The Chess Mind

The (very well-written) review was largely positive, even enthusiastic, but the following passage has generated some controversy:

Just like Kasparov in his ‘’My Great Predecessors’-series, Morozevich, too, has worked with a co-author: IM Vladimir Barsky. What’s with these co-authors anyway? If they’re even necessary at all, then why not say (especially when one author is so much stronger than the other!) what’s by Morozevich and what’s by Barsky? But, of course, that’s not how it works. People would skip Barsky’s work and move directly to what the world’s number five has to say. More confusion is added by the fact that sometimes a text is preceded explicitly by a statement that Morozevich wrote it (’Alexander Morozevich: …‘). It seems a bit sloppy to me that the editors of New in Chess haven’t asked for more clarity from the authors on this point.

Barskij ("Barsky" on the book's cover, "Barskij" on the FIDE page) writes for Chess Today (as do I, as a book reviewer), and his fellow CTers, GMs Alex Baburin and Mikhail Golubev, have responded to the review. First, here's Baburin from Chess Today, issue 2264 (January 19):

The ChessVibes website posted a review of the recently published book "The Chigorin Defence", by GM Morozevich and IM Barskij. I think that the reviewer, Dutch chess player Arne Moll, is unfairly critical towards my friend and colleague Vladimir Barskij. If Kasparov did not need Voronkov to help him with the 'My Great Predecessors' series, he would have written it alone. And so would Morozevich – but he obviously appreciated Vladimir's contribution if he chose to work together. Apart from that the review is very interesting and well worth checking – as, I am sure, is the book itself!

I wrote Baburin, and that letter, along with his response, was published in today's (Tuesday's) issue (CT-2268). First, the relevant excerpts from my letter:

I read the Chess Vibes review a couple of days ago, and my reaction was a bit different from yours. I agree that the reviewer was too dismissive of the weaker co-author's contributions: even if Barskij isn't Morozevich, he is still a good IM, and IMs can do excellent work (as e.g. Dvoretsky, Aagaard, and Watson demonstrate in spades).

That said, I share his concern about who wrote what in such books (a concern I express in my forthcoming review of Khalifman's (or is it Khalifman & Soloviov's?) presumed works on the French), and I think many other readers will feel the same way. [DM's update: I've since learned that Khalifman is the sole author of these books.] To worry about this isn't to denigrate the lower-rated player's abilities but to address a question of honesty, of truth in advertising. Most people who buy the book will do so because it is presumably written by one of the best and most unusual players in the world, not because it is on the Chigorin. And those who do buy it because they are interested in the opening will probably evaluate the book's suggestions and its overall importance differently, depending on who they think produced the analysis.

So granting that part of the reviewer's commentary was unduly dismissive, what do you think about the particular point I've raised?

And now Baburin's reply:

First, I should correct one small mistake – Kasparov's co-author is Plisetsky, not Voronkov.

I agree with Dennis that lesser players (and, unfortunately as it may be, we are all lesser players compared to Kasparov, etc) can write excellent books. As one does not have to be a GM or IM to write a great chess review.

Secondly, I agree with Mikhail Golubev (who, like me, left comments concerning that review at the ChessVibes website) [DM: See below for both.] that authors do not have to disclose how they split their work. I recall a witty comment from famous Russian satirists Ilf and Petrov on how they did that: "While one of us is working on the book, the other one runs around different publishers, trying to sell it!" I think a complete disclosure or exact breakdown is not necessary, though sometimes the authors may stress that certain comments belong specifically to one of them. Evidently, this is what Morozevich did in that book.

Finally, I don't think that there is a problem of "truth in advertising" in this case. If, for example, Vladimir played 1.b4 a lot and then got Morozevich's to co-write a book on that opening, readers might have a problem. But Morozevich is the main expert on the Chigorin, so it is clear that he had major input into the book. If a player simply "lands" his name to publications in which he is not really involved, very soon he will lose credibility – and I bet that leading chess players are smart enough to realise that.

To complete the picture, here are some excerpts from the back and forth at the Chess Vibes site. First up, GM Golubev:

When people are working together, why should they always explain what exactly was done by whom? As there are two co-authors, it is quite clear that two persons are responsible for the work, and not just one person. Of course, one may wish to know what exactly was done by Morozevich (or to know other things about Morozevich), but he is simply not obliged to provide this information. In general the author can not be obliged to explain how exactly he worked on his product, it could be a nonsense to ask.

Next, Arne Moll's response:

Hello mr. Golubev,

thank you for your comments on our website. It’s always interesting when a strong player says something about it! WIth regard to your comment about co-authors, I can say that my criticism was mainly triggered by the fact that the name Morozevich is used to attract readers, while it is not clear if Morozevich even wrote most of the book. Thus, to be completely fair to the reader, the book should have been called “The Chigorin Defence according to Morozevich and Barsky”, don’t you agree? And also, the subtitle should have been “A world class player and an IM on the opening he made popular”. Why mention Barsky only as the co-author and not in the title? If anything, this seems unfair to mr. Barsky not by me but by the editors, in my opinion.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying it’s wrong for authors to write together, but I do think it’s sort of misleading of commercial editors to attract potential readers by mentioning only the most attractive author and not the other in the title. Let’s be fair, how many people would have bought the book if it would have been called ‘The Chigorin Defence according to Vladimir Barsky’? Not as much as now, I think. So, in fact I am not critisizing mr. Barsky at all, I am criticizing New in Chess editors for not being clear who was the main author and being honest about it. Now, they leave it up to the reader to guess who wrote most of it. My personal guess is that mr. Barsky did most of the analysis work and I would be glad to here otherwise. Anyway, I think he actually deserves a compliment for this, rather than being mentioned only as the co-author, don’t you agree? If he did most of the work, then why is he not mentioned in the title?

Same with Kasparov. If it turns out Plisetsky did most of the historical research and in fact did most of the writing and sorting the material, then why is the book not called “Kasparov and Plistesky on My Great Predecessors?” The reason is commercialism, and this, I think, is misleading towards the reader. But if anything, I wouldn’t call it criticism on Plisetsky, but on Kasparov or the editors of the book.

Best regards, Arne

And finally, part of GM Baburin's comment:

Dear Mr Moll,

While I find your review very interesting, I think that you are not fair to my friend IM Vladimir Barskij - or in fact to any such co-author! Nobody wants to write a bad book, so if Morozevich was happy to work with Barskij, we should trust his judgement.

Maybe Barskij prepared reference material, maybe he checked lines with computer - or perhaps he helped to better explain things to the main target audience (ie. club player). I don’t know what his role was - and neither do you. But, as long as the book is good, I don’t care.

One cannot seriously speculate that Morozevich’s name was just used to sell the book - he IS the main expert on the Chigorin.

For those readers who have persevered to the end of this monster post, what say you? Should we trust that Morozevich's integrity and desire to maintain a good reputation ensure his substantial participation in the project, to a degree sufficient to show that worries like Moll's and my own are mistaken? Or do you find the absence of clarity here unsettling, leaving open a range of possibilities from heavy Morozevich participation to contributing a few notes and a little editorial checking?

It does not take long to see that White could continue the game without any risk. I assume that time was not an issue – they probably have some kind of time increment at Corus. Karjakin's decision to settle for a draw was very impractical – I doubt that Topalov would have offered him a draw in the diagrammed position if Topalov was White!

How to play for a win, is another matter. The first move, which comes to mind, is 52.b4. Now the line 52...e3 53.Kd3 is clearly bad for Black, so he has to try another defence, choosing between 52...Rxf5, 52...Rd1 and 52...Rb1.

After 52...Rxf5 53.b5 Ke8 (53...d4+ 54.Kc4 e3 55.b6 Re5 56.b7 Re8 57.Rh7 Kg8 58.Re7! Rb8 59.Kd3!+-) 54.Rh7 Kd8 55.b6 White wins – 55...Kc8 56.h5 e3 57.h6 d4+ (or 57...Re5 58.Rc7+ Kb8 59.h7 Re8 60.Re7!+-) 58.Kd3 Rf2 59.Kxd4 e2 60.Re7 Rh2 61.c4 Rxh6 62.Rxe2+-

In case of 52...Rd1 Black cannot survive either: 53.Rd6 Kf7 54.b5 e3 55.Re6 d4+ 56.Kc4 Rd2 57.c3! (57.b6?! Rxc2+ 58.Kxd4 e2 complicates things unnecessarily.) 57...dxc3 58.Rxe3 c2 59.Rc3+-.

The best defence is 52...Rb1! - Black is trying to use the fact that the bpawn is now vulnerable. 53.h5 e3 54.Kd3 Rxb4 55.Kxe3!

After 55.h6 Kg8 56.Kxe3 Re4+ 57.Kd3 Re5 58.Kd4 Rxf5 59.Rxd5 the hpawn might become weak; while 55.Rxd5? Re4! 56.Ke2 Rc4 is fine for Black. 55...Re4+ 56.Kd3 Re5 57.Kd4 Rxf5 58.Rxd5 Rf4+ 59.Kc5 Ke7 60.c4 Rh4! Here Black is still fighting on.

I cannot see a clear win after 52.b4, so perhaps another line is worth considering: 52.h5!? Rxf5 53.h6 Kg8 54.b4 Rf1 55.Rxd5! The Computer suggests another interesting move - 55.Kd4!?, but after 55...Rd1+ (Black can also try 55...Rb1!? 56.c3 f5) 56.Kc5 Rc1 (56...e3 57.Re7 d4 58.b5 Rd2 59.b6 Rxc2+ 60.Kxd4 e2 Black is OK. 55...Kh7 56.Kd4 f5

Here Max stopped his analysis, stating that Black's pawns are nearly as dangerous as White's. In fact, Black's troubles are not over yet. 57.c4 Kxh6 58.b5

The white pawns are more dangerous than their black counterparts - mainly because White has the more active king. Here is a sample line: 58...Rd1+ 59.Ke3 Rc1 60.c5 Kg5 61.Kd2 Rc4 62.c6

It may appear that 62.b6 Rb4 is even better for White, but this is [not] so - White should push the c-pawn first, as the black rook behind the c-pawn is more vulnerable than on the b-file. 62...Kf4 63.Rd7 e3+ 64.Kd3 Rc1 65.c7

White wins, for example: 65...Kf3 66.Re7 f4 67.b6+-.

So, after 52.b4 Rb1! Black seems to be OK, but 52.h5 is not easy to meet.

Your feedback and corrections will be much appreciated!