Veresov Books

Some time ago a reader asked for advise on (Richter-) Veresov books. Unfortunately there is in my opinion no really good book on the Veresov. The dedicated books that I am aware of are:

A Ferocious Opening Repertoire
Author: Lakdawala
Publisher: Everyman 2011
Cyrus Lakdawala is a good writer. I find his style somewhat chatty but for many subjects that fits very well. Unfortunately he was probably not the right author for this subject. Not because it actually was his brother that used to play the Veresov but because Cyrus (possibly in contrast to his brother Jimmy) doesn't seem very interested in exact variations and tactical complications but prefers to discuss strategy and pawn structures.


My assessment: ****

The Veresov: Surprise Your Opponents with the Tricky 2 Nc3!
Author: Davies
Publisher: Everyman 2003
I may have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog but I must admire Davies for the consistent high quality on his products (including his electronic ones). This too is a quite good book although not terribly ambitious. The author offers some sensible advice on how to select a Veresov repertoire but his analytical input seems relatively modest.

My assessment: ****

Richter-Veresov: the Chameleon Chess Repertoire

Authors: Gufeld and Stetsko

Publisher: Thinkers’ Press 1999

This book is an interesting documentation of a struggle between a publisher who really wants to make a good book and a pair of authors who really want to make some fast bucks. The result is uneven and not really good but there are hidden nuggets of gold. Gufeld was a strong player and when pressed he was able to present good analysis.

My assessment: ***

The Veresov Attack

Authors: Smith/Hall

Publisher: Chess Digest 1994

This book is full of inaccuracies and the publisher has attempted to transform a magazine article to a book by adding lots of white space.

My assessment: **

Queen's Pawn: Veresov System
Author: Bellin
Publisher: Batsford 1983
Bellin is  one of my favorite authors, and I really like this old book which combines good prose with well selected analysis and game fragments. Unfortunately it's now so old that it's mainly a collectors' item.





My assessment: *****

Richter Veresov System

Author: J.Adams

Publisher: The Chess Player 1978

In 1978 - before the time of game databases - this was quite a useful book. It contains a lot of well organized games and game fragments (some of them of rather low quality) and hardly any words or analysis.
It should be added that the cover of my copy looks a bit better.



My assessment: **


Scale:
******: Perfect
*****: Very good
****: Good workmanship
***: Worth the money
**: Only for collectors
*: Stay away!

A Silly Little Move

From time to time I add another small chapter to my Veresov manuscript. Whether it will ever become a chess book I have no idea. One deciding factor will be the analytical conclusion of some critical lines. However, occasionally I start looking at moves that really don't belong in a serious chess book. That's when I turn to this blog.

A couple of days ago I started looking at 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.a3?!. (Dia)
The reason I even noticed the possibility was Giddins' very readable 'How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire' in which he mentions the line 4.f4!? e6 5.a3!?, a speciality of British correspondence expert A.M. Steward.

4.a3 appears a silly move but after 4...c5 5.dxc5 it’s not at all clear that Black can win his pawn back. The position arising after 4...e6 5.e4 (5.f4 transposes to Steward's line) 5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Be7 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 (Dia) must be worse for White than similar French lines (Burn and Rubinstein) but may still be somewhat easier to play for White:

a) 9.Qd2 c5 10.Nf3 0–0 11.0–0–0 cxd4 12.Qxd4 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 += Schinzel-Pinkas, Bydgoszcz 1976.
b) 9.Nf3 0–0 10.Qe2 (10.Be2 e5! is at least equal for Black) 10...c5 11.0–0–0 cxd4 12.Rxd4 e5 13.Rd2 Re8 14.Qe3 a6 15.Be2 Qe7 16.Bc4 h6 17.Re1 += Schweber-Quinteros, Villa Martelli 1996.

Whether you find such positions attractive or not is to some extent a matter of taste. From a practical viewpoint it must be taken into account that some black players may dislike them. Quite possibly Black must look into the untested 4...c6 or 4...h6 if he is looking for a more interesting path to equality.

Rubbish? I honestly don't know, but now I can with a clear conscience exclude these lines from my manuscript!

