Let the Battle Begin Modern Chess Openings by Nick de Firmian, et al, 1999 David McKay Company, Inc., English Algebraic Notation, Paperback, 734pp., $30.00 Reviewed by Glenn Budzinski The timeless classic of single volume opening reference books, Modern Chess Openings (MCO), has once again undergone a revision after nearly a decade of dormancy. GM Nick de Firmian, the 1999 U.S. Champion, remains at the helm after having co- authored the 1990 version with Walter Korn. Now in its 14th edition, MCO may be facing its stiffest challenge yet for supremacy of the one volume opening book market in the face of the impressive Nunn's Chess Openings (NCO). My approach to this review will consist primarily of a comparison between the recommendations and assessments of both works, as well as the integration of other sources as applicable. To no great surprise, given the broad scope of covering all openings in one book, MCO is a mammoth 734 pages in length. It contains an index by opening name as well as a detailed Table of Contents providing the initial moves of an opening or variation, in addition to its name. Material is segregated into five sections: Double King Pawn Openings (1 e4 e5), Semi-Open Games against the e-pawn (i.e., Alekhine's Defense, French Defense, Sicilian, etc.), Double Queen Pawn Openings (1 d4 d5), Indian Openings, and Flank Openings (i.e., English Opening, King's Indian Attack, etc.) The largest section in terms of page count is Semi-Open Games, which is about 225 pages long, or nearly one-third of the book. Each major variation or sub-variation is given a separate chapter. Thus, the Sicilian Defense consists of 39 individual chapters. Openings (i.e., Sicilian, King's Indian, etc.) are preceded by a page or two narrative. Clearly, any opening book worth the paper on which it's printed needs to offer appropriate coverage of the father of all openings, the Ruy Lopez, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5. MCO devotes 52 pages to the Ruy. Focusing on the Zaitsev Variation, which occurs after 3...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 ed4 14 cd4 Nb4 15 Bb1 c5 16 d5 Nd7 17 Ra3 (See Diagram) Now, Black can choose either 17...f5 or 17...c4, according to most sources. The king of mutli-volumed opening books, Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) C92 suggests 17...f5 18 ef5 Nf6 19 Ne4 Bd5 20 Nf6+ Qf6 21 Bd2, when Black eventually had compensation for his material deficit in Kasparov - Karpov, 1990 World Championship Game #4. NCO also cites Kasparov - Karpov through 20...Qf6 but chooses to follow Rantanen - Ojanen, 1990 Finland, which saw 21 ab5. MCO offers identical coverage through 17...f5 and includes Kasparov- Karpov in a note to White's 18th move. At this point, however, MCO recommends 18 g4 rather than 18 ef5, leading to 18...f4 19 Nb3 c4 [20 Nbd4 Nc5 - both moves omitted in the MCO analysis] 21 ab5 ab5 22 Ra8 Ba8 23 Nb5 Nbd3 24 Bd3 Nd3 25 Re3 and assesses White as holding a small advantage. Although NCO, ECO and Chess Openings 2000, the updated version of ECO on CD-ROM, all cover the 18 g4 option and evaluate the resultant positions either as unclear or even, none include MCO's 21 ab5 line. The study of opening theory is often viewed in the same light as having dental surgery: it's unclear which contains the most pain. One of the variations that probably has contributed to this perception of dread is the ultra sharp Yugoslav Attack variation of the Sicilian Dragon. In the Yugoslav, it is not uncommon to have main line theory run 20 moves or longer. Thus, after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cd4 4 Nd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2 Nc6 9 Bc4 Bd7 10 0-0-0 Rc8 11 Bb3 Ne5 12 h4 Nc4 13 Bc4 Rc4 14 h5 Nh5 15 g4 Nf6 (See Diagram), according to MCO, NCO and ECO, White has the choice of numerous moves, including 16 Nb3, 16 Nde2 and 16 Bh6. All three sources follow Khalifman's analysis after 16 Nb3 Re8 17 Bh6 Bh8 18 Bg5 Qc8 19 Rh4 Ng4 20 fg4 Bg4 21 Re1 h5, when NCO and ECO evaluate the position as unclear, but MCO, which stops after move 20, comments that Black is "in good shape." Can one interpret MCO's comment to mean the same as an unclear position? Looking at another alternative on White's 16th move, 16 Nde2, also finds a dividing line with MCO on one side and NCO and ECO on the other. For instance, MCO offers 16 Nde2 Re8 17 Bh6 Bh8 18 e5 Ng4 19 fg4 Be5 20 Bf4 Qa5 21 Be5 Qe5 22 Qh6 Qg7 with a small Black advantage as in Kerek - Schneider 1994 Budapest. On the other hand, NCO and ECO prefer 17 Bd4 Qa5 18 g5 Nh5 19 Bg7 Kg7 20 Nf4 Rec8, assessing the resultant position as unclear. Typical of most lines of the Sicilian where opening theory runs well into the middle game is Bobby Fischer's former pet variation with the White pieces, the Sozin. Here, a key choice doesn't occur until move 17: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cd4 4 Nd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bc4 e6 7 Bb3 Nc6 8 Be3 Be7 9 f4 0-0 10 0-0 Nd4 11 Bd4 b5 12 e5 de5 13 fe5 Nd7 14 Ne4 Bb7 15 Nd6 Bd6 16 ed6 Qg5. The last word in this line, at least as of early 1999, is that 17 Rf2 a5 18 Qe2 Ra6 19 Bc3 b4 20 Bd2 Qc5 21 Bf4 is best play and according to Bosch and Leitao in New In Chess Yearbook 51, "Black is in trouble in the Sozin at this moment." Praxis shows that White won from this position in Renet Sakalauskas, 1997 Koszalin and although Black managed to escape with a draw in Van der Wiel Leitao, 1999 Wijk aan Zee II, White missed several opportunities to seize the initiative. In this litmus test for currency of material, kudos to NCO for including the position through 21 Bf4 and citing Renet Sakalauskas, albeit with an unclear evaluation. De Firmian in MCO, however, only offers one of his own games, de Firmian Fishbein, 1997 Philadelphia, which saw 17 Qe2, a move viewed as dubious by Bosch because of 17...e5, played in Short Kasparov, 1993 London WCH. Infrequently seen at the master level but still relatively popular at chess clubs is the Smith-Morra Gambit, named (in part) after the late American master, Ken Smith. After 1 e4 c5, White boldly proffers a pawn with 2 d4 in an attempt to speed his development. MCO suggests 2...cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Nxc3 Nc6 5 Nf3 d6 6 Bc4 a6 7 0-0 Nf6 8 Qe2 Bg4 9 Rd1 e6 10 Bf4 Be7 11 h3 Bxf3 12 Qxf3 Qc7 13 Rac1 0-0 14 Bb3 Qb8 15 Rd2 Nd7 and Black had a small advantage in Kagas Tzermiadianos, 1994 Greece. NCO, however, gives 7 Bg5 Nf6 8 Bxf6 gxf6 9 0-0 e6 10 Nd4 when White had compensation for his pawn-minus. Finally, to further muddy the waters, ECO B21 recommends 6...e6 7 0-0 a6 8 Qe2 Be7 9 Rd1 b5 10 Bb3 Ra7 with an unclear position. Thus, three sources, each with a slightly different twist and a different evaluation of the same line. In an attempt to pour more gasoline on the fire, I decided to consult yet a fourth source, this time a treatise dedicated to this opening, Graham Burgess' Winning With the Smith-Morra Gambit, published in 1994. First, addressing MCO's suggestion, Burgess opts to forego the 1994 Kagas Tzermiadianos contest in favor of a 1977 game between K. Regan and Tisdall, which saw 8 b4 (instead of 8 Qe2) and White eventually went on to win thanks to his passed a-pawn after 8...Bg4 