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
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. (https://www.365chess.com/game.php?back=1&gid=2636005&m=11)
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
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…
If a player decides to defend the Caro Kann with 3…c5, the so called BotvinniKann, he should be prepared for an early Nf3 from the player in charge of the white army because many players are reluctant to move the Queen early in the opening of the game regardless of what the computer programs compute.
Emil Sutovsky (2651)
vs Jonathan S Speelman (2603)
North Sea Cup 16th 07/11/2001 Rd 6
B12 Caro-Kann, advance variation
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bd7 7.Nxc6 Bxc6 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 (All best according to SF)
9.O-O (The best move according to SF & Komodo is 9 c4, a move yet to be played in practice) e6 10.c4 Ne7 11.Qa4 Qd7 12.Nd2 Rb8 13.b3 Nc8 14.Rd1 Nb6 15.Qa5 dxc4 16.Bb2 cxb3 17.axb3 Nd5 18.Ne4 Be7 19.Rd3 Rb4 20.Nd6+ Bxd6 21.exd6 Re4 22.Rg3 e5 23.Rxg7 Kf8 24.Rg3 Re2 25.h3 Rg8 26.Qxa7 Qxa7 27.Rxa7 Rxg3 28.Ra8+ Kg7 29.d7 Nf4 30.Rg8+ 1-0
(Although 8…Ng6 has almost invariably been played Stockfish gives 8…Nb4, a move yet to be attempted in practice, best)
Komodo prefers 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. Nf3 Bxc5 6. Bd3 Ne7 7. O-O Nbc6 8. a3. The following game transposes into the 8 a3 line and follows the computer programs best play until 12…Kf7, when black should simply castle, a move that will become a theoretical novelty once played by a top GM.
(born Sep-16-1880, died Sep-11-1958, 77 years old) Germany
Carl Johan Margot Carls was born in Varel. Awarded the IM title in 1950, he was German champion in 1934.
A successful banker in Bremen with little time for tournament play or study, Carls specialized in the English Opening to help neutralize his relative lack of opening knowledge. Several variations bear his name or that of his city; for example, English, Bremen System, Keres Variation (A23) and English, Bremen System with …g6 (A24). http://www.chessgames.com/player/carl_johan_margot_carls.html
Who would have ever thought the man responsible for one of the most sordid incidents in the history of the Royal game would ever be thought of as a “good loser” by anyone at any time in the history of mankind. See: https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/what-was-toiletgate-611124
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.dxc5 e6 5.a3 (SF 9 at depth 45 plays this, expecting 5…Bxc5 6 Nf3; or 5 Nf3 Bxc5 6 a3. At a lower depth SF plays 5 Bd3 Nd7 6 Nf3) Bxc5 6.Qg4 (6 b4 and 6 Nf3 have been played far more often but for SF the game move is best) 6…Ne7 (At a lower depth SF goes with 6…Bf8 but going deeper prefers 6…Ne7 expecting 7 Nf3 Nbc6 to follow) 7.Nf3 (Komodo, at a lower depth, plays 7 b4 h5 8 Qxg7. SF plays the game move with 7…0-0 8 b4 to follow)
7…Qb6 (SF 151218 at depth 48 plays 7…0-0 8 b4 Bb6; SF 10 at depth 42 goes with 7…Ng6 8 Bd3 Bd7. Neither of these moves has as yet been attempted in practice, by a human or A.I.)
The interview is excellent and was enjoyed immensely. Although aware of IM Lakdawala from his playing days, and knowing he was a prolific author considered controversial by some, I knew very little about him. The lack of knowledge was remedied by the interview found him to be a very interesting person with whom I would like to spend time.
The knock on Cyrus is the number of Chess books he has written. I visited the Gorilla and stopped after counting on my fingers and toes twice. I must admit to not having read any of the books. I do not even recall seeing one of his books in a bookstore. Yet his book published last summer, How Ulf Beats Black: Ulf Andersson’s Bulletproof Strategic Repertoire for White,
looks interesting, especially since I previously read, Grandmaster Chess Strategy: What Amateurs Can Learn from Ulf Andersson’s Positional Masterpieces, by Jurgen Kaufeld and Guido Kern, published at the beginning of this decade and consider it to be a masterpiece.
