Jan Pinski has chosen a rather obscure and under-analyzed opening in the 1.e4 e5 complex: the Four Knights Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6). In the Introduction he bravely states that, “The Four Knights has made a comeback to the international chess circuit” and is “a real alternative to the Ruy Lopez” which allows “top players to use this system to fight for an advantage.” Unfortunately, the fairly brief period of experimentation with the Four Knights at the very top seems to be gone, and I don't think that Pinski quite makes his case. He does, however, show how to play as White and Black and provides a detailed presentation of the Four Knights, certainly an investigation that is not likely to be improved upon in the near future! The effort and originality of this book makes it stand out, however marginal the cause.

I will use John Emms' PLAY THE OPEN GAMES AS BLACK to compare just a couple of the Four Knights lines. Emms book was written in 2000 and is not listed in Pinski's bibliography, which is too short but appealing in it's use of books by Alekhine, Keres, and Bronstein! Here are some interesting points that I saw:

A. After 4.Bb5 Bc5 (Emms' second solution), Pinski:

(a) Offers 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.d3 “with an improved version of the Ruy Lopez Exchange.” I don't see this as an improvement, but it does lead to original positions. He continues 6...0-0 7.h3 Re8 8.Ne2 Bf8 9.g4 (from a Psakhis game), but instead of 9...h5, Emms suggests 9...Nd7 intending  ...c5 and …Nb8-c6.

(b) Quotes the game Shabanov-Frolov that continues 5.0-0 0-0 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.f4 Nc6 9.e5 Be7 10.d5 Nb4 11.exf6 Bxf6 12.Bc4 Qe7 13.Kh1 “and White is better.” 12.Bc4! indeed seems better than 12.a3 and  12.Ne4, the moves Emms give that Pinski ignores. After his 13.Kh1, the move 13...Qc5 (Frolov played 13...d6?) 14.Bb3 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Na6 looks critical. Black wants to play ...d6 and at some point ...Nc5 (playing ...Qxc3 for defense in some lines), whereas White can try f5-f6 and/or Qd4. This is interesting, but at the least complex and very dangerous for Black, so Pinski has established a promising line of play versus 4...Bc5.

B. 4.Bb5 Bd6!? is a funny  move that has done well for Black, as Pinski concedes. After some analysis, he says: “All I can do here is to recommend 5.g4!” although then he himself finds that 5...Bc5! leads to positions that are at least equal for Black. But there is plenty more to be discovered in such lines.

C. 4.Bb5 Nd4 has always been the real problem. After many years and enormous amounts of analysis, Black is still doing well. Ignoring the intricate details, we find that Pinsky's conclusions are not optimistic. He says that after 5.Ba4 with proper play (and it is fairly forcing), 5...Bc5 is fine for Black. Moreover, 5...Nxf3+ equalizes, and 5...c6 (Emms' main line) gives Black good play in particularly forcing play. Pinski sadly admits that 5.Ba4 “no longer seems to offer chances for original ideas and opening surprises”.

So Pinski says that White should consider 5.Bc4, although “Black will probably prove to be doing just as well there...” In fact, he and Emms follow a line by Keres after 5...Bc5 that is satisfactory and a bit more for Black. Pinski offers analysis but suggests no real improvement. Emms at least finds a better try for White at the end, although it still leads to only equal play. Also, both show that 5...Nxf3+ is rather boring and quite equal. One feels that 4...Nd4 is a complete solution that doesn't allow White enough scope for spicing up the play.

D. Then Pinski's attention turns to the Scotch 4 Knights with 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 (both Emms and Pinski find at least interesting play for White after 5...Bc5), when the problem is that the only real try for White advantage is 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 (or 7...0-0 8.0-0 d5) 8.exd5 cxd5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bg5 c6, a position that is so overplayed and over-tested that, as Pinski says, “White has no chances of getting an advantage solely from his own strong play in the Scotch Four Knights.” Objectively there's nothing much here, but as always, a well-prepared player of the White pieces can expect an advantage, sometimes even a considerable one, if Black hasn't studied these lines concretely.

E. How about the Belgrade Gambit? After 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5, both Emms and Plinski conclude that Black is at least okay after 5…Nb4 (more forcing lines) and 5...Be7. Plinski: “For White, I can only recommend that you play something else!”

F. Finally we have the Glek system with 4.g3. I have some analytical experience here and I think that Black has a couple of roads to equality, but this variation is surely White's best way to fight for advantage and look for new moves. The main line (and Emms' suggestion) is 4...d5 (4...Bc5 leads to “complex equality”, but with plenty of scope for original ideas; the odd 4...Nd4!? probably also  suffices, but again with open-ended play) 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nxc3. Pinski thinks  that Lugovoi's 6...Nb6 7.0-0 Bc5! “seems to give Black good play”; he offers  complex analysis, but some of the resulting positions aren't completely clear. After the normal 6...Nxc3, 7.bxc3 Bd6 is fully equal if Black plays accurately (Emms likes 8.0-0 0-0 9.Rb1 Rb8 10.d4 Re8, for example). Okay, so Black can equalize in all these lines, but this time White is not limited by forcing variations and the final positions are interesting.

In the end, Pinski doesn't make a terribly strong case for the Four Knights, which is a tribute to his fairness and objectivity. I would think that any player of 1.e4 e5 as Black would want to have this book to cover the many approaches that White has. From White's point of view there are all kinds of options, but I see 4.g3 as the one that will most challenge a well-prepared opponent. For stronger players, the Four Knights is well worth considering, but mainly as a surprising second system when one isn't inclined to play the Ruy Lopez or 3.Bc4 lines.

Click to see BAUER'S REVIEW of this book.