As i found out in a training game i played against a Greek GM in the Rogozenko's ...Qc7 line white has a dangerous posibility with e6! fxe6 Ng5 followed with f4,Bc4 or e5 and Ne4. I didn't even came close to make a draw ...............

Yes, I agree my over-hasty 9 ...f5? leaves Black with a grotty position! Your plan of h4--h5 is looking good I think! I wondered if Black could try ...c6 on move 8, meeting 8 Qd2 with Nf7 hoping to reach Tugul--Badea, and 9 h5 with 9 ...f5 since the KN is still on h6, but haven't had time to look at this properly and it may well be bad too?

I looked a bit last night at 5 f4 e5 6 fe de 7 d5 Nh6!? and thought this was interesting. Black seems to have several different possibilities for handling the position -- some of them might be a bit 'sterile' as per the KID lines, but it seems there are others where Black goes for ...f5 quite directly. Maybe this is worth a punt?

I'm interested that you've focused a critical eye on the 5 Nge2 and 5 f4 lines even though 5 Nf3 is normally regarded as White's strongest. In one sense this seems logical to me since the Knight on f3 might make the typical ...Nf7/...f5--f4 counterplay more feasible? If 5 Nf3 e5 is OK for Black [i]and[/i] Rogozenko's 9 ...c6 and/or 7 ...Nh6!? (in the 5 f4 line) holds up, maybe Black's system will in the end turn out to be sound on the basis of 5 Nge2 e5 6 Be3 being met by 6 ...Ngf6! with a decent Saemisch!?

7 f3 f6 8 h4 Nf7 9 h5!? – interesting! I’ve just recently come in so haven’t had time for a real look, but my first thought is to go 9 …f5 despite the loss of tempo – is that clearly bad?

I’m very interested in the question of the strategic worth of the knight on f7, in this and analogous positions. As I understand it this [i]‘Eidechse’[/i] or ‘Lizard’ setup can arise in a number of openings, for example the Pirc/Modern and the (Modern) Steinitz Ruy Lopez. Of course I see what you mean about the absence of …Nh5--f4 but it seems to me that …Nf7 has several positive points: (1) by defending d6 it (a) offers prophylaxis against dxe5, (b) enables …c6 (idea …a6 and …b5) if White castles long, and (c) sets up counterplay (which could be serious if White isn’t careful?) based on …exd4 and …Nde5 (or sometimes …Nfe5); also (2) in guarding some dark squares around Black’s King it increases his chances of flexibly delaying, or even omitting, castling after White’s 0-0-0, and (3) it can come to g5, typically after …f4, if White goes short, and occasionally if he doesn’t. Of course whether such benefits could balance out the demerits I have no idea!

I see what you mean about the anti-Four Pawns system with …Nc5 and …Qe7. In many ways this looks to me too an essentially ‘reactive’ defence as I suggested before but maybe it can show teeth if White overpresses. After all, can’t black strongpoint the dark squares on the Kingside in typical fashion (the corollary of the already open f-file is that White can’t really pressure e5) and perhaps even attack there (with …Bg4 etc.) while holding d6 (…Ra6 comes in a number of the published games I’ve seen)? Whatever the case, Rogozenko’s 9 …c6 looks like an attempt to handle the position a bit more dynamically. I can see that in the E76 KID with …Na6 there are some lines where Black could get into trouble with …Qb6 and …Qxb2 but don’t immediately see why the Nd7 should help Black here. Maybe Ametanoitos, who’s seen the SOS article, could say a bit more here? And do (anyone!) put me right if my strategic thinking re these interesting positions is up the creek! …

This thread is really hotting up! -- to the extent, though, that we might need soon to get down to a lot of serious concrete analysis! I freely admit I haven’t yet found time to do this myself, but all the same I do feel a bit wary of making judgements without it.

Inn2’s post for me raises the interesting question of whether, and if so to what extent, one can make judgements about a ‘semi-familiar’ system like the …Nd7/… e5 anti-Averbakh on the basis of ‘analogy’ and without concrete analysis. Re the 5 f4 line, I notice Nunn in [i]NCO[/i] (p. 514/n. 31) gives 9 …Nc5 (possible from both the KID and the anti-Averbakh move orders) 10 Bc2 a5 11 0-0 Qe7 as equal. I’m a bit hampered here by my relative unfamiliarity with the Four Pawns Attack  -- I’m just coming back to playing KID-style positions after a twenty-year lay-off! -- so I’d appreciate any enlightenment on this position! Why might Nunn be wrong (or right) here? My general sense is that setups with …Nc5 can often be either ‘solid’ or lacking in dynamism or both, depending on the precise position, but how should we appraise this example?

Rogozenko’s 9 …c6!?, meanwhile, obviously represents an attempt to avoid transposition to E76. Again any concrete thoughts would be appreciated! There’s also, from the A42 move order, 7 …Nh6!? and 7 …Qh4!?. The latter of these looks a bit odd to me, but both give a lot of food for thought!

As for the 5 Nge2 e5 6 Be3 Nh6!? line, perhaps here especially we need to look at concrete positions? After 7 f3 f6, 8 Qd2 Nf7 9 h4 looks natural. Tugul--Badea continued 9 …c6 10 h5 a6 11 0-0-0 b5 12 Ng3 Nb6 13 d5 b4 and Black won. To me Black’s 12th (12 …Qa5!?; Fritz plays 12 …ed!?) and White’s 13th (13 de!?) look suspicious, but I’m not a strong player and moreover a quick look is so far all I’ve managed, and ditto with the (interesting but never-played?) 7 h4 (7 …Ng4!?).

One reason I’m interested in these lines is that, having recently acquired a copy of [i]The Sveshnikov Reloaded[/i], which looks to be quite simply a brilliant book, I’m extremely receptive to Rogozenko’s ideas. Not, of course, that one shouldn’t ‘question authority’. One should, of course, including Tiger’s! On the face of it, the line being ‘defended’ by parisestmagique looks unpromising, especially if (as seems) it depends on 8 …h6, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a refutation were to be found (or already has been by Grivas, as Ametanoitos suggests). But nevertheless the pawn sac does look interesting. Maybe there’s a warning here against the dangers of over-generalised thinking? After all (here I’m stirring rapidly), counter-intuitive systems can [i]sometimes[/i] turn out to be sound, can’t they? …

Hello, have been following the discussion.
As Samisch/4pawns player, I like the following lines: 
1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 e5 5. Nge2 Nd7 6. Be3! Nh6! (6... f5 7. exf5 +=, 6... Ne7 7. h4! f5 8. h5+=) 7. f3 or 7.h4 += (disagree with Ametanoitos =) ). The exclamation marks are to show imho the most principled and accurate moves in the position, not that they are brilliant or hard to find. From experience, f3 needs to be timed carefully, and should be played only when Black has committed himself in some way. I think a Samisch player needs to be more flexible, and be willing to play "novel" structures like exf5 gxf5 to obtain theoretical advantage, or distracting moves like h2-h4 early on.   

4... Nd7 can also be met by 5. Nge2 with possible transposition to above lines. But I like 5. f4, the knight on d7 may be premature in 4 pawn attack lines, and don't see a reasonable independent "modern" way of playing for Black. I have seen Michael Ayton's excellent post, but i assess 5. f4 0-0 6. Nf3 e5 7. fxe5 dxe5 8. d5 as += without further analysis, imho not Black's best line in the four pawns.

Finally the discussion on 5. Nge2 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nc6 7.Be3 Nge7 8.h4 is abit moot.. Tiger is dismissive of this line in his book and i agree. Isn't this clearly a dragon with no open c-file for Black?!

I dont understand - after 15.Be3 how does Fritz win the pawn back? What is Blacks next move?

A pawn sacrifice? If nothing else I admire your optimism, all of your suggestions are accompanied by "White has nothing" or "Black seems fine". Sorry I dont mean to be aggressive or condescending but I find it amusing thats all, if only chess were that simple:

Anyway, in this line I presume White retreats 15.Be3, what is your planned continuation then... I am always a bit worried grabbing pawns so let me see first what you have planned - I reserve the right to backtrack