True Lies in Chess

Think for yourself

written by
Lluis Comas Fabrego

Translated by
Manuel Perez Carballo

Quality Chess
www.qualitychessbooks.com
 True Lies in Chess
First English edition, 2007 by Quality Chess Europe AB
20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 7TA, United Kingdom

Copyright © Lluis Comas Fabrego

Translation © 2007 Manuel Perez Carballo

The right of Lluis Comas Fabrego to be identified as the author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.
All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess Europe AB,
20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 7TA, United Kingdom
e-mail: info@qualitychessbooks.com
website: www.qualitychessbooks.com

Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena California

www.scbdistributors.com

Translated by Manuel Perez Carballo from

“Mentiras Arriesgadas en Ajedrez”
Edited by John Shaw
Typeset by Jacob Aagaard
Cover Design by Carole Dunlop after an idea by Jacob Aagaard
Cover Photos by Ari Ziegler
Printed and bound in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC

ISBN - 91-976005-7-1
ISBN13 - 978-91-976005-7-6
CONTENTS
Bibliography 5
List of symbols 6
Foreword 7

CHAPTER I - Do not Trust the Classics 9

The tip of the iceberg 9

Dogmatic = Limited 15
Some more rigour would not be amiss… 17
Applying what has been learnt 19
Challenging the heavyweights 20
Nobody is without sin 24

CHAPTER II - Middlegame Motifs 29

I. The blockaded passed pawn 29

Minority attack 30
An excellent example 32
Reality is always more complex than theory 34
II. Jupiter and its satellites: the f-file versus the strong point on e4 39
Can you dance? 44
What are you telling me? 45
The thin (and subtle) line between prophylaxis and passivity 46

CHAPTER III - Final Conclusions? 51

Neither so simple nor so clear 52

The empire strikes back 57
Exchanging queens (the relation between the opening and the endgame) 60
New ideas in the pipeline 66

CHAPTER IV - How are Opening Novelties Born? 69

Episode I: The analysis of a model game as a source of inspiration 69

Episode II: First-hand impressions 73
Episode III: Preconceptions 74
Episode IV: The devastating influence of preconceptions 76
 Episode V: Building new paths 77
Episode VI and last: Applying the ideas so far discussed to modern positions 79
The practical test 81
Long-term structural and positional advantages versus time 82
Applying the new concepts to opening theory 85
Time versus Material: positional pawn sacrifices in the opening 91
Thanks Mr Dvoretsky: Prophylaxis and logic in the opening 95
I leave before I get kicked out 96
Is it possible to completely neutralize the opponent’s initiative? 98

CHAPTER V - The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ...

...¤a6 in the 103
King’s Indian

Creating something new 104

Line 1: Playing à la Petrosian 105
Line 2: Other nuances of the move ¥g5 107
Line 3: Near the storm 110
Line 4: In the eye of the hurricane 114
White gets rid of the black knights 115
White only exchanges one enemy knight 118
Miscellany: Three stories 119
1. Evaluations change 119
2. Whatever happened to...? 119
3. A Chess Symphony 121

CHAPTER VI - The Others 125

 Foreword

Deceived All Along

I still remember how excited I felt as a child at the magic moment of opening any
chess book. What was shown there represented for me the key to gaining access to
the hidden secrets of the royal game: new positional concepts, interesting opening
systems, wonderful tactical blows, beautiful endgames. I eagerly devoured all the
treasures I could find. I blindly believed in what the books said.
Then, when I got to the playing hall and tried to apply the knowledge thus acquired
to my own games, I usually found myself confronted with enormous difficulties: it
was not as easy as I had been led to believe.
At the beginning we only blame the deficiencies in our game on some vague flaw
of our own, when applying in practice what we learnt in theory. Given time, young
talents are expected to acquire greater ability and precision in this field, and therefore
improve their results. However, time itself turns from an ally into an enemy: in the
eyes of others, one is not making progress at the expected rate. People then talk about
the promising young player reaching the limit of his potential. These turn out to be
difficult years in no-man’s land.
But life goes on and if one is really passionate about what one is doing, one keeps
playing and studying, with more or less intensity, the art of chess. Stages come and go:
the apprentice becomes a FIDE Master, then an International Master and eventually a
Grandmaster and surprisingly… one discovers that one has been deceived all along.
It turns out that from that entire array of books that captivated us in our childhood,
only a few were really worthwhile, and even these were full of lies and mistakes. The
latter are caused by several reasons: the authors’ lack of chess strength, scant ability
to pass on their knowledge, superficial analysis, etc. This can have a damaging and
enduring impact on our development as chess players.
The present book has as its goal, first of all, to warn the reader about this aspect: if one
is not ready to confront the study of any material in a critical, deep and creative way,
to think and research for oneself, one is doomed to the most resounding failure.
8 True Lies in Chess

Secondly, in the present work I mount a staunch defence of chess ideas in the form
of strategic concepts, positional principles, philosophies of the game, etc. Of late
there has been a dangerous tendency to give clear precedence to concrete analysis
over the written word. I would like to quote Lasker’s opinion about this topic: “A
spirit with a large and roomy brain who without error could keep in mind millions
of variations would have no need of planning. Frail, weak man can clearly keep in
mind only half a dozen variations since he has but little time to spare for Chess. And
if he by chance had more time for it and in addition had genius for the game, to see
through hundreds of variations would turn his brain. His reason was not made to
be a substitute for a printed table. His mind has a marvellous faculty which enables
him to conceive deep and far-sighted plans without being subject to the necessity of
examining every possibility.” [Lasker’s
Lasker’s Manual of Chess
Chess]
The faculty to which Lasker refers is abstraction. We human beings have developed
an exceptionally powerful technique to treat complexity: we abstract from it. Unable
to control complex objects in their entirety, we ignore the non-essential details, dealing
instead with the ideal model of the object and focussing on its essential aspects. Thus
language has been born, the concept and the principle is but a simplified view of
reality in such a way that we can interact with it. Abstraction is an essential tool to
handle the complex world of the 64 squares.
In my view a well-annotated game is one that encompasses the sum of, on the
one hand, rigorous analysis, and, on the other, a generous written expression of the
positional ideas underlying them. In this book I have tried to tackle the games with
the aforementioned criteria.
Thirdly, and finally, this work is an appeal for the reader to be creative. The only
beautiful thing in chess – or in any other discipline for that matter – is that which
contributes something fresh and original to the field. What is already known becomes
boring to us in the end.
Fortunately enough, chess is a tremendously complex and rich game. And I say
fortunately because it means that there are still new and surprising horizons to be
discovered. In order to delve more deeply into the unknown one only needs to be
brave and to believe in oneself.
Therefore the reader will find interesting ideas and opinions that the author has
been accumulating over years of experience. I hope that this introduction to the way
a grandmaster thinks will be useful for all those who want to improve their chess.

Grandmaster Lluis Comas Fabrego

 Chapter 1

Do not Trust the Classics

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

The Buddha’s Kalama Sutra

The tip of the iceberg

“Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith, the one unpardonable sin.” Thomas Henry Huxley
(1825-1895) English biologist

In the games that appear in the classic manuals the analysis is usually too one-sided. History is always
written by the winners and often their research lacks objectivity. Later treatises blindly copy these
“exemplary games” thus reinforcing the transmission of the inaccurate, sometimes utterly false,
knowledge they try to show.
It is mostly young players and those who do not trust their own strength who are likely to be the
victims of this partiality, this lack of honesty and rigorousness in the analysis. But because the proof is
in the pudding, I am going to show a series of examples for the readers to familiarize themselves with
the substance of this problem.
The next game, analysis and notes are from the books My System and Chess Praxis by Aron
Nimzowitsch, and from Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson. Naturally I have added my
own opinions and corrections.

k Janowski
l Nimzowitsch
St Petersburg 1914, Nimzo-Indian [E43]

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 b6 5.¥d3 ¥b7 6.¤f3 ¥xc3† 7.bxc3 d6 8.£c2
10 True Lies in Chess

