Ok no more white variations, i will not know where is white advantage in the Modern defense ...

We have not the same definition of weackness, mine is somethink witch can be attacked but the opponent pieces. How can you attack the pawn on g6 ? By the way it controls white majority h4,g2,h2 with pawn h5 and Bg6. Fritz9 weack positionnaly ?! ok if you have more than 2700 rating and a lot more over the board.

After one night of "reflexion" Fritz9 find 14.000 h5 equal so the ball is again in white side ...

My queenside is quite present, I will put the other pawn on a white square also (a2,b3, c4). You say you havent played ..c5 but I think you will have to as otherwise you have to watch White playing c5 to fix the pawns and secure a nice square for the Knight - after that it would be a technical win I imagine based on principle of 2 weaknesses. Gott go now, have a look at it! Incidently on what basis did you come up with the "=" assessment? It wouldnt have been an engine by any chance 

Analysing a bit more - I believe the first endgame after 17.Qxf6 is unpleasant for Black and very safe for White - who has the 3-2 majority on the kingside and the weak Black q-side pawns to work with. If you are happy to play this type of position by all means play this line, but dont expect "Black has equal chances", be prepared to suffer.

There you go again - "Black has equal chances" and "=" Deja vu!  You need to do a bit more work than this, do all of your openings as Black end up that simple? It must be nice to get equal chances in every variation 

hello, I find it interesting in these lines White is often able to play dxe5 to good effect, perhaps this is the downside of f6?!

tugui-badea is a nice game. i think there are two ways for White to improve his play: 

at first i thought on principle White should benefit from his superior development with a "open-everything and exchange-everything approach" which is somewhat uncommon in the Samisch (but possibly justified here) with 11. h5 b5 12. Ng3 Nb6 13. hxg6 hxg6 14. Rxh8 Bxh8 15. dxe5 fxe5 16. c5 dxc5 17. Qf2 Nd7 18. Bxc5 and maybe this is += (18...Qa5 19. a3 Bb7 20. Rxd7 followed by Bb6 is a nice trap), and 18... Qc7 19. Be3 Bb7 20. Be2 then Rh1 is an idea. Not sure if this is very much for White though. 

Later my Rybka finds a much easier to play strategic plan based on incarceration of Black's bishop with 12. d5 Nb6 (probably best to get counterplay like this, anyway the c6 pawn is hanging, and blocking up with 12... c5 is known not to be strategically good for Black in the KID Samisch proper) 13. h6! Bf8 14. Bxb6! Qxb6 15. dxc6 and here 15... Qxc6 16. cxb5 axb5 17. Nd4!! threatens a deadly Bxb5 pin, and 15... bxc4 16. Nd5 Qxc6 17. Nxf6+ looks terrible.

Look forward to your Samisch-Modern thread, though i probably contribute more in the independent modern lines with no transposition to the Samisch KID proper, since the latter is more common in my games and will like to keep some analysis for future use!

hello, 

After 7. f3 f6 8 h4 c6 , White just goes Qd2/0-0-0/h5 in some order.. don't know what's best play for Black, probably he should try the typical Samisch plan a6/b5/Qa5, but 9. Qd2 Nf7 10. 0-0-0 a6 11. h5 0-0 (11... Qa5 12. hxg6 hxg6 13. Rxh8 Bxh8 14. Kb1 += or 12. g4) 12. hxg6 hxg6 13. Qe1 b5 14. Qg3 or 14. Qh4 is +=/+- since pawng6 is a little tender. think Black is worse than a proper Samisch since amongst other things the absence of the knight on f6 means Black can't block White's h4 with ...h5 easily, and his Bg7 is buried by f6 (so Black can't count on exd4 at some point freeing his dark squared bishop). The other plan for Black is to play exd4/Ne5/f5, but don't see how to make it work and anyway Black's 8...c6 may be abit committal if Black wants to go for this plan. 
I still think Black's best is to transpose to a KID!

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 

I don’t know the 1990 book by Speelman which parisestmagique mentions and don’t understand the reference since both Polgar--Seirawan and Gurevich--Speelman were played in 1993, but Speelman annotates the latter game (and cites the former) in his 2000 Modern Defence book co-authored with McDonald. There he writes (p. 136) that his 26 …Kf6? was a mistake, and that after 26 …Nf6! 27 Bd3 Rg8! 28 g3 f4! Black would have been fine. (NB. He gives ...Kf6? as m. 26 rather than 28 as he omits the repetitions given above for mm. 18--19.)

Overall though, I can only agree with Keano about this variation. Hansen’s 19 Qe2, keeping the Queens on, looks an effective way of showing up the weaknesses of Black’s position. White might have to take a bit of care in regrouping, but c4--c5 is coming in very soon (maybe after Kb1) and it's hard to see what Black has to offset White’s two Bishops, better structure and much better King safety.

It can be found in "the Modern defense" by Speelman 1990. He gives a few games and says that f5 is probably better than h6. One of the games is beautifoul Polgar-Seirawan Blind Monaco 1993 :
1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 e5 5.e4 exd 6.Nxd4 Nc6 7.Be3 Nge7 8.h4 f5 9.h5 fxe4 10.hxg hxg 11.Rxh8+ BxR 12.Ne4 Bf5 13.Ng3 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Kd7 15.Be2 Nc6 16.Be3 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bc3+ 18.Kf1 Qh4 19.Rxb7 Rh8 20.Bf3 and here instead of Qxc4+ he suggest a slight improvement for Black, can you see it ?

maybe f5 (! Speelman) is better than h6 ... After 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nc6 7.Be3 Nge7 8.h4 f5 !?

1/ yes i can confirm you "Kind of a denial, use a bit of objectivity" is agressiv 2/Objectivity is how a program stronger than 99,9% of the players judge this position very slightly better for white 3/ The subject was to check the supposed white plus in the Modern given in the theorical books (the endgame) your Nf3 is another way but cannot be a refutation of the e5 line because Black can transpose in a KID by Nd7 or exd4 with Nf6] 4/ If you want to continue this endgame with 3 pieces each no problem but maybe by e-mail ?! 

Keano wrote on 10/13/06 at 18:51:25:


I dont mean to be agressive trust me, if that is the impression I give sorry  

Now, firstly lets establish what has happened - we played a few moves out of the opening and on move 15 you allowed this endgame to happen - so naturally the assessment of the ending is critical for your whole opening concept - there are many examples of this - Berlin Lopez etc. where the endgame is still theoretical. In this case I dont think you can say, which is what I think you are trying to (forgive me if I get the wrong impression) "The opening is over now because the queens have been swapped, I have no danger" Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but that is the impression you give to me. After your 18...Bd7 I have a choice between rook to d1, or e1, or Nd5 - if you want to continue the analysis I will think about it - all moves look good. What I would recommend you to do is think about your position in more general terms - all of your pawns are weak, Whites pawns are not - and to think if you could defend this position in a tournament, or if you would even want it. My analysis would stop here with "This is not an acceptable position for Black" If you are happy with it by all means continue with this system, I am just trying to help - your queston at the beginning was something like "I see nothing wrong with this for Black, all lines are OK", I played a few moves as you suggested to show that all lines are not OK, and now you seem to be taking it personally - I am just trying to help! 

As for the Kasparov game being old stuff, I believe this is a correct assesment - modern GM practice prefers Qd2 and it does seem more effective. Remember that whatever books you have were written at a particular point in time, at that time the Kasparov - Speelman game would have been cutting edge, not anymore.[1/ Yes i can confirm you "kind of a denial, use a bit of objectivity" is agressiv. 2/Objectivity is how a program stronger than 99,9% of the players judge this position slightly better for white 3/ The subject was to check the supposed white plus in the Modern given in the theorical books (the endgame) your Nf3 is another way but cannot be a refutation of the e5 line because Black can transpose in a KID by Nd7 or exd4 with Nf6] 4/ If you want to continue this endgame with 3 pieces each no problem but maybe by e-mail ?!

Thanks once again, Ametanoitos! -- these ideas are most inspiring and I shall take a good look at them. It's great to encounter so much near-virgin territory! Defo going to get the book as well!

