I just purchased Avrukh's book after reading reviews (Silman, Watson, Donaldson) and I'm impressed with its depth as well as the lines given. Unlike in many books where upon further analysis with engines or databases (engine books are useful too) many lines seem to easily go to equality, the reverse often occurs here. The engines and databases start with reasonable scores for Black but soon show the position deteriorating. Although Avrukh's lines are not usually the sharpest and most critical, they squeeze Black without letting go.

However, I'm a bit confused on one variation (p. 128): 

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. Bg2 a6 6. O-O Nc6 7. Nc3 Rb8 8. e4 Be7 9. Qe2 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Qxd4 11. Rd1 Qc5 12. e5 Nd7 13. Ne4 Qb5 14. Bf4 O-O 15. Rac1 Nb6 16. Qg4 Kh8 17. Bg5 f5 18. exf6 gxf6 

Avrukh gives 19. Bh6 which seems fairly unclear to me despite the weakened kingside. Rybka, Fritz, and the other engines I used give:

19. Nxf6 Rxf6 20. Bxf6+ Bxf6 21. Rd8+ Bxd8 22. Qd4+ Bf6 23. Qxf6+ Kg8 24. Qd8+ Kg7 25. Qxc7+ Nd7 26. Rxc4 with a close to lost position.  Perhaps Nd5 is an improvement over f5? It looks gloomy.

Another interesting aspect of this book is the subtlety of some lines. Before reading this book, I would have put some of these positions in an engine and just decided there was nothing in them. Now, I can see that a subtle h3 instead of g3 in the Slav or an unassuming Bd2 can really cause problems if followed up precisely. It has actually scared me since I see how deceivingly difficult these moves can be for the second player. Now, I'm wondering if the Nimzo-English is really acceptable after seeing how Avrukh can use the bishop pair so effectively at times.

Unfortunately, some of the reasoning behind the moves is still not in my grasp (I'm Class A not master). Moreover, there is frequently only one move to fight for advantage - as even engines will claim but since the positions are mostly closed, it seems like White has a lot of reasonable moves. This actually makes the repertoire more difficult to play well than even some super sharp Moscow line in the Semi-Slav. The upside is that players below master strength will probably be equally confused as Black and not even realize their positions are getting worse. Since this book is meant for strong players, I understand why Avrukh refrains from explanations but sometimes the lines are still over my head. On the other hand, if he did this more seriously, it would be another 100 pages. (I wouldn't mind! He's a better writer than he realizes and prose is easy to read. )

I've also noticed a few relevant omissions for Black in less critical systems, as Watson showed here: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwat91.html but perhaps he just doesn't consider them strong enough to be included. I'm not sure, I've only gone through the book a few hours and these are just impressions.

Anyway, to sum up, the book is an excellent analytical work with deep insight into theory. On the other hand, it provides little commentary and more often that's just something like "Black's most popular continuation by far and best." Still, with some work, the reasons can be worked out from the moves in the main line and his criticism of side-lines. If you play his repertoire already or want to try a solid but positionally rich repertoire, this is highly recommended. Personally, I find these sorts of lines difficult to play with either color and do better with more forcing moves like e4 against the QGA and Bg5 against the Slav. The nuances in these sometimes Karpovian lines are mysterious to me and I have little experience in such positions. Thus, I want to adopt most of this repertoire to become a more complete player. Once the proper study and understanding is in place, I'm sure it will be quite effective. I'm already looking forward to the second volume. I expect to once again be impressed by how apparently non-threatening lines like the fianchetto against the Modern Benoni can be turned into powerful weapons.

Thanks MNb. This is an interesting remark about what White might go for. (I'm currently under the impression that Avrukh just doesn't cover this line in his book.) There are several approaches and I'm not sure which one looks best to me:

• 6.0-0 Bd6 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2 This controls the black squares (especially e5) but doesn't do anything in order to open up the position by e2-e4. Therefore, Black has 8... Ne4!, and he can continue with a typical Dutch Stonewall setup. (Qe7, b6, Bb7 and f5 if necessary.)
• 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. b3 e5 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Bb2 Nc6 As always in those positions White can point at the isolated pawn d5 while Black claims good piece play.
•  6.0-0 Bd6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Nd2 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Ndxe4 Nxe4 11. Nxe4 Bf8 12. Be3 This is also a promising line for the white player. A definte space advantage – watch the not yet developed Bc8.

What do you think?

Papageno wrote on 03/26/09 at 16:43:09:


I don't have an answer to that, but that line came up here some time ago, and struck me as interesting since ECO and NCO didn't think White should be able to get any advantage against it.

I am looking at the final line in the Catalan main line and i wonder after b5 Qc2 Bb7 Bd2 Bd6 Ng5 Bxg2 Bxg2 what happens if Black plays h6! What is White's idea? I don't see it and the engines don't see it also. Even if it is wrong shouldn't the author tell us what to do with this obvious move?

A few observations: 

• 12. Qb3 (1984) made Kasparov only almost give up the Tarrasch. You can still find three more games with Kasparov on the black side (3 wins in 1987/88).
• From 1990 on, Kasparov always made sure that he was on the white side of the Tarrasch.
• Last but not least: After 1992 both Karpov and Kasparov preferred 12. Rc1 over 12. Qb3. (See Karpov-Illescas 1993 as a famous piece of work.)

So this Sean Marsh comment seems only partly justified. Although Kasparov learnt some lessons with 12. Qb3, other moves have become more important and the main line today. 

Having said this, I wouldn't expect too much of a DVD anyway. It's fair to assume that authors put 10 or 100 times more effort in writing a book than in producing a DVD. And on my side, I find looking up things and studying lines far easier with a book.

Back to our main topic: Avrukhs choice of 9.dc5 is more traditional but has a nice list of "heroes" playing it: Capablanca used it twice. Later, Reshevsky, Hort and Gheorghiu employed this line almost exclusively against the Tarrasch Defense.

MarinFan wrote on 01/15/09 at 15:14:20:


I looked pretty hard at Avrukh's Tarrasch recommendations, since I have an extensive set of notes on this defense, used to play it all the time, and still recommend it to my students.  Who am I to question the GM, but I really could not see much.  9.dxc5, 10.Na4 is perhaps the oldest way of playing the Schlechter-Rubinstein system, and I recall that it came up in some of Spassky's games.  It's very sound, but since some decades ago, it hasn't been regarded any too highly.  I don't dispute that White is White there, but I don't think this line will cause many Tarrasch players to drop their defense.

One enormous benefit of the Tarrasch is that you can play it (or at least, toward it) against essentially all of the closed systems.  There is no need to have a separate line against the Catalan or the English, for example.  Nor is there any need to face the Exchange.

I thought (from a review by Silman) that Avrukh recommends 9. dc Bxc5 10. Na4 (which I associate with Capablanca) against the Tarrasch.

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 01/14/09 at 14:46:28:


Pretty much as expected.