ChessVibes » Reviews

Review: three excellent puzzle books

Arne Moll — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:46:17 +0000

I don’t like games (except chess) and I hate puzzles. I’m one of those people who doesn’t like to solve something others have solved before, let alone trying this in the presence of someone who already knows the answer.

I’m always afraid I won’t be able to find the solution and will have to conclude I’m a horrible chess player (or a quiz participant, or a student). Still, I very much like reading chess puzzle books as long as I can look up the answer right away.

So it was with a mixture of enthusiasm and (inevitably) dread that I noted the recent appearance of no less than three chess puzzle books by major publishers: The Quality Chess Puzzle Book by John Shaw, The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3 by Karsten Mueller and Merijn van Delft, and Coffeehouse Chess Tactics by John Healy.

There are, of course, hundreds of chess puzzle books available, and I believe all of them can make you a better chess player, as long as you really study the exercises and try not to look at the solution the moment you’re stuck. Which is exactly why I’ll never improve by doing just that, but fortunately, there’s a lot to enjoy in all three books apart from trying to become a better player. Shaw’s book gives you the most exercises (a whopping 735), while Healy is the funniest writer and Mueller and Van Delft have the best explanations.

Let’s start with John Healy’s Coffee House Chess Tactics, somewhat surprisingly published by New in Chess, which is really not a puzzle book but does contain lots of puzzles. John Healy is a unique author in the chess world, if only for the fact that he’s served a serious amount of time (12 months) in prison. Asked by a fellow inmate to teach him how to play chess, Healy soon realized he’d become hooked on chess himself and never was the same person again. Moreover, he turned out to be a great (if somewhat unsophisticated) writer. Allow me to recommend the following fragment to certain top-10 players especially:

Talent and youth, bright middle-class children with psychopathic tendencies – that’s what’s needed for success at tournament chess; with the emphasis on youth. And so their mums send them forth with the Spartan mother’s warning: come back victorious or don’t come back at all. Well, it is a discipline, codes-rules-values, and part of the code is to shake hands, win or lose, with friend a foe alike. The ritual is repeated before and after each game regardless of results.

Over come the hands: small, large, medium, enormous, dainty, delicate, strong, weak, hard, soft, limp, damp, and dry. After this sporting gesture one is free to cheat, lie, jostle, harangue, pace up and down, fart loudly, laugh, cry, sneeze, bang the pieces down, intimidate, glare and stare until the game ends once more with a gentlemanly handshake.

The prose parts are clearly the book’s best and should alone be sufficient reason to buy the book. The actually chess part of the book (consisting mostly of fragments from Healy’s own offhand games – inevitably full of ‘coffeehouse’ elements) seems really just an afterthought, though there are useful examples for players rated below 1900.

Healy-Chanel
International Students’ House, 1980

This is a puzzle that is not directly obvious – at least it wasn’t to me. Clearly, 1.Rxf7+ is the move, but after 1…Rxf7 2.Rxf7+ Qxf7 3.Qxe5+ Black has 3…Qf6 and though White is clearly winning after taking on b8, this seems a bit thin even for a sub-1900 puzzle. This is usually the moment in a puzzle where I stop and look up the solution, concluding I’m too old (and lazy) for this stuff, but then of course White has 4.Qc7+! and there’s no Qf7 so White picks up the rook with check and cashes the bishop as well.

While Healy’s puzzles are mostly about pretty straightforward tactics (and there’s nothing wrong with that!), John Shaw’s Quality Chess Puzzle Book, published, as the title suggests, by Quality Chess, is much more ambitious. From the introduction, we read that:

We often start the action a little earlier than is usual, in a position where the big punch is some moves in the future. The reader thus has to find the introductory moves that make the tactic work. Naturally, this is tougher than just spotting the Bxh7+ and then a few checks.

To be honest I did see quite a few exercises where the first move in fact is also the ‘big punch’, but there are also complex ones like the following from the chapter ‘Simple but not Easy’:

Socko-Wojtaszek
Poland (ch) 2007

The question is not whether White starts with 1.Bxg7+! (though see below) but how things continue after 1…Kxg7 2.Qg6+ Kh8. The answer is the beautiful 3.Bg8! and again this is the moment I usually look up the solution, only to discover that actually Black still has a way to stop mate with 3…Rf7! after which White still has to find 4.Qxf7! (not, as Shaw notes, 4.Bxf7? Qxd2) 4…Qxg8 5.Qxe7 and White is two pawns up. Importantly, Shaw explains how 1.Qg6 seems to lead to the same thing, but doesn’t since after 1…gxh6 2.Bg8 Rf7! 3.Qxf7 Qxg8 4.Qxe7 Rd8! the position is in fact very unclear.

There are many things to like about this book. Apart from the high quality material, the vast majority of the exercises are from very recent games (700 of 735 puzzles are from after the year 2000.) I also liked the fact that there’s a chapter with ‘Contributions from our Readers’. As a matter of fact, there was no immediate need for such an original approach as the author has made sure the puzzles in this book “have not been used in other puzzle books, so the reader has to solve the puzzle, not remember the answer from old books.” Finally, I found it extremely convenient that the solutions to the puzzles aren’t given in some obscure section at the end of the book, but on the very next page.

Although I recommend both Healy’s and Shaw’s books, I’ve saved the best for last. Karsten Mueller and Merijn van Delft don’t give the solutions to their exercises on the next page, but we can easily forgive the authors for this minor inconvenience because The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3, published by Russell Enterprises, is really an absorbing book. Instead of everything being about tactics, here it is about improving one’s defensive skills, and the authors go to great lengths to explain this subject. In the very first chapter (Principles and Methods of the Defender), it already becomes clear how this book differs from the other two.

Speelman-Ricardi
Las Vegas 1999

28…Bxh2+? Black couldn’t resist the temptation to execute the classical double bishop sacrifice. Instead he should have settled for the modest 28…Qe7.

29.Kxh2 Bxg2 The standard procedure 29…Qh4+ 30.Kg1 Bxg2 doesn’t work because the rook is hanging.

30.Rd1! A strong zwischenzug. White refuses to be a victim of Black’s brilliant attacking play. 30.Kxg2? only leads to a draw after 30…Qg5+ 31.Kf3 Qh5+ 32.Kg2 while Black should stay clear of 32…Re5? since after 33.Bxf7+ all tactics neatly work in White’s favor.

30…Qh4+ 31.Kxg2 Qg4+ 32.Kf1 Qxc4+ 33.Ke1 Qc3 34.Rd2 b5 Perhaps Black missed that 34…Rd8 is refuted by the strong 35.Qc2!

35.Qb3 Now White is simply a piece up.

It’s true such a nuanced approach is hardly new, but the authors generously acknowledge chess writers like Rowson and Dvoretsky for their groundbreaking work in the area of improving one’s defense. Moreover, the way they have arranged their material is in my view very original. For instance, how often do you encounter a chapter called ‘Defense against a Minority Attack’? Usually, it’s all about setting up one, isn’t it? Here’s the first exercise from that chapter:

Pelletier-M.Gurevich
Gibraltar 2006

White has announced his ambitions on the queenside. How to defend?

18…Nc8! Heading for the ideal square on d6.

19.Qb2 19.Nb3 Nd6 20.Nc5 g6 21.Nf4 Bf5 and Black is fine.

19…Nd6 20.a4 Bf5! Good timing to get rid of those bishops.

21.Bxf5 Nxf5 22.Nc3 22.b5?! runs into 22…Nxe3!

22…Ng6 23.b5 Ngh4! As it appears Black is suddenly having a strong initiative on the kingside. Now 23…Nxe3?! is answered by 24.Re1 (…).

The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 3 (the first two were written by Mueller alone; now Van Delft joined him, bringing important psychological expertise along) also contains 16 ‘Tests’ where the reader has one hour for each of the tests – sure to be great material for chess trainers. In the introduction to these tests, the authors casually note a very important paradox:

If on the one hand you are comfortably reading a chess book, feeling you understand everything, you may in fact not be learning anything. If on the other hand you really put a lot of effort in and feel stupid because you couldn’t solve the exercise (”looking for the edges of your comfort zone” in Rowson’s words), in reality you may in fact be learning something.

They’re right, of course. I shouldn’t be so afraid to explore the edges of my own comfort zone – and perhaps more serious players, desperately wanting to improve their game, should be a bit more relaxed about things. Chess really is an endlessly paradoxical game. Reading Healy, I wanted him to show some of the versatility of Shaw. Reading Shaw, I wanted the book to have the depth of Mueller and Van Delft’s approach. And reading Mueller and Van Delft, I wished they had a bit more of Healy’s flourish in their style of writing.

The truth is, these are three highly entertaining chess books that will teach you as much as you allow them to.

Review: Nunn’s Chess Endings 1

Arne Moll — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:03:20 +0000

Almost as soon as I opened Nunn’s Chess Endings Volume 1, I realized the book was probably an ‘instant classic’, ignoring J.M. Coetzee’s definition of a classic as ‘that which survives’. My intuition proved to be correct in that I think this really is a fantastic book. The only problem is: who plays endgames anymore these days?

Not me, to be sure – at least not frequently enough by far to devote an awful lot of time to all the subtleties of the practical endgames Nunn describes and analyses in his book. This makes my task as a reviewer a rather difficult one: though I think the book is absolutely brilliant, I feel sorry for the author already because I fear his audience is becoming smaller and smaller.

Back in the good old days, when games were still adjourned and FIDE hadn’t introduced the ‘blitzing out’ even of officially rated games on all levels of play, endgame manuals were absolutely essential for anyone wanting to reach a decent level in chess. Nowadays, it seems to me, things are rather different – at least for the majority of club players (and I suspect even beyond that level).

As an experiment, recall the last time you’ve seriously had to play a complex endgame and was able to actually invest some time in it (say, at least an hour). Next, recall the last time you’ve seriously analysed a complex endgame, say for at least an hour (preferrably over the board). I even suspect many strong players have never done this at all in recent years. And who can blame them?

But then again, reading Nunn’s Chess Endings, published by Gambit, is such a joy that it almost makes me want to introduce a new rule, once suggested by a club member of mine, Wim Nijenhuis: instead of ‘blitzing out’ games (endgames, that is), why not ‘blitz in’ the opening phase (which everyone knows by heart anyway) and actually allow some thinking time for endgames, which are infinitely more interesting?

As exhibit A, consider the following position, which Nunn took from the award winning Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics:

O’Kelly – Forintos
Bordeaux 1964

Van Perlo comments that the position is quite simple, and perhaps the New in Chess editors thought that it was so simple that it didn’t need checking with Fritz or with the tablebases, but if so they were mistaken. Although White’s knight is as far away from the pawns as is possible on an 8×8 board, it can still make it back in time to save the game.

1.Nc7 Kd4!? This odd-looking move at least sets a trap for White.

