Every chess player finds himself attracted to certain opening systems. Be it oddities like 1.e4 a6, or main line monsters like the Najdorf or French Defense, there is always someone out there who will fall in love with the line and play it as often as possible.

In my case, I've always held a deep fascination for the Black side of the Steinitz Variation against the Scotch Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4!?). Why, I can't say. I don't play 1.e4 and I don't answer 1.e4 with 1...e5. So I'll never get to try either side of it, but I still continue to look longingly at it from afar.

Senior Master John Hall's book on this interesting line covers all the bad replies in detail: 5.Qd3, 5.Nf3, 5.Be3, 5.Nf5 and 5.Nxc6 all make Black very happy. However, the only moves that really matter are 5.Nc3 and 5.Nb5.

Now we come to an interesting point: I remember looking at a book a long time ago on some random White gambit. The whole book tried very hard to convince the reader that the first player would get real compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Then, on the last two pages, we see the complete refutation of White's play. Imagine spending weeks memorizing this line and, when you reach the end of the book, finally being told that the whole variation loses by force! In some ways the same situation is "threatened" in this Steinitz Variation book, because if 5.Nc3 and 5.Nb5 prove too strong, then all the other information is pointless.

Grandmaster Peter Wells, in his excellent book, The Scotch Game, says, "4...Qh4?! seems to be rushing full steam ahead towards the status of 'unplayable'. This crisis is two-pronged. Both 5.Nb5 Bc5 6.Qf3! and the 'new' gambit approach 5.Nc3!? Bb4 6.Be2! cause very severe problems."

His comments need to be given heavy respect because Peter went through a stage where he tried to prove the viability of 4...Qh4 in his own games. So, for us to judge whether Hall's book (in which he tries to prove the viability of 4...Qh4) is useful or not, we have to see if it manages to convince us that there's still life after 5.Nb5 or 5.Nc3. Let's look at one of these critical responses (5.Nb5). One warning: Hall's book was written in 1995. This doesn't seem long ago, but in our present warp-drive information age, 1995 is an enormous amount of time as far as the lifespan of a typical opening variation goes.

1) 5.Nb5 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bc5 7.Qe2 d6 was Well's idea, and he used it to good effect in a couple of games. Hall's book gives this as Black's great hope in this line, and they aren't to blame that Well's himself completely refutes the variation by 8.Nxc7+ Kd8 9.Nxa8! Bg4 10.g3 Qh5 11.Qd3 Nd4 12.h3! Nf3+ 13.Kd1 Ne5+ 14.hxg4 Qxh1 15.Qe2 Ng4 16.Be1 and Black is lost.

2) 5.Nb5 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Qe5 is given the stamp of approval by Hall. They say that 8.0-0 Bxd2 (a TN) 9.Qxd2 Nf6 10.Re1 Kd8 11.N1c3 Qc5 13.Rad1 Re8 is slightly better for Black. I find this hard to believe. White's only a pawn down, and Black's army won't be working together for a long, long time. Though I don't intend to do any deep analysis here, I must admit to amusing myself with 14.a3 a6 15.b4 Qf8 16.Nd4 Nxd4 17.Qxd4 when I feel like I've gone back in time to a Steinitz game. Yes, I'm a materialistic player, but I'll take White any time here.

3) 5.Nb5 Bc5 6.Qf3! Nd4 (in the Hall book, a good amount of space is devoted to 6...Nf6 7.Nxc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8, but Well's points out that 8.Qf4! is just good for White.) 7.Nxc7+ Kd8 8.Qf4 Nxc2+ 9.Kd1 Qxf4 10.Bxf4 Nxa1 11.Nxa8 Nf6 12.Bd3 and this is indeed better for White.

Since 5.Nb5 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 transposes into line 2), I'm unable to see how Black equalizes (or even achieves a position that is remotely fun to play!) after 5.Nb5 (and I should add that 5.Nc3 also looks rather dismal for Black!).

In the end, it comes down to this: a lower rated player would be led astray by this book because of its age (he would memorize a discredited line). However, stronger players who really want to make 4...Qh4 work (original analysis and breakthrough ideas would be needed) are strongly urged to buy this book so that they avoid reinventing the wheel. It's an excellent reference source, gives you a great feel for the possibilities in the position, is available at a fair price, and offers a hundred year's worth of analysis up on a platter.

One final word: the introduction to Hall's book (by Sid Pickard) ends with the innocent, "We eagerly await World Champion Kasparov's first encounter with the Steinitz variation!"

To my knowledge, no opponent has responded with 4...Qh4 against the world's greatest attacking player. Why? Could it be that the whole line favors White? Could it be that any world-class player would ecstatically sacrifice the pawn for a lasting initiative that features a centralized Black King and an entombed a8-Rook? I'm sorry, but at the highest level, I suspect that 4...Qh4 amounts to nothing less than suicide.

Now that I think about it, my love for 4...Qh4 falls apart in the harsh glare of real analysis. Nevertheless, there's still something sexy about that move...

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT