Not particularly. Part 1, chapter 1: 2...Nc6 3.Bc4 exf4 4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb3 etc:
between brackets 11...Be6 etc. 16.Kxe1 Rxh3 they seem to state, that Black is better. I would prefer White after 17.Nxd5 0-0-0 18.c3.

Infamous is their oversight in the Pierce Gambit (part 1, chapter 4) 7.0-0 Nxd4 8.Bxf4 Bc5! - E/G only give 8...Qf6. Less infamous is 7.Qxf3 Nd4 8.Bxf7+ 9.Qh5+ Kg7 and now missing 10.Qg4 draw.

These notes are far before introducing silicon power.

There are quite a few more examples. It is only fair though to mention, E/G have contributed some fine analysis asRe: King's gambit - Estrin and Glazkov book

MNb wrote on 03/31/07 at 20:19:31:


That is the problem. I have a lot of problems with b5 in the QGA (slav or catalan): I don't feel easy in these situations perhaps because the c-file in the QG is not so dangerous as the f-file in the KG. Playing the KG in blitz, I do not have so many problems with a black pawn on g5. And that is one of the reasons why I am now thinking of playing e4.

KG theory didnt change too much over the years. Too few players at top level play it & only very occasionally on top of that, so its not one of those highly popular ones where theory changes by the year or every few months unlike Sicilians, Lopezs, KIDs and the like.

Probably the best out there currently & fairly recent theorywise are TJs 2 KG books. Gallagher's 'winning with the KG' is also very good, just that my biggest grouse is that he recommends the mainline in the Fischer defense (6.Ng1). I didnt take up the KG to end up with that position definitely! Raingruber's book might also be worth a peek. Estrin & Glaskov's work is quite good actually. Definitely worth keeping & referring to from time to time even tho a bit dated.