I've been enjoying this book very much and found it very useful.  I raised a concern with the BDG recommendation in another thread, and came across another interesting deviation from John's recommended repertoire.  In a recent correspondence game, I came across:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 h6 4.Bh4 d6 5.c3 Nbd7 6.Nbd2 g5 7.Bg3 Nh5 8.e4 Bg7 9.Bd3 O-O 10.Qb3 Kh8 11.Qc2 

Moves 1 through 10 follow the book, but 11.Qc2 was an interesting try.  I wasn't expecting it, but it makes some sense: after 10...Kh8, the queen is no longer terribly useful on that diagonal, so White drops it back to c2 to apply pressure along another useful diagonal.  I don't think 11.Qc2 really alters John's recommendations; the game continued 11...g4 12.Ng1 f5 13.f3 fxe4 14.Bxe4 e5 and is ongoing, though I'm still experiencing a spot of discomfort due to later play in a somewhat chaotic position.  Does 11.Qc2 invite the repetition 11...Kg8 ?  This didn't strike me as terribly useful for Black, but I was struck at how much more useful the White queen was on c2... 

Any thoughts from anyone?

Markovich – I think this may be a question of nomenclature. After 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5 4 g3 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Bb4+ I say that 6 Nc3 transposes to what Chris Ward had dubbed the Kasparov-Nimzo in his recent book (although to be sure some people call this a Symmetrical English still), and that I won’t cover it since (i) it’s in Chris’ book and (ii) is arguably a Nimzo proper anyway and thus outside my remit. I then deal with 6 Bd2 (usually called a Symmetrical English) and 6 Nd2 (I think usually classified as a Catalan) and express regret that these cognate positions are usually scattered rather randomly around the Informator classification system. So in a sense I do go there and in a sense I don’t.

Re your post about the Tarrasch and 2...e6, of course you're right and in fact 2...e6 was what I meant to type; my post makes no sense as it stands, I'm afraid. My point was supposed to be precisely that my book is not perfectly designed for Tarraschists against 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 since they'll be wanting to play 2....e6 and my suggested lines against the Colle and Torre (though not the London) depend upon not having 2...e6 in. The exact reverse of what I typed, in fact.

Quote:


Actually, if you want to play the Tarrasch, the best way to get it after 2. Nf3 is 2...c5.  White only has 3. c4! and then 3...e6 and there you are.

You’re right about a Tarrasch, but of course even after 1…Nf6 and 2….e6 it’s possible to play next 3….d5. Quite a few QGD players start like this since by ‘threatening’ the Nimzo they may make White play 3 Nf3, and then he can’t get a ‘proper’ Exchange. Black may also play 4…c6 now and enter the Semi-Slav this way; some people do this; I think mainly in order to avoid a Slav Exchange. They do have to be ready for 3. g3 like this, but they may be willing to play a Catalan anyway, or they may be going to play 3…c5 once White’s committed to a g3 system.

You don’t need to give up 1….d5 if that’s what you’re playing; you can use the book to put together a repertoire with either 1….d5 or 1….Nf6.

Quote:


Me too hopes that your publisher is not going to punish you, but I can promise you that I won't forget your name if I find it on your next book. Such a honest and open reply is much appreciated!

Thanks,

Stefan

Quote:


Hello John,

how useful is your book for Chigorin players? I can see that the chapter 2. Bg5 will work for me too, but the others?

Regards,

Stefan

dsanchez wrote on 01/29/06 at 15:34:19:


Er, scratch that. No Benoni after 1.d4 d5. 

I hope inn2 is right: the intention certainly is that a complete repertoire is given after 1 d4 d5 2 (not c4). It's true that the main move order given in each chapter is 1...Nf6 and 1...d5 players will need to search a little more, but I think that was inevitable. One of the advantages of 1...d5 is that it actually cuts down the amount you need to know when facing these lines, which is why there's more about 1...Nf6. But I think there is some useful stuff on why, for example, the Torre is no use against 1...d5.

It's also true that I didn't cover the main g3 Nimzo/Symmetrical English line Inn2 mentions in spite of it being part of the repertoire. I agonised about this: it's always difficult when presenting material where the opponent can just transpose to another opening. In this case since it's so likely Black will have it in his repertoire anyway and since it's been covered so recently by the same published I decided against it (like I did with 2 Nc3 e5 in the Alekhine book). You're damned if you do and damned if you don't: if you leave it out some people will be disappointed because it isn't in their repertoire and they don't have it covered in another book; if you put it in people are cross at the book being padded out with stuff which is in lots of other books and they don't want to have to pay for twice.

Inn2 is right as well that 2 Nf3 c5 isn't covered: partly because I don't like it much myself after 3 d5, and partly because it's in Raetsky/Chetverik. Also, if you were going to play the Benoni with 2...e6 then there's no real advantage to 2...c5 as opposed to 2....e6 (well, it avoids the Torre, I suppose). So 2...e6 is the repertoire.