Two Books on the Queen's Indian Defence

Google Search

Search Our Site

Search The Web

Home > Chess > Book Reviews > Alphabetical Index According to Subject > Openings Index > Two Books on the Queen's Indian Defence

two books on the QUEEN'S INDIAN DEFENSE

QUEEN'S INDIAN DEFENCE
By Jacob Aagaard
144 pages
$19.95 Everyman Chess (2002)

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

By Yrjola and Tella
288 pages
$23.95
Gambit Publishing (2003

Reviewed by John Watson

When I received the Yrjola and Tella book THE QUEEN'S INDIAN I thought that it would be
interesting to compare the other relatively recent book that I have on the subject, Aagaard's
QUEEN'S INDIAN DEFENSE. (I will refer to Yrjola and Tella's book as “Y&T”.) The comparison
between these two books is not a fair one from a competitive point of view because Y&T have two
advantages: their book came out a year later (believe me, that's a serious factor with theory
changing from week to week) and more importantly, they got almost twice as many pages to work
with! It's important to keep that in mind as we proceed.

Right off the bat, one sees that neither book has a bibliography. Yrjola and Tella mention an earlier
Geller book. Everyman actually lists a bibliography on the Contents page of Aagard's work, but the
bibliography itself doesn't exist! On the referenced page, instead, there is an advertisement listing
25+ Everyman books, none having to do with the Queen's Indian. In general I am unhappy with the
omission of a list of sources; and in this case it also raises the question of whether Y&T used any
part of Aagard's book. That might have been particularly helpful for them since Agaard has quite a
few original suggestions. Y&T seem to address only a few of the latter, so it's possible that they
merely have similar interests. The sad thing about both books' omission is that we lose touch with a
rich history of books (and parts of books) and articles relating to the QID.

To begin with, Aagard has a very good 5-page introduction to his book, organized by chapters; I'm
sure that he would have wanted to do more had he some extra space. Yrjola and Tella have a 7-
page introduction to strategic ideas and more significantly, they have introductions to each
individual chapter, generally 1 to 4 pages. These chapter introductions are quite good and a great
improvement upon both their previous co-authored book and Yrjola's own books.

I decided to look at and compare the 4.a3 variations (after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6) because I
have some experience with them and selfishly wanted to learn more. Here are some variations I
found of interest:

A. Both books handle 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bf4 0–0 8.e3
c5 (here they disagree slightly on 8...Bf5, citing the same game 10.Be2 Nc6 11.0–0 cxd4 12.exd4
Ne4 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Rc1 Qd7 15.Ba6 Rad8 16.Qd3 Bd6 17.Ne2 Bxf4 18.Nxf4 Qd6 19.f3 Nf6 20.
Qd2, with “A” giving equality and “Y&T” +=, saying "Black still has worse pieces". This seems true,
but there are plenty of options.) 9.Ne5 Bb7 10.Bd3 (They cite the same main game with 10.Be2,
Aagaard giving more alternatives along the way. But Yrjola and Tella extend the main game with
an good alternative suggestion that improves. Aagaard gives his own relevant suggestion earlier.)
10...Nc6 11.0–0, and an important sideline goes 11...Nxe5 12.dxe5 Ne4 13.Qc2 (Y&T mention 13.
Nxe4 dxe4 14.Bc4, but 14...Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Rad8 16.e6 fxe6 17.Bxe6+ Kh8 looks effortlessly
equal) 13...Nxc3 14.bxc3 h6, with approval by both books. The coverage here is as accurate as
one might wish.

B. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 c5 5.d5 Ba6 aims for 6.d5, but as Y&T discuss, White can
deviate by the fascinating 6.Nc3!? Bxc4 7.e4 Bxf1 8.Rxf1, as played by Gulko, Speelman and
later players.

Aagard skips 6.Nc3 entirely, although key games (beginning with three in 1998) preceded his book.
Arguably he assessed the line as speculative enough that he skipped it to save space, a legitimate
choice but indicative of the two books' relative completeness. At any rate it, 6.Nc3 has had some
success thus far and Yrjola and Tella say that White gets a good initiative for the pawn, a claim
which is confirmed by my database and a little analysis. The other way to get to the position Black
wants (avoiding 6.Nc3) is 4...Ba6 5.Qc2 c5, although here too Y&T point out that White can avoid 6.
d5 by 6.e4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 with a position that can transpose to one of the main lines of 4.a3 (line C
that follows). I think that both this transposition and the move 6.Nc3 are important things to include
in a book.

C. A major variation is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4
Bc5 9.Nb3 Nc6 10.Bf4

10.Bg5 is played quite a bit now. Then Aagaard follows only the line 10...Nd4 '!', which he says
illustrates 'quite clearly that Black is okay' after 10.Bg5, but he stops short in the line 11.Nxd4 Bxd4
12.Bd3 Qb8' with control of dark squares and equality'. Yrjola and Tella continue 13.Ne2!? h6 14.
Bd2 Bc5 15.b4 Be7 16.0–0 0–0 17.f4 '+= from a game by Tregubov. This may not mean much if
Black is able to improve along the way, as Aagard might well argue is possible. In any case players
now tend to avoid 10...Nd4 by means of 10...h6 11.Bh4 Nd4 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 (with better dark-square
control) 13.Bd3 Be5 14.Bg3 Qb8, which is given a section by Y&T with an assessment hovers
between = and +=. It is nice to have this greater detail, although Aagard's game and assessment
are good enough for the average user of the book.

10...0–0

The alternative is 10...e5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 0–0 13.f3 Be7 14.Bf2, when Y&T give 14...Ne8 with
the idea ...Nc7-e6, which seems to equalize. They cite a game with 15.0–0–0 Nc7 16.c5 Ne6 17.

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_queens_indian_defence.html (1 of 2)19/06/05 05:37:34

Two Books on the Queen's Indian Defence

cxb6 Ncd4!, following a theme that arises in other lines. Aagard doesn't mention that idea but
suggests 14...a5. He apparently overlooks 15.Na4, but the ...a5-a4, ...Na5 idea is a good one that
for the most part hasn't been mentioned by theory. The relevant positions, for example, would be
ones in when Black has played ...d6 allowing ...Nd7 to defend b6.

11.Nxc5 bxc5 12.Bd6 Nd4 13.Qd3

Aagard likes White in this position and in general Y&T quote the same lines, but the latter give 13...
Re8 as an alternative to 13...e5 14.Bxc5!, and after 14.e5 (14.b4 e5 15.Rb1 isn't mentioned) 14...
Ng4 15.b4 'with a murky position' Y&T. Here, however, 15...Qh4 16.Ra2 (only move) 16...Nf5
looks good because of the unlikely-looking threats of ...Nxh2 and ...Nge3 ! (I wouldn't have a
chance of seeing this idea without HiArcs, of course.) So perhaps both books come up a bit short in
this line; nevertheless, they both present the key ideas well.

D. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6

10.Bf4

In what again may be a matter of space allocation, the recently popular 10.Qe2 is not mentioned by
Aagard. It is an effective positional choice, intending 10...d6 11.g3, and it gets a column and a half
in Y&T. 10.Qe2 was used before 2002, but most of the key games came in 2002, undoubtedly too
late for inclusion in Aagaard's book. Whether you're on either side of this line you'll want to give
some attention to this move.

The older alternative 10.Be2 probably isn't as important these days. Aagaard dismisses it by saying
that 'does nothing about the important dark squares'. That's too strong a statement, even if equality
is probably the correct assessment. He sticks with the move 10...Qb8, which is still a fully playable
alternative, although instead of the inferior move 11.0-0?! that Aagard analyzes, the move 11.f4 is
more challenging and usually played, as shown in Y&T. The latter devote 1.5 pages to 10.Be2 and
reveal many subtleties. They analyze 10...Qb8 as well, but give 10...Qc7'!' as the most important
line. It leads to messy play that is probably equal but still being investigated. This more detailed
examination is preferable, but since 10...Qb8 seems be about as good as 10...Qc7, the former is
not a bad choice in a space-limited book. That Black seems near full equality in these lines is the
main point, with the details in Y&T being useful mainly for players 2000 and above. The target
audience for Aagard's book seems to be below that level, again a function of space restraints.

