Maybe I was too hasty; I suppose you have Westerinen-Lehtinen, SUO 2002 in mind. But what about Sörensen-Fries Nielsen, Aarhus 1996? 5.f4 Qb6 6.Rb1 f5 7.e5 Nh6 8.Nf3 d5 (o-o!?) 9.Be2 Nd7 10.o-o (10.Ng5!?) Nf8 and imo refutation is a much too strong word. The game ended in a draw.

Tiger might be wrong here: 1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Be3 c6 5.f4 Qb6 6.Rb1 f5!? (this will be a surprise for many Whities!) looks rather good for Black. Note 5.Qd2 b5!? and Black is happy to have the knight on g8 yet; no early Bh6 here. Nunn/McNab think, that 6.Nf3 and 7.Bd3 is White's best. Black might also consider 5.Qd2 Nd7, leaving the choice between b5 and e5 open.
So I would play 5.h3 and 6.f4 as White.

Frendo, there is no need to put Tiger's Modern aside yet. After 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 Nunn/McNab give no less than nine (9) options for White. In all these cases Black has a choice.
According to another lively thread 4.f4 Nc6 is playable.
After 4.Be3 I must admit, that c6 causes me some headaches.
Then 7 moves remain to reply with ...a6 

Thanks to all for the informative replies!  Sometimes I am still amazed by how helpful this forum can be.  Of course sometimes you don't get a reply but you're none the worse off then.

My first so called attempt at rehabilition features a large mistake in that 8.0-0 is much less threatening than 8.Be4!  Thanks for pointing that out "g3g6".  I'm currently looking at 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.e5 Bb7 again to see if there is any life left in that.

Quote:


Certainly a lot of logic in that argument but perhaps Black can find another way to at least make a playable game.  Um, but I haven't found one yet and I'm about ready to give up trying!

Ok, so Tiger puts out a book that certainly contains a lot of fascinating and good ideas but it's use versus the Austrian and perhaps the Be3 variations seems to be questionable.  As these are 2 of the most critical variations isn't it just a little harder to recommend the book?  Or perhaps I should say, recommend as a repertoire book?

In the first line, you also need to examine the OfwatA line with 8. Ng5!? and find improvements for Black in 

Kolev,A (2524) - Hillarp Persson,T (2533) [B06]
Salou op 7th Salou (4), 23.05.2005

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 a6 5.Nf3 b5 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.e5 c5 8.Ng5 Nh6 9.Qf3 cxd4 10.Nxb5 Rb8 11.Nxd4 Bb7 12.Be4 Bxe4 13.Qxe4 Nc5 14.Qc6+ Qd7 15.Qxd7+ Kxd7 16.Ngf3 Nf5 17.Nxf5 gxf5 18.0-0 Rhc8 19.b3 Ne4 20.c4 a5 21.Bb2 Bh6 22.g3 a4 23.exd6 exd6 24.Bd4 axb3 25.axb3 Rxb3 26.Ra7+ Ke6 27.Ba1 Rxc4 28.Nd4+ Rxd4 29.Bxd4 Nd2 30.Rd1 Rd3 31.Kf2 Rxd4 32.Ke3 Re4+ 33.Kxd2 Bg7 34.Rb1 Bd4 35.Rc7 Be3+ 36.Kd3 Bc5 37.Rbb7 Re3+ 38.Kd2 Rf3 39.Rxf7 Rf2+ 40.Kd3 Rxh2 41.Rbe7+ Kd5 42.Rxf5+ Kc6 43.g4 h6 44.Rh5 Rg2 45.Rg7 Rg3+ 46.Ke4 d5+ 47.Kf5 1-0

Here's the start of my attempt at rehabilitation.  (Unfortunately I made the mistake of copying the analysis from home in figurine notation and had to manually convert it so there might be mistakes.  Besides the analytical ones that is.)

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 a6 5.Nf3 b5 6.Bd3 Nd7 [6...Bb7 I haven't found anything new to offer in this variation.] 7.e5 c5 8.0-0 cxd4 [8...Bb7 9.Be4 Bxe4 10.Nxe4 cxd4 (10...Nh6 11.e6!± ) 11.exd6 Qb6 12.a4! [This looks even stronger than 12.f5.] 12...Rc8 13.axb5 d3+ 14.Rf2 dxc2 15.Qd3±] 9.Be4 dxc3!? [ Instead of Tiger's  9...Rb8 ] 10.Bxa8 dxe5 11.fxe5 [11.Nxe5 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 Nxe5 13.fxe5 Bxe5 14.b3 Nf6 15.Qe2 (15.Bh6 Ng4 16.Qd5 e6 17.Bc6+ Ke7 18.Bg5+ f6 unclear) 15...Qe6 16.Bc6+ Qxc6 17.Qxe5 Bb7 18.Qb8+ Qc8 19.Qe5 0-0 with a slight advantage to Black] 11...Qb6+ 12.Lh1 Nxe5 13.b3 [13.Nxe5, See 11.Nxe5 Qb6+ above.; 13.bxc3 Nc4 14.a4 Nf6 15.axb5 axb5 16.Nd4 0-0 compensation ] 13...Bd7 14.Bd5 [14.Bf4 Ng4 15.Qe1 (15.Qe2 Qa7 unclear) 15...Qa7! Black is planning ...Ngf6 so he first forces the Bishop to a square where it will be attacked. 16.Be4 (16.Bd5 N8f6 unclear) 16...N8f6 17.Bd3 Nd5 comp] 14...e6 15.Ba8 Ng4 16.Qe2 N8f6 [16...Qa7? 17.Ng5± This is strong since Black's bishop no longer guards g4, however there are also benifits to already having ...e6 in.] 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.Qxe5 0-0 19.Bf3 Nd5 and I think Black has good play.


1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 a6 [4...c6 Tiger says he doesn't like this because of 5.f4 I have to admit I don't know the theory after this move.  Is it so bad for Black?] 5.Qd2 Nd7 6.h4! h5 7.Nh3 b5 8.Ng5 c6! (Instead of 8...Bb7 9.0-0-0 c6 or other 9th moves.) This move, suggested on at the top of page 55, seems to have been ignored here so far.  Black looks like he gets a complicated game with reasonable chances and isn't that what a Modern player wants?

First of all I'll admit I haven't studied all of the previous posts on this thread but only because I'm at the library now and it will have to wait until I get home.  (I've printed them all out.)

Was wondering about the following quote from Topnotch (who hasn't been around lately for some reason).
Quote:


Does the analysis in OFWATA really give 4...a6 serious problems?  Can they be solved?  Are they the same problems as mentioned in some of the previous posts here?  Anyone still willing to play Tiger's recommended system versus the Austrian?  A lot of questions yes, but at least I'm starting to post on other openings besides the BDG again.

.... I’ve always instinctively felt, like g3g6, that the Hippo must be inferior against the Austrian (and best against Nf3+Nc3+Bc4 setups). Why, I wonder, does Nigel Davies (on ChessPub) suggest the reverse?.....Probably Nigel need easy points from opponents... Ohh, only joking . My personal opinion is, that Hippor is inferior against Austrian. Strong players must found holes in black position - look at Dolmatov-Azmaiparashvili Elenite 1995.

But maybe 5 …b4 needs more examination? Re the system with 2 …d6, after 5 Nf3 Bb7 (5 …Nd7 will just transpose?) 6 Bd3, perhaps Black can strive to enter optimum lines with 6 …Nd7 or Suttles’s 6 …c5!? -? Maybe work is needed on this? – I freely admit I certainly haven’t done it! 
Maybe yes, maybe no. All lines are for me too sophisticated.

Interesting to have your thoughts on the Gurgenidze, g3g6. In the Azmai-Gurg, I was aware of Cools-Khasimdzhanov but haven’t looked at this either. What do you think? I notice 9 Qd2 de (any good?) has also been played: 10 Ne5 and now 10 …Qa5, 10 …f6, 10 …Bf5. 
Close to lost for black thought my computer and i agree.
10....Qa5 11.h3 Bc8 12.0-0-0 f5 13.d5 Nf7 14.Nf7 Kf7 15.Bd4 with attack
10....f6 11.d5 Qc7 12.Ng4 Ng4 13.Ne4 Ne3 14.Qe3 Na6 15.d6 Qb6 16.Nc5 0-0-0 17.de7 +-
10...Bf5 11.0-0-0 Qd8 12.h3 f6 13.g4 fe5 14.fe5 Ng4 15.hg4
10...Qc7, 10...Qd8 or 10...Bc8 i will analyze later. 

9...Bf3 10.gf3 is too +/- as minimum

(As JEH says, so many paths!) As for the ‘Norwood’ [really the ‘Hodgson’?]-Gurg, I think MNb had some interesting ideas on this. 7 …e6 8 0-0 Ne7 9 Na4 Qc7 10 b3 may be the critical line?
Maybe later i will analyze this Norwood-Hodgson Gurgenidze. It's strange, that 4...Qb6 is not mentioned in Winning with the modern, but Dave play on ICC ONLY 4....Qb6 since 1997

g3g6