Creative Passivity

There appears to be a tendency in chess that activity will defeat passivity and that attack will win against defence. But that may to some extent be a psychological effect more than an integral part of the game. Here is a remarkable example of creative passivity:

U.Andersson - M.Basman, Hastings 1974
1.Nf3 b6

This is known as the English Opening. The talented English IM, Basman probably never quite realized his full potential. Whether it was due to his penchant for unorthodox openings or not is hard to say - his provocative style certainly earned him quite a few points too.

2.g3

Andersson makes no attempt to refute Black's opening which in 1974 must have seemed a lot more unorthodox than it does today.

2...Bb7 3.Bg2 e6 4.0–0 d5 5.c4

Swedish grandmaster Ulf Andersson was known for his defensive technique, his risk avoidance and his faith in healthy if passive positions. He combined this playing style with a unique endgame understanding and a formidable willingness to play on forever in seemingly dead drawn endgames - frequently extracting that extra half point in the end.

5...Nf6 6.d4 Be7 7.Nc3 0–0 8.Ne5 h6 9.Bf4 a6 10.Rc1 Ra7 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Qb3 (Dia)

White has gained a fairly clear and stable advantage from the opening. Black is solid but he will find it hard to create counter-play. What happens now is an interesting case of psychological warfare. Basman abandons all attempts to free his position and just waits for the attack.

12...Ba8 13.Rfd1 Kh7 14.h3 Kg8 15.Kh2 Kh7 16.g4

This is a move you rarely see Andersson play in the opening or middlegame. Psychologically this may be the root to his eventual defeat .

16...Kg8 17.Bg3 Bb7 18.e3 Ba8 19.a3 Bb7 20.f4

Andersson's kingside pawns are lured forward. Probably the old Steinitz saying that the player with an advantage is obliged to attack were whispering somewhere in the back of his mind.

20...Ba8 21.Rd2 Qd6 22.f5 Qd8 23.Bf4 Bb7 (Dia)

Remarkably nothing has changed in Black's position since the last diagram. White's attacking pawn cloud looks imposing but actually his strategy may be mistaken.

24.Rg1 c6 25.Bf3 Nh7 26.Rc1 Bd6 27.Na4 Bc7 28.Kg3 Nf6 29.h4 Nfd7

Almost imperceptibly the game has turned. White has accepted too many obligations and is now actually struggling to defend his territory.

30.Nxd7 Nxd7 (Dia)

This exchange combined with the imminent exchange of dark-squared bishops frees Black's play and exposes White's king somewhat.

31.Re2 Re8 32.Kh3 Bxf4 33.exf4 Rxe2 34.Bxe2 Qe7 35.Bf3 b5 36.Nc5 Bc8 37.Qd3 h5 38.gxh5?!

38.g5 seems to keep White’s position more compact and would probably have been stronger.

38...Qf6 39.Kg3 Nxc5 40.Rxc5 Bxf5 41.Qc3 Bd7 42.Qd3 Ra8 43.Rc1 Re8

Black may be winning already thanks to White's weakened king's position.

44.Qc3 c5 45.Qxc5?

White had to try 45.dxc5. However, after 45...d4 46.Qd2 Re3 47.Re1 Rxe1 48.Qxe1 Qf5 49.Qe4 Qxc5 50.Qe5 Qc4 Black's passed d-pawn gives him a very clear advantage.

45...Qf5! (Dia)

Now all Black's remaining pieces take part in the attack - there just is no defence.

46.Qxd5 Qh3+ 47.Kf2 Qh2+ 48.Bg2

48.Kf1 Bh3+ is even worse.

48...Qxf4+ 49.Bf3 Bg4 50.Rc3 Qh2+ 51.Bg2 Qxh4+ 52.Kg1 Re1+ 53.Bf1 Bh3

0–1

(With 54.Rxh3 Qxh3 55.Qa8+ Kh7 56.Qe4+ Rxe4 57.Bxh3 Rxd4 White only reaches a completely lost endgame.)

Reversed Dutch

A reversed Dutch? Isn't that the Bird's Opening (1.f4)?

Actually not. 1.f4 d5 is indeed a reversed Dutch but I have always been slightly skeptical about 1.f4 because of 1...Nf6! which avoids the weakening of the e5-square and at least temporarily stops e4. Correspondingly I find 1...d5 a slightly illogical reply which to some extent justifies White's first move. That's why I consider 1.a3!? d5 2.f4!? an interesting sequence of moves while 1.f4 d5 2.a3 appears rather meaningless.

But is there actually any advantage in having the extra a-pawn move in a reversed Dutch? There obviously are certain Dutch lines with an early ...Na6 that simply become impossible to play with a pawn already occupying that square. However, I assume that with a deep understanding of Dutch strategy and a little imagination it should be possible to steer for positions where a3 is useful. Here is an example where White succeeded wonderfully:

N.McDonald - B.Thipsay, Banwell mem London 2001

1.a3 d5 2.f4 Nf6

Quite possibly Black should immediately ensure control of the long diagonal with 2...g6.

3.Nf3 g6 (Dia)

Black has chosen a sensible set-up that can be completed without taking on too many obligations in the centre.

4.g3

With this move White heads for a reversed Leningrad system. Actually 4.b4!? - to some extent preventing ...c5 - seems sensible too. One of Black's main problems in the Dutch is to complete the development of his queen-side. With that problem solved, this reversed version cannot be too bad.

4...Bg7 5.Bg2 0–0 6.0–0 c5

Finally Black accepts his role as White! Probably 6...c6 would have given comfortable equality.

7.d3 Nc6 8.Nc3!

Probably this is White's best chance to make something out of his pawn on a3. From a comparison with the parallel position with reversed colours it seems that 8.Qe1 and 8.c3 are sensible alternatives.

8...d4 9.Na4! (Dia)

After 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5, 8...Ne5 is a little more popular than 8...Na5 but odds are much better that White can make use of a3 in this line.

9...Qd6 10.c4 Ng4

In the reversed position the main continuation is 10.b3 a6. However, 10...b6 could nevertheless have been considered as White's score in the reversed line is 59%. Only experience can tell how much difference one tempo can make but in a sharp position where both players pursue different plans, it may well make the difference between a win and a loss.

11.Rb1

Philosophically White can claim some success as the two main continuations in the parallel reversed position are 11...Rb8 and 11...a6. What's more: in the 28 games with these two moves, the score is 9 wins for White, 7 draws and 12 wins for Black!

11...Rb8

11...e5 seems a more consistent follow-up of Black's 10th move.

12.b4

A relevant game for comparison is Benko-Tal, Candidates Tournament Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade 1959: 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3 0–0 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 Nc6 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 c5 10.Ng5 a6 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.Bd2 Qe8 13.b3 b5 14.a3 Ng4 15.Nf3 bxc4 16.bxc4 Rb3 17.Rxb3 Nxb3 18.Rb1 Nd4 19.e3 Nxf3+ 20.Bxf3 Ne5 21.Qe2 Nxf3+ 22.Qxf3 e5 23.Qd1 e4 24.Qa4 Qe7 25.Qc6 f4!? 26.Rb8 Bh3 27.Rxf8+ Qxf8 28.exf4 Qb8! 29.Ne2 Qb1+ 0–1.

12...b6 13.bxc5 bxc5 14.Rb5 Rxb5 15.cxb5 Nd8 16.Qc2 Ne6 17.f5 gxf5 18.Nh4 Bf6

Fritz suggests 18...Nc7 with roughly equal chances.

19.Nxf5 (Dia)

The pawn structure is quite murky but White's advantage is not in doubt as his piece activity is superior.

19...Qe5 20.b6 axb6 21.Nxb6 Ng7 22.Nc4 Qc7 23.Bf4 Qd8 24.Nh6+ Nxh6 25.Bxh6 e5 26.a4 Re8 27.a5 Ne6?

27...Ba6 would have been a better try.

28.Bc6!

This wins an exchange thanks to the hanging bishop on f6.

28...Bg7 29.Bxe8 Bxh6 30.Bxf7+ Kg7 31.Bxe6 Bxe6 32.a6 Qa8 33.Qb1 Qxa6 34.Qb8 Bxc4 35.Qf8+ Kg6 36.Qf5+ Kg7 37.Qxe5+ Kg8 38.Qe8+ Kg7 39.Qf8+ Kg6 40.Qf5+ Kg7 41.dxc4 1–0

Not a Defence

At the German site Freechess.info there now is a review of Aagaard's "Stonewall II" . There really isn't that much new to be learned about the book (the game Astrom –Ulibin, Göteborg 1999 was already included in the English version) but it's interesting to note that it seems to have changed title from "Die Stonewall Verteidigung II" to simply "Stonewall II". See my entry of July 25 for the "original" cover.
One can speculate what the reasons are for the change. Maybe the publishers simply decided that they didn't like the passivity that can be associated with the word "Verteidigung" which means defence. Or maybe it was the strange mix of German and English that didn't appeal. My personal theory is that the word "Verteidigung" doesn't score well on Google's rankings and may make the book harder to find for potential buyers.

As an aside there is a funny remark by the reviewer:
"Vielleicht hätte man noch ein Extrakapitel zu diversen Ablehnungen in das Buch aufnehmen können, ich denke hier in erster Linie an die Zugfolge 1.d4 f5 2.e4. Natürlich wird ein erfahrener Spieler diese mit 1…e6 umgehen, doch etwas unerfahrenere Spieler könnten hier schmerzvolle Erfahrungen machen. Wie ich unlängst erfahren habe, gibt es im Staunton-Gambit mit 1.d4 f5 2.e4 unter einigen Großmeistern eine noch geheime bisher nicht gespielte Variante, die Weiß deutlich im Vorteil sehen soll!"
In English this roughly translates to:
"Maybe an extra chapter about various early deviations could have been added; what I primarily have in mind is the the move-order 1.d4 f5 2.e4. An experienced player will of course bypass this with 1...e6, but players with less experience may collect some painful lessons. As I have long since discovered, some GMs have found a secret and not yet played variation in the Staunton-Gambit 1.d4 f5 2.e4 which gives White a clear advantage."
This is a quite central move-order question in my coming Stonewall book and I will not comment much on it in this blog. However I think I should make my preliminary conclusion clear: If you play the French against 1.e4 there certainly are some reasons to prefer the 1...e6 path to the Stonewall over 1...f5, but the Staunton gambit isn't among them.

Addendum
The publisher's have (somewhat curiously) announced that there will not be an English version of this revised Stonewall book, and the Swedish version apparently has been canceled. But today I found that an Italian version seems to be on its way.
My knowledge of Italian consists of a few tourist phrases and a little chess jargon, but doesn't "completamente rinnovata e in esclusiva mondiale per Caissa Italia" indicate that this is something more than a pure translation? That theory seems to be supported by the claim of more than 100 annotated games while the German only is said to contain 94.

The Zwaig Variation

Like most of the early developers of the Norwegian variation, IM Arne Zwaig is now a member of my chess-club, Oslo Schakselskap. One of his main contributions was his investigation of the line 7...f6 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4) which borders between being an independent line and a pure move-order finesse. Black offers White to exchange his light-squared bishop for Black’s knight on g8 rather than the a5-knight. This may at first glance seem advantageous for White who prevents short castling and avoids doubled b-pawns, but on closer inspection it’s not at all so clear, as the open a-file after ...Nxb3 is one of White’s major assets in the mainlines.

If White accepts the offer, the game will take an independent course. However, if he declines with 8.Nc3 (as Greet recommends in his Play the Ruy Lopez), play will almost always transpose to the mainline after 8...Nxb3 9.axb3. So in reality the effect of Zwaig’s move-order is to avoid the 7...Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.c4 line and maybe to tempt White into inferior lines.

Let’s have a look at 8.Bxg8!? Rxg8 (Dia):

9.Nh4!?

This opens a path to h5 for White's queen and is a natural attempt to demonstrate that Black's kingside has been weakened. The main alternative is 9.b4 (to which I may return in a later entry) but White has also tried 9.a4, 9.Nc3, 9.Qe2, 9.Ne1, 9.c3 and 9.dxe5.

9...Qd7

This indirectly protects the h-pawn so that Qh5 now can be safely met by ...g6.

10.a4

White must try to stir up things early as Black's bishop pair tends to become a significant factor if the game develops quietly.

a) 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qf3 Be7 13.h3 Bb7 14.Rd1 Qc6 15.Nc3 f5 16.g3 fxe4 –+ R.Rodriguez-Alvarez Ibarra, San Sebastian 1996

b) Fritz' suggestion 10.Nf5 g6 11.Ne3 must be taken seriously as 11...c6 12.d5 c5 13.Bd2 Nb7 14.a4 b4 15.Nc4 is very good for White.

c) 10.Nc3 and now:

c1) 10...Qg4 11.Nd5 (11.Nf3 Bb7 12.a4 b4 13.Nd5 0–0–0 14.Re1 f5 was unclear in Ostojic-Johannessen, Amsterdam 1969) 11...Ra7 12.Nf3 +=

c2) 10...c6 11.b4 Nc4 12.a4 Bb7?! (12...Qg4 looks like an improvement, e.g.: 13.Qxg4 Bxg4 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.axb5 Bxb4 and Black is clearly better) 13.Qd3 g6 14.Nf3 Rg7 15.d5 c5 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8+ Bxa8 18.Bh6 +/- Y.Gruenfeld-Moen, La Valetta 1980

10...b4 11.c3 Rb8 12.Nd2 g6 13.Nhf3 c5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe2 Rg7 16.Ne1 b3 (Dia)

17.g3?!

17.f4 seems to be a better attempt and may be sufficient for a small advantage. Black's king will be exposed but may escape danger via f7 and g8.

17...Qc6 18.Ng2 c4 19.Ne3 Be6 20.Nd5?!

Tactically this is a correct pawn sacrifice; if Black accepts it immediately his king will be dangerously exposed. However, strategically White is not able to support this knight so in a relatively short perspective this move will either be an incorrect pawn sacrifice or a double tempo loss.

20...Rf7 21.f4 Bc5+ (Dia)

It's already obvious that Black is better - mainly because his king now is ready to run to f8.

22.Kg2

After 22.Ne3 Qd6 Black is more active and has the bishop-pair as a bonus.

22...Rd8

Also the direct 22...Bxd5 23.exd5 Qxd5+ seems to be sufficient for a clear advantage.

23.Nf3 Bxd5 24.exd5 Rxd5 25.Be3 Bxe3 26.Qxe3 Rd3 27.Qe2 Re7 28.Rae1 e4 29.Nd4 Qd5

Now Black's advantage is beyond doubt, and it's hard to see how White can keep his position together.

30.Qg4 f5 31.Qg5 Nc6 32.Qf6

32.Nxc6 Qxc6 33.Kh3 Rd2 is no better.

32...Nxd4 33.cxd4 Rd2+ 0–1 Hecht-Zwaig, Raach 1969 (34.Kh3 e3 35.Rg1 Qf3 decides immediately)

Not a Ghost After All

It seems "Die Stonewall Verteidigung" by Aagaard has become a reality after all. After numerous delays Niggemann now announces it as 'Neu'.

The Table of Content according to Niggemann (see below) is a bit disappointing as it seems the book's structure is exactly the same as Aagaard's earlier 'Dutch Stonewall'. However, the 'Katalog' (German language) informs that there are 94 annotated games. That are 17 more than the older English version.

5 Vorwort
7 Einleitung
65 Weiß zieht 7.b3
97 Weiß zieht 7.Lf4
123 Weiße Alternativen im 7.Zug: 7.Sbd2, 7.Se5, 7.Dc2
145 5.Sh3
171 Andere Abspiele im Stonewall
183 Weiß spielt frühzeitig e2-e3

Well, I will buy the book anyhow, and it will be very interesting to see how much new material there is.

Chigorin Mainline

I promised to try identifying the current "Chigorin Mainline". My quest starts after 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 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 (Dia) when we have the first real split:

11...Qc7!

This is the Classical Chigorin - as the eponymous master himself played it. Black has tried other moves but none of them are as popular:

a) 11...Nd7, Keres’ variation is Davies’ recommendation in ‘Play 1.e4 e5!’, but has recently run into certain theoretical difficulties. Most likely this is only temporary but it’s Black that’s looking for improvements now.

b) 11...cxd4, I.Sokolov’s favorite is very playable but it appears slightly illogical to allow White the option to develop his knight to c3.

c) 11...Nc6, Borisenko’s variation too is fully playable, but White tends to play 12.d5 when Black doesn’t really have an attractive square for his knight.

d) 11...Bb7, Romanishin’s variation is fully playable but Black will frequently have to return his bishop to c8 in order to re-activate it if White plays d5.

e) 11...exd4, has no accepted name but has been played by Chiburdanidze among others.

f) 11...Re8, Hebden’s gambit line may be theoretically suspect but has been used relatively recently by Gustafsson.

12.Nbd2

This is played more than ten times as frequently as 12.d5 which is White’s second most popular move. The knight is on its way to g3 via f1 and the e-pawn may soon need protection.

