THE CATALAN is a welcome addition to chess literature. The Catalan system (typically 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 but reach by many move orders) is not an opening that has many books devoted to it. Offhand I can only think of the pioneering works by Neistadt, short monographs by Ciaffone and Schiller, and most recently Angus Dunington's book for Batsford, which came out seven years ago.

The reasons for this state of affairs are many. The Catalan is a sophisticated positional opening that commands respect at the top levels of Grandmaster chess but is seldom seen in the games of players below 2400 FIDE. Aside from the positional demands it makes on both players the Catalan also requires some serious theoretical grounding (the quiet 5.Qa4+ excepted). These reasons and the absence of a definitive guide to this opening are good explanations for why this attempt to play a sort of Grunfeld in reverse has never taken off in popularity at the amateur levels.

Is The Catalan the definitive guide to this opening? I had my hopes, but maybe I was setting the bar too high. All I wanted from this book was a clear path to an advantage in the main lines like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 c5 and 4...Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4. That's all! That's not exactly an easy task considering GM practice is in a state of flux in these lines.

Raetsky and Chetverik are clearly Catalan devotees, and by and large do a pretty good job of covering the immense amount of material that this opening has produced, but for once the Everyman format may have worked against them.

Usually I like the Everyman format, where the theory is presented in the form of annotated games (in this case 95 of them), but the Catalan might do better with a strict theoretical textbook style approach. Raetsky and Chetverik give the sequence 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 as a main line but you certainly would not see Anatoly Karpov playing this way with Black. No, he would opt for 4...Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4. Why, because of 4...dxc4 5.Bg2 Be7?! 6.Qa4+ Nbd7 7.Qxc4 a6 8.Qc2 and Black has no time to play ...b5.  To be fair to the authors, on page 58 they point out that the position Black is usually aiming for is reached via 6...dxc4, but then qualify themselves saying there are many roads to Rome and don't worry too much how you get there. This is a little disingenuous since just a few pages before on page 50 in a note to Black's 6th move they give 6...Be7 (after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Bg2), quoting the game Lautier-Pinter, France 1993, as leading to White's advantage. I am 100 percent certain that the authors know that 4...dxc4 5.Bg2 Be7?! is a suboptimal  move order and only used it for ease of presentation, but am not so confident that many of their readers will realize this.

Both authors have plenty of original ideas and analysis to contribute. One move that caught my eye was 10.Be3!? in the sharp variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Qa4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Bxc6+ Bd7. I had always though that 10.Rd1 was the only move in this position but a quick check of my database revealed half a dozen games with this intriguing sideline. The authors look at 10...Bxc6 11.Qxc6+ Qd7 12.Qxc4 and 10...Qxb2. Unfortunately Black has a pretty easy path to equality that probably reduces 10.Be3 to no more than a surprise weapon:

Hausner - Biolek
Czech Republic, 1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.Bg2 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Qa4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Bxc6+ Bd7 10.Be3 Bxc6 11.Qxc6+ bxc6 12.Bxd4 Nd5 13.Rc1 Nb6 14.Nd2 0-0-0 15.Be3 Bc5 16.Nxc4 Bxe3 17.Nxe3 Kb7 18.Rc2 Rd6 19.Rac1 Rhd8 20.Kg2 R8d7 21.Nc4 Nxc4 22.Rxc4 Rd2 23.Rb4+ Kc7 24.Kf3 a5 25.Rb3 a4 26.Rb4 a3 27.bxa3 Rxa2 28.Ra4 Rb2, 1/2-1/2.

It's not fair to ask the author's to find an advantage when theory doesn't give one, and you have to admit 10.Be3 is kind of sneaky. Unfortunately another line they touch upon in this chapter (5...c5) omits a very important game. The sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Qa4 Bd7 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qd3 Rc8 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nc3 b4 has always been considered to be Black's path to equality in the 7.Qa4 Bd7 line but THE CATALAN fails to give the following game which is absolutely vital to the theory of this variation. Though GM Stohl blundered in the end, and ultimately lost, it takes nothing away from the fact that he established a significant advantage against Black's supposed best play.

Stohl - A. Sokolov
Bundesliga, 2002-3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Qa4 Bd7 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qd3 Rc8 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Nc3 b4 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Nd6 Nd4 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.Ng5 g6 16.Nge4 Nxf4 17.gxf4 Bb6 18.Nxc8 Bb5 19.Qd2 Qxc8 20.e3 Bxf1 21.Rxf1 f5 22.Ng3 Qc2 23.Qxb4 Ne2+ 24.Nxe2 Qxe2 25.a4 Qc2 26.a5 Bc5 27.Qb5 Be7 28.Qd7 Bh4 29.Qxa7 Rd8 30.Qb7 Rd2 31.a6 Rxf2 32.Ra1 Rd2 33.h3 Bf2+ 34.Kh2 Rd1 35.Qb8+ Kg7 36.Rxd1 Qxd1 37.h4 Bg1+ 38.Kh1 Bf2+ 39.Kh2 Bg1+ 40.Kh1 Bxe3+, 0-1.

I have found nothing to show how Black should equalize against Stohl's idea, but White 7.Qa4 fanciers don't get too excited. Raetsky and Chetverik rightly point out that White has not succeeded in breaking Black's position in the Queen sac line 7.Qa4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Bxc6+ Bd7 10.Rd1 Qxd1+ 11.Qxd1 Bxc6 12.Nd2 b5, though playing like this with Black might not be too everyone's taste.

The reader might have guessed from my comments above that I'm critical of THE CATALAN, but that is not in fact the case. It may not be the definitive guide that I was hoping for but it is still a very workmanlike job on this neglected opening.

Recommended for players 2200 on up.