Opening Book of the Year Nomination

At the Chesspublishing Forum there is now a pre-voting for their first 'Opening Book of the Year' contest where 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' is among the nominated books. There are still some days before the voting closes. However, the voting seems to have slowed down and our book appears to have fair chances to be one of the three books to make it to the second round of voting. At the moment of writing it has collected 21 out of 131 votes and is in the second place after Marin's excellent 'The English Opening -Volume 1'.

In my opinion such a contest makes a lot of sense as opening books very rarely win any of the yearly chess books awards. That's probably only to be expected as books in this category by nature are even more technical than other chess books, normally have a rather short shelf life, and probably most importantly: usually only are of interest to players employing the opening in question.

There of course is no way to make such a voting contest entirely fair or even to completely avoid cheating, so it should be taken for what it is: entertainment. That being said, the Chesspublishing forum probably is the web's best chess discussion forum and the nominated books are all good, so we are sure to get a deserved winner.

If you are a registered ChessPub member (or want to join) and like 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', please give it a vote!

A Line with Personality

For the time being one of the very few chess tournaments I play is the team tournament for companies in Oslo - 'Sjakkalliansen'. It's a relatively informal event but there are some GMs and IMs on the top boards. The games generally are of low quality as they are played on Wednesdays evenings after a full day's work and are unrated. However, sometimes I try to sit down and calculate variations in order not to completely lose touch with tournament chess. And sometimes the openings are interesting, hinting where I need to put in some work.

This Wednesday I was reminded of an opening line I considered adopting myself some years ago.

Sv.Johnsen-B.Byklum, Sjakkalliansen 2010

1.d4 d6

The Neo Old Indian.
2.e4

Probably 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ Kxd8 is the line in which I have scored best with Black lately.
2...Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 (Dia)

This is an interesting idea. I have never liked 3...g6 (the Pirc), and 3...c6 (the Czech) seems to be in theoretical trouble. I am not 100% satisfied with 3...a6 (which I have recently renamed 'the Lynx') or 3...Nbd7 (the Lion).

4.dxe5

4.Nf3 may be a more practical choice, but I am no longer well prepared for the Philidor mainlines.

4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4
This must be best, developing a minor piece with a threat.

6...Be6

This is the move that gives the line its personality. 6...Bb4 is a different story leading to positions where Black is quite close to equality:

a) 7.Bd2 Ke7 8.a3 Bd6 9.Bg5 Be6 10.Nd5+ Bxd5 11.Bxd5 c6 12.Ba2 h6 (12...Rd8) 13.Bxf6+ Kxf6 14.0–0–0 Bc7 15.h4 += Smeets-Beliavsky, Amsterdam 2009.

b) 7.Nf3 Nbd7 (7...Nc6 8.Bxf7 Nxe4 9.0–0 Ke7 10.Nxe4 Kxf7 11.c3 Be7 12.Bg5 += Beliavsky-Solak, Murska Sobota 2007) 8.Bxf7 Nxe4 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Ke7 11.Bb3 Ndc5 12.Nxe5 Be6 13.Nf3 Nxc3 14.Be3 N5e4 15.0–0 c5 16.Rfe1 ½–½ Rublevsky-Radjabov, Almaty blitz 2008.

7.Bxe6 fxe6 (Dia)

This is the big idea. Black somewhat downgrades his pawn structure but the pawns are in a closed file and not easy to attack, and he gets some compensation:

• The e-pawns cover important central squares (e5, e4, f4 and f5) and allows Black to concentrate on flank play.
• The open d- and f-files enhance Black's grip on e4 and f4.
• Black's king is relatively safe and useful in the centre.

However, what's perhaps even more important in practical play is the fact that we have a somewhat unusual pawn structure with which Black is likely to have the more experience. Inexperienced players are quite likely to overestimate White's chances and may press too hard for an advantage which in reality is very small.

8.f3 Bd6

The main alternative 8...Bc5 9.Na4 Bd6 10.Be3 leads to a subtly different position. Probably the knight is better off on a4 than on c3:

a) 10...b6 11.Nh3 Ke7 12.Nf2 c5 13.b3 Nc6 14.Nd3 Nb4 15.Kd2 h6 16.Nab2 Nc6 17.Nc4 Bc7 18.c3 += Gomez Esteban-Zvjaginsev, Terrassa 1996.
b) 10...Nfd7 11.Nh3 Ke7 12.Nf2 Nc6 13.Nd3 Nb4 14.Nxb4 Bxb4+ 15.Ke2 b5 16.a3 Bd6 17.Nc3 a6 18.a4 += Vaisser-Epishin, Novosibirsk 1993.
c) 10...Nbd7 11.0–0–0 Ke7 12.Nh3 b5 13.Nc3 Rhb8 14.Nf2 b4 15.Ne2 a5 unclear Gipslis-Moskalenko, Alushta 1993.

9.Be3 a6

It was only after this move I fully realized that Black plans to expand with ...b5 and ...c5 rather than with ...c6 and ...a5-a4 as he usually does in similar positions with the pawn on f6 rather than on e6. 

