The Chess Mind

New Books from Russell Chess Enterprises

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-10-17T18:10+00:00

I just got a batch of review copies from Russell Enterprises; three of which I expected and looked forward to and three I had no idea about. Let's start with the good stuff:

(1) Karsten Müller, Bobby Fischer: The Career and Complete Games of the American World Chess Champion. Coming in at just over 400 pages, this book puts the good old collection by Wade and O'Connell and the far less good collection by Hays out of business...almost. Müller annotates every game, and while that's occasionally fulfilled to the letter rather than the spirit, trivial commentary is the exception. The overwhelming percentage of the games have at least a few useful comments and some have substantial analysis.

The book has some additional features: many photos (a large number of which I hadn't seen before), crosstables, a foreword by Larry Evans (comprising a series of vignettes from Fischer's life), an extensive introduction by Müller and an opening survey by Andy Soltis. Müller also offers a few narrative remarks when introducing each event; finally, the book rounds off with a summary of Fischer's career results and highlights, together with openings and opponent indexes. The only omission that bothered me was the failure to include his blitz games from Herceg-Novi in 1970 and the Manhattan Chess Club in 1971. (Oddly, at least if the rationale for not including games from those events is that they were blitz, he does gives the Evans Gambit Fischer-Fine blitz game Fischer presents in My 60 Memorable Games (MSMG).)

The book doesn't substitute for best-game works like Fischer's own MSMG or, say, Soltis's Bobby Fischer Rediscovered, nor does it cover Fischer's simuls (as John Donaldson has in a couple of books). But as a one-volume compilation of all his official match and tournament games, it's the best book out there by far. Unless you have a principled objection to buying a book on Fischer because of his crazy (or worse) political/ethnic views, I'd highly recommend its purchase.

(2) Mark Dvoretsky and Oleg Pervakov, Studies for Practical Players: Improving Calculation and Resourcefulness in the Endgame. Most of you probably know of Dvoretsky, who has achieved much fame in the chess world as a trainer and an author, but who, you might wonder, is Pervakov? The answer is that he is one of the great study composers of our time, and together they have written a book valuable for those who want to train and for those who love beauty in chess.

The book is just what it purports to be, but except for a chapter on Wotawa's studies it's not a series of "White to play and ----" diagrams followed by pages of solutions. You will find text aplenty, offering explanations, a discussion of themes, aesthetics, applications to and analogies with over the board play, and more besides. A further interesting feature is the final, 47-page chapter, which presents studies not by the professionals of composition but by practical players (most of the world champions, and a number of top-class grandmasters from Tarrasch to Morozevich). This book too I can highly recommend, and have already been working with the original, Russian-language edition for some time.

(3) Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper, Bullet Chess: One Minute to Mate. The book won't make you as strong as Nakamura, but it can help you think like a bullet player. Nakamura and Harper emphasize that bullet chess is not "real" chess, and in most of the book's 20 chapters (Nakamura observers will know that it's one of his favorite numbers!) they present and illustrate bullet chess concepts.

For example, there are chapters on time (they don't try to quantify what it's worth in terms of material counts, but have some useful things to say about it), pre-moving (when to use it, when not to, and how and when one should sometimes use the opponent's pre-moving against him), simplification (this needs to be evaluated with an eye on time) and bullet endings (again, these need to be evaluated with the clock in mind).

It's not a bad book for bullet fans. One initially surprising aspect is that Nakamura included comparatively few of his own games and fragments. That's sensible when one remembers that he's writing a book for the amateur's benefit and not a sort of autobiography of his bullet career. However, having seen him perform in bullet (and blitz), I, and probably many others, would have enjoyed a separate chapter offering some of his "greatest hits". So if you're looking for Nakamura's Best One-Minute Games, you've come to the wrong place; if you're looking for a book that will help you think about playing better bullet chess (not "real" chess!), then buy the book!

(4-6) Those are the books I knew about and anticipated. The package also came with a three-part series called Teaching Chess Step by Step, by Igor Khmelnitsky, Michael Khodarkovsky and Michael Zadorozny. The series is designed to help teachers working with elementary school students, and is made up of a teacher's manual (book 1), an exercise book (book 2) and an activities book (book 3). My impression is that while they might be useful for teachers who know very little about chess, those who know more - like the readers of this blog - will benefit much more from a content-rich book like Gary's Adventures in Chess Country (which I reviewed here). But I must reiterate what I wrote in that review: I'm no expert in the beginner-book genre, much less in the sub-genre intended for young children.

In sum, I recommend the Müller and Dvoretsky & Pervakov books to all my readers, the Nakamura & Harper book to bullet fans, and the teaching books only to elementary school teachers with basically no knowledge of the game (but with the admission that my experience of introducing the game to elementary school kids is very limited).