2.Ke1

Van Perlo considers this to be the losing move, but he is wrong. One suspects that this error is derived from the analysis given by Ugrinovic in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, since Van Perlo repeats the faulty ECE analysis move for move. 2.Nb5+ Kd3 3.Nd6 is another way to draw, but not 2.Ne6+? when Black wins by 2…Ke3 (this is a position of reciprocal zugzwang) 3.Kg1 g2 4.Ng5 f2+ 5.Kxg2 Ke2.

2…Kd3 3.Nd5? This is actually the losing move. White can still draw by 3.Ne6 (not mentioned by Ugrinovic or Van Perlo) 3…Ke3 4.Kf1! reaching the reciprocal zugzang mentioned above with Black to move, and after 4…g2+ 5.Kg1 Ke2 6.Nd4+ Ke3 7.Ne6 the draw is clear. There was even a second draw by 3.Nb5 Ke3 4.Kf1!

3…f2+ 4.Kf1 Ke4 0-1 After White’s knight moves, Black wins by 5…Kf3.

Many things could be mentioned about this fragment, such as Nunn’s well-known tendency to write in a polemic style, or his insistence on computer-checking all lines (which in fact is why he brings up the example in the first place), or his erudition regarding other endgame classics. But what struck me most in this passage is the fact that, apparently, nobody had noticed these drawing lines before, despite the fact that the game is over 45 years old and has been published in at least two major endgame manuals. There’s so much still waiting to be discovered!

But of course, to me the real question seems to be: why has nobody noticed before? I fear in part it has to do with the sad fact that almost nobody actually analyses these textbook examples to such depth anymore. From my own team, mostly filled with 2200-something players, I think it’s fair to say nobody (including me) really analyses this type of endgames anymore. We may stumble upon, and even appreciate their innate complexity and beauty – but to actually analyse it and try to understand what’s really going on, that’s something else altogether.

The book’s introduction and the first chapter (The Three Key Endgame Skills) are some of the best endgame-related chess prose I’ve read in a long time. In it, Nunn tries to prepare the reader for the abundance of practical endings that are waiting for him in the following 300+ pages. In fact (and this will no doubt come as a disappointment to the author), I think Nunn’s prose is by far the best part of the book – at least for people like me who simply don’t have the time and energy to really immerse myself in all these examples, however fascinating they are. Here’s how Nunn introduces pawn endings with outside passed pawns:

The strength of the outside passed pawn in king and pawn endings is drummed into chessplayers by every textbook on the endgame. Using such a pawn, it is possible to deflect the defender’s king away from the main mass of pawns, leaving a rich harvest for the attacker’s king when it gets among the pawn mass. There is a good deal of truth to this accepted wisdom, and in the first section below we shall look at cases in which the outside pawn lives up to its reputation.
Yet this reputation is to some extent overstated, and in the following section we shall look at cases in which the outside passed pawn proves a hollow threat. The third section deals with an interesting practical case: one side has a powerful outside passed pawn, but the opponent has an extra pawn.

This seems like a pretty meagre bit to quote from such a richly illustrated book, but the point I want to make is that even if you read only this small introduction, you might learn something subtle from it – perhaps it will even prove to ’stick’ better than when you analyze all Nunn’s examples in-depth. I’ve often seen discussions about pawn endgames being cut off by someone simply declaring ‘outside passed pawn’, implying an obvious and straightforward win. While only introducing his real material, Nunn dismisses such simplistic notions while making the reader curious for more. Such as, for instance, this:

Kirov – Ermenkov
Sofia 1973

Black has an outside passed pawn and at first sight the win should be simple. He pushes the h-pawn, deflects the white king, marches with his king to take the e3- and b3-pawns and then promotes his a-pawn. However, one aspect of the position favours White: he only needs to take the relatively close d6-pawn in order to create a passed pawn of his own. Another factor which is not obviously relevant in the diagram position, is the weakness of the b6-pawn. These compensating factors mean that White is just able to hold this position, although accurate play is necessary.

1.Kh3!! It was quite an achievement for White to find the only move to save the game. Other moves lose (…).

1…Kf5 (…) 2.Kh4 Ke4 3.Kg5 Kxe3 4.Kf5! It takes too much time to go for the h-pawn, so White must create his own passed pawn as quickly as possible.

4…h5 This is the only chance, since if Black runs for the b-pawn, White promotes first.

5.Ke6 h4 6.Kxd6 h3 7.Kc7 h2 8.d6 h1Q 9.d7

It is perhaps surprising that Black cannot win here, but this is the point at which the weakness of b6 enters the picture. Black cannot force the white king in front of the d-pawn and the best he can do is transfer his queen to e7 with gain of tempo. Then he has a free move before he has to exchange queens on d8. If Black’s pawn were on a7 instead of a5, then the resulting king and pawn ending would be winning for Black, but as it is, White is in time to take on b6 and create a passed b-pawn (…).

One of the funny things about this example is that my computer evaluates the positions in the beginning position and the final diagram as a simple win for Black (-4.90). I’m confident most chess players wouldn’t bother to analyse the endgame even without this evaluation, let alone seeing the machine agrees with their intuition. But chess is not a matter of intuition only, but also of concrete analyses, which is exactly why it’s such a pity endgames are so rarely (seriously) played these days.

Another thing the attentive reader has perhaps noticed already, is that Nunn almost always takes his examples from either new or relatively obscure games, rather than drawing on existing and heavily analysed material from World Champions and other greats. The book doesn’t contain a single example from Karpov’s, Fischer’s or Capablanca’s games, and only one from Smyslov’s. (Of course, this makes cross-reference checking with endgame books pretty much impossible for reviewers!)

Nunn’s Chess Endings Volume 1 is not a book with elementary endgames. It’s a book dedicated to practical, concrete examples requiring precise analysis. Technique is another part of endgames, outside the scope of this book. (Indeed this is why Karpov and Capablanca are so conspicuously missing!) Clearly, in this format lies its greatest trump and its greatest risk. Who will go where the author went? In the introduction, Nunn optimistically notes that “I believe that anyone who works their way right through the books will see beneficial results.”

This is surely true (though isn’t it true for almost every serious chess book?), so I prefer to go one step further: anyone who casually reads this book will see beneficial results. Perhaps this is the chess-definition of a ‘classic’: it survives even in the light of modern laziness. I’m sure Coetzee would be pleased.

Review: Modern Ideas in Chess

Arne Moll — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:00:47 +0000

Sometimes the big new titles from the big publishers get all the attention. It’s true these are often great buys, but there’s also the risk of overlooking little gems by smaller publishers. Or, as the great Italian philosopher Calimero used to say, “Life’s so unfair when you’re small”.

Even though it’s only 130 pages and looks decidedly modest in size, Modern Ideas in Chess by Richard Réti (1889-1929) is a real classic in chess literature. First published in 1923, Russell Enterprises recently published a “21st century” edition in English with figurine algebraic notation and a foreword by Andrew Soltis. I hadn’t read the book before. I wish I had.

Modern Ideas in Chess is a compilation of 45 essays on the evolution of chess understanding from the mid-1850s until the 1920s. After almost ninety years, it is still as fresh and insightful as it was to contemporaries of the great Slowakian player. In fact, one of the reasons why the book still looks so modern is probably because of its compact size. Réti’s style of analysing is also very sober and his prose quite imaginative. Most importantly, he had an incredibly sharp eye when observing the chess style of his great predecessors.

The book starts with some lucid chapters in praise of Paul Morphy, whom Réti saw as “the first positional player”. For instance, he points out that in the following position after 5.Ng5, a move “Morphy would certainly never have made”, players before Morphy often used to play 5…Ne5, because it looked attractive to protect the pawn at f7 and attack the bishop on c4 at the same time.

However, after 5…Ne5? 6.Bxf7+ Nxf7 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 White has a clear advantage. Morphy, on the other hand, simply played 5…Nh6! and if White proceeds in similar fashion by taking on f7 and then picking up the bishop at c5,

The pawn at d4 is protected, as Morphy (in consequence of his developing move 5…Nh6) exchanged the otherwise undeveloped piece and not the already developed knight at c6. White has a bad game and the premature attack by 5.Ng5 is refuted.

Actually this example served as a good wake-up call to myself, since it made me realize chess is not about making nice moves, but about making good moves. (It’s the rule I tend to forget most in chess.) It is a point Réti makes time and again in his essays. Here’s another great example from his analysis of Morphy’s fourth match game against Anderssen in 1858, which is also a good illustration of Réti’s often original way of describing chess moves.

Anderssen – Morphy
Paris (4) 1858

13.Nc3 Does Anderssen intend to make a developing move here? Certainly not. That it happens to be one is merely chance. It is essentially an attacking move which threatens 14.Nxd5, 15.Qd3, while 14.Qd3 can at once be parried by Black with 14…Nf6.

One of the things that make Réti’s book such an entertaining read, even today, is his constant comparison between great players. This is something that isn’t often seen those days. Kasparov, in his monumental My Great Predecessors series, explicitly says comparing players from the past is pointless because each great player contributed something valuable to the development of chess. This is in fact the same point of view Réti expresses in his book, but Réti doesn’t shy away from comparing the great players with concrete examples, which is something Kasparov never does.

Steinitz-Chigorin
Havana (4) 1892

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3

One sees here at once the difference between Morphy and Steinitz. The former was always anxious to press on at the earliest possible moment with d2-d4. Steinitz on the other hand does not want to break through the center, but is more concerned with buidling up for himself a strong position, to enable him subsequently to prepare an attack on the kingside.

Réti constantly comes back to the points he previously made, maintaining a clear line throughout the book. One of the highlights is the chapter on Capablanca. Probably my favourite fragment is where he describes a consultation game he once played together with the great Cuban. It proved to be a turning point in Réti’s own development as a chess player.

Fähndrich & Kaufmann – Capablanca & Réti
Vienna 1914

A position was arrived at here in which the opportunity presented itself to develop a hitherto undeveloped piece and indeed with an attack. The move 14…Re8 would have had that effect and was in accordance with the principles prevailing when I grew up and which correspond almost entirely with Morphy’s principles (for he would without considering have chosen that move).

To my great astonishment Capablanca would not even consider the move at all. Finally he discovered the following maneuver by means of which he forced a deterioration of White’s pawn position and thereby later on his defeat:

14…Bd4 15.Qd3 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Ne4! 17.Qd4 g5 18.Ne5 Bf5

With this game began a revolution in my conviction as to the wisdom of the old principle, according to which in the opening every move should develop another piece. I studied Capablanca’s games and recognized that contrary to all the masters of that period he had for some time ceased to adhere to that principle.

Réti goes on to explain that Capablanca, of course, also had to develop his pieces in order to carry out any plan at all, but that the difference lies in “those particular and unusual moves” which made Capablanca so vastly superior. Again, he doesn’t shy away from comparing Capablanca’s new technique with that of the older masters. The following position is from a well-known line in the Four Knights game.

