Ah okay thanks. I am a low level club player who wants to play the Open Sicilian to learn. Thought maybe the Be2 Najdorf is easier than the complex looking h3 system. I only use the book to at least have some guideline for a repertoire, but I don't focus too much on studying openings. I only read the book when analyzing a Sicilian I faced at the club or online.

I liked that the old book focused on the English Attack. That plan is pretty easy to understand for a low rated player like me. Now I'm thinking this book is maybe a little bit over my head. I just want a repertoire to stick with, but not some anti-sicilian. Maybe I should reconsider since there is so little explanation about plans in this book.

Anyone had succes with the Be2 Najdorf with 6...e5 and 7.Nf3? It is a variation I face often but the chapter about this line rather short and little explanation about white’s plans

bragesjo wrote on 11/15/17 at 08:01:09:

Blacks score in OTB is also very good in this system. Not only the few critical lines are easy to learn for black but he even has at several points the choice how to surprise white and still get a decent position against best play. I only gave the line(s) for black which I considered the most convincing way to end all whites ambitions.

Modern openinganalysis without considering the most recent correspondence games or even the most recent enginegames (e.g. TCEC, CCRL, SSDF) is in my opinion sloppy work. I refer to a statement on http://en.chessbase.com/post/a-treasure-trove-of-ideas-the-corr-database-2018 "today's correspondence games indicate how the opening theory of tomorrow will look like"

Maybe the line is rare for the author but in my 2 most recent games it was played and I fear others will follow.

Anyway I have the feeling that the book is written for the casual tournament player and doesn't give a complete status of the latest theory.

So it is nonsense to claim a TN for 21.Nc4.

Also 14.g3 Be6 15.a3 is by now already pretty much a dead end see e.g.


The book can still be very interesting but it seems that chapter won't teach me anything new.

bragesjo wrote on 11/14/17 at 14:51:39:

I really wonder what they recommend against the line below. I had a second look at it a month ago without finding anything interesting for white to try.

phonological_loop wrote on 11/02/17 at 19:20:14:


I will buy the book for the Najdorf Be2 chapter alone.

At any rate one can always compare the lines to see if anything has changed where the books met. Dismantling the Sicilian has also an extra none repetouar chapter to says what other books recommened and why the authors does not recommend it.

dfan wrote on 11/02/17 at 14:14:39:


Indeed, it's an entirely different project. I liked the thematic unity in the first edition. 

I wonder how this differs from Modernized: The Open Sicilian, which is a similar attempt to offer a repertoire of critical lines. If I have that, is this really worth getting? I would guess not.

JEH wrote on 11/02/17 at 06:27:58:

Indeed. I spent a lot of effort on learning the 1st edition repertoire, and was hoping to just update a few critical lines (especially since I am just at the 2000 level). Now I have to decide how much to swap in wholesale. I guess I can always pick and choose which systems to update, unless there are a lot of transpositional dependencies.

Looks interesting to cover both the modern h3 and my old favorite Be2 vs Najdorf.

The updated edition appears to be out now: https://www.newinchess.com/dismantling-the-sicilian-new-and-updated-edition, with sample pages.

If 6.Nxc6 isn't strong then everyone would play 5...a6.  I actually do think that Black gets a lot in return for the 5...a6 move.  First, there is 6.Be3 Nf6, with extra options against the English Attack (which I personally like for Black).  There is also 7.Qf3 Bb4! when I don't think that White has much of anything, unlike after 5...Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.Qf3.  

Against other moves you can obviously transpose to a "main line" with 6...Qc7 if you'd like, but against the Classical as Kylemeister noted, heading for a Scheveningen might be a little better than usual for Black (or at least keep more options open).  There is also the original Taimanov idea of playing ...Nge7 or ...Nxd4 followed by ...Nge7-c6 in some Classical move orders (I wouldn't play them against everything).  

Like all move order nuances, there are pros and cons.  But if Black has nothing to worry about after 5...a6 6.Nxc6 I see absolutely no reason for him not to play it, as he can either transpose into 5...Qc7 lines or advantageously avoid the move (such as after 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Qf3?! Bb4!) without negative repercussion that I'm aware of.

Does 5...a6 give any extra options against White's classical Be3/Be2 setup (compared to 5...Qc7)? 

The few times I've considered taking up the Taimanov, the Classical has been a big issue. I tried just going into the Classical Scheveningen, but didn't like the positions at all. They just felt too passive for my taste. And in some of the ...Bb4 lines it looks like White is playing for two results.

Thanks, Bragesjo. I wonder, though : if it's really all that simple for Black, why does almost everyone play 5...Qc7? The whole point of that move order was to avoid the difficult 6.Nxc6 lines. If those variations really are fine for Black, then everyone should start playing 6...a6 again for the reasons I gave in my last post.

bragesjo wrote on 09/11/17 at 19:10:45:


There is also 7.e5, if I'm understanding your post correctly (I think you mean after 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Re1 Be7 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg4).  

Theory changes over the years, but if I were White and wanted a line against the "old" Taimanov move order that would last forever, I'd choose 6.Nxc6 bc and then vary between 7.Bd3 and 7.e5, depending on mood and current theory.  It's hard for me to believe that White doesn't have at least a slight edge and easier-to-play position in those lines.  

Still, the only time someone played this way against me in a tournament game, I won a nice, scrappy game against a 2350 player, so I have fond memories of it.  If I remember correctly, it went 11...g6 12.Bh6 Rb8 13.Rb1 Rb4! 14.Qe2 Rh4!, or something similar.  White has plenty of ways to try to improve, though.

I prefer playing this way as Black to dealing with the English Attack proper, the fashionable 7.Qf3, and the 5...Qc7 6.Ndb5 line.  I'm really surprised that more White players don't play 6.Nxc6, and can only conclude that most try to play the same system against 5...a6 as they have prepared against 5...Qc7. 

TN wrote on 09/11/17 at 07:52:39:


I admit that I'm not aware of Negi's analysis; I've put all of my opening/theoretical work over the past 2-3 years into my own book, more or less.  But 6.Nxc6! has been considered the best move in that position since at least the 1980s, various lazy White players notwithstanding (those that don't want to learn a separate system of play).

As a long time 5...a6 Taimanov player, I think that White's best (if he doesn't want to transpose into another main line) is to simply play 6.Nxc6 bc and now either of 7.e5 or 7.Bd3.  Hardly anyone ever plays that way against me, though.

phonological_loop wrote on 09/10/17 at 16:59:12:

I know very little concretely about the Sveshnikov, but it's arguably become a victim of its own success. A common view today is that the main line after 2...Nc6 is no longer 3.d4, but 3.Bb5. And no doubt the Sveshnikov is the main reason for that.

I wonder if even De la Villa will break with his principled Open Sicilian and recommend the Rossolimo? Probably not, but then he needs to find lines that he can claim give some chances against the Sveshnikov.

JEH wrote on 08/12/17 at 17:15:43:


Given the positive comments you and many others made about the original version, I was close to buying it many times, but didnt pull the trigger....I might find myself giving in to temptation for Christmas.

Looking forward to this new edition

ErictheRed wrote on 08/11/17 at 23:58:30:


Fully agree regarding the Bologan book. It was the same terrible format with his Ruy Lopez one too. Having to keep jumping back and forth between pages, to find out who played the game, or to see side variations, became tiresome very quickly.

Quality Chess' ABC tree format style is my favourite. Chess Stars splitting chapters into: quick theory, theory and model games is tolerable. Everyman Chess' games format I didn't use to like, but I can tolerate it now.

Hopefully Bologan will ditch this format for future books. I'm hoping he does a Caro-Kann rep book next.

Stigma wrote on 08/11/17 at 18:27:57:


I dont know how best to explain it. I'm not particularly keen the font/typeface used, also the content often looks too clustered or as if it has just been shoved together. I prefer more spacing (NIC's book on the Petroff by Cohen to my eyes looks atrocious for example).

RoleyPoley wrote on 08/11/17 at 12:32:47:


Woot!

Sounds like this could be interesting for me. I like to get an overview then see if I can get deeper into things myself. It takes longer but sticks in my mind more that way.

gramsci wrote on 11/09/16 at 21:26:59:


I would play 3 f4 and the GPA vs. 2...d6; and used to play 3 Bb5 vs. 2...Nc6 (someone here at ChessPub called this the 
"Backdoor Rossolimo"  and I fared pretty well with it. 

I still feel more comfortable playing that way, but as my play has improved, so has that of my opponents and I gradually weaned myself to the Open Sicilian... most of the time. 

Arnaudov wrote on 11/09/16 at 19:09:46:

What did you play vs. 2...d6 & 2...Nc6 then?

Thanks. I like this book and also find navigation of it difficult 

I like the Dismantling repertoire, but it is sometimes difficult to navigate so I made an index for the book.

