British Chess Magazine Octubre 2013 | Page 37

The British Chess Magazine 541 for either side you will certainly find plenty of ideas. For example, for Black there is the variation 4 e3 0–0 5 d3 d5 6 f3 c5 7 0–0 c6 8 a3 ×c3 9 b×c3 e8!?, which I’ve never seen before, but which has some intriguing differences from the similar 9…c7, which Sokolov covers nicely. The book has two main strengths. The first is a multitude of throw-away lines which indicate the standard mini-plans for both sides (but particularly White) in typical structures. These remind me very much of the splendid ‘Winning Chess Middlegames’ (which in fact would be an excellent complement to this book for anyone seriously interested in understanding these systems). For one example among many, take the position opposite. Sokolov explains here that Black’s bishop belongs prophylactically on c6, the rooks on d8 and e8, and that rather than advancing his queenside pawns (for fear of opening lines for the c1 bishop) Black should concentrate on looking for opportunities to disrupt White’s build-up on the kingside by pushing the g- or h-pawn, while White should focus on gaining space and trying to improve his dark-squared bishop gradually. Sokolov’s coverage is built around the two games Karpov–Spassky, Leningrad, 1974, and Yusupov–Belyavsky, Munich, 1994, in both of which Black handled the position brilliantly (in the former case only after losing a tempo with …e6 before relocating via d7 to c6) and which Sokolov explains superbly. (This position is not in Sokolov’s recommended White repertoire.) The second great strength is simply the enthusiasm for White’s cause which shines through and the sheer number of improvements proposed, many of which involve the sacrifice of material. For one example of the latter (among many), in the Reykjavik variation (starting from the main position given above after seven moves; 8 a3 a5!?), a standard reference in many books is Bronstein–Moiseev, Moscow, 1951, which went 9 c×d5 e×d5 10 d×c5 ×c3 11 b×c3 a5 12 b1 ×c5 13 b5 e7 14 c4 a6 and now Sokolov points out, almost in passing, the sacrifice 15 ×d5 ×d5 16 c×d5 e5 17 ×e5 ×e5 18 b3 with advantage to White (rather than Bronstein’s feeble 15 b2?). As to the former, I suspect the assessment of White’s chances in this book is a little on the optimistic side (not a problem in my view; objectivity in opening books is a thing not much to be desired). According to Sokolov the only major system in which Black can equalise is 4 e3 c5 5 d3 0–0 6 f3 b6 7 0–0 c5. Black has a few routes to this position, and Sokolov’s repertoire basically seeks to avoid it by 4 e3 c5 5 e2, or 4…0–0 5 d3 c5 6 e2 (a particularly controversial proposition since many players are unhappy in the IQP positions which result with White’s knight on e2), or 4…b6 5 e2. If the book has a weakness then I think this would be it (a defect of its qualities), and a more studious and better-informed friend than I tells me that in various variations there are known moves for Black which have equalised in previous practice and are overlooked. If true – and my friend is very reliable – this