Sometimes your perspective on a book is kind of like the proverbial glass that is either half full or half empty – here the optimist will be happy with updated coverage and good discussion of plans for both sides, while the pessimist will complain about a lack of attention to previous published theory and some odd use of the English language. These differences lead to an uneven feel to the book, and this detracts from its overall score. The Kalashnikov (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 generally followed by 5.Nb5 d6) is a relatively recent addition to the black Sicilian arsenal. It shares some common themes (and proponents) with the more popular Sveshnikov Sicilian (4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e5), and there are transpositional possibilities as well. This line was first covered in book form in IM Jeremy Silman’s THE NEO-SVESHNIKOV, a very underrated 1991 book published by Chess Enterprises (who publishes lots of underrated, inexpensive books, by the way). The theory was further extended in another good book, then IM (now GM) Neil McDonald’s 1995 Batsford book WINNING WITH THE KALASHNIKOV. This has been a fairly popular defense, so it is not surprising that the theory is in need of an update.

It is worth mentioning that the authors split the work on the book in an interesting way. Jan Pinski is a Polish practitioner of the defense with no previous books to his credit, while Jacob Aagaard has written a couple of well-regarded openings books. To blend their talents, Pinski handled most of the chess analysis and Aagaard did the “bookish” details. This seems a reasonable approach, but some of the book’s odd language may be attributed to the fact that neither player likely claims English as their primary language. You will encounter lots of sentences with an odd extra word tossed in; and every now and then you’ll find something that really makes you scratch you head. My feeling is that a good editor should have been able to smooth out these rough edges, and the book is hurt by this amateurish oversight.

The book covers the analysis in tree fashion, which is generally the preferred approach. The authors seek to develop a “best of both worlds” approach by providing several illustrative games at the end of each chapter. In general, this is a good idea, because well-played games can highlight how the opening leads to characteristic middlegame (and even endgame) plans and play. There are definitely some well-played games among these illustrative games, including some by author Pinski and main practitioners like Sveshnikov, Sherbakov, Shabalov, and Ivanovic. At the same time, I think the authors confuse the situation a bit by including some opening analysis in these supplemental games, because on occasion it disagrees with analysis in the preceding portion of the chapter. In the first chapter, for example, in a supplemental game after 6.c4 Be7 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be6 9.Nc2 Bg5 the authors rightly note that 10.Bd2?! is a tempo loss and black is doing fine after 10...Rc8 11.Be2 h6!. However, in the theoretical section the authors analyze 9...Rc8 10.Bd2 Nf5 11.Bd3 Nd7 12.0-0 Nc5 13.Be3 Bg5 14.Be2 0-0 15.b4 Nd7 as unclear according to Ivanchuk. Of course, 10.Bd2 should be 10.Bd2?! as long as black plays 10...Bg5 transposing to their supplemental game analysis.

It would be wrong to suggest that this is in general a haphazard book. The introduction is nicely done, with a focused discussion on the key elements for both sides that goes beyond the usual “typical plans.” There are also a lot of original suggestions; it is clear that co-author Pinski has contributed more than his fair share of new ideas to the book. That makes it particularly worthwhile to the practitioner of this defense. The theory is also up to date, with many examples from the last couple of years.

At the same time, I am troubled by the authors’ cursory mention of previous books. For example, the bibliography includes NUNN’S CHESS OPENINGS (click to see Silman’s and Watson’s reviews of this book) and McDonald’s book but no mention of Silman’s 1991 work. In several cases, useful theory from that book seems to be ignored, which could leave the reader in the lurch against an opponent relying on supposedly “dated” theory. For example, in the very sharp line after 6.Bg5 Qxg5 7.Nc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 McDonald acknowledges that Silman, Kuznetsov and Sveshnikov believe that 8...Be6! is the best. This is a line that is analyzed quite a bit in Silman’s book. Here, all the authors say is that “possibly black should play 8...Be6!?, to capture the knight with the king instead of the bishop.”

While the authors cite McDonald’s work in their bibliography, they ignore some of his findings as well. For example, after 6.N1c3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nge7 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxb5 axb5 11.Nxb5 is a sharp line that was analyzed in both Silman and McDonald’s book. Here, the authors give Silman’s 11...Ra7! and pronounce the position unclear. That well may be, but both previous books had a lot more to say about white’s possibilities, and this book should too. In the similarly sharp line with 10.Qh5, it’s generally been considered that 10...hxg5 gives black good play, and Aagaard and Pinski quote a 1998 game that shows a clear advantage for black in the line with 11.Qxh8 Nxe5 12.exd5 Qa5+ 13.c3 b4 14.Nc4 Qxd5 15.Rd1 Qe4+ 16.Be2 Qxg2. Actually, this was all analyzed in McDonald’s book. There is no mention here, however, of his analysis that leads to an edge for white after 16.Ne3.

In my opinion, a serious opening book has a duty to assimilate existing theory and extend it. Simply ignoring previous works creates patchwork coverage that makes it difficult for the student to keep up to date from book to book. The authors do not do a particularly good job in this area.

Part of the problem may be the book’s coverage. The book spends 100 pages on the lines commencing with 6.c4, but just 34 on white’s other key alternative 6.N1c3. White’s other sixth move alternatives (including the interesting 6.Bg5 and the important 6.Be3) get barely 5 pages. The authors believe that 6.c4 is critical and that black’s best response to 6.N1c3 is to transpose to the Sveshnikov Sicilian (after 6...a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nf6). While that may well be, it is hard for me to believe that this is the best alternative for the average player with limited study time – the Sveshnikov is a theoretical minefield and maintaining it as well as the Kalashnikov is probably more theory than the average player should tackle. In my own experience with this variation, white plays 6.N1c3 as often as 6.c4. I’ve also found that many Kalashnikov players like the development of the king knight to e7, so in the above position 8...Nge7 is their move of choice.

The book also covers fifth move alternatives for both sides. The white sidelines with 5.Nf5 and 5.Nb3 are important, but I don’t really understand why the authors spend six pages on alternatives to 5.Nb5 d6. These are not variations of the Kalashnikov and don’t have all that great a theoretical reputation anyway. I suppose they could form an alternate repertoire, but given some of the other coverage issues already mentioned, I think the pages could have been put to better use elsewhere.

The authors also include a chapter on tricky move orders. This is important and useful because white has some pretty simple ways to take the second player out of Kalashnikov territory while maintaining the possibility of playing an open Sicilian (i.e., with d2-d4). After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 (or 2.Ne2 and 3.Nbc3, or 2.Nc3 and 3.Nf3 or 3.Ne2) for example, the Kalashnikov player is already stuck without a useful way to get back to the Kalashnikov proper if white follows up with 4.d4. The book analyzes alternate methods of play for black, of which 3...e5 is probably critical.

The book closes with a chapter containing 25 combinations with solutions. There is also an index of variations.

In general, the theory presented in the book is good. Pinski makes a lot of suggestions that are not included in existing theory. Both his games (many of which are found here) and his suggestions give the impression of somebody who knows the subject matter well. This book probably works best for an advanced player who already knows the opening. They will likely not be as troubled by some of the coverage holes related to other books on this variation. It’s more of a two-edged sword for the less advanced player. The authors’ explanation of key plans is useful, and the illustrative games have value as well. However, some of the abbreviated coverage might cause problems for a player who relies on this as their single method for learning the defense.

In the final analysis, this is a reasonable book that could have been much improved with more attention to detail. Translation and coverage problems could have been addressed without an inordinate amount of additional time or space. If that had been the case, this would have been the book on the Kalashnikov. As it is, it is a useful supplement but no more.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT