lg wrote on 01/28/14 at 20:27:16:

Voronezh.

lg wrote on 01/28/14 at 17:23:06:


thanks for alerting us to the pdf now being up. Shame that we cant tell what all the lines he covers are from it though...

I initially wasnt surprised at the chosen line against the 4PA as its fairly thematic and avoids a lot of theory in the main lines...but thinking about it more now,  and given his background with the opening he would have been well placed to provide an alternative line.

I am surprised to see him as a Cxd player in the exchange and that he is covering this line, although i am glad.

John Cox i think has also been saying for quite a while that he felt that it was still playable . 

lg wrote on 01/18/14 at 15:19:48:


Thanks for the game suggestions i will have a look later.

I agree that Taylor's writing is let down with his dismissive style. his explanations of things he likes is good, those that he doesnt is not so good. A better work would provide quality explanations for both as you have pointed out with the nd7 line. I think Lakdawala's positive style is likely to be better for this.

Yes, perhaps hiding was not the correct wording. But, according to some of the reviews i read, the Nc3 & Be3 lines white plays against 5...g6 in the 4 pawn are the most important for the variation and the reviewers felt that Taylor glossed over how difficult they were for Black to face. While he does call the moves critical, if he is down playing the difficulties black faces against that line it is a concern, and it is unlikely that he wouldnt know which were the problematic ones. I cant remember the reviews, other than NM Mcleary's on Chessville which i cant find now due to the site being down.

I'm also glad to hear that Lakdawala was close friend of Tony Miles. I think the latter never really got the recognition that he probably deserved and it would be great if the new book was infused with games that displayed the spirit of Miles.

I had thought of moving away from the Alekhine next season and playing the French or something, but this thread is making me rethink my plan...

ErictheRed wrote on 01/18/14 at 15:58:56:


I hope so !!!

thanks for the discussion

here is more:

i) if you go to the chessgames.com you find two of his games, probably the most famous ones one loss where he plays 4...c6 5.Be2 Bg4 and one win agains the chase. This appears to be a "famous" game since he makes a sacrífice at the end.

to see others, use Google and you may find a few more

ii) I have mixed feelings about Taylor's book. Essentially, i dont understand some of his choices and really dislike his assertive way of writing (mor eon this below.
I did not dislike his 2. Nc3 chapter. It was informative to me (in the sense that if I fel like playing 2...e5, I will have a look at it and also at relevant books on e4.e5
His choices on minor chapters are odd. The striking exemple for me is the chapter on 4.Bc4.
Concerning the 4PA, what you mean by "hiding the critical line"?? "Hiding" means he knows about it and on purpose is not putting it in, right?
I dont like his algoritmic approach for the Exchange, If he plays this you answer this, etc. I would rather have good explanations to make me suggest the same algorithm, if I agree, right?
Also his positive/negative way of writing is odd. When he says correct (it appears that anything else is wrong) or incorrect (and then you see good players
playing it and doing well).
One example is 6...Nc6 in the Exchange (which by the way makes sense to me). But i have seen good playes playing 6...Be7 at once and allowing the Bd3 Ne2 approach for White and doing well.

However for me the two striking examples arise in the 4.Nf3 lines

In the Miles line he says that "Carlsen developped  an importante strategical improvement" when referring to 6...Bf5 in the 6.Be2 line??
I can quote a few players that played this much earlier, eg., Nigel Short.
However, it is not clear to me why 6...Bf5 is better thna the old Miles line with 6...Nd7 and it is in such cases where explanative ideas might be worth having.
Also, in these two variations, I can pose similar questions arising on moves 8 and 9, etc.

In the main line of the Kengis he says that 9...Be6 is
"accurate...but look what happens to Adamas when he plays the less precise 9...Nd7". And later on he says that this move is "an important mistake".
This important mistake has been played by several "Alekhine" players including Larsen's win against Westerinen (who has two game sin this chaper, Miroschnichenko, etc.
Taylor's explanations of why this is  a mistake are not clear to me (in fact, i am not sure he adds any).

I am one of those that thinks Cox's book há snot been improved.
However, two quick comments.

I like Bogdanov's book. My main criticism here is the
choice of games in the Miles lines that makes the author spend only a few lines on the main lines.

And in terms of explanative ideas and motivations my vote still goes to the introductions of each chapter on New ideas in the Alekhine by Burguess.

i) I mentioned 4...Bg4 5Be2 c6 because he has played it several times, also under the move order 4...c6 5Be2 Bg4 (and here I dont understand this because with the first move order Black reduces White's options). But I hope we see the Miles, old and new.

ii) The main question in a repertoire book for an audience with average 2200 (2000?) Elo is to know
whether the material should be divided by
a) what is best according to the best players
or
b) what is generally played by players of 2200

At first sight one may be inclined to choice b) but does it make sense to have more pages on 2.Nc3 than on 4.Nf3?
Also the best choice for variations and subvariations helps you to become better at chess, i think.

iii) Funny is that Taylor's book is a repertoire book.
This is also a repertoire book. Does it make sense to publish one after the other with a 2 year interval?
The Alekhine is seldom played. Will the book sell?
I am looking forward to the book but as a publisher
shouldnt I be asking for a Move by Move book
in the QG accepted, another on the QC declined;
anothe ron the Kings' indian, even one on the Dutch,
SOME on variation sof the Ruy Lopes, etc?

iv) anyway book was delayed


according

RoleyPoley wrote on 01/13/14 at 00:26:59:


After 4. Nf3 i think he would suggest either 4...c6, 4...dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 or 4...Bg4 5.Be2 c6

These are lines which are worth a book with good comments (such as the ones he does in the his Slav book).
Sincerely, I would prefer the first two.

Concerning 2.Nc3 e5 in case it is his choice, then I would prefer a "pointer" to 1e4e5 books and not waste pages with such lines.
I would not mind "lines I dont recommend" with updated games (which is not the case of Taylor's book).