GRANDMASTER SECRETS: THE CARO-KANN
Author: Peter Wells
Gambit Publications (2007)
175 pages
$27.95

Reviewed by Jeremy Silman

When I first got this book, I immediately turned to page 55 -- the beginning of the chapter on my old favorite, 4…Nf6. Wells' coverage of 4…Nf6 is sparse. Even comparing this to Gallagher's 2002 STARTING OUT: THE CARO-KANN (18 pages), we see Wells giving less (11 pages) because, quite frankly, he clearly feels it's an inferior line and the precious pages he's allowed are better spent exploring more popular fare. However, Gallagher also wasn't enthused about 4…Nf6 and he found a way to give us a bit more, so I was disappointed in Peter's coverage.

Both Wells and Gallagher make it clear that the Tartakower Variation (5.Nxf6+ exf6) is a thankless defensive task for Black, who is playing for a draw with little chance of getting more. In one sense this is true, but in another it's not. If Black can indeed draw by simply knowing that a skilled, patient defense will prove more or less impossible to crack, then why is this any worse than the Petroff Defense or the Berlin Lopez?

Two instances of this:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.Bc4 Bd6 (6…Be7!? is also playable, with a small plus for White, while 6…Qe7+ is, in my opinion, comfortable for Black) 7.Qe2+! Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Kxe7 9.Ne2 Be6 10.Bd3 Nd7 11.Bf4 Nb6 12.Bxd6+ Kxd6 13.b3 Rhe8 14.c4 Rad8 15.Kd2 Rhe8 16.Rae1 Nc8 17.Kc3 b6 18.Nf4 g6 19.Re3 Bd7 20.Rhe1, Matulovic-Smyslov, Siegen Olympiad 1970. Here Wells says, "This is more or less the maximum White can achieve out of this variation – and he still didn't win!" He then goes on to explain that this was due to the fact that Smyslov was a great endgame player while Matulovic wasn't. In my view, this is utter garbage. The fact is that there are many games where this type of position has been reached and Black has shown, time and again, that it's nothing special for White. Yes, White does have any winning chances that exist, but I don't think it takes a defensive genius to hold the draw.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Ne2 Re8 9.0-0 is the famous game Khalifman-Seirawan, Wijk aan Zee 1991. Here Yasser played 9…Qc7 10.Ng3 Be6 11.f4! c5 12.d5 Bd7 13.c4 when White not only has that protected passed pawn on d5 but also serious chances against black's King. Wells gives these moves without comment, leaving the impressionable former fan of 5…exf6 in despair. However, is that really the end of the story? Not at all! Firstly 9…Qc7?! is inaccurate since it forces White's Knight to a good square on g3. Instead, 9…Nd7 was better. But the real reason Black went down in flames was 10…Be6. The size of white's advantage is open to question after the superior 10…Nd7 11.Nf5 Bxh2+ 12.Kh1 Bd6 13.Nxg7 (This is why Yaz avoided 10…Bxh2+). However: 13…Kxg7 14.Qg4+ Kh8 15.Qh4 Nf8! 16.Bh6 Kg8! seems to hold.

In Gallgher's book, he gave 13.Nxg7 Kxg7 14.Qg4+ Kh8 15.Bh6 Rg8 16.Qh4 Rg6 17.Rae1, Loeffler-Kichev, Cannes 2000 "with a massive attack for White." Can't argue with this final assessment, but what about 16…Qd8! (instead of 16…Rg6??) when I can't see what White has, though perhaps I'm missing something.

For that matter: 10…Be6 11.f4 c5 12.d5 Bd7 13.c4 Na6 14.Qf3 b5 (Rogers) 15.a3 (15.cxb5 Nb4 gives Black all sorts of counterplay) 15…bxc4 16.Bxc4 Qb6 17.Ne4 Nc7 18.Nxd6 Qxd6 with the idea of …Nb5-d4.

Moving on to the more dynamic 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 Wells (as well as Gallagher) both point out that the "antidote" is 6.c3 Bf5 7.Nf3 e6 8.g3 when Black has tried everything under the sun and still failed to find a way to equalize. Okay, it's a problem! But what about 6.c3 Qd5!? Peter gives this a dubious assignation and says that 7.c4 labels it premature. Perhaps, but 7.c4 has only been sparingly used, no doubt because it strikes one as being a bit loose (b4-square opens up and d-pawn is suddenly vulnerable). Personally, I’m not sold on 7.c4 and feel strongly that 6…Qd5 is unexplored and full of ideas waiting to be discovered.

The point of all this is that 5…exf6 is perfectly playable for the right kind of person. It takes a certain temperament, but that doesn't make the opening bad. That such a great theoretician and writer as Wells would dismiss it as he did merely tells us that he was trying to justify the lack of space these lines received.

Though Wells dropped the ball on the 4…Nf6 lines, he does his usual excellent work in the main lines (after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4) with 4…Nd7 and 5…Bf5. He concludes that 4…Nd7 (I view this as very tricky and demanding an enormous theoretical knowledge) is a bit iffy, while 4…Bf5 (In my view, far easier to play for the non-master) is still solid and sound.

He also offers very good sections on the Advance Variation (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5), the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, and on lesser lines like 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3.

Overall, this is a very useful book for the Caro-Kann fan, but not that one major Caro-Kann tome we all dream about but never get. Perhaps the closest thing to that Holy Grail are the two Karpov books, though they only cover the Advance Variation, the Gambit System, and the Panov Attack. For those looking for a Caro-Kann repertoire book, Houska’s PLAY THE CARO-KANN is the best thing out there at this moment.

Click to buy (or get more information about) GRANDMASTER SECRETS: THE CARO-KANN

Other quality books on the Caro-Kann:

CARO-KANN DEFENCE: ADVANCE VARIATION and GAMBIT SYSTEM (by Karpov and Podgaets)

CARO-KANN DEFENCE: PANOV ATTACK (by Karpov and Podgaets)

PLAY THE CARO-KANN (by Jovanka Houska)

STARTING OUT: THE CARO-KANN (by Gallagher)