Top 10 Chess Variants

Our beloved chess game has evolved through roughly 1500 years and is now an extremely playable game. It owes its playability to many different factors. In my opinion two of the most important are:

• the stabilizing power of the pawns which sometimes allows very long-term strategical planning.
  

• the unlikely similarity in strength of knights and bishops which sometimes may demand an extremely careful evaluation of the position.
  

But although our game is the end result of a long evolutionary process it's not the only viable chess game. Here are my top rankings. With one exception the links lead to the Chess Variants home page which offers rules and a short introduction. However, also Wikipedia's Chess Variant Pages are quite good.

1. Shogi
   This is the Japanese version of chess and to me it appears a just as good game as what we normally call chess, but which I in this entry will refer to as IC (International Chess). The main difference from IC is that when you capture an enemy piece, it joins your army and you can put it back onto the board again instead of moving one of your "on-board" pieces.
2. Bughouse
   Also known as Tandem chess, this variant is basically a team chess game. You are sure to have seen it if you have attended a week-end tournament with young participants.
3. Ultima
   As a student I used to enjoy a version of this game, called Australian Chess. It has relatively little to do with IC and gives me futuristic associations - the high-tech variation of chess.
4. Xiangqi
   This is the traditional Chinese chess. It's played on a special 9x10 board but with some difficulty it's possible to use the corners of an IC board. Usually the games are highly tactical as pieces are not as hindered by pawns as in IC.
5. Fischer Random
   This is also known as Fischer 960 and according to some players the future of IC. The only difference between this version and IC is that the games start with random piece configurations on the back rank. The main advantage of the FR is that opening theory has not yet developed (to automatically assume that it will never develop seems a bit naive).
   In my experience from various internet chess servers it appears that most piece configurations are roughly as playable as normal chess but a few tend to lead to rapid exchanges while others seem to give White a greater advantage than traditional chess.
6. Crazyhouse
   I consider this game a cross between IC and Shogi. It's played on a IC board with IC pieces but captured enemy pieces join your army and can be placed on the board For practical reasons this game is mainly played online - with a chess engine changing the colour of captured pieces). I plan to design and produce a set of flat Crazyhouse pieces which are white on one side and black on the other but I would like them to look really nice, so I don't know when I will find the time.
7. Suicide Chess
   This is also a popular chess variant to be seen at tournaments with young players passing time between rounds. Besides the obvious charm of reversing the aim of the game (you try to lose pieces rather than winning them), it's also a fascinating game because it's possible to calculate extremely long, forcing lines.
   There also is a version of this game called Losing Chess which I have never liked. The difference is mainly that the king cannot be captured and the objective is to lose all your pieces OR to be checkmated. To me this version appears to be a compromise between IC and Suicide - possibly introduced by an incompetent or lazy programmer.
8. Progressive Chess
   In this variant White first makes one move; Black makes two, White three, Black four etc. Unlike most variants it can probably be a good training tool for visualization and mating patterns. There are amazingly many nice mates from roughly Black's 2nd move (4 consecutive moves) to White's 4th move (7 consecutive moves).
9. Kriegspiel
   This is another chess variant I used to play a lot as a student - usually through most of the night as it's quite time consuming if you allow the players time to really ponder their moves. In addition to the two players you need a referee. This may be quite hard to find but there actually are those who enjoy this role even more than playing the game themselves.
10. Kung Fu Chess
    This is the real-time version of chess. You don't have to wait for your opponent's move - just keep your pieces flowing. This requires quite a lot of physical skill and I must admit that I have always been exceptionally inept at this game.

Honorary Mention
Shatranj
This chess version is quite close to the original Indian chess - Chaturanga. I find the game a bit too slow to be really engaging but in a future blog I will probably return to the Thai version of the game which actually is quite close to the Indian original.

Another London Question

I have not had much time for this blog during the last month but my next couple of months look a little less busy. Anyway, it's now long overdue to return to the London questions that I took up in my entry of September 26.

Q2: After 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Bf5 (Dia) you give two moves for White, 5.Nf3 and 5.Qb3, but what's wrong with 5.dxc5?

A2: 4...Bf5?! is a very rare move; it has only been played in three games. That should have been reason enough for us to suspect that it might be quite a poor move. And it indeed seems that the closest White comes to a refutation of 4...Bf5 is to accept the pawn with your suggestion 5.dxc5! (and not our routine move 5.Qb3 which only seems sufficient for a very small plus). There are lines where Black gets a nice centre for the pawn and murky lines like 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 Ne4!? 7.b4 g5!? 8.Nxg5 Nxg5 9.Bxg5 Bg7 10.Bb5 but sufficient compensation is nowhere to be seen.

I no longer have any idea why we missed this rather obvious pawn win. The obvious explanation is the fact that humans are so used to see hanging c-pawns (e.g. in the Queen's Gambit) which are only indirectly defended that we become blind to the possibility of capturing them and hanging on to them. However, this isn't a really satisfactory explanation as we used chess programs extensively to check our analysis. And even if the pawn win isn't immediately obvious to the human eye, there is no computer program that will miss it. In theory it should be possible to trace the correspondence between me and mr. Kovacevic and the ChessBase files we exchanged and establish who did the original analysis of this line and whether there were any discussion about the line. But as I see it that would be rather tedious and quite pointless research.

As a consequence of the above conclusion, the lines given with 5.Nf3 appear rather meaningless and should instead have been discussed under the more popular move-order 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.Nf3 Bf5 5.c3 and now Black has either 5...Nc6 - which leads to a well known position - or the popular mistake 5...e6? which might well have deserved a diagram in the book and will get one here: (Dia)

According to MegaBase 2007 this position has occurred in no less than 33 games but only in ten of them White has found the tactical stroke 6.Bxb8!. Now 6...Qxb8! 7.Bb5+ Kd8 allows Black to fight on in a bad position, and in Zimmer-Mosthaf, Hassloch 1997 Black actually won a quite weakly played game.

However, probably in shock, Black more frequently has continued 6...Rxb8? 7.Bb5+ Ke7 8.dxc5 after which he with some justification already could resign.

A Double Mengarini, Please

The Mengarini Opening to some extent is an attempt to turn the tables in the opening struggle. It comes in at least three different versions:

• 1.e4 e5 2.a3
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.a3
• 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.a3
  

Against each of these move-orders Black can resolutely turn the table back again with the reply ...a6. Instinctively one would think that these extra moves - which mainly appears to have defensive qualities - would favor Black who by nature is the defending part. However it's not that clear in practice. Actually it turns out to be quite hard to figure out how the extra moves influence the resulting double king-pawn positions:

1.e4 e5 2.a3 a6 (Dia)

3.Nf3

a) Sadly 3.f4!? with a Pseudo King's Gambit seems untested.

b) 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 would transpose but the Vienna style moves 4.Bc4 or 4.f4!? may be worth a try.

c) 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qe3 d6 looks like a slight improvement over the well-known 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 line of the Centre Game. However, in Hofstetter-S.Mueller, Kahl 1996 chances were equal after 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bd2 Be7 8.Bc4 Be6 9.Nd5 0–0 10.Ne2 Ne5 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.Bxe6 fxe6.

3...Nc6 4.Nc3

a) 4.Bc4 b5 5.Ba2 Nf6 6.Ng5 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke6 10.Nc3 Nce7 11.d4 Qd6? (11...Bb7) and in Vasic-Ristovski, Portoroz 2003 White could have obtained a winning position with 12.Ne4.

b) 4.d4 exd4 and now:

b1) I really don't understand why nobody has tried 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5. In this line it's quite likely that Black's ...a6 will be to his disadvantage, as he after 7...Qe7 8.Qe2 doesn't have the sharp option ...Ba6.

b2) 5.c3 dxc3 6.Bc4 d6 7.0–0 Bg4 8.Qb3 Qd7 9.Ng5 (after 9.Bxf7+ Qxf7 10.Qxb7 Kd7 11.Qxa8 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qxf3 Black at least has a perpetual check) 9...Bh5 10.Bxf7+ Bxf7 11.Nxf7 Na5 12.Qxc3 Qxf7 13.Qxa5 and White had a clear advantage in Zagrapan-Ilkovics, Slovakia 1998.

4...Nf6 (Dia)

One of the strengths as well as the limitations of the Three Knights Opening is the fact that it reduces the active options for both sides. With a3 and a6 eliminating all lines with Bb5 and ...Bb4 this becomes even more pronounced. 4...Bc5?! is met strongly by 5.Nxe5!

5.d4

5.g3 Nxe4?! is yet another version of the Halloween Gambit. I cannot even guess if the extra a-pawn moves favor any of the sides but a sensible solution is as usual to return the piece with 6.Nxe4 d5 7.Nc3 d4 8.Bg2 dxc3 9.bxc3 which would be a well-known theoretical position if it weren't for these extra a-pawn moves. But maybe the entire gambit is silly as Black after 8.Ne2 the doesn't have option of ...d3 followed by ...Nb4.

5...exd4 6.Nxd4 (Dia)

6...Bc5

a) 6...Nxd4 7.Qxd4 simply gives White the freer game and slightly the better chances, e.g: 7...d6 8.Be2 Be7 9.0–0 0–0 10.Bf4 Be6 11.Rad1 += Bucher-Knaus, Switzerland 2006.

b) 6...g6 7.Bg5 (7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Qe7 9.Qe2 Nd5 10.Ne4 Bg7 11.c4 +=) 7...h6 8.Bh4 Bg7?? (8...d6 9.Bxf6!? Qxf6 10.Nd5 Qxd4 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Nxa8 Qxe4+ 13.Qe2) 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5+- Gunsberg-Zukertort, London 1887.

c) 6...d6 7.f3 (7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bc4 Be7 9.0–0 +=) 7...g6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.Qd2 Qe7 10.0–0–0 Be6 11.g4 += Nanu-Chirpii, Eforie Nord 1999.

d) 6...d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bc4 Qe7+ 10.Ne2 Qe4 11.Bxd5 Qxd5 (11...cxd5 12.0–0 +=) 12.0–0 Bd6 13.Bf4 += Bhend-Mottas, Pizol 1997.

7.Nxc6

a) After 7.Nb3 Ba7 only Black has any use of the extra a-pawn moves.

b) 7.Be3 may well be best.

b1) Instinctively 7...Bb6 looks less compact with the pawn on a6.

b2) After 7...Ba7 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bxa7 Rxa7 Black's rook looks a little silly.

b3) 7...Nxd4 8.Bxd4 looks more comfortable for White: 8...Qe7 (after 8...Bxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.0–0–0 0–0 11.e5 Ng4 12.f4 Qh4 13.exd6 cxd6 14.g3 Qh5 15.h3 White was clearly better in Eichner-Feldmann, Germany 2006) 9.Be2 d6 10.Bxc5 dxc5 11.0–0 0–0 12.Qd3 += Pirttimaki-Nippula, Finland 1993.

7...bxc6 8.e5

This must be better than 8.Bc4 d6 9.h3 h6 10.0–0 0–0 = of E.Reppen-Garcia Serrano, Copenhagen 2004.

8...Qe7 9.Qe2 Nd5 10.Ne4 (Dia)

10...0–0?!

10...Bd4!? 11.f4 f5 12.c3 Ba7 is better and at first glance unclear.

11.c4 Nb6 12.Bg5

White's opening has been a success - White is at least somewhat better, Braeuning-X.Garcia, Barcelona 1997.

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

A 1.a3 Mystery

BigBase 2007 offers this mysterious game:

R.Piepjohn (1920) - G.Sax (2600), Naestved 1988

1.a3!?

Grandmasters are usually quite aware that they have to fight for every point - even against modest opposition. However, if Black in any way was inclined to underestimate his lowly rated opponent this move may have been a clever choice.
1...c5!? (Dia)
This seems a very sensible reaction to White's first move. Now the opening can be considered a reversed English.
2.g3

We will have a look at White's alternatives at the end of this entry.

2...g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.d3 d6

Black has also tried 4...Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.0–0 0–0 which looks fairly equal. Here White may have been a tad too optimistic when he initiated a kingside attack with 8.Nh4 e5 9.f4 exf4 10.gxf4 d5 11.f5. After 11...d4 12.Na4 Ng4 13.Qe1 Bf6 14.Nf3 Qe7 15.fxg6 hxg6 16.c4 Bf5 17.Rb1 Rae8 it was obvious that Black was better in Huettig-Klundt, Ditzingen 2000.