Book Notice: Victor Bologan's The King's Indian: A Complete Black Repertoire

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-08-20T05:08+00:00

Victor Bologan, The King's Indian: A Complete Black Repertoire (Chess Stars 2009). 356 pp. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

I don't have time to write a proper review, but Victor Bologan's new book on the King's Indian deserves a quick mention while it's still very much hot off the press. Bologan, an elite GM, has written two previous books (at least in English) that have been highly acclaimed (his autobiographical Victor Bologan: Selected Games 1985-2004 and The Chebanenko Slav According to Bologan) - and I would join the chorus on them - and this book looks promising as well.

Here are the book's obvious pluses: it's written by a very strong GM (2689 FIDE, at last count), it's up-to-date, it's thorough and while there are game scores a-plenty there's a good deal of independent analysis as well. There are many small-scale explanations, which is useful but presupposes a certain degree of sophistication (this isn't a primer for beginners); still, even average club players can learn something more than series of moves for memorization.

As I noted, the book is thorough - perhaps more so than necessary. Bologan often presents multiple lines for Black, including on occasion some he thinks are distinctly inferior to other choices. While this may be unnecessary, strictly speaking, it provides a broader understanding of the variations and the problems each player is trying to solve, and as such it improves the reader's chess culture.

The bottom line is that if you're a King's Indian player, you're probably nuts not to buy it. That said, there are some flaws in the book. As is often the case with Chess Stars volumes, the translation is leaden.Generally speaking, that’s fine by me – I’m not buying opening books to read Shakespeare. (And who would? “Two-b or not two-b, that is the question: whether to fianchetto my queen’s bishop or not.” Or “Behold, thy bishop has come under attack; verily, get thee to a monastery – hie!” It would take a huge amount of space to get through a single game – almost as many pages as Hübner would take to cover a single move in a position he finds interesting.) It’s a very nice tradeoff: high quality books by non-native English speakers, brought to press in a hurry, in exchange for mediocre prose in translation; I’ll take it every time.

However, there were more problems this time than I can recall in any previous Chess Stars volume, and they weren’t always minor matters of grammar or eloquence. For instance, on p. 321, covering the position after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Nc3 a6 8.d5 Na5 9.b3 c5 (Bologan also covers 9…Rb8) 10.dxc6, Bologan’s main line is 10…bxc6, but here’s what he says about the other capture:

“It is obvious that Black cannot equalize with 10…Nxc6 11.Bb2 Qa5 12.Nd5 (12.Qc1 Bf5 13.Rd1 Rac8 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Rxd5 Qc7 17.c5 Rfd8 18.cxd5 Rxd6= Ilincic – Kislik, Budapest 2008) 12…Nxd5 13.Bxg7 Nc3! (Black avoids cxd5, thanks to this intermediate move and he should equalize gradually.) 14.Bxc3 Qxc3 15.Rc1 Qa5 16.Qd2 Qxd2 17.Nxd2 Nd4 18.Rfe1 Rb8 19.c5 dxc5 20.Rxc5 Rd8 21.e3 Ne6 22.Rc2 b5 23.b4 Bb7= Dobosz – Lanka, Austria 2009.”

This does not compute! Does he mean to say that it’s obvious that Black _can_ equalize with 10…Nxc6? It doesn’t seem so: he thinks 10…bxc6 is only good for equality as well, but should be preferred; further, even if it does equalize, it clearly takes Black some work (“…and he should equalize gradually”). Does he mean instead to say that Black cannot _easily_ equalize with 10…Nxc6? Or did he leave out some superior option for White? Who knows?

It is an annoyance, and I found many more errors without having to look very hard for them. Generally speaking, it wasn't too tough to figure out what was meant or what was missing, so this is no recommendation to avoid the book. It is a plea, perhaps, for more careful translation and possibly copy-editing - maybe a native English speaker should be involved with the final product.

So, while I have only skimmed the text and checked a few variations of interest, what I have seen so far is encouraging, and consistent with what I've come to expect from Bologan's early work. To recap my earlier comment, then, King's Indian players would be a bit crazy not to buy this book. How often are you going to find a player of Bologan's caliber writing about your pet opening?

A Short Review of Simon Williams' The New Sicilian Dragon

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-08-19T21:08+00:00

Simon Williams, The New Sicilian Dragon. Everyman Chess, 2009. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

Maybe it’s something in the water in Great Britain, but those guys publish material on openings faster than politicians make promises and tell lies. Between Everyman, Gambit, ChessPublishing.com, Batsford and Quality Chess, British opening analysis is being delivered to a public with seemingly infinite discretionary income so fast they’re going to have to invent new openings to keep them from getting a day off. (I sometimes wonder whether “Richard Palliser” is an actual person or the name of a secret group, like “Bourbaki” in mathematics. If it is an actual person, I hope they at least give him bathroom breaks. He is so prolific there might be a market for “Richard Palliser facts” over at Everyman, akin to those invented for Chuck Norris. But I digress...)

The book under consideration in this review is Simon Williams’ The New Sicilian Dragon, which claims to be the first book (at least in English) primarily devoted to the “Dragadorf” Sicilian. In case you’re not sure about the variation I’m referring to, it generally arises like this: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 and now 6…a6, creating a sort of Dragon/Najdorf hybrid. (Thus “Dragadorf”; but because it’s more Dragonlike than Najdorfish, “Dragondorf” seems more appropriate – plus it sounds better.) This variation is not new: Botvinnik played it a couple of times (this I knew) and so did Alekhine (this I didn’t). Despite this pedigree, the variation has only recently captured a broader audience. Many grandmasters have tried it, including such Dragon specialists as Chris Ward, Sergey Kudrin and Mikhail Golubev, and in the upper reaches of the atmosphere Ivan Cheparinov and Alexander Khalifman can be counted among its (occasional) adherents. It isn’t hugely popular yet, but that’s in part due to its lack of publicity and somewhat amorphous nature; this book takes a step towards fixing both impediments.

Simon Williams is a British Grandmaster who started playing the Dragadorf in 2004, so this is not publishing for its own sake; he has put his money where his mouth is, and knows whereof he speaks. His results with it against his peers have been respectable, and when he plays down, he is more than capable of showing the line in its glory. Here’s a game from this past July, played too recently for his book:

T. Heinatz (2294) – S. Williams (2527), Swiss Championship 2009:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 a6 7. f3 Nbd7 8. Qd2 Bg7 9. O-O-O b5 10. Kb1 Bb7 11. Bh6 Bxh6 12. Qxh6 Rc8 13. Bd3 Rxc3 14. bxc3 Qc7 15. Ne2 Nb6 16. g4 Qc5 17. Ka1 Na4 18. Qd2 Nd7 19. Rb1 Ne5 20. Rhf1 O-O 21. h4 d5 22. h5 dxe4 23. fxe4 Nxg4 24. hxg6 hxg6 25. c4 Qe5+ 26. c3 Rd8 0-1

About this game, it can be said that if Heinatz had and examined Williams’ book, he would not have lost like this! (For starters, Williams argues that Kb1 in this particular variation is often a waste of time.) Interestingly, though, Williams mentions 15…d5!? and 15…Nc5 16.g4 Na4 in his notes to the game J. Ibarra Jerez – M. Vasiliev, Salamanca 2005 (game 20 in the book, in which Black chose 13…e5 instead) but not the move he actually played. This doesn’t strike me as any sort of secretiveness on his part, though, as both 15…Nc5 and 15…Nb6 are nearly equivalent – the main point of both moves is to route the knight to a4.

The book has quite a lot going for it, not least because it currently has the field all to itself. The games seem well-chosen, and Williams does a good job of laying out the main plans and presenting a full repertoire. Let’s start with a look at the contents:

In chapter 1, he covers the position after 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 a6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4, calling this the critical test of the Dragadorf at the time of his writing. He notes that Black can choose between four different plans: (1) Active counterplay based on the …Rxc3 sacrifice; (2) striking out with …e5 and …b4; (3) an early …Nc5 and …Nxb3, often combined with 0-0-0; (4) Black plays an early …h6.

In chapters 2 and 3, White varies with 9.0-0-0, and just as in the main line Dragon Black’s counterplay is often based on …d5. In chapter 2 White goes for a quick g4-g5 (with the h-pawn often following along), while in chapter 3 White continues with 10.Bh6 (after 9…b5) before shoving the kingside pawns. Against this latter idea, Williams notes two different approaches: ones with …Rxc3 and those with …b4.

In chapter 4 we see the “positional approach”. Instead of 9.Bc4 or 9.0-0-0, White tries 9.g4 b5 10.g5 Nh5 11.a4. It’s a little unusual at first to think of g4-g5 as “positional”, but White is trying to misplace Black’s pieces rather than blow him off the board with an attack. Williams also examines the early deviations 10.Nc6 and 9.Nd5.

In chapter 5 we find the Accelerated Dragadorf with 6…a6. The pluses are that it saves a tempo if White plays the Qd2 + Bh6 plan, while the earlier …b5 makes it harder for White to play Bc4. On the other hand, pushing the b-pawn before White commits to castling long makes the a4 rejoinder positionally dangerous for Black. Naturally, Williams focuses his attention on this last possibility.

