The Chess Mind

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 few weeks ago I started receiving ChessVibes Openings (CVO), and would like to add slightly to my comments from this post. What I've noticed is that the authors seem to have found a good niche. While the level of detail and original analysis they bring to the super-tournaments is not at the level of Mikhail Golubev in Chess Today (or even this blog, sometimes), there are at least two things you get from CVO you're less likely to receive elsewhere.

First, they more often draw attention to games played in very strong events not generally considered to be "super-tournaments" than most of the instant-analysis sites. That's useful. Second, they do a nice job of noting trends, which is especially helpful when one is trying to orient oneself in a new opening. In sum, while those of you with easily maintained repertoires or a lack of interest in what the pros are doing in the openings needn't bother with CVO, I think it does have value for opening fanatics, and isn't rendered superfluous by ChessPublishing.com or Chess Today (or even this blog, or the conjunction of the three).

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!

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.

If even the über-maverick Stefan Bücker argues that the Latvian is bad (permalink here) - almost a forced loss - there might be a lesson for the rest of us. Of course, if you want to play the Latvian, no one is stopping you. Chess is supposed to be fun. If you find it more fun to win from time to time, though, it might be appropriate to consider a change.

It's a rare chess player who doesn't know the Fried Liver Attack in the Two Knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7!?), but how does one Fried Liver the opponent in a Slav? Robert Kempinski has apparently found the answer - have a look.

If you're a Najdorf fan, then this is absolutely your week! After recording the 5b video, I had the opportunity in a local blitz game to try out the theory I had spent the past couple of weeks summarizing. My fiendish opponent didn't realize he was supposed to fall, lemming-like, into my preparation, and I was quickly on my own. The game grew wild almost immediately, and while its theoretical significance is minimal its entertainment value was through the roof. (At least for me!) I think you'll find it exciting and enjoyable as well, and since it's free you might as well have a look - right here.

(Not so keen on the Najdorf? Fear not: I have already recorded part 6, and it's the grand finale of the series.)

We're almost there. Almost, but not quite! We have reached the position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7, and in this week's presentation we look at the following variations:

(1) 8.Qf3 h6 9.Bh4 g5!?

(2) 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 and now:

(2a) 10.Qg3
(2b) 10.Be2
(2c) 10.Bd3

The biggie, 10.g4, will be the subject of next week's show - the grand finale of our series on the Sicilian in general and the Najdorf in particular.

In the meantime, there's plenty of (entertaining) content in this week's show (right here), and it's available free and on demand for at least the next month or so. Enjoy!

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.

What started (jokingly, of course) as a proposed 15 minute presentation on all of the Sicilians has now reached its fifth part, four on the Najdorf, with each telescoping in with further detail. This week's show covers three variations: the Poisoned Pawn with 10.e5 (after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3), 7...Qc7 and 7...Nbd7. (The latter is covered in less detail than in this past week's ChessBase show [think of that as part 4a of the series], but it's still substantial - you'll have an excellent idea about where to investigate.)

So if you're ready to dig in to some deep Najdorf theory, or just want to see how hard its advocates must work while you enjoy the easy life, have a look here. The show is free (for at least the next month or so) and is available on demand - as are its predecessors in the Sicilian/Najdorf series.

Next week, the Najdorf series wraps up with the 7...Be7 main line(s).

I like very much that Stefan Bücker has entitled his opening article on 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5?? "Lower Life in the Latvian Gambit". There's something remarkably appropriate there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Anyway, while he reaches the conclusion that all sane people do and most of the insane ones do as well, I have a sneaking suspicion that in next month's part 2, he'll try to have the man bite the dog. We'll see!

And it still isn't the last presentation! (So much for "super-fast".) In this week's installment, we finally get to 6.Bg5, the ultimate main line of the Najdorf. Yet it's still premature to call it the main line, because Black has so many options in response. After a brief discussion of some sidelines, I cover several replies to 6...e6 7.f4: 7...Nc6, 7...h6, 7...b5 and "all" of 7...Qb6 except for the old-fashioned and now trendy 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 variation. That, along with 7...Qc7, 7...Nbd7 and 7...Be7, remains to be covered.

For now, you'll still find plenty of material to keep you entertained and hopefully instructed as well. Just click here and watch. The episode will be available, free and on-demand, for the next month or so.

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.

Alexander Khalifman, Opening for White according to Anand 1.e4, Vol. 11 (Chess Stars 2009). 444 pp. ($29.99 here.) Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

Former FIDE World Champion Alexander Khalifman has been writing opening repertoire books throughout this decade, in a number of multi-volume projects. There was "Opening for White According to Kramnik", "Opening for Black According to Karpov", and the most recent series, "Opening for White According to Anand". The players mentioned aren't collaborators in the series, and the games cited and analysis proposed in each book in the series extends beyond what those greats played and wrote. Still, the repertoire Khalifman proposes is well-based on what those champions played (and play), and as such it offers the reader a fundamentally stable repertoire based on main lines tested at the very highest level.