5.Nd2 Nc6 6.e3 e5 7.Rb1 a5 8.b3

Obviously White's success in this game was not directly related to his opening play.

8...Nge7 9.Ne2 0–0 10.0–0 Be6 (Dia)

The opening phase is more or less over, and despite Black's slight space advantage, the position looks roughly equal.

11.h3 Qd7 12.Kh2 f5 13.c4 g5 14.f4 g4 15.h4 Rad8 16.Qc2 b6 17.Bb2 Bf7 18.Rbd1 d5!?

This opens up the position somewhat but not really to Black's advantage.

19.fxe5 Nxe5 20.d4 cxd4 21.Bxd4 Qc7 22.c5 b5 23.Nc3 Be8 24.a4 b4 25.Ne2 N7g6 (Dia)

The position has become quite unbalanced. Now the armies engage in close combat and surprisingly it's the GM who fails in the calculation test.

26.Rxf5 Nxh4?!

Probably 26...Rxf5 27.Qxf5 Nxh4 is better. After 28.Bxe5 Qxe5 29.Qxe5 Bxe5 there are some long forcing lines and one of them goes 30.Nc4 Nxg2 31.Nxe5 Nxe3 32.Rd3 Nc2 33.Nxg4 d4 34.Nf6+ Kh8 35.Nxe8 Rxe8 36.Nxd4 Rd8 37.c6 Nxd4 38.c7 Rc8 39.Rxd4 Rxc7 =.

27.Rxf8+ Bxf8 28.Nf4 Nxg2 29.Kxg2 Qe7

Possibly 29...Bf7 planning to meet 30.Qf5 with 30...Re8 is better.

30.Qf5

Now White's advantage is obvious.

30...Bg7 31.Qe6+ Qf7?

After 31...Kf8 32.h4 White is objectively winning but there is still a fight and the 680 rating points might still have influenced the result.

32.Bxe5 1–0

It would indeed be a nice story if "super GM" Sax lost to an unknown amateur who opened the game 1.a3. At this time Sax was close to his peak as a player. So who was Reinhardt Piepjohn who so easily matched him? BigBase 2007 has only this single game by him and claims that it was played in the ninth and last round on October 4. But something isn't quite right as the tournament seems to have been played July 30th to August 7th as this Danish site shows. The tournament rating favorite Sax didn't do too badly and ended well ahead of Piepjohn. Can it be that the round number as well as the result is wrong? Or was Black a different player? Any information is appreciated!

And now let's return to some alternatives to 2.g3:

1.a3 c5 2.b4!? (Dia)

This looks logical and strong as White will now get a numerical superiority in the centre. However, I remember seeing 1...c5 recommended as a good antidote to 1.b4 and I don't believe 2.a3 is White's best try in that position. Other options are:

a) 2.Nf3 is a flexible and good move but I have not really found any lines that make sense of White's first move.

b) 2.e4 leads to an Anti-Sicilian line which has recently gotten quite a lot of attention. The main source of information is no doubt 'Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3!?' - a 206 pages work by Alexei Bezgodov. However, for historical information you should also read Hans Ree's article for 'The Chess Cafe'. I assume that if you want to reach this position, 1.e4 is your best bet.

c) 2.c4 too makes sense as queenside expansion with a3, Rb1 and b4 is a common plan for White in the symmetrical English. Here are two game fragments that actually started with our move-order.

c1) 2...Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 e6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.d4 c4 unclear Andrejic-Andrijevic, Obrenovac 2004.

c2) 2...g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Ra2 d6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.e3 0–0 7.Be2 Nc6 8.b5 Na5 unclear Ambrus-Balashov, St Petersburg 2001.

d) 2.d3 doesn't have much independent significance compared to 2.Nf3 or 2.g3. After 2...d5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nbd2 Nf6 5.e4 Bg4 6.Be2 Qc7 7.c3 Rd8 8.Qc2 e6 9.0–0 Be7 chances were balanced in Markus-Buljovcic, Subotica 2001.

e) 2.e3 too is relatively non-descript. One example is 2...b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.d4 e6 5.Be2 Nf6 6.0–0 Be7 7.b3 0–0 8.Bb2 cxd4 9.exd4 Nc6 with equal chances in Z.Markovic-Perunovic, Novi Sad 2000.

2...cxb4!?

This strengthens White's central influence and opens the a-file for his rook. Still it is probably critical as it exposes White's b-pawn to attack.

a) 2...e6 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.bxc5 Bxc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nf3 0–0 7.c4 d5 8.d4 Bd6 9.Nbd2 Qe7 10.Be2 e5 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Ne4 exd4 13.Nxd6 Qxd6 14.Nxd4 += Kulicov-Stiri, Athens 2006.

b) 2...e5 3.Bb2 (3.bxc5 Bxc5 4.Bb2?? Qb6 –+ Monastyrev-V.Karpov, Tomsk 1999) 3...e4 4.e3 Nf6 5.bxc5 Bxc5 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Nc3 Qe5 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.Nge2 b6 10.Bd5 f5 11.0–0 Bd6 12.Ng3 Ba6 13.f4 Qf6 unclear Ermenkov-Adorjan, Riga 1981.

3.axb4 Qb6 (Dia)

4.Nc3!?

White cannot expect any advantage after 4.c3 or the strange looking 4.Ra4 d5 5.Nc3 e6 6.e3 Nf6 (6...Bxb4? 7.Bb5+ +-) 7.Nf3 Bd6 8.Nb5 Be7 9.Bb2 Nc6 10.Ne5 0–0 = Bettman-Wirschell, Soest 2000.

4...Qxb4!?

This is untested but must be critical. The sensible 4...e6 5.b5 d5 6.e3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Bd6 8.Bb2 Nbd7 9.Be2 0–0 10.0–0 e5 11.Ba3 Bxa3 12.Rxa3 Re8 lead to roughly equal chances in Frank-Bokelbrink, Pinneberg 2002.

It's not at all easy to give a meaningful continuation from here but it seems obvious that White's superior development gives him some play for the pawn. One almost absurd line goes:

5.e4 Qb6 (Dia)

6.Bc4 Nf6!?

