Monday, November 28, 2011
King's Gambit Delayed Again
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Veresov Books
Some time ago a reader asked for advise on (Richter-) Veresov books. Unfortunately there is in my opinion no really good book on the Veresov. The dedicated books that I am aware of are:
A Ferocious Opening Repertoire
Author: Lakdawala
Publisher: Everyman 2011
Cyrus Lakdawala is a good writer. I find his style somewhat chatty but for many subjects that fits very well. Unfortunately he was probably not the right author for this subject. Not because it actually was his brother that used to play the Veresov but because Cyrus (possibly in contrast to his brother Jimmy) doesn't seem very interested in exact variations and tactical complications but prefers to discuss strategy and pawn structures.
My assessment: ****
The Veresov: Surprise Your Opponents with the Tricky 2 Nc3!
Author: Davies
Publisher: Everyman 2003
I may have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog but I must admire Davies for the consistent high quality on his products (including his electronic ones). This too is a quite good book although not terribly ambitious. The author offers some sensible advice on how to select a Veresov repertoire but his analytical input seems relatively modest.
My assessment: ****
My assessment: ***
My assessment: **
Queen's Pawn: Veresov System
Author: Bellin
Publisher: Batsford 1983
Bellin is one of my favorite authors, and I really like this old book which combines good prose with well selected analysis and game fragments. Unfortunately it's now so old that it's mainly a collectors' item.
My assessment: *****
It should be added that the cover of my copy looks a bit better.
My assessment: **
Scale:
******: Perfect
*****: Very good
****: Good workmanship
***: Worth the money
**: Only for collectors
*: Stay away!
A Ferocious Opening Repertoire
Author: Lakdawala
Publisher: Everyman 2011
Cyrus Lakdawala is a good writer. I find his style somewhat chatty but for many subjects that fits very well. Unfortunately he was probably not the right author for this subject. Not because it actually was his brother that used to play the Veresov but because Cyrus (possibly in contrast to his brother Jimmy) doesn't seem very interested in exact variations and tactical complications but prefers to discuss strategy and pawn structures.
My assessment: ****
The Veresov: Surprise Your Opponents with the Tricky 2 Nc3!
Author: Davies
Publisher: Everyman 2003
I may have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog but I must admire Davies for the consistent high quality on his products (including his electronic ones). This too is a quite good book although not terribly ambitious. The author offers some sensible advice on how to select a Veresov repertoire but his analytical input seems relatively modest.
My assessment: ****
Richter-Veresov: the Chameleon Chess Repertoire
Authors: Gufeld and Stetsko
Publisher: Thinkers’ Press 1999
This book is an interesting documentation of a struggle between a publisher who really wants to make a good book and a pair of authors who really want to make some fast bucks. The result is uneven and not really good but there are hidden nuggets of gold. Gufeld was a strong player and when pressed he was able to present good analysis.
The Veresov Attack
Authors: Smith/Hall
Publisher: Chess Digest 1994
This book is full of inaccuracies and the publisher has attempted to transform a magazine article to a book by adding lots of white space.
My assessment: **
Queen's Pawn: Veresov System
Author: Bellin
Publisher: Batsford 1983
Bellin is one of my favorite authors, and I really like this old book which combines good prose with well selected analysis and game fragments. Unfortunately it's now so old that it's mainly a collectors' item.
My assessment: *****
Richter Veresov System
Author: J.Adams
Publisher: The Chess Player 1978
In 1978 - before the time of game databases - this was quite a useful book. It contains a lot of well organized games and game fragments (some of them of rather low quality) and hardly any words or analysis. It should be added that the cover of my copy looks a bit better.
My assessment: **
Scale:
******: Perfect
*****: Very good
****: Good workmanship
***: Worth the money
**: Only for collectors
*: Stay away!
Friday, October 14, 2011
A Challenging Subject
The King's Gambit seems to be an extraordinary difficult subject.
First the publication date of Quality Chess' book on the King's Gambit again was delayed. Now it's scheduled for December (the book's info page has not yet been updated). Obviously this may have been a tactical delay in order to prevent Taylor from referencing the QC book in his competing book.
The response was quick and predictable. Now it's Taylor's book that is delayed with eigth months and scheduled for August 2012. Quality's counter move is not hard to suggest...
However, somehow I don't think tactical considerations are the main reason for these delays. More likely the problems are analytical obstacles. The two principal challenges for anyone writing on the King's Gambit are:
First the publication date of Quality Chess' book on the King's Gambit again was delayed. Now it's scheduled for December (the book's info page has not yet been updated). Obviously this may have been a tactical delay in order to prevent Taylor from referencing the QC book in his competing book.
The response was quick and predictable. Now it's Taylor's book that is delayed with eigth months and scheduled for August 2012. Quality's counter move is not hard to suggest...
However, somehow I don't think tactical considerations are the main reason for these delays. More likely the problems are analytical obstacles. The two principal challenges for anyone writing on the King's Gambit are:
- Black has got unusually many playable defences. They are not all equally strong but they are Black's choices and he may have prepared them well.
- The established mainlines in the Kiezeritsky and Fischer defences may be fine for White in theory. However, they are quite difficult for White to handle and don't appear appealing to the typical aggressive KG player.
I will not at all be surprised if these books are delayed again. So now I am pondering the consequences for my own KG plans. The ideal situation would be to publish without any competing books at all, but that obviously isn't an option. The second best option seems to be to publish shortly after the main competitors, being able to build on their efforts. That would involve a lot of patience but as a matter of fact I have ideas for how to fill the wating time.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
The Muzio Family
Chess nomenclature is a difficult subject in general and in particular within the King's Gambit. For most practical players it is also a relatively uninteresting subject. So I will try to keep such discussions to a minimum in my coming King's Gambit book. However, I want what little I include to be as correct as possible. Therefore I will give the subject some coverage on this blog in the hope that knowledgeable readers may correct anything wrong or even debatable.
In this entry I will try to identify and name White's positional piece sacrifices after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5.
I: The Polerio Attack
4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0! gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
The Polerio Attack, may be considered head of the Muzio Family. It is generally regarded as fairly respectable. However, it's quite possible that correct play leads to a forced repetition (which theoretically isn't a good result for White).
II: The Lolli attack
5 Bxf7+? Kxf7 6 Nxe5 (D)
The Lolli Attack is the black sheep of the Muzio family. White gives up his bishop instead of his knight and wins some time. Unfortunately White has insufficient compensation as Black after 6...Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 starts winning his tempi back. The Lolli may be acceptable as a blitz or coffee house weapon but is probably unplayable above mediocre club level chess.
III: The Ghulam Kassim Attack
4 Bc4 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 d4 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the Ghulam Kassim Attack after the Indian player who published analysis on it around 1826 (at least the publication seems to have been available in 1843). It may transpose to a (probably good) variation of the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but White may also consider castling queenside.
IV: The MacDonnell Attack
4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 Nc3 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the MacDonnell Attack. It may transpose to the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but is more likely to merge with the Ghulam Kassim Attack after a quick d4 and queenside castling.
V: The Rosentreter Attack
4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This is the Rosentreter Attack which obviously is closely related to the Ghulam Kassim Attack, to which it may quickly transpose with an early d4.
Instead 5 Bc4 would lead to the Ghulam Kassim Attack while 5 Nc3 would lead to the Sørensen Attack (below).
VI: The Sørensen Attack
4 Nc3 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This position I believe should be called the Sørensen Attack but I assume that some will argue that it should rather be the Quaade Attack. I am not at all sure what's correct and will try to look at bit deeper into the matter. My reasons for preferring Sørensen over Quaade are:
This classification I think is the easy part of the Muzio nomenclature. The real challenge is to find good classification principles when the lines merge (as they tend to do). Maybe I will return to that subject in a future post.
In this entry I will try to identify and name White's positional piece sacrifices after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5.
I: The Polerio Attack
4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0! gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
The Polerio Attack, may be considered head of the Muzio Family. It is generally regarded as fairly respectable. However, it's quite possible that correct play leads to a forced repetition (which theoretically isn't a good result for White).
II: The Lolli attack
5 Bxf7+? Kxf7 6 Nxe5 (D)
The Lolli Attack is the black sheep of the Muzio family. White gives up his bishop instead of his knight and wins some time. Unfortunately White has insufficient compensation as Black after 6...Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 starts winning his tempi back. The Lolli may be acceptable as a blitz or coffee house weapon but is probably unplayable above mediocre club level chess.
III: The Ghulam Kassim Attack
4 Bc4 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 d4 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the Ghulam Kassim Attack after the Indian player who published analysis on it around 1826 (at least the publication seems to have been available in 1843). It may transpose to a (probably good) variation of the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but White may also consider castling queenside.
IV: The MacDonnell Attack
4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This position, which may also arise from the move-order 4 Nc3 g4 5 Bc4, is known as the MacDonnell Attack. It may transpose to the Polerio Attack after a delayed 0-0 but is more likely to merge with the Ghulam Kassim Attack after a quick d4 and queenside castling.