9 b5 Bxf3 10 gf Ne5 11 ba Nc4 12 ab Ra7 13 Nb5 Rb7 14 Qa4 Rd7 15 Qc4. ECO's Smith-Morra position after 10...Ra7 also appears in Burgess as part of the game Spain Stuart, 1991 New Zealand. Rather than unclear, the proper assessment of this line would appear to be one of equality, whether one chooses to follow Spain Stuart after 11 Be3 Rd7 12 Nb5 ab 13 Qb5 Bb7 14 Ba4 Nf6, or deviate with 14...e5 as in Tibensky Pletanek, 1990 correspondence. Both games ended in draws. Lastly, it was not surprising to find the NCO line contained in the Burgess book, especially since Burgess authored NCO's Smith-Morra section. Turning our attention to a line about which some definitive assessments have been made, is the Staunton Gambit variation of the Dutch Defense. Despite its aggressive appearance (1 d4 f5 2 e4), the Staunton is now considered to be one of White's least effective ways of combating the Dutch. According to Meulders in New In Chess Yearbook 53 from 2000, White has two principal avenues after 1 d4 f5 2 e4 fe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 (See Diagram): 4 f3, the true gambit approach and 4 Bg5, a positional attempt. Both give Black at least equality. After 4 f3, NCO offers 4...Nc6 5 d5 Ne5 6 fe4 d6 7 Bf4 Ng6 8 Bb5+ Bd7 9 Bd7+ Qd7 10 Nge2 e5 11 de6 Qe6 with equality, and 4 Bg5 Nc6 5 d5 Ne5 6 Qd4 Nf7 7 h4 c6 8 0-0-0 Qb6 9 Bf6 gf6 10 Qe4 Qf2 11 Nf3 Bh6+ with a small "plus" for Black. Meulders in NIC YB favors 4 f3 d5 5 fe4 de4 6 Bg5 Bf5 7 Bc4 Nc6 8 Nge2 and now, the game Liardet Malaniuk, 1991 Geneva, continued 8...e6 9 0-0 Na5 10 Bf6 Qf6 11 Bb3 Bd6 12 Ng3 Nb3 13 ab3 Qh4 14 d5 0-0 15 de6 Be6 16 Nce4 Be5, when Black was better and went on to win in 24 moves. As expected, MCO offers similar analysis and conclusions in its brief one column dedicated to the Staunton (from the last diagram):4 Bg5 Nc6 5 d5 Ne5 6 Qd4 Nf7 7 Bf6 ef6 8 Ne4 Be7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 Ng3 d6 11 f4 c5 "with at best even chances for Black in a sharp game", Kravcoc Vyzhmanavin, 1997 Novgorod, and 4 f3 d5 5 Bg5 Bf5 6 fe4 de4 7 Bc4 Nc6 8 Nge2 Qd7 "leaves White struggling for compensation for his pawn." A popular line in the Grunfeld Defense is the Exchange Variation, which runs 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 ed5 Nd5 5 e4 Nc3 6 bc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 c5 8 Ne2 Nc6 9 Be3 0-0 10 0-0 Bg4 11 f3 Na5 (See Diagram) At this point, the move 12 Bf7+ was all the rage after Karpov employed it against Kasparov in their 1987 World Championship match. The key game in this line according to Kuijf in New In Chess Yearbook 51 is another Kasparov contest, this time Kramnik Kasparov, 1999 Linares, which proceeded 12 Bf7+ Kf7 13 fg4 Rf1 14 Kf1 cd4 15 cd4 e5 16 d5 Nc4 17 Qd3. Now, 17...Ne3+ 18 Qe3 Qh4 19 h3 Bh6 20 Qd3 Rf8 21 Kg1 Qf2 22 Kh1 Qe3 led to a draw in Kramnik Kasparov and Kramnik Shirov (during the latter pair's 1998 match.) Although MCO prefers 14...Qd6 instead of 14...cd4, it does cover Kramnik Kasparov through move 22 and assesses the resultant positions as equal, concurring with NIC YB 51. Interestingly, both sources are upstaged by NCO, which recommends either 17...b5 or 17...Rc8, based on a suggestion by Nenashev from the notes to his 1997 Groningen game Nenashev Short, given by Kuijf in NIC YB 51. Nenashev's analysis is 17...Ne3+ 18 Qe3 Qh4 19 h3 Bh6 20 Qd3 Rf8 21 Kg1 Qf2 22 Kh2, leading to 22...Be3 23 d6 Rf3 24 Qd5 with the advantage. NCO stops with 22 Kh2! and cites White as having the better position according to Nenashev. Regardless if one chooses to agree with the assessment of 22 Kh2, the move should've at least