7...e6 looks safer.

7.e5 Qc6

Could 7...d5 8.Bb5+ Nfd7 9.Nxd5 Qd4 really be better? 10.Nc7+ Kd8 11.Nxa8 Qxe5+ 12.Ne2 Qxa1 13.0–0 isn't too convincing.

8.d3 Ng4!

8...a6 9.exf6 b5 10.fxe7 Bxe7 11.Nd5 bxc4 12.Nxe7 Qe6+ 13.Ne2 Qxe7 14.Ba3 looks winning for White.

9.Qxg4 d5

...and it seems like Black survives.

Attacking Repertoire for Black is Cancelled

It's often hard to know exactly how reliable published information is - in particular if the publishing medium is the Internet. However, when the German chess book retailer Niggemann informs that Collins' book 'An Attacking Repertoire for Black' has been canceled, I assume they have a reliable source - most likely the publisher Batsford/Anova.

Although it came as no great surprise (see my blog entry of May 31), it's really a pity that the book probably never will materialize. It's a great title; a subject that's likely to interest a lot of club players; and it promised to discuss some really interesting subjects.

In particular I was eager to see Collins' ideas on the Stonewall versus 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. It would be a great selling point for a book on the Stonewall if it offered a complete answer to the Closed games. The subject hasn't received a lot of attention in sources that I have access to. Actually the only systematic treatment I could find was an old article in a Spanish language magazine and some analysis from White's point of view in Khalifman's 'Opening for White According to Kramnik'.

There of course still is the possibility that the book will appear by another publisher, but that would most likely delay the publishing date too much for me to include it as a reference for my upcoming Stonewall book.

London Questions

In a comment from an anonymous reader I have received 4 very relevant analytical questions to "Win with the London System".

I will in some entries try to answer them in one way or another. Due to two circumstances not all my answers will be very analytically illuminating:

1. I have a contract with Gambit Publishing which does not permit me to publish any kind of update of the London book. This clause, of course, is subject to interpretations and I don't think it means I am not allowed to publish any kind of analysis on the London System. However, I will be particularly careful now when a German translation of the book is due to arrive soon.
2. The main analyst in the London book was Vlado Kovacevic. If there ever will be an update of the book (I certainly hope so) I will consult him or another London expert in order to improve the analytical quality. In the meantime I must do with my own limited resources.

Q 1: After 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 3.c4 c6 4.e3 e6 you recommend 5.Nc3, but what's wrong with delaying Nc3, in favor of 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.c5 Qxb3 7.axb3 Nd7 8.b4 a6 9.Nd2 with the idea 9... Rc8 10.Nb3 Be7 11.Na5

A: There definitely isn't anything wrong with 5.Qb3. Our choice of 5.Nc3 was mainly because that move had been preferred by more and stronger players and because it after 5...Nf6 would lead to positions that White hardly can avoid anyway.
I have not really been able to determine which of the two moves is the strongest. Below follow some lines which should only be the starting point of an debate.

I will start from the position after 5.Qb3 Qb6 6.c5 Qxb3 7.axb3:
(even if 5...Qc8 really should be taken into consideration too)

7...Nd7
I think you are right to consider this the critical move. 7...Bxb1 8.Rxb1 Nd7 9.b4 a6 of Bistric-Velikov, Rijeka 2001 must be somewhat better for White.

8.b4!?
I am not sure whether this is better than 8.Nc3 (which gives up the Nd2-b3-a5 plan) or 8.Nf3 (which after 8...Nf6 would lead to known positions), but it can be argued that it's White's most consistent course and therefore should be investigated first.

8...Ngf6!
I believe this must be stronger than 8...a6 9.Nd2, planning 10.Nb3 which should be at least somewhat better for White.

9.b5!?
Again this seems the most consistent but 9.Nc3 and 9.h3 are serious alternatives.

9...e5!
There are some interesting complications after 9...Nh5 10.bxc6 bxc6 11.Bc7 Rc8 12.Rxa7 but they seem to favour White, so I assume this must be critical.

10.dxe5 Ne4

How should this position be evaluated? I am not 100% sure, but it seems to me that Black's active pieces should ensure him at least equal play.

So my tentative conclusion is that 5.Qb3 probably is a good move but that White shouldn't try to make it an independent continuation but rather follow up with normal development. And if that is correct it seems sensible to play 5.Nc3 and not force matters before something concrete can be achieved.

I will return to the rest of the questions in due time.

Not Quite Fresh

A closer reading of "Stonewall II" supports my suspicion that this book has had a long production time. The preface mentions the Italian version which obviously came before the German (and the planned but probably canceled Swedish version). However, the clearest hints are a couple of Aagaard's remarks where he refers to the English version of the book which were published in 2001 (and probably written in 2000):

Game 28 (Page 105): "Five years later and a by far stronger player, I must say that today I am less convinced by the advantages of this move."

Game 72 (page 171): "The text move has not been played in any serious game during the last five years, so my annotations from 2000 are still valid".
(my translations)

So my conclusion must be that this book probably was completed some time by the end of 2005. The only indication of a later revision is the preface which is signed by "Jacob Aagaard, Glasgow 2007".

Does this change my generally positive impression of the book?

Well, not that much, actually. A theory book is always best served fresh but it cannot stay up-to-date for very long anyway. It's real worth will always be the ideas and insights it provides - otherwise we would all just be studying databases. And Aagaard's book contains a lot of useful advice for players of most strengths.

The Modern Dutch Stonewall was developed into a mainstream opening by Jussupow, Short, Agdestein and Dolmatov mainly from 1985 to 1995. After that it has had relatively little exposure on the very top level and development has been slow. Finesses are still being discovered but in a mainly strategical opening what was true in 2005 is still mostly true. However, the long production time makes me wonder whether the publishing company, Quality Chess, may have some business problems. Their homepage remains a strange mix of old news and some sporadic recent updates. If that is the case it's a pity because they seemed a worthy challenger on the chess book publishing arena.

Ruy Lopez Review Under Way

I am having some busy days and there will be no substantial entries in this blog for the next week (but possibly some minor ones).

