London from a Different Angle

Two days ago I finally received my copy of Schmücker's 'Das London-System'. I have not had time to look at it in any detail and will not have for a few weeks, but here are a few quick observations:

The cover illustration is nice but otherwise the book's lay-out appears rather amateurish: the pages look a lot like ChessBase print-outs; all variations are in square brackets; there are no chapter headings (except for the headers - together with the page numbers) and frequently there are no introductions to the chapters (at first you have to wonder why the right-hand side columns on pages 44 and 95 are empty; then you discover that there actually start new chapters on the next pages).

There seem to have crept in some typos - a rather visible one is diagram 174 which shows the initial position whereas the text indicates that it should show the position after 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.c4 c6. There also are a few misspelled names. More importantly I wouldn't expect there to be any illegal or very poor moves as ChessBase would prevent this.

The main question of course is the quality of the chess content; the analysis, the research work and the textual explanations. I cannot really say much about his analysis yet, but it seems he has caught at least one serious omission in our London book. Except for a 2007 game by the author I couldn't find many recent (2005-2007) game references. I saw a 2006 reference and I probably have missed some more. Nevertheless my guess it that the manuscript were mostly done in 2005 and after that has only been spot wise updated. Schmücker's textual explanations appear sufficient and generally clear enough even though he hasn't bothered much with making complete sentences.

A main point of divergence between ours and Schmücker's recommended repertoire seems to be the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4, where we suggests 7.Qc2 (or avoiding the line completely with the 2.Bf4 move-order) whereas Schmücker recommends 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Na3 (Dia)

For our London book we too had originally planned a chapter on this line. However, when space limitations became an issue it was among the first lines we sacrificed - mainly because we were unable to demonstrate any advantage after 8...e6 9.Nb5. When 8...Ra5 too proved a tough obstacle, and 8...e5!?, 8...Rxa3!? 8...Na7 and 8...Ne4 each required rather deep analysis and corresponding space, simply skipping the line seemed an obvious decision. Schmücker provides extensive analysis of 8...e5, 8...Rxa3, 8...Bg4, 8...Na7 and 8...Ra5. I don't now why he doesn't mention 8...Ne4?! as the refutation is rather instructive. As for the quality of his analysis I can only guess but he obviously must have put a lot of work into it so probably it's quite good.

The big surprise is that Schmücker proposes to meet 8...e6 with the untested and modest looking 9.Nc2!?. Can this really be sufficient to fight for an advantage? I will not completely rule it out; Black has as Schmücker points out locked in his light-squared bishop and White can fairly easily neutralize Black's play in the a-file. Pure analysis isn't likely to reveal much in this quiet position so I hope to see some practical examples soon.

Find the Losing Move

I will not have much time to update this blog for the next two weeks. But I have a few items that only need the final touch to be publishable and sometimes I stumble over something on the net ...so stay tuned!

Today I found a tragicomic finish at Streatham & Brixton Chess Club involving Leif Johannessen, my co-author for 'The Ruy Lopez - A Guide for Black'. Actually it's really strange I haven't seen it before. Had I had the black pieces I know I would have shown it to everybody willing to waste a moment. But Leif is a sympathetic young man who may have found the episode more tragic than comic.

It's Beliavsky-L.Johannessen, Linares open 2002:
White to move is trying to win a drawish queen endgame. Can
you find the losing move?

For a variation over the theme, have a look at Tim Krabbe's collection of players resigning in won positions.

Norwegian Variation Acid Test

If I ever write a book on the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez, the first chapter will be on the 6.Bxf7+ variation. The positional ramifications of Johannessen's 7...Nxb3 and Zwaig's 7...f6 - or for that matter the Stein/Wibe variation with 7...exd4 - obviously are only relevant if Black can survive this more direct attacking attempt.

The natural context for an examination of this line is this classical radio game:

Z.Nilsson-Hoen, Radio game Norway-Sweden 1970
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5
When this game was played I believe the radio games attracted a little less attention than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. But still a game against our neighboring country held a lot of prestige.
5.Bb3 Na5 6.Bxf7+!?
Interestingly this brutal attempt at refuting the Norwegian variation is called the Swedish variation (even before this game, I think). For his bishop White gets two central pawns, two checks and a lead in development.
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke7 (Dia)

Obviously Black's king will be stranded in the centre for some time. In addition Black's knight on a5 is out of play and somewhat vulnerable as is his rook on a8. Is this sufficient compensation for the bishop? Only analysis and practical experience can tell. For the moment few players seem willing to take the White pieces but it's really hard to tell as there aren't many advocates for 5...Na5 either.

8.Nc3

This is White's most direct attacking attempt. Also 8.Qf3 and 8.d4 are dangerous moves which Black must be prepared for. In addition there is also the surprising 8.Nf7?! with the point 8...Kxf7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qd5+ Kg7 11.Qxa8. Fortunately for Black it seems that the queen is completely out of play after 11...Nc6. There appears to have been a postal theme tournament with this variation in 2003. As could be expected White scored badly but the games seem to have been of a rather low standard and may not prove much.

8...Qe8!

Hoen is armed with Norwegian preparations. The next few moves are according to analysis by Zwaig. At the time when the game was played 8...Nf6?! was considered to be the main variation (8...Bb7?! appears to be untested and after 9.Nd5+ Bxd5 10.exd5 White seems to have reasonable compensation) 9.Nd5+ Nxd5 (9...Ke8!) 10.exd5 Qe8 and now the Swedes had improvements over Schlechter's old analysis which started with the moves 11.d4 Kd8 12.0–0 d6 13.Bg5+ Be7. I am not sure exactly what the Swede's were planning but have been told that the line probably can be found in 'Collijn's Lärobok'. It may well have started 11.0–0 Kd8 12.Re1 Be7 when quite remarkably all the three d-pawn moves 13.d4 (which is likely to transpose to the 11.d4 line), 13.d6 (with the tactical point 13...cxd6 14.Qf3) or even the modest 13.d3 (which takes away a square from the knight on a5) make sense and give White reasonable chances.

9.Nd5+

It's worth noting that a few years later Hoen played 9.d4 as White against Zwaig: 9...Kd8 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.Nd5 (11.Bg5 Be7 12.Nd5 Rf8 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.0–0–0 Bb7 15.Rhe1 Kc8 16.Qh3 Qe6 =+ Hoen-Zwaig, Oslo 1973) 11...Be7 12.Bd2 Nc6 13.0–0–0 d6 14.Nxc6+ Qxc6 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.d5 Qc4 17.b3 Qc5 -/+ Kudriashov-Guseinov, Azov 1991.

9...Kd8 10.Qf3 (Dia)

10...Bb7!

Apparently this rook sacrifice was Zwaig's new idea. I don't know how bad 10...Nf6 would have been.

