|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor! Reviewed by Tom Codispoti
When I first saw the title of this book, I thought to myself: “Wow, now there is a book written for the likes of me!” You see, I have always fancied myself a swashbuckling, take no prisoners, kill-or-be-killed type of player. Although my skills are nowhere near good enough to actually flourish in this tactical style, the simple truth is that I just enjoy such games more than the “slow death” of positional games. Needless to say, a book written for ‘creative aggressors’ piqued my interest. When the book arrived in the mail, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is a hardbound book. Truly a rarity among chess books these days. The book is 8” high and 5 ¾” wide. The cover color is a bright yellow, which won’t win any artistic awards, but it certainly makes it easier to spot amongst the clutter of my desk. The binding is sewn, not glued, and the book lays flat and open at your chosen page, which is nice when studying with a board. There are 173 pages in the standard double column format. The pages are a bright white and the text is in a simple font, making the book very easy on the eyes. The moves are given in figurine algebraic notation with plenty of diagrams; without actually counting I would say averaging about two per page. The volume of content can be a little deceiving, since this book has an unusual bilingual format with one paragraph written in English followed by the same paragraph written in German. This means that the actual text is only about half of a similar book written entirely in English. However Johansson was able to pack an enormous amount of information into the space provided, and the use of figurine algebraic precludes the need to repeat the moves as is done for the text. Do not let the English-German thing scare you off. After a couple of pages, it is second nature to skip over the German paragraphs. The way we usually study from chess books makes this even easier: many times we read a paragraph, turn our attention to a board and play out the moves, and then return to the book. Since we do not read the paragraphs one directly after the other, passing over the German text becomes a non-issue. Other features of the book include a 6½ page player index listed in double column. There is also a move index that lists the variations in chapter order. This is not quite as easy to use as the move tree type of index seen in other books, but is functional nonetheless. A very nice element in the book is a list of important variations that the author feels the reader should learn by heart. Not only is there a list of these in the back of the book, but also these lines are marked with a “Y” symbol when covered in the chapters. The list of sources seems very extensive: Johansson cites nineteen different books by authors such as Gallagher, Keres, Capablanca, and Korchnoi along with five magazines. Enough said about the layout and auxiliary parts of The King’s Gambit for the Creative Aggressor; it is now time to look at the core contents. First, a disclaimer: I am not someone who should be giving out evaluations of lines, move orders, positions, etc., so I won’t. I did not compare Johansson’s lines with NCO or MCO, so I cannot tell you where they differ or what the evaluations were from those sources. I did check a few lines against other King’s Gambit books such as Winning with the King’s Gambit by Joe Gallagher and The King’s Gambit as White by Raingruber & Maser. What I will try to convey to you, is my personal experience in playing these lines and whether or not I have enjoyed playing them so far. The scope of the material on the book certainly looks wide enough. Johansson covers all of the major lines in both the accepted and declined variations along with several counter-gambits. Here is a brief summary of some of his recommendations:
Let us take a look at one of the most popular ways for Black to meet the King’s Gambit, namely the Fischer Defense that follows from 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6.
Fischer called 3…d6 “A high-class waiting move”. Both Winning with the
King’s Gambit and The King’s Gambit as White promote 4.d4 as
White’s next move and the main line continues 4…g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1.
Now, I have to admit that this is not exactly the kind of position I signed up for when I took up the King’s Gambit. And while I am quite certain that Gallagher, Raingruber & Maser are expounding the latest (and soundest) theory, I wouldn’t exactly be thrilled to play white in this position. But Johansson does not recommend 4.d4 in his book, as he says: "partly because I have a horrendous score in it and partly because I’ve come to feel that it’s against the spirit of the King’s Gambit since White gives up his lead in development, which usually represents an important part of the compensation for the pawn. Besides, this is the variation people often prepare for you if they know you play the King’s Gambit, so why allow your opponents to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ when you can make them think for themselves with 4.Bc4!” (pg.112) This is a good example of what Johansson offers – honest commentary and aggressive lines designed to get your opponent out of book, force him to think on his own, and struggle on defense while you use the initiative to drive home an attack. Personally, I like the quick bishop development to c4. Most beginners know that the f7-square makes a nice target in Black’s camp, as seen in openings such as the Giuoco Piano, the Bishops Opening or the Scotch Gambit. For me, the latter opening carries many sweet memories of sacrifices on that f7-square (we won’t talk about the soundness of many of those sacrifices however!) So, a quick Bc4 is a move that I am comfortable with based on previous experience. All of this may be well and good, but how does the line stack up in a game? And not just any game but one in which I played the line. Well, here is a rapid game that I played and I wish all of my games would follow this script. 1.
e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. d4 Nc6
As is usual at my level, my opponent left the book line at an early stage. I was on my own after 7…Nc6. At that point, Johansson cites the game Morphy-Tilghman, Philadelphia 1859 which continued 7…f6 8. Bxf4 Nc6 9. O-O Qe7 10. Nc3 Qg7 11. Ne6 Bxe6 12. Bxe6 Ke7 13. Nd5+ Kxe6 14. Bxh6 Qxh6 15. Qxg4+ Kf7 16. Rxf6+ Qxf6 17. Nxf6 Kxf6 18. Rf1+ Ke7 19. Qg5+ Kd7 20. Qf5+ Ke8 21. Qf7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ Ne7 23. Qxh8 Ng6 24. Rxf8+ (1-0). While I won’t lie to you and state that I remember the Morphy game or Johansson’s analysis exactly, I did remember that White gets a strong attack after sacrificing the piece for a pawn with Johansson’s suggestion in the above game of 8…fxg5 9. Bxg5 Qd7 10.0-0 and White has the initiative. I was not disappointed. My game continued: 8. c3 f6 9. Bxf4 fxg5 10. Bxg5 Ne7 11. O-O Bg7 12. Bxh6 Bxh6 13. Bf7+ Kf8 14. Be6+ Kg7 15. Qxg4+ Ng6 16. Rf7+ Kg8 17. Rd7+ Kf8 18. Rxd8+ Kg7 19. Rxh8 Kxh8 20. Bxc8 Be3+ 21. Kh1 Rb8 22. Na3 c6 23. Rf1 d5 24. exd5 cxd5 25. Qe6 Bd2 26. Qe8+ Kg7 27. Qf7+ Kh8 28. h5 Rxc8 29. hxg6 hxg6 30. Rf3 Bh6 31. Rh3 a6 32. Rxh6 mate. 1-0
Another defense that a King’s Gambit aficionado can run into is the
Schallopp Defense. After 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3, Black plays 3…Nf6.
Black is looking to either get counter-play by attacking the e4-pawn or he intends to hold on to the pawn on f4 by playing …Nh5. Raingruber & Maser espouse 4.Nc3 here for White claiming that 4.e5 is ‘overly ambitious’ and suggest 4.Nc3. Gallagher states that White should force the issue with 4.e5 since 4.Nc3 can be met with …d5 and if now 5.exd5, play has transposed into a variation of the Modern Defense where White has little hope of gaining the advantage, whilst 5.e5 Nh5 is less desirable than 4.e5 straight away. A whole article could be written on the debate between the relative merits of 4.e5 vs. 4.Nc3. Suffice it to day that Johansson follows Gallagher here since it is the most forcing and it offers Black “plenty of opportunities to go wrong now.” After 4…Nh5, Johansson follows up with 5.d4 and states this is “One of many alternatives White has tried over the years. 5.Be2 is the main alternative, not treated in this book since one good alternative is quite enough against this unpopular variation.” This makes great sense to me. Why waste space and study time trying to learn multiple line to most variations where one good one will do? Especially in a line you may see once in a blue moon. Probably one of the most testing variations in the King’s Gambit is the Kieseritzky Gambit. The moves are 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5
In “The King’s Gambit As White” Raingruber & Maser state that this line is “One of the most critical variations of the King’s Gambit” and they put it as the first variation evaluated in their book. Johansson says: “This old move is probably Black’s best defense, at least theoretically speaking. But among players below 2300 ELO it’s not very common and when it’s played it’s often mishandled at an early stage by Black!” In my experience with this opening, I have found this statement to be very true. I rarely see 3…g5 and I believe that it is because players at my level have been taught that it is usually a bad idea to ruin one’s pawn structure, especially on the kingside, where castling is most frequent. They have also been advised not to make too many pawn moves in the opening and this would be the third pawn move without having developed a piece. The simple fact of the matter is that most players in my class have a very limited scope when it comes to opening theory. And, most often, the King’s Gambit does not fall within that scope. Left to their own devices, most of my opponent probably don’t even seriously consider 3…g5. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and eventually you will run into someone who is going to play …g5 and ‘make you prove it’ or maybe a King’s Gambit practitioner himself, so the Kieseritzky is a line worth looking at.
So, does
Johansson handle the Kieseritzky any differently than the other two books?
