The Chess Mind

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.

The other day I was preparing a summary sheet on the French for one of my students, and while looking through Powerbook 2008 within ChessBase 10, I came across a shocker. After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6, I was under the impression that 5.c4 would be the main move. It was well represented, but absolutely swamped, by a 3503-272 margin, by 5.Ne5. What?!



I'm far from being aware of all the sidelines in every opening - it's unlikely that even Kasparov and Anand know every sideline in every opening. But to be unaware of such a popular move in a reasonably common sideline? It took me a few seconds, but then I realized what was going on. ChessBase is handling the opening book in a fashion that's helpful in one way but misleading in two others. The first way it's misleading is that 5.Ne5 isn't ever played there; rather, 5.Ne5 transposes to a known position. (A slight exaggeration: 5.Ne5 shows up a whopping 22 times out of 4797 games in ChessBase's online database.) But that too is misleading. It's not that 5.Ne5 transposes to a position that White normally reaches, but one that occurs from the opposite side of the board:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5



The Petroff is a perfectly viable opening, but it's still better to have White there, not Black. To be fair, even though ChessBase doesn't explain that, one could still gather from the scoring percentages that White should avoid 5.Ne5 in the Exchange French. Still, users might wonder why the move is so popular, and think that it must be good, despite its scoring percentage, if its frequency so overwhelmed that of other moves. I'm not sure if this sort of error/misleading info occurs often enough to be a problem, but if it is, perhaps ChessBase ought to consider adding one or two notations in such cases: one indicating that it arises with colors reversed (at least a certain portion of the time), and a second indicating that it's a transpositional move.

Two comments, by way of tidying up. First, some of you might see the first position and think 5.Ne5 looks good, and then be led to wonder how Black could possibly stand worse (or at least have the burden of proving equality) in the Petroff. The answer is that the knight's advanced location isn't an unmitigated blessing. The opponent (let's assume it's a Petroff, so that would be White) can try to show that it's overextended, playing moves like Bd3, Re1 and c4. Sometimes White will also continue with Nc3 or Nbd2, and if Black captures, as he usually does, the knight will have left its fine post and exchanged itself off with a loss of time.

The second point returns to this post's title. A few weeks ago I (following Alex Baburin in Chess Today - it's his fault!) presented a similar "backwards" position, so it's only fair that I should be similarly afflicted. And then before that there was some April Fool's business...

One of the odder games from the just-completed British Championship was G. Flear-Surtees, which began 1.d4 c6 2.c4 f6?!:



I'm not sure what the idea of this opening is, aside from the cheapo that sprang up after 3.Nf3 e5 (4.dxe5 fxe5 5.Nxe5?? Qa5+ wins a piece), but after 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.dxe5 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qa5 7.Qd4 Flear had an extra pawn and the compensation to boot. Flear won in 35 moves, but since he outrated his opponent by 300 points, it might be more fair to evaluate this as a practical weapon based on games played between strong peers. More tests are needed, as they say, though I doubt that too many tests are required. The whole game can be seen and replayed here.

As mentioned here, GM Alexander Baburin tied for first in the Irish championship with Israeli GM Alon Greenfeld, but since he's an Irish citizen, he won the title. One of his wins can be replayed here (with an abbreviated version of his notes [which I've supplemented with some additional game references] from Chess Today, issue 2804), but I'd like to draw your attention here to the opening of that game:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Rc1 c6 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.O-O dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5 12.h3 exd4 13.exd4 Nb6 14.Bb3



This was the starting point for a variation that was hot in the mid-1980s. Kasparov himself won one of the most important games of his career with it, defeating Karpov in the crucial 22nd game of their 1986 match. I used it myself back then, but thought it was put out of business by the game Olafsson-van der Sterren. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed except that people have had time to forget how to face it, but sometimes that's reason enough. (Connoisseurs of this variation are welcome to correct me.)

Enjoy the game, and who knows - maybe a careful look at the diagram will reveal something.