11.Nf7+ Kc8 12.0–0 Nf6 13.Nxh8 Nxe4 14.d3 Bxd5 15.dxe4 Be6 16.Qg3 Kb7 17.Bf4 Rc8 18.a4 b4

Around this point Fritz and Rybka start to appreciate Black's resources.

19.Be5 Qh5 20.Bxg7

20.c3 Nc6 21.Bf4 Be7 is not better.

20...Bxg7 21.Qxg7 Rg8 22.Qf6 Bh3 23.g3 Rxh8 (Dia)

Finally it's clear that Black is better. I assume the rest of the game was quite pleasant for the Norwegian audience, who must have suspected that Black was on his way to victory even if no clear variations could be calculated.

24.Rfe1 Re8 25.Qf4 Nc6 26.c3 Re7 27.Re3 Ne5 28.Qh4 Qxh4 29.gxh4 Rg7+ 30.Rg3

A bit disappointingly there will be no mating attack.

30...Nf3+ 31.Kh1 Rxg3 32.hxg3 b3

Quite frequently a rook and a pawn can be a good match for two minor pieces in a simplified endgame. But here there is no way to activate the rook and the kingside pawns can quite easily be blocked.

33.a5 d6 34.Ra3 Be6 35.Ra1 Nd2 36.Kg1 Nc4 37.Rb1 Nxa5 38.f4 Nc4 39.Kf2 a5 40.f5 Bf7 41.g4 a4 42.h5 (Dia)

I suppose most listeners had already found the decisive idea:

42...Nxb2! 43.Rxb2 a3 0–1

Addendum March 20th

A quick check in the 1903 edition of 'Collijn's Lärobok' reveals only this relatively short variation after 6.Bxf7+: 8.d4 Nf6 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.f4 Kd8 11.0-0 Be7 12.Qe1 Nc6 13.Nxc6 dxc6 14.c4 with an advantage to White according to Svenonius. Later editions may have had more detail but possibly it's Svenonius' original analysis I should try to locate.

Football and Chess

What is it with football (soccer) and chess? In Norway quite a few young players have had problems deciding which talent to give priority - football or chess. There can hardly be any doubt that there is a connection between the two activities but it doesn't necessarily have to be more to it than the fact that both are popular among young competitive boys and men.

I have never been much of a football enthusiast myself and consequently not in the best position to find out what's going on. But now maybe I will be able to read up on the subject.
There is now a new book available titled "Football & Chess". I have no idea about its content except what I can guess from its title but I suppose there at least will be a mention of a couple of Norwegian chess players.

Norway's first chess star, Simen Agdestein is well known for being a top GM (number 16 on the rating lists) at the same time as he successfully played on the Norwegian national team. Tim Krabbe has written an article on this in his Chess Curiosities.

Less well known is the fact that one of clubs in the Norwegian Youth Chess Federation used to be called "Åvangen ball og sjakk" and in fact was a combined football and chess club. The youth section of my chess club (OSSU) used to play some chess and football matches against them. The details varied but the matches always consisted of a football part where each goal scored counted for one point as did each win in the subsequent chess match (which were played over 11 boards or so). Obviously the players were the same in both matches. I seem to remember that the chess results tended to contribute more to the final result than the football goals did, so maybe the goals should have been weighted heavier - maybe two points for a goal could be worth a try.

I have never heard that Magnus Carlsen's football abilities are matching his teacher's but he is a healthy and sporty boy so I was not surprised to see in this ChessBase reportage that among the top chess players he is the football star.

Addendum March 25th:
Here is the Table of Content as found at Schachversand Niggemann:

Acknowledgements

003 Introduction

007 Football and Chess

011 Part 1 - The Technical Elements

013 Building connections

019 Dominating the Midfield

023 Build-up Play

032 Mobility

035 Piece Positions

038 Using Space

043 Creating Space

048 Exploiting Weaknesses

055 Stretching the Defence

057 Combinations

061 Defending

068 Stretch and Compress

071 Pressing

078 Rotating

084 Attacking from the Back

088 The Spare Man

091 The Hole

095 Using the width

101 Part 2 - The Coach as Chess Player

103 Benitez vs Ancelotti

113 Part 3 - General Strategic Concepts for Controlling the Game

115 The Initiative

125 The Mini-Battles

126 Balance

129 Part 4 - Psychological Factors

131 Awareness

135 Creativity

137 Daring

140 Concentration

143 Emotional control

145 Surprise

147 Part 5 - General Features and Aesthetics

149 Comebacks

151 Luck

153 Style

159 Evolution of the Games

163 The Beautiful Games

166 The Future

169 Bibliography

What's the Kan Variation?

I recently noticed this upcoming book on the Sicilian Kan from Everyman:

Judging from its title I expect the book to examine the variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 (Dia) which is what I call the Kan variation.

This expectation is even more reasonable because Everyman offers another older book, called 'Sicilian Kan' by Emms which I used to own and which treated this very line.

Yet I am not entirely certain as the publishers offer no moves and there is some confusion between the Sicilian lines Paulsen, Kan and Taimanov. I know for a fact that quite a few players and authors would call this 4...a6 line the Paulsen variation. And that indeed makes sense as Wilfried (not Louis as far as I know) Paulsen played the line a long time before Ilia Kan and with quite modern ideas. His stronger brother Louis probably contributed to the development of the line but himself preferred 4...Nf6 (generally followed by a quick ...Nc6) and 4...Bc5 (now known as the Basman-Sale variation).

This doesn't really explain why the 4...Nc6 variation (Dia) quite confusingly is occasionally called the Paulsen variation. The explanation may be that Louis Paulsen reached an important position from that variation repeatedly via the 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 move-order. Can it be that he after 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 feared 5.Nb5!?

So, what about the Taimanov variation then? Well, first of all it's worth noting that Taimanov early in his career played a lot of 4...a6 games. Then, around 1971 he started playing 4...Nc6 - usually followed by ...Nge7, ...Nxd4 and ...Nc6. This system - which now is rather rare - was what Taimanov himself called the Taimanov variation. What I don't really know is why the entire 4...Nc6 system is more and more frequently called the Taimanov system. It's a quite confusing situation and occasionally forces writers to distinguish between the Taimanov variation (where Black usually plays an early ...Qc7) and the 'pure Taimanov' (with ...Nge7).

Still not confused? Then take into account the hybrid variation below, which can equally well arise from 4...a6 5.Nc3 Nc6 and 4...Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 (Dia).


Is it a Kan, a Paulsen or a Taimanov? Well...I find 8129 games in MegaBase 2008, 1159 from the 4...a6 move-order and 6540 from the 4...Nc6 move-order (and obviously some from other move-orders too) ...so maybe it's a Taimanov.

Anyway, the move that interests me the most is 4...a6. That is also clearly the move that Hellsten has played the most, so I expect to buy the book as soon as it's available.