10.0–0–0

I found this more flexible than immediately deciding where to develop my king's knight. However, transpositions are very likely:

a) 10.Nge2 Ke7 11.0–0–0 Nc6 12.Rd2 ½–½ Aroshidze-Gelashvili, Sort 2007.
b) 10.Nh3 Nc6 11.0–0–0 Ke7:
b1) 12.Nf2 ½–½ Aroshidze-Gelashvili, Benasque 2007.
b2) 12.Nb1 h6 13.Nd2 b5 14.c3 ½–½ V.Gurevich-Savchenko, Cappelle la Grande 1994.
b3) 12.Ne2 b5 13.Nf2 Rhf8 14.Nd3 Nd7 15.Kb1 Na5 16.b3 Nb7 17.Rhf1 Rf7 18.Bg5+ Kf8 19.Bc1 Kg8 20.Bb2 ½–½ Mamedov-Ftacnik, Saint Vincent 2005.

10...Ke7 11.Nh3
11.Rd2 Nbd7 12.Nge2 Rhd8 13.Rhd1 Bc5 14.Rxd7+ Nxd7 15.Rxd7+ Rxd7 16.Bxc5+ Kf6 of Beliavsky-Fridman, Enschede 2005 seems unclear to me (but may have been crystal clear for Beliavsky).
11...b5 12.Nf2 (Dia)

  

12...h6?!

This may not be a big mistake but it reduces Black's options on the kingside so he will no longer be able to generate much activity himself.

After 12...Nbd7 13.Rd2 (13.Ne2!?) 13...Rhb8 (13...Nb6 14.b3 Rhb8 15.Kb2 Nfd7 16.Rhd1 h6 17.Ne2 Bb4 18.c3 Bd6 19.f4 exf4 20.Nxf4 += Nevostrujev-Zemerov, Novosibirsk 2002) some examples of play are:

a) 14.Ne2 a5 15.Kb1 h6 16.Rhd1 a4 ½–½ Ovetchkin-Maletin, Nizhnij Tagil 2007.
b) 14.Kd1 Nb6 15.Bxb6 Rxb6 16.Ke2 Nd7 17.Ncd1 Rbb8 18.Ne3 += S.Reppen-Markosian, Tromsoe 2007.
c) 14.h4 Nb6 15.b3 Nbd7 16.Kb2 a5 17.a4 bxa4 18.Nxa4 Nb6 19.Nxb6 cxb6 20.Rhd1 +/- Karjakin-Kodinets, Internet blitz 2003.

13.h4 Nc6 14.Nd3 Nd7 15.h5 Rhf8 16.Rh3 Rf7 17.Ne2

After Black's 12th move g6 is a weakness, so I was considering f3-f4.

17...Na5 18.Bf2

I like this retreat. The bishop cannot stay in both the attractive diagonals (a7-g1 and h4-d8) but at least it can threaten to enter both.

18...Raf8 19.c3 Nc6 20.Kc2 a5 21.b3 Ra8 22.Rg1 Raf8 23.Bh4+ Nf6 24.Bf2 (Dia)

In reality this is a draw offer. It suited me well, as I was tired and my opponent was clearly higher rated than me. So speculating how to proceed playing for a win is mainly an academic exercize:

a) Rybka initially likes 24.Rg3 (which was one of my ideas when playing 16.Rh3) but when I follow up Rybka's suggestions it doesn’t seem to lead anywhere.
b) In the post mortem I suggested 24.g4 but I quickly got a position without potential. I wish I could remember the lines because now, in company with Rybka, 24...Kd7 25.g5 hxg5 26.Bxg5 seems moderately promising.
c) My next post mortem suggestion was 24.Ra1 Ra8 and now 25.g4. This looks promising after 25...a4 26.b4 but 25...Kd7 26.a4 b4 must be OK for Black.

24...Nd7 25.Bh4+ Nf6 26.Bf2 Nd7 27.Bh4+ ½–½

Mating Combinations in Norwegian

Title: Sjakk og matt

Authors: Svetoslav Mihajlov and Sverre Johnsen
Pages: 88
Language: Norwegian
Publishers: Self-published
Pdf extract



In a week or so the booklet 'Sjakk og matt' (Check and Mate) will be available in Norway. It is mainly a collections of mating combinations created by Svetoslav with some supporting prose (in Norwegian) by me. There is also a preface by GM Simen Agdestein, chess responsible in NTG - the Norwegian College of Elite Sport.

The combinations are based on exercizes that Svetoslav created when he a year ago assisted as a chess coach during my chess club's tournaments for kids, (every Monday 18.00-20.00 in Bogstadveien 30 in Majorstuen, Oslo). One of the nice things with mating combinations is that there is no point discussing the solution - a mate is a mate and ends the game.

I hope the book will be a useful addition to Norwegian chess literature which for obvious reasons is not very extensive.

Play the London System Announced

Everyman Chess has now officially announced 'Play the London System' by Cyrus Lakdawala. It is scheduled for September 2010 in the US and October 2010 in Europe, but Everyman hasn't exactly stuck rigorously to their publishing scheme the last year. At 192 pages it will be be of similar size as our 2005 work.

With this information I will take new contact with Gambit Publishing and suggest they publish an updated version of 'Win with the London System' early in 2011. There almost certainly will be an update but its extent is unclear (as is the timing).

Two More Stonewall Reviews

Yesterday I noticed two more reviews of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' on the net:

• Donaldson's review is now available on Silman Chess. I suspect it has already been published somewhere (possibly in print) a couple of months ago, as Gambit's infopage has already quoted it for some time.
• In Dansk Skak Union's 'Skakbladet' (available as a pdf-file for download) there is a review (in Danish) by Peter Heine Nielsen.

Donaldson's review focuses more on the opening than on the book. That happened all the time with 'Win with the London System' with a lot of reviewers stating that the book was fine but the subject boring. Fortunately Donaldson likes the Stonewall and quotes Kramnik's endorsing but slightly dated statements in Dvoretsky's 'Positional Chess'.

I found Peter Heine Nielsen's review very interesting. The great Dane is generally considered one of the best prepared GMs around. He has not been playing a lot lately but being a second for Anand and Carlsen is not less prestigious than some tournament wins. He points out that the Stonewall to some extent a Norwegian specialty and is of course right. All the early Norwegian GMs (Agdestein, Gausel, Djurhuus, Tisdall and Østenstad) played it regularly in the late eighties and early nineties (usually in combination with the French) and I think the main reason its popularity slowly declined in Norway was the fact that most of these players got less active on the tournament circuit.
Below you can see the original text (in danish) and my attempted translation.

En fremragende bog. Ud over forfatterne fungerer Leif Erlend Johannessen som rådgiver, og Simen Agdestein har skrevet forord og været involveret i kapitlerne med illustrerende partier. Agdestein selv har haft stor succes med den hollandske stonewall og beskriver godt de typiske planer. Stonewall er en strategisk åbning med stor dybde, og netop derfor har en af bogens forfattere, Ivar Bern brugt den med succes i kskak, hvor han vandt VM-titlen.

An outstanding book. In addition to the authors, Leif Erlend Johannessen has been an advisor and Simen Agdestein has written a preface and been involved in the chapters with illustrative games. Agdestein has had great success with the Dutch Stonewall himself and describes the typical plans well. The Stonewall is a strategical opening with great depth and exactly for this reason one of the authors - Ivar Bern - has used it successfully in correspondence chess where he won the World Championship.

Computerne tror oftest på Hvid, men forstår ikke altid de atypiske stillinger, hvor Sort måske har optisk svage felter og en dårlig løber, men i virkeligheden står udmærket. Ikke blot rehabiliterer de en undervurderet åbning, men de gør det med inspirerende kapitler bakket op med personlige erfaringer fra førende eksperter. Og selv om de vedkender sig deres inspiration fra Jens Kristiansens berømte artikel om åbningen her i Skakbladet, fornemmer man, at her videreformidles en slags fælles norsk skakforståelse.


The computers normally prefer White but don't always understand the atypical positions where Black has optical pawn weaknesses and a poor bishop but in reality has an excellent position. Not only do the authors rehabilitate an underestimated opening - they even do so by means of inspiring chapters supported by the personal experiences of leading experts. And although they admit being inspired by Jens Kristiansen's famous article on the opening here - in the 'Skakbladet' - you can sense that they are conveying a kind of common Norwegian chess perception.

Peter Heine Nielsen

Block with the Rook

I am not sure how the publishing companies reason about the matter, but as an author it seems an obvious advantage to be able to build on other authors' analysis; that is to have a recent work on your subject available. In order to do so, you need in practical terms to publish your work 3-4 months later than your competitor. This may seem a lot but you must calculate at least six weeks for typesetting and printing and you will frequently need one week to get hold of a newly published book.

I have for some time been curious about what Everyman would offer in their Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch: Dazzle your Opponent! Some of the answer is now available as downloadable pdf-files at their website.

I was not very surprised by their suggestions of 1.d4 f5 2.Nh3!? and 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.h3!? as weapons for White. While it was obviously impossible to devote much attention to these lines in 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', I noted that both lines had some sting while researching the book. The Everyman team probably will poke some holes in our very limited coverage of these lines but that's the nature of chess analysis (and I doubt that either of the lines will become very popular at master level).

More of a surprise was their suggestion of 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7!? (Dia) for Black.

In our Stonewall book we decided to recommend 2...g6 as it seemed less theoretically volatile, so in this line there is no overlap between the books. However, in the forthcoming revised edition of Summerscale's 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' we recommend exactly this line for White.

Before agreeing to update the Summerscale book I set the condition that if it turned out that his 2.Bg5 analysis was getting shaky, I would replace his analysis with something less tactical (4.e3/4.Bg3 and 3.Bf4!? were the obvious candidates). However, I could find no major problem with his recommendation of 4.e4 and sent Gambit a manuscript based on 4.e4, including some analysis on 4...Rh7 (which Summerscale didn't mention in his original book). My conclusion (based on Rybka 3.0 and a friend who for some time hoped that 4...Rh7 solved all Black's problems in the 2.Bg5 variation) was that 4...Rh7 was close to lost for Black.

Now I must say I am a bit anxious to see what Williams' 21 pages of analysis offer. Unless I am very unlucky I will have his analysis available for the final proof-reading stage of the Killer book. In the meantime, here is a game that Williams needs to improve upon in his analysis:

Daniel Gormall - Simon Williams
EU Union Ch (Liverpool) 2006

1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7 5.Qh5+ Rf7 6.Nf3 
6.Bxg5 hxg5 7.Nf3 probably is less exact. Black was somewhat better after 7...Nf6 8.Qg6 Nxe4 9.Ne5 Nd6 10.Be2 e6 11.Bh5 Qe7 in Alzate-Rodi, Buenos Aires 2005.
6...Nf6 7.Qg6 Nc6 8.Bxg5!?
8.Bc4 seems promising.
8...fxe4 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 hxg5 11.exf6 exf6
11...e6 may be better. The chances after 12.Nd2 Qxf6 13.Qxf6 Rxf6 14.Nxe4 Rf5 15.Bd3 Bg7 16.c3 was roughly equal in Kharitonov-Gajewski San Agustin 2003.
12.Nc3 Bb4 13.0–0–0 Bxc3 (Dia)

14.Bc4!
This seems to secure White the better chances.
14...Bxb2+ 15.Kxb2 Qe7 16.h4! d5?! 17.Bxd5 Qe5+ 18.c3 Be6 19.Bxe6 1–0

The Original Killer Repertoire

Do you know the original 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire'? It used to be one of my favorite chess opening books and when Gambit asked whether I was interested in updating it, I jumped at the opportunity.
The original work was a fairly slim volume at 144 pages. It has been out of print for some time now and as usual that causes the price offers on Amazon and e-Bay to skyrocket. I would expect that trend to be reversed or at least reduced by the arrival of the revised edition but you never know. There will almost certainly be someone who swear by the original edition and find all additions to detract from the book's value.

So in order to prepare myself for the coming slaughter, I went searching for internet reviews of the 1998 edition. I seemed to remember a review by a GM on the British Chess Federation's website but was unable to find it. I was also unable to find any review of the book at Silman's large depository so I ended up with a surprising meagre catch:

• The most interesting find probably was this review by Baburin at Chess Cafe.
• Niggemann offers a review in German by Thomas Schian in Rochade Europa. See below for a translation.
• The information at Amazon - and in particular the reviews - is always interesting. The reviews cannot always be trusted - sometimes there seem to be organized campaigns - but frequently you get an impression of the quality of a work.

In his book 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' the English GM Summerscale presents an interesting, unusual, aggressive and rather complete opening repertoire for White. The initial moves are 1.d4 and 2.Nf3. Against the Grünfeld and the King's Indian Summerscale offers the Barry Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3), against the Pirc and Modern defences he recommends 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be3. Here he also examins variations without ...Nf6 for Black. The Queen's Gambit is avoided by means of the Colle-Zukertort set-up (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 g6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5 5.b3). Of course Summerscale also discusses various Anti-Colle systems. Then follows a chapter on the Queen's Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3 Bb7 5.0-0 c5 6.c4), the Benoni (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3) as well as the Dutch (1.d4 f5 2.Bg5). In the final chapter various sidelines are examined.

The offered repertoire parts fit well together and make a rather complete repertoire. The killer repertoire contains relatively few theoretical variations. Nevertheless there no doubt are books that treat some of the lines in more detail. This may also be the reason why Summerscale only recommends his own book for players rated up to 2000 Elo. All taken into account the book offers White an unusual but yet correct and aggressive repertoire for the price of 45 Deutsche Mark. However, you will need some basic English reading skills in order to understand Summerscale's explanations.


Thomas Schian, Rochade Europa 04/99

PS
My apologies for neglecting this blog for the past couple of months. I first had a very busy October and then was a bit apatic in November. I now plan to resume blogging as normal.

Another German Stonewall Review

I noticed that Schachversand Niggemann now quotes Schachwelt's review of "Win with the Stonewall Dutch" (in German). Schackwelt appears to be a new German language chess magazin that started up in September this year. They also offer an "Issue 0" from August 2009 as a free download. As far as I can see this must be an excellent buy for anyone who can read German.


I can't find any way to link directly to Niggemann's review page, so I give the text below with my attempt at a translation.

Ein Repertoire aus schwarzer Sicht behandelt "Win with the Stonewall Dutch". Das Autorengespann besteht aus Sverre Johnsen (ELO 2171), Ivar Bern (ELO 2328, IM und Fernschachweltmeister) sowie GM Simen Agdestein. Die beiden letztgenannten sind jeweils auch mit einigen eigenen Partien vertreten. Die Idee das Wissen von ein oder zwei starken Spielern zu nutzen und einen enthusiastischen Amateur die Fleißarbeit machen zu lassen ist reizvoll und war schon in "Win with London System" ganz erfolgreich. Im Vorwort wird dargestellt, wer für welche Themen verantwortlich war. Allerdings bleibt es an manchen Stellen trotzdem unklar, wessen Meinung man bei "I" oder "We" jetzt liest, oder ob es sich etwa um die Meinung des Amateurs aufgrund einer Engine-Beurteilung handelt.

A repertoire from Black’s point of view is what "Win with the Stonewall Dutch” offers. The author team consists of Sverre Johnsen (Elo 2171), Ivar Bern (Elo 2328, IM and Correspondence Chess World Champion and GM Simen Agdestein. The two last ones are represented by some of their own games. The idea to utilize the knowledge of one or two strong players by making an enthusiastic amateur do the hard labour is beautiful and was quite successful already in "Win with London System". In the preface it’s made clear who was responsible for the different subjects. Nevertheless there are several places were it’s unclear whose opinion is expressed by “I” or “We” and whether it is the opinion of an amateur based on a computer evaluation.

