Peter's "starting from scratch" approach has attracted some comment, not all of it favourable. I'm a former accelerated dragon player and here's something I noticed.

Consider the early position after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cd 5.Nd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 with as few preconceptions as you can manage, and list some possible 7th moves for White. 7.Qd2 is a move, surely? Especially if you notice that 7...Ng4 8.Nc6 is quite decent for White. There are some 500 games with 7.Qd2 in Mega 2014 (including a particularly poor effort of mine); yes, it scores poorly after 7...OO, but the book buying public would like to understand why. And yet the combined authorial might of Silman & Donaldson, Nielson & Hansen and Greet fail to mention the move at all, not even as a transpositional possibility. Of course no book can cover every move, but for a natural option as early as move seven, I have always thought this was very poor. On the other hand, Peter Lalic covers 7.Qd2 properly - in fact it's the first line in the book.

So, a palpable hit for "starting from scratch", and well done Peter.

Bibs wrote on 05/18/14 at 02:24:45:

That's to be expected. It's one thing to do independent research; it's another not to compare it with existing knowledge afterwards.

I have been having a look through the Gurgenidze section.
Politely, not being too blunt, it is very disappointing. The problem with the author not referring to any existing material is that knowledge is not built upon. Comparing with Silman/Donaldson, this is the case.
In chess as in academia, one refers to the existing material to situate the commentary one is providing, and to extend knowledge beyond the previous.
Regarding Jupp's comment, the author appears to be 20 years old and 2161. Not tabula rasa, no, but also not very highly rated either.

I received the book yesterday and my first impression is that it is a very good and useful book for the average club-player like me.

Hi Mr. Lalic and Mr. Greet,

first of all thanks to both of you for writing books about the accelerated dragon. After reading the book of Andrew Greet a few years ago I switched to the accelerated dragon because this book is really great (especially for a Starting Out book).
Later on I moved on to the Pirc/Modern complex because I think it offers more winning chances against lower rated players (as a FM I mostly face opponents with 2050-2450 ELO). And this is the starting point for my questions:

a) Do you think that Black really have winning chances against a player rated >2100 ELO in the Maroczy bind? Or is it more +/= with more “=” then “+”?
b) In the Bc4 line do you consider 8…a5 as an equalizer or as a winning try for Black?
c) Do you think the winning chances are better when you switch in the Bc4 from the accelerated dragon to a normal dragon (if possible) avoiding the early 0-0-0 or g4 variation in the classical dragon?

@Andrew Greet: It´s sad that you are “only” an editor for QC now and not writing books anymore. Also your e4-deviation book and “Play the Ruy-Lopez” books are very good (and they give me some headache playing the Pirc/Modern  ). I mostly follow your lines against the “minor” lines like Bird, Steinitz,… but in the Worrall I found some variations where I think that White is struggling a bit. But that´s chess and hopefully QC will soon produce a book that solves my “1.e4 e5” problem (e.g. in the Scotch or publishing a Ruy Lopez book for White). 

I wish you both the best with all your books you are working on!

brabo wrote on 05/09/14 at 06:47:21:


If you are not using literature, why would you necessarily be looking for moves only after x? It's plausible that you would also be looking at moves x-1 or x-2 for example yourself isnt it?

Thanks, Jupp53; you phrased it better than I did! You hit the nail on the head.