
17...Rxh2!?
If Black had been better mobilized this would have been a standard sacrifice, hardly worth a diagram.
18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1
Black now has no forcing follow up to his rook sacrifice. What makes the game remarkable is how he now quietly goes on completing his queenside development. White is free to reorganize his defence but seems unable to find a satisfactory plan. It would have been interesting to see what a Karpov or Petrosian would have come up with but Rybka's evaluation of '=+ (-0.44)' may well be correct (and in any case indicates that modern software is capable of appreciating positional compensation).
19...Nf6
19...Qxg3 20.Re2 Nf6 transposes.
20.Re2 Qxg3 21.Nb1 Nh5 22.Qd2 Bd7 23.Rf2 Qh4+ 24.Kg1 Bg3 (Dia)
Finally it seems clear that Black must have more than compensation for his material investment.
25.Bc3
Rybka gives 25.Rg2 Rf8 26.Nc3 Rf3 27.Bc1 Ng7 =+.
25...Bxf2+ 26.Qxf2 g3 27.Qg2 Rf8
Black has got his material back without giving up his attack. White is lost.
28.Be1 Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 e5 30.Kg1 Bg4 31.Bxg3 Nxg3 32.Re1 Nf5 33.Qf2 Qg5 34.dxe5 Bf3+ 35.Kf1 Ng3+ 0–1

Win with the 3...Qd6 Scandinavian

2009-05-22T10:37:00.014+01:00

I am currently recovering from an apathetic period following the completion of our Stonewall book and am starting to consider what may be a fitting next book project. One interesting subject is the Scandinavian (1.e4 d5) and in particular the 3...Qd6 variation. There are some thoughts on this line in the comments to this entry. But I am still not convinced it will stand thorough top-level testing.

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6!? (Dia)

In recent years this seems to overshadow the old mainline 3...Qa5. Quite recently there has been a second edition of Michael Melts' 'Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6'. The book is a treasure chest containing an enormous amount of well organized information on the line and lots of independent analysis. Unfortunately it's also very hard to navigate and contains very little prose or guidance except for a few introductory chapters.

4.d4 Nf6

For some minor (possibly insignificant) reasons I prefer 4...a6 - usually followed by 5...Nf6.

5.Nf3

5.g3!? is an alternative move-order with some independent ideas.

5...a6

I find this a much more attractive move than ...c6. Black may follow up with ...Nc6, ...Bg4 and 0-0-0 but also ...b5, ...Bb7 and ...e6.

6.g3

This seems to be the new mainline. White not only makes ...b5 less attractive but also prepares Bf4.

6...Bg4 7.Bg2

7.h3 is another important option.

7...Nc6 8.0–0

Black also needs to prepare for the immediate 8.d5.

8...0–0–0 9.d5!?

Again the immediate 9.Bf4 must be considered.

9...Ne5! (Dia)

This is Melts recommendation (Game 18, page 151, line B2e2d2!) and indeed the move is starting to look forced:

a) 9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.Qxd5 Rxd5 12.Ng5 of Lakos-R.Perez, Ortigueira 2002 is entirely unattractive for Black.

b) 9...Nb4 is a more optimistic approach, forcing White to choose between a repetition and complications. Unfortunately the complications seem close to winning for White: 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bf4 Qc5 12.Be3 Qd6 13.Qe2! Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Rad1! Qf6 and White has a pleasant choice:

b1) 16.Bd4 Qe6 17.Qxe6+ fxe6 18.Be5 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 c6 20.Bg4 Nc7 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8 22.Rd1+ +- Ibarra Jerez-Trent, Chalkidiki 2003.

b2) 16.c4 Nxe3 (16...Nb4 17.Rxd8+ Kxd8 18.Rd1+ Kc8 19.Qd2 Qd6 20.Qe1 Qf6 21.g4 Qxb2 22.Rb1 +- Humphrey-Aplin, Kuala Lumpur 2006) 17.Rxd8+ Kxd8 18.Qxe3 c6 19.g4 Bg6 20.Qb6+ Kc8 21.Rd1 e5 22.Nxe5 +- Rasik-Antoniewski, Czechia 2006.

10.Bf4

The queen sacrifice 10.Nxe5!? is enterprising but on closer scrutiny doesn't seem too terrifying:

a) 10...Qxe5 11.f3 Be6 12.Re1 Qf5 13.f4 Qg6 14.Re5 Bf5 = Ninov-Panbukchian, Pleven 2005.

b) 10...Bxd1 11.Nxf7 Bxc2 12.Nxd6+ exd6 13.Re1 Re8 14.Be3 g6 15.Rac1 Bf5 16.Ne2 Bg7 17.Nd4 Ng4 18.Nxf5 gxf5 = Ragger-Nikolov, Kranj 2004.

10...Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 e5 13.dxe6 Qxe6 14.Bg5 (Dia)

This seems to be the crucial position. Black has tried a number of different moves but none seem to give full equality:

a) 14...Qc6 15.Qxc6 bxc6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rad1 Bb4 18.Ne2 Bd2 19.Kg2 += Rasch-Aepfler, Germany 2007.

b) 14...h6 15.Rfe1 Qb6 16.Nd5 (16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Re4 Bc5 19.Rae1 Rd2 20.R1e2 Rxe2 21.Rxe2 Bd4 22.Re7 Bxc3 23.bxc3 += Tukhaev-Vasiliev, Evpatoria 2006) 16...Rxd5 17.Bxf6 Qc6 18.c4 Rd6 19.Qxc6 Rxc6 20.Re8+ Kd7 21.Rd8+ Ke6 22.Bc3 +/- Mardell-Brandt, Taby 2007.

d) 14...Bd6 15.Rfe1 Be5 16.Ne4 (16.Re2 Rde8 17.Rae1 Nd7 18.Bf4 f6 19.Qe3 g5 20.Bxe5 Nxe5 = Stiri-Dounis, Athens 2007; 16.Bf4 Nd7 17.Nd5 f6 18.c4 g5 19.Bd2 h5 20.Ba5 Qg4 = Williams-Hamad, Turin 2006) 16...Rhe8 17.Nc5 Qd5 18.Qxd5 Rxd5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Nd3 Re6 21.f4 Bd6 22.Rad1 += Huerga Leache-Garcia Paolicchi, La Massana 2008.

c) 14...Bb4 15.Rfe1 Qb6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Nd5 (is 17.Rfe1 better?) 17...Rxd5 18.Qxd5 Bxe1 19.Rxe1 Qxb2 20.Qxf7 Kb8 = Pesotsky-Bazarov, Lipetsk 2008.

e) 14...h5 15.Bxf6 (15.Rfe1 Qg4 16.Qxg4+ hxg4 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Rxe4 f6 = Sedina-Danielian, Elista 2004) 15...Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Rad1 Bd6 (17...Bc5 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Rfe1 Rhe8 20.Nc3 c6 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8 22.Kg2) 18.Nd5 h4 19.Kg2 Rh5 20.b3 b5 21.Rfe1 += Fernando-Galego, Vila Real 2005.

Preliminary conclusion:

This line may attract a (semi) professional player who feels confident that he can hold a draw against well prepared opponents in one of the lines after 14.Bg5. However, for the average club player (who represents the main segment of chess book buyers) defending a slightly inferior endgame like this for several dozens of moves sounds like a nightmare and will not be a good selling point.

Win with the Stonewall Dutch Finally Completed

2009-05-18T07:45:00.008+01:00

Exactly one week ago I sent a final minor correction (one single letter actually) to Gambit Publishing and now our book is at the printers. The total number of corrections were considerable:

126 corrections/additions - including some references to recent games.
20 suggestions for how to make room for those changes that required more space.
8 suggestions/questions, mainly regarding the English language.
5 replies to the editor regarding information given in the manuscript.

It will be interesting to see how many of our changes will be included. From my perspective as an author it seems that Gambit tends to be on the restrictive side. But I suppose that from a publisher's point of view they may well consider themselves generous with last minute amendments.

Updated information on the book can be found at Gambit's information page for the book. The book will be 224 B5 pages (not 208 as previously announced) and will be available in June. I have no inside information about printing time but my guess would be quite early in June.

