A Question of Style

As a comment to my entry 'A Grossly Unfair Test', a reader has sent the following question:

"In your book, 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black', you recommend the move 8...d5 after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Qe2 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 0-0 0-0 8 c3 (Dia) and you say that 'the more conservative 8...d6 9 Rd1 Na5 10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 Qc7 leads to standard Chigorin positions where White's chances should be slightly preferable.' The 8...d6 line is recommended by Nigel Davies in 'Play 1 e4 e5!' and by Mihail Marin in 'A Spanish Repertoire for Black' which came out after your book. You have 'Play 1 e4 e5!' in your bibliography so you must have thought that White has improvements over Davies' lines. What do you think about Marin's analysis of this line? How does both books analysis compare to Greet's Play the Ruy Lopez?"

Actually the decision to recommend 8...d5 was not mainly a result of any dissatisfaction with 8...d6 or Davies' analysis of the move. The two moves have a roughly equal theoretical status so our choice was more a matter of taste and of finding a move that fitted into our general repertoire. Space considerations also was an issue as the Worrall clearly had to be considered a minor line - even more so before the arrival of Greet's book.

It must be taken into consideration that Davies and Marin both are recommending a Chigorin based repertoire where 8...d6 followed by ...Na5 and ...c5 fits very nicely in - the main strategies are the same whether White's rook is on e1 or on d1. We, however, offer a Zaitsev based repertoire. That doesn't totally exclude Chigorin like lines but it would require extra space for strategical explanations. Another factor is more subjective: we chose to recommend the Zaitsev variation because it involves rapid and natural development. Correspondingly we avoided the Chigorin because we were not really happy with the knight excursion to a5. It is a fact that Black often finds it quite hard to activate this knight in the Chigorin. These considerations apply in the diagram position too.

So, why didn't we recommend a Zaitsev development scheme with ...Bb7 and ...Re8 then? That is indeed a good question and this should have been stated clearly in our book: Against the Worrall attack, 8...d6 9.Rd1, 9...Bb7 doesn't seem to be working very well, as 10.d4 creates threats to e5, thanks to the pin in the d-file.

Fortunately this isn't a great problem as 8...d5 is an active and strong move which fits well with the general philosophy behind the Zaitsev. It takes a bit more theoretical preparation than 8...d6 but once Black masters a few sharp lines he can expect quite a pleasant life against the Worrall. This claim has to be backed up by analysis (and in our book we supply some). But to some extent it can also be supported by visual evidence.












If you compare these two diagrams which shows the positions after 11 moves in the two mainlines there can be no doubt that Black appears more active in the second:

• In the first diagram (arising from 8...d6 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7) White has achieved an central advantage (e4&d4 vs. e5&d6) while Black's knight on a5 appears somewhat misplaced.
  
• In contrast White in the second diagram (arising from 8... d5 9. d3 Bb7 10. Nbd2 Re8 11. a3 Bf8) has spent a move on the modest a3 while Black is almost fully developed (Zaitsev style!) and has even taken the active stance in the centre (e5&d5 vs. e4&d3).

Obviously this doesn't prove that 8...d5 is better than 8...d6 but I think it shows that 8...d5 is a more ambitious approach (and consequently better if it actually works).

Hard-Core Opening Theory

That's what you can find in this article at Chessvibes. It refers to my and Leif Johannessen's book on the Ruy Lopez. If you want to keep up with developments this certainly is a game to be noted.

A Grossly Unfair Test

A couple of reviewers have compared our "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" (RLGB) with Greet's "Play the Ruy Lopez" (PRL) by checking the line where our black repertoire meets Greet's white repertoire. This of course is a test we are doomed to lose, or in Watson's words: "Taking this as a 'test' would be grossly unfair to Johnsen & Johannessen, who must spend the bulk of their efforts to justifying Black's position against the many mainstream attacks against the Ruy Lopez; hence they are hardly about to invest a lot of time and space into addressing the Worrall System."

But as two reviewers have already had problems getting this comparison right, let's go through the exercise anyway. It's the PRL-guy with the white pieces against the RLGB-guy, and there is no doubt about the first moves:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.0–0 d5 8.d3 0–0 9.c3 Bb7 10.Nbd2 Re8 11.a3 Bf8
(Dia.)
12.exd5!?
Here RLGB runs out of theory, as only 12.Ba2 and 12.Rd1 are given. Giving up White’s central foot-hold doesn’t seem very desirable and there is only one game in MegaBase 2006 with this move: Summerscale-Mannion, Dublin 1993. But let’s assume that the game doesn’t end there, and Black plays the natural recapture:
12...Nxd5
The PRL-guy is still not out of book, and flashes out:
13.Ne4
This activates White's queen-side, but isn’t really forcing. Black seems to have several playable alternatives. However, one move that completes development stands out as particularly natural:
13...Qd7!
This is the main-line in PRL, so White’s reply again comes instantly:
14.Re1
(Dia.)
With some luck ‘our’ man will now discover that he’s back in book. This position can be found in RLGB under the move-order 10.Re1 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a3 Qd7 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Ne4. That is not a trivial transposition but the RLGB-guy’s odds are considerably improved by the fact that there’s a diagram with the exact position at page 160.

Now Black has three alternatives that are listed in the same order in both books:
a) 14...Na5?!, which both books give as leading to an advantage for White.

b) 14...Rad8, which in RLGB gets 10 lines of analysis and seems to be fine for Black. This move is however shown to be dubious by some quite impressive analysis by Greet where he improves on Short-Almasi, Wijk aan Zee 1995.

c) After 14...f5!?, both books offers the drawing line 15.Ba2 Kh8 16.Nfg5 h6 17.Qh5 fxe4 18.dxe4 Nf6 19.Nf7+ Kh7 20.Ng5+ 1/2–1/2 of Tiviakov-Grischuk, Linares 1999, and RLGB stops there. However, this obviously isn’t theoretically satisfactory for White (although it may have great practical value), so PRL offers two pages of analysis on 15.Ng3!?. The move in itself isn’t very impressive, but Greet’s analysis beginning with 15...g6 16.Bg5 quickly gets sharp, and it cannot be denied that the RLGB-guy will have a tough task for the next dozen moves if he stumbles into Greet’s mainline. Whether White objectively has any advantage is another question. Let me suggest the natural 16...h6 17.Bf6 Bg7!?, which Greet doesn’t mention. Whether this will be sufficient for equality I cannot really tell. Most analysis engines indicate that White has a very small plus but for a further evaluation I would have to consult my GM co-author.

Conclusion: A RLGB reader will have more of a challenge than a PRL reader reaching the position after 14.Re1. If he does reach it, he could get into trouble if he choses option b), the natural looking 14...Rad8. If he instead plays option c) the risky-looking 14...f5, he may have to accept a quick draw or face the unknown, but not too dangerous looking move 15.Ng3.

Greet on the Norwegian

After having demonstrated fairly convincingly that 10...Qd7 in the main-line of the Norwegian variation (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh4) is at best difficult for Black, Greet in his "Play the Ruy Lopez" moves on to Black's other major option:
10...Ne7
(Dia)
This may be Black's most natural way of facing the Qh5+ threat. However, I have always thought it inferior to 10...Qd7 as I quite early was taught that the black queen needed access to f7, and this knight move obviously interferes her direct route.
11.dxe5
Greet recommends this move, which probably is stronger than 11.f4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bxd5 when Black should be able to defend, e.g. 14.Qe2 Qd7 (14...Qe7?!) 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.dxe5 0-0-0 (16...Qb5!? 17.Qf2 fxe5 18.Nf5 g6 19.Ne3 Be7 may be best) 17.Qxa6+ Bb7 18.Qc4 fxe5 19.Be3 and White had some advantage in Vihinen-O.Moen, Gausdal 1994.
11...dxe5
11...fxe5?! 12.f4 gives White a dangerous attack.
12.Qf3
(Dia)
12...Qd7
The somewhat less natural 12...Qc8!? may transpose and in some lines even improve: 13.Be3 (13.Rd1 h5 14.h3 Qe6 simply transposes to the 12...Qd7 line with 14.Be3) 13...h5 14.h3 Qe6
and now a split:
a) 15.Rfd1 g5 16.Nd5 0-0-0 17.Nxe7+ Bxe7 18.Qf5 Qxf5 19.Nxf5 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Bf8 21.f3 h4 was better for Black in Nyysti-L.Johannessen, Gothenburg 2003.
b) After 15.Bc5!? Kf7 (Heinrich-H.Martin corr 1971) Greet gives 16.Rfd1 when Black still is far from equality.
13.Rd1 Qe6 14.Nd5
14.Be3 h5 (14...g5 15.Nxb5 axb5 16.Qh5+ Qf7 17.Rxa8+ Bxa8 18.Rd8+ Kxd8 19.Qxf7 gave White a clear advantage in Spassky-Taimanov, URS-ch Moscow 1955) 15.Bc5 Qg4 16.Qxg4 hxg4 17.Bxe7 Bxe7 18.Nf5 g6 19.Ne3 Bd6 20.Nxg4+= Langeweg-S.Johannessen, Beverwijk 1965.
14...Nxd5 15.exd5 Qf7
After 15...Qd7 16.Nf5, Greet concludes that White is slightly better. This seems to be supported by the game 16...a5 17.c4 a4 18.bxa4 bxa4 19.b3 c6 20.Rxa4 Rxa4 21.bxa4 cxd5 22.cxd5 Qxa4 23.Bb2 += Chambers-Draba, corr 2002.

So far Greet's coverage has been quite convincing, and now he just manages to get his main analytical point right as he informs the reader that Anand recommends 16.Nf5!, when e.g., 16...g6 17.Nh6 Bxh6?! 18.Bxh6 offers White the better chances.

However, for those wishing to see the conclusion of Anand-Agdestein Baguio City 1987, it now gets quite confusing as Greet claims that the game continued 16.Be3?! Be7?! 17.Nf5! Rd8 and now the impossible 18.Be3. If Greet instead had given 18.c4 g6, it would at least have been a quite reasonable transposition back to the actual game, allowing the reader to make sense of the rest of the score. However, according to BigBase2007 the game actually continued 16.c4?! Be7?! (16...g6!) 17.Nf5! Rd8 18.Be3 g6 (18...0-0 19.Bh6!) 19.Nh6 Qg7 20.Qg3 with a clear advantage to White.

So - how bad is this for the book? Well, in my opinion it mainly raises some questions about Everyman's proof-reading routines. But it isn't really an analytical problem, as it occurs after the analysis has been concluded. And a reader who tries to play through the game and gets confused should be able to find the correct gamescore in a database without too much effort. So in itself this must be classified as an ugly but still quite minor blemish in such a monumental work. The real question is how many problems of this kind will turn up after a more detailed scrutiny of the book. My preliminary guess is that there will not be too many as it appears to be quite well researched.