Golubev!

his book (Gallagher's too, of course) makes the KID look almost playable. Viktor is obviously very strong, but the section should inspire KID players, not dishearten them! also the whole thing with teyko was very suspect imo.

Stellwagen would in fact be the next possibility I would think of after Golubev.  (And Stellwagen is over 100 points higher rated than Golubev, for whatever that's worth.)

Quote:

Maybe, but who? Joe would be ideal but he is too busy playing poker. I've asked Mark Hebden but he doesn't like writing! What are the other possibilities?
Ideally it would be a strong player and good writer who plays the KID, and who wouldn't be too expensive!
All suggestions welcome!

Without wishing to get into the analysis debate as to good and bad and hindsight often gives the best view on this , Tony you have had several of the sections change authors- isn't it about time for a change for this section . It would be a bit difficult to get Radjabov but there must be someone else who plays this as Black .

Sometimes i think the best sections are where we have several authors- I don't mind Mickhalevski for white but maybe bring someone else on board. Pity Dr. Nunn has retired he would be ideal.

Yes, it has been an issue for some time.

It seems likely that he bulk of those who subscribe to a section will be advocates of that variation. Ardent dragoneers/dragonists/dragoners keen to read about their pet, similarly with KID. Not fun to have a monthly rain on the KID parade. From a business/Tony point of view, may also simply discourage subscribers. Best to just get the Chessbase dvd by khasimzh if you want motivation and advocacy.

Gallagher did plainly state this in his text and it is impossible to disagree with his assertion. Seems entirely reasonable to have people write about systems they are familar with and practice.

A pity that more interesting stuff sometimes happens here  in the forum rather than in the actual posting. (Same with Andy Martin's stuff too - very cursory but that is another issue). 

It has been obvious to me for some time now that Mikhalevski's updates and analysis are always heavily biased towards White, this observation is not mine alone and was even alluded to in Joe Gallagher's recent repertoire book on the KID. I suppose such biases are hard to avoid when one supports one side or the other of a given opening.

Regarding 10.c5, it is interesting that many KID experts are now choosing to avoid this position which would seem to indicate that black has some difficulties here. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the pendulum swings the other way, and maybe 13...cxd6 is a step in the right direction.

Toppy

This is some old analysis that I thought about after the debates about plagarism. So there is no confusion. I (Tommy J. Curry) am posting a move to equalize after 10.c5, that was not mentioned, or referenced in Mikhalevski's notes. 

After looking at Marzolo and Motylev, it is interesting that this game follows the old analysis posted on the forum. The correct move after 13. cxd6 is not Nc5 as I originally thought. (Notice how Mikhalevski's notation follows my previous forum analysis), the correct move is 13...cxd6. I was worried that white gets free tempos with this move, but contrary to Mikhalevski, 13...cxd6 is the only way to equalize.