V: The Rosentreter Attack
4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This is the Rosentreter Attack which obviously is closely related to the Ghulam Kassim Attack, to which it may quickly transpose with an early d4.
Instead 5 Bc4 would lead to the Ghulam Kassim Attack while 5 Nc3 would lead to the Sørensen Attack (below).
VI: The Sørensen Attack
4 Nc3 g4 5 d4 gxf3 6 Qxf3 (D)
This position I believe should be called the Sørensen Attack but I assume that some will argue that it should rather be the Quaade Attack. I am not at all sure what's correct and will try to look at bit deeper into the matter. My reasons for preferring Sørensen over Quaade are:
- The mainline in the Quaade variation is 5 Ne5. It may even be argued that this knight move is the idea behind 4 Nc3 (as it is more or less unplayable in the Rosentreter variation, 4 d4).
- In Bilguer's Handbuch, the line is attributed to Sørensen.
This classification I think is the easy part of the Muzio nomenclature. The real challenge is to find good classification principles when the lines merge (as they tend to do). Maybe I will return to that subject in a future post.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Cover Uncovered
Taylor's King's Gambit book now has a cover:
I cannot say I find it beautiful. I think the King's Gambit should wear something more classical. However, it probably draws a potential buyer's attention and that's quite an important feature.
I have so far not paid much attention to cover design but I have been very pleased with the covers by Wolff Morrow that Gambit Publication has provided for my books. That attitude will quite soon have to change as the books I plan to publish will need covers. The classic and relatively easy solution is a picture of the subject position on a good-looking wooden chess set. Unfortunately that will not draw a lot of attention, so I will need to add a twist. I will keep my eyes open.
I have so far not paid much attention to cover design but I have been very pleased with the covers by Wolff Morrow that Gambit Publication has provided for my books. That attitude will quite soon have to change as the books I plan to publish will need covers. The classic and relatively easy solution is a picture of the subject position on a good-looking wooden chess set. Unfortunately that will not draw a lot of attention, so I will need to add a twist. I will keep my eyes open.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
On the Horizon
There are at least two new King's Gambit books on the horizon before my own book hopefully will be available some time in late spring 2012.
First in the row is John Shaw for Quality Chess with simply 'The King's Gambit':
The book is scheduled for October 2011. However, it has now been delayed so many times (and even changed author) that I take the announced publishing date with a grain of salt.
I have more confidence in the content. Quality Chess have sometimes delivered products with surprising gaps in the material but their analysis has always been excellent.
Next out is Timothy Taylor for Everyman Chess with 'Attacking Chess: The King's Gambit'. Judging from the Everyman site it hasn't yet got a cover design. The book is scheduled for January 2012 (in EU) and as far as I know Taylor has generally kept his deadlines. His analysis tend to be lighter and somewhat less trustworthy QC's but often thought provoking. I look forward to seeing his effort.
How will the existence of these two influence the sales potential for a third book? I must admit that I don't know. One point in my favour is the fact that I probably will be able to list these competing books in my bibliography. Reviews and publishing order will certainly influence the sales numbers. My gut feeling is that those who already love the King's Gambit will open their pockets and buy all new material but maybe the financial uncertainity even will influence this part of the economy?
Another factor is the position and reputation of the chess publishing companies. How easy will it be to convince London Chess Center, Niggemann, New in Chess or Chess4Less to promote a book from a new publishing company. I am eager to find out!
First in the row is John Shaw for Quality Chess with simply 'The King's Gambit':
I have more confidence in the content. Quality Chess have sometimes delivered products with surprising gaps in the material but their analysis has always been excellent.
Next out is Timothy Taylor for Everyman Chess with 'Attacking Chess: The King's Gambit'. Judging from the Everyman site it hasn't yet got a cover design. The book is scheduled for January 2012 (in EU) and as far as I know Taylor has generally kept his deadlines. His analysis tend to be lighter and somewhat less trustworthy QC's but often thought provoking. I look forward to seeing his effort.
How will the existence of these two influence the sales potential for a third book? I must admit that I don't know. One point in my favour is the fact that I probably will be able to list these competing books in my bibliography. Reviews and publishing order will certainly influence the sales numbers. My gut feeling is that those who already love the King's Gambit will open their pockets and buy all new material but maybe the financial uncertainity even will influence this part of the economy?
Another factor is the position and reputation of the chess publishing companies. How easy will it be to convince London Chess Center, Niggemann, New in Chess or Chess4Less to promote a book from a new publishing company. I am eager to find out!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
A Brief Return to Chess Blogging
My apologies for letting this blog sleep for so long with no explanation. I will return for some months now and some time in the spring 2012 I hope to move to a more appropriate forum for my future chess writing.
Quite likely a lot of my next postings will be about the King's Gambit (D).
I am working on a manuscript on this fascinating opening now. I feel I have a lot of good content but I am struggling with the organization of the material. And of course there is always the danger that essential variations are refuted during analysis.
For now I don't have any co-author but I hope that will change in the coming month.
PS: I am using a new set of tools to produce diagrams. I expect there will be some test and trials for the next few days.
Quite likely a lot of my next postings will be about the King's Gambit (D).
I am working on a manuscript on this fascinating opening now. I feel I have a lot of good content but I am struggling with the organization of the material. And of course there is always the danger that essential variations are refuted during analysis.
For now I don't have any co-author but I hope that will change in the coming month.
PS: I am using a new set of tools to produce diagrams. I expect there will be some test and trials for the next few days.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Queen's Pawn Family 2 - Krause Variation
If you want to make your Queen's Pawn Opening an all round weapon, you may have to face the line 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5!? (D).
Now Lakdawala recommends 3.c3 in order to reach the London safely, and that may also be the best attempt for those hoping for something related to the Torre. For Colle players, 3.e3 is the obvious choice. Unfortunately it's less clear that this will give White an edge than the Nimzo move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 - after all Black hasn't blocked his light-squared bishop.
However, none of these moves appears particularly threathening to Black's opening. It could be argued that Black is too optimistic trying to take on White's role in the early phase of the game. If that's the case, White now should play energetically in order to punish Black's arrogance. White's critical moves in the diagram position probably are:
B: 3.c4
C: 3.g3
Let's look a little deeper:
A:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.dxc5
White is playing a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted. I will not go into much detail here, as this move was the repertoire choice in "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". I will only point out one omission and one important alternative for White:
3...e6
3...Nc6?! probably is dubious and wasn't mentioned in the Killer Repertoire. One interesting attempt at refutation is 4.a3 a5 5.Nc3 and now:
a) 5...e6 6.Na4!? seems sufficient to keep the c-pawn.
b) 5...Nf6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Nxe5 Bxc5 8.Nd3 also gave White a safe extra pawn in Bogdanovich-Hubel, Crailsheim 1998.
c) 5...d4 probably is too optimistic: 6.Nb5 e5 7.e3 Bg4 8.Be2 (even stronger may be 8.exd4 exd4 9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Nd6+ Kf8 11.Bf4) 8...Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Bxc5 10.exd4 Bxd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.0–0 with an obvious advantage for White in Matlak-Orsag, Karvina 1992.
4.e4!?
This is an important alternative to 4.c4 which was recommended in the Killer Repertoire.
4...Bxc5
It seems White can keep an advantage after 4...Nf6 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.Bd3:
a) 6...Bxc5 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.0–0 Nbd7 9.Bf4 a6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Rad1+ += Kharlov-Cifuentes Parada, Leeuwarden 1994.
b) 6...Qxc5 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Be7 9.Be3 Qa5 10.a3 a6 11.Qe2 0–0 12.Rfd1 Qc7 13.Bg5 b6 14.Ne4 Bb7 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7 17.Qd3+ Kg8 18.Qxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxd7 Bxb2 20.Rb1 Bxf3 21.Rxb2 Be4 22.Rxb6 Bxc2 23.Rbb7 += Ki.Georgiev-Seirawan, Brussels 1992.
5.exd5 exd5 (D)
In this fairly typical IQP position it seems chances are roughly even. That doesn't mean it cannot be a good practical choice for a good technician. If White makes it to the endgame, he probably will have something to play for.
5...Qb6 probably is too optimistic: 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Qb5+ Kf8 8.Qxb6 axb6 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.0–0 += Ruck-Balog, Hungary 2008.
6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.0–0 Nge7 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.Nb3 Bd6
Also 9...Bb6 seems fine: 10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Qd6 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Rad8 14.Bf4 Qf6 15.Qd2 h6 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Nf5 18.Qd2 d4 = A.Sokolovs-Howell, Germany 1996.
10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Re8 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Qc7 14.Ng3 Rad8 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Be3
Chances were equal in P.Nikolic-Leko, Horgen 1994.
B:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.c4
With this move White offers Black to play the Tarrasch Defence.
This is typical for what White can expect in this line. The pawn structure is symmetrical but White is somewhat better developed. It seems likely that Black can equalize with some care but White can create some difficulties. One sample continuation is:
C:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.g3
This quiet move attempts to play a reversed Gruenfeldt Indian. The only problem is that there is no black knight to exchange on c6, so if White hopes for a genuine Gruenfeldt a tempo up, he has to bide his time.