Nach drei einführenden Partien folgt die Theorie in 12 Kapiteln. Sieben davon behandeln weiße Aufbauten mit g3, zwei Kapitel weiße Aufbauten ohne g3. In zwei weiteren wird auf weiße Abweichungen im zweiten Zug (2. Sc3, 2. Lg5, 2. e4, 2. g4) eingegangen. Das letzte Kapitel behandelt weiße Aufbauten ohne d4, in denen der Stonewall-Aufbau als kritisch gilt. Beginnt Schwarz mit der Zugfolge 1. d4 e6, kann er sich die letzten drei Kapitel sparen, muss aber dann mit 2. e4 (Übergang zu Französisch) rechnen. Jedes Kapitel beinhaltet: Eine Übersicht über die Partien, Kommentierte Musterpartien, eine Übungsaufgabe, sowie eine Theorie-Übersicht. Den Kern bilden kommentierte Partien, in denen Schachwissen rund um die Eröffnung vermittelt wird. Die Autoren legen dabei vor allem Wert auf das Verständnis und gehen trotzdem auf Feinheiten z.B. bzgl. der Zugfolge ein. Das gelingt sehr gut, jedoch ist eine Menge Arbeit erforderlich. Meistens werden eine oder mehrere Möglichkeiten für Schwarz vorgestellt. Die Hauptempfehlung steckt in den Musterpartien, teilweise aber auch in der Theorie-Übersicht oder gar in der Besprechung der Übungsaufgabe. Wer sich jedoch die Mühe macht, wird die entstehenden Strukturen besser verstehen, so dass das Buch durchaus auch für den Weißspieler interessant ist.

After three introductory games the theory follows in 12 chapters. Seven of these treat white set-ups with g3, two chapters are on white set-ups without g3. In two further chapters White’s second move deviations (2 Nc3, 2 Bg5, 2 e4, 2 g4) are examined. The last chapter takes care of set-ups where White doesn’t play d4, in which the Stonewall is considered critical. If Black uses the move-order 1.d4 e6 he can save himself the last three chapters but must be prepared for 2.e4 and the French defence. Each chapter contains: An overview of the games; annotated illustrative games; an exercise and a theoretical survey. The games are the core around which the chess knowledge is communicated. The authors primarily emphasize understanding but nevertheless go into details regarding – for instance – move-orders. This succeeds very well but requires an effort by the reader. Mostly one or more alternatives are offered for Black. Mostly the main recommendation can be found in the illustrative games but occasionally also in the theoretical survey or even in the comments to the exercises. Anyone who invests the required work will gain a better understanding of the occurring structures, making the book an interesting option even for those playing the white side.


Mit freundlicher Genehmigung
Prof. Dr. Matthias Willems, Schachwelt 1/2009

This entry was updated November 20th 2009.

Stonewall Omissions III

In the long and somewhat tangled Chess Publishing Forum thread on our Stonewall book, there is a question about move-orders in the 2.Nc3 line: How should Black react to 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.e3!? (Dia), planning a delayed capture on f6 and possibly saving a tempo by keeping the bishop on f1 (planning to meet ...Na6 with Bf1xa6 rather than Bd3xa6).

This question is justified as the move 4.e3 is not even mentioned in our book. It has been played quite frequently but doesn't seem to have much independent significance against our suggested plan of action. After the consistent 4...c6 I would think that White's best try for an edge is transposing back to 4.Bxf6 lines with 5.Bxf6 exf6 6.Qf3 g6. However, there are a few independent tries:

5.Qf3?!
This is TalJechin's main suggestion. As far as I can see (I am having some minor problems with my ChessBase installation) the move is untested. It indeed makes some sense as the queen quite often goes to f3 in the 4.Bxf6 lines. However, the queen move isn't highly evaluated by Rybka and seems to fail achieving anything for quite concrete reasons (given below).
Other tries are:
a) After 5.Bd3 Na6, 6.Bxf6 or 6.Bxa6, probably transposing to lines covered in the book appears best as 6.Qf3 Ne4! looks strong.
b) 5.h3 looks very slow. However, after 5...Na6 6.Bxa6 actually gains a tempo over some lines where White plays Bf1-d3xa6, so Black may prefer 5...Qa5!?, hoping to use the ...Ba3 trick suggested elsewhere in the book after 6.Bxf6 exf6.
c) Other moves like 5.Nf3, 5.Nh3, or 5.Qd2 are certainly possible but I fail to see any clear idea behind them.
5...Ne4!
I am not convinced that 5...Qa5!? 6.Bxf6 exf6 7.O-O-O b5!? 8.Bxb5!? is quite as strong as Rybka thinks it is. But why go deeply into lines like that when the active knight move looks so simple and strong?
6.Nxe4
After 6.h4, 6...Qb6 looks stronger than the immediate capture on c3.
6...fxe4
Also 6...dxe4 7.Qh3 Qa5+ 8.c3 Be6, planning ...Bf7 and ...h6 looks OK.
7.Qg3 Qa5+ 8.c3 Bf5 (Dia)

The position is quite interesting but I think it's already possible to conclude that Black is fine as he has more space and is not behind in development.

So, is this an omission?
Yes, probably it is. Foreseeing that a reader would be curious about the untested 5.Qf3 and related lines would have been quite difficult. But there should at least have been a sentence saying something like 'After 4.e3 c6, White probably has nothing better than 5.Bxf6, transposing back to our main line'.

Check Chess Check

I am still too busy for any substantial blog entries. However, this time I am very pleased to refer to another site. The Chess Check site which seems to be based on their monthly Chess Check e-zine was brought to my attention by Gambit's infopage on 'The Ruy Lopez: a Guide for Black', which quoted John Lee Shaw's review of that book. I enjoyed the review, which had a nice personal touch, as well as the rest of their e-zine.

I already look forward to their October Issue which is planned for October 31st!

Addendum November 2nd
I am happy to note that the October issue was delivered on time and seems to be another enjoyable publication.

