IM Del Campo vs FM Putnam Contest Reti Variation of Caro Kann at Summer 2021 CCCSA GM/IM Norm Invitational

The following game was contested in the “C” section of the Summer 2021 CCCSA GM/IM Norm Invitational at the Charlotte Chess Center & Scholastic Academy. After losing to the only Grandmaster in the “C” section, Ulvi Bajarani, FM Putnam ripped off three straight wins, with the game below being the third, to put himself in position to become an International Master if he can rip the heads off of today.

IM Roberto Abel Martin Del Campo Cardenas (2297)

vs FM Liam Putnam (2182)

Charlotte IM Norm C 2021 round 07

B15 Caro-Kann defence

  1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Qd3 (Every Chess player who has studied the classics will, after seeing 5 Qd3, immediately think of the famous game between Richard Reti

and Dr. Saviely Tartakower,

played in Vienna one hundred and eleven years ago, which concluded with: 5…e5 6.dxe5 Qa5+ 7.Bd2 Qxe5 8.O-O-O Nxe4 9.Qd8+ Kxd8 10.Bg5+ Kc7 11.Bd8# 1-0 With the way Chess is being played these days, especially at the CCC&SA, one would not be criticized for thinking that 1-0 was a misprint and should be 1/2-1/2. (

I am reminded of something read recently in the best Chess magazine in the world today, and possibly of all time, the 2021 #1 issue of New In Chess. In answer to the question, “Who is your favorite chess player of all time?” in the ‘Just Checking’ section at the end of each issue, former US Woman Champion Jennifer Yu answered, “I never had a favorite player. I always looked at a variety of players’ games. However, I’m following a lot of live events now now plan on studying the classics, so that may change soon!”

How can any player not have a favorite Chess player? Even more astounding it the fact that Jennifer became the female Chess Champion of the USA WITHOUT STUDYING THE CLASSICS! The very thought is anathema to those of us who devoured the classics.

The above book looks to be in very good condition compared to other copies seen over the years. It brings to mind a comment by Senior Master Brian McCarthy
Science Olympiad

when someone ridiculed one of his books sans cover, saying it should be thrown in the trash can. “What’a you mean, man? It’s still got the MEAT!”

I am reminded of the National Master who some years ago said, “You old guys just don’t get it. Every thing has changed with the computer. There is no longer any reason to study anything that happened before the computer age.”

“Oh yeah? I said. “If that’s the case then how come you’re still only a NM?” He glared at me without saying anything as some of the other “old” guys laughed, so I asked, “How long have you been stuck as NM?” Now there was fire in his eyes to go with the glare, but still he remained silent as the other oldsters continued laughing, so I added, “Looks like you would have at least made it to Senior Master by now.” That brought the house down and was too much for him, so he turned and stalked away…The oldies but goodies were slappin’ me on the back while saying things like, “You told him!” I put an end to it by saying, “Remember, I am no match for that young fellow, and neither are you. Matter of fact, he could probably beat all of us in a simultaneous exhibition, so stop your laughing.” The grins were immediately wiped off pf their faces. The next day the young fellow walked up to me informing that what I had said after he left had gotten back to him. He stuck out his hand, which I took, as we both stood there grinning…

5…Nbd7 (SF 12 would play 5…Na6, a move waiting for a human to play a Theoretical Novelty) 6. Ng5 e6 7. N1f3 Bd6 8. Bd2 h6 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4 Nf6 11. Qh4 Qc7 12. Bd3 Bd7 13. Bg5 Be7 14. c3 O-O-O 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Qe4 c5 17. dxc5 Qxc5 18. Qc4 Qxc4 19. Bxc4 Bc6 20. Ke2 g5 21. Rhd1 g4 22. Ne1 Kc7 23. Rxd8 Rxd8 24. Rd1 Rxd1 25. Kxd1 Be5 26. g3 Kd6 27. Ke2 f5 28. Nc2 a6 29. Nd4 Bd7 30. f4 Bf6 31. Bd3 h5 32. Ke3 h4 33. Bc2 Bd8 34. b4 h3 35. c4 Ke7 36. c5 Kf6 37. Bb3 e5 38. Ne2 Bc6 39. Bc4 Bf3 40. Ng1 Be4 41. Ne2 a5 42. Nc3 exf4+ 43. Kxf4 Bc7+ 44. Ke3 Bxg3 45. Nxe4+ fxe4 46. Kxe4 Bxh2 47. Bf1 axb4 48. Kd5 Kg5 49. c6 bxc6+ 50. Kxc6 Kh4 0-1

