Histtry

Three times: Tai manov ( 2x Botvinnik, Karpov), Kramnik (3x Kasparov).

Twice: Blackbume

(2x Lasker), Fine (2x Alekhine), Lupi (2x Alekhine), Keres (2x Botvinnik), Smyslov (2x Botvinnik) , Gligoric (2x Petrosyan), E. Torre (2x Karpov), Seirawan ( l x Karpov, lx Kasparov), Anand (2x Kasparov), Lautier (2x Kasparov), Topalov (2x Kasparov).

Among the players who never beat a reigning world champion, there are three world champions. Even if their eminences offered them fewer chances than ordinary players, it is still surprising to see who they are: Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov. Of course most regicides are well known, sometimes even historic games, but here are three relatively obscure ones. The first cannot even be found in databases. It was played in a small national tournament in the Netherlands, a few months before the death of the 5 1 -year old White player. In the prewar years, Van Hoorn was a player of some national prominence, coming third in the 1 933 Dutch championship, the only time he competed, behind Euwe and Van den B osch.

Van Hoorn-Euwe, Leiden, 1937: 1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.4)f3 4)f6 4.cxdS cxdS S.4)c3 4)c6 6.Af4 AfS 7.\!tb3 4)aS 8.\!ta4+ Jl,d7 9."tt c 2 J;lc8 10.e3 bS 1 1.\!td1 4)c4 12.Axc4 bxc4 According to Van Hoorn, B lack is now better. 13.4)eS e6 14.0-0 Ab4 But here, he should have been more careful with

e7,

followed by

0-0.

In the following ten moves, a pattern is visible that

logically also shows in other losses of world champions against lesser gods : the champion avoids a draw, underestimates his opponent, and goes too far in his

1S.Jl.gS i\'aS 16.Axf6 gxf6 17.4) xd7 xd7 18. i\'hS e7 19.4)e2 J;tb8 20.g3 Ad2 21.J;lfb1 J;tb6 22.4)f4 J;thb8 Black still had an easy draw with 22 . . . c3 23.bxc3 -'l.xc3 24. xb6 B ut he thinks the passed c pawn that he will create offers good chances. 23.\!txh7 x b2 24.J;lxb2 J;lxb2
efforts to win. Van Hoorn: "Almost all spectators thought White was losing. In reality it is White who has the initiative now."

c3 28.""ttf8+ c6 29.4)eS+ drawing chances. 29 ... b6?

Even now,

2S.4)g6+ d6 26:l;t xf7 \!tc7 27:l;t xf6 b7 would still have given Black

308

History

30.d3 Based on 30 . . . c2 3 1 ..)xb2 cl 'lii" + 3 2 . f1 xcl 'li\"xc l + 33.'g2 'li\"xb2 34.-lii"bB+ . That does not keep Black from achieving his goal, which is to win a
piece for his passed pawn, but White will have grabbed too many pawns in the meantime. 30 a5 3V"lg2 b5 32.a4 b3 33.c5 1;1b2 34. xe6 it'c6
..

35.d8+ f/]a7 36.xa5+ a6 37.c5+ it'b6 38.e7+ b7 39.c5+ b6 40.e7+ b7 41.xb7+ xb7 42.c5 b8 43.d3 c2 44.f/lf3 bl 45.a2 cl 46. xcl A xel and White has five pawns for a badly
placed Bishop; Black resigned. The only game that a reigning world champion lost, that cannot be found, is the first of Alekhine's two losses against the Portuguese champion Lupi. This elusive game was played in a strange tournament in December 1 945, in Caceres, Spain - perhaps so strange that the game does not belong in my list. Only Alekhine and Lupi were normal contestants in that tournament; the other four were pairs of consulting players. After he also conceded a draw against one of the pairs, Alekhine only came second behind Lupi. The stature of that tournament is further illustrated by the fact that when Pablo Moran, the author of Agon(a de un genio, where I found these facts, tried to find the games of that tournament, the surviving participants told him they had not kept the scores. A month later, in January 1 946, Alekhine played a 4-game match against Lupi. The first game was drawn; this is the second game.

Lupi-Alekhine, Estorial l946: l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c3 dxe4 4. xe4 f6 5 ..Q.d3 bd7 6.{3 xe4 7. .Q.xe4 f6 8.Jl.d3 b6 9.0-0 Jl.e7 10.e5 Jl.d7 ll.c3 0-0 12.Ae3 .Q.e8 13.e2 c5 14.fdl d5 15.dxc5 'ltlc7 16.{3 bxc5 17.g5 g6 18.-'l.cl d8 19 . .Q.c4 .Q.f6 20.{3 -'l.g7 21. h3 h6 22.{3

22 xc3? B ased on an oversight. 23.xd8 xd8 24.bxc3 Jl.xc3 25.bl 'ltldl+ 26.Jl,fl 'ltlc2 Seems to win back the piece, but: 27.'lflxh6 Guarding the Bishop and at the same time threatening mate with .)g 5 . 27 Jl,g7 28. h3 Perhaps Alekhine had overlooked that even now, 'lii" x bl is met by 29 .)g5 and mate. The rest is indeed agony. 28 g5 29.d2 xa2 30 . .Q.d3 f5 31.-'l.c4 it'c2 32.j}, xe6+ .Q.f7 33 .Q.xf5 ttdl+ 34.fl h5 35. xh5 .Q.xh5 36 .Q.e6+ f/lh7 37.1;1b7 e8 38.-'lf5+ f/Jg8 39.J}.xg5 el 40.g4 Jl,e8
.. . . ..

309

Hl!i'ltlry

41 . .Q.d2 e2 42 . .Q.d3 g xd2 43 .i xd2 aS 44 .Q.c4+ h7 4S . .i b3 a4 46 .i xcS h6 47.gS+ g6 48.Ad3+ and Black resigned. I V2-Y2 for Lupi , but

Alekhine won the last two games, and the match, with 2Y2- l Y2. The quickest regicide was Liberzon-Petrosyan, Moscow 1964: l.e4 e6 2.d4

dS 3.4)c3 Ab4 4.es .ie7 s.a3 .Q.xc3+ 6.bxc3 cS 7.'/tg4 .ig6 8.h4 hS 9.t\'g3 t\'aS 10 .Q.d2 .ic6 11 .Q.d3 4)ce7 12.dxcS t\' xcS 13.4){3 Ad7 14.0-0

14 -'l.bS?? A terrible blunder. 15 .Q.e3 and Black resigned. Against a lesser opponent, that would have been early. After 1 5 . . . d4 16.cxd4, White "has the pawn and the compensation," as Roman Dzindzichashvili used to say, but Black could struggle. Surprisingly, he could even have struggled after 1 5 . . . 'ik6:
..

1 6 . -tld4 .ilxd3 1 7 . -tlxc6 <tlf5 1 8 . g5 Axfl 1 9 . -tld4 <tlxd4 2 0 . cxd4 Aa6 etc. and White still has some work t o do. Understandably, Petrosyan did
not fancy being subjected to that kind of work, and was probably too disgusted anyway. (October 2000)

3 10

Reviews

31 1

Reviews

Talking Back to Nimzowitsch

Larry Tapper
Larry T apper (born 1949) has been a USCF master since the early 1970s. He has won an interesting assortment of championships: State of Connecticut ( 1970), North Carolina Open ( 1996, 1 999, 2000), and in 1975 a probably unique combination, Northern Illinois and Guatemala, the latter an invitational tournament sponsored " by the makers of a phosphorus-laced soft drink which was supposed to wake up your brain. " It seems to have worked; he has contributed relatively seldom to the ChessCafe, but when he does his reviews are always well-written and insightful. Secrets ofModern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch, by John Watson,
Gambit Press 1 998, Softcover, Figurine Algebraic Notation, 272 pp., $24.95. Nowadays it's not unusual for grandmasters to make moves that look like misprints. Consider some of the openings we' ve been seeing lately. World-class players have been experimenting with lines like 1. c4 f6 2. c3 e6 3 . .\f3 Ab4 4. g4!? and 1 . d4 .\f6 2 . c4 g6 3 . c3 d5 4 . cxd5 .\xd5 5 . .\a4!?. GM Kozul has tried 1. e4 c5 2 . .\f3 4:Jc6 3 . Ab5 .\a5. In this year ' s Hungarian championship G M Varga played 1. e4 e5 2 . .\f3 'fle7 and won. What's going on here? Hasn't anyone warned these players about loose flank pawns or knights on the rim? Has the lore of our grandfathers become a standing joke among today's grandmasters? In a way, yes, says John Watson in his remarkable book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. Watson's thesis, put more soberly, is that chess strategy has changed significantly over the last 60 years or so, but in many areas the customary rhetoric has yet to catch up. Of course control of the center still matters; doubled pawns can still be weak; rooks still belong on open files; but such familiar maxims do not begin to do justice to the complex tactical struggles that characterize modem grandmaster practice. What is new about Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy is not Watson's main point, which has been stated casually by many writers, but rather the extraordinary energy and thoroughness he brings to the subject. In preparing this book the author has reviewed dozens of books on strategy and scoured his databases for thousands of examples and statistics. The result is a massive and many-layered work, 272 double-column pages packed with interesting content from start to finish. The author of Secrets is a genial and scholarly IM who has been a steady source of high-quality analysis over the last 20 years. His best-known books are Play

312

Review. tht French and a path-breaking four-volume series on the English Opening. Web surfers may know him mainly through the book reviews he's been writing recently for The Week In Chess.
It is a big jump from opening theory to a general treatise on strategy, but readers who are familiar with Watson's work will recognize a few common threads. As theoreticians go, Watson has a distinctively philosophical, truth-seeking bent, which has always led him to promote a skeptical attitude toward facile generalizations. When a writer discovers that Line A is doing better in GM practice than Line B, it's usually easy enough to come up with some plausible ex post facto explanation. But Watson reminds us that the real truth is in the variations. He knows as well as anybody that tomorrow someone will find a tactical resource on move 1 5 , suddenly Line A won't look so good any more, and writers will have to scramble for words to explain why that bishop is better placed on e2 than d3, after all. Watson's long-held view that actions speak louder than words turns out to be a central theme in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. In this book he argues that the skeptical lessons we learn from opening theory apply with equal force to many widely accepted but superficial generalizations about middlegame play. So according to Watson, the modernist revolution is not a matter of new dogmas replacing old ones, which was essentially what happened when Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch crossed pens back in the 1 920s. The most successful modem players are pragmatists who feel free to apply or ignore strategic principles as specific circumstances warrant. In fact Watson goes so far as to speculate that ''the days of easily expressible guidelines are over. Thus, there is very little possibility that players or researchers will ever undertake to extend the project begun by Steinitz, Tarrasch, and Nimzowitsch, that is, the codification of chess principles on a large scale." Watson is not the first writer to cast doubt on the usefulness of systematic codification, but he may be the first to make this skeptical argument and then go on to write a big, comprehensive book on modem strategy anyway ! This has to be a tricky undertaking, and there must have been times in the course of this project when the author felt he was writing on sand. For the purposes of this book, the 'modem' era begins with the death of Nimzowitsch in 1 935; but as Watson admits, nothing particularly revolutionary happened that year. The strategic themes selected are based on the chapters in My System; but again, these choices are somewhat arbitrary and a different selection might have done as well. Finally, the secret of modem strategy is that there is no secret, at least none that any writer is ever likely to put into words systematically. Fortunately there's no need to dwell on these paradoxes. The point of this book is not to promote any particular definition of modernity, but rather to show specifically how modem players handle various types of positions. So Watson
3 13

lets the concre t e e x mnples do

must of t he tnl k i n g . mul the end resu l t that may have been difficult to write, but is remarkably easy to read.

