A New Orang Utan in Town

I have very rarely played the Sokolsky opening (also known as the Orang Utan opening) as it doesn't lead to the kind of positions I enjoy to play as White. That doesn't necessarily mean it leads to bad positions and I have always had a certain interest in the opening and some of the original positions that can arise.
Now there is a new book on the opening available. The reviews so far haven't been too favorable so I am waiting for a chance to browse the pages at a chess book stand but I suppose I eventually will buy it.

Here is the Table of Content:

4 Bibliography
5 Introduction
11 The Sokolsky Gambit
35 1b4 e5 2Bb2 Bxb4
48 Black Plays ...e5 and ...d6
73 Queen's Indian Systems
100 Black Plays ...d5 and ...e6
121 Black Plays ...d5 and ...Bf5/Bg4
143 1 ...c6, 1...f5 and Unusual Moves
171 Index of Complete Games

If you too are still skeptical to the book you may want to see this interesting discussion at the ChessPublishing forum before you order (unless you are interested in re-incarnation flame wars you will do well to fast-forward to page 3).

In his review (in German) at Niggemann, Martin Rieger points out that one of the critical lines is quite superficially handled:

1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4!? 3.Bxe5

This is the quintessential Sokolsky variation. White gets a central pawn in return for his b-pawn but allows Black a certain lead in development.

3...Nf6 4.c4

It's possible for White to speed up development by delaying this move and giving priority to the development of his kingside. However, this (or 4.Nf3 followed by 5.c4) is White's most popular as it makes it likely that White will be able to exchange his c-pawn for Black's d-pawn, enlarging his numerical superiority in the centre.

4...0–0 5.Nf3 Nc6!?

From a purely positional point of view, this looks premature. Now Black must rely solely on his piece play to compensate for White's central dominance. Most theoretical manuals recommend 5...Re8 and White probably should avoid 6.e3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Be2 (8.Bb2 Nc6 may transpose to the mainline below) 8...Rxe5! 9.Nxe5 Qf6 when 10.f4? is met with 10...Nxe3 -+.

6.Bb2 Re8 7.e3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Be2

It's not easy for White to improve on this, a3 and ...Ba5 doesn't seem to change too much but there certainly are sub-variations where it could make a difference.

9...Rxe3!? (Dia)

This controversial sacrifice has mainly been tested in correspondence games. If nothing else it's a fascinating starting point for analysis.

10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qb3!?

This apparently is Conticello and Lapshun's (C&L) attempted refutation. If this proves OK for Black, there still is 11.Qc1?! and 11.Qa4 to deal with.

11...Nxg2+ 12.Kd1

There also is 12.Kf2!? but again that's only necessary to investigate if C&L's mainline fails to convince.

12...Be6 13.Qd3 (Dia)

13...Qxd3!?

It's easy to forget that exchanging queens is an options after sacrificing a rook. This is Rieger's suggested improvement over 13...Qe7 which is the only move I could find in my databases (and which scores rather poorly). It would be interesting to know whether it's an invention of his own or if it can be found in specialist literature. Lapshun - Sinn, World op (Philadelphia) 2003 continued 14.Nd4 Nf4 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Qd4 Bb3+ 17.axb3 Qxe2+ 18.Kc2 1–0.

14.Bxd3 Bg4 15.Be2

15.Be4 Re8 16.h3 Bh5 seems no better:

a) 17.Bd5 Rd8 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Kc1 Bxf3 –+.

b) 17.d3 Rxe4 18.dxe4 Bxf3+ 19.Kc1 Nf4 and Black's advantage is obvious.

15...Nf4 16.Rf1

Again it's hard to find a real improvement:

a) 16.Rg1 h5 17.Nd4 (17.Rf1) 17...Nxe2 18.Nxe2 Re8 19.Rg2 Bc5 20.Nbc3 Bf3 =+.

b) 16.Nd4 Nxe2 17.Nxe2 Re8 18.Re1 f5!? (18...Bc5) 19.a3 (19.h3 Bh5) 19...Bd6 20.Nbc3 (20.d4 f4 -/+) 20...Nd4 21.d3 Bxh2 and Black is probably winning.

16...Nxe2 17.Kxe2 Bc5 (Dia)

This position may be crucial for the evaluation of one of the Sokolsky mainlines.

18.Kd3

Here Rieger gives 18.Bc3 Re8+ 19.Kd3 b5! and claims that Black is winning. The position is hard to evaluate but it seems White's king escapes and the position after 20.Kc2 b4 21.Bb2 Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Nd4+ 23.Bxd4 Bxd4 24.Nc3 bxc3 25.dxc3 Bc5 looks fairly equal.

18...Rd8+ 19.Kc4

White attacks the bishop. 19.Kc3 looks safer but then it will still take White several moves to co-ordinate his pieces and 19...b5 looks quite promising for Black.

19...Be6+

Also 9...Bb6 20.d4 Be6+ 21.Kd3 Nb4+ 22.Kd2 looks playable. White's winning chances must be rather limited after e.g. 22...c5.

20.Kxc5 Rd5+ 21.Kc4 Re5+

21...b5+ 22.Kc3 Rc5+ 23.Kd3 Bc4+ 24.Ke3 Bxf1 is not too different from the main continuation.

22.Kc3

22.Kd3 Bf5+ 23.Kc4 Be6+ 24.Kd3 Bf5+ is a perpetual as 25.Kc3? Rc5+ 26.Kb3 Bc2+ 27.Ka3 Ra5 is mate.

22...Rc5+ 23.Kd3 Bc4+ 24.Ke3 Bxf1

The position is unbalanced with Black having three pawns for a piece but chances look fairly equal.

Conclusion:

These lines are very hard to analyze but I cannot see that 11.Qb3 Nxg2+ 12.Kd1 lead to a convincing advantage for White and both players must investigate 12.Kf2 and possibly White's 11th move alternatives.

I will return with a Sokolsky bibliography at some point. In the meantime I can only recommend Marek Trockenheim's online Sokolsky Encyclopaedia. There's a huge amount of information there and it's quite well organized in a way. Yet it's not really easy to utilize it. You will find some games with the above lines here.

Addendum June 3rd.

Steve Giddins' review for British Chess Magazine points out a strange slip:

'I noticed only one major editorial lapse, albeit an embarrassing one – games 75 and 76 are actually the same game, annotated quite differently, and with different conclusions as to Black’s losing move!'

I wonder if this is somehow connected to John Elburg's observation that parts of the book is directly translated from Sokolsky's book:

'included are also the best of the great Sokolsky himself all directly translated from Sokolsky’s well known b4 openings book from the 1960s.'

Could it be that this is a Sokolsky game annotated by Sokolsky as well as by Lapshun/Conticello? I suppose I will have to buy the book in order to find out.

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

A Transpo Trick

Andrew Soltis has written some of my favourite chess books. He has also written some chess openings books that he obviously has not put sufficient effort into.

His relatively recent "Transpo Tricks in Chess" (Batsford 2007) seems to fall in between these two main groups of Soltis books. It's a kind of 'Chess Openings Transpositions Encyclopaedia' but yet a surprisingly easy read. As one had to expect, its coverage of different openings is a bit uneven but generally it's quite good. Soltis doesn't cite his sources extensively and is often a bit brief. Consequently you sometimes have to wonder how trustworthy his evaluations and suggestions are. There is however little doubt that he knows a great deal about the book's subject. Soltis was a strong player and is good at conveying his knowledge to the reader.

I had a check of the London System and the Dutch Stonewall and was not particularly impressed but then there was nothing obviously wrong either. His coverage of the Closed Ruy Lopez was much more interesting. His explanations of the old 8...Na5 variation (the Proto-Chigorin) are very thought provoking. I must make a closer study of that variation when I can find the time and then Soltis will be among my main sources (together with Larsen's and Radulsky's games).

However, what really made me raise my eyebrows was his (surprisingly brief) comments on the Zaitsev variation. He writes that 'Zaitsev's original move order [9...Re8 S.J.] is inexact if Black wants to avoid a draw [9...Re8 10.Ng5 Rf8 11.Nf3 S.J.] as well as the complications of 9...Re8 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2. More precise is 9...Bb7! first and then 10 d4 Re8, transposing.'

(Position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3, when Black can head for the Zaitsev with 9...Re8 or 9...Bb7)

In this brief passage there are two quite remarkable claims without much supporting analysis or explanations:

1) Soltis indicates that it's easier for Black to avoid the draw after 9...Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Ng5 Rf8 12.Nf3 than after 9...Re8 10.Ng5 Rf8 11.Nf3.

2) Black may want to avoid the complications after 9...Re8 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2.

The first statement is more than adequately covered in 'The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black' as Flear indicates something similar in his 'Ruy Lopez Main Line'. We conclude that exactly the opposite is true: the move-order 9...Re8 gives Black some extra opportunities to avoid a draw by repetition. I so far have no reason to doubt this conclusion.

Statement number two is more worrying: In our Ruy Lopez book we do not discuss 10.a4!? as a possible reply to 9...Re8 at all. Did we miss something very basic or critical in our research?

A quick check with my database was enough to calm me: There is only one high-level game with 9...Re8 10.a4 - Kholmov-Hennings, Chigorin Memorial 1973 (which is actually a couple of years before Igor Zaitzev developed his system!). The game continued 10...Bb7 and although White won the game, Black appeared to have a fully playable position after 20 moves. The game did nothing to reduce the interest in 9...Re8 and 10.a4 has had no other GM outings. I could find no examples continuing 10...Na5 in my database.

A check with Rybka and Fritz confirmed that we hadn't missed anything very basic. 10.a4 starts up around 6th place on their list of candidate moves but slowly climbs upwards. After a couple of minutes it seems to stabilize somewhere around 2nd to 4th place with an evaluation very close to '0.00'.

This of course doesn't exclude the possibility that 9...Re8 10.a4 Na5 11.Ba2 is an important variation for the understanding of the Zaitsev variation. If there ever is an update of our Zaitsev book, it will certainly be mentioned. However, I suspect it will concentrate on the natural 10...Bb7 rather than on 10...Na5.

Returning to Soltis' book: I believe my experience could well be typical: As a grand overview over move-order tricks in the opening it's about as good as you could possibly wish. However, if you have researched a subject yourself, you will probably find Soltis book a bit superficial or even disappointing. However, there is also a realistic chance that you could also stumble over something really thought-provoking.

Love Not Returned

I can understand why I score badly when I am tricked into opening variations that I don't like and have not prepared. It's more surprising when the same happens in my favorite variations.

As far back as I can remember I have had a weak spot for the Kan variation: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6!? Or actually for three sub-variations that can arise from it:

a) 4.Nc3 b5 5.Bd3 Bb7












b) 4.Bd3 Bc5 5.Nb3 Ba7












c) 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4












I cannot recall exactly when I first saw saw these variations but they must have been among of the first Sicilian variations I came across.

Unfortunately these very variations seem to be weak spots in my chess understanding. I have played them in a few tournament games with catastrophic results and my blitz results have not given me any reason to give them a new chance.

I cannot say exactly why my score is so miserable. It's hardly the variations' fault as they according to MegaBase 2008 score very well for Black. It more likely is due to the fact that those bishops in the long diagonals - normally pointing towards White's king - tempt me to play for a king's attack with moves like ...h5 and ...Nf6-g4 when patient consolidation and queenside play are called for.

Maybe some day I will find the time to write a repertoire book based on these lines - just for myself. In the meantime I will start posting a few annotated games here.

Leningrad Investigations III

My apologies for neglecting this blog for almost three weeks. I expect my posting frequency to increase for the next few weeks.

I still don't know how sound the 6...c6 variation in the Dutch Leningrad is. But it's obvious that it will be a more tempting repertoire choice if it's also playable against the Nh3 system. My preliminary investigations hint that it seems fully playable but that it takes some inventiveness and courage to keep the line's independent character:

1.d4 f5 2.g3

2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 can lead to the same lines.

