"Standard Schiller"

"Standard Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller, 1998Cardoza
Publishing, English Algebraic Notation, Softcover, 756pp., $24.95

At weekend tournaments in the U.S., one cannot help but notice
the presence of books by Eric Schiller. For better or worse,
whether for sale at the book stall or being carried by a potential
reader, Schiller seems to be everywhere.

One of Schiller's latest (and perhaps worst) works to hit the street
is his version of an openings encyclopedia, titled "Standard Chess
Openings", published in 1998. That this is a mammoth work in
terms of size, there is no doubt. It consists of 756 pages, including
262 annotated games, numerous indices, plus 15 pages of
chess-related advertisements. According to Schiller, "This book is
an introduction to every standard opening strategy in common use
in tournament and correspondence chess games. In all, more than
3,000 opening strategies are presented, and more than 250 of these
openings are given special coverage with completely annotated
games." 

Although it is unclear what is meant by "3,000 opening strategies"
and "more than 250 of these openings are given special coverage"
(there are less than 200 openings and variations listed in the Table
of Contents), undeniably the book does contain a lot of material. It
spans the range from well-known e- and d-pawn openings such as
the Ruy Lopez, King's Gambit, Queen's Gambit and King's Indian
Defense, to the more esoteric Bird's Opening and 1 Nc3.
Unfortunately, quantity does not mean quality.

Given the breadth of available openings, narrowing the selection to
fit one book of a manageable size is a mandatory task and one that
has not been performed particularly well here at all. Schiller's
criteria for selection could stand a little more objectivity. Other
than being at his whim, there appears to be few discernible reasons
for inclusion of an opening. In his words, "The openings cover a
wide range of styles and applications. In some cases, I have gone
into greater detail on an opening because I wanted to capture the
variety of positions that are often seen. In other cases, I have given
additional examples because the opening is part of one of the
recommended repertoires found in the last chapter of the book.
Finally, a few openings get a little special attention just because I
happen to know more about them from my own personal
experience" (page 14). 

Schiller's definition of a "standard chess opening" is also of little
help in determining the selection. According to him, a "standard"
opening is defined "as applying to any opening which an active
chessplayer might reasonably expect to encounter
frequently."(page 14) But, then again, there really is no need to
worry about definitions and selection criteria with this book, since
Schiller discusses virtually every opening that one might encounter
in an entire lifetime of chess. His strategy might best be
summarized by the philosophy, "Why choose, when you can
include everything?"

Let us look at a few "standard" openings. A characteristic Ruy line
occurs after 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, which
is variation C92 from the 1997 edition of ECO Volume C. At this
point, Schiller's Game #60, Anand-Kamsky, 1995 Las Palmas
(match), continues 12 a4 h6 13 Bc2 exd4 14 cxd4 Nb4 15 Bb1 g6
16 Ra3 Bg7. Black eventually won on time, although White was
probably better. Schiller notes after 16...Bg7 that 16...Qd7 allowed
Black "to survive" in Wolff-Ivanov, 1995 US Champ., while ECO
analyzes 16...ba4 as leading to a White advantage in
Dvojris-Romanov, 1983 USSR. Regardless of which alternative is
chosen, White appears to be better after 16 moves. 

Returning to Anand-Kamsky, Schiller's annotation of 17 e5 with an
"!" appears to coincide with ECO. The only alternatives suggested
by ECO are 17 Nh2 and 17 Rae3, both of which lead to positions
of unclear equality. On the other hand, 17 e5 de5 18 de5 Nh5 19
ab5 ab5 20 Qb3 c5 21 Ne4 Be5 22 Nc5 Bf3 23 Qf3 gives White a
solid "plus", regardless if one finishes with 23...Ra3 of
Anand-Kamsky or ECO's 23...Rc8. Thus, at least in these
particular lines, Schiller is holding his own.

Schiller's Game #62 is Karpov-Spassky, 1973 USSR team Champ.,
another Ruy similar to the aforementioned. This 25-year old game
is in accord with ECO through 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 Nb8 10 d3 Bb7 11
Nbd2 Nbd7 12 Nf1 Re8 13 Ng3 Nc5 14 Bc2 Bf8 15 b4 Ncd7 16
d4. Karpov-Spassky continued 16...h6 and White won in 34
moves. ECO variation C94, however, omits 16...h6 in favor of an
immediate 16...g6, leading to equality according to Matanovic,
after 17 a4 Bg7 18 Bd3 ba4 19 de5 Ne5 20 Ne5 Re5. Schiller
makes no mention of the Matanovic analysis. 