is

book

Secrets of Modem Chess Strategy is divided into two parts. Part .I (entitled
"The Refinement of Traditional Theory") outlines Nimzowitschian strategic principles and shows how modem players depart from them, sometimes subtly and sometimes radically. Part 2 ("New Ideas and the Modem Revolution") ventures into deeper waters, exploring some strategic themes that would rarely have occurred to players before the modem era. There is really no hard and fast distinction between Part 1 and Part 2 topics, but the structure works well enough to hang the examples on. Early in Part 1 the author unveils a research instrument that gives this book a special flavor: the use of advanced ChessBase features to assemble data on the kinds of positions favored by different players in different eras. This serves two broad purposes: to verify claims about the evolution of style, and to find out what results have actually been achieved over the years with supposed advantages such as a bishop-pair or a superior pawn structure. More often than not, the historical searches yield interesting surprises. In the Semi-Tarrasch, for example, White is at a crossroads after 1 . d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3.

c3 f6 4 . f3 c5 5. cxd5 x d 5 .

Would you have guessed that i n this position, the pre-modem masters hardly ever dared to play 6. e4? For similar reasons, the Griinfeld Exchange Variation seems also to have fallen into long periods of relative neglect. Watson suggests that such widespread timidity about seizing the center tended to play into the hands of the hypermodemists. Today's masters are more willing to take either side of this old debate and let the chips fall where they may. Also interesting is Watson's statistical analysis of outcomes, which he takes a few steps further than the winning percentage charts we see in opening surveys like the NIC Yearbooks. For example, everyone "knows" that in the endgame it's better to have a queen and knight than a queen and bishop; but statistics show that the truth of this generalization is by no means clear. In general the knight does have a very small edge, which seems to disappear when we add a
3 14

Reviews

and in uny event there are numerous practical cases in which the is better for one reason or another, initiative or king safety or the lack of convenient squares for the knight.
rook or two;
hi shop

Stcrets of Modern Chess Strategy covers a few dozen strategic themes, each
one illuminated by a series of well-chosen examples. Throughout the book Watson remains true to his skeptical credo by providing a wealth of instructive detail but very few neat and firm conclusions. For example, there's a nice exposition of how Nimzowitsch came to overestimate the weakness of the isolated queen's pawn, and how modem players handle IQP positions arising from openings such as the Queen's Gambit Accepted and the Tarrasch French. Readers hoping for a final assessment will have to look elsewhere, however. According to Watson, "no one cares any more whether it's good or bad to have an isolated queen's pawn; they just care about how good or bad a particular pawn is in a particular position."

The author comes closest to actually spelling out new strategic principles in his discussion of minor piece play, which takes up five full chapters. His sources for this topic are Steve Mayer's book Bishop versus Knight: The V erdict; Watson's own considerable experience analyzing openings like the Chigorin and the Nimzo-Indian; and as usual, lots of recent games. The minor piece chapters provide the starkest contrast between Watson' s approach and the standard treatment one finds i n many traditional primers. We' ve all read books explaining why bishops are better than knights: in the typical example, a bishop on c5 dominates a knight on c8, there are mobile pawns on both wings, and Black watches helplessly as he's slowly pushed off the board. Then we have the typical counter-example, which the author constructs by putting the knight on c5 and the bishop on c8 hemmed in by fixed central pawns. The problem, of course, is that few games between evenly matched players actually turn out this way, and when they do, there' s nothing particularly illuminating to say about them. As GM Mihai Suba puts it, "one plays, the other applauds." So in contrast to the usual parade of one-sided examples, Watson presents several minor piece positions in which the right plans for both sides aren't visually obvious. TYpically the question is what the player with the extra knight can do to counteract the long-term superiority of the bishop-pair. Most traditional texts recommend aiming for closed, static positions; but Watson argues persuasively that this strategy often backfi res and mai ntaining the initiative is usually far more important. A case in point is the Chigorin variation 1 . d4 d5 2. c4 4:1c6 3 . <\f3 -'tg4 4 . cxd5 Axf3 S . xf3 i't x d 5 6. e 3 .

3 15

Here 6 . . . e5, quickly opening lines, has fared better in practice than 6... e6, even though the more passive move seems more in accord with classic Nimzowitschian principles. Considering all the research apparatus and high seriousness of purpose, it's
amazing how much fun this book is to read. The author 's irrepressible enthusiasm

makes the driest subjects come alive. Throughout the book Watson reminds us that he is a passionate fan as well as an analyst: a good example is his warm tribute to Petrosian's artistry in the section on positional exchange sacrifices. And of course there's always the slightly wicked pleasure of watching the world's best players break all the rules. At times Secrets reads like the life story of a revolutionary : in Part 1 we find the rebellious young scholar playing little pranks on his stuffy professors, and sure enough, by the time we get to Part 2 he 's grown up to be a wild-eyed, bomb-throwing anarchist. If anarchic thrills are what you're after, the high point of the book may be Watson's presentation of the following avant-garde miniature: Suba-Sax, Hastings 1 993/4:

1 . c4 c5 2 . <tlf3 <tlf6 3. <tlc3 d5 4. cxd5 <tlxd5 5. e4 4Jb4 6. Ac4 <tld3 + 7. e2 <tlf4 + 8. fl <tle6

9. <tle5!? d6 10. f4 4Jc6 1 1 . '1Wa4 4Jd8 1 2 . d4! cxd4 1 3 . 4Jb5 '1Wb8 1 4 . xd4 f6 1 5 . <tldxc6 bxc6 1 6 . 1U7+! Resigns.
Watson insists that if you want to understand this game, you need to forget what Tarrasch or Nimzowitsch might say and immerse yourself completely in concrete
316

Reviews
variations. The fi rst eight moves are strange enough: "White dances around with his king and ignores weaknesses, whereas Black moves the same knight for the sixth time, when no other piece has been touched ! " But the real point of Watson's analysis emerges when we take a look at the alternatives on move 9. This position actually occurred in a few master games in the 1 930s and 1 940s, back in the days when people automatically played sensible-looking moves like 9. d3 or 9. g3. Since then, however, high-level play has focused entirely on Suba's choice 9. 4Je5 and the even woolier alternatives 9. b4 and 9. h4. There is no simple explanation for this, it's just a long story that has more to do with trial and error than with any application of general principles. "In modem chess," the author concludes, ''the analysis and work come first, and the supporting verbiage comes later (if at all) for the sake of closure, or more often, for the sake of the popular audience."
Watson's thoroughgoing distrust of verbiage makes him reluctant to promote

Secrets as an instructional book. If the author has no grand system to offer, at

least he can help us clear out the cobwebs that have gathered in the musty comers of classical theory. As Watson says in the introduction, he just wants to get the reader to "think freshly about modem chess." Modest as this goal may seem, the truth is that for most of us, being able to think freshly about modem chess would be no small accomplishment. In a way this is just what aspiring players in the West have been trying to do for decades, with varying degrees of success. We' ve known all along that there was a certain constellation of attitudes that made the Soviet players so formidable, something to do with a "concrete" or "dynamic" style of play. And though there have always been plenty of available sources, most of them have been hard for English speaking readers to assimilate, for one reason or another. To amplify this point a little, I ' ll mention a few examples from the experience of my own peer group - amateur players who grew up in the 1 960s reading Nimzowitsch and all the Dover paperbacks. One relatively early Russian export was Kotov and Yudovich's Soviet School of Chess, which presented many dazzling examples of dynamic play but was a bit too breezy and propagandistic to take entirely seriously. In the 1 970s, we all read Think Like a Grandmaster and tried to navigate decision-trees in the disciplined way Kotov recommended. Most of us found this too strenuous, however, and eventually fell back on our old haphazard ways. We learned a little Russian and got the latest opening analysis from Shakhmatny Biulletin. That certainly helped, but it didn't tell us much about how to play complex middlegames. For enlightenment on this topic, we had to rely mostly on game annotations, but these varied widely in quality and helpfulness. And even in the best annotations, there were aspects of Soviet school rhetoric that some of us found obscure: for example, the way writers such as Kasparov use the term "technical phase" (with a hint of condescension, like Botvinnik's "every schoolboy knows . . . ).
"

317

Reviews

In my case, I have to admit that the upshot of all this uneven exposurc is that while 1' ve learned a few modern tricks, 1' ve remained at heart an unreconstructed Nimzowitschian. Of course I admire the boldness and c reati vi ty of today's players, but I ' ve never really learned to see chess through the eyes of a true modernist. The styles of positional players like Karpov and Krarnnik make sense to me; but Kasparov 's games, brilliant as they are, often seem to me like violent brawls, contests of wills rather than ideas.
I am sharing these confessions because I suspect that many readers have experienced similar ups and downs in their attempts to understand modern play. I' m also trying to muster the courage to make an extravagant claim about the subject of this review. This may sound a little crazy, but I ' m convinced that Secrets ofModem Chess Strategy has done more for my understanding of chess than any other book I've read in the last 30 years ! After reading Secrets, I entered a weekend Swiss and found myself playing better and enjoying it more than I had in a long time. Also I've been playing over the latest games from Hoogovens and Linares, and suddenly I'm seeing Watsonian themes everywhere. I' m even beginning to like the way Kasparov plays. So, brethren in chess, I am ready to testify: I have heard John Watson preach the gospel of dynamic play, and I have felt the spirit descend upon me. I don't know exactly how to explain it: perhaps the book works especially well for readers like me who have a generational outlook similar to the author's. I suppose that the effect might not be quite so dramatic on alumni of Camp Botvinnik, or younger players who have grown up in the age of instant information. Still, it's hard for me to imagine any student of the game who wouldn't get a lot out of this rich and fascinating book. (March 1999)

