I liked his comment on his own Boleslavsky variation. He basically said he was just trying to proof one weakness isnt lethal and that was all that could be said in its favour.

Hey Mnb are those the the books with kind of grey cover with some kind of fabric (no paper at least)?

My dad I think has 5 of those 2 from Keres (e4e5 and french), one from Taimanov (I think the one you just quoted), one by Boleslavski about the sicilian and assorted others, the other I forgot the writer but it was Konigsindisch bis something.

Just curious

It has always puzzled me a little why (after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5) 4...Nxd5 is held to be inferior.  What can White do which avoids a transposition to the Semi-Tarrasch?  Presumably an early Rb1 - e.g. 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.Rb1!? - I wonder if anyone (one of MNb's old sources, perhaps  ) has any analysis to suggest that this is more dangerous than 7.Nf3.

The books were written by Taimanov - Damengambit bis Holländisch - and Polugajevsky - forgot the exact title, something like Albin's Gegengambit bis Tarrasch. They were both from the famous East-German opening series and translated from Russian into German. The latter I have bought in the communist book shop Pegasus, Leidsestraat, Amsterdam.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (I would say this is the classical move!) and c5 is inferior.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 and Nxd5 is impossible.

The Semi-Tarrasch is only possible after White has played Nf3. It is an independent defence against the Catalan, though there are a few move order tricks:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 o-o 6.o-o c5 7.cxd5 and now Black does have a real choice.

What is wrong with it, that White can avoid it and often does. I have two books, who have incorporated a chapter on the Semi-Tarasch. But they are already 20 and 25 years old.