The modern treatment of this variation starts 11.¥g5 h6 12.¥d2

with 8.0-0 0-0 9.¤d2 ¤bd7 (9...¤c6 10.e4 White has provoked a slight weakening in the
e5 11.¤b3) 10.e4 e5 11.¦e1 ¦e8 12.f3 ¤f8 black kingside. If instead 12.¥h4?! ¦e8 followed
13.¤f1, when White is slightly better: the knight by the manoeuvre ...¤d7-f8-g6 with a good
can be transferred to the e3-square to target the game.
important central points f5 and d5 without 12...¦e8
getting in the way of the plan based on the f3-f4 If Black tries to achieve a general blockade of
push. the position with 12...c5 13.d5 g5, there would
8...¤bd7 9.e4 e5 follow the manoeuvre 14.h4! ¤h7 15.hxg5
 hxg5 16.g3! with the idea of ¢g2, ¦h1, ¤h2
and ¥e2 with strong pressure against the enemy
   kingside.
 13.¦ae1

     
      
    
       
      
      
   
“Now the position has taken on features  
typical of a Nimzo-Indian Defence. Please note
the role of Black’s c-pawn. If Black has to play
   
...c5 in order to force White to play d5, then 
White’s queenside pawns will be hard to attack, 13...¤h7?!
e.g., Black won’t be able to play ...¤a5, ...¥a6, In my opinion a dubious move. “The idea
and ...£d7-c6 to attack the forward c-pawn. On is still that Black would like White to play d5
the other hand, if White plays d5 without being without ...c5 being in, since 13...c5 14.d5 gives
provoked by ...c5, Black gains two important White a free hand to prepare g4 and f4 with an
advantages: a fine square c5 for his knights, and attack.” (Watson)
more importantly, the possibility of opening the Black had several interesting alternatives in
position against White’s queenside by ...c6. See order to try to provoke White’s problematic d4-
the note to Black’s 13th move.” (Watson) d5 advance:
10.0-0 0-0 a) 13...¦e6 – Nimzowitsch (?!Comas) This
As we will see, the b7-bishop is not best placed move tries to increase the pressure on the e4-
here in this system. On the one hand Black does point, while at the same time hindering the f2-f4
not have enough resources to force the advance break, one of the basic plans at the disposal of the
d4-d5 that he so desires without having to resort first player in this kind of position with its goal
to the move ...c7-c5, and on the other, the being to activate White’s rooks and the bishop
absence of this bishop from its original diagonal pair. Now:
will considerably weaken the f5-square, a typical a1) 14.d5? ¦e8 15.¦e2 ¤c5 16.¤e1 c6 17.g3
target in this kind of central pawn structure. cxd5 (17...¥a6! and Black is clearly better, the
 Do not Trust the Classics 11

idea being 18...¤xd3, exploiting the c4-pawn’s weakness of the f5-square and the development
weakness – Comas) 18.cxd5 ¤xd3 19.¤xd3 of the queenside, while increasing the pressure
¦c8 “The point of this line is that White can against White’s d4 and e4 points in accord with
liquidate his doubled c-pawns and still be left Black’s main plan) 18.¤g2 White is slightly
with a seriously backward pawn on an open file, better according to Watson. I think that after
an idea which applies to many positions and was 18...¤h7!? (going after the weakness on d4:
first enunciated by Nimzowitsch.” (Watson) the idea is ...¤g5) Black has a very promising
Nevertheless it is still necessary to note that position: for example if 19.£a4 ¦6e7 20.£xa7
the position is far from being clear due to then 20...exd4!.
White still having chances of counterplay on the a3) 14.¤h4 – Nimzowitsch (! Comas)
kingside, e.g. f2-f3, ¦g2 followed by g3-g4-g5. 
Despite being on an open file, the c3-pawn is
invulnerable.
  
a2) 14.¦e2 – Nimzowitsch. And now:  
   

analysis diagram
a21) 14...£e8 15.d5!? – Comas (15.¦fe1
“White, with the utmost perseverance, continues     
the policy of marking time. However, Black also
has a score to register; the chance for White
  
to play f4 has receded into the dim future.” -    
Nimzowitsch)  
    