Things begin to unravel for Schiller with the sharp Wilkes-Barre or
Traxler Variation of the Two Knights' Defense, which commences
after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5. Schiller illustrates
this line through Game #40, a recent (1896!) postal contest
between Mikista and Traxler, an 18-move miniature won by Black.
Unfortunately, this game was hardly a model of good play for
White. Although 5 Nf7 is viable (ECO assesses the line as equal
after 5...Bf2 6 Kf1 Qe7 7 Nh8 d5 8 ed5 Nd4 9 d6 Qd6 10 Nf7 Qc5
11 d3 e4 12 c3 Bh4), it has long been settled that White's best
choice is 5 Bf7 Ke7 and now either 6 Bb3 or Bd5 with some
advantage, depending on the source one reads. Since Schiller even
cites 5 Bf7 as "superior" in his notes, why mislead readers by
illustrating the entire variation with a 100-year-old game based on
inferior play?

A popular line against the King's Gambit is the "Fischer Defense"
devised, of course, by Bobby Fischer in response to a loss to Boris
Spassky. Schiller looks at this line in Arnason-Larsen from 1978
Reykjavik, won by Larsen. The game and its associated comments
are comparable to ECO line C38, reached by transposition after 1
e4 e5 2 f4 ef4 3 Nf3 d6 4 Bc4 h6 5 d4 g5 6 0-0 Bg7 7 g3. ECO
suggests 7 c3 as a better option for White, with an equal position
resulting after 7...Nc3 8 g3 g4 9 Nh4 f3 10 Nd2 Nf6 11 Nf5 Bf5 12
ef5 0-0 13 Bd3 d5. Arnason-Larsen continued 7 g3 Nc6 8 gf4 g4 9
d5 gf3 10 dc6 and one cannot quibble with Schiller's obvious
assessment "A typical messy position in the Fischer Defense!"
(page 77).

More questionable is Schiller's analysis of the Vienna Game, 1 e4
e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Ne4 and 3 f4 d5. In the fabled
"Frankenstein-Dracula" variation after 3 Bc4 Ne4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5
Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nc7+ Kd8 10 Na8 b6, he
writes "...Now White has eight different plans. Most authorities
agree that advancing the d-pawn to d3 is best"(page 39). This is
illustrated by the 1985 postal game Wybe-Bryson, won by Black.
Just who the authorities are who consider 11 d3 to be White's best
move is anyone's guess, however. For example, ECO, perhaps the
premier opening authority, recommends 11 Nb6 ab6 12 Qf3 Bb7
13 d3 Nd4 14 Qh3 e4 15 Be3 ed3 16 0-0-0 Nc2 17 Bb6 Ke8 18
Qd3 Bh6 19 Kb1 Be4 with a slight White advantage.

Outright misleading is Schiller's analysis of the Vienna proper in
Game #8, which begins 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5. After 4 fe5 Ne4
5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Qe2, he follows another miniature,
Spielmann-Flamberg, 1914 Mannheim, won by White after
6...Nc5. The correct move according to ECO, omitted by Schiller
altogether, is 6...Nc3, which led to equality in Duric-Vojinovic,
1993 Yugoslavia, after 7 dc3 Nc6 8 Bf4 Qd7 9 Qe3 a6 10 0-0-0
0-0-0 11 Bc4 Be6 12 Bb3 Na5 13 c4 Nb3 14 ab3 Qc6.

More sins of omission occur in Schiller's analysis of the Philidor
Defense. Although he may be correct that one of the few, viable
lines for Black occurs after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 ed4 4 Nd4g6,
which he illustrates through inclusion of game #11, Hazai-Sax,
1971 Hungary, there is no discussion at all of the White alternative,
4 Qd4. According to ECO, White gets a small advantage after 4
Qd4 a6 5 Bf4 Nc6 6 Qd2 Nf6 7 Nc3 Be7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 Bd3 Nd7 10
Nd5 Nc5. In fact, even after 4 Nd4 g6 5 Nc3 Bg7 of Hazai-Sax,
ECO assesses a small advantage to White,thanks to 6 h4 (another
Schiller miss) 6...Nf6 7 Bg5 h6 8 Bf4 Nc6 9 Nb3 Qe7 10 Qe2 a5
11 a4 0-0 12 0-0-0 Re8 13 f3 Nb4 14 Qd2 h5 15 Bg5,
Istratescu-Barbero, 1993 Martigny. 