Richard Czaya vs Wilfried Lange
Event: Bad Nauheim
Site: Bad Nauheim Date:1948
Round: ?
ECO: B15 Caro-Kann defence

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qd3 Qc7 6.Bd2 Bg4 7.Ne2 Bh5 8.Nxf6+ gxf6 9.f4 e6 10.Ng3 Bg6 11.f5 exf5 12.O-O-O Qd7 13.Re1+ Kd8 14.Qf3 Qd5 15.Qxd5+ cxd5 16.Bf4 Nc6 17.c3 Rc8 18.Kd2 Ne7 19.Bd3 h5 20.h4 Rc6 21.Rhf1 Rg8 22.Re2 Re6 23.c4 dxc4 24.Bxc4 Rxe2+ 25.Nxe2 Nc6 26.a3 Kd7 27.Bb5 a6 28.Bxc6+ bxc6 29.Rf3 Bd6 30.Rb3 Bxf4+ 31.Nxf4 Kc7 32.d5 cxd5 33.Nxd5+ Kd6 34.Nf4 Ra8 35.Rd3+ Kc5 36.Kc3 Re8 37.b4+ Kc6 38.Kb3 Re5 39.g3 Re1 40.Ka4 Re5 41.Rc3+ Kb7 42.Kb3 Kb6 43.a4 Kb7 44.a5 Re4 45.Ka4 Rd4 46.Rd3 Rxd3 47.Nxd3 f4 48.Nxf4 Bc2+ 49.Ka3 Bd1 50.Nd5 Kc6 51.Nc3 Bc2 52.Kb2 Bd3 53.Kc1 Kd6 54.Kd2 Bc4 55.Ke3 Kc6 56.g4 hxg4 57.h5 g3 58.Kf3 Bd3 59.Kxg3 Bh7 60.Kf4 Kb7 61.Nd5 Kc6 62.Nxf6 Bg6 63.h6 Kb5 64.Nd5 1-0

Evgeniya Alexandrova vs Karina Geiko
Event: UKR-ch U10 Girls
Site: Nikolaev Date: 04/25/2007
Round: 9
ECO: B15 Caro-Kann defence

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qd3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.O-O-O e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Re1 Bf5 13.Qc3 O-O 14.Qxe5 Qxe5 15.Rxe5 Bg6 16.Re7 b5 17.Nd4 Rfc8 18.g3 b4 19.Nxc6 Rxc6 20.Bg2 Rxc2+ 21.Kd1 Rd8+ 22.Ke1 Kf8 23.Re2 Rc1# 0-1

Abedin Idrizaj (2231) vs Blazo Kalezic (2455)
Event: 22nd European Teams
Site: Batumi GEO Date: 10/30/2019
Round: 6.20
ECO: B15 Caro-Kann defence

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qd3 Qd5 6.Nc3 Qa5 7.Bd2 Bf5 8.Qg3 Na6 (SF & Komodo agree 8…e6 is the move)
9.Bc4 e6 10.O-O-O Qd8 11.Nf3 Nb4 12.Bb3 Be7 13.a3 Na6 14.Ne5 O-O 15.Rhe1 Nc7 16.f3 Nb5 17.Nxb5 cxb5 18.Bg5 Rc8 19.Ng4 Nxg4 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.fxg4 Qg5+ 22.Rd2 Qxg4 23.Qxg4 Bxg4 24.d5 Rfe8 25.h3 Bf5 26.g4 Bg6 27.dxe6 Kf8 28.Rd7 a5 29.Re2 a4 30.e7+ Rxe7 31.Rexe7 axb3 32.c3 Rc4 33.Rxb7 Rf4 34.Kd2 Be4 35.Ra7 g5 36.Ke3 Bg2 37.Re5 Bxh3 38.Rf5 Rxf5 39.gxf5 Bxf5 40.Rb7 g4 41.Rxb5 Bd7 42.Rb6 Ke7 43.Rh6 Bf5 44.Kf4 Bg6 45.Kxg4 Kd6 46.Kf4 Kc5 47.Ke5 Kc4 48.Rh3 Bb1 49.a4 Bg6 50.Rh4+ Kc5 51.Rb4 Bc2 52.a5 Bd3 53.Rxb3 h5 54.Rb6 1-0