There is a pdf-sample available for download. There, in addition to some pages from Lesson 4, the Table of Content can be found:

4 Symbols
4 Bibliography
5 Preface
6 Foreword
8 Stonewall Invitation
15 Lesson 1 7 b3: Introduction
36 Lesson 2 The Critical 7 b3 Qe7 8 Ne5!
54 Lesson 3 7 Qc2, 7 Nc3 and Rare 7th Moves
67 Lesson 4 7 Bf4
89 Lesson 5 Lines with a Delayed Bf4
100 Lesson 6 Early Deviations
117 Lesson 7 4 c4 with Nh3
145 Lesson 8 2 c4: Non-Fianchetto Lines
156 Lesson 9 2 Nf3: Non-Fianchetto Lines
169 Lesson 10 2 Nc3 and 2 Bg5
183 Lesson 11 The Staunton Gambit and Rare 2nd Moves
195 Lesson 12 1 c4, 1 Nf3 and 1 g3
211 Solutions to Exercises
222 Index of Variations
223 Index of Players

A Comfortable Stonewall

2009-04-15T13:24:00.007+01:00

It's always nice to end a tournament with a win (and it makes it easier to resist the next opportunity to play). My opponent was another Norwegian. Actually I think he participated in the very first tournament I played outside my club, more than 30 years ago. He is considerably lower rated than me, so a win wouldn't improve my tournament result much - but a loss or even a draw would cost me dearly.

Haveland - Sv.Johnsen
Thailand Open 2009 (9)
1.d4 f5
I was quite happy when my opponent played 1.d4 as now the position is quite unbalanced already.
2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 d5
The Stonewall. I considered a more flexible system, possibly increasing my winning chances but I know there are lots of winning potential even in rather stale looking Stonewall positions.
5.c4 c6 6.cxd5?!
This is not that bad a move but it's harmless in the extreme.
6...exd5 7.0–0 Bd6 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Rb1
White plans a minority attack with b4-b5. Two other moves with similar aims are 9.a3 and 9.Qc2.
9...Ne4 10.e3
White sensibly decides to stop ...f4 but weakens his light squares somewhat. There are not many games with this position played at an international level. In the following game at least Black is 2400+: 10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Bg5 Qe8 12.Nd2 h6 13.Be3 Nd7 14.b4 Nf6 15.Qb3 Bf5 16.b5 Qh5 =+ Weng Tianlun-Wang Yue, Suzhou 2001.
10...Nd7 11.Qc2 Qe7 12.Nd2
This appears to be the first new move in the game. Hamrakulova-Ambrosi, Wch Girls U18 Chalkidiki 2003 was drawn after 12.a3 Nb6 13.Ne1 Be6 14.Nd3 Bf7 15.b4 Nc4 16.Re1 Ng5 17.Qd1 Rae8 18.Rf1 Qf6 19.Nc5 Qe7 20.Nd3 Qf6 21.Nc5 Qe7 22.Nd3 Qf6 23.Nc5.
12...Ndf6 13.Ndxe4 fxe4 14.Bd2 Bg4
I briefly considered 14...b6 but wasn't sure how well I would stand even if my opponent overlooked my threat, e.g. 15.f3 Ba6 16.fxe4 Bxf1 17.Rxf1 dxe4 18.Nxe4 and White may even be better.
15.f3 exf3 16.Bxf3 Rae8 17.Rbe1 Bh3 18.Bg2 Qd7 (D)
I have completed my development but was not sure how to go ahead. Fortunately my opponent now forces the play, saving me some difficult desicions.
19.e4?
As my opponent pointed out, 19.a3 would have been a very useful preparation for this central break - at least after my most natural replies, 19...a5 and 19...Re7 - simply because there then will be no pawn to pick up on a2.
19...Bxg2 20.Kxg2 dxe4 21.Nxe4 Nxe4 22.Rxf8+ Bxf8 23.Rxe4 Qd5 24.Kf3 (D)
This position arises more or less by force as a consequence of White's 19th move.
24...Rxe4
I looked carefully for a permanent bind/zugzwang but didn't see anything really convincing so I grabbed the pawn. When checking with Rybka it produced this line: 24...g5! 25.g4 (25.a3 g4+) 25...Bd6 26.h3 Kg7 27.a3 a5 28.a4 h6 29.Be1 b6 30.Ke3 Bf4+ 31.Kf3 Kg6 which looks quite promising (Rybka says '-+ -1.61'.) but it refuses to tell me how I actually convert it to a full point.
25.Qxe4 Qxa2 26.Bc3 Qf7+
Simpler and stronger is 26...Qd5 27.Ke3 Qxe4+ 28.Kxe4 Kf7 29.d5 c5.
27.Ke3 Bd6 28.Qg4 Kf8 29.Kd3 Qg6+
I assumed this must be a win despite my doubled pawns and White's active king.
30.Qxg6 hxg6 31.d5 c5 32.Kc4 a6 33.Ba5 b5+ 34.Kd3 Kf7 35.b3 (D)

35...Kf6 36.Ke4 Ke7 37.Bc3 Kf7 38.Ba5 Kf8 39.Kf3 Be7
Finally my two pieces have found positions from which I can make progress.
40.Bb6 Ke8 41.h3 Kd7 42.Ke4 Kd6 43.Ba5 Bf6 44.g4 g5?
This stupid advance creates a weakness and prolongs the game with at least 10 moves.
45.Be1 Be5 46.Bd2 Bf6 47.Be1 g6 48.Bg3+ Kd7 49.Kd3
49.Bf2 c4 50.bxc4 bxc4 51.Bb6 Kd6 doesn't make much difference.
49...a5 50.Be1 Bd8 51.Bc3 Kd6 52.Ke4 c4 53.bxc4 bxc4 54.Bb2 Kc5
54...Bb6 is equally good as 55.Ba3+ Bc5 56.Bxc5+ Kxc5 57.Ke5 c3 58.d6 c2 59.d7 c1Q 60.d8Q Qe3+ 61.Kf6 Qd4+ is winning.
55.Ba3+ Kb5 56.Kd4
56.d6 Ka4 57.Bc1 Kb3 58.Kd5 c3 doesn't change anything.
56...Bf6+ 57.Ke4 Ka4 58.Bc1 Kb3 59.d6 a4 60.Kd5 c3 61.Be3 c2 62.Ke6 Bd8 63.Kd7 Ba5 64.Bxg5 a3 0–1

The Scandinavian Variation

2009-04-15T03:19:00.009+01:00

My 8th game was a painful loss against a young Singaporean boy:

Wee Che En - Sv. Johnsen

Thailand Open 2009 (8)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 a5!?

This was what I had prepared against 1.e4 for this tournament. I like to call it the Scandinavian variation but may well be the only one to do so.

10.a4 b4 11.d4 bxc3 12.bxc3 exd4 13.cxd4 (D)

13...d5!

This is Black's idea in the 10.a4 line. Now it looks a little like a Open Ruy Lopez with Black controlling b4.

14.e5 Ne4 15.Nbd2

15.Re3 Nb4 16.Nc3 Bb7 17.Ne2 Kh8 18.Ba3 f6 19.Nf4 Ra6 20.Bxb4 axb4 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Qxd5 23.Qd3 Nc5 24.dxc5 Qxd3 25.Rxd3 fxe5 = Castillo-Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1950.

15...Bf5 16.Ba3!?

I didn't remember having ever seen this move and thought it looked a little funny. But when consulting my notes I had actually analyzed a GM game with it.

16...Bxa3

The game I had analysed went 16...Nb4 17.Nf1 c5 18.Ne3 Be6 19.Bxb4 axb4 20.dxc5 Bxc5 21.Qd3 Rc8 22.Rad1 Bb6 and Black was clearly better in Hellers-Kupreichik, Malmo 1987. The big question is whether these moves ever entered my mind or if they only appeared on my screen with Rybka doing the thinking. In earlier days I always played through my notes on a chess board (frequently a pocket set but a full size board if circumstances permitted me). It is too time consuming for my present life situation, but far better for memorization.

17.Rxa3 Nb4 18.Ra1 c6

I tried to calculate 18...Nd3 19.Re3 and now I looked at 19...Ndxf2 20.Qe2 Nxd2 21.Nxd2 Ne4 as well as 19...Nexf2 20.Qe2 and decided against the entire variation as I didn't find the resulting positions particularly clear. After the game I was pleased to see that Rybka agreed in this evaluation. That being said, the move I played probably reveals my lack of understanding for this kind of positions. It seems that Black in similar positions play a quick ...c5 with active piece play. Instead I tried to stabilize the queenside, hoping to create kingside chances with ...f6 at some point. This may be sufficient for equality but demands quite exact play.

19.Qe2 Rb8 20.Rec1 h6 21.Qe3 Kh8 22.Nxe4 Bxe4 23.Nd2 Bh7 24.Rc3 Qe7 25.Bd1 f6 26.f4 fxe5 27.fxe5 Rf7 28.Nf3 Rbf8 29.Qd2 Be4 30.Be2 Rf4 31.Rf1

For the last dozen of moves I as well as my opponent have played quite decent chess. My problem was that I didn't quite appreciate my opponent's play and felt that I should be looking for an advantage. Instead my small weaknesses on a5 and c6 were slowly beginning to be felt. So rather than accepting that I had to fight for equality, I played a somewhat desperate move:

31...g5?

