Many people feel that writing a chessbook must be highly profitable. In fact, I run into quite a few fans that are positive that I'm wealthy. While I wish they were correct, I feel compelled to pass on some bad news: writing a chessbook is rarely going to make you anything worthwhile (as far as gelt is concerned).

Since chess professionals tend to be rather poor, a chess author usually has to crank out a book in a reasonable period of time or risk making (literally!) just a few cents an hour for his efforts. While some "authors" have turned speed writing into an art form (Schiller claims to have written a book in just 24 hours...hmmm...perhaps "written" is a poor choice of words; "downloaded" seems closer to the truth.), quality is still important to others and so, unavoidably, the better books turn out to be a labor of love rather than a means to financial freedom.

This lead-in takes us to International Master John Watson, a man who is, in my opinion, one of the top three or four chess writers in the world. What makes him so good? A keen intellect, a wonderful command of the English language, an overwhelming need to know the truth (he's sort of the chessic equivalent of Fox Mulder), a scholarly attitude, and a Herculean work ethic combine to guarantee something special every time a new Watson book appears (the fact that Watson and Schiller have worked together on a couple of projects strikes me as an almost unholy union of opposites).

Watson's latest is a Black repertoire book recommending the Modern Benoni as some sort of dynamic cornucopia for the player who is sick of the KID, Slav, QID, and all the other overused rubbish that is common against 1.d4. Of course, many other books have been written about this opening, but what makes this one so useful is Watson's refusal to follow old theory. In fact, he challenges analysis and assessments from both sides of the board, supporting his conclusions with wave after wave of original analysis--far more than I've ever seen in any opening book.

Writing from Black's point of view (meaning that he has to prove that Black is doing alright, or otherwise who would want to play it?), Watson gives two or three possibilities against all White systems, mixes prose with analysis seamlessly, and offers up so many new ideas that it almost boggles the mind.

Naturally, this much effort demands an incredible amount of time, and this brings us back to the "labor of love" moniker: even knowing that his refusal to crank out his product will lead to a net gain of three cents an hour, I can imagine John sitting by his board night after night, month after month, trying to revive this opening single handedly.

I have to admit that his choice of the Modern Benoni brings forth many interesting memories. I remember, at the age of 14, enjoying one game after another where Mikhail Tal (as Black) made use of the opening's tactical possibilities to set the board on fire. After that, I began playing the Modern Benoni myself, but eventually decided it was unsound. Later in my career I switched to 1.d4 (I always opened with 1.e4 in my foolish youth) and played against the Modern Benoni, usually with tremendous results.

My first anti-Benoni weapon was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Bf4. I successfully employed this from 1980 to 1987 and came up with many new ideas. For example, I was one of the first players who realized just how dangerous the position after 7...a6 8.e4 b5 9.Qe2!? was for Black: 9...Nh5 (9...Bg4?? loses by force: 10.e5 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nh5 12.exd6+ Kd7 13.Bh3+ f5 14.Qe6 mate!, Silman-G.Sanchez, San Jose 1981) 10.Bg5 f6 11.Be3 Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Nd7 14.g4 Ng7 15.Qg3 Qe7 16.Bg2 0-0-0 17.0-0 h5 18.b4! and White won on the 34th move, Silman-McCambridge, Bagby Memorial, 1982.

Naturally, when I got Watson's book I immediately turned to the section on 7.Bf4, figuring that he probably shortchanged it like most other writers have done (in other words, this was going to be the acid test of the author's competence). Instead, I was greeted with a dose of reality: "But the Bf4 approach is underrated, in my opinion, and can cause Black considerably more trouble than other unfashionable lines. In fact, if not for the popularity of the Modern Main Line in Chapter 9 and the Taimanov Attack in Chapter 5, I think that we would see more of Bf4 at the top levels."

This told me a lot about the book: instead of mimicking other opinions, John had clearly looked at each variation with fresh, honest, eyes. Giving 9...Be7 as Black's proper response to 7...a6 8.e4 b5 9.Qe2, he demonstrates all the correct ideas for Black (tossing in some original analysis along the way that refutes an accepted theoretical conclusion) and shows that the second player doesn't have anything to fear as long as he's familiar with the line.

