I agree with Markovich. I own both of her Everyman books as well and fine them to be quite good. Her assessments are sometimes vague, for instance "Black has the initiative" or "I'd prefer Black", but that's fine for me in a repertoire book. I think it should be up to the reader to take further steps and investigate all of her critical positions anyway.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant 8.Be3 Re8 9.d5 Nh5 10.g3 Bf8 11.Ne1.

PatzerNoster wrote on 02/16/10 at 01:10:47:


Thanx, I agree off course. But: Sorry. give me hints. I'm not lazy at all, but how can I deal with 8.Qc2 ff. ? Is 8....Nh5 really an idea or is it a flaw? Would 8...c6 be better? What do you think? Sorry, I cannot deal with your Nbd7, Ne1-quotation... There isn't a moveorder at all.
As I remember it, 8...c6 leads to a somewhat passive position. But, as I feel, 8... Nh5 is extraordinarary, but no better. Now what? 
Any hints? 
Thx, cheese

ANDREW BRETT wrote on 02/15/10 at 08:56:55:


Hmm. May well be, that Dembo is right most of the time. And, don't be surprised, I am willing to use my brain too. That was the very reason for my question here.

In the exact variation 8.Qc2 Nh5!? 9.Bg5 f6 10.Be3 Nf4 11.Bxf4 exf4 my feeling was that Dembo's verdict is too optimistic and overall that this section was worked out in a superficial and confused way. And that slightly reminded me on John Nunn's words in the chapter "Books on offbeat openings" in "Secrets of Practical Chess".

May be that there were no usefull games on the item. But then the author is obligued, to produce variations and indications on his/her own. That's what I pay for.

Up to now no one has given me hints that relieve me from my doubts. The reverse ist true.  

cheese

PatzerNoster wrote on 02/14/10 at 19:01:24:


That is true about every analysis.

Apart from "Dangerous Weapons: KID" I only have Dembo´s book "Fighting the anti-King´s Indians" which seems decent and objective enough to me.

Playing g6-g5 doesn´t mean to follow with g5-g4 immediately. Instead Black may play Re8 an Nf8-g6 first.


I wasn´t able to find Lalic´s game cited by Kylemeister. I agree that White is slightly better here but instead of 13...Qe7 in this case more critical looks 13...a5 14.a3 f5 intending 15.exf5 Rxf5 16.c5 d5.

Overall Dembo is probably a bit too optimistic about Black´s chances here.

Cheesemate, perhaps you should look into the lines after 8.Qc2 c6. White is surely slightly better here too but Black´s game is more solid than after 8...Nh5.

Fllg wrote on 02/13/10 at 17:34:20:


I'm not really convinced about that. What is Black heading for? I can't see it. A pawnroller on the king's side? May be, but after g5-g4 there may follow Nf3-h4, direction f5. If White is carefull I think Black achives nothing. Despite the pawn formation f6-g5-f4 and d6 sheds no light on black's king's bishop.
As I saw Ikonnikov played b2-b4 in that game offering the opportunity to lever with a7-a5.
The question to me is how black can do something active. If he sits waiting, white will build up on the e-file.

Over all the comments, Dembo gives to that exact variation in the DW book are incoherent to may feeling. She gives some moves in four subvariations after 11...exf4 but no plans. And she judges black to be fine in positions where some further explanation would have been helpfull. In one game there followed 12.b4?! (in my view) 12...a5 13.a3 f5 14.exf5 Rxf5 "seizing the initiative". Well, may be, but what if white doesn't compromises with 12.b4 but plays say 12.Bd3 or even 12.a3...
which way should black go? 

@ kylemeister: What is the main variation your quoted authors give to 9.Bg5 etc.? Would be nice if you give some moves.

Thx

cheese

What about following the game Ikonnikov-Kornev, Russian Championship 2000? There Black refrained from f6-f5 and instead choose a setup with g6-g5 and Qe7.