Yes, I agree that there is a lot of excellent content in the book. However my concern (perhaps unreasonably, given that people should be expected to be conscious of the purpose of the book they are reading) is that lines mentioned may well be mistaken for recommendations. In fact Golubev seems to conclude that the a5 variation favours white (in all but one side note, where he suggests retreating the knight back through f6-e8, where it will be out of the way, and then delaying f5 in favour of Ra6).

As far as I can tell, theory is such at present that if you wish to play 7...Nc6, you have to be willing to enter the lines with 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 Nh5 10.Re1 f5 11.Ng5 Nf6 (OK, 11...Nf4 has some interesting points, but not if you are playing for the full point).

I should not be too concerned by the analysis in Khalifman's new OFWAK book. This 12.f3, 13.Be3 business doesn't seem to give an edge. In what might be termed the ultimate mainline of the book, white reaches a quasi-endgame with Q, R and 3 (at least one of which is very weak, and the other 2 are doubled) versus Q, N and 4 (two pawn island). Both kings are vulnerable but White's is a little draftier. Black's queen and knight coordinate well, but White has problems linking up the Q and R for an attack.

All things considered I sincerely doubt White has an edge here; it's certainly not a position that I would aim to reach from the opening. Am happy to discuss if anyone else wants to bat ideas back and forth.

Best,

Eddie

I may be mistaken, but I am not sure that Golubev actually makes a lot of recommendations in the book.

The games are his own, and are there to imbue the reader with an understanding of the KID as a whole, not necessarily to resolve existing opening problems.

There is a lot of fantastic material that can supplement a repertoire, but readers should be aware that this is not a "repertoire book" as such.

Apologies if I have misunderstood the purpose of the book,

Eddie

I see that Golubev want's to play 6...Nc6 with Panno-style play (can transpose directly to the "regular" Panno if White plays an early Bh6), but what I really wanted to know is how much analysis Golubev spends on this line.  In my experience, most authors cover it only very briefly.  Does he give one illustrative game, or three?  Does he devote three pages to this line or 13?  That's the kind of stuff I'd like to know.

I don't want anyone to violate copyright and post all his analysis, I'd just like some idea of how well this variation is covered.  It's been my anti-King's Indian variation all my life, and when I play the KID (though I haven't for about a year) I play the Panno against the Saemisch, so it's relevant to me from both sides of the board.

Can someone tell me what Golubev recommends against the Saemisch with 6.Bg5!?.  Also, about how much analysis does he have on the move?  I'm looking for more sources besides Ward's and Gallagher's books on this, which almost exclusively feature 6...c5 in reply.

May someone please tell me what line Golubev advocates for black against shirov's 13. Bb2! plan for white in the bayonet attack?

woofwoof wrote on 04/11/06 at 03:12:24:


Whoops....yes that´s what I (and Golubev) meant.

Against 6.Bg5 in the Saemisch Golubev mentions 6....Nc6 and follows his game against Dreev from 1994.

Lou

Markovich wrote on 04/10/06 at 16:38:48:


I'm more than certain that Lou actually means 8....Ne7.