I'm still searching for White's advantage after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Re8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6 Qb6 14.Ng5 Nf6 (a move not considered by Semkov) 15.0-0 Nc6.

My own suspicion is that at the end of the day, the 4PA will continue to be a serious practical challenge to the KID, but still not a theoretical challenge.

@ Toppy: I don't know that anything arising from 1...d6 2.Nf3 is very critical, since one could, and I imagine many 4PA specialists would, play 2.e4.

My copy finally came today.

From a quick perusal it looks to be a real labor of love and an important work. Neverless I have already found a hole in one of the major lines, namely 9...Nbd7, I spotted it immediately because this is one of my back up lines vs the FPA and as Semkov's recommendation was already suggested by reknowned FPA specialist Anatoli Vaisser many years ago, I had an antidote ready.

There is also a weakness in the coverage of one of the deviations: In particular the tranposition to the Classical KID!, yes the Classical did manage to make a cameo appearance after all The line goes: 

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Re8 9.d5 And here Semkov only considers 9...Ng4, but in fact it is 9...Nh5 that is all the rage now and it has scored quite well for Black in practice, with Radjabov raising the profile of the line with a convincing win over Gelfand in 2008, indeed another top player Victor Bologan has played this very line quite often throughout his carreer and not without success.

Returning to the FPA: I have only barely had a chance to consider his concepts vs Black's main tries 9...Bg4 and 9...Re8, of which I have only had experience in the former. Semkov's main concept vs 9...Bg4 is an all assault on the Black king based on the pawn structure f4,g5,h4 and the pawn breaks e5, f5 and h5, this is quite dangerous for both sides, but particularly for Black if he does not know what he's doing. I would recommend a careful study of J.Parker vs T. Radjabov 2008, where Radjabov entered this dangerous structure a tempo down against a FPA specialist and still managed to prevail quite handily.  

Parker,J (2538) - Radjabov,T (2751) [A68]
24th ECC Kallithea GRE (2), 18.10.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Bg4 10.0-0 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nbd7 12.g4 Ne8 13.g5 Nc7 14.Bg4 Bd4+ 15.Kh1 Qe7 16.Ne2 Bg7 17.Ng3 f6 18.h4 b5 19.Kg2 Rab8 20.e5 f5 21.Bf3 Nb6 22.Re1 b4 23.Be3 Qd7 24.e6 Qb5 25.h5 Bxb2 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.Rh1 Bg7 28.Qg1 Nbxd5 29.Bxd5 Nxd5 30.Qh2 Nxe3+ 31.Kf3 Qb7+ 32.Kxe3 Bxa1 0-1

This book also claims to be offering a new approach to the Four Pawns Attack, based on the original analysis of the author. However such a claim is not completely accurate, as the whole concept of this variation for White is to attack in the Centre and on the Kingside, nothing new there, the pawn structure along with all the attendant pawn breaks are all well known and employed regurlarly, nothing new there either. What seems to be new are the specifics and accuracy in the execution of these plans, and it is on these factors ultimately that the true merits of this book will be measured. 

It will take me some time to fully work my way through through all the ideas and analysis presented in this book,  before I can post a review that will really do it justice, but my initial reaction as a King's Indian advocate is that Black need not worry unduly. 

Toppy

Semkov - you've written a very interesting book and confirmed my suspicions that na6 is not so strong even though Hebden is still playing this but you may have seen him go 0-2 at the recent Southend tournament.

One point on the 'modern' section, it doesn't appear that your book deals with the KID nbd7 re8 followed by nh5 and bf8 as advocated by Dembo in the Dangerous weapons series. Have you any recommendation against that ?

On 9..re8 is anyone really brave enough to play this move as there is a lot for anyone defending to learn and the FPA isn't the most common line

Here's another idea - what happens after 9...Bg4 10. 0-0 Nbd7 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Re8 13. g4 Qa5!?  

Maybe the typical 14. e5 dxe5 15. g5 is a try, but after 15...Nh5 16. Bxh5 gxh5 17. f5, Black has 17...e4 and 17...c4, neither of which looks too clear to me.

gewgaw wrote on 05/19/09 at 18:11:03:


Does that mean Rybba is rated like 4000 ELO ?  

Just kidding.  

Antillian wrote on 03/14/09 at 18:04:47:



I have not had time to read all of this thread but I dont like the idea of any one wanting to kill the Kings Indian. This openings history is one of the most beautiful to watch. I have played the kings indian for the past 8 years loving every win and every loss. Its aesthetically pleasing to any one who walks by a game in the kings indian. I dont tend to fear any system of development against the kings indian. Every try leads to a good game of chess either way. 

Markovich wrote on 05/19/09 at 17:44:44:


It's without question worth the money. The approach in nearly every line is different than what what theory considers to be best. Secondly, the lines just seem more dangerous for Black, regardless of the final evaluations.