2...Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3

This is roughly twice as popular as 5.Nf3. Yet the position arising after 5.Nf3 occurs almost as frequently as the one after 5.Nc3. The explanation of course is that there are many paths to the Nf3-set-up where the knight arrives earlier on f3.

5.Nh3 is a considerably rarer move but after 5...0–0 6.0–0 c6 7.Nc3 Na6 play will generally transpose to the main line after 8.Nf4. In addition White can try:

a) 8.d5 Qe8 9.Rb1 d6 10.b3 c5 11.Bb2 Rb8 12.Nb5 Bd7 13.a4 Ra8 14.Nf4 Qc8 15.h4 Nc7 16.Nc3 += Andonovski-Nikoloski, Struga 2002.

b) 8.b3 d6 9.Bb2 Nc7 10.Qc2 e5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Ba3 Re8 13.Rad1 += Bisguier-Chernin, USA 1990.

c) 8.Rb1 d6 9.b4 Nc7 10.e3 Bd7 11.a4 a6 12.Qb3 Kh8 13.Rd1 Qe8 14.b5 axb5 15.cxb5 Ne4 unclear Vorisek-Danner, Prague 1995.

5...0–0 6.Nh3

This is the characteristic move. But 6.Nf3 is almost equally popular.

6...c6!? (Dia)

Is it possible that this move can have independent value against the Nh3 systems too?

7.Nf4

7.0–0 Na6 8.Nf4 is just an alternative move-order.

7...Na6

7...d6 immediately leads to positions normally arising from 6...d6.

8.0–0 Nc7 (Dia)

Black is determined to stay away from well-trodden Leningrad paths. 8...Qe8 is an interesting alternative:

a) 9.e4 fxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 d6 12.Bg2 e5 13.Ne2 Nc7 14.Be3 Bg4 =+ Kaminik-G.Danner, Graz 1996.

b) 9.b3 d6 10.Ba3 Nc7 11.Rc1 g5 12.Nh3 Qg6 13.f4 g4 14.Nf2 h5 unclear Thallinger-G.Danner, Austria 1995.

This is the point where White must decide: Should he play a neutral developing move which may prove irrelevant when Black at long last plays ...d6? Or should he play 9.d5 before Black has played ...d6 (when there is no genuine weakness to nail on e6)?

9.Rb1

This is relatively noncommittal.

a) 9.b4 d6 10.Qb3 e5 11.c5+ d5 12.dxe5 Ng4 13.Bb2 Kh8 14.Nd3 Qe7 15.f4 Ne3 =+ Amura-Ad.Rodrigues, Merlo 1990.

b) 9.Qb3 d6 (9...Qe8!?) 10.d5 cxd5 11.cxd5 Nd7 12.Rd1 Nc5 13.Qc2 a5 14.Be3 N7a6 15.Bd4 and White had won the opening duel in Stimpel-Meier, Wiesbaden 1993.

c) 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 and now:

c1) 10...d6 11.Be3 Bd7 12.Rc1 g5 13.Nh3 h6 14.f4 g4 15.Nf2 += Moschell-Neubert, Potsdam 1997.

c2) 10...e5 awaits practical tests, e.g. 11.dxe6 (11.d6!?) 11...dxe6 12.Qb3 Kh8 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Nd3 e5 15.Be3 Rd8 16.Bc5 Qe8 with unclear play.

9...d6!?

Can it be that ...Nc7 is more useful than Rb1? If nothing else the knight move is more relevant for Black's weaknesses in the e-file.

a) 9...d5 looks independent but I doubt it’s sufficient for full equality.

b) The untested 9...Qe8!? 10.d5 e5 is worth a try, e.g. 11.dxe6 dxe6 12.Qd6 Rf7 13.Nd3 Ng4 14.h3 Bf8 15.Qf4 e5 16.Qd2 Nf6 looks roughly even.

10.d5 (Dia)

White is trying to steer play back to well mapped terrain.

10...Qe8

10...Bd7 as well as 10...e5 11.dxe6 Nxe6 return to known Leningrad lines with ...d6 (one move-order leading to the latter line is 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nh3 d6 6.d5 c6 7.Nf4 e5 8.dxe6 Na6! 9.Nc3 Nc5 10.0–0 0–0 11.Rb1 Nxe6 of Salov-Illescas Cordoba, Madrid 1996).

11.b4

a) 11.c5!? should be tested.

b) 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.c5 d5 13.e3 e5 14.Nfe2 g5 15.b4 a6 16.Na4 Be6 17.Nb6 Rd8 =+ Arva-Albert, Goed 2004.

11...g5!?

This risky pawn push fits well with Black's previous play but the timing can be discussed. Alternative tries are:

a) 11...Rf7 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.b5 Bd7 14.Qa4 cxb5 15.Qa5 Rc8 16.cxb5 Ne4 17.Nxe4 fxe4 18.Bxe4 Nxb5 unclear Zeller-Ennenbach, Schwaebisch Gmuend 1993.

b) 11...cxd5 12.Nfxd5 Ncxd5 13.cxd5 Bd7 14.Be3 Rc8 15.Bd4 Rc4 16.e3 Ng4 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qd2 += M. de Souza-Miguel, Pouso Alegre 1998.

c) 11...Bd7 and now:

c1) 12.Bb2 g5 13.Nd3 e5 14.dxe6 Bxe6 15.c5 d5 16.e3 Rd8 17.Ne2 Bc8 18.Be5+= Goy-R.Schmidt, Cologne 1991.

c2) 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.b5 Rc8 14.a4 Ng4 15.Qb3 Kh8 16.Bb2 g5 17.Nd3 Ne6 18.Nb4 Nd4 19.Qd1 c5 20.Na6 Qh5 (-/+) 21.h3 Ne5 22.Re1 f4 23.g4 (23.Ne4) 23...Bxg4 24.hxg4 Nxg4 25.Ne4 Qh2+ 26.Kf1 Ne3+ 27.fxe3 fxe3+ 0–1 Landenbergue-Klauser, Kecskemet 1988.

