Checkpoint
by Carsten Hansen

Reviewed this month:

The Botvinnik Semi-Slav by Pedersen
Play the Open Games as Black by Emms
New In Chess Yearbook 53 by Sosonko & van der Sterren (Ed.)

This month's Checkpoint features reviews on the latest efforts by
two of my favorite chess authors: Steffen Pedersen and John
Emms. I can't think of a below average book by either. Their books
are exemplary in the effort and dedication that I wish every author
would put into his work. Of course neither has published 50 or
more titles as have some authors, but if they had, there would be a
smaller market for the lazy and sloppy authors. Finally we have the
most recent yearbook from the people behind New In Chess
magazine.

The Botvinnik Semi-Slav by Steffen Pedersen, 2000 Gambit
Publications, Softcover, Figurine Algebraic Notation, 224 pp.,
$21.95.

I have known Steffen Pedersen since he almost beat me, when he
was only 9 and I was only 12 years old. Since then we have
become friends and fierce competitors. Despite our friendship, we
have only played one short draw in a tournament in Budapest
where we shared a room and both played for an IM-norm. A month
later we shared a hotel room in Forli, Italy, when he, at the age of
16, scored his first GM-norm. He became an IM and later he
started a family (he has two beautiful daughters). While there has
been big gaps between the good results on the chess board, he has
produced some opening books which instantly became must-buys
for the serious opening students. Among these are Dutch for the
Attacking Player (Batsford), Easy Guide to the Scheveningen
(Everyman Chess), The Gambit Guide to the Benko Gambit
(Gambit) and more recently Easy Guide to the Bb5 Sicilian
(Everyman Chess). All of these books are highly recommended,
and should you find another title by Pedersen that I have not
mentioned, if you play that opening, buy it. It may be a little out-
dated, but the quality in the work persists. To round off my little
introduction of Pedersen, I can mention that he jointly won the
1998 Hampstead Grandmaster tournament, and 1999 he, much to
everybody's (including his own) surprise scored his second GM-
norm in Aars, by holding super-GM Fedorov to a draw in a King's
Gambit as Black in the last round (this dare-devil approach was
also used when he in scored his first GM-norm; he then played the
Leningrad Dutch as Black against Malaniuk!). 

The present book is probably the book he has been the most exited
about writing since he wrote the book on the Dutch Defense. He
has enthusiastically played the Botvinnik Variation on both sides
for years. I still remember, when, all excited, he came to my
apartment and showed me 18...d4, which is now widely accepted
as the main line.

In general, the Botvinnik Variation has received tremendous
attention from many GMs near the absolute top. Its theory has also
benefited from the efforts of Kasparov, Kramnik and Shirov who
all willingly have taken either side of the table. As a result, the
volume of theory has exploded and any book which is more than a
couple of years old on this subject is more or less completely out-
dated. Pedersen is of course aware of this, and has taken his
subject to the next level. Every suggestion or recommendation has
been put under the microscope, been dissected and weighed. This
is an enormous feat, because this opening more than any other has
theory where sacrifices and utter disrespect for material values
rule. Here are a few examples that Pedersen mention in the
introduction (See Diagram):

White: Kg1,Qd5, Ra1, Rf1, Bf4; pawns - b2, b4, f6, f2, g3, h2; 
Black: Kb6, Qb5, Rd8, Rh8, Nd7, Bf8; pawns - a7, c5,c4,c3, f7

The position is from Aseev-Se.Ivanov, St. Petersburg 1997.
Pedersen annotates: "White's last move was 22 Bg5-f4!?, which
appears to place Black in grave peril due to the threat of 23 Ra5.
However... 22...Rh5!! This truly astonishing move solves all
Black's problems. After 23 Qxh5 cxb2 Black obtains two far-
advanced passed pawns and great counterplay."

Next example (See Diagram):

White: Kg1, Qg4, Ra1, Rf1, Na4, Be3, Bg2; pawns - b2, f6, f2, g3,
h2; 
Black: Kc8, Qb5, Rd7, Rh8, Nc5, Bb7, Bf8; pawns - a7, b4, c4, d5,
f7

This position is from Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 1996, I will
once again leave it to Pedersen: "21 Qg7 This fantastic queen
sacrifice was a piece of over-the-board inspiration from the ever-
creative Ukranian. After 21...Bxg7 22 fxg7 Rg8 23 Nxc5 White
only has two minor pieces for the queen but excellent positional
compensation and a highly dangerous passed pawn."