The "Anand" series is up to volume 11 (or XI, to use the numerals used by Chess Stars), and is based on 1.e4. (This was Anand's almost exclusive choice prior to the Kramnik match.) All 444 dense pages of volume XI are devoted to the Dragon and the Accelerated Dragon, and since his treatment of the Accelerated Dragon is based on 5.Nc3 approaches, it's pretty much a pure Dragon book.)

The book came out right at the start of the year, and given Chess Stars' estimable habit of speedy publication, readers can trust the book as expressing the state of the art as of the end of 2008. Likewise, the Khalifman books are consistently detailed, and this volume is no exception. In the opening books by him that I've examined closely, he invariably starts by looking at even poor moves before turning to the meat, and does so without giving short shrift to either the side- or the mainlines. Want proof? You can find the full table of contents (or more accurately, index of variations) here.

I would not consider myself a Dragon specialist for either side (one of the leading Dragon specialists, GM Mikhail Golubev, has reviewed and lauded the book for Chess Today), but there are some lines I have examined for my own use and in annotating games for the blog. One variation I spent a good deal of time on several years ago arises after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.Bb3 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5. (This came up for me via an Accelerated Dragon move order: 2...Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 d6 9.f3 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5.)



White has two main moves here; ironically, they are rook-pawn pushes on opposite sides of the board. White can choose the prophylactic 12.a4 or the sharp and bloodthirsty 12.h4. I prepared the latter move for my intended opponent, found some nice new ideas, and won a nice game (though without getting to use the best part of my preparation). Some time later I saw Bologan successfully use a very similar idea in a game with Moldovan, and I've followed and discussed the path of this variation on the blog off and on the past few years.

Naturally, I was curious to see how well my old analysis held up in Khalifman's eyes, and was surprised to learn that he advocates 12.a4 instead. Even so, Khalifman's consistent thoroughness deserves praise, and he spends over half a page with dense analysis of 12.h4 to justify his rejection of that approach. (Readers should not fear that a large chunk of the book is wasted [from White's point of view] on lines he discards. When Khalifman discusses White alternatives, it's generally to explain why he prefers one major node over another.) His arguments for 12.a4 are plausible: he thinks White gains at least a slight edge with it (generally a clear edge) and that 12.h4 is both objectively good for Black and gives him the easier, more fun position to handle. (I take a look at his suggestions here - see the first game.)

Turning to a more topical variation, he spends a little over eight pages on the almost brand-new "Carlsen Variation": 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.Bb3 Rc8 11.0-0-0 Ne5 12.Kb1 a6



Khalifman's treatment includes discussion of the high-level 2008 games Dominguez Perez-Carlsen from Biel, Topalov-Carlsen from Bilbao, Anand-Carlsen from Mainz and Karjakin-Radajbov from Sochi and a whole lot more besides. Naturally, his coverage is deeper than what I offered on this blog (I'd hope so!), but it's still interesting to compare conclusions. (Which I do here - see the second game.)

To conclude this review, let me say that this book appears characteristic of the series. The coverage is thorough and the analysis is deep, but with a fair amount of verbal explanation to help the reader. In the past, I've noticed that Khalifman's analysis can sometimes be a little biased for the repertoire side and perhaps under-reliant on computers (even in tactical lines), but I didn't notice any problems this time around. (Granted, I've only checked a very small percentage of the book.) Even so, I'm happy to have the earlier volumes, and this is an obvious must-have for any serious Dragon player. Similarly, it's a must-have for the target audience as well; i.e. for anyone who faces main line Dragons (and Accelerated Dragons without 5.c4 - mention this, and that an earlier book in the Kramnik series covers that approach). I think 1800s and up can benefit from this book; players below that figure but not too far from it might try it as well, at least if they're devoted Dragoneers. Below that, and I think it's probably both a bit too much and a misallocation of resources - there are far more important things to do than learning heavy-duty Dragon theory.

Here's a question (by email) from Brett Thomas-DeJongh:

For example, when I listen to chess.fm live broadcasts I sometimes hear things like, "Well, we'll leave that up to the theoreticians." I always thought that the people who make the theory are the Super-GMs trotting out the novelties in top tournaments. We hear about Bobby Fischer being a theoretician of the King's Indian, Geller revolutionizing it, etc. Also, when we hear that Topalov played Nxf7 in the Moscow variation against Kramnik, Cheparinov had analyzed this sacrifice to move 40.

Are there other theoreticians besides the top OTB players? Are top correspondence players the real theoreticians? And last, are there any theoreticians who are not above a certain ELO, say 2600?

We should distinguish between theory and theoreticians. Theory is the product of all chess players' work. It's not only the games of super- or even regular GMs that count, but those of any competent players (both OTB and correspondence) whose games reach the databases, that define a certain position as "theory". That's probably the most general sense. In a more specialized sense, "theory" is what gets written about by "theoreticians", and in this case it's generally NOT the super-GMs who count. Who are the theoreticians? Here's the answer. Do you have an opening book? Look at the front cover. If you see a name on it, then congratulations: you've just identified one!