Chapter 6 takes a step back toward “normal” Dragon lines in reply to White approaches like 6.Bc4 or 6.Be3 + 7.Be2. Even here, though, it’s is possible for Black to Dragadorf his opponent, as Short did against Glek (successfully) and Anand (unsuccessfully) back in the mid-to-late 90s.

Finally, chapter 7 leaves the Dragadorf behind and examines other non-6.Be3 tries like 6.g3, 6.f4 and 6.Bg5. Once you’ve reached the Dragon on move 5, Williams has you covered.
I like the structure of the book and much else besides, and those who play this or are interested in playing it should at least consider picking it up. The book includes games through 2008, but as this isn’t yet the world’s most topical line there’s still time to catch up and supplement the material.

So far, so good. I was playing through the games in the e-book, without an engine running, just trying to pick up the general ideas, and then something caught my eye. In game 12, M. Perez Candelario-I. Cheparinov, Dos Hermanas 2005, he presents a variation (starting with 22.Rd7! instead of the game’s 22.Qxg3?) and concludes it with this comment: “White's attacking chances look very good. Indeed, it's quite possible that White is just winning.” The statement provoked my curiosity, so I switched on Rybka, which instantly gives White a nearly four pawn advantage (which doesn’t decrease as the engine continues to run). That left me wondering if his comment was British drollery, or if instead Williams’ use of the computer was at best sporadic. One should not use the computer to analyze when one is training, but definitely should when creating an opening book! Likewise, later in the game, when examining 45…Qd5 (instead of Cheparinov’s 45…bxc4??) he considers 46.Qd2 and 46.Qe3, but for Rybka 3 46.Qb4+ is always its main move. While these points are no theoretical significance whatsoever, I started to wonder if they were indicative of a relative lack of computer use in checking his analysis. That might well be very serious in the context of the sharp lines in the opening.

So, from here on out I decided to let the engine run while I went through the rest of the games, to see how his judgments squared with the silicon monster’s in the opening. In the next game, he offered an improvement for Black which was quite sensible – no problem there – but within that variation clear improvements were available to both players. Later in the game (post-theory), he offers an improvement for Black, but suggests it’s still going to see tough times after White’s rejoinder. Unfortunately, the move he suggests for White is a blunder, allowing Black to draw. (His basic assessment was correct, however, and with other moves White can keep a significant advantage.)

In game 14 (Swinkels-Chatalbashev), however, he explicitly refers to a possible White improvement as “the computer’s suggestion” – a relief! Ironically, there are several moments in the subsequent analysis of the computer’s suggestion where Williams’ analysis differs fairly significantly from Rybka’s. Later in the game, on move 19, he considers one Black option dubious, concluding at the end of the variation that “Black has a problem with his king.” This is indeed the case by the end of the line – White is winning – but only because the last move given for Black is a blunder. After a better move (21…c3 rather than 21…e6, in case anyone is curious), Black is better, perhaps considerably so.

In game 15, the analysis looked more reliable. There were some moments where he slightly disagreed with the computer, but it was clear that he had taken it into account and I tended to agree with his assessments. There were a few moments where I disagreed, but perhaps these were more human disagreements than anything else. Game 16, there was one moment where I think he misevaluated the position, but generally it was clear that he consulted with the oracle.

I went through a few more games, but rather than report all my results, I’ll leave you with a simple caveat emptor. We all err, and the computer’s outputs aren’t infallible either. Even so, there were more gaps than I would have liked to see, but overall I think the book has much more good than bad. Just make sure you check his suggestions with your engines before you trot them out in tournament play!

A Short Review of Semko Semkov's Kill KID 1

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-08-17T06:08+00:00

Semko Semkov, Kill KID 1 (Chess Stars 2009), 140 pp. £16.99 Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

Kill KID, vol. 1 (not to be confused with a certain two-part movie or advocacy of violence against children or goats), is the first of what might (or might not) be a series of volumes yet to come. The concept is that this book, and any potential successors, will be dedicated to providing an anti-King’s Indian Defense (that’s the KID to kill) repertoire. Semko Semkov, who is also one of the powers-that-be behind Chess Stars publishing, is a Bulgarian IM (with two GM norms to his credit, but inactive for many years now) who has put together a repertoire for White based on the Four Pawns Attack (FPA). He is not the first to do so – GM Anatoli Vaisser wrote a well-acclaimed book promoting the FPA in the late 90s – but it has been long enough that another volume on the topic is to be welcomed.