[quote]SOS 4: An Indian SOS, part I (Rogazenko) 4..Nd7 5.Nf3 (other moves are also covered in detail) e5 6.Be2 c6 7.O-O (i give only the main line given in every book about the modern) Nh6! (my exclam) 8.c5 (the absolute test!) dxc5 9.dxe5 and now every book (including Grivas') give only 9..O-O with white having an advantage (Rogozenko also gives analysis to claim equality for black here!) but "Rogo" concentrates on the rare move 9..Qc7 which gives excellent play. [/quote]


Extremely interesting, Ametanoitos -- thank you! In the critical 8 c5 dc 9 de line I hadn’t noticed 9 ...Qc7! (10 Qd6 Qd6 11 ed 0-0) before (played by Gaprindashvili against Keene in 1978 and seemingly since forgotten), but once you see this it makes a lot of sense. Compared with Stohl’s perhaps rather optimistic [i]Informator 58[/i] suggestion of 8 …ed 9 Bh6 Bh6 10 Qd4 0-0 11 cd Qb6 12 Qb6 ab 13 Rfd1 Bg7 Black doesn’t have the two Bishops and consequent dark-square grip, but then he does have a healthy pawn more than in that line!

Obviously I must acquire the SOS book, but meanwhile I wonder how Black should counter some of White’s other tries for advantage. In the 5 Nf3 e5 6 Be2 c6 7 0-0 Nh6 line, how for instance should he meet 8 d5 with standard queenside play -- is the right plan to swap off the dark-square Bishops, as in Rogozenko--Badea and McDonald--Pritchett? And what’s the best way to meet 7 d5!? (7 …c5 8 g4!?)?

The fifth-move alternatives look less critical, but still interesting. On 5 Nge2 I guess Black can transpose to a perfectly decent E89 Saemisch with 5 …e5 6 Be3 Ngf6 7 f3 0-0 8 Qd2 c6 or 8 d5 Nh5, but can he instead stay within Modern/Averbakh territory? -- 6 …Nh6 7 f3 f5 8 Qd2 Nf7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 ef gf 11 f4 looks +/=, but maybe 7 …f6 is possible, or else 6 …Ne7!? or 6 …c6!? -- ? Does Rogozenko have any thoughts here?

Keano raises a very interesting point about 5 f4 e5 6 fe de 7 d5 Ngf6! leading to a King’s Indian. The issue here seems to be that in terms of how Informator classification works it takes fewer moves for an E76 position to be reached than for the main(?) line of this Anti-Averbakh variation (8 Nf3 0-0 9 Bd3) to occur. Thus 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 Nf3 e5!? is E76 -- reaching, after 7 fe fe 8 d5 Nbd7 9 Bd3, a position that Informator would classify as A42 if it occurred via the 4 …Nd7 move order. The main-line position (or more accurately, one line of it) can be reached in at least three other ways via E76. Of these, two -- 5 f4 0-0 6 Nf3 Nbd7 7 Bd3 e5 8 fe fe 9 d5, and 5 f4 e5 6 fe fe 7 d5 Nbd7 8 Nf3 0-0 9 Bd3 – appear not to be recommendable, because of, respectively, 7 e5! and 6 de! de 7 Qd8. The third is 5 f4 0-0 6 Nf3 Na6 7 Bd3 e5!? (7 …Bg4!) 8 fe de 9 Bd3, whereon 9 …Nc5 (unmentioned on ChessPub, which gives only 9 …c6 10 0-0 cd 11 cd Ne8 12 Bg5! +/=) is the A42 line with 9 Bd3 Nc5. Indeed, 9 …Nc5 (10 Bc2 a5 or 10 …Nh5) seems to be one of Black’s main options here, but there are several others: 9 … c6 (10 0-0 h6 -- first played by Paulsen!), 9 …Nh5, 9 …Qe7, 9 …a5 (10 0-0 Nh5) and 9 …h6 (10 0-0 a5). Does Rogozenko endorse any of these over the others?

Finally, the same position has in fact also been reached via E70 (5 Bd3 Nbd7 6 f4 e5 7 fe de 8 d5 0-0 9 Nf3), and no doubt in other ways too. Fascinating subject, transposition!

There will be some fresh (and I'm sure very thorough) analysis on ...Kth6 stuff in the d4+c4 Modern in "Carpathian Warrior II."

old stuff Paris - the Kasparov game is well known of course but Qd2 is more to the point (I am not saying the Kasparov continuation is bad either).  You seem to be in some kind of denial here, use a bit of objectivity and pick a different line! We have just played a series of simple moves and you are in trouble - it is not a correspondence game, I was just trying to demonstate the dodginess of this line. My advice - check a comment earlier in the thread about the ...Nh6 stuff if you want to experiment, or else go back into KID. Your comments earlier that Black has various moves where he has "no problems" show that you have not investigated this system thoroughly yet.

Nice try! 15.Bd4 Qxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxd4 17.Rxd4 c5 

18.Rf4  Are you happy to play this position from the opening, let us assess - lots of weak pawns for Black, and a simple plan to improve the position for White (I keep my options open but in general Re1 and king to the centre). I've had a look, and you will be doing extremely well to hold it - in fact it may be technically won. So I would have to refuse your draw offer, if you want to resign thats another thing    Actually I'm surprised you chose to allow Bd4 as everything is simple now, but I suppose leaving your king in the centre is dangerous also. The whole line is extremely risky!

Just joking  Use Fritz if you like, I am playing human moves myself.

Now 15.Bd4 I continue to play simple moves as you see, seems the endgame is very nice for White, the middlegame probably even more so though.

I will castle and await 14.0-0-0 - no cheating with Fritz now 

13.Bxf5  I dont know what Fritz8 says and I can assure you I would not use a computer for picking my opening moves! I am going to play simple chess here and see where you are going to put your king    You can tell me if you are still happy after a few more moves, dont trust your books too much... especially when it comes to ropey lines like this all you have got really is an opinion at a particular point in time, nothing more.

parisestmagique wrote on 10/10/06 at 10:22:58:


I am a bit torn between promising continuations now - I like the simple line 11.Nxf5, but I think I will try something that could be even stronger - I will play 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Bd3.  Now I am curious how you will handle things

Ametanoitos wrote on 10/09/06 at 13:38:09:


Agreed about the difficulty to make reliability assesments due to lack of practical examples (especially at high level). The position after 5.f4 e5 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.d5 Nf6 seems like something that could come from  KID 4 pawns attack, but I am not a KID man so I could be wrong. In any case I suppose it is a question of taste which lines to allow with the move order here.

Keano wrote on 10/09/06 at 11:41:23:


5.f4 e5 6.fxe5 dxe5 7.d5 Nf6 is considered the best white can get from the 5.f4 move order but this is known not to give white an advantage. The problem with all these minor lines is the small number of practical games played and so is difficult to make safe conclusions but i like black's resourses (even if i prefer the benko over the KID/Modern!).  I'm more worried about the transositions to 1.e4 openings (pirc,modern systems) after 1..g6 or 1..d6

Wise words Ametanoitos, this whole ...exd4 does not feel like a Modern in any case 

I didnt know that the ....Nh6 idea had been revived, it is interesting indeed - although Blacks best may be to transpose back into a Nd7 KID earlier.

What about 4...Nd7 5.f4!? If Black doesnt fancy this maybe the best order is 4...e5 5.Nf3 Nd7 (I believe the endgame 5.dxe5 is not to be feared these days as I like Morozevichs treatement)

Ok 8.h4 h6

I will go 9.Qd2

Ok I'll take you on

8.h4! 

[quote]Oh, that's why 4..Nd7 is my preference. And then comes your question :"Where is white advantage in the modern ?". In his recent book Grivas gives a line proven by Rogozenko that is harmless for black. [/quote]

Interesting, Ametanoitos. Can you say more?

[quote author=parisestmagique link=1159792065/0#7 date=1160042628]After 5.Nf3 i play exd4 to stay in the Modern[/quote]

Does that mean that you develop your K Knight to -e7 or -h6? Otherwise you will be transposing to the KID and conceding a solid edge to White. This is probably still your best option though...

5.Nf3 exd4 is a good line for White - I would worry about this more than the ending which Morozevich has demonstrated is playable.

Forget this ending - 5.Nf3!

9..Nxd5 is almost losing after 10.Bg5+ f6 11.O-O-O+ as given by Tiger in his Modern's book. He also gives 8..Nc6 9.fxe5! h6 as the only adequate but this is suspicious to me....

7. c5 perhaps, intending Bc4 or if ...Be6 then Ktf3-g5. 7. f4 goes a bit against the grain, opening the a1-h8 diagonal.
Anyway, isn't the Modern covered in the "1. e4..." section ? It should be moved.

After the moves : 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.QxQ+ KxQ 7.f4 Be6 8.Nf3 Nd7 9.Be2 Ne7 10.00 h6 11.Be3 exf4 12.Bxf4 g5 i dont see a white plus, but all the books about the Modern defense are saying that this line is implayable for Black ...