Réti first shows how in a game Tarrasch-Lasker from 1908, White developed normally by means of 11.Bg5, which develops a piece and looks in accordance with everything we know about chess. But then he points out that

The essential element of the position is due to the center pawn formation at e4 and d6. By means of it White can get the knight on to the fifth rank and it would be well protected. In order to avail himself of that possibility Capablanca in same position [Capablanca-Fonaroff, New York 1918] played 11.Qc3 so as to land the knight on b5 via d4 on the favourable square f5.

(Interestingly, it seems that the move 11.Bg5 has prevailed after all, since it is by far the most popular choice in my database. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that last year, the strong Brazilian grandmaster Vescovi did play Capablanca’s 11.Qc3. In the end, of course, Réti’s point is not about the objective value of Qc3 over Bg5, but about Capa’s creative – and revolutionary – vision.)

Réti’s description of chess evolution brings him, naturally, to the Hypermodernists. Interestingly, here not all attention goes out to Alekhine automatically. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that Alekhine hadn’t become World Champion yet at the time of Reti’s writing. In fact, Réti attributes a lot of Alkehine’s development of strength to Capablanca:

When Alekhine divided with Nimzowitsch the first prize at the all-Russian tournament of 1914, everybody said that he had been lucky. Alekhine’s friendship with Capablanca, who went to Russia in 1914, marked a turning point in his chess career. During his intercourse with Capablanca, he learnt the latter’s new technique, the lively dynamics of which suited Alekhine’s disposition, and added a methodical groundwork to his originality, whereupon he was able to build still further.

But besides Alekhine, Réti also pays tribute to now lesser-known players such as Gyula Breyer, and the book contains very interesting and nuanced portraits of Akiba Rubinstein and Efim Bogolyubov. (More nuanced than Kasparov’s, I’d say.) Réti’s open-mindedness and constant self-reflection also shows in the following fragment on the youngest generation (which included young Max Euwe):

He who with inward struggles and frequent doubtings has co-operated in elaborating a new school of chess [i.e. Hypermodernism - AWM], experiences a remarkable feeling when he realizes how the younger masters, without trouble, and almost as a mattter of course, accept and make use of recent technical acquisitions as if such acquisitions had been merely presented or handed down to them.

Richard Réti

Tellingly, one of the very few fragments in the book from Réti’s own games is a crushing loss against Bogolyubov (Berlin 1919). It’s a pity that his own games and the impression he made on others are strangely absent from Modern Ideas in Chess. We have to be content with such marvellous quotes as:

The layman thinks that the superiority of the chess master lies in his ability to think out 3 or 4, or even 10 or 20, moves ahead. Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, “as a rule not a single one.”

It’s only fair that history has given Richard Réti, who died at the age of 40, a firm place in Caissa’s eternal Hall of Fame. His grand idea of chess as an ever developing science is still the foundation of every chess improvement book that appears on the market. But before buying those, you should read Modern Ideas in Chess.

Small in size though it may be, in importance it is enormous.

Review: The Caro-Kann

Arne Moll — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:46:01 +0000

After so much (Dutch) football subjectivity over the past weeks (yeah yeah, Spain won deservedly), it’s a delight to read something objective again: Lars Schandorff has written an extremely solid and honest book on the Caro-Kann in the Grandmaster Repertoire series from Quality Chess.

I’ve never really liked the Caro-Kann. As White, I find it an extremely tough opening, and as Black, I find it so much less attractive than the Sicilian or even the French. But of course I’m wrong, as Danish GM Lars Schandorff convincingly shows in his monograph The Caro-Kann, which, although it is officially a repertoire book for Black, is highly recommended for serious White players as well. Here’s an example.

Suppose you’re one of those chess players who kind of hates the solidity of the Caro-Kann: you can bet your life that Black players who employ the Caro-Kann often know their theory better than you do, so you’re looking for something funny to get Black to think for himself right from the start.

Suppose you’re considering playing the line 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Nc5!?

This is a rare sideline that, according to my database, has nevertheless been played by giants like Fischer, Shirov, Morozevich and Carlsen. Surely this is an interesting choice for White? Well, Schandorff is not impressed. Instead of the automatic 5…b6, he recommends:

5…e5!? A radical attempt to benefit from White’s extravagance and solve all Black’s problems in one blow.

6.Nxb7 Retreating with 6.Nb3 makes little sense. After 6…Nd7 Black is already somewhat better.

6…Qb6 7.Nc5 exd4 The most natural choice. The other way of regaining the pawn, 7…Bxc5 8.dxc5 Qxc5, might in fact also be playable. On first sight the position after 9.c3 looks slightly better for White due to his bishop pair. Closer inspection reveals that it is maybe not so simple. Consider something like 9…Nf6 10.Be3 Qe7 unclear, as in Riemens-Hoogendoorn, Netherlands 1994. Black’s bishop is very active and his knight can harass the white bishop from d5.

8.Nb3 Bb4+ Basic chess knowledge: Black exchanges the dark-squared bishop before putting his pawns on dark squares.

9.Bd2 Nf6

Black certainly has no development problems, and the far-advanced d-pawn can be protected by c6-c5, so it can hardly be called a weakness. Not surprisingly, White has had difficulties proving any advantage at all. (…)

I think such a fragment is interesting for both sides: Black players will certainly gain confidence that such a sharp variation is theoretically more than OK. Also, Schandorff explains the essentials of the position (however unusual it may look) from an objective point of view, explaining that even seemingly-obvious judgements may not be so obvious after all. And White players may want to look hard for something concrete in this line, otherwise it’s absolutely useless to study. (Actually, my engine suggests the weird but at least consistently-weird 8.Na4!?, which may be worth a try.)

Schandorff’s treatment of the Classical Variation (3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5) is one of the highlights of the book. It’s clear from every page that he thoroughly understands the position, which he explains in a systematic and rigorous manner. Here’s another example where he combines objectiveness with a distinct opinion:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bf4 Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Bb4 13.c3 Be7 14.c4 Qc7 15.0-0

Castling to the wrong side. This is quite complicated and of course playable, but come on – it can’t be better than castling long!

15…Ngf6 16.Rfe1 The most natural. We can have a quick look at a couple of alternatives [16.d5 and 16.Qe2] (…).

16…0-0 17.Nf5

An important tactical idea that is frequently seen in the Caro: rook to the e-file followed by a knight to f5.

17…Bd6! I prefer not to compromise my pawn structure and am therefore reluctant to take on f5, although some strong players have tried it. 17…exf5 18.Rxe7 Qd8 19.Re2 Ne4 seemed pretty solid for Black in Browne-L.B.Hansen, Philadelphia 2006, but I suspect White is more comfortable.

There are other ways to respond to the knight move. We do not need an alternative, but it is useful to understand White’s standard tactical ideas: 17…Rfe8 is always a good option, when 18.Rxe6!? fxe6 19.Nxg7 is spectacular, but after 19…Bf8 20.Nxe8 Rxe8 21.Re1 Bg7 the piece looks more valuable than the pawns, Jonkman-Kroeze, Netherlands 2006. (…)

18.Nxd6 The sacrifice 18.Nxh6+ gxh6 19.Bxh6 Rfe8 should of course be checked, but it doesn’t look so scary (…). White should probably settle for the quiet 20.Qd2 with some compensation after 20…Bf8 21.Bxf8 Rxf8 22.Qh6.

18…Qxd6 19.Qb3 19.Ne5? is an instructive mistake. After 19…Nxe5 20.Rxe5 Ng4 -/+ the king is not at all well placed on g1, Omarsson-Kjartansson, Reykjavik 2007.

19…a5!? with counterplay. Often it makes sense to push the a-pawn. (…)

While this is great stuff, I didn’t find Schandorff’s explanations that clear throughout the entire book. For instance, the chapter on positional lines (4.c3, 4.Be3 and 4.Nd2) in the Advance Variation (3.e5 Bf5) left a lot of questions unanswered in my head.

One of the lines that has become popular in recent years is 4.Be3 followed by Nd2-b3 with the idea of blocking the c5 square. However, after 4…e6 5.Nd2 Nd7 Schandorff lists the alternatives to 6.Nb3 but doesn’t explain the basics of the position very clearly.

For example, after 6.Ngf3, why doesn’t Black instantly ‘punish’ White for not playing 6.Nb3 (which is the main line) by playing 6…c5 himself? I suspect this may seem totally obvious to Schandorff or others players of his calibre, so perhaps it doesn’t need an explanation – but interestingly, according to my database, the move 6…c5 is Black’s second most popular move in the position, even though it has never been played by anyone rated over 2200!

I think this indicates there is a sustantial gap in knowledge between how strong and weak players understand this position – or even the Caro-Kann in general. Schandorff, unfortunately, doesn’t help us out in this case.

Actually, I’ve always found this one of the most intriguing aspects of these position lines of the Advanced Variation: White seems to want to prevent c6-c5 by all means (Be3, Nd2-b3), but then when Black gets the opportunity to play it, he doesn’t do it! In fact, Black often doesn’t play c5 at all, as Schandorff nicely shows:

6.Nb3 Ne7 7.Be2 Nc8!?

Once you see this idea you can’t get it out of your head. It will take a trained psychotherapist to delete it. 7…Bg6 with the idea …Nf5 is standard and of course is also fully playable.

8.f4 Be7 9.Nf3 0-0 Black finishes his development with the minimum of fuss and without compromising his position at all. That’s the beauty of this simple idea. By temporarily putting the knight on the back rank everything is made possible and Black demonstrates that his lack of space isn’t necessarily fatal. There is no practical evidence from this position, but I am sure Black is okay. Well, that’s not the whole truth. Black is okay, don’t worry, but there has been one game, albeit only a blitz game by me. Since there is nothing else, we will look at a few moves of my blitz effort.

10.0-0 a6 11.Rc1 b5! 12.c3 Ncb6

Black is already somewhat better because of my active play on the queenside. (…)

No c5, but b5! Useful though such a fragment may be (it certainly is an eye-opener to chronical dogmatists such as myself), Schandorff doesn’t in the end reveal the true mystery behind this type of play. His final conclusion that “if White tries to play a slow manoeuvring game then Black is well prepared”, immediately raises the question why 4.Be3 and 4.Nd2 are so popular of late. While Schandorff does admit that “where the elite leads, the masses follow”, he forgets to tell us why the elite prefers this road.

But perhaps this is an unjust complaint. After all, the series in which The Caro-Kann was published, is called ‘Grandmaster Repertoire’. It really is a very high-level book, for serious club players and beyond. I think it’s fair to say that it doesn’t have much to offer to amateurs and casual readers. But if you want to incorporate the Caro-Kann Defence into your tournament repertoire, or find out why it’s so bloody difficult to prove anything against it, Lars Schandorff is your man.

Review: Mastering the Chess Openings 4

Arne Moll — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:31:23 +0000

During my holidays I received a lot of chess books from various publishers. There’s lot to look forward to! One of the most interesting books is the latest volume of John Watson’s ambitious project to explain and analyse all chess openings. But the book became much more than just another opening manual.

