In game 18  12. Ra4!? looks like an improvement for white.

regards
Tom

Got the book this morning and my first impressions are very favourable. I think the argument in the introduction which you refer to is valid and presented well enough (although IMHO reads like a passage from Rowson's Seven Deadly Chess Sins - and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but Rowson's writing evolved and became clearer in Chess for Zebras) but I'm still unsure as to how well the Nimzo fits this argument.  Something like the Dutch, sure, I can understand that opening fulfilling the criteria of avoiding White's 'pattern recognition' in many lines, but I thought the theory of the Nimzo was so well developed as to disallow much in the way of surprise for White.  However, I am eager to be shown that this is not the case - I know very little about the opening (hence buying the book) and will work my way through it in the hope that I can improve both my game in general and gain a first class opening to add to my limited repertoire.  

I have to say this, too - the book marks (hopefully) something of a departure for Everyman, from what I can see - it includes a short but essential index of variations at last, something most Everyman books omit, and it also has game summaries after each game.  These are very useful and in the case of this book very well written.  
Also, in the 4.Nf3 0-0 chapter, the 'tree' method is used to present the material, rather than the illustrative game method used throughout the rest of the book.  This is intriguing and when I get to this chapter I look forward to seeing how well it works in the context of the book overall.  I use both Gambit and Everyman books, and generally prefer the 'tree' method favoured by Gambit but also find the 'complete games' method can be useful when first learning an opening - I note that Semkov & Delchev's new book on the Taimanov Sicilian ('The Safest Sicilian') combines both methods, although with rather less emphasis on the complete games than you get in an Everyman book, and that seems to me to be the ideal way forward. 

In summary I can straight away see why many others have praised Eddie's works to date if they are as well produced as this - I have only played through a handful of these games so far, but there is instruction aplenty and no reluctance on the part of the author to offer an opinion.  Many authors seem unwilling to commit to an opinion on certain lines - not so here. 

So, whilst I may not be a very strong chess player, I'm one of the many hobbyists who read quite a number of chess books  and recognise a good one when they see it.  This is such a book.

Just picked mine up this morning.  Looks very good - I particularly like (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Qf5) 7.Qb3 Nc6!? and 7.Qd1 e5!!? 

Not sure about the quantum theory in the intro though ... it's all very well talking about ratings as problem-solving ability but unfortunately it cuts both ways and it's not much comfort when you're sitting opposite a 2400+ Heffalump ... I think you may have been in your Oxbridge ivory tower too long, Eddie ...