Leif Erlend Plays the Stonewall

During the eighties and nineties most Norwegian top players played the Dutch Stonewall. Headed by Agdestein, the GMs Djurhuus, Gausel, Tisdall and Østenstad, as well as some of the IMs and promising juniors all collected experience in this solid but unbalancing system. During the chess Olympiad in Dresden not only Carlsen but also another Norwegian GM took up the tradition:

Frhat - L.Johannessen, Olympiad Dresden 2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3
With 3.Nc3 White gets some extra options against the Triangle set-up as well as against the Queen's Gambit Declined.
3...c6
Via a slightly different move-order Johannessen arrives at the same position as Magnus got against Rowson. This is among Black's sharper options against 1.d4 as he may now consider capturing the c-pawn and try to keep it. Was this team preparation for the Norwegian boys?
4.g3
Rowson preferred 4.e3 after which Magnus went for the Stonewall with 4...Bd6 and 5...f5 anyway. Would 4.Qc2 have lead to the same reaction?
4...f5
Now it's a Stonewall structure. With White's knight already committed to f3, some quite critical lines with Nh3 are eliminated.
5.Bg2 Nf6
Just as Magnus, Leif Erlend avoids the attempts to give the position an independent twist with the ...Qf6 idea.
6.0–0 Bd6 7.b3
7.Bf4 is the principal alternative.
7...Qe7 (Dia)
This is one of the three or four main branches of the Stonewall and quite deeply investigated by strong Grandmasters. Although this as far as I know is Leif Erlend's first Stonewall game, he wasn't totally unprepared as he has been reviewing a copy of our manuscript for 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. I also think he got some advise from Simen Agdestein before the game - at least that's the impression I got when I had a few words with him on Tuesday.
8.a4
This is among the easier systems for Black to equalize against but possibly among the harder to play for a win against.
8...a5 9.Ba3 b6 10.Qc1
From this square the White queen can go to:
- a3, offering a queen exchange
- b2, fighting for control over e5
- f4, (as in the game) offering a change of pawn structure.
10...Bb7 11.Bxd6 Qxd6 12.Qf4!?
This seems to be a new move if not a new idea. Now we get a pawn structure normally arising from an exchange of bishops on f4. White gets total control over e5 but relatively few active possibilities.
a) 12.Na3 0–0 13.Nc2 Na6 14.Nce1 Nb4 15.Nd3 c5 16.Rd1 Rac8 17.Qb2 Ne4 18.Rac1 ½–½ Ustianovich-Hermanov, Lvov 2003.
b) 12.Nbd2 Nbd7 13.Qb2 0–0 14.Rac1 Rac8 15.Rfd1 f4 16.Ne5 fxg3 17.hxg3 Qe7 18.Nd3 Ng4 19.Nf3 Ba6 20.Qd2 h6 21.Bh3 Ndf6 22.Nf4 Ne4 23.Qe1 Rxf4 24.gxf4 Ngxf2 25.Bg2 ½–½ Donaldson-Herder, Vancouver 2000.
c) 12.Qa3 and now:
c1) 12...Ke7 13.Qb2 Rc8 14.Nbd2 Na6 15.Ne5 Rc7 16.h3 Kf8 17.g4 Kg8 18.e3 Rf8 = Yedidia-Vaisser, France 1996.
c2) 12...c5 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Nc3 Nc6 15.Qc1 0–0 16.Rd1 Nb4 17.Qf4 Qxf4 18.gxf4 Ne4 = Brito Garcia-Ulibin, Benasque 1992.
12...Qxf4 13.gxf4 Na6 14.Nbd2 Ke7 15.Rfc1 Rac8 16.e3 Rhd8 17.cxd5 (Dia)

17...cxd5
This is very sound and very equal. If Black is playing for more than a draw, 17...exd5 probably had to be tested. There is very little direct risk involved as White has no realistic target and no pawn breaks. But if Black plays for ...c5 or ...g5 White will get his share of the play.
18.Ne5 Nb4 19.Bf1 Rg8 20.Bb5 Kd6
This is roughly as good as any other move but there is an implicit draw offer. Normal (verbal) draw offers were only allowed after move 30.
21.Nf7+ Ke7 22.Ne5 Kd6 23.Nf7+ Ke7 24.Ne5 ½–½

Norwegian Variation in Norwegian

If you ever want to master the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez you eventually will need to learn the Norwegian language (stop complaining - it's a beautiful language and a lot of chess players have already learned Russian!). In a few months a biography on Svein Johannessen, written by Øystein Brekke, will appear - hopefully in time for Svein's memorial tournament. One main ingredient in the book no doubt will be Svein's experiences with his pet variation.

As a foretaste, today there is an article about the Norwegian variation by GM Leif E Johannessen (my co-author for The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black) in the Norwegian internet newspaper Nettavisen. The games can be found below but I assume you will be able to extract the essence of Leif's annotations with the help of my word list below.

Norwegian Chess Dictionary
Konge = King
Dronning = Queen
Tårn = Rook
Løper = Bishop
Springer = Knight
Bonde = Pawn
Hvit = White
Sort/Svart = Black
Vinne = Win
Tape = Lose
Felt = Square
Linje = File
Rad = Rank
Sentrum = Centre
Fløy = Wing
Trekk = Move
Rokade = Castling
Slå = Capture
Matt = Mate
Sjakk = Chess/Check
Brett = Board
Motstander = Opponent
Kvalitet = Exchange
Fordel = Advantage
Motspill = Counter-play
Uklart = Unclear
Offiser = Piece
Åpen = Open
Lukket = Closed
Åpning = Opening
Midtspill = Middle game
Sluttspill = Endgame
Avbytte = Exchange
Løperpar = Bishops-pair
Angrep = Attack
Forsvar = Defence
(the list will be updated whenever I discover an essential omission)

The Games:
Feoktistov - Agdestein, Vadsosjakken 2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 f6 8.c3?!
8.dxe5 Nxb3 9.axb3 dxe5 10.Qe2 Ne7?! (10...Bb7 11.Rd1 Qc8) 11.Rd1 Bd7 12.Nc3 Ng6 13.Be3 c6 14.Ne1 Be7 15.Nd3 0-0 16.Bc5 Rf7 17.Qe3 Qc7 18.Bxe7 Rxe7 19.Qc5 Be8 20.Nd5 cxd5 21.Qxd5+ Kf8 22.Qxa8 +- Arakhamia Grant-Agdestein, Gibraltar Masters 2008.
8...Nxb3 9.Qxb3 c5 10.a4 Bd7 11.axb5 axb5 12.Rxa8 Qxa8 13.dxc5 Qxe4 14.Nbd2 Qc6 15.cxd6 Bxd6 16.Re1 Ne7 17.Ne4 Bc7 18.Qa3 Be6 19.Qc5 Bd5 20.Qxc6+ Bxc6 21.Nfd2 Kf7 22.Nc5 Ra8 23.Kf1 h6 24.Nd3 Nd5 25.Nb3 g5 26.h3 h5 27.Nbc5 g4 28.h4 Kg6 29.Ne6 Bd6 30.Nec5 Rd8 31.Kg1 Ne7 32.Ne6 Re8 33.Nec5 Rd8 34.Ne6 Rc8 35.b4 Nd5 36.Bd2 Ra8 37.Nec5 Nb6 38.Ne4 Bxe4 39.Rxe4 Nc4 40.Be1 f5 41.Re2 e4 42.Nc1 Be5 43.Nb3 Ra3 44.Nd4 Bxd4 45.cxd4 Kf7 46.Rc2 Ra1 47.Kf1 f4 48.Re2 f3 49.gxf3 gxf3 50.Re3 Kf6 51.Rc3 Nd2+ 52.Kg1 Rxe1+ 53.Kh2 Nc4 0–1

Senff- S.Johannessen, Norwegian Ch op (Oslo) 2006
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 Ne7 11.f4 exd4 12.Qxd4 d5 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.Kh1 Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Qd7 16.Be3 0–0–0 17.Nf3 Bd6 18.Qd2 Rhe8 19.Qf2 Qg4 20.c4 Bxf4 21.Bxf4 Qxf4 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Qc2 Qe4 24.Qc5 Rd5 25.Qa7 Rd2 26.h3 Qd5 27.Rac1 Ree2 28.Qa5 Qd6 29.Qxb5 Qg3 30.Qf5+ Kb8 31.Qg4 Rxg2 32.Qxg3 Rxg3 33.Rc3 Rxh3+ 34.Kg1 Rg3+ 35.Kh1 g5 0–1

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.

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).

An Interesting Review

The German language magazine KARL always provides well researched reviews. So when they yesterday published a review of "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" I read it with great interest and maybe I will translate some of it for non-German readers one day when I am less busy.

NB: For some strange reason it seems that the link to the review (http://www.karlonline.org/kol64.htm) works in Internet Explorer but not in Mozilla Firefox, which mysteriously 'redirects' to another review (http://www.karlonline.org/kol46.htm)!

Despite the heading 'Jugendlicher Leichtsinn' which translates to something like 'Youthful Recklessness' (maybe light-headedness is more precise?), the review is generally positive. However, as quite a few others it's also quite critical to our choice of mainline. Not so much because the reviewer, Erik Zude, doubts its soundness or because he finds faults in our analysis but because of the extremely sharp nature of the resulting positions. He is however quite happy with our chapter 5 - Regrouping System, which is a complete alternative repertoire for readers who don't enjoy memorizing razor-sharp variations.

His analysis of a random position from the book seems quite interesting and may be the basis for a future blog entry.

It's a pity that the otherwise very conscientious review got a few errors in the Table of Content. This one, which I copied from Niggemann is more correct:

004 Symbols
005 Bibliography
006 Preface by Sverre
008 Preface by Leif

023 Part 1: Introduction
023 A Quality Opening
029 A Great Learning Tool
030 Learning the Closed Ruy Lopez
031 Closed Ruy Lopez Strategy
032 Some Closed Ruy Lopez Concepts
033 Ruy Lopez Overview

048 Part 2: The Main Battleground
051 1 The Zaitsev Main Line
082 2 The 17. ..c4 Zaitsev
091 3 Other Zaitsev Lines
107 4 Imperfection
117 5 Regrouping System

132 Part 3: White Ducks the Challenge
133 6 Rare 8th and 9th Moves
156 7 5th and 6th Move Alternatives

175 Part 4: Exchange Variations
178 8 The Exchange Variation
194 9 Delayed Exchange Variations
205 Index of Variations

Chigorin or Zaitsev

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

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

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












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












So, what is best - Chigorin or Zaitsev?

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

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

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

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

Hard-Core Opening Theory

That's what you can find in this article at Chessvibes. It refers to my and Leif Johannessen's book on the Ruy Lopez. If you want to keep up with developments this certainly is a game to be noted.

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.

...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.

First Review

My apologies for this delayed entry. I have had a busy week with little time for blogging, and this too will be a minor entry.

It was not unexpected that the first review of "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" would appear at "John's Chessbook Reviews" by John Elburg - Elburg's greatest strength is his speed, volume and regularity. Neither did it come as a shock that his review was fairly positive (they usually are).

I have also become accustomed to Elburg's fairly helpless English, but this time I struggled a bit more than usual to understand his review. What does "Johannessen & Johnsen." which is used two times mean? It obviously indicates a quotation of some kind, but where does that quotation start?

Also the expression "chess crack" was unknown to me. But actually in this case Elburg's English vocabulary may be better than mine. At least my OALD (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) indicates that the adjective version "he's a crack chess-player" would mean "he's an excellent chess-player", so I assume it must be quite positive.

Anyway, his conclusion "A very important reference book on the Zaitsev variation!" was welcome.

When speaking about reviews, I must mention that Phil Adams' Book Reviews has been improved with four downloadable documents complete with older reviews. Excellent idea - they really were worth preserving!

Finally Available

Yesterday I received my copies of "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black". You might think it should not be too exciting to see a book that you have written yourself, but it actually is!

First there is the physical appearance of the covers, the indexes and those small things you never see when you are working on the content. I really like this one - Wolff Morrow's cover illustration is visually pleasing as usual and the theme at least somewhat relevant. You may argue that Black rarely goes for an immediate attack on White's king in the Zaitsev variation of the Closed Ruy Lopez, but the spark of aggression definitely is there. See this page for some of Morrow's other covers with his brief comments.

