The Four Knights

Rating:
Summary: Thorough but unoriginal
Review: This book would get 4 stars if the author had done some original analysis and had worked a little harder to find alternative ways for White to play for a win. A big book like this is going to be bought by people who play the Four Knights, not people who just need to know how to meet it, because most people rarely meet it.

Specifically, the main line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5 Bb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 Bg5 Bxc3 8 bxc3 is woefully undercovered. White's sharpest reply to Metger's 8...Qe7, 9 d4!, is not even mentioned, and the complex 7...Ne7 line that is recommended as equalizing does not receive enough supporting analysis to justify this conclusion.

The coverage of the Rubinstein line 4...Nd4 is pretty good, and it remains the toughest nut for White to crack. Pinski is correct that 5.Ba4 is White's only chance for an advantage against the Rubinstein; however, 5.Bc4 and 5.0-0!? deserve a bit more space than they get -- they are good practical choices for White even if theoretically equal.

Pinski spends a lot of space on 4.d4 and Glek's 4.g3, even though the first has been analyzed to death and the second should not worry Black. But he dismisses 4.Bc4!? simply because of the fork trick 4...Nxe4, without giving the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit 5.0-0! any serious consideration, although it is quite difficult for Black to meet unprepared, and not bad for White even if Black is prepared. Furthermore, White can avoid the fork trick by switching move orders (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 Nc3, or 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d3 Bc5 5 Nc3), and the resulting "Italian Four Knights" requires careful handling by Black.

Rating:
Summary: Thorough but unoriginal
Review: This book would get 4 stars if the author had done some original analysis and had worked a little harder to find alternative ways for White to play for a win. A big book like this is going to be bought by people who play the Four Knights, not people who just need to know how to meet it, because most people rarely meet it.

Specifically, the main line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5 Bb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d6 7 Bg5 Bxc3 8 bxc3 is woefully undercovered. White's sharpest reply to Metger's 8...Qe7, 9 d4!, is not even mentioned, and the complex 7...Ne7 line that is recommended as equalizing does not receive enough supporting analysis to justify this conclusion.

The coverage of the Rubinstein line 4...Nd4 is pretty good, and it remains the toughest nut for White to crack. Pinski is correct that 5.Ba4 is White's only chance for an advantage against the Rubinstein; however, 5.Bc4 and 5.0-0!? deserve a bit more space than they get -- they are good practical choices for White even if theoretically equal.

Pinski spends a lot of space on 4.d4 and Glek's 4.g3, even though the first has been analyzed to death and the second should not worry Black. But he dismisses 4.Bc4!? simply because of the fork trick 4...Nxe4, without giving the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit 5.0-0! any serious consideration, although it is quite difficult for Black to meet unprepared, and not bad for White even if Black is prepared. Furthermore, White can avoid the fork trick by switching move orders (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 Nc3, or 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d3 Bc5 5 Nc3), and the resulting "Italian Four Knights" requires careful handling by Black.