12.Nd3 cxd5

12...h6 13.Bb2 e5 14.dxe6 Bxe6 15.c5 d5 16.e3 Rd8 17.Ne2 a6 18.a4 Bc8 19.Nd4 += Biliskov-Zelic, Sibenik 2005.

13.cxd5 Qg6 14.Rb3 Bd7 15.a4 Ne4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Nb2 Rac8 18.Re3 Bf5 19.h3?!

White's pieces are strangely placed and he doesn't have time for this preparatory move. The immediate 19.g4 was necessary, leading to a very messy position.

19...Qf7

Now the pawn on d5 is doomed and Black takes over the centre.

20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Rxe4 Nxd5 22.Rg4 h6 23.b5 Nc3 24.Qd3 (Dia)

24...Na2!

I like this strange move. It probably can only be found by calculation and is the kind of move I keep missing all the time.

25.Rc4 Nxc1?!

Even stronger was 25...Rxc4 26.Nxc4 Rc8 with a winning position.

26.Rfxc1 Qxf2+ 27.Kh1 Rcd8 28.R4c2 d5

Black keeps a clear - perhaps winning advantage but his play is less exact in this phase. I assume both players were short of time by now.

29.Rg1 Qf7 30.Nd1 e5 31.e4 dxe4 32.Qxe4 Rd4 33.Qg2 Rxa4 34.Ne3 Qb3 35.Nd5 e4 36.Rd1 Rf7 0-1 Saulin-Sambuev, Moscow 2006. It seems likely White lost on time but objectively his position is hopeless.

Extreme Symmetry

I will be very busy until the 15th or so but I will try to fill the silence with some mini entries. In my entry of February 22nd I offered two reconstruction tasks:

1) Black's 5th move is to promote a pawn to a bishop with mate.
2) Black's 5th move is to promote a pawn to a knight with mate.

Here are the solutions:
1) 1.c3 d5 2.Qb3 d4 3.Kd1 dxc3 4.Kc2 cxd2 5.Qc3 d1B mate (Dia)

2) 1.d4 e5 2.Kd2 exd4 3.b3 d3 4.Kc3 dxe2 5.Kb2 exd1N mate (Dia)

Today's task can be seen as a prelude to a theme to which I hope to return shortly: Symmetrical positions and the advantage of moving first.

Can you construct a symmetrical game in which White's 4th move is mate?

The usual conditions apply:

All moves must be legal but obviously they don't have to make sense by conventional chess standards.

Unfortunately there are two and a half solutions. There are two different mate positions and one of them can be reached via two slightly different routes.

Good luck!

April's Fool

This item I have been saving for some months now:

Below is a game I more than once have used in chess classes as it's rather thematic, short and finishes with a nice tactical blow.

Jan Plachetka - Lothar Zinn, Decin, 1974

1.Nf3 c5 2.b3 Nc6 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.e3 d5 5.Bb5 e6

It's a kind of reversed Nimzo Indian and White has got a good grip on the a1-h8 diagonal, including the central squares d4 and e5.

6.Ne5 Qc7 7.0–0 Bd6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.f4 0–0

Now also Black's king is close to that long diagonal.

10.Rf3 Nd7

Black challenges White's grip on e5.

11.Rh3! g6? (Dia)

This now is a famous mistake. I am not sure how the position should be evaluated after 11...f6. There are at least two practical tests:

a) 12.Qh5?! doesn't quite convince: 12...fxe5 13.Qxh7+ Kf7 14.Rg3 Ke8 15.Rxg7 Ba6 16.Na3 exf4 17.exf4 Kd8 18.Bc3 Kc8 –+ Rogers-Bacrot, Cap d'Agde rapid 1998.

b) White probably should content himself with 12.Nxd7 Bxd7 13.Qh5 h6 14.Qg4 Kh8 15.Nc3 Rae8 16.Ne2 Re7 17.Rf1 e5 18.f5 and White had nice attacking prospects in Baeumer-Ripperger, Ludweiler 1994.

12.Qh5!!

A very visual move.

12...Nf6

Obviously not 12...gxh5? 13.Rg3+ Kh8 14.Nxf7 mate.

13.Ng4!

This is slightly more exact than 13.Qh6 when Black can prolong the struggle with 13...d4! 14.exd4 (14.Ng4 Nh5 15.Rxh5 f5! 16.Ne5 Bxe5 17.fxe5 gxh5 18.exd4 cxd4 19.Bxd4 Qg7 +=) 14...Re8 15.Ng4 Nxg4 16.Qxh7+ Kf8 17.Qh8+ Ke7 18.Qh4+ Kd7 19.Qxg4 +-.

13...gxh5 14.Nxf6+ Kh8

Or 14...Kg7 15.Ne8+ Kh6 16.Bg7+ Kg6 17.Rg3+ Kf5 18.Rg5+ Ke4 19.Nc3.

15.Rxh5 h6 16.Nxd5+ Kh7 17.Nxc7 Bxc7 18.Rxc5 1–0

Interestingly there is a quite amusing tag to the game. In John Pajak-David Norwood, Toronto 1985 Black instead tried the clever 10...Ne8(!!) 11.Rh3 g6 and was rewarded with 12.Qh5?? gxh5 0–1. This game concluded Norwood's very readable book "Winning with the Modern" (Batsford 1994) on a humorous note. I am not quite sure what should be the lesson to learn. Probably something like: Always check twice before you give your queen away.

His 12th (and last) move is sufficient reason for Pajak to get an honorable mention on a 1st of April's chess column. But that's not all. According to MegaBase 2008 the game was actually played on the first of April! When I noticed this, my first reaction was to check whether John Pajak was a real chess player or if the entire game was an invention by Norwood. And he indeed is - at the time when the game was played Pajak was unrated but he soon gained a respectable rating of 2310. There also obviously was a tournament in Toronto 1985 with, among others, GMs Joel Benjamin and Kevin Spraggett. The date, however, appears somewhat questionable as according to MegaBase all games were played on April 1st.

I will leave my research there - this game may well have been played on April 1st - and in my mind that's when it should have been played!

London from a Different Angle

Two days ago I finally received my copy of Schmücker's 'Das London-System'. I have not had time to look at it in any detail and will not have for a few weeks, but here are a few quick observations:

The cover illustration is nice but otherwise the book's lay-out appears rather amateurish: the pages look a lot like ChessBase print-outs; all variations are in square brackets; there are no chapter headings (except for the headers - together with the page numbers) and frequently there are no introductions to the chapters (at first you have to wonder why the right-hand side columns on pages 44 and 95 are empty; then you discover that there actually start new chapters on the next pages).

There seem to have crept in some typos - a rather visible one is diagram 174 which shows the initial position whereas the text indicates that it should show the position after 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.c4 c6. There also are a few misspelled names. More importantly I wouldn't expect there to be any illegal or very poor moves as ChessBase would prevent this.

The main question of course is the quality of the chess content; the analysis, the research work and the textual explanations. I cannot really say much about his analysis yet, but it seems he has caught at least one serious omission in our London book. Except for a 2007 game by the author I couldn't find many recent (2005-2007) game references. I saw a 2006 reference and I probably have missed some more. Nevertheless my guess it that the manuscript were mostly done in 2005 and after that has only been spot wise updated. Schmücker's textual explanations appear sufficient and generally clear enough even though he hasn't bothered much with making complete sentences.

A main point of divergence between ours and Schmücker's recommended repertoire seems to be the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4, where we suggests 7.Qc2 (or avoiding the line completely with the 2.Bf4 move-order) whereas Schmücker recommends 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Na3 (Dia)

For our London book we too had originally planned a chapter on this line. However, when space limitations became an issue it was among the first lines we sacrificed - mainly because we were unable to demonstrate any advantage after 8...e6 9.Nb5. When 8...Ra5 too proved a tough obstacle, and 8...e5!?, 8...Rxa3!? 8...Na7 and 8...Ne4 each required rather deep analysis and corresponding space, simply skipping the line seemed an obvious decision. Schmücker provides extensive analysis of 8...e5, 8...Rxa3, 8...Bg4, 8...Na7 and 8...Ra5. I don't now why he doesn't mention 8...Ne4?! as the refutation is rather instructive. As for the quality of his analysis I can only guess but he obviously must have put a lot of work into it so probably it's quite good.

The big surprise is that Schmücker proposes to meet 8...e6 with the untested and modest looking 9.Nc2!?. Can this really be sufficient to fight for an advantage? I will not completely rule it out; Black has as Schmücker points out locked in his light-squared bishop and White can fairly easily neutralize Black's play in the a-file. Pure analysis isn't likely to reveal much in this quiet position so I hope to see some practical examples soon.

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.

Norwegian Variation Acid Test

If I ever write a book on the Norwegian variation in the Ruy Lopez, the first chapter will be on the 6.Bxf7+ variation. The positional ramifications of Johannessen's 7...Nxb3 and Zwaig's 7...f6 - or for that matter the Stein/Wibe variation with 7...exd4 - obviously are only relevant if Black can survive this more direct attacking attempt.

The natural context for an examination of this line is this classical radio game:

Z.Nilsson-Hoen, Radio game Norway-Sweden 1970
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5
When this game was played I believe the radio games attracted a little less attention than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. But still a game against our neighboring country held a lot of prestige.
5.Bb3 Na5 6.Bxf7+!?
Interestingly this brutal attempt at refuting the Norwegian variation is called the Swedish variation (even before this game, I think). For his bishop White gets two central pawns, two checks and a lead in development.
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Ke7 (Dia)

Obviously Black's king will be stranded in the centre for some time. In addition Black's knight on a5 is out of play and somewhat vulnerable as is his rook on a8. Is this sufficient compensation for the bishop? Only analysis and practical experience can tell. For the moment few players seem willing to take the White pieces but it's really hard to tell as there aren't many advocates for 5...Na5 either.

8.Nc3

This is White's most direct attacking attempt. Also 8.Qf3 and 8.d4 are dangerous moves which Black must be prepared for. In addition there is also the surprising 8.Nf7?! with the point 8...Kxf7 9.Qh5+ g6 10.Qd5+ Kg7 11.Qxa8. Fortunately for Black it seems that the queen is completely out of play after 11...Nc6. There appears to have been a postal theme tournament with this variation in 2003. As could be expected White scored badly but the games seem to have been of a rather low standard and may not prove much.

8...Qe8!

Hoen is armed with Norwegian preparations. The next few moves are according to analysis by Zwaig. At the time when the game was played 8...Nf6?! was considered to be the main variation (8...Bb7?! appears to be untested and after 9.Nd5+ Bxd5 10.exd5 White seems to have reasonable compensation) 9.Nd5+ Nxd5 (9...Ke8!) 10.exd5 Qe8 and now the Swedes had improvements over Schlechter's old analysis which started with the moves 11.d4 Kd8 12.0–0 d6 13.Bg5+ Be7. I am not sure exactly what the Swede's were planning but have been told that the line probably can be found in 'Collijn's Lärobok'. It may well have started 11.0–0 Kd8 12.Re1 Be7 when quite remarkably all the three d-pawn moves 13.d4 (which is likely to transpose to the 11.d4 line), 13.d6 (with the tactical point 13...cxd6 14.Qf3) or even the modest 13.d3 (which takes away a square from the knight on a5) make sense and give White reasonable chances.

9.Nd5+

It's worth noting that a few years later Hoen played 9.d4 as White against Zwaig: 9...Kd8 10.Qf3 Nf6 11.Nd5 (11.Bg5 Be7 12.Nd5 Rf8 13.Nxe7 Qxe7 14.0–0–0 Bb7 15.Rhe1 Kc8 16.Qh3 Qe6 =+ Hoen-Zwaig, Oslo 1973) 11...Be7 12.Bd2 Nc6 13.0–0–0 d6 14.Nxc6+ Qxc6 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.d5 Qc4 17.b3 Qc5 -/+ Kudriashov-Guseinov, Azov 1991.

9...Kd8 10.Qf3 (Dia)

10...Bb7!

Apparently this rook sacrifice was Zwaig's new idea. I don't know how bad 10...Nf6 would have been.

