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.

The Chess Capital of Norway

Thanks to the late Arnold Eikrem, Gausdal used to be the chess capital of Norway. I know some foreign chess players even believed it was the real capital of Norway. That illusion was hard to retain after having visited the site, because it really was (and is) a quite desolate place.

During the eighties and nineties I spent altogether more than half a year at Gausdal Hoyfjellshotell or the surrounding cabins. It was not at all a bad holiday resort. But without Eikrem as a driving force, and with new owners of the hotel, the tournaments lost much of their attraction for me and many others. Now I see that the Gausdal tournaments again are attracting Norwegian players, and I consider playing a high mountain tournament again after a more than 10 years long break. Future will show, but I fear it will not be the same.

Below is my second to last Gausdal game, played two years after the death of Eikrem.

A.Berg - Sv. Johnsen
Troll Masters Gausdal (8), 1996
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4
Actually my main preparation for this tournament was the Portuguese gambit 3.d4 Bg4!?, which had been scoring well for some time.
3...e6!?
This is the Icelandic Gambit. Probably 3...c6 objectively is a better move. Black’s compensation after 4.dxc6 Nxc6 is hardly in doubt. The main problem is 4.d4!, which after 4...cxd5 leads to the Caro Kann, Panov variation - a line I had not prepared.
4.dxe6 Bxe6
This is a developing move, but not particularly aggressive. In contrast to the 3...c6 4.dxc6 lines, it’s not at all clear that Black has got enough for his pawn.
5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Be2 Bc5 7.0–0 Qd7 8.a3 0–0–0 9.Nc3
(Dia)
9...g5!?
This appears to be a novelty.
a) 9...Rhe8 10.d3 Bf5 11.Bg5 Bxd3 12.Bxd3 Qxd3 13.Qa4 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Qxd4 15.Nb5 was unclear in Cherniaev-Liardet, Cannes 1997
b) 9...Nd4 10.b4 Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3 Bd4 12.Qb3 Bg4 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Ra2 Qd6 15.g3 Qh6 16.h4 Bxf2+ gave Black a clear advantage in Antoniewski-Teske, Koszalin 1999
10.b4
It’s hard to say how much compensation I have got for the pawn safter 10.Nxg5, but the semi-open g-file seemed more useful than the pawn.
10...Bd4 11.b5 Ne5 12.Qa4 Nxf3+ 13.Bxf3 g4 14.Be2
14.Bd5 may be a better defensive try.
14...Rdg8 15.Bb2
White unpins his knight on c3 so that it defends his queen, thereby preparing b6.
15...g3! 16.hxg3
16.b6 gxf2+ 17.Kh1 Bxb6 18.Qxd7+ Bxd7 =+.
16...Rxg3 17.b6

This loses but there actually is no defence.
(Dia)
17...Rxg2+!
This brutal move decides immediately.
18.Kxg2 Rg8+ 19.Kh2 Qd6+ 20.f4 Ng4+ 21.Kg3 Ne5+?! 0–1
White resigned rather than allowing 22.Kh2 Bd7. But actually 21...Nf2+ 22.Kf3 Bg4+ 23.Kg2 Bxe2+ 24.Kh2 Qxf4# was a quicker mate.

The A-factor

Absolute playing strength is not an easy term to define. But it's mainly a question about the objective strength of moves played, and can to some extent be measured by today's strongest chess players - the PC chess engines. It would have been very interesting to magically put together chess players from different eras to fight it out over the chess board. That will never happen and that's exactly why it's such a great discussion subject.

My preliminary nomination for the top ten players of all times, based on actual peak playing strength is as follows:

1 Kasparov
2 Anand
3 Topalov
4 Kramnik
5 Fischer
6 Karpov
7 Shirov
8 Leko
9 Capablanca
10 Spassky

No doubt many players of the older generations would quickly adopt to the new situation and raise their level of play. It would not take them too long to catch up on the opening theory in their repertoire and - possibly more important, simply to realize that chess is a professional activity, requiring their full attention. That could even happen during the relatively short duration of a tournament or a match. Still I believe today's professionals, battle hardened from countless tournament games since their early youth and grown up with huge databases and strong analysis engines would come out on top.

A Grossly Unfair Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watson on the Ruy Lopez Guide for Black

I am embarassed that I have not been able to keep up my updates for some time. I have simply been too busy on too many fronts. But now it's starting to clear up, so maybe I will be able to fill an almost normal quota for April anyway.

I was pleased to see a review by Watson at the Week in Chess news site. It was fairly short (JW: "Unfortunately, this is one of the titles that I'm going to simply recommend without giving it the close consideration it deserves") but in general very positive. Watson, like Silman, draws attention to the alternatives we offer to the Zaitsev main line and warns amateur players against the dangers and efforts associated with the Zaitsev. It's becoming obvious that I will have to comment upon this in an entry quite soon.

I was more surprised to note that not even Watson manages to get the comparision with the Greet book on the Worrall quite right, as he too seems to miss that our lines merge quite quickly after the first departure. This actually is a quite straightforward subject, and another good theme for a blog entry.

Silman's Review has Arrived

My apologies for missing an entry last week. I am having a very busy schedule these days and even rephrasing leftover text bits takes too much time and energy. So again I will only refer to a book review - this time at the excellent Silman's reviews. The review is by Silman himself this time (there are three other very competent regular reviewers at his site: Bauer, Donaldson and Watson) and it's one of his meatier ones. In addition to the actual review we get an old but very relevant Silman win against de Firmian with 9...Qd7 in the Closed Ruy Lopez.

Actually it seems that Silman is the first of the reviewers to really notice (and point out) how central the early ...Qd7 lines are in our book. These lines not only avoids a lot of theory, they add a lot of extra options to Blacks play and they are Black's most important resource if he wants to avoid the Zaitsev draw 10...Re8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3 Re8.

Like a few other reviewers, Silman loves the preface by Leif and is a bit sceptical about our choice of the theory heavy Zaitsev as Black's main weapon. I hoped the reasons for our decision outlined in our book would be sufficiently convincing. But it's quite likely I will return this in a later entry.

If you are not already familiar with it, make sure that you have a look at Silman's impressive chess site - not only his review section. It's definitely one of the better chess places on the net. It has got a lot of instructive material and is regularly updated.

Some More Ruy Lopez Reviews

I am afraid to bore my readers with endless reviews of my books, but I am quite busy these days, and one easy way to fill a blog entry is to comment upon what others have to say.

Today I noticed three new review extracts at Gambit's page on the Ruy Lopez book:

• The quote from Simen Agdestein in the Norwegian newspaper VG isn't really a translation of anything Simen wrote in his column. But he was quite enthusiastic, so in a way it sums up his review quite nicely.
• I tried for some minutes to work out what NSGchess.com really is, but didn't come much closer. I don't know what 'NSG' is short for and I am not sure what their ambition is, but I will try again later. This may well become a good (and extensive) chess review site.
  Also their review is a bit mysterious. You can find it under 'NSG Reviews' (but seemingly not under 'chess books'). Roughly half of the text is taken from Gambit's own advertisment while the other half is positive enough but not very specific. And how does their rating system work? 9.8 out of 10 seems very close to perfect but I will have to check out how many books get low scores (are there any '2.1' or '3.4' ratings?).
• I must also admit that I don't know anything about 'Open File' or Munroe Morrison. I assume it must be a paper based chess magazine of some kind and have found quite a few quotes from their reviews in other Gambit book advertisments. I would appreciate it very much if a reader would enlighten me.
  It is very nice to see that Leif's preface is so well received. We were a bit worried that his lack of Ruy Lopez experience would be held against him (or us). But it seems that most readers accept that a GM has valuable insights to offer even on a subject he hasn't practiced in hundreds of tournament games.

More Retrogames

My first two retrograde game puzzles have already been cracked (see the comments in my entry "Something Entirely Different"), but surprisingly nobody has suggested any solution to the ChessBase nut. That may be because it is considerably harder to solve but also because I didn't really ask for solutions. Be that as it may be, I will repeat the information provided and offer what in my opinion is a related task:

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.

2) Related puzzle: Construct a legal game that opens 1.e4 and ends with (the black move) 5...NxR (knight takes rook) mate.

I like to have at least one diagram in my entries whenever natural so here is a nut where the final position is the main key:

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).

This kind of short games where you are supposed to reconstruct the entire game by some sparse hints are often called "Shortest proof games". I am not sure that the diagram challenge really belongs in this category, as it is definitely no challenge to reach this position in three moves (six half moves) e.g.: 1.e4 e6 2.Bc4 c6 3.Bxe6 dxe6.

Book Plans and Dreams

I occasionally am questioned about my future (chess) book plans. I have even had a few quite clear recommendations about fitting themes for a next book. This interest is much appreciated, but I am not likely to become a very prolific chess writer. There is not a lot of money in chess books, and although it contributes to making chess a very affordable hobby for me, my writing mostly is about self development and fulfilling some private ambitions. Presently my plans are not at all clear, but there still are a few books that I would like to write:

• I would like to expand and update my old booklet in Norwegian "Vinn med 1.e4" (Win with 1.e4), so that it becomes a 'real book', not just a booklet. It's a pity that the Norwegian chess market probably is too small to make it economically viable.
  
• I want to write at least one more book on opening theory for Gambit Publications - preferably on a defence for Black against 1.d4, so that my books taken together would cover most of a complete opening repertoire (something for White, something against 1.e4 and something against 1.d4). The challenge will be to find a good subject and a good co-author. Some ideas are beginning to materialize, and I hope to return to this project in a week or two. As for why I would like Gambit to be my publisher, that is also a theme to which I will return in a later entry.
  
• I would like to make a really nice looking hard-cover book (or even better a two-volume set) in English for beginning and inexperienced chess players. Mostly for technical reasons this kind of large format books with plenty of illustrations are often translated to many languages. I don't know the details but I assume this is because the illustrations and the text are printed separately, and the illustrations make up most of the costs. Without really knowing, I suspect that this is the only type of chess books that really could make some money for the author. I have seen a lot of very nice looking books in this category, and most of them also very adequately deliver what they promise. Still I believe there is room for improvement - not so much when it comes to chess knowledge as to presentation and didactics. The challenge will be to convince a major publisher that I am the ideal author.
  

Greet on the Norwegian

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

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

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

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

An Egotrip Down Memory Lane

I will not try to create an impression that I am a strong chess player. But among a huge number of tournament games there are a few I enjoy demonstrating. I hope you will bear with me.

While preparing a more substantial entry on the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez, I came across some games by Bernd Stein, who specialized in his own special branch of this variation. This reminded me of a short and sweet game I won some 14 years ago. What made it extra special for me was the fact that I after this game had a score of 2/2 against two International Masters. Admittedly my opponent in this game at the time had more or less retired from tournament play, but my first round opponent was a fairly young and ambitious player. The rest of my tournament was far less spectacular, but I seem to remember that the hope of an IM-norm were still alive until round 8.

Sverre Johnsen (2215) - IM Bernd Stein (2360)
Gausdal International (2) 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3
This, and the closely related 1...d5 2.Nc3, made up most of my white opening repertoire for the major part of a decade. They have some surprise value and in my opinion should be basically sound. I may take them up again if I can only find a couple of improvements in a couple of critical lines.
2...c5
2...d5 3.Bg5 is the Veresov Opening. The text move hardly has a recognized name.
3.dxc5
3.d5 is more popular.
3...e6
I find it much harder to demonstrate any advantage against 3...Qa5.
4.e4 Nc6 5.f4 Qa5 6.Bd3 Bxc5 7.e5 Nd5 8.Bd2 Nxc3 9.Bxc3 Qb6 10.Nh3
I have come out of the opening with a quite clear advantage.
10...Nd4?! 11.Qg4 g6 12.0-0-0 h5?!
This weakens the kingside more than it protects it.
13.Qh4 Nb5 14.Qf6 Rf8 15.Bxb5! Qxb5?
15...Be7! was absolutely necessary in order to give Black's dark squares on the kingside some protection. After e.g. 16.Qg7 Qxb5 17.Ng5!? Bxg5 18.fxg5, the pawn on f7 is an obvious target, but it's not at all easy for White to infiltrate the dark squares.
(Dia)
16.Rd6! The rook obviously cannot be captured, so basically Black's dark-square defender is shut out from its defensive duties. Also Black's queen struggles to get back to d8 as both b6 and a5 are covered.
16...b6 17.Be1! 1-0
I find some kind of geometrical beauty in my two concluding moves. First Black's dark-squared bishop is locked out; then its white colleague enters the kingside via a quite rare backward manoeuvre.

What I today remember just as well as the actual moves of the game, is the gentlemanly way in which my opponent took his defeat. Rather that blaming his own poor form (which he could have done with obvious justification) he was full of praise for my play. Still appreciated!

...and Another Two

Today I found two new reviews on the net:

Carsten Hansen's reviews at The Chess Cafe usually are very well written and thorough. Accordingly he often needs a little more time to deliver. Therefore I was somewhat surprised to see that The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black made it to the March edition of Checkpoint.

In general Hansen's review is very positive, but I am a little disappointed that he leaves out our main argument in favour of the Zaitsev: For lower and middle rated players, studying the Zaitsev mainline mainly should be considered a middlegame exercise. Seeing how modern top players handle such an exciting middlegame position and then trying to analyze it independently must be among the most useful things you can do for your chess understanding.

Although Phil Adams also seems a bit unconvinced about our choice of the Zaitsev as our main recommendation for Black, he too gives the book thumbs up. In particular I appreciate his conclusion: "A very good opening book. Readers will learn a lot about the Closed Lopez, and therefore about chess, even if they never play the Zaitsev! Highly recommended." This sums up our main message very well.

Addendum 8th March 2007
Yesterday I didn't seem to quite register Hansen's entire conclusion. Actually his "I highly recommend this book to players who are serious about their opening repertoires and about improving their overall game." is quite close to Adams' conclusion (and our main argument).

Another Review

Another review arrived today with expected regularity at the British Chess Magazine's Book Reviews of March 2007: http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/reviews/bcmrev0703.html. I initially thought the 'JS' reviewer was GM Jonathan Speelman, but I was quickly informed that it actually is BCM's editor John Saunders. Thanks to Paul and Anonymous who corrected me!

As expected the review is short but well written and informative. I am also happy to note that it can only be described as very positive.

Another interesting point to note is the miniature comparision with Greet's book "Play the Ruy Lopez" in the review just below ours. I may return to that exercise in a blog entry soon. Saunders' observation is basically correct, but there is a bit more to it.