|
|||||||||
There is a whole society of players who play it every chance they get, no matter whom the opponent is. Is it sound? The theorists have put a stamp on it that pushing a pawn closer to the center is certainly a better start, but it is of course much better than some of the odd gambits that appear in clubs. Yet, the number of famous names who have played it is nothing to take lightly, including two of the most colorful names in history: Tartakower and Miles. The real appeal of 1.b4 is a combination of its rebelliousness to "theory," certainly an extremely pragmatic appeal as the opening seems decided on the first move, and a mark of the romantic era that comes from its having a "gambit" attached. In short, people who want to have a self-contained opening for white which doesn't require reviewing scads of games on a regular basis to keep up with theory couldn't do a lot better than 1.b4. Play 1.b4! by Lapshun and Conticello works as a book in several ways. First, in English the material on 1.b4 has all been in pamphlet or booklet form, forms which tend to limit either the amount of study material or explanations of themes. This is quite a bonanza, as the core of players who think to take up the opening are looking for common ideas that will work for them in games. Secondly, as offered in the introduction it works to bring material from Sokolsky's own book on the opening to English readers. Sokolsky's book was published in the mid 1960's in Russian, found its way into a German edition, and has been prized by practitioners of 1.b4 ever since. That book had been the standard for four decades. Thirdly, in conjunction with Sokolsky's book, Play 1.b4! works to update material that has come to light since the 60's. Quite a bonus to anyone interested in the opening. The book has 84 well-annotated games (there are also two unnumbered games in the introduction) which are a mixture of work from Sokolsky's book translated into English and more modern material. A small concern I have is about the Sokolsky material, described in the intro to "include notes based heavily on or directly translated from Sokolsky's book." This concerns me in that the flavor of the notes might not be completely true to the original. Still, it wouldn't be the first time that an author worked around an originator's notes in a book and it is clearly evident that Lapshun is paying full homage to Sokolsky. The material is presented in seven separate chapters. I would say that this pleased me as much as any other book I have seen recently for a simple reason. Remember theory's lack of enthusiasm about 1.b4? That disapproval extends severely when theorists suggest a proper way to deal with 1.b4. The number of ways to "achieve an advantage as Black" against 1.b4 to which I have been privy numbers eight by my reckoning. I am not suggesting that there are that many ways to defrock 1.b4. No, I am numbering the likely defenses to appear in a player's games should he play 1.b4 enough. So, with seven chapters I found more than enough coverage of the lines which are going to be "critical" to make me feel comfortable playing the opening. For example, the defenses 1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Bg4 and 1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Qd6 have both been espoused heavily for Black in recent years with only passing comments on each being in print. Generally, they were combined into material that contained classical (d5/e6) and Queens Indian defenses. In Play 1.b4! the Queens Indian, classical and 1...d5/2...Bg4 defenses have their own chapters, while 1...d5/2...Qd6 is included in yet another chapter. This works to differentiate the material and illuminate for the White player the ideas being used by Black in the different defenses. One criticism of the book: it starts out looking at the Sokolsky Gambit 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 (also 3.b5 is in this chapter). This line is also the start of Sokolsky's book which might be the reason these authors arranged it first. My criticism is that in OTB or online games the move 2...f6 doesn't appear even ten per cent of the time. I have played 1.b4 in offhand or speed games for more than 25 years and only seen 2...f6 three times! How could such an unlikely defense be given first position in a book dealing with an opening which has pragmatism as its chief advantage? My feeling is that a proper sequence would be to switch the second chapter (1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4) into first position as it introduces for new players some ideas that are more likely to appear in their games. This isn't a major drawback, just an opinion that the book could be arranged with a little more thought. I must say that players who adopt 1.b4 as their main weapon aren't really trying to "avoid" theory as much as they are trying to force the game into "their" lines of theory. The cost is likely going to be that Black isn't pressed to find forced moves early in the game. Therein lies the advantage of an opening like 1.b4: the first player is just a bit better acquainted with the terrain and will know what sorts of mistakes to be on the lookout for, while the Black player is looking for moves. Play 1.b4! does an excellent job of getting a reader into that position as White.
There is no
illusion of grandiose White advantages; in fact, in the introduction
co-author Conticello says "If you want to guarantee yourself a small
advantage with no risk, the Sokolsky is not for you!" So right from the
start the book is looking to provide a platform for the player of the White
pieces to "get a game." No more, no less. For any player looking for
just such a platform, I recommend this book without hesitation. From the Publisher's website: US
Master Nick Conticello won two Chess Journalist of America awards in 2003,
and was named Organizer of the Year by the United States Chess Federation in
1996.
|
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