This morning I noted that there in the web pages for the German chess magazine KARL, there now is a review of Marin's "A Spanish Repertoire for Black". It's an excellent book (even if the experimental format doesn't please me) and an excellent review. However, what excites me more is a promised review of my and Leif Johannessen's "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black".

Stonewall II

Monday evening I finally laid my hands on a copy of Aagaard's 'Stonewall II'. I have not had the time to study it any detail yet, but here are some observations and first impressions:

• There are enough verbal annotations to make the book hard to read for non-German readers. In particular this is the case for the long introduction (almost 60 pages).
• As far as I can see, all the games from the first edition are still there - mostly in the same order. One has been moved and one has had the name of a player corrected.
• I have not yet been able to determine to which extent the annotations of the older games have been updated but obviously some new game references have been added.
• There is a list of complete games, but surprisingly the games from the introduction can not be found there.
• There is no complete index of variations, but at the end of each chapter there is a summary of important lines with references to relevant complete games.
• The book seems to be only very lightly updated after 2004. I have so far only found four game references to 2005 games (Pogorelov-Moskalenko, Salou 2005; note to game 10. Feller-Petrisor, Herceg Novi 2005; note to game 10. Mamedjarova-Gleizerov, Abu Dhabi 2005; note to Game 17. Rogers-Jasim, Gibraltar 2005; note to game 67) but no doubt there are some more hidden in the notes.
• It seems that the new games are somewhat better annotated than the older ones, but this is only my first impression.

Compared to the original English edition, there are 17 new games:

Mainline 7.b3
Game 5: Farago-Ulibin, Obervart 2001 (1/2-1/2)
Game 13: Korotylev-Ulibin, Genf 2001 (1/2-1/2)
Game 17: Romanov-Gleizerov, Minsk 1997 (0-1)
Game 20: Agdestein-Straeter, Germany 2001 (1/2-1/2)

Mainline 7.Bf4
Game 29: Hanley-Williams, Port Erin 2001 (1-0)
Game 31: Kahn-Vajda, Hungary Ch 2003 (0-1)
Game 34: Barkhagen-Jussupow, Stockholm 2002 (1/2-1/2)

White's Rare 7th
Game 51: Schandorff-Sandner, Germany 2004 (1-0)
Game 53: Schandorff-L.B. Hansen, Denmark 1997 (1-0)

5.Nh3
Game 58: Dreev-Radjabov, Tallinn 2004 (1/2-1/2)
Game 63: Anand-Schmittdiel, Germany 2004 (1-0)
Game 70: Kempinski-Radjabov, Antalaya 2004 (1/2-1/2)

Lines with an Early e3
Game 83: Cu. Hansen-Hillarp Persson, Copenhagen 2004 (1-0)
Game 85: Sasikiran-Krasenkow, Calvia Ol 2004 (1-0)
Game 89: Bareev-Jussupow, Prague rapid 2002 (0-1)
Game 90:Yakovich-Kharlov, Elista 2001 (0-1)
Game 93: Bareev-Grischuk, Enghien-les-Bains 2001 (0-1)

PS: For the Table of Content see my entry of August 8th.

Addendum:
Another 2005 reference: Lomineischvili-Tereladze, Georgia 2005; note to game 61. I will add more here if I come by anything.

The Zwaig Variation II

There are indications that the critical line in Zwaig's variation (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 f6) may be 8.Bxg8 Rxg8 9.b4!?. Tisdall describes this move as 'too ugly to be true'. But although I cannot claim to understand why, it has been the choice of some of the best prepared players ever to face 7...f6.

9...Nc4 (Dia)

10.Nbd2 Nxd2

10...Nb6!? has been played by a correspondence World Champion and should be taken seriously: 11.Qe2 Be6 12.Rd1 c6 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nc4 Nd7 (14...Qc7 15.Nxb6 Qxb6 16.a3 c5 +=) 15.Nd6+ Bxd6 16.Rxd6 Bc4 17.Qe3 (17.Qd1 Qc7 18.Be3 Nf8 19.a4 may be even stronger) 17...Qc7 18.Rd1 a5 19.Nd2 Be6 20.bxa5 Rxa5?! (20...Kf7! Oim; 20...Qxa5) 21.Qe2 Ke7 22.Nb3 Ra4 23.Be3 += Stern-Oim, corr 1994.

11.Qxd2

11.Bxd2 c6 (11...c5 12.c3 Bg4 13.Re1) 12.c3 Be6 13.Be3 Be7 14.Nd2 (14.a4) 14...a5 15.Qc2 g5?! (15...axb4 16.cxb4 Qd7 17.Nb3 +=) 16.a4 Qb8 17.axb5 Qxb5 18.c4 +- Helmers-O.Moen, Norway 1975.

11...Bb7 12.Re1 Qd7

12...a5 is probably weaker: 13.bxa5 c5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe2 Qxa5 16.Nxe5 0–0–0 (also 16...fxe5 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Qxe5+ Kf7 19.Rd1 is clearly better for White) 17.Nf3 Bd6 18.Bb2 and White's advantage was beyond doubt in T.Ernst-Gausel, Ostersund 1992.

13.Bb2 Be7

Tisdall suggests that 13...0-0-0 is worth consideration.

14.a4 f5 15.axb5 fxe4 16.bxa6

An interesting computer-aided line goes 16.Ng5 Qg4 17.bxa6 Rxa6 18.Rxa6 Qxg2+ 19.Kxg2 e3+ 20.Nf3 exd2 21.Rea1 Bxa6 22.Nxd2 Bb7+ 23.f3 Kd7 24.dxe5 dxe5 with equality.

16...Rxa6! 17.Ng5

17.Rxa6 is met by 17...exf3! planning ...Qg4 with a mating attack.

17...Rxa1 18.Bxa1?

18.Rxa1 Qg4 19.Nh3 Qxg2+ 20.Kxg2 e3+ 21.Kg3 exd2 22.dxe5 h5 23.f4 dxe5 24.Bxe5 g5 –+.

18...Qg4

Black is close to winning already. White has nothing to oppose the light-squared bishop.

19.Nh3 (Dia)

19...Qxg2+!

A nice demonstration of the power of Black's light-square play.

20.Kxg2 e3+ 21.Kg1?!

21.Kf1 may be slightly better but after 21...exd2 22.Rd1 e4 23.Rxd2 d5 White has no satisfactory reply.

