|
|||||||||
Controversy in chess seems to be all around us. "The Black Lion" opening (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7) has certainly had its share. Along with its relatives 3...c6 and 3...e5 this was considered a second rate amateur's defense despite the fact similar defenses had been played by Eastern players such as Ufimtsev in many strong events since the 1950's. In the mid-1980's spirits like Miles and Hodgson took up the ideas and found some room to work with. Interest in the "new" ideas grew at all levels and brought these defenses a more respectable place in the culture of opening theory. Some amateur players in Holland took the defense with 3...Nbd7 as a centerpiece, collected games and analysis, then wrote a book. The Black Lion: The Chess predator's Choice Against both 1.e4 and 1.d4 is the second English edition and 4th Dutch edition of their work. Material in the book is divided into 6 chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction with some history and amateur games. The five analytical chapters make up 220 pages of the book. The layout of these chapters is a bit peculiar. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 center around variations from 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7. Chapter 5 jumps - surprisingly - to 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5, then Chapter 6 returns to "Anti Lion" lines following 3...Nbd7. This is a minor point, but it can be a little distracting for a reader to jump in such a manner, especially as move orders cross over in many lines. There is something about the analysis in this book that is perplexing. Because the basis of "The Black Lion" is playing the Hanham Philidor, we need to remember that a number of the lines analyzed actually are quite old, dating back to the mid-19th century. A roughly equal amount of the material is much more contemporary. At the heart of "The Black Lion" is the concept that Black can strongpoint the e5-pawn and go about pushing g7-g5 to initiate operations directly toward the white king. This idea is at least as old as Alekhine, probably older, but never has been a ground for serious testing. So the position after 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5 5. Bc4 is a point of decision for Black. The move that the authors "want" to play is 5...h6, but for some reason they devote more than 40 pages to 5...Be7 analyzing the age old attacks beginning with 6. Bxf7+, 6. Ng5 or 6. dxe5 followed by Bxf7+/Ng5. Of course anyone desiring to play the Hanham should know these lines well, but that is not the direction that the authors seem to be taking. My basis for the assertion that they aren't looking to play the real Hanham is that the analysis they provide of "non-attacking" White options following 5...Be7 do not include Black castling short, which would be the Hanham. It is very confusing to include analysis that, however good it is or isn't, is superfluous to the suggested lines. Another point of confusion occurs when analysis of a mainline ends with White having a clear win! To be fair they do offer an alternative at one point, but again it seems that some energy was used for a fruitless effort. An example is the line: 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 h6 7.a4 c6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Be3 Qc7 10.Nh4 g6 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Qb6+ 13.Kh1 Qc5 14.Bxf7+! with three more moves of analysis and the statement that "it is all over" and White has a winning position. The authors offered a minor note at move 9 with their proposed improvement for Black, but a minimum of analysis. This just doesn't serve the reader very well. I found other lines that were presented in a similar manner, not quite as severe for the Black player, but still not comfortable lines. This is a poor presentation of the work. Comparing "The Black Lion" to Bauer's book, The Philidor Files, it was easy to find where the authors offered alternatives not mentioned by Bauer. In Bauer's work on this particular defense he aims specifically for a Hanham formation which as explained earlier van Rekom and Jensen are not. The quality of analysis in "The Black Lion" is not up to GM levels, while the authors try to make up for that with quantity. On that point also the authors have left out some important games played well before publishing and that is certainly a painful mistake. There is one other problem I have with the book. It claims to be a repertoire for Black versus 1.e4 and 1.d4. Yet, the only game in which White pushes d4 and c4 together is in the introduction. There must have been a better subtitle, but that is what is on the book. It seems another small point, but one that tells a lot. I appreciate the dedication the authors have to the subject matter, but presenting a book to the chess public requires something more. The analysis is uneven and inconsistent, reference material is limited by the exclusion of games, lines leading to advantage for White are presented with a minimum of work on Black's behalf, extraneous and even confusing material is included plus a misleading subtitle. Unlike some others, I do not think the authors are presumptuous for thinking they can write a book, nor would I criticize them for not being GM's. I would cite them for not presenting a clear, concise book that could be relied upon by amateur players, and that is what I feel has been done.
I can really only
recommend this book to anyone who is a staunch practitioner of the defense
and even then only to be certain of having a complete reference.
|
Chessville NEW!!!
Chess Books for
Openings & Endgames
The
The
Advertise to Single insert:
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