Leningrad Investigations II

It's time for another look at the 6...c6 Leningrad which was the subject of two earlier entries. After the introductory moves 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 c6, we have so far only considered the natural 7.Nc3. Also 7.b3 is a natural move which may easily transpose if Black plays a quick ...d6. However one of the critical replies must be 7.b4!? (Dia) which to some extent discourages ...Na6.

The relatively recent encounter Savchenko-Firman, Dresden 2007 continued 7...Ne4!? which appears consistent. Alternatives are:

a) 7...d6 transposes to a relatively normal Leningrad variation which more frequently arises after 6...d6 7.b4!? c6. It should however be noted that although 7.b4 in that variation has been played by Shirov and Korchnoi among others, it's far less common than 7.Nc3. It's also worth noting that the most popular reaction to 7.b4 is 7...c6 (in tough competition with 7...e5 and 7...Qe8).

b) 7...d5 8.Nbd2 dxc4 9.Nxc4 Be6 10.Nfe5 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bd5 13.Qc2 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Qd5+ =+ Alexandrova-Chuprikov, Alushta 2002.

c) 7...a5 is a logical reaction: 8.b5 a4 (8...cxb5 9.cxb5 d6 10.Qb3+ e6 11.Nc3 b6 12.Ba3 Ra7 13.Ng5 Re8 14.e4 Nxe4 15.Ngxe4 fxe4 16.Nxe4 += Gabrielian-Savchenko, Sochi 2006) 9.Nc3 d6 (9...Ne4 10.Qc2 Nxc3 11.Qxc3 d6 12.Ba3 Kh8 13.Qe3 cxb5 14.cxb5 Nd7 15.Ng5 Nb6 16.Rac1 += Schandorff-Sahl, Taastrup 1998) 10.Rb1 Qa5 11.Bd2 Kh8 12.Qc2 Be6 13.bxc6 bxc6 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Nf4 Bg8 16.Ng5 Qc8 17.Rfc1 e5 18.dxe5 dxe5 19.Nd3 Nbd7 20.Nb4 e4 21.f3 h6 22.Nh3 Re8 = Spassov-Movsziszian, Burgas 2001.

d) 7...Na6 is in my opinion the main alternative:

d1) 8.Qb3 Nc7 9.a4 a6 10.Bb2 Kh8 11.Na3 d6 12.b5 Bd7 13.b6 Ne6 14.a5 g5 15.d5 Nc5 16.Qa2 h6 17.Bd4 Nce4 18.Nd2 c5 19.Nxe4 fxe4 20.Bc3 += Rahman-Dzhumaev, Chennai 2004.

d2) 8.b5 must be the critical reply: 8...cxb5 9.cxb5 Nc7 10.Nc3 d6 11.a4 h6 (11...Rb8 12.Ba3 Kh8 13.Rc1 Ne4 14.Qc2 Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Ne6 16.Qc4 Bd7 17.d5 Rc8 18.Qd3 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Qe3 += Kortschnoj-Jakubiec, Panormo 2001) 12.Qd3 Kh7 13.Ba3 Be6 14.Nd2 Ncd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rfc1 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 1/2–1/2 Jirovsky-Jakubiec, Czechia 2004.

8.Bb2 a5!?

This looks more challenging than 8...d5 which is quite lightly tested: 9.Nbd2 a5 (9...Be6 10.Rc1 a5 11.b5 cxb5 12.cxb5 a4 13.Ba3 Re8 14.e3 Qb6 15.Qe2 Nd7 16.Rc2 Rac8 = Matveeva-Bartel, Internet blitz 2004) 10.b5 Nd7 11.a4 Ndf6 12.Ne5 cxb5 13.cxb5 Be6 14.Nb3 Nd7 15.f3 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Ng5?! (16...Nd6 17.Nc5 Nc4 18.Nxe6 Qb6+ 19.Qd4 Qxe6 20.f4 Rfd8 =) 17.Nc5 Qb6 18.Rc1 Rac8 19.Qd4 += Lautier-E.Berg, Internet blitz 2004.

9.a3 (Dia)

In Ovsejevitsch-Lindestrom, Esbjerg 2007 White was successful with 9.b5 cxb5 10.cxb5 a4 11.Nc3 Qa5 12.Rc1 e6 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Ng5 a3 15.Bc3 Qxb5 16.Nxe4 when White was clearly better. However, 9...d5! seems to secure Black at least equality.

9...d5!?

Now the game again will take on "Leningrad Stonewall" characteristics. It’s still not too late for 9...d6 with more typical Leningrad positions. Gavrilov - Lamprecht, Olomouc 2001 continued 10.Nbd2 Qe8 11.Qc2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 e5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.e4 with an edge to White.

10.Nbd2

In Postny-Kobalia, Moscow 2002 White preferred 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Nc3 axb4 12.axb4 Rxa1 13.Bxa1 Nxc3 14.Bxc3 Bd7 15.Ne5 Bb5 16.Re1 e6 17.Qb3 Qd6 with equal chances.

10...Be6 11.Qc2 Nxd2 12.Nxd2 dxc4 13.Nxc4 axb4 14.axb4 Na6 (Dia)

15.Rfd1

White has gone slightly astray somewhere. Black has an edge also after 15.b5 cxb5 16.Ne5 Bd5 or 15.Qc3 Qxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxc4 18.Rfc1 Bb5.

15...Nxb4 16.Qb3 Rxa1 17.Bxa1 b5 18.Qxb4 Bxc4 19.Bxc6 Qd6 20.Qc5?

After 20.Qxd6 exd6 21.Bc3 Rc8 22.Bf3 Black is only a little more comfortable as he doesn’t achieve anything with 22...Bxe2 23.Bxe2 Rxc3 24.Bxb5 d5.

20...Qxc5 21.dxc5 Rc8 22.Bd5+ Bxd5 23.Bxg7 Bb3 24.Rb1 Kxg7 25.Rxb3 Rxc5 26.f4 Kf6 27.Kf2 Ke6 28.Ke3 Rd5 29.Ra3 Kd6 30.Ra6+ Kc5 31.Ra7 b4 32.Rxe7 b3 33.Rxh7?

This loses immediately but 33.Rb7 Kc4 only takes a little longer.

33...Kc6 0-1

A Paper Review on the Net

I just now noticed that Glenn Flear's review of "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" in New in ChessYearbook 83 is available as a pdf-file at the New in Chess Website. Flear is one of my favorite chess book reviewers and I suppose that the reviewer position in the NiC Yearbooks must be among the most prestigious there are. Only laziness has prevented me from quoting his review earlier. But with the possibility to just cut and past I have picked some of the quotes I liked the most:

"Despite being inexperienced in authorship, the young Norwegian GM (for the record, he’s 2537!) has done an excellent job of bringing the present state of theory to the public’s attention. In several lines his convincing analysis demonstrates why Khalifman and others have underestimated Black’s resources."

"The use of English is excellent, as for that matter are the style and attention to detail, even in the slower positional lines, making the whole package a pleasure to read. A nice touch is the inclusion of a number of quotations, which adds humour and a human touch that others would do well to follow.

