My database has this effort by Komljenovic:

Komljenovic-Agopov, Villa de Benasque 19th op, 1999
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. g3 Bb7 12. Bg2 Qb6 13. exf6 c5 14. d5 O-O-O 15. O-O b4 16. Rb1 Qa6 17. Re1 Nb6 18. Qg4 Nxd5 19. Nxd5 Bxd5 20. Bxd5 Rxd5 21. a3 Rd4 22. Re4 Qc6 23. Rxd4 cxd4 24. axb4 Bxb4 25. Qxd4 Bc5 26. Qf4 Rd8 27. Qg4 Kb7 28. Qh5 Rd7 29. Rd1 Bd4 30. Qe2 e5 31. h4 Rd5 32. Rc1 Rc5 33. Be3 Kb6 34. h5 Bxe3 35. Qxe3 Kb5 36. Ra1 a5 37. Qa3 Kb6 38. b4 Rb5 39. bxa5+ Ka6 40. Qc3 Rc5 41. Rb1 Rxa5 42. h6 Rb5 43. Ra1+ Kb6 44. Qa3 1-0

Ok. I believe that before getting involved in a piece of analysis I have no chance of remembering (bad enough with the grunfeld) I would need some answers for the main line. (16.Na4) 16.Rb1, as I remember, was a draw and now there is Yermolinsky's 19.Qd5 to worry about ---> your words

Surely you remember / can read/ your own comments on page 89/90

"The main variations of 16.Na4 are very dangerous....White has several dangerous moves...The simple 21.Nc5 probably gives white an objective advantage"

May be Watson with his 'Play the French exchange and win (with black, of course)' all variations ending with slight to black   and Ward's enthus coverage of the Dragon are far to one-sided, but the final comments..

"The main line 16.Na4 is a threat to the viability of the Botvinnik variation" hmmm... (page 94)

As for your other remarks, I may have declined in OTB strength, but have still sufficient brain cells that to note the top players are using the Moscow, not the botvinnik.

I could agree is all my fault of not understanding the defence - Edwards Dearing work on the Grunfeld was excellent in my view since it was just a nice uptodate analysis of almost all my knowledge there with my manual updates in Chessbase all placed together in a nice book, and here I just lack the knowledge. But I did understand better Wells book, and that of Sadler...

The intention being to present a repertoire book, I would have preferred a more profound analysis of the endings of game 1 - they look to me as slightly better for white since black is still catching up in development... although I can perfectly well see why at some 26xx level they present no difficult task for black...

To Justin Horton: Benasque games don't get published policy of the organiser after 2000. Before nice Bulletins were published...

Yes, but only by transposition. I don't think 17...Bd6 is mentioned.

Fernando Semprun wrote on 03/31/08 at 19:25:44:
I had high hopes on the book but I believe that:

1) On the main line, nothing new of interest to black has been added
2) Some plausible lines are not mentioned (11...Qa5) or the newish 12...Qc7 just dismissed (perhaps rightly so; but then, what's this book: Play the Semi-slav and loose?)
3) The proposed alternative, the Moscow variation leaves me wandering (is this really better than the Slav?) AND white get's to choose: boring Moscow or trendy Anti Moscow gambit (loads of work again).

SO perhaps it is Cambridge Springs and Meran (This is more fun AND black has a choice of lines). But then, Vera's book plus the Cambridge Springs book (not that they are really enthus about it) would have done!

4) On the 16.Rb1 line, the dangerous 17.Re1 is unmentioned. I watched Komljenovic destroy black en-route to winning Benasque open.

------------------

Sorry Fernando, I'm with Fluffy on this one:

1) not sure we are reading the same book. Looks like there are plenty of new ideas to me, and in any case the book is useful as a thorough and comprehensive survey of an opening that is incredibly difficult to get a handle on. Even without any new analysis this would be a useful reference work (for me anyway!);

2) no point covering these lines - they pick up the occasional point but they are widely considered to be inferior for black (although granted they remain tricky - especially 12...Qc7!? - for the unprepared);

3) the Semi-Slav is just a different opening, but on balance it probably does offer better winning chances than the Slav proper, if only because it keeps the tension for longer. The Moscow Gambit became popular when White was struggling to prove anything in the Moscow mainlines. The Gambit system is totally unclear, but White has to take some serious risks to generate play, which sounds like a good reason to be on the black side of it (I play Moscow and Anti-Moscow Gambit with both colours, and I like being on either side of the board - the better player tends to prevail).

4) 17.Re1 is a surprising omission, but then again 17..bxc3 is known to be fine for black. After 18.dxe6 Bxg2 we transpose to one of the mainlines which is in fact covered on page 66 of the book. A useful transposition to be aware of, but in fact the line is well-covered all the same.

Hope that helps.

All the best,
Eddie

fluffy wrote on 03/31/08 at 21:09:37:

Yeah, Benasque games don't seem to make it into databases. I'm not sure why.

I believe New in Chess is cheaper than TWIC. I usually buy from them because my local store in Madrid might take ages to receive the books (why, I wonder), even though no shipping plus 10% discount!

NIC is cheaper re shipping costs, of course

Quote:


there is no need to dwell on lines like this. Black should play 4...dxc4, as any old book will say. forgive me for not covering something that has been covered many times before and is not the least bit critical. get the book for coverage of the Semi-Slav (and Slav!), not for 4.Bg5?!

Amazon now shipping.  I got my copy a few days ago.  I haven't been able to put much time into yet, but so far it looks impressive.  I looked at a couple of lines I play (as White!) and the coverage seems thorough and generally spot on.  

One thing that stands out for me is that the book pays attention to the prior literature and let's you know what is still holding up and what isn't.  This is much appreciated for someone like me who hasn't kept up with all of the lines.  It's also an honest book.  Vigorito tells you straight up when a line is difficult for Black or in trouble, and doesn't try to sugar coat it.  

This is a big book on a big opening.  There's plenty here that you won't find in your database, including relevant corresp. games, original analysis and suggestions.  The author even goes to the trouble of showing why Sadler's Kc7 in the Na4 Botvinnik never caught on.  (Although he could have saved himself some work, as there is a little known game from an internet simul where Shirov smashed this idea.)    

Anyway, just some first impressions . . .

Lee Roth