Remembering the Forgotten

Hanon Russell
Napier: The Forgotten Chessmaster, by John S . Hilbert, 1 997 Caissa Editions,
Hardcover, English Algebraic Notation, 354 pp. , $42.00 How would you regard a player who defeated Frank Marshall in a match, beat Steinitz in a level tournament game, won the prestigious Brooklyn Chess Club championship, was the first British Chess Federation Champion and had been showered with brilliancy prizes before he turned twenty-five years old? Probably with a good deal of respect and admiration. Yet, that player, British-born William Ewart Napier, is virtually unknown and ignored by the chess world today. A self-admitted artist at the game, he was much more interested in possible swirling complexities on the board than results on a wall chart. In his latest
318

Review.
hook ,

author John S . H i l bert has pulled together all the known games of Napier

( .320 of them) along with another 150 games that have more than just passing
historical significance to Napier's career. In his active chessplaying years (essentially the decade from 1 895 to 1 905) he faced all the maj or players of that era. His play was forceful, direct and entertaining in the extreme. So why has he not received more recognition? There are probably several reasons. First, and most obvious, is that his career was so short. And although he lived until 1 952, he rarely played after 1 905 at all, so he was simply forgotten. (The book really is very appropriately titled.) Second, and perhaps almost as important, is the diminished significance usually (and unfairly) placed by modem players on the quality of play of the nineteenth century masters. Think about it. After Morphy, Steinitz, Anderssen and Chigorin, name a nineteenth century player with whom you are familiar and whose games you admire. There you have it. A sure-fire formula for obscurity. A short career in the last century. Well, Mr. Hilbert has just taken one enormous step to correct that. With meticulous research from contemporary sources, he has compiled both a first rate biography and an fine collection of games of this British-American master. The book contains sixteen chapters and four indices that chronicle in a comprehensive and thorough way Napier's rise in the late nineteenth century chess world on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. A brief excerpt . . . O f his twentieth-round encounter with Chigorin a t Monte Carlo, Napier wrote in Amenities that "at Monte Carlo in 1 902 my opponent on the last day was Chigorin. [Not technically true; Napier apparently forgot he agreed to a brace of draws without play against Marco in the next, and final, round. JSH] I decided to celebrate with a gambit, and so gave him to understand the night before. In the morning I steered into the Evans, confident that he would not expect an opening that had scarcely been out of the stable since its crippling in the St. Petersburg event of 1 896. He used the old defense. After the game he asked what new play I had in mind for Lasker's Defense, and when I replied 'None,' he said good-naturedly that I had a talent - for poker ! After that agreeable little memento it was a bit comforting to receive the brilliancy prize for the game." Napier won the Rothschild Brilliancy Prize for his victory over the Russian giant. The notes to the game are by Pillsbury. Interestingly enough, although the game was published in Napier 's own column for April 22, 1 902, he never annotated the game; the notes provided in the Dispatch were taken from The

Field.
1 55 . Napier-Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1 902, Round Twenty, Evans Gambit [C5 1 ]
319

1. e4 e5 2. f3 c6 3 .Q.c4 .Q.c5 4. b4 .Q.x b4 5. c3 .Q.a5 Mostly preferred is 5 . . . -'tc5, followed by the Lasker variation, for, while White may regain his pawn, he obtains no great attack. It will be seen that, after the ninth move of White, a well-known position is arrived at, and most authorities consider it all in favor of the White side. 6. d4 exd4 7. 0-0 d6 7 . . . dxc3 brings the well known Compromised Defense. 8. cxd4 .Q.b6 9 .Q.b2 a5 10. c3 e7 Probably preferable was 1 0 . . . xc4 1 1 . a4+ c6 1 2 . "l!i'xc4 e7. As played, it will be seen that the Knight is left completely out of it later on. 11 .Q.d3 0 .

0 12. d5 g6 13. e2 c5 14. itd2 J1.g4 15. g3 .Q.xf3 16. gxf3 h4. Probably best was 16 . . . -'tc7, with a view to immediate advance of the queenside pawns, and to get the Queen's knight into play. If in reply 17. f5, h4 seems a sufficient answer. 17. itf4 g6 It is possible that Black at an earlier spot may have meditated 17 . . . "l!i'g5 at this juncture; but after 17 . . . g5 18. "l!i'xg5 xf3+ 19. g2 xg5 20. h4, winning the piece. 18. itf5 gc8 19 .Q.c3 Of course to prevent the shutout of the bishop by the c-pawn advance. 19 gc7 20. \tJh1 f6 21. gg1 A far-sighted move, seeing that Black cannot afford to take the offered exchange at move twenty-four. 21 gcf7 22 .Q.f1 c4 23. Ah3 .Q.xf2 24. e2

24 e5 24 .Q.xg1 25. g xgl e5 (25 . . . b5 26. E! xg6 hxg6 27. xg6 E!e8 28. f4 with a winning attack.) 26. d4 and White will regain at least the

Exchange. It will be noticed that the Black knight at a5 is the cause of his difficulty. 25. gg2 Ae3 26. f4 Axf4 27. 'l.\'xf4 g5 27 . . . h8 is probably better, but White's attack is tremendous. 28 .Q.e6 h8 29.itd2 b6 30

.Q.xf7 g xf7 31. f4 gxf4 32.itxf4 4)b7 33. gag1 c5 34 .Q.xe5 dxe5 35. itg4 h6 36. ith5 'l.\'f8 37. gg6 h7 The position is hopeless. If 37 . . . E!h7, then 38. E! xf6. 38. g x h6+ 1-0.

So ended Napier's play in his first international tournament. Although a final, twenty-first round was scheduled, and although his opponent was the thirty-eight year old Georg Marco (2520 Elo historical rating), who ordinarily could be counted on to play fighting chess, the tournament had been a long, grueling struggle for all the competitors, and the games between them were agreed drawn. Regular visitors to the ChessCafe's book reviews may recall the very favorable comments we have had about other Caissa Editions publications, e.g., Baden
320

Reviews Haden / 925, St. Petersburg 1 914 and Mikhail Chigorin. This book maintains
the same high standards, with a hardcover high-quality library-style binding and antique photographs nicely complementing Hilbert's thorough, but readable style. Napier's obscurity should be no more. It will form, however, both the strength and weakness of this book's appeal: it will provide those who are already familiar with Napier with the definitive work about him; those who are not familiar with him probably will be reluctant to buy it. Pity. They will be missing out on a great book. (December 1997)

Standard Schiller
Glen Budzinski
Glen Budzinski (born 1955) was the first to join Hanon Russell as a regular reviewer for the ChessCafe. A USCF expert for over 20 years, Budzinski has been director of the Connecticut Chess Association, author of hundreds of articles and reviews, and an online journalist with Compuserve and the USA T oday Sports Center. As he does here, Glen has often taken on the difficult task of evaluating chess opening books.
Standard Chess Openings, by Eric Schiller, 1 998 Cardoza Publishing, Softcover, English Algebraic Notation, 756 pp., $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. 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.
32 1

Review.

Given the breadth of available openings, narro w i ng the selection to ti t 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 whim, there are 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 1 4) . Schiller ' s definition o f a "standard chess opening" is also o f little help i n determining the selection. According t o him, a "standard" opening is defined "as applying to any opening which an active chessplayer might reasonably expect to encounter frequently."(page 1 4) 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 .lf3 .l c6 3 .ll.b 5 a6 4 .ll.a 4 .lf6 5 0-0 .ll. e 7 6 e 1 b5 7 .il.b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 .Q.b7 1 0 d4 e8 1 1 .lbd2 .Q.f8, which is variation C92
from the 1 997 edition of ECO Volume C . At this point, Schiller 's Game #60, Anand-Kamsky, match, Las Palmas 1 995, continues

1 2 a4 h6 13 ..llc 2 exd4 16 . . . .il.g7 that 16 . . . d7

1 4 cxd4 .lb4 1 5 .llb 1 g6 1 6 a 3 .Q.g7 .

B lack eventually won on time,

although White was probably better. Schiller notes after

allowed Black "to survive" in Wolff-Ivanov, 1 995 US Ch., while ECO analyzes

16 . . . ba4
moves.

as leading to a White advantage in Dvojris-Romanov, USSR 1 98 3 .

Regardless o f which alternative is chosen, White appears t o b e better after 1 6

Returning to Anand-Kamsky, Schiller ' s annotation of 17 e5 with an " ! " appears

17 .lh2 17 ae3, both of which lead to positions of unclear equality. On the other hand, 1 7 e5 deS 1 8 deS .lh5 1 9 ab5 ab5 20 b3 c5 2 1 4)e4 .lle 5 2 2 4:)c5 .Q.f3 2 3 'liE\'f3 gives White a solid "plus," regardless i f one finishes with 23 . . . a3 of Anand-Kamsky or ECO's 23 . . . c8. Thus, at least in these particular
to coincide with ECO. The only alternatives suggested by ECO are and lines, Schiller is holding his own. Schiller's Game #62 is Karpov-Spassky, 1 973 USSR Team Ch., another Ruy similar to the aforementioned. This 25-year old game is in accord with ECO

1 e4 e5 2 4)f3 .lc6 3 .Q.b5 a6 4 ..lla4 .lf6 5 0-0 ..lle 7 6 e1 b5 7 .ll. b 3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 .lb8 10 d3 ..ll b7 11 .lbd2 4Jbd7 12 -tlfl e8
through

322

Review.
?g3 l i)c'; 1 4 Ac.l .il.IH 1 5 h4 4Jcd7 16 d4 . Karpov-Spassky conti nued 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 .ilg7 18 .ild3 ba4 19 deS 4Je5 20 4::\ e S e5. Schiller makes no mention of the Matanovic analysis.
I 6 . . . h6 and White 1 .'\