Jennifer Yu Learns “The Truth”

It is written in the book, 500 Master Games of Chess by Savielly Tartakower and Julius Du Mont,

in a Bishop’s opening game on page 244, between Bowdler and Conway, played in London way back in 1788, after 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4, “The truth-as it was known in those far-off days.”

Joshua Sheng (2449)

vs Jennifer Yu (2341)

U.S. Junior Championship 2019 round 09

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3 a5 6. a4 Bd6 (6…Bb4+ is best) 7. exd5 Nxd5 (SF & Komodo play 7…cxd5) 8. O-O O-O 9. Re1 (Olav Sepp played 9.Nc3 vs Robert Sevtsenko below) Nd7 10. Bg5 Qc7 11. Na3 (11 d4) 11…Bxa3 (When looking at this position several moves looked plausible: either knight to b6; h6 and Re8. I would have been surprised, and pleased to see this move because white now has the advantage of the two bishops) 12. Rxa3 f6? (12…Nc5) 13. Bh4 Nb6 (13…Nc5) 14. d4 Bg4 15. dxe5 fxe5 16. Ba2 Kh8 17. h3 Bxf3 18. Rxf3

Nxa4? (18…Nf4 should be played. After this move the game is, for all intents and purposes, over…) 19. Rxf8+ Rxf8 20. c4 Nxb2 21. Qc2 Nxc4 22. Bxc4 Nf4 23. Bg3 Qd6 24. Ba2 b5 25. Bb1 g6 26. Qc3 b4 27. Qa1 Qd5 28. Be4 Qb5 29. Bxc6 Qxc6 30. Qxe5+ Qf6 31. Bxf4 Qxe5 32. Bxe5+ Kg8 33. Rc1 b3 34. Rc7 Re8 35. f4 a4 36. Rg7+ Kf8 37. Rb7 Rc8 38. Rxh7 Rc1+ 39. Kh2 a3 40. Bd6+ Kg8 41. Bxa3 Ra1 42. Rg7+ 1-0

Olav Sepp (2440) vs Robert Sevtsenko

Estonia Team Championship 1996

C24 Bishop’s opening, Berlin defence

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb3 a5 6.a4 Bd6 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.O-O O-O 9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Bg4 11.h3 Bh5 12.Re1 Nd7 13.g4 Bg6 14.Bg5 Qc7 15.Nh4 Nc5 16.Bc4 Nxa4 17.Bd2 Nb2 18.Qe2 Nxc4 19.Nxg6 hxg6 20.dxc4 Rfe8 21.Be3 Qe7 22.Reb1 e4 23.c5 Bxc5 24.Bxc5 Qxc5 25.Rxb7 Qxc3 26.Ra4 e3 27.Rf4 exf2+ 28.Qxf2 Re1+ 29.Kg2 Rae8 30.Rf3 Qa1 31.Ra3 Rg1+ 32.Kh2 Rf1 33.Rxa1 Rxf2+ 34.Kg3 Rxc2 35.Rxa5 Re3+ 36.Kf4 Rxh3 0-1

In the first round of one of the only two games played with a time limit called “Classical Chess” these daze, GM Rustam Kasimdzanov opened by playing The Truth against GM Evgeny Bareev. It was my intention to incorporate the game into this post, but after seeing the game excellently annotated by GM Kevin Spraggett on his blog the decision was made to send you to his fantastic blog, which can be found by clicking the link:

The Chess Book Critic

It is ironic that in one respect we seem to be living in a golden age of chess books. It is ironic because “books” are giving way to “digits” on a machine, not to mention the possible diminution of chess because of so many negative facets of the game in this new century. There is the problem of so many non-serious drawn games, and the cheating crisis, not to mention the possibility of Kirsan the ET “winning” yet another term as FIDE President. Any one blow could be fatal. All three could mean oblivion for the Royal game. Today I put all of that out of my mind and write about chess books.
Decades ago I had an opening notebook in which games were written by my hand, along with clippings and copies of games in my esoteric choice of openings, such as the Fantasy variation against the Caro-Kann, 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3!?, a move played by World Champion Vassily Smyslov. The Legendary Georgia Ironman called my notebook “Bacon’s book of ‘Death Lines’.” The cover came off but like LM Brian McCarthy said, “It still has the meat!” Like most all of what I had collected over the years, it too, alas, is gone with the wind. There were no databases then, and no books on such an obscure variation. A line such as this would be given maybe a line or two in an opening encyclopedia. Over the years I have seen a book published on just about all of the openings I used to play to “get out of the book,” such as the the Bishop’s opening, “The truth- as it was known in those far-off days,” or so said Dr. Savielly Tartakover in his book, “500 Master Games of Chess.” There were half a dozen books devoted to the BO on the shelves of The Dump. A quick check shows a new one, “The Bishop’s Opening (Chess is Fun)” by Jon Edwards appeared at the end of 2011 in what is called a “Kindle edition.” I have often wondered if it is possible to change a digit on one of those gizmo’s. For example, is it possible to “hack” one of the digital monsters and change one digit in ALL of the digital monsters? Like changing a move for Black from Bd6 to Bb6? Then when your opponent follows “book” and plays his bishop to b6 and loses, he may say something like, “I don’t understand it, Bb6 is the “book” move…” That is when you come from Missouri and say, “Show me.” When he brings out his reading machine you say, “That was not a ‘book’ move, it was a ‘gizmo’ move!”
This book has been on my ’roundtoit’ list since it was published in April: The Extreme Caro-Kann: Attacking Black with 3.f3, by Alexey Bezgodov and published by New In Chess. The books published by NiC are usually exceptional, and from what I have seen, this one is no exception.
Another book on my list is “The Enigma of Chess Intuition: Can You Mobilize Hidden Forces in Your Chess?” by Valeri Beim, published in June of 2012 and also by NiC. I have always been intrigued by those fortunate enough to have chess intuition. I thought I had this book in a box but could not find it: “Secrets of Chess Intuition” by Alexander Beliavsky and Adrian Mikhalchishin. This was published by Gambit way back in 2001. While researching this book online I managed to find it in downloadable form, and it is now a bunch of digits inside Toby, my ‘puter. GM Mikhalchishin was a student of IM Boris Kogan, so who knows, I may find a little of his wisdom passed down therein.
I have many books that came after the flood that are still waiting to be read, so I do not need another chess book. At least that was what I thought until reading the Book Review of June 18, 2014, by Steve Goldberg of “John Nunn’s Chess Course” by John Nunn. “Illuminating and clear, and informative and entertaining.” That is succinct. Steve gives it six stars and you can find it here:
The last thing I need at my age is any kind of “chess course.” I forget most of what I have learned by game time, so I have to go with what I know, Joe. Memorizing an opening variation is out of the question. But I was hooked after reading the first sentence, “In John Nunn’s Chess Course, Grandmaster John Nunn presents 100 of Emanuel Lasker’s games and twenty-four exercises taken from Lasker’s games.” That is good enough for me. With one of the best chess writer’s of all time, GM John Nunn, writing about the Great Man, Dr. Emanuel Lasker, what is not to like? Above the table where I study chess and Go is a picture of the Great Man himself. It is a color painting of Lasker in a suit, sitting with pen in hand while writing.
Wanting to know more about the book I surfed on over to the Gorilla, finding there were three reviews and a composite score of four and a half stars. Skrolling down showed two reviewers had given the book all five stars, while one had given it only three stars. I read this review last.
The first review was by Derek Grimmell who said, “A games collection both good to read and educational.” It is stated on the page that “20 of 21 people found the following review helpful.”
The next review is by AltitudeRocks, who writes, “Here, here! Or is it “hear here!” (or some other permutation)?” I have no idea what AR means by this, but he did follow it succinctly with, “Reviewer Grimmell deserves five stars for his review, and I cannot improve upon it.” 2 of 3 people found it helpful. Each of these reviewers used a “Kindle Edition” gizmo in lieu of an actual book, but the last reviewer, David, read a paperback, or so it says. The first review appeared May 23, but the two following popped up the same day, June 7.
David writes, “Not really with verbal explanations…” He then proceeds with his review, all of which I present:
“I will not describe the book, since that is done already by the publisher. What I will describe is my impression, and why I give 3 stars to Nunn’s books.
Nunn shows over and over in all his books, that the truth in chess exists. He doesn’t explain “how” to reach it (e.g did he use different engines plus his GM Level evaluation? Or he just analyses everything by himself, and then ask to someone else to check the analysis with an engine? or…? And “how” would the reader reach the same “truth” if he is not at Nunn’s level?), but he shows the faulty analyses of previous commentators, and also many authors who just copied and paste. In his book is shown how some publishers don’t have editors to correct mistakes like when the author of another book writes “Black” and means “White.” Of course shame on those authors, but evidently the chess field is full of snake-oil salesmen. Now, also when Nunn just tries to give a comment, without going into deep analyses, well feel ready to open your computer, and use your database program, because Nunn will go deep to prove the point. Example. I bought the book on Alekhine’s game, written by Alekhine, and with effort I could follow Alekhine’s comments and lines without moving the pieces on the board. With Nunn I cannot do so. The lines he gives are too long to be visualized, and there are many under-lines which need to be checked. (This has been synthesized well, by another reader of the book saying that if one wants analyses 40 plies long, it is just enough to click the engine button)
The real problem with Nunn is that he writes and check his analyses like a scholar, a professor of the field, while most other authors are amateurs trying to make some bucks out of their books. I don’t know if the average player, the one who plays blitz all day long online, and whose favorite authors have IM titles gained long time ago (maybe out of luck) deserve such precise and difficult books.
While I praise Nunn for writing this book, I honestly don’t like it, and I feel cheated by the publisher which writes: “explanation focus on general ideas rather than detailed analysis” This phrase is only partly true. The analysis are detailed like the one of Kasparov in his great predecessor series, and if I had known that, I wouldn’t have bought it.
Still, Nunn’s job is monumental, but as a reader, I don’t really think I will improve, because he made all the analysis, and in the end I can only agree with them, without using much of my brain (also because his analysis are good, and correct, not like the authors mentioned above who just make a copy and paste of other writers before).
The humor is that Nunn choose Lasker, because his games should be easier for the reader to understand.
For example, I’d like to take the first position given in the book. Houdini after 7 minutes, using 4 cpus, goes back from Qxe4 (chosen after 10-15 seconds) to Pc4, to Qxe4, all with numerical evaluations which are ridiculous, like + or – 0.13 or 0.20. Now honestly as reader how would I understand which move is better and why? Not from Nunn who doesn’t explain how he came to choose one over the other. After 12 minutes thinking Houdini at 27 moves deep (54 plies) agrees with the moves played in the game from move 24 to 26, changing move 27. But as a reader, I didn’t learn anything from Houdini, or from Nunn’s analysis, also if they are correct, and once again praise to GM Nunn for such an amazing job. If the publisher after reading this review, wants to give me back the money, I will gladly send the book back! (just add 3.99 for the S&H thanks! something like 20$ total, or just send me another book, so I can sell it and get the money back, because I already know, I will not be able to read this book)” (
Make of it what you will…Only “2 of 8 people found the review helpful.” I clicked on “David” to find he has reviewed seven different items, six of which he awarded ONE star. Only the Nunn book received more than one star. The other book reviewed by “David” is “The Alekhine Defence: Move by Move by Cyrus Lakdawala.” He asks, “Why Lakdawala hates President Bush?” Then he writes, “I didn’t buy the book, but I was interested in buying it. What stopped me was an offensive political/historical comparison made by Mr. Lakdawala upon President Bush.”
After reading the above you KNOW I was COMPELLED to read the rest!
“Mr. Lakdawala comparison with previous wars made by dictators and self-centered ego maniac like Hitler and Napoleon, is unfair toward President Bush, and should be removed by its publisher Everyman chess.
Thanks to Amazon “Look Inside” feature we can see Mr. Lakdawala political agenda. Mr. Lakdawala begins with a faulty assumption, saying that all history great military failures follow this equation: “temptation + undermining = Overextension.” Of course, Mr. Lakdawala is NOT a historian, and fails to prove the point, showing us if that did actually happen in ALL military failures, or if this is just his opinion, not based on actual research, which I believe is the case.
Mr.Lakdawala continues saying that “the aggressor” please keep in mind this term because will be referred to President Bush too, seizes power and territory (here Mr. Lakdawala forgets 9/11, and the tragedy brought upon United States, and equal the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq to the wars made by Hitler and Napoleon) instead of consolidating gains, the aggressor continues to expand with unbridled ambition (Did President Bush do that Mr. Lakdawala??) and then Mr. Lakdawala finishes his faulty syllogism with: “the aggressor overextends, retreats in disarray, and bungles the war.”
Now we come to the salient part, where Mr. Lakdawala needs to attack President Bush: “If you don’t believe me, just asks Napoleon, Hitler, and Bush how well their campaigns worked for them!”
I’m sorry but I don’t accept that someone compares the imperialist warmongers, like Hitler, and Napoleon, with President Bush, a president elected by hundred of millions of Americans, who had to lead the nation through a terrible tragedy.
First of all, also at superficial level we could notice that Hitler killed himself in a bunker, and one of his strict collaborators, Goebbels, also killed himself with all his family. Then we could notice that most of nazi leaders have been condemned for crimes against humanity in the Nuremberg trial, did Bush have the same fate? Have the congress and senate of the United States of America, who voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who has been elected also with the vote of Mr. Lakdawala, have been indicted and put under trial for crimes against humanity? Is United States a country divided in two parts, controlled by China, and some European countries, like it happened to Germany after the end of the Second World War?
Of course I could continue for hours to show the ignorance of politics and history Mr. Lakdawala shows in his light comment, but I believe here there is also a failure from the publisher, and its editors into correcting mr. Lakdawala’s political views, and keep them confined to his blog, his facebook, his twitter, or whatever other forms of social media he uses to communicate with his buddies. A book, about chess, and about a chess opening, should talk about that subject, let’s leave politics, and historical judgments, to those who write in those field as professionals.