As those familiar with the FPA know, it is a usable weapon against both the KID and the Modern Benoni – the lines often transpose – and the book’s first section, divided into two parts*, examines the positions that result after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5. Part 1 covers lines without 9…Re8 (especially 9…b5?!, 9…Nbd7, and 9…Bg4), while part 2 covers the main line with 9…Re8.

Concerning 9...Bg4, he spends about 30 investigating 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 and now not the typical ideas involving Re1 and/or a4, but plans with the very direct g4. As for 9...Re8, I think it is this chapter that offers the book’s most significant contribution: after 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4, the main line used to be 12.Bg5, but 12…Qb6 has been doing fine for Black. Instead, Semkov advocates 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6, about which he writes “[T]his variation has been played before, but I link it with ideas that aim for sound positional compensation instead of depending on long, forcing variations. You will find about 30 pages of original analysis as well as a critical survey of the current theory.” (Introduction, page 7.)

Parts 3 and 4 are in the section “King’s Indian Defence and Volga Pawn Structures”. Here we have variations where Black plays …c5 but omits 7…e6 with the inevitable capture on d5, and variations where Black does without …c5 altogether or at least for the immediate future. (A significant example is 5…0-0 6.Nf3 Na6 7.Bd3 e5.)

Finally, the third section looks at various early Black diversions like 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 and now 4….e5, 4…Nbd7 and 4…Nc6 receive investigation. There’s also a look at 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 and now 3…Bf5, 3…e5 and 3…c6 are examined. Semkov does not discuss 1.d4 d6, however, as he believes that the best response is 2.e4, transposing to a Pirc, and for that the reader is (understandably) directed to another Chess Stars volume – the Khalifman book An Opening for White According to Anand, volume 4.

Now a word about the organization of the parts (chapters). As with the “____est Sicilian” books**, there is a tripartite structure. First comes the “Quick Repertoire”, in which the main lines are presented in a useful summary fashion. This is helpful for those starting to find their way, as well as to those looking for a quick review of the material. Next comes the theoretical meat in the “Step by Step” section, where all the details are filled in. Finally, there comes the self-explanatory “Complete Games”. Theory is not rehashed here, but illustrated with thematic games.

Now you know what is covered and how the material is presented. Is the book worth your while? I think it is, if you play the King’s Indian or if you’re an aggressive 1.d4 player willing to play a variation as committal as the FPA. Much of the material is original, and so you won’t easily be able to reproduce it in a couple of minutes with Rybka, nor will you find any handy refutations in books like Golubev’s 2006 Understanding the King’s Indian or even Bologan’s brand-new The King’s Indian: A Complete Black Repertoire. (I checked both books to make sure!) At the end of the day, I’m sure Black will be fine against the FPA, but if this variation suits your mood it can be an excellent practical weapon, especially at the club level, and so I can recommend the book to its target audience.

* It’s a little strange to at least American readers to see “part” used for “chapter”. Of course it’s not confusing when you’re reading the book, but it does need to be kept in mind when reading the review. I would prefer to label the three main sections of the books “parts” and use “chapter” for what they call “parts”.

** There's The Sharpest Sicilian, The Easiest Sicilian and The Safest Sicilian.

Book Notice: 1.b4 by Konikowski & Soszynski

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-06-05T07:06+00:00

If you're interested in the Sokolsky/Orangutan/Polish (1.b4) and like books with encyclopedia-style coverage, the new Russell Enterprises offering 1.b4: Theory & Practice of the Sokolsky Opening by FM Jerzy Konikowski and Marek Soszynski is the thing for you. I recall many reviews of the Lapshun and Conticello book on the same opening receiving serious criticism for their comparatively thin coverage; this cannot be said of the present volume. In fact, I think there is too much information here.

Sometimes we think the point of an opening book is to acquire information. That's true, but only up to a point. A good database will give us loads of information, but if the games aren't annotated and we don't know how to weight the information that's there, it presents the opposite problem. Now instead of lacking information, we're drowning in it. Thefore, the main reasons to buy an opening book are to get rid of the excess information we get in a database and to learn what ideas, move orders and plans are important. It's not to know or have access to every single idea in every single variation of an opening or line. As this work is much more like a print database than a typical opening book, the reader will have to sift through a colossal amount of material to develop a repertoire, and the strategic advice is comparatively sparse.

Bottom line: Konikowski and Sosynski have put in an incredible amount of effort compiling the material and including their own analysis. This includes a great deal of material from Sokolsky himself, which is quite valuable to English readers lacking access to the founding father's works. That's to K & S's credit. Unfortunately, the product is still in too raw a form for all but devoted fans of 1.b4. If you're a serious 1.b4 player, then it's a must-buy based on its thoroughness. If you're looking for an intro, however, it's a lot less useful.