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 4Jf3 !..Jc6 3 .ilc4 4Jf6 4 4::\g S Ac5. Schiller illustrates this line through Game #40, a recent ( 1 896 ! ) postal contest between Mikista and Traxler, an 1 8-move miniature won by Black. Unfortunately, this game was hardly a model of good play for White. Although 5 4Jt7 is viable (ECO assesses the line as equal after S . .ilf2 6 c:7fl e7 7 4Jh8 d5 8 edS 4Jd4 9 d6 d6 1 0 4Jf7 c5 1 1 d3 e4 12 c3 Ah4), it has long been settled that White's best choice is 5 ..ilf7 'lte7 and now either 6 Ab3 or .ild5 with some advantage, depending on the source one reads. Since Schiller even cites 5 ID as "superior" in his notes, why mislead readers by illustrating the entire variation with a 1 00-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 Amason-Larsen, Reykj avik 1 978, won by Larsen. The game and its associated comments are comparable to ECO line C 3 8 , reached by transposition after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 ef4 3 4Jf3 d6 4 ..ilc4 h6 5 d4 g5 6 0-0 ..ilg7 7 g3. ECO suggests 7 c3 as a better option for White, with an equal position resulting after 7 . . . 4Jc3 8 g3 g4 9 4Jh4 f3 1 0 4Jd2 4Jf6 1 1 4.::l f5 .ilf5 1 2 efS 0-0 1 3 .ild3 d5. Amason-Larsen continued 7 g3 4.::lc6 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 eS 2 4Jc3 4.::lf6 3 .ilc4 4.::le 4 and 3 f4 dS. In the fabled "Frankenstein-Dracula" variation after 3 .ilc4 4.::l e 4 4 h5 4Jd6 5 .ilb3 4.::l c 6 6 4.::l b 5 g6 7 f3 f5 8 d5 e7 9 4.::lc 7+ c:7d8 1 0 4.::l a8 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 1 985 postal game Wybe-Bryson, won by Black. Just who the authorities are who consider 1 1 d3 to be White's best move is anyone's guess, however. For example, ECO, perhaps the premier opening authority, recommends 1 1 4.::l b 6 ab6 1 2 f3 ..ilb7 13 d3 4.::l d4 1 4 h3 e4 1 5 Ae3 ed3 16 0-0-0 4.::lc 2 1 7 Ab6 c:7e8 1 8 d3 .ilh6 1 9 <it>b1 .ile4 with a slight White advantage. Outright misleading is Schiller's analysis of the Vienna proper in Game #8, which begins 1 e4 eS 2 4.::lc3 4.::lf6 3 f4 dS . After 4 fe5 4.::l e 4 5 4.::lf3 .ilg4 6 e2, he follows another miniature, Spielmann-Flamberg, Mannheim 1 9 14, won
323

Revkw.,

by White after 6 .-bcS. The correct m o v e according to ECO, omitted by Schil ler altogether, is 6 . . . c3, which led to equality in Durie-Vojinovic, Yugoslavia 1 99 3 , after 7 dc3 c6 8 Af4 "i!t'd7 9 ite3 a6 1 0 0-0-0 0-0-0 1 1 Ac4
. . .

Ae6 12 -'tb3 a5 13 c4 b3 14 ab3 'l!t'c6.

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 f3 d6 3 d4 ed4 4 d4 g6, which he illustrates through inclusion of game # 1 1 , Hazai-Sax., Hungary 1 97 1 , there is no discussion at all of the White alternative, 4 d4. According to ECO, White gets a small advantage after 4 i!t'd4 a6 5 Af4 c6 6 d2 f6 7 c3 !J.. e 7 8 0-0-0 00 9 !J..d 3 d7 10 d5 c5. In fact, even after 4 d4 g6 5 c3 Ag7 as in Hazai-Sax., ECO assesses a small advantage to White, thanks to 6 h4 (another Schiller miss) 6 . . . f6 7 Ag5 h6 8 Af4 c6 9 b3 i!t'e7 1 0 ite2 a5 1 1 a4 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 e8 1 3 f3 b4 1 4 d2 h5 1 5 Ag5, Istratescu-Barbero, Martigny 1 993 . Equally inadequate is the treatment accorded to 1 e4 e5 2 3 c6 3 d4 ed4 4 Ac4 Ac5 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 1 9 14 game Schlechter-Nyholm, which saw 5 . . . d6 6 b4 Ab6 7 a4 a5 8 b5 "i!t'e7 9 0-0 and, quoting Schiller, "White is better developed with control of the center and more space. "(page 1 00) 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 . . . 6. suggested by ECO as leading to approximate equality after 6 e5 d5 7

Ab5 e4 8 cd4 Ab6 9 c3 0-0 1 0 Ae3 .ilg4 1 1 c2 Af3 1 2 gf3 g5 1 3 Ac6 bc6.
One of opening theory's most heavily analyzed lines is the S icilian 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 1 974 Moscow Candidates' Match. A key position is reached after 1 5 moves: 1 e4 c5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 cd4 4 d4 f6 5 c3 g6 6 Ae3

Ag7 7 f3 c6 8 itd2 0-0 9 Ac4 Ad7 1 0 h4 c8 1 1 Ab3 e5 12 0-00 c4 1 3 Ac4 c4 1 4 h5 h5 1 5 g4 f6. There are numerous White
alternatives at this point. Schiller opts to continue with the Karpov-Korchnoi encounter, which saw 1 6 de2 "i!t'a5 17 Ah6 Ah6 18 "i!t'h6 fc8 19 d3 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 de2 if Black answers with 1 6 . . :lli"a 5, Schiller doesn't address what ECO considers to be Black's best 1 6th move, 16 . . . e8, which led to an unclear position in K1ovans- Beliavsky,
324

Reviews
USSR

1 977. (ECO l i ne 878

considers 1 6 . . . Qa5 to be dubious .) Secondly, after

17 Ah6

Bh6 of Karpov-Korchnoi, Schiller notes that

1 7 . . . -'th8

resulted in an

exchange sacrifice and a win for Black in the Unfortunately, after

1 974 postal game

Almrot -Gemud,

leading the reader to believe that this may be a better alternative for B lack.

1 7 . . . Jlh8 18 .ilf8 <iftf8, S c hiller fails to mention the 19 "itt e 3!, given by ECO and also Gufeld and Stetsko in The Complete Dragon, which turns 17 . . . Jlh8 in White' s favor. But, even if B lack plays 16 . . . "itta 5, he may still be okay after 1 7 Jlh6 Jlh6 18 "itth6 fc8 1 9 d3 .ile6, instead of 1 9 . . . 4c5 from Karpov-Korchnoi. While Schiller does recognize . . . 4c5 as a mistake, indicating . Ae6 as the correct move, he remains
improvement
..

consistent with his overall spotty effort as he stops short of providing the complete line which leads to B lack equality, only offering 1 9 . . . .ile6 20 g5 -tlh5 2 1 -tlg3 "itte 5, 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 h5 gh5 23 -tlh5 c3 24 bc3 c3 draw, in B angiev-Nesis corr. or 22 -tlhS gh5 23 h5 <iftf8 24 h2 "ittg 5 25 f4 "itt f6 26 f5 c3 27 bc3 Aa2 28 "itth 7 e8, again with a draw, Nagomov-Nesis, corr. 1 976-8.
1 974-6,

The only simple answer here is the moral of the story: if o n e chooses t o 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

1 886 World (I d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 -tlc3 -tlf6 4 -tlf3 dc4 5 e3 c5); Gligoric-Portisch, Pula 1 97 1 ( 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dc4 3 -tlf3 -tlf6 4 e3 e6 S .ilc4 c5) and Alekhine-B ook, Margate 1 93 8 (same opening moves as Gligoric 1 39,
Championship match Portisch). However, the "modem interpretation of the opening," so termed by Neishtadt in his

games (#s

1 40 and 1 4 1 ) : Zukertort-Steinitz, from their

1 997 treatise Queen 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

-tlf3 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 -tlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 -tlc3 ed5 5 cd5 d6 6 e4 g6

7 f4 Jlg7 8 .ilb5+,

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 Modem Benoni because of it, though there are a few die-hards, notably English Grandmaster David Norwood, who stick by it" (page or

639). We are now

8 ... -tlfd7 8 . . . -tlbd7. Game #233 is Borik-Hort, 1 982 Bundesliga, during which Black chose 8 . . . 4:)fd7 and went on to win. (There is more to be said about this game later.) Commenting on 8 . . . -tlbd7, Schiller again cites Norwood: ''This alternative
at a major crossroads in the opening. Here, Black can choose either 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; I O . fx e 5 -tlh5 ; l l . e6! "itt h 4+ 1 2 . g 3 -tlxg3 ; 1 3 . h x g 3 "itt x h l ; 1 4 . -'t e 3

325

Reviews

and now I v a n Sokolov greeted Topalov with 18.'ili'b3 at the 1 996 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 1 5 bxc3, Norwood continues with 1 5 . . . 'ili'e4 16 'ili'f3 i*xf3 1 7 4Jxf3 fxe6 18 dxe6 0-0 and adds that this "has been tried for Black, but my feeling is that 19 4Jg5! 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 . . . 4Jbd7 variation. Returning to 8 . . .4Jfd7 from Borik-Hort, one can't help but wonder why Schiller remained silent after Borik's 9 Ae2 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 1 982 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 4Jf6 2 4Jf3 g6 3 M4), 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 1 998 Trends in the London System Vol. 2. Quoting Flear, "The London S ystem 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 rniddlegame." 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 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 d4 exd4 4 .ilc4 .ilc5, the "Haxo Gambit"; 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 4Je7 is the "Bonch-Osmolovsky Defense"; the "Kangaroo Defense" is 1 d4 e6 2 c4 Ab4+; and 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Ag7 with . . . b6 and . . . .ilb7 to follow, is called the "Mongredien Defense." Standard Chess Openings is at best sloppy, and at its worst a study in self contradiction and inexcusable inconsistency. If there is one thing worse than sending an unarmed man into battle, it is sending forth a misinformed man.
326

.il x d + ; 1 5 . b x c 3 a6; 1 6 . e xd7+ A x d 7 ; 1 7 . Axd7 + 'it>xd7

Reviews Such will be t h e fate at t h e 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 tragicomedy, 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. (September 1 998)

Amazing?
Richard Forster
When I recently heard of John Emms' new book The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All 1ime (Gambit, 2000) I was immediately curious and ordered a copy. In conjunction with the general "review-of- the-century" mood and especially after the unforgettable endgame Topalov-Shirov, Linares 1 998, presenting lists of the "greatest moves ever" has become all the rage. In my first Chess Cafe column (May 1 998) I presented a few lesser-known examples myself under the title "Absurd Moves". About the same time the British Chess Magazine produced selections of the most amazing moves of all time, and others followed. Having built my own private collection of spectacular moves over half my life, I took a great interest in what other sources had to offer. Of course, no two people have the same tastes. Thus I expect that, if sufficiently large, any such collection of best moves should contain a number of well-known classics combined with some "private favorites" which have been neglected by other writers. In general, I cannot help feeling pleasure when meeting old friends, like Marshall's famous . . 'l!\'c3-g3 move. However, making new friends is even better. Especially with a subject such as ''The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All Time" (rather than "most famous games," "classic games," "important games," "great games" etc. which are much more restrictive by definition) I hoped to encounter many previously unknown examples, as "most amazing moves" should be a vast field with many one-off shots by otherwise unknown players.
.

However, when I finally held Emms' book in my hands I was greatly disappointed. Over eighty percent of the positions I was able to recognize immediately, and the rest, it turned out, I had mostly just forgotten. How could this happen? Is the number of really amazing moves in the whole chess legacy so incredibly small that I should have encountered all of them before?