The interview begins, “Life is full of surprises. Thanks to the unexpected alignment of Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter, I had the chance to interview Cyrus Lakdawala, likely the biggest writer in chess history. Some love him, and some definitely hate his writing style. Whatever your inclination is, don’t miss this interview, because in it we discover more about a great professional player who has worked in chess for decades, and who has dedicated his life to something he truly loves.
Generally when I don’t know what to give as a gift for Christmas, I give Lakdawala’s books. I remember once I found an incredible offer of Korchnoi’s Move by Move for something like $6, and bought some for Christmas.” One of the friends I gave the book to never played chess again, so I guess Lakdawala was pure enlightenment! I loved interviewing Lakdawala for the following reasons: he is really articulate, he shows a human side of chess in which we can all find ourselves, but most of all I felt the similarities with his writings and my own.
As always in my articles I will pause the interview from time to time to show some excerpts from the great books written by Lakdawala, Some of the games I found in his books are quite important for our development as chess players.”
Davide Nastasio: Could you tell for our readers how the chess journey began for you?
Cyrus Lakdawala: My father taught me how to play at age eight, and I have never forgiven him for it! I got immediately addicted, even though I didn’t display an iota of talent for the game.
DN: Who coached you when you were young?
CL: At first I only played my father (who was an A-player) and kids at school, but never had a formal coach. I was essentially self-taught from books — and I wasn’t a very good teacher, since my study was all over the place. Also, I was completely dishonest with myself, since at age eight, I strove to be the new Tal, which was a wee bit off the mark, since on the chess board I was the biggest dove of all time. When I was a kid, during summer vacation I desperately sought out strong competition and would walk miles to the shopping center bus stop, take a 45-minute bus trip to downtown Montreal, then take a 20-minute metro ride to the En Passant Chess Cafe. There I could play blitz with strong masters, like FM George Levtchouk (maybe I’m misspelling his name, if so, sorry George!) and GM Kevin Spraggett, and many others. I would play endless blitz games for stakes of 25 to 50 cents per game, which for a 13-year-old in 1973, was a fortune, since I only made $5 per week from my paper route. I was completely lopsided in playing strength with fast and slow time controls. I could hang with masters and even some titled players in blitz, yet in tournament play, I was still rated 1795 in over-the-board play when I was 17 years old, so it would be slightly dishonest to describe myself as a budding prodigy!
DN: Which books influenced you most in your formative years? (An excellent question for a prolific Chess writer)
CL: Five chess books deeply influenced me:
1. I don’t remember its name or its author, but it was a book on Capablanca’s games. Going through them, I craved to replicate Capa’s Mozartian perfection in my own games and always fell short.
Let me pause the interview here to point out that Lakdawala wrote a book on Capablanca!
And this is a game from that book which shows Lakdawala’s great teaching skills! (The game between Capa and A. Conde from Hastings 1919 follows)
And now back to the interview!
2. I read a book on Nimzowitsch’s games (I don’t remember the name or author of this one either and I’m wondering if I should up my daily dose of Ginko Biloba) and desperately tried to imitate Nimzo’s play, usually with disastrous results, since I would cleverly transfer my queen to a1 and then get mated on the other side of the board, or with great erudition I would overprotect my e5-pawn (just as Nimzowitsch taught) and then overlook my opponent’s response …Bxa1, chopping my now hanging queen.
3. I devoured Fischer’s 60 Memorable Games, and swore to be his next incarnation and play just like him. As you may have guessed, this vow didn’t come to fruition.
I need to pause the interview once again to show another book by Lakdawala on Fischer.
My idea to show entire games commented by Lakdawala has purpose to show the great deal we can learn from his format, thanks to his questions at the right moments.
4. In the summer of 1977, I read my buddy IM Tony Saidy’s
masterpiece: Battle of Chess Ideas
and was so inspired that I made the slightly questionable decision of striving to become a professional chess player, despite the fact that I was 17 years old and rated 1795. I have since demanded an apology from Tony for tricking me with his book.
5. In 1994, I was mired at a USCF rating of 2500 for several years and it felt as if I had reached my peek rating. Then to my great good fortune, I bought a copy of my buddy Jeremy Silman’s
Reassess Your Chess
as a teaching tool for my students, since I considered it a beginner’s book. To my great astonishment, the book shifted something which was previously jammed in my thinking process and my rating rocketed to nearly 2600 within the space of a very short time, which I completely attribute to Jeremy’s indispensable book. The reason Reassess Your Chess is the best-selling chess book of all time is that it may be the greatest chess book of all time. There is some hidden secret within it. Exactly what the essence of that secret is I can’t fathom, but it is there.
