Colin Crouch is an experienced IM who has written about chess for many years. However, I don't recall him writing anything with the scope and originality of The Queen's Gambit Declined 5.Bf4!. This is a truly remarkable effort on what is, again, a strangely neglected topic. It didn't take me long to realize how much careful thought had gone into this book, and my feeling was confirmed by a lifelong 5.Bf4 player (IM) who was effusive in its praise.

Of course, this is a very different kind of book than Peter Wells' excellent The Scotch Game. Crouch takes an extra 100 pages, with much less strategical explanation, to cover a more specialized topic: White's play after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 (with a mere two-and-a-half pages on 4...Nbd7 5.cxd5). What is filling all that space? Quite simply, Crouch examines just about every move which has been played in every variation after 5.Bf4. Fortunately, there's a good Index of Variations at the back of the book to sort out what's covered.

Since I don't play this line for White (I've always chosen 4.Bg5 or 4.cxd5), I decided to make a database of games played since this book came out and see what kind of guidance Crouch would give with respect to the new games. This is not a fair way to assess a book; after all, it might be the most instructive thing ever written and contain shockingly original analysis of currently unfashionable lines, but still fail to anticipate new events in the highly specialized world of grandmaster fashion. Still, it's one indication, and, as it turned out, I spent a lot more time than I'd expected poring over 5.Bf4 games. Crouch consistently gave plenty of information on each line I examined, although once in while his overall preference for White (see the "!" in the title?) may have led him astray. More often, however, his own honesty and thoroughness tended to betray that "!". For example, the very first line I looked at, 5...0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.a3 Qa5 10.0-0-0 Be7 11.h4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 a6, had recently won a game for White. Crouch, who is very enthusiastic about 11.h4, nevertheless devotes a full page of dense analysis to a line considered good for White, 13.Ng5 b5 14.Nce4 g6, and finds very interesting resources for Black. I spent some time trying to improve White's chances there, unsuccessfully. I know how it feels, as an author, when one has a favorite line and finds a problem with it that others aren't aware of; to his credit, Crouch duly presents the problem and suggests further research, rather than hiding behind current theory. Such honesty pervades the book, and advances the theory of the opening considerably.

In the variation of the last paragraph, Karpov recently played 11...a6 12.Ng5 Rd8 against Gelfland; the game went 13.cxd5 exd5 14.e4 Ne4!, a new move that Crouch had anticipated, and which he analyses in some depth in his book. That game was drawn, confirming Colin's analysis. Crouch himself gives 13.Bd3 ("probably best") 13...h6 14.g4!, and appends a great deal of analysis following 14...e5, after which White achieves a terrific attack. Although I haven't looked at it in sufficient detail, it seems to me that 14..d4! is a much better response, and I suspect that's what Karpov would have played. The point is, Crouch deserves great credit for both the excellent 14...Ne4! and the perhaps dubious 14.g4, because they both extend theory and point the reader in the critical new directions he needs to be looking at. On a side note, these two lines along with others might temper the reader's enthusiasm for the 11.h4 attack, and indeed, recent games have featured 11.Kb1 at least as often (whereas 8.a3 Nc6 9.Rc1 is another deviation being seen of late).

I can't resist giving another example of Crouch's objectivity. For some strange reason (the dictates of fashion?), the move (after 5.Bf4:) 5...dxc4!? has been almost unknown in grandmaster practice. Crouch recognizes this, and strives to discover why. In the course of his investigation, he concludes that 6.e4 b5! 7.Nxb5 Bb4+ is ultimately satisfactory for Black (based on a wealth of entirely original analysis) and that, furthermore, 6.e3 Nd5! seems fine for the second player as well. At this point, Crouch says: "So the delicate question arises: if Black is doing OK after both 6.e3 and 6.e4, doesn't this just kill off the 5.Bf4 system? If this were so, the author would have mixed feelings; a sense of pride at having busted a whole opening system, combined with horror at the thought of what effects this would have on sales of this book...Mercifully, though, there is a way in which White can play for an edge..."

He then suggests 6.Qa4+, giving a line after 6...c6 7.Qxc4 Qa5 which leads to a modest advantage for White. I think that seems fair enough, but Crouch's attention to 5...dxc4 still strikes me as a remarkable addition to theory. For example, after 6.Qa4+, Black might just play 6...Nbd7!?, intending ...0-0 and ...Nb6 or ...c5. Since 7.Nb5 Nd5 and 7.Qxc4 c5 and 7.e4 0-0 8.Qxc4 c5 intending ...a6 seem satisfactory for Black, Crouch's fear that he has discovered a real problem for 5.Bf4 may be true after all. I'll be curious to see if this idea leads anywhere! I can't emphasize enough what respect I have for the kind of research Crouch has done.

ADDENDUM:

I want to mention an analytical contribution by a reader (Kaarlo Kaarlonen of Finland), in response to my review of Colin Crouch's Queen's Gambit Declined 5.Bf4! book. I mentioned that in the line 11.h4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 a6 13.Ng5 b5 14.Nce4 g6, Crouch fails to give a continuation which is favorable to White. He emphasizes that 15.Bd6 is "the move that has to be looked at," which is what I did, without finding anything for White. But Mr. Kaarlonen notices that Hjartarson's suggestion 15.Bb3 Bb7 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Nxh7 Kxh7 18.h5, about which Crouch says "It is hard to believe that the piece sacrifice is well-timed," in fact wins for White! Once you look closely, it is easy to verify that Black's defenses simply don't hold here. Thank you, Kaarlo! I think that this once again shows Crouch's objectivity; he clearly loves the 11.h4 line, but refuses to artificially bend his analysis to make White's case look better than it is, paying equal attention to both sides' chances. Most opening authors' inaccurate assessments, of course, are in favor of the side which they're advocating.

YOU CAN FIND THIS BOOK AT