thanks for the anwser.

Hi,

Did the palliser's book covers 1.e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 ?

Richard's Bg4xf3 idea in the Closed has been played many times on the White side of the English (more commonly against KID setups where White plays d3 instead of d4, but also where Black puts the pawn on f5 in one move).

I am not sure how helpful it is to think of the sicilian as a reverse English or vice versa. The structures are of course similar, but the objectives are fundamentally distinct - in the English white should be looking for an edge, in the Closed Sicilian Black should be looking to equalise. The extra move changes the character of the position (and the risks the position can sustain) quite dramatically.

If you start reasoning by analogy on anything beyond structural considerations you are likely to find yourself in trouble pretty fast.

I thought I might be able to add something to this discussion.

Richard does seem to be producing a lot of books these days, but then again he likes what he is doing and takes pride in the quality of his books, so it is wrong to judge the quality of his books by reference to the quantity he is producing.

Bottom line: this is a guy who could have gone on to become an academic and write tedious history articles that future Oxford undergrads would be forced to read, summarise and reluctantly critique (at Cambridge they would of course be discrediting rather than critiquing). Instead he has directed his academic interests toward chess literature, and I for one think we are considerably better off for it.

The anti-sicilian book is pretty damn good, as is his beating unusual openings effort (these are the only of Palliser's works which I have recently purchased - of his older works Play 1.d4 and Tango are both very good also).

I think that it is also important, when considering chess books, to view each work in the correct context. Some books are written from the heart with a lot of passion (Ward's first book on the Dragon, my own work on the Dragon, Wells' work on the Semi-Slav, Rowson's Grunfeld book are just a few that spring to mind) whereas other books are written to fill a hole in the market and are largely functional. Very few people are going to have several years' experience in particular anti-sicilian lines that they are just bursting to share, if only because it is not worth investing the same amount of preparation time in developing stunning novelties (the pay-off is just too low when there are several good routes to playable positions).

If the book is functional the task then becomes one of identifying which lines are strong/interesting, researching them thoroughly, explaining the concepts underlying such systems, checking for novelties and errors in the analysis, and finally presenting the information in an accessible and engaging fashion. Coming from the academic background that he does Richard is unusually good at this.

Another point, which I think is often overlooked, is that a strong player can produce something along the lines of a "Starting Out in the Najdorf" guide relatively quickly - if they are already familiar with the theory and the ideas, then actually this is a relatively short job (the hardest task is probably working out what you can legitimately leave out of the book so as to keep things simple!). That doesn't in any way diminish the quality of the book, nor does it undermine the larger projects that an author may be working on - it is simply a different product that must be judged on its own merits.

Anyway, that's my bit for this discussion.

Best,
Ed

I'm considering buying this book.  Against the open sicilian, I always play the Dragon.  Would I be able to use the lines in this book without having to worry about White move-ordering me into playing some sort of non-Dragon open sicilian?  Thanks.

Yep....indeed, unfortunately "prolific" is a bad, bad word when used to refer to a chess writer. However, having said that, I have three of Palliser's books and another book partly  written by him. 

So far, I must say I am not dissappointed. And he seems to get glowing reviews with all his books. How does he do it? I wonder sometimes. 

I think I read somewhere that Palliser is a university student? But i stand to be corrected. Perhaps this is proof that British universities aren't as tough anymore as they pretend to be  




Disclaimer: I am not British, but I am a commonwealth citizen and I did do my postgraduate education at a British university so I am allowed to poke fun  

bulgroz wrote on 09/20/07 at 14:04:45:


2 of them were the new Everyman CDs, containing the chessbase files of books previously published i.e. not written this year.  Beating Unconventional openings (a good book, btw) would have been written last year to be released so early this year.

So, as a full time working in chess publishing the output for 2007 is:

1 starting out guide (SO the Colle)
1 puzzle book
1 repertoire book (Fighting the Anti-Sicilians)

That certainly doesn't feel like a tremendous amount to me for a year's output.