  
  Exploiting the temporary weakness of the f5-
square and planning the prophylactic move f2-
   
analysis diagram

f3, firmly strengthening the e4-square: 14...g6

    15.g3! (Comas – with the idea of securing the
   centre once and for all with 16.f3; the only line
   analysed by Nimzowitsch is 15.f4, when he gives
the following variations: 15...exf4 16.¥xf4 £e8
 [16...¤h5 17.£f2 ¦f6 18.g3 g5 19.e5 ¤xf4
    20.gxf4 ¦xf4, winning; 16...g5!?] 17.d5 ¦e7
 18.¥xh6 ¤g4 19.¥g5 f6 20.¥c1 ¤ge5 Black has
Time is a very important factor for carrying a good game) 15...£f8 and now:
out our plans. At this point the advance is very a31) 16.f3!? (following a constructive strategy
promising since White’s attack on kingside without any hurry) 16...¦ae8 17.¦e2 c6! The
succeeds before Black’s possible counterplay on idea is to play ...d6-d5, exploiting the remote
the queenside. For instance: 15...¦e7 16.¤h4 situation of the h4-knight, with a complex game.
¤c5 (16...£d8!? 17.¤f5 ¦e8 18.¦e3!? with If Black plays passively White will have a strong
the alternative plan of bringing the rook to the attack after ¦g2 and g3-g4.
g3-square to exploit the weakening that the a32) 16.f4! (this attack is completely justified
move ...h6 caused on Black’s kingside) 17.¤f5 in the given situation due to the poor location of
¦d7 18.f4 exf4 19.¥xf4 (19.¦xf4!?) 19...¤g4 the black forces) 16...£g7 (16...¦e7 17.c5! exf4
20.¦f3 White is clearly better. [17...bxc5 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.£b3 with a winning
a22) 14...£f8!? (Watson) 15.¦fe1 ¦ae8 advantage] 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.gxf4 d5 20.e5 ¤e4
16.¤h4 g6 17.g3 £g7 (Quite a curious 21.¥xe4 dxe4 22.f5 White is clearly better)
method of solving several problems at once: the 17.c5!
12 True Lies in Chess

 knight to f5 and the f2-f4 break. Now:

   b1) 14.h3 ¤g6 15.¤h2
  b11) 15...¦e7 16.f4 (16.¤g4 – Watson – is
  

analysis diagram
good: 16...¤xg4 17.hxg4 £d7 18.f3 and White
is slightly better) 16...exf4 17.¥xf4 £e8 18.¥xh6
     ¤xe4 and Black is slightly better according to
    Watson.
    b12) 15...£d7!? 16.f4 (16.f3?! ¤h5 Black
   has the initiative due to the weakness of the
dark squares on the kingside) 16...exf4 17.¥xf4
    ¤xf4 18.¦xf4 and White’s position has more
 prospects.
In this sort of position sometimes one has to b13) 15...c5! 16.d5 ¥c8 Black’s position is very
act very vigorously. The pawn is offered with the good.
object of opening important lines for White's b2) 14.¤h4!? Again this seems to me the
heavy pieces. The following variations show how most ambitious option. 14...c5!? (Exploiting the
dangerous White's attack is: weakness of the unprotected white knight. If
a321) 17...bxc5 18.f5! with a decisive instead 14...¤g6!? then White could either play
advantage (18.dxe5 dxe5 19.¤xg6 and White is 15.¤f5 ¤e7 16.¤g3 and be slightly better, or
clearly better). 15.¤xg6!? fxg6 which leads to a pawn formation
a322) 17...exf4 18.d5 and White is clearly that is very interesting: Black threatens to block
better. the kingside by means of the advance ...g6-g5.
a323) 17...exd4 18.cxd4 ¤xe4 19.c6 ¤xd2 16.c5!? One always has to keep an eye on the
20.¦xe6 ¤xf1 21.cxb7 ¦b8 22.¦e7 ¤xg3 advance of the doubled pawns! [also interesting is
23.hxg3 £xd4† 24.¢g2 ¤c5 25.¥xg6 and 16.f4 with an initiative] 16...dxc5 17.dxe5 ¦xe5
White is winning. 18.f4 ¦e7 19.e5 ¦d7 20.¥c4† and White is clearly
a324) 17...¦e7 18.£a4! (18.cxd6 cxd6 19.fxe5 better.) After 14…c5!? White has a choice:
dxe5 20.d5 and the position is unclear; 18.fxe5 b21) 15.¤f5 (15.d5? ¤xd5) 15...cxd4 16.cxd4
dxe5 19.£c1 ¢h7) 18...bxc5 19.fxe5 dxe5 20.d5 ¤e6 or 16...exd4 with very complex positions.
¦ee8 (20...¤b6 21.£a3) 21.c4 and White is b22) 15.dxe5!? Carrying out a plan that was
clearly better. played for the first time by Botvinnik. 15...dxe5
b) 13...¤f8 Nimzowitsch (! Comas) 16.¤f5 ¤e6 17.f3
 
