Elburg reviews "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire"

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.

Block with the Rook

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

Dangerous Weapons - Dutch

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.

He That Seeketh Findeth

He who seeks shall find ... but not always what he seeks for. When looking for games in the 6...a5 line that I wrote about yesterday, I came across this game. It has little relevance to the theme but still is food for thought:

Dautov - Maier, Garmisch Partenkirchen 1991
1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 a5!?
This may look strange if you don't know that 6...d6 7.Nc3 a5 and 6...d6 7.b4 are two quite critical lines in the Classical Dutch. See yesterday's entry for some more thoughts.
7.Nc3
If there is a way to take advantage of Black's rare 6th move, it most likely is 7.d5.
7...d6
Black presumably is happy to have avoided the 6....d6 7.b4 variation and enters a position more frequently reached by the move-order 6...d6 7.Nc3 a5. Normally I would have gone on to the next game in my database but I noticed that the unrated player held a draw with Black against a strong GM so I had a closer look:
8.Re1 Ra6!? (D)

An amazing move that I would never have considered in a serious game. I have seen ...Ra6 played at a later stage in this kind of positions - after Black has played ...e5 and accepted an isolated e-pawn. But then there has always been a clear way to the kingside.

9.Qc2 Kh8
I am not quite sure whether Black is preparing ...e5 with this move or if he is mainly waiting for White to play e4.
10.e4 fxe4 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 e5!?

In his book Play the Classical Dutch, Simon Williams states "If Black can achieve the ...e5 advance he will generally be at least equal". This advise is not at all hard to remember. The tricky part is to decide when Black can do this and when he cannot. It may be a question of calculation but also of evaluation. Here ...e5 certainly is a legal move. But after seeing the game, I am still not quite certain whether Black here can play ...e5 or not.
13.dxe5 dxe5
The Isolated King's Pawn (IKP) occurs far less frequently than its cousin, the Isolated Queen's Pawn (IQP). Normally Black is doing fine with the IKP in the Dutch as he is well placed to attack White's kingside fianchetto. But isn't the pawn just for taking?
14.Nxe5 (D)

One of two critical lines. The other starts 14.Qxe5 and one possible continuation is 14...Re6 15.Qxa5 Nc6 16.Qd5 Rd6 and Black has at least some practical compensation. However, in a practical game one may wonder whether a developing move like 14...Be3 hadn't been better.
14...Bb4 15.Rf1 Re6 16.Be3 Qe7 17.f4 Nd7 18.Bd4 Re8
White is pretty much tied up to the defence of his central knight.
19.Bh3 Nxe5 20.fxe5 Rd6 21.Bxc8 (D)

½–½
Isn't Black clearly better after 21...Rxd4 22.Qxb7 Qxe5?

I am not sure how well Black played in this game. But I think that for the next few months I will be looking a little harder for ...Ra6 ideas in the Dutch.

Delaying the Decisions

Sometimes you have to wonder why certain opening lines are well explored while others are ignored. Usually there is a good reason but it's not always easy to find and sometimes fashion seems the only explanation.

Generally the critical cross-road in the Classical Dutch is considered to arise after these moves: 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 (the Modern Dutch Stonewall is characterized by the move 4...d5 followed by ...Bd6; the advantage is a more active employment of his dark-squared bishop and the disadvantage is that Black s reveals his central formation earlier) 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 (Dia)

In this position Black's main moves are 7...Ne4, 7...Qe8, 7...a5 (all examined in Simon Williams' Play the Dutch played by strong players and in general quite well researched) and 7...c6 (which has been played by Saemisch among others but seems unfashionable). None of these moves are developing moves in a strict sense but they all to some extent prepare queenside development, prepare ...e5 or prevents e4.

What's interesting is that if we retrace two half moves, to this position (Dia):

the picture is entirely different. Black's main options are 6...d5 - Botwinnik's Stonewall which sets up a relatively static centre and 6...d6 - the Classical Dutch (aka. the Ilyin Zhenevsky variation) which keeps the central pawns fluid (but generally prepares ...e5).

However there is also another relatively popular option - Alekhine's idea 6...Ne4!? which delays this decision. This system too is examined in Williams' book. Black's main idea is to meet some of White's developing schemes with ...d5 and others with ...d6. Another benefit is the fact that Black doesn't allow b4 (6...d6 7.b4!? is quite an important little line, scoring considerably better than 7.Nc3).

Another respected 6th move with similar motives is Bellin's 6...c6!? which has slowly increased in popularity for at least 15 years. This line has been played by Short, Larsen, Smyslov and Bronstein among others and is discussed in Giddins' excellent 'How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire'.

These by no means are easy lines to play for Black. Not only does he delay development but he also needs a good general understanding of the Dutch. In order to play the position well, you not only must know when to go for a Stonewall set-up with ...d5 and when to go for a fluid centre with ...d6. You also must be able to handle both kinds of position well!

The obvious question is: What about 6...Qe8!? (Dia) and 6...a5!? (Dia).


None of the moves have been tested in modern grandmaster clashes. Actually there are relatively few practical examples altogether - I find only 99 games with 6...Qe8 and 30 games with 6...a5 in MegaBase 2009. Obviously both moves can transpose to standard lines after 7.Nc3 d6 so the two principal questions are now:

1. Can and should White avoid 7.Nc3 d6 which would transpose to the 6...d6 7.Nc3 a5/7...Qe8 lines?
2. After 7.Nc3, can Black give the game an independent twist with an alternative to 7...d6 (or are these moves just move-order tricks avoiding the 6...d6 7.b4 option?)?

I don't have the answers yet but I will keep you informed about my investigations.