[Sadly my handling of english language is not good enough to describe this book adaequatly as it would be necessary to use many scientific and philosophical terms very precisely. And only in German Iīm able to do that. Hopefully you understand something of the following.]
I should start with some citing out of the "forword" (An Amazing Life):
"[...]In the first place, I decided to write simply. This does not mean primitively, nor does it mean spelling out the obvious. On the contrary, I think the mistake made by almost all first-time authors is that they think their reader is more stupid than themselves, and consequently, they subconsciously strive to explain every detail and spoon-feed the reader. There is no need to do this. The reader is as much a participant in the book as is the author. There is no need to do his job for him.
Secondly, the material is all jumbled up. It may even seem that, instead of writing an opening monograph, I have written an 'anti-monograph'. But this is definitely not so. That was not my aim. But mixing the material up was essential, purely to protect the reader. By itself, the move b2-b3 already looks like an extract from some medical notes, and there is no point in making things worse.[...]" -
Physically and in terms of layout etc.he book is produced very well (nobody would expect anything different from NewinChess).
It doesnīt deal with all variations of the Nimzo-Larsen as Jacobs/Tait did, for example you wonīt find important subvariations like 1...e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.Nf3 (VanGeet) or 1...e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.c4 (Gretarsson). You can find many omitted subvariations.
Itīs written from the white side for a potential or actual 1.b3 player, but it doesnīt offer concretely a complete white repertoire. Some very rare (and harmless) black possibilities are simply neglected as Odessky concentrates on the 5-8 most important black responses (~pawnstructures). More to the point, Odessky only tries to outline a possible white repertoire displaying his own problems as an experienced 1.b3 player, but he isnīt sure if he can succeed. Thatīs one of the reasons why he touches the main structures again and again (see contents above).
Typically each chapter starts at some point (tabiya) and than Odessky suggests several possible white continuations. First he shows ideas for white and often presents some (blitz)games where black is crashed after some natural moves. But then follows deep and original analysis and Odessky shows that Black could defend much better! In fact Black is better in (almost) all variations or at least comfortably equal if he knows how to counter whiteīs idea. And this way on and on with fascinating games, very offbeat subvariations, wonderful analysis, unforeseen resources and historical flashbacks. Odessky recalls his own experience with 1.b3 but only a small part of the games and fragments are his own ones, obviously he checked all important sources [for sure someone will disagree on this]. Finally each chapter ends either without solution (everything at least fine for black) and the problem is stored for one of the later chapters. Or Odessky succeeds in saving at least one possible white move and ends saying something like [my words]:"I donīt know if move xyz is good against this black setup. At least xyz is the only try as all other white moves are worse. After deep analysis on xyz the position is still unclear . Iīm not sure if black can equalize at all but on the other hand white may be already slightly worse. You simply have to put faith in this move. Go, play it at the board!"
Itīs not a positive examination of sources but some kind of negative and narrative logic a la Hegel (thesis+antithesis->synthesis).
In my opinion itīs wonderful but it wouldnīt surprise me if many chessfriends (especially english/american-cultured people educated in the tradition of ~Locke/Hume/Wittgenstein etc.) absolutely dislike the book, claiming that science results from empirism and analysis but nothing else. Well maybe Iīm exaggerating here a little bit but surely a liking for continental philosophy is helpful for understanding this unique opening book (or the other way round!?)
As a frequent 1.b3 player Iīm sad that the book offers no solutions for all of my own repertoire problems. Instead I should be glad as most of Odesskyīs problems are nearly the same as mine!
On a very subjective basis I recommend this book as must-buy for any nimzo-Larsen player and reward
9 stars (out of 10)! tracke
Pages: 
Play 1.b3! by Ilya Odessky (Read 80859 times)
