|
TWO BOOKS ON THE SICILIAN ENGLISH ATTACK:
THE ENGLISH ATTACK
Authors: de Firmian and Fedorowicz
Batsford (2004)
240 pages
$22.95
THE ENGLISH ATTACK
Author: Tapani Sammalvuo
Gambit (2004)
272 pages
$28.95
Reviewed by John Watson
Two books on the English Attack have appeared at the same time! They are THE ENGLISH ATTACK by the American GM team of Nick de Firmian and John Fedorowicz, and THE ENGLISH ATTACK by the Finnish IM Tapani Sammalvuo! I remember how disappointed I was when both McDonald’s and Psakhis’ books on the French came out just before mine did. These authors must be feeling something similar.
De Firmian and Fedorowicz have written a rather technical book that thoroughly lays out the meat-and-bones of two variations. One is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 with f3 to follow if allowed (i.e., 6...Ng4 goes its own way, but is covered extremely thoroughly). The other variation is the Taimanov with 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.f3. A short two-page section at the end treats the Scheveningen move order 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 Be7 (note on 7...d5) 8.Qd2 0-0 9.g5 (note on 9.0-0-0 d5) 9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 a6 11.0-0-0 b5 and the game has transposed to one in the main part of the book. I should also point out that the important order 6.f3 Qb6 (otherwise White avoids 6.Be3 Ng4 for free) is given seven pages.
The authors have divided the material such that de Firmian writes the sections with 6...e5 and 6…Ng4 while Fedorowicz is responsible for sections with 6...e6 and (I think) the Taimanov. I’ll refer to the book as a whole as de Firmian and Fedorowicz, or “D&F”.
Here are the Contents:
Introduction
Definitions of Symbols
The English Connection
The Najdorf Variation
Lines where Black plays ...e5
Chasing the bishop with ...Ng4
Lines where Black plays ...e6
The Taimanov Variation
The Scheveningen Variation
Index of Variations
The Index of Variations isn’t extensive but allows you to find relevant lines by page number, which is absolutely necessary to cope with the unique structure. That structure can be described as follows: (a) In the first section of a variation, the initial moves are given with notes on alternatives and move orders; (b) Having established the main move order up to a certain point, the next section either continues to extend the main move order with notes on alternatives, or moves on to sample games. For example, in the first section on the Najdorf (“Lines where Black plays ...e5”), the authors begin with 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 (the Najdorf) 6.Be3 e5. They continue 7.Nb3 (with a brief note on the non-English-Attack move 7.Nf3) 7...Be6 (brief note on 7...Be7 and transpositions) 8.f3 (note on the alternative move order 8.Qd2)
Now 8...Nbd7 is given as the main line. This time there are more detailed notes on 8…Be7, 8...h5, 8...d5, and 8...Nc6. What isn’t immediately clear is that two of those moves, 8...Be7 and 8...h5, will receive much more attention later in separate sections of their own.
At this point (after 8...Nbd7), a new section starts with 9.g4 Nb6 10.g5 (notes and game fragments with 10.Qd2) 10...Nh5! (note on 10...Nbd7 11.Qd2 games) 11.Qd2 Be7 12.0-0-0 (note on 12.Qf2!?) 12...Rc8 (note on 12...0-0) 13.Rg1 (note on 13.Kb1). This is the end of a section and the beginning of complete games section. In this case the first is Leko-Anand, Dortmund 2003. Now the notes become more detailed, although there are fewer games imbedded in them than occur later in the book with other systems. The game is annotated normally, with explanations and options, but also contains imbedded games, e.g., after 13...0-0 14.Kb1, there is a note containing three game fragments with 14.Qf2 and 14...Nc4 or 14...Rxc3, as in the game Svidler-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2004 (the game references are right up to date!). As we continue with Leko-Anand, rather depressingly, there is a note to the 26th move with a game Bacrot-Lautier, which improves for White and leads to a win for him! Sigh. In the Leko-Anand game, Black goes on to win in 46 moves.
Now it gets a little tricky because we move to yet another section dealing with the position after 14.Kb1 and showing games and analysis with 14...Qc7 and 14...Nc4. What is the main line begins with 14...g6 15.Nd5 (two games quoted with alternatives) 15...Nxd5 etc. Finally this main line becomes a complete game Smirin-Lutz, Elista 1998. All this is fairly easy to follow once one gets used to it, but still not ideal for locating positions quickly. By the way, it show the force of the f3/g4 plan that in almost every one of the types of Najdorf English Attacks, one of Black’s main options is to answer f3 with ...h5, thus preventing g4!
In general, although de Firmian and Fedorowicz supply relevant comments about the various types of positions, this is primarily a download of games that they annotate by means of suggestions and analysis. Since precise move orders and memorization are key to playing these mostly tactical lines, that is a legitimate approach. As someone who doesn’t play these lines and potentially would be taking them up, I do wish that there were some more explanation and summaries about what moves work and fail with suggestions for best play. It’s also too bad that John Fedorowicz didn’t add a chapter about the Sozin/Rauzer order 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 (with Bg5 and f3 or Be3 and f3). Some of this material is covered by transposition in the ...e6 lines with ...Be7 and ...Nc6, but John must know this subject as well as any leading player. That also applies for these authors about the English Attack in general, in a more practical sense than in an encyclopedic one. I’d be very surprised if they didn’t correctly assess the worth of a high majority of the variations given.
Tapani Sammalvuo’s ENGLISH ATTACK is quite different. He has more pages and much more material per page because the pages are significantly bigger. Thus he has the luxury of both detailed treatments and much more text, including strategic sections and Chapter Summaries with conclusions, “Tips” and “Rules of Thumb”. These are very helpful for non-experts (like me). Right off we see that Sammalvuo devotes 16 pages to 6.f3, which avoids 6.Be3 Ng4. Then Black can bypass transposition by 6…b5 or 6…Qb6, the latter by far the most important option. By contrast, D&F have only seven pages on 6.f3 Qb6 and nothing on 6.f3 b5 (although that’s of lesser importance anyway).
In general, Sammalvuo has this luxury, e.g., with 18 large pages on what he considers the main line (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.O-O-O Bb7 11.h4 b4 12.Na4), as opposed to 12 smaller ones for Fedorowicz. In his massive 43-page chapter on “6...Ng4 and Unusual 6th Moves for Black”, Sammalvuo is able to include 4.5 dense pages on alternatives like 6...Nbd7, 6...b5?!, and 6...Qc7, which as far as I can see are not mentioned by De Firmian. There’s no particular reason that they should include such material, of course, but it does give the reader of Sammalvuo’s book a little bonus. He also includes a 15-page Chapter on 6...e5 7.Nf3. This time we have something certainly out of place in a book about the English Attack! On the other hand, there are no rules about what one has to write. The Chapter is an investigation that one can’t find elsewhere and very useful for players on either side of that move. In particular, it offers White a way out of 6...e5 7.Nb3, whereas he can keep the English Attack for 6...e6. I don’t like 7.Nf3 much, but as Black I would have to know how to defend against it.
There’s something very important to note, however, when it comes to coverage: Sammalvuo doesn’t even include the Taimanov Variation in his book, a line that D&F devote 50 pages to. Obviously players looking for a scheme of attack with Be3/f3 versus both the Najdorf and Taimanov (or even just the Taimanov) will get more out of de Firmian and Fedorowicz’ work.
Here are the Contents:
Introduction
A Small Attacking Guide
The English Attack Against Other Sicilians
1 The New Move-Order 6 f3
2 6...Ng4 and Unusual 6th Moves for Black
3 The Najdorf Line 6...e5: Introduction and the Positional 7 Nf3
4 The Najdorf Line 6...e5 7 Nb3: Introduction and the Hypermodern 8...h5
5 The Najdorf Line 6...e5with 8...Be7: Early Deviations and the Dubious 10...h6?!
6 The Najdorf Line 6...e5 with Early Castling by Black
7 The Najdorf Line 6...e5 with 8...Nbd7: Introduction and the Modern 9 g4
8 The Najdorf Line 6...e5 with 8...Nbd7: The Old 9 Qd2
9 The Scheveningen Line 6...e6: Early Deviations
10 The Scheveningen Line 6...e6 with 8...Nbd7
11 The Scheveningen Line 6...e6 with 7...Nc6
12 The Scheveningen Line 6...e6: The Main Line 8...h6 without 12 Na4
13 The Main Line: The Critical 12 Na4
Index of Variations (well-organized)
Some comments out of Sammalvuo’s Introduction: “The English Attack is an extremely fascinating and difficult line; it is significant that every one of the current world top 15 has frequently used the English Attack at some point of their careers. In fact, with the exception of one, all of them have even been willing to do so with both colors, at least on occasion....
Unfortunately, I found that the plans and ideas are so largely dependent on the opponent’s actions that I had to abandon the idea of thematic chapter introductions as such. Instead I have striven to explain the general plans and ideas at the point where they have taken a somewhat clearer shape...At the end of each chapter I have added a theoretical summary and, if applicable, some tips for both White and Black.”
Comparing the books it’s not surprising that Sammalvuo has a lot more detail in the English Attack proper (versus the Najdorf/Scheveningen), because on top of the reduced space available to them, de Firmian and Fedorowicz have 50 pages on the Taimanov. But Sammalvuo also pours a lot more energy into his analysis and finds more games than D&K did. One gets the impression that he has analyzed (and played) the ...e6 lines fanatically for years with improvements for both sides in mind. His 6...e5 coverage is also thorough but more dependent upon pure research into available games. As for 6.Be3 Ng4, one of his pet ideas is 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bc1!?, when there are several moves, but 8...Nf6 is a Najdorf with the extra move ...h6 in, which probably favors White!
Today I took a look at the 1st round of the 2004 Russian Championship and one of the games was Motylev – Grischuk: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 Ne5
11.g5 hxg5 12.Bxg5 Bb7 13.Rg1 Qa5 14.a3 Rc8 15.Kb1 Rxc3! 16.Qxc3 Qxc3 17.bxc3 Rxh2 and Black had a pawn for the Exchange with the much superior pawn structure. He went on to win. Our books didn’t do so well: Fedorowicz doesn’t mention 10...Ne5, and Sammalvuo quotes a game: 10...Ne5?! 11.h4 b4 12.Nb1 (12.Na4? Bd7) 12...d5 Aroshidze-Zarkua, Batumi 2003; and here he likes “13.Qg2!”, saying: “when in view of the threat of g5 and f4 Black is more or less obliged to sacrifice his queen with 13...dxe4 14.Nxe6 (14.Nc6) 14...Qxd1+ 15.Kxd1 Bxe6 , but it doesn’t seem sufficient after 16.fxe4 Nfxg4 17.Bg1 .” I (JW) don’t know whether this is forced, but to me Black’s pieces look very well placed, especially with the e5 post in front of the e4 isolani. Since he has a rook and knight for the queen, it’s by no means obvious that the play isn’t at least balanced or better for Black. 17...Be7 and ...0–0 is natural, but recovering all the material by 17...Bxa2!? 18.Nd2 Be6 should also be fine. Still, Sammalvuo gets credit for proposing an original move. When I study books about openings I’d rather have an interesting idea to think about, whether it’s objectively strong or not.
Here’s a look at the ultra-popular variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.g4 h6 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.h4 b4 12.Na4:
A) 12…d5!? Here both books follow the game Kriventsov-Najer, Philadelphia 2002. Sammalvuo likes this line for Black (suggesting that it might be a better way to go than the main line). He stops after White’s 21st move and says he prefers Black. Since White won in six more moves, he really should have ended by suggesting a Black move and explained where Black could improve. Fedorowicz merely follows the game moves to the end.
B) 12...Qa5 13.b3 and here the authors either assign their material differently or disagree. Neither party likes 13...g6 or 13...d5 14.e5!, although Fedorowicz spends more time on the latter move.
b1) Sammalvuo doesn’t like 13...Rc8”?!” due to 14.Kb1 (he has long notes on 14.a3, 14.Rg1, and 14.Bh3, liking the latter move as well. Fedorowicz looks at fewer moves. He does assess the main line game of 14.Rg1 as winning for Black when Sammalvuo says that White has compensation “but no more”. In my opinion White should stay away from the line) 14...Nc5 15.Nxc5 dxc5 16.Ne2 Bc6 17.Ng3 Nd7 18.f4 leading to a big advantage in a Shirov-Svidler game. Fedorowicz quotes a game with 16...Rd8 instead with quick liquidation and equality. Oddly, Sammalvuo dismisses the natural 16...Be7 due to 17.Bh3 c4 18.g5 Rd8 19.Qc1 “and White’s advantage is in no doubt”. But I think that simply 19...Rxd1 20.Rxd1 (20.Qxd1 Nd7 hitting g5) 20...cxb3 21.axb3 hxg5 22.Bxg5 0–0 achieves at least equality.
b2) After 13...Be7 14.Kb1 Nc5 15.Nxc5 dxc5 16.Ne2 Rd8 17.Qc1, both books feel that Black is able to equalize, but Fedorowicz uses a game Kasparov-van Wely which was later much improved upon by White in a correspondence game and Sammalvuo correctly prefers 17...Rxd1 18.Rxd1 c4.
b3) I noticed the top players using 13...Nc5 on many occasions but had no idea what was going on. After 14.a3, a funny difference of opinion arises about 14…Rc8 15.axb4 Nxb3+ 16.Nxb3 Qxa4 17.Kb2 d5 18.c3 dxe4 19.Na5 Bd5 20.Ra1 Qd7 21.Bxa6 following a game Acs-van Wely, which position Fedorowicz calls “a disaster for Black” with no more notes, and Sammalvuo says that the position a few moves later (with no improvements along the way) is “probably somewhat better” for White. But he also covers 15.Qxb4 in tremendous depth using games and lengthy analysis with fellow players. It seems that White is definitely better.
b4) Sammalvuo uses 12 densely packed pages to cover the main line with 14.a3 Nxa4 15.axb4 Qc7 16.bxa4. He has done enormous amounts of analysis and work with friends and Finnish team members. It seems as though best play is 16...d5 17.e5! Nd7 18.f4 Nb6 (Fedorowicz says that 18...a5 is interesting and follows a game with 19.Nb5, but Sammalvuo believes that 19.bxa5 followed by Bb5 keeps White’s advantage) 19.Rh3 (He gives almost six pages to 19.f5, with Black eventually equalizing) 19...h5 (Sammalvuo has a couple of pages on 19...Nc4 and 19...Nxa4?!, the latter virtually refuted by 20.Bf2! Rc8 21.c4!!, a move apparently unknown to Fedorowicz or most of the playing world. It hasn't been used over the board but was used in nine correspondence games with a 9-0 record, and extensively analyzed by the author) 20.gxh5 Nxa4 21.Bf2 Rc8 22.Be1 Rxh5 23.Be2 and Sammalvuo thinks that Black should deviate from the main game by 23...Rh6 although White seems to come out “somewhat better”! Incidentally, Sammalvuo relies on many correspondence games that are ideal testing grounds for such lengthy and forcing lines. He has poured his heart (and apparently his life) into the lines beginning with 14.a3, with spectacular results. Of course, in a couple of years players will have left these playing fields and switched to the Pirc Defense or revived Schlieman Attack or whatever. Such is the cruelty of super-specialized research.
If you would like to find out more about either of these two excellent books, or purchase one or both of them, click on the links:
BUY THE ENGLISH ATTACK BY DEFIRMIAN and FEDOROWICZ
BUY THE ENGLISH ATTACK BY SAMMALVUO
| 