Fair points, TJ. I shall consider it a matter of honour to meet 1 e4 with 1…e6 should we ever play. After all I suppose 1…e5 would be even more foolish, no?

I nearly played the Politiken Cup this year, actually. I enjoyed it in 1982 or so when I played. If it wasn’t for the fact that the website is astonishingly poorly run and information about accommodation, travel and so forth accordingly hard to get hold of I might well have played in it.

I suppose the Bb2 with Pe5 does discourage ….f6. In fact I recall that long ago when I was young and foolish someone did play 2 b3 against me. I, assuming they had no idea what they were doing, did indeed play 3…dxe4 and experienced difficulties.

What do you mean by the SI, by the way?

Your Tartakower comparison is a bit unfair as there the diagonal stands to be opened by …dxc4, and if White chooses to freeze the structure he has to pay the price of playing Bxf6 to achieve it. But I concede this doesn’t apply to the C-Z. Even there the bishop will come alive if either c4 or e4 is ever played, but I suppose you will say that it is the same with e5 here; the bishop has latent power if the opponent makes his most natural pawn break.

I love your books by the way. Keep up the good work.

If I were still playing the French (which I certainly would be if all Whites played 2 b3, although that's probably just my prejudices) then 3...Nf6 would be the first move I'd think of. To my eye the combination of Bb2 and e5 looks rather absurd. That's not to say I'm right - just a matter of impression. But I would think you'll see this OTB a lot more than 3...dxe4. Most people - most grizzled old people like me, anyway - try to avoid giving the opponent what he wants when faced with these pet-line type deviations, and rightly or wrongly I would assume that was 3....dxe4, so I'd play something else.

TalJechin wrote on 10/03/06 at 15:12:56:


For me 5....h5 6.Qg3 looks quite nice for black. But ...g5 IMHO is - at least - strange.

Though I have to add that I would like to play ...h5 some moves later:

1.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Qg4 c5 6.f4 Nc6 7.Nf3 (queen self-trapped?) and now 7...h5 
After 8.Qg3 there is a slight difference to the proposed lines: If a black knight reaches ...e4 the Q on g3 really looks silly. So
8...a6 After 9.a4 I would simply recommend ...c4 with the idea of Nd7-c5-e4. I think that the whole white Setup looks really strange now. 10.bxc4 Nc5 11.Qf2 (what else?) 11...Ne4 12.Qe3 Bc5  Call for repair shop?

Quote:


If black wants something typically french I think 3...c5 is the best bet. 3...Nf6 5.Qg4 is in my opinion not very french, as black is lacking the most important french quality, i.e active counter play!

Anyway, I don't share your dejection over 8...Rb8. For one thing, if black grabs space on the q-side white can also try the d3-setup >c4 / Nbd2. 

But in the game I don't see what's wrong with 9.a4 - white is ahead in development so he should welcome a more concrete position, e.g: 9...b5 10.axb5 axb5 11.Nc3 Nb4 (11...b4 12.Nb5!) 12.0-0!? At least to me this looks quite promising for white... 
(Fritz seems to prefer the quiet 12.Rc1 which may also be good as white has a space advantage and better development, but I like the more direct 12.0-0 as black should hardly be able to play with just his pawns and knights...)


Quote:


In my experience this is typical - and a good reason for 2.b3, as usually frenchies trot out their first 20 moves in twenty minutes, and most of that time is spent on chatting or getting coffee!

Just thought I'd mention that the FRG is reviewed in the latest issue of Kaissiber (#25). Bücker is even rather positive, e.g he ends with: 

Quote:


Actually, the only fault he finds worth pointing out is that after 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Qg4 I don't mention  5...h5 6.Qg3 g5 which is an omission I can live with, as it has never been played and does look a bit risky for black imo...

Btw, those who have never heard about Kaissiber should check it out - at least if you have some understanding of the  german language and are interested in chess history and/or non-mainline theory! For example, #25 contains a 25 page article by Gutman on the Italian with 4.0-0 d6 5.c3.

Hi folks,
played the opening and read the book. Here are my first impressions. Basically black has four ways to react after 1.e4 e6 2.b3:

1. RG accepted  1.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 dxe 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g4/Qe2
White get´s an open and completely un-french structure, better development, initiative and good chances for a kingside attack for a pawn and a less safe king-position. For me this sounds like a familiar and favourable deal, but I play the Kings gambit. Players who prefer quiet positional play will disagree.

2. RG declined  1.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Nf6
According to Psakhis white can continue with 4.exd exd 5.Qe2+ Be6 (Be7 6.Bxf6) 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Ng5 and go for the bishops on cost of development and initiative after an exchange. TJ recommends a set-up with e5, f4 and Qg4.

3. The counter-fianchetto  1.e4 e6 2.b3 b6
This can transpose to open sicilian structures (and theory!) after 3.Nf3 c5 4.d4 cxd 5.Nxd4. Alternatively white can follow TJs recommendations and play 3.Bb2 or 3.d4 with good chances.

4. Sicilian transpositions 1.e4 e6 2.b3 c5 or 1.e4 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 c5
Whites b3 is not a forcing move, therefore black has a wide choice of possible set-ups. TJ introduces independent lines and ideas, mostly with an early Bb2, usually holding back d4 for a while. As he points out, this part of the book is a starting point for ones own explorations on approx. 70 pages including misc. other black tries.

After studying the book I am happy to play the RG (lines I and II) if given the chance. The result of blitz games is encouraging. TJ covers all reasonable black answers in detail and explains a lot of typical ideas in comprehensive language on 153 of 226 pages. I usually get very interesting and tense positions. Both players have a big choice of reasonable moves, but play is very dynamic, so the first error might be already decisive.

This leaves the lines III and IV with b6 and/or c5. According to TJ this is played in about 25 % of the games. As b3 is not a forcing move black as a vast number of possible set-ups. This might explain, why b3 has been unpopular so far. It´s not because c5 is the best answer to the RG, but with an anti-line white usually wants to avoid a large body of theory. In answer to this problem TJ mainly investigates unusual set-ups which follow neither french nor sicilian patterns.

Yet I first noticed the RG while looking for a good antidote against the Paulsen, Taimanov and other lines after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6. 3.b3 is considered as an important and dangerous sideline for white. I refer to the thread in the anti-sicilian section on 1.e4 c5 2.b3. Chances are at least as good as in the lines given by TJ. The main difference seems to be that in sicilian structures white usually plays d4, and sometimes directly Ba3 to swap of the blackfielders.

I can´t blame TJ for leaving this out as the book is called “anti-french”. TJ doesn´t make a secret on the omission of Nf3, but refers to existing works on the sicilian. Perhaps another reason is that TJ generally seems to avoid the open sicilian with white.

One thing to improve on refers to the layout. TJ likes to use variations and sub-variations, and so do I, but sometimes his indexing is confusing in itself. For example in sec. 4 the indexing starts with the pattern A / a / a1. At variation D he starts subvariations with the pattern D / A(?) / a / a (?). Under subsection B of the same variation the indexing switches again to something like D / B / I / a /, but afterwards to D / B / II / i / a. I noticed similar things in some of the bigger sections. This is confusing, because one has to cross-check the move number to know where you are on the variation tree. This could be avoided by sticking to just one indexing system or by getting in somebody to edit the script.

Still I like and recommend the book very much and appreciate the tremendous work of the author on this completely new subject.

I was just looking at the The Fascinating King's Gambit on Amazon and I noticed that there's a digital version at a very nice price.  Are there any plans to do a digital edition of The Fascinating Réti Gambit?  Both books after shipping for me would be pretty expensive, but if there was a digital edition I think I might get them both!