It is tempting to add another question mark as this move isn't only weakening; it's also completely unprovoked.

32.Rc5 Qc7 33.Nh2!

This move I had completely missed.

33..Rxf1+ 34.Bxf1 Rf4 35.Ng4 Qd8

Probably 35...Kg7 36.Nf6 Bg6 is a somewhat better attempt to keep my position together.

36.Nf6 Bg6 37.Be2 Qb6 38.g3 Rf5 39.Qe3! Na2? (D)

Objectively this is a losing error but as my position is creaking in its seams anyway, I only give it one question mark. Actually I considered '?!' as it forces White to calculate a fairly long line.

40.Bd3 Qb3 41.Rxa5!

This wins as does 41.Rxc6.

41...Nb4 42.Ra8+ Kg7 43.Rg8+ Kf7 44.e6+ Kxf6

44...Ke7 45.Rg7+ Kxf6 46.Rxg6+ Ke7 47.Rg7+ comes to exactly the same.

45.Rxg6+ Ke7 46.Rg7+ Ke8 47.e7!

The move I overlooked when I played 39...Na2.

47...Qd1+ 48.Kg2 1–0

A Chinese Invasion

2009-04-12T06:16:00.007+01:00

My opponent in round 7 was a young Chinese rated just below 2400. I have beaten higher rated players but this felt a bit like wasting a white game:

Sv. Johnsen - Ziyang Zhang
BCC Thailand Open (7)

1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c6 4.Nf3 Bg4

Lines with ...c6 and an early development of Black's light-squared bishop are particularly challenging to London players as White has to play c4 in order to fight for an advantage. That's perfectly fine if your general chess understanding is well developed. But if you only feel comfortable with your pawns on c3, d4 and e3 your task is harder.

5.c4 Nbd7 6.Nbd2 e6

6...Nh5 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 e6 10.Qc2 Nxg3 11.hxg3 Bf5 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 g4 14.Nh4 Qg5 unclear Gomez Esteban-Magem Badals, Linares 1995.

7.Qb3!?

A challenging decision. My co-author of 'Win with the London System' showed common sense in V.Kovacevic-Bisguier, New York 1989: 7.Bd3 Nh5 8.Bg3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Bd6 10.Qb3 Rb8 11.Nh2 Bh5 12.Nhf1 Nf6 13.f3 Bg6 14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.g4 0–0 16.0–0–0 with complicated play.

7...Nh5

Black has also tried 7...Bxf3 8.gxf3 with these options:

a) 8...Qb6 9.c5 Qxb3 10.axb3 Nh5 11.Bc7 Rc8 12.Ba5 a6 13.f4 g6 14.Bd3 Ng7 = Dos Santos-Miranda, Curitiba 1999.

b) 8...Nh5 9.Bg3 Qb6 10.c5 Qxb3 11.axb3 a6 12.b4 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Rc8 14.f4 g6 15.g4 Bg7 16.Bd3 f5 17.Ke2 +=Schlindwein-Pieper Emden, Gladenbach 1996.

8.Bg5 Qa5! 9.0–0–0?!

I cannot remember the last time I castled queenside so early in the London. I certaily looked for sensible alternatives and noticed that 9.cxd5 exd5 (9...cxd5 10.Bb5 Bb4 11.Bxd7+ Kxd7 12.Ne5+ Ke8 13.0–0 is very good for White) 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qxc6 might be possible but I didn't even try to calculate the consequences of 11...f6 12.Be2 Rxb2 (12...fxg5 13.Ne5) 13.Rd1 Bb4 14.Qa8+ Kf7 15.Qxh8. According to Rybka White is able to keep a small advantage in some very complicated lines.

9...Bb4 (D)

10.Bh4?

For some strange reason I didn’t consider 10.e4! at all. I seems to work quite well and at least ensure equality - something I wasn’t really close to achieveing in this game.

10...Nhf6 11.h3 Bxd2+ 12.Rxd2 Bf5 13.Bd3 Ne4 14.Bxe4

In a way this is the source of my coming problems as we now are left with bishops of opposite colours.

14...Bxe4 15.a3 0–0 16.Be7 Rfc8 17.Bb4 Qa6 18.cxd5 cxd5+ 19.Bc3 Rc6 (D)

At this point I think my position is objectively lost. Black’s attack may not seem immediately decisive but the opposite coloured bishops ensure that what he attacks I cannot defend. The positive thing to say about this game is that I now for the rest of the game defends quite well. When I in the following sequence add an exclamation mark to almost all my moves it's because I found the only moves to continue the game. It should be said that my opponent too found very strong moves but in general he had a few more tempting options to choose from.

20.Kd1! Rac8 21.Ke1! f6 22.Rd1! Rb6 23.Qa2 Bc2 24.Rc1 Qd3 25.Nd2! f5 26.h4! Nf6 27.Rh3! Ne4 28.Nxe4 fxe4 29.Qa1! Ba4 30.f4 (D)

30...e5!

If Black hadn’t found this attacking idea (or the 30...Bb5 31.Kf2 e5! version of the same idea) I might have saved the game. Now I am unable to defend because my kingside is undermanned.

31.dxe5 Bb5 32.Kf2 Qe2+ 33.Kg1 Rg6 34.Rh2 Qxe3+ 35.Kh1 Qxf4 36.Rd1 e3 37.b3 e2 38.Rg1 Bd3 39.e6 Rxe6 40.Bxg7 e1Q 41.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 42.Qxe1 Rc1 0–1

A Rook Gone Astray

2009-04-12T04:30:00.006+01:00

My 6th game in Pattaya was another London System:

Sv.Johnsen - W.Chengjia
BCC Thailand Open (6)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4

My opponent (a young Chineese girl) was rated a little above 2000 and I had no idea what to expect. Anyway I saw little reason to deviate from the opening with which I have the most experience.

2...e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2 d5 6.Ngf3 cxd4 7.exd4 Bd6 8.Bg3

An old game in this line went 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.Bb5 0–0 10.0–0 Bd7 11.Re1 Qf4 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.Ne5 Nd7 14.Ndf3 and White probably was a little better in Blackburne-Chigorin, Berlin 1897.

8...0–0

Opening the h-file before White has castled is risky, e.g. 8...Bxg3 9.hxg3 Qd6 10.Bd3 Bd7 11.Qe2 Ng4 12.0–0–0 h6 13.Rh4 Nf6 14.Ne5 gave White a clear advantage in Knezevic-Asmundsson, Grindavik 1984.

9.Bd3 e5?!

This looks wrong. Black frees her position but accepts an isolated queen’s pawn while exchanging a few pieces in the process. An interesting an relatively recent game continued 9...Re8 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.f4 Rf8 12.0–0 Ne8 13.Bh4 f5 14.Rf3 Bxe5 15.fxe5 Qb6 16.Bf2 Qxb2 17.Rh3 g6 18.Nf3 Rf7 19.Rb1 Qxa2 20.Qc1 Rg7 21.Bh4 Qa5 22.Bf6 Rf7 23.Ng5 and White had compensation for his pawns in Gonzales-Halay, Manila 2007.

10.dxe5 Re8 11.0–0 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Rxe5 14.Nf3 Rh5?! (D)

This move confirmed what I had started to suspect: My opponent probably had little classical chess education and was mainly relying on her calculating skills.

15.Re1 Qd6 16.Bf1 Bg4 17.h3 Bxf3 18.Qxf3

Except for the strangely placed black rook, this is a fairly typical IQP position. White must be a little better.

18...h6 19.Rad1 g6 20.Rd4

I was about to play 20.Qe3 when I noticed 20...Ng4!?. It’s not at all clear that 21.Qg3 Qxg3 22.fxg3 improves Black’s chances. But the resulting position looks a little strange and this might favour the better calculator, which I suspected wasn’t me.

20...Rf5 21.Qd3 Rf4

It seemed my opponent only now had noticed that her d-pawn might be in trouble.

22.g3 Rxd4 23.Qxd4 b6 24.Bg2 Rd8 25.Rd1 Re8 26.c4

The pawn has been doomed for some moves already.

26...Re2 27.cxd5 Nd7 28.Rc1 Qe5!

This is quite a good try to keep the game going.

29.Qxe5 Nxe5 30.Rc7 (D)

30...Rxb2?

A better try would have been 30...Re1+ 31.Kh2 Re2 when e.g. 32.d6 Rd2 33.Re7 f6 34.Rxa7 still isn’t clearly winning.