Bear in mind that a strong player and theoreotician like Richard who has played the Sicilian for years will have a lot of analysis on Anti-Sicilian lines already.

For what it's worth, I also think Fighting the Anti-Sicilians is an excellent book - if you liked Richard's previous works that you have, and given the fact that everyone who has read it praises it - if you are interested in the subject material, you should give it a go. 

I have bought Palliser's Tango and Play 1.d4 books, and they are quite good.
But these ones have been produced at the beginning of Mr Palliser chess books writing career. 

Not when he releases 6 books a year.

Many thanks for your support MartinC!
The anti-Sicilians work was chiefly done March to mid-May with the puzzle book from mid-May to mid-July. Finding 1200 puzzles and providing full solutions was far from riveting and required far too many 70+ hour weeks.
Have to work hard in this chess publishing business...
Good point too MartinC - I might well have to trade in at some point for a better-paid and less stressful job! For now, though, I'm still enjoying it!
To blugroz I'll just say that I hate authors who place speed above quality - my books have never yet been sent off with my unhappy about a certain section or two. Quality is important.

Hi Alumbrado.
Glad to see i'm not the only one !
Well, Mr Palliser has released none less than 6 books in 2007, as a quick search in amazon.com will tell you. 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&field-keyw...

5 of them were opening books, 2 on the sicilian defence !

Am I the only one to think that ? 

This is my analysis of 4...Qd4!?.  The "!" reflects my enthusiasm for this line.  If my analysis is correct, this seems to be an excellent way to turn the tables on White in this surprise variation.

Grand Prix Attack - Hector Variation 4...Qd4! [B21]

1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5 Qd4!? 

This funny looking move temporarily prevents Bc4 and is also directly aimed against the weaknesses created by f4. 

[4...Nh6!? An interesting thing to note about the position is that this is a reversed Budapest with f4 thrown in.  4.Nh3 is a solid positional continuation against the Budapest, so I think that it is worth considering this as Black!]

5.Nc3
 
[5.d3 exd3 6.Bxd3 Compared to the Budapest version of this gambit, the addition of f4 seems to hurt White. 6...Nf6 7.c3 Qd5 8.0-0 Bg4 9.Qc2 c4]

5...Bf5 6.Nb5 

[6.g4?! Bc8 7.Ngxe4 Nf6 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.Qf3 Qh4+ 10.Qg3 Qxg4 11.Qxg4 Bxg4 12.Bg2 Nc6 13.Nb5 Kd7]

6...Qd7 7.Bc4 Nh6 8.h3 a6 

[8...f6!? 9.g4 Nxg4 10.Nf7 (10.hxg4 Bxg4 11.Be2 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 fxg5 13.fxg5 Nc6; 10.Bf7+ Kd8 11.hxg4 Bxg4 12.Qxg4 Qxg4 13.Ne6+ Kc8 14.Nxc5 Qg3+ 15.Kf1 Qxf4+ 16.Kg1 Qg5+) 10...Nh6 11.Nxh8 g6 This doesn't look as clear to me, though it might be very good. 12.h4 Bg7 13.h5 Bg4 14.Be2 gxh5 and Kf8, g8, xh8 is probably the most straightforward method.]

9.Nc3 b5 10.Bd5 

[10.g4 bxc4 11.gxf5 Qxf5]

10...Ra7 11.Bxe4 

[11.g4 e6 12.Bxe4 (12.Bb3 c4 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.gxf5 exf5) 12...Bxe4 13.Ncxe4 Qc6 14.d3 f5 15.Nf2 Nf7 16.Nf3 Bd6]

11...Bxe4 12.Ncxe4 e6 

I much prefer Black, since he seems to have a clearer long term plan for expansion in the center.  One sample continuation is 13.d3 Be7 14.Be3 Rc7 15.0-0 0-0 16.d4? Nf5.  If White delays the break, Black can play ...f5 and expand in the center.