21...exd2 22.Rd1 g5 23.dxe5 g4 24.Nf4 Bg5 25.Ne2 Be4 26.exd6 Bxc2 27.dxc7 Kd7 0–1 T.Ernst-Tisdall, Gausdal 1993.

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.

Out of the Blue

Early tactical shots usually don’t appear from nowhere. You lose short games because you are too greedy, too timid or because you let long-term plans take precedence over more mundane concerns. But occasionally it's only about tactical alertness and nothing else. I have always enjoyed this opening trap because there really is nothing to warn White except the hidden forking pattern.

Dobrovolsky - Hardicsay, Prievidza, 1978
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 Nf4!?

This probably is more trappy than good.

7.Qg4? (Dia)

This move is White’s most popular reaction. And what could be more natural. White is far ahead in development and Black's only developed piece is under attack. Nevertheless it's a serious blunder as was first demonstrated in this game. It's generally considered that White gets more than enough for his pawn after 7.d4! Nxg2+ 8.Kf1 Nh4 and now either 9.Nf3 or 9.Ne4. That's not at all obvious but there are some nice games that seem to support the assumption. Maybe that will be the theme for another blog entry.

7...Qh4!

In 11 out of the 15 games I am aware of that have reached this position, Black has found (or known) this amazing resource. Now the fork on g2 and the hanging bishop on c4 ensure that Black will win at least a pawn.

8.h3

8.Qg3 Nxg2+ 9.Qxg2 Qxc4 of Exposito Portillo-Torres Maesso, Dos Hermanas 2001 is no better. In Kristjansson-Westerinen, Reykjavik 1997 White preferred 8.Qxh4 Nxg2+ 9.Ke2 Nxh4 10.d4 and fought on in a long game but finally had to resign.

8...Nxg2+ 9.Kf1 h5 10.Qe2 Nf4 11.Qe4 Ng6 12.Qe2?

12.Qxh4 was sad but necessary.

12...Nxe5!

Black picks up another pawn and White has had enough:

0–1

Elburg Reviews Stonewall II

I had expected to be holding my copy of Aagaard's new Stonewall book by now, but I am still waiting for it to arrive from Niggemann (via Sjakkbutikken - the major Norwegian chess retailer).

In the meantime I try to extract some information from an early September column by John Elburg where he reviews the book together with several other interesting new books. Unfortunately there is not much new to be learned as Elburg is as blandly positive as he generally is. However, he confirms that there now are 94 games and that also the older games have been somewhat updated. A curious detail is that Elburg informs that there is no bibliography in this German edition while it obviously is in the mysterious Italian version.

Creative Passivity

There appears to be a tendency in chess that activity will defeat passivity and that attack will win against defence. But that may to some extent be a psychological effect more than an integral part of the game. Here is a remarkable example of creative passivity:

U.Andersson - M.Basman, Hastings 1974
1.Nf3 b6

This is known as the English Opening. The talented English IM, Basman probably never quite realized his full potential. Whether it was due to his penchant for unorthodox openings or not is hard to say - his provocative style certainly earned him quite a few points too.

2.g3

Andersson makes no attempt to refute Black's opening which in 1974 must have seemed a lot more unorthodox than it does today.

2...Bb7 3.Bg2 e6 4.0–0 d5 5.c4

Swedish grandmaster Ulf Andersson was known for his defensive technique, his risk avoidance and his faith in healthy if passive positions. He combined this playing style with a unique endgame understanding and a formidable willingness to play on forever in seemingly dead drawn endgames - frequently extracting that extra half point in the end.

5...Nf6 6.d4 Be7 7.Nc3 0–0 8.Ne5 h6 9.Bf4 a6 10.Rc1 Ra7 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Qb3 (Dia)

White has gained a fairly clear and stable advantage from the opening. Black is solid but he will find it hard to create counter-play. What happens now is an interesting case of psychological warfare. Basman abandons all attempts to free his position and just waits for the attack.

12...Ba8 13.Rfd1 Kh7 14.h3 Kg8 15.Kh2 Kh7 16.g4

This is a move you rarely see Andersson play in the opening or middlegame. Psychologically this may be the root to his eventual defeat .

16...Kg8 17.Bg3 Bb7 18.e3 Ba8 19.a3 Bb7 20.f4

Andersson's kingside pawns are lured forward. Probably the old Steinitz saying that the player with an advantage is obliged to attack were whispering somewhere in the back of his mind.

20...Ba8 21.Rd2 Qd6 22.f5 Qd8 23.Bf4 Bb7 (Dia)

Remarkably nothing has changed in Black's position since the last diagram. White's attacking pawn cloud looks imposing but actually his strategy may be mistaken.

24.Rg1 c6 25.Bf3 Nh7 26.Rc1 Bd6 27.Na4 Bc7 28.Kg3 Nf6 29.h4 Nfd7

Almost imperceptibly the game has turned. White has accepted too many obligations and is now actually struggling to defend his territory.

30.Nxd7 Nxd7 (Dia)

This exchange combined with the imminent exchange of dark-squared bishops frees Black's play and exposes White's king somewhat.

31.Re2 Re8 32.Kh3 Bxf4 33.exf4 Rxe2 34.Bxe2 Qe7 35.Bf3 b5 36.Nc5 Bc8 37.Qd3 h5 38.gxh5?!

38.g5 seems to keep White’s position more compact and would probably have been stronger.

38...Qf6 39.Kg3 Nxc5 40.Rxc5 Bxf5 41.Qc3 Bd7 42.Qd3 Ra8 43.Rc1 Re8

Black may be winning already thanks to White's weakened king's position.

44.Qc3 c5 45.Qxc5?

White had to try 45.dxc5. However, after 45...d4 46.Qd2 Re3 47.Re1 Rxe1 48.Qxe1 Qf5 49.Qe4 Qxc5 50.Qe5 Qc4 Black's passed d-pawn gives him a very clear advantage.

45...Qf5! (Dia)

Now all Black's remaining pieces take part in the attack - there just is no defence.

46.Qxd5 Qh3+ 47.Kf2 Qh2+ 48.Bg2

48.Kf1 Bh3+ is even worse.