31.f4!

This wins by force.

31...Nd3 32.d6 Nc5 33.d7 Nxd7 34.Rxd7 Rxa2 35.Bd5 Ra1+ 36.Kf2 a5 37.Bxf7+ Kg7 38.Rb7 Kf8

Black might have saved herself the last dozen of moves. It’s hard to imagine how White can go wrong.

39.Bxg6 Ra2+ 40.Kf3 Rb2 41.f5 Rb3+ 42.Kf4 Rb1 43.Ke5 Rc1 44.Rxb6 a4 45.Rb8+ Kg7 46.Rb7+ Kf8 47.f6 Re1+ 48.Be4 a3 49.Ra7 Re3 50.Kf4 Rc3 51.Bd5 1–0

Confusing Names

2009-04-08T04:30:00.010+01:00

With double rounds for the first three days, there is not much time for preparation against a specific opponent. But for the morning rounds (3 and 5) there is in principle possible to do a quite thorough check of your opponents games and try to guess what will be the battle ground. However, for this game I was very partially prepared for a quite peculiar reason: There are two Indian IMs of roughly the same strength, one named Roy Saptarshi and one named Roy Chowdhury Saptarshi. Both play BCC Thailand Open and I assumed they were brothers. The first player (without Chowdhury) has no games in Megabase 2009, the second has 219. I assumed that the two players had gotten merged into one by Chessbase staff and looked for a way to guess what games might have been played by my opponent. I found that there were quite a number of Veresov games and in lack of anything more useful assumed that my opponent (possibly the younger brother) was the one playing this rather rare opening. So my only preparation was for the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Bf5(!) 3.f3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.Nxd5!?. Of course this proved quite useless.

Roy Saptarshi - Sv.Johnsen
BCC Thailand Open (5)

1.e4
There went my preparation - wrong player?
1...c6
This I have not played in a tournament game for 20 years, but I have an interesting line against the Advance variation.
2.d4 d5 3.f3!?
The Fantasy variation. It doesn’t look particularly threatening but can lead to quite complicated play.
3...e6
Had I had any idea that this position might appear on the board I probably would have had a look at 3...e5?! which I enjoy playing in blitz (but probably is unsound) and 3...Qb6!? (which I think may be underestimated).
4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bf4 Nf6 6.Qd3 Qa5!?
This more or less obliges me to give up my dark-squared bishop for a knight. Two more popular continuations are:
a) 6...b6 7.Nge2 Ba6 8.Qe3 0–0 9.0–0–0 Nbd7 10.g4 Rc8 11.Ng3 Bxf1 12.Rhxf1 b5 13.Kb1 Qb6 14.Nce2 Qb7 15.Bg5 Kh8 16.e5 Ng8 17.f4 += Prusikin-Brunner, Switzerland 2008.
b) 6...0–0 7.Nge2 (7.0–0–0 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 dxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4 10.Qe1 f5 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.h3 a5 13.Bd3 Ndf6 14.Be5 a4 unclear Winants-Fridman, Netherlands 2005) 7...c5 8.0–0–0 c4 9.Qe3 b5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.e5 Ng4 12.fxg4 Bxg5 13.Nf4 f6 =+ Kurmann-Pavlovic, Biel 2006.
7.Nge2
7.Bd2 b6 8.Qe3 dxe4 9.fxe4 e5 10.Nf3 exd4 11.Qxd4 Qc5 12.Qxc5 Bxc5 13.e5 was a little better for White in Gofshtein-Bruk, Israel 2002.
7...b6
In an earlier my opponent (or his namesake) faced 7...c5 8.0–0–0 dxe4 9.fxe4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 0–0 and after 11.Nb3 Qb6 12.Nb5 Na6 13.Be3 Nc5 14.Qe2 Bd7 15.N5d4 Rac8 16.Qf3 Ncxe4 17.Bd3 Nc5 Black was clearly better in Roy Chowdhury-Al Sayed, Port Erin 2006.
8.Bd2
Or 8.a3 Ba6 9.Qe3 0–0 (after 9...c5 10.0–0–0 Bxe2? 11.Nxe2 White was practically winning in S.Gabrielsen-T.Eriksen, Asker 2000) 10.g4 Be7 11.g5 Nfd7 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Kf2 Nc6 with unclear play in Boulard-Dumitrache, Sautron 2001.
8...Ba6 9.Qe3 dxe4 10.fxe4 0–0
It seems 10...e5 is too early: 11.0–0–0 Bc4 12.Kb1 exd4 13.Nxd4 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Qxa2+ 15.Kc1 += Permuy Lorenzo-Miguel Lago, Mondariz 1995.
11.a3 c5
This seems better than 11...e5, e.g. 12.dxe5 Ng4 13.Qg3 Nxe5 14.Ra2! Bd6 15.b4 +- Carmeille-Bastian, Germany 2006.
12.0–0–0 (D)

12...cxd4
I considered 12...Bxa3 but stopped my calculations after 13.bxa3 (13.e5 is critical too) 13...Qxa3+ 14.Kb1 Qb4+ 15.Ka1 Qa3+ (Rybka prefers 15...Nc6 with roughly equal chances) 16.Na2 which not only stops the checks but also threatens a queen exchange. However, Rybka quite likes Black's position after 16...Qa4 with 17.e5 Ng4 18.Qf4 Qxc2 as a kind of main line. 13.Nxd4 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Qa4 15.Bd3 Bxd3 16.cxd3 Nbd7 17.Kb1 Rac8 18.Rc1 Rfd8 19.Rhf1 Ne5 20.h3
My opponent told me he had spent quite a lot of time calculating 20.Nxe6 Rxd3 21.Bxe5 (21.Qg5 fxe6 22.Qxe5 Qxe4 is nothing for White) 21...Rxe3 22.Rxc8+ Ne8 23.Nxg7 but stopped when he saw 23...Qxe4+ followed by 24...Qxe5.
20...Qa6 21.Rfd1 (D)
Now 21.Nxe6 fails to the simple 21...Rxc3 22.Rxc3 fxe6.
21...Nxd3??
After 21...Qa4 a quite reasonable continuation is 22.Rf1 Qa6 23.Rfd1. My opponent almost certainly would not have played this and indicated in a brief post mortem that he had planned 22.g4, but then 22...Rxc3! 23.bxc3 Rxd4! 24.Qxd4 Qb3 is a perpetual.
22.Qxd3! Qxd3+ 23.Rxd3 e5
23...Nxe4 is a little better but completely hopeless.
24.Nf5! 1–0
I had missed the simple fork on e7. 24.Nc6! wins just as easily.

After the game a friendly Indian IM explained me a bit more about Indian names and about this particular name confusion. It turned out that the first names (Roy and Roy Chowdhury respectively) are the family names, and the last (Saptarshi) is the given name. The two players are not related but quite happy to be mixed up by Chessbase.

Practical Considerations

2009-04-04T03:41:00.007+01:00

My forth game was against a Thai FM and quite complicated as long as it lasted:
Sv.Johnsen - Pitirotjirathon
BCC Thailand Open (4)
1.d4 g6!
This is one of the relatively few opening moves against which I don't play the London System.
2.e4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Bg5!?
I was looking at this attacking system against the Pirc a few days ago. It probably is a little less motivated against the Modern.
4...c6
Probably lines with an early ...c5 are more critical.
5.Qd2 Qa5 6.Nf3
A more popular move is 6.f4, e.g. 6...b5 7.Nf3 b4 8.Nd1 Nf6 9.Nf2 0–0 10.Bd3 c5 11.e5 Nd5 12.Be4 cxd4 13.Nxd4 e6 14.0–0 dxe5 15.fxe5 Ba6 16.Rfd1 Bb7 17.Ng4 with a clear advantage to White in Stojanovic-Nurkic, Sarajevo 2007.
6...Bg4 7.Bc4!?
This is a bit provokative. Safer is 7.Be2, when the miniature Yermolinsky-Adu, Las Vegas 2000 went: 7...Nd7 8.0–0 h6 9.Be3 g5 10.Rfe1 a6 11.Rad1 Rc8 12.a3 e6 13.Nb5! Qxd2 14.Nxd6+ +-.
7...Bxf3
White's point is that 7...b5 can be met by 8.Nxb5!? (here 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qf4+ Nf6 10.Bxf6 also is possible) with the idea 8...Qxd2+ 9.Kxd2 cxb5? 10.Bd5 +-. A better try is 9...d5 when 10.Bb3 as well as 10.Nc7+ are possible (and quite unclear).
8.gxf3 Qb4!? (D)
This appears to be a new move.
a) 8...b5 can still be met by 9.Nxb5!?
b) 8...e6 9.Bb3 Nd7 10.h4 h6 11.Bf4 d5 12.0–0–0 0–0–0 13.exd5 cxd5 14.h5 g5 15.Bh2 Ne7 16.Qd3 a6 17.Rhe1 was unclear in Goossens-Safranska, Rhone 2008.
9.b3!
This is an extremely ugly move (in case you didn't notice!) but White is ahead in development and probably can afford to play so as he will follow up with a3 and b4 in most cases.
9...Nd7
Still 9...b5 10.Nxb5!? is playable.
10.a3 Qa5 11.b4 Qc7 12.Rd1 Ngf6 13.Bb3 0–0 14.0–0 e6 15.Kh1 Nh5?!
I agree with my opponent's criticism of this move as it helps me bring an attacker to the kingside. But I don't like his suggestion 15...h5 any better. After 16.Rg1 Nh7 17.Bh6 White must be clearly better.
16.Ne2 Rfe8 17.Ng3 Nhf6
Probably 17...Nxg3+ 18.hxg3 f6 19.Bh6 Nf8 20.c4 is safer but White's bishop-pair and extra space ensures him of clearly better chances.
18.c4 h5?! 19.Rg1 Kh8 (D)
Here my somewhat higher rated offered a draw and I was a little ashamed to accept. From a purely chessic point of view this of course is a mistake as White must be clearly better. But more practical considerations applied. I was very tired and had difficulties calculating clearly.
½–½