Again, I pause the interview to interject my own comments: I bought a 3rd edition of Silman, because I thought it was a classic. And I also bought the last edition, now I just need to find the time to read them!
DN: Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your books, because I know you are a prolific author. How did you select material for your own books?
CL: Sometimes I propose an idea and sometimes the publisher suggests one. I’m at the point right now where there is no time when I’m not simultaneously working on at least two books. For me, the books are all consuming and I think about them day and night. Since I began writing chess books, I filled up 77 yellow notepads with notes for my books. If I average about 650 notes per pad, that is a lot of notes. I can’t give you the exact number, because I already mentioned that I’m not very competent in math and am only able to count to 20.
DN: What is your philosophy for teaching?
CL: My philosophy for teaching is to never BS the student (or parent) and always ruthlessly tell them the truth — even when it hurts — which I do, since I’m not afraid of losing students by offending their parents. It is the nature of humans to crave praise, but false praise (which I see some teachers engage in) is harmful to the student. It’s a ruthless world out there and the student shouldn’t be congratulated if they didn’t prepare, lost 50 rating points in the tournament, ignored your opening advice and placed 40th in their section, yet some of the parents clap their hands in delight and tell the kid, “Great job! High five!” Instead, the student must be toughened with the truth. If the student is weak in a portion of the game or with a psychological aspect, I insist that they strive to fix the problem. The other issue is unrealistic expectations from parents. Their kid is lazy, 14 years old and rated 1400, yet they believe he or she is a prodigy and expect me to have the student break the 2200 barrier by the end of the year, achieve the IM title the following year and GM the year after that. I tell them this is impossible, yet love is blind and many parents believe their kid is the next Caruana or Carlsen.
Speaking of Carlsen, Lakdawala also wrote one Move by Move book on the World Champion.
DN: Do you have any advice for senior players?
CL: If we are the exquisitely carved porcelain doll, then old age is the hard stone floor when we are dropped, destined to smash into a thousand tiny shards. It’s difficult not to regard old age as a personal rebuke, since it is also a thief who slowly and brazenly embezzles our abilities over time. Survival in an unforgiving environment means having to make ruthless choices, so adjust your style to reduce calculation and complications, which exhaust us old guys. If you are an older player now way past your prime, you are most certainly better than your younger counterparts when it comes to decision-making and technical positions. So strive for these, rather than math-based situations. Our brains just don’t work as well as they did in our prime, so think about switching to the Caro-Kann and put your Dragons on the shelf. Factor in that your synapses don’t fire in the brain as fast as they used to and stop being the antlered buck who wants to smash heads, vying for dominance in the herd. Be sneaky, rather than forceful. So steer the game to logic-based positions, rather than irrational ones. Look, it isn’t all doom and gloom for us old guys and gals.
Davide then writes, “I’d like to pause the interview here to show Lakdawala can help also in the field of openings. He just mentioned the Caro-Kann for senior players, and he wrote a book on the Move by Move series.”
The game between A. Matanovic and T. Petrosian, Kiev, 1959 from the Caro-Kann book follows. Then the interview resumes:
With age comes the following:
1. Our experience translates to instant understanding in some positions, which youth and inexperience sorely lack.
2. With a slowing of our brain speed comes an increase of deceit, from decades of having been tricked ourselves. Young, inexperienced players can sometimes be easily tricked into positions which require experience and understanding, rather than calculation. I wrote in Play the London System,
“Old age and deceit overcome youth and talent,” and I meant it! So there are actual advantages to being old, and as the spokesperson for Farmer’s Insurance loves to repeat, “We know a thing or two, because we’ve seen a thing or two.”
A writer cannot please everyone and must have thick skin to put his thoughts on paper, or digits on a screen. This is an example found on the internet:
maxharmonist
3 years ago
Cyrus Lakdawala is insufferable, his books being filled with endless and pointless meanderings of this sort (from the Kramnik book):
“The meek bishop backs off, does what he is told to do and goes where he is told to go. A beaten dog may still follow the cruel master’s command. In college, my first job was as an inept hotel clerk. When encountering daily traffic of unruly, spoiled hotel guests, my mouth would obediently respond, ‘Thank you, Sir, for your constructive criticism! Of course, Ma’am! Right away, Ma’am!’ As a pressure valve, my chafing mind, suffering from some strange, inward form of Tourette’s Syndrome, would add in the dark, silent realm of thought: ‘Bugger off (anatomically explicit expletives deleted)!'”
I am one of the readers who actually like “endless and pointless meanderings of this sort,” as they tell one much about the human being who has pointlessly meandered off endlessly. Some of my favorite books about Baseball have used a meandering regular season game as a backdrop for the author’s “meanderings,” which, when one cogitates a little, were the real reason for the book.
Because of reading this fabulous interview on the website of my state Chess magazine I intend on making it a point to read several of the author’s books, including this one since I have long been a Birdman:
It is obvious Lakdawala’s books have held their value. An example would be this book:
It is out of print and will set you back at least $83.44 on Amazon with some books priced over two hundred dollars. Obviously some readers like Cyrus Lakdawala’s books.
After 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 there is an alternative for white, 5 Ng3, as NM Michael Lucas, from Alabama, played against me in a game ultimately drawn in a time scramble. “Wasn’t that exciting?” Mike asked immediately after I agreed to his draw offer. “No” I replied. “It was HARROWING!” He laughed uproariously as we signed score sheets. IM Boris Kogan said Mike was one of the most inventive players he had known. Lucas did not like to study Chess; only play. I still recall going over one of his Closed Sicilian games in which he played g3-g4, and then on the following move, g4-g5. I said something like, “Wow.” He looked up and grinned. “It thwarts everything,” he said. “Thwarts” has stuck in my memory. As I recall my response, after Mike retreated his knight, was 5…g6. Then it was that or 5…h5, but I had experimented with moves like 5…Qc7, and 5…Na6, among others, but never thought to play 5…c5, which is the move Komodo gives as best at the CBDB.
The variation 1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6 5 Qe2 has become popular. Anyone who has read my blogs know of my predilection for the move Qe2 in the opening, especially against the French. I have yet to play 5 Qe2 versus the Caro Kann because I do not play 2 Nc3. I favor 3 f3, the Caro Kann Krusher, after the usual 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5. Maybe the white player hopes for 1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6 5 Qe2 Nbd7:
White to move
There is a reason one should ALWAYS EXAMINE ALL CHECKS!!!
This was actually played in a game between Paul Keres and Edward Arlamowski at the Przepiorka Memorial in Poland two months and three days before I was born in 1950. Since the first game played with Qe2 iin this variation was played by Paule Keres, I declare it to be the “Keres variation.”
Here are a couple of recent games with the Keres variation from Gibralta:
Does this mean Naka has grown old, at least as a Chess player? Seeing this game caused me to reflect on a post found at GM Kevin Spraggett’s website recently, Samurai Spassky. Kevin provides Spassky’s original annotations to a Caro-Kann game played in 1959: Boris Spassky vs Aaron Reshko, St.Petersburg. Also provided is a PDF of a 1969 Soviet-Life article containing Spassky’s thoughts on the Caro-Kann, which I transcribed:
“The Caro-Kann is quite popular now, but it is usually employed by passive-minded players. The main idea of this system is that Black temporarily declines a Pawn battle in the middle and strives, instead, to quickly as possible finish deploying his forces, especial the Queen’s Bishop, before the King’s Pawn move P-K3. Only after this does he launch vigorous operations in the center. The result is that Black’s position is solid, even though passive. The weakness of this system is that it offers White too much a wide a choice of possible patterns of development, which provides not only chess, but also psychological trumps.” http://www.spraggettonchess.com/samurai-spassky/
Former US Chess Champion Stuart Rachels,
now an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama, said, “Play main lines.” That may be good advice for top flight players, but for the rest of us, “Where is the fun in that?” I have never, ever, not once, played Bf5. After 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 I have only played 3…c5 and Qb6. Upon returning to Chess after leaving the Royal game for the more lucrative Backgammon I played mostly obscure and little known openings, such as what was called by Kazim Gulamali,
the “Caro-Kann Krusher.” 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3!
Now there is a book on the move…
There are so many multifarious opening lines, yet top players continue to trot out the same ol’, same ol’…BORING!
Kevin plays the “passive” 5…exf6 in this game, which features double doubled pawns, and a Queen sacrifice!
Rea Bruce Hayes was born in Weston Ontario, Canada, on October 31, 1915. His first memory of chess was when he was taught to play at age eleven by a boy in the neighborhood. When he thought his friend was being inconsistent about the rules, Rea “read the article in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica”. From that point on he was the teacher.
Rea joined the St. Clair Chess Club in Toronto and became its champion a few years later. This club later became the Canada Dairies Chess Club.
He moved to Greeneville, South Carolina in 1953 and won his first tournament at Columbia. One trophy was for being the South Carolina Open Champion, the other one was for being the highest scoring South Carolina resident. At the time, no one expected a resident to win the state tournament outright. In 1954, Rea was again the South Carolina Open Champion, but he only received one trophy this time.
While living in South Carolina, Rea tied for third with a 5-2 score in the 1953 Southern Open in Columbia. He finished in a foursome of 5.5-1.5 scores in the 1954 Southern Open in Atlanta and had to settle for fourth on tie breaks.
From South Carolina, Rea transferred to Chattanooga, TN for a two year period. Having just moved, he entered the 1955 Southern Open in Chattanooga and won the Southern Championship with a 6-1 score.
Rea lived the next 30 years of his life in Cincinnati, Ohio. There, he organized the Parkway Chess Club and the City League, a chess team competition. He revived the city championship which had been abandoned for years, winning both the city and club championship many times. For his efforts on behalf of the club, Rea is an honorary member.
In Ohio, the annual Ohio Championship was captured outright by Rea in 1963, winning with only one draw. Several other times, he tied for first in the event. The Region V Championship was his at least once. He was instrumental in organizing the Cincinnati Open, the second annual tournament in Ohio. He was also the president of the Ohio Chess Association. Rea was twice honored by his Cincinnati club, as Chessman of the Decade (1958-1968) and again when he left Cincinnati in 1987.
Before leaving Cincinnati, Rea retired from Union Central Life where he worked as an actuary. Rea visited New Zealand in 1980-1981. Playing chess with players in the Hastings area, one of them paid him the compliment of saying that if Rea lived there, he would be the second or third player in the country.
During 1981, he traveled to Sun City West in Arizona, to take part in the 1st US Senior Open tournament. Although ranked 7th of the eight upper section players, he won top honors. He conceded only one draw, to the player ranking below him. He also won the upset prize, a nice wristwatch, for beating the favorite, Eric Marchand.
Rea’s lasting legacy is being the first US Senior Champion. The Senior trophy now rests at the US Chess Hall of Fame in Washington DC with his name engraved first on the list of champions.
He moved to Chattanooga for the second time in 1990 and became a regular player at the tournaments in and around the state of Tennessee. In 1992, he entered the 46th Annual Tennessee Open in Oak Ridge and captured State Champion honors. He had three wins and three draws.
Since his coming to Chattanooga and the Chattanooga Chess Club, Rea fulfilled the role of Chessman of the Area. He served in almost every club capacity over the years, including president and newsletter editor. All of his contributions and accomplishment have prompted the Chattanooga Chess Club to elect him Life Member and hold an annual tournament in his honor.
While teaching Chess there was one particular position I would use as a way of learning what kind of player, or potential player, was my student. The position could also be useful with a group.
The position can be attained from the Caro-Kann, 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6 5 Nxf6+
Black to move
With which pawn one captures indicates what kind of player is the student. The more passively inclined tend to prefer taking with the e-pawn; while the more aggressively inclined will take with the g-pawn.
During one class there was a vehement argument when one player explained he would capture with the g-pawn because there was a rule that one should capture toward the center, while another was just as adamant he would capture with the e-pawn because of the pawn island rule, which states two pawn islands are to be preferred over three pawn islands. “Which one of us is right, coach?” was asked as all eyes turned toward yours truly for elucidation. “The thing about Chess,” I began, “is that the rules often conflict with each other. YOU must decide which one takes priority.” They looked at each other, then looked at me before speaking as one. “You mean we are both right?”
I explained that the Caro-Kann defense had a reputation as a passive opening but could be played actively if one chose the right continuation. “I am more of an aggressive player by nature and when changing from playing the Najdorf Sicilian to the Caro-Kann this particular opening, taking with the g-pawn, appealed to me because of the open line on the g-file, especially when white castles king side.”
“So you don’t ever take with the e-pawn?” asked the fellow who had opted for doing exactly that. “Taking with the e-pawn is for sissies,” I said, to howls of laughter. When it died down I added, “Just kidding, guys. Taking with the e-pawn is much more solid. If you play that way you will draw more games, and lose less often, while taking with the g-pawn leads to more wins, less draws, but more losses. It is your choice.” After the Chess lesson that day the students began playing for the last half of the class. I walked around looking at the positions and almost all games were Caro-Kann openings, evenly split between taking with the e and g pawn.
In the fourth round of the move first, think later, Ga Open, Reece Thompson faced the veteran Senior Alan Piper and once again faced the Caro-Kann defense, and again drew his f3 sword. The Pipe responded with the currently poplar 3…Qb6, which has scored the best for Black recently, holding White to an astounding 41%! White has scored 56% versus the choice of both SF & Houey, 3…e6. The third most played move, 3…g6, has scored 57%, while the second most played move, 3…dxe4 has been hammers to the tune of 66%!
In his new book, “The Extreme Caro-Kann: Attacking Black with 3. f3,” Alexey Bezgodov titles chapter four, “3…Qb6: The Restless Queen Variation.” Reece answered with the most popular move, 4 Nc3, which has held White to only 41%. Houdini prefers the little played 4 c3, which has held White to an astoundingly low 31%, albeit in a limited number of games. I have previously seen the set-up with c3 used when Black opts for g6. Alan took a pawn with 4…dxe4. There is much disagreement about how to recapture. In the book Bezgodov writes about 5 Nxe4, “I think taking with the pawn is better.” That may be so, but Komodo takes with the Knight, after which White has scored 50% in practice. SF takes with the pawn, 5 fxe4, after which White has scored only 36%. The Pipe then plays 5…e5, about which Bezdodov says, “The whole of Black’s play is based n the possibility of this counterblow. Otherwise he is simply worse.” Reece played 6 Nf3, the most frequently played move, which also happens to be the choice of both SF & Houey, but it has only scored 32%! GM Larry Christiansen played 6 dxe5, a move not for the faint of heart, but possibly the best move, against GM Joel Benjamin at the 2010 US Championship. In a limited number of games Larry C’s move has scored far better, 54%, than 6 Nf3, which is not discussed in the book. After 6…exd4 one Stockfish plays 7 Nxd4, while the other SF plays 7 Qxd4. My antiquated Houdi plays the latter move. The Pipe responded with ‘s 7…Nf6. At this point Reece played a TN, 8 Bc4. The usual move, 8 e5, is also the choice of SF. Alan responded to the new move with 8…Bc5, with advantage. 8…Bg4 is the first choice of both Houdini & Komodo. After the young man checked the Queen with 9 Na4, the older veteran played 9…Qb4, when both Komodo & Houdini prefer 9…Qa5+. Like Lewis & Clark, the players were now exploring new territory.
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: http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/review943.htm
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)” (http://www.amazon.com/John-Nunns-Chess-Course-Nunn/dp/1906454825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403116508&sr=1-1&keywords=John+Nunn%27s+Chess+Course)
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 Chessgames.com 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 Chess.com, “Best chess masters biographies?” (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/best-chess-masters-biographies)
In NiC Yearbook #100 there is an article by IM Jeroen Bosch, “A Special Way to Combat the Caro-Kann.” The move order is 1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Qe2!? After replaying the match between Chigorin and Tarrasch contested in St. Petersburg in 1893, in which Chigorin played 2 Qe2 versus the French ten times, with five wins, three losses and two draws, I began to play 2 Qe2. It is only natural I would be attracted to an early move of the Queen on move three against the Caro-Kann. IM Jereon Bosch authored an article on 3 Qe2 vs the CK in NiC Yearbook #100. He has recently written an excellent article expounding on the Queen move on the chess.com website: http://www.chess.com/article/view/sos—secrets-of-opening-surprises—july-2013
IM Bosch wrote in the NiC Yearbook article, “The first strong player to adopt 3 Qe2 was Semen Dvoiris towards the end of last century.” Research led me to this game:
Van Geet, Dirk Daniel – Ludden, Gert Jan ½-½
Armchair Warrior 