48...Qxf4+ 49.Bf3 Bg4 50.Rc3 Qh2+ 51.Bg2 Qxh4+ 52.Kg1 Re1+ 53.Bf1 Bh3

0–1

(With 54.Rxh3 Qxh3 55.Qa8+ Kh7 56.Qe4+ Rxe4 57.Bxh3 Rxd4 White only reaches a completely lost endgame.)

Reversed Dutch

A reversed Dutch? Isn't that the Bird's Opening (1.f4)?

Actually not. 1.f4 d5 is indeed a reversed Dutch but I have always been slightly skeptical about 1.f4 because of 1...Nf6! which avoids the weakening of the e5-square and at least temporarily stops e4. Correspondingly I find 1...d5 a slightly illogical reply which to some extent justifies White's first move. That's why I consider 1.a3!? d5 2.f4!? an interesting sequence of moves while 1.f4 d5 2.a3 appears rather meaningless.

But is there actually any advantage in having the extra a-pawn move in a reversed Dutch? There obviously are certain Dutch lines with an early ...Na6 that simply become impossible to play with a pawn already occupying that square. However, I assume that with a deep understanding of Dutch strategy and a little imagination it should be possible to steer for positions where a3 is useful. Here is an example where White succeeded wonderfully:

N.McDonald - B.Thipsay, Banwell mem London 2001

1.a3 d5 2.f4 Nf6

Quite possibly Black should immediately ensure control of the long diagonal with 2...g6.

3.Nf3 g6 (Dia)

Black has chosen a sensible set-up that can be completed without taking on too many obligations in the centre.

4.g3

With this move White heads for a reversed Leningrad system. Actually 4.b4!? - to some extent preventing ...c5 - seems sensible too. One of Black's main problems in the Dutch is to complete the development of his queen-side. With that problem solved, this reversed version cannot be too bad.

4...Bg7 5.Bg2 0–0 6.0–0 c5

Finally Black accepts his role as White! Probably 6...c6 would have given comfortable equality.

7.d3 Nc6 8.Nc3!

Probably this is White's best chance to make something out of his pawn on a3. From a comparison with the parallel position with reversed colours it seems that 8.Qe1 and 8.c3 are sensible alternatives.

8...d4 9.Na4! (Dia)

After 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5, 8...Ne5 is a little more popular than 8...Na5 but odds are much better that White can make use of a3 in this line.

9...Qd6 10.c4 Ng4

In the reversed position the main continuation is 10.b3 a6. However, 10...b6 could nevertheless have been considered as White's score in the reversed line is 59%. Only experience can tell how much difference one tempo can make but in a sharp position where both players pursue different plans, it may well make the difference between a win and a loss.

11.Rb1

Philosophically White can claim some success as the two main continuations in the parallel reversed position are 11...Rb8 and 11...a6. What's more: in the 28 games with these two moves, the score is 9 wins for White, 7 draws and 12 wins for Black!

11...Rb8

11...e5 seems a more consistent follow-up of Black's 10th move.

12.b4

A relevant game for comparison is Benko-Tal, Candidates Tournament Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade 1959: 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3 0–0 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 Nc6 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 c5 10.Ng5 a6 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.Bd2 Qe8 13.b3 b5 14.a3 Ng4 15.Nf3 bxc4 16.bxc4 Rb3 17.Rxb3 Nxb3 18.Rb1 Nd4 19.e3 Nxf3+ 20.Bxf3 Ne5 21.Qe2 Nxf3+ 22.Qxf3 e5 23.Qd1 e4 24.Qa4 Qe7 25.Qc6 f4!? 26.Rb8 Bh3 27.Rxf8+ Qxf8 28.exf4 Qb8! 29.Ne2 Qb1+ 0–1.

12...b6 13.bxc5 bxc5 14.Rb5 Rxb5 15.cxb5 Nd8 16.Qc2 Ne6 17.f5 gxf5 18.Nh4 Bf6

Fritz suggests 18...Nc7 with roughly equal chances.

19.Nxf5 (Dia)

The pawn structure is quite murky but White's advantage is not in doubt as his piece activity is superior.

19...Qe5 20.b6 axb6 21.Nxb6 Ng7 22.Nc4 Qc7 23.Bf4 Qd8 24.Nh6+ Nxh6 25.Bxh6 e5 26.a4 Re8 27.a5 Ne6?

27...Ba6 would have been a better try.

28.Bc6!

This wins an exchange thanks to the hanging bishop on f6.

28...Bg7 29.Bxe8 Bxh6 30.Bxf7+ Kg7 31.Bxe6 Bxe6 32.a6 Qa8 33.Qb1 Qxa6 34.Qb8 Bxc4 35.Qf8+ Kg6 36.Qf5+ Kg7 37.Qxe5+ Kg8 38.Qe8+ Kg7 39.Qf8+ Kg6 40.Qf5+ Kg7 41.dxc4 1–0

Not a Defence

At the German site Freechess.info there now is a review of Aagaard's "Stonewall II" . There really isn't that much new to be learned about the book (the game Astrom –Ulibin, Göteborg 1999 was already included in the English version) but it's interesting to note that it seems to have changed title from "Die Stonewall Verteidigung II" to simply "Stonewall II". See my entry of July 25 for the "original" cover.
One can speculate what the reasons are for the change. Maybe the publishers simply decided that they didn't like the passivity that can be associated with the word "Verteidigung" which means defence. Or maybe it was the strange mix of German and English that didn't appeal. My personal theory is that the word "Verteidigung" doesn't score well on Google's rankings and may make the book harder to find for potential buyers.

As an aside there is a funny remark by the reviewer:
"Vielleicht hätte man noch ein Extrakapitel zu diversen Ablehnungen in das Buch aufnehmen können, ich denke hier in erster Linie an die Zugfolge 1.d4 f5 2.e4. Natürlich wird ein erfahrener Spieler diese mit 1…e6 umgehen, doch etwas unerfahrenere Spieler könnten hier schmerzvolle Erfahrungen machen. Wie ich unlängst erfahren habe, gibt es im Staunton-Gambit mit 1.d4 f5 2.e4 unter einigen Großmeistern eine noch geheime bisher nicht gespielte Variante, die Weiß deutlich im Vorteil sehen soll!"
In English this roughly translates to:
"Maybe an extra chapter about various early deviations could have been added; what I primarily have in mind is the the move-order 1.d4 f5 2.e4. An experienced player will of course bypass this with 1...e6, but players with less experience may collect some painful lessons. As I have long since discovered, some GMs have found a secret and not yet played variation in the Staunton-Gambit 1.d4 f5 2.e4 which gives White a clear advantage."
This is a quite central move-order question in my coming Stonewall book and I will not comment much on it in this blog. However I think I should make my preliminary conclusion clear: If you play the French against 1.e4 there certainly are some reasons to prefer the 1...e6 path to the Stonewall over 1...f5, but the Staunton gambit isn't among them.