11.Nf7+ Kc8 12.0–0 Nf6 13.Nxh8 Nxe4 14.d3 Bxd5 15.dxe4 Be6 16.Qg3 Kb7 17.Bf4 Rc8 18.a4 b4

Around this point Fritz and Rybka start to appreciate Black's resources.

19.Be5 Qh5 20.Bxg7

20.c3 Nc6 21.Bf4 Be7 is not better.

20...Bxg7 21.Qxg7 Rg8 22.Qf6 Bh3 23.g3 Rxh8 (Dia)

Finally it's clear that Black is better. I assume the rest of the game was quite pleasant for the Norwegian audience, who must have suspected that Black was on his way to victory even if no clear variations could be calculated.

24.Rfe1 Re8 25.Qf4 Nc6 26.c3 Re7 27.Re3 Ne5 28.Qh4 Qxh4 29.gxh4 Rg7+ 30.Rg3

A bit disappointingly there will be no mating attack.

30...Nf3+ 31.Kh1 Rxg3 32.hxg3 b3

Quite frequently a rook and a pawn can be a good match for two minor pieces in a simplified endgame. But here there is no way to activate the rook and the kingside pawns can quite easily be blocked.

33.a5 d6 34.Ra3 Be6 35.Ra1 Nd2 36.Kg1 Nc4 37.Rb1 Nxa5 38.f4 Nc4 39.Kf2 a5 40.f5 Bf7 41.g4 a4 42.h5 (Dia)

I suppose most listeners had already found the decisive idea:

42...Nxb2! 43.Rxb2 a3 0–1

Addendum March 20th

A quick check in the 1903 edition of 'Collijn's Lärobok' reveals only this relatively short variation after 6.Bxf7+: 8.d4 Nf6 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.f4 Kd8 11.0-0 Be7 12.Qe1 Nc6 13.Nxc6 dxc6 14.c4 with an advantage to White according to Svenonius. Later editions may have had more detail but possibly it's Svenonius' original analysis I should try to locate.

Football and Chess

What is it with football (soccer) and chess? In Norway quite a few young players have had problems deciding which talent to give priority - football or chess. There can hardly be any doubt that there is a connection between the two activities but it doesn't necessarily have to be more to it than the fact that both are popular among young competitive boys and men.

I have never been much of a football enthusiast myself and consequently not in the best position to find out what's going on. But now maybe I will be able to read up on the subject.
There is now a new book available titled "Football & Chess". I have no idea about its content except what I can guess from its title but I suppose there at least will be a mention of a couple of Norwegian chess players.

Norway's first chess star, Simen Agdestein is well known for being a top GM (number 16 on the rating lists) at the same time as he successfully played on the Norwegian national team. Tim Krabbe has written an article on this in his Chess Curiosities.

Less well known is the fact that one of clubs in the Norwegian Youth Chess Federation used to be called "Åvangen ball og sjakk" and in fact was a combined football and chess club. The youth section of my chess club (OSSU) used to play some chess and football matches against them. The details varied but the matches always consisted of a football part where each goal scored counted for one point as did each win in the subsequent chess match (which were played over 11 boards or so). Obviously the players were the same in both matches. I seem to remember that the chess results tended to contribute more to the final result than the football goals did, so maybe the goals should have been weighted heavier - maybe two points for a goal could be worth a try.

I have never heard that Magnus Carlsen's football abilities are matching his teacher's but he is a healthy and sporty boy so I was not surprised to see in this ChessBase reportage that among the top chess players he is the football star.

Addendum March 25th:
Here is the Table of Content as found at Schachversand Niggemann:

Acknowledgements

003 Introduction

007 Football and Chess

011 Part 1 - The Technical Elements

013 Building connections

019 Dominating the Midfield

023 Build-up Play

032 Mobility

035 Piece Positions

038 Using Space

043 Creating Space

048 Exploiting Weaknesses

055 Stretching the Defence

057 Combinations

061 Defending

068 Stretch and Compress

071 Pressing

078 Rotating

084 Attacking from the Back

088 The Spare Man

091 The Hole

095 Using the width

101 Part 2 - The Coach as Chess Player

103 Benitez vs Ancelotti

113 Part 3 - General Strategic Concepts for Controlling the Game

115 The Initiative

125 The Mini-Battles

126 Balance

129 Part 4 - Psychological Factors

131 Awareness

135 Creativity

137 Daring

140 Concentration

143 Emotional control

145 Surprise

147 Part 5 - General Features and Aesthetics

149 Comebacks

151 Luck

153 Style

159 Evolution of the Games

163 The Beautiful Games

166 The Future

169 Bibliography

What's the Kan Variation?

I recently noticed this upcoming book on the Sicilian Kan from Everyman:

Judging from its title I expect the book to examine the variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 (Dia) which is what I call the Kan variation.

This expectation is even more reasonable because Everyman offers another older book, called 'Sicilian Kan' by Emms which I used to own and which treated this very line.

Yet I am not entirely certain as the publishers offer no moves and there is some confusion between the Sicilian lines Paulsen, Kan and Taimanov. I know for a fact that quite a few players and authors would call this 4...a6 line the Paulsen variation. And that indeed makes sense as Wilfried (not Louis as far as I know) Paulsen played the line a long time before Ilia Kan and with quite modern ideas. His stronger brother Louis probably contributed to the development of the line but himself preferred 4...Nf6 (generally followed by a quick ...Nc6) and 4...Bc5 (now known as the Basman-Sale variation).

This doesn't really explain why the 4...Nc6 variation (Dia) quite confusingly is occasionally called the Paulsen variation. The explanation may be that Louis Paulsen reached an important position from that variation repeatedly via the 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 move-order. Can it be that he after 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 feared 5.Nb5!?

So, what about the Taimanov variation then? Well, first of all it's worth noting that Taimanov early in his career played a lot of 4...a6 games. Then, around 1971 he started playing 4...Nc6 - usually followed by ...Nge7, ...Nxd4 and ...Nc6. This system - which now is rather rare - was what Taimanov himself called the Taimanov variation. What I don't really know is why the entire 4...Nc6 system is more and more frequently called the Taimanov system. It's a quite confusing situation and occasionally forces writers to distinguish between the Taimanov variation (where Black usually plays an early ...Qc7) and the 'pure Taimanov' (with ...Nge7).