Five Stars from Carsten Hansen

In his October book review at Chess Cafe, Carsten Hansen gives five stars (out of five possible) to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch'. I shall not give lengthy quotations as it's all available online but I can't resist duplicating his conclusion:

This book is incredibly well-written and it makes the theory of this opening extremely accessible. The authors are honest and objective in their appraisal of the individual lines, which makes the book a perfect tool for the study of this fascinating opening. If you have not already bought this book, it is time to do so now. For those who need a new weapon against 1 d4, this book makes an excellent case for it to be the Stonewall Dutch.

My assessment of this book: *****

As this in my opinion was the voice of the last of the major chess book reviewers, I will not be holding my breath for any more reviews. But if I should stumble upon any more, I most likely will mention it in this blog. 
 
In a week or two I probably will take up my normal (irregular) blogging again - hopefully with some analytical content.

The Future of Kung Fu Chess

I never intended this blog to be just a collection of reviews and references to other sites. But for another two weeks I don't expect to have much time available. Therefore I today refer my readers to the excellent Streetham & Brixton blog which has some news on Kung Fu chess, which is one of the relatively few chess variants I enjoy. Apparently Tempest is the place to go for Kung Fu Chess enthusiasts.

It may not be an easy game to implement, but in my opinion Kung Fu chess deserves a place on at least one of the major servers (like ICC, Playchess or FICS). Or - on second thought - maybe that is turning the argument on its head? Maybe I should wish Tempest good luck in their attempts to become a major chess server?

Flear Reviews Win with the Stonewall Dutch

I am not sure who is the most influential online chess book reviewer. John Watson and Jeremy Silman are two hot candidates with Carsten Hansen as a possible contender. However, for paper based reviews I am quite convinced that Glenn Flear who writes the review section of New in Chess' Yearbooks must top the list. Therefore I was very happy to see him recommend 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' in Yearbook 92. He opens his review, which takes up almost an entire page, charmingly modest:
"Although I have been covering the Stonewall Dutch for chesspublishing.com for several years, I don't claim to really understand it that well. This book could be exactly what I need to bring my erudiation up to shape!"

Flear then goes on quoting and referring to Agdestein's foreword concluding this part of his review as follows:
"The theory is sufficient detailed for anyone wanting to know what has happened before but, unlike many lines which can be worked out at home, the Stonewall is 'an opening for those who like to fight there and then'. An ideal choice for players with limited memory capacity but great fighting spirit!"

There follows some more kind words about the book's disposition and content before he sums up:
"Highly revealing and a definite for anyone who doesn't really comprehend the Stonewall Dutch, which means (be honest now!) just about everyone."

All I can do in return is recommending Yearbook 92. In my opinion the review section is worth the price of the book alone. And as added bonuses there are 33 theoretical surveys, Sosonko's Corner and the Forum. Definitely a must buy!

Nothing but Praise from Watson

I was very pleased to see Watson's recent reviews at The Week in Chess. Not only does he give 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' unconditional praise, but he adds weight to his evaluation by stating that 'The Dutch has been a part of my recent writing (Mastering the Chess Openings again), and I got a chance to look at this book closely.'

As a special bonus Watson on the subject of the Ruy Lopez returns to my previous book with Leif Johannessen, 'The Ruy Lopez: a Guide for Black'. I take the liberty to lift the relevant text from his lengthy review:

In an earlier column I reviewed Sverre Johnsen's & Leif Johannessen's The Ruy Lopez: A Guide For Black, which promotes the Zaitsev Variation: 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 Bb7 10.d4 Re8. That book is a complete repertoire after the move 3...a6, that is, it includes solutions to the Exchange Variation and White's alternatives from moves 4-10. I consider it the best 'Ruy Lopez for Black' book in general, because in addition to great theoretical detail and a good choice of variations (see below), it has a huge amount of material on ideas and themes, strategy in the Ruy, and how to prepare and practice openings.

I have nothing to add!

More Norwegian Stonewall Reviews

There is a new Norwegian review of 'Win with Stonewall Dutch' at Nettavisen's chess pages.
There also was a review in the new issue (4/2009) of 'Norsk Sjakkblad'.
Unfortunately I am extremely pressed for time these days so I will not attempt to quote, translate or comment on these for some days.

Dutch - Open Games

There have been some analytical reactions to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' and I am planning to at least briefly comment on most of them and offer some analysis if relevant. However, I am still quite busy so I must deal with them slowly and one by one. Today I will look at what I believe must be one of the simpler issues.

A reader on the Chess Publishing forum thinks that in Lesson 12 after the moves 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.d4!? e6 we should have dealt with the move 4.d5 (Dia). For the context I should mention that this position is discussed in Exercise 12 where the student is supposed to analyse the line independently, then check his analysis with a computer program and finally consult our suggested solution.

To my surprise I see that 4.d5 was originally suggested by a poster I have reason to believe is a fairly strong player. Yet I humbly disagree and assume the move was suggested somewhat light-heartedly - possibly for the fun of playing 2.d3, 3.d4 and 4.d5. That kind of fun can occasionally work well in closed positions. But in this case the Dutch leads to relatively open play.

In my opinion 4.d5 might reasonably have been discussed in some detail if it had belonged in an earlier lesson. However, after having dealt in some details with the comparable line 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 (Dia) in Lesson 9, (where we opine that 3.d5 is unlikely to be a threat to Black's opening as it violates basic opening principles) I honestly don't think that this should be necessary. Black's extra tempo somewhat reduces his number of options but should not at all be difficult to use in a positive way.