The book is available here.

Alexander Alekhine's Nottingham 1936 (21st Century Edition): A Brief Review

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-06-01T08:06+00:00

The folks over at the Chess Cafe (Russell Enterprises) have been re-releasing old tournament books lately (St. Petersburg 1909, New York 1924), and their newest offering is Alexander Alekhine's classic Nottingham 1936 (available here and here [for a significantly better price - if you're willing to wait until August]). In the following brief review I will first discuss the tournament, then the book in its own right, and finally the new edition of the book.

Part I: Nottingham 1936, The Tournament

Nottingham 1936 was one of the great chess events of all time. Former world champions Emanuel Lasker (1894-1921), Jose Raul Capablanca (1921-1927) and Alexander Alekhine (1927-1935) were playing, along with then-current champion Max Euwe (1935-1937). To add to the colossal strength, two future champions were playing - the aforementioned Alekhine, who would reclaim his title a year later and keep it until his death in 1946, and Mikhail Botvinnik, who was champion from 1948-1963, with two one-year breaks (1957-8, 1960-1). This means that there were five players in this tournament who, together, possessed the world championship title from 1894 to 1963, excepting two years when it was held by others and two years when the title was vacant. That's sixty-six years' worth of world champions!

The non-champ portion of the field was impressive, too. There was Reuben Fine, who in 1938 tied for first in what was a sort of Candidates event, and who could have played in the 1948 World Championship. There was Sammy Reshevsky, who did play in the 1948 Championship and was among the world's elite from the 1930s through the 1960s. Salo Flohr was one of the world's very best players in the early 1930s, Efim Bogoljubow had played in two world championship matches (in 1929 and 1934) and had won some very strong events in the past decade, and Milan Vidmar and Savielly Tartakower were comparatively lesser but still very strong GMs (by contemporary standards) in their own right. Only the British players (Tylor, Alexander, Thomas and Winter) were comparative cannon fodder, and yet they each played a small role as spoiler.

As it turned out, the tournament was very closely contested. Botvinnik and Capablanca tied for first in what was the last great result of the Cuban's chess career. They finished with 10 points, half a point ahead of Fine, Reshevsky, and Euwe. Alekhine had 9, Flohr and Lasker 8½, while the next closest finisher was a full 2½ points behind. There were many classic games, and a lot of fight too. Even among the prizewinners there was a good deal of bloodletting - it wasn't just the visitors wiping out the locals.

Part II: Nottingham 1936, The Book

Now to the book. All the games are annotated by Alexander Alekhine, and his notes make for instructive and lively reading. No one will confuse his comments with a Rybka printout, but his notes are clear, instructive, and punchy. (You can find an excerpt here here, on the Chess Cafe website.) Among the more amusing comments by Alekhine are his comments to the ending of Tylor-Flohr, which he describes as a four-step plan:

"From now a pretty dull affair begins. In order to make a long story short it is better, I think, to divide the following play into sections.

"I. Black prepares and finally plays f6 in order to free the c5-square for his king.

"II. Black prepares and actually plays b5.

"III. Black gradually brings his passed pawn to a3 where it is weaker than at a5!

"IV. Black prepares and at last makes the decisive mistake."

About this mistake, Alekhine writes that

"There were some voices in the press which attributed Flohr's failure at Nottingham to 'bad luck,' and especially to the fact that he lost two points to the British players, against whom he had previously had good results. The present game, more than any other, shows that such an appreciation is entirely wrong: Because a master, who, not being able to win through his own ability, tries to gain a point by exhausting a less physically trained opponent, fully deserves to lose."

Take that, sitzfleischers!

As all the games can be found in many databases, it's the notes that make or break the book. To my mind, they make the book worth having - not only as an historical document and as entertainment, but also to see some great games and to see chess understanding as it starts evolving into something modern.

Part III: This Edition of the Book

As usual, my feelings are mixed. The pluses: the book is in print again, and has been updated into algebraic notation. If, like me, you're "bilingual", then it's not so important; but as many players are unfamiliar with or averse to descriptive notation, it's a worthwhile change.

The format is in the typical Russell Enterprises/Chess Cafe style (which you can see for yourself at the link given above), but while this was a colossal improvement over the earlier editions of St. Petersburg 1909 and New York 1924, the Dover edition of Nottingham 1936 is already eminently readable. The new book is a little cleaner and nicer, but it's only a small upgrade in this case. Another minor plus for the new edition is a foreword by GM Andy Soltis.

Unfortunately, there are some negatives, too. Some minor errors and oddities were easy to find. For instance, the table of contents refers to the "Index of Opening". Another example: in the excerpt linked to above, in the note after Black's 6th move in Alekhine-Capablanca, an opening variation is referred to using descriptive rather than algebraic notation. Another error: in the paragraph giving the scores after round 14, an asterisk indicating that Capablanca had already had his bye is missing next to his name. I also noticed at least one typo in the notation, but couldn't find it again on a quick browsing. These are minor points; alas, there is worse to come.

As with the Russell Enterprise editions of St. Petersburg 1909 and New York 1924, some of the supplementary material has been excised. (In this case, almost all of it.) (1) W. H. Watts' 7-page introduction is gone, as is (2) E. G. R. Cordingly's tabular Openings Index. (The book has a more typical, less descriptive index.) But wait - there's less! The new edition (3) also excises six games from the simultaneously held minor tournament, of which five games are annotated by Alekhine. Also AWOL are (4) the round-by-round score table, (5) the dedication (to Alderman J. N. Derbyshire), and (6) proper credit for the round reports. The reports are included in the new edition, but one is led to assume they are by Alekhine. They're not: it was A. J. Mackenzie who deserves the credit.

All told, my dismay over these omissions - especially the latter, which while the least interesting represents the biggest sin against history - outweighs my appreciation for this book. If you're not descriptive-phobic and can find an affordable version of the 1962 Dover reprint, buy that. I've also noticed that there's a 2002 edition published by Hardinge Simpole; if it's faithful to the original text (except for updating to algebraic notation), then I would recommend purchasing it instead. (If any readers have it and can tell me how it fares, please do in the comments.)

Russell Enterprises can only be commended for its choices when it comes to deciding which old books to reissue, and their catalog of old and new books (e.g. by Mark Dvoretsky and Karsten Müller) places them among the elite chess publishers of our day. But their habit of excising auxiliary material (see the links to the earlier reviews for further examples) is a serious negative, so much so in this case that I cannot endorse this edition if earlier ones are available. If omission (6) is remedied in a subsequent printing, I will change my assessment; happily so if (at least) omissions (1), (3) and (5) as rectified as well. (But why not fix them all?)

Kasimdzhanov's Attacking the King - For Experts

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-04-02T19:04+00:00

That's the title of the latest ChessBase DVD presented by former FIDE champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov. There are 23 clips, generally about 10 minutes apiece, 21 of which present attacks from game fragments. There's a brief intro, then one fragment apiece for the world champions from Steinitz through Kasparov, then eight fragments from Kasimdzhanov's own play, and finally a brief wrap-up.*

Who is it for? It's not really for the student looking for a didactic presentation. For that, a book like the Vukovic classic The Art of Attack is your best bet, and for more advanced players Aagaard's Attacking Manual 1 (and whenever it comes out, vol. 2) is the way to go. Generally speaking, it has to be this way: the amount of material in a video is minuscule in comparison with a book's contents.

If you're curious about the video for entertainment purposes, then it's worth considering. The games are well chosen on several levels. First, they are extremely diverse. Some attacks feature open centers, some closed. Sometimes they involve some sort of classical build-up, sometimes they seem to come out of a clear blue sky. Some flow naturally from overt positional factors; on other occasions, it seems like nothing other than tactical legerdemain. (And so on.) Second, Kasimdzhanov has attempted to present attacking games from the world champions that are characteristic of their style, and in this I think he has succeeded. That makes the disc a nice intro to the world champions, for those who are new to the game's history. Finally, his own games are very nice as well. He has a very active and even tricky style, and for us we get the best of both worlds: on the one hand he's a great player, so his games are at an extremely high level; on the other, he rarely plays in the absolutely highest-level events, so his games are usually new to us.

By emphasizing the disc's entertainment value while denying its role as a sort of primer, I don't mean that there's nothing to learn from the material. As with any collection of outstanding games, especially when they are annotated, the reader or viewer can benefit greatly by its study. So if one watches interactively, frequently stopping the video and trying to work everything out first, the training value can be significant. If not, then it's basically (good) entertainment.

* In two cases the "fragment" includes the whole game. For those who are concerned to have the entire game, fear not: all the games are given in full elsewhere on the disc.

Book Notice: Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6 by Michael Melts

Dennis Monokroussos — 2009-03-25T05:03+00:00

Michael Melts, The Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic 3...Qd6 (Russell Enterprises 2009); $29.95. (Available here.) Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

To be honest, the opening line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 isn't one I know very well, nor one I have much interest in taking up at this point. What I can say is that the new book on this system by Michael Melts (the second edition of a 2001 book) is insanely detailed. It's packed like an openings encyclopedia with game references and analysis; indeed, one might think that every 3...Qd6 game in history is included.

