|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
A Double Shot of Scotch Reviewed by Michael Jeffreys
While I don’t normally review two books at once, it makes a lot of sense here as both books are on the same opening, were published the same year, and are both by popular British authors. A quick look at the Contents page of each book tells you a lot:
Notice anything? Yep, both books cover almost the exact same lines. However, one major difference is the coverage of the Steinitz Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4!?
Emms spends only four pages on it with the gloomy comment:
Lane’s book devotes an entire chapter to this tricky line, however after giving you a little historical background on the variation, he quotes Tarrasch who, like Emms, also paints a somewhat dark picture of the move 4…Qh4:
After playing through a few sample games, I can understand Doctor Tarrasch’s feelings. For example, take a look at what young phenom GM Karjakin does to this line (Emms fully annotates this game in his book [game 51], but I’ll just give the moves here):
Karjakin,Sergey (2523) - Malinin,Vasily B (2434)
Okay, so it turns out that 4...Qh4 is a fun line... for White! (Despite Batsford’s 2001 book by Lev Gutman, which somehow devotes 272 pages to this somewhat dubious line.) Moving on, Lane begins each chapter of his book with a feature that I normally like, that of giving the plans for both sides. However, the lazy half-hearted short paragraphs that he provides are not nearly detailed enough, and thus not very useful. For example, on page 9 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Nb6 we arrive at the Mieses 8…Nb6 variation:
The “Basic Plan for White” according to Lane is:
And for the “Basic Plan for Black” he offers:
I’m sorry, but if these two paragraphs contain a plan for each side, I couldn’t find it! To me, these are just vague comments about the opening. Honestly, I expected more from Lane. Emms also has a comparable feature in his book called, “Points to remember,” which comes at the end of each chapter. For example, at the end of Chapter Two on the Mieses 8…Nb6 variation (where, incidentally, the header on the last page mistakenly says, 8…Ba6), Emms writes:
While this might not look like much more than what Lane wrote, keep in mind that Emms goes into much more detail and the specific plans as he’s going over the moves throughout the chapter—this is just a brief re-cap. Had Lane titled his section “Points to remember” (or something similar) as Emms did, I would be fine with it. However, since he uses the misleading title “Basic Plan for White/Black” his book loses a few points due to “false advertising.” Since the purpose of this review is to compare both books head-to-head, and then let you know which one I feel is superior, let’s take a look at a game that appears in both books. This way, you can get a feel for how the two authors go about annotating their games. The following game appears on page 89 in Emm’s book, and on page 17 in Lane’s book:
Rublevsky,Sergei (2686) - Vajda,Levente (2539) Both books give the first nine moves without comment: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Nb6 9.Nc3 a5 And here both books give the first game diagram (followed by their respective comments which appear below):
Emms: We’ve already spoken about the attributes of this move (9…a5 -MJ) and, just as against 9.Nd2, it’s also an option against 9.Nc3. Lane: Black advances the a-pawn so that when his bishop is developed to a6 his bishop will not blocked (sic) in as he now has the possibility of …a5-a4. The idea of a kingside fianchetto is attractive in that it can help to apply pressure to the e5 pawn. After 9…g6 10.Ne4 play might continue: a) 10…Qe6 11.Bd2 (11.Nf6+ Kd8 12.Bd2 Ba6 is delightfully unclear, but Black has a good record with it) 11…Bg7 12.Nf6+ Bxf6 13.exf6 0-0 14.0-0-0 Ba6 and now: a1) 15.Qxe6 fxe6 16.Bg5 d6 17.c5 Bxf1 18.Rhxf1 Nd5 19.Rfe1 Kf7 20.Re4 a5 (20…h6 21.Bxh6 Rh8 22.Rh4 Kxf6 23.f4 is equal) 21.Kb1 Rfb8 22.Rc1 Ra6 23.a3 1/2-1/2 Van der Wiel-Grabarczyk, Pula 1997 a2) 15.Qf3 Bxc4 16.Qf4 (White is poised to land the queen on h6) 16…Kh8 (16…Bxa2? is a mistake in view of 17.Qh6 Qxf6 18.Bc3 winning) 17.Re1 Qf5 18.Bxc4 Qxf4 19.Bxf4 Nxc4 20.Re7 gave White a clear advantage in the ending, Zezulkin-Grabarczyk, Krakow 1999. b) 10…Bg7 11.Bg5 Qb4+ (11…Qxe5?? Walks into the clever trap 12.Bf6! when White wins) 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Bxe5 14.Nf6+ Bxf6 15.Re1+ Kf8 16.Bxf6 Rg8 17.Bd8 led to an edge in Feyfin-Mikhalchishin, Dortmund 1999.
