Repertoire Choices and Consistency

Sometimes interesting thoughts and debates deserving to be read 'get hidden' in the comments to old entries. In this blog entry one anonymous reader (it's hard to say how many of the 'Anonymous' are the same poster) is generally very positive to our book. However, he points out a missing move-order option and some related challenges.

Dealing with transpositional options is an eternal challenge for repertoire books. A good repertoire may well be inconsistent if you in a certain position have a choice between a move X that will lead to a position you have to face anyway (by transposition) and a move Y which may be better but takes some effort to analyse. Going for move X is rational as it saves you some labour but in chess your first priority should be to play the best move.

Whether you should go for the independent option (Y) or not, must depend on at least three factors:

• How satisfied are you with the positions resulting from move X?


• How much better can move Y really be?


• How complicated are the variations following move Y?

Anonymous' main point occurs after the first moves of the mainline 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6: (Dia)


Here we mention 7.b3 Qe7 and now:
- 8.Bb2 (when play may continue 8...b6 9.Ne5) and
- 8.Ne5 (when 8...0-0 9.Bb2 b6 is a possibility).

However, there also is a related possibility:

- 7.Ne5 0-0 8.b3!? (when 8...Qe7 9.Bb2 b6 transposes to the lines above).

We agree that this is a natural move, and although it is very rare and not tested in high-level encounters, it deserved a mention. An author should not only look at what has been played by strong players but also scan the position for other 'normal looking moves', trying to foresee what his readers may wonder at.

The anonymous reader concludes that in order to have a consistent repertoire against all of White's various combinations of b3 and Ne5, it's necessary to play ...b6 lines against all of them. I disagree with that conclusion. A completely ...b6 based solution is certainly possible, and fully recommended if you trust your analysis after 7.b3 Qe7 8.Ne5 0-0 9.Bb2 b6!? 10.cxd5 exd5. However, this line is based on untested analysis and it's also possible to meet each of the three lines with a specific reply, even if only one of them involves an early ...b6:
a) 7.b3 Qe7 8.Bb2 b6 9.Ne5 Bb7! which has for a long time been considered fine for Black.
b) 7.b3 Qe7 8.Ne5 0-0 9.Bb2 Nbd7!? planning ...a5 (as Moskalenko does).
c) 7.Ne5 0-0 8.b3 Nbd7(!), securing an edge in development and planning ...dxc4 followed ...e5.

As a matter of fact, even if I am tempted to go for the ...b6 solutions, against line c) I would seriously consider 8...Nbd7 as it seems strategically simpler.

Lessons to be learned

• Being 'too consistent' - trying to transpose whenever possible - may cost you some advantageous options.


• Transpositions rarely are just transpositions; normally there is a trade of options. You stop some options and allow others.

Markovic' Defence

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: 2.Nc3!?

B: 2.d4 Na6 3.c4

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

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

E: 3.Nc3! Nc7 4.Bd3

F: 3.Nc3! Nc7 4.Nf3!

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

Size Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Smallest Repertoire

How small can a functional repertoire be?
Some of us are busy or lazy enough to look for opening repertoires that require as little learning and maintenance as possible. But how much (or little?) knowledge is the actual minimum? There probably is a correct answer somewhere but it's constantly changing as opening theory is developing. If you only consider the amount of available GM-praxis you can reach "a playable middlegame" with very little preparation. One solution could be this:

• Black versus 1.d4: 1...c6 2.c4 b5 - a system occasionally employed by GM Rogers.
• Black versus 1.e4: 1...c6 2.d4 Na6 (or 2...b5?!) - a system occasionally employed by GM Miles.
• White: 1.e3, hoping for 1...e5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Qh5 - the Mexican Attack which has a certain surprise value.

The main problem with an approach like this is that you will rarely get an advantage with White and will have to struggle for some time with Black. It must also be said that you give your opponent so much freedom to choose his preferred set-up that you can hardly expect to be playing the game on your home ground. If you are looking for "+=" with White and "=" or "unclear" with Black you will have to devote slightly more time to your preparations.
So if you are looking for an easy solution, these are my recommendations:

White:
Here we either are looking for an opening starting 1.d4 or 1.e4 but deviating on the second move (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4!? / 1...Nf6 2.Bf4 are my personal favorites) or an alternative first move which still restricts Black's choice - possibly the King's Indian Attack: 1.Nf3 followed by 2.g3, 3.Bg2 and 0-0. A move like 1.b3 or 1.g3 may take your opponent out of the book quite quickly but for yourself to be properly prepared you simply have too many options to consider - not only 1...d5 and 1...e5 followed by different development schemes - but also 1...c5, 1...f5, 1...Nf6 etc.

Black versus 1.d4:
My suggestion here is some variation of the Dutch (1.d4 f5). Possibly it's not a good way to fight for straight equality but chances are good to reach an unclear position. I am not yet decided about which sub-system yet but possibly the Classical is a good candidate.

Black versus 1.e4:
Here my favorite is the Scandinavian (1.e4 d5) . The theory is expanding and actually there now is quite a lot of theory. But the important thing is that Black makes most of the choices and to some extent can decide whether he wants a sharp or a solid game.

Any alternative suggestions?