bragesjo wrote on 08/02/17 at 14:21:24:


This is why I think the whole "too much theory" argument is rarely applicable outside of 2000+. First of all, people play sidelines all the time in openings that start mainline. They do this to avoid diverse theory for things like the Sicilian or Grunfeld and these lines tend to be more positional in their nature so you can play well if you understand the position. Secondly, even if I know only 10 moves of Najdorf theory, my opponents generally also know only about that much. Just because there is a lot of theory on a line and a lot of computer analysis can be done doesn't mean it actually has until you get to really high levels. Plus, natural moves are often good enough even if not optimal and the better player in that position will still triumph most times.

My interest in side lines isn't to avoid theory because I'm scared of how much there is to learn and what my opponent could know. It's just to make myself a complete player and to surprise people a bit.

Can anyone say what he recommends vs the Semi-Slav, i.e. in the Meran?  That's the only place where this book overlaps my repertoire I think, but I'd buy the book if I liked his Meran treatment enough.

I have read the excerpt from website. I might buy this book, It is an interesting concept.

However one thing is not mentioned is clubplayer aspect.There are more books, disc, databases etc than ever before.
But clubplayers knows less and less theory. So I am more surprised when meeting a  "traditional mainline".

At clublevel d-pawn specials is more common that "traditional mainlines" after 1 d4. And even if they play "traditional mainlines" they does not theory very far. At Internet I have lost count on how many times I meet 4 Bd2 vs Nimzo.

The same principle applies to 1 e4 openings as well.
Open Sicilian is a "traditional mainline". In practical play about 90 % of all club players plays some anti sicilian instead.
So at club level one can almost get away by only learning anti sicilians!

I would presume it is that kind of thing.  Incidentally I recall the term "King's Indian Attack Reversed" from an annotation from the 1970s.

It looks like a very original book indeed!

(now with a preview)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/295/e3_poison_by_axel_smith/

One thing I was a bit struck by:  the full game in Chapter 1 involves a known tricky line of the 4. e3 QID (plus, reaching it by a move order starting with d4, Nf3 and e3 has happened many times).  Doesn't exactly seem "post-theoretical" as the chapter title has it.