Confusing Names

With double rounds for the first three days, there is not much time for preparation against a specific opponent. But for the morning rounds (3 and 5) there is in principle possible to do a quite thorough check of your opponents games and try to guess what will be the battle ground. However, for this game I was very partially prepared for a quite peculiar reason: There are two Indian IMs of roughly the same strength, one named Roy Saptarshi and one named Roy Chowdhury Saptarshi. Both play BCC Thailand Open and I assumed they were brothers. The first player (without Chowdhury) has no games in Megabase 2009, the second has 219. I assumed that the two players had gotten merged into one by Chessbase staff and looked for a way to guess what games might have been played by my opponent. I found that there were quite a number of Veresov games and in lack of anything more useful assumed that my opponent (possibly the younger brother) was the one playing this rather rare opening. So my only preparation was for the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Bf5(!) 3.f3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.Nxd5!?. Of course this proved quite useless.

Roy Saptarshi - Sv.Johnsen
BCC Thailand Open (5)

1.e4
There went my preparation - wrong player?
1...c6
This I have not played in a tournament game for 20 years, but I have an interesting line against the Advance variation.
2.d4 d5 3.f3!?
The Fantasy variation. It doesn’t look particularly threatening but can lead to quite complicated play.
3...e6
Had I had any idea that this position might appear on the board I probably would have had a look at 3...e5?! which I enjoy playing in blitz (but probably is unsound) and 3...Qb6!? (which I think may be underestimated).
4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bf4 Nf6 6.Qd3 Qa5!?
This more or less obliges me to give up my dark-squared bishop for a knight. Two more popular continuations are:
a) 6...b6 7.Nge2 Ba6 8.Qe3 0–0 9.0–0–0 Nbd7 10.g4 Rc8 11.Ng3 Bxf1 12.Rhxf1 b5 13.Kb1 Qb6 14.Nce2 Qb7 15.Bg5 Kh8 16.e5 Ng8 17.f4 += Prusikin-Brunner, Switzerland 2008.
b) 6...0–0 7.Nge2 (7.0–0–0 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 dxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4 10.Qe1 f5 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.h3 a5 13.Bd3 Ndf6 14.Be5 a4 unclear Winants-Fridman, Netherlands 2005) 7...c5 8.0–0–0 c4 9.Qe3 b5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.e5 Ng4 12.fxg4 Bxg5 13.Nf4 f6 =+ Kurmann-Pavlovic, Biel 2006.
7.Nge2
7.Bd2 b6 8.Qe3 dxe4 9.fxe4 e5 10.Nf3 exd4 11.Qxd4 Qc5 12.Qxc5 Bxc5 13.e5 was a little better for White in Gofshtein-Bruk, Israel 2002.
7...b6
In an earlier my opponent (or his namesake) faced 7...c5 8.0–0–0 dxe4 9.fxe4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 0–0 and after 11.Nb3 Qb6 12.Nb5 Na6 13.Be3 Nc5 14.Qe2 Bd7 15.N5d4 Rac8 16.Qf3 Ncxe4 17.Bd3 Nc5 Black was clearly better in Roy Chowdhury-Al Sayed, Port Erin 2006.
8.Bd2
Or 8.a3 Ba6 9.Qe3 0–0 (after 9...c5 10.0–0–0 Bxe2? 11.Nxe2 White was practically winning in S.Gabrielsen-T.Eriksen, Asker 2000) 10.g4 Be7 11.g5 Nfd7 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Kf2 Nc6 with unclear play in Boulard-Dumitrache, Sautron 2001.
8...Ba6 9.Qe3 dxe4 10.fxe4 0–0
It seems 10...e5 is too early: 11.0–0–0 Bc4 12.Kb1 exd4 13.Nxd4 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Qxa2+ 15.Kc1 += Permuy Lorenzo-Miguel Lago, Mondariz 1995.
11.a3 c5
This seems better than 11...e5, e.g. 12.dxe5 Ng4 13.Qg3 Nxe5 14.Ra2! Bd6 15.b4 +- Carmeille-Bastian, Germany 2006.
12.0–0–0 (D)

