exigentsky wrote on 10/12/09 at 15:53:12:

This suggests =+ indeed.

MilenPetrov wrote on 10/12/09 at 17:53:27:


Well fine, but what really is the point of someone coming here and announcing in an authoritative tone that the Slow Slav is =+ and not saying anything to back it up?  It's not exactly in the same category as "I've had success with 4...Bg4 against the Slow Slav," is it?

@exigentsky:  That's two people who have answered you, in all sincerity so far as I can tell, and two who have been accused of misquoting you.  kylemeister and I may separately be guilty of misunderstanding you, but neither of us has misquoted you.   

I think that I shall have very little more to say upon these points, which have grown wearisome.  If anyone wants to discuss exigentsky's oracular pronouncements here, I certainly won't stand in the way.

Someone asked a question and I answered. If you're not interested in my answer, you're free to ignore it. This is a public forum and not exclusive to titled players. I can voice my impressions just like anyone else. I will not dance around words when I believe I'm right. I simply don't think White is getting anywhere against 4. e3 Bg4 at the moment. You're welcome to disagree and I'm sure everyone would be impressed if you found a way to clear White advantage in these lines.

I didn't give variations because I worked a long time on them and some are a threat to my current openings. I was not obligated to post even my impressions so consider anything I write a bonus. After all, I'm not being paid to post here. I'm free to reveal as little or as much as I see fit. Although, I will mention that all the problems stemmed from Black holding on to the bishop... for example 4. e3 Bg4 5. h3 Bh5.

BTW: Stop misquoting me. I did not claim to hold the absolute truth and even made a specific remark indicating that the situation is not set in stone. If you wish to persist in misquoting me, I recommend you just make up the discussion from both sides and save me some time.

I don't care if it is, I'm confident in my analysis. My opening analysis for the past year or so has been reliable and I've found my own novelties come into play later. I've also been fairly accurate in predicting opening trends. A determined A level player with time and access to all the top engines, books and databases can produce quality analysis.

BTW: Don't misquote me. I did not claim it was an ultimate conclusion. I even specifically wrote ".. at least for now."

I've done my best to make the 4. e3 line against the Slav work but to no avail (don't trust engines and statistics for this line until you understand it). The problem is that White has nothing in the 4. e3 Bg4 line. In fact, Black can even be said to have a long term advantage because unlike White, he has his problem bishop outside the pawn chain. The only way for White to have chances for advantage is to get the bishop pair or assault b7, but this proves too time consuming and weakening. Avrukh tried to combine these ideas using Topalov's plan. However, a barrage of novelties, such as GM Kaufman's 9...Na6 render the variation harmless. Although, I was a bit suspicious of it from the start given that it is a tempo down on the 4. e3 Bf5 lines with Bg4. Unfortunately, there is also nothing better. 5. h3 and the rest don't lead anywhere either. I talked to GM Larry Kaufman about this line and he mentioned to me in passing: "Currently I think many top players are giving up on 4.e3, preferring either 4.Nc3 or 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3." After much analysis, I can see why. This also explains Avrukh's claim that Bg4 is becoming very fashionable among elite players. It's often just one move for Black that fixes everything and so a nice database score is pretty meaningless. Still, I will continue to play it a bit until people figure things out... I estimate two years. Then, I can share the variations.

There are other lines in the 4. e3 Slav Declined system that cause White some headaches, such as 4. e3 e6 5. b3 c5 but none of these lines lead to absolutely clear equality. On the other hand, Bg4 is close to a refutation because White gets about as much of an advantage as in the Colle.  It's playable but refuted as a try for advantage... at least for now.

Apart from this, Black has found answers to the Nc3 lines in the Catalan. The key move was Be8 instead of Bc8. I don't feel like looking everything up but if you've studied the book in detail, you will know what I refer to... eventually. Anyway, as is true for all opening books, some hole are definitely emerging. Still, only the Slav is a big problem theoretically.

IMJohnCox wrote on 09/26/09 at 23:22:08:


It seems correct. However 17...Bf5 is an improvement for black according to Rybka. Perhaps white should think about deviating already with 7.a3 as played recently by Gelfand (-Bacrot, 2009) and Maletin (-Landa, 2009).

This has been a strange line of criticism for an opening book that I really hadn't heard before.

It's now the author's fault that his ideas are so rich that players who follow his recommendations get lost in the resulting positions?  This is a dream situation!  All we need to do as readers is learn to play chess and we'll be able to enjoy the fruits of Avrukh's study.  I have quite a bit of work ahead of me, but that just makes me like the book more!

This is compared to Schandorff's excellent book, where I have decided that his single line against the "Triangle Defense" is not going to hold up to strict scrutiny.  I agree with Markovich now that Schandorff's book is (generally) excellent, but Avrukh's analysis is truly a level or two beyond his.

I'm glad I have both books!