My5 cents on this book:
1.general observations The English is bad (even for my non-native speaking standards), but at least for me the meaning is always clear.
Some headlines are mistaken: e.g. chapter 2 is titled "Systems with 2...dxc4", but that is wrong. Systems with 2...dxc4 are treated from page 205 onwards. The second chapter treats lines with 2....e6 and dxc4 at a later stage of the game (which makes a lot of sense, as the 2....dxc4 lines are very different).
To summarize: a thorough editing would have helped a lot.
2. the chess content
I am really enjoying this book!
The author is very objective and ambitious at the same time. That leads to a very balanced and objective coverage.
The author clearly states that he has not refuted any of the major black systems against the Réti. Neither the Hedgehog, nor the e6 nor c6 defenses. He even makes the case that 2....dxc4 is much better for black than recent Reti literature claims e.g. (Delchev or Bologan). He usually explains the choice of his lines by highlighting the weak spots in other popular lines.
At the same time he shares many novelties and new ideas for White (of course)and Black. And he always seems to seek an objective evaluation, not sheering away to mention black antidotes to his improvals for White.
I am still surprised that he managed to offer a coherent and almost complete repertoire in one book. So far I have not discovered any move order issues, his selected lines fit together very nicely.
At some points he cuts the coverage saying something like: "You are very unlikely to have this position on the board, that is why I restrict myself to mentioing only the best possibilities for Black". So this is clearly a book concentrating on the
The repertoire lines chosen are not a "system approach". In some lines white has to sacrifice pawns in order to fight for the initiative (e.g. Slav lines), in others he plays calmy with a double fianchetto (e.g. symmetrical or Hedgehog). In some lines he tries to get an advantage in simple positions (e.g. some lines of the symmetrical), in other lines White has to play a full-blooded middlegame with all pieces on the board (e.g. reversed Benoni or Neo-Catalan Mainline). Sometimes White even tries to blow Black off the board (e.g. against the Stonewall or the Dutch in general or the reversed Blumenfeld Gambit). So to make the most of this repertoire you should have a flexible playing style. In my eyes this is a "real" GM-repertoire (actually the one Demuth very often plays himself).
What can I say about some specific lines?
Well, the weak spot of this repertoire clearly is the Kings Indian defence. His main recommendation is 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b3. While this system has some sting to it (and Demuths provides lots of new ideas for White), this is the only time in the book where Black can suck the life out of the position, as one of Demuths mainlines ends in an absolutely equal position and it is even White who has to be careful to get there as there are tactical pitfalls along the way. True, this line is almost never played, but still...
As Demuth is fully aware of this problem, he covers the Anti-Grunfeld line 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 Qb3 with some nice new ideas , but he does not give a mainline against the King's Indian.
I especially like the way he treats the Hedgehog. He shows clear guidelines in this maze of move-orders and shows that black has to be very precise in order to avoid a (slightly) worse position.
As it is the backbone of his repertoire, the Neo-Catalan mainline could have seen deeper coverage in my opinion.
To summarize: This is clearly a book for the practical player. If you are looking for a book that claims an advantage for White in most of the lines, you will be disappointed. In fact a lot his mainlines end with equality in a complex position.
I have to add something in the end:
I enjoyed this book much more than Avrukhs work on 1.d4. Let me elaborate: Avrukh obviously has put a lot of effort in his d4 bible (overall a great book) and he found many interesting novelties. But already back then I never believed that White is better everywhere because of his novelties. But suddenly according to his books White had an edge in all the mainlines: the Catalan, the King's Indian, the Grunfeld, the Slav and so on. It was no surprise for me that huge parts of his repertoire were neutralized quickly (e.g. in the Slav or the King's Indian) or even got completely refuted (e.g. the famous Grunfeld line that is simply better for black). I almost felt cheated after reading Avrukh: I was sure I cannot believe all his conclusions, but I am too weak a player to detect which ones were shaky and where he really discovered something leading to a better position for white.
Demuths work is not as detailed as Avrukhs, but he really goes one step further: he shows new ideas for White and very often in turn also shows the antidote for black.
|