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.