Earlier, he called 8.a4 Bg7 9.h3 the best way to combat 7...a6, saying it was "the most difficult line for Black to meet." Typically, he wasn't happy with Black's usual recipes against this, and offered up more home-brewed analysis in an effort to guide Black into a safe port.

Instead of 7...a6, the author also gives 7...Bg7, thus ensuring the reader a comfortable choice of moves. He admits, though, that Black doesn't have an easy time of it ("This is our second, more ambitious, repertoire choice. I believe that 7...Bg7 is perfectly sound, but it is probably more difficult to play than 7...a6 and requires a lot of understanding.") Here the recognized theoretical main line is 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Qb3 b5 but John trashes it and instead recommends 9...Qc7 10.e4 0-0 11.Nd2! (he also mentions 11.Be2, though Silman-deFirmian, San Jose 1982 shows that things are not so easy for Black: 11...Nh5 12.Be3 a6 13.Nd2 b5 14.a4 bxa4 15.Nxa4 Bb5 16.Bxb5 axb5 17.Qxb5 Ra5? 18.Qb3 Nd7 19.Nc4 Ra7 20.0-0 Rb7 21.Qc2 f5 22.exf5 gxf5 23.f4 Kh8 24.Rf3 and White won in 39) 11...Nh5 12.Be3 and here he shocked me again by embracing the little-known 12...Na6 and mocking the theoretically equal 12...f5 13.exf5 gxf5. Calling into question the position after 14.Be2 Be8 15.Nf3 f4 16.Bd2, Watson feels that theory is simply wrong and that White has a significant advantage. This impressed me very much because I had reached a similar conclusion in 1983, though I wasn't able to demonstrate my perspective until 1987 (Silman-M. Andersson, San Francisco International): 16...Qe7 (after 16.Bd2) 17.0-0 Nd7 18.Rfe1 Ne5 19.Qd1! Rf5 20.Nxe5 Bxe5 21.Bg4 Qg5 22.Ne4 Qg6 23.Bxf5 Qxf5 24.Bc3 Bf7 25.Bxe5 dxe5 26.Nd6 Qg5 27.Nxf7 Kxf7 28.d6 Rg8 29.Qd5+ Kf6 30.d7, 1-0.

Every chapter is presented with the same detail, depth, and honesty. Theory is often torn apart and new, important, moves are tossed at the reader as if they were a dime a dozen. In a way, there isn't a need to say more. However, after reading a review of this book by Grandmaster Colin Crouch (British Chess Magazine, April 2001) I feel compelled to add a bit to my account of Watson's amazing effort.

Crouch, quite rightly, mentions that the biggest threat to the Modern Benoni is the Taimanov Variation (I took this line up after reading an old book titled: Taimanov and Knight's Tour Benoni by...John Watson!). This occurs after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+!. Though Black can, and often does, avoid this by playing 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 when 3.Nc3 Bb4 is a Nimzo-Indian and 3.Nf3 c5 goes back into a Benoni where the Taimanov is no longer possible, Watson points out that this wouldn't be a proper repertoire since the Nimzo-Indian would also have to be learned. When Watson wrote the Taimanov Benoni book, he felt the system refuted Black's opening and virtually forced him to make use of the 2...e6 move order. When he began work on The Gambit Guide to the Modern Benoni, John spent countless hours looking for ways to improve Black's play. Eventually he came up with 8...Nfd7 9.a4 Qh4+ 10.g3 Qd8 (10...Qe7 is also given as adequate) 11.Nf3 0-0 12.0-0 a6 13.Bd3 Nf6 14.Qb3 Bh3 15.Re1 Ng4 16.Bf1 Bxf1 17.Rxf1 Qc8 18.h3 Nf6 19.e5 Ne8 which he claims as equal.

