Stonewall Omissions III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.