I just finished watching Rustam Kasimdzhanov's ChessBase DVD on the Anti-Moscow Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5), and it's not a bad summary of the theoretical progression of the variation in super-GM play starting from the Radjabov-Anand rapid match in August 2006 going through Wijk aan Zee earlier this year. Kasimdzhanov does a nice job presenting the key ideas, some important move order issues, the games themselves and a few original ideas to boot. I'd recommend the disk to players (interested in the variation) from around 2100 to 2450, but if you do get it, you should hurry - theory is developing rapidly!

On the other hand, it may not be developing quite as rapidly as we think. Take the famous win by Kramnik over Aronian earlier this year, from Wijk aan Zee. That game continued (after the eight moves given above) as follows: 9.9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. a4 e5 15. Bg4 exd4 16. e5 c5 17. Re1 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 O-O 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Ne2 f5 21. Bh5 f4 22. b4 cxb3 23. Qxb3 Qd5 24. Qh3 Bc8 25. Nc3 (Improving on 25.Qd3, as played in Radjabov-Anand, Mainz 2006, game 7.)



and White went on to win many moves later. (The game and its predecessor can be replayed here.) Black can (and did) capture the knight, but White gets so much play on both sides of the board that it more than compensates for the pawns. (In fact, by the time the final simplifications occurred, Kramnik had gone from three pawns down to two pawns up.)

A brilliant novelty? Well, it is a brilliant move, and it was a novelty in the sense that it was a move that had never been played before. The only thing is that this wasn't some deep idea originating in the secret halls of Kramnik Laboratories; it was devised - and published! - by Anand in the notes to his game with Radjabov back in 2006. (Informant 97, game 318.) Not only that, but Anand also offered there what's now pretty much universally acknowledged to be Black's improvement, 22...d3! 23.bxc5! b4!, keeping the central files closed and White's Ne2 dominated.

It's true, of course, that the amount of information out there is colossal, and even those who have accumulated everything and have the best memories are taxed to the breaking point by that information. Still, this seems more a failure of research than memory on Aronian's part, as the theory of this particular subvariation consisted of only one game. And it's a good plug for the Informant, too!

I was browsing IM Jovanka Houska's 2007 book Play the Caro-Kann, and while looking through the introductory section on the Panov/Botvinnik Attack I read something incredible. In a subsection called 7th move sidelines, I came across this:

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 Nf6 5 Nc3

5 Nf3 is known as Vallicella's Caro-Kann trap - Black has to watch out for one big trick. Best is simply to play 5...Nc6, transposing to the main line after 6 Nc3, but 5...Bg4? would be a mistake after 6 c5! Nc6 7 Bb5. The point is that Black has big difficulties defending the c6 point; for example, 7...e6 8 Qa4 Qc7 9 Ne5 Rc8 10 Bf4 and White is winning!

There's nothing objectionable about the analysis*; rather, what struck me was the reference to Vallicella's Caro-Kann trap, as if this was standard lore in treatments of the Caro-Kann. How did Bill Vallicella, an outstanding philosophical blogger but a 1500-1700 club player not engaged in publicizing his games, suddenly achieve such fame? I had come across his trap either from an email by him or on a post on his predominantly philosophical blog, but when did a move he may have played but a single time turn into an idea requiring mention in a pretty major new theoretical work?

Houska doesn't cite a source, and I certainly didn't recall seeing it in any published materials, so naturally it was off to Google. Entering "Vallicella Caro-Kann", I discovered the main source, conveniently entitled "Vallicella's Caro-Kann Trap"...and you can, too - just click here. Then laugh.**

* Actually, while I wouldn't disagree with her positive suggestion, I don't believe 5...Bg4 is in fact a mistake; the real error comes later. After, e.g. 7...e5 I don't see a White advantage after 8.dxe5 Ne4 or 8.Qa4 Bxf3 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qxc6+ Nd7 11.gxf3 exd4, and even the arguably best 8.Nc3 promises little or nothing after 8...Nd7 9.dxe5 Bxf3 (10.Qxf3 d4; 10.gxf3 a6).

** If anyone knows IM Houska personally, please ask her to write me (via the Contact link) - I'd like to trace the path from Vallicella's idea to her book.

I just finished watching a ChessBase DVD by Rustam Kasimdzhanov on the French - one of three - and I was pleasantly surprised. GM Kasimdzhanov, a former FIDE world champ, has a 3-disk series on meeting the French, and the second disk examines 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc3 7.Be3. His coverage comprises 14 clips that together run 3 hours and 17 minutes: one clip is an Intro, one a brief theoretical overview, 12 clips covering 11 games, and a final summary "Outro".

The disc is a success in three respects (I will note a couple of limitations later). First and foremost, Kasimdzhanov does an excellent job of illustrating the importance for White of the d4 square, and in demonstrating how he can use it (especially with a good Nd4 vs. bad light-squared bishop) to win thematic French endings. The careful viewer will not only learn some theory, but will really understand how to win (some of) the resulting positions. (Note: this thematic ending is far from the only idea discussed on the disk, but it receives coverage in keeping with its importance.)

Second, Kasimdzhanov does a decent job of presenting in outline the important variations White needs to know. Of course he can't cover everything, but much of what is important is at least touched upon. The viewer playing White is unlikely to see anything concepts after 7.Be3 he won't have been prepared for by the video's host.

Third, it's a fantastic source of really beautiful games. Many of the 11 games were new to me, and even just for the pleasure they provided the disk was worth my time. Kasimdzhanov's choices were brilliant, as the games were not only extraordinary but thematic as well.

Now for the limitations. First, and this is true of most video DVDs not supplemented by databases, the total amount of information is far less than one gets from a book or a database. Of course, one doesn't want too much information, because then one isn't sure what to focus on and what to disregard, but for strong club players (approx. 2000 and up) a bit more info is probably necessary.

Second, Kasimdzhanov doesn't say too much about what White ought to avoid. He does present many of Black's ideas, but I don't recall any Black fantasies/White horror stories that are the counterparts to the Nd4 vs. bad bishop White fantasy/Black disaster. More specifically but along the same lines, Kasimdzhanov sometimes omits mention of theoretical improvements for Black. Here's one example, albeit one that's probably not relevant to his repertoire.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Qd2 O-O 10.O-O-O a6 11.h4 (Note: Kasimdzhanov's "official" recommendation here is 11.Qf2) 11...Nxd4 12.Bxd4 b5 13.Rh3 b4 14.Na4 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 f6 16.Qxb4 fxe5 17.Qd6 Qf6 18.f5 Qh6+ 19.Kb1, he continues to present the game Kasparov-Short, Amsterdam (VSB Euwe Memorial) 1994, which was brilliantly won by White. Kasimdzhanov is rightly enthusiastic about Kasparov's idea with 18.f5!!, and continues to present the game, which went 19...Rxf5 20.Rf3!! Rxf3 21.gxf3. White is a pawn down with a bad kingside structure, but Black's retarded development and White's attacking prospects given him the advantage. What Kasimdzhanov doesn't mention is the move 19...Nf6!, which has been played quite a few times since Kasparov-Short (most prominently by Stellwagen and Brynell), and Black's results have been excellent. Even if it turns out that White can prove an advantage there, it's not the sort of position one can figure out on spec.

I would suggest, therefore, that if you're over 2000 OTB or a correspondence player, you supplement this disk with something else, like a quality database and/or a book like volume 6 in fellow former FIDE champ Alexander Khalifman's "Anand" series. But for just about anyone else, this DVD will give you all you need to face 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 with confidence. Highly recommended.

[Full disclosure: I do a weekly show with ChessBase, so I have some motivation not to write a negative review. However, there isn't and never has been any pressure on me to write any reviews at all, so my positive feelings about this disk are genuine and unsolicited.]