Before discussing this, let me make a few points. The first is that after 12...a6, White has the choice of 13.Bd3, 13.Be2, and 13.Bc4. Black, though, also has the choice of 10...Qd8 and 10...Qe7, with both moves working differently against each Bishop move (on White's 13th turn). Watson points out that instead of giving White the choice of seeing what Queen retreat Black chooses before deciding on the correct retreat for his Bishop, Black can toss in 9...a6 (!) first, when 10.Bd3, 10.Be2, or 10.Bc4 all allow Black to decide where his Queen should go after 10...Qh4+ 11.g3. This means that if one line turns out good for White, it doesn't mean that much because Black has plenty of options and can avoid it.

Another point revolves around the whole concept of original analysis. Giving page after page of original ideas, an author must understand that a good deal of his work will be refuted or, at the very least, challenged. In fact, it should be made clear that his original analysis isn't really being presented as complete, immutable, truth, but rather as a signpost that allows the reader to look in new directions.

Now we can return to Mr. Crouch and the position after 8...Nfd7 9.a4 Qh4+ 10.g3 Qd8 11.Nf3 0-0 12.0-0 a6 13.Bd3 Nf6 14.Qb3 Bh3 15.Re1 Ng4 16.Bf1 (given by Pigusov as clearly better for White) 16...Bxf1 17.Rxf1 Qc8 18.h3 Nf6 19.e5 (actually, the immediate 19.Kg2 might be the most accurate move) 19...Ne8. Watson gives 20.g4, but Crouch claims a White advantage after 20.Kg2 Nd7 21.e6, saying that 21...c4?? 22.exd7 is now unplayable for Black since ...Qc5 is no longer a check (as it would be after 20.g4). Mr. Crouch gives the impression that this leaves Black in difficulties against the Taimanov Variation. Black's many alternatives (especially 9...a6) make this opinion highly questionable. How can you base such a thing on one line alone? The Taimanov might indeed refute the Benoni, but it will take more than this one little piece of analysis to prove it. I'm also a bit surprised (or perhaps disappointed) that Colin Crouch, who is a very strong player, didn't make more of an effort when analyzing this extremely interesting position (if for no other reason than to save me and other poor reviewers the trouble of doing so!). After 20.Kg2! (obvious and good, though 20.Kh2!? also deserves consideration since it stops eventual checks along the a8-h1 diagonal) 20...Nd7, Crouch's 21.e6 is far from clearly good for White: 21...fxe6 22.dxe6 Ndf6 23.f5! (23.Re1 Qc6) 23...gxf5 24.Ng5 Qc6+ 25.Kh2 (better than 25.Rf3 c4 26.Qc2 Ne4!) 25...c4 26.Qc2 Nc7 27.Rxf5 (27.Bf4 Nfd5) 27...Rae8 28.Rxf6 Rxf6 29.Qxh7+ Kf8 30.Nce4 Rh6 11.Qf5+ Kg8 and I can't find a way for White to put his opponent away (though it wouldn't surprise me if there was one). I guess this is why he didn't go deeper into the position--who has the time and, more importantly, what does it matter?

Anyway, it seems to me that White can claim an advantage in a much simpler way: 21.Re1! (instead of 21.e6) 21...c4 (21...Qc7 22.e6 fxe6 23.dxe6 Ndf6 24.e7+ Rf7 25.Ng5 c4 26.Qa2 Rxe7 27.Rxe7 Qxe7 28.Qxc4+ is obviously bad for Black) 22.Qc2 Nc5 23.Re2! Qc7 (if 23...Nd3 White gets a plus with 24.b3!) 24.Be3 Nd3 25.Bd4. So White is better after 20.Kg2, but the Modern Benoni is still very much alive. As with all good openings, you cut off one head and several more always grow in its place.

Overall, Watson has written the most important book ever seen on the Benoni. A must buy for all players who wish to use this opening for Black, everyone who faces it will also have to check out John's analysis. On another level, though, Watson has challenged the very foundation of accepted Benoni theory and raised the bar to unimaginable heights for anyone who wishes to write a book on any opening. An amazing accomplishment, and one that other reviewers have failed to properly appreciate.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT