ANDREW BRETT wrote on 01/19/09 at 13:23:58:


His main line is based on a Kotronias-Halkias Game. 90% of the line is sound, but the last part is too superficial (logical though since if a book is going to analyze every line is great detail 10 moves after the Novelty, then the book will never end.

Basically this line (starting with Nd4, gives white a slight, but constant edge. Nothing in the vincinity of winning as in the book, but white has a comfortable edge. (reaching this result after searching the postion with the IDEA tool (found in Aquarium) for more than a week and after finding a lot of little details that both sides need to know. Basically for over the board play, white has easier play and if i have to choose sides, i take white gladly)

I just noticed that in the critical 3...Be7 variation Watson reccomends 12...f6! (instead of 12...Ba6 13.Qe3 f6 as played in the game Kristjansson_ Caruana, 2008). The differenve can be important if 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.Nb3 trying to play like Tzermiadianos reccomends then 14...Bb7! is fine because after something like 15.Nxc5 Nxc5 16.Ne5 d4! is great for Black. I didn't fing to many games played with this move order but i think that this is an improvement for Black.

I'd be interested to see what he gives against the Guimard given the run of success for black - maybe he has something against that as well !

This book "How to beat the French defence"is a very nice,well analysed book imo.
Since i have Moskalenko's book, i compard them in the line 3.Nd2 Be7.


Tzermiadianos recommends 4.Bd3!? and so after: 4..c5! 5.dc5 Nf6 6.Qe2 we have  a first road to take.

Since Kristjansson-Caruana, Reykjavik 2008, 0-1 is such a nice game i followed that road in the 2 books.

That game went: 6...0-0 7.Ngf3 a5 8.0-0 Na6 9.e5 Nd7.

Tzermiadianos now recommends 10.c3!? Nac5 11.Bc2 b6!? 12.Re1 Ba6 13.Qe3 f6!? and here Tzermiadianos goes on with 14.ef6! Bf6 15. Nb3!? e5 only briefly saying(14. b4!?)

14.b4!? is the move that Moskalenko says,not mentioning 14.ef6.
14.b4!? is the move played in Kristjansson-Caruana,very instructive how to play against b4.

I think 14.ef6 is the way forward for white in this line (10.c3!?) but i want to improve on 15..e5!?

The game Gara-Rudolf from 2008, 1/2(between two 2300 players) followed:
15...Qe8!? 16.Nc5 Nc5 17.Bd2 Qf7 18.Nd4 and only now e5.

But after the move 19.Nb3 black should have played 19...Bh4! to gain advantage( f.e. 20.g3 Be7 21.Qe5 Qf2 22.Kh1 Qf3 23.Kg1 Rae8)

White can improve and sac his queen for the queenside pawns to storm forward: 19.Qh3 g6 20.Nb3 Bg7 21.Be3 Ne6 22.Qh4 a4!? 23.Qa4 Bd3 24.Qa8 Ra8 25.Bd3 Qb7 26.a4 Nc5!? 27.Nc5! bc5 28.Bc5 but i think this looks promising for white.

Black can improve however with 22...Nf4!?(instead of 22..a4!?)

In this game with 15..Qe8!? i think white can improve with 17.Ng5!? after 17...Bg5 18.Qg5 Bd3 19.Bd1 there is alot of play for both sides.

My first impression of this book is very favorable. There's so much to study I will probably keep my old, simpler Tarrasch repertoire and gradually add lines from this great book. IMHO the kind of introduction Tzermiadianos gives with typical middlegames and endgames should be mandatory in opening books!

I thought I found a hole in the book: After 3...c5 4.Ngf3 black can play 4...a6 (as Vaganian, M.Gurevich and many other French experts have done). As far as I can see this move order is not mentioned anywhere, and it worried me because against 3...a6 Tzermiadianos wants to play 4.Bd3, not 4.Ngf3!

But in the Psakhis 3.Nd2 book I found:
3...c5 4.Ngf3 a6 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.Bd3 and we have reached the main line of 3...a6 4.Bd3, see diagram on p. 60 of Tzermiadianos. I think* the Greek author intended this transposition, but forgot to mention it (in chapter 8 would be natural). This is a very small problem of course, but it's good to be aware of it.

*Stating an opinion rather than pretending to know a fact!

Just a quickie.
Have played the French for a good number of years at a reasonablish level, and have a good knowledge of most Tarrasch lines, having jumped around a bit.

This book impressed me. Went further than I knew in all lines I know well and checked, including some of the lesser known ones.

Havent looked for a while, but iirc, didnt notice any obvious omissions.

He has clearly put a lot of work into this. Well worth getting. Credit to the fella - a genuinely good piece of work.

MilenPetrov wrote on 11/08/08 at 16:02:12:


dom wrote on 11/08/08 at 17:04:30:


That was my experience as well. Perhaps editors on the project John Emms or Richard Palliser could clarify matters.

Toppy