boki wrote on 09/25/09 at 12:23:28:

I have the same memory problem or, else, I need quite a lot of time to study "dry" variations where tactics are not really present. And with a job and a family, it is not easy to make time for this sort of things. So, I am trying to understand the openings I am playing and to remember the idea's belonging to them. It is quite helpful at one condition: that you have the "right" idea's in your mind. For example, years ago, I regularly lost against the KID because I was persuaded the a K-side fianchetto was a big weakness and so I always tried to attack on the K-side. And then one day I heared that it is better to go after black's possible weaknesses on the Q-side (d6 can often become very weak), and my results against the KID are a lot better since then.
In this sense Avrukh's book is not really ideal for me. It helps me for consultations after game but for the rest, its level is too high for me and I cannot always understand why he says/writes a move is natural.
So, I'd say Davies book on the Catalan is much more usefull for me than Avrukh's one.

boki wrote on 09/25/09 at 12:23:28:

I now try the lines a couple of times against a computer first. I also try and look up commented games inthe lines. Problem is that often you only get useless comments on the opening (eg "a new move", like I care if something is a new move, I want to know why it is played)
Quote:

No not really, I just stopped having a repertoire and play lines for a while that catch my interest and then switch to another. I am currently in a "1.d4 period".

Librarian wrote on 09/25/09 at 07:40:44:

I dont think the position or the lines are the problem. I found that I have similar problems as well with this book. Apart from blaming myself (always a bad idea ) I found that it is hard to remember the lines (or rather reconstruct), because he often doesnt explain why he plays a move. Ie the move Bd2 in the main line Catalan is extremely hard to find OTB if you are unfamiliar with the idea. After screwing this position up a couple of times now, I can see what its appeal is, but it would have been helpful if some more comments were given.

For what it's worth, I think the book is highly impractical (but it's a great book, to be sure). There are, what, 150 places where Avrukh says "OK, after the natural move [...] from white, black can already fight for the advantage. But with the ingenious move [...] Black is in dire straits."

This is of course true, and in correspondence chess this book (and vol. 2) might be all you need. But in OTB play, what if you haven't memorized every sideline?
I lost a game in the QGA rather dreadfully against a player exactly my playing strength. Following Avrukh's recommendations, we winded up in an extremely tactical position, which was good for white. OTB, though, it was too complicated for me - as a consequence, I either have to memorize A LOT or change to a different repertoire...   

I'm not sure what you mean with the final truth, but I guess whether he has the best repertoire possible. That's not answerable. His second book has not even been published. But still then it is not a question one can answer. And he leaves a lot open to explore by the reader himself...

This is a recent game from rising star Robson. His opponent GM Rasmussen followed for a long time Avrukh's reperoire book (ch. 3):

[Event "Arctic Chess Challenge"]
[Site "Tromso NOR"]
[Date "2009.08.06"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Rasmussen, Allan Stig"]
[Black "Robson, Ray"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E04"]
[WhiteElo "2536"]
[BlackElo "2491"]
[EventDate "2009.08.01"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "NOR"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 dxc4 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 c5 7. Bxb4 cxb4 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Nxc4 Nc6 10. e3 e5 11. d5 b5 12. dxc6 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 bxc4 14. a3 Bg4+ 15. Kc1 b3 16. Nc3 Rac8 17. h3 Be6 18. Rd1 Rfd8 19. f4 e4 20. g4 Nd5 21. Bxe4 Nxe3 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. c7 Rd4 24. Bb7 h6 25. f5 Bd7 26. c8=Q+ Bxc8 27. Bxc8 Kf8 28. Ba6 Rd6 29. Bb7 a5 30. Bf3 Ke7 31. a4 Rd4 32. Be2 Kf6 33. h4 Ke5 34. Rb1 Kf4 35. Nb5 Rd7 36. Nc3 Kg3 37. g5 hxg5 38. hxg5 Kf2 39. Bh5 Ke1 40. f6 gxf6 41. gxf6 Rd2 42. Ra1 Rc2+ 43. Kb1 Nf1 0-1

Robson was the first to deviate from the book with a new move 15... b3, a move which at first sight I failed to understand. Only after move 18 I saw, that the king and rook at a1 could remain boxed in for a very long time.

So where to improve for white? I suspect 19. f4(?) contributed to the problems. Although computers are perfectly happy with white here and for many more moves. My first idea was to try 19. a4 (or 18. a4) to get the left rook out but this is most likely countered by an immediate a5. Maybe then there is a little consolation that the white knight can now use the square b5 somehow, but a pawn at a4 might become a long-term liability. 

So far, 19. Rd2 planning Kc1-d1-e2 looks like a reasonable improvement to me.

Dennis Monokroussos (http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/) is going to discuss this game today/tonight in his ChessBase show. If anyone watches his comments he might leave us here a hint how to improve for white.

Joyce once said that it took him a decade to write Ulysses, and it should take the reader about that much time to read it.

Well, I don't know enough about Ulysses to justify comment on that, but Avrukh's book is designed as a repertoire for life.  I could easily see someone who is serious about taking up Avrukh's recommendations spending a year going through and learning all the intricacies of his repertoire.

Myself?  I have spent several hours poring through his Queen's Gambit and Slav recommendations.  I need to spend many more.

Schandorff's book is good, but as Markovich mentioned, it just doesn't hold a candle to Avrukh's book in terms of depth or originality of analysis.  Then again, if you don't want to play the Catalan...

F22 wrote on 07/18/09 at 22:48:02:


The concept of the book is simply to get += after 1.d4 d5, so no, I don't think it is betrayed at all.  Avrukh develops a very interesting case for 5.b3, and a much stronger one than you might imagine.  However, as I keep pointing out without getting any reaction from anyone at Quality, he has omitted consideration of 5...c5, which I think is a pretty major challenge to 5.b3.  I may be mistaken about the strength of this move, but I would think that Avrukh would at least find the time to put up an emendation on Quality's website, as he has done to plug some other holes in the repertoire presented in the book.

As for Schandorff, while his book is excellent and his repertoire is more to my taste than Avrukh's, still Avrukh's work is by far the more thoroughgoing and innovative of the two.  

Nor, for that matter, is there anything to prevent anyone from building upon Avrukh but playing 5.Nc3 instead of 5.b3, thus satisfying his preference for orthodoxy.