Quality Chess Blog

Nigel Short is one of the greatest characters in the Chess World as well as one of the truly great players of the last 20 years. On top of this his writing has at times been some of the best seen in chess. First for various newspapers and more recently with always interesting and thought-provoking columns in New in Chess Magazine.

I am actually such a great fan of Nigel that I asked him to be the patron for the chess club I run at Fettes College in Edinburgh, the Nigel Short Chess Society. In the near future I hope that he will come to give simuls and lectures in Scotland, partly sponsored by QC.

One great thing about Nigel is that he does not seek agreement or appeasement. I am continuously frustrated by the way people take personal offence, just because you inform them that their opinions are rubbish! Nigel does not belong to this camp, as you can see through the way he writes about friends and foes alike, criticising what he finds worthy of criticism wherever he finds it.

However, I have taken objection with a few of his “Short stories” columns in New in Chess. One had nothing to do with me, but was distasteful in my opinion, while the most recent one actually mentions me by name, although I have to add, as a positive! Still I feel it allows me to comment on it.

The article is a mix of oldie goldies from Nigel, about British Chess and so on, with an added bit about the referendum. It is also full of plain nonsense.

First of all, there is something particularly funny about a citizen of Athens, Greece, commenting on the actions of a Londoner’s (Jonathan Rowson) actions during the Scottish referendum. I would have preferred that both of them stayed the f… away, since they have chosen not to suffer the consequences of an independent Scotland. Probably Nigel and I are on the same side there.

We are also on the same side when it comes to the odd situation of British Chess having five (5!) Olympiad Teams and federations. It is the way things turned out, is the only real argumentation for it. But it is certainly not the fact that Scotland sends GMs to the Olympiad that drags the level down there. Nigel’s old view is that he would have liked Rowson in his team and to have played for Scotland. But in identity, Nigel is British and Jonathan Scottish. Funny that, the English who took over the Scots feel we are one land, while the Scots see it in a more dualistic light.

My real objection comes when Nigel displays his inability to do research. He misspells the name of our First Minister Alex Salmond (pronounced, not spelled Alec), he claims Scotland is not a Nation, displaying a lack of understanding between the difference of a nation and a nation state. Add to this low-blow insinuations that the Scottish players are jealous of the English prizes at the British Championship, without actually talking to us about the history behind the departure from the tournament after 2007 of all top Scottish players (by no agreement between us). Finally, a completely underfunded Commenwealth Championship in Glasgow is criticised for not inviting enough English players, when in reality hardly anyone of any nation were invited. If you go back to previous Scottish Championships, you can see a plethora of English players. I feel a need to defend Alex McFarlane here (yes, pronounced Alec), who works for no money organising and arbiting at both the Scottish and British Championships to the benefit of myself, Nigel and many strong players from all of Britain.

I am tempted to say that it goes on and on, but luckily the article is only two pages. But this does not free it from its main crime. It is slightly boring and not up to usual standards, as anyone can see if they go to previous issues. And in reality, this is the only crime that matters – and I am sure – the only criticism Nigel could ever feel worthy of taken personal. Maybe he will review one of my books in a future issue, immolating me with his withering wit?

Inspired by reviews from Rieger, Hickl and a few others, I think it is worth me trying to explain what the GRANDMASTER PREPARATION series is all about and who I think it is written for. I also have some additional points that will meet some of the criticism put forward in those reviews. At the end of the day, I do not think the sales or reception of the books are moved at all by a few bad reviews. I am not hurt, offended or anything like that. But I have noticed the big interest here on the blog and think it is worth relating to some of the questions.

The conception

The books are compilations of the training material I have collected for a number of international masters and grandmasters over the years. It was the continuous requests for more material that sparked the somewhat systematic harvest of material that I perform whenever I have the time. I was trying to meet a demand from strong players.

Who is the series written for?

There has been criticism that because 95% of all chess players are rated under 2100, it is wrong to write a book that clearly aim for 2300+ – or at least players with 2150+ who are willing to work hard. I have to say that I cannot be anything but amazed by this argument. I cannot think of a counter-argument, nor do I think I need one.

The main point is that the series is called Grandmaster Preparation and therefore clearly indicates who the target audience are. The ones preparing for being grandmasters; either by being so already, or because they are ambitious. It is not a get the FM title program. We have one of these; it is written by Yusupov and as any regular reader of this blog will tell you: we recommended it more often than we recommend my books.

Having given this disclaimer, I think it would be misleading to say that I did not take into account that some 1800s will buy the books as well. And I think I have tried to reflect this in the selection of exercises. Take a look at this one for example:

[fen size=”small”]6R1/8/3K4/8/6p1/6k1/8/8 w – – 0 1[/fen]

White to play and win (solution at the end)

With only four pieces, I am not sure how much easier I can make it, while still keeping it in a book with GM in the title.

Read more…

(Taken from New in Chess Magazine 3/2014)

5. In our previous issue, Levon Aronian said that he didn’t understand what people mean when they speak of good form. Did you feel you were in good form?

I didn’t have that feeling at the tournament – where I was really shining was at the training sessions with Sergey Karjakin that ended a week before Yerevan. I cracked studies like nuts. Usually I take one of Jacob Aagaard’s books to tournaments and solve positions from them to find out what form I’m in. I remember that at the last Super Final of the Russian Championship in Novgorod I was really concerned about the results of my attempts, but it was already too late to do anything about it. But I don’t think I even opened Aagaard’s Calculation in Yerevan, apparently subconsciously feeling that everything was fine.

I am wondering if we should call FROM GM TO TOP TEN for From GM to Queen of the Castle! Congratulations to Judit and Mihail; I hear they are opening the champagne bottle tonight!

Anyway, Quality Chess continues its reign, holding on to all of the top awards: ACP, ECF, ChessCafe and Chess Publishing. The only major award we do not currently hold is FIDE’s Boleslavsky award, which can only be won by registered chess trainers and where the competition is lower. We also have a lot of respect for the Guardian Award, but alas, we do not currently hold it as far as I know :-).

A repertoire to last a lifetime

Karpov’s Strategic Wins

Tired of Bad Positions – Try the Main Lines

A review of GM Repertoire 17: The Classical Slav got me thinking. The review had a highly favourable conclusion but mentioned that GM 17 improved against the repertoire Avrukh recommended years ago in GM Repertoire 1. “So much for the ‘repertoire to last a lifetime’” as we had written on the cover of GM 1. The reviewer’s comment is half-joking (at least that is my interpretation), but it caused me to look again at some of the sales text listed above.

(I have not linked to the review as I am perfectly happy with it, and I do not wish to start another “Quality Chess disagrees with reviewer” extravaganza. The review is excellent – no complaints here.)

So is ‘A repertoire to last a lifetime’ misleading? Well, the GM1 repertoire could last a lifetime. You could play the variations it recommends forever, and with success (4.e3 against the Slav, Fianchetto against KID, Catalan against QGD, etc.). But that does not mean the details will never need updating. Did anyone seriously believe that Boris Avrukh had ‘solved chess’ and found the strongest possible move in every position? People rightly have a lot of faith in Boris, but that would be too much.

Karpov’s Strategic Wins? Are all the wins in those books ‘strategic’? Whatever that means. Still, great books, in my opinion.

Tired of Bad Positions – Try the Main Lines. A tagline on our GM Repertoire books. What is a main line? And not every sideline automatically leads to a bad position.

As an example, 4.e3 Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 against the Slav was not, I think, a hugely popular line at GM level before Avrukh recommended it in GM1. Was it really a main line? It certainly is now.

So here are my questions: how do you feel about such sales text? Do you ignore them as pointless sales waffle? Take them literally and absolutely, then search for loopholes to prove us wrong? Any other examples of our sales text you wish to debate?

My good friend, Danish Women’s Team Coach Thomas Schou-Moldt has written an article in Danish on the benefits of training. In this case based on the Yusupov books and a recent game he won in the Danish league. I am not sure how many will benefit from this, as it is written in Danish but I found it fun. Not sure how Google translate will work, but at least the chess moves will be easy to understand.

http://schou-moldt.dk/blog/2014/02/traening-betaler-sig-part-i/

In The King’s Gambit I mentioned that the Wagenbach Variation – 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 – was first played by Jonathan Tait and that Mr Wagenbach was mainly a correspondence player. I have since learned (from Mr János Wagenbach) that neither of these things are true. Mr Wagenbach played it first – in blitz games in his club – and he is primarily an over-the-board player. I am happy to correct the record. When re-printing the book (perhaps soon) I shall also correct the relevant page.

The game below shows the Wagenbach working well for Wagenbach – but note the line I recommend for White is 4.d4 (with 4.Nc3 as another option) not 4.h4.

[pgn]

[Event “Correspondence”]

[Site “”]

[Date “1998”]

[White “Norton”]

[Black “Wagenbach”]

[Result “0-1”]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5 4.h4 d5 5.exd5 Bd6 6.Nc3 Bg4 7.d4 Ne7 8.Bb5+ Kf8 9.0–0 Nf5 10.Qd3 a6 11.Bc4 Ng3 12.Re1 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qxh4 14.Ne2 Nxe2+ 15.Rxe2 Nd7 16.Bd2 Nf6 17.Rae1 g5 18.Qf2 Qxf2+ 19.Kxf2 h4 20.Rh1 Kg7 21.Bb3 Nh5 0–1 [/pgn]

In a recent review of Nikos’s and my book Playing the French (on ChessVibes and Chess.com), the reviewer Arne Moll expresses some doubt about our understanding of practical chess. You can read the review if you are interested in the detail of the argument and in my reply (given below). But I wanted to give a little thought to the difficulty of being Black in general.

As most of you will have noticed, playing an inferior position is perilous. A mistake in a slightly better position can be annoying, but a mistake in an inferior position can land you in trouble you cannot solve. I will write more about this in the near future, but for now let us just continue as if this hypothesis is indeed a fact.

When you are Black your games will in general fall into two categories. Either your opponents will play sidelines or mainlines. This leads to two different challenges.

Mainlines have a tendency to lead to positions where accuracy is important. New ideas will exist in most positions, but mainlines are popular because of the pressure they put on Black (and Black’s success in neutralizing it). For this reason we often need a lot of theoretical knowledge to defend the black side. It is either this or risk your life in variations where you are worse and the problems you have to solve are harder to solve (because deciding between two inferior positions is harder than deciding between a decent and an inferior position).

Sidelines tend to offer you a number of decent options, all of them leading to decent positions. Unless White has played something problematic, he will not be worse either. In such situations exact knowledge usually decreases in value. Unless we play correspondence chess, it is almost impossible to anticipate what sidelines you will face in your next few tournaments, so extensive knowledge has a tendency to be overkill. Working on your problem solving abilities will be more likely to help you once you end in a respectable sideline.

This is the approach Nikos and I chose for our book. This is the philosophy behind it. It is absolutely up for debate, but our approach is not random.

For the full review of Playing the French, go to: review

Reading this review, I felt it was one long question, asking: why did they offer this line? This post below is my answer, not meant as a criticism of the reviewer. Read more…