TonyRo wrote on 05/19/09 at 16:49:06:


If this is the case we really need an update, otherwise the title of the book would be misleading or pure marketing hype  wasnt that already discussed 

Quote:

I cant imagine a forced line until move 30 - be careful playing such lines with White, there may be a lot of nasty surprises along the way. I suspect a similar approach as in Khalifman's books where every line ends at least with a += just to tell the reader - "Hey look, I promise you an advantage in every line". In reality you can read += as = in most of the cases...

Semkov wrote on 05/19/09 at 13:48:55:


On page 25, you have the line starting with 9...Bg4 and 12...Re8 ending with 30. Rf5+=. That said, if you go a little bit farther, for instance 30...Rdxe4 31. Rxe5 Rxe5 32. Rxe5 dxe5 33. Ne3 Qb6 34. Kf2 Qd4 35. Qh6 Qf4+ 36. Ke2 Qxg5 37. Qxg5 Nxg5 38. d6 a5! = if you play it out farther....of course, it's a rather long line, maybe I missed something. There's also 33. g6 Nxf6 34. gxf7+ Kg7 35. Qxe5 Kxf7 36. Qe6+ Kf8 37. Ne3 Qe7 = or 33. Nf2 Qc7!=

All that said, it's possible that 23. Qg2!? is an idea, for instance 23...bxa2 24. Nxc3 and now: 

24...Bxc3 25. bxc3 Ne5 (25...Qa5? 26. g6! Ne5 27. Bd4, when White will play 28. Ra1 and 29. Rxa2 with a large advantage.) 26. Bd4 followed by picking up the a-pawn again, when White appears to be a little better. 

24...Be5 25. Nxa2 Rb8 26. Nc3 Rb3 27. Re2 and now: 

27...Qc7 28. Qf3 with a big advantage

27...Bxc3 28. bxc3 Rxc3 29. Qf3 with a big advantage

27...Qb8 28. g6 f6 29. Ra1!? with some advantage to White. 

Black can also try 25...Nc5, when White can try either 26. Bxc5 Rxc5 27. Nc3 or 26. g6 Qf6 27. Re2! but maybe it's nothing. 

I could have missed something obvious somewhere, but 23. Qg2!? at least leaves the game a bit more complicated.

gewgaw wrote on 05/19/09 at 08:05:56:


Well thank's a bunch for that.  Is that your analysis or a game?  I'll take a serious look at it.  But of course Black also has 15...Nc6.  

But as for chess, 9...Re8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Ng4 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6 Qb6 14.Ng5 and Semkov now considers 14...Nh6 and 14...Ne5.  But obviously 14...Nf6 should be a candidate, and I can't see why Black is not reasonbly O.K. here. [/quote]

To play this line you need an imagination like shirov:

1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 g6 3.Sc3 Lg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Sf3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Le2 exd5 9.cxd5 Te8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Sg4 12.e6 fxe6 13.d6 Db6 14.Sg5 Sf6 [14...Sh6!?] 15.0–0 Ld7 [15...Td8!? 16.Lc4 Dxd6 17.Dxd6 Txd6 18.Le3 h6 19.Tad1!! Se8 20.Lxc5 Txd1 21.Txd1 hxg5 22.Td8 Sc6 23.Txc8 Txc8 24.Lxe6+ Kh7 25.Lxc8±] 16.Le3 Dxb2 17.Tc1 Sa6 18.Tf2 Da3 19.Dd2 Tad8 [19...b6 20.Tcf1 Tf8 21.Lf4±] 20.Tcf1 Sg4 [20...Tf8!? 21.Tf4 idea: Nb1+- 21...Sh5 22.Txf8+ Txf8 23.Txf8+ Kxf8 (23...Lxf8 24.Lxh5 gxh5 25.Dc2+-) 24.Sce4²] 21.Lxg4± Dxc3 [21...Lxc3? 22.De2 Lg7 23.Sf7+-] 22.Dxc3 Lxc3 23.Sf7 Tc8? [¹23...Ld4 24.Lxd4 cxd4 25.Sxd8 Txd8±] 24.Sh6++- Kh8 25.Tf7 Sb8 26.Lg5 Ld4+? [26...Lb5 27.T1f4 Sd7+-] 27.Kh1+- b6?? [27...a5 28.Lf3 Tcd8 29.Lxb7+-] 28.T1f4 La1 [28...Lc3 29.Lf3 Lb5+-] 29.Lf3 Lb5 [29...b5 30.Lb7 Tcd8 31.Lxd8 Txd8 32.Te7+-] 30.a4 La6 31.d7 Sxd7 32.Txd7+-

Here's one thing to add. Some of Semkov's lines still end in equality for Black. That doesn't really mean that this book doesn't change anything. That doesn't mean the 4PA sucks. Sure, it's the 4PA, and Black will always have something. In fact, you could go so far as to say it's the King's Indian, and Black will always have something, even against the toughest lines. The difference between all the lines lies in how hard it is for Black to prove it and navigate through all the White tries to equality, or something close to it. If you ask me, Semkov's book changes theory in a way that makes it harder for Black to prove he's okay in the 4PA, and that's all you can ask for as White if you ask me. 

In my opinion the 4PA is a great choice against the KID. Black rarely studies it as much as the other White tries, and it results in positions with a different flavor than all the other tries. 

To make blanket statements about an opening system that's been around forever, especially when someone comes out with something that apparently changes the state of that system, is just silly and unhelpful to everyone else in the forums.

Please don't accuse me of bowing, "genuflecting" or anything like that. In fact, elsewhere I have criticized the guy ( http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1238886130/0) , and I'm known on this board for reminding people of their title-worship.


My point is that we still have to take analysis produced by Watson seriously. What a facile thing it is to simply dismiss Watson out of hand.

Possibly the book is fantastic and turns theory on it's head. I don't think though that the burden is on the skeptics, especially since the book considers moves  "...considered either unimportant by existing theory.." and is "...akin to Monson's book on the Belgrade."

I'm not holding my breath.

Dink Heckler wrote on 05/18/09 at 21:39:30:


Not absolutely necessary, but it's a good check. If a Four Pawns advocate can't clear that hurdle, what should we say?