Killer Opening Repertoire Reviewed

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.

Killer Repertoire in Marsh Towers

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."

First English Reviews

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.

Kuzmin Variation

Having concluded in a previous entry that 7.Ng5?! is fairly harmless, or even weak, it's time to take a look at White's subtler replies.

After the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 b5 6.Bb3 d6, it seems that 7.c3! must be the critical test.

(Dia.)

Now d4 is no longer available for Black's knight and 8.Ng5 is becoming more of a threat.
7...Na5

This is Black's most popular follow up and removes pressure from the sensitive f7-pawn. In a reply to my 7.Ng5 entry, Phil Adams brought to my notice that Soltis in his new book ' Transpo Tricks in Chess' (Batsford 2007) briefly discusses this move-order. Obviously Bisguier used it mainly as a confusing transposition tool against Robatsch in Hastings 1961, here playing 7...Be7. That allows White to look for ways to omit or delay Re1 (as the e4-pawn is already protected by Bc2), but the White rook will be nicely placed on e1 so it will normally quickly transpose to a mainline Closed Ruy Lopez.

I had a look at 7...g6 8.Ng5 d5 9.exd5 but did not find anything that really looked playable for Black.

7...Bg4 is another active move that keeps open the option to develop with ...g6. Unfortunately it seems White can keep an edge with little risk:

a) 8.Qe2 mainly has historical interest: 8...Be7 9.Rd1 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d3 Nc6 12.h3 Bd7 13.d4 += Stoltz-Alekhine, Salzburg 1942.

b) 8.Re1 is the start of a familiar plan for most players of the white side of the Ruy Lopez. White hopes to demonstrate that the active bishop mainly is a target and will play d3, Nbd2-f1-g3 and only then put the question to the bishop with h3. A relevant game went 8...Na5 9.Bc2 c5 10.d3 g6 11.Nbd2 Bg7 12.Nf1 0–0 13.h3 Bd7 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 Qc7 16.Ne3 Be6 17.d4 Nc4 18.Nxc4 Bxc4 19.d5 b4 20.cxb4 g5 (20...cxb4 21.Ba4 +=) 21.Bg3 cxb4 22.Qd2 with some advantage to White in Unzicker-Bisguier, IZ (Gothenburg) 1955.

8.Bc2 c5

This increases Black's central presence, allows him to support his central pawns with ...Qc7 and seems generally consistent with his previous move. Still, b4 doesn't seem to be much of a threat yet, so I wonder if 8...g6 9.d4 Qe7 may be a possibility.

9.d4 Qc7

This seems necessary in order to support Black's central presence (but seen in light of the further course of the game you may wonder if 9...Qe7, planning ...g6 is an option).

10.Nbd2

(Dia)

This appears to be the critical move, and only if Black can pass this test he needs to worry about the alternatives 10.Re1, 10.h3 and 10.a4.

10...g6!?

Well, this bishop development was Black's main idea. However, it's worth noting that one of Kuzmin's latest games with the line went 10...cxd4 11.cxd4 Bd7 12.Bd3 Be7 13.Qe2 0–0 14.b3 Nc6 15.Bb2 Bd8 16.a4 bxa4 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 dxe5 19.bxa4 Bg4 20.Qe3 Be6 when the players agreed a draw even if White had the more comfortable position in Kindermann-Kuzmin, Panormo 2001.

11.b4!

Only this non-stereotyped move can cast doubt on Black's idea. 11.a4 b4 12.cxb4 cxb4 13.b3 exd4 14.Nxd4 Bg7 15.Bb2 0–0 16.Rc1 Nd7 17.Bb1 Qb6 was fine for Black in Vasiukov-Kasparian, Yerevan 1955.

11...cxb4 12.cxb4 Nc6 13.Bb2 Bg7

Actually the optimistic 13...Nxb4 14.Bb1 Nc6 seems playable but after 15.Qc2 Qb6 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Bg7 19.Nb3 0–0 20.Bd4 White's advantage is fairly obvious.

14.Rc1

(Dia)

14...Qe7!?

Black's queen is exposed in the open c-file so this is a natural reaction. Black has also tried:

a) 14...Bb7? 15.Bb3 Qe7 16.Rxc6! Bxc6 17.dxe5 Nh5 18.g4 Nf4 19.exd6 +- Bronstein-Evans, Moscow 1955.

b) 14...0–0 15.Bb3 += was our conclusion in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black', but on closer inspection it seems that Black has some quite serious problems: 15...Qb6 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Bg4 19.Qc2 Rae8 and now Suetin-Ragozin, (URS Ch) Kiev 1954 was drawn after the moves 20.Qc7 Qxc7 21.Bxc7 Bh6 (this position is equal) 22.Rc6 Bxd2 23.Rxf6 Be2 24.Bd6 Bg5 25.Bxf8 Bxf6 26.Re1 Rxe4 27.Bc5 Bc3 28.f3 Bxe1 29.fxe4 Kg7. However, after 20.Qb2 Black has problems freeing his position.

15.Bb3 Nxd4

15...Bb7 16.a3 0–0 17.d5 Nd8 18.Rc3 gives White a clear advantage.

16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Bxd4 0–0 18.Re1 Be6 19.Nb1

Or 19.Bxe6 Qxe6 20.a4 with a small plus for White.

19...Bxb3 20.axb3

Now White will have some pressure down the semi-open a-file but his b-pawns are weak. I am not sure why White preferred this over 20.Qxb3 which seems to preserve a small advantage.

20...Nh5 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Rc6 Rfd8 23.Nc3 Nf6 24.Qa1 Qe5 1/2–1/2 Vasiukov-Arulaid, Voroshilovgrad 1955.

Conclusion:

It seems Black has a slightly harder task to equalize after 6...d6 7.c3 than in the Closed Ruy Lopez mainlines, but that to some extent should be compensated by the element of surprise. It would also be interesting to see a high level game with 9...Qe7.