Two years ago, I wrote a generally positive review of Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 3 (I also liked the first and second volumes), but in the fourth part of his series (published by Gambit), Watson goes a step further than he had gone before. In fact, he’s returning to some of his favourite chess themes, which were also discussed in his most famous books Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (1998) and Chess Strategy in Action (2003).

This fourth volume begins conventionally enough, with two very solid chapters on the Réti Opening and an excellent overview of black kingside fianchetto systems such as ‘Tiger’s Modern’ and the Averbakh Variation (although I didn’t know it was called that way) starting with 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4, but then Watson switches to a more experimental way of explaining openings. In the chapter called ‘Modern Queenside Fianchetto’, he discusses various (you’ve guessed it) queenside fianchetto systems from the perspective of both Black and White. This means he not only writes about the Owen Defence (1.e4 b6) and the English Defence (1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6), but also about Larsen’s Opening (1.b3).

True to his style, Watson clearly explains the differences between playing the queenside fianchetto with Black and playing it with White. the author thereby takes a look at Ilya Odessky’s recent book on 1.b3 (which I reviewed last year) as well and comes up with some sensible improvements. For instance, in the line 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 (Watson: “This is certainly the usual continuation in both the Owen and the English Defences: when the f-pawn can’t be captured, it makes sense to use it to break up the opposing centre.”) 5…f6 Odessky gave 6.Nh3

a ‘dubious’ sign (?!) because of the line 6…Nge7 7.fxe5 fxe5 8.0-0 Bf5! after which 9.Qh5+ and 9.Bxc6+ are unconvincing, but following Watson’s suggestion 9.c4 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.d4!? with the threat c4-c5, White seems to be on top.

After this chapter, the book steers into even more broad-ranging waters, starting off with a chapter on gambits (in general) in which Watson discusses and explains gambits as diverse as the Göring and Morra Gambit, the Millner-Barry Gambit, various Wing gambits (both with b2-b4 and g2-g4), the famous Evans Gambit and, of course, the Benkö Gambit.

This chapter contains good stuff (although I don’t think serious gambit-players or gambit-busters will find too much shockingly new in it), but I was even more intrigued by the book’s next chapter, called ‘f-Pawns and Reversed Openings’. I’m sure some people would dismiss it as too philosophical for an opening book, but many fragments – however digressive they may appear to the practical player – had me on the edge of my seat:

The study of reversed openings will increase your understanding of what can and cannot be achieved in openings. Many chess players are mathematically oriented, with a facility for logical thinking. So it’s only natural to assume that there must be some way to make use of an extra move. After all, chess moves have value, and you wouldn’t voluntarily give a move away under normal circumstances. However, as we’ve talked about throughout these volumes, the worth of an extra move isn’t a straightforward matter. In reversed positions of the English Opening, for example, it’s remarkable how seldom White can actually claim to have the better game. For one thing, any advantage is limited by the fact that he will usually be playing what are essentially defensive or counterattacking lines. In addition, there’s a paradoxical benefit of not having to move, in that Black gets a better look at what his opponent is up to and is able to react accordingly. (…)

Stepping outside the practical realm, this difficulty (of converting a move into something of value) is also revealing about the nature of chess itself. The paradox of information applies to every move, whether in a reversed position or not. In some sense, however sound and logical a move is, it contains the risk of leaving you worse off! That enormously magnifies the complexity and subtlety of the game. If advantages and disadvantages were additive in some linear fashion, chess would be a minor game at best. But we have geniuses who do little else but study and play chess from the time they are five years old into their forties, and they make multiple mistakes in nearly every game, often quite serious ones! As an exercise, set up a reversed opening and try to find ways to make even modest improvements to your position without destabilizing something elsewhere on the board. You’ll find that the most trivial-seeming change always seems to show up in one or another line of analysis where you’re least expecting it.

Watson then goes on to explain the subtleties of the Dutch Defence and the Bird Opening (1.f4) in lucid fashion, but as said, he also discusses other reversed openings such as the Ponziani (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) which Watson points out, after 3…f5!? is in fact “a Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) with reversed colours and as if Black had an extra …c6!” Or what about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5, which the entire world knows as the Schliemann or Jänisch Defence of the Ruy Lopez, yet is described by Watson as…

[A] Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) in which White has the extra move Bb5. Strange to say, this would hurt White if he tried the standard remedy to the Vienna position, which is 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5?! (5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nf6 is about equal) as 5…Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6 (in the reversed position, White’s bishop is still on f1, so this tempo-gain isn’t possible) 7.Bc4 (having come this far, White normally tried the unclear piece sacrifice 7.Nc3 cxb5 8.Nxe4) 7…Qa5+ followed by 8…Qxe5 wins a pawn. (…)

OK, I can’t resist one more example:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4

Now we have a reversed Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5), with Black a whole tempo down. The Classical can be a pretty active system, so let’s see if White can make good use of the extra tempo.

4.Nf3 (…) 4.f4 has White playing the Schliemann Defence to the Ruy Lopez but with the extra move Bc4. The problem is that this gives Black the tactic 4…Nxe4! Then if White follows the normal Vienna Game strategy of 5.Qh5 (…), Black plays 5…0-0!, a move unavailable in the Vienna Game. (…)

4…Bxc3 5.dxc3 d6

The last reversal: Black has played the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and apparently given White much better development than he gets in the reversed position. But in fact, Black doesn’t generate many powerful attacks in the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and in this reversed position, White has nothing to be particularly excited about.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I have seen this funny perspective applied in Vienna or Ruy Lopez text books before. Similarly, the chapter ‘Symmetry and its Descendants’ offers a refreshing point of view to infamously ‘boring’ openings such as the Petroff and the Four Knights Game. The chapter on ‘Irregular Openings and Initial Moves’ continues in this vein. What are irregular or ‘unorthodox’ openings anyway? Watson points out that

[t]he Trompowsky Attack 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 has become popular and universally accepted, but one could argue that 2.Bg5 itself is not an ‘orthodox’ move; on the flip side, the form of the Torre Attack with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 is orthodox by the classical standards of development, but it isn’t very popular any more. In a similar way, classically oriented openings such as the Ponziani Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) and the Hungarian Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7) are orthodox in strategic terms, but rare in master practice; today, they could legitimately be called ‘irregular’.

Apart from this terminology issue, there’s what’s Watson calls ‘the appeal of the irregular’:

You make counterintuitive moves, waste time, or sacrifice pawns, and yet some not-so-obvious factor is working in your favour to give you positive chances. It’s a break from the drudgery of ‘correct’ play and following those tired old principles. Even if you don’t secure the better game, you can at least irritate your opponent and present him with multiple opportunities to go wrong. The most entertaining irregular openings also contain tactical traps into which one innocent victim after another falls.

These are not trivial, run-of-the-mill observations. Many opening book authors and even chess-improvement books fail to mention these human and very recognizable aspects of chess openings, even though keeping them in mind might help avoid some well-known mistakes in practical play. Thus, for instance, the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5!?

in the Nimzovich Opening, which is played by some fairly strong members of my local chess club and which Watson also mentions in his book, is not just ‘irregular’, ‘ugly’ and ‘bad’, but does contain some ‘not-so-obvious factors’ working in Black’s favour. White should be aware of this or he will get tricked, as I’ve personally seen many times.

Actually, I was particularly interested in what Watson wrote about the Nimzovich Opening because I sometimes play it myself and because I’ve seen lots of crazy analysis over the past years from enthusiastic club members. Crazy analysis which are often not so bad for Black as they look on first sight! And indeed, to his credit, Watson doesn’t dismiss the opening easily at all and calls it “one of the best of the irregular openings versus 1.e4.”

One of the lines Watson analyses is 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Ng4 4.d4 d6 5.h3 Nh6.

His nuanced look at even such an obscure line is characteristic of his approach:

Black has a pretty ugly position that nevertheless has some merits. His decentralized knight is an undoubting disadvantage, but he has prospects of chipping away at White’s centre, after which that piece might be reintroduced by …Nf5. Of course, White can hardly complain about his prospects, but he shouldn’t expect too much from the capture Bxh6, which gives up the bishop-pair. 5…Nh6 introduces a wide a range of eccentric possibilities that are typical of irregular openings.

Watson now analyses no less than four alternatives for White, but in the end concedes that “Black’s position is within playable boundaries”. This is rather more realistic than my own initial opinion (”absolutely horrible for Black”) of this particular variation! (To my defence, I pretty soon realized that things were not so simple once I started studying the line in more detail.) I hope this small digression shows to what lengths Watson is willing to go to illustrate the versatility of various lesser known opening lines.

The book’s penultimate chapter on ‘Choosing and Preparing Openings’ is equally insightful, although some advices may of course sound familiar to readers who’ve bought other recent books on more general aspects of opening play. To my delight, Watson also quotes the great Korchnoi who “bluntly” said that if you want to improve your chess, you should play a new opening. Interestingly, Watson also recommends playing blitz games as a way of practising your opening preparation (”in sensible, non-addictive quantities”).

Watson ends his book with yet another philosophically-inclined chapter on the future of openings. Unavoidably, there are some echoes from his earlier books here, but it’s useful and entertaining all the same. Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4 is a book any chess lover should have a look at – if not for its openings, then surely for its general awesomeness.

Review: Genius in the Background

Arne Moll — Wed, 26 May 2010 07:49:19 +0000

Sometimes, I get a little tired of reading about the big names in chess all the time. Another super tournament with seven players out of the top 10; another huge open featuring dozens of well-known GMs fighting hard for serious money prizes; another great exhibition rapid match between two former World Championship candidates. In such cases, reading something from Genius in the Background, is the perfect remedy for me.

Genius in the Background by Tibor Károlyi and Nick Aplin (published by Quality Chess) is a book about, well, geniuses in the background. As Károlyi writes in the preface:

Most of the people featured in this book have recorded significant achievements, yet they remain virtually anonymous to the great majority of chess fans. A few of them are known amongst certain segments of the chess world, but none are known widely as I believe they deserve to be. (…) Your author, who is first of all a junior trainer who desires to pass on knowledge, believes that getting acquainted with these remarkable chess personalities will deepen anyone’s understanding of our game.

In other words, the presentation of these unknown heroes is not only interesting, but also useful. For me, they shed some special light on the development and choices of such great players as Topalov and Kasparov that have in my view so far not been emphasized. In the chapter about Topalov’s former coach, Petko Atanasov, the choice of openings for the young Veselin is discussed. It turns out that Atanasov, rather surprisingly, taught Topalov the Old Indian Defence against 1.d4 and the French against 1.e4. Atanatov adds that at some point Topalov “refused to play it and started to play the Sicilian Defence instead.” Quite telling if you ask me.

Karolyi gives some interesting, excellently annotated examples from Atanasov’s own games, showing how his preference for exchange sacrifices influenced Topalov:

Atanasov-Ilievski
Ruse 1978

27.Rd5!! This is another lovely exchange sacrifice. White needs to play like this in order to invade.

27…Bxd5 In the long term Black cannot avoid taking the rook. For instance: 27…Qb4 28.Kc2 (White is also better after 28.Qc2 Bb8 29.Ne1) 28…Bb8 (28…a4 29.bxa4) 29.Ra1 Black cannot avoid the type of position he gets in the game.

28.Rxd5! Taking back this way really chokes Black.

28…Qc6 29.Ne1! Atanasov improves all his pieces.

29…Bb6 30.Qd1 Ke7 31.Rb5 Forcing Black to decide where to put the bishop. (…)

Despite the obvious achievements of these geniuses in the background, there’s often more than a touch of melancholy in the words of the former trainers. Asked about his current relationship with Topalov, Atanasov embarks on a somewhat bitter personal story:

“In 1991 there were big changes in Bulgaria and in my life too. Sport societies were cleared away and I was thrown out of work. At the same time I built my own appartment and the problems grew every day. Exactly at this critical moment Silvio Danailov made an offer to Vesko [Topalov] to leave for Spain. From this moment it was clear that there was no future for our partnership. (…) Unfortunately, I have not been a coach for a long time. In 1993 the sport society ‘Dunav’ was closed. Since that I have had many jobs of various types in different places. Now I’m unemployed.” (…)

Do they invest money into junior chess or just the big Sofia event?

“No one gives money for junior chess in Bulgaria! Only some people with bigger financial opportunities try to support chess, but this is unprofitable for them and they give up very soon. (…) I personally evaluate the big changes – economical and political – as negative. Thousands of Bulgarians, most of them young people, left the country. There is widespread unemployment, small salaries, corruption and criminality. This is what we have after the changes up to now. (…) I’m already 61 years old. Looking back and considering my life, I see that there are many things to regret. But most tragic is that my future promises to be very hard.”

Such extreme honesty, almost painful to read, makes for fascinating background information on both Topalov’s chess career and his country’s current efforts to promote chess and is a valuable contribution to chess literature. However, not all of the book’s interviews with former trainers, are quite so compelling. In the chapter on Alexander Shakarov, one of Kasparov’s earliest trainers, questions are often answered in such a brief way that they one raise more questions than they answer:

What does chess mean to you?
“Chess for a long time was the most important thing for me. I was a fanatic, then it became my profession.”

Can you recall when you first met Garry?
“The first time was in January 1972 when he played at the schoolboys’ championship where I was an arbiter.”

When did you start training him and how long did you train him?
“Officially in September 1976, unofficially from 1973.”

Obviously not satisfied with these short answers, the interviewer tries again, but Shakarov prefers to stay on the surface:

Could you explain it in a more detailed way?
“In the years 1973-1975 I worked with Garry unofficially, and it was not that regular. There were even some weeks when we did not do anything. There were two groups and Garry officially was in the other one. The trainer of the other section was Oleg Privorotsky who was his first trainer. However, from 1973 onwards Garry was selected for the national teams of Azerbaijan. I was senior trainer of these national teams.”

Did you follow any plan when you trained him?
“The main plan was constructed by Botvinnik.”

Once again, the interviewer feels there must be more to it than this, but he’s in for another disappointment:

Could you please say a few words about what a session was like?
“I no longer remember well what themes we worked on – you know, three decades have passed. In our sessions we usually followed Botvinnik’s and Alexander Nikitin’s plan. And in addition sometimes we analysed very tough and complicated opening positions. I recognized the ‘tracks’ of our work in Garry’s play only in the openings.”

Reading this interview, I’m left with the feeling that Shakarov didn’t exactly have a huge role in this period, and I wonder how important he actually was to Kasparov’s development. How close was he to Kasparov, anyway? According to Károlyi, he and Kasparov analysed and annotated about two dozens of games together, but I can’t help wondering whether this was perhaps Botvinnik or Nikitin delegating the analyses and Kasparov doing most of the work? When asked if he was present during the final game of the 1985 World Championship match against Karpov, Shakarov only says “No, I was not in the tournament hall during that game.” It’s all a little puzzling, if you ask me.

On the other hand, the book convincingly shows that Alexander Shakarov was a truly great chess player himself, and the games section of the chapter dedicated to him is one of the highlights of the book. Here’s an example of what Károlyi calls Shakarov’s influence on Kasparov’s ability to “execute brilliant attacking ideas on the edge of the board”.

Rubin-Shakarov
Corr. 1975

18…Rd2!! It is thematic to get to the opponent’s second rank; however, it is extraordinary to achieve it so early, especially with Black. The text also creates a strong aesthetic impression by placing the rook en prise.

19.e4 The rook is immune because of 19.Qxd2 Ne4!, with terrible mating threats along the g-file. And if 19.Rad1 Rxe2 20.Rxe2 Qxf3 Black forces mate. (…)

19…Rfd8! 20.Kh1 Nh5 21.Rab1 There are many alternatives, but Black prevails in all lines (…).

21…Qg6 22.Rg1

22…Rxe2! Black keeps playing on the second rank. The loss of the queen is a small price to pay for the wonderful attack he obtains.

23.Rxg6 hxg6 24.f4 After 24.Rg1 Rdd2 25.Bc1 Rc2 26.Qe5 Rxf2 27.Be3 Bg2+ 28.Rxg2 Rxg2 29.Bxc5 Rgd2 White’s king is caught. (…) Finally, in the event of 24.Qb3 Rxf2 25.Be5 b6 26.a4 Rdd2 27.a5 Bg2+ 28.Kg1 Rxf3 Black simply has too many pieces surrounding the enemy king.

24…Red2! This clever switchback with the rook was tough to anticipate; it looks more natural to look for a way to double on the second rank. However, upon closer inspection, White’s position is bleeding as the back rank is so weak. The damage is irreparable. It takes a little preparation but Black invariably succeeds in every variation. (…)

In this fragment, Károlyi shows his great annotation skills (the analyses are much more elaborate than they are reproduced here) and his ability to see patterns in games and player’s qualities. Károlyi is always looking for comparisons between teacher and pupil, trying to make connections between past and present and linking skills and sometimes lack thereof.

Genius in the Background isn’t about chess trainers only. It’s a much more ambitious project than that. There’s a chapter on the development of chess culture in Singapore. It features elaborate and loving portraits of endgame study composers Yochanan Afek and Karsten Müller. And indeed much, much more. One of the most fascinating chapters is about the remarkable Laszlo Lindner (1916-2004), a Hungarian chess player and endgame composer who survived the Nazi concentration camp Bor, now part of Serbia. Lindner actually recorded some chess games he played in the camp against the later Hungarian chess champion Tibor Florian.

The games were played on a small chess set Florian managed to bring inside the camp. The player hid behind their barracks and the moves were scribbled in a notebook by Lindner, a picture of which is reproduced in the book. I can’t help quoting one game in full.

Florian-Lindner
Bor 1944

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 b6 6.f3 d5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9.e3 0-0 10.Bd3 h6 11.Bh4 Re8 12.Bf2 c5

13.Ne2 The early moves tell us that the two players were quite well educated in opening theory.

13…c4 14.Bc2 Nf8 15.g4! This is a modern approach. Even today world-class grandmasters use the same idea, although nowadays Black will usually have exchanged the light-squared bishops on a6. The most famous game involving this central structure was the immortal encounter Botvinnik-Capablanca, Avro 1938.

15…Qc7 16.Ng3 Ng6 17.h4 Nh7

18.Qb1?? The presence of such a blunder indicates that our heroes were already in very bad shape.

18…Nhf8? 18…Rxe3+! wins instantly.

19.Nh5 Rb8 20.Kf1! On the other hand this is a subtle move.

20…b5? 21.e421…dxe4 22.Bxe4

22…Bxg4?? This is a bluff, but it does the trick.

23.Nxg7? After the simple 23.fxg4 Qd7 24.Bf3 Black is a piece down with no compensation.

23…Kxg7 24.fxg4 Qf4 0-1 Though White has a reasonable position, he resigned. Probably his physical state no longer allowed him to see things clearly.

Replaying these games, knowing in which circumstances they must have been played, is a weird sensation. Who knows what might have caused Florian to resign in this position? And this is only the beginning of an utterly haunting chapter on a truly extraordinary character in 20th century chess history.

Genius in the Background is a unique book, a one-of-a-kind experience in chess literature. It’s beautifully published and extremely well-researched and annotated. Sure, some chapters are more interesting than others, but the overall concept is so gripping that that’s easily forgiven. If you are interested in more than – or from time to time even a bit bored by – the constant stream of daily chess news, then this is the right book for you. Personally, I think everyone should read it.

Review: The Ruy Lopez Revisited

Arne Moll — Wed, 19 May 2010 11:06:08 +0000

Two weeks ago I wrote about David Vigorito’s new book on the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez. In this review, I want to take a look at GM Ivan Sokolov’s latest book The Ruy Lopez Revisited, published by New in Chess. I think both books have their charm, and in a way, they complement each other quite nicely.

In the introduction to The Ruy Lopez Revisited, Sokolov describes his switch from the Sicilian to the Ruy Lopez about twenty years ago, and how he “faced [a] huge amount of theory and deviations White had at his disposal.” He writes how he made the practical decision to study and play early deviations instead of mainlines, and it clearly paid off. Now, he’s written a book about these sidelines, which he calls a “practical opening guide to a tournament player who is willing to employ these variations, whereby he will often bring a fight to his opponent’s doorstep as easy as move 6 or 7.” And a very impressive opening guide it is, too.

Most attention is devoted to the Jaenisch Gambit (3…f5) and the Classical Variation (3…Bc5), but Sokolov also has a close look at lesser known systems such as the Cozio (3…Nge7), a line I have always liked (but never actually played) because it looks so entirely natural to defend the knight on c6. Sokolov, as always, is quite objective and writes that while it’s an interesting move, “it does not equalize. I abandoned this variation in the mid-1990s and I am in no hurry to return to it.”

One thing that struck me while looking at the variations that follow in this variation is that Sokolov doesn’t always promote the best moves to mainlines. This strange habit is something I’ve noticed before in some New in Chess publications (e.g., The Black Lion) so I don’t think the author is to blame. After 3…Nge7, 4.Nc3! is “the most unpleasant option” according to Sokolov, yet 4.0-0 is the Cozio’s main line. The reason is probably that there’s more theory on castling, but it’s a bad reason in my view since it disrupts the flow of reading and indeed studying. Still, Sokolov’s knowledge of this minor line is absolutely amazing. What I liked in this chapter in particular is his clear and useful explanations, such as the following:

Quinteros-Larsen
Manila 1973

17…f6! A standard plan in this type of position – if White takes on f6, then he relinquishes his space advantage, while if he defends the pawn on e5, Black will at some stage take on e5 and get either control of the f-file – should White recapture with his f4 pawn – or mobile pawns of his own – should White recapture with his d4 pawn. Similar motifs we often see in the Open Spanish.

18.f4 a5! Taking some more space and provoking a white weaknesses [sic] on the queenside.
19.a3 a4 20.Kb1 Na5 21.Qd3 Nc4 22.Bd2

22…fxe5! The time has come: White is forced to recapture with his d4 pawn (otherwise 23.fxe5? Rf2) and Black now gets mobile central pawns of his own:
23.dxe5 Rad8 24.Bc1 b5 25.Rhe1 Rfe8 26.Qf3 c5 27.Rd3 d4 The black pawns roll easily, while White cannot push his pawns or create any counterplay (…)

By the way, if you thought this book was written for players on the black side of the Ruy Lopez, you’d be wrong: one of the great qualities of Sokolov is that he’s able to look completely objectively at the lines even though he mainly has experience with them as Black himself. (This is already shown in the above mentioned section on the Cozio when Sokolov confesses he thinks 4.Nc3 is the nastiest reply for White.)

Sometimes, Sokolov gets so carried away in displaying his knowledge and ideas that he forgets to explain some basic stuff to players who are not quite of his strength. For instance, in the Jaenisch mainline – one of the most impressive chapters in the book – after the automatic moves 3…f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 (Sokolov considers 5…Nf6 to be “fully playable” as well) 6.Nxe5 dxe4 7.Nxc6 Qg5 8.Qe2 Nf6 Sokolov seems so eager to get on with the dazzling complexities of it all that he completely fails to mention why the main move, 9.f4, is in fact stronger than the immediate 9.Nxa7+.

To me, the move f2-f4 in this position has always looked distinctly odd (somehow it looks as if the pawn can be taken in two different ways), but then on the next page Sokolov explains it in a slightly different line after all: 9.Nxa7+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7

and now, after 11.f4!, Sokolov does elaborate, explaining that f4 defends the g2-pawn which is obviously quite important. He writes:

The position is very complicated and unfortunately has not been seriously tested in practical (very few good games). I have analysed this position for a while and would like to share those analyses with the reader here. (…) Black is indeed material down, but the white king will be stuck in the centre for quite some tim, the white knight on a7 has to be brought back into play, which will cost time, and White still has to develop his c1 bishop and connect his rooks, which, again, costs time.

On general grounds Black should have good compensation here and therefore 9.Nxa7+ should be considered risky for White, but a rather serious analytical back-up for both sides would be rather helpful here – White can easily get into trouble with his king in the middle and his uncoordinated, under-developed pieces, while Black is after all two pawns down. I am surprised that this line has not been seriously tested in grandmaster practice.

This explanation, very useful in its own right, is just an introduction to over six pages of extremely detailed home analyses by Sokolov. It shows his determination in getting to the heart of the position and how the author is not just satisfied with an ‘unclear’ verdict. Unbelievable, unprecedented stuff and my only complaint is actually one of luxury, namely that this entire line really should have been given a separate chapter or paragraph, since now finding one’s way through the wood of varations numbered C33312b and so on, might not be to everyone’s taste.

Though I’m no expert of the Jaenisch myself, I must say Sokolov’s thorough analyses of all these complex positions look very impressive indeed. I naively checked a few sharp lines with my engine running in the background, but couldn’t find any holes even in what often look like rather speculative variations. Perhaps people who’ve played the variation all their lives will disagree with me, but I would be surprised if this book wouldn’t be a valuable treasure not only for people who are considering to give 3…f5 a try, but also for people who know all the ins and outs of this intoxicating line.

One interesting (and, in my opinion, highly sympathetic) aspect of Sokolov’s way of writing is that he isn’t afraid to admit that he doesn’t understand things. Here’s how he introduces yet another early …Nge7 line in the Classical Variation:

3…Bc5 4.0-0 Nge7

In this line Black develops his g8 knight to e7. Compared to the other moves after 3…Bc5 4.0-0, like 4…Nd4, 4…Nf6, 4…d6 or 4…f5 (after 4.c3), this continuation seems to me to be the least recommended for Black. That said, I have to admit that 4…Nge7 has always remained a bit of a puzzle to me because based on a number of logical and not very difficult variations White seems to be obtaining an easy opening advantage; namely, in the line with 5.Nxe5 as well as the main line (…).

Taking this into consideration, it is rather difficult for me to explain the fact that a number of very strong players, including Fischer (!), have played this line for Black. Unfortunately, in the game Tal-Fischer, Candidates’ Tournament Curacao 1962, the by the ex-World Champion Mikhail Tal decided not to follow the main line, and so we will never find out what Fischer had in store and why Tal refrained from the main line. Over the years, I have spent many days analysing this position and wondering what idea Fischer may have had in store, but I failed to find a satisfactory solution.

For me, such a fragment is pure delight, not only because I always llike it when authors share their uncertainties with their readers, but also because it immediately triggers my imagination and makes me want to find out, too, what Fischer may have had in mind! So, naturally, I had a look at 5.Nxe5 and perhaps I’ve found something which I hereby share with my readers: 5…Nxe5 6.d4 and now Sokolov only mentions 6…c6, leading to a good position for White, but perhaps Black can play my engine’s suggestion 6…Bd6? This move, as I found out afterwards, was tried once by Arhur Kogan in 1995 against Sergei Movsesian when they were both still 2400-players. In that game, Black didn’t have particular problems so maybe, just maybe this is what Fischer had in mind?

The Ruy Lopez Revisited has already been praised numerous times, and rightly so. This is simply a great opening book, probably one of the best ever on the Spanish Opening. I can only hope Sokolov will one day decide it’s time for another book on “offbeat systems and unexplored resources” (as the book is subtitled) from another opening in his repertoire to explain in such detail. What a treat that would be.

Review: Understanding the Marshall Attack

Arne Moll — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:22:06 +0000

Admit it: one of the reasons you’re not playing the main line Ruy Lopez or even 1.e4, is that you’re afraid of the Marshall Attack. I, for one, plead guilty to this charge. I’ve always avoided the Marshall Attack like the plague, not because I don’t like exciting openings, but because I simply don’t have the time to investigate all these hypersharp developments.

Of course, there have been publications in the past that dealt admirably with the Marshall Attack, such as Bogdan Lalic’s 2003 book or Nunn and Harding’s Batsford classic from 1989, but that was exactly the problem, wasn’t it: these books are hopelessly outdated now, and there are so many new concepts that it’s impossible to gain a proper overview of recent ideas. But now there finally is a new book on the Marshall: Understanding the Marshall Attack by IM David Vigorito, published by Gambit.

Subtitled “A layman’s guide to the supergrandmaster’s favourite gambit”, this book is an excellent chance for cowards like me to get reacquainted with this great opening line. First of all, the chapter names already give you an idea of what to expect: “Elite Equaliser”, “Refined Rook lift”. Then there’s the pretty elaborate bibliography, in which I couldn’t spot any obivous flaws. (Yes, Anand’s Chess Informant monograph is there as well.) The only thing I missed was a reference to ChessVibes Openings, which has dealt with the Marshall on numerous occasions. A missed opportunity!

Understanding the Marshall Attack is one of those rare objective opening books not aimed at either Black or White, but just intended to give amateurs a good, solid overview and practical tips. It’s not as personal a book as Jonathan Rowson’s Understanding the Grünfeld, but it’s well-written and has a clever setup. I really liked the ‘recommendations’ chapter, which contains useful practical advice such as:

For the typical club player, I would start by going through Chapter 2, the Old Main Line. Although this variation has fallen out of favour, it contains an abundance of typical Marshall Attack themes. In the Old Main Line, Black burns all his bridges and must play for the initiative. The value of every move is high and one can learn a lot about attack, defence and counterattack by going through the lines in this chapter. Similar play can be found in the Pawn Push variations of Chapter 3. Although one may not want to play these lines forever because of their rather dubious theoretical value, I think the creative black player could get some mileage out of these systems if he picks and chooses his lines carefully.

Equally useful is the chapter on ‘Typical Ideas’. Here are two instructive non-tactical examples, one for Black (on the two bishops ending) and one for White (on the exchange sacrifice), also indicative of the book’s objectivity.

I. Gurevich – Benjamin
New York 1992
Here we have a typical Marshall endgame. White has difficulty creating a passed pawn and Black’s space on the kingside keeps White at bay as well.

28…Be2! 29.Nh2 If White plays 29.gxf4 Bxf4 his knight will only be able to move somewhere that will allow Black to head for a drawn opposite-coloured ending (30.Bd2 Bxf1! =).

29…Kf7 30.Kg2 Kf6 31.f3 h5! Taking away the g4-square (…)

In this small fragment, note how Vigorito doesn’t avoid the oft-debated question of whether Black should or should not head for a simple draw in the Marshall sometimes: yes, he should!

Yakovenko – Zhang Zhong
Ergun 2006
Even with the queens exchanged, White’s central roller combined with the weaknesses in Black’s structure can give White good chances.

21.a4! Before starting operations on the kingside, White creates the possibility of opening the a-file.

21…h6 22.Kg2 Rd7 23.h4! gxh4 24.e5 Be7 25.gxh4 Kg7 If 25…Bxh4 then 26.Nf3 wins the pawn.

26.axb5 The immediate 26.Ne4 was also possible.

26…axb6 27.Ne4 The knight is heading to g3 and f5. White has a powerful initiative.

David Vigorito is able to explain subtle opening ideas in a clear and easily understandable way. For me, and I suppose for many a club player, The Marshall Attack has often given me difficulty to grasp the precise nuances of certain concepts such as 12.d3 instead of 12.d4. I mean, isn’t it just a more passive way of playing? Why would the pawn be any better placed on d3? If anything, it might become a weakness later on, and it doesn’t control the e5 square, right? Of course, things are not that simple:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d3

This is a more modest-looking continuation than 12.d4. At first glance it does not seem like this should be dangerous for Black, but White maintains control over the e4- and c4 squares, which allows for some tactical possibilities. White has not grabbed as much space, however, and the pawn on d3 may become vulnerable itself. White will often be more than willing to offer this pawn in order to fight for the initiative. It will all come down to the specifics of each position. Despite the similar appearances at first glance of this position to those we have already seen, the play is surprisingly different from that in the first four chapters.

12…Bd6 13.Re1

Now Black faces an important decision. In this chapter we look at the most natural move, the direct 13…Qh4, while the next chapter considers the modern preference, 13…Bf5.

13…Qh4 Black continues as he does in the first few chapters. However, White can exploit a tactical detail that was not available to him in Chapter 4.

14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4

This move is the point of White’s play. He intends Rh4 often with Nd2-e4 to follow. Compared to the previous chapter [12.d4 followed by 15.Re4 - AWM], 15…g5 is not possible, because after 16.Bxg5 Qf5 the e4-rook is protected and White will remain two pawns up. Therefore Black must find another way to create counterplay. (…).

Aha! So that’s why 12.d3 is such a useful little move. Very enlightening, and I think I will actually start playing this move once I’ve built up the courage to move the bishop just one square further on move 3. (Of course, I will have to study the ‘elite equalizer’ move 13…Bf5 to avoid a quick draw against an elite player!) The book is up to date until 2009, and contains a lot of mouth-watering recent supergrandmaster games by players like Anand, Aronian and Grischuk. On top of that, most of the main lines in the book are based on these games – always a sign that the author is not afraid of the ‘real’ hardcore stuff.

So, just in case you’re still too afraid to enter these dungeons of adventure, the book also discusses the Anti-Marshall variations such as 8.a4, 8.h3 and some minor deviations on move 8 or 9. Here, too, Vigorito gives useful advice and sometimes an enlightening insight in what these top players might actually be considering when choosing a particular quiet line:

10.a3 White’s play is very flexible, but it is also very slow. I find it very difficult to believe that moves such as 8.h3, 9.d3 and 10.a3 can constitute any kind of threat to the 7…0-0 move-order. White now has two plans of development, depending on how he develops his queen’s knight. It most often develops to d2, from where it will usually go to f1 and then either e3 or g3. The alternative is to develop to c3 with an eye towards d5, which often leads to exchanges. The knight may also go to g3 via e2, but this is less flexible than the Nd2-f1 route.

Finally, I must mention a few light points of criticism, too. Weirdly, there’s no index of players – quite rare for a Gambit publication. Also, some diagrams are inconveniently placed in the wrong column. I also missed a bit of historical background to the Marshall Attack in general. Vigorito does mention Capablanca-Marshall, New York 1918 in the introduction, but that’s about it. It would have been nice to have a little bit more context to some lines and especially their theoretical development. But then again, this is a practical book and so it’s not a real issue.

It will be interesting to compare this book to Ivan Sokolov’s recent book on Ruy Lopez sidelines, which I will discuss in my next review.

Review: Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov

Arne Moll — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:54:00 +0000

According to conventional wisdow, there’s no such thing as chance. So was it a coincidence that in the same week in which ChessVibes published two articles on Anatoly Karpov, I suddenly found a copy of Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov, by Karpov and Anatoly Matsukevich, on my doormat? In any case, I decided not to tempt fate and started reading immediately.

Anatoly Karpov has written many books in various flavours, including a series on chess openings. In this new co-production with Russian author Matsukevich (translated from the Russian original by Sarah Hurst), Karpov explores the already densely-populated genre of chess improvement books. Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov is published by Batsford Chess, and I guess this is a good moment to make a small digression on publishers of chess books in general. Don’t worry, there will be game fragments and diagrams later on as well!

When I started to become interested in chess books, which was in the mid-80s, Batsford was one of the most active and popular publishers of chess books in English. About ten years later (around the time I worked as a chess book seller in Amsterdam), Batsford got serious competition from publishers like Gambit and Everyman (previously known as Cadogan). Still a few years later, New in Chess started to dominate the market and the lists of popular quality chess books. I think it’s fair to say that Batsford has lagged behind a bit in recent years, perhaps still shocked by all the competitors they’re having to deal with now.

So it may surprise you that they’re actually still very actively involved in the chess book business. In fact, they’re covering a much bigger range of chess book styles than most publishers, for an impressively differing range of audiences. For instance, I recently read the hilarious chess tutorial for beginners Learn Chess Quick by Brian Byfield (who “first picked up and Alan Orpin the game when he knocked over his father’s board at the age of two”) and Alan Orpin (”hangs out in obscure Hamburg coffee shops playing chess with strangers for money”) and illustrated by Gray Jolliffe, who (despite knowing “diddly-squat about chess when he started the drawings for this book”) did an excellent job in capturing the lighter side of chess in cartoon-style.
A bigger contrast with the highly serious new book by the twelfth world champion is hardly possible!

Actually, I kind of understand why other publishers have become so popular in recent years. Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov is a good-looking, neatly published work, no doubt about it, but the layout of the text, the font style and diagrams somehow remind me of an older generation of chess books. Take a look at some of New in Chess’s recent books, with their beautiful shiny covers, photographs and outstanding general editorial quality, and see for yourself. We’re really becoming a bit spoiled in this respect.

And then there’s that title… it’s not exactly catchy, is it? More importantly, what about the authorship of the book? Didn’t Karpov just lend his name to another project by Russian chess author Matsukevich, who has published several co-authored books? Well, it’s true the introduction doesn’t say anything about the division of labour between the two Anatoly’s, but the quality of the book is so high and does have a distinct ‘Karpov flavour’, as we will see, so we shouldn’t worry about it too much. The fact is that Karpov and Matsukevich’s book is a true gem which is very hard to put down once opened.

In the introduction, the authors describe the following questions every improving chess player struggles with:

How can you find your way in every situation, even those that are completely unfamiliar, and how can you choose the correct order of actions to accomplish the main task? How can you learn to distinguish important features from secondary ones, and if you’ve managed to do this, what do you do next? Our book is about all of this.

These are good questions. After all, it’s one thing to create a system which hands you all the separate elements of what you need to know in chess on a silver platter, but it’s quite a different thing to balance them against each other, to compare apples with what, unfortunately, often turn out to be oranges, and to make a sound decision based on the concrete position on the board instead of general concepts. With their book, Karpov and Matsukevich have done an important step in the right direction. Moreover, they show great chess and place emphasis on players and subjects that are often overlooked in other chess improvement books.

The book starts with a chapter on the history and evolution of chess thought. I was pleasantly struck by the emphasis and importance the authors put on the ideas of the great Philidor. All too often, histories on positional chess thought start with Steinitz or Nimzowitsch, but it was, of course, Philidor who was the first to consciously express the thought that chess is not only about attacking in brilliant style. Philidor’s influence is also acknowledged by Karpov’s eternal rival Garry Kasparov’s in My Great Predecessors 1, but Kasparov devotes a mere one and a half page to the great Frenchman in a chapter ominously called ‘Chess before Steinitz’. Karpov and Matsukevich stress that Philidor was the first to look at chess objectively, and this is something we’ll see time and again in their book. Here’s what they say about Steinitz:

Steinitz went down in chess history as the creator of a new doctrine of positional play, the essence of which was the following: any plan in a chess game must have a justification; it should be sought not in the personality or desires of the player who is able to find the correct move or direction of attack in some kind of flash of inspiration, but in the actual position on the board, in its evaluation.

How do the authors see this evaluation concretely? They suggest comparing the following seven basic principles:

1. Material relationship between the forces.
2. Presence of direct threats.
3. Position of the kings, their safety.
4. Possession of open lines.
5. Pawn structures, weak and strong squares.
6. The centre and space.
7. Development and the position of pieces.

As a result of comparing these elements the chess player makes a statistical evaluation of the position, selects a plan of action and begins searching for specific moves and calculating variations.

This is all nothing very new, of course, but somehow the lucid simpliticity with which Karpov and Matsukevich show that it’s possible and realistic to do this in an actual position (without requiring seas of time) is quite convincing. Next, as a result of your objective evaluation, a plan of action can be chosen. Again, the explanation sounds deceptively simple and easy to achieve: “in better positions – with an advantage in development – you should try to prevent your opponent from completing the mobilization of his forces. To achieve this you should choose, as the opportunity arises, moves that present concrete threats, forcing your opponent to waste time and energy deflecting them.”

Kramnik-Leko
Brissago, 2004 (14)

Comparative analysis

1. There is material equality on the board.
2. At first glance it appears that all White’s threats have been successfully rendered harmless.
3. The white king is ideally placed, the black king should preferrably be on e7 or move away to the flank after it has castled.
4. White is exerting pressure along the c- and g-files, but without additional efforts this doesn’t promise anything.
5. Neither side’s pawn chain has obvious defects. However, White has an opportunity for a pawn attack on the queenside that isn’t immediatelt obvious.
6. The centre is firmly blocked.
7. White’s pieces are excellently placed, but the position of Black’s pieces requires improvement.

General conclusion

White has a clear advantage, but additional efforts are needed in order to exploit it.

22.a4! This pawn sacrifice throws Black’s incomplete defensive line into confusion.

22…Kd8 If he takes the pawn then the rook penetrates to the seventh rank. (…)

What I very much like about this fragment is that it sounds completely realistic in the sense that I feel I could have produced this train of thought myself as well. There’s apparently nothing mysterious or ‘grandmasterly’ about it, which makes it a very good example – even if, obviously, a clearly expressed thought always sounds as if anyone could have thought of that, though that’s rarely the case.

Likewise, the authors describe how to play inferior positions and equal positions. Realistically, they note that “in equal positions the battle, as a rule, goes peacefully: unnecessary aggressive actions might only ruin everything.” Again, we see an emphasis on objectivity and this is also clear from the examples, which make it clear that sometimes, there’s nothing wrong with making a draw.

Tal-Botvinnik
Moscow 1960 (3)

Black is a pawn up, for which White has virtually no compensation. The correct plan for Black is to develop the initiative in the centre and on the queenside with the help of Bc5, then Bb6 and a pawn advance. White constructs a defensive plan based on kingside counterplay so as to distract his opponent from carrying out his plan.

27.Rh7 Rf8 Better is 27…Bc5 and 28…Rd7.

28. Bf4 Qd8 29.Bd3 Rh8 30.Rxh8 Impossible, of course, is 30.Rxf7 because of 30…Qe8.

30…Qxh8 31.Qa5! Black’s queen has gone off to the kingside and so White urgently organises counterplay on the queenside. Now on 31…Kb8 follows 32.Bxb5! cxb5 33.Qxb5+ Kc7 34.Qa5+ Kc8 35.Qxa7 with real counter-chances.

31…Qh1+ 32.Ka2 Qxf3 33.Qa6+ Kb8 34.Qxc6! Qxf4 35.Bxb5 Qxe5 36.Qe8+ Kb7 37.Qc6+ Half a point saved: White has secured a perpetual check.

While these are great examples, making every step in the thinking process explicit and clear, I didn’t find all examples equally convincing. Karpov and Matsukevich’s prose suffers from extreme brevity from time to time, reducing the power of their theories to a certain degree. Also, they sometimes tend to drift away from their initial subject a bit too much in my opinion, such as when they suddenly start explaining about Troitsky’s analysis of the infamous KNN vs. K+pawn endgame in a chapter on ‘unique situations on the chessboard’. It’s a funny digression, but I didn’t really see what it had to do with the other examples in the chapter.

In subsequent chapters, the authors elaborate on the above-mentioned elements in extensive fashion, before coming to the ‘most important law of chess’, which according to them is “restricting the mobility of your opponent’s pieces and in association with this: domination by your own.” It’s the basis of an equally thorough explanation of the seven “bases for restriction” which they again cover with clear and sometimes a bit less-clear examples, often explaining very important aspects and inside-knowledge of various opening variations as well.

One curious thing about the book is that them authors included little sections at the end of each chapter with miniature games of at most 12 moves to illustrate the themes discussed in the chapter. ‘Club-12′, they call it. Quite an original idea, but I somehow felt the frivolous nature of most of these games was a little bit out of place in such an otherwise highly serious and important book. (Admittedly, they make up for this with by showing some great endgame studies!)

Everything considered, Finding the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov, despite its somewhat cheesy title, is a great read and deserves to be mentioned together with the other great chess improvement books that have been published in recent years. And of course, with Karpov involved in the project, that’s definitely no coincidence.

Update 11 May 2010: In the comments, some questions were raised about the originality of the current edition. I received the following reply from Nicola Newman from Anova Books:

The book was originally published in Russian in a much shorter form by Matsukevich on his own, in 1982, under the title ‘The Principle of Restriction’. Later on, Karpov came in to help to expand the book, and a new (Russian) edition was published in the mid-80s called ‘Evaluation of Position and Planning’ (this was translated into German by Sport Verlag Berlin in 1987, and then a second German edition was published in Switzerland in the 1990s). The book was then completely revised and updated and issued as a new edition, in Russian, by Russian Chess House in 1999. This edition has been updated twice since then, in 2007 and 2010. Our book is a translation of this new edition, and this is the first time the book has been available in English.

In future, we will insert information on copyright pages to state the dates of the original foreign-language publication, to avoid confusion.

Review: Mastering Positional Chess

Arne Moll — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:30:00 +0000

A 14-year old writing a book on positional chess?! How can that be? This was my first reaction when I received Mastering Positional Chess by Daniel Naroditsky. Sure, he’s a World Junior Champion and obviously is a talented youngster, but how could such a young boy write a coherent, let alone instructive chess manual on so ‘mature’ a subject as positional chess? Well, I don’t know – but he did it anyway.

Actually, the idea to write a book grew within the young author at an even younger age. As John Donaldson writes in the foreword,

Started in 2006, when the author was only ten (!) years old, Mastering Positional Chess: Practical Lessons of a Junior World Champion was written, for a very specific reason. Young Daniel realized his lack of positional understanding was causing him to lose many games. He set out to correct this deficiency in a most ambitious way by collecting classic examples on a variety of positional themes and subjecting them to extensive analysis. Having done this Daniel then clarified things in his own mind by putting into words what he had learned not only from the classics but from his own games.

I must admit I was a bit skeptical when I read this, together with Naroditsky’s introduction and the first pages of the actual book. Did you use words like ‘verbosity’, ‘armada’ and ‘multitude’ when you were 10, or even 15 years old? Well, who knows – perhaps young Daniel did get some stylistic advice from his parents here and there – or from John Donaldson or the editors, New in Chess. It hardly matters once you start reading the truly impressive and highly enjoyable book Daniel Naroditsky has produced. I think it may well be one of the best books ever written on positional chess.

There are several reasons for this. One is Naroditsky’s down-to-earth language and his approach to chess problems. This enables him to make everything look easy without ever sounding shallow. Another is the almost perfect length of his examples – he spends exactly enough space on his explanations, the examples have diagrams at precisely the right moments and the selection of fragments and games is a good mix of personal experiences and well-known historic encounters from the world’s greatest chess players. Most impressively, Naroditsky shows he totally understands the nuances and subtleties, however complex they sometimes are, of the positional concepts he is explaining. This is how he explains prophylaxis in the first chapter:

This book starts with prophylaxis because I’m convinced that in order to master positional thinking, one needs to first master prophylactic thinking. Let me define what exactly I mean by prophylaxis.
Prophylaxis can mean stopping a possible plan or a future threat by the opponent. For instance, evacuating the king from a danger zone is an example of prophylaxis – the king might be subject to an attack, and removing the king completely nullifies the effectiveness of the attack.
Another example of prophylaxis is when you take away an important square from your opponent, thus rendering a certain plan or idea useless. The first person that touched upon the subject of prophylaxis was Latvian-born Danish Maestro Aron Nimzowitsch. He formulated the idea itself and emphasized the importance of prophylactic thinking. Although today’s definition of prophylactic thinking might differ from Nimzowitsch’s, he certainly deserves full credit for ‘inventing’ prophylactic thinking.
Another important point: prophylaxis is completely different from defense. In defense, you’re almost always trying to parry threats that are already present, while prophylaxis is all about rooting out the source of problems. For example, if one side has a bishop that can potentially cause problems, trading the bishop for another piece or even giving up an exchange to eliminate it is an example of prophylaxis.

I don’t want to sound too lyrical, but I find this an almost perfect piece of chess prose. Let me explain why in some detail:

Right from the start, the author shows he has in mind a clear arrangement of priorities in positional themes.
In very simple terms, the concept is explained. There follow several simple examples, readily understandable to players of all levels
The author not only introduces a relevant bit of history but he even explains that chess has evolved while at the same time still using traditional concepts (something that took John Watson two whole books – very good ones, by the way – to explain)
The author also defines what’s not within the scope of his definition, something that’s often forgotten by even the best chess instructors.

What about a concrete example? Here’s one from the same chapter:

Karpov-Timman
Montreal 1979

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.g3Although this move was never very popular, it is still completely viable and gives White an easy game. White’s idea is to set up a Closed Sicilian type formation, and slowly start to push Black off the board. The objective evaluation of this variation is a slight edge for White.

4…Bg7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.Nge2 e5 7.0-0

7…Na6 This move is a bit awkward. The evaluation doesn’t really change, but the alternatives, 7…Nc6 and 7…c6, are better. The problem with 7…Na6 is that the knight doesn’t really do anything – Black will play with a piece less until the position opens up. Interestingly, the knight will be one of the causes of Black’s trouble later on.

8.Re1 c6 9.h3 Re8 10.Bg5

10…h6?! It’s hard to believe this completely natural move is a mistake. The problem is that after Be3, it will be very difficult for Black to achieve any kind of counterplay. White will simply play g3-g4 and Ng3, and Black will find himself totally cramped. In order to get somewhere, Black needed to act quickly. (…) After 10…exd4! White is forced to play 11.Nxd4, and only now does Black play 11…h6. Although the position after 12.Bf4 g5 13.Be3 is slightly better for White, Black has good dynamic counterchances after 13…g4!?.

11.Be3 Qc7 12.Qd2 Kh7 13.Rad1 Bd7 14.g4

Karpov plays this part of the game with immense precision. Timman, understanding he will lose if he doesn’t do anything, attempts to find counterchances in dynamic play.

14…Rad8 15.Ng3 Bc8 16.f4 b5 If White allows Black to play …b4, his position will suddenly become a bit shaky. Therefore:

17.a3! b4 18.axb4 Nxb4 19.Nce2 exd4 20.Nxd4 a5 21.c3 Na6

An important position has arisen on the board. White’s pieces are located ideally, or so it seems. He is centralized, and Black’s pieces are somewhat uncoordinated. However, things are not as one-sided as they appear. Black wants to play …Nc5, and possibly …d5, when White’s e4-f4-g4 armada will be subject to pressure.
Karpov, after determining the threat, looked for ways to defend against it. The next step was to decide which pieces could be improved. He quickly saw that the d8 rook x-rays White’s queen. He then asked himself where the queen would be better placed. Obviously, the answer is c2, from where it will x-ray the king and, mainly, defend the e4-pawn.

22.Qc2!! Once you see this move, it may seem pretty obvious. Understanding that the queen isn’t placed well on d2 is not easy, however. Despite the pin, the queen was facing no danger, and it is very difficult to make a move such as 22.Qc2. Now, Black’s counterplay is parried (22…Nc5 is met by 23.b4, when the e4-pawn is defended), and he has to wait passively until White will crush him.

22…Bd7 23.Nf3!

White plans Bf2, when he will be ready for the decisive assault. Black is completely helpless.

23…Re7 24.Bf2 Be8 25.Qd3 White is threatening 26.e5.

25…Qb7 26.Ra1! And Timman resigned after 12 more moves. A brilliant display of prophylaxis by Karpov – by means of one awkward-looking move, he totally demolished Black’s plan.

Why did I quote this example in its entirety (apart from a small digression on move 10)? There are several reasons for this. The first is one is purely graphical: in my opinion all diagrams are placed exactly at the right places in the text, namely at all critical moments of the game. (Update: see the comments below this article, where readers draw attention to striking similarities between Naroditsky’s analysis of this game and analysis done by Dvoretsky&Yusupov and Karpov himself.) Most chess books, even very good ones, contain superfluous diagrams, or – more often – not enough to follow the logic of the text without setting up a board (and I admit I’m often too lazy to do that.)

Secondly, I like the fact that Naroditsky takes his time to explain the prelude to the actual ‘theme’ of the game (move 22), by explaining just enough about the opening and the early middlegame to understand what’s going on (in fact I even learned something I didn’t know about this particular line), but doesn’t elaborate too much, not on every move, and isn’t too wordy in his prose. In fact his explanations are just right: always relevant, always clear, always wanting to explain what exactly is going on.

I also found it a relief to note that after his well-written, easily accessible explanation of the prohylaxis theme, the author doesn’t shy away from extremely high-quality chess (in 1979, you couldn’t do much better than Karpov and Timman!). This is something I noticed time and again in the book: top level super-GM games next to well-selected games between unknown (to me) players, next to instructive games (both wins and losses) of Naroditsky himself. It’s almost impossible to imagine the material was selected by such a young player instead of a mature veteran, but there you are.

Mainly, I chose to show one lengthy example rather than a few short fragments because I really think this is one of the book’s strengths: extremely well-written, carefully selected examples, showing the ‘whole range’ of positional aspects of a particular theme. The above one is in this respect not an exception, but very representative of Naroditsky’s style.

In between the examples, Naroditsky often makes valuable and sharp points, such as his observation that “tactical players have one main weakness: they aren’t patient.” Another great aspect of the book is that the author doesn’t want to show too many different themes: apart from prophylaxis, he studies the defense in worse positions, fortresses, positional sacrifes, paralysis (a rather refreshing theme!), and various aspects of manoeuvring. There also useful excercises, a preface by Daniel’s parents and a formidable epilogue, in which the young author writes:

After reading a book on positional chess, I have always thought that I would not get outplayed in a single game. That, unfortunately, is quite untrue. From my own experience, I have found that the ideas which one has learned simply blend into the rest, and when you analyze a game, you might not see any visible signs that you have comprehended many more ideas. Therefore, you should certainly not be alarmed if you get badly outplayed. After all, positional mastery comes not only with immediate understanding, but also with experience.

Wise words. Here is an author who, despite his young age, shows remarkable maturity not only in his play but also in the way he perceives the game in all its aspects. A self-conscious and modest, realistic and reasonable author with an amazing talent for explaining what’s going on during a game of chess. I hope this review doesn’t make him spoiled, because I am already eagerly awaiting his next book, which I hope is just as refreshing as Mastering Positional Chess.

ChessVibes » Reviews

Review: three excellent puzzle books

Links

Review: Nunn’s Chess Endings 1

Links

Review: Modern Ideas in Chess

Links

Review: The Caro-Kann

Links

Review: Mastering the Chess Openings 4

Links

Review: Genius in the Background

Links

Review: The Ruy Lopez Revisited

Links

Review: Understanding the Marshall Attack

Links

Review: Find the Right Plan with Anatoly Karpov

Links

Review: Mastering Positional Chess

Links