Now Lakdawala recommends 3.c3 in order to reach the London safely, and that may also be the best attempt for those hoping for something related to the Torre. For Colle players, 3.e3 is the obvious choice. Unfortunately it's less clear that this will give White an edge than the Nimzo move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 - after all Black hasn't blocked his light-squared bishop.
However, none of these moves appears particularly threathening to Black's opening. It could be argued that Black is too optimistic trying to take on White's role in the early phase of the game. If that's the case, White now should play energetically in order to punish Black's arrogance. White's critical moves in the diagram position probably are:
B: 3.c4
C: 3.g3
Let's look a little deeper:
A:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.dxc5
White is playing a reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted. I will not go into much detail here, as this move was the repertoire choice in "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". I will only point out one omission and one important alternative for White:
3...e6
3...Nc6?! probably is dubious and wasn't mentioned in the Killer Repertoire. One interesting attempt at refutation is 4.a3 a5 5.Nc3 and now:
a) 5...e6 6.Na4!? seems sufficient to keep the c-pawn.
b) 5...Nf6 6.Bf4 e5 7.Nxe5 Bxc5 8.Nd3 also gave White a safe extra pawn in Bogdanovich-Hubel, Crailsheim 1998.
c) 5...d4 probably is too optimistic: 6.Nb5 e5 7.e3 Bg4 8.Be2 (even stronger may be 8.exd4 exd4 9.Qe2+ Be7 10.Nd6+ Kf8 11.Bf4) 8...Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Bxc5 10.exd4 Bxd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.0–0 with an obvious advantage for White in Matlak-Orsag, Karvina 1992.
4.e4!?
This is an important alternative to 4.c4 which was recommended in the Killer Repertoire.
4...Bxc5
It seems White can keep an advantage after 4...Nf6 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.Bd3:
a) 6...Bxc5 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.0–0 Nbd7 9.Bf4 a6 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Nf6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Rad1+ += Kharlov-Cifuentes Parada, Leeuwarden 1994.
b) 6...Qxc5 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Be7 9.Be3 Qa5 10.a3 a6 11.Qe2 0–0 12.Rfd1 Qc7 13.Bg5 b6 14.Ne4 Bb7 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7 17.Qd3+ Kg8 18.Qxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxd7 Bxb2 20.Rb1 Bxf3 21.Rxb2 Be4 22.Rxb6 Bxc2 23.Rbb7 += Ki.Georgiev-Seirawan, Brussels 1992.
5.exd5 exd5 (D)
5...Qb6 probably is too optimistic: 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Qb5+ Kf8 8.Qxb6 axb6 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.0–0 += Ruck-Balog, Hungary 2008.
6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.0–0 Nge7 8.Nbd2 0–0 9.Nb3 Bd6
Also 9...Bb6 seems fine: 10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Qd6 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Rad8 14.Bf4 Qf6 15.Qd2 h6 16.Be3 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Nf5 18.Qd2 d4 = A.Sokolovs-Howell, Germany 1996.
10.c3 Bg4 11.Be2 Re8 12.Nfd4 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Qc7 14.Ng3 Rad8 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Be3
Chances were equal in P.Nikolic-Leko, Horgen 1994.
B:
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.c4
With this move White offers Black to play the Tarrasch Defence.
3... cxd4
Instead the Tarrasch would arise after 3...e6. This old defence has, as far as I know, a sound theoretical standing, but many of the resulting positions are hard to defend against skilled opposition. More independent alternatives are:
Instead the Tarrasch would arise after 3...e6. This old defence has, as far as I know, a sound theoretical standing, but many of the resulting positions are hard to defend against skilled opposition. More independent alternatives are:
a) 3...Nf6 4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 must be a shade better for White. A recent example is Kovalyov-Gomez, Dresden 2008 where Black was close to equality after 6...Qa5 7.Ne5 Nc6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.g3 Bb7 10.Qa4 Qxa4 11.Nxa4 c5 12.f3 e6 13.e4.
b) After 3...dxc4 4.d5!? may be critical (4.e3 e6 leads to a quiet line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted). Two recent examples are:
b1) 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.e4 exd5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.Bxc4 0–0 9.0–0 Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Nbd7 = Akopian-Shirov, Ohrid 2009.
b2) 4...e6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.Qxd5 Qxd5 7.Nxd5 Bd6 8.Nd2 Ne7 9.Nxc4 Nxd5 10.Nxd6+ Ke7 11.Nxc8+ Rxc8 12.g3 Nb4 13.Bh3 Rd8 14.0–0 N8c6 15.Be3 Leitao-Matsuura, Santos 2007.
4.cxd5 Nf6
Black should avoid 4...Qxd5 5.Nc3, e.g. 5...Qd8 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 8.Nd5 Kd8 9.Nb6 Ra7 10.Bf4 Nd7 and now Rybka points out that 11.Ne6+! fxe6 12.Be3 would have been the most efficient, even if White has several ways to a big advantage.
5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6 (D)
8.g3 Bd7 9.Bg2 e5 10.Nb3 Bc6 = Landa-Ovetchkin, Krasnoyarsk 2007.
(1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5)
3.g3
This quiet move attempts to play a reversed Gruenfeldt Indian. The only problem is that there is no black knight to exchange on c6, so if White hopes for a genuine Gruenfeldt a tempo up, he has to bide his time.
3...cxd4
3...Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.0–0 e6 6.a3 b5 7.Bg5 Bb7 8.Nc3 h6 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nxb5 Qb6 12.Nc3 +/- Young-Akobian, Chicago 2009.
4.Bg2
4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb3
4...Nf6 5.0–0 (D)
In a sense this is a critical position. Should Black play the obvious developing move 5...Nc6, allowing White to have his desired Reversed Gruenfeldt?
5...Nc6
5...Nc6
This is Black's most popular move but there are alternatives:
a) I don't know why 5...Nbd7!? is untested. Black threatens ...e5, so 6.Nxd4 e5 is natural. Then one possible line is 7.Nb3 Nb6 8.Nc3 Be6 9.f4 with complicated play.
a) I don't know why 5...Nbd7!? is untested. Black threatens ...e5, so 6.Nxd4 e5 is natural. Then one possible line is 7.Nb3 Nb6 8.Nc3 Be6 9.f4 with complicated play.
b) 5...h6 is a bit strange but on second thought it seems useful to avoid the potential Bg5 pin. After 6.b3 g6 7.Bb2 Bg7 8.Nxd4 0–0 9.c4 dxc4 10.bxc4 Qb6 11.Qb3 Na6 12.Nd2 Nd7 13.N2f3 Ndc5 gave equal chances in P.Nikolic-P.H.Nielsen, Wijk aan Zee 2005.
c) 5...g6 is natural. Then 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.c4 0–0 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nb3 e6 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qc7 12.Rb1 with unclear play in Graf-Shomoev, Warsaw 2005 is one sample line.
c) 5...g6 is natural. Then 6.Nxd4 Bg7 7.c4 0–0 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nb3 e6 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qc7 12.Rb1 with unclear play in Graf-Shomoev, Warsaw 2005 is one sample line.
6.Nxd4 e6
That's the problem when White tries to play a sharp line with colours reversed. You will usually find that Black opts for a non-critical line which nevertheless gives good chances of equality. White has scored massively after 6... e5 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8. c4, but partly that may be because the white players have very clearly outrated their opponents. One recent and typical example is 8...Be7 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5 e4 11.Qa4 O-O 12.Rad1 Qb6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rxd5 Qxb2 17.e3 with a very clear advantage to White in Burmakin-Lochte, Bad Wiessee 2008.
7.c4 Bc5 8.Nb3 Be7 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.bxc3 Bf6 13.Rb1 Bxc3 14.Ba3 += Romanishin-Salmensuu, Linares 1999.
That's the problem when White tries to play a sharp line with colours reversed. You will usually find that Black opts for a non-critical line which nevertheless gives good chances of equality. White has scored massively after 6... e5 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8. c4, but partly that may be because the white players have very clearly outrated their opponents. One recent and typical example is 8...Be7 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5 e4 11.Qa4 O-O 12.Rad1 Qb6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Rxd5 Qxb2 17.e3 with a very clear advantage to White in Burmakin-Lochte, Bad Wiessee 2008.
7.c4 Bc5 8.Nb3 Be7 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8 12.bxc3 Bf6 13.Rb1 Bxc3 14.Ba3 += Romanishin-Salmensuu, Linares 1999.
Friday, July 30, 2010
A New Barry Idea
These days I am reading Cyrus Lakdawala’s “Play the London System”. It’s an interesting read and I will probably return to the subject.
Our understanding of one opening is often influenced by our understanding (or lack of such) of other openings. I was curious when I saw Lakdawala briefly discard Black’s traditional mainline in the Barry attack (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 is the relevant London move-order) with the explanation that ‘7.dxc5 transposes to a favourable Reversed Catalan’ and some relatively brief variations. I must admit that the Catalan is not my field of expertise so I had to take a closer look at his variations - in particular as I had explored this line when researching ‘A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire’ (and concluded that Summerscale’s 7.Ne5 probably still is White’s best try):
7...Qa5
This is the most popular reply and the only one mentioned in the book although 7...Nbd7!? has been played by Khalifman among others.
8.Nd2!
The exclamation mark is by Lakdawala and the move probably is White’s best try.
8...Qxc5
This is clearly most popular. Somewhat mysteriously Lakdawala gives the rare 8...Ne4!? as his main line. After 9.Ncxe4 dxe4 10.0–0 Nc6 11.c3 f5 12.Nb3 of Hodgson-Gullaksen, Stavanger 1989 he concludes that Black doesn’t have enough for his pawn.
9.Nb3 Qb6 10.Nb5!
Again the exclamation mark is by Lakdawala. White has also tried 10.0-0, 10.a4 and 10.Nxd5?!.
10...Ne8! (Dia)
This is not mentioned in the book but has been played by Hebden and Lars Bo Hansen among others and is given an exclamation mark by Ftachnik in Megabase. Lakdawala only mentions 10...Na6 11.Be5! and White probably is better as ‘Bd4 is in the air’. The move is far from obvious but as there clearly are some threaths to c7 it's not particularly surprising either.
11.Qxd5
What else? Black was threatening ...e5 as well as ...Bxb2.
11...Bxb2 12.Rb1 Bg7 13.0–0 Nc6 14.c4 (Dia)
Not 14.N5d4? e5! 15.Nxc6 bxc6 and Black wins.
So far everything seems very natural if not entirely forced. Now it seems Black has at least two ways to equalize (as a matter of fact Rybka also thinks 14...a6!? and 14...e5 look OK):
A: 14...Bf5 15.Rbd1 Nf6
Or 15...Nb4 16.Qd2 Na6 17.Nc3 Nf6 18.Qc1 Rac8 19.Be5 Be6 20.Bd4 Qb4 = L.B.Hansen-Djurhuus, Reykjavik 1995.
16.Qc5 e5 17.Bg3 Ne4 18.Qxb6
Rybka claims that 18.Qa3 is equal. That may well be right; the position looks somewhat strange and I find it hard to evaluate.
18...axb6 19.Ra1 Rfd8 and in Akselrod-Salinnikov, Tomsk 2003 Black was clearly better thanks to his activity.
B: 14...Nf6 15.Qc5 e5! 16.Bg3 Ne4 (Dia)
This too looks fine for Black who is active and has the bishop pair.
a) 7.Qxb6 axb6 18.a3 Bf5 =+ Rogers-Fedorowicz, Groningen 1990.
b) 17.Qa3 and now 17...Nxg3 18.hxg3 Rb8 (18...Rd8?! 19.c5 +/- Klimets-Gerasimovitch, St Petersburg 2002) 19.c5 Qd8 20.Rfd1 probably is a little better for White. However, Rybka thinks that 17...Bf5 as well as 17...Be6 is at least OK for Black.
Conclusion:
I have not found a path to advantage for White after 7.dxc5. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but Lakdawala's explanation clearly isn't sufficient for me. Maybe someone who knows more about the Catalan (and consequently more about the Reversed Catalan too) can point me in the right direction?
Our understanding of one opening is often influenced by our understanding (or lack of such) of other openings. I was curious when I saw Lakdawala briefly discard Black’s traditional mainline in the Barry attack (1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0–0 6.Nc3 c5 is the relevant London move-order) with the explanation that ‘7.dxc5 transposes to a favourable Reversed Catalan’ and some relatively brief variations. I must admit that the Catalan is not my field of expertise so I had to take a closer look at his variations - in particular as I had explored this line when researching ‘A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire’ (and concluded that Summerscale’s 7.Ne5 probably still is White’s best try):
7...Qa5
This is the most popular reply and the only one mentioned in the book although 7...Nbd7!? has been played by Khalifman among others.
8.Nd2!
The exclamation mark is by Lakdawala and the move probably is White’s best try.
8...Qxc5
This is clearly most popular. Somewhat mysteriously Lakdawala gives the rare 8...Ne4!? as his main line. After 9.Ncxe4 dxe4 10.0–0 Nc6 11.c3 f5 12.Nb3 of Hodgson-Gullaksen, Stavanger 1989 he concludes that Black doesn’t have enough for his pawn.
9.Nb3 Qb6 10.Nb5!
Again the exclamation mark is by Lakdawala. White has also tried 10.0-0, 10.a4 and 10.Nxd5?!.
10...Ne8! (Dia)
11.Qxd5
What else? Black was threatening ...e5 as well as ...Bxb2.
11...Bxb2 12.Rb1 Bg7 13.0–0 Nc6 14.c4 (Dia)
Not 14.N5d4? e5! 15.Nxc6 bxc6 and Black wins.
So far everything seems very natural if not entirely forced. Now it seems Black has at least two ways to equalize (as a matter of fact Rybka also thinks 14...a6!? and 14...e5 look OK):
A: 14...Bf5 15.Rbd1 Nf6
Or 15...Nb4 16.Qd2 Na6 17.Nc3 Nf6 18.Qc1 Rac8 19.Be5 Be6 20.Bd4 Qb4 = L.B.Hansen-Djurhuus, Reykjavik 1995.
16.Qc5 e5 17.Bg3 Ne4 18.Qxb6
Rybka claims that 18.Qa3 is equal. That may well be right; the position looks somewhat strange and I find it hard to evaluate.
18...axb6 19.Ra1 Rfd8 and in Akselrod-Salinnikov, Tomsk 2003 Black was clearly better thanks to his activity.
B: 14...Nf6 15.Qc5 e5! 16.Bg3 Ne4 (Dia)
a) 7.Qxb6 axb6 18.a3 Bf5 =+ Rogers-Fedorowicz, Groningen 1990.
b) 17.Qa3 and now 17...Nxg3 18.hxg3 Rb8 (18...Rd8?! 19.c5 +/- Klimets-Gerasimovitch, St Petersburg 2002) 19.c5 Qd8 20.Rfd1 probably is a little better for White. However, Rybka thinks that 17...Bf5 as well as 17...Be6 is at least OK for Black.
Conclusion:
I have not found a path to advantage for White after 7.dxc5. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but Lakdawala's explanation clearly isn't sufficient for me. Maybe someone who knows more about the Catalan (and consequently more about the Reversed Catalan too) can point me in the right direction?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Queen's Pawn Family 1 - Overview
I have somewhere promised an overview and comparison of the so-called Queen's Pawn Openings (also known as D-pawn Specials or even D-pawn Deviations). That is basically all White's alternatives to the Queen's Gambit and the Catalan. In this first part I will only give a list and some brief comments.
Group IA: 1.d4 d5, alternatives to 2.Nf3 and 2.c4
1...d5 is an older move than 1...Nf6, so this is the classical starting position for the Queen's Pawn Openings. By deviating at this early point White makes sure that the game will be played on his homeground.
a) 2.g3?! - A poor relative of the Catalan. Black can equalize by an early ...c6 and ...Bf5.
b) 2.e3 - Introduces the Stonewall Attack (Bd3+f4+c3). A critical line is 2...Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6.
c) 2.Bf4!? - The Neo-London. By some experts considered to revitalize the classical London system.
d) 2.Bg5!? - The Hodgson Opening. Frequently used as a companion system to the Trompowsky.
e) 2.e4?! - The Blackmar Diemer Gambit (BDG). Not entirely correct but many prefers to decline the pawn offer with 2...e6 (French) or 2...c6 (Caro Kann).
f) 2.Nc3!? - Normally leads to the Veresov Opening after 2...Nf6 3.Bg5 but 2...Bf5 may be best.
g) 2.a3!? - The Prie Opening. White argues that 2...c5 is too risky and all D-Pawn Specials are inferior (the more so a move down).
h) 2.c3?! - A sly but slow move which may lead to the Colle, the London or the Torre. 2...Nf6 followed by 3...Bf5 should equalize.
i) 2.Nd2 - Normally leads to some kind of Colle after 2...Nf6 3.e3.
j) 2.b3 - May lead to a Colle Zukertort but I cannot see how White can benefit from delaying e3 and Nf3.
k) 2.h3?! - A joke move favoured by some London players who will follow up with Bf4 and reach an only slightly inferior London.
l) 2.f4?! - A too primitive attempt to play the Stonewall Attack. 2...Nf6 followed by 3...Bf5 at least equalizes.
