I dare say that the listing of the accomplishments of the authors hints a little at the quality of the book. Not to say that you need 2.600 ELO to write a chess book, but there's way too much anecdotal on one author and not at all chess related on the other.

Bibs wrote on 10/15/14 at 07:36:52:

   
The free sample said one of the author preferred some different setups, some with ...g6, that weren't in Palliser's book on the opening.  I don't suppose the games have insights on ways to make some of the variations more playable?

The book is disappointing. Don't bother TonyRo. Some games, but no real theory as such. No attempt to push things. Not really an attempt to guide the reader through what to play, just a themed game collection really. 
Poor effort, I think. 
Still waiting for a decent book to be written on this line.

[quote author=7E7D7771100 link=1223334311/31#31 date=1342194460]...I love it when Black can create a position where White feels he has a certain advantage and an automatic attack, but where with just one false move it can so easily blow up in his face 
[/quote]

I don't have much of substance to add, but I don't think many White players think that they have an automatic attack against the Czech Benoni.  Rather as White, I assume that I have a slight edge because I have a space advantage.  I also think that Black's play will be less dynamic than if he had chosen another type of Benoni or a King's Indian--essentially when he still has the option of how to commit his central pawns.   

So I rather feel that I'm going to settle into a longer, maneuvering struggle, with a slower pace of play than a Modern Benoni or King's Indian, but one where my extra space should count for something.  Hardly an automatic attack; more likely a positional/prophylactic squeeze if things go well for me.

Something along these lines I guess, though it's not a Czech Benoni (but the central pawn structure is the same):

[pgn][Event "USSR Championship 1961a"]
[Site "Moscow (RUS)"]
[Date "1961.01.27"]
[EventDate "1961.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian"]
[Black "Eduard Gufeld"]
[ECO "E70"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]

1. c4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e4 O-O 5. Bg5 d6 6. Qd2 c5
7. d5 Qa5 8. Bd3 a6 9. Nge2 e5 10. O-O Nbd7 11. a3 Nh5 12. f3
Bf6 13. Bh6 Ng7 14. g3 Rb8 15. Kh1 Qc7 16. b3 Be7 17. Rab1 Kh8
18. Rb2 Nf6 19. b4 Ng8 20. Be3 f5 21. bxc5 dxc5 22. Rfb1 Nf6
23. Rb6 Bd6 24. Bh6 Rf7 25. Ng1 f4 26. gxf4 Nd7 27. fxe5 Bxe5
28. Re6 b5 29. cxb5 c4 30. Rc6 Qd8 31. Bxc4 Qh4 32. Rc1 Nh5
33. Bg5 Ng3+ 34. Kg2 Nxe4 35. Nxe4 Qxh2+ 36. Kf1 Rxf3+
37. Nxf3 Qh1+ 38. Kf2 1-0[/pgn]

That's my mindset when facing the Czech Benoni.

Glenn Snow wrote on 09/19/14 at 14:15:10:


I noticed yesterday that the aforementioned book is now available on the Forwardchess app (I hear it can vary but the price I saw was $16.99.).

Well, having had some weeks to sober up, I certainly admit to talking over-enthusiastic tosh above! I still don't understand why the ...h5 line should be a scare as the Ng5 plan is surely just better for White. But equally with Finegold's 9 ...0-0, or 9 ...a6, or anything else (including the ML with ...0-0), I don't see how Black gets enough play. Anyone got any (further) thoughts?

I've been trying to take inspiration from the games Agdamus--Quinteros, Kargoll--Bezold and Rajcevic--Pujarevic, but surely White was better in these -- maybe the moral is that many strong players find it difficult to play these weird positions even when they have an advantage! Anyway will keep searching! ...

H'mm, yes, I am forced to concede that even in these stodged-up positions engines have something to say! On 14 ...Ne8 (the ending after 14 ...h6 looks the purest masochism!) 15 Bd8, maybe 15 ...Rd8 is better and at least it could get complicated, but it all looks a bit iffy to me ... So what, I wonder, do Finegold, and Palliser, have in mind?