I received my copy yesterday, and I was quite impressed by it.  Besides being fairly comprehensive, it's also original.  Futher it's very well-produced.  

According to de la Villa, only the Najdorf and the Sveshnikov give prospects of equality, though he marks the critical positions "+=/=."

But having looked at some of the final positions, I'm not sure that all of his += evaluations are entirely objective.  Maybe that's not much of a criticism, since "+=" is inherently subjective.  But I think that strong Blacks often play straight into some of his "+=" positions.  

I'm not sure in particular that it's += after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.f3 0-0 9.0-0-0 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.c4, which is his main line against the Scheveningen.  He rates the Scheveningen only a four-star defense, alongside the Classical, while the two mentioned above get five stars.  But if the Scheveningen only gets four stars, I would think it would be on account of the Keres Attack, and not the line just quoted, which looks tepid to me.

I looked also at some of his key positions in the Loewenthal and the Dragon, systems that he gives only three stars, and there as well there seemed to be some evaluations that could very well be debated.  In particular the Chinese Dragon appears to hold up against his recommendation.

Thank You!

In the chapters I've looked at there certainly are a lot of references from recent years, say 2007-2009. The basic repertoire seems to be the same. But 6 years is a long time in the Sicilian!

The most fundamental change I've found is a different weapon vs the Kan (Paulsen): In 2003 it was 5.c4, now it's 5.Nc3 b5 6.Bd3 Qb6 7.Nf3 and 5...Qc7 6.Bd3, quite similar to "Experts vs the Sicilian". He comments that it gives similar play to the other (English Attack-style) recommendations, while the English Attack itself is considered dubious against the Kan.

On the move order 5.Nc3 d6 in the Kan, he just gives 6.Be3 and points to the Scheveningen chapter. But Black can try to delay ...Nf6 in this line, and maybe hope to gain something from accelerated queenside play? Moves like ...b5, ...Bb7 and even ...Rc8 can be played before the kingside is developed. Maybe it's no good, but it could have been mentioned.

A small point: In the Taimanov chapter the move order 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Nf6!? was ignored in the Spanish edition; now it is met with 7.f4 d6 8.Qf3; the same setup he gives (in both editions) against  5...Qc7 6.Be3 Nf6.

I found a curious hole in that Kan chapter btw: In the recently popular line 5.Nc3 b5 6.Bd3 Bb7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nxc6 Bxc6 9.Re1 he gives 9...Qb8, 9...Qc7, 9...Be7 and 9...Nf6 claiming a clear advantage against all of them. But he doesn't mention 9...Bc5 which is overwhelmingly the most popular choice in recent games! The following game could be of interest to White players:

[Event "TCh-UKR Teams"]
[Site "Alushta UKR"]
[Date "2009.05.24"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Areshchenko, A."]
[Black "Luzhinsky, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B43"]
[WhiteElo "2657"]
[BlackElo "2298"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 b5 6. Bd3 Bb7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Nxc6 Bxc6 9. Re1 Bc5 10. e5 f5 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Qh3 h5 13. a4 b4 14. Ne2 h4 15. Be3 Bxe3 16. Qxe3 h3 17. g3 Nh6 18. Nd4 Bb7 19. Be2 Nf7 20. Rad1 Qc7 21. f4 Rc8 22. Rd2 Qc5 23. Kf2 Ke7 24. Red1 Rhd8 25. g4 g5 26. gxf5 gxf4 27. f6+ Ke8 28. Qxf4 Qxe5 29. Qxe5 Nxe5 30. Bh5+ Kf8 31. Nxe6+ 1-0

10...f5 looks weakening to me, but in a brief analysis both Fritz and Rybka suggest it. On 10...Qh4 as played earlier by Kantsler White can temporarily sacrifce a pawn with 11.Ne4 Bxe4 12.Rxe4 Qxf2+ 13.Kh1 (threatening 14.Rf4!) 13...Bb6 14.a4 bxa4 15.Raxa4 and I think White has an edge.

After pointing out two small omissions I must say that my overall impression of the book is very good and I'm itching to take up many of the lines, something I never got around to with the Spanish edition!

rossia wrote on 10/20/09 at 16:35:17:



It boils down about like this (I will write as though I am Souleidis):

After my first perusal of the book, and having somewhat more thoroughly analyzed two of the chapters, de la Villa appears to have done an excellent job in presenting a repertoire which is efficient, yet gives prospects for advantage.

The repertoire is based on the English Attack where possible.  A good bit of main-line theory is presented in the case of systems like the Najdorf and Sveshnikov (against main lines one must play main lines, if one hopes for advantage).  The layout is based around annotated games, with summary tables of variations.

Against secondary lines de la Villa recommends secondary lines which don't require a lot of preparation, but carry a lot of poison.  I especially like this.

I have looked most closely at the material on the Nimzovich (2...Nf6) and Grivas (2...Nc6 and 4...Qb6) variations, on which I am somewhat expert (and play as Black).  Against the Nimzovich de la Villa recommends a setup with an interesting pawn sac, played by Jakovenko against Llobel Cortell in 2006.  I knew of that game, and it is in fact a bit of a problem for Black.  Against the Grivas he recommends the seldom-played setup with 7. a3.  I had never thought too highly of that, but the variations shown by the author appear to give White good play (though not necessarily leading to forcible advantage).

A really good book for friends of the Open Sicilian as White.  Clear in concept and presentation; good analysis; useful as a reference book.

Examples of the summary tables:

http://entwicklungsvorsprung.de/wp-content/images/Dismantling%20the%20Sicilian.j...

http://entwicklungsvorsprung.de/wp-content/images/Dismantling%20the%20Sicilian%2...

I have just got my copy as a birthday present to myself (MartinC will be interested in this!   )

From initial perusal it looks like an attempt to combine the approaches of 'Beating the Sicilian' and the Khalifman books - a serious undertaking.

WIll say more when I have caught up on some sleep - have travelled back overnight from Tunisia.

IM Georgios Souleidis has a review of the book on his blog (in German); he thinks quite highly of it.

Quite right he is too

After a break from chess I started playing again in the mid 90's. I then decided to form a proper repertoire. I used Nunn's "Beating The Sicilian 2". It was a very rewarding read. Previously I had played the Morra gambit with very poor results (and before that the closed with reasonable results.) I then used BTS3 before another (shorter) break. I then switched to 1.c4 using Kosten's repertoire book.

The results of chess games are clearly correlated to the overall playing strength. Playing an opening that suits you will make chess more fun and more rewarding. If you enjoy 2.c3 and your results are good, don't change to the open sicilian. Otherwise I think it's a wise choice.

The toughest variation is the Najdorf I think. I didn't really like the f4 lines of BTS2 and 3 and I'm not so keen on the Bg5 lines of "Experts vs the Sicilian". The English attack of "Dismantling The Sicilian" looks like a better choice to me.