Group IB: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.e3
2.Nf3 is a sound and flexible move and the starting point of most Queen's Pawn openings. Black has a few interesting alternatives to 2...Nf6, such as 2...c5 and 2...Bf5!? but most alternatives, including 2...c6 and 2...e6 allow White to go ahead with his planned set-up.
a) 3.g3?! - An inferior version of the Catalan 3...Bf5 or 3...c6 followed by 4...Bf5 equalizes.
b) 3.Bg5?! - An inferior version of the Torre. 3...Ne4 equalizes.
c) 3.Bf4 - The classical London System. 3...c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qc2 Bf5 is probably equal.
d) 3.Nbd2 - A rare path to the Colle. 3...Bf5 probably equalizes.
e) 3.c3!? - Lakdawala's path to the London. The idea is to meet 3...c5 with 4.dxc5 and most other moves with 4.Bf4.
f) 3.Ne5 - A possibly underestimated attempt to reach a Stonewall Attack (with f4. White hopes to fight for an advantage after 3...Bf5 4.c4.
g) 3.a3 - A version of the Prie System.
h) 3.b3?! - Usually an attempt to reach the Colle Zukertort system. 3...Bf5 equalizes comfortably.
i) 3.Nc3 - Looks similar to the Barry Attack but is rather pointless as long as Black hasn't played ...g6.
j) 3.h3?! - Normally another way to reach a slightly inferior London system after a delayed Bf4.
Group IC: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5, alternatives to 4.c4
After 3.e3 we are in Colle territory, and might reasonably stop at that, noting that 4.c4 would still be a (harmless) Queen's Gambit. However, the Colle comes in different flavours too:
a) 4.dxc5 - This is an attempt to play the Queen's Gambit accepted a tempo up but 4...e6 probably gives theoretical equality.
b) 4.b3 - This is not White's most promising variation of the Colle Zukertort. After 4...Nc6 5.Bb2 Bg4 Black is equal. Also Kaufman's 4...cxd4, taking advantage of the fact that Bc1 not can use two diagonals, makes sense.
c) 4.c3 - Heads for the (Classical) Koltanowski Colle. The interesting question is whether Black now should play the modest 4...e6 or the more ambitious 4...Nc6.
d) 4.Nbd2 - A seemingly sensible Colle move that isn't even mentioned in several works on the Colle.
e) 4.Bd3!? - A slightly provocative attempt to stop ...Bf5 and keep open both the b3 and c3 options. The critical reply of course is 4...c4!?
f) 4.a3!? - An attempt to reverse colours - perhaps planning dxc5 followed by b4 and c4. But is a3 really useful after 4...cxd4 5.exd4?
g) 4.Ne5 - White intends to follow up with f4, Bd3 and c3, reaching a Stonewall Attack.
Group ID: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6, alternatives to 4.c4
This is the traditional starting position of the Colle. It should be noted that this position is at least as likely to appear from the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5. White can still return to lines of the Queen's Gambit with 4.c4 but within the Colle there are these options:
a) 4.Be2 - A reversed Queen's Gambit Declined. Solid for Black but unambitious for White.
b) 4.b3 - Reveals White's plan to play a Colle Zukertort earlier than necessary.
c) 4.c3 - Reveals White's plan to play a Colle Koltanowski earlier than necessary.
d) 4.a3 - Attempts to play a Queen's Gambit Accepted a tempo or two up after 4...c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.b4 but that's hardly sufficient for an advantage.
e) 4.Ne5 - White intends to follow up with f4, Bd3 and c3, reaching a Stonewall Attack. Probably more promising with Black's light-squared bishop locked in than the 3...c5 version.
f) 4.Nbd2!? - A seemingly sensible Colle move that isn't even mentioned in several works on the Colle.
g) After the main move 4.Bd3 and the extremely natural 4...c5 White has these options:
g1) 5.c4 - Still a Queen's Gambit (a rather harmless Tarrasch)
g2) 5.0–0 - A provocative attempt to keep options open. 5...c4 6.Be2 b5 is the critical line.
g3) 5.b3! - The Colle Zukertort, a legitimate try for an advantage even at GM level.
g4) 5.c3 - The Colle Koltanowski, actually a reversed Slav and quite dangerous for the unprepared.
Group IIA: 1.d4 Nf6, alternatives to 2.Nf3 and 2.c4
With his first move Black displays a less compromising attitude than 1...d5 does. This can be seen as a reason for White to avoid a theoretical confrontation. However, it must also be said that it is probably harder for White to fight for a real advantage without an early c4 if Black knows what he is doing.
a) 2.g3 - An inferior attempt to reach the Catalan. Black is equal after 2...d5 followed by ...c6 and ...Bf5.
b) 2.Bg5 - The Trompowsky. Now almost mainstream and occasinally tested at the highest level. White will frequently capture the f6 knight if that doubles Black's pawns but also setting up a Stonewall with pawns on c3, d4, e3 and f4 makes sense.
c) 2.c3 - Extremely flexible and extremely tame. One idea is to meet 2...g6 as well as 2...e6 with 3.Bg5 (which both may be categorized as Trompowskys).
d) 2.Bf4 - A somewhat experimental branch of the Neo London. 2...c5 and 2...d6 must be the critical lines.
e) 2.Nc3 - After 2...d5, 3.Bg5 is the Veresov Attack. Not very popular for the moment but that may be about to change.
f) 2.Nd2 - Used to be a favorite of Varga's. White to some extent threatens 3.e4 and after 2...d5 3.Nf3 we have a Colle (IBd).
g) 2.e3 - A possibly inferior version of the Stonewall Attack. 2...g6 is supposed to be strong but White can pretend he is playing a reversed French vs. King's Indian Attack.
h) 2.f4 - An ugly attempt to play the Stonewall Attack. 2...d5 followed by 3...Bf5 possibly is the simplest solution but also a plan including ...d6 and ...e5 looks tempting.
i) 2.g4 - The Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit. Almost certainly unsound but White has some practical chances after 2...Nxg4 3.e4.
j) 2.a3 - This attempt to reach a reversed QP opening doesn't make much sense after 2...g6.
k) 2.b3 - May lead to a Colle Zukertort but I cannot see how White can benefit from delaying e3 and Nf3.
l) 2.f3 - May lead to a Blackmar Diemer Gambit after 2...d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3. Probably 3...e6 is a simpler cure. 2...g6 3.e4 d6 is a Pirc.
m) 2.h3 - Looks rather pointless but if White follows up with Bf4 and Nf3 he will probably reach a playable London position.
Group IIB: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.g3
Nimzo- and Queen's Indian players may have a tougher task against the D-pawn Specials, (in particular the Colle) than others. Against this move-order the Colle Zukertort probably holds prospects for a small advantage.
a) 3.e3 - White heads for some branch of the Colle but may need other ideas against 3...b6 and 3...c5.
b) 3.Bg5 - The Torre System
c) 3.Bf4 - An important branch of the London System
d) 3.c3 - A tricky move, keeping open options to enter the Koltanowski Colle, the London or the Torre.
e) 3.Nbd2 - Possibly an underestimated branch of the Colle. Black must decide whether he considers e4 a threat or not.
f) 3.a3 - Another branch of the Prie System. White takes on Black's role with a marginally useful extra tempo.
g) 3.b3 - Heads for a Colle Zukertort but White gains nothing by revealing his plan too early.
h) 3.h3 - Another joke path to a playable if uninspiring London set-up.
i) 3.Nc3 - Looks similar to the Barry Attack but is rather pointless as long as Black hasn't played ...g6.
Group IIC: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.g3
The King's Indian is one of the toughest tests for any Queen's Pawn System. Black develops quickly and has various ways to challenge the centre. Lines with ...d6 followed by ...e5 or ...c5 probably are the most challenging but quieter lines with ...d5 are also available.
a) 3.e3?! - The Colle hasn't got a great reputation against the King's Indian, as Black can force ...e5 with relative ease. However, 3...Bg7 4.b4!? may well be OK for White.
b) 3.Bg5 - Purists will say that this isn't strictly speaking the Torre Attack. The Torre versus King's Indian (which it's sometimes called) probably is slightly less promising than the 2...e6 version.
c) 3.Bf4 - The third major branch of the London System.
d) 3.c3!? - Delays the decision of where (if?) to develop the dark-squared bishop but there is little to be gained as White will soon have to commit himself anyway after 3...Bg7 or 4...0-0.
e) 3.Nc3!? - introduces the Barry Attack after 3...d5 4.Bf4 (or a version of the 150-Attack after 3...Bg7 4.e4).
f) 3.Nbd2 - Heads for a Colle after 3...d5 4.e3 or a quiet Modern after 3...Bg7 4.e4.
g) 3.h3 - Once thought to be the most accurate move-order for White to play the London System against the King's Indian. However, the move is too slow to stop the ...Nfd7 and ...e5 plan.
h) 3.b3 - Has been played by Smyslov and Portisch but is mainly a modest way of getting the pieces out.
i) 3.b4!? - The Arkell System - at least if White keeps his c-pawn back and plays Nd2-c4, trying to restrain ...e5. I believe there is also a name for the more traditional approach with an early c4 but that line must belong to the King's Indian complex.
That's all folks! (well, I am sure I have forgotten something, so I expect to edit and update the overview)
The plan now is to take a closer look at some of the systems (mainly the Colle London and Torre), comparing them and perhaps suggest how some systems can be combined. I have also started collecting bibliographies.
Updated September 1st
I included some lines given by an anonymous reader.