For its scope (everything but 2.Nf3), Palliser's book is the most comprehensive I've seen.  I thought I remembered seeing 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 and an early g4, but maybe my memory is shaky.  (I'll have to check that one later when I get home.)  For 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3, I didn't see anything explicitly covered, although Palliser covered 1.e4 c5 2.f4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 I believe, which would transpose if Black played 3...d5.  Of course, there's probably little doubt that 3...dxe4 is most effective, when Black should probably veer from the complications of the queen sac line (4.Ng5 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4 6.Bxf7+ Kd7 8.Qxg4) if he wants something simple.  Isn't black perfectly fine if he plays the simple 5.Bc4 e6, letting White have the pawn and arguing that White is not ideally placed in the long term?

However, maybe Black should be careful to avoid the following disaster:   

[Event "Champagne-chT"]
[Site "Ardennes"]
[Date "2005.05.05"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Labroche,Jerome"]
[Black "Delmont,Jean Robert"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5 Nf6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc6 8.Ncxe4 Nd4 
9.Qd3 0-0 10.Nxf6+  1-0

And I found one somewhat high profile game.  (Well, I am not sure how strong these guys were at the time.)

[Event "Gausdal zt"]
[Site "Gausdal"]
[Date "1987.01.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Hector,Jonny"]
[Black "Yrjola,Jouni"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5 Nf6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 a6 7.a4 Nc6 8.Ngxe4 Nxe4 
9.Nxe4 Be7 10.d3 0-0 11.0-0 b6 12.Bd2 Bb7 13.Qh5 Nd4 14.c3 g6 15.Qg4 h5 16.Qd1 b5 
17.Ba2 Nf5 18.Qe2 Qd7 19.Rae1 bxa4 20.Ra1 Bd5 21.Be1 a3 22.bxa3 Rfd8 23.Bb1 Qc7 24.Nd2 Bd6 
25.Qf2 c4 26.d4 Rab8 27.Ne4 Be7 28.Ng5 Rb3 29.a4 Qb7 30.Bd2 Rb2 31.Rd1 Bf6 32.Nf3 Bxf3 
33.Qxf3 Qxf3 34.gxf3 Bxd4+ 35.cxd4 Nxd4 36.Be4 f5 37.Be3 Ne2+ 38.Kf1 Rxd1+ 39.Rxd1 fxe4 40.fxe4 c3 
41.Re1 Rb4 42.Kxe2 Rxe4 43.Rc1 Rxa4 44.Kd3 Kf7 45.Rxc3 Ra2 46.Rc7+ Ke8 47.Rc2 Ra4 48.Bd4 Ra5 
49.h4 Ra3+ 50.Ke4 Rh3 51.Ke5 Kd7 52.Bf2 a5 53.Rd2+ Kc6 54.Kxe6 Rh2 55.Rc2+ Kb5 56.Kd5 a4 
57.Rb2+ Ka6 58.Kc6 Rh1 59.Rb8  1-0

One shocking thing I found was that on the www.chesslive.de database, the position after 5.Bc4 is +18 =7 -1 in White's favor!!  (Of course, a major bias is that there are many correspondence games as White played by some player named Krol.)

So don't worry about preparing!  It's so rare and if you encounter it, you'll probably lose anyway and will be lucky to draw!   

I was just wondering, what does the book recommend against 2 a3, and does it dismiss it offhand, or should one be wary of it?

    James

Not including the Rossolimo, Moscow, 2 Nf3 d6 3 c3 and 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Qxd4 was not an easy nor a nice decision to make! In the end we decided to focus on non-2 Nf3 lines because:
i. A study of many club games revealed 2 Nc3 Anti-Sicilians to be more common than 2 Nf3 Anti-Sicilians.
ii. Many Sicilian players (but by no means all!) appear better prepared for 2 Nf3 antis than for non-2 Nf3 ones.
iii. Some recent repertoire books only start from 2 Nf3.
iv. And especially because I wanted to cover 2 c3 and 2 Nc3 from the point of view of ...e6, ...d6 and ...Nc6 Sicilian players. Only covering 2 Nc3 Nc6 would not have pleased the Kan player!

