Book of the Year Update

 


'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' was indeed shortlisted to ChessPublishing's Book of the Year contest.






Both the two other finalists are from Quality Chess:

 

Marin's Grandmaster Repertoire: The English Opening. Since the first voting session, Quality Chess has announced that this series will become a trilogy (not two volumes as originally announced).

 

Schandorff's Playing the Queen's Gambit.

 

Surprisingly there have been considerably fewer votes in this final voting session than in the preliminary one (only 50 when I write this entry). Maybe those who voted for books that are now eliminated are not voting in this session (one very good reason would be not having read those left). In that case the final result may be very close to the preliminary one.

 

What is clear, is that with so few votes in total, every vote will count. The voting closes in a couple of days. So if you like 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', and is a ChessPublishing member, please give it a vote (again)!

Opening Book of the Year Nomination

At the Chesspublishing Forum there is now a pre-voting for their first 'Opening Book of the Year' contest where 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' is among the nominated books. There are still some days before the voting closes. However, the voting seems to have slowed down and our book appears to have fair chances to be one of the three books to make it to the second round of voting. At the moment of writing it has collected 21 out of 131 votes and is in the second place after Marin's excellent 'The English Opening -Volume 1'.

In my opinion such a contest makes a lot of sense as opening books very rarely win any of the yearly chess books awards. That's probably only to be expected as books in this category by nature are even more technical than other chess books, normally have a rather short shelf life, and probably most importantly: usually only are of interest to players employing the opening in question.

There of course is no way to make such a voting contest entirely fair or even to completely avoid cheating, so it should be taken for what it is: entertainment. That being said, the Chesspublishing forum probably is the web's best chess discussion forum and the nominated books are all good, so we are sure to get a deserved winner.

If you are a registered ChessPub member (or want to join) and like 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', please give it a vote!

Stonewall Omissions III

In the long and somewhat tangled Chess Publishing Forum thread on our Stonewall book, there is a question about move-orders in the 2.Nc3 line: How should Black react to 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.e3!? (Dia), planning a delayed capture on f6 and possibly saving a tempo by keeping the bishop on f1 (planning to meet ...Na6 with Bf1xa6 rather than Bd3xa6).

This question is justified as the move 4.e3 is not even mentioned in our book. It has been played quite frequently but doesn't seem to have much independent significance against our suggested plan of action. After the consistent 4...c6 I would think that White's best try for an edge is transposing back to 4.Bxf6 lines with 5.Bxf6 exf6 6.Qf3 g6. However, there are a few independent tries:

5.Qf3?!
This is TalJechin's main suggestion. As far as I can see (I am having some minor problems with my ChessBase installation) the move is untested. It indeed makes some sense as the queen quite often goes to f3 in the 4.Bxf6 lines. However, the queen move isn't highly evaluated by Rybka and seems to fail achieving anything for quite concrete reasons (given below).
Other tries are:
a) After 5.Bd3 Na6, 6.Bxf6 or 6.Bxa6, probably transposing to lines covered in the book appears best as 6.Qf3 Ne4! looks strong.
b) 5.h3 looks very slow. However, after 5...Na6 6.Bxa6 actually gains a tempo over some lines where White plays Bf1-d3xa6, so Black may prefer 5...Qa5!?, hoping to use the ...Ba3 trick suggested elsewhere in the book after 6.Bxf6 exf6.
c) Other moves like 5.Nf3, 5.Nh3, or 5.Qd2 are certainly possible but I fail to see any clear idea behind them.
5...Ne4!
I am not convinced that 5...Qa5!? 6.Bxf6 exf6 7.O-O-O b5!? 8.Bxb5!? is quite as strong as Rybka thinks it is. But why go deeply into lines like that when the active knight move looks so simple and strong?
6.Nxe4
After 6.h4, 6...Qb6 looks stronger than the immediate capture on c3.
6...fxe4
Also 6...dxe4 7.Qh3 Qa5+ 8.c3 Be6, planning ...Bf7 and ...h6 looks OK.
7.Qg3 Qa5+ 8.c3 Bf5 (Dia)

The position is quite interesting but I think it's already possible to conclude that Black is fine as he has more space and is not behind in development.

So, is this an omission?
Yes, probably it is. Foreseeing that a reader would be curious about the untested 5.Qf3 and related lines would have been quite difficult. But there should at least have been a sentence saying something like 'After 4.e3 c6, White probably has nothing better than 5.Bxf6, transposing back to our main line'.

Dutch - Open Games

There have been some analytical reactions to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' and I am planning to at least briefly comment on most of them and offer some analysis if relevant. However, I am still quite busy so I must deal with them slowly and one by one. Today I will look at what I believe must be one of the simpler issues.

A reader on the Chess Publishing forum thinks that in Lesson 12 after the moves 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4!? e6 we should have dealt with the move 4.d5 (Dia). For the context I should mention that this position is discussed in Exercise 12 where the student is supposed to analyse the line independently, then check his analysis with a computer program and finally consult our suggested solution.

To my surprise I see that 4.d5 was originally suggested by a poster I have reason to believe is a fairly strong player. Yet I humbly disagree and assume the move was suggested somewhat light-heartedly - possibly for the fun of playing 2.d3, 3.d4 and 4.d5. That kind of fun can occasionally work well in closed positions. But in this case the Dutch leads to relatively open play.

In my opinion 4.d5 might reasonably have been discussed in some detail if it had belonged in an earlier lesson. However, after having dealt in some details with the comparable line 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 (Dia) in Lesson 9, (where we opine that 3.d5 is unlikely to be a threat to Black's opening as it violates basic opening principles) I honestly don't think that this should be necessary. Black's extra tempo somewhat reduces his number of options but should not at all be difficult to use in a positive way.

Exercise 9 dealt with the highly tactical line 3...exd5 4.Qxd5 d6 5.Ng5 Qe7 6.Nxh7 (Dia)

Here Black has an important choice between 6...c6 7.Qb3 Rxh7 8.Qxg8 Rh4 as in an interesting game by Miles and 6...Rxh7 7.Qxg8 Rh4 8.Qb3 Nc6! as in a more recent game by Jussupow.

Having studied these positions it should be clear to any student that 4.d5 is, frankly speaking, a quite poor move. The main point is that after 3./4. d5 Black has the option to open the centre, reaching a kind of position where the pawn structure and even the number of pawns is of less importance than piece activity and direct tactical threats. As a result Black, as any analysis engine can confirm, has not one but a number of ways to reach a satisfactory position.

a) Rybka 3 likes the gambit line 5...Nf6!? 6.Qxf5 d5 7.Qd3 Bc5 and thinks that Black has full compensation. I am not sure that all programs will agree as some are very materialistic but most humans will find that Black has clearly the better practical chances here.

b) If you don't like sacrificing pawns 5...Bb4+ 6.c3 Nge7 7.Qd3 Bc5 is a simple way to complete development and reach a fully satisfactory position. Rybka considers that White is very slightly better here but I cannot really see why.

c) 5...d6 probably is even stronger. Black threatens to develop with tempo on White's exposed queen and 6.Ng5 (which is critical in the parallel position with Black's knight still on b8) is meaningless for at least two reasons:

c1) 6...Qf6 looks strong as the consistent 7.Nxh7? (Dia) loses to the slightly surprising 7...Qd4!.

c2) For practical purposes 6...Qe7 (Dia) may be even stronger as White may be tempted into 7.Nxh7 (what else?) 7...Be6 8.Qb5 0–0–0 9.Nxf8 Rxf8 when Black has more than compensation for his pawn. Rybka says '=+ (-0.34)' at search depth 14 but I suspect that White is lost.

White obviously should look for alternative 6th moves, but then Black will follow up with 6...Nf6 and e.g. 7...g6 and a very comfortable Leningrad position.

Disclaimer

This analysis is based on my own evaluations, supported by some Rybka input, and I have not consulted my co-author who was the book's analytical authority.

Stonewall Omissions II

While the more or less 'professional' reviewers have all been very kind to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', there have been some critical remarks by what may possibly be called 'Dutch enthusiasts'. I will have a look at one of these reviews which can be found at Chess Publishing Forum.

In the thread 'New Book - Win with the Stonewall Dutch' a poster called 'Ametanoitos' in post #18 starts a debate. I will not go into analytical details as I think the analysis provided mostly speaks for itself. I will rather comment on his points from an author's viewpoint.

• Ametanoitos doesn't trust our recommendation 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 Bb4+ 4.c3 Bd6 because in his notebook he some years ago wrote 'Do not trust the ...Bd6 idea'. He doesn't remember his exact analysis but found that following some suggestions that were recommended as leading to equality (in some other books) didn't quite equalize against natural moves. So he instead decided to go for 3...d6.
  
  

Well, a book cannot reasonably be expected to agree with every reader's preferences. 3...Bb4+ has been by recommended by various books and played repeatedly by Dutch specialists Gleizerov, Ulibin and Simons so it doesn't seem likely it's that bad.

• On page 168 we say that 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.h4 'looks unsound and is likely to backfire after 4...Nf6.' Ametanoitos claims that 'this is not as bad as they say' and gives some examples demonstrating that the line can be quite dangerous but none of them with our recommendation 5.Nc3 Ne4.
  

Firstly I must say that our comment wasn't meant to be a total condemnation of the line. In my vocabulary there is a difference between 'looks' and 'is'. I would be surprised if this line offers White an advantage against sensible play but I have been surprised before. More importantly I again fail to see how this can be a weakness of the book. I will admit that we in addition to 6.Nxe4 might well have added the game Gohlil-Keitlinghaus, 2nd Bundesliga 2002 which continued 6.Qd3 d5 7.Qe3. However, there is always a matter of space and the line doesn't look frightening. I honestly think you should be able to reach a playable position against such a line without any concrete preparation.

Then Ametanoitos moves on to a main variation: 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 5.0–0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Qc2!?:

• Firstly he is not satisfied with our 'recommendation' 7...Nbd7, offering the game Taimanov- Lisitsin, Leningrad 1949 which continued 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nc3 a6 10.Bf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 0–0 12.Na4 with a quite clear advantage to White.
  

Well, I must agree that the position after 12.Na4 is not pleasant for Black and that the reader deserves guidance. It's a bit strange that we overlooked this game even if it's a bit old. Most likely we missed it because the game begun 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2 Nd7 5.g3 Bd6 6.Bg2 f5 7.0–0 Ngf6 thus only merging with our repertoire in the last minute. Another possibility is that we sorted the games according to rating and forgot to check for 'pre-Elo' games - that happens from time to time.

Then it must be pointed out that 7...Nbd7 isn't strictly a 'recommendation'. Rather we point out that this is how Black could respond if he prefers to leave his king in the centre against Bf4 lines (which White may still enter). With this basic premise in mind I will suggest that 11...b5!? is a very natural try for Black. Actually, after allowing Rybka chew on the position until it reaches 18 plys' depth it has 11...b5 on top ahead of 11...0-0 with the evaluation '= (0.23)'. That may not be ideal for Black but it's the kind of positions you sometimes have to be content with playing Black. Maybe I in a future entry will elaborate on the value (or lack of so) of these Rybka or Fritz evaluations.

• Next Ametanoitos is unhappy that we after our recommendation 7...0-0 doesn't mention Cox' suggestion in 'Starting Out: 1.d4', 8.Ne5!?.

I Plead Guilty!

This line should have been covered. I don't really know how we missed it but must assume I got too carried away mapping possible transpositions between 7.Qc2, 7.Nc3 and 7.Bg5 and missed some independent lines.