Group IA: 1.d4 d5, alternatives to 2.Nf3 and 2.c4
1...d5 is an older move than 1...Nf6, so this is the classical starting position for the Queen's Pawn Openings. By deviating at this early point White makes sure that the game will be played on his homeground.
a) 2.g3?! - A poor relative of the Catalan. Black can equalize by an early ...c6 and ...Bf5.
b) 2.e3 - Introduces the Stonewall Attack (Bd3+f4+c3). A critical line is 2...Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6.
c) 2.Bf4!? - The Neo-London. By some experts considered to revitalize the classical London system.
d) 2.Bg5!? - The Hodgson Opening. Frequently used as a companion system to the Trompowsky.
e) 2.e4?! - The Blackmar Diemer Gambit (BDG). Not entirely correct but many prefers to decline the pawn offer with 2...e6 (French) or 2...c6 (Caro Kann).
f) 2.Nc3!? - Normally leads to the Veresov Opening after 2...Nf6 3.Bg5 but 2...Bf5 may be best.
g) 2.a3!? - The Prie Opening. White argues that 2...c5 is too risky and all D-Pawn Specials are inferior (the more so a move down).
h) 2.c3?! - A sly but slow move which may lead to the Colle, the London or the Torre. 2...Nf6 followed by 3...Bf5 should equalize.
i) 2.Nd2 - Normally leads to some kind of Colle after 2...Nf6 3.e3.
j) 2.b3 - May lead to a Colle Zukertort but I cannot see how White can benefit from delaying e3 and Nf3.
k) 2.h3?! - A joke move favoured by some London players who will follow up with Bf4 and reach an only slightly inferior London.
l) 2.f4?! - A too primitive attempt to play the Stonewall Attack. 2...Nf6 followed by 3...Bf5 at least equalizes.
Group IB: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.e3
2.Nf3 is a sound and flexible move and the starting point of most Queen's Pawn openings. Black has a few interesting alternatives to 2...Nf6, such as 2...c5 and 2...Bf5!? but most alternatives, including 2...c6 and 2...e6 allow White to go ahead with his planned set-up.
a) 3.g3?! - An inferior version of the Catalan 3...Bf5 or 3...c6 followed by 4...Bf5 equalizes.
b) 3.Bg5?! - An inferior version of the Torre. 3...Ne4 equalizes.
c) 3.Bf4 - The classical London System. 3...c5 4.e3 Nc6 5.c3 Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qc2 Bf5 is probably equal.
d) 3.Nbd2 - A rare path to the Colle. 3...Bf5 probably equalizes.
e) 3.c3!? - Lakdawala's path to the London. The idea is to meet 3...c5 with 4.dxc5 and most other moves with 4.Bf4.
f) 3.Ne5 - A possibly underestimated attempt to reach a Stonewall Attack (with f4. White hopes to fight for an advantage after 3...Bf5 4.c4.
g) 3.a3 - A version of the Prie System.
h) 3.b3?! - Usually an attempt to reach the Colle Zukertort system. 3...Bf5 equalizes comfortably.
i) 3.Nc3 - Looks similar to the Barry Attack but is rather pointless as long as Black hasn't played ...g6.
j) 3.h3?! - Normally another way to reach a slightly inferior London system after a delayed Bf4.
Group IC: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5, alternatives to 4.c4
After 3.e3 we are in Colle territory, and might reasonably stop at that, noting that 4.c4 would still be a (harmless) Queen's Gambit. However, the Colle comes in different flavours too:
a) 4.dxc5 - This is an attempt to play the Queen's Gambit accepted a tempo up but 4...e6 probably gives theoretical equality.
b) 4.b3 - This is not White's most promising variation of the Colle Zukertort. After 4...Nc6 5.Bb2 Bg4 Black is equal. Also Kaufman's 4...cxd4, taking advantage of the fact that Bc1 not can use two diagonals, makes sense.
c) 4.c3 - Heads for the (Classical) Koltanowski Colle. The interesting question is whether Black now should play the modest 4...e6 or the more ambitious 4...Nc6.
d) 4.Nbd2 - A seemingly sensible Colle move that isn't even mentioned in several works on the Colle.
e) 4.Bd3!? - A slightly provocative attempt to stop ...Bf5 and keep open both the b3 and c3 options. The critical reply of course is 4...c4!?
f) 4.a3!? - An attempt to reverse colours - perhaps planning dxc5 followed by b4 and c4. But is a3 really useful after 4...cxd4 5.exd4?
g) 4.Ne5 - White intends to follow up with f4, Bd3 and c3, reaching a Stonewall Attack.
Group ID: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6, alternatives to 4.c4
This is the traditional starting position of the Colle. It should be noted that this position is at least as likely to appear from the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5. White can still return to lines of the Queen's Gambit with 4.c4 but within the Colle there are these options:
a) 4.Be2 - A reversed Queen's Gambit Declined. Solid for Black but unambitious for White.
b) 4.b3 - Reveals White's plan to play a Colle Zukertort earlier than necessary.
c) 4.c3 - Reveals White's plan to play a Colle Koltanowski earlier than necessary.
d) 4.a3 - Attempts to play a Queen's Gambit Accepted a tempo or two up after 4...c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.b4 but that's hardly sufficient for an advantage.
e) 4.Ne5 - White intends to follow up with f4, Bd3 and c3, reaching a Stonewall Attack. Probably more promising with Black's light-squared bishop locked in than the 3...c5 version.
f) 4.Nbd2!? - A seemingly sensible Colle move that isn't even mentioned in several works on the Colle.
g) After the main move 4.Bd3 and the extremely natural 4...c5 White has these options:
g1) 5.c4 - Still a Queen's Gambit (a rather harmless Tarrasch)
g2) 5.0–0 - A provocative attempt to keep options open. 5...c4 6.Be2 b5 is the critical line.
g3) 5.b3! - The Colle Zukertort, a legitimate try for an advantage even at GM level.
g4) 5.c3 - The Colle Koltanowski, actually a reversed Slav and quite dangerous for the unprepared.
Group IIA: 1.d4 Nf6, alternatives to 2.Nf3 and 2.c4
With his first move Black displays a less compromising attitude than 1...d5 does. This can be seen as a reason for White to avoid a theoretical confrontation. However, it must also be said that it is probably harder for White to fight for a real advantage without an early c4 if Black knows what he is doing.
a) 2.g3 - An inferior attempt to reach the Catalan. Black is equal after 2...d5 followed by ...c6 and ...Bf5.
b) 2.Bg5 - The Trompowsky. Now almost mainstream and occasinally tested at the highest level. White will frequently capture the f6 knight if that doubles Black's pawns but also setting up a Stonewall with pawns on c3, d4, e3 and f4 makes sense.
c) 2.c3 - Extremely flexible and extremely tame. One idea is to meet 2...g6 as well as 2...e6 with 3.Bg5 (which both may be categorized as Trompowskys).
d) 2.Bf4 - A somewhat experimental branch of the Neo London. 2...c5 and 2...d6 must be the critical lines.
e) 2.Nc3 - After 2...d5, 3.Bg5 is the Veresov Attack. Not very popular for the moment but that may be about to change.
f) 2.Nd2 - Used to be a favorite of Varga's. White to some extent threatens 3.e4 and after 2...d5 3.Nf3 we have a Colle (IBd).
g) 2.e3 - A possibly inferior version of the Stonewall Attack. 2...g6 is supposed to be strong but White can pretend he is playing a reversed French vs. King's Indian Attack.
h) 2.f4 - An ugly attempt to play the Stonewall Attack. 2...d5 followed by 3...Bf5 possibly is the simplest solution but also a plan including ...d6 and ...e5 looks tempting.
i) 2.g4 - The Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit. Almost certainly unsound but White has some practical chances after 2...Nxg4 3.e4.
j) 2.a3 - This attempt to reach a reversed QP opening doesn't make much sense after 2...g6.
k) 2.b3 - May lead to a Colle Zukertort but I cannot see how White can benefit from delaying e3 and Nf3.
l) 2.f3 - May lead to a Blackmar Diemer Gambit after 2...d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3. Probably 3...e6 is a simpler cure. 2...g6 3.e4 d6 is a Pirc.
m) 2.h3 - Looks rather pointless but if White follows up with Bf4 and Nf3 he will probably reach a playable London position.
Group IIB: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.g3
Nimzo- and Queen's Indian players may have a tougher task against the D-pawn Specials, (in particular the Colle) than others. Against this move-order the Colle Zukertort probably holds prospects for a small advantage.
a) 3.e3 - White heads for some branch of the Colle but may need other ideas against 3...b6 and 3...c5.
b) 3.Bg5 - The Torre System
c) 3.Bf4 - An important branch of the London System
d) 3.c3 - A tricky move, keeping open options to enter the Koltanowski Colle, the London or the Torre.
e) 3.Nbd2 - Possibly an underestimated branch of the Colle. Black must decide whether he considers e4 a threat or not.
f) 3.a3 - Another branch of the Prie System. White takes on Black's role with a marginally useful extra tempo.
g) 3.b3 - Heads for a Colle Zukertort but White gains nothing by revealing his plan too early.
h) 3.h3 - Another joke path to a playable if uninspiring London set-up.
i) 3.Nc3 - Looks similar to the Barry Attack but is rather pointless as long as Black hasn't played ...g6.