I would advise anybody up to grandmaster to take the time to read the ‘Preface by Leif’, an object lesson in the process of preparing a repertoire. Something that is often misunderstood by lesser mortals."

"It’s fairly well documented that, as a rule, Gambit, tend to include more game references and analytic variations in the notes than Everyman do (this is immediately noticeable when you flick through this book and compare it with Andrew Greet’s). In certain Gambit books in the past there has been a tendency to go over the top, but here the complexity of the variation requires plenty of material to tell the whole story. Overall I felt that they have got the balance
about right between text, home analysis, previous experience and conclusions, and even the ubiquitous C212s are kept within bounds."

Maybe some of these quotes will soon appear at Gambit's review collection for the RL book?

Markovic' Defence

In an earlier entry I suggested the opening sequence 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6!? as an effective way to get a 'playable' position without having to learn much theory. Black gets some pieces into play without weakening his position. However, even this unorthodox opening is slowly developing a substantial body of 'theory'. I mentioned that the move had been played by the late Miles. He probably is the most prominent practitioner but far from the only one.

The oldest games with the opening in MegaBase 2008 are by American Theodore Dunst in the fifties but the opening is often named after the Belgian player Bernard de Bruycker who played it (and a few related lines) in the late seventies and early eighties. I wonder if he did anything to propagate the opening - published some analysis perhaps? A much more frequent practitioner is Serbian GM Miroslav Markovic who, as far as I can judge, must be the prime candidate for naming rights. MegaBase has 19 games where he plays 1.e4 c6 2.d4 Na6 with a decent score against strong opposition. I will return with a few of his efforts in the opening in later entries. Other strong players who have used the move more than once are in alphabetic order:
GM Igor Efimov
GM Lev Gutman
GM Todor Todorov
IM Juri Dovzik
IM Angus Dunnington
IM Renier Gonzalez
IM Esad Goric
IM Denis Shilin
IM Olivier Touzane
IM Dirk van Geet
IM Gerard Welling
IM Aleksandar Wohl

What I didn't fully realize in my previous post was the fact that this set-up is just as playable against 1.d4. This becomes instantly obvious once you have a serious look at it. If Black can survive 3.c4 in this line, then it's hardly likely that White can prove much after 1.d4 c6 2.c4 Na6. Actually transposition by 3.e4 (Dia) must be the only critical reply.

As a matter of fact only one of White's sensible move-orders may make it hard for Black to achieve his desired formation - namely 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3!? after which 2...Na6 can be met with 3.Bxa6!? ruining Black's queenside formation at the cost of the bishop-pair. After 3...bxa6 4.d4 we have this position: (Dia)

I am not a strong enough player to judge whether this exchange is advantageous for White or not. My feeling is that Black's chances should be OK if he makes the most out of his open b-file and his light-squared bishop.

This versatility - a close to universal system - clearly makes Markovic' Defence more attractive. Yet the main drawback remains: Black's modest developing scheme leaves White free to set up his position as he prefers. Obviously Black cannot prepare for all of these (except for practical preparation in the form of thousands of blitz games) For practical purposes Black probably should prepare for these replies (after 1.e4 c6):

A: 2.Nc3!?

B: 2.d4 Na6 3.c4

C: 3.f4?! (and the related 3.Nc3 Nc7 4.f4?!)

D: 3.Nf3 Nc7 (3...d5!? 4.exd5 cxd5 5.c4!) 4.Bd3

E: 3.Nc3! Nc7 4.Bd3

F: 3.Nc3! Nc7 4.Nf3!

Quite likely I will return with some more details on these lines in later entries.

Interview with London Author

At freechess.info there is now an interesting interview with Marcus Schmücker - the author of "Das London-System".

I for a moment considered translating it to English, as I assume that a considerable number of my readers will have problem following the interview in German language. On second thought I dropped the idea, as I assume that those who don't read German will have relatively little interest in the book as well as in the author. So I decided only to extract and translate (rather loosely) some of the points that I found interesting:

• When my book was 80% ready, the English version of GM Kovacevic' book was published. At first I was a bit unhappy about this poor luck but it soon turned out that there were not only disadvantages in this apparently unfortunate timing. It turned out that he was following other paths and that most of my work was still worth publishing.
  My (SJ) comment: I am not in the publishing business but my guess is that the ideal timing for a book is 3-6 months after a good competing book is published. That allows you to list the competing book in your bibliography and include some essential analysis without allowing the first book to completely 'tap' the market.
  
• I consider the strongest point in my book to be that it offers the readers a simple receipt and a lot of fresh ideas. For instance I recommend the set-up with 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4 while Kovacevic examines both 2.Nf3 and 2.Bf4 with his main emphasis on the latter. In addition there is the fact that I only consider positions arising after 1.d4 d5. Against the King's Indian or the Queen's Indian I was unable even after deep research to find a promising path to advantage. In the introduction I have given my reasons for this decision and consequently omitted the analysis of these lines. So those who would like to play the London System "against everything" will need to get Kovacevic' book in addition to mine.
  My (SJ) comment: First of all I don't quite understand why he omitted the lines demonstrating that the London doesn't offer an advantage against 1...Nf6. Maybe there simply were too many lines that ultimately failed? Or maybe he didn't want to help potential black players? I have not yet seen the book and really look forward to reading the introduction.
  
  Schmücker probably has a point that including both the 2.Bf4 and the 2.Nf3 move-orders in our book made it slightly less accessible. Organizing the material was a quite hard task and I can see that for a reader preferring the 2.Nf3 move-order it can in some cases be hard to find the relevant material.
  
  It certainly was an interesting decision to only include 1.d4 d5 lines. I agree that the London System is more likely to achieve an edge after 1...d5. In Game 1 in our London book we write after 1.d4 d5: "The London System can be played after virtually any black set-up but is probably most effective against this classical reply." Consequently Schmücker probably has a slightly easier task to prove an edge for White. Yet I doubt it was a wise decision as I perceive the typical London player as a slightly lazy character who would very much like to play the same system against all of Black's replies to 1.d4.
  
• I chose to self publish this book in order to minimize the risk and see how the book was received. It will be considerably easier to contact a publishing company if I can refer to a success with this book. For my next projects I will choose the direct way.
  My (SJ) comment: I don't quite understand Schmücker's reasoning here. There may well be ways to self publishing a book so that there is little or no financial risk. But with a normal contract with a publishing company you are guaranteed at least a small fee. Probably he was worried that they would turn down an untitled author but I can see no other risk than being rejected. Personally I have found it very convenient to have a professional chess publisher to rely on. Gambit Publishing provided good general advice, helped me with the English language and did a very good (semi-automated, I think) proof-reading. In addition they ensured a good technical quality (cover, paper quality, binding, printing etc.).
  
• My next book will examine a certain system in the Dutch Leningrad which currently hardly ever is played and therefore will be a good surprise weapon.
  My (SJ) comment: This is very interesting - can he have the 6...c6 system in mind?

Norwegian Variation Sources

From Norwegian chess enthusiast, chess author and chess shop owner (Sjakkbutikken) Øystein Brekke, I recently received two very interesting sets of photo copies. The most recent one is from the Swedish chess magazine "Tidsskrift för Schack" 1964 with the heading "En ovanlig variant i spanskt parti" (An Unusual Variation in the Spanish Game). It was written by the late Svein Johannessen and is a five part article on the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez.

Even more ancient is the second set of photo copies which is from "Deutsche Schachzeitung" 1901 with the heading "Eine neue Vertheidingung der spanische Partie" (A New Defence in the Spanish Game). This set consists of an article by editor Carl Schlechter (February issue), a summary of some readers' letters regarding the variation 6.Bxf7+ (June issue) and finally a second article by Schlechter focusing on the 6.Bxf7+ variation (September).

This new information obviously calls for an update of my list of Norwegian variation sources:

The Norwegian Variation Bibliography
Below is a list of the significant sources that I am aware of. I will update it whenever I find the time or stumble over anything new.

Alternative names:
English: Wing variation, Taimanov variation, Furman variation
German: Jagdvariante
NIC-code: RL 9.3
ECO-code: C70

Major sources:

• New In Chess Yearbook 37 (1995):
  (25 pages article by Jonathan Tisdall)
• Norsk Sjakkblad 1993 and 1994 (Norwegian language):
  7 articles by Jonathan Tisdall (drafted by Sverre Johnsen): 2/93; 3/93; 4/93; 5/93; 1/94; 2/94; 6/94 and 7/94. There is also an annotated game Ernst-Tisdall, Gausdal 2002 (Zwaig variation) in 1/93.
• Sjakkmesteren Svein Johannessen, Brekke, Norsk Sjakkforlag 2009 (Norwegian language). Contains many annotated games - some previously unknown - and an overview chapter.
• Opening for White according to Anand 1.e4 (vol.2); Khalifman, Chess Stars 2003
  (I don't have the book available but have read it and as expected it offered a serious try for White to extract a genuine advantage)
• Chesspublishing 1.e4 e5; Davies, February 2003
  (mainly for subscribers)
• Play the Ruy Lopez; Greet, Everyman 2006
  (13 well researched pages from White's point of view).

Minor sources:

• Easy Guide to the Ruy Lopez; Emms Everyman 1999
  (quite good coverage but mainly from White's perspective)
• The Lopez Grip Part 3; Martin, Bits and Pieces (Chessville) 2004
• Norsk Sjakkblad #4 and #5 2005 (Norwegian language)
• Older issues of Norsk Sjakkblad (I will eventually try to make a list of the relevant issues).

Historic sources:

• Tidsskrift för Schack 1964 #7, 8 and 9; Svein Johannessen (Swedish language)
  
• Deutsche Schachzeitung 1901 #2, 6 and 9; Carl Schlechter (German language)
  

General sources:
The encyclopedic works (ECO, NCO, MCO, BCO2 etc.) almost by definition have some coverage of the line. I will add some details on this whenever I find the time.

• ECO C (4th edition) has 1,5 pages
• NCO has 0,5 pages

This is an updated version of an entry I originally posted August 30th, 2007. Some information added August 26th, 2009)

A German Competitor

When I a few weeks ago was searching for reviews of the German translation of "Win with the London System", I stumbled upon another new German book on the London system -"Das London-System" by Marcus Schmücker. I immediately ordered it from my local chess dealer but have not yet received it. Consequently I have not had much useful to say about it.

Today I found a review at the German site freechess.info. That was not by chance as I check it quite regularly. It used to be one of the better chess review sites - and I suppose it still is, as there is always useful information to be found. This time it was interesting to see the link to the author's home page.

Yet I must say I agree with the reader letter complaining that the reviews have gootten too kind lately. No big problem when it's my own products that are under the microscope but a little irritating when it's a competing work.

For a table of content, see Schachversand Niggemann.

More info will follow as soon as I receive my copy!

Two More Retro Challenges

In my entry of July 20, 2007 I offered three games to reconstruct:
1) Black's 4th move is 4...Re1+.
2) White plays the moves 1.f3, 2.Kf2, 3.Kg3, 4.Kh4. Black's 4th move is to give mate.
3) A game opens 1.a3. White's 5th move is to give mate with a rook.

Here are the solutions:
1) 1.e4 h5 2.Qxh5 Rxh5 3.e5 Rxe5+ 4.Kd1 Re1+.
2) 1.f3 e6 (1...e5 will also do) 2.Kf2 Qf6 3.Kg3 Qxf3! 4.Kh4 Be7 mate.
3) 1.a3 e5 2.Nc3 Bxa3! 3.Ne4 (Dia) 3...Bf8! 4.Ra5 Ke7! 5.Rxe5 mate.














For those who enjoy these puzzles I offer two more challenges. For a change I know (or think I know) the originator - American (ex Hungarian) GM Pal Benko - more known for his development of the Benko Gambit than for his endgame studies.

1) Black's 5th move is to promote a pawn to a bishop with mate.
2) Black's 5th move is to promote a pawn to a knight with mate.

The first is relatively simple and I suspect there may be more than one solution. At least I had forgotten the solution, and when I tried to reconstruct it, the solution I found seemed rather unfamiliar. The solution to the second task I find rather surprising and I suspect I would have had problems finding it without the hints I got from an impatient task giver.

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).

1.a3 - the Final Hurdle

It would be very surprising if 1.a3 were sufficient for a genuine opening advantage. But if White could expect comfortable equality in a position more familiar to himself than his opponent it would not be a bad opening option at all. To some extent I think I have demonstrated that this can be achieved against 1...e5, 1...g6, 1...c5 and 1...d5. Consequently the main challenge for White seems to be the flexible 1...Nf6:

1.a3 Nf6! 2.e3!? (Dia)

This is my best shot. It doesn't promise White an advantage but it may give unbalanced equality in a position where White can hope to be the best prepared. White has also tried:

a) Prie himself has declared that 2.d4 g6! leads to a King's Indian where the pawn move to a3 is mostly a waste of time.

b) 2.g3, planning a King's Indian set-up with Bg2, d3, Nd2, Nf3, 0-0 and e4 probably is sufficient for equality as a3 normally is vaguely useful in these set-ups.

c) 2.b4 may at first look consistent with White's first move. But when you look more closely at the position you realize that it could just as well have occured from the move-order 1.b4 Nf6 2.a3?! which looks rather pointless. A recent practical example went 2...d5 3.Bb2 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.c4 c6 6.Qc2 0–0 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.d3 dxc4 9.Qxc4 Nbd7 10.Nbd2 Nb6 11.Qc2 Re8 12.h3 a5 = Suba-Moya Hernandez, Almeria 2006.

2...e5

a) After 2...e6, I quite like 3.Bc4 d5 4.Ba2 with an original position which I suppose is roughly equal.

b) 2...c5 3.b4 may have a little less bite than 1.a3 c5 2.b4 but still gives White fair chances for a central superiority. 3...b6 may be best.

c) 2...g6 3.c4 (3.b4 Bg7 4.Bb2 d6 5.c4 0–0 6.g3 c6 7.Bg2 Nbd7 8.Nf3 e5 9.d3 Qe7 10.Nbd2 Nh5 11.Qc2 f5 unclear Emelianov-Ozgibcev, Novokuznetsk 1999) 3...d6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Be2 c6 6.d3 a6 7.Bd2 Nbd7 8.Rc1 Rb8 9.Nf3 e5 10.0–0 0–0 11.Qc2 Ne8 12.d4 f5 unclear Patuzzo-Giordano, Lugano 2003.

d) 2...d5 of course is very sound, but it seems White can unbalance the play:

d1) 3.b4 e6 4.Bb2 leads to a position that frequently has occurred from the Sokolsky move-order 1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 e6 3.e3 Nf6 4.a3.

d2) 3.Nf3 e6 4.c4 Be7 and now White has tried:

d21) 5.b3 0–0 6.Bb2 c5 7.Be2 b6 8.0–0 Bb7 9.d3 Nc6 10.Nbd2 Ne8 11.d4 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 dxc4 14.Nxc4 Nd6 15.Be5 Nxc4 16.Bxc4 Bf6 17.Qxd8 Rfxd8 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Rfd1 += Gelashvili-Miladinovic, Kavala 1999.

d22) 5.g4!? is the trademark move for the new 'no rules' generation of chess players. 5...c5 6.b4 Nxg4 7.Rg1 Nh6 8.bxc5 Bf6 9.d4 was unclear in Bosboom-Sonntag, Germany 2006.

d23) 5.b4 seems like the logical move. 5...0–0 6.Bb2 b6 7.Qc2 c5 8.bxc5 bxc5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0–0 Bb7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nc3 g6 = Kozul-Sosonko, Bled 1997.

d3) I like 3.f4!? even if Black has somewhat reduced White's options compared to the 1.a3 d5 2.f4 lines I discussed in a previous entry (e3 is unnecessary or even damaging in a reversed Dutch Leningrad).

d21) 3...g6 4.b4 is an interesting Bird/Dutch set-up which is not easy to achieve as Black. Note that a3 is not wasted as 1.f4 d5 2.b4? is refuted by 2...Qd6! (1.f4 Nf6 2.b4? Nd5! is a variation of the theme).

d22) Also after 3...c5, 4.b4 is an interesting option, e.g., 4...cxb4 5.axb4 Qb6?! 6.Nc3 Qxb4? 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Ba3 Qa5 9.Bxe7 and White's advantage is sizable.

3.c4
White is hoping for a reversed Paulsen/Kan Sicilian. Other possibilities include:
a) 3.d4 exd4 4.exd4 Be7 5.Nf3 0–0 6.Bd3 d5 7.0–0 Bg4 8.c3 Bh5 9.Bf4 Bg6 10.Ne5 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nbd7 = Filzmeier-Marjanovic, Nova Gorica 1999.

b) 3.b4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.h3 Bg7 6.Bb2 0–0 7.c4 Re8 8.Nc3 Nbd7 9.Be2 e4 10.Nh2 Ne5 =+ Basman-Kinlay, Bristol 1980.

c) I have a weak spot for 3.Bc4 d5 4.Ba2 which leads to a quite unique position. However, objectively I must admit that White is unlikely to achieve full equality.

3...c6 (Dia)

Probably this is best. It's known from the O'Kelly Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6) that ...a6 (here a3) is not particularly useful in set-ups with c3 (here ...c6).

a) 3...b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Nf3 e4 6.Nd4 c5 7.Nf5 g6 8.Ng3 Bg7 9.Be2 0–0 10.0–0 ½–½ Galkin-Malaniuk, Sochi 1997.

b) 3...g6 4.Nc3 (4.b4 Bg7 5.Bb2 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.Nf3 Ng4 8.h3 Nh6 9.Qb3 a5 10.Nbd2 axb4 11.axb4 Rxa1+ 12.Bxa1 Be6 13.d4 exd4 14.Bxd4 Nc6 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Be2 += Bosboom-Gulko, Wijk aan Zee 2001) 4...Bg7 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qc2 a5 7.Rb1 0–0 8.Be2 Re8 9.d3 d6 10.0–0 Bf5 11.Nd2 Rb8 ½–½ Hulak-Tkachiev, Istanbul 2003.

c) I was surprised to discover that there are quite a few games continuing 3...d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5. This seems quite accommodating as White is playing a Kan/Paulsen Sicilian a move up. It may tell something about the importance of one tempo in an unbalanced position that White in this line scores 61% (in 41 games) while Black in the corresponding position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 scores 51% (in 39.435 games) - which is still an amazingly good result for Black. Maybe I will return to this in a later entry.

4.Nf3

Also 4.d4 seems reasonable: 4...exd4 (4...e4!?) and now:

a) 5.Qxd4 seems relatively safe (isn’t this somewhat reminiscent of the French line 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5!?). A recent game went 5...d5 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Nc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 0–0 9.e4 Bc7 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.f4 h6 13.Nxf7!? Rxf7 14.e5 Nfd7 15.Be3 Nf8 16.Bxf7+ Kxf7 17.0–0–0 and it seemed that Black had slightly the better chances in a difficult position in Bosboom-Tiviakov, Hilversum 2007.

b) 5.exd4 would follow the parallel main line in the reversed 2.c3-Sicilian. After 5...d5, 6.Nf3 most likely would lead to an IQP position where a3 probably would be marginally useful. Also 6.c5, planning to meet 6...b6 with 7.b4 and a queenside space advantage makes sense.

4...e4 5.Nd4 d5
5...g6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Qc2 Qe7 8.b4 0–0 9.Bb2 d5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Be2 Nbd7 12.0–0 Ne5 unclear Kuligowski-Sosonko, Amsterdam 1982.

6.cxd5 cxd5 (Dia)

7.d3

a) I like 7.Qc2 here but it hardly changes the evaluation that White must thread carefully in order to keep the chances equal.

b) 7.b4 seems consistent but is hardly sufficient for equality:

b1) 7...Nc6 8.Bb2 (8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Qc2 Bd7 10.d3 exd3 11.Bxd3 Bd6 =+ Haapasalo-Rantanen, Salo 1998) 8...Bd6 9.Be2 0–0 10.f4 Bd7 11.0–0 Rc8 12.Nb3= Talon-Dal Borgo, Belgium 2002.

b2) 7...a5 8.b5 Bd6 9.Be2 0–0 10.Bb2 Nbd7 11.f4?! (after 11.Nc3 White is close to equality in an unbalanced position) 11...Nb6 =+ Talon-Van den Brande, Westerlo 2004.