   
     
        
analysis diagram

analysis diagram

        
     
     
   
       
 
I think this is the best move as Black prevents The idea is to transfer the knight to d5
White's most effective plans: the transfer of the eventually, although there is also the possibility
 Do not Trust the Classics 13

of carrying out manoeuvres such as ¦e1-b1, ¦f1- If the truth be told, this manoeuvre can be
d1 and ¥d3-f1 and ¥d2-e3 with very promising carried out here because Black has good prospects
positions. on the kingside due to the not-very-fortunate
Note that Black cannot use the d4-square as a sequence h3, ¤f3-h2 which consolidated the
base of operations thanks to the doubled-pawn position of the black knight on f4. Now driving
complex c4-c3. it away with g2-g3 is much more difficult to
c) 13...c6!? – (Comas) accomplish and, furthermore, the exchange would
 not be very advisable because of the weakness that
  would appear on the e5-square right after this.
The possibility Watson recommends, 16...£f6!?,
  was also interesting, and if 17.¤g4, then ...£h4
    analysis diagram
with the idea ...¤d7-f6, offering to exchange
     a minor piece, which in theory would benefit
   Black since he has less space to manoeuvre.
17.d5 ¤f4 18.¥e2 ¤f8
   Better was 18...¤f6! with the idea ...¥c8.
  19.¥g4 ¥c8
    This leads us to a different subject: good bishop
 versus bad bishop.
This is quite an original alternative, which no 20.£d2 ¥a6 21.g3 ¤4g6 22.¥e2
other author has pointed out. Black prepares to
answer White's plan (removing the knight from

f3 followed by the advance of the f-pawn) with a  
break in the centre, leading to complex play.
14.h3
   
Watson recommends 14.g3 and I agree with   
him that it is a better option. There could follow
14...¤g5 (14...£f6!? seems an annoying move,
   
trying to prevent ¤h4 by putting pressure on d4,   
but 15.¤h4! exd4 [15...¤g5 16.f4 exf4 17.¥xf4
with some initiative] 16.e5 ¤g5 17.¥xg5 £xg5
   
18.f4 £d8 19.cxd4 and White is clearly better)   
and now:
a) 15.¤h4 ¤f6 (15...¤e6 16.¤f5) 16.f3 and
   
White is slightly better (Watson). 
b) I prefer 15.¤xg5 hxg5 16.£d1 and White The position is unclear. Apparently White has
is clearly better due to the weakness of the g5- achieved all that he initially wanted: Black has
pawn. only been able to force d4-d5 by ...c7-c5 (now
14...¤hf8 it becomes obvious how difficult it is to put
A prophylactic move trying to prevent White’s pressure on the “weak” c4-pawn) and secondly,
f2-f4 break. (14...£f6 – Nimzowitsch) it looks as if the advance f2-f4 will come sooner
15.¤h2 ¤e6 16.¥e3 c5!? or later.
“Nimzowitsch shows a typically modern But as the continuation of the game shows,
flexibility; if he can’t force d5 without playing Black has enough resources to fight against the
...c5, well, he’ll play ...c5 anyway, but at a time aforementioned break. This is to a great extent
when he has kingside prospects!” (Watson) because of the bad situation of White's h-pawn,
14 True Lies in Chess