After 6 rounds I have 3.5 points. I have not calculated my Elo performance but I believe it must be roughly as expected. I don't know how much Internet access I will have for the next three days and after that I may have to do with a very slow connection.

A Classical Stonewall

2009-04-04T02:36:00.008+01:00

My third game was encouraging. Not because I played particularly well but because I felt I knew what was going on in a type of position I have studied a lot lately.

Juniel Hutapea - Sv.Johnsen
BCC Thailand Open (3)
1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 d5 5.Bg2 c6 6.0–0 Bd6 (D)
The Modern Dutch Stonewall is on the board.
7.Nc3
Until 15 years ago or so this move was considered inaccurate against the Stonewall as the knight is a long way from e5 and doesn’t support the bishop exchange on a3. Now it’s considered a quite dangerous weapon.
7...0–0 8.b3
White’s most powerful follow-up to his previous move is a quick queenside initiative with Qc2, Rb1 and b4.
8...Bd7!?
This old-fashioned bishop manoeuvre has lately been less popular than the more dynamic plan involving ...b6 and ...Bb7.
9.Qc2 Ne4
This move shields the f-pawn so I can move my bishop to e8 and still recapture with my e-pawn should White exchange on d5.
10.Ne5
Two other tries are:
a) 10.Bb2 Be8 11.Ne5 Nd7 12.f3 Bxe5 13.Nxe4 Bc7 14.Nf2 f4 15.gxf4 Bxf4 16.e4 Bg6 =+ Szeberenyi-Szabolcsi, Budapest 2000
b) 10.Bf4 Be8 11.Bxd6 Nxd6 12.c5 Ne4 13.e3 Nd7 14.b4 a6 15.Ne5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bg6 17.Ne2 a5 18.f3 Ng5 19.f4 Ne4 = Peyrou Olya-Moosavian, Iran 2000.
10...Be8
This seems more consistent than the unprovoked exchange 10...Nxc3 11.Qxc3 of Karayannis-Georgiakakis, Chania 1995. After 11...Be8 12.Nd3 Nd7 13.a4 g5 14.a5 a6 15.Bb2 Qf6 16.b4 Bh5 17.Rae1 chances were balanced.
11.f3 Nxc3
11...Nf6, keeping more pieces on board trying to take advantage of White’s weakened king’s position is a serious alternative. Sop-Bejatovic, Kemer 2007 went 12.Nd1 Nbd7 13.Bb2 Rc8 14.Nf2 c5 15.Nxd7 Qxd7 16.Qd3 Bg6 17.dxc5 f4 18.Qd2 fxg3 19.hxg3 Bxg3 and Black was a little better.
12.Qxc3 Nd7
Normally Black should meet f3 with a quick ...c5 but I was also tempted by ...f4 or even ...dxc4 followed by ...e5, so I continued developing.
13.Nd3 Qe7 14.Bb2 Bg6 15.Kh1 (D)
15...f4!?
Possibly 15...Rac8 16.Qa5 a6 is a safer way to proceed.
16.Nxf4 Bxf4 17.gxf4 Rxf4 18.a4 Qh4 19.Bc1 Rf5 20.Be3 Rh5 21.Bg1
Maybe White assumed that his kingside fortress now was safe forever?
21...Rf8 22.a5
22.Qb4 Nf6 23.Qxb7 leads to play similar to the game after 23...Rh6 24.Qxc6 Nh5, e.g. 25.Bf2 Ng3+ 26.Bxg3 Qxg3 27.Qxe6+ Kh8 (27...Bf7? 28.Qxh6+-) 28.Kg1 Qxh2+ 29.Kf2 Qh4+ 30.Kg1 Bf5 and Black wins (31.Qxd5 Qh2+ 32.Kf2 Rg6 33.Rg1 Qg3+ 34.Ke3 (34.Kf1 Bh3–+) 34...Re8+ 35.Kd2 Qf4+ is a typical line).
22...Nf6 23.a6
White has found a way to pick up some pawns on the queenside. I could have delayed his progress but I saw that my kingside attack would be quick and I hoped the bait on the queenside would distract his queen from the defence.
23...b6 24.cxd5 Nxd5 25.Qxc6 Nf4 26.Rf2 Bf5 (D)

27.Qc7?
White is greedy. 27.e3! is the right way to defend. I thought that after 27...Nh3 28.Bxh3 Bxh3 I would have a very dangerous attack thanks to the opposite colored bishops but Rybka tells me that the best I have got is 29.Qc7 Rhf5 30.f4! (30.Qxa7 Rxf3 31.Rxf3 Rxf3 32.Qb7 Qg4 33.Qc8+ Kf7 34.Qc2 Ke7!! 35.a7 Rf2 36.Qc7+ Kf6 37.Qe5+ Kg6 38.Qxe6+ Qxe6 39.a8Q Re2 40.Ra6 Bf5 wins for Black) 30...R5f7 when I can try ...Kh8 and ...g5 but nothing is clear.
27...Rh6 28.Bf1
It’s too late for White to save the game. 28.e4 loses to 28...Nh5. The rest is more or less forced:
28...Nh5 29.Rg2 Bh3 (D)
It's a pity I never got around to playing ...Kh8!
30.Rf2 Bxf1 31.Rfxf1 Ng3+ 32.Kg2 Nxe2! 33.Be3 Qh3+ 34.Kh1 Ng3+ 35.Kg1 Qxh2 mate 0–1

The Whole Truth?

2009-04-02T07:06:00.013+01:00

I have always made a point to have a post-mortem with my opponent after a game - simply because I enjoy it and find it useful. However, when going to a tournament with my wife and little son, that doesn't seem the right way to spend my time. So during this tournament I have not so far had a look at my games with my opponents but rather done some quick Rybka checks at a more convenient time. The computer generally shows me how well or badly I and my opponent calculated and frequently (but not always) provides a more accurate assessment of the positions than what I had during the game. What I miss is that little look into my opponent's mind that a post-mortem offers. I need to be reminded how a chessplayer thinks during a game.

Sv.Johnsen - Akharaboollasez
BCC Thailand Open 2009 (2)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4

This occasionally leads to a more interesting game than 2.Nf3 followed by 3.Bf4 does.

2...e6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Be7 5.Nd2 d5 6.Bd3 b6 7.Ngf3

This is the right moment to enter the more traditional London lines as 7...Nh5 now can be met by 8.Bxb8 and a check on b5, forcing Black to move his king and lose time with his misplaced knight.

7...Bb7 8.Ne5 0–0 9.Qf3 Nbd7 10.Qh3

This attacking formation is one of the main ideas behind the classical London System. But with his bishop on b7 and his knight on d7, Black's e4 control may just be sufficient for equality.

10...Re8 (D)

11.g4!?

Probably 11.Ndf3 is better 11...Ne4 which I thought looked annoying is well met by 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.Ne5. If my memory had been better I might have remembered the continuation of Blackburne-Harmonist, Breslau 1889: 13...Qd8 14.f3 Nf6 15.Ng4 g6 16.Bb5 Nd7 17.Nh6+ Kg7 18.Nxf7 Bh4+ 19.Bg3 Kxf7 20.Bxh4 with a clear advantage to White. This is Illustrative Game 3 in ’Win with the London System’. The London is easy to learn superficially but exact knowledge takes a bit more as the many similar positions can easily be confused.

11...Nf8

This is an important defensive resource.

12.Ndf3 Ne4 13.g5!?

I considered 13.Bb5 but found that 13...f6 14.Nc6 Qc8 15.Nxe7+ Rxe7 was a bit unclear. Doda-Kraidman, Siegen 1970 continued 16.g5 Ng6 17.gxf6 Nxf4 18.exf4 Nxf6 19.0–0–0 Ba6 20.Bxa6 Qxa6 21.Kb1 with a small advantage to White.

13...cxd4 14.exd4 Bxg5 (D)

I considered this too risky on general grounds but was not sure how Black could save himself. I thought that after 14...Ng6 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.Rg1, Black was helpless against the plan Rg4-h4. Rybka, however has no problems finding 16...Qc8 17.Rg4 e5 18.Nxe5 Ba3! with quite difficult play.

15.Nxf7?!

A much stronger continuation is 15.Nxg5 Nxg5 16.Qh5 g6 17.Qxg5. What I missed was that 17...f6 18.Qh6 fxe5 19.Bxe5 gives White a deadly attack, e.g. 19...Qe7 20.Rg1 Rac8 21.Bxg6 Nxg6 22.Rxg6+ hxg6 23.Qh8+ Kf7 24.Qg7 mate.

15...Kxf7 16.Bxg5 Nxg5 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Nxg5+?

I wanted to play for mate but Black can defend quite easily. After 18.Qxg5 Qxg5 19.Nxg5+ Kg7 20.f4 White would have had a very nice positional plus.

18...Kg7 19.Qg4 e5 20.0–0–0 e4

After 20...h6 I considered 21.h4!? hxg5 22.hxg5 with a lot of possibilities but nothing that really works for White. One reasonable line is 22...e4 23.Bb5 and now 23...Re7 24.Qh3 Qd6 25.Qh8+ Kf7 26.Rh7+ Nxh7 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh8+ leads to a drawing mechanism I noticed during the game. A better try for Black may be 23...Qd6 24.Bxe8 Rxe8 when he probably is a little better. Consequently White probably should play 21.Nh3 when 21...Bc8 must be a little better for Black than the game.

21.Bb5 Bc8! 22.Qf4 Re7

Rybka at first prefers 22...Bd7 but after a while finds that White wins after 23.Qf7+ Kh6 24.Rdg1 Bxb5 25.Rg4 Be2 26.Rh4+ Bh5 27.Rg1 Qe7 28.Qf4 Kg7 29.Rxh5 (but even then there are some long semi-forcing lines after 29...e3).

23.h4 Qc7 24.Qe3 h6 25.Nh3 Rf7 26.Be2 Nh7?!

This looks wrong. 26...Bxh3 27.Rxh3 Qf4 28.Qxf4 Rxf4 29.f3 e3 30.Re1 Re8 is roughly equal.

27.Rdg1 Bxh3 28.Rxh3 Qf4 29.Rhg3 Qxe3+ 30.fxe3 Rf6 31.Kd2 (D)

This looks like a very good reversed French for White. Black's central pawns are weak.

31...Raf8

31...b5! 32.Bxb5 Rb8 is a much better chance.

32.R1g2 a5?!

This does nothing positive for Black's position.

33.Rg4 Rc8 34.a4 Rfc6 35.Bb5 Rf6 (D)

36.c4?

My lacking sense of danger strikes again! This is the wrong moment to act.

36...dxc4?

36...h5! 37.Rf4 Rxf4 38.exf4 dxc4 is only a little better for White.

37.Rxe4 Rc7 38.Kc3 Rf1 39.Re6 Nf6 40.Bc6 Rc1+ 41.Kd2 Rh1?

41...Rf1 42.e4 Rf4 43.e5 Ng4 is a little better but still probably winning for White. The rest is simple.

42.Rxg6+! Kxg6 43.Bxh1 Kf7 44.Rxb6 Re7 45.Bf3 h5 46.Rb5 Ng4 47.Rxh5 Nxe3? 48.Rh7+ 1–0

Attempting a Kick-Start

2009-04-02T06:43:00.006+01:00

My preparations for BCC, Thailand Open didn't go as planned. I never got around to any problem solving or training games and my opening preparation is patchy. In my first game I tried to get into tournament mode by concentrating on calculation more than on general strategy. Unfortunately my brain didn't quite manage to adapt.

The time control was 90 minutes for the game and an additional 30 seconds for each move.

Uehara-Sv.Johnsen
BCC Thailand Open 2009 (1)

1.d4 f5

I have heard that Japaneese players generally are good at calculating - possibly because many are experienced Shogi players. So maybe it wasn't a great idea starting the game by weakening my king's position. On the other hand this is the only opening against 1.d4 on which I have done any work lately.

2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bb4!?

Entering the Stonewall with 4...d5!? would probably have been the most sensible choice as that's what I have been spending my time on recently.

5.Bg2 0–0 6.Nh3 Ne4

6...d5 of course is an option but with White’s knight committed to h3 so early it’s tempting to play for ...e5. Probably 6...d6 is the safest way to do so. Two possible continuations are:

a) 7.0–0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nc6 9.c5 Ne4 10.cxd6 cxd6 11.Qc2 d5 12.Ba3 Rf7 13.f3 Nd6 14.Rae1 b6 15.e4 += Poulsen-Jakab, Budapest 2004.

b) 7.Qb3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Nc6 9.0–0 Qe8 10.Nf4 Rb8 11.Qa3 b6 12.Nd3 Bb7 = Oliwa-U.Krause, Germany 1995.

7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 d6 9.Nf4 Qe7 10.Qb3 Nd7 11.c5 Ndf6 12.cxd6 cxd6 13.Rc1 g5!? 14.Nd3 b6 15.Bb4 Nd5 16.Ne5 Bb7 17.Nc4 Nxb4 18.Qxb4 (D)

Here I spent a lot of time (probably close to 40 minutes) trying to find out whether there was anything for Black in the game continuation or after 18...Qg7 (or 18...Qf6 19.f3 Qxd4) 19.f3 Qxd4 20.fxe4 and now either 20...Rac8 or 20...fxe4.

The correct continuation proably is 18...Rac8 19.0–0 Bd5 20.Bxe4 fxe4 21.Qxd6 and now 21...Qf6! with excellent chances.

18...Nxg3?

When I played this I had realized that it lost a pawn rather than winning one. But by now I was down to 13 minutes on my clock and I wanted to play something forcing in order to have something to show for my lengthy calculation.

19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Rg1 Ne4 21.f3 Nf6?

A better practical chance would have been 21...d5 22.Ne5 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Qxc8 24.fxe4 Qc1+ 25.Kf2 Qf4+ which I probably would have played if I had realized how bad the game continuation was.

22.Rxg5+ Kh8 23.Qxd6!

After 23.Nxd6 Qd7 I probably have sufficient compensation for the pawn.

23...Rad8!? 24.Qe5

I thought that after 24.Qxe6 the open files towards White’s king would be sufficient practical compensation. That probably was a misevaluation - Rybka doesn’t believe in Black’s chances at all.

24...Qe7!?

A good practical try.

25.Kf2?? (D)

This is a terrible blunder. 25.a3 and quite a few other moves keeps the advantage.

25...b5??

This I played quite quickly. Not because I really was in time trouble but because I had a little more than five minutes left and wanted to get my time up somewhat by playing some ’obvious’moves quickly. Actually 25...Rd5! almost wins on the spot 26.Qf4 loses to 26...Ne4 and after 26.Qg3 or 26.Qe3, Black can choose between 26...Ne4+ and 26...f4.

26.Ne3 f4?

I am a pawn down for nothing but this turns the position into a forced loss.

27.Nf5!

This I only saw when I was waiting for my opponents move.

27...Qd7 28.Rc7!

This is not the only winning move but it’s the quickest.

28...Qd5 29.Nh6?!

Actually 29.Rg8+ Kxg8 30.Ne7+ is even stronger.

29...Qxe5 30.dxe5 Nd5 31.Rcg7!

This came as a small surprise. When the move appeared on the board it took me only a couple of seconds to see the idea but there’s nothing to do.

31...Rc8 32.Rg8+! 1–0

Not Ready Yet

2009-03-14T10:07:00.001+01:00

In a little more than two weeks I shall play my first real tournament in more than four years.
The 9th Bangkok Chess Club Tournament now has 12 registered GMs and I am ranked no. 61 out of 146 participants. It surely will be a nice tournament but it worries me that I am badly prepared in almost every way.