12...cxd4
I considered 12...Bxa3 but stopped my calculations after 13.bxa3 (13.e5 is critical too) 13...Qxa3+ 14.Kb1 Qb4+ 15.Ka1 Qa3+ (Rybka prefers 15...Nc6 with roughly equal chances) 16.Na2 which not only stops the checks but also threatens a queen exchange. However, Rybka quite likes Black's position after 16...Qa4 with 17.e5 Ng4 18.Qf4 Qxc2 as a kind of main line. 13.Nxd4 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 Qa4 15.Bd3 Bxd3 16.cxd3 Nbd7 17.Kb1 Rac8 18.Rc1 Rfd8 19.Rhf1 Ne5 20.h3
My opponent told me he had spent quite a lot of time calculating 20.Nxe6 Rxd3 21.Bxe5 (21.Qg5 fxe6 22.Qxe5 Qxe4 is nothing for White) 21...Rxe3 22.Rxc8+ Ne8 23.Nxg7 but stopped when he saw 23...Qxe4+ followed by 24...Qxe5.
20...Qa6 21.Rfd1 (D)
Now 21.Nxe6 fails to the simple 21...Rxc3 22.Rxc3 fxe6.
21...Nxd3??
After 21...Qa4 a quite reasonable continuation is 22.Rf1 Qa6 23.Rfd1. My opponent almost certainly would not have played this and indicated in a brief post mortem that he had planned 22.g4, but then 22...Rxc3! 23.bxc3 Rxd4! 24.Qxd4 Qb3 is a perpetual.
22.Qxd3! Qxd3+ 23.Rxd3 e5
23...Nxe4 is a little better but completely hopeless.
24.Nf5! 1–0
I had missed the simple fork on e7. 24.Nc6! wins just as easily.

After the game a friendly Indian IM explained me a bit more about Indian names and about this particular name confusion. It turned out that the first names (Roy and Roy Chowdhury respectively) are the family names, and the last (Saptarshi) is the given name. The two players are not related but quite happy to be mixed up by Chessbase.

A Veresov Idea

I have a framework for a book on the Veresov opening. Most of the chapters and sub-chapters are almost empty and will remain so until I start serious work on the opening. And that will only happen when I stumble over something promising against 3...Nbd7 and a few other challenging lines. The game below was interesting but I doubt it will be 4.Qd3 that makes me take up the Veresov again.

Vaganian-Adamski, Copenhagen 2006
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3
I read somewhere that Vaganian has made a habit of playing the Veresov once a tournament. It seems he still does.
2...Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3!? (Dia)

This isn't how my first chess coach taught me to play the opening. Nevertheless this move has been played by some strong GMs and prepares e4. I have tested it in a few blitz games and I often am annoyed that it is hard to employ my light-squared bishop anywhere more active than on e2.

In order to keep your repertoire consistent it is natural to combine this line with the related 3...c6 4.Qd3.
4...c5!?
The other critical move is 4...h6 when 5.Bf4!? seems more promising than 5.Bh4. Against quieter moves I believe White can reasonably expect an advantage (although a minor one).
5.0–0–0!?
Can this really be the move that saves the Veresov? White's most popular move has been 5.Bxf6 but I find it hard to believe that giving up the bishop-pair for so little visible compensation can promise any advantage. A more likely candidate is 5.e4 but it doesn't seem to give any edge either.
5...cxd4
It seems logical to make White's queen move again. After 5...e6 two recent games continued:
a) 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.Qxd4 h6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.e4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 dxe4 11.Ndb5 Kd8 12.Nxe4 a6 13.Nbd6 Bxd6 14.Nxd6 Ke7 15.g3 += Sirin-Swiercz, Gaziantep 2008.
b) 6.e4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qa5 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Kb1 f5 10.Nxc5 Nxc5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.f4 0–0 13.Nf3 Be7 14.g4!? Barhudarian-Eidelson, St Petersburg 2007.
6.Qxd4 e5
After 6...e6 7.e4 these are relatively recent encounters:
a) 7...dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qa5? 9.Bxf6 gxf6?! (9...e5 offers more resistance) 10.Nxf6+ Nxf6 11.Qxf6 Rg8 12.Bb5+ 1–0 Hector-Kirkegaard, Copenhagen 2006.
b) 7...Bc5 8.Qd3 d4 9.Na4 b6 10.f4 Qc7 11.e5 Nd5 12.Nf3 h6 13.Bh4 Bb7 14.Nxd4 Nxf4 15.Qd2 (15.Qc3) 15...Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Nd5 (16...g5) 17.Bg3 0–0 18.Bd3 Rfc8 =+ Andrzejewska-Koziak, Koszalin 2005.
7.Qa4 d4 8.Nd5 (Dia)
This position reminds of the one arising after 4.f3?! c5 5.e4 cxd4 6.Qxd4 e5 7.Qa4 which I used to play quite frequently a dozen years ago. In that line White has one more move (f3+e4 instead of 0-0-0) as his queen got to d4 in one move. However, as we shall see the two pawn moves may be irrelevant.
7...Be7
It looks normal to break the pin. The alternatives are:
a) 8...Bd6 probably should be met by the immediate 9.f4.
b) Rybka likes 8...b5!? 9.Qxb5 Rb8 which gives Black a lot of play for the pawn.
9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.f4!
This is White's idea, undermining Black's pawn centre.
10...0–0 11.fxe5
11.Nf3 too is interesting.
11...Nxe5 12.Nf3
12.Qxd4 Bf5 13.Nf3 Neg4 14.Qf4 Bxc2!? 15.Kxc2 Rfc8+ 16.Kb1 Nf2 is very unclear.
12...Nc6 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 (Dia)

