|
|
|
The Kibitzer Tim Harding
|
Books for the Darker Evenings Around this time of the year I usually review books, since this is a popular time for buying them - either as presents or to “lay them up” for Christmas reading. The “biggie” this month is the new Kasparov, which has just won the English Chess Federation’s 2009 Book of the Year award. Before dealing with that, I want to draw your attention to a number of other titles that became available in the last few months. When this article was almost complete, another box of books arrived for consideration from Russell Enterprises, including Karsten Mueller’s new book of Fischer’s games. As it was too late to read it, that will be the subject of next month’s column.
There are a few signs that this may be a recycling of an older book, however, not that this is too serious for beginners because the basic rules and principles of the game do not change. For example, Magnus Carlsen is not one of the players included, and the entry for correspondence chess says it is “chess played by post or increasingly nowadays by email,” with no mention of webserver correspondence chess. In fact this whole section is rather strange. There is an entry for “IBCA”, the international Braille Chess Federation, but not for some terms in common use like “Gambit” and “Hedgehog”. In the “History of Chess” paragraph, it is highly controversial to say that “Chess appears to have been widely known throughout Europe by around 1000”; the only firm evidence at that date is in southern Europe. To conclude, if you are a regular reader of this column, it is safe to say that this book is not for you, but it may be suitable for a teenage relative or adult friend who you think might enjoy chess, or somebody you know who is looking for a “chess for dummies” type of book.
This book would make an excellent present for advanced players (rating 2000+, maybe even 1800-2000) who are looking for some new inspiration and is willing to put in some work to improve their middlegame play. Like the other books in the series, it is based on course material that the authors used in advanced training sessions at their chess school in 1990-92 and a wide variety of topics are covered. Unlike the previous volumes, it is not so much about technical instruction in various aspects of the game, but also psychology. “Thinking at the board and the ways of taking decisions in a variety of situations — this, in brief, is its main content,” writes Dvoretsky, in the Preface. The examples are complex and not for novices. In all there are sixteen chapters, or lectures, dealing with various aspects of practical tournament play. Besides the authors, there are also contributions by Mikhail Krasenkow, Beniamin Blumenfeld, Sergey Dolmatov, Vladimir Vulfson, and Igor Belov. Dvoretsky says: “Many players make the serious mistake of devoting all their free time exclusively to the study of opening theory.” If you have that tendency, you probably need this book. Last month I mentioned Mike Conroy’s A History of Lancashire Chess from 1871 to 2009. The book does not have an ISBN number and is only available from the Lancashire Chess Association: email Bill O’Rourke: worchess@ntlworld.com. The price is ten pounds sterling plus postage and voluntary donation. (Postage to anywhere outside the U.K. is liable to be expensive.) This 470-page A4-format book includes many photographs (most of the recent ones being in colour) and is strong on chess in the county in the post-World War II era. As a history of Lancashire chess from earliest times it is, however, incomplete. The author starts at 1871 and has researched the first inter-county match played against Yorkshire that year and other ones in the nineteenth century. It is the first I am aware of on this subject, although there was also a privately-produced one done by Eric Nowell and Alan Smith on Chess and Manchester early in the 1990s. They had done considerable research (and made use of previous research done by others) whereas the Conroy book is weak on the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He does not appear to have researched chess columns of that period or the resources of the Manchester chess club collection in the central Manchester library. There is, for example, no reference to the huge row in 1882 which prevented the Lancashire-Yorkshire match planned for that year from taking place. There is information about this in the Burnley Express (11 March and 8 April, for example) and the Preston Guardian (5 April). The author clearly has not read my chapter on the Preston Guardian column and early Lancashire chess which was published in 2007 in a collection entitled Entertainment, Leisure and Identities, edited by Roger Spalding and Alyson Brown from Edge Hill University. Conroy’s book will doubtless satisfy Lancastrians and others with a Lancashire connection who are chiefly interested in recent decades. A proper study still needs to be made of nineteenth century chess in the North of England as I am sure there is still more to discover in the archives. Books on the openings
If there is a recent trend in the “Tromp”, it is for Black to reply 2…e6, which is likely to be preferred by Nimzo-indian and French Defense players. Although 3 e3 is now possible, the only challenging reply is 3 e4 when Palliser says 3…h6 is best, although 3…Be7 is also possible and sets the trap 4 Nc3 Nxe4! 5 Bxe7 Nxc36 Bxd8 Nxd1 7 Bxc7 Nxb2 8 Bd6 Na4 when, he says, “White has decent compensation for the missing pawn, but no more than that.” Intending purchasers should be warned that apart from a few words in the Introduction, this book contains nothing on the variant 1 d4 d5 2 Bg5, which Palliser says can be met by 2…f6 or 2…h6 3 Bh4 c6.
The author admits it is quite difficult to play because you cannot go by “feel”, but need knowledge of concrete ideas and variations. He devotes five chapters to 4 e4 which he considers to be the critical line. Apparently he does not consider 4 Bf4 too dangerous while his recommendation against 4 Nf3 is 4…Nc6 because he argues that the black bishop is misplaced after the usual 4…Bc5. I note that after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 Nf3 Nc6 he barely mentions 5 Nc3 which can be quite tricky for Black. After 5…Ngxe5 White need not play 6 Nxe5 (the only move he considers) 6…Nxe5 7 e4 or 7 Qc2 but can calmly go 6 e3 when it is important for Black to fianchetto his king’s bishop and not play 6…Be7? as in the game Harding-Biro from Kibitzer 54 where I bear a Romanian IM. Also that article shows that the line recommended by Taylor against 3 Nf3!? (the only awkward alternative to 3 dxe5) is perhaps not the one to prefer. My feeling about this book is that while it is useful, people intending to play the Budapest should not rely on it alone but also consult other works. I also note that whereas Williams made use of my Ultracorr2 database from 2008 (which until recently was the most up-to-date version), Taylor has only consulted a considerably older version. The other authors have, it seems, not consulted any correspondence game databases.
Mikhail Umansky – Nigel Davies 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2
4...Be7 Here I played 4...dxc4 5 Nf3 a6 6 0–0 Nc6 7 Nc3 Rb8 8 e4 Be7 (8...b5 is the alternative, e.g. Umansky-Weber, game 55 in the Davies book.) 9 Qe2 (Ribli had said this was risky and he was not yet convinced that White gets sufficient compensation.) 9...Nxd4 (This move was not in the books in 2003 but I knew Umansky had met it before.) 10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Rd1 Qc5 12 e5 (Davies remarks that personally he would not like to face White's initiative after either this or 12 Be3 when I intended 12...Qb4 — not mentioned by Davies — 13 Bf4 e5!? 14 Bxe5 Bg4 as in the drawn game Burger-Franzen from the Hans-Werner von Massow Memorial super-GM correspondence tournament.) 12...Nd7?! ( 12...Nd5 seems to be correct: see game 56 in the book. That had not been tried in 2003.) 13 Ne4! (13 Bf4 0–0 had occurred in an earlier game Umansky-Franzen.) 13...Qxe5 14 Bf4 Qa5 15 Qxc4 e5 16 Bg5! (As expected, Umansky improved upon 16 Bd2 Qb6 from the stem game J.Klinger-U.Bönsch, Lugano 1989.) 16...b5!? 17 Qd3! and I didn't find a good defence in Umansky-Harding, chessfriend.com championship 2003. After that digression, we return to Umansky-Davies, in which the safer 4...Be7 was played. 5 Nf3 0–0 6 0–0 This is all standard stuff and various move orders can arrive at this position, including ones from 1 d4 d5, from1 c4 and 1 Nf3, once Black decides not to take the pawn on c4.
6...Nbd7 7 Qc2 c6 8 Rd1 b6 9 Nc3 Ba6 10 Ne5! Rc8 11 Qa4 Nb8 12 b3! Ne8 13 Ba3 b5 14 Bxe7 Qxe7 15 Nxb5!?
"A really brilliant idea that cost me months to defend against!" (Davies). 15...f6 15...cxb5 16 cxb5 Bb7 17 Qxa7 "White's passed pawns would be difficult to handle because of the passivity of Black's pieces." 16 Nxc6! Rxc6 17 cxd5 Rb6 18 Nc3 e5! Black's defensive plan is to keep the d5-pawn where it is, blockading with a knight on d6. 19 Rac1 Nd6 20 e4 Bc8 21 h3 Rb7 22 Qa3 Rc7 23 f4 exd4 24 Rxd4 g5 25 Kh2 gxf4 26 gxf4 Kh8 27 Ne2 Rxc1 28 Qxc1 Rg8 29 Ng3 Nd7 30 Rd1 Qg7 31 Qe3 Nb6 Davies says 31...Nf8 might have been better. 32 Qf2 Bd7 33 Re1 Qh6
34 Re3 White also must be careful. 34 e5 Nf5 35 Nxf5 Bxf5 36 e6 can be met by 36...Nxd5 because of 37 Bxd5?? Qxh3 mate. 34...Qh4 35 a4 Nf7 36 Nh1 Qh6 37 a5 Nc8 38 e5 fxe5 39 fxe5 Nxe5! 40 Rxe5 Qd6 ½–½
Beginning with a chapter on Black’s sixth move alternatives to 6…e5, then progressing through White’s seventh move options, it finally reaches the main line 6…e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d5 Ne7 on page 193; i.e., almost exactly half way through the book. The authors then deal in turn with the old move 9 Ne1, then 9 Nd2 which came into fashion in the 1960s, then the 9 b4 lines. If I remember rightly, one of the earliest openings books I possessed, Ludek Pachman’s Indian Systems (which came out around 1964 in English) spoke highly of this move. It was then rare but it has since become the critical line, probably best met by 9…Nh5. This is apparently a very up-to-date book but I am no expert on the King’s Indian and cannot pronounce upon it. I did find the introduction somewhat misleading with its claims for the historical antiquity of the King’s Indian which somehow failed to mention the input of Bronstein and Boleslavsky. They are right to say that Louis Paulsen employed the King’s Indian, as we would understand it, in his 1879 match against Adolph Schwarz in Leipzig. Chigorin’s association with the defence is more tenuous, although the term “Chigorin Indian” was sometimes used for patriotic reasons in the Soviet Union. Also in some languages the term for King’s Indian is Old Indian (Alt-indisch in German) which tends to confuse the 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 line that was played in the old days, and did not necessarily involve a kingside fianchetto, with the modern interpretation. Thus after 3 Nf3 Nbd7 4 Bf4 Chigorin did play 4…g6 against Marshall at the 1906 German congress, but against Tarrasch in the same event, and in later games with Salwe, Marshall and Cohn the old Russian did not fianchetto. Kasparov on the warpath again
The 1986 contest was the return match under FIDE President’s Campomanes’s new rules for the 1985 Moscow match (dealt with in Kasparov’s previous book). Karpov, as defending champion, was deemed entitled to a replay as compensation for the first match being stopped when he was in the lead (as described in Kasparov’s previous book). The first half of match in 1986 was played in London, and I was present at a couple of the sessions; but then the match moved to Leningrad, Karpov’s home town, for its climax. Kasparov was finding in both cities that Karpov kept anticipating his secrets, but who was the spy? Strangely, at the critical moment when Kasparov had squandered his three-game lead, Karpov seemed to lose his “inside information” and played weaker at the crucial phase of the match. Karpov, after losing that match, was given a bye through to the final stage of the next qualifying cycle, beat the winner of that (A. Sokolov) and so got another match with Kasparov, who keeps moaning about the necessity to prove himself again and how hard it was to be “up for it”. This time they played on neutral ground, in Seville (Spain) and Kasparov found himself needing to win the last game to force a tied match and retain his title. To see how this happened, read the book. This is Ken Neat’s translation of what is essentially an old Russian book by Kasparov, Dva Matcha, brought up to date with the latest computer analysis. As usual with his work, the result is clear and fluent English, although I wonder at his using the strange word “totalizer” (for which the Oxford English Dictionary has just one reference from 1887) rather than “totalizator” which is in normal use. Kasparov spares neither himself nor his opponent in his criticisms of moves once thought good that are now shown to be dubious or downright bad, and other moves once thought weak (either in actual play or more often in analysis) are frequently proved by the computer to be best after all. How many people, however, really have the time or energy to play through all these games in detail, I am doubtful, but it is certainly good to have a corrected record of these important contests. Any old books you may dealing with these matches may as well be thrown in the bin as the annotations cannot be trusted. On the other hand, this new book is grossly over-written with pages and pages of variations that just slow down the narrative. It is justified for a major game like the 16th in the 1986 match, to which no fewer than twenty-five pages are devoted, but the space given to minor possibilities in the duller games seems a waste of paper. To give a flavour of how Kasparov modifies his previous annotations, here is the 16th game indicating some of the main amendments. Garry Kasparov – Anatoly Karpov 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0–0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0–0 9 h3 Bb7 10 d4 Re8 11 Nbd2 Bf8 12 a4 h6 13 Bc2 exd4 14 cxd4 Nb4 15 Bb1 c5 16 d5 Nd7 17 Ra3 c4 18 Nd4 Replacing 18 axb5 which Kasparov had played in game fourteen. 18...Qf6!
Karpov's novelty, which pre-empted Kasparov's preparation. 19 N2f3 Nc5 If 19...Nd3!? 20 Bxd3 b4!, then instead of 21 Bxc4 recommended in the ChessBase MegaBase notes, Kasparov reveals that he discovered the exchange sacrifice 21 Rb3! cxb3 22 Qxb3 before the 1987 match. 20 axb5 axb5 21 Nxb5 Rxa3 22 Nxa3 Ba6 23 Re3
23...Rb8! 23...Nbd3 has been criticized, but Kasparov now thinks it would lead to roughly equal play after 24 Bxd3 cxd3 25 b4 Nxe4 26 b5 Bb7 27 Rxd3! Rc8! (instead of 27...Nc3? as given in previous annotations). 24 e5! dxe5 25 Nxe5
25...Nbd3? This was a serious error that he nearly failed to exploit. 25...Ncd3! was necessary, and then Kasparov planned 26 Ng4! Qd4! 27 Nc2! Nxc2 28 Bxc2. Here, he says, Black should play either 28...Bd6!? or 28...h5!, whereas the move previously given as unclear, 28...Bc5?, is refuted in the new book by 29 Qf3! Rd8 30 Re4 Qxd5 31 Nxh6+! gxh6 32 Rg4+ Kh7 33 Qf6 Bf8 34 Qxa6 and White wins. 26 Ng4? Kasparov has not changed his mind about this, except for details later. He should have played 26 Qc2! Rb4 27 Nc6 and Black faces serious problems. After 27...Rb7 (Better 27...Rb6!) 28 Re8, the reply 28...g6 used to be recommended, but Kasparov or his computer has now found a win for White by 29 Bxh6 Rxb2 30 Bxf8 Kh7 31 Be7 Qf4 32 g3. 26...Qb6? This used to get an exclamation mark but 26...Qf5! was much stronger, setting White serious problems. 27 Rg3 g6 This used to get a “!” too, but Kasparov analyses the alternative 27...Kh8 28 Nxh6! Ne4! over three pages without coming to a definite conclusion except that it may draw. 28 Bxh6 Qxb2 29 Qf3! Nd7 Alternatives are analysed over several pages. Black should probably have kept the second knight in contact with d3. 30 Bxf8 Kxf8 31 Kh2! Rb3! 32 Bxd3 cxd3?! 32...Rxa3 used to be given as equalising, but after 33 Qf4 Rxd3 34 Qd6+ Kasparov shows that the best Black can do is a rook ending a pawn down, which would also have happened after 32...Rxd3. 33 Qf4
33...Qxa3? In time trouble, Karpov plays the losing move. The only continuation consistent with his previous move was to try to queen the d-pawn: 33...d2 34 Nh6 Nf6! when Black holds on by a thread in detailed variations given in the book. 34 Nh6 Qe7 35 Rxg6 Qe5 36 Rg8+ Ke7 37 d6+! Ke6 38 Re8+ Kd5 39 Rxe5+ Nxe5 40 d7 Rb8 41 Nxf7 1-0 Karpov resigned and "left the stage without the traditional handshake." A less appealing aspect of the book is Kasparov’s authorial voice, constantly whingeing about this and that, as if we did not all know by now how devious Campomanes was, and how manipulative and unjust the Soviet system was, and how deeply embedded in its privileges was his opponent Karpov. The exposure of the chess espionage by which the Karpov team learned many of Kasparov’s analytical secrets is fascinating — and yet Karpov, even when he knew what variation would be played next day, still could not win! Least to my liking is the way the English Chess Federation judges keep warding Kasparov their prize, which would be better used to stimulate new and original writing on the game, and to reward a greater variety of authors and publishers. It is true (as mentioned in the citation) that Everyman have produced a physically impressive book but that should not be any part of the criteria by which such an award is judged. Of course they can spend money on it, they know it will sell well (even without winning awards) and so need not stint on the production values. For them and for Kasparov, this series (and its “great predecessor”) have just been an enormous cash cow, encouraging the over-writing and sub-division into multiple volumes of what would have been much more readable as a compact project of, say, three or four volumes covering all the previous world champions and Kasparov’s own matches. I suppose when he has finally got past the Nigel Short match, we shall then be treated to multiple volumes on “my less than great successors”? © 2009 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved. Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily. |
Purchases from our shop help keep ChessCafe.com freely accessible:
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book Review]
[Columnists] © 2009 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
|
Secrets of Creative Chess Thinking