12...cxd4

It’s not at all obvious that it’s in Black’s interest to exchange his c-pawn for White’s more modestly placed c-pawn. But the open c-file will ensure that something is happening on the queenside and distract White from his slow but dangerous kingside plans. In addition Black gains temporary access to b4 for his knight.

a) 12...Bd7 is what Marin in ‘A Spanish Repertoire for Black’ calls the ‘Petrosian System’ - or more accurately that’s what he calls the natural follow-up 13.Nf1 Nc4. In my opinion ‘Petrosian variation’ would have been a more appropriate name.

b) 12...Nc6 is what Marin calls the ‘Rubinstein System’ (again I prefer ‘variation’ rather than ‘system’).

c) 12...Re8 could reasonably be called the Donner variation.

d) 12...Rd8 is a sensible move that has been played by many strong players, but it seems Romanov is the most consistent patron.

e) 12...Bb7 I suppose could be called the Panov variation after the strong player who was one of the early practitioners.

f) 12...Be6, 12...h6, 12...g6, 12...Nd7, 12...exd4 are rare moves that have been tried by strong players and that may well be valid tries for equality.

13.cxd4

(Dia)

13...Nc6

At this point Black only has a very few independent alternatives:

a) 13...Bb7 14.Nf1 transposes to 12...Bb7 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4

b) 13...Bd7 14.Nf1 transposes to 12...Bd7 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4

c) 13...Be6 14.Nf1 transposes to 12...Be6 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4

d) 13...Rd8 is relatively independent and has been played by Shirov, Kasimdzhanov and Bologan among others. Not at all a bad line-up but I could find only 180 games versus more than one thousand with 13...Nc6.

14.Nb3!

The fact that this move is necessary is one of Black’s small triumphs in the Chigorin. The knight will soon be on its way to the king's wing again but it will cost two extra moves.

14...a5

The Chigorin variation is extremely solid but also slightly passive. It is hardly a coincidence that the most active sub-variations have become the mainlines. This is Black's choice in almost 90% of the games.

15.Be3

The d-pawn needs new protection so the knight can be released for worthier tasks.

15...a4

And this natural follow-up is Black's choice in almost 95% of the games.

16.Nbd2

This is the natural move, even if there actually are 11 games with 16.Nc1 - some of them with quite strong white players.

16...Bd7

At this point there again is a split. This is the preferred move in more than 50% of the games but there are alternatives that have been played by world-class players:

a) 16...Nb4 has been played by Adams and Beliavsky among others.

b) 16...Be6 too has been played by Beliavsky in addition to Tkachiev, Sturua and some other GMs.

17.Rc1

There can hardly be a more natural move than placing the rook vis-a-vis Black's queen and making room for the bishop on b1. Still 17.a3 is quite a popular move which is fairly likely to transpose at some point.

17...Qb7

(Dia)

With this move we reach what I declare the starting point of the Modern Chigorin Mainline in the Ruy Lopez. This is Black's preferred move in 140 out of 217 games in MegaBase 2007. The two main alternatives 17...Rac8 and 17...Rfc8 can both transpose. One reason I choose to stop here is the fact that it's not absolutely clear what's White's main continuation in this position. From the 140 MegaBase 2007 games we have this distribution:

• 18.Qe2: 51 games, with Kramnik and Shirov as the most prominent recent players.
• 18.Nf1: 39 games, with Ivanchuk, Svidler and Leko as recent top players.
  
• 18.a3: 28 games, with Karjakin and Bologan as leading practitioners.
• 18.Bb1: 18 games with Almasi and Kotronias as recent top players (and Anand with a 10-years old game)
• There also are games with 18.d5 and 18.Bd3 by strong GMs.

I suppose I will return to this position in a future blog.

The Prie System

To me the main problem with starting a game 1.a3 always has seemed to be the closed defences, 1...d5 and 1...Nf6. That is still so, but lately a new system has appeared that is very relevant for 1.a3 players - the Prie System which goes 1.d4 d5 2.a3 (Dia) and may at first seem mysterious. The move is not new - it was first used (repeatedly) by Somacarana in the eighteen-fifties - but it seems Prie deserves the naming rights as he is the first top player not only playing it successfully but also writing about it.


I believe Prie's reasoning goes roughly like this:
1) 2.c4 is White's best move but some lines demand quite a lot of study.
2) Systems with an early bishop development to f4 or g5 fail to gain an advantage and possibly even to achieve equality because of lines with an early ...c5 and ...Qb6.
3) 2.a3 to some extent discourages 2...c5 and a3 is a useful 'extra' move against most reversed Queen's Pawn openings.
4) a3 is useful in a few of White's normal Queen's Gambit lines, so White may well consider a delayed c4 should Black play too passively.
5) The possible switching between black and white strategies and speculating in which lines a3 is useful, irrelevant or even damaging can be quite confusing.

In short the Prie System may not lead to any objective advantage to White but it leads to 'normal looking' positions where the strongest player is likely to win. Here is a game where Prie definitely was the stronger:

Prie - D.Adams, British Cht 2005
1.d4 d5 2.a3

This is Prie's preferred move-order. He also considers 1...e6 2.a3 a valid try but against 1...Nf6 he prefers 2.Nf3 because of 2.a3?! g6.

2...e6

2...c5 definitely is risky in view of 3.dxc5 when White may actually try to hang on to the pawn.

3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 h6 6.Bf4 0–0 7.Nbd2 b6 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Qf3 c5 10.c3 (Dia)

Now it looks like a London system where it's not easy for Black to make use of his extra tempo.

10...a5 11.h4 Nfd7 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.Rh3! Ndxe5 14.dxe5 Qc7 15.Qh5

Most likely White is winning already.

15...Ba6 16.Bc2 Rfd8 17.Rg3

Now it's definitely decided.

17...Bf8 18.Bxh6 Qxe5 19.Bg5 f5 20.Nf3 Qd6 21.Bxd8 Nxd8 22.Ng5 Be7 23.Qh7+ 1–0

The London is such an easy game to play!

Chigorin or Zaitsev

The Chigorin or the Zaitsev - that's the question; at least if you have decided to buy a book on the Closed Ruy Lopez for Black.

While there certainly are other aspects to be taken into account, one main consideration when choosing a repertoire based theory book, is the quality of the recommended lines.

