I think you are right. Following your recommendation, 32.Bf4+ Kc6 33.Ng5 b1Q 34.Rxb1 Bxb1 35.Nxf7 Rh5


This position is really tricky for both sides.

In my opinion, it is better to play 28.Re1! with the plan to eliminate the strong bishop!
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.exf6 Bb7 12.g3 c5 13.d5 Qb6 14.Bg2 O-O-O 15.O-O b4 16.Rb1 Qa6 17.dxe6 Bxg2 18.e7 Bb7? 19.exd8=Q+ Kxd8 20.Ne2 Bf3 21.Qc2! Ne5 22.h4 c3 23.Rbd1+ Kc8 24.Rde1 Qe6 25.Nf4 Ba8 26.Re3 Nf3+ 27.Rxf3 Qc6 28.Re1 Qxf3 29.Re8+ Kc7 30.Rxa8 Qxa8 31.bxc3



A: 31...c4 32.cxb4 Qc6 33.Qf5 c3 34.Nd5+ Kb7 35.Ne7 Bxe7 36.fxe7 c2 37.Qxf7 Re8 (37...c1=Q+ 38.Bxc1 Qxc1+ 39.Kh2 Qc7 40.e8=Q +-) 38.Kh2 Qd7 39.Qf3+ Qc6 40.Qe3 a6 41.a3 winning

B: 31...a5 32.cxb4 axb4 33.Qc4 +-

So, a better try maybe is 25...Bb7. Here we have the same idea as white: 26.Re3 Nf3+ 27.Rxf3 Qc6 28.Rd1 Qxf3 29.Qf5+ Kb8 30.Rd8+ Kc7 31.Rd7 Kb6 32.Rxb7 Qxb7 33.bxc3 bxc3 34.Nd5+ Kb5 35.Qd3+ Kc6 36.Ne7+ Bxe7 37.fxe7, with again the same kind of play as in the previous variations. The strong e7-pawn, covered by the bishop, is really annoying for black.

Funny enough, Richard Palliser in NIC Yearbook 89 also noticed the Kirpikov - Yarkov corr-game. He claims white is winning, although he does not mention any improvements for black on move 21.
But it seems 18...Bb7 is really busted now.

Haven't had a reply for a month now.. 
Everyone agrees White is winning in the 16.Rb1 Qa6 17.dxe6 Bxg2 18.e7 Bb7-line?

Now time has been in favour for David Vigorito!

First he was a bit unlucky with the developments in the Anti-Moscow-line (12.Nf7!?) but now the stars of the book are shining in the recent update of GM Sherbakov: Mikhalevski - Karim is just following Vigoritos main suggestion against 16.Rb1 in the Botvinnik.

I have received Vigorito Semi-Slav for a week now. Here are my initial impressions.

I waited for this book with some anticipation, as I play these lines on both sides. However, I was also slightly wary as I felt that Vigorito’s earlier 4. Qc2 nimzo book was underwhelming, it was merely a summary (albeit well-researched) of existing Nimzo theory at that time (one could possibly cobble together his entire book with annotations from NIC, Megabase and Chesspub). Although it was a conscientious effort, I felt it added nothing special to theory.

Vigorito’s Semi-Slav is a more creative effort, partly because of the nature of the opening (the Semi-Slav contains more unchartered territory than the 4. Qc2 nimzo). It is a somewhat unusual Black repertoire book in that Vigorito extensively covers many Black alternative tries which he then dismisses and explains why, especially in the Botvinnik chapter. I have not seen a repertoire book doing this to such great extent. White players will therefore find this book helpful.

Vigorito’s recommendations are generally on the solid side, with Black trying to equalize first (by going for well-traversed lines leading to piece exchanges), before playing for the win: see especially his 7… Bb4 against the Shabalov-Shirov, 6… Bf5 against Slav Exchange, and his Slow Slav 4. e3 Bf5 lines. In this aspect, Vigorito's Semi-Slav reminds me of Ziegler's French Repertoire Chessbase DVD.

Somewhat unfortunately, I walk away from the book with the feeling that Vigorito is a greater connoisseur of the Botvinnik than the Moscow. This is unfortunate, as the latter is probably the sounder try!
I also don’t agree with a few of Vigorito’s evaluations (for example, I believe Black is no worse in Dominguez’ “Cuban variation” 12… Qc7 than the Botvinnik main lines). But on the whole, Vigorito’s analysis is accurate and very objective.

So, surely a book worth picking up, and one of the better opening books i've seen.

I received my copy of this book from Amazon last evening, and had an hour or two to go through it.  To me it seems like an excellent work, full of deep analysis and insight.  It is well up to the Quality Chess standard, which is quite high.  I would compare Quality Chess to Chess Stars for depth and technical rigor.

Just looking at a few of the lines with which I am familiar because I play them from the white side (and this includes some of the deep lines of the Botvinnik), the ultimate evaluations seem to be entirely honest.  Where Black has problems, Vigorito is frank about it.  This doesn't surprise me, since his work on the Nimzo was marked by the same. 

I was impressed by the book's extensive treatment of the Exchange Slav, which I have played with fair success in correspondence chess.  It was quite refreshing, given the dismissiveness of many other recent Slav works toward this system, to see it taken so seriously here.  The book confirms my view that the Milov variation (Qb3 instead of Qa4 in the main line) may well be the most dangerous for Black; and also that Exchange Slav, while perhaps not the ultimate theoretical test of the Slav, is fighting system and one that White can play with reasonable hope of taking the full point.

It appears that theory has advanced in the brief time since this book went to press, but that hardly is a criticism.  Since when, in such volatile systems as the Botvinnik and Anti-Moscow, did owning a book absolve anyone from having to stay up with theory?

I respect Fernando Semprun's opinions and I would encourge him to continue to post here in vigorous criticism of anything in recently released chess books that he doesn't like -- or does like, for that matter.  But I would certainly encourage anyone who has an interest in this defense or in the white side of 1.d4 to get ahold of this book.

Inn2 in the game that you quoted if you read Fluffy's book you'll see that Black made a mistake ! The remedy and main line is all contained there ! So buy the book- it's great and excellent value!

Just a question for Fluffy on one omission - just read a very nice game played by Grivas  v Braun at Wijk aan Zee this year with 4 nbd2 - does he have a recommendation/suggestion !?

(IV-I plagal cadence in the background): AMEN.

Fernando Semprun wrote on 04/04/08 at 11:22:34:


No, no-one of that name here: I don't know the name either.

Fernando Semprun wrote on 04/04/08 at 11:22:34:


Good God. I'm sure I ought to remember that, but at the moment, I don't! Thankyou for talking to me anyway and if you come this year I'll try and talk again! Yes, I live in Aragón - in Huesca.