Markovich wrote on 05/22/13 at 00:46:05:

I agree, I went back and modified the original post from 2004 to get rid of the CAPS, hopefully this will help.

MNb wrote on 05/20/13 at 12:17:38:


Well he did write this, "He has also provided a useful selection of sample games (which make up almost half of the book) so that you can get a feel for common middlegame positions."

I'm guessing you're joking MNb but if not then I'm going t let others decide as I doubt we want this thread turned into a debate about the better review.   

Glenn Snow wrote on 05/20/13 at 00:43:11:

I totally disagree. Goeller writes nothing, zero, nada about the game section, which takes about half of the book. At the other hand Hansen agrees that the theoretical section is very good. So Hansen provides more relevant information.

Glenn Snow wrote on 05/19/13 at 16:15:50:


I have to agree that this is a very good book, as I discuss in my own review:
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-dark-knight-system-review.html

Hansen's review is overly harsh, especially since his main complaint is the number of sample games.

Benoniac wrote on 04/04/13 at 21:46:24:



I don't think white has made any mistakes either, and it looks like you're right about 13.e5!, when black is under a bit of pressure.  McGuire's tepid 11...Bd7 (?!) must be the culprit.  11...Qe7!? 12.Re1 d5 13.exd5 Qc5+ 14.Be3 Qxd5 15.c4 is slightly better for white according to Houdini.  I would not worry about playing this position.  Something to add to the 2nd edition.

I have this book now, and I like what I see so far, which admittedly is only the intro (I like the style of writing already), and flicking through what lines were recommended.

Since the author does so in his intro, I'll mention briefly my history behind this defence. Cast your minds back many moons ago, decades of them, to the early eighties. A mere teen then, I was a sap for any way to avoid playing theoretical openings. So I got many a book recommending "off beat" lines. 

Out came the Bastford book Nimzowitsch Defence by Tim Harding. Ahah, this is for me. Spent some fun time exploring some of the lines there. I liked the 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 way of playing it. There was a guy at my club who went 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 e5, but I didn't like this because back then I was mowing people down with the Scotch was White.  But eventually my Nc6 desire faded as I was giving my repertoire some pruning, and 1. e4 Nc6 got the cut. 

Fastforward many years to this millenium, and I'm now playing Pirc/KID and have joined this forum. A combination of the Pirc and Nc6 was discussed a bit in these threads

Modern Defence, 3 Nc3 d6 4 f4 Nc6!? 

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1144708543

Nimzowitsch Defence - Mestrovic System 

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1146489832

This appealed to me, but I didn't take it any further.

Fastforward again to last year. I decide to expand my repertoire and add in 1. e4 e5 (not fearing the Scotch )

And then to now. Suddenly this Dark Knight system (or whatever we call it) seems to fit me perfectly.

Transpositions to Pirc                           - Check!
Transpositions to Scotch                - Check! (I like the Bc5 suggestion)
Little explored systems elsewhere  - Check!

I think combining the Dark Knight system, 1. ...e5 and the Pirc will make it more of a challenge to prep against me as I twist and turn like a twisty turny thing with my move orders. 

As for 1. d4 Nc6, hmm, well thats undiscovered country for me, but I think I might give that a punt too.

So thanks to the author for rekindling my interest in this defence.

Hi Michael,

Of all the pleasant surprises I had when writing and researching the book, the discovery of Yates, his play, and his treatment of the critical d5 Nb8 variations is at the top of the list.  In the century since, no one else seemed to understand the resulting positions, and I was unable to find good solutions until I came across his games.

As for the kevitz/dark knight vs. the pirc/modern, there are advantages to each.  The two main (technical) advantages to 1...Nc6 are that black can often play 2...e5 and then ...Bc5 or ...Bb4, which is obviously not possible in the Modern.  Also, when the game transposes to a Pirc/modern, white has blocked his f-pawn.  Given the choice, white keeps his f-pawn free about 70% of the time.  I would not want to try to prove it analytically, but according to statistics, variations with an early Nf3 offer white very diminished prospects.

I am happy to get your feedback on the book.  We've never met, even over the internet, but I know you by the kenilworthian, and when I decided to write the book, your 1...Nc6 bibliography was one of the first places I looked to get outside information.  I checked all those sources that I could find that seemed like they could possibly be useful.

-james

I just received the "Dark Knight" book from England.  A very solid and logical "dark square" repertoire, though I have to wonder why one should play 1...Nc6 to reach the Modern and not just play the Modern.  (Schuyler does discuss this in one chapter, where he says you can essentially turn the repertoire into a Modern repertoire if you want to avoid a lot of study).  That said, I have definitely gotten some good ideas from the book for my own 1...Nc6 repertoire and it has made me take some time to examine some lines I have not looked at in a while (especially 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 where I still have some slightly different opinions from Schuyler.)  I should have a review up at my Kenilworthian blog in a week or so.   

Schuyler's chief repertoire innovation is to meet 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 with 4...g6! (transposing to the Modern) rather than the mistaken 4...Bg4 which just leads to trouble if White knows what he is doing.  I have tried playing a Modern approach here but only AFTER 4...Bg4, which is obviously a mistake.  Best to go 4...g6 immediately and meet d5 with Nb8. He offers some similar set-ups against other lines. I am especially interested in looking at Yates's games in this line (transposing from a King's Indian), and it is interesting to see that he met a d5 advance with a Nb8 retreat in the 1920s in quite "hypermodern" style.  Yates's games are very under-appreciated -- including by me!  But you should play over Alekhine - Yates, Karlsbad 1923 for starters:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012179

Besides my stuff on The Panther (see a post from 7 years ago below!) I have written on a few related lines -- especially in the following two articles:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2008/benjamin-plays-nimzovich.htm
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2007/sidney-bernstein.htm
I think Schuyler's book follows in the venerable "New York" approach to 1...Nc6 which I lay out in those articles and he does a good job of firming up the repertoire to make it completely viable for any level of player.

The Mestrovic Defence (2 ...d6)! Seriously provocative!

Thanks for your swift answer! 

And nothing would be better if there are two possibilities after 1.e4-Nc6 2.d4. 
After 2..d6 I would be a bit concerned about 3.f4 though. But I will wait for the book    Can`t wait to see what you and Houdini will come up with in this interesting opening. Thanks again.

Ben

Hello Dark Knight

Im a bit confused about the move orders. If im right the book gives: 1.e4-Nc6 2.Nf3-d6 3.d4-Nf6 with a Pirc Classic. 
But if: 1.e4-Nc6 2.d4, then I suppose you go 2...e5!? or what?

The introduction suggest this I suppose. And it would be nice if its all playable for black. NCO ( with John Nunn being responsible for the page) gives further: 3.dxe5-Nxe5 4.f4-Ng6 ( 4...Nc6!?) 5.Be3-Bb4+ 6.c3-Ba5, and asset this as "=". 
I wondered if you are of the same opinion.
BTW, I`ve  ordered the book and looking foreward to get it! 

Ben

Thanks for this DK. I'm looking forward to the book! Is it out yet in the UK? I will be in London on 3 April and hoping to get to the Chess Centre!

Everyone knows that the modern theory of the Bogolyubov Defence was forged three years ago by Stefan Buecker, linksspringer and me on this thread:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1271505369/0



Did you draw on this material?

Sisyphus wrote on 03/04/13 at 14:53:21:

Apparently, there is no bibliography in the book. 

BabySnake wrote on 02/04/13 at 16:06:56:


Of course! Thx.