According to plans I should by now have completed my update of the London Systems files, and be well on my way to have a complete repertoire against 1.e4. Unfortunately that's very far from reality. I have barely started looking at the London and am still undecided about which opening to play against 1.e4.

However, the openings are not my weakest point. If I can only raise my tactical vision and my concentration I suppose I will not do too bad. The problem is that this is a much more evasive goal than working out an opening repertoire. Fortunately I have roughly one free week before the tournament and I have some tricks that I hope will kick-start my tactical vision.

The main problem with playing some blitz and basically no tournament games is that my sense of danger has been weakened. Yesterday's game in Sjakkalliansen, the informal Oslo team league for companies, was quite typical:

Sv.Johnsen-S.Nørve
Sjakkalliansen 2009
1.d4 Nf6
Normally I am very poorly motivated for these unrated team games. They are played on Wednesdays' evenings and a quick draw normally is a perfect result. However, for this game I tried to raise some interest in order to test my play. It helped somewhat that I lost my previous game against my opponent. Nørve must be roughly as rusty as I am but he is a three times Oslo champion from 20 years ago or so.
2.Bf4 b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.e3 g6 5.Nbd2 d6 6.Bc4
This bishop placement makes sense against a set-up with ...g6 and ...b6 but wasn't examined deeply in 'Win with the London System'.
6...Nh5?!
6...Bg7 is better but Black probably wanted to catch my bishop before I got around to play h3.
7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5? (Dia)
This move has a tactical flaw which makes Black's plan starting with 6...Nh5 meaningless.
9.Ne5!
I still usually notice this kind of simple tactics.
9...dxe5 10.Qxh5 e6 11.Bg3 Bg7
11...exd4 12.Bxe6 looks extremely dangerous. After 12...Qe7 13.Bc4 Bxg2 I may even consider 14.0–0–0!? Bxh1 15.Rxh1 as it's hard to see how Black can ever complete his development, e.g. 15...Nd7 16.Qf3 Rc8 (16...0–0–0 17.Ba6+ is of course not an option) 17.Qb7 and White must be winning.
12.Bxe5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Bxg2 14.Rg1
Around here Jonatan, my three years old son, decided that he had seen enough and decided to leave for his mother, trusting that not even his father could mess this up.
14...Bd5 15.0–0–0 Bxc4 16.Nxc4 Nd7 (Dia)

17.f4?!
17.Qf3! as pointed out by my opponent is very strong, preventing Black from ever castling.
17...gxf4 18.Rg7
In this position I actually considered 18.Qf3! but discarded it thanks to some very sloppy calculations.
18...Qe7 19.exf4 0–0–0!
Black correctly judges that an endgame a pawn down is his best chance.
20.Qxf7 Qxf7 21.Rxf7 Nc5 22.Rxd8+?!
This move starts a phase of planless play.
22...Rxd8! 23.Ne3
23.b3 might well have won me a couple of tempi compared to the game continuation.
23...Rd4 24.b3 h5 25.h4 Kd8 26.a4 a5 27.Nc4?!
This blunders a pawn and hints that my form is not the best.
27...Nxa4
Here my opponent offered a draw and considering the trend of the game I would normally have accepted. However, the exchange doesn't change the fact that I am somewhat better thanks to my sounder pawn structure.
28.Nxa5 bxa5 29.bxa4 Rxa4 30.Kd2 Re4 31.Kd3 Re1 32.Rh7 Rf1 33.Ke3 a4 (Dia)

34.Rxh5??
My thought process run something like this: 'Can there be any danger picking up the pawn? No - if he tries to run with the a-pawn I just check him and go to a8 with my rook.' Well, that's exactly how you trick yourself into not calculating properly. Chess is a logical game but simplified logic brings you nowhere!
34...a3??
My opponent didn't spend much time on this move but I still had time to discover 34...Kc8! and see that I couldn't stop the a-pawn by normal means. As a matter of fact this nice move wins easily even against 35.f5 which seems to be my best trick.
35.Rh8+ Kd7 36.Ra8 Rh1 37.Ke4 Rxh4 38.Rxa3 Rh1 39.Rg3 c5?
This makes my task easier but I believe my position must be won anyway.
40.Rd3+ Kc7 41.Rd6 Re1+ 42.Kf3 Rf1+ 43.Kg4 Rg1+ 44.Kh5 Rf1 45.Kg4
45.Kg5 Rg1+ 46.Kf6 Rg4 47.Kxe6 Rxf4 48.Kd5 Rf2 49.c4 also wins quite easily but at this point it appeared that if I won this game my team would surprisingly qualify for next year's top league and I didn't trust my calculation skills at all.
45...Rg1+ 46.Kf3 Rf1+ 47.Ke3 Re1+ 48.Kf2 Rc1 49.Rxe6 c4 50.f5 c3 51.Ke2 Rxc2+ 52.Kd1 Rd2+ 53.Kc1 Kd7 54.Ra6 Rd5 55.e6+ Ke7 56.Ra7+ Kf6 57.Rf7+ Kg5 58.e7 1-0
A little later my team mate on board secured his draw and my team had qualified for next year's first league (provided that there is one as it quite likely may be replaced by a cup system).

My Chess Club

2009-03-03T13:26:00.008+01:00

Today I stumbled across this blog reporting from a visit to my chess club, Oslo Schakselskap (OSS). Dana didn't get all the details correct but probably some of our members were responsible for most of the inaccuracies.

OSS really is a nice chess club, located very conveniently close to Majorstuen in Oslo. It arguably is the oldest Norwegian club, founded in 1884. With 4 GMs it has also got quite a strong line-up for team tournaments.

One thing Dana forgot to mention was the club's very nice library, which is very useful - in particular if you are looking for old magazines, tournament books, or the like.

A Veresov Idea

2009-02-27T13:01:00.001+01:00

I have a framework for a book on the Veresov opening. Most of the chapters and sub-chapters are almost empty and will remain so until I start serious work on the opening. And that will only happen when I stumble over something promising against 3...Nbd7 and a few other challenging lines. The game below was interesting but I doubt it will be 4.Qd3 that makes me take up the Veresov again.

Vaganian-Adamski, Copenhagen 2006
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3
I read somewhere that Vaganian has made a habit of playing the Veresov once a tournament. It seems he still does.
2...Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3!? (Dia)

This isn't how my first chess coach taught me to play the opening. Nevertheless this move has been played by some strong GMs and prepares e4. I have tested it in a few blitz games and I often am annoyed that it is hard to employ my light-squared bishop anywhere more active than on e2.

In order to keep your repertoire consistent it is natural to combine this line with the related 3...c6 4.Qd3.
4...c5!?
The other critical move is 4...h6 when 5.Bf4!? seems more promising than 5.Bh4. Against quieter moves I believe White can reasonably expect an advantage (although a minor one).
5.0–0–0!?
Can this really be the move that saves the Veresov? White's most popular move has been 5.Bxf6 but I find it hard to believe that giving up the bishop-pair for so little visible compensation can promise any advantage. A more likely candidate is 5.e4 but it doesn't seem to give any edge either.
5...cxd4
It seems logical to make White's queen move again. After 5...e6 two recent games continued:
a) 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.Qxd4 h6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.e4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 dxe4 11.Ndb5 Kd8 12.Nxe4 a6 13.Nbd6 Bxd6 14.Nxd6 Ke7 15.g3 += Sirin-Swiercz, Gaziantep 2008.
b) 6.e4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qa5 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Kb1 f5 10.Nxc5 Nxc5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.f4 0–0 13.Nf3 Be7 14.g4!? Barhudarian-Eidelson, St Petersburg 2007.
6.Qxd4 e5
After 6...e6 7.e4 these are relatively recent encounters:
a) 7...dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qa5? 9.Bxf6 gxf6?! (9...e5 offers more resistance) 10.Nxf6+ Nxf6 11.Qxf6 Rg8 12.Bb5+ 1–0 Hector-Kirkegaard, Copenhagen 2006.
b) 7...Bc5 8.Qd3 d4 9.Na4 b6 10.f4 Qc7 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nf3 h6 13.Bh4 Bb7 14.Nxd4 Nxf4 15.Qd2 (15.Qc3) 15...Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Nd5 (16...g5) 17.Bg3 0–0 18.Bd3 Rfc8 =+ Andrzejewska-Koziak, Koszalin 2005.
7.Qa4 d4 8.Nd5 (Dia)
This position reminds of the one arising after 4.f3?! c5 5.e4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 e5 7.Qa4 which I used to play quite frequently a dozen years ago. In that line White has one more move (f3+e4 instead of 0-0-0) as his queen got to d4 in one move. However, as we shall see the two pawn moves may be irrelevant.
7...Be7
It looks normal to break the pin. The alternatives are:
a) 8...Bd6 probably should be met by the immediate 9.f4.
b) Rybka likes 8...b5!? 9.Qxb5 Rb8 which gives Black a lot of play for the pawn.
9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.f4!
This is White's idea, undermining Black's pawn centre.
10...0–0 11.fxe5
11.Nf3 too is interesting.
11...Nxe5 12.Nf3
12.Qxd4 Bf5 13.Nf3 Neg4 14.Qf4 Bxc2!? 15.Kxc2 Rfc8+ 16.Kb1 Nf2 is very unclear.
12...Nc6 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 (Dia)

