I also wonder about the usage of Frtiz9/Hiarcs10/etc... on powerful comps in a number of books. Once you checked the lines proposed in certain obscure variations, it is normal to check with them if your own judgement is telling you that the suggested moves are somewhat dubious.

Some good books have these programs disagreeing until the final move given. Some others suggest a few moves but the evaluations of (myself in my case) and the programs are bad all the way. So what to make of all that?

I've seen varitions where that occurs to Pederssen. So where the lines comp checked?

Of course I have no probs with -ve comp evaluation if the position is offering clear comp for the human eye... (although of course it varies from human to human..)

Thanks! Seems like I can skip it then... 

How does Pedersen deal with 2.b3, is it the usual short game fragments ending with an '=' or does he take it seriously?

I have the Perdersen books as well as the Psakhis books. I agree that the Pedersen books have a much better layout and it is easier to read them.

However, I still prefer the Psakhis books, since they have much more detail. There is some material, especially in the Tarrasch, which is not mentioned by Perdersen. For example, I am playing Nf6 against the Tarrasch and in the variation with

e5 Nfd7
c3 c5
Bd3 Nc6
Ne2 f6
ef6 Nf6
Nf3 Qc7
0-0 Bd6
Bg5 0-0
Rc1

a couple of continuations are not listed.

I agree that this is already very detailed. So I guess it depends what you are looking for. In my opinion, if you already have the Psakhis books, don't bother buying the Pedersen books. I don't think that you will get enough "extra" for your money. If you have neither, it depends... detailed analysis versus nice layout .... in my opinion.

These are my two cents.

I hope this helps

I have - they seem reasonable. The big thing they have over the Psakhis books is the layout which is (not difficult this!) a *lot* better. So they'd make better books to learn from. I haven't done a detailed comparison of the actual content but there doesn't seem to be anything obviously missing.

His coverage of the KID lines is (as he says in the book) more of a black repitoire than anything else. So in a reverse of the normal french book style he treats some lines with c5 (& g6 & d5/e5 to follow) instead of declaring them to be Sicillians and ignoring them while not treating so many of the early d5 ideas.
But I don't think any French book covers all of the options here well (there are basically far too many of them compared to their importance ).