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3
2...Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4
     4...Nxd4 p. 36
     4...Qb6  p. 36
     4...g6   p. 60 Accelerated Dragon
     4...e5 5 Nb5
           5...a6  p. 68 Lowenthal
           5...d6  p. 81 Kalashnikov
     4...Nf6 5 Nc3
           5...Qb6 p. 31
           5...e5  p. 119 Pelikan
           5...d6  p. 238 Classical
2...e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4
     4...Bc5 p. 127
     4...Qb6 p. 127
     4...Nf6 5 Nc3
           5...Qb6 p. 127
           5...Bb4 p. 135 Pin
           5...Nc6 p. 144
     4...Nc6 p. 173 Taimanov
     4...a6  p. 192 Kan (aka Paulsen)
2...d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4
     4...e5  p. 199
     4...Nf6 5 Nc3
           5...b5  p. 192
           5...Qc7 p. 192
           5...e5  p. 199
           5...Bd7 p. 204 Kupreichik
           5...g6  p. 236 Dragon
           5...Nc6 p. 269 Classical
           5...e6  p. 298 Scheveningen
           5...a6  p. 330 Najdorf
2...a6  p. 28
2...b6  p. 20
2...Nf6 p. 16 Nimzowitsch
2...others p. 16

I looked at the Scheveningen chapter today. After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be3 Nc6 De la Villa, aiming for an English Attack, recommends 7.Qd2 and comments: 

Quote:

Does anyone have experience with either of these 7th moves? How "disturbing" are they really? I ask because if White tries to reach a straight English Attack against the Classical Sicilian he can't avoid them so easily (i.e. 6.f3 e6 7.Be3 d5!? / Qb6!? or 6.Be3 Ng4!?).

rossia wrote on 10/21/09 at 16:20:48:


Compared to Experts I like De La Villa's book much better. I find it very clearly structured, somehow it is really a pleasure to read the book (might also be becuase of the good production)! The repertoire fits well together, of course the bullet-proofness can only be seen in the future!

But of course this is a subjective assessment, the repertoire simply fits me better than that of Experts.
I also try to play the English attack whenever possible because I think it is the most practicable and dangerous way against the Sicilian.
Of the Experts repertoire I didn't like Bg5 against the Najdorf (great variation, but too difficult to maintain, the Maroczy against Accelerated Dragon and the Sveshnikov recommendation was also not my cup of tea.

Perhaps we could make this thread as something of an addition or discussion about variations of the book (as some of the posters already did). I noticed two holes:

In the Scheveningen/Najdorf after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4: 4.Nd4: Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be3 a6 7.f3 b5 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.g5 Nfd7 12.Bd3 Rc8 13.Kb1 Ne5 14.Qe1 he doesn't consider 14. ... Nbc4 which strikes me as a more logical move than 14. ... Nec4, as it makes room for the queen. Now 15.Bc1 seems logical, but perhaps is not best in this position after 15. ... Qb6 or 15. ... Qa5.
More to the point could be 15.f4, but also here the position is far from clear in my opinion:

[Event "Palau ITA open"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2009.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Korneev, Oleg"]
[Black "Grandelius, Nils"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2587"]
[BlackElo "2491"]
[NIC "SI 19.16.10"]
[ECO "B90"]
[PlyCount "106"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2 Nbd7 
9. O-O-O Bb7 10. g4 Nb6 11. Bd3 Rc8 12. g5 Nfd7 13. Kb1 Ne5 14. Qe1 Nbc4 15. f4 b4 
16. Na4 Nxd3 17. cxd3 Qa5 18. Bc1 Na3  19. bxa3 Qxa4 20. Qxb4 Qxb4  21. axb4 d5 22. 
a3 dxe4 23. Rhe1 exd3 24. f5 Be7 25. fxe6 O-O 26. Rxd3 Rcd8 27. Rde3 Rxd4 28. exf7  
Rxf7 29. Rxe7 Rxe7 30. Rxe7 Bc6 31. Kb2 Rd7 32. Re6 Bb5 33. a4 Kf7 34. Rb6 Bf1 35. 
h4 Re7 36. b5 axb5 37. a5 Re6 38. Rb7  Kg6 39. Bd2 Re2 40. Kc1 Re4 41. Bc3 Kh5 42. 
Rxg7 Kxh4 43. Bf6 Kg4 44. Rxh7 Kf5 45. a6 Ra4 46. a7 b4 47. Bd4 Bd3 48. Re7 b3 49. 
Re5  Kf4 50. Re8 Be4 51. g6 Bxg6 52. a8Q Bxe8 53. Be5  Kf5 1-0

[Event "Dubai"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2001.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Mamedov, Roufat"]
[Black "Odeev, Khandzhar (Handjar)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2313"]
[BlackElo "2471"]
[NIC "SI 19.16.7"]
[ECO "B90"]
[PlyCount "86"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. f3 b5 8. Qd2 Bb7 
9. g4 Nfd7 10. O-O-O Nb6 11. Bd3 N8d7 12. g5 Rc8 13. Kb1 Ne5 14. f4 Nbc4 15. Qe1 
Nxd3 16. cxd3 Nxe3 17. Qxe3 Qb6 18. f5 Be7 19. h4 e5 20. Nc2 Bd8 21. f6 gxf6 22. 
gxf6 Qxe3 23. Nxe3 Bxf6 24. Ncd5 Bd8 25. b4 Bc6 26. Rdf1 Bd7 27. Rhg1 h6 28. h5 Be6 
29. Nf5 Bxf5 30. Rxf5 Bg5 31. Kb2 Rc6 32. a4 bxa4 33. Ra1 Rg8 34. Rf2 a3  35. Kxa3 
Bd8 36. Rf3 Rg2 37. Kb3 Rh2 38. Rg3 Rxh5 39. b5 axb5 40. Ra7 Bg5 41. Ra8  Kd7 42. 
Ra7  Ke8 43. Ra8  Kd7 1/2-1/2