With opposite castling the position is very hard to assess but it seems to me that White must be somewhat better. However, I am not sure I would be happy to play the white pieces in a practical game.
14...Bf5 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.e4 Rfd8 17.Qe3 Rxd1+ 18.Kxd1 Qxe4?!
With the queens off White's better pawn structure must count for something. I would have been more worried about 18...Qe6.
19.Qxe4 Bxe4 20.Bd3 Rd8 21.Ke2 Bxd3+ 22.cxd3
This position too is hard to evaluate but the only question is how large White's advantage is. His passed pawn may well be decisive.
22...Kg7 23.Rc1 Rd7 24.Rc5 Kg6 25.g4 b6 26.Rb5 Rd4 27.h3 Ra4 28.a3 Ra5 29.Rxa5 bxa5 30.Ke3 f5 31.Kf4 fxg4 32.hxg4 Kf6 33.a4 h6 34.d4 Ke6 35.Ke4 Kd6 36.d5 f6 37.Kd4 a6 38.b3 Kd7 39.Kc5 f5 40.gxf5 h5 41.Kd4 h4 42.Ke4 h3 43.Kf3 1–0

Missing the Veresov

Opening preferences are not only a matter of analysis and preparations. At least for some of us personal preferences, practical considerations and even nostalgia come into consideration. For roughly ten years I almost exclusively played the Veresov Opening (1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 or 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5) (Dia) with White.











Initially it worked great, and indeed there is a lot to be said in its favour:

• White develops quickly and avoids any weakening pawn moves.
• It has a certain surprise value and is somewhat underestimated by theory.
• Play is often sharp with opposite castling.
  
• The move-orders 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 and 1...d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 are equally valid - making it an almost universal system.

However, I finally had to give it up. The main reasons were:

• Thanks to ChessBase all my opponents started spending their evening before the game preparing for the Veresov and most of the surprise value was lost.

• I started facing theoretical problems in several lines simultaneously and had no time to do the necessary repair between tournaments.

• There were no top players employing the opening regularly, so the supply of high-level ideas were too small.
• The good literature on the opening started to date and the new works were of low quality.

After I gave the Veresov up the situation has improved slightly with Miladinovic and Morozevich playing the opening relatively frequently (there are always some GMs employing it as a surprise weapon but their contributions are usually of a more practical than theoretical nature). There also appeared a book by Nigel Davies - 'The Veresov: Surprise Your Opponents with the Tricky 2 Nc3!' which contained quite a few interesting ideas. I will not say that it's a great book but it's well written and generally it's very decent workmanship as one has come to expect from Davies.

Yet I have not taken up the Veresov again. The main reason is that I have not found a line I am happy with after 3...Nbd7. It's really surprising that such a modest move should prove such a challenge. I used to play 4.f3 but have completely lost faith in that line. I also have experimented with 4.Qd2 which generally leads to the same kind of positions as 4.f3 and which 4.Qd3 which actually may give White a minimal advantage. Even 4.e4 I review from time to time. However, after reading Davies' book the move which interests me the most is 4.e3!?, planning a Stonewall set-up with f4, Nf3 and 0-0 against most of Black's replies. There is, however, one major problem: after the modest-looking 4...e6, Davies' suggestion 5.Qf3 seems to lead White into a difficult position after 5...Bb4 (Dia).

Eric Prie has something to say about this in his May column at Chess Publishing.

So I am still looking for something promising for White after 3...Nbd7. In the meantime I will improve my London-files in preparation for Bangkok Chess Club Open.

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!