Addendum
The publisher's have (somewhat curiously) announced that there will not be an English version of this revised Stonewall book, and the Swedish version apparently has been canceled. But today I found that an Italian version seems to be on its way.
My knowledge of Italian consists of a few tourist phrases and a little chess jargon, but doesn't "completamente rinnovata e in esclusiva mondiale per Caissa Italia" indicate that this is something more than a pure translation? That theory seems to be supported by the claim of more than 100 annotated games while the German only is said to contain 94.

The Zwaig Variation

Like most of the early developers of the Norwegian variation, IM Arne Zwaig is now a member of my chess-club, Oslo Schakselskap. One of his main contributions was his investigation of the line 7...f6 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4) which borders between being an independent line and a pure move-order finesse. Black offers White to exchange his light-squared bishop for Black’s knight on g8 rather than the a5-knight. This may at first glance seem advantageous for White who prevents short castling and avoids doubled b-pawns, but on closer inspection it’s not at all so clear, as the open a-file after ...Nxb3 is one of White’s major assets in the mainlines.

If White accepts the offer, the game will take an independent course. However, if he declines with 8.Nc3 (as Greet recommends in his Play the Ruy Lopez), play will almost always transpose to the mainline after 8...Nxb3 9.axb3. So in reality the effect of Zwaig’s move-order is to avoid the 7...Nxb3 8.axb3 f6 9.c4 line and maybe to tempt White into inferior lines.

Let’s have a look at 8.Bxg8!? Rxg8 (Dia):

9.Nh4!?

This opens a path to h5 for White's queen and is a natural attempt to demonstrate that Black's kingside has been weakened. The main alternative is 9.b4 (to which I may return in a later entry) but White has also tried 9.a4, 9.Nc3, 9.Qe2, 9.Ne1, 9.c3 and 9.dxe5.

9...Qd7

This indirectly protects the h-pawn so that Qh5 now can be safely met by ...g6.

10.a4

White must try to stir up things early as Black's bishop pair tends to become a significant factor if the game develops quietly.

a) 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Qf3 Be7 13.h3 Bb7 14.Rd1 Qc6 15.Nc3 f5 16.g3 fxe4 –+ R.Rodriguez-Alvarez Ibarra, San Sebastian 1996

b) Fritz' suggestion 10.Nf5 g6 11.Ne3 must be taken seriously as 11...c6 12.d5 c5 13.Bd2 Nb7 14.a4 b4 15.Nc4 is very good for White.

c) 10.Nc3 and now:

c1) 10...Qg4 11.Nd5 (11.Nf3 Bb7 12.a4 b4 13.Nd5 0–0–0 14.Re1 f5 was unclear in Ostojic-Johannessen, Amsterdam 1969) 11...Ra7 12.Nf3 +=

c2) 10...c6 11.b4 Nc4 12.a4 Bb7?! (12...Qg4 looks like an improvement, e.g.: 13.Qxg4 Bxg4 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.axb5 Bxb4 and Black is clearly better) 13.Qd3 g6 14.Nf3 Rg7 15.d5 c5 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8+ Bxa8 18.Bh6 +/- Y.Gruenfeld-Moen, La Valetta 1980

10...b4 11.c3 Rb8 12.Nd2 g6 13.Nhf3 c5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe2 Rg7 16.Ne1 b3 (Dia)

17.g3?!

17.f4 seems to be a better attempt and may be sufficient for a small advantage. Black's king will be exposed but may escape danger via f7 and g8.

17...Qc6 18.Ng2 c4 19.Ne3 Be6 20.Nd5?!

Tactically this is a correct pawn sacrifice; if Black accepts it immediately his king will be dangerously exposed. However, strategically White is not able to support this knight so in a relatively short perspective this move will either be an incorrect pawn sacrifice or a double tempo loss.

20...Rf7 21.f4 Bc5+ (Dia)

It's already obvious that Black is better - mainly because his king now is ready to run to f8.

22.Kg2

After 22.Ne3 Qd6 Black is more active and has the bishop-pair as a bonus.

22...Rd8

Also the direct 22...Bxd5 23.exd5 Qxd5+ seems to be sufficient for a clear advantage.

23.Nf3 Bxd5 24.exd5 Rxd5 25.Be3 Bxe3 26.Qxe3 Rd3 27.Qe2 Re7 28.Rae1 e4 29.Nd4 Qd5

Now Black's advantage is beyond doubt, and it's hard to see how White can keep his position together.

30.Qg4 f5 31.Qg5 Nc6 32.Qf6

32.Nxc6 Qxc6 33.Kh3 Rd2 is no better.

32...Nxd4 33.cxd4 Rd2+ 0–1 Hecht-Zwaig, Raach 1969 (34.Kh3 e3 35.Rg1 Qf3 decides immediately)

Not a Ghost After All

It seems "Die Stonewall Verteidigung" by Aagaard has become a reality after all. After numerous delays Niggemann now announces it as 'Neu'.

The Table of Content according to Niggemann (see below) is a bit disappointing as it seems the book's structure is exactly the same as Aagaard's earlier 'Dutch Stonewall'. However, the 'Katalog' (German language) informs that there are 94 annotated games. That are 17 more than the older English version.

5 Vorwort
7 Einleitung
65 Weiß zieht 7.b3
97 Weiß zieht 7.Lf4
123 Weiße Alternativen im 7.Zug: 7.Sbd2, 7.Se5, 7.Dc2
145 5.Sh3
171 Andere Abspiele im Stonewall
183 Weiß spielt frühzeitig e2-e3

Well, I will buy the book anyhow, and it will be very interesting to see how much new material there is.