With opposite castling the position is very hard to assess but it seems to me that White must be somewhat better. However, I am not sure I would be happy to play the white pieces in a practical game.
14...Bf5 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.e4 Rfd8 17.Qe3 Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 Qxe4?!
With the queens off White's better pawn structure must count for something. I would have been more worried about 18...Qe6.
19.Qxe4 Bxe4 20.Bd3 Rd8 21.Ke2 Bxd3+ 22.cxd3
This position too is hard to evaluate but the only question is how large White's advantage is. His passed pawn may well be decisive.
22...Kg7 23.Rc1 Rd7 24.Rc5 Kg6 25.g4 b6 26.Rb5 Rd4 27.h3 Ra4 28.a3 Ra5 29.Rxa5 bxa5 30.Ke3 f5 31.Kf4 fxg4 32.hxg4 Kf6 33.a4 h6 34.d4 Ke6 35.Ke4 Kd6 36.d5 f6 37.Kd4 a6 38.b3 Kd7 39.Kc5 f5 40.gxf5 h5 41.Kd4 h4 42.Ke4 h3 43.Kf3 1–0

Chess, Nim and Symmetry

2009-02-25T10:24:00.003+01:00

I have a certain interest in symmetry in chess and plan to explore the subject in some future entries. However, first I need to clarify a few concepts and I don't really know where to start. So instead there will be some initial random thoughts.

In chess, symmetry normally refers to a position which is symmetrical along the horizontal mid-axis (mirrored along the 4th and 5th rank). This probably is because it's the kind of symmetry which occurs most frequently and therefore is of most practical interest.

However, it is also possible to reach positions which are symmetrical along the long diagonals.

This pawn endgame for a period was a popular wild variant on ICC:

It is completely solvable and reminds of the ancient game of Nim which has long been mathematically solved (at least the most popular versions).

I have heard rumors that this game was removed from the server because it attracted gambling. If that's correct it's strange because it's a game that in principle can be mastered completely and doesn't involve any element of chance.

That of course doesn't stop it being a devilishly difficult game to play perfectly. I assume most of those playing it for big sums of money must have had access to tables with computer generated solutions.

For a beginning understanding it may be useful to analyze this position which obviously is closely related to the initial position:
My guess is that White to move loses. But although I analyzed this position (or a similar one with kings on b7 and g2) 25 years ago I must admit that I don't remember anything about it - except that it isn't a draw.

Preliminary conclusion: Diagonal symmetry occurs relatively rarely in practical chess and tends to lead to races and occasional zugzwang and not to drawish positions.

In future entries I will concentrate on symmetry along the horizontal mid-line.

PS: Today I added a chess gadget to my blog. You can see it at the bottom of the main window. I have no idea how good, hard or varied the exercizes are. It seems you get a new diagram every time you reload the page [F5].

Another Delay for the Stonewall

2009-02-24T11:36:00.006+01:00

I was not happy when I one week ago noticed that the publishing date for 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' was delayed with another month to April. But I was not surprised either as I was starting to realize that with a normal production time after the final proofs were done, March was just barely possible.

I was more surprised today when I saw that publishing date now is May. I have absolutely no information about the causes for this delay. However, Gambit Publishing is a relatively small company and I assume that minor problems, like a bankrupt print shop (there must be some in these times of financial problems), an employee on sick leave or even a data crash will have more noticeable effects than they would for a bigger company.

I only hope that the editors will be less restrictive about including last minute updates than they usually are.

In the meantime I am busy with another book project for Gambit. I don't know why it's not listed in their list of upcoming books but it may be because it's an update of another author's work and that they now are pondering whether I have been too keen adding material and comments to the original. I hope I will soon feel free to disclose the title.

A Scandinavian Speciality in the Closed Ruy Lopez

2009-01-30T11:13:00.016+01:00

I still have an unfinished manuscript on the 9...a5 variation of the Closed Ruy Lopez. It was intended to be a low-theory alternative to the Zaitsev in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black'. But even before my GM co-author had had a look at it, we decided that 9...Qd7 was a better companion move - mainly because of the many possible transpositions. However, I recently had a new look at the line because of this game:

Ivanchuk - Carlsen
Corus (Wijk aan Zee) (5) 2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 a5 (D)
This somewhat exotic move seems to first have been played by the Swede Gösta Stoltz and has later been championed by the Dane Lars Bo Hansen and the Norwegian Simen Agdestein, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to name it 'The Scandinavian variation'.
If I ever complete the manuscript I will consider including a chapter on the even rarer 9...Bd7!? which can be treated as a 'sister variation' with the connecting line being 10.d4 a5!?.
10.d4
10.a4 is White's other major option.
10...a4
The oldest game in my database went 10...exd4 11.cxd4 a4 12.Bc2 Nb4 13.Nc3 Nxc2 14.Qxc2 c6 15.d5 cxd5 16.exd5 b4 17.Nxa4 Bd7 18.b3 Nxd5 =+ Thomas-Stoltz, Warsaw 1935.
11.Bc2 Bd7 12.Na3
This seems logical and after getting Ivanchuk's approval I assume it is the new main line. 12.Nbd2 has been played more frequently.
12...Rb8 (D)

This looks more natural than 12...Qb8 which was Agdestein's preference: 13.Bd3 exd4 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 Qb7 16.Bg5 Rad8 17.Nc2 Na6 18.Ne3 Rfe8 19.Qd3 g6 20.a3 c5 21.e5 dxe5 22.dxe5 Bc6 23.Qc3 Nd5 = Renet-Agdestein, Lyon 1988. However, it must be said that the rook returns quickly to a8 so who knows?
13.d5
This must be more critical than 13.Bd3 when Yagupov-I.Zaitsev, Moscow 2000 continued 13...b4 14.Nc4 bxc3 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Nfxe5 dxe5 17.bxc3 Bd6 18.Bc2 Bc6 19.Bg5 a3 20.Qf3 h6 21.Bc1 Qe7 22.Ne3 Bd7 23.Bb3 Kh8 1/2–1/2.
13...Na7
One of Black's big challenges in most Closed Ruy Lopez systems is to activate his queenside knight. The alternative obviously was 13...Na5 which also seems satisfactory. One reasonable line suggested by Rybka goes 14.Qe2 Qc8 15.b4 axb3 16.axb3 c5 17.dxc6 Qxc6 18.b4 Nc4 19.Nxc4 Qxc4 20.Qxc4 bxc4 21.Be3 Ra8 22.Nd2 +=.
14.c4 Ra8 15.Be3 b4 16.Nb1 c5 17.a3 b3 18.Bd3 (D)

18...Nxe4!?
Typically Carlsen grabs the first opportunity to active play.
19.Bxe4 f5 20.Nfd2
Rybka initially prefers 20.Bd3 e4 21.Nc3 but after the further moves 21...Bf6 22.Rc1 Nc8 23.Bf4 exd3 24.Qxd3 Re8 25.Rxe8+ Qxe8 26.Re1 Qh5 27.Re3 h6 chances seems balanced.
20...fxe4 21.Qh5 Be8 22.Qe2 Bd7 23.Qh5 Be8 24.Qe2 Bd7 ½–½
If it wasn't for the repetition, the position still would have been fairly equal.

Dangerous Weapons - Dutch

2009-01-29T12:06:00.001+01:00

For the moment I find the Dutch defence one of the most interesting opening subjects. Nonetheless I was not exactly ecstatic to see that Everyman is announcing a new book in their series Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch.

The three authors are all very competent so of course my slight feeling of disappointment has to do with timing. I would much have preferred to have the book available before completing "Win with the Stonewall Dutch". The book is being set and is announced for March so there is not a lot to be done anyway. But there might just have been room for some small but valuable updates.

One advantage of writing on the Dutch is that a complete repertoire can still be fitted within a reasonably sized book. But the anti-Dutch lines are constantly expanding and in the not too distant future they will demand a separate volume.

I hope the book will be balanced in the way that it doesn't concentrate too much on White's minor systems. There are a lot of minor systems for Black that would fit perfectly in the Dangerous Weapon series.