The above, of course makes for interesting viewing, but who
among us, mere mortals, plays chess like that? Sometimes you
wonder, I know I do, if everything has been prepared at home,
despite these comments of over-the-board inspiration. If it really is
inspiration, it takes more guts to play like this than I think 95% of
all chess players will ever have.

Let me show you one more example (See Diagram):
White: Kg1, Qd1, Ra1, Rf1, Na4, Bg2, Bg5; pawns - a3,b2,d4, f6,
f2, g3, h2
Black: Kc8, Qb5, Rd8, Rh8, Nd7, Bb7, Bf8; pawns - a7, b4, c4, c5,
e6, f7

This is currently considered the starting position of the main line in
the Botvinnik variation. Line A in chapter 2 continues as follows:
17...Ne5 (currently 17...exd5!? [line C in the book] 18 axb4 d4!? -
after 19 Bxb7+ Kxb7 20 Nc3!? dxc3 21 Qd5+ Kb6 22 Bf4 and we
have arrived Aseev-Se.Ivanov above) 18 axb4 cxb4 19 Qd4 Nc6
and now as we should have suspected...  20 dxc6! Rxd4 21 cxb7+
Kc7 22 Be3 e5 23 Nc3! bxc3 24 bxc3 Bc5 25 cxd4 Bxd4 26 Rfb1
Qc5 27 Ra6 Rb8 28 Bc1! and White won shortly, Kramnik-
Kamsky, New York PCA ct 1994. The above moves are of course
heavily annotated (in the book the above takes up about 5 pages),
and it makes not only interesting reading to follow the
development in such a complicated line, but it provides plenty of
material to analyze for yourself. Analyzing positions like the above
not only can help to increase your tactical understanding, even if
many of the lines make almost no sense, but the plentitude of
possibilities and surprising combinational continuations will help
you think in a different way when you are playing your own
games.
Let's have a look at some of Pedersen's analysis. I have picked a
random example, where he disagrees with a super-GM. The first
example is from chapter 5, line D222, comment to White's 17th
move (initial moves: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 e6 5 Bg5
dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5 hxg5 10 Bxg5 Nbd7 11 g3
Bb7 12 exf6 c5 13 d5 Bh6 14 Bxh6 Rxh6 15 Qd2 Qxf6 16 0 0 0
Kf8 ). (See Diagram):

Pedersen gives in line "e" following comment: "17 g4 Rg6 (the
only move according to Piket, but I must admit that cannot work
out why it is essential to place the rook on g6; in my opinion
17...Rh4 is perfectly viable alternative - for example, 18 dxe6
Bxh1 19 exd7 Rd8 20 Nxb5 Rxh2 leaves Black much better, or 18
Rg1, when, compared to line 'd' having the pawn on g4 is not
particularly useful) 18 Rg1...".
While I agree with Pedersen that Black is clearly better in the line
with 18 dxe6, I question whether White doesn't have anything
better. I offer the following piece of analysis to argue my point:
A) 18 Rg1 exd5 19 Nxd5 Bxd5 20 Qxd5 Rd8 (20...Nb6 21 Qxc5+
followed by 22 Bg2 is better for White) 21 Rg3!, and now it is
becoming obvious why the rook is misplaced on h4: it doesn't
contribute to the defense of the black king, e.g. 21...Rxh2 22 Rf3
Qg6 23 Rxf7+ Qxf7 24 Qd6+ Qe7 25 Qxh2, with a very clear, if
not winning advantage for White 
B) 18 f3 was my first idea, which is also quite interesting, and
now:
a) 18...exd5 19 Nxd5, and now as far as I can see, Black has two
main options:
a1) 19...Bxd5 20 Qxd5 Rd8, and here I think White has more than
one way to obtain an advantage: 21 h3 (to isolate the Black rook
on h4 and prepare f4) Rh8 22 Qd6+ Qxd6 23 Rxd6, or 21 a4!?,
and now 21...bxa4 (21...a6 is met with 22 Qd6+) 22 Bxc4 a3 23
Rd2 axb2+ 24 Kb1 a6 (to prevent Bb5) 25 Rhd1 with an
unpleasant pin on the knight d7, or 21 Qd6+!? to enter a favorable
endgame. 
a2) 19...c3!? 20 bxc3! 20 Nxc3 doesn't lead to anything good for
White, e.g. 20...Bxf3 21 Bg2 Bxd1 22 Bxa8 Bxg4. 20...Bxd5 21
Qxd5 Qxc3+ 22 Kb1 Qb4+ This may actually not be the best
move, the cool 22...Nb6 (intending to put it on a4 with mating
threats against White's lonely monarch) may lead to a perpetual
check after 23 Qd6+ Kg7 24 Qf4 Na4 25 Qg5+ Kf8 26 Rd8+ Rxd8
27 Qxd8+ Kg7 28 Qg5+. 23 Qb3 Qxb3+ Or 23...Ne5 24 Qxb4
cxb4 25 Bxb5 with a better endgame for White. 24 axb3 Ne5 25
Rd5 Re8 26 Bg2, and once again I favor White's chances in the
endgame.
b) 18...Nb6 19 Ne4 Qxf3 20 Bg2 Qxg4 21 dxe6 Bxe4 is probably
too dangerous for Black: 22 e7+ Kg7 22...Kxe7 23 Bxe4 Qxe4 24
Qd6+ Ke8 25 Rde1 or 23...Qf4 24 Bxa8 Qxd2+ 25 Rxd2 Nxa8 26
Re1+ Kf6 27 Rf2+ Kg7 28 Re7. 23 Bxe4 Qxe4 24 Qg5+ Kh7 25
Rhf1 f5 26 Rd8, and it is soon game over.

Particularly ground-breaking is his analysis of Alatortsev's 9...Nd5.
It has had a reputation as being somewhat better for White, but
anyhow, due to huge attention to the main lines (see above), some
GMs are seen trying this line out from time to time to surprise an
unsuspecting opponent. 

I remember that once Pedersen in a visit to my apartment thought
that he had repaired this line for Black, and although we didn't
manage to refute his improvement, he did later by himself. 

The main line continues with 10 Nxf7! Qxh4 11 Nxh7 Bb4 12
Rc1! c5 13 dxc5 Qg5 GM Sveshnikov ran into an analysis by
Pedersen and GM Heine Nielsen after 13...Nd7 14 Be2 Nxe5 15 0-
0 Bb7 16 Nxb5! Bxc5 17 Ng6!! 18 Rxc4 Ndf4 19 Rxc5 Rd8 20
Nd6+ Rxd6 21 Bb5+ Kf7 22 Qxd6 Qg4 23 Qc7+ Kg8 24 Qxb7
Nh3+ 25 Kh1 Nxf2+ 26 Rxf2, and Black resigned, P.H. Nielsen-
Sveshnikov, Kemerovo 1995. Pedersen suggests 13...Qe4+ 14 Qe2
Qf5 as an attempt to rehabilitate, he writes "14...Qf5!? is
interesting, with the idea of simply developing with ...Nd7. White's
queen is now misplaced on e2." But in the last line, I think White
can try the interesting and extremely provocative 15 Kd1,
unpinning the knight on c3, e.g. 15...Bxc3 16 bxc3 Kf8 17 a4,
intending 17...bxa4 18 Qc2 Kg7 19 Qxf5 exf5 20 Bxc4 or
15...Nxc3+ 16 bxc3 Bxc5 (16...Ba3 17 Rc2 should also be clearly
better for White) 17 g4! Qh7 18 Bg2, and White has a decisive
advantage. 14 Be2 Bb7 15 Bh5+ Kf8 16 Nf7! Qxg2 17 Bf3 Qg7
18 Nd8!, and White is winning, e.g. 18...Bxc3+ 19 bxc3 Qxe5+ 20
Kf1 Bc8 21 Qd2 Qg5 22 Qxg5 hxg5 23 Re1.

This book also covers the more sane 5th move alternative for
Black, 5...h6, the Moscow variation, which is normally the
preference of players like Anand, Dreev and FIDE Wch finalist
Akopian. Recently the gambit 6 Bh4!? came back into the
limelight after having been considered dubious for years. Miles
wrote an interesting article about in February in his "Miles Report"
under the header "BS?". Here Pedersen is also on the forefront of
the theory. After the initial moves: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4
Nf3 e6 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 Bg3 b5 9 Be2 Nh5, he
quotes the game Oll-Liiva, Estonian Cht 1998, which continued 10
Be5 Rg8 11 Bxb8 Rxb8 12 Ne5 Nf4 13 Nxc6 Qxb6 14 Nxb8
Nxg2+ 15 Kf1 Nf4, and now he presents his novelty 16 Bxc4!,
which wins for White, more or less on the spot. 

This book is currently the best book on the market on these
important and highly topical lines, and as a result it will secure its
place in the suitcase of the traveling chess professional for a long
time to come. For the rest of us, it may be a little far-fetched to
even contemplate learning all of these lines by heart and more
importantly understanding them. But with time, dedication and an
enormous amount of effort it should be possible, and even if you
don't succeed, you will have learned a lot about chess in the
process. Although this book is quite specialized, I can
wholeheartedly recommend it to all you dare-devils out there.

My assessment of the book: ***** 

Play the Open Games as Black by John Emms, 2000 Gambit
Publications, Figurine Algebraic Notation, 224 pp., $ 23.95.

The English GM John Emms is one of my favorite authors, and
although he yet has to cover an opening that I currently have in my
repertoire, he writes interesting books with a lot of new analysis
and original ideas, something that I believe belong in every new
opening book. Unfortunately not every author and publisher seem
to agree with me on that point.

We recently reviewed another Emms book. In the February
Checkpoint, his Easy Guide to the Ruy Lopez was covered, which
made me consider using this opening on occasion as a surprise
weapon.

In the last issue of The Kibitzer by Tim Harding at The Chess
Cafe, he commented on Play the Open Games as Black. Some of
his criticism was fully justified; even if you opt not to cover a
certain move because it inevitably transposes to another line which
you, for various reasons, have chosen not to cover, you should
mention it and explain why you decided not to cover it. I don't
blame Emms for not covering Urusov Gambit, the Frankenstein-
Dracula variation and for that matter the Italian Game or other
lines which could have been reached by transposition, and I am not
"totally amazed" or regard it as a weakness in Emms' approach to
research that he was unaware of a piece of analysis first publicized
in the Wiener Schachzeitung in 1904 or something written by
Schlechter in the 7th edition of Bilguer, because most people
simply don't have access to these sources. Normally the benefit old
sources such as these have is limited, as they usually will not
contribute much, although I may admit that rarely played lines in
the open game may constitute an exception.  

Kortchnoi once wrote that everything in chess that has been
forgotten is new. There certainly is some truth to it. In my teenage
years I used to go through my dad's old chess magazines for ideas I
could use as surprise weapons. I did get a chance to use some of
them, while other ideas were revived briefly by others, before I
had a chance to use them. One such idea was the following line: 1
e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 d6 6 Bg5 e6 7 Bb5,
which basically is quite harmless, but there are some pitfalls Black
can fall into. It being in a fairly popular opening, it was likely I
would have a chance to use it, but then I saw Yudasin (I think) use
it on a couple of occasions and then I decided to forget about this
particular line again. But that's the way chess is.  My point is that I
don't expect every chess author to look through every conceivable
source to look for references on the subject, you are writing about.
You just have to be careful how you word your statements. And let
it be an encouragement to everybody to look at their old books and
magazines, often are certain opening lines sidelined for no
apparent reason that can easily be used nowadays.

Back to the book. The subject Emms is covering is vast, but
obviously you have to make certain decisions as far as what to
include in a book such as this. Not everything can be included, and
there has to be some logic to the choice of openings. You cannot
choose to play a solid line against most choices, only to suggest a
complicated, messy and highly tactical line against another. You
have to offer alternatives that will suit most players, whether they
prefer complicated or more simple chess. 

In this respect I think Emms succeeds admirably. Against most
white lines he offers two or more alternatives, giving the
individual who is piecing his or her opening repertoire together a
chance to find the line that will work best. However, by choosing
the Two Knights' Defense as the only defense against 1 e4 e5 2
Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4, Emms has already made the choice for Black, and
it is not to everybody's taste to hand over a pawn (and in some case
two pawns) right from the opening to gain the initiative. I know a
lot of people who are only willing to hand over material (even a
puny pawn) if they can see an immediate return on their
investment. But, then again, that's what putting a repertoire
together that can fit into the limitations of 224 pages is all about.

There are certain things I don't particularly like about this book.
On several occasions he gives a line which is unsound or which
plainly appears to be good for White without putting much effort
into coming up with any attempts to improve for Black. Also seen
are examples where he suggests an improvement for White
without giving Black a clear path to follow against this
improvement. Here are few examples:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nxd4 Bc5 6 Nxc6 bxc6
7 Bd3 d6 8 0-0 Ng4 9 Bf4 g5 10 Bd2 Qf6 11 Qe2 Qe5 12 g3 a5
(See Diagram):

This is covered on page 138-139. Here he quotes a game Szuk-
Husar, Budapest 1999, which ended badly for White after 13
Nd1?!, but Emms writes: "It could be interesting to se what would
happen if White played the stronger 13 Kh1, preparing f4." It may
be interesting, but definitely not for White, who is at the receiving
end of a spanking after 13...h4!, and White's king is certainly in the
line of fire, and I seriously doubt he will survive for long, e.g. 14
f4 Qe7! 15 Be1 Ne3 with ...Bg4 to follow. Undoubtedly a move
like 13 Na4 will make a better impression than the less than
fortunate 13 Kh1??.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 5 d5 Here the main line
continues with 5...Ne7, which leads to sterile equality after 6 Nxe5
Ng6 7 Qd4 Qe7 8 Qxe4 Qxe5 9 Qxe5+ Nxe5. Emms writes in the
comment to 5...Ne7 "It should be pointed out that 5...Nb8 is also
payable, but I preferred to recommend this more popular retreat. If
Black wants to stir things up early on (but dislikes the
complications resulting from 3...d5 [which is also covered in the
book] ) then he could try the interesting piece sacrifice 5...Bc5!? 6
dxc6 Bxf2+ 7 Ke2 bxc6..."  Play continues as follows: 8 Qa4! f5
9 Nbd2 0-0 10 Nxe4 fxe4 11 Qxe4 (See Diagram):

11...Bb6!? Recommended by Sax, in Hector-P.H.Nielsen, Taastrup
1992, Black continued 11...d5 12 Qxe5! Re8 13 Qxe8+ Qxe8 14
Kxf2, and according to Emms the rook and two minor pieces
outweigh the queen and pawn. 12 Kd2!?  12 Kd1 has also been
tried, but without much success. 12...d6?! 13 Bd3 Bf5 14 Qxc6
Qf6 15 Bxf5 Qxf5 16 Re1,  and White successfully beat off the
attack in Hector-Sandstrom, Copenhagen 1991. According to
Emms 12...d5!? 13 Qxe5 Bf5 is the critical line, but he doesn't
offer any additional analysis, which I think would have been
appropriate, taking into consideration Black currently is a piece
down for a pawn. Although Black has some compensation for the
piece, I would happily take this on as White; both 14 Ba6 and 14
Be2 should do fine for White. 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6
7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bc5 11.0 0 Qd6 12.Ng4
Bxg4 13.Bxg4 h5 14.Be2 Ng4 15.g3 (See Diagram):

In his comments to this position, Emms writes: "...Black still has to
justify his play...". Well, to me this looks like a position from a
combination puzzle book, so an obvious suggestion is: 15...Nxh2!,
after 16 Kxh2 h4 White seems to have his share of problems, e.g.
17 Kg2 Bxf2 18.Rxf2 hxg3 (White seems to be able to defend
after the equally tempting 18...Qxg3+ 19.Kf1 h3 20.Qe1 h2
21.Rxh2 Qxh2 22.Bf3 ) 19.Qg1 gxf2 (also good for Black is
19...Qh6 20.Kf1 gxf2 21.Kxf2 Qf4+, and the Black initiative is
still alive) 20.Kxf2 Rh2+ 21.Ke1 Qf4, intending 22...Qh4+ and
23...Rh1.

Another example from the same line is the following: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6
bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bc5 11.c3 Qc7 12 f4 Bd6 13 d4
exd3 14 Qxd3 0-0 (See Diagram):

At this stage the main line continues with 15 Nd2, but in the
comments to this move, he offers the following: "After 15 0-0 Rd8
16 Qc2 Nd5 17 b4 Nb7, ECO gives the line 18 Na3 Nxf4 19 Bxf4
Bxe5 20 Bxe5 Qxe5 21 Nc4 as equal (Gligoric). Herbrechtsmeier-
Read, corr 1985-6 saw White attempting to improve on this
analysis with 18 Bf3, but following 18...Be6 19 Na3 Bxe5 20 fxe5
Qxe5 Black was equal in any case. It seems that the real
improvement is a move later: after 18 Na3 Nxf4, there is 19 Nxf7!,
when I see no obvious answer. Black needs something here." I
don't see why Emms bother to mention this line, if he hasn't got
any improvements ready for Black against this obvious attempt to
refute Black's play.

I don't think that the present book is the best book Emms has
made. He seems to breeze through certain lines too easily, and
some alternate lines seem to have been chosen just for the sake of
giving an alternative, when in fact, as the above example clearly
shows, it really should not be an alternative to the main line. I
think, that Emms would have done better by going into more depth
with his main lines, skip some of his alternate lines (the ones that
don't work anyway), and then also cover the Ruy Lopez (the book's
subtitle is "What to do when White avoids the Ruy Lopez"). Had
the Ruy been covered and some of the obvious flaws been
corrected, then the book would have been a must for those of us
who have gotten fed up with Sicilian race on novelties after 15+
moves. As it is, the book is very useful to a lot of people, but as I
have already noted, the reader is encouraged, as always, to analyze
the lines carefully before they are tested in important games.

My assessment of the book: ***

New In Chess - Yearbook 53, Edited by Genna Sosonko and Paul
van der Sterren, 2000 Interchess BV, Figurine Algebraic Notation,
237 pages, Price $ 28.00.

The time has come for yet another yearbook in this long series,
which originally was intended to be a direct competitor to
Informator. Time does change things around, and perhaps
Informator was too much to compete against. Gradually the New
In Chess (NIC) Yearbooks became more and more based on
theoretical surveys and articles on opening theory.

The present book consist of three parts: 
1) NIC Forum and Sosonko's Corner
2) NIC Surveys
3) NIC Service

I will look at each part separately.

Part one, NIC Forum and Sosonko's Corner is new to me, but then
again I haven't seen these books since 1995, so I haven't followed
their recent development. The NIC Forum is a place where people
can write in with various contributions, questions, answers to
questions in previous volumes and sometimes just an interesting
story pertaining a particular opening line.

The header for the NIC Forum in this volume is "Kasparov's
Influence". The lines in this Forum are somehow all linked with
openings that have or still are part of Kasparov's opening
repertoire. The first is by an old friend from my Miami days,
Henry Garcia, who has played a game on the internet. He thinks
that he has come up with an improvement on analysis by Kasparov
in a game between himself and Ivanchuk: 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Nf3
Nc6 4 g3 Bb4 5 Bg2 0-0 6 0-0 e4 7 Ng5 Bxc3 8 bxc3 Re8 9 f3
exf3 Karpov's 9...e3!? is still interesting, but I know Mr. Garcia
lost with that particular move against GM Schwartzman in 1996.
10 Nxf3 d5 11 d4 Ne4 12 Qc2 dxc4 13 Rb1 f6 14 Ne5! fxe5 15
Be4 Here Kasparov ended his analysis with the terminal sign "+-"
or game over in English. The game Lewis-Garcia now continued
with 15...Bh3 16 Bxh7+ Kh8 17 Qg6 Bxf1 18 Bg5 Re6!, and
Black is already better and ended up winning the game shortly.
Henry Garcia asks "So maybe it is not a forced loss for Black after
all?", but I have a sneaking suspicion that the obvious 17 Qg6 is a
big mistake and should have been substituted with 17 Bg6!, which
is very unpleasant for Black. For those who are interested, take a
look at it yourself, or alternatively wait for the next yearbook,
where I probably will send in my analysis.

Other letters concern topical lines in the Dragon (there is one from
Golubev!), the Najdorf, the Sozin, the exchange Slav, the French.
Some of the letters are definitely more relevant than others, but
that's part of the charm and I guess this encourages more people to
write in, than if there were only GM contributors. 

"Sosonko's Corner" is headed "Symmetry 2", so I assume that
there must have been a "Symmetry 1" at some stage, but this one
concerns the Petroff Defence. He has some thoughts about why it
is so popular nowadays. It is fairly interesting, but only fairly so!

Next follows Part Two with the Surveys of 36 Opening Variations.
Thirty six variations are a lot to cover, but the contributors are also
numerous, most notably (in no particular order) Ivanchuk,
Kramnik, Beliavsky, Dreev, Alterman, Gligoric, Krasenkow, van
der Sterren, Sosonko and Timman, to mention but a few. 

A survey normally consists of a written introduction, where the
current trends are mentioned, sometimes a novelty is highlighted
or suggested, and some pointers are given in so far as which games
are of most interest in the accompanying "Study Material" section.
In the introduction there is also a statistical graph, which in my
opinion is a waste of space, but some people may want to see how
well a certain line scores compared to another, although in most
cases you will only see a trend and nothing else. In some cases
they also show how well certain players score in a particular line.
To me this is only interesting if you prepare to play against that
particular person or if you are that person. 

Next follows one or two recent games, often annotated by one of
the players, but sometimes by the person who makes the survey.
The game is been chosen is usually a very recent game between
two GMs, but sometimes it is neither. I'm not sure why such games
make it and are deemed necessary to cover in a book such as this,
unless the game is an unknown pearl that has been hidden or
forgotten and now finally has resurfaced and changed the
evaluation of a line.

But because there are so many contributors, the surveys are very
different. Some are very interesting and useful, while at the other
end they are at best misplaced and pointless. I will illustrate this
below. 
As mentioned, there is also a "Study Material" section
accompanying each survey. These also vary in quality, some of
them contain reasonable annotations, others only game references,
others with one or two comments to the entire game, but very often
without any comments at all or what is commonly known as
database dump.

This yearbook contains 11 surveys on the Sicilian, 4 on the Nimzo-
Indian, 3 each on the French and the English Opening, 2 each on
the Caro-Kann and the King's Indian, 1 each on the Pirc, King's
Fianchetto, Scotch, Vienna Opening, King's Gambit, Van Geet
Opening, Slav Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Gruenfeld
Indian, Dutch Defense and the Reti Opening. 
Of course, it shouldn't only be lines that are highly topical that are
covered, but I am wondering why there isn't at least one on the
Petroff Defense, which everyone at the peak of Mount Chess
seems to be playing these days. 

Of the 36 surveys, the NIC people have selected three lines, which
have been put on the cover under the headline "Futuristic Flair -
Promising Lines for the Year 2000". One line is 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6
3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e6 5 Nc3 Qc7 6 Ndb5 Qb8 7 Be3 a6 8 Bb6!?
(See Diagram):

which is an unclear, but very interesting new idea by Ponomariov,
who has tried it out on at least three different occasions. In the
introduction of the survey conducted by Dutch GM van der Wiel,
he points out that currently 8...axb5 9 Nxb5 Bb4+ 10 c3 Ba5 has
been Black's preferred choice, even if White wins the black Queen
after 11 Nc7 Qxc7 Both 11...Ke7!? and 11...Kf8? lead to better
play for White 12 Bxc7 Bxc7. Van der Wiel suggests 9...Ra5!? as
an improvement for Black and then continues to give both 10 a4!?
and 10 Bc7!? as interesting moves for White. While I doubt that
White will obtain anything but a bad position with some
compensation after 10 a4 Qe5!?, I can't see the deeper meaning
behind 10 Bc7, e.g., 10...Qa8 and then 11 Bb6 is answered with
11...Rxb5, and Black has two minor pieces for a rook and excellent
play. In this case I think van der Wiel should have spent a bit more
time on the analysis of this interesting line, particularly since the
Study Material is almost without annotations.

The next futuristic line is the Cobra in the Four Knights variation
of the Sicilian: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6
6 Ndb5 Bc5!? which is an invention of the Swedish eccentric Rolf
Martens, who has invented a number of other interesting opening
lines. I will not go into detail on this line, but it is very much fun,
and definitely worth study. My only criticism of this survey is that
a game between Wahls and Hall is mentioned in the introduction,
but it is only given as an excerpt in the study material. It should
have gone without saying that the entire game should have been
featured as Wahls seems to be the strongest played who yet has
had to face the Cobra.

Last, but not least is "The Improved Maroczy", which arrives via a
hyper-accelerated Dragon (but in this book called King's
Fianchetto) move order: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 g6 3 c4 Bg7 4 d4 Qb6!?.
Jeroen Bosch has done the survey on this one, which also is one of
the better surveys in the book. The main game is Bosch-
Donaldson, Den Bosch 1999, which was won by White, but
according to Bosch Black should be okay. However, he does fail to
mention the interesting gambit suggested by Danish GM P.H.
Nielsen 5 d5!? Bxb2 6 Bxb2 Qxb2 7 Nbd2, after which Black is
way behind in development and White should be well-
compensated. 
From my own point of view, I am of course interested in the lines
that I have chronicled in recent years: the Sicilian Accelerated
Dragon and the English Opening with 1...e5. Both are covered, the
former by Dutch CC player, A.C. van der Tak, and the latter by
GM Bagirov.

Van der Tak takes a look at a line which is very critical in the
Uogele Variation: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 Nc3
Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 Bc4 0-0!? 8 Bb3 a5!? 9 f3 d5 10 Bxd5 Nxd5 11
exd5 Nb4 12 Nde2 Bf5 13 Rc1 b5 14 a3 Nxc2+ 15 Rxc2 Bxc2 16
Qxc2 b4 17 Na4 Qd5 18 Nb6 Qe6, which seems to be okay for
Black according to the annotations by Alterman to the game Liss-
Sutovsky, Tel Aviv 1999. But in my opinion, Black has far more
problems after 14 0-0 Rc8 15 Nd4 Bxd4 16 Qxd4 Nxc2 17 Rxc2
Bxc2 18 Nxb5!?, which is given in the Study Material without any
comments. People who play this variation should spend some time
on this line and if they find anything interesting, please let me
know.

The articles by Bagirov on the English Opening are on the other
hand completely useless. They don't contain any new material or
new ideas. Particularly the one on 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Nf3 f5 is a
clear miss, while he does manage to point out the critical line (4 d4
e4 5 Ng5 Bb4 6 Nh3 Nf6 7 Bd2!?), he doesn't give the most
important games and only mentions two of the seven games I gave
in my monograph, and neither of the games have been annotated.
On top of that he writes like he isn't up to speed with the newest
material on this line, e.g. he is unaware of Nunn's improvement
over Rohde-Z.Polgar, which was considered very good for White,
but thanks to Nunn, we now know that Black could have held the
balance.

There are several other uninspired surveys, which I do not care to
mention, but there are definitely too many. However, at the other
end of the scale is one on the Pirc, where Gligoric has annotated a
win of his from the Yugoslav team championship. His opponent is
Nevednichy, Gligoric is White. The game is given without
Gligoric' excellent annotations, theory students please have pen
and paper ready! 1 d4 d6 2 e4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0
6 0-0 Nc6 7 d5 Nb8 8 Re1! c6 9 a4! a5 10 Nd4! Re8 11 Bf3!
Nfd7 12 Be3 Qc7 13 h3 Ne5 14 Be2 Na6 15 f4 Nd7 16 Bf3 Nb4
17 Qd2 e5 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 Bg4! Nf6 20 Be2 e5 21 Nf3 Be6 22
fxe5 dxe5 23 Ng5 Rad8 24 Nxe6 Rxe6 25 Qc1 Kh8 26 Rf1!
Nh5?! 27 Bxh5 gxh5 28 Rf5 h4 29 Bg5 Rg8 30 Qd2! Rg6 31
Raf1 Qb6 32 Kh1 Na6 33 b3 Qd4 34 Qe1 Nb4 35 R1f2 h6 36
Bh4 Nd5 37 exd5 Qxh4 38 dxc6 Rxc6 39 Qe4! Qxe4 40 Nxe4
Rd8 41 Rf7 Rd4 42 Re2 b6 43 g4 Rb4 44 Kg2 b5 45 axb5 Rxb5
46 Ra7! Rd5 47 Ng3 Rdc5 48 c4 Rc7 49 Rxc7 Rxc7 50 Nh5 Rb7
51 Nxg7 Kxg7 52 Re5 Rxb2 53 Rxa5 Rc3 54 Rc5 Rc2+ 55 Kf3
Rc3+ 56 Ke4! Rxh3 57 Rf5! Kg6 58 Kd5 Rd3 59 Ke5 Rg3 60
Rf4 Kg5 61 Re4 Rc3 62 Kd5, and Black resigned. A skillful
display by the old master. Pure enjoyment. 

Aside from this game, the survey by Sosonko on the reversed
Gruenfeld (Reti Opening) is clearly the most interesting.

The third and final section is book reviews. Only the most
important releases of 1999 are given, and the reviews are quite
short in some cases. In fact only the book and author is mentioned
and nothing else. I have no idea why they have decided to include
book reviews in the yearbooks, when they already cover new
books in the magazine, but I guess its their choice, whether it
makes sense or not.

My overall impression of this yearbook is that the surveys are
below average and should have been more carefully selected and
should have been on more topical lines. The study material should
not have been left un-annotated as is often the case. With both of
these problems corrected, the book would have been an excellent
tool to prepare yourself to play a new idea or new line. As it is...

My assessment of the book: ***