In my and GM Leif E. Johannesen's "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" we primarily recommend the Zaitsev variation, starting 9...Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8.
(Dia)












In "A Spanish Repertoire for Black" on the other hand, GM Mihail Marin recommends the Chigorin variation, starting 9...Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7.
(Dia)












So, what is best - Chigorin or Zaitsev?

Obviously there is no definite answer to that question. Both lines have been played at absolute top-level and have withstood detailed computer assisted analysis. But there nevertheless are some differences that may help you decide:

• Zaitsev development is quicker and more natural.
• Black's knight on a5 tends to create problems in the Chigorin.
• The Chigorin is the oldest line, and has developed a correspondingly larger body of theory.
• The Zaitsev tends to lead to sharper lines where both players must follow a narrower theoretical path.
• In the Zaitsev Black must worry about weaker players going for a repetition of moves.
• In the Chigorin Black tends to be a little passive for quite a long time.
• In the Zaitsev mainlines Black's kingside tends to come under fire.
• Experience pays well in the Chigorin and your results are likely to improve over time.
• Strategic ideas tend to be clearer and easier to understand in the Zaitsev.
• Chigorin strategy tends to be extremely slow and often quite subtle.
• In the Zaitsev mainline the centre frequently becomes quite open.
  
• In the Chigorin White can close the centre permanently with d5.

If that didn't help, I suppose the best you can do is comparing the mainlines and try to decide what suits your style the best. For the Zaitsev you only need to check my entry "Worthy of Study" to find the critical position. It's a bit harder when it comes to the Chigorin - actually I think identifying the Chigorin mainline could be a nice topic for a future blog entry.

In the meantime it's nice to know that even if you should happen to choose the wrong line (it could even be that the Breyer variation is the line for you!), there will be very little work wasted. Your study of one Closed Ruy Lopez line is almost guaranteed to deepen your understanding of any other line within that complex. And whenever you decide to do a switch you will save a lot of time.

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.

Stonewall around the Corner

Much of my attention is centered around the Dutch Stonewall these days. I was exited to see that there seem to be some progress with Jacob Aagaard's 'Die Stonewall Verteidigung II'. Quality Chess' home page has no new information but I found a new date and a picture at ChessWare Schachversand. It's a bit confusing to find it announced as 'new' when it appears to be available only from August 6th but there now seem to be good reason to believe it will soon appear.

I wonder how a competing book will influence the sale of my book for Gambit. It's not at all clear that potential customers will buy only one. Actually, based on my own experience I would expect most Stonewall players to want both.

By the way there seems to be no news about Collins' 'Attacking Repertoire for Black' for Batsford.

Update 2007-08-04
Expected arrival of Aagaards's book at Chessware is now August 10th. A new delay but nothing dramatic. Still no news about Collin's book, which is still announced for August 1st at Niggemann.

More Retro Challenges

Here are a few more reconstruction challenges. How did this happen?













First a simple one. I believe I took less than two minutes to solve it blindfolded (or at least without a board):
1) Black's 4th move is 4...Re1+.

The next one I believe is harder. But I may be mistaken, as it was one of the first I tried to solve:
2) White plays the moves 1.f3, 2.Kf2, 3.Kg3, 4.Kh4. Black's 4th move is to give mate.

The last one probably is the hardest. Some 15 years ago we were three players trying to solve it, one of us a future grandmaster. It turned out that it was the lowest rated - a 1700-player - who showed up in the chess club the next evening with the correct solution:
3) A game opens 1.a3. White's 5th move is to give mate with a rook.

Have Fun!

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.

Frustrated

I am quite frustrated now and may decide to let this blog die unless I find an acceptable way to publish it. For some months now I have not been able to log on to my account with Internet Explorer. After a few weeks I discovered that I could blog in using Firefox and found the situation a bit more acceptable (but far from all computers have Firefox installed).

Today I discovered that my last entry (posted with Firefox) cannot be seen using Internet Explorer. That is probably around 90% of the potential readers and not acceptable. I assume there is a way around the problem but I have no time or inclination to spend time looking for it. So unless these problems fix themselves or I by accident find an easy solution, this may be goodbye.

Postscript
When I published this entry, my previous entry apparently were 'published for IE' too. This is an improvement but not really satisfactory. I assume I will try a few more posts just to see what happens.

Retro Games

I suppose everybody with any interest for retrograde games (or shortest proof games) now have had their time to solve the tasks I offered in my March 23 entry:

1) Nunn's ChessBase puzzle 7: Construct a legal game that ends with (the black move) 5...Rh1 mate. Note that the last move is not a capture: 1.g4 h5 2.Bg2 hxg4 3.Bxb7! Rxh2! 4.Nh3! Bxb7 5.0–0 Rh1 mate.

2) Construct a legal game that opens 1.e4 and ends with (the black move) 5...NxR (knight takes rook) mate: 1.e4 Nf6 2.f3 Nxe4 3.Qe2 Ng3 4.Qxe7+! Qxe7+ 5.Kf2 Nxh1 mate.

3) Construct a legal game that ends with this position after EXACTLY four moves (that is eight half moves, four by White and four by Black): 1.e4 e6 2.Bb5 Ke7! 3.Bxd7! (Dia.)

3...c6 4.Be8! Kxe8.

Early London

ChessBase products like MegaBase and BigBase contain millions of games and are excellent tools for opening research. But for historical research they can still not compete with old-fashioned books and magazines. However, acquiring antiquarian chess books can be expensive and even shifting rapidly through them is a quite time consuming activity.

Fortunately my club, Oslo Schakselskap, has got a nice library with some good collections of books as well as bound magazines - primarily in German language. And from time to time I spend some hours browsing for games of interest. This old London game I found in Deutsche Schachzeitung 5/1915.

G.Lovas - L.Asztalos,Budapest 1915
1.d4 d5 2.Bf4!?
This is the London move-order that interests me the most.
2...c5!? 3.e3
3.e4!? is a more enterprising option.
3...e6 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nd2 Qb6 6.Qb1
For some reason this queen position is more common in the Torre than in the London.
6...Bd7 7.Bd3 Nf6 8.Ngf3 Be7 9.0–0
As the annotator points out, 9.h3 is probably more exact.
9...0–0
Here 9...Nh5 would have been critical.
10.Ne5 Rfd8 11.Ndf3 Be8 12.Ng5 h6?? (Dia.)

Now it's a forced mate in seven:
13.Bh7+ Kf8 14.Ng6+! fxg6 15.Nxe6+ Kf7 16.Qxg6+! 1-0 (16...Kxe6 17.Bg8+ Bf7 18.Bxf7+ Kd7 19.Qf5 is mate)

Stonewall History

When writing a chess book I am always careful not to turn it into an academic exercise. Chessplayers are looking for points not education and they are definitely not paying for history lessons. However, as an author you are obliged to do at least some historical research - even if the result has to be condensed into a couple of paragraphs in the final manuscript.

One of my small side projects when preparing a manuscript on the Dutch Stonewall is to trace the origins of the name. For the moment I know next to nothing. For obvious reasons I assume the name is a description of the pawn formation and not a family name or a place. I suspect the name may first have been used about a black set-up after 1.d4 d5 or quite possibly about the white system 1.d4 d5 2.e3.

The development of the Stonewall ideas is of course something entirely different. First of all one may note that the formation seems to be relatively old. Among ChessBase's older entries we find:

A White Bird Stonewall:
L.De Labourdonnais - A.McDonnell, London 1834: 1.f4 d5 2.d4 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6

A Double Stonewall:
G.Walker - P.De Saint Amant, London 1836: 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 c6 5.f4 d5

An Anti Bird Stonewall:
P.De Saint Amant, - W. Fraser, London 1836: 1.f4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 4.c4 c6 5.e3 e6

The first modern looking example I have come across so far is half a century younger:

P.Lipke - C.Walbrodt, Vienna 1898
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 e6 4.g3
This is the modern way to meet the Dutch. Now it will be a bit harder for Black to develop his queen-side.
4...d5
After this move we have a genuine Stonewall Dutch.
5.Bg2 c6 6.0–0 Be7
This bishop development is how Botwinnik used to play the Stonewall. The modern interpretation is 6...Bd6 in order to meet 7.b3 with 7...Qe7, preventing the exchange of dark-squared bishops.
7.Qc2 0–0 8.Bf4 Ne4 9.Nc3 Nd7 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.Bxe5

(Dia.)

11...Bf6
This was the classical way to bring the dark-squared bishop into the fight over the e5-square. P.Ricardi-M.Tempone, Buenos Aires 1999 continued 11...Nd6 12.b3 Bd7 13.Na4 Nf7 14.Bf4 g5 15.Bd2 with a small advantage to White.
12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.e3
Only here does the game depart from the more recent encounter J.Grant-L.Haraldsson, Calvia 2006 which continued 13.Rad1.
13...Qe7 14.Qb3 Kh8 15.Rad1 Rb8 16.Rfe1 Bd7 17.Ne2 Be8 18.Nf4 Bf7 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Nd3 Nd7 21.Rc1 Qd6 22.Qa4 Ra8 23.Rc3 Qe7 24.Rb3 Rfb8 25.Rc1 Bh5 26.Rbc3 Be2 27.Nf4 Bc4 28.Qa3 Qxa3 29.Rxa3 Re8 30.h4 a5 31.Ra1 g6 32.Rc3 Nf6 33.b3 Ba6 34.f3 Kg8 35.Kf2 ½–½

(Dia.)

The position is equal as Black's bishop is in no way inferior to its black counter-part. The g4-break achieves nothing for White as ...fxg4 and fxg4 will secure the e4-square for Black's knight.

A Wild Beast

A few years ago I wrote a small booklet on the line 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 a6!? (Dia.) with the title "The Tiger".
The title was inspired mainly by Rekom and Jansen's "The Lion" on the somewhat related line 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7. My booklet was distributed mainly as pdf-files but a few printed copies were made on my job's printer. I played it in a few games myself and even a few of the readers were tempted to test it (with varying success).

Then a few things happened:
1) I started writing books for Gambit - an activity that took most of my chess time.
2) I more or less stopped playing tournament chess (I will be back!)
3) There appeared a book called "Tiger's Modern", which concentrated on the Modern opening 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 and after most moves (4.f4, 4.Be3, 4.Nf3) the challenging 4...a6!?.

My Tiger Files were put aside and I noted that whenever I decided to reopen them, I would have to decide on a new name. Since then not so much have changed; I still have no time to update my old manuscript. However, a few weeks ago I devoted a quiet evening to checking my databases for developments in this line (and a few other favorites) and noticed that Cicak, one of its strongest practitioners, now has had some success with it:

M.Meinhardt - Cicak, Stuttgart Ch. (Gerlingen) 2007
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 a6!?
Black delays or omits the weakening ...g6. Against White's more timid set-ups he will probably play it after having first created some queen-side play with ...b5. Against others he will probably avoid it altogether, preferring a more solid set-up with ...e6 or ...e5 depending on circumstances.
4.a4
This can hardly be the critical test but it's quite likely to bring the play back to Pirc waters.
a) 4.f4 e6 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd3 Qxc5 8.Qe2 Nbd7 9.Be3 Qc7 10.Bd4 Nc5 11.0–0–0± Bartel-Cicak, Cork 2005
b) 4.Bg5 e6 and now:
b1) 5.Bd3 Be7 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0–0 h6 8.Bh4 Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxc3 10.Bxd8 Nxd1 11.Bxc7 Nxb2 12.Bxd6 Nxd3 13.cxd3 Nb6 =+ Galdunts-Cicak, Germany 2004.
b2) 5.Qf3 Be7 6.0–0–0 Nfd7 7.h4 Bxg5+ 8.hxg5 Qxg5+ 9.Kb1 Nc6 10.Rh5 Qe7 11.Qg3 g6 12.Rh6 Qf8 13.Rh4 Qg7 14.Nf3 Ne7 15.Qh2 += E.Berg-Cicak, Gothenburg 2006.
4...g6
Now the game takes on Pirc characteristics. 4...e5 would also be perfectly sensible, reaching a position from the modern Philidor Defence with the added moves a4 and ...a6
5.g3
This too looks fairly harmless.
a) 5.Nf3 would probably lead to a well known Classical Pirc position after 5...Bg7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 b6.
b) One of my games went 5. Bc4?! Bg7 6. Qe2 Nc6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Be3 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 when I was already slightly better in V.Hansen-Johnsen, Norwegian Open (Gausdal) 2000.
5...b6
The obvious 5...Bg7 is also fine: 6.Bg2 0–0 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.0–0 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.h3 Re8 = L.Campos-Movsziszian, Albacete 2002.
6.Bg2 Bb7 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.0–0 c5 9.Re1 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Rb8 11.h3 Bg7 12.Nd5 e5
Clearly Cicak isn't too obsessed with classical strategy. The hole at d5 and the backward d-pawn look ugly but doesn't actually bother Black much.
13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.Nb3 0–0 15.c4 Qc7 16.Nd2 Nd7 17.b3 Nc5 18.Nb1 f5 (Dia.)

From a slow start Black has now organized his forces and is ready to attack.
19.Nc3 f4 20.Nd5 Qf7 21.Ra2 Bxd5 22.cxd5 a5 23.Ba3 h5 24.b4 axb4 25.Bxb4 Bh6 26.Qc2 Rbc8 27.Qb1
Around here Black's position looks very promising.
27...Qe7 28.Ra3 fxg3 29.fxg3 Na6 30.Bc3 Qa7 31.Kh1 Rf2 32.Rf1 Qf7 33.Rxf2 Qxf2 34.Qf1 Qxf1+ 35.Bxf1 Nc5 36.Bg2 Bc1 37.Ra2 Nd3 (Dia.)


Black's attack has disappeared but his pieces are clearly more active and White's pawns are vulnerable.
38.Bd2 Bxd2 39.Rxd2 Nc5 40.Ra2 Ra8 41.Rb2 Ra6
White's a-pawn is doomed anyway.
42.Rb4 Kf7 43.Bf3 Nxa4 44.Be2 Ra5 45.Kg2 Ke7 46.Kf3 Nc5 47.h4 Ra3+ 48.Kf2 Kd7 49.g4 Rh3
Now it's clearly decided.
50.Rxb6 Nxe4+ 51.Kg2 Rxh4 52.Rb7+ Ke8 53.gxh5 gxh5 54.Rh7 Nf6 55.Rh8+ Kf7 0–1
Obviously the result was not determined by the opening but that probably was what Black was hoping for anyway.

Could "The Panther" be a good name? I believe it quite fittingly is used mainly about the black variety of the big cats.

Learn from Your Books

Writing chess books is not very financially rewarding - at least not if you want to write a good one and in addition need to share your royalties with a co-author. It can be emotionally rewarding if you are happy with the result and the critics like it too. But how rewarding is it for your chess? I honestly don’t know. I am convinced I have learned a lot when writing my two previous books, and the third one looks very promising too. But writing takes time that could have been spent playing chess (among other things), and there is little doubt that the best I could do for my playing strength right now would be to play a bit more chess!

In a way co-authoring a book with a grandmaster is the perfect learning tool: First you do your very best to understand and systemize all available material on an opening and write it down. Then you have a strong player to answer your questions and point out your misunderstandings and the subtleties and move-order finesses you didn’t note. Finally - as a last check that everything is crystal clear - you have to verbalize it all as lucidly as possibly. So far everything seems perfect.

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. Books usually are published and some of them even sell well. After a while you must suspect that your opponent has scrutinized your analysis and have some improvements ready. At this point you have to ask yourself if you learned something from the writing process that is not publicly available. And in my experience there usually are quite a few lines that did not quite make it to the book but are still eminently playable.

One such line that got only a passing mention in “The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black” is Kuzmin’s Closed Ruy Lopez variation:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 b5!? (5...Be7 is the most common path to the Closed Ruy) 6.Bb3 d6!? (Dia.)

Black’s moves so far are not very committal and can be played with various ideas in mind. If allowed, Black would like to develop his kingside with ...g6, ...Bg7 and ...0-0 rather than the somewhat cumbersome ...Be7, ...0-0, ...Re8, ...Bf8, ...g6 and ...Bg7 which Black in the standard Closed Ruy Lopez lines often completes around move 20.

The most obvious question is what happens if White immediately attacks f7:

7.Ng5?!

This probably is too optimistic. The critical 7.c3 and some minor alternatives will be the subject of a future blog entry.

7...d5 8.exd5 Nd4 (Dia.)

This position should be compared to the one arising from the Fritz variation in the Two Knight’s Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4!?). Despite Black's tempo loss (...d6 and ...d5) it's clear that Black's chances have been improved by the extra moves ...a6, ...b5 and Bb3. The essential difference is that Black now threatens to remove White's strong light-squared bishop.

9.Re1

This is the natural move, but White has also tried 9.d6, 9.c3 and the somewhat surprising 9.Qe1 which has been preferred by Kveinys among others.

9...Bc5!

This probably is even stronger than 9...Bd6 which however was good enough for Fuentes to beat Capablanca in a simultaneous exhibition in Madrid 1935.

10.Rxe5+?!

a) 10.Nf3?! Bg4 11.Rxe5+ Kf8 12.d3 Bd6 13.Rg5 Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qd7 15.Kh1 Qh3 16.f4 Nf3 17.Rg2 Re8 wins for Black. This is only semi-forced, but obviously difficult for White.

b) 10.h3 0–0 11.d3 Nxd5 12.Nc3 Nxb3 13.axb3 f6 14.Nge4 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Bb6 16.Ba3 += Prathamesh-Khruschiov, Moscow 2006

10...Kf8 (Dia.)