Still not confused? Then take into account the hybrid variation below, which can equally well arise from 4...a6 5.Nc3 Nc6 and 4...Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 (Dia).


Is it a Kan, a Paulsen or a Taimanov? Well...I find 8129 games in MegaBase 2008, 1159 from the 4...a6 move-order and 6540 from the 4...Nc6 move-order (and obviously some from other move-orders too) ...so maybe it's a Taimanov.

Anyway, the move that interests me the most is 4...a6. That is also clearly the move that Hellsten has played the most, so I expect to buy the book as soon as it's available.

Leningrad Investigations II

It's time for another look at the 6...c6 Leningrad which was the subject of two earlier entries. After the introductory moves 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0–0 0–0 6.c4 c6, we have so far only considered the natural 7.Nc3. Also 7.b3 is a natural move which may easily transpose if Black plays a quick ...d6. However one of the critical replies must be 7.b4!? (Dia) which to some extent discourages ...Na6.

The relatively recent encounter Savchenko-Firman, Dresden 2007 continued 7...Ne4!? which appears consistent. Alternatives are:

a) 7...d6 transposes to a relatively normal Leningrad variation which more frequently arises after 6...d6 7.b4!? c6. It should however be noted that although 7.b4 in that variation has been played by Shirov and Korchnoi among others, it's far less common than 7.Nc3. It's also worth noting that the most popular reaction to 7.b4 is 7...c6 (in tough competition with 7...e5 and 7...Qe8).

b) 7...d5 8.Nbd2 dxc4 9.Nxc4 Be6 10.Nfe5 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bd5 13.Qc2 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Qd5+ =+ Alexandrova-Chuprikov, Alushta 2002.

c) 7...a5 is a logical reaction: 8.b5 a4 (8...cxb5 9.cxb5 d6 10.Qb3+ e6 11.Nc3 b6 12.Ba3 Ra7 13.Ng5 Re8 14.e4 Nxe4 15.Ngxe4 fxe4 16.Nxe4 += Gabrielian-Savchenko, Sochi 2006) 9.Nc3 d6 (9...Ne4 10.Qc2 Nxc3 11.Qxc3 d6 12.Ba3 Kh8 13.Qe3 cxb5 14.cxb5 Nd7 15.Ng5 Nb6 16.Rac1 += Schandorff-Sahl, Taastrup 1998) 10.Rb1 Qa5 11.Bd2 Kh8 12.Qc2 Be6 13.bxc6 bxc6 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Nf4 Bg8 16.Ng5 Qc8 17.Rfc1 e5 18.dxe5 dxe5 19.Nd3 Nbd7 20.Nb4 e4 21.f3 h6 22.Nh3 Re8 = Spassov-Movsziszian, Burgas 2001.

d) 7...Na6 is in my opinion the main alternative:

d1) 8.Qb3 Nc7 9.a4 a6 10.Bb2 Kh8 11.Na3 d6 12.b5 Bd7 13.b6 Ne6 14.a5 g5 15.d5 Nc5 16.Qa2 h6 17.Bd4 Nce4 18.Nd2 c5 19.Nxe4 fxe4 20.Bc3 += Rahman-Dzhumaev, Chennai 2004.

d2) 8.b5 must be the critical reply: 8...cxb5 9.cxb5 Nc7 10.Nc3 d6 11.a4 h6 (11...Rb8 12.Ba3 Kh8 13.Rc1 Ne4 14.Qc2 Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Ne6 16.Qc4 Bd7 17.d5 Rc8 18.Qd3 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Qe3 += Kortschnoj-Jakubiec, Panormo 2001) 12.Qd3 Kh7 13.Ba3 Be6 14.Nd2 Ncd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rfc1 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 1/2–1/2 Jirovsky-Jakubiec, Czechia 2004.

8.Bb2 a5!?

This looks more challenging than 8...d5 which is quite lightly tested: 9.Nbd2 a5 (9...Be6 10.Rc1 a5 11.b5 cxb5 12.cxb5 a4 13.Ba3 Re8 14.e3 Qb6 15.Qe2 Nd7 16.Rc2 Rac8 = Matveeva-Bartel, Internet blitz 2004) 10.b5 Nd7 11.a4 Ndf6 12.Ne5 cxb5 13.cxb5 Be6 14.Nb3 Nd7 15.f3 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Ng5?! (16...Nd6 17.Nc5 Nc4 18.Nxe6 Qb6+ 19.Qd4 Qxe6 20.f4 Rfd8 =) 17.Nc5 Qb6 18.Rc1 Rac8 19.Qd4 += Lautier-E.Berg, Internet blitz 2004.

9.a3 (Dia)

In Ovsejevitsch-Lindestrom, Esbjerg 2007 White was successful with 9.b5 cxb5 10.cxb5 a4 11.Nc3 Qa5 12.Rc1 e6 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Ng5 a3 15.Bc3 Qxb5 16.Nxe4 when White was clearly better. However, 9...d5! seems to secure Black at least equality.

9...d5!?

Now the game again will take on "Leningrad Stonewall" characteristics. It’s still not too late for 9...d6 with more typical Leningrad positions. Gavrilov - Lamprecht, Olomouc 2001 continued 10.Nbd2 Qe8 11.Qc2 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 e5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.e4 with an edge to White.

10.Nbd2

In Postny-Kobalia, Moscow 2002 White preferred 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Nc3 axb4 12.axb4 Rxa1 13.Bxa1 Nxc3 14.Bxc3 Bd7 15.Ne5 Bb5 16.Re1 e6 17.Qb3 Qd6 with equal chances.

10...Be6 11.Qc2 Nxd2 12.Nxd2 dxc4 13.Nxc4 axb4 14.axb4 Na6 (Dia)

15.Rfd1

White has gone slightly astray somewhere. Black has an edge also after 15.b5 cxb5 16.Ne5 Bd5 or 15.Qc3 Qxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxc4 18.Rfc1 Bb5.