327

Reviews
Surely not. The reason why the book contained hardly any news for me is that it was written by the wrong author. Emms' choice is barely more than a compilation of recent "best moves" and "most spectacular games" columns mixed with other noteworthy positions, which have all appeared in recent magazines or books. True enough, The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All Time is nicely produced and the games are, for the most part, pleasantly and aptly explained, but, to borrow from Carsten Hansen's "Checkpoint" column: "Of course it's an easy way to get some pages written, but it isn't what people buy the book for - they expect some original input." And original input is definitely missing here. Actually, this should not have come as a surprise, for what else can one expect from an author who is an active grandmaster and at the same time writes about half a dozen books per year? Just remember Lev Polugaevsky's statement that a good book requires at least two years ' hard work Like John Nunn (New in Chess, 1 / 1 99 1 ) "I like to see some evidence that the author has really done some work for his book." In the case of The Most Amazing Chess Moves ofAll Time the amount of true work is minimal. The most difficult part, as Emms notes in the preface, was making up his mind about which positions should be included and which left out. With a certain playing strength, a good computer program and a publisher with a nice type-set, the rest was child's play. Really there is just one little problem: how do we get the candidates in the first place, from which we later choose our final favorites? For anyone who has not built up a large collection of his own, this may indeed prove a bit tricky. However, a solution is quickly found: just borrow from those who have ! And indeed, once you connect to the Internet and go to Tim Krabbe's brilliant Chess Curiosities site (www. xs4all. nll-timkr/chesslchess.html) everything becomes straightforward. From Krabbe's file "The 1 1 0 Greatest Moves Ever Played", sixty examples found their way into The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All Time. Add over forty from Krabbe's other curiosity and classic files, and half the book is done. 1 Next on the list are Dvoretsky's six volumes, all published by Batsford in the past decade. As a professional chess trainer and great connoisseur, Dvoretsky has built up a large collection of valuable and neglected material. Another twenty positions easily done. Then take other non-opening books by Batsford, Everyman and Gambit, choose one or two examples from each, and to avoid an embarra ssing oversight go through the lnformator's Best Game and Best Novelty section. Whatever gaps remain in the book are easily filled, if you have just kept your eyes open during the last two years when reading your favorite chess magazine or some popular Internet sites. Voila ! No need for further research, painstaking collecting or other time-consuming effort.
328

Reviews
A drawback to this method is that the choice of positions becomes very biased towards recent games. Despite difficulties (due to the absence of any index in the book, which is greatly annoying), I have tried to make a short overview of when the 200 examples were played. Amazing result: more than a quarter were played in the last ten years. That is far more than for the entire period from 1 800 to 1 950! And even more incredibly, only five games from the nineteenth century made it onto the list. Even assuming that the old players played much more weakly than today's masters, there is no reason why they should not have found as many brilliant and spectacular moves. Only a total ignorance of chess history or plain laziness can explain why De la Bourdonnais, Morphy, Anderssen, Blackburne and Steinitz are together represented by one single example. For the record, here are the five pre- 1 900 examples. Three very well-known ones: Paulsen-Morphy, New York 1 857 (17 . . .'itt d3xf3!!) Zukertort-Blackburne, London 1 88 3 (28.d2-b4!!) Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1 895/6 (18 .. .!k3-a3!!) And two lesser-known ones, both coincidentally (?) given at The Chess Cafe in the last year or two: Kvistendahl-Pollock, London 1 885 (Edward Winter's "Chess Lore" column, December 1 998) Riga-Orel, City correspondence match, 1 896 (my "Late Knight" column, November 1 999) "Amazingness" is, of course, a very subjective concept, and everyone has his own preferences. Nevertheless, I believe that, by way of example, the following two games would have more than worthily replaced a number of Emms ' positions. Especially his own losses or the large number of games by his British GM colleagues/publishers suggest themselves as candidates for substitution. Steinitz - L. Paulsen, Baden-Baden 1 870

l.e4 e5 2.4)c3 4)c6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4 00

Already this move, first played by Steinitz against Neumann at Dundee 1 867, deserved to be included in the book, demonstrating that stunning opening novelties did exist before the lnformator officially decorated them with a "N" and a " ! !" (and a "? !" in the next issue) . Instead, the chapter "Amazing Opening Surprises" has nothing earlier than a 1 955 example and then after three games from the Seventies quickly proceeds to the Eighties and Nineties, which are represented by 14 novelties.

4 ... h4+ 5.e2 d6 6.4)f3 j\g4 7.Jlxf4 0-0-0

With what amazing move did Steinitz strengthen his central position?
329

8.'it>e3U
Never before had chess masters dared to expose their king so early in the game, and hardly ever have they done so since. Not foolishness, but his desire for maximum flexibility led Steinitz to this phenomenal concept.

8 'lth5 9 .Q.e2 'lta5 10.a3 .slxf3 1 J.Cit'xf3! 'lth5+ 12.Cit'e3 'lth4 13.b4

Launching a strong attack against the black king.

13 g5 14 .Q.g3 'lth6 15.b5 4)ce7 16.fl 4)f6 17.Cit'f2 4)g6 18.Cit'gl "t!!g7 19. 'ltd2 h6 20.a4 g8
.

2 l.b6! axb6 22 . x f61! 'ltxf6 23 .Q.g4+ 'it>b8 24.4)d5 'ltg7 25.a5 f5 26.axb6 cxb6 27.4:\ x b6 4)e7 28.exf5 'ltf7 29.f6 4)c6 30.c4 4)a7 3l.'lta2 4:\ bS 32.4:\d5 'lt x d 5 33.cxd5 4:\ xd4 34.'lta7+ 'it>c7 35.cl+ 4)c6 36.xc6 mate.

The next example has been a personal favorite of mine for a long time, although it is hardly ever cited. I find Morphy's 34th move absolutely thrilling. Am I the only one who thinks so? Morphy (giving knight odds) - Maurian, Paris, 1 863

l.b3 e5 2 .Q.b2 4)c6 3.e3 dS 4.g3 f5 5.4:\h3 4)f6 6 ..Q.b5 .Q.d6 7.f4 'lte7 8.0-0 0-0 9.c4 a6 10 .Q.xc6 bxc6 11.fxe5 .Q.xe5 12.d4 .Q.d6 13.c5 'ltxe3+

330

Reviews

14.g2 .4.e7 1S.el g4 16.,4.ct c3 17.Ad2 xd4 18. xe7 xeS 19.e2 d4 20.b4 dS+ 21.gl d3 22.Ac3 laf7 23.e8+ f8 24.e7 f7 2S.gS "l:!/xe7 26.xe7 f6 27.ael aS 28.xc7 e8 29.dl axb4 30 . .ll xf6 gxf6 3l. xh7 e6 32. x d3 .lla 6 33.dd7 .4.c4

34.a4!!
No typo, I promise ! It seems impossible to find a reason for this move, yet there is one, and it will become clear in the conclusion of the game.

34...bxa3
The natural answer, but a decisive mistake. With 34 . . . f4 or 34 . . . ae8 B lack could have stayed in the game. The great complications that would arise are outside the scope of this article.

3S.g7+ h8 36.f8!! B lack resigned.

Mate is unavoidable. Black soon runs out of useful checks, and after 36 . . . . xf8 37.h7+ mate follows next move. But why did Morphy have to play 34.a4!! first? Because the black pawn on a3 prevents the rook at a8 from giving a nasty check on a2 or a3 . Thus, after the immediate 34.g7+ 'iflh8 35 . .lf8 B lack would draw with 35 . . . e l + 36.'if7f2 (36.'iflg2? xa2+ even loses) e2 + , since 37.'iflf3? fails to 3 7 . . . a3+ and mate. Apart from the fact that Emms seems to lack the necessary collector's background, another criticism that must be made is that many of his examples are not really amazing, but just famous moves. Let me now offer some specific remarks and additions regarding The Most Amazing Chess Moves ofAll Time. Some include requests for further information on specific positions, some are interesting additions, and some will be very useful for whoever decides in turn to copy from this book Puzzle #3 : This is one of the few where the full game score is missing. Having it in my own "private collection" I can provide here the full score as it appeared on page 252 of Chess Review, August 1 962:
33 1

Reviews
M. D. B l u menthal
-

T. E. McGu n n i g le, corr. 1 962

t.e4 c5 2.(3 d6 3.Jl.c4 f6 4.d3 a6 5.a4 e6 6.0-0 Jl.e7 7.c3 c6 8 . .Q.e3 (??) Black could now win a piece with 8 . . d5. 8 .Q.d7(??) 9.'l#fe2 00 to.gael 'l#tc7 1 1 .Q.b3 a5 12.4)d2 4) xb3 13.4) xb3 gfd8 14.h3 b5 15.ga1 b4 16.4)bt .Q.c6 17.4) td2 4)d7 t8.f3 4)b6 19.a5 4)d7 20.J}.f2 .Q.f6 2l.gabl Jl.b5 22.f4 gac8 23.4)c4 d5 24.exd5 exd5 25.4)e5 .Q.xe5 26.fxe5 c4 27.4)d4 'l#txa5? 28.e6 fxe6 29.'l#txe6+ ecflh8 30.4)f5 4)f8
. ..

Arriving at Emms' diagram, where White won with

31. h6 gd7 32.Jl.d4 c7 33.ru3 4)g6 34.gbfl ecflg8 35.xg7+!! gxg7 36.4)h6+ c;:tlh8 37,gf7 xf7 38.gxf7 gcg8 39,gd7 Jl.xd7 40.4)f7 mate.
See Kingston's review for further details on the finish.2 A vigilant reader will have noticed the transformation to Emms' "Blumental-MacGonnegal, 1 962" from CR's "Blumenthal-McGunnigle, Correspondence Game, 1962." The reason for the change in Black's name is easily found, once you notice that Emms' source was Dvoretsky's Positional Play (p. 1 97). Transliteration into and back from Cyrillic is a notorious method whereby names are mangled. (In a later instance, Minev's column at www. insidechess. com, Black's name became even more distorted, "Cunningham." Also in the diagrammed position Minev put White's queen on f4 instead of e6.) Puzzle #6: Nezhmetdinov's Gruenfeld simul game was played at Kazan. As this is even stated by Dvoretsky himself (Opening Preparation, p. 1 22) it is difficult to understand why The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All Time omits the information. Puzzle # 1 9 : It is not possible to guess Emms ' source for this game. Almost all sources give it as Lilienthal-Romih, Paris 1 930. However, as the well-known Hungarian chess historian Arpad Foldeak pointed out in his 1 98 8 German translation of Lilienthal's autobiography (Schach war mein Leben, p. 1 1 ), this is wrong. It was played against Kertosz at Budapest 1 929, and was the first game of Lilienthal's to appear in a chess magazine.