Then it is always exciting to see how many of those last-minute corrections and amendments the editors actually managed to include. I have not yet had time to compare the book with the correction tables we forwarded or to discuss it with my co-author, but I can see that most of it actually found its way into the book.

But most of all it's about holding the book in your hands - imagining that you are a potential buyer, flipping through the pages considering whether the book is worth its money or not.
- Is the words/moves ratio acceptable?
- What about the pages/diagrams ratio?
- Is the variation numbering intimidating, or are most readers comfortable with the occasional 'b2222)'?

Well, it really is too late to worry about this now - I am now eagerly awaiting the first reviews.
I will mainly be watching these sites:

- Checkpoint at http://chesscafe.com/: Very good monthly reviews, but far from all books get a mention.
- Silman: Probably the biggest and best collection of chess book reviews, but Gambit books usually are released a month later in the US than in Europe.
- Seagaard: Usually quite thorough reviews but there seem to be fewer new reviews now than a couple of years ago.
- Chessville: Thorough reviews with the amateur's needs firmly in focus.
- British Chess Magazine: Usually very short and to-the-point monthly reviews.
- John Elburg's reviews: A huge number of reviews every month. Unfortunately the English is awful, and the reviews usually so gentle that they are uninformative.
- Phil Adam's reviews: I like this site - but where does he dump the older reviews? My London book is now nowhere to be found.
- Sean Marsh' reviews: Another growing collection of good reviews. I must however say that I frequently disagree with the evaluations.

Addendum 16th February 2007
I forgot the "Week in Chess" reviews by John Watson - possibly because no new reviews had appeard for almost one year. But now he appears to be back in combat with three new columns in less that a month. Watson's reviews generally are quite gentle, but very detailed and well researched. I am not sure about the relationship with his reviews at Silman's site, but there seems to be considerable overlap.

My Books

I have fairly recently co-authored two chess books for Gambit Publications. In September 2005 “Win with the London System”, written together with Croatian GM Vlatko Kovacevic, arrived from the printers. It was generally well received, although quite a few reviewers didn’t try to hide their contempt for the ‘dull’ subject. For some reason the London System isn’t considered a serious attempt for White to fight for his opening advantage. I find this attitude somewhat peculiar. It may be true that the London isn’t fighting for a structural or central advantage - rather White is relying on quick development and harmonious deployment of his forces. But that could be said about quite many 1.e4 lines too.

My next book, "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black", which will be released in a few weeks, is based upon the Zaitsev variation in the Closed Ruy Lopez. This in most respects is an entirely different work. Actually one of my main goals when looking for a fitting subject was to find something as diametrically opposite of my previous project as possible. I believe I succeeded quite nicely:

The London book presents a repertoire for White starting 1.d4.
The Ruy Lopez book is a guide for Black against 1.e4.

The London book was on an opening that I felt was underestimated and needed a serious theoretical work in order to become a little more accepted.
This time the subject is one of the most popular mainlines among the chess elite for the last 30 years. The main challenge was not to find new ideas but to understand the ideas of the game’s greatest geniuses.

My first co-author was a Croatian veteran grandmaster who I have never met in person.
My co-author this time, Leif Johannessen, is a grandmaster too, but he is a young Norwegian player from my chess club who I have known since he was a small boy.

GM Kovacevic has been playing the London system for a life-long chess career (along with most other queen’s pawn openings without a quick c4).
GM Johannessen only recently started meeting 1.e4 with 1...e5, and took the book project as an opportunity to add a new opening to his repertoire.

For GM Kovacevic English is something like his forth language. While I could easily understand his meaning, I don’t think I left one single of his sentences unchanged in the book.
GM Johannessen’s grasp of the English language is at least as good as mine, but his prose still is quite different from mine, and only the help of Gambit’s editor made the style generally consistent.

So for my personal development, I believe I succeeded quite well - this is about as far from a ‘sequel’ as it is possible to come. But whether the buyers and reviewers will enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it, remains to be seen.