The Chess Mind

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.