which would be better off on its initial square. rigorous analysis, and in their notes everything
Moreover, the weakness of the pawn structure goes the winner’s, or alternatively the superior
on the queenside takes its toll at the end of the player’s, way. When these games are subjected
game. to serious investigation we can always find new
22...¤h7 23.h4 ¤f6 24.¥d3 ¦b8 25.£e2 ¦b7 ideas, correct established evaluations and discover
26.¥c1 ¦be7 mistakes that have passed unnoticed for several
A prophylactic manoeuvre to hinder White’s generations. It is precisely because of this that I
plans. would like to challenge the readers, daring them
27.¢h1 ¥c8 28.¦g1 ¢f8 29.h5 ¤h8 30.g4 to play this sort of position with both colours.
After this move White can no longer achieve That’s why I’m going to sum up the typical
the long desired f2-f4 under ideal conditions. plans for both sides from the main diagram after
30...¤h7 31.¥c2?! White’s 13th move.
If 31.g5!? hxg5 32.¥xg5 ¤xg5 33.¦xg5
f6 34.¦g3 ¤f7 35.¦eg1 ¤g5! 36.¤f3, then White
36...¤h3! and Black is clearly better. - The f2-f4 break to activate both the rooks
31...¦b7 32.f4 f6 and the bishops (remember that when in
Black’s position is very solid. possession of the bishop pair one has to open up
33.fxe5?! dxe5 34.¤f3 ¤f7 35.¦ef1 ¢g8 the position—always with caution, though) and
36.¤h4 ¤d6 begin an attack on Black’s king.
Black is now clearly better. - The transfer of the white knight to the outpost
37.¤f5 ¥xf5! on f5 followed by:
In this sort of blockade position a good bishop A piece attack on the kingside via ¦e1-e3-g3.
is usually as ineffective as a bad one. A pawn storm on that flank, going after the
38.gxf5 ¤g5 39.¥xg5 hxg5 40.¥a4 ¦f8 contact point on g5 with f2-f3, g2-g4 and ¦e1-
41.¥c6 ¦b8 42.a4 ¢f7 43.¢g2 ¦h8 44.¦h1 e2-g2.
¦h6 45.¦a1 £c7 46.¢f2 ¦bh8 47.¢e3 - The sacrifice c4-c5 to activate the bishop on
¢g8 48.¢d3 £f7 49.a5 ¦xh5 50.¦xh5 c4 and disrupt Black’s pawn structure.
¦xh5 51.axb6 ¦h3† 52.¢c2 axb6 53.¦a8† - A pawn storm with the pieces posted behind
¢h7 54.¦d8 £a7 55.¦a8 £f7 56.¢b3 £h5 the pawns; for instance g2-g3, ¤h4 (e1)-g2 and
57.£xh5† ¦xh5 58.¥e8 ¤xe8 59.¦xe8 ¦h2 f2-f4.
60.¦a8 g4 61.¦a1 ¢h6 62.¢a4 ¢g5 63.¢b5 - In the event of Black playing ...c7-c5, the
¢f4 64.¦g1 ¢xe4 65.¦xg4† ¢xf5 66.¦xg7 possibility of taking dxe5(c5) and playing for the
¦b2† 67.¢c6 e4 68.d6 ¦d2 69.d7 e3 70.¢xb6 central d5-square.
e2 71.¦e7 ¦xd7 72.¦xe2 ¦d3 73.¦c2 ¦d1
½-½ Black
- To put pressure on White’s centre with the
What conclusions can be drawn and lessons aim of provoking the positional concession d4-
learnt after studying this game? In my opinion, d5, if possible without having to resort to the
there are several: move ...c7-c5.
- To take prophylactic measures against White’s
1. Who among us, in our youth, would dare aforementioned plans, of which the move ¤f3-
challenge the great Nimzowitsch’s authority and h4 is the common element.
defend White’s cause? Let me tell you: very few. - The innovative plan of going for the central
Why? Because of what I told you before: classic break ...c6, ...d6-d5 while White is preparing his
games are usually annotated one-sidedly by the attack on the kingside: the only place where the
winners or by authors hardly bent on serious and latter actually has any prospects.