Seirawan’s “Chess Duels” is a delightful collection of his encounters with the world champions. As far as his personal anecdotes of top players and insights in to the political world of FIDE go, it is a strong purchase. Perhaps it is sufficient to note it won ChessCafe.com’s 2010 Book of the Year award to see it delighted a wide ranges of players, from GM to tyro. It is hard to believe any lover of chess would be disappointed with this purchase (Although it would have been nice to include some photos in the book -- as even Tal‘s “Life and Games“, the book Seirawan was attempting to emulate had a few)

     Most of the reviews I have seen have concentrated on Seirawan’s delightful stories, and not on his annotations. Seirawan has given preference to annotations consistent with telling an entertaining anecdote, and they tend to be mostly verbal rather than a recital of long variations -- seldom is an attempt made to discover the chessic truth (a Kasparov game being the exception, which was deeply annotated)…which is fine. If you want a good story, Seirawan is your man. If you are looking for chessic truth, you may not be too pleased.

     So lets take a look some examples. It is difficult to know which ones would be of the most interest, but I will give two, one tactical battle versus Spassky, and one positional struggle versus Tal.

      The first game is Spassky – Seirawan, Zurich, 1984 (Diagram below). We see Seirawan bravely opening with his favorite Pirc/Rat defense 1…d6 against Spassky‘s 1. e4, and we learn why the Russian Bear is higher on the food chain than the Pacific Northwest Rat. Seirawan is crushed in 23 moves. In his annotations, Seirawan states: “I missed my one chance to hold with 18...b5, and after that it was all downhill for me.” Unfortunately, 18...b5 loses to 19. hxg6 bxc4 (19...fxg6 20.Nxh7 bxc4 21.Qxg6 Be8 22.Qh6 Rf5 23.Nf6+ Kf8 24.Qh7 Rxf6 25.exf6 Qxf6 26.Rxg7 Qxg7 27.Bh6 Qxh6+ 28.Qxh6+) 20.Qh3 h6 21.gxf7+ Kh8 22.Qf3 with Qe4 to follow.

     Any other large oversights in his annotations for this game? Spassky sacrifices the exchange with 17. Rxd7 (Diagram below, where I examine 17. f4 instead of 17. Rxd7), and here is Seirawan’s comment: “As before, White couldn’t pause for 17 f4 Rfd8! 18 h5 Nf8! When I’ve solidified my kingside and I liked my game. Soon, it will be my turn to start trading (…Rdxd8) or pursue an attack (…Bc6 x a4; …b6-b5), when I’m in business.”

     Now on general considerations, Seirawan’s ..Nf8 idea is a grade A, numero uno, maneuver. It does three things all at once—defends the king, offers trades when up material, and prepares for counter attack, and so it strongly appeals to ones sense of economy. Any moves which save time deserve our consideration, and Seirawan’s idea certainly does that. But unfortunately, one must consider concrete factors, not only the general ones…and white simply answers Seirawan’s idea of…18. Nf8 with 19. Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Nxh7 Be4 [20...Nxh7 21.hxg6 fxg6 22.Bxe6+ Kh8 23.Qxg6 Be8 24.Qf5 Bc6 25.a5 bxa5 (25...Rb8 26.Qg4 threatening f5 26...Bf3 27.Qg3 Be4 28.f5 bxa5 29.Kb1 threatening Bh6) 26.Qg6 with multiple threats of f5, or Bc5, or Rh1. The Rat is done, stick a fork in it already.] 21.Nxf8 Qb4 [21...Kxf8 22.hxg6 Bf5 23.Qe2 fxg6 24.Bxa6 Qb4 25.Qc4 Qxc4 26.Bxc4 white is up a pawn] 22.hxg6 [ or perhaps even better is 22.Bb3 Bf5 23.Qg2 Kxf8 24.hxg6 fxg6 25.Qc6 Qe7 26.a5 Qd7 27.Qxd7 Rxd7 28.axb6 cxb6 29.Bxb6 again up a pawn] 22...Qxc4 23.gxf7+ Kxf7 24.Qxe6+ Qxe6 25.Nxe6 Kxe6 26.Rxg7 Rd7 27.Rxd7 and Seirawan has at best a draw, not back in business.

     So OK, Seirawan misappraised a couple of positions (no surprise he got strong-armed off the board in 23 moves, then.) Of course nobody likes to analyze their losses in depth, but that is a time honored way to improve. I don’t have any problem with light annotations, as long as there are no gross misassessments of what is going on in the game. Enough said.

      The second game I want to discuss is Seirawan - Tal, Montpellier Candidates, 1985.(See diagram below)…in which Seirawan plays an amazing move, 25. fxg3!! , recapturing away from the center. Even now, when replaying the moves on the board, my automatic reflex is to capture the other way (hxg3 instead of fxg3) so ingrained is the capture towards the center response. I have to stop and force myself to take the other way. No wonder Tal did not consider fxg3!!, and went down without a struggle. Well done, Seirawan . A truly great move.

      Indeed, here is Seirawan’s assessment of the move: “25 fxg3!! My best move of the tournament. 25...Rxd1+ 26 Qxd1 Qd7 27 Qe1! Another fine move. My queen crawls along the back rank waiting for a chance to leap into the fray. The text envisions lines involving h2-h3, g3-g4, and the possibility of Qe1-g3-e5, creating a deadly battery. 27...Be6 28 b3 c5 29 h3 b5 30. Qf1 And, just like that, Black is lost”

      Did you get the impression of inevitability reading that?… that Tal is lost no matter what after the fine 25 fxg3? Even GM Soltis in the “Inner Game of Chess” lazily agrees with Seirawan. The problem is simply 27...h5 hinders whites g4 plans, and Tal can hold. After 27...h5 white's intended g4 and Qg3 (or Qh4) loses much of its impact, as not only would it cost a pawn, but equally important, it dissolves the fortress of pawns protecting the white king. After 27...h5, if white plays h3 (preventing Bg4 and Qd1 by black) then black plays Qd6 hitting the pawn on g3 while controlling both the d-file and the f4 square which makes white progress pretty much impossible. Also a white b3 or b4 with ideas of lining up the Queen and bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal cannot be done in an effective way that causes black any problems. So, Tal should have played 27...h5, and borrowing Seirawan's words, asked "What do you do for play now".

      So, “Chess Duels” deserves a place in your chess library, only be aware of Seirawan’s style of annotation. I also would like to recommend the 3-volume set “Chess On The Edge”, co-authored by Seirawan, which for my taste, is even a better work than “Chess Duels”.