Just so that you know that a few posts on the book by Taylor already arein the thread "alekhine book pushed back" (perhaps we couldd ecide to keep this thread for commenting on the new book)

latest post (in that thread) is (in case someone interested might have missed it)

"Yes, Larsen played exd6 so I think we will have that
in the exchange (after all, it is the move played by
Short)
I liked his Intro. After reading his books, namely the one on Pawn sacrifices, I was expecting a book based on strong opinions (that is, "I recommend this because of this and that ..." and " I dont recommend this....".
However, I was unsure about a reliable repertoire, which appears to be what he has chosen (we still have to understand why he has given two choices again the Modern - although they are related) or something very wild - like 4...Nb6 against the Modern
and perhaps 5...g5 against the 4PA, etc).
What he writes for 5...Nd7 is definitely one example of his options based on what he thinks (I am not sure I agree but I like his reasoning).
He gives 5 possibilities for not choosing this move:
i) White gets a perpetual
ii) Blakc gets lost if it wans to evade the perpetual and cites a well known Fischer-Larsen game
Then gives two examples iii) and iv)where White plays the sacrifice and wins because it has a better computer and a better memory and the other where Black wins for the same reason.
And then
v) White declines the sacrifice and Black lost a lot of time studying complicated lines that may never happen, etc."

TN wrote on 03/23/10 at 11:40:34:


The Gambit book has been out for a while. Not a repertoire book. Very similar to the Chess Explained series in style and structure.

(This half-forgotten thread is still the right place for Taylor´s book Alekhine Alert ?!)

Now there´s a downloadable extract on www.everymanchess.com .

Each Chapter features an Alekhine Hero - interesting approach ...
Against the main line 4.Nf3 Taylor recommends 4...dxe5 5.Nxe5
(no real surprise) and now both 5...c6 (Miles) and 5...g6 (Kengis).

So far it looks good.

tracke 

I have played the QGA on occasions before and usually found that if white chooses the 'duller' variations, I struggle to play black's lifeless positions. Black seems to get a space disadvantage without the ability to chip away at the centre and cause chaos.

I like the idea of the Gruenfeld, probably an equally edgy defence and completely unlike what I normally play (similar to the Alekhine, similar to you I am attempting a chess education from my new repertoire). I suppose I should look up some mordern-day Gruenfeld specialists and consider borring their entire 1.d4 repertoire - as ever, my main problem is against 1.d4, 2.Nf3. I have a feeling that it will never change from that. 1...e5, anyone? 

Between my post and your response I had already chosen to, and gone ahead and subscribed. Of course I have not had time to go through everything, but I am impressed with the coverage that I have seen.

Further to this last post, I am very intrigued by the 6...c5, 7...g6 FPA line. I've played it for the first time in a (friendly) correspondence game, which is continuing (but well past the opening stage) but I believe to be won for black.

I am sure it is not of any theoretical importance, but I will give the opening of the game nonetheless, as it is a rather interesting sideline:

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 c5 7.d5 g6 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.Bf4 O-O 10.Qd2 e6 11.d6 [The first surprise - I'm led to believe that 11.O-O-O is more common, although this pawn lunge appears to score well] Nc6 12.Nf3 Nd7 13.Qe3 Nd4 14.O-O-O f6 [To my knowledge a novelty in this particular position. 13...f6 with a later ...Nd4 has been played once or twice, but 13...Nd4 has only been played once that I know of, in Kraut - Sieglen 1985, which continued with 14...Qa5 15.h4 f6 16.exf6?! Nxf6 17.Ne5 Nd7... I have little confidence in the play of either player during and beyond this sequence, as 16.Bd3 or even the immediate 16.h5 seem far stronger] 15.Nxd4? cxd4 16.Rxd4 fxe5! 17.Bg5 exd4! with overwhelming compensation for the queen.

Clearly white has better 15th moves than Nxd4... however, my analyses so far suggest black is fine in the complications regardless. 11.O-O-O is to be preferred for white, but even then 11...exd5 12.cxd5 Re8! doesn't seem to give white much, though the positions are of course razor-sharp.

Well, I think there are much better NIC articles. Pick up YB 87 (where
we have the first of these 4...Nb6 articles) and look at the 2nd
article "Topalov's private jungle". I think this article is much better written and there is a closer connection between comments in the text
and the games. I also think that this article is closer to the average of
Yb articles. Look also at the forum articles (as an example, look at the
one ob Cebalo's line - and I guess you know why I am mentioning
this particular forum article)

I agree with you that these two 4... Nb6 articles are interesting, and that we
get more knowledge about these lines (although we had to "fight" for
getting this knowledge) by reading them.

My point is to guess what could have been gained by having a more consitently written article. I still think that a "match" between lines with
and without a4 a5 could have been better explained, in particular the ones where White plays an early h4.

As a side comment, consider this line

4.... Nb6 5 Nc3 (question applies with a4 a5 inserted) dxe 6. Nxe

Now we have a Larsen variation with the White knight on c3 and the
Calck knight on b6 (instead of d5). I guess (I am not sure) White benefits from this. However, suppose that Black plays 6 ... Nd7.
The point is to know whether the
the knight sacrifice 7 Nxf7 (as in larsen's line) would work here.
Note that with the knight on b6, after 7...Kxf7 8. Qh5+ Black doe snot
need to play 8...Ke6.

Any takers?

ps: I am going to look at your recent Voroznev lines


Here is one example. From the YB 87

Markovich

I think that with your last post you did more for those two NIC YB articles than Karolyi himself.

I agree (or at least I cannot disagree) that Karolyi may know a lot
about that variation. Furthermore, he is known as a good coach and he
appears not be very active as a chess player (meaning he would not
mind shiring his ideas).

My complain is with the way he explains the different lines. The written part of the text is very confusing (sometimes it is not easy to
understand to which game section he is referring to, sometimes
(everytime ?) it is not easy to understand which are the moves he
suggests.

Compare with the other NYC YBs where the written part of the text
is much more clear (or even with some of the forum articles).

In my opinion, this was a good opportunity lost, since I would welcome
a good article on the 4... Nb6 line and I guess Karolyi has the
knowledge to do it. My point is that "having the knowledge" it is not
enough. Knowing"how to tell people about the knowledge" is also
important. That is what makes a good teacher. And that is why
Cox's book si very good.

Perhaps, iif one wants to spend a lot of time trying to separate the good from the bad, from all of those lines, one may be able to get
some reward.

One point are his comments on the diferent lines with Nc3 with and
without a4 a5. This is not clear on the game analysis.

In fact, if you pick up the Burguess book, he clearly shows the
difference between one such line where Black is holding (without a4)
after White plays h4 and h5, and does not hold when a4 is played,
because at the end of the analysis, White can play Ra3! allowing the
Rook to move to h3.

These nuances are not clear in his analysis.

Resuming, I think the written part is quite weak and we have lost a
good chance of havinga  good survey on an interesting line.

"Yeah, I understand that, and Karolyi's NIC articles are the basis of my notes, but I still feel nervous about this move."

How do you rate Karolyi's articles? Thanks