Not really, but this is hardly surprising given that this line is already
fairly aggressive and it has been extensively analyzed over many years. For
example, after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 d6
All three books give 6.Nxg4 h5 7.Nf2 Nf6 8.d4 Bh6 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Nc3 Ng4 11.Nxg4 Bxg4 12.Qd3 Bxe2 13.Nxe2 Qf6 14.Bd2 +/- according to analysis originally performed by Keres and Glaskov. Almost all of the other lines in the Kieseritzky (and there are quite a few) are nearly identical in all three books. And given the nature of this line, I would say that is a good thing. Unfortunately, I have not been able to delve too deeply into the Kieseritzky in any of my games since I am not competing at the level where my opponents are versed in this line. At the higher class levels and above, most of your opponents are going to accept the gambit and put your theoretical knowledge to the test. At the lower levels, many players will decline the gambit with the idea (hope?) that you will be less booked-up on the declined lines than the accepted ones. Nobody wants to walk straight into someone’s pet line and end up on the short side of a miniature. All of the books will tell you that if Black declines, White should have a comfortable game. However, there is quite a jump between knowing that a position is to your advantage and actually understanding how to convert that position to a full point. Since many new King’s Gambit players will find themselves facing the declined variations quite often, lets see how Johansson handles these lines. If Black is a bit dangerous and knows a little of what he is doing when declining the gambit, then 2…Bc5 is probably his strongest move. This line is called the ‘Classical Defense’ and Black immediately brings his King’s Bishop to it’s best square. Again, Johansson follows Gallagher and Raingruber & Maser in offering forceful lines designed to keep the heat on Black without flaming out for White too early. Johansson also adds comments to moves that help understand the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what’. He does this very well throughout the book and especially well in this chapter. Here are some examples:
After 1.e4 e5
2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3
“Fast development is never wrong in the King’s Gambit. White gets a solid yet aggressive position quite easily. As a matter of fact, it’s reminiscent of a mirrored Queen’s Gambit, but here Black has no Slavs or Tarraschs since …f6 would be close to suicide for Black.” 4…Bg4 5. Na4!? “When the Bc5 is chopped off, White usually gets an easy game.” 4…Nc6 5.Bb5! “Taking advantage of the King’s Gambit move order by making Black worry about his pawn structure.” 5…Nf6 6.d3! “White should avoid rushing things at this early stage.”
Or this example:
1.e4 e5 2.f4
Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Nf6 6.d3 and now 6…Bg4 7.Na4!
“These two moves go together like thunder and lightning.” Here is a game I played at standard time control where I used some of the ideas Johansson points out above – chopping off the Bishop on c4, getting the better pawn structure, etc. As you can see, this was not a game of lighting attacks but one in which I was able to slowly convert small advantages into a win. 1.e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bg4 6. Na4 Bb6 7. Nxb6 axb6 8. O-O Nf6 9. d3 O-O 10. c3 exf4 11. Bxf4 Qe7 12. Qb3 Be6 13. c4 Rfe8 14. Qc3 Bg4 15. Bg5 Bd7 16. h4 Qe6 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rf2 Ne5 19. Nd4 Qg4 20. Bxd7 Nxd7 21. Nf5 Kh8 22. a3 Re5 23. Qd2 Rea5 24. Rf4 Qg6 25. d4 Ra4 26. Qe2 Re8 27. Qf3 h5 28. b3 Ra5 29. b4 Raa8 30. Ng3 c5 31. Nxh5 cxd4 32. Nxf6 Ne5 33. Qf2 Re6 34. Rf5 Nxc4 35. Rh5+ Kg7 36. Rh7+ Kf8 37. Qxd4 Qxf6 38. Qxf6 Rxf6 39. Rh8+ Kg7 40. Rxa8 Rf4 41. g3 Rxe4 42. Ra7 Re3 43. Kf2 Re7 44. Re1 Ne5 45. Rd1 Rd7 46. Ke3 d5 47. Ra8 Kg6 48. Kf4 Nc4 49. g4 d4 50. Rd3 Nb2 51. Rd2 Nc4 52. h5+ Kg7 53. Rd3 Nb2 54. Rb3 Nc4 55. Rc8 Nd6 56. Rc1 Re7 57. a4 Re4+ 58. Kf3 Kf6 59. h6 Kg6 60. Rh1 Kh7 61. Rd3 b5 62. a5 f5 63. gxf5 Re5 64. Rxd4 Rxf5+ 65. Rf4 Re5 66. Rf6 Rd5 67. Re1 Rd3+ 68. Kf4 Kg8 69. Re7 {Black resigns} 1-0
I would like
to make one more comment about the comparison between The King’s
Gambit for the Creative Aggressor and Winning with the King’s Gambit
or The King’s Gambit as White. Johansson’s book is more of an
opening repertoire with one good line to meet each of Black’s responses.
The other books are opening primers that give you two or three paths for
White at various points of each line.
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