I picked this book up last night after looking at it for an hour in the store.  It looks like it's high quality, my only initial negative comment is one that Palliser has already pointed out: it doesn't deal with 2.Nf3.  That means no Rossilimo, no Moscow, no pure KIA, etc.  

As a big personal positive, this book more closely follows my personal repertoire than Rogozenko's (and Gallagher's) book did.  What that means for everyone else is that you'll get some analysis of different lines here: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bb5 Nge7, 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5, and the Closed Sicilian with ...Nf6 (instead of ...Nge7).  

My first impression is that it's an excellent book.

You're probably right. I play more games on ICC and have thus more statistics. Also, I play different openings OTB and on ICC. The OTB dutch, alekhine and 1.c4/g3 are already somewhat offbeat.

It is surprising to hear that Nf3/Bb5 is not included. Of course, there is the recent Bb5 book which has many suggestions for black. After seeing "Bashing The Sicilian" and reading the Bb5 parts of Kaufman's "Chess Advantage" I was optimistic for white's chances. After reading (parts of) Palliser's Bb5 book, I now feel that these positions offer white very little.

Now there will not be much on Nf3 lines, meaning that this probably will complement the Safest and Sharpest Sicilians books from Chess Stars well.

It's a rather interesting phenomenon at ICC. When I drop in rating (and thus play lower rated players) I meet main lines much less. It's anti sic and d-pawn specials all the time. When having a high rating I mostly meet main lines.

No Rossolimo or Moscow?  That's too bad.  Most Open Sicilian books don't cover the Rossolimo or Moscow either, so most people expect to buy one open Sicilian book and one anti Sicilian book to cover their repertoire.  I play 2...e6, though, so these lines aren't a problem for me .

Alumbrado - many thanks for correcting this thread's title!
Slates - I guess it'll be out over here in 3-4 weeks as it's got to cross the Atlantic after publication, but depending on the printers and distribution it might be somewhat quicker than that. Comparing it with P1d4, it must be said that the format's better! In short the book only covers all those annoying non-2 Nf3 systems, although clearly there are some transpositions and crossovers: i.e. 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 gets a mention, but there's no Rossolimo or Moscow coverage.

Is the book already out? Everyman mentions it is only coming soon.

Alas this is not true anymore. There are several variations, in which the typical setup Qe2, Bf4, Rfd1, Rac1 is insufficient: the Dragon, the 6...a6 variation, all the ...Nge7 variations, the early queenside expansion.
I am not rated higher. Still it is my impression that studying the Morra Gambit takes more time these days than most Open Sicilians (eg a repertoire based on 6.g3 or 6.Be2).

I was just wondering if there's any update on when this book will be out in the UK, firstly, and secondly I'm not sure that Richard answered the earlier question over whether or not the book will also cover lines where Black starts with 2...e6, as I do.   

If anyone owns a copy (I notice that Amazon in the USA have it showing in stock) I'd like to hear their thoughts on it.

I own Play 1d4! by Mr Palliser and like the way that book was written, so would hope that this new effort would be as thorough and well researched, to appeal to as many of us Sicilian players as possible....

Thanks

asmund wrote on 07/08/07 at 22:14:13:


Yes, come on, we all know Gary's name has a double L  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/football_meet_the_football...

Of course. 1.c4 e5 (c5) 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 and 6.e4.
There is 6.Bg5 in the Panov Caro-Kann.
There is 7.Bd3 in the Orthodox QGD.
Botvinnik also popularized the Dutch Stonewall.

If you are lazy, play 2...Nf6 against the 2.c3 Sicilian and 3...Nf6 against the Morragambit.
Else begin studying the 6...a6 variation (without ...e6). If you don't like it, then the ...Nge7 variation (without ...d6).

Can this thread title not be corrected?