The Mamedov game seemed better for white, but korneev's game was very wild!  


The other variation in the Najdorf has always brought my problems with white: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4: 4.Nd4: Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Be7 9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 a5!? and now de la Villa offers 11.Bb5. what do you think of this move?
11. ... Na6 12.Qe2 he now doesn't consider 12. ... a4!? as played by some strong players (including Bu Xiangxi). What would you suggest for white?

Thanks guys for information.

Currently I'm working with EXPERTS vs SICILIAN 2nd ed. and I'm wondering how De la Villa's book compares with Quality Chess book regarding:

a) smoothness of proposed repertoire
b) bullet-proofness to fashion
c) overall grade

Thanks 

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.

Thanks for replies!

I wonder how this book compares with Aagaard's "Experts vs Sicilian". In intro of the book author stresses that given repertoire has fluidness with other recommended lines. That should be very good.

As Sicilian Alapin (2.c3) player, I do wonder if I should buy this book and to skip on mainline Sicilian. I'm at 2100, but will I breach Elo 2200 if I study this book, regarding Silian mainlines.

Thanks, all good comments are welcome!

The repertoire is based primarily around the English Attack setup f3, Be3, Qd2 and 0-0-0, as stated in the given pdf excerpt. To cover such an aggressive and theoretical setup in a repertoire book is very ambitious, but in my view entirely justified. To answer rossia's question in the other thread here, it looks like this book is aimed at 1600-2200 players, although I will certainly purchase a copy.

I will be particularly interested in de la Villa's opinion on the English Attack against the Najdorf, since the large number of recent Yearbook surveys on lines such as 8...Be7 9.f3 h5, 9...0-0 and 8...Bb4 9.f3 0-0 suggest that Black should fully equalise.

The text is now changed to "Former Spanish Champion and successful chess coach Jesus de la Villa presents a complete repertoire for White after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3."

I would have to guess that it's a typo. I would hazard a guess that this is just a translation and update of his Spanish book, "Desmontando la Siciliana". I doubt he'll write a new repertoire on the Closed or the Grand Prix. No one would buy that garbage! 

You can find information on New in Chess' website, Book publishing program.

They state: "Former Spanish Champion and successful chess coach Jesus de la Villa presents a complete repertoire for White after 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3. Each variation is clearly organized with its history, ideas, statistics, examples of tactics and strategies, and instructive games."

But a close look at the book's cover shows a white pawn on e4 and Knight on f3 against a black pawn on c5. So, there is still hope for the Open Sicilian addicts!

Watsonfox wrote on 07/17/09 at 09:36:41:


Indeed, although this doesn't rule out the Open Sicilian if White follows up with 3.Nf3/3.Nge2 and 4.d4.

However, it may be better from a marketing point of view to provide an Anti-Sicilian repertoire, as such a repertoire could be covered in more detail and with more new ideas for White than a repertoire book on the Open Sicilian. Personally I would prefer an Open Sicilian repertoire, though.

MilenPetrov wrote on 05/30/09 at 15:12:30:


well there is always the odd chance that they might have an idea that will improve your opening repertoire...

Milen, how much do you acually remember during a game from a repertoire book like the Khalifman-Series? 
I think if yo focu on lines, which are really played, it coulb be quite good, Nunns BTS and Experts vs sicilian were also very good books

I agree that these books can not cover everything but there are certain ommisions there. Look for example the chapter on Rauzer in Experts vs Sicilian. Do u think that the coverage of the 6...Qb6 is full? I do not think so. If you have doubts check the Open Sicilian section for subscribers where i shared my analysis. With my full respect to the authors and editors I do not think that it is possible to offer a complete repertoire in just 200 or so pages. For overview purposes it is OK, but no more.

Frankly speaking I am pesimistic about this book. How one can offer a full complete repertoire based on Open sicilians in only about 300 pages... Looks like this will be an overview for beginners to intermediate players, but not in depth coverage.
I have the spanish version of the book and for me it is nothing more than a selection of well (but not very good) commented games. Nothing new there. If the nw edition will be in the same quality then no idea to go for this book.