7...Bc5

Or 7...a6 8.Nc3 Bd6 9.dxe4 dxe4 (Bosboom-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1999) 10.Qc2 +=.

8.Nc3 0–0 9.Be2 Qe7 10.0–0 Rd8 11.b4 Bxd4 12.exd4 Nc6 13.Be3 Bf5
= Milov-Godena, Cannes 2006.

Size Matters

I recently bought James Vigus' 'The Pirc in Black and White' (Everyman 2007) in order to update my knowledge of the various 150-attacks against the Pirc. I have not yet had the time to study it any depth. It seems thorough and well organized but what immediately struck me was the size of the book. At 381 pages it beats 'The Philidor Files' (Everyman 2007) by Bauer (304 pages) by a large margin and even 'Play the Ruy Lopez' (Everyman 2007) by Greet (376 pages). But even these books are dwarfed by the monster sized 'Practical Endgame Play' (Everyman 2007) by Flear, which at 544 pages equals Nunn's Chess Openings (Everyman 1999).

These are examples of what may be a trend: It seems that chess books are getting heavier - bigger page formats and more pages. For Everyman the new standard seems to be 250 pages or more, with 350 pages being no rarity. Gambit's books too have been growing - most notably their standard format is now B5 (248 mm by 172 mm) as opposed to the earlier A5 (210 mm by 145 mm) standard.

These new books often have an impressive coverage of their subject with detailed strategic explanation in combination with full coverage of variations and game references. And there should be no complaints about the price - it's often only a fragment more expensive than the sub-200 pages volumes.

Yet... a book with 300+ pages will always be intimidating to some readers - maybe even the majority of potential buyers. So I wonder if there will be a reversal? Is there a growing market for the really slim book or booklet? If so, how can a reduction in quantity be achieved without compromising quality? Cutting the prose, reducing fonts or squeezing more text on each page would hardly attract many customers. To narrow the focus and concentrate on sub-lines could work for certain openings but generally I don't think it's the way to go.

One obvious solution is to cut the number of game references drastically. I have a theory that many social players don't bother much with parenthesis and long lists of alternatives anyway; they play through the main lines and read the prose. The minor alternatives are consulted only if the mainline cannot easily be understood. It’s also obvious that books are getting outdated quite quickly these days and there is a growing number of chess book buyers who actively (and skilfully) use databases and analysis engines to supplement their books.

I would like to write a 'Outline Book' which assumes that the reader has access to a database and a strong analysis engine where I on roughly 100 pages offer:

• An introduction with some suggestions about how to best make use of a database (players to watch, critical lines etc.) and an analysis engine (what is it good and bad at?).
  
• A fairly detailed 'outline' of a repertoire but with very sparse game references.
• Some inspirational games with verbal and rather light annotations.
• All necessary warnings about 'dangerous terrain' - traps and lines where you cannot survive without detailed theoretical knowledge.

How would this kind of book sell? Do the average club player like to have all the 'extra' information available just in case he will need it some day? Or would he prefer to pick up a slim volume which presents a playable repertoire can which be read from cover to cover over the week-end - even if it doesn't offer all your opponents alternatives at all junctions?

Third London Question

I slowly work my way through the London questions supplied by an anonymous reader. Whether I ever will catch up is an open question as new questions are coming in.

Q3: After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.Nf3 0-0 5.Be2 d6 6.0-0 Nfd7 7.h3 e5 8.Bh2 f5 9.c4 Nc6 10.Nc3 g5 11.dxe5 now you only cover Black responding with 11... Ndxe5, but what should White do against 11...dxe5? (Dia)

A: This recapture probably should have been mentioned in "Win with the London System" as it had been played by 2400 player Gonzalez Velez when the book was written (later it has also been employed by GM Nataf). However, at least to me, it appears less natural than 11...Ndxe5 which immediately frees Black's somewhat entangled queenside. Still the move clearly has some virtues as it keeps Black's kingside pawn front mobile. What's more problematic: it leads to extremely tense positions which are difficult to analyze and evaluate. I will give it a try with the assistance of some analysis engines (Mainly Rybka 2.3 and Fritz 11) but must warn the readers that this kind of positions are really GM territory.

I believe White should continue 12.Nd5!

Initially the computers seem to like 12.Qd5+ Kh8 13.Rad1, but after 13...h5 White’s queen is tactically exposed in some lines and it seems that Black has sufficient counter-play on the kingside:

a) 14.Qb5 g4 15.hxg4 hxg4 16.Ne1 a6! (16...Rf6 17.Bxe5!) 17.Qa4 Rf6 and Black’s attack seems dangerous.

b) 14.Rd2 a6 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.e4?! g4 (16...Nc5 is simple and good) 17.Ne1 f4 18.Qd3 Nd4 19.Nd5 Qf7 (Black obviously is already better) 20.h4? Nc5 21.Qb1 g3 0–1 Zimny-Tirard, Koszalin 1999.

16.Ne1 improves but Black clearly is in good shape.

12...a5 (Dia)

This was the choice of the strongest player to take on Black’s side but the move is far from obvious and probably this is a critical junction:

a) 12...Nb6 13.Qb3 g4 14.hxg4 fxg4 15.Ne1 Na5 16.Qc3 Nxd5 17.Qxa5 Ne7 18.Rd1 looks good for White.

b) 12...Nc5 13.b4 Ne6 14.b5 e4 15.bxc6 exf3 16.Bxf3 Bxa1 17.Nxc7 Qxd1 18.Rxd1 Nxc7 19.Bxc7 bxc6 20.Bxc6 gave White a safe extra pawn in Bosque Ortega-Gonzalez Velez, Barbera 1997.

c) For good or bad 12...f4!? seems to be the consistent course:

c1) After 13.Nd2 Nf6 14.Bf3 Bf5 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Ne4 Qg6 17.Bh5 Qh6 18.Bf3 fxe3 19.fxe3 g4 a draw was agreed in Sprotte-Grabics, Balatonbereny 1997 even if Black was close to winning.

c2) I like 13.exf4 which opens the centre somewhat and makes kingside pawn storm more risky for Black, e.g.:

c21) 13...gxf4 14.Qc2 Nc5 15.Rad1 Bf5 16.Qc1 e4 17.Nxf4 Qf6 18.Nd5 Qxb2 19.Qxb2 Bxb2 20.Nh4 is clearly better for White.

c22) 13...exf4 14.Qc2 Nc5 15.Rad1 Bf5 16.Qc1 +=.

13.Nxg5!?