As can be seen from our bibliography, Cox' book wasn't among our sources. My chess library is quite extensive (3/4 of it has been deported to my parents' home for space reasons) but it doesn't contain that book and I didn't really consider buying it for the sake of writing this Dutch book. That may have been a mistake as I have been informed that the book is quite good. Nevertheless, this is not a sufficient explanation as there have been 42 games played, some of them with strong white players and with well known Stonewall experts on Black's side (Vaisser among others).

That being said, I am not really impressed by the move's pure chess qualities. In this position Rybka is greatly helped by its inability to understand the concept of 'consistency' and happily suggest 8...c5! (Dia) with what seems like instant equality.

As you can see for yourself this is just the start of the debate on the forum. I will follow up with another entry or two but not really enter the analytical discussion.

First English Reviews

During the week-end there appeared two reviews of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. I'm fairly busy now and they both speak for themselves so I just note that they both are positive and contain very little if any criticism and give the links:

• Marsh Towers is a very nice site which impressively delivers its 100th chess books review.
• I have no idea how many chess books reviews the British Chess Magazine can boast but I guess they top the list. The July Stonewall review is by the editor, John Saunders.

There are also some comments that come quite close to a review at Thomas Johansson's chess book page (this page opens an ad and at least one pop-up). I will return to this as it raises some questions that deserve to be answered.

I will also eventually have a look at some of the questions raised in this thread at Chess Publishing discussion forum.

Win with the 3...Qd6 Scandinavian

I am currently recovering from an apathetic period following the completion of our Stonewall book and am starting to consider what may be a fitting next book project. One interesting subject is the Scandinavian (1.e4 d5) and in particular the 3...Qd6 variation. There are some thoughts on this line in the comments to this entry. But I am still not convinced it will stand thorough top-level testing.

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6!? (Dia)

In recent years this seems to overshadow the old mainline 3...Qa5. Quite recently there has been a second edition of Michael Melts' 'Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6'. The book is a treasure chest containing an enormous amount of well organized information on the line and lots of independent analysis. Unfortunately it's also very hard to navigate and contains very little prose or guidance except for a few introductory chapters.

4.d4 Nf6

For some minor (possibly insignificant) reasons I prefer 4...a6 - usually followed by 5...Nf6.

5.Nf3

5.g3!? is an alternative move-order with some independent ideas.

5...a6

I find this a much more attractive move than ...c6. Black may follow up with ...Nc6, ...Bg4 and 0-0-0 but also ...b5, ...Bb7 and ...e6.

6.g3

This seems to be the new mainline. White not only makes ...b5 less attractive but also prepares Bf4.

6...Bg4 7.Bg2

7.h3 is another important option.

7...Nc6 8.0–0

Black also needs to prepare for the immediate 8.d5.

8...0–0–0 9.d5!?

Again the immediate 9.Bf4 must be considered.

9...Ne5! (Dia)

This is Melts recommendation (Game 18, page 151, line B2e2d2!) and indeed the move is starting to look forced:

a) 9...Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.Qxd5 Rxd5 12.Ng5 of Lakos-R.Perez, Ortigueira 2002 is entirely unattractive for Black.

b) 9...Nb4 is a more optimistic approach, forcing White to choose between a repetition and complications. Unfortunately the complications seem close to winning for White: 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bf4 Qc5 12.Be3 Qd6 13.Qe2! Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Rad1! Qf6 and White has a pleasant choice:

b1) 16.Bd4 Qe6 17.Qxe6+ fxe6 18.Be5 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 c6 20.Bg4 Nc7 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8 22.Rd1+ +- Ibarra Jerez-Trent, Chalkidiki 2003.

b2) 16.c4 Nxe3 (16...Nb4 17.Rxd8+ Kxd8 18.Rd1+ Kc8 19.Qd2 Qd6 20.Qe1 Qf6 21.g4 Qxb2 22.Rb1 +- Humphrey-Aplin, Kuala Lumpur 2006) 17.Rxd8+ Kxd8 18.Qxe3 c6 19.g4 Bg6 20.Qb6+ Kc8 21.Rd1 e5 22.Nxe5 +- Rasik-Antoniewski, Czechia 2006.

