Yes i read his comments. Aronian's joking of course, his 'humour' is legend.

@slates:
5... Bb4+ is used by Rublevsky as a drawing weapon, which is fine if you think a draw is fine as Black, but is a problem if you want to beat a weaker player, imho 5... Bb4+ is more solid than 5... Nc6, but Black's winning chances are virtually nil and far less than 5... Nc6. From the White side, I haven't found much against 5... Bb4+, though in practice my opponents tend to lack the accuracy and patience to grovel for a draw, then i get some chances. The line given in Ward's book is not too bad, but for the moment i find 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 giving more interesting play, though that presents another problem of what to do against the main slav with 4... c6. 

after 8... Qc8, i presume 9. Ng5 is a problem though i haven't checked it closely.

Well, the game Ptero mentions in the other thread (and indeed the line he plays), Beliavsky-Illescas Cordoba gets a couple of pages of coverage, and there are a few twists and turns in the move order of Ptero's game in comparison with Bel-Illescas so I think it is best for me not to try to reproduce the author's analysis here (they quote Illescas and Rizzitano as well as offering their own thoughts)  beyond them saying that the 'radical' 11 e6!? is 'fairly dangerous for Black'.   

Is the Two Knights seen that often?  Doesn't Rublevsky's preferred move order with the early ...e6 avoid it fairly well? I see what Inn2 means about the skimpy coverage of this line though, in Raetsky's book, missing 4.Qa4+ as it does.   

But Inn2 - do you think the 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bxc4 Bb4+ line is stronger than 5...Nc6!?, or indeed is it performing better?  I know Rublevsky tends to favour it, but I thought that generally it was regarded as the lesser choice (perhaps a view reinforced by it's poor coverage in such books as this).
I was disappointed by the lack of coverage of Beliavsky-Sermek, too, although the plan of a3/b4 is touched upon, but Raetsky's book fails to mention the move Chris Ward likes best for White, i.e. Raetsky gives - 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bxc4 Nc6 6.0-0 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.Qb3 Qd7 9.Qxb7 Rb8 10.Qa6 Nf6 11.Nbd2 Bd6 12.a3 0-0 13.b4 Bf4!? 14.Bb2 e5 15.Rac1 Rb6 16.Qc4+ Kh8 leading to 'unclear play', whilst Chris Ward gives 13...Bf4 14.Qd3 Rbd8 15.Nc4 and seems to prefer White in his recent 'Play the Queens Gambit' book. 
Incidentally, and here I fear I will show my ignorance and low playing standard (!), why do people condemn 8...Qc8 in this line?  OK, they say it's too passive, but is it really any worse than letting the b-pawn go? My old tabletop computer doesn't seem to be too quick at exploiting this move, but both it and I are in the minority, I fear!  I'm aware of Semkov's comments in this forum re. another position in the QGA where he points out that computer evaluations in this (amongst some other) defence are not to be taken too seriously, but I don't know that I can find any glaring problem with 8...Qc8. 

Well, any pointers for me would be gratefully received, thanks!

Yes the QGA Two Knights is a dangerous line, but most of the theory is old and accumulated pre-computer era, so there is room for improvements for both sides.  I have switched from 3. e4 to 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3, and predict that this may be the trend for the future as long as the 3. e4 e5/ 5... Bb4+ variation holds up. But this is also somewhat contingent on whether someone finds a way against Kramnik's 8... Bg6 in the main 6. Ne5 Slav. btw clicked on the delete post button by accident. Can moderators retreive my review earlier in the thread?

But in any case, having had the book for a few more days, i'm inclined to give it a less favourable review now, mainly because i'm finding the sketchy coverage of some lines quite annoying. in particular the earlier mentioned 3. e4 e5 /5... Bb4+ (5... Nc6:Believasky-Sermek is also missing),  Black attempts at delayed cxd4 in 7. Bb3, 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nc3 c5, and i was particularly annoyed at the missing 3... e6 4. Qa4+! which is an indispensable move for Two Knights players, given that Vallejo-Kasparov has rendered 4. e4 harmless. Also the piece sac in the 3. e4 c5 4. d5 Nf6 5. Nc3 b5 6. e5 line (covered in Ruslan's recent update, think the game is Karakehajov-Thesing) does not get a mention. I was also hoping for a more detailed examination of White's possibilities in the "normal" IQP positions (e.g. 11. h4!? in Kramnik-Hubner).

I suppose as a Starting Out guide this book does more or less what it says. And it really is no worse than say Gallagher's SO: KID, but for sure it doesn't rise to the level of Cox's Alekhine or even the duo's earlier SO: Benoni Systems (which was filled with more original stuff). perhaps my expectations got too high with this one, and I guess with the proliferation of good authors and books nowadays, the demands on chess book authors increases?!

Thanks Inn2.  I bought the book and found it to be pretty good for my level, although a lack of time has meant I haven't done much more than glance through sections of it. Nice to see the move order trick that Rublevsky uses discussed as a way of avoiding the Furman and the Two Knights variations. Although after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 I guess Black still has to think carefully.   

Yesterday I got my copy of this new book from my german distributor Niggemann.
So far I´ve read it for several hours and it seems to be worth its price.

In some way it looks to me like a light version of the Sakaev/Semkov book (the same book but ~150ELOs easier): 
- the same full coverage, more or less a complete work, no repertoire book but obviously written from Black´s point of view
- arranged in the same way as Sakaev/Semkov: first 3e4, second Classical, third anything else and move orders specialities
- while there´s some new material up to early summer 06, the subsystems and assessments are in fact nearly the same, no real developments
- the usual Starting-out-design: short introductories leading fluently to model games which contain much of the theory
- the analysis is not as deep as in Sakaev´s (or Rizzitanos) books, in some critical main lines (especially 7Bb3) you´ll want to have one of those
- much more explanatory text: I wouldn´t call it a strategy book but for sure the understanding will be much easier for a not so much experienced player
- many diagramms (!!), sometimes four on a single page (but "only" up to six on a double page), in a first reading it´s very easy to follow without a board

Apart from periodicals the bibliograhy only mentions Sakaev/Semkov, Rizzitano and ECO D.
I can´t help but it really looks a little bit like the authors had Sakaev/Semkov in front of them during the whole writing of the book. They really re-write that book putting it on a lower level (from a paedagogical point of view, this is by no means an assessment of the book´s value), sometimes comparing Sakaev´s analysis with Rizzitanos and adding some new games from CBM and TWIC. And, of course, adding a little bit of their own analysis, too.

To sum up all this ... - it´s a good book! Maybe even an excellent book!!

I have almost all books on QGA. 
If I had to recommend only one to an advanced player (let´s say 2000++) who wants to study this opening, my choice would still be Sakaev (no easy study but probably best).
But if someone could afford two books, I would surely recommend Raetsky plus Rizzitano: the first for better understanding and the second for more detailed analysis (and Queen´s Pawn Games!)
For improving and club players (~1600-1900) this new book by Raetsky/Chetwerik is clearly the best choice and also sufficient as stand-alone-work (at least in the beginning).

tracke  


Addendum: I´m not sure if 3.e3 c5!? 4.Bxc4 cxd4 5.exd4 Qc7?! (this can arise out of C-K-Panov, too!) really needs two and a half page of coverage. I analysed this some time ago (for use as Panov surprise weapon) but didn´t considered it really playable after 6.Qb3(!) when 6...e6 is a chicken move and wasn´t the aim when playing 5...Qc7. So more enterprising is 6...Be6?! when 7.d5 Bxd5! 8.Bxd5 Qxc1+ 9.Ke2 Nd7!! leads to funny complications which seem to remain unclear. But I found nothing against 7.Na3(!) Bxc4 8.Nxc4 when Black´s pleasant position is much worse than it looks at first glance. The deeper you analyse the more problems Black has to face ...

I rather liked the Catalan and SO: Benoni Systems by the duo...the books contained interesting bits and ideas throughout, which more than made up for the occasional omission of existing theory. Clearly they used their heads in writing the books, abit like Semkov-Chess Stars-lite. Raetsky's Meeting 1. e4 was also in a similar vein. Think this will be a good book, especially curious about 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 gambit.