Group IIC: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6, alternatives to 3.c4 and 3.g3
The King's Indian is one of the toughest tests for any Queen's Pawn System. Black develops quickly and has various ways to challenge the centre. Lines with ...d6 followed by ...e5 or ...c5 probably are the most challenging but quieter lines with ...d5 are also available.
a) 3.e3?! - The Colle hasn't got a great reputation against the King's Indian, as Black can force ...e5 with relative ease. However, 3...Bg7 4.b4!? may well be OK for White.
b) 3.Bg5 - Purists will say that this isn't strictly speaking the Torre Attack. The Torre versus King's Indian (which it's sometimes called) probably is slightly less promising than the 2...e6 version.
c) 3.Bf4 - The third major branch of the London System.
d) 3.c3!? - Delays the decision of where (if?) to develop the dark-squared bishop but there is little to be gained as White will soon have to commit himself anyway after 3...Bg7 or 4...0-0.
e) 3.Nc3!? - introduces the Barry Attack after 3...d5 4.Bf4 (or a version of the 150-Attack after 3...Bg7 4.e4).
f) 3.Nbd2 - Heads for a Colle after 3...d5 4.e3 or a quiet Modern after 3...Bg7 4.e4.
g) 3.h3 - Once thought to be the most accurate move-order for White to play the London System against the King's Indian. However, the move is too slow to stop the ...Nfd7 and ...e5 plan.
h) 3.b3 - Has been played by Smyslov and Portisch but is mainly a modest way of getting the pieces out.
i) 3.b4!? - The Arkell System - at least if White keeps his c-pawn back and plays Nd2-c4, trying to restrain ...e5. I believe there is also a name for the more traditional approach with an early c4 but that line must belong to the King's Indian complex.
That's all folks! (well, I am sure I have forgotten something, so I expect to edit and update the overview)
The plan now is to take a closer look at some of the systems (mainly the Colle London and Torre), comparing them and perhaps suggest how some systems can be combined. I have also started collecting bibliographies.
Updated September 1st
I included some lines given by an anonymous reader.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Killer Repertoire in French
The new title is "Répertoire d'ouvertures efficace" which I assume must mean "An Efficient Opening Repertoire". The subtitle "pour joueur d'échecs paresseux" I think must mean "for lazy chessplayers". A little less bloodthirsty than the original English title.
As you can see, also the cover is a little less aggressive. I prefer Wolff Morrow's artwork, but the French one is quite nice too, in a very different way. Can anyone tell me the name of the artist (I assume his signature can be seen below the drawing, but I am unable to read it)?
I am proud to now have been translated to two major European languages, and hope Gambit Publishing or the French publisher Olibris will be kind enough to send me a few copies.
Update July 21st
I found this advertisment which includes a review. My French is quite poor but I will try to translate the conclusion:
Autre atout de l'ouvrage, le choix des parties illustratives, jouées par des joueurs qui ne sont pas des grands-maîtres. Une autre bonne idée car c'est bien ce qui se passe pour la majorité des tournois d'échecs pour nous autres amateurs. Avouons-le tout bonnement, c'est une idée géniale !
Another asset of the work is the choice of illustrative games, played by players who are not Grandmasters. This is a good idea because for us amateurs this is what occurs in the majority of chess tournaments. Let us acknowledge that this simply is a brilliant idea!
Well, I hope that isn't too inaccurate. Please inform me if you can improve the translation. Anyway, "Chess & Strategy" appears to also be a chess vendor, so the 'review' cannot be expected to be very critical and I will not read too much into it.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Chessville Reviews Win with the Stonewall Dutch
As the reader can easily confirm, McGeary is fairly detailed and in general quite positive. I will just quote his conclusion:
I am sure that new ideas and valuations in lines have likely already come to light since the publication of this book, but it remains an excellent work for a player looking to bring the Stonewall into their armory. Because of the strength of the writers, and the complexity of material, this book might be a bit bewildering for players below the 2000 level, and even some above, yet it could well act as one of the steps along the road upward.
My apologies to my readers for letting this blog become a list of reviews of my books. Some genuine chess content will appear in the near future.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Donaldson's Review of A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire
Yesterday I noticed that John Donaldson's review quoted at Gambit's info page is now available in Northwest Chess Magazine. Is it a coincidence that there now is a reader's review of 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire' by 'Northwest' at Amazon.com?The magazine seems to be a nice product with a pleasant blend of games, analysis and local tournament information. It's not 100% clear to me exactly which area the magazine covers but it seems to be produced in Seattle, US.
Unexpectedly I am having another busy week. I expect to be blogging more frequently the next couple of months.
Update July 5th
Now the review is also available at Silman's Chess Reviews. The review is identical but I believe the readership is far greater.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Play the London - pdf Extracts
Just briefly noting that there are now pdf-extracts from Lakdawala's 'Play the London System' at Everyman's chess book site.
I note with some surprise that the book now has reached 256 pages, which is 64 more than the last time I checked. It is still hard to judge how much analytical content there is and how well organized it is. However, the book still seems promising and I am pleased to note that the introduction contains a good portion humour.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Chess Cafe Reviews the Killer Repertoire
In his influential monthly chess book column - Checkpoint, Carsten Hansen yesterday reviewed (among others) "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire" under the heading 'Happy Days for Queen's Pawn Enthusiasts'. Generally his review is favourable and his conclusion is: 'However, the meat of the book is on the Colle and Colle-related set-ups, and in those chapters the book really proves its worth. Overall, it is an easily approachable book; the repertoire is by and large not too difficult to follow, even if some of the surprise value has been eliminated by the original book being on the market for more than ten years. In many ways, this present work is a considerable upgrade over the original, and, even by today's high standards for opening books, it is a very good book. It can be enjoyed by players rated up to around 2000.'
He awards the book with three stars (out of a maximum of four). I obviously would have liked one more star but cannot really complain. According to the Rating Chart three stars is 'good' and four stars 'excellent'. So when Hansen says it is 'very good' I will assume the extra star was within shooting range.
I don't really agree that the chapters on the Colle (Zukertort) are the core of the book. As I see it, the book's starting point is the Barry Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4). With this as a basis it adds other low-theory systems - including some Colle related systems - in order to supply the reader with a complete 1.d4 repertoire. However, this is mainly a question of perspectives and in support of Hansen's view it must be admitted that Colle-related systems take up at least 68 of the book's 192 pages.
I don't really agree that the chapters on the Colle (Zukertort) are the core of the book. As I see it, the book's starting point is the Barry Attack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4). With this as a basis it adds other low-theory systems - including some Colle related systems - in order to supply the reader with a complete 1.d4 repertoire. However, this is mainly a question of perspectives and in support of Hansen's view it must be admitted that Colle-related systems take up at least 68 of the book's 192 pages.
I note with interest that Hansen recommends the book for players up to 2000. In his 'Introduction to the First Edition' from 1998, Summerscale writes: 'This book is aimed primarily at club-level players with a playing strength of up to about 2200 Elo (or 200 BCF)'. I briefly considered commenting upon this when writing my 'Updater's Notes' as I had a feeling that today's 2200 players generally prepare a bit deeper than they did a decade ago. When I after all decided not to comment on Summerscale's original estimate, it was because I felt that in general the added material compensated for theory's development.
What I really don't understand is this remark:
'There are even some bizarre recommendations towards the end of the book, such as how White is to meet 1 d4 d6, where the book recommends 2 e4, which allows Black to take the game to a Pirc or Modern Defense or even the Philidor after 2..Nf6 3 Nc3 e5 4 Nf3. I can't see too many club players, who employ the Colle as white, also going for 2 e4, which changes the entire nature of the game.'
This is a bit mysterious as 2.e4 clearly isn't a bizarre move in itself. It leads to a positions of a different nature than the Colle but so do many other of the books proposed lines. Hansen's point must be that allowing a transposition to the Pirc, Modern and Philidor doesn't fit well with the rest of the book's proposed repertoire. This criticism would make sense if there wasn't a full chapter in the book on the 150-Attack against the Pirc and Modern. Summerscale's original work didn't mention 1...d6, and I must admit that I too originally missed this gap in the repertoire. So when Gambit's editorial staff pointed this out and suggested 2.d4 and a condensed repertoire to cover the non-Pirc lines, I was happy to accept their suggestion. The only sensible alternative seemed to be 2.Nf3, when 2...Bg4!? would require some analysis as well as some prose discussing the strategic points of Black's ...Bxf3 option. In addition there also was 2...f5!? which didn't quite fit into the proposed repertoire against the Dutch.
So in my opinion the only bizarre aspect of 1.d4 d6 2.e4 is the book's attempt to offer a repertoire against the Czech and the New Philidor in half a column. This clearly isn't sufficient to be well prepared in the professional sense of the word. But for the sub-2200 readers it doesn't seem too bad. 1...d6 is after all only Black's 6th most popular move and will normally lead to the Pirc. The Czech (3...c6) seems to be out of fashion (I think there are theoretical problems in the 4.f4 lines) and not that hard to face unprepared anyway. That leaves the Philidor which is an interesting opening where Black has good prospects to outplay a weaker player in the middlegame. However, it's mainly Black that has to be careful in order to survive the first 15 moves.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Relay Chess
There are countless chess variants; obscure and popular; weird and playable. In an earlier entry I listed some of my favourites. However, I now realize that I forgot an important category of games - those variants that (mostly) retain the standard rules but add an element of physical skill. Chess Boxing seems to be the new big thing and I have already had an entry on Kung Fu Chess. I suppose Drinking Chess (Shots Chess) is still the best known, and may return to this activity as well as the related Valhalla tournaments in a later entry. However, for now I will concentrate on variants better suited for younger players.
If you ever need an outdoor activity for young chess players, then Relay Chess may be the solution. The main rules are:
Coming next: Basket Chess.
If you ever need an outdoor activity for young chess players, then Relay Chess may be the solution. The main rules are:
- Relay chess is a competition between two teams. On each team there should be somewhere between three and seven players. The teams don’t necessarily have to have the same number of players but the players should keep their place in their team's queue.
- The teams are placed some distance away from a chess board. The distance should be sufficient to make it difficult for the players to see what’s going on. Preferably there should be an arbiter near the board.
- Use a chess clock with a reasonable amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes for each team), so that the players will have to run and move quickly in order not to lose on time.
- The player first in the white row runs to the board, makes his first move and presses the clock. As soon as the white player has pressed the clock, the first player on Black’s team may start running.
- A player who has completed his move should immediately return and take his place (at the back of the queue). The next player on his team may not start his run before the previous player has returned (and the player on the other team has completed his move and pressed the clock).
In addition it may be a good idea to agree on this (but remember that this should be fun and don’t spend too much time on the finer points of the rules - a rematch is usual the perfect way to resolve a discussion):
- Should the players be allowed to inform their team about their latest move and the position on the board or give advice? Shout advice to the player at the board?
- What happens if a player makes an illegal move? Stumbles over the board? Loses a piece on the ground?
I hope to add some pictures to this entry in a few days as there is an informal Norway-England competition coming up.
Coming next: Basket Chess.
Friday, May 21, 2010
German Review of the Killer Repertoire
Yesterday I stumbled over a very interesting German language blog 'Schachtraining' (yes, it means chess training) with a brief review of 'A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire'. If you read some German, you could do worse than following this apparently frequently updated chess blog.
For those not reading German, here is an attempt to translate the summary:
"Die meisten der vorgestellten Systeme können ohne großen Aufwand erlernt werden und erfordern nur geringe Variantenkenntnisse. Selbstredend dürfte dadurch sein, dass der Spieler demzufolge keine großen Stellungsvorteile erhoffen darf , aber die Solidität sichert ihm zumeist ausgeglichenes Spiel. Ein Repertoire für Praktiker auf Vereinsniveau. Wer im Besitz der Erstausgabe ist und die Systeme im Repertoire hat, wird voraussichtlich mehr von spezialisierter Literatur profitieren, anstatt das Update zu erwerben."
"Most of the systems presented can be adopted quite easily and demand only modest knowledge of exact variations. This may be due to the systems offering no sizable opening advantage but their solidity will at least ensure you equal play. A repertoire for practical players at club level. Presumably, if you already have the first edition and have adopted the repertoire you will profit more from specialist literature than from getting this update."
(My German is to a large extent based on the language's similarity with Norwegian and contains an element of guesswork. So any improvements/corrections will be appreciated.)
I don't quite agree with this conclusion and may add some comments at a later point.
For those not reading German, here is an attempt to translate the summary:
"Die meisten der vorgestellten Systeme können ohne großen Aufwand erlernt werden und erfordern nur geringe Variantenkenntnisse. Selbstredend dürfte dadurch sein, dass der Spieler demzufolge keine großen Stellungsvorteile erhoffen darf , aber die Solidität sichert ihm zumeist ausgeglichenes Spiel. Ein Repertoire für Praktiker auf Vereinsniveau. Wer im Besitz der Erstausgabe ist und die Systeme im Repertoire hat, wird voraussichtlich mehr von spezialisierter Literatur profitieren, anstatt das Update zu erwerben."
"Most of the systems presented can be adopted quite easily and demand only modest knowledge of exact variations. This may be due to the systems offering no sizable opening advantage but their solidity will at least ensure you equal play. A repertoire for practical players at club level. Presumably, if you already have the first edition and have adopted the repertoire you will profit more from specialist literature than from getting this update."
(My German is to a large extent based on the language's similarity with Norwegian and contains an element of guesswork. So any improvements/corrections will be appreciated.)
I don't quite agree with this conclusion and may add some comments at a later point.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Killer Repertoire in Marsh Towers
In his chess reviews today, Sean March among other reviews "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". The potential buyer can also find a snapshop from one of the new games I added and his impressions regarding the extent of the update. I don't think his estimate of 5 new game references on a double spread is far off but I know that the changes are far from uniformly distributed.
Marsh has certain doubts about some of the repertoire choices but seems quite satisfied with the update and concludes:
"This is a neat little book which can provide serious ammunition for keen club players."
Marsh has certain doubts about some of the repertoire choices but seems quite satisfied with the update and concludes:
"This is a neat little book which can provide serious ammunition for keen club players."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Elburg reviews "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire"
Only this Monday afternoon I got hold of some copies of the revised "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire". Since then I have been very busy and haven't really had the time to examine the book closely. My first impression is that most (possibly all) of my late corrections/additions made it to the final varsion.
Today I found the first review of the book at John Elburg's chess reviews. As expected he is quite positive. My guess is that Gambit on their info page will only quote his concluding line:
Conclusion: Impressive update!
Elburg points out that there is no bibliography and thinks this would have been useful for the reader. Well, he may be right. However, as a matter of fact I originally wrote a quite extensive bibliography but eventually decided to skip it as it would either have been somewhat misleading or would have needed a lot of comments. For instance it would have been somewhat misleading to list the large number of books that I consulted only to find out that they had nothing new to offer.
Elburg also mentions my analysis on Trygstad’s 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7!? which may be the part where I did the most analytical work (or more precisely: where I had Rybka slaving for the longest time).
As a matter of fact only a tiny fraction of my analysis was actually included in the book. Initially I spent a lot of time trying to find a way to a clear advantages in the semi endgames resulting from Williams' mainlines in Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. However, although I succeeded finding some quite promising paths, the positions remained difficult and there was a very real risk that Black would be better prepared for these positions. There were also space issues to be taken into consideration (the book's 192 A5 pages have been utilized more fully than I have ever seen in a chess opening manual). So in the end - just before the final proofs had to be sent - I retraced a few steps, searched for moves that Williams had ignored, and was happy to find a quite promising option that could be covered within the space available. Now I look forward to analytical feedback from Dutch players.
Today I found the first review of the book at John Elburg's chess reviews. As expected he is quite positive. My guess is that Gambit on their info page will only quote his concluding line:
Conclusion: Impressive update!
Elburg points out that there is no bibliography and thinks this would have been useful for the reader. Well, he may be right. However, as a matter of fact I originally wrote a quite extensive bibliography but eventually decided to skip it as it would either have been somewhat misleading or would have needed a lot of comments. For instance it would have been somewhat misleading to list the large number of books that I consulted only to find out that they had nothing new to offer.
Elburg also mentions my analysis on Trygstad’s 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.e4 Rh7!? which may be the part where I did the most analytical work (or more precisely: where I had Rybka slaving for the longest time).
As a matter of fact only a tiny fraction of my analysis was actually included in the book. Initially I spent a lot of time trying to find a way to a clear advantages in the semi endgames resulting from Williams' mainlines in Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch. However, although I succeeded finding some quite promising paths, the positions remained difficult and there was a very real risk that Black would be better prepared for these positions. There were also space issues to be taken into consideration (the book's 192 A5 pages have been utilized more fully than I have ever seen in a chess opening manual). So in the end - just before the final proofs had to be sent - I retraced a few steps, searched for moves that Williams had ignored, and was happy to find a quite promising option that could be covered within the space available. Now I look forward to analytical feedback from Dutch players.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Killer Chess Opening Repertoire Available
What I did was mainly adding recent game references and analysis wherever appropriate. However, this in turned forced a considerable restructuring of the book, as some of the notes were already overly long. I believe this was a fortunate necessity as it made the book a more comfortable read. Now the book is 192 A5 pages - an increase of 48 pages or roughly a third of the original 1998 version. I didn't do a lot of independent analysis but I did spend a lot of hours together with Rybka on a few critical lines.
Now I am quite eager to get my hands on a copy - not least because of the cover artwork which looks great from the web images. Unfortunately, I fear my copies will take some time to arrive as deliveries to Norway have taken surprisingly long time lately.
Note
This entry was updated on April 8th, 2010. My apologies for making at least one of the comments below looking a little strange.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)