NEW IN CHESS YEARBOOK 84
Authors: Adams, Bologan, Carlsen, Flear, Mamedyarov, Marin, Morozevich, Ponomariov, Svidler, and many more.
New In Chess (2007)
244 pages
$27.95

Reviewed by Jeremy Silman

The New In Chess Yearbooks are always excellent, but an issue's real appeal depends on whether or not it targets any of your favorite systems. Of course, each Yearbook covers many openings in an effort to offer something for everyone, but there will always be one that somehow seems to speak to you personally, exploring many of your repertoire choices, or even answering theoretical questions that you never had an answer for until opening its pages.

For me, NEW IN CHESS YEARBOOK 84 started out with a bang in the Forum section. Richard Palliser took a look at a line that I've used in blitz for several years: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.f3 c5 8.e4 cxd4 9.exf5 Bb4. Here my out of date theory was renewed by a nice overview of the complications stemming from 10.Bxc4 dxc3 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Ke2 cxb2 13.Bxb2 Ke7 14.Rhb1 a5! (a position I've had several times) and practice has shown that black can eventually equalize here. Of even more interest, though, was a game I spotted from the 2007 Canadian Championship where Bu Xiangzhi won a game with white using the surprising 10.Be3!?. I had no idea what the state of theory was on this, and so the NIC article's mention of it (and a way to diffuse it) was very much appreciated.

Lately I've been giving 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 a look as a possible way to meet the Grunfeld. Valery Bronznik's Forum article on both 4…Ne4 5.Bh4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 Qxd5 8.e3 Bg7 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Be2 cxd4 11.cxd4 0-0 12.0-0 e5 13.dxe5 Qa5 14.Bf6 Bxf6 15.exf6 Qf5 16.Nd4 Qxf6 17.Nxc6 Qxf6 18.Bf3 (giving white a small but bothersome edge) and 4…Ne4 5.Bh4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 Be6 8.Qb1, which is all the rage nowadays, was very welcome.

Page 14 and I already felt I got my money's worth! What other treasures were waiting? It's this "undiscovered treasure" mentality that makes my pulse quicken whenever a NIC Yearbook arrives in the mail (in fact, I own all 84 Yearbooks!).

Continuing along in the Forum, I noticed something about the Schliemann Variation of the Ruy Lopez (which I used to play against at the age of 14 when I was an e4 player), where 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d3 was recommended. It seemed that white might have a little something after 4…fxe4 5.dxe4 Nf6 6.0-0 Bc5 7.Qe2 d6 8.Qc4. Oddly, I had noticed a few hours earlier that my old friend Nigel Davies had this to day about 4.d3 in GAMBITEER II: "At the time of writing I've seen a number of writers try to suggest that 4.d3 is actually a dangerous line for Black but I believe they are living in cloud cuckoo land."

Cloud cuckoo land? Okay, so what did he have to say about the line mentioned above? My hopes of a gunfight between NIC YEARBOOK 84 and GAMBITEER II were dashed when Nigel gave 4…Nf6 as being better than 4…fxe4. He "proved" his point by giving various games in which White never got anything even resembling an advantage. Do I believe any of this? Who cares! I don't play either side of the Schliemann, but it's still great fun to see an opening argument span two new books that arrived on the same day.

Reaching page 20, my jaw dropped when I spotted a letter from Herbert Nagel on the Four Pawns Attack of Alekhine's Defense: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Nc3 exd5 9.cxd5 c4. This line is still alive? I used to play this (with relish) when I was 19. It was fun (which is why I trotted it out every chance I got), but that was 60 years ago! Surely it had been refuted as the decades rolled by and chess engines took over the world? But, defying all logic, it was actually being used in postal chess and doing quite well!

This issue was brimming with Silman-friendly material! On page 23 Sosonko posed important questions about how Black should respond after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.a5!?. Everything looked a bit better for White, but since Donaldson taught me the Slav over a decade ago (assuring me that I would never lose a game with it), I'll demand that he gives me the antidote.

Other favorites:
Page 42, which explored 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Bd7 7.Qd2 Rc8 8.0-0-0 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Qa5 (a big part of my black repertoire in the early 80s).

Page 64, which spat at the cursed Alapin Sicilian with 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 e6 6.Be3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Bd7 intending the follow up ...Bb5! (I've never seen that line before), while Page 69 took a gander at 1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 e6 6.cxd4 b6, which I always felt was a bit risky for Black, and the article didn't change this impression.

Page 80, which made a case for 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 a6 (More memories! Duncan Suttles beat me with this in Lone Pine a zillion years ago) 7.a4 (I played this [badly] and went down in flames). They're STILL discussing the merits of 7.a4 after all these years?

Page 125, which unearthed another favorite of mine in my Alekhine Defense days: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 dxe5 5.Nxe5 c6. I liked this way back in the day, and it still seems to have a good reputation.

There is a LOT more of interest, but I have to admit that not everything appealed to me. The many articles on the French Defense were a particular bummer. Everyone (including John Watson) knows that the French leads by force to a horrible position, so why bore us with black's blood flowing all over the board? (Okay, Watson actually feels that white is doomed after 1.e4 e6, but he's clearly a resident of cloud cuckoo land.). However, other citizens of cloud cuckoo land that like such atrocities as the French, Scandinavia, Petroff, etc., will be in hog heaven.

In my view, the NIC YEARBOOKS are a must own for any serious player in the high Expert (2100) to Grandmaster range.

Click to buy (or get more information about) NIC YEAR BOOK 84