been mentioned in a note. An opening that has seen an upsurge in popularity over the past several years is the Trompowsky, 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5. Its occasional appearance at the GM level has been mostly courtesy of English GMs such as Julian Hodgson, who has authored perhaps the definitive book to date on the opening, Secrets of the Trompowsky Volume 1. Coverage of the "Tromp" by the reference books is spotty. For instance, curiously both MCO and NCO appear to show some preference for 2...Ne4 and the unfashionable 3 Bh4 rather than 3 Bf4, despite the fact that both sources and Hodgson all agree that Black can probably maintain some advantage after 3 Bh4 c5 4 f3 g5 5 fe gh 6 e3 Bh6. On the other hand, when the Tromp appears in master games, as of late 3 Bf4 has usually been White's choice. According to Hodgson, the critical Black response is 3...c5 and if 4 f3 Qa4+ 5 c3 Nf6 6 d5 Qb6 and although Black may be able to hold his own, it would seem that he would have little chance to grab the initiative. For instance, NCO follows the game Hodgson Wells, 1996 Copenhagen, when White had a slight advantage after 7 Bc1 e6 8 c4 ed5 9 cd5 c4 10 e3 Bc5. Unfortunately, much of this seems to have been lost on MCO, which only addresses the 3 Bf4 line in a note and omits mentions of 3...c5 altogether. Other than the obvious consternation that's caused by the daunting task of studying columnar opening theory, a problem endemic to all single volume (and most multi-volume) opening reference books, there is one noteworthy omission from MCO. Missing are assessments at the end of each variation, meaning that the reader has to repeatedly search out the final note in a line to discover the evaluation. My personal solution to this annoying characteristic has been to pencil-in the assessment after variations that I consult frequently. But, the question remains as to why evaluations have not been included at the end of each line of analysis. De Firmian writes in the Introduction that "Some of my grandmaster colleagues have queried me whether MCO-14 is a book just for 'average' chess players, as it covers the whole spectrum of openings in one volume. This has definitely NOT been my aim during its production. The openings are covered in a concise fashion that is easy to follow, but the content is cutting- edge ideas that I play myself." This strikes me as a curious conclusion, since a quite plausible argument can be made that the opposite is true. While the narrative at the start of chapters and the clear indexing may have a certain appeal to players of average ability, I remain unconvinced that expert or master strength players will find a similar attraction. Based on the results of this review, certainly I would not consider MCO to be typical of a publication standing at the forefront of new ideas in opening theory. In summary, the news is mixed about MCO. With better spacing throughout, it is less of an eye examination chart and easier to read than NCO. Clear indexes, distinctly separate chapters for variations and more narrative also make MCO a more user- friendly publication (although the omission of evaluations in the main columns is a drawback). On the other hand, its nearly 200 more pages don't necessarily mean that it includes significantly more theory and notes than NCO. In fact, it is NCO that I would consider to be more suitable for the serious student of the game, given its comprehensive coverage that, at times, actually does approach that lofty ideal, "cutting-edge". It is now up to all of you to crown the king of the single volume opening reference books.