tony37 wrote on 08/14/13 at 19:49:53:


interestingly shaw advises against the move 4.h4 and suggests the quaade style mentioned previously in this thread

i still think the best chance for a black advantage against best possible moves from white may lie in the modern defense ( 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed ef) while also avoiding any of the edgier lines in which white can play for at least some decent otb complications

MartinC wrote on 08/14/13 at 15:04:48:


I think your right about the reason for only choosing to analyze Nf6. Easy equality for black is not what white wants. That's why Shaw proposes 4.Nc3 as an alternative. With regard to 3...d5, I don't believe white is any worse. If black plays correctly chances are balanced I think. But there are plenty of ways in which black can go wrong.

Up till now I have been testing Shaw's suggestions in blitz play with good results (even against a few IM's). Most of my opponents have no clue what to do. In the 3...g5 variation most players know the theory after 4.h4, but 4.Nc3 comes as a surprise.
Of course it would be different in OTB games, but most KG-positions are so complex it's hard to calculate everything during the game. While it is still seldomly played (might well change!) most black players won't be well prepared. 

Also just got the book and enjoying it so far, even if I feel like White is still fighting uphill vs 3...g5 and 3...d5.

One question: in the Kieseritzky 5...d6 line, Shaw mentions that he only wants to consider 6...Nf6.  However I have some notes on 6...Be7 (forget if they were from ChessPub, they aren't original analysis), which scores very poorly for White in databases. Am I missing anything? Did Shaw have a good reason to ignore 6...Be7?

MartinC wrote on 08/13/13 at 13:13:02:


I play 2.Nf3 as well, mostly the Scotch for that matter. I have been testing the KG on the ICC however for the last couple of weeks with great results against strong opposition. I might give it a shot in OTB as well. You are not convinced by the KG?

4 .. g4 that would be. Sticking to 2 Nf3 may well be sense though
(On an aside, any Surtees watchers could do worse than look at his games in the recent British championship. Very different and mostly interesting.).

zen_learner wrote on 07/27/13 at 12:20:14:


Unjustified criticism in my opinion. Let me give you some background information. In Shaw's book the variation 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 is analysed pretty extensively. The main focus is on 4.h4. This is still a very viable way of playing for white, however Shaw notes that Black can equalize after 4...g5 5.Ne5 d6! Of course Shaw's analysis goes further than this, but the conclusion is that black can reach equality in different endgame positions with little dynamics. The variation 5...d6 leads to queen exchanges inevitably.

For this reason Shaw proposes another way of playing the KG, which involves 4.Nc3 and a subsequent g3 (he calls it 'Quaade-style'). For reasons well explained in the book the first six moves in the game mentioned by Zen_learner are the best moves as well as the most optimal move order for both sides (in Shaw's opinion of course). So I agree with Zen_learner that if Black can force a draw here so easily, white should perhaps abandon the Quaade Variation alltogether (note that he can still play 4.h4!). I also agree with him that most alternatives to white's moves lead to an inferior position, as mentioned by Shaw. There is a very important exception however not mentioned by Zen_learner in his fatalism. At move 14 Shaw suggests the novelty 14.Dd3!?

If Black tries to exchange queens with 14...Dd4, then after 15.0-0-0 Qxd3 16.cxd3, white has a small edge in the endgame (better pawn structure in the centre). If black keeps the queens on the board with 14...Bh6 for example, then after 15.0-0 and a subsequent Kh1 the position is unclear according to Shaw. I prefer white however, typical KG-play over the f-file and the knight can be rerouted to d4 for example.

To conclude, Shaw does try to improve on the 'critical game' and succeeds in my opinion. Besides there are all kinds of ways Black can go wrong and simply remembering a string of moves won't save him.

You all should decide for yourself whether you think the Quaade variation Shaw advocates would give you enough to play for. One of the themes of the book is that the KG doesn't all come down to 'onedimensional hacking', but that white should strive to small endgame advantages of applicable.

I like Shaw's book a lot, it is full with analysis, ideas and novelties for both sides. Some of his ideas are untested, but that's all the more interesting for the KG adepts to test. 

Unfortunately, it was short lived. There is a serious dead end.

Worse than the Berlin. Pity of such effort (his previous book on the Spanish was good, as it was Emms').

The game is Zviangitsev-Smirnov. Deviations as white lead to a worse position. Uff.



OK. Back to Spanish/Italian/Scotch...