When I got this book in the mail, the first thing that attracted me to it was the rubber lizard clinging to the cover (it was a horned lizard and not a chameleon, but why nitpick?). I took the lizard off, put it back on, and reveled in the fact that it kept sticking. Soon I tossed the book aside and spent quite a bit of time with my new pet (I placed it on windows, let it float in my bath, and even stuck it on my forehead when I went to bed). Sadly, my cat noticed this interest and, when I innocently left the room for a few minutes, attacked and mutilated its "enemy" in a jealous frenzy.

With the lizard out of the picture, I was forced to look at the actual book. This wasn't such a bad thing, because I've always been interested in the Veresov opening (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5) from Black's point of view (in other words, I've never had any respect for 2.Nc3 and wanted to know how to kill it). The fact that there has been little or nothing published on this system for almost two decades made its appearance all the more welcome.

In the back of this book, Bob Long (the owner of Thinker's Press) says, "I have beaten this book to death analytically and proofing-wise." He then goes on to say, "I do not buy the spewings by GMs that 2.Nc3 in place of 2.c4 is a questionable move. Should Kasparov or Anand ever take up the Richter-Veresov, if only for a couple games, writers from all over the world will be tripping over their feet trying to explain the 'genius' of 2.Nc3."

While it's become common practice for weak players to challenge the dictates of grandmasters (look at any web playing site. Mediocre but fast players get large blitz ratings and insist that they are amazingly skilled chess artists) nowadays, eventually someone might figure out that Kasparov, Anand, and all the other grandmasters might actually know what they are talking about.

However, when Bob adds, "...if you feel comfortable with something, and you get decent games, play it." we see that he's looking at the game in a vastly different way than GMs do. In topflight chess, it's extremely important for White to milk every iota of advantage out of the first move. Thus 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 is rightly considered inferior because White can't expect even a drop of advantage against a prepared opponent (more on this later).

But looked at through the eyes of a player (or players) in the class C to A (1400 to 1999) range, his words make perfect sense. To the vast majority of tournament players, theoretical truth means next to nothing. Instead, an understanding of what they are playing, a certain degree of soundness (an opening based on desperate tricks is always bad), and the ability to draw the opponent out of his own preparations, is a winning formula.

As far as proofing goes, the work is rather lame. The first page is numbered (which is not correct) and has the word "Introduction" mistakenly pasted on top (it's also pasted on top of the preface). More importantly, since neither author can say that English is his mother tongue, checking out (and patching up) any discourse is very, very necessary (the author's did as well as could be expected in this area. The real weight of this criticism has to lie with the publisher).

A few highlights (and I could have given dozens):

Page 25: "If other continuations are played, then e2-e4 is good enough."
They then give: 6...Qa5 blah [and White ends up better]. 6...h6 blah [and White has dangerous threats]. 6...Bg6 blah [Black gets a good position]. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if e4 is "good enough," then how come Black is doing so well if he plays 6...Bg6?

Page 26: "This is acknowledged as the most hopeful continuation. Black avoids doubling his pawns, though it enables White to continue with the move e2-e4 without unnecessary risk, and the position simplifies and reduces Black's problems." Is this really as nonsensical as it seems?

Page 31: "The energy of the continuation 9.e4 cxd4 [On 9...dxe4? is met by the strong 10.d5! with a clear advantage to White] 10.Bb5+ Nc6 doesn't seem to be enough in order to get the advantage."

Page 33: "Black choose the radical way: he exchanges the Bishop and with bind by the Knights indirectly influences the e4-square."

Page 44: "With the Bishop posted on h4, this pin [Which strengthens control over the e4-square.], outlines if the opportunity arises, the invasion of the Knight to e4 and is more effective."

Page 144: "However, it should be noted that if White, who has the advantage of the first move, finds them acceptable, then for Black they are sometimes connected with risk."

And on and on it goes, but why beat this poor literary horse to death? Let me just say that I actually feel sorry for Mr. Gufeld and Mr. Stetsko. They tried to give some verbal explanations and some snappy dialogue (more than many authors do, in these database dump times), but the proofreader didn't protect them. Yes, virtually every book has typos; it can't be avoided. But a simple reading of the text (followed by a quick but eloquent rewording) would have gone a long (no pun intended) way towards making this book a far more professional product.

Fortunately, the book gets higher grades for the analysis and material (which is really what counts). Though it's a far cry from a definitive work (the authors could have added hundreds of pages if they had chosen to), the examples are, for the most part, modern, and they illustrate the feel of this system quite well (though a chapter on both side's plans would have been a welcome addition). The addition of some original ideas (by the authors and the editor) also adds to the book's overall value.

Stepping back to chess truth, though, we are able to look closely at the author's analysis and come to an interesting conclusion about the Veresov: After 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 virtually every reasonable reply leads to equality! Actually, this stunned me since I had always thought that the Veresov contained more poison than this. But, as I looked through the chapter on 3...c5 (sharp but fine for Black in all lines), then moved on to 3...Bf5 (also quite adequate), and finally settled into the modern 3...Nbd7 (once again, Black was comfortable), I had to bow to one harsh fact: the Veresov, theoretically, sucks!

And now we're back to Mr. Long's philosophical discussion: it's probably a fine choice on the amateur level, but it's quite useless (except as an occasional surprise weapon) in the GM ranks.

This book is a great buy for non-chess playing children (who will grab the lizard and throw the actual book away), it's a thoughtful gift for your beloved dog or cat (you can't go wrong with chew toys), and it's a must have if you play the Veresov for White, or find yourself facing it as Black.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT