SWJediknight wrote on 09/16/21 at 15:21:15:


Very true, he won many interesting games in these lines

Sad news

Paddy wrote on 08/28/21 at 14:15:05:

I too knew of it as the Pilnik variation; specifically I recall that I. A. Horowitz called it that in his thick 1960s tome Chess Openings:  Theory and Practice.

I can remember the Russian Sveshnikov article (probably from 1988). Read many times. 

In the interests of history then:

At that time, when the Kalashnikov (neo-Sveshnikov) was very young, the two key points were:

a)
v 6.N1c3 blacks responded with ...b5 and Nge7. Not Nf6, but the other square! That was key, otherwise it is not a new and different line.
b)
v. 6.c4 the idea was to play ...Be7 and get ...Bg5 in quickly to swap bishops. Perhaps even using ...h6 to support it.

Things have now changed, as we might expect over the decades. Two major changes:

a)
...Be7 has largely replaced ...Nge7. I am not sure ...nge7 was ever fully and clearly 'refuted' to plus over minus rather than plus equals, but I wouldn't bet my house on it. 
b) Some sharp early ...f5 lines were introduced. 

See Tony Rotella's excellent book for coverage of these ideas. (author = 'TonyRo' here at chesspub).

Regarding van der Wiel and the name, I half remember that too. Strong player, but that perhaps not his finest moment. Was it just a throw away comment that someone took seriously? Real pity it caught on - having Kalashnikov books on the shelf at home is about as happy as having Semkov's 'Kill KID' there. No, not impressing the ladies there.

I do agree with MNb about the naming of chess openings often being a random process.

I have my own "bȇtes noires" in this respect, e.g. some websites insist on calling the 4...Nd7 varuation of the Caro-Kann the "Steinitz variation", on the basis of no evidence that I can find. 

Another one that annoys me is the "Bayonet Attack"  in the Classical King's Indian; traditionally, a bayonet attack (in chess) was an attack by a single pawn (e.g. g2-g4-g5 in many open Sicilians), rather than part of the advance of a qualitative majority, as in the King's Indian, where there is little resemblance to a bayonet, as far as I can see. (I suspect an old Foxy video by Danny King might be to blame here).

Getting back to the Kalashnikov, I suggest there can be little doubt that the theoretical foundations of the modern handling of this line were indeed established by Sveshnikov, in his practice and his writings, e.g. in his brilliant article in New In Chess Yearbook 27 (1992).

But I think it's worth recognising that Sveshnikov himself, (like Fischer) a keen student of 19th century chess, was always scrupuluous to refer to 4...e5 as the La Bourdonnais variation.

MNb: 1) as far as I can ascertain, Bohak only once played 4...e5 5 Nb5 d6 and after 6 Nb1-c3 he immediately switched into B33 with 6...Nf6;
2) Pils sems to have only started playing 4...e5 5 Nb5 d6 in 1982; prior to that he had played one theoretically important game with 5...a6 6 Nd6+ Bxd6 7 Qxd6 Qf6, strategically-speaking a completely different concept.

There are other predecessors, of course, but I think it's very hard to argue that Sveshnikov does not deserve the greatest credit for constructing a whole opening system based on 4...e5 5 Nb5 d6.

Bibs wrote on 08/21/21 at 01:51:15:

But you argue for "..... are unjust". Indeed nomenclature isn't fair to GM Timoscenko. It was GM Sveshnkov who popularized 8...b5 outside of the USSR at the end of the 1960's and beyond the Iron Curtain in 1977. That's how 5...e5 got its name.
Another chessplayer who has reason to complain is IM Henz Wirthenson. At least GM Timoscenko's contributions always have been recognized, at least in The Netherlands since the late 1970's. Young talents like GM Van der Wiel started to play 5...e5 and 8...b5 that early. The latter is responsible for the name Kalashnikov.

Bibs wrote on 08/21/21 at 01:51:15:

Incorrect. GM Sveshnikov started to play it in 1987. Corr. chess player Janko Bohak had played it with success between 1970 and 1975 and IM Pils in the early 1980's. The first was (and is) simply unknown and the latter not taken seriously. So it's very "unhelpful" according to your own argument to name it after the greaqt Russian/Latvian GM.

It would be a bit silly to call the name Cunningham Defense "unhelpful". Everybody knows it's 3...Be7 in the King's Gambit. Still WCh Euwe pioneered the modern treatment. The difference is that the great Dutchman never made a fuzz about it. WCh Euwe made essential contributions to many more openings than GM TImoscenko. At least the name Tsjeljabinsk is regular in former USSR countries.

Nomenclature of chess openings is a random process. So there are many examples of "unjust" names. Yet another example is the topographical disaster 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3. It was invented and pioneered by a Swede in Sweden. But dead diplomats don't complain in public.

RIP
Read lots of his stuff. About French Advance, c3 Alapin and the Kalashnikov. His big yellow bible of the Alapin is a good work. 

In terms of nomenclature, I really believe that established names are unhelpful. What we know as the Pelikan or Sveshnikov looks to be better known as the Chelyabinsk. Timoschenko looks really hard done by. (And he is plainly very aggrieved as one reads in his hefty tome on this line). 

The Kalashnikov on the other hand really was primarily the work of Sveshnikov. Ideally THIS would be called the Sveshnikov. I remember Bob Wade showing a group of us at a UK junior squad training camp an article by Sveshnikov. Probably summer of 1988. His new idea - a short article in Russian. The early games were his, and he is on record (somewhere) saying he believed this was a better version. 

Sad when such players leave us early. Respect to him.