Comments on: Review: The Black Lion

By: Raven Lee

Raven Lee — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:12:37 +0000

Hi Arne, nice review, although a bit too bashy and sarcastic against the subject.

There are quite a few decent openings that are basically setups as you call them where one player ignores the other for the most part, unless they have a decisive threat building. Easy to play, able to get into the setup against most openings, gives you chances, creates imbalances, etc.

King’s Indian Attack. Colle-Zukertort. Colle-Koltanowski. Torre Attack. Trompowski. The Barry Attack. The Black Knight’s Tango. 150 Attack. Czech Defense. Modern Defense. King’s Indian Defense. Tarrasch Defense. Tartakower Defense. Cambridge Springs Defense. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Many openings are also considered inferior, although they are not refuted and are highly playable. Morozevich has proven this with the Chigorin. Many GMs have used the Nimzowitsch defense. The Black Knight’s Tango has been assayed by many GMs and IMs.

Many defenses are considered passive. Caro-Kann. The French Defense. Pirc Defense. But, none have been refuted.

If you can find a line for White that wins 100% against strong opposition against the Lion, that would indiciate that the opening is busted.

“Instead of a strategic approach, the Lion is merely a ‚Äôsetup‚Äô, a way to arrange your pieces in the first moves without hanging them or risking a fork or a pin.”

By: Matthieu Freeke

Matthieu Freeke — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:50:24 +0000

Jansen en Rekom claim to be ‘experts’ on this ’system’. The book only shows how far this is from the truth. I think, especially for younger player improving, the amount of bad analysis and assesments do more bad to your chess then it does good.

1900 players shouldnt write books if they ‘forget’ to use Rybka. People shouldn’t take them serious. I played the black Lion for about a week (a few years back); it did more bad things to my chess then improve it!

Dont buy this book; if you are interested in these kind of structures go study ganes of Philidor; read Bauers book or play exd4! and read ‘Geheimwaffe Philidor’. This book S U X.

By: guitarspider

guitarspider — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:32:41 +0000

Yes, Arne, it’s really a shame how many players always play the same opening moves/a certain set-up. One member of my club always plays the London System. I can’t understand how he can stand the same opening moves resulting in a very quiet position in every game he has white.

By: Richard DeCredico

Richard DeCredico — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:04:36 +0000

1. …e5 is as water resistant as GoreTex.

Too bad it takes actual work and understanding to make it work.

By: Arne Moll

Arne Moll — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:42:04 +0000

Great discussion, guys, keep it going. I would like to add that in my opinion even if the Lion is perhaps not such a bad opening, it is really completely unlike the Pirc or the Alekhine. In the latter openings, Black tries to execute several strategic operations in response to moves by White, and Black definitely has a ‘mind of his own’ in these openings. But the Lion is actually the exact opposite in the sense that it is supposed to be played with the intention of IGNORING moves by White. Instead of a strategic approach, the Lion is merely a ’setup’, a way to arrange your pieces in the first moves without hanging them or risking a fork or a pin. Have you ever noticed how subtle move orders are in the Pirc or the Alekhine, and how different plans for White result in totally different setups for Black? All this is a characteristic of ‘real’ openings (in Michael’s definition) but not for the Lion. The Lion reduces chess to a cheap kind of one-size-fits-all and I’m sure this is the reason why so many chess lovers react so annoyed and even angry to this opening.

By: Frans

Frans — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:31:30 +0000

Fully agree with Tim.
There is no such thing as a water-tight defense against e4. I also dont understand all the fuzz about the name-giving. Just play your moves and try to thinkout a tactic or make a plan. Who gives a **** wheter its called Lion, Pirc, Philidor or whatever. And indeed, the set-ups given in this book cannot be critical. But sure they are playable. Against a strong opponent however, someone who plays “REAL” chess, as Tim calls it, you will end up worse playing this. Or at least slightly worse against a nagging edge. Playing the “great” openings and following GM-scheme’s surely is the way to go. But in my experience many chessplayers find GM-openings such as Slav or QG “dull” (a misconception) or they are afraid that they need to study a lot of books to be able to play them (another misconception). I used to play a lot of non-critical lines, such as Colle for white. But against “real” chess players, i didnt get any foot on the ground. Or worse: I already started cursing myself for playing this **** before we were at move 10.
It was only when I started to pick up the gauntlet and went for Nimzo’s, Queens-gambits, Slav’s etc. as white and threw my off-beat black-repertoire out of the window, that my own play come to a lift….
Especially against strong opponents this is the way to go! Dont play Lions, Colle’s, Philidor’s, Budapests etc. etc. against strong opponents. The will feel very comfortable playing against this, cause it’s just not critical.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:06:26 +0000

It’s unbelievable that in this digital age it’s still possible to publish a chess book that contains such obvious errors, even in the most critical lines. It might be written for the average club player, but that just sounds like a lame excuse for low quality. And tons of chess players fall for it, guessing (hoping?) that their opponents won’t find the holes in their beloved system. Who’s fooling who here?

There is no system that works against any first white move. The game just doesn’t work like that. If you don’t want to invest time in studying openings, it’s more useful to try out an opening that is actually played by the top GM’s and to learn to play it by practice. OK, you might suffer a few hard losses at first. But if you stick to it and are willing to take an honest look at your played games, you will slowly but steadily learn to play REAL chess.

By: guitarspider

guitarspider — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:58:01 +0000

Seems some of my comment was lost somehow. I just wanted to add that every good player has an opinion on different openings, and while your GM may find the Pirc difficult to play, others consider it very playable. Mikhail Umansky (he was correspondence chess world champion) for example, who plays 1st board for my club’s 1st team, is a great fan of the Pirc.

By: guitarspider

guitarspider — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:49:10 +0000

Michael, your GM is probably right at his level, although I don’t think the Alekhine is unplayable. There are some difficult lines though. But I think we both agree it’s much much better to play the Pirc or Alekhine than to play the Lion.

By: jussu

jussu — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:00:43 +0000

I guess it is rather unusual to write a “black has better practical chances in every variation” treatice on a system that is actually solid enough to be playable. Shouldn’t this thing be called a sideline of Modern Defence, though?