Konstriktor wrote on 02/04/13 at 15:52:42:

I had found this already by myself, that's why 3.f4 is a better move order

judging from the excerpt, it looks like a genuinely interesting book

6... d5 is interesting and probably the best move in the bozo-indian (what a name). I think 6. Bd3 is more accurate than 6. Nf3, since after 6... d5, White has the nice option of 7. Qe2 as happened in your game, 7... Bb4 8.c3 dxe4 9.Bxe4 Bd6, and then 10.Bxg6 hxg6 must be += no? purely on positional grounds i wouldnt' consider this for Black. White can even sacrifice the f4 pawn for development, and still have three weak pawns to attack   e.g. 11. Nf3 Nh6 12. Nbd2 Bxf4 13. Ne4 Bxc1 14. Rxc1 with more than enough compensation for White. 10. g3 Nf6 11. Bd3 should also be +=. i'm no corr player (primarily OTB), so perhaps our assessments of positions may differ on some occasions, still i don't believe this position is one of those!

[quote author=Michael Ayton link=1097168063/0#8 date=1097896389]

(2) The critical line after 3 e4 e6 4 de fe 5 f4 Ng6 seems to be 6 Nf3 Bc5 7 Bd3!? followed by g3. White has a big plus score on ChessLive with this plan.

[/quote]

The position after 1. d4 Nc6 2. d5 Ne5 3 e4 e6 4.f4 Ng6 5. de6 fe6 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Bd3 Nf6 8. g3 is an interesting position to analyse. Playing battle of the programs, for once I agree with fritz and am sure White is better (though Fruit and Rybka don't agree). In blitz, i've had a lot of 8... Ng4 stuff which is quite harmless, and many games saw White carrying out a kingside attack to victory.   

But this is a moot point, because 8. e5! looks terrifically strong, after 8... Ng4 9. Bxg6!! hxg6 10. Qd3! Rh6 11. Nc3 Nf2 (11... Bf2+ 12. Ke2 +-) 12. Qc4! Nxh1 13. Qxc5 b6 14. Qg1 +- White is winning (S. Meenakshi-A. Abdulla Hyderabad 2006).

I take your point about simplicity and I like the term 'Two Knights Indian', but actually there are only 29 games in BigBase2000 which begin with the move order 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 Nc6, only 8 of which continue 4 Nf3 (and only one of which meet it with 4 ...e5), so I'm not sure about the argument from frequency. I'm not sure I can get too fussed about nomenclature though I do think all these 'marketised' names springing up are a bit much! Some, I imagine, will survive and others fade out.

Perhaps we should have a poll to ask for our least favourite opening names. My own choice would be the wretchedly-named 'Kalashnikov'. I know chess is a wargame, but please!

A look at urusov's very interesting site reveals that, as you'd expect, urusov knows all about that KID transposition. He also gives a variety of move orders via which the so-called 'Panther' might be reached. I guess it's this factor that might warrant the opening having a name of its own as it might be thought of as a 'system' that a player could adopt in one or more contingencies, according to choice. But also there's a trend nowadays to rechristen openings with 'marketable' names, and opinions are always likely to differ about this. I feel ambivalent myself about the Kevitz-Trajkovic Defence having been rebranded the 'Tango'!

The 'Panther' strikes me as an interesting beast. I might even start a separate thread on it ...

hello, for what its worth, i agree with tracke, 1. d4 Nc6 2. d5 Ne5 3. e4 e6 4. f4 Ng6 5. de6 is nice for White (see analysis in Burgess/Pedersen's Beating the Indian Defences)..

I have posted a number of pieces on this at my blog, including a bibliography:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2005/08/1nc6-or-kevitz-system-b...
And a series on something I call The Panther, which can be reached via 1.d4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e5:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2006/02/panther-part-one.html
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2006/02/panther-part-two.html
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2006/03/panther-part-three.html

Most of my own games with this system go 1.d4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d5 transposing to the Chigorin.  I have always been surprised that not more opponents play 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 treating it as an Alekhine Defense on the other side of the board.  Thanks for the discussion of Mestrovic's contribution, which interests me.  The Berdichevsky book and CD are, in my opinion, the best out there on the whole system with 1...Nc6.  I also like the old Keene / Jacobs "Complete Defense" book which focuses on Miles's ideas.  But there are a number of other products out there, including a pretty good Pickard CD on the "Bozo-Indian' (1.d4 Nc6 2.d5), so you need look no further than Chess Central to find a book dedicated to that line (which people I know used to call "The Floppy" for some mysterious reason).

[quote author=Glenn Snow link=1097168063/0#6 date=1097703522]Firstly, I definitely agree that a comprehensive book covering 1.d4 Nc6 (not including all transpostions to 1.e4 Nc6) would be a great idea.  Now a couple of questions:

1) Doesn't the move order 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 3.e4 pretty much force Black to play 3...e6 and transpose into the critical line after 4.f4 Ng6?  (Not that this is such a big deal as 5.dxe6 seems to be the best move in either case.  Meaning after ...e5 or ...e6.)

2) Obiously after 5.dxe6 Black would like to be able to get away with 5...fxe6.  Has this been convincingly refuted?[/quote]

Raymond Keene wrote a book as Nc6 for black.

Actually after 4. ...d6 as well, 5. Bd3 is stronger than 5. c4 since 5. ...e6 is again met by 6. de fe ; 7. f5

Here you’ve caught me out! To my shame I haven’t looked yet at the Uberdeker Defence – a treat I’m storing up – so I can’t comment yet on that. For the rest I mainly agree with you, but I am tempted nevertheless to pick up on a few things:

(1)   I agree that 1 d4 Nc6 2 d5 Ne5 3 e4 d6 4 f4 Ng6(?!) should in principle leave Black worse off than if he’d played …e7-e6 rather than …d7-d6. But if White chooses Berdichevsky’s 5 c4, I wonder if 5 …e6 isn’t an idea anyway, and no worse perhaps than Mestrovic’s ill-fated 5 …Nf6 6 Nc3 c6. Compared to the normal Bogo Defence line Black’s KB is inside the pawn chain, but then on c5 it often gets hit with Nc3-a4 or b2-b4, and Black might be able to arrange …Nh6 and …Be7-f6. Decidedly iffy-looking, though, I do agree! 

(2)   1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 d6!? 3 c4 e5 is an interesting position which we could talk about in another thread. As for 3 Nf3 and 3 Nc3, Mestrovic meets both with 3 …Nf6 because he’s happy with the Nimzowitsch Defence main line after (e.g.) 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 Bg4. Personally I don’t like Black’s position here after 5 Be3 (though I think after 5 …e5 only a strong player can guarantee getting an advantage), and would prefer trying to enter B08 Pirc/Modern lines with …g7-g6 (with or without …Nf6 first). I’m sure White can claim a small advantage in these positions, but -- and here see JEH’s comments in the "Modern Defence, 3 Nc3 d6 4 f4 Nc6!?" thread -- I’m not convinced it’s especially stable or easy to maintain, so to this extent I’d maintain knight moves have the same status as 3 d5 (which of course I’d meet with 3 …Nb8). Berdichevsky in fact (again see the aforementioned thread) suggests another option, 3 Be3 Nf6 4 f3, as used by him in 1991 to defeat … Mestrovic! -- but perhaps all the ‘i’s and ‘t’ haven’t been dotted and crossed here …


Of course, as well as your views on this I’d be keen to hear what you think best play is in the 3 f4(!) Bogo line.

Further to my last post on this subject, I recently acquired Berdichevsky's book, and I notice that whereas his Informator-style notes to his cited games reinforce the verdict that 1 d4 Nc6 2 d5 Ne5 3 e4 e6 is a bit better for White, he upholds Mestrovic's 3 ...d6!? 4 f4 Nd7!? (4 ...Ng6 5 c4!, Jelen--Mestrovic), on the basis of two games:

5 c4 Nc5 6 Nc3 e5 7 de (7 Nf3!? ef 8 Bf4, Berdichevsky) Be6 8 b4 Na6 9 a3 g6 10 Bb2 Bg7 11 Qd2 Nf6 unclear (Palac--Mestrovic)

5 Nf3 c6 6 c4 Nc5 7 Nc3 Nf6! 8 Qc2 g6 9 9 Be2 Bg7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Kh1 cd 12 cd Bd7 13 Be3 Rc8 14 Nd2 b5! with counterplay (Soln--Mestrovic)


Actually, Mestrovic has usually reached these positions via 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 d6!? 3 d5 Ne5; only once in fact does he appear to have reached them via 1 d4 Nc6 2 d5 Ne5 3 e4 d6, usually having preferred 3 ...e6 here. Again further to my previous post [in which my point '1' seemed to confuse 3 ...Ng6 and 3 ...d6 lines -- apologies!], after 1 d4 Nc6 2 d5 Ne5 3 e4, 3 ...Nf6?! looks highly dubious, but 3 ...Ng6 playable -- 4 f4 d6 would, obviously, transpose to Jelen--Mestrovic mentioned above.

Anyone got any thoughts on these lines?

In reply to Glenn's last post but one:

(1) Black can try 3 ...Ng6!? after 3 e4 as well as after 3 Nf3. (After 3 f4, 3 ...e5 could be called practically or psychologically better than 3 ...e6, but as you imply, it is not theoretically better.) Mestrovic has scored well with this after 4 f4 (4 Nc3!?) Nd7!?; whether it's any good is perhaps another matter. The even more daring 3 ...Nf6 4 f4 Ng6 5 e5 Ng8 has also been seen ...

(2) The critical line after 3 e4 e6 4 de fe 5 f4 Ng6 seems to be 6 Nf3 Bc5 7 Bd3!? followed by g3. White has a big plus score on ChessLive with this plan.

Does anyone have any views on these lines, and can anyone tell us what Berdichevsky says about them?

Firstly, I definitely agree that a comprehensive book covering 1.d4 Nc6 (not including all transpostions to 1.e4 Nc6) would be a great idea.  Now a couple of questions:

1) Doesn't the move order 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 3.e4 pretty much force Black to play 3...e6 and transpose into the critical line after 4.f4 Ng6?  (Not that this is such a big deal as 5.dxe6 seems to be the best move in either case.  Meaning after ...e5 or ...e6.)

2) Obiously after 5.dxe6 Black would like to be able to get away with 5...fxe6.  Has this been convincingly refuted?

As a diehard Nimzo player (with 2 ...e5!? -- should this be called the Kennedy Defence?) I'd certainly agree with Glenn that 3 Nf3 is a bit tedious, but I'm not too unhappy with Miles's 3 ...ed 4 Nd4 Bb4!? anti-Scotch line, as Black has the same strategic possibilities of pressuring e4 as in the Nimzo line 3 de Ne5 4 f4 Ng6 or ...Nc6.

On 3 d5 Nce7 4 Be3, I always thought Miles's 4 ...f5!? was the way to go, but I haven't researched this particularly. Can White get an edge here or is Black OK?

In the Bogolyubov Defence proper, 1 d4 Nc6!? 2 d5 Ne5, after 3 e4 e6 I agree that 4 Nc3!? is interesting, but then 4 ...Bc5 and 4 ...ed!? both seem sound replies. Meanwhile after 3 Nf3 Nf3, 4 gf seems to be more commonly played than 4 ef for some reason! Can anyone offer enlightenment here? And who is it who says 4 ef is good for White? If they're right, and if 3 ...d6 is not so good either, maybe Black could look at 3 ...Ng6!?, which has been tried at least once?

I'd tended to think the critical line of the Bogo Defence was 3 f4 Ng6 4 e4 e6 5 de fe 6 Nf3 Bc5 7 Nc3, but is this so, and in any case is 5 ...de so bad? Isn't it about time someone wrote a book on this fascinating system, or am I being naive?!

1.e4 e5 2.d4 Nc6 is obviously a Danish Gambit Avoided.

Ok Im starting my first post so bear with me!!! Recently I have become enamoured with the games of the late Tony Miles who proved that unorthodox openings could be great weapons all the way up to the highest level. Miles loved to play the Nimzowitsch defense (1.e4 Nc6!) and had a good record with it. Basically I have been an opening addict for some time playing everything from the fiery Sicilian Dragon to the boring but ultra solid Dutch Stonewall, you name it I have played it. But the Nimzo was something I never played. As I have been dabbling with this opening, I have enjoyed good results from the highly original positions that arise as well as simply *creating* my own lines. Here is were we come to our subject.Miles also played the sister opening of the Nimzowitsch defense, the  Re: Queen's Knight Defense, aka the Kevitz-Trajovic Defense (1.d4 Nc6!) This opening looked just like the Nimzo, and since white often goes for a full pawn centre in both openings I figured they were probably simaler in theory and the ideas should be rather simaler. The best part was that it is VERY uncommon, and trying to find info or theory is next to immpossible. Miles as usual is probably the most famous practitioner, but even he only really dabbled in it playing it under 15 times in his life. MCO breaks the opening down into 2 systems; one with blacks second move being e5 right off the go (attributing the sytem to Mikenas of Lithuania, and the earlier mentioned Kevitz-Trajkovic system which emphesises playing 2...Nf6, and usually locking in the dark squared Bishop which believe it or not has some merit. Both of these sytems are actually quite fun to play if this kind of thing is your bag.  
MCO calls the Kevitz-Tajkovic a type of Alekine for the d-pawn, and state that Kevitz was a virtuoso in handling the intricacies of this sytem. Unfortuantly I havent found any games of him playing his beloved system, but did find out he beat Capablanca in the shortest moves of any player ever!. 

So there are some independant lines where white played pseudo-aggressivly with d4 then f4 then e4 all attcking the knight and building his center. My experience has shown these lines to be almost harmless, as you actually want the Nc6 at g6 anyway, and the big center is your target of attack!
I think I am prefering the Mikenas sytem, as I love exchanging my dark squared bishop at b4 for either his dark squared bishop, which leads to obvious weaknesses on the dark squares after d6 by black, or exchanging it for a Knight in a closed position! Either way, you have pawns at e5 and d6, bishop is gone and you are in a very solid closed game. I have found that white almost has to play on the k-side, as the q-side is easily closed up with blackes dark square bind. So you can expect moves like and eventual f4 for white. This is what he plays 90% of the time, and Im telling you the truth these lines are not only defendable fro black, but this is where *black* is playing anyways. Remeber how Silman says to play "where you pawns point"(the chain is c7-d6-e5). White often over presses, and you can win by defence alone. This opening is rock solid.
f5 is also in the air for black,perhaps going for some kind of a KID attack w/out the dark bishop, but, the best plan I have found is this:
  White will organize for f4, keep this in mind. I like to exchange the Knight g6 by playing Nf4!. This is the absolute key. White will always exchange as his only play is being blocked. So you recapture with the e-pawn. Once f4 is played, Whites backwards pawn at e4 is such a weakness, and black has an easy game just trying to win it, or tying white down to defending it while you persue an attack perhaps. Moves for black such as re8, f6!, Qe7 and Nd7 come to mind. The play is slower than some like, definatly not the dragon! but very fun for the positionally minded player. Plus there is not too much theory so basically *We* can help develop this opening  with our own ideas! exiting stuff, isint it?
Take it from here, Ill check the page dfaily like I always do, Analysis soon to come as long as there is intrest. Otherwise I am content to just keep winning all alone with this system!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Peace~~~~~
******************************