Good point, Willempie. IMO Morra positions can become quite complex (or even sharp should Black wish), but crucially there's always that extra pawn in the bank...

I often find it rather difficult to disagree with MNb.

[quote author=Uberdeker link=1180038915/15#18 date=1181319330]True, this is indeed the only point of playing the Morra rather than the Alapin move-order. I think this one of MNb's favorite subjects, so you can expect him to merrily chime in. My only contibution is this : Black has an independant attempt in 4. ...Ktf6.  [/quote]

As I don't want to disappoint Uberdeker, here I go.
Even 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 is not as bad for Black, as theory wants it. Still, the possibility of playing an early Nc3 gives White a few extra options. Turning them into something concrete is another matter. Eg 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 Qd6 (not Qd8 8.Bc4 Nf6, which is the Steinitz Variation of the QGA; the early ...cxd4 is thought to benefit White) 8.Bc4 and it is not sure, if White has an advantage or how big.
The independent 4...Nf6 is inferior because of the typical reply 5.Bb5+.

Another line, where the Morra move order might benefit White compared to the Lasker-Alapin (2.c3) is 2...d6. After 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bd3 (or 4.f3) White has made a concession. Or has he? After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d6 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 White can consider developing his bishop to c4, but has to watch out for ...Nxe4 tricks, eg g6 6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Bc4 0-0 8.0-0 Nxe4!. So White should play 8.Bb3 instead.

The trouble with the Wing's Gambit (I have tried it a few times) is, that it does not provide a lead in development like the Morra Gambit and does not really deflect a centre pawn. The extra pawn on b4 can be a nuisance and as a consequence Black has no trouble playing ...d5. Not surprisingly this is the main antidote. I have tried to revive 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.d4, but after d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 (Nf6 is not bad either) White's central superiority is only minimal. In another thread someone (I am forgotten who and don't feel like finding out) gave 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.axb4 Nxd5 6.d4 e5! 7.c3 exd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Bb5 Rossetto-Sanguinetti, Sao Paulo 1957, Be7! This nicely illustrates White's problem: Black is the one, who is speeding up development.
So I disagree with Mednis and Hoppers here. White's strategy to give up a pawn for centre dominance simply fails.

If White insists on forming a gambit repertoire against the Sicilian, (s)he can consider the Bb5 variations. A few examples are (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3)
2...Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.c3 Nf6 6.d4
2...Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.b4
2...d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0-0 Nc6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d4

and after 2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 the Morra Gambit 4.c3 is a relatively stronger because of Black's second move. The Wing's Gambit Delayed 3.b4 cxb4 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bd3 d5 has a bad reputation.

My experience though, is that keeping up with the theoretical developments in such gambits and trying to find new ideas to keep them alive, takes so much time, that playing interesting less topical variations of the Open Siclian is easier. Playing through a dozen of GM-games will give you an idea what to do and takes less effort. This is one of the few points, I wholeheartedly agree upon with Willempie. Heck, White has much more choice after 2.Nf3 and 3.d4.
To save time picking up the Morra or the Wing's Gambit was a good idea 25 years ago, but not anymore in Silicon Age. White will quickly and often get outprepared.

Having just looked back at my edition of Gallagher, I was reminded that the Wing Gambit will be covered too, where apparently Nigel Davies has come up with some interesting new ideas in his 'Gambiteer book'.

Which is the inferior line?  Having looked at Gallagher and Rogozenkos' analysis, it would seem that the Wing Gambit has the worse reputation, but to me this doesn't make 'chess sense'.  Sacrificing a wing pawn, to me at least, seems a lesser evil than saccing a centre pawn.

Any other anti sicilian gambits?  I once faced the 'Halasz Attack' after 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 f4, but 3...d5! is a simple and good antidote.

Yeah, playing 2. d4 cd 3. c3 d5 isn't considered a fully-fledged way of declining, since after 4. ed Qxd5 5. cd White can soon play Nc3 (Black generally doesn't allow that so readily after 2. c3 d5) ...  

