John wrote on 10/10/11 at 08:01:08:


Well, that immediately reminded me of Kotov-Geller (a perhaps famous game in this line, the Classical Fianchetto that is), but this looks like an inferior version.

By the way, just glancing through the games in NIC's online database in which Wojo was White in the Fianchetto KID, there seemed to be, overall, a marked rating disparity.  Some of the games didn't have ratings provided, but I got the impression that the average difference might well be over 200 points in Wojo's favor.  Last I was aware, a difference of 200 points was associated with a scoring expectancy of about 75% (and that would be with an equal color distribution).

In reply to GabrielGale, from reply #9,

First, to address your question on section “A”

Okay… let’s make some order here.
Yes the point of these games is to show a thematic Ndb5 ideas however, I think you are confusing a few lines there.
By your questions it seems that you are actually talking about the previous game (page 15, Wojo - Garkov) where black’s queen was on c7.

For the point of “proving” that Nbc5 is playable even without a queen on c7 but with other conditions (obviously) in the game Wojo – Bauer, Ndb5 came only at move 18 after these moves:

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. d4 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. e4 c6 9. Rb1 exd4 10. Nxd4 Re8 11. h3 Nc5 12. Re1 a5 13. b3 Nfd7 14. Be3 Nf6?! 15. Qc2 Qe7 16. Rbd1 Bd7 17. Bf4 Rad8 18. Ndb5

The point as I see it is to demonstrate the preparation Wojo took in order to allow for such plan.


Anyway, back to our discussion:

[Referenced position: 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. d4 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. e4 c6 9. Rb1 exd4 10. Nxd4 Re8 11. h3 Nc5 12. Re1 a5 13. b3 Nfd7 14. Be3 Na6]

15. Ndb5 ?!?!?!?

Here there are a few clear points:
•      White hasn’t moved his queen yet
•      Since white hasn’t moved his queen a Rb1-d1 is not yet possible
•      The bishop on e3 has not been moved out of the e1-rook’s way and is still “blocking” its way
•      The black queen is not on c7, therefore there is no tempo to be won by 15. Ndb5

In reviewing all these reasons it must be pointed out that these are only positional reasons, there is always the possibility that tactically white will be given enough activity to out weigh the lost material.
Does that make an early Ndb5 sound?
Probably not.

15… cxb5 16. Nxb5 Ndc5 17. Qxd6 Bf8 18. Qxd8 Rxd8 19. Rbd1

As one of many idea variations, this one does not, perhaps prove complete refutation but we cannot claim white’s early attempts were any more purposeful than any other positionally-dubious gambit.

For the plan of Ndb5 to work white needs to take preparations to assure that once this move has been played it has both positional and tactical justifications.
And at the very least, sort of like a rule of thumb to remember, he must surely activate his pieces before hand.


My reply to some of the things you’ve said in section “B”

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I’m well aware of their attempts… but!
If you don’t want to go into discussion on the first 18 moves and the whole reason you’re giving it is to prove a point on the 18th move than first of all making any comments before move 18 is first and foremost only misleading, second, waste of paper and third let’s just say I don’t buy it

They could very well give a diagram starting from move 18, making comments on the positions in the form of white: assets / liabilities. Black: assets/liabilities etc and perhaps give a reference like: black lost a tempo by moving the knight away from f6 and then playing it back.
That method will focus the student to the point you are trying to make while giving him the necessary informative knowledge as to the position itself without debatable analysis. This method is seen in Yermolinsky’s ‘Road to chess improvement’.
My point is that you either analyze a game or you don’t, I do believe that this is a case of black and white judgment. Analyzing only what you want disregarding others to the point that you do not even stick to your very own suggestions is quite absurd.
I can’t claim anything of that sort in Avrukh’s 1.d4. the guy is bloody brilliant!! I couldn’t find one single line I could do better and in any line I did think a mistake has been made after careful analysis I came to the conclusion that he is right after all. Every move is analyzed, every idea is covered and every possible computer suggestion is mentioned. It is simply by far a much more serious piece of work.

Again, that being said I really don’t know what I’ll have to say once I’m finished with the book, perhaps the variations are lacking yes, that much is clear. But perhaps the ideas themselves will serve me well. I truly hope so, but either way I expected more from this book as I’m sure anyone expects these days from any chess book.

Regarding Wojo’s score against the KID.
For some reason people keep saying that his score of such and such is a fact!
Who said otherwise?
Did I make a comment saying that I believe the score is a lie?
Hardly! What I said was just the opposite!
People claim this is an almost drawish line with a slight something to white. I simply don’t buy it! I don’t buy the whole rating difference as well. You try to play 90 games againt 2000-2400 players in the Caro-Kann and I promise you your score will not be 80% wins it’ll be 80% draws! I don’t’ care who you are and who you’re playing winning is not something that can be ignored and I certainly don’t believe it’s all because of his strength.

This is perhaps beside the point but perhaps it’ll make my point clearer…
Most people claim that the exchange Slav is one of the most drawish variations in chess. I hardly agree with such claims. IM Lakdawalla has a 94% wins as white in the exchanged Slav!!! Talking about an amazing winning score?? What the heck is that!!??

I took on studying the exchange Slav and my god, it takes a really strong black player to stand the simple and effective positional play white has. It is so thematic and so powerful it’s simply unbelievable.
If you’ll go to the FICS website and look up my own scores you’ll see that my score (on the internet) is too 90%+ and I’ve only been playing it a few months!

My point is that if anyone, Wojo or whoever it may be, is indeed winning so much as white in these lines there is bound to be an explanation and a reason. If no one knows what it is it is simply because it hasn’t been understood yet and if the book doesn’t make it clear then the book is a failure because writing about it and not being able to explain it is defeating the objective of the book and…as you have said… one would do just fine with a good database and a nice engine.

I seriously hope that once you go through the whole book you are being given that wisdom. That, for lack of other word – will be awesome
If not, the book is a failure.
I’m a very black and white sort-a-guy as you can see

Cheers!


BTW, “I am not a apologist for the authors but I would like criticism to be fair and constructive.”
I’m definitely with you on that one!

I too have been playing through the Wojo Weapons Vol 2 and therfore was intrigued by this thread. Now I am not as strong player as the OP but I can read ...... I am responding on two levels: a) concrete discussion of the Wojo-Bauer game; b) general level on the book and its goals.

The Bauer game as well as the previous one was used by the authors as illustrativbe of the tactical idea of Ndb5 jump aiming for an exchange of 2 Knights for a rook and two pawns.

So, in the OP position, instead of 14...Nf6, if B plays 14...Na6, OP provides two candidate moves:
A) 15 Nde2
B) 15 Qc2
and C) (from Kylemeister) 15 a3.

So, my query: Can't W play 15 Ndb5 straight away? Or isn't this idea playable at some point in time. In the candidate moves suggested, I don't see idea implemented. If so, why bother reading the book. You can just get a good games database, put in the position, and then have a look at what moves are played after ...Na6, run your chess engine ... Why fork over $$$$ for the book? Why indeed??? But then I am just a novice chessplayer but a damn good reader!

In the first illustrative game, Wojo-Garko, W played 15 Ndb5 when W's Q is already on c2 and QR on d1 and B's Q is on c7 (but I don't think this matters that much except of course W gets a tempo attcking the Q). In the Wojo-Bauer game, W played 18 Ndb5.

b) the book's goals: the authors state that Wojo achieved a "stunning winning percentage of 80.2%" over 91 sample games in Chessbase database (Megabase?). That is a fact. Earlier, authors reiterate the aim of the series, Wojo's "efficient" opening repertoire agst club players and masters (!) [The authors note that for the Vol 1 repertoire (ie Catalan) Wojo "only managed a 63.4% score out of 154 sample games". So what does the authors claim?
"When played correctly, Wojo's ideas allow White to achieve a tremendous winning percentage; [......] Our aim here is to make Wojo's 80% score against the KID accessible to our readers."

Further, "Pt 1 [......] are designed to examine critical ideas and concepts that form the real centerpiece of the repertoire presented. After reading Pt 1 of this book, most readers should be able to begin emplying the Fianchetto KID in their own games to good effect, particularly at club level."

So, two things: 1) Chs 1-4 are meant to be ideas chapters not extensive variations repertoire chapters. Ch 5 presents a repertoire up to move 13. After that I assume you play according to the "ideas".
2) The series is aimed primarily at club players agst other club players.
But I think, anyone coming to these books expecting a fool-proof repertoire achieving a 80% score has to realise that the score is dependent heavily on positional skills as well as technique.

PS, Caveat: I am not a apologist for the authors but I would like criticism to be fair and constructive.

Incidentally after 15...Qe7 I was inclined to put the queen on c2.  Another comparable example:  1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. g3 O-O 5. Bg2 d6 6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. e4 exd4 9. Nxd4 Re8 10. h3 Nc5 11. Re1 a5 12. Rb1 Nfd7 13. Be3 c6 14. Qc2 Qe7 15. b3 Ne5 16. Rbd1 a4 17. f4 axb3 18. axb3 (+= Janjgava) Ned7 19. b4 Ne6 (Zsu. Polgar-Hausner, Vienna 1986) 20. Nde2 += ECO.

Regarding a typical position in this stuff (where Black is playing ...c6, ...Re8, ...a5, ...ed and ...Nc5 in some order), Janjgava wrote, "The position is easier to play for White as he has more freedom of movement and this is borne out by the practical results (63% for White)."

Maybe I am being petty here but for one if you’re not going to stand behind a claim simply don’t make it.
You could do well by making a notice of: “Wojo had a decent amount of success with this comfortable system” and finish with that. Plain, simple, no grandiose promises. And if you are going to make a promise at the very least provide a reasonable amount of analysis to compliment it.

On the other hand, if this position is somewhere between a slight plus over equal to a dead on equal then how come it was in these specific lines that anyone managed an 85% win score? Surely such a score is not without its reason, never mind the opposition, it simply has to be addressed and explained.

I would think that with such play Black should at best be slightly worse.  Comparison might be made to games such as Jakat-Vogt and Smejkal-Browne which have been cited as += (which has long been the usual evaluation of this whole line, as far as I know).

Regarding C), 15. a3 with the idea of 15...Ndc5 16. b4 looks quite possible.