Emms: Unsurprisingly, White has quite few (sic) alternatives here: a) Qe4 has been the most popular move, but it’s not necessarily the best. The point is that Ne4 is no longer an option so Black is free to fianchetto on the kingside: 10…g6! 11.Bd3 Bg7 12.f4 0-0 13.0-0 Ba6, which has been seen in a few games, shouldn’t hold too many worries for Black, who is ready to strike back in the centre with either f-pawn or d-pawn. b) 10.b3 has been played more than once, even though it seems to invite 10…a4! Now the game A.Murariu-L.Vajda, Bucharest 2002 continued 11.Bb2? Qb4! 12.Qc2 axb3 13.axb3 (or 13.Qxb3 Na4!) 13…Rxa1+ 14.Bxa1 Qa5! And by hitting both a1 and e5, Black forced the win of a crucial pawn. Instead White should avoid tricks on the a-file with 11.Rb1!; O.Maiorov-D.Frolov, Orel 1997 continued 11…axb3 12.axb3 Qe6 13.Qe4 g6 14.Bd3 Bg7 15.f4 0-0 16.0-0 and here I believe Black should continue with 16…d5! c) 10.Bd2!? is a tricky more that has been used by some very strong grandmasters – White’s point is to meet 10…g6?! with 11.Ne4! and a possible Bc3. Here are a couple of possible lines: c1) 10…Qe6 11.Qe4 Ba6 12.b3 and now, having induced White’s queen to e4, it’s safe for Black to continue with …g7-g6, …Bg7, …0-0, etc. c2) 10…a4!? (waiting to see how White proceeds) 11.0-0-0!? Ba6 12.Qe4 Qe6 (12…g6!? – Adams – is clearly another option) 13.f4 g6 14.g4!? And here T.Radjabov-M.Adams, FIDE World Championship, Tripoli 2004 continued 14…Bb4? 15.f5! Qe7 16.Bd3 when White’s space advantage on the kingside was beginning to assume menacing proportions. In his note to the game in Chess Informant, Mickey Adams indicated that Black should instead play 14…Qxg4 when 15.e6! fxe6 (15…Qxe6? 16.Qd4! hits h8 and threatens Re1) 16.Qe5! Rg8 17.Qxc7 leads to immensely complex variations. Lane: A speciality of Rublevsky (10 f4 –MJ) who has not lost a game with it. Also possible is 10.Bd2 Ba6 11.Qe4 Qc5 (not 11…Qb4 due to 12.Nb5 winning) 12.b3 0-0-0 13.f4 f6 14.exf6 gxf6 15.0-0-0 Kb8 16.Be3 Qb4 17.Kc2 with the superior chances, Averjanov-Geraschenko, Alushta 2005.
Emms: 10…g6?! is still premature after 11.Ne4! – following 11…Bg7 White can consider 12.Be3 with the idea of Bc5. However, 10…a4!? is again a consideration. Another Vadja encounter (G.Antal-L.Vajda, Budapest 2002) continued 11.Qe4 (11.Bd2!?) 11…Ba6 12.Bd2 (12.b3!?) 12…g6 13.Bd3 Bg7 and here White should continue with 14.0-0-0, reaching a typically unclear position. Instead White played 14.0-0?, only to be shocked by the tactic 14…Nxc4! 15.Bxc4 Qc5+ 16.Be3 Qxc4, leaving Black with an extra pawn. Lane: Black sticks to traditional methods and increases the pressure on the c4 pawn. The heavyweight encounter Lautier-Hebden, Clichy 2001, saw 10…a4 11.Qe4 g6?! Black is slow to develop so White has time to consolidate his space advantage (11…Bb7!? [intending …d7-d5] 12.Be3 [12.Be2 d5 13.exd6 Qxe4 14.Nxe4 cxd6 is level] 12…Qb4 13.Rb1 Be7 14.Bd2! d5 15.exd6 Qxd6 16.Be3 with an edge) 12.Bd3 Bg7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Be3 f5 (14…f6? allows 15.c5 winning easily; 14…Bb7 15.Bd4 with the brighter prospects) 15.Qf3 gave White the better chances.
Emms: White is happy to play this move now that Black has committed himself to …Ba6 – the bishop gets in the way of Black’s tactics down the a-file.
Emms: As White is keeping the e4-square vacant for a possible Ne4, Black decides to avoid …g7-g6 and develop the f8-bishop classically.
Lane: White swings the queen’s rook into action which is a more positive response than 13.Qc2 played in Rublesky-Adams, Rethymnon 2003, which ended in a tame draw after 13…a4 14.Rc1 Qh6 15.g3 0-0 16.Bd3 d5 17.exd6 cxd6 1/2-1/2.
Emms: This move is predictable given that White has committed his king to the queenside.
Emms: This knight is well placed here: there’s the possibility of Ng5 harassing the queen, and, as we see in the game continuation, this isn’t the only option for the knight.
Emms: As it was virtually impossible for Black to arrange an effective …d7-d5 strike and sacrifices on c4 were ineffective, the bishop was actually doing very little on a6 except blocking the a8-rook. Black must be careful not to castle too early. Here 15…0-0?! rather walks into an attack after 16.Qh5!, preparing both Ng5 and f4-f5. Lane: Vajda has managed to open the a-file for the benefit of his king’s rook (sic – queen’s rook - MJ) but he needs reinforcements before he can launch an attack.
Emms: Lining up the idea of …Ba3, but also allowing an enticing tactical opportunity for White.
Emms: Exploiting the centralized position of Black’s king by opening the e-file. Of course, the fact that the b6-knight becomes en prise also helps. Lane: A clever sacrifice which will permit White to infiltrate Black’s position. * * * Here we’ll end our move-by-move comparison between the two British authors, but for completeness sake here are the remaining game moves:
The Side-by-Side Comparison Verdict While Lane’s annotations are not bad, I found Emms’ notes to be more helpful. He goes the extra mile and puts more verbal comments after more of the moves. Since I believe this is what class players (the intended target audience) really want, I have to give the nod to Emm’s book when it comes to the better game annotations. The Bottom Line Although these two books cover a lot of the same material, my vote goes for John Emms book. It’s not that Lane’s book is bad, it’s just that Emm’s book is slightly more readable for the intended audience, i.e., more verbal annotations after more of the moves. From a design point-of-view, Emms book has a superior lay-out. Lane’s book uses smaller type, smaller diagrams, and has oversized white borders around the edges of each page which makes reading it less enjoyable than Emm’s book. What’s more, Emm’s book gives you more value for your money since it is a full 56 pages longer than Lane’s, even though they both retail for the same price! (Also, the last eight pages of Lanes book are wasted, as they simply contain a single column list of Batsford’s chess titles.) Lastly, both books were slightly marred due to the fact that they both contained several mistakes and typos.
On a scale of 1-10, The Scotch Game Explained by Gary Lane
gets a 7.5, and Starting Out: The Scotch Game by John Emms
gets an 8.
|
The
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
