Here's a variation. After 1.d4 c6 2.c4 d5 3.Nc3 Nd7 4.e4 h6 5.f4 g5 6.fxg5 Bg7 7.Nf3 Nf8 8.Be2 hxg5! 9.Bxg5 Ne6 10.Be3 Qb6(?!), which Nemtsev describes as one of his main lines, he gives 10.Rb1 for White. This is exactly one of those pointless or unenergetic moves supplied for the opponent in cheap opening monographs that Nunn warns about .

What move does Nemtsev neglect to mention, a move obvious in this position (see diagram) where White's b-pawn is hit and where Black's stated intention is to contest the dark squares? (Hint: it's a standard developing move that further clears the back rank, effectively unpins the d4-pawn, and is thematic against a wide variety of Black king's fianchetto openings).



11.Qd2, of course, after which Black's best is 11...Nf6 (11...Bh6 12.O-O-O and White's position is absolutely classical, two tempi up in development with Black's kingside gone). 12.d5 Nc5 (forced); but then 13.Na5 hits both the queen and the knight pinned to it. After Black withdraws with 13...Qc7, White doubles Black's pawns and diverts a center pawn to the flank with 14.Nxc5 dxc5. White keeps his large advantage with normal moves such as 15. Bd3 in a position that is sharp primarily because Black's kingside is gone.

This is not some computer improvement--it's what exactly the stuffy correct opponent Nemtsev describes (i.e. me) would play as a reflex. What good is the time spent memorizing his opening analysis beyond this point, or for that matter after some White improvements earlier in the line?

This book isn't doing its readers any favors.

Bibs wrote on 06/11/17 at 09:29:57:

Thanks for the clarification.

And perhaps I should make clear myself that this "Elshad Gambit" or whatever it is called does not look particularly interesting. So I can actually understand why this thread will probably "die". - I am not so sure about the original Elshad System with c3, Qa4 and g4. 

Bibs wrote on 06/09/17 at 23:46:53:

Can you give a link? I've looked at the Mongoose site https://www.mongoosepress.com/, apparently it doesn't offer a sample.

For those interested to see where this idea is coming from: https://www.chess.com/blog/hardgods/persian-opening . This g7-g5 gambit can be seen as a distant relative of the c3 / Qa4 / g4 scheme. 

A while ago I tried to establish a rule in this forum: "ridicule is allowed, but should always come with a move". This forum is not killed by engines. It is dying because people who love to ridicule new ideas are not willing to contribute even a single move to a discussion. If someone had cared to suggest just one concrete line here, others might have weighed in, and a debate with pro and con could arise.

Any word yet on the proposed GM Rep?

Trees are going to die for this?

I downloaded a sample.
It looks like waffle nonsense from that sample. Avoid.

There's a new book (well I'll venture to guess it's the first ever book) on

1. d4 c6
2. c4 d6
3. e4 Nd7
4. Nc3 h6
5. f4 g5

Called "The Elshad System" by Igor Nemtsev. Has anyone heard of it?

From the introduction:

Everything in this book will be, to a great extent, subjective -- so we won't be looking too hard for a refutation of the Elshad System.

And then later in an annotation:
Even though the computer says White has a large advantage here {about +3}, finding all the right moves over the board is unrealistic --
especially if it's a blitz or rapid game.

Still, I'm curious if anyone buys this book and lets us know if it's a good weapon.