I'll list some pros and cons, but be aware that this is not a detailed review based on my thorough investigation of the book. With that caveat, then, let's continue.

PROS:

1. As mentioned above, the coverage is encyclopedic. As a source book, one would be hard-pressed to top this.

2. It's an economical system, by which I mean that it's pretty well one-stop shopping against 1.e4. If you want to play the Najdorf Sicilian, you first have to worry about 2.a3, 2.b4, 2.c3, 2.d4 and 2.Nc3; then after 2.Nf3 d6 there's 3.Nc3, 3.Bc4 and 3.Bb5+; after 3.d4 cxd4 there's 4.Qxd4; and even after 4.Nxd4 Nf6 there's 5.f3 and even 5.Bc4. After 1.e4 d5, however, there's really just 2.Nc3 and 2.d4 to worry about, and they're not much of a worry.

3. It's probably not such a bad system, either. Tiviakov has been playing it regularly for several years now, with generally good results, and other strong (2600+) GMs like Nisipeanu, Almasi, Dreev and Gashimov have experimented with it as well.

CONS:

1. Almost all of the book comprises variations, whether game citations or original analysis. Once the book gets going, there's almost no hand-holding for the reader, explaining what's going on, what to do next, etc.

Reply: This is mitigated somewhat by a 32 page chapter (or "Part") called "Information for Club Players", which is geared to readers in the 1400-2000 range. Ironically, a fair chunk of this chapter is in the same vein - moves without explanations - but overall it's still useful. The chapter includes examples of "opening catastrophes" for White and "typical mistakes" for Black, and then offers some tidbits on the major structures Black can choose after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6. There's a subsection on ...c6 approaches, ...a6 approaches, and ...g6 approaches (the latter is the specialty of GM Bojan Kurajica). Melts rounds out the chapter with recommendations - a commendable inclusion.

All the same, the explanations look awfully superficial to me, and there's much that goes on in the main chapters that isn't conceptually addressed in the info chapter or elsewhere. Here's an example, from Charbonneau-Kamsky, Montreal 2007, which is the first "official" game in the book: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nf3 Be6. After two pages discussing Black's 6th move alternatives, Melts writes this: "With 6...Be6 Black plans to exchange light-squared bishops." Well, yes, that's pretty clear, but should he? Is it better here than on f5 or g4, and is there any general strategic reason we can appeal to for understanding? And if it is, does that mean that White should avoid 5.Bc4?

Continuing with the game, White played 7.Bxe6, and after 7...Qxe6+ Melts says that Black has no problems. Here's the note to White's 7th move, in full:

7.Bd3 (7.Bb3!?; for 7.Ne5 see 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Ne5 Be6 7.Bc4, Game 17) 7...Nbd7 (Schallueck, H. - Klawitter, B., Hamburg 2004) 8.0-0+=; 7...Bg4 - Game 13; 7...Na6!? 8.a3 g6.

At the end of the game Melts writes that "White needs to play 7.Bb3, 7.Bd3 or 7.Ne5." Ok, maybe so, but why was White's choice bad? What did he allow in the position that he shouldn't, or what did he fail to pursue that he should have? If 7.Bxe6 Qxe6+ was nothing, then why is 7.Bb3 Bxb3 8.axb3 Qe6+ something? Is Black supposed to castle long here (he doesn't in Charbonneau-Kamsky), but not now thanks to the half-open a-file, or is that file just a generic asset for White, or is the issue that a pawn on b3 supports a knight or other piece on c4? The point isn't that Melts should explain everything, but that almost nothing is explained. Even Boris Avrukh's 1.d4! repertoire book and the Khalifman books, both of which are primarily geared towards professional and near-professional players, offer the reader more help than Melts does.

2. Who is Melts? OTB, there's not much to see: I didn't find a FIDE rating, and he has a 2100 USCF rating based on only three tournaments. On the other hand, he's an IM in correspondence chess, so even if he's not as strong a practical player as the typical openings book author, he clearly has some skill in analysis.

In summary, it is clear that Melts has put a lot of effort into this book, and even if Khalifman or some other elite author could puncture his analysis, I imagine it should hold up pretty well in the rough-and-tumble world most of us inhabit. Whether you want to play this system is up to you, but if you do you will surely want this as a sourcebook. As I've suggested, it's rather thin on explanation (even with the one special chapter taken into account), so my recommendation is that players on the lower end of the 1400-2000 spectrum only consider taking this up if they are already reasonably familiar with the main line Scandinavian, or perhaps the Caro-Kann or the Fort Knox French.