10.Bf4

The queen sacrifice 10.Nxe5!? is enterprising but on closer scrutiny doesn't seem too terrifying:

a) 10...Qxe5 11.f3 Be6 12.Re1 Qf5 13.f4 Qg6 14.Re5 Bf5 = Ninov-Panbukchian, Pleven 2005.

b) 10...Bxd1 11.Nxf7 Bxc2 12.Nxd6+ exd6 13.Re1 Re8 14.Be3 g6 15.Rac1 Bf5 16.Ne2 Bg7 17.Nd4 Ng4 18.Nxf5 gxf5 = Ragger-Nikolov, Kranj 2004.

10...Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 e5 13.dxe6 Qxe6 14.Bg5 (Dia)

This seems to be the crucial position. Black has tried a number of different moves but none seem to give full equality:

a) 14...Qc6 15.Qxc6 bxc6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rad1 Bb4 18.Ne2 Bd2 19.Kg2 += Rasch-Aepfler, Germany 2007.

b) 14...h6 15.Rfe1 Qb6 16.Nd5 (16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Re4 Bc5 19.Rae1 Rd2 20.R1e2 Rxe2 21.Rxe2 Bd4 22.Re7 Bxc3 23.bxc3 += Tukhaev-Vasiliev, Evpatoria 2006) 16...Rxd5 17.Bxf6 Qc6 18.c4 Rd6 19.Qxc6 Rxc6 20.Re8+ Kd7 21.Rd8+ Ke6 22.Bc3 +/- Mardell-Brandt, Taby 2007.

d) 14...Bd6 15.Rfe1 Be5 16.Ne4 (16.Re2 Rde8 17.Rae1 Nd7 18.Bf4 f6 19.Qe3 g5 20.Bxe5 Nxe5 = Stiri-Dounis, Athens 2007; 16.Bf4 Nd7 17.Nd5 f6 18.c4 g5 19.Bd2 h5 20.Ba5 Qg4 = Williams-Hamad, Turin 2006) 16...Rhe8 17.Nc5 Qd5 18.Qxd5 Rxd5 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Nd3 Re6 21.f4 Bd6 22.Rad1 += Huerga Leache-Garcia Paolicchi, La Massana 2008.

c) 14...Bb4 15.Rfe1 Qb6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Nd5 (is 17.Rfe1 better?) 17...Rxd5 18.Qxd5 Bxe1 19.Rxe1 Qxb2 20.Qxf7 Kb8 = Pesotsky-Bazarov, Lipetsk 2008.

e) 14...h5 15.Bxf6 (15.Rfe1 Qg4 16.Qxg4+ hxg4 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Rxe4 f6 = Sedina-Danielian, Elista 2004) 15...Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Rad1 Bd6 (17...Bc5 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Rfe1 Rhe8 20.Nc3 c6 21.Rxd8+ Kxd8 22.Kg2) 18.Nd5 h4 19.Kg2 Rh5 20.b3 b5 21.Rfe1 += Fernando-Galego, Vila Real 2005.

Preliminary conclusion:

This line may attract a (semi) professional player who feels confident that he can hold a draw against well prepared opponents in one of the lines after 14.Bg5. However, for the average club player (who represents the main segment of chess book buyers) defending a slightly inferior endgame like this for several dozens of moves sounds like a nightmare and will not be a good selling point.

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.

Collins' Book Available Too?

I still haven't received my copy of Aagaard's Stonewall II, but I have good hopes it will happen tomorrow. Meanwhile there are rumors that Collins' Attacking Repertoire for Black is now available from Amazon UK. There is a small discussion at Chess Publishing Forum about the reliability of Amazon's announcement. I remain skeptical as long as the book isn't listed on Batsford's/Anova's website.

Postscript 9th September 2007
Today I received unofficial but reliable information that the book will definitely not appear before October 15th and probably not before Christmas! A pity but not really a great surprise.