The more I think about it, the more disappointed I get.  Even though the book looks great otherwise, if Black can't force a Leningrad against 1.Nf3 without knowing, say the Pirc and the Philidor, its usefulness is hugely diminished.

Interesting question, maybe Kindermann added some comments on some lines that have had some attention recently? Like his loss against Atalik or the 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 line?

i eagerly look forward to every Edition Olms book (they are all interesting), and especially this Kindermann Leningrad looks  promising indeed. 

Maybe it will change my current opinion  that f5?, g6? and d6? are all weakening moves!~ 

That new Gelfand games collection looks interesting too.

Quote:


feb, thanks for the nice request. I did write something for my club's magazine but back then I also played 10.Qb3 h6 or Kh8 (with quite a good score) before I realized that 11.e4 was a problem.
I would like to write up something but first of all I am currently working on a project with the King's Gambit and secondly as you have probably seen in the new NIC Yearbook I am up against quite an opposition. A Swedish guy sent in his analysis of 10.Qb3 and showed that 10...h6 11.e4 and 10...Kh8 11.e4 are both +=. The editioral team even had GM Sosonko siding with them in confirming this verdict. Meanwhile the author of those articles (me!) was not asked his opinion....
And there is no mention of 10...e4!?

By the way a move that I only mentioned briefly is 10.e4 f4 11.b4 g5 12.Bb2 g4 13.f3 or perhaps even better 12.f3.

Since Pedersen's book is somewhat dated, I haven't really examined the theory and have instead just looked at key positions and ideas. If there's a line he recommends that I want to look into, I've been double-checking it with Beim's book and a couple other sources. One line that I did like was 1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d6 avoiding the "Nh3 lines" aka the Karlsbad system because 4. Nh3 e5! is dead equal. The only significant alternative other than 4. Nf3 or 4. c4 is 5. Nc3 which Beim recommends meeting with 5...d5 with a "Leningrad Stonewall" with a tempo less for black, but with a misplaced knight on c3 for white.

Quote:


Actually "Dragonslayer" is a bit of cheat handle since I play the Dragon with Black, It's just that I also like to play White against the Dragon too.

As for the 7...Nc6 line, the problem with existing books is that they don't give Black a playable repertoire. E.g. 8.d5 Ne5 9.NxN dxe5 10.Qb3 Here I prefer 10...e4 since 10...h6 11.e4! or 10...Kh8 11.e4 is good for White. Another annoying waiting move is 10.a4. The books I have all fail to realize that White will get an improved main line since a4 or Qb3 are useful moves while the sasme can hardly be said for Kh8 or h6. 

In the main line 10.e4 f4 11.b4 g5 12.Bb2 Black has to watch his step: 12...a6?! 13.Na4! hitting e5 is += while 12...Qe8 13.Nb5 Ng4 14.h3 Qh5 15.gxf4! wins for White. Neither of these lines are in the books.
So Black has to play 12...g4.

Regards,

Michael Agermose Jensen (m).

Quote:

I don't know. I very much like the lines he gives, they are solid, but they don't go for sterile equality - i.e. there's usually enough life left in the position that you have realistic chances of trying to play for a win (eventually). Of course it's a matter of taste, but I also find that Kindermann's lines are usually easier to play and don't require as much theoretical knowledge as e.g. the somewhat sharper lines in the Pedersen book (compare e.g. the recomendations after 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Ng5: Kindermann's 3...Nc6 may not be all that forcing, but it's really easy to play and will frustrate an attacking player who has white).

Dragonslayer: After 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 I believe that both Kindermann and Pedersen actually recommend 4...d5, they also both cover 2.Qd3 and 2.g4 (+various other moves like 2.h3).

Mmmh, as far as I know there's no recent book that really truly covers the Nc6 Leningrad in detail (MacDonald has an overview, but it is...well, an overview, Khalifman covers it from the white side, in his Kramnik repertoire books, I suspect) from a black perspective. Or does anyone know some recent publication about it?