15...Nxb4 16.Qb3 Rxa1 17.Bxa1 b5 18.Qxb4 Bxc4 19.Bxc6 Qd6 20.Qc5?

After 20.Qxd6 exd6 21.Bc3 Rc8 22.Bf3 Black is only a little more comfortable as he doesn’t achieve anything with 22...Bxe2 23.Bxe2 Rxc3 24.Bxb5 d5.

20...Qxc5 21.dxc5 Rc8 22.Bd5+ Bxd5 23.Bxg7 Bb3 24.Rb1 Kxg7 25.Rxb3 Rxc5 26.f4 Kf6 27.Kf2 Ke6 28.Ke3 Rd5 29.Ra3 Kd6 30.Ra6+ Kc5 31.Ra7 b4 32.Rxe7 b3 33.Rxh7?

This loses immediately but 33.Rb7 Kc4 only takes a little longer.

33...Kc6 0-1

A Paper Review on the Net

I just now noticed that Glenn Flear's review of "The Ruy Lopez: A Guide for Black" in New in ChessYearbook 83 is available as a pdf-file at the New in Chess Website. Flear is one of my favorite chess book reviewers and I suppose that the reviewer position in the NiC Yearbooks must be among the most prestigious there are. Only laziness has prevented me from quoting his review earlier. But with the possibility to just cut and past I have picked some of the quotes I liked the most:

"Despite being inexperienced in authorship, the young Norwegian GM (for the record, he’s 2537!) has done an excellent job of bringing the present state of theory to the public’s attention. In several lines his convincing analysis demonstrates why Khalifman and others have underestimated Black’s resources."

"The use of English is excellent, as for that matter are the style and attention to detail, even in the slower positional lines, making the whole package a pleasure to read. A nice touch is the inclusion of a number of quotations, which adds humour and a human touch that others would do well to follow.

I would advise anybody up to grandmaster to take the time to read the ‘Preface by Leif’, an object lesson in the process of preparing a repertoire. Something that is often misunderstood by lesser mortals."

"It’s fairly well documented that, as a rule, Gambit, tend to include more game references and analytic variations in the notes than Everyman do (this is immediately noticeable when you flick through this book and compare it with Andrew Greet’s). In certain Gambit books in the past there has been a tendency to go over the top, but here the complexity of the variation requires plenty of material to tell the whole story. Overall I felt that they have got the balance
about right between text, home analysis, previous experience and conclusions, and even the ubiquitous C212s are kept within bounds."

Maybe some of these quotes will soon appear at Gambit's review collection for the RL book?

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.

Interview with London Author

At freechess.info there is now an interesting interview with Marcus Schmücker - the author of "Das London-System".

I for a moment considered translating it to English, as I assume that a considerable number of my readers will have problem following the interview in German language. On second thought I dropped the idea, as I assume that those who don't read German will have relatively little interest in the book as well as in the author. So I decided only to extract and translate (rather loosely) some of the points that I found interesting:

• When my book was 80% ready, the English version of GM Kovacevic' book was published. At first I was a bit unhappy about this poor luck but it soon turned out that there were not only disadvantages in this apparently unfortunate timing. It turned out that he was following other paths and that most of my work was still worth publishing.
  My (SJ) comment: I am not in the publishing business but my guess is that the ideal timing for a book is 3-6 months after a good competing book is published. That allows you to list the competing book in your bibliography and include some essential analysis without allowing the first book to completely 'tap' the market.
  
• I consider the strongest point in my book to be that it offers the readers a simple receipt and a lot of fresh ideas. For instance I recommend the set-up with 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4 while Kovacevic examines both 2.Nf3 and 2.Bf4 with his main emphasis on the latter. In addition there is the fact that I only consider positions arising after 1.d4 d5. Against the King's Indian or the Queen's Indian I was unable even after deep research to find a promising path to advantage. In the introduction I have given my reasons for this decision and consequently omitted the analysis of these lines. So those who would like to play the London System "against everything" will need to get Kovacevic' book in addition to mine.
  My (SJ) comment: First of all I don't quite understand why he omitted the lines demonstrating that the London doesn't offer an advantage against 1...Nf6. Maybe there simply were too many lines that ultimately failed? Or maybe he didn't want to help potential black players? I have not yet seen the book and really look forward to reading the introduction.
  
  Schmücker probably has a point that including both the 2.Bf4 and the 2.Nf3 move-orders in our book made it slightly less accessible. Organizing the material was a quite hard task and I can see that for a reader preferring the 2.Nf3 move-order it can in some cases be hard to find the relevant material.
  
  It certainly was an interesting decision to only include 1.d4 d5 lines. I agree that the London System is more likely to achieve an edge after 1...d5. In Game 1 in our London book we write after 1.d4 d5: "The London System can be played after virtually any black set-up but is probably most effective against this classical reply." Consequently Schmücker probably has a slightly easier task to prove an edge for White. Yet I doubt it was a wise decision as I perceive the typical London player as a slightly lazy character who would very much like to play the same system against all of Black's replies to 1.d4.
  
• I chose to self publish this book in order to minimize the risk and see how the book was received. It will be considerably easier to contact a publishing company if I can refer to a success with this book. For my next projects I will choose the direct way.
  My (SJ) comment: I don't quite understand Schmücker's reasoning here. There may well be ways to self publishing a book so that there is little or no financial risk. But with a normal contract with a publishing company you are guaranteed at least a small fee. Probably he was worried that they would turn down an untitled author but I can see no other risk than being rejected. Personally I have found it very convenient to have a professional chess publisher to rely on. Gambit Publishing provided good general advice, helped me with the English language and did a very good (semi-automated, I think) proof-reading. In addition they ensured a good technical quality (cover, paper quality, binding, printing etc.).
  
• My next book will examine a certain system in the Dutch Leningrad which currently hardly ever is played and therefore will be a good surprise weapon.
  My (SJ) comment: This is very interesting - can he have the 6...c6 system in mind?