Markovich wrote on 05/09/08 at 01:46:10:


They hardly cover the same lines? This sounds a bit strange, given that the authors are the same. Does it mean both books are independently useful? Or that most of the lines in the german edition are now irrelevant theoretically?

The German edition has en "encyclopedic" feel although it omits some early alternatives.

Antillian wrote on 05/08/08 at 13:25:49:


I have both books and that is only a slight exaggeration.  The English version is substantially new.

I bought the earlier german edition of Raetsky and Chetverik's Catalan book (Kania, 2001). I don't suppose anybody knows how much has changed in the english edition? Should I give in and buy it too, even if my interest in the opening is primarily on the black side?

As for the general problem discussed here (love the Nimzo but hate 3.Nf3, 3.g3) I just don't see it. The Nimzo gives Black lots of options to play sharply or solidly, and to match your Nimzo tastes you can choose from:

Benoni, Blumenfeld, Semi-Slav (Botvinnik or Moscow), Vienna, Ragozin, Cambridge Springs, Tarrasch Defence, Black Knights' Tango, Bogo-Indian, Queen's Indian, Queen's Gambit Declined... a whole spectre of options to suit any imaginable taste. And don't tell me all these defences are ever theoretically unplayable all at the same time.

3.g3 can be annoying, but Black has several ways to offer interesting, unbalanced play, for instance 3...c5 with various Benoni transpositions; the Catalan accepted with 5...Nc6!? as discussed by both Raetsky/Chetverik and Palliser in his Tango book; Catalan lines with ...Bb4+ provoking White to misplace his bishop slightly on d2, as advocated by Kaufman. Sure, Kramnik, Gelfand et al. have answers ready to all of these, but on ordinary mortal level just learn a line and play good chess.

Raetsky and Chetverik's work on the Catalan was supposed to be quite good according to Flear; if you are having difficulties against the Catalan, this may well be the book to consult. Also, it's only four years old, so their suggestions would still hold up today, at least at lower echelons.

"Black has nothing in the Catalan ...I have some experience with the Bogo but it's too passive ..."


I stand (or sit) in awe of such explications.

If you pair the Nimzo with the Modern Benoni you need only 2 openings because the latter option is "on" after both 3. Nf3 and 3. g3 and indeed also after 3. a3.

By the way why do you hate the Catalan. I find it no more evil than most other 1. d4 openings. Many people seems to have psycological aversions against the Catalan.

On the other hand : the Nimzo leads to a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide variety of types of position, so in a way it is like learning a lot of openings.

But I wonder whether is really possible to stake out you little backgarden in the realm of opening theory. I remember a letter from Ian Rogers in the NIC forum where he says that he should have known about a certain position in a Grunfeld because it had been discussed in the previous yearbook ... in the section for the 2.c3 Sicilian !