Once again you have failed to properly address my points (incidentally that is also why I chose to not reply to your comments in the French thread, 2 of which were intended to disparage me).
Quote:at least I think it was you
it might have been TN in which case I apologise.
You misread or misconstrued MNb's post. He said 'COWE gives a game Dzjindzji-Karpov, suggests an "improvement" that would have lead to a winning attack - but only if Black cooperates like the authors expect him to do. As a consequence they rate the position around move 15 as slightly better for White. In reality, if anyone has an edge, it's Black (minority attack).' This is a far cry from claiming the entire variation to be equal for White at best.
Quote:COWE does not cover all possible defensive moves like the Anand series
No opening book can reasonably cover all possible moves in one book, but ignoring the most important defensive options in favour of less critical moves does not make a positive impression on me.
Quote:the repertoire is more economical
In other words: You agree with me that several of the lines in the book are suboptimal (ie not the most critical choice for White). Then again, any repertoire book has to make some sort of compromise.
Quote:if you grasp the essence of the positions and like the idea, then thats half the battle.
That's a fair point, but unfortunately it's not applicable to most of this book because in order to grasp the essence of the positions and ideas, one must know how to counter Black's most critical moves. In fact, giving variations that are only equal or even slightly worse and claiming a slight advantage would damage a player's understanding of the variation as they would overestimate their chances in several positions and resultantly select incorrect plans in similar situations.
Quote:do you believe that COWE recommends "second-rate" openings in which White is fighting for equality?
No, that is not what MNb or myself stated at all. However, as my analysis and the analysis of others shows, if White follows the recommendations in the book, in several instances White will be left fighting for equality, worse still under the illusion that they are better. I have already indicated in the French thread and this thread how White can improve over ADP's recommendations to provide some (admittedly small) chances of an edge.
Quote:If we can establish that this is not so then your main grievance is that COWE does not present a full tree of the possible defensive moves - in which case I completely agree with you here!
That strays from the main points. COWE does not cover Black's most important defensive moves and the ideas are often suboptimal. From what I gather from your posts, this is the main disagreement between us.
Quote:whereas TN as usual leaves me slightly baffled as to what book he is consulting that would say the Fischer-Petrosian line is OK for Black!
I suggest you read my posts more carefully then. I never suggested that following Fischer-Petrosian is okay for Black, but instead showed that deviating from this game with 7...Na5 8.Qa4 Bd7 9.Qc2 Rc8 or 8...Nc6 provides Black with full equality. So far you have not questioned this with any analysis. For the record, I am referring to Nikitin's survey in Yearbook 79. Obviously there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Nikitin's analysis, but to do you need to present some analysis of your own to show where and why you disagree.
Quote:I have already adressed TN and Tracke and am waiting for replies so dont try switching the subject...
This is hypocritical as your attempt to address myself and tracke involved changing the subject:
Quote:I dont know what book you have TN but that stuff with ...Na5 is known to be good for White since Fischer-Petrosian. 5...Qc7 is known to be respectable enough although its not so popular, we can discuss that line in a separate thread if you like.
This is a cop-out from analysing as you ignore the fact that Nikitin's analysis improves over the Fischer-Petrosian game, and you have not given any evidence that White has any edge whatsoever in this 5...Qc7 line. I've already given you a head start by presenting my recommendations for White over ADP's line.
Quote:The other lines you give I´ll look at after we have fully resolved this ...Re8 position, which seems to be a problem position for at least a few posters.
This is just one of several problems with ADP's coverage of the Caro-Kann Exchange. As I already stated, finding an advantage in this ...Re8 variation for White won't make the variation any better for White.
Quote:By the way, you realise that "the shocking 11.Bg3" as you call it has been played by Smirin and also none other than good old Nigel Short who won a game against Ehlvest with this - cant be that much of a shocker In the chessbase annotations Volzhin describes this as a "humble move which is interesting and causes serious problems for Black"
This is all well and good, but can you show me how White can achieve an advantage in this line? For example, if Short and Volzhin claimed that 1.e4 b6 was completely equal without giving any variations, would you believe this or analyse the variation yourself and draw your own conclusions?
Quote:By the way, the more I look at this line the more I am starting to like it for White. If I decide to include it in my repertoire I may have to start witholding a bit of analysis myself!
In that case, I recommend you do some analysis of tracke's and my suggestions. You will face these lines over the board, which means that the book disservices the reader by ignoring these important options.
Theory 
Pages: 