10...Bc5

A major alternative is 10...Nh5 11.Be3, and now:

(a) 11...Bc5 12.Bxc5 bxc5 13.g3 f5 14.0–0–0 f4 15.Be2 Qg5 16.h4 Qe5 17.g4 Nf6 18.g5, and now
18...Ng8! is given by Yrjola and Tella (instead of Aagaard's 18...Nxe4 resulting in advantage to
White), when they say that White can still try 19.Rhe1 Ne7 20.Nd5 but this doesn't look good to
me after 20...f3. Better here seems 19.Nb5! with an advantage. If I am right, neither of Black's 18th
moves achieves equality.

(b) 11...Qb8 12.0–0–0 Bd6 (Aagaard says that 12...Nf6! is the "only good move', quoting a game
from 1998 in which Black equalized after 13.Be2 Bd6 14.g3 Be5; he points out that 13.f4 fails to
13...Ng4!; 12...Nf6! is not even mentioned by Y&T and is definitely worthy of investigation) 13.g3
Be5 14.Bd3 Qb7 15.Rhe1 Nf6 16.f4 Bxc3 17.Qxc3 Rc8 18.Bd4! (Kramnik's improvement upon his
own 18.e5?!) 18...Nxe4 19.Bxe4 Bxe4 20.Bxg7 Rg8 21.Bf6 d5 22.Rd4. This is still unclear, perhaps
+=.

The move 16.Bf4 is only mentioned by Y&T, but it is given '! with a large advantage' by Aagaard;
he continues 16...d6 17.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Bf1 0–0 19.f3 Rfd8 20.Qf2 (preventing ...Rd4 in many
cases). I'm not so sure about this line (or the idea) if Black chooses after a plan involving ...a5 (and
in some cases ...a4) combined with ...Nd7-c5; this could start with 19...a5, for example. Even if his
claim is open to doubt, Aagaard has clearly put more thought and detail into the positions after 11...
Qb8.

11.Be2 0–0 12.0–0–0 Ne8

12...Rc8 13.Kb1 a5 14.Bg3 Ne8 15.Rhe1 Qe7 16.Bd3 f6 17.f4 Kh8 18.Bf2 += according to theory
and one game. Aagaard says that this is not clear and he may be right, although I don't see Black's
plan.

13.Bg3 e5! 14.Kb1 Bd4 15.Nb5 Bxb5 16.cxb5 Rc8 17.Qa4 Nf6

Or 17...Qe7 18.Rc1 Nd6 as played by Timman. It's a bit irritating for Black to defend such positions,
but it is definitely a valid alternative and presumably well within drawing bounds.

18.Bh4 d5

Y&T give this "!"

19.f4 Rc5 We have reached a position from my own game J. Watson-Browne, Los Angeles 1996,
and now Aagaard suggests 20.Rhf1. He's quite right, and indeed my post-mortem analysis gave
White a small edge. Yrjola and Tella assign the game's continuation 20.Rxd4 a '?!' and follow the
game itself to a point that they call -/+. This is an example of annotating by result (I lost!), as White
could have gotten an even game at several points thereafter.

In conclusion, both books are well written, with the authors contributing a fair number of
independent ideas. Yrjola and Tella's is naturally more detailed and has more strategic discussion,
especially at the beginning of each chapter. Aagaard's book is more compact and by limiting the
number of alternatives at many points, it may appeal to the player who doesn't have much time for
opening study. I would personally opt for the Gambit book simply because it includes more material
and more important or potentially important alternatives.

Click to see reviews by Silman and Donaldson on the QUEEN'S INDIAN DEFENCE.

Click to see reviews by Silman and Bauer on THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

Copyright © 2004 John Watson

Created and Maintained by Prometheus Technology Solutions

http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_queens_indian_defence.html (2 of 2)19/06/05 05:37:34