I was glad to see that Peter Wells (successfully) played the 6...a6 line (my favourite) recently in the 4NCL (Brit league).  My impression is that it isn't played very frequently by GMs when they are faced with the gambit.  I've been surprised to see several GMs decline the gambit by 3...d3, which seems to give White good chances for an edge (and thus, I would think, swings the objective evaluation of the position from =+ to += in one move).  Presumably the GMs who play that way want to avoid the possible dangers (or drawishness, in the case of declining by 3...Nf6) of main lines, and figure that 3...d3 still gives them plenty of scope to outplay their generally significantly lower-rated opponents.    

Of course you can join in MNB, you can bring far more to the table than I can!

I agree that I would like to see ...a6 and ...d6.  There seemed nothing wrong with the line when Gallagher wrote about it, so I presume it just needs updating.  I seem to recall that 7 b4 was one not so ludicrous looking idea that needed dealing with and I remember 'Pantu' once having a game in York with 7 Bg5, although the resulting Rauzer positions a pawn up looked pretty non- threatening for black.  White had an open c-file and a tempo or so, but black is well used to having play on that avenue too in mainline sicilians, so I aren't sure that a pawn deficit really helps white!

Obviously, these are just words and need to be backed up by moves though!   

Interesting to see that game TopNotch, I seem to recall seeing that in a Motwani book and thinking it was good, but I guess time and tide wait for no man!

Oh, for exams to finish and to have the time to get a set out...

Hoppers wrote on 06/06/07 at 16:06:25:


Yes Rogozenko dodging the Morra was a real cop out, not to mention that his suggested bail out, namely the Alapin, he now considers as promising for White.   

Honestly, is the Morra so dangerous or was Rogo saving space?

These would be my recommendations  had I written the book: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6! [an important move] 7.0-0 Nf6 Incidentally this seems to be variation of choice among most of the top British players.

Alternatively I also like the way GM M. Chandler handled the gambit in the following game: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6 5.Nf3 Bc5 The black bishop is quite active here, and in essence says to White I have an extra pawn and the initiative, which is not a very good ad for a gambit by any means 6.Bc4 d6! this discourages e5 and prepares to meet Bf4 with e5. I much prefer 6...d6 to the more common 6...Ne7. The Chandler game concluded:

[Site Walsall]
[Date 1992.]
[White Down,Nick ]
[Black Chandler,Murray]
[Result 0-1]
[ECO B21]
[Round 1]

7. O-O a6 8. a3 Ne7 9. b4 Ba7 10. Qe2 O-O 11. Bf4 Ng6 12. Bg3 Nc6 13. Rfd1 e5 14. Qd2 Bg4 15. Qxd6 Bxf3 16. gxf3 Qg5 17. Qd2 Qxd2 18. Rxd2 Nd4 19. Kg2 Rac8 0-1

Cheers

Toppy

Looks interesting, I will give it a try next time I face him

Since a player in my local club always plays the Morra I am a but curios what system you recommend against it?

Is it meant to be exhaustive? That is to say, does it cover all the odd-ball (but not pointless) early sidelines such as 2. Kta3 , 2. a4 and 2. a3 (2. Kth3 would be taking the attempt at completeness a bit too far maybe) ?

I'm also very interested in this new Book of Palliser. 

His books: Starting Out: Najdorf and closed Sicilian, and Beating unusual chess openings are one of the best written books about openings I have ever seen.

I have a question about the contents. Is this written for a Najdorf player of for all Sicilian players, like the anti-Sicilian book of Rogozenko? 

I liked the tree-formation of Beating unusual chess openings, is this also the case in his new book, or is it explained with annoted games (Please Palliser don't do that) ?

I too am interested in this...and I didn't see anything on Amazon (they usually have estimated publishing dates).

I loved Gallagher's Anti-Sicilian tome and would enjoy a more up-to-date book. If the quality is similar to "Starting Out: Najdorf", then it's a no brainer.