A very interesting idea which leads to positions that are hard to evaluate but 13.Qa4 could be an improvement:

a) 13...g4 14.hxg4 fxg4 15.Ne1 Nc5 16.Qb5 Ne4 17.Rd1 Nd6 18.Qb3 Rf7 19.c5 must be good for White.

b) 13...Nc5 14.Qa3 Ne6 15.Rad1 Bd7 (15...Qe8? 16.Nxg5!) 16.Nd2 also seems to favour White.

c) 13...h5 14.Rfd1 g4 15.hxg4 hxg4 may be critical, e.g., 16.Ne1 Nc5 17.Qa3 Ne4 and now White has the tactical finesse 18.Nb6 Nd4 19.exd4 cxb6 20.Bxe5! (20.dxe5 Qh4 21.Qe3 Kf7! =+) 20...Bxe5 21.dxe5 Qh4 22.Qe3 Kg7 23.g3 Qh5 24.Ng2 and it seems Black’s kingside initiative has been neutralized.

13...Qxg5 14.Nxc7 Rb8 15.Ne6

White collects two pawns and the exchange for his knight. In general that's a fair deal perhaps favouring White very slightly - with chances increasing as the endgame approaches. It's also very unbalanced and the correct evaluations may depend on rather fine positional points (but mainly on White's king's position).

15...Qe7 16.Nxf8 Qxf8

16...Nxf8 may improve Black’s co-ordination somewhat but the resulting position is still hard to evaluate.

17.Qd5+ Kh8 18.Rfd1 Bf6

18...Nc5 may be better and looks roughly balanced after e.g., 19.Qd6 Be6 20.Rac1 a4 21.Qxf8+ Rxf8 22.Rd6 Bf6 23.b3 axb3 24.axb3 Ra8 (24...Nxb3 25.Rb1 Nc5 26.Rb5 Be7 27.Rd5 +=) 25.Rb1 Ra2 26.Bf3 e4 27.b4 Nxb4 28.Rxb4 Ra1+ 29.Rd1 exf3 30.Rxa1 Bxa1 31.gxf3 =.

19.Bf3

White doesn't achieve anything particular with 19.Qb5 Ra8 .

19...Nc5 20.Qd6 (Dia)

This position from Prie-Nataf, Paris 2006 is quite hard to evaluate. In my experience computers tend to evaluate this material imbalance as more favorable for White than most human masters. Whether this is due to poor evaluation functions or reflects the fact that there are tactical resources available for the rook and pawn side that humans tend to overlook is hard to tell. Rybka 2.3 says +0.85 at 18 ply. That seems too optimistic but it's also clear that White has a rather low losing risk after the exchange of queens. For what it's worth, the game ended in a draw after the further moves 20...Ne6 21.Bxc6 Qxd6 22.Rxd6 bxc6 23.Rxc6 Kg7 24.Rd1 Kf7 25.b3 f4 26.Kf1 Bb7 27.Rcd6 Be7 28.Rd7 Bc6 29.Ra7 a4 30.Rd6 axb3 31.axb3 Be8 32.Rd5 Kf6 33.exf4 exf4 34.Ra6 Rxb3 35.Bxf4 Bg6 36.Bg5+ Kf7 37.Ra7 Nxg5 38.Rxg5 Bd3+ 39.Kg1.

Ask Dr. Johnsen

Today 'anonymous' left this message under my entry 'The Smallest Repertoire':

Q: I am due to play against a much stronger player in an on-line tournament soon, and wondered if you had a recommendation on how to approach it? I can see that he uses the French (I'm playing White) which I could prepare against (I'm an e4 player), but should I do something more psychological? Assume that he feels confident against me and adopt an opening as White that he has to attack me to win? Is there such a thing as a reversed Pirc, as I really enjoy that opening?
Any ideas welcome....

I don't really pretend to be a chess guru. But with too little time (and energy) to play tournaments myself, it's tempting to give advise to those who actually do play. So here are my 50 cents:

First of all: It's fully possible to play a reversed Pirc. 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 e5 3.d3 might be a good attempt but it really depends on which lines you favor. However, I wouldn't expect you to gain much by heading for a reversed Pirc. Quite likely your opponent will choose a line which is not considered to give (White) a lasting advantage but which gives (Black) easy equality when reversed.

If you are willing to invest some time and work in this game, my main recommendation is to head for the sharpest mainline. Most strong players hates to risk losing to a weaker player who happens to be better prepared. Consequently they are quite likely to chicken out with an inferior move in order to avoid prepared surprises. With some luck this will give you a clear opening advantage. If the difference in playing strength isn't too great this could offer a chance for a win (or a draw offer from a position of strength).
More concretely:
1) Find out as much as possible about your opponents preferences in the French. Does he play the Winawer? The Classical? Which subline(s) does he prefer? Does he tend to follow the mainlines or does he play some home-brewed mixture?
2) Find a good book about the line you are most likely to encounter. Concentrate on the sharpest mainlines (that's the most ambitious lines for White). You will not have time to prepare for all the ways he may deviate but at least you should know when he leaves your prepared line (and you have to start thinking rather than remembering).
3) During the game, try to give an impression that you are well prepared and looking forward to a theoretical duel.

If this approach should fail (he is after all a much stronger player), you at least are likely to learn something from your preparations. If theoretical mainlines are not to your taste, you have got two main options:

1. Try to complicate from move two, and hope he gets more confused that you. You most likely will lose, but there always is a chance that he blunders first. 1.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 dxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g4 could be a try.
2. Play unashamedly for a draw. If he isn't too much stronger than you, he may worry if he really will be able to win a dead level ending and try to introduce some complications himself. That could backfire and give you an undeserved chance. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 is the obvious (and banal) solution.

Option 1 has the added bonus that it will give you a reputation as a dangerous chess pirate. Yet I suspect that option 2 is most likely to bring success.

Gewinnen mit dem Londoner System

The German translation of "Win with the London System" is now available with the title "Gewinnen mit dem Londoner System". I still have not got the book myself but expect some copies to arrive in the mailbox any day now. It will be a nice addition to my book shelf and even if my preferred reading language is English, I suppose I will read it from cover to cover just to get an impression of the translation.

As for the content I know that there are no new analysis or variations. Three minor misprints in the English edition has been corrected - that's all. It obviously would have been possible to improve the analysis and add some recent games with relatively little effort. Yet I believe this was a wise decision by Gambit Publications. Partly because the London System is a low-maintenance system which generally doesn't require heavy loads of analysis and memorization but mostly for marketing reasons.

I know that original German works which are later translated to English and updated in the process have caused a lot of frustration for German buyers who feel cheated when they have to buy a new book in order to feel fully prepared. Moreover the two publishing companies Quality Chess (their books are better than their website) and Chess Stars which have made it a habit to publish revised versions of their books have mainly gotten criticism for their efforts. One example of the typical reader reactions can be found at the ChessPublishing discussion forum (as far as I know the best chess discussion forum on the net).

The first review (in German) of this German edition can be found at Freechess Info . This, by the way, is an excellent review site for those who can work their way through a German text. At times I find their verdicts too kind, but the reviews are generally well written and well researched. I don't expect there to be a lot of reviews in English for this translation.