Then let’s speak also of the Alekhine defence, an opening who has the name from someone who was a Nazi collaborator, and Mr. Lakdawala, so fond of comparisons with Napoleon, Hitler, and Bush, forgets to mention it. Does really White loses all his games due to overextension? Because if this doesn’t happen, then also the beginning “universal equation” fails. For example did Mr. Lakdawala showed us examples of Houdini, one of the best chess engines, losing a single game against him, due to overextension? No. Mr. Lakdawala fails to show us that. Because a “scholar” of a subject should prove his statements through some statistical analysis. But I don’t find this in his book. In there are about 1618 games with the Alekhine defence, and they are divided in 37.3% of the times wins by White, 33.1% wins by Black, and a 29.5% draws. This fails to illustrate the point that the “universal” equation works, because in fact we don’t know if White overextended in those 33.1% of the times, but it would have made more sense, than instead of knowing Mr. Lakdawala political agenda against President Bush, his publisher and editors would have steered him toward the realm of chess data, and asked to answer that question.”
My first thought after finishing the above was, “There’s something happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. David.”
“6 of 24 people found the review helpful.” Did they now? I found it highly entertaining in a Rush Limbaugh kind of way, but helpful? No. Although I have not taken the time to ascertain what the average number is for those clicking on whether or not the review was helpful, it seems to me the total must be something like at least 70%-80% helpful. For “David’s” two book reviews it is 8 out of 32, or 25%. For all seven of his reviews 78 out of 262 considered his reviews “helpful.” That is a batting average of .298 folks, which is 3 out of 10.
If you are still with me you may have surmised that I JUST HAD to go to the page of the book and have a “Look Inside.” I liked the first sentence, “The only openings worth playing are the ones that reflect our inner nature.” As for an author using the military and war to make a point about chess…who would do something like that? Surf on over and read it for yourself.
If you are into chess books there is this interesting article on, “Best chess masters biographies?” (