Exercise 9 dealt with the highly tactical line 3...exd5 4.Qxd5 d6 5.Ng5 Qe7 6.Nxh7 (Dia)

Here Black has an important choice between 6...c6 7.Qb3 Rxh7 8.Qxg8 Rh4 as in an interesting game by Miles and 6...Rxh7 7.Qxg8 Rh4 8.Qb3 Nc6! as in a more recent game by Jussupow.

Having studied these positions it should be clear to any student that 4.d5 is, frankly speaking, a quite poor move. The main point is that after 3./4. d5 Black has the option to open the centre, reaching a kind of position where the pawn structure and even the number of pawns is of less importance than piece activity and direct tactical threats. As a result Black, as any analysis engine can confirm, has not one but a number of ways to reach a satisfactory position.

a) Rybka 3 likes the gambit line 5...Nf6!? 6.Qxf5 d5 7.Qd3 Bc5 and thinks that Black has full compensation. I am not sure that all programs will agree as some are very materialistic but most humans will find that Black has clearly the better practical chances here.

b) If you don't like sacrificing pawns 5...Bb4+ 6.c3 Nge7 7.Qd3 Bc5 is a simple way to complete development and reach a fully satisfactory position. Rybka considers that White is very slightly better here but I cannot really see why.

c) 5...d6 probably is even stronger. Black threatens to develop with tempo on White's exposed queen and 6.Ng5 (which is critical in the parallel position with Black's knight still on b8) is meaningless for at least two reasons:

c1) 6...Qf6 looks strong as the consistent 7.Nxh7? (Dia) loses to the slightly surprising 7...Qd4!.

c2) For practical purposes 6...Qe7 (Dia) may be even stronger as White may be tempted into 7.Nxh7 (what else?) 7...Be6 8.Qb5 0–0–0 9.Nxf8 Rxf8 when Black has more than compensation for his pawn. Rybka says '=+ (-0.34)' at search depth 14 but I suspect that White is lost.

White obviously should look for alternative 6th moves, but then Black will follow up with 6...Nf6 and e.g. 7...g6 and a very comfortable Leningrad position.

Disclaimer

This analysis is based on my own evaluations, supported by some Rybka input, and I have not consulted my co-author who was the book's analytical authority.

The Stonewall Reviewed in Norwegian

The national Norwegian television company NRK has a story and a review of 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' in their sports section today. I am too busy right now but maybe I in the near future - as a service for non-Norwegian readers - will attempt a translation of the conclusion.

Stonewall Omissions II

While the more or less 'professional' reviewers have all been very kind to 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch', there have been some critical remarks by what may possibly be called 'Dutch enthusiasts'. I will have a look at one of these reviews which can be found at Chess Publishing Forum.

In the thread 'New Book - Win with the Stonewall Dutch' a poster called 'Ametanoitos' in post #18 starts a debate. I will not go into analytical details as I think the analysis provided mostly speaks for itself. I will rather comment on his points from an author's viewpoint.

• Ametanoitos doesn't trust our recommendation 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.d5 Bb4+ 4.c3 Bd6 because in his notebook he some years ago wrote 'Do not trust the ...Bd6 idea'. He doesn't remember his exact analysis but found that following some suggestions that were recommended as leading to equality (in some other books) didn't quite equalize against natural moves. So he instead decided to go for 3...d6.
  
  

Well, a book cannot reasonably be expected to agree with every reader's preferences. 3...Bb4+ has been by recommended by various books and played repeatedly by Dutch specialists Gleizerov, Ulibin and Simons so it doesn't seem likely it's that bad.

• On page 168 we say that 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Be7 4.h4 'looks unsound and is likely to backfire after 4...Nf6.' Ametanoitos claims that 'this is not as bad as they say' and gives some examples demonstrating that the line can be quite dangerous but none of them with our recommendation 5.Nc3 Ne4.
  

Firstly I must say that our comment wasn't meant to be a total condemnation of the line. In my vocabulary there is a difference between 'looks' and 'is'. I would be surprised if this line offers White an advantage against sensible play but I have been surprised before. More importantly I again fail to see how this can be a weakness of the book. I will admit that we in addition to 6.Nxe4 might well have added the game Gohlil-Keitlinghaus, 2nd Bundesliga 2002 which continued 6.Qd3 d5 7.Qe3. However, there is always a matter of space and the line doesn't look frightening. I honestly think you should be able to reach a playable position against such a line without any concrete preparation.

Then Ametanoitos moves on to a main variation: 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 5.0–0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Qc2!?:

• Firstly he is not satisfied with our 'recommendation' 7...Nbd7, offering the game Taimanov- Lisitsin, Leningrad 1949 which continued 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nc3 a6 10.Bf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 0–0 12.Na4 with a quite clear advantage to White.
  

Well, I must agree that the position after 12.Na4 is not pleasant for Black and that the reader deserves guidance. It's a bit strange that we overlooked this game even if it's a bit old. Most likely we missed it because the game begun 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2 Nd7 5.g3 Bd6 6.Bg2 f5 7.0–0 Ngf6 thus only merging with our repertoire in the last minute. Another possibility is that we sorted the games according to rating and forgot to check for 'pre-Elo' games - that happens from time to time.

