Quote:


Does he really say this?  Apalling.   

In the first place, he's writing for players at a relatively low level.  There, the Petroff makes perfect sense as a winning try.  Good grief, how bad, or boring for that matter, can it be to play Pawn to King's Fourth and then put the King's Knight on King Bishop Three??

In the second place, I'm not at all sure that the Petroff can't be played in a somewhat dynamic spirit even at higher levels.  Frank Marshall himself played it all the time, for crying out loud.  Now THERE is a player who produced some REALLY "boring and turgid" chess!

In the third place, it's a game of chess, you know?  First White plays a move and then Black does, and eventually either someone wins or it's a draw.   Between here and there is nothing but struggle, and it really is useless to contemplate the supposedly contemptible character of one's opponent for having chosen such a boring, or speculative, or untheoretical, or whatever, way of playing his game.

I like to attack as much the next person, more even, but I also play the Exchange Slav with Nf3.  Now there is some chess that MacDonald would undoubtedly call "boring and turgid," except that I am not bored but rather amused by the struggle to out-technique my opponent in a position that he has zero chances of winning, and that this system happens to produce rather good results.  TO SCORE is, after all, the object of this game.  I hope MacDonald won't blame me for not producing sufficiently entertaining score sheets along the way. (All right, I admit my score sheets are entertainiing for my frequent errors, but that's another subject.)
 

Quote:


I can't even begin to imagine what you mean by that, and I'm surprised you would say it after the other things you said.  The French is a very tough defense.  What the heck is "unmanly" about it?

In the Petroff we get two games to follow. In game 8 white is awarded 5 exclamation points, even for 5.Nc3. In game 8 we learn that 7.Bf4 is the most common move, but 7.Be3 is the move in game 8 and it's 7. Bg5 in game 9 with the comment "A bolder square than e3 - and why not?" In game 8 we get 10...0-0? "A classic example of castling into an attack. More solid was 10...Bf6." Also in the Scotch section we get two different moves for white early on. 

The accelerated dragon is included in the notes to game 22. It is fantastic that McDonald writes off a major variation in a third of a page, including a line where black plays Ng8-g4 in one move.

In the Sveshnikov, McDonald only covers 11...0-0 12.Nc2 Bg5, 11...Bb7 and 11...Rb8 12.Nc2 Bg5. I've played 11...Ne7 and 11...0-0 12.Nc2 Rb8 myself. Two good lines not included here. 11...Ne7 gives different types of positions than the other lines as black often play d5 soon. In the 11...0-0, 12...Rb8 line, black is much prepared for the a4 advance, which makes the line quite different to the 11...0-0 12...Bg5 line and the 11...Rb8 and 12...Bg5 line.

He calls 6...Be7 more or less forced in the exd6 exchange Alekhine, only looking at 6...g6 as the other try. 6...Nc6 is very much playable. I've used it myself several times.

The writing style is similar to childrens books, aged 4-10. Not to my liking at all.

The d4 book by Cox is a serious try to form the basis of a repertoire. The e4 book is just games collected with annoying annotations. This is the first time since the old Soltis books I've picked up an opening book and felt that I could have done a better job myself without too much effort.

I'm rather disappointed by this book.   Even in the context of it being in the "Starting Out" series, it seems rather superficial.   Particularly compared to John Cox's companion 1.d4 volume.   There have been a number of good or very good books in the SO series (including McDonald's one on the Dutch) but I can't say this is one of them.   Anyone disagree?

IMJohnCox wrote on 08/03/06 at 12:16:31:



Amateurs "know" that the Petrov/Petroff Defense is a dull draw.  They glance at a game played by two grandmasters. At the top are the words "Petrov Defense" and at the bottom is the word (or symbol) "draw", and the amateur moves on to find games that were interesting wins.

If we all agreed to start calling the opening "The Russian Defense" then maybe amateurs would, accidentally, go over a game or two and find it interesting.  After all, we all know the Russians play dynamic chess.

While changing names seems silly, it really goes to the heart of the problem.  The reputation of the Petrov is that it's drawish,  the reality is that it may lead to draws, but only if both sides play equally well.  I think it was John Nunn who pointed out how ridiculous it is to claim a position is drawish after only two moves.  I'm sure he wasn't the first!

One look at the position after move 22 of the recent Kramnik-Leko game (Dortmond, 2006) will show that a seemingly boring position can be very rich in ideas.  I know that wasn't a Petrov, but show the position to most masters and I suspect they would say it's drawish!

Quote:


In a must win situation wouldn't you really need a backup to the Petroff due to this variation, assuming your opponent is even reasonably competent in the endgame?

>Amateur opinion of opening systems is so heavily influenced by what's going on a the top.

But isn't that's what is a bit surprising about the Petroff; the fact that it's going on at the top and not anywhere else? I realise you're making a slightly different point; that people think it's drawish because it produces a lot of draws at the top level.

Quote:


I have Yusupov's book in German and it is indeed excellent.  It is no longer up-to-date, however.   

I agree that the Petroff should be seen much more at the club level.  I see no reason why it can't be played for a win.  After all, you see a lot of amateurs playing the QGD for a win, and it works, because the opposition is so uneven.  So why not Petroff's?

Amateur opinion of opening systems is so heavily influenced by what's going on a the top.   But up to, say, 2300 or so, you can play any d--n thing you want, provided that it is not unsound, and expect to win if you're the stronger player.

It was some time ago, true enough, but Marshall played it for a win.