Equally inadequate is the treatment accorded to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6
3 d4 ed4 4 Bc4 Bc5 5 c3,identified by Schiller as the "Haxo
Gambit". (The rest of us would consider this line to be a variation
of the Scotch or Goring Gambits.) The line is analyzed through the
1914 game Schlechter-Nyholm, which saw 5...d6 6 b4 Bb6 7 a4 a5
8 b5 Qe7 9 0-0 and, quoting Schiller,"White is better developed
with control of the center and more space."(page 100) White won.
In keeping with the overall poor quality of this book, it is not
surprising that omitted from the notes is any mention of Black's
logical and obvious 5th move alternative,5...Nf6, suggested by
ECO as leading to approximate equality after 6 e5 d5 7 Bb5 Ne4 8
cd4 Bb6 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Be3 Bg4 11 Qc2 Bf3 12 gf3 Ng5 13 Bc6
bc6.

One of opening theory's most heavily analyzed lines is the Sicilian
Dragon. In the double-edged Yugoslav Attack, it is not uncommon
for theory to exceed 20 moves in depth. Schiller covers one of the
main lines through game #89, Karpov-Korchnoi, from their 1974
Moscow Candidates' Match. A key position is reached after 15
moves: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4cd4 4 Nd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 >6 Be3 Bg7
7 f3 Nc6 8 Qd2 0-0 9 Bc4 Bd7 10 h4 Rc8 11 Bb3 Ne5 12 0-0-0
Nc4 13 Bc4 Rc4 14 h5 Nh5 15 g4 Nf6. There are numerous White
alternatives at this point. Schiller opts to continue with the
Karpov-Korchnoi encounter, which saw 16 Nde2 Qa5 17 Bh6 Bh6
18 Qh6 Rfc8 19 Rd3 and White won in 30 moves. 

As usual, things are not as simple as Schiller would have you
believe. There is a lot going on here, most of which does not seem
to have made it into the book. First, while ultimately White may be
better after 16 Nde2 if Black answers with 16...Qa5, Schiller
doesn't address what ECO considers to be Black's best 16th move,
16...Re8, which led to an unclear position in Klovans- Beliavsky,
1977 USSR. (ECO line B78 considers 16...Qa5 to be dubious.)
Secondly, after 17 Bh6 Bh6 of Karpov-Korchnoi, Schiller notes
that 17...Bh8 resulted in an exchange sacrifice and a win for Black
in the 1974 postal game Almrot-Gernud, leading the reader to
believe that this may be a better alternative for Black.
Unfortunately, after 17...Bh8 18 Bf8 Kf8, Schiller fails to mention
the improvement 19 Qe3!, given by ECO and also Gufeld and
Stetsko in "The Complete Dragon" (See the review in The Chess
Cafe Archives), which turns 17...Bh8 in White's favor. But, even if
Black plays 16...Qa5, he may still be okay after 17 Bh6 Bh6 18
Qh6 Rfc8 19 Rd3 Be6, instead of 19...R4c5 of Karpov-Korchnoi.
While Schiller does recognize ...R4c5 as a mistake, indicating
...Be6 as the correct move, he remains consistent with his overall
spotty effort as he stops short of providing the complete line which
leads to Black equality, only offering 19...Be6 20 g5 Nh5 21 Ng3
Qe5, with the comment that "White's attacking chances must be
preferred." (page 256) Gufeld and Stetsko carry the variation
through to its conclusion with either 22 Rh5 gh5 23 Nh5 Rc3 24
bc3 Rc3 draw, in Bangiev-Nesis 1974-6 corr., or 22 Nh5 gh5 23
Qh5 Kf8 24 Qh2 Qg5 25 f4 Qf6 26 f5 Rc3 27 bc3 Ba2 28 Qh7
Ke8, again with a draw, Nagornov-Nesis, 1976-8 corres. The only
simple answer here is the moral of the story: if one chooses to
cover a deeply theoretical line like the Dragon, then one must be
prepared to cover its complexities in as accurate a manner as
possible. Once again the reader is short-changed. 

On the d-pawn side, the Queen's Gambit Accepted is illustrated
through three games (#s 139, 140 and 141): Zukertort-Steinitz,
from their 1886 World Championship match (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dc4 5 e3 c5); Gligoric-Portisch, 1971 Pula (1 d4 d5
2 c4 dc4 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Bc4 c5) and Alekhine-Book, 1938
Margate (same opening moves as Gligoric-Portisch). However, the
"modern interpretation of the opening", so termed by Neishtadt in
his 1997 treatise "Queen's Gambit Accepted", is barely considered
at all. White's early e2-e4, which can occur after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dc4 3
e4 or 3 Nf3 a6 4 e4, is mentioned only twice - once in
Gligoric-Portisch and once in Zukertort-Steinitz, with no analysis
offered in either case. 

 In the Benoni after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 ed5 5 cd5 d6 6
e4 g6 7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+, Schiller writes "This is the Taimanov
Variation, currently the most feared weapon in White's arsenal. In
fact, many players have given up on the Modern Benoni because of
it, though there are a few die-hards, notably English Grandmaster
David Norwood, who stick by it" (page 639). We are now at a
major crossroads in the opening. Here, Black can choose either
8...Nfd7 or 8...Nbd7. Game #233 is Borik-Hort, 1982 Bundesliga,
during which Black chose 8...Nfd7 and went on to win. (There is
more to be said about this game later.) Commenting on 8...Nbd7,
Schiller again cites Norwood: "This alternative blocking move has
been in the workshop of Norwood and Topalov for a while, but the
refurbishing is far from convincing. The current main line is: 9.e5
dxe5; 10.fxe5 Nh5; 11.e6! Qh4+ 12.g3 Nxg3; 13.hxg3
Qxh1;14.Be3 Bxc3+; 15.bxc3 a6;16.exd7+ Bxd7; 17.Bxd7+ Kxd7
and now Ivan Sokolov greeted Topalov with 18.Qb3 at the 1996
Wijk aan Zee tournament, and it is hard to see how Black can
survive" (page 640). Since David Norwood can't respond for
himself in this review, this writer will let his words from his 1994
book "The Modern Benoni" speak for him. Following Schiller's
line through 15 bxc3, Norwood continues with 15...Qe4 16 Qf3
Qxf3 17 Nxf3 fxe6 18 dxe6 0-0 and adds that this "has been tried
for Black, but my feeling is that 19 Ng5! should be winning for
White." Perhaps Norwood tried to "refurbish" this line elsewhere,
but his book "The Modern Benoni" does not lead one to believe
that he is any great fan of the 8...Nbd7 variation.

Returning to 8...Nfd7 of Borik-Hort, one can't help but wonder
why Schiller remained silent after Borik's 9 Be2 since, according to
Norwood, 9 a4 "is the best move for White" in this position.
Omitting 9 a4 meant that Schiller also missed the opportunity to
include the key game Kasparov-Nunn from the 1982 Lucerne
Olympiad (the same year as Borik-Hort) which, writes
Norwood,"has caused many players to abandon the Benoni
completely." 

Not only should Schiller's analysis be viewed with due caution, but
his commentary also frequently requires the reader to apply a
healthy dose of skepticism. One case in point: the London System
(1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 Bf4), which he claims "is often chosen by
players who want to avoid theory in the opening and just play
chess or those who are simply too lazy to learn >real openings!"
(page 501). However, there are at least a few people who hold a
different view of the London. One of those is certainly GM Glenn
Flear, editor of the 1998 "Trends in the London System Vol. 2".
Quoting Flear, "The London System is relatively simple to play
and requires virtually no theoretical knowledge. An excellent
choice for those players who just want to obtain a reasonable
position out of the opening, just delaying the real struggle to the
middlegame." One hastens to add that another reason for the
London's popularity has nothing to do with laziness but a lot to do
with pragmatism. Most of us non-professional chess players are
barely able to find the time to play in an occasional tournament,
never mind having the extra time needed to learn all of the
complexities of the Sicilian or King's Indian Defenses. Then there
are the bizarre names assigned by Schiller to many of the openings
and variations. Some of the more unusual ones include 1 e4 e5 2
Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4 Bc5, the "Haxo Gambit"; 1 e4 e5 2 f4
exf4 3 Nf3 Ne7 is the "Bonch-Osmolovsky Defense"; the
"Kangaroo Defense" is 1 d4 e6 2 c4 Bb4+; and 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7
with ...b6 and ...Bb7 to follow, is called the "Mongredien
Defense". 

"Standard Chess Openings" is, at its best, sloppy and, at its worst,
a study in self-contradictions and inexcusable inconsistencies. If
there is one thing worse than sending an unarmed man into battle,
it is sending forth a misinformed man. Such will be the fate at the
chessboard of anyone who blindly follows many of Schiller's ideas
contained in this book. One is tempted to suggest that "Standard
Chess Openings" contain a warning affixed to its cover: Danger -
This book may be hazardous to your rating!

This is another Schiller tragic-comedy, aimed at inexperienced
players who are, perhaps, unfortunately at the point in their chess
development where they are most vulnerable. This is a book that
goes beyond bad - "Standard Chess Openings" has to be
considered a book that can do more harm than good.