That's really all there is to it. If someone writes an opening book, then presto! - he or she is a theoretician. Likewise if someone writes an article on an opening in a magazine or journal, or discusses an opening in an online source (even in a blog, for instance). There's really nothing more mysterious than that. In fact, it's generally not GMs who are considered "theoreticians", even if it's their games that are most prominent in pushing theory along. It's generally the scribblers a few notches lower, whose main claim to fame is their writing on openings, who get that moniker. (Examples: Richard Palliser, a 2406 FIDE player who seems to publish a new opening book every week; and in the avant-garde department, Stefan Bücker, a German FM known for his development and advocacy of some mighty peculiar-looking ideas and his editorship of Kaissiber.)

Right here.

The Stonewall is a pretty rare guest in master play, but in club play it, along with the Colle (also addressed in the video, but more briefly), is fairly popular. After all, it's easy to learn and it comes with a simple middlegame plan as well: pile up on the kingside and pray for mate. Of course, if it were that simple, then grandmasters would play this opening, but they don't.

How should Black meet this opening? As a public service to those who don't know what to do or are just sick of facing this opening, I offer some ideas in this video. After offering some fine points about the most accurate move orders, I present game in which Black first neutralizes White's Ne5 jump, succeeds in achieving his own knight leap with e4, and then utilizes his extra space on the queenside to win. It's a nice game I think you'll enjoy, and hopefully all Stonewallphobes will feel that their long nightmare is now over.

The video is available here, free and on-demand.

The game Hossain-Ganguly from the recently completed Commonwealth Championship was a 20 move draw, but it's a very interesting one that demands attention from Schliemann fans. Some mysteries remain, but my comments to this game should help quite a bit.

In tonight's issue of Chess Today, some games were included from a tournament in Argentina, and to my surprise Bent Larsen was included among the participants. Larsen, as many of you probably remember, was one of the world's best players in the 1960s and '70s and remained an elite player into the 80s as well. He's in his 70s now and doesn't play that much any more, but it's still nice to see him in action. Or rather, it was, until I saw what he was playing:

Round 1: Larsen (2461) - Dos Santos (2435): 1.g4.
Round 2: Mahia (2441) - Larsen (2461) 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.Nc3 h5.
Round 3: Larsen (2461) - Lemos (2479) 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.h4.
Round 4: Contin (2304) - Larsen (2461) 1.e4 a5
Round 5: Larsen (2461) - Liascovich (2435) 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.c3 Be7 5.h4 Nc6 6.Bh2.

Larsen was a great player, and in his prime he might very well have gone 5-0 against these opponents. But even so, why play like this? Why treat your opponent like he's a [donkey]? I can't understand why one of the all-time greats would do this - is it something special for a legend to humiliate a 2304 player by beating him with 1.e4 a5?

Happily, we won't get to find out. Contin DESTROYED Larsen in that game; in fact, all his opponents won. The author of today's Chess Today called Larsen's 0-5 start unfortunate, but I couldn't disagree more. It's one thing to play like this in blitz, goofing around out at the local club or on the internet (especially when one has "the hate"). But for a living legend to do this in a slow tournament? He can do whatever he wants to, but if he's going to play like this, I'm going to take delight in all the severe beatings over the board he gets.

As for those who want to invoke the 1.e4 a6 of Karpov-Miles, I think that gets it backward. Miles was an underdog with a horrible record against Karpov, and was doing something desperate to stop the negative trend. Larsen is in the bully role, not that of the gritty underdog. And if his goal was to avoid heavy theory, surely there were easier and sounder ways to do it than that!

Having been rather hard on Larsen in this post, let me say three things on his behalf. First, he is or at least was a great writer on the game, and if you can find his book of selected games at a non-lethal price, it's worth your time and money. The book is a terrific read. Second, he has always been somewhat avant-garde in his chess, though never anywhere near this far during his active days. But charitably, we can see his openings here as an extreme caricature of his normal chess. And third, at least he's not playing the Latvian!

(You can replay two of his thrashings here.)

In my ChessBase show from six weeks ago, I presented a Smyslov-Karpov game in which both players missed a known tactical trick that gives White a large advantage.



Here Smyslov played 14.Bg5, but 14.d5! exd5 15.Bg5! would have given him a serious advantage. Not surprisingly, if two players of that caliber could miss that trick, there's a good chance that more ordinary players will, too. As an example, here's a recent game between Spanish IM Manuel Granados Gomez and Georgian GM and erstwhile Anand second Elizbar Ubilava from the Spanish Team Championship earlier this month.



It's White to move, and he chose the very natural 14.Rfd1. There are some differences between this game and Smyslov-Karpov, but once again the dynamic advance of the d-pawn carries the day: 14...d4! See if you can figure out the lines yourself, and then have a look at the game in full, with my notes, here.