I´m still in the process of making up my mind on this book and you definitely are right that we should not judge a book by what we want it to be. My last post on a very specific subvariation of the advance system was just to show what to expect from Vitiugovs book and what not.

So an interim result for judging the value of the book is to find out about it´s goal and the target audience. Regarding this, the book is for French specialists  between 2000 and maybe 2400 ELO. It´s not a complete repertoire on any level of play and contains excellent parts with very interesting original analysis and sometimes even novelties in often played mainlines of specific systems (e.g. in the chapter on 3.Nd2 c5 with Qxd5) even as parts that show primary a lack of interest by the author.

So you have to look for the gold nuggets and be aware of the superficial parts. It looks like some mistakes come from the fact, that Vitiugov widely ignores corrchess games (and the chesspub files), so be aware of his analysis especially in the wild winawer line he researches.

E.G: After reaching the tabya of this line after
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 Lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Lxc3+ 6.bxc3 Se7 7.Dg4 cxd4 8.Dxg7 Tg8 9.Dxh7 Dc7 10.Se2 Sbc6 11.f4 Ld7 12.Dd3 dxc3
one White main line is 13.Dxc3 Sf5 14.Tb1 d4 15.Dd3 0–0–0 16.Tg1 Sa5 The best move according to Vitiugov, Wei Ming gave it a "!" on chesspub, too.

An important position with about 500 games in my database and still 140 after 16....Sa5.

17.g4 Ba4! is most popular continuation now and Vitugov analyses
18.c3, where he gives 18....Bc2!, which arguably is less precise than 18....Nb3!, analysed bei Wei Ming in the comments on the game Smirnov - Arslanov 2009.
Nevertheless, 18.gxf5 is the move exclusively played in 2009 and it is not even mentioned.

Vitiugov tries to take the sting out of any criticism by the following remark: "Naturally, the sharpest variation with 13.Qxc3 requires an urgent repair by White move by move, but I think that on the pages of this book, it would be sufficient for me to give you an idea about the outlines of the arising positions and themes"
But is that really enough in such a concrete and sharp line with a very strong target audience in mind?

By the way, looking at his analysis it´s not tough for White to improve:
17.Rb4 a6 18.g4 Nh4 (Se3 should be better) 19.a4 f6 20.exf6 e5 21.f7 ends -+ with Vitiugov following Steflitsch - Poldauf 2002. Had he looked at the correspondence games Ward - Bongiovanni 2003 or Teichmeister - Makawov 2006 or even at Rybkas assessment of the position after 20....e5, he should have noticed that Black is done after 21.fxe5 ! Nc5 22.Rc4.

So the my final assessment for now is: You have to search for the gems and be well aware of the serious flaws this book has. It´s a collection of interesting ideas, but not a reliable repertoire on any level of play. It´s value comes from the fact, that rarely such a high-level player comments on the black side of the French.

Stigma wrote on 05/15/10 at 14:08:41:


Psakhis four books covers all lines and are not repertoire books.

La Tristeza, you´re right with that point. But concerning this book, there are two things to recognize:

- It´s nowhere near the quality of Avrukh´s books
- Ignoring obviously inferior lines is the least of the problems with Vitiugov´s book

Warne is a legend wrote on 05/15/10 at 15:03:23:

I agree in principle (and on 2.Nh3 of course), but it's still a matter of opinion where to draw the line. Omitting every form of the French Exchange except the c4 lines (as derdua mentioned above) sounds too restrictive in a supposedly "Complete Repertoire". I'm criticizing the marketing more than the contents here.

The choice to cover all three main lines against 3.Nc3 also looks strange in what is today a below-average length repertoire book. Almost like the author couldn't decide whether to write a complete survey of 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 or a Black repertoire with 1.e4 e6.

Or is the idea that the book also serves as White 3.Nc3 repertoire!?

I see that both Vitiugov's book neither Moskalenko's Flexible French do not cover the isolated 3...c5 Tarrasch, viz. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5. Is there something wrong about 4...exd5 with the isolated pawn (after White will play ...dxc5)? I've always played against the Tarrasch like this, but it seems to be highly unpopular. In my opinion and experience, it seems to be a complete equaliser, unlike the Scandinavian hybrid 4...Qxd5.

Interesting. I usually play 5...Nf6 against 5. Ngf3 though. Most opponents played the line 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Qe2 Be7 7. dxc5 line

It surprises me that French Players worry about everything LOL. The Vitiugov guy covers all the most dangerous lines, and rather than rejoice you quibble about innocuous crap that was ommitted.

Go figure.

Tops