332

Review.
Puzzle #2 1 : The finish of the miniature Reti-Tartak.ower, Vienna 1 9 1 0, with

9.d8+ xd8 lO . .ilgS+ and mate next move is much too well-known to be
quoted here. Indeed, if the book were about the best-known moves of all time, this would be a hot contender. However, since the motif was long since known ( M aczuski-Kolisch, Paris 1 864; Prince Dadian-NN, Odessa 1 894; Distl Roszypal, Prague 1 900; Kaldegg-Zeissl, Vienna 1 903 and others), Reti's move does not qualify as "amazing" at all. It is like including a smothered mate administered by Kasparov in a recent simul. Puzzle #22: The Ed. Lasker-Thomas game with its various move orders and shorter mates has often been discussed in print (see the summary in Winter 's Chess Explorations, pp. 202-3). Emms, however, disregards all the discrepancies. Proof of the correct move order is probably impossible to find, as offhand games were seldom recorded during the game and Lasker himself gave contradictory versions over the years. In my opinion the move order as it was given when the game was first published is the most likely. Therefore I would opt for l . d4 e6 2 A:If3 fS 3 . <lc3 <lf6 4 .Ag5 Ae7 S . .ll xf6 A x f6 6 . e 4 fxe4 7 . .lxe4 b6 8.<le5 0-0 9 .ild3 Ab 7 , which w a s usually given a t the time ( a further contemporary instance, not mentioned by Winter, i s the column in De Amsterdammer, 17 November 1 9 1 2, by Loman, who was a regular at the City of London Chess Club).
.

Puzzle #3 1 : As is well-known, Najdorf's "Polish Immortal" had been published in 1 930 already, and therefore could never have been played at the Warsaw Olympiad in 1 935 (see Winter's Kings, Commoners and Knaves, p. 306). Puzzle #33 : Another name and date puzzle. The Russian letter "X" usually being used for both "G" and "H", translators have given different names for Black. English sources prefer Gofmeister, whereas German books have Hofmeister. The latter makes more sense as it is a perfectly normal German name, whereas nothing nearer to Gofmeister than "Grossmeister" can be found. "Hofmeister" was also used in the Schweizerische Schachzeitung in 1 9 2 1 and the Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1 922. Strangely, in these (first?) publications Alekhine indicates that the game was played in 1 9 1 9. Only later, in My Best Games of Chess 19081923, was the date changed to "December 1 9 1 7 ." In their monumental Alexander Alekhine s Chess Games, 1902-1946, Skinner and Verhoeven adhere to the latter, which remains their only information about Alekhine's whereabouts in 1 9 1 7. However, I see no compelling reason why 1 9 1 7 should be preferred to 1 9 1 9, as Alekhine himself gave both. Puzzle #39: For some reason this game has been mistakenly shifted from 1 944 to 1 957. It was published by Rosso limo himself in an article in L' Echiquier de Paris, 1 94 7, and since then in numerous sources. The preceding pair of moves

333

Reviews
is g i v e n as l l t'tcH-hS l .Jlh.:h.I S ; fu rt h e r m ore the com b i n a t i o n ' s move order is also di tl'e re n t (the second and third moves were the other way round).
. . .

Speaking of Rossolimo, here is my favorite combination by him (given, by the way, in the same article): Rossolimo-NN, Paris, 1 944

l. xfS! exfS 2.xh6+U

At least as surprising as Kotov's 30 . . xh3+ against Averbakh (Zurich 1 953), don't you think?
.

Of course, 2 . gxh6 leads to a standard mate in two.

..

An astonishing continuation. The king not only opens the e2-h5 diagonal but also helps actively in tying up the mating net by covering f5 and g5 in the variation 4 . . . fxe4 S.AhS+ followed by 6 . .Q.xf7 and mate !

4 tte6 (or 4 . !!e6)

. ..

Did White overlook this riposte, which prepares to meet S . .ilhS+ h7

6 . .ilxf7 + with 6 . . . 'tii' h 6+ ?

s.hsn t-o.
No, another rare mating pattern decides the game: there is no defense against 6.Ah5 mate. For some reason unknown to me, this position has become less famous than the one cited by Emms.

334

Reviews
Puzzle #59: Regarding the famous (hoax) game Adams-Torre, Emms writes "There have been question marks over the veracity of this game [ . . . ] with some believing it to be a composition rather than a real game" . As a matter of fact, the evidence is overwhelming that this game was never played. See Velasco's The Life and Games of Carlos T orre, p. 287. Puzzle #63 : Bischoff-Nogueiras, Havana 1 998:

38.'{txh7+!! "l.txh7+ 39.g6 "1-0''.

According to almost all other sources the game did not stop here, and Black first played 39 . . . Jla2+ 40 'it>cl before resigning. The only exception happens to be Tim Krabbe's database. Is this a coincidence? Furthermore, in Schach 7/1 998, it is stated that Bischoff and Huebner found Black's only defensive idea 40 J!a7! 4 l .gxh7+ xh7 (analogous to Emms' variation; the additional pair of moves is not relevant) on the flight back from Cuba. Whereas Emms writes that White should still win, the two German grandmasters concluded that Black had "berechtigte Remischancen" (justified hopes of a draw). Of course, we are all reluctant to spoil a brilliancy, but truth certainly must come first.
. .

Puzzle #64: (Marovic-Tsagan, Krakow 1 964) At the time this game was played, the 19 xg6 queen sacrifice in the Queen's Gambit Declined had already been well-known for 26 years, and played in several games. The first of them was played in 1 942 (see Kings, Commoners and Knaves, p. 2 1 7-2 1 9). Another early instance of the combination is Crisovan P. Moller, correspondence game, 1 945 (Schweizerische Schachzeitung 1 945, p. 1 77). The move itself might qualify to be called "most amazing," but just remembering theory, as White did in 1 964, hardly does.
-

Puzzle #65 : The Popov-Buljovic game was actually played in Sombor and won a brilliancy prize. Puzzle #77: Bronstein played his famous-mysterious bishop move l l . . . .llh7g8!! against Porreca and not Porrecca.
335

Reviews
Puzzlc # l l 4 . As stated in H. M i.i l lcr 's Das Zentrum in de.r Schac:hpa rtie, p. 1 1 3 , and many other sources, this game was played at Villingen. This has nothing to do with Vienna, and it is not even in the same country.

Puzzle # 1 1 7 : Karpov's l l . . .e8-e7! in the Caro-Kann is justly famous, but has anybody ever pointed out the following anticipation? Razvaliev-Kolikshtein, Tashkent, 1 972

(A possible move order would have been l .d4 d5 2.f3 6 3.c4 e6 4.c3 c6 5 . e3 -'td6 6 . -'td3 bd7 7 . e 4 d x e 4 8 . xe4 x e 4 9 . -'txe4 6 1 0 .Ac2 a5+ l l ..il.d2 h5 1 2 . h 3 0-0) White won spectacularly with 13.e2!! when the threat of 14.g4 wins a piece. The rest of the game is also worth playing through:

13 e5 14.g4 Jl x g4 15.hxg4 'it x g4 16.'ltgl 'lte6 17.gxh7!! exd4+ 18 .Q.e3 xh7 19.Jl.xh7+ 'it'h8 20.'lthl g6 21 .Q.xg6+ 'it'g7 22.'lth6+ c;tf6 23 .Q.f5+ 1-0. (Source: Danger in Chess by Amatzia Avni, p. 1 6)

Puzzle # 1 33 : Regardless of whether Capablanca ' s 9.d2 was actually a "blunder" or a brilliant queen sacrifice, it should be mentioned that this sort of queen sacrifice goes back to a famous tournament game by Rudolf Spielmann. Since that was played and published a year or two before the New York simul, Capablanca's move loses much of its worth. Instead Spielmann, who played it on purpose, deserves all the credit. Spielmann-Miiller, Goteborg 1 920

l.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. 'ltf3 c6 4.c3 f6 5.d4 d5 6.e5 e4 7.Ab5 'lth4+ S.c;tfl gS 9.d2 (!!)
(See diagram top of next page.)

336

Reviews

9 .Q.g4 (?) 10. xe4 Jl.xf3 ll. xf3 h6 1 2.f6+ d8 13.h4 .Q.e7 14. xg5 g6 15. xd5 Jl,xg5 16.hxg5 c2?! 17 .Q.e2 e7 18. xf4 c5 19 .h3 cxd4 20 .d3 d7 21 .Q.dl xd3+ 22. xd3 dxc3 23.bxc3 .hd8 24 .Q.e2 f5 25 . .Q.f4 c7 26.gbl b6 27.e6+ c8 28.e5 1-0.

Puzzle # 1 69: This great stalemate ending by my teamm ate Urs Ruetschi (not Rutschi) is very little known. It appeared in the Schweizerische Schachzeitung, October 1 984, p. 485, and recently in an article by Daniel King in ChessBase Magazine 63. I give it here, along with the introductory moves. Note that the game was played in 1 984, and not in 1 983 as given by Emms or in 1 993 as given by King: M. Fehling - U. Ruetschi, Biel 1 984

During the adjournment Ruetschi and his friends found a truly amazing way to save Black's position:

l ... a5U 2.bxa6 bxa6 3. c8+ g7 4. xa6?

Who would not have taken this pawn? However, that was exactly what Black had hoped to provoke. We have arrived at Emms' diagram # 1 69: (See diagram top of next page.)

337

RevlewN

4 Cit'h6U
.

It still looks totally improbable, but this moves secures the draw. With his next moves Black will sacrifice his d-pawn, his rook and his queen - and no matter what White does, in the end Black will be stalemated !

5.itd3 dl(it)!! 6.t;txdl

Or 6:ili"xg3 xgl + ! 7 . lit>xgl E! xg2+! and stalemate.

6 ... t;txh3+! 7.gxh3 l;th2+! 8.Cit'xh2 stalemate.

An absolute miracle. Unfortunately, I have so far been unable to find the full game score. Puzzle # 1 73: Koskinen-Kasanen, Helsinki 1 967:

l ... t;txb4+U 2.-'l,x b4 l;td2!! and wins.

I have always admired this ending. It seems so unlikely that I almost cannot believe that it was played in a serious game . Can anyone provide further information about either the game or the players? Puzzle #178: I imagine that this game (R. Meier - S. Muller, Thun 1994) earned its well-deserved place thanks to The Chess Cafe; see "Alpine Accounting" (http://www.chesscafe.com/textlforster02.txt). To my knowledge its only prior
338

Reviews

publ ication was in the relatively o b s c u re Schweizer Schach-Magazin, which is now defunct.
Puzzle # 1 89: I. Kuznetsov - Kotk:ov, Russia 1 993 :

l.h8+! 4) x h8 2.'it'c6!! xdS 3.b8+ xb8 stalemate !

Another position which is hard to believe. It was published in Informator 59 Can anybody provide the full game score?
.

Puzzle #200: The famous Karpov-Kasparov ending from the 9th game of their 1 984-85 match, where Karpov found the unexpected 47.<tle3-g2!! instead of the automatic recapture 47.gxh4. It has been analyzed in depth by Jan Timman in New in Chess, 1/97, p. 90. He came to the conclusion that Karpov erred at move 55:

Karpov played the natural-looking

SS.4) xdS+
after which, according to Timman, Kasparov could have gained a draw with 55 . . .d6 followed by 56 . . . Axf3. Instead he played SS ... 'it'e6?, and lost after S6.4)c7+ 'it'd7 S7.4) xa6 etc. Timman furthermore points out that 55.<tlh5! and 56.<tlxf6 is much stronger. With the square d5 blocked by his own pawn Black can no longer defend himself and gradually loses. As mentioned by a reader in New in Chess 3/97, p. 7, Bent
339

Rtrlew:r
Larsen apparently gave s i m i l ar l i nes back in 1 985 in the Danish Skakh/adet.
Unfortunately, Emms does not deal with any of this . Has he found a refutation of Larsenffi mm an ' s analysis? Or has he overlooked it? By the way, a similar lapse was recorded by Ludek Pachman in

Modern Chess

Strategy

(Dover edition

1 97 1 ,

p. 3 1 1 ) :

Pachman-Hromadka, Prague

1 944

Pachman played

t. xcS? after which

the win was gone. The reason becomes

clear when we follow the correct winning procedure. Instead of immediately grabbing the c-pawn, White should slowly penetrate on the kingside:

Black can do nothing meaningful but has to wait and see.

3.h4+ 'l1f6 4.'lT1hS J}.d4 s.f3 Jl.c3 6.h2 .Q.d4 7.g4+ 'l1e6 8.'l1g6 j'tgt 9.h6 .Q.d4 10.17 .Q.e3 l l.gS+ 'l1d6 12.'lT1fS .Q.d4

13.17+ <iflc6 14. xeS+ and wins.

The same plan no longer works, once White has taken on c5. The reason is that in the second diagram (without the c-pawn), after

13.f7+

Black can play

1 3 . . . 'itlc5! 14.xe5 -'tc3.

cannot win.

Despite being temporarily two pawns up, White

340

Reviews
Conclusion: Strictly speaking, this is not a book review at all. I have just reported my personal reading experience, and I suppose that some readers will like The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All Time all the same. However, unless you: a) are willing to accept inaccurate data, b) are happy to content yourself with post-war chess, c) do not object to an author borrowing heavily from the real collectors, and d) do not mind works with inappropriate titles, this is not the book for you. Slovenly copying is a widespread practice, but the author of The Most Amazing Chess Moves ofAll Time has just borrowed too much from too few, has done too little by himself and has ignored too much regarding the past. (August 2000)
1

Krabbe did not appreciate Emms' unauthorized borrowing. In August 2000 he posted
an

this on his web-site: "Emms would have liked it to be more than half. In January, he sent me email about his book in progress, telling me my site 'has been a very useful source for me,' and adding: ' Are there any very recent new ones that have come to your

attention?' Brilliant - the art thief phoning the gallery he has j ust pillaged: 'Got any new acquisitions yet?"'
2

We noted that with 37 .. :e5! (instead of 3 7 .. :(ff x f7??) 38 .ilxe5 4:1xe5 39 E! f8+

. g8 40 4:1xg8 E! xf8 4 1 .xf8 'l/g7 any winning chances appear to be Black's, e.g. 4 2 E! f5 cxd3 43 cxd3 4:1xd3 44 4Je7 4:1xb2. This argues against the "amazing" 31 h6 and for the mundane 3 1 f7 E! d7 32 4Je7, winning the Exchange.

Fwowing Up with Mr. Fab

Taylor Kingston
Chess Under the Microscope, by Paul Motwani, 1 998 Batsford Books, Figurine
Algebraic Notation, Softcover, 256pp., $ 1 7.95 . Our reaction to this book resembles that of the late Dorothy Parker, reviewer for The New Yorker under the pen name "Constant Reader." Of a book full of baby talk she wrote "Tonstant Weader fwowed up." In Chess Under the Microscope, Paul Motwani of Scotland has produced a powerful emetic. Apparently, the ability to attain a GM title has no relationship to the ability to write coherently and to the point. Presumably Motwani knows something worth telling us about chess, but he seems to feel we cannot take it straight. Worse, he believes that what we want, even more than chess instruction, is to be deluged with cutesy-poo characters, silly dialogue, pointless acronyms and anagrams, and irrelevant stream-of-consciousness digressions. Some examples of the latter:

34 1

Review.
"There are two wel l -known Scotti sh chessplayers named David Wal l ace, and the reason why [sic] I am mentioning that is not because they may perhaps be very distantly related to the 1 3th-century hero William Wallace (whose character was portrayed in the film

Braveheart

which won five Oscars) . . . "

"At other times far away from the chessboard, my wife Jenny and I particularly enjoy meeting friendly and interesting people, especially when there is 'food for thought' such as the delicious Dutch meal the best !" "Being a Gemini myself, I like twins or any nice couple. So I composed the present example . . . to doubly [sic] celebrate the 27th birthday (on 28 January 1 998) of my youngest sister Cath, and also the engagement one month earlier to her fiance, Gary Ritson." Shockingly omitted were mentions of former Alabama governor George Wallace, Orson Welles '

boerenkool met worst which Tom

Furstenberg 's wife Anne cooks to perfection, and in spite of its name I think it's

Macbeth,

the recipe for

nasi goring,

or the name of the store

where Miss Motwani is registered. To spare the reader excessive unpleasantness we h ave avoided the worst examp l e s , some of such biliously cloying sentimentality as to make treacle seem like spring water. Equally bad as these meanderings are the archly cute dialogues with the character

"Mr. Fab," and the interminable rain of acronyms. One example shows both:
" .. .in view of you mentioning the word 'backbone' , the name 'Mr. Fab' becomes even more appropriate since vertebrates (animals with backbones) can be divided into five main groups: mammal s , reptiles, fish, amphibians, birds !". This though supposedly Mr. Fab is a microscopic extra-terrestrial being (We are not making this up, honest ! ) . Other allegedly illuminating acronyms include L.I.Q.D. ("lead in quality development"), H.O.M.E. ("harmony [in] the opening, middle game, and endgame"), and L.A.U.G.H. ("develop at lightning speed, then attack unreservedly, and go home with a point in your pocket !"). Let us try our hand at this. How about: "Many Undisciplined Digressions"

(MUD), or ALPACA ("A Lot of Preposterous And Contrived Acronyms"), or

maybe PINCER (Puerilities In Need of Competent Editor 's Revision), or "Tedious Wearisome Annoying Drivel Doing Little to Educate" (TWADDLE). Then there is the matter of the anagrams. Mr. Fab gives us "a curiosity: 'semya' is the Russian word for 'family ' , and

semya tree

is an anagram of master

eye

. . . ". We are indeed curious as to the relevance of this . Then there is: "While we are near the topic of statistics, consider the anagram

a tulip woman

. . [from] a
.

certain male person's name . . . ". Those who have difficulty solving that one definitely belong to this book's target readership. It calls for yet another acronym: COSINE (Cease the Outpouring of Self-Indulgent Nonsense. Enough ! ) .

342

Reviews
At l eas t into

though. nuw we know what it takes to write a chess boo k ! We shall rush print our own instructive manual, full of esoteric jewels such as "Develop
,

at least two pieces before castling" interspersed with amazingly clever acronyms
and anagrams of a certain male person ' s name. Some promising possibilities:

Klingon star toy, skinny gal to rot,

or

gnarly stink, too.

Presumably Motwani is aiming this book a t children, but h e thuds heavily between two stools. Those young enough not to mind the drivel will find the vocabulary elsewhere too hard, while those with the intellectual maturity to benefit from the occasionally good chess advice will find the intervening babble insufferable. We don't care if this book might raise our rating 800 points in two weeks; it's not worth the distress of reading it. Other than Victor Charushin's stuff (which at least has sometimes had the excuse of bad translators) this is the worst writing we have ever seen in a chess book. We recommend it only for children of below average intelligence who enjoy being patronized, or perhaps one might give it to a hated but promising rival whom one wishes to discourage from studying chess. An anagram more apt than "a tulip woman" would be "Wait ! A plum? No ! " , for

Chess Under the Microscope

is indeed a lemon.

(Apri/ 1999)

Brownian Motion, or, Memoirs of a Blame-thrower

Taylor Kingston
CHESSDON,
by Don Schultz, 1 999 Chessdon Publishing, English Algebraic Notation, Softcover, 356 pp. , $23 .95 Don Schultz has been active as an organizer and administrator in American and international chess circles for nearly 40 years. Beginning as a tournament director in the early 1 960s , Schultz worked his way up the chess political ladder, eventually holding high positions in the International Chess Federation (FIDE) and the United States Chess Federation (USCF), most recently serving as USCF president 1 996- 1 999. He has had administrative roles in many important chess events, including major tournaments and world title matches. He has known many top players, and has worked with many high-level chess officials, such as FIDE presidents Euwe, Olafsson, and Campomanes. Having just retired, Schultz decided to publish his memoirs.

CHESSDON, relating

t.te highlights of his four decades in chess, has been released to great fanfare. It has been advertised through expensive direct mailings, and promoted at USCF events, such as the U.S. Open. The blurbs on the back cover make it sound like the greatest thing since Viagra: ''This is one of the most interesting chess books ever written . . . you will not be able to put this book down." - "A riveting an d exciting book ." "A great book and a great contribution to chess !" - "A one of a kind book that will capture and hold the attention of . . . the entire reading world."

343

R1vlew,,

To pa raph ra se Winston Churchi l l , ra re l y in the field o f chess publishing has so much hype been dished out to so many for so little reason. To contradict the cover blurbs directly: this book is neither very interesting nor exciting, only my reviewer's duty kept me from putting it down after a few dozen pages, and its "contribution" to chess is highly questionable. The only sense in which it might be "great" is in the number of its faults. This review will now elaborate on them at some length. The book appears to have two main purposes. One, most apparent when Schultz discusses USCF politics in the 1 990s, is to attack rivals, settle old scores and lay blame. This will be discussed further on. The other is to give Schultz's account of various major and minor events and incidents, both American and international, that he was involved in from about 1 962 to 1 996. Given that among these are the 1 972 Fischer-Spassky match and other world championships, several chess Olympiads and other major tournaments, and some important controversies and political fights within FIDE, Schultz does not lack for interesting subject matter. To give a few examples, he was present at the examination of Fischer's and Spassky's chairs when the Soviet delegation alleged that hidden objects might be affecting Spassky's play. He worked closely for years with Florencio Campomanes, at first admiring his energy and managerial skill but finally disliking his hypocrisy and venality. He was a "fly on the wall" during a phone call about the cancellation of the first Karpov-Kasparov match. In short, Schultz was a witness to much of recent chess history. However, even the most fascinating story becomes dull in the hands of an inept writer. Truman Capote once said of Jack Kerouac: "He does not write, he types." That comment also fits Schultz's style: a jumpy, disconnected narrative, with little structure or coherence aside from a loosely chronological sequence. A proper memoir uses the wisdom of hindsight to give past events form and sense. Schultz instead seems instead to have jotted down notes as he went along, then thrown them in the book with little further shaping. Event simply follows event, issues come and go, people do this and that in a sort of Brownian motion, like ping-pong balls in a lottery hopper. For example pages 1 5 1 - 1 57 are like fleas on a hot griddle: the topic jumps about from KGB agents in Soviet FIDE delegations, to a Russian translator who defied her boss, a briefcase Schultz forgot, a nasty Internet debate with GM Larry Evans and a resultant lawsuit, the 1 989 Karpov-Hjartarson Candidates Match, the defection and retirement of Gata Kamsky, and finally Schultz's introduction to future GM Gabriel Schwartzmann. These events have little or no connection with each other, and the rapid-fire randomness of their presentation induces a feeling akin to motion sickness. Trivialities are focused on as much as important points, narratives are dropped before reaching a logical conclusion, and chapters often end with a silly
344

Reviews irrelevancy. Describing his first meeting with Garry Kasparov, Schultz concludes with the vital news that "His eyes lit up when I mentioned they had a large roller coaster." CHESSDON would have greatly benefited from a professional writer's help, as for example was done with The Bobby Fischer I Knew by Schultz's friend Arnold Denker, who let Larry Parr do much of the actual writing. Schultz and Parr are not on the best of terms, but surely other writers were available. Then there are the games. 32 games are scattered throughout the book (not 28 as the cover says), most by strong players, but 9 by Schultz. I recall Raymond Keene once candidly admitting that the reason one of his books had a large number of his own games was vanity. At least Keene, a grandmaster, had some justification, but a player rated below 2000, only USCF class A strength? This excerpt from Schultz-Unknown, U.S. Amateur East, 1 993,

is a typically thrilling example: 2 5 .ll x dS iWxdS 26 iWxdS exdS 27 f! xc7 and wins ( 1 -0, 35). Perhaps only a large majority of players could figure that one out. I have rejected better games than that for small club newsletters, but here it is in a book costing $24. S chultz ' s game s are given light commentary by young GM Gabriel Schwartzmann. Perhaps a bit too light; in one game he says Schultz lost because of wasted tempi at moves 1 6- 1 9. Yet later in the game, he makes no comment on the likelihood that in this position

Schultz (Black) could have held or even won with 28 . . . .11.c8 or 28 . . . f!d8. Instead play went 28 . . . f! xa3?? 29 f! e l f! aa2 30 l:! xd7 and 1 -0 , 3 5 . And while
345

Reviews
Schwartzmann is verbally fl uent in several l a n g u age s he needs help to produce
,

passable written English. A few typical flubs : " . . . handled perfectly by black and not just as accurate by white . " , "Fischer then methodically proceeded to building his position up.", "Once again I am in a situation to have played both of these players . . . " , " . . . a typical Sicilian with kings on both sides." Yes, typically in the Sicilian both players do have a king. Schultz seems not to understand the difference between "disinterested" and "uninterested" or between "principal" and "principle," and neither he nor Schwartzmann has any idea of the correct use of capitals, commas or hyphens (if this seems trivial, consider which you would rather meet: a man-eating shark, or a man, eating shark). They seem to have obtained many of their sentences from the Department of Redundancy Department. Schultz gives us: "As for his match with GM Arnold Denker, GM Arnold Denker . . . won the match . . . ", ''There were a few translators, such as Valery Gleich a Soviet translator . . . ", " . . . we had to contend not only with the Korchnoi-Karpov match but we had the Palestine Liberation Organization to contend with . . . ", and "He had been a Thai Deputy Minister . . . in Thailand . . . ", to cite only a few examples. And Schwartzmann: "I was able to completely eliminate this problem almost completely . . . ". Allowance can be made for Schwartzmann, who is not writing in his native language, but not for Schultz, who apparently neglected to consult any competent editor or proofreader. The literary critique could go on, but let's get to the red meat of the book. Schultz's writing finally has some focus when he gets down the business of blame-throwing. And considering the dire financial condition of the USCF in recent years, there is a lot of blame to go around. Schultz wants to be sure we don't think any of it belongs to him, and he has some scores to settle with old adversaries, in particular with AI Lawrence, USCF Executive Director

1 9881 996. As a USCF delegate, your reviewer has had some exposure to these issues. I solicited their

Also I am acquainted with Lawrence and with another Schultz target, former USCF treasurer Frank Camaratta, Jr. In the interest of balance, comments. The following paragraphs each summarize or quote a Schultz claim or accusation, followed by Lawrence's and/or Camaratta' s response. 1.

Schultz:

"In five months the LMA account [a portion of USCF Life Member

Assets designated for investment] was turned over five times causing should pursue !" (p. of around a

$20,000

in broker commissions - hardly the type of investing policy a life member account

296). Camaratta replies: "[LMA investments] made a profit

with

$ 1 20,000,

$400,000 at-risk capital,

over a nine-month period . . .

.

40%

rate o f return conveniently left out o f his so-called analysis . .

I for one

would gladly pay

$20,000 to net $ 1 20,000."

2. Schultz:

"The lifeblood of USCF, full-paying adult memberships, had

remained flat for over a decade . . . The mistakes of the last six years [apparently

346

Reviews 1 99 1 -96 1 were coming home to roost." (p. 306). This is supported with a bar graph on page 3 1 1 . Lawrence replies: "But the intervening years are missing l from Schultz's graph] ! During my time as ED from 1 988 to 1 995, regular membership had climbed reliably . . . as any complete and accurate USCF graph will verify . . ". Camaratta: "USCF total membership soared during the six years Schultz mentions ... After Schultz took over, we went into a membership tailspin."
.

3. Schultz: "By the time the deadline for submitting nominations [for USCF President in 1 996] came, most of my likely opponents concluded they would lose to me and chose not to run." Camaratta: "More self-deification ! I withdrew from the race for professional reasons . . . I never thought I could lose to the likes of Schultz."

4. Schultz repeatedly alleges that ED Lawrence was over-paid, and that he left

the USCF "on the verge of financial disaster." Lawrence replies: "I do seem to remember that Don, no matter how good the results were . . . hated to see me get a raise or a bonus . . . Bonuses to President Schultz's later Executive Director were much, much greater . . . In fact the audited financials for my entire eight year stretch as ED show a $400,000 accumulated profit. So his assertion that his administration inherited an impoverished USCF . . . doesn't begin to jibe with the facts."
5 . Schultz claims a major turnaround at USCF under his presidency, stating "in less than a year, the foundation had been reinforced and confidence restored." (p. 3 10). Lawrence: "The Federation [has] suffered a loss finally estimated by USCF officials to be in the neighborhood of $500,000 during Don's term . . . There was indeed a 'turnaround' during the Schultz years. But i t was a turn in drastically the wrong direction."

The above is only a small sampling; Schultz's claims and accusations run to many pages, as do Lawrence's and Camaratta's rebuttals. Your reviewer does not presume to know the full truth in these matters, but my present opinion is that these portions of CHESSDON are at best rather selective in their presentation of facts, and partisan in their interpretations. Though he has ostensibly retired, Schultz still seems to be making campaign speeches, and like a typical politician, he tells only the part of a story that is favorable to him, or unfavorable to his targets. There are a few positives to note. A few Schultz accounts of various FIDE controversies, elections, and personalities are intriguing. One gets some feel for the torturous political juggling that goes on in such a diverse organization. Also the process of Schultz's gradual disillusionment with Florencio Campomanes is of some interest. However, if Schultz has treated him with the same unfairness as his American targets, one wonders if even Campomanes is getting a bum rap.
347

rvrw
T h e fi nal pages o n l y u nderm i ne further one ' s con fidence

that S c h u l t z ' s

perceptions are consonant with reality. O f current FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov he says: "I liked what I saw. He wasn't an intimidating know-it-all trying to impose his will on how FIDE ought to be run." One wonders if Schultz actually met an impostor masquerading as Ilyumzhinov. CHESSDON is a vanity project masquerading as a book, a collection of ineptly told anecdotes , mediocre games , questionable finger-pointing and self extenuation. It may interest those mentioned in it, some of whom may pass it on to their lawyers, but the great majority of chess readers are advised not to waste their time or money. (November 1 999)

Fischer's Fury
Edward Winter
"It's a great book without a doubt, and can go straight on the shelf alongside Alekhine and Tarrasch and fear no comparisons." That was the opinion of W. H. Cozens in a review (December 1 969 BCM, pages 370-37 1 ) of Bobby Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, published over 30 years ago by Simon & Schuster in the United States and by Faber and Faber in the United Kingdom. The book continued to receive the highest plaudits from chess enthusiasts of all levels throughout the world, but then came disaster; in 1995 B. T. Batsford Ltd. produced an algebraic edition. At first, nothing seemed amiss. Page 1 88 of the April 1 995 BCM, for example, gave a hearty, if brief, welcome to "this great classic" and concluded "The best chess book ever written?". Everybody was glad that new generations of players unreceptive to the descriptive notation could enjoy Fischer's work, and nobody realized what Batsford had done to it. Nobody, that is, until June 1 996, when Fischer gave a searing press conference in Buenos Aires. He denounced the Batsford edition as forged and unauthorized and accused the company of having intentionally included many changes to it, in an attempt to make him look foolish. His salvos were reported in detail on pages 6- 1 2 of issue 432 of the Spanish magazine Jaque (September 1996), whose front cover sported a photograph of Fischer holding up a copy of the offending book. The magazine also reprinted a conversation some ten days later between Fischer and Juan S. Morgado in a Buenos Aires bookshop. Fischer declared that the Batsford team were "criminals" and "conspirators" and added: "They changed everything in my book, the notation, the format, the pages, the analysis ... and without paying royalties." Batsford swiftly issued a statement, professing itself "appalled" by Fischer's remarks. It said that it had purchased the right to publish the book from Faber
348