11.Nc3?

You may wonder how a player of Korchnoi’s caliber (oh yes, he was already a world class player 56 years ago!) could do such a horrible move. Most of the explanation probably is that White is more or less lost whatever he does:

a) 11.h3 Nd7 12.Nxf7 Qf6 13.Re3 Qxf7 14.c3 Nxb3 15.Rf3 Nf6 16.axb3 Qxd5 and Black had a piece for a couple of pawns and was probably winning in Deshmukh-Peng Xiaomin, Calcutta 2000.

b) 11.Re3 Bg4 12.Qe1 Nxb3 13.Rxb3 Qxd5 is also very difficult for White, e.g. 14.Nc3 Qxg5 15.d4 Qh4 16.dxc5 Re8 and Black should be winning again.

11...Ng4

Black is winning already.

12.Nge4 Qh4

This probably is a bit more exact than 12...Nxe5 13.Nxc5 which should also win.

13.Rh5

Don’t forget that the rook at e5 is hanging.

13...Qxh5 14.h3 Qh4 15.Nxc5 Qxf2+

Even stronger would have been 15...Nxf2! 16.Qf1 Nxh3+ 17.gxh3 Qg3+ 18.Qg2 Nf3+ 19.Kh1 Qe1+ with mate to follow.

16.Kh1 Qg3 17.hxg4 Bxg4 18.Qf1 Nf3! 19.gxf3 Bxf3+ 20.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 0–1 Korchnoi-Estrin, Chigorin Memorial (Leningrad) 1951.

Ghost Books?

One of my favorite chess authors from the eighties is Robert Bellin. Among his books that I read and enjoyed were:

• The Classical Dutch, Batsford 1977
• Queen's Pawn, Veresov System, Batsford 1983
• Trompowski Opening and Torre Attack, Batsford 1984
• Test Your Positional Play, Batsford 1985 (with Pietro Ponzetto)
• Winning With the Dutch, Batsford 1990

So when I saw that Batsford announced a book "London System Repertoire" by him - first for January 2005, then for February and finally for June, I worried about competition. But although it is still advertized by Amazon, it now doesn't seem likely to ever appear (or will it be re-launched when Batsford feels my London book is aging?).

Now when planning a book on the Dutch Stonewall, there again are books that have been announced for some time and then seriously delayed. First I noticed a Batsford book by Collins with the title "An Attacking Repertoire for Black", which proposes a repertoire based on the French and Stonewall defences:

It was announced for August and later September 2006 and now it's said to be expected August 2007. Will it ever appear?

Then I saw that Quality Chess announced two updates by Aagaard of his Everyman book Dutch Stonewall; one in Swedish and one in German. The Swedish version appears to have been canceled but the German book is still announced to be published in May.

Dutch Stonewall

It now seems clear that my next book project will be on the Dutch Stonewall. No contracts or written agreements are yet in place, so details must wait, but it seems that my co-author will be one of the real experts.

The Stonewall was the height of fashion in the late eighties and early nineties. It featured in the repertoire of many top players, including Kramnik, Short, Ivanchuk, Bareev, Jussupow, Dolmatov and Agdestein. The main discovery was that Black could develop his bishop to d6, rather than to e7 as Botwinnik had done in the fifties.

This position, normally arising from the move-order 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6, became the main focus of the debate:

Black has weaknesses but he also has a solid position, space and an easy plan for development. Quite frequently Black will be able to generate a kingside attack.

Obviously White too has his chances. They may even be slightly preferable but that's the nature of chess.

White's two main continuations are 7.b3, planning to exchange dark-squared bishops with Ba3, and 7.Bf4, which achieves an immediate exchange of bishops at the price of a slight weakening of his kingside.

It's not clear why the Stonewall's popularity slowly declined. To some extent it may have been a question of fashion's whims. Also many of the original aficionados retired from competitive chess or at least became less active on the tournament scene. But this doesn't seem to completely explain the development.

For the moment my theory is that the Dutch Stonewall declined in popularity because the French defence did the same. The Dutch defence (or rather counter-attack) is much easier to play if you can confidently meet 1.d4 with 1...e6, but that's only an option if you don't fear 2.e4. So one of the main goals of the book must be to show that 1.d4 f5 is a perfectly valid move-order.

Problems

For the last few weeks I have only been able to log in to this blog very sporadically. Today I spent more than one hour trying to get in, changing security settings, privacy settings, pop-up blocking etc. Finally I succeeded by using Mozilla Firefox rather than IE. I hope this will work tomorrow too.

Worthy of Study

I am happy to note that so far all reviewers have been quite kind to our book on the Ruy Lopez. However, that doesn't prevent me feeling misunderstood at times. When Silman says that he cannot recommend the Zaitzev for anyone under 2200 he in a sense is right. A 1600 player will not have much practical use of opening analysis starting around move 20 for several reasons - most obviously because most opponents will deviate from the mainline long before.

But not all chess study should be concerned about immediate and practical use. Sometimes you have to stretch your mind in order to become a better chess player. One way to do that is really deep study of a well chosen middle game position.

This position arises after the moves 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 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a4 h6 13.Bc2 exd4 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 c5 16.d5 Nd7 17.Ra3 f5 18.Nh2 Nf6.

While it is not easy to say how this position should best be handled, a few other aspects can be established quite quickly:

• It's an unbalanced position where the plans of both players can be stated quite certainly.
• The play will soon become quite concrete and tactical - the kind of play where you can find good moves by hard work, even if your positional understanding isn't very sophisticated.
  
• If you understand how to play this position, you will also understand a lot of the position after Black's 17th move, and you will probably be able to find a good move even if White should surprise you with something other than 18.Nh2.
• It's a position that has been played and commented upon by some of the worlds' top players.
• Even if your chances of reaching the position are fairly modest, they are better than a randomly selected position from a grandmaster game.
  

To sum it up: This is an ideal position for self-study.