Then it must be pointed out that 7...Nbd7 isn't strictly a 'recommendation'. Rather we point out that this is how Black could respond if he prefers to leave his king in the centre against Bf4 lines (which White may still enter). With this basic premise in mind I will suggest that 11...b5!? is a very natural try for Black. Actually, after allowing Rybka chew on the position until it reaches 18 plys' depth it has 11...b5 on top ahead of 11...0-0 with the evaluation '= (0.23)'. That may not be ideal for Black but it's the kind of positions you sometimes have to be content with playing Black. Maybe I in a future entry will elaborate on the value (or lack of so) of these Rybka or Fritz evaluations.

• Next Ametanoitos is unhappy that we after our recommendation 7...0-0 doesn't mention Cox' suggestion in 'Starting Out: 1.d4', 8.Ne5!?.

I Plead Guilty!

This line should have been covered. I don't really know how we missed it but must assume I got too carried away mapping possible transpositions between 7.Qc2, 7.Nc3 and 7.Bg5 and missed some independent lines.

As can be seen from our bibliography, Cox' book wasn't among our sources. My chess library is quite extensive (3/4 of it has been deported to my parents' home for space reasons) but it doesn't contain that book and I didn't really consider buying it for the sake of writing this Dutch book. That may have been a mistake as I have been informed that the book is quite good. Nevertheless, this is not a sufficient explanation as there have been 42 games played, some of them with strong white players and with well known Stonewall experts on Black's side (Vaisser among others).

That being said, I am not really impressed by the move's pure chess qualities. In this position Rybka is greatly helped by its inability to understand the concept of 'consistency' and happily suggest 8...c5! (Dia) with what seems like instant equality.

As you can see for yourself this is just the start of the debate on the forum. I will follow up with another entry or two but not really enter the analytical discussion.

A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire on the Loose

Gambit Publishing has now released their coming titles for the winter. There are quite a few interesting looking books on the horizon.

To me, the most interesting one is an update of Aaron Summerscale's classic ' A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' which is scheduled for March 2010. I can honestly say I was surprised to see my name listed as a co-author as my task just was to bring this 11 years old book up to date. However, in retrospect Gambit's decision seems the only reasonable one. The book has been quite heavily updated and it would not have been fair to mr. Summerscale to list him as sole author.

Another surprise was that the book - as the only one on their new list - will be in Gambit's small format (A5 - 210x145 mm). I have no idea why this decision was made but it must somehow be related to the fact that even after the update the book is relatively light weight.

I am again pleased with the cover which certainly must be another Wolff Morrow creation. His style is quite recognizable and the theme fits the title quite nicely.

My apologies to everybody waiting for blogs with an analytical content - be it the Stonewall or the Noteboom. I am working but I am working slowly and the days go by.

More Stonewall Reviews

Some more Stonewall reviews for the archive:

Jeremy Silman - author of 'How to Reassess Your Chess' - is probably right when claiming to have the greatest online collection of chess book reviews. I always follow his (and his staff's) reviews as they usually are quite detailed and well written. However, if I hadn't been alerted by an e-mail from my publishers, this time he might have stayed under my radar for some days by adding a review of our Stonewall book just one day his other August reviews. There may at this site also be another review of our book by John Donaldson as indicated on Gambit's infopage. I have however been unable to locate this review.



Chessvibes has a growing collection of reviews. Some of them are slightly controversial (see 'Play 1.b3) but all seem fair and well thought out by a reviewer who really has worked with the books in question. This time Arne Moll considers 'Win with the Stonewall Dutch' together with a few other books: Openings, openings, openings. As far as I can see his review is very favourable. He points out that there are some very complicated move-order issues in the variation 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.c4 and that he had trouble following our explanations. This is not strange, as this really is a complex issue. For practical purposes this may not be too much to worry about as:

1. 4...d5 is quite playable for Black and the book gives what I believe is sufficient guidance even if Black should be move-ordered into the lines resulting from this move-order.
2. Following 4...c6, White will mostly play either 5.Nh3 when Black can play for ...d6 and ...e5 or 5.Nf3, leading to positions considered after the move-order 4.Nf3.

Below the review is a quite interesting discussion where readers discuss whether those playing unusual openings really want to read thick tomes on their favorites.





There is also a review in Dutch by Gerard Rill at the chess shop 'De beste zet'. Written Dutch is relatively easy to understand for a Norwegian who can also read German (spoken Dutch is something entirely different!) but I am not sure I understand everything. Below follows an attempt to translate his conclusion:

Is there then nothing negative to remark about this book? Actually I can think of only one thing: the old masters of the Dutch are not taken into consideration. In order to understand the Dutch not only the current stand of theory is important but also how it was developed, for instance during the games of the World Championship match between Botwinnik and Bronstein in 1951.

Finally: To whom can I recommend this book? Firstly naturally to all French players. Further to black players who enjoy immediately going for the throat of White's king after 1.d4. Against weak opposition this certainly produces surprisingly quick results. But especially it can be recommended to everyone who like to play openings where understanding is more important than memorization.
Good luck with it!

Alas, when it comes to details and single words I must admit that this is all guesswork based on similarities. For instance I am quite confident that 'het begrip van de stelling' must mean 'understanding of the position'. I am not equally sure that 'hoofd hoeft te leren' means 'emptying your head' (and - assuming that this is correct - that this in turn means memorizing) but it seems quite likely. Maybe someone who actually knows the language can correct me?

Addendum August 14th
I did some changes and corrections to the translation above in order to reflect the comments by Shrek below and an e-mail from IM Gerard Welling. It's still not a word by word translation (never a good idea) but now probably a little closer to the meaning.