For me I've had problems playing against the queen's indian setup when I play 1.b4 because 
a)it's dull 
b) Black sometimes goes all out attacking the b pawn with the a pawn, c pawn, everything, and generally incurs pawn weaknesses in the process but I find that sometimes I get cramped on the queenside with the minor pieces akwardly placed.    

Thank you MNb for the game. To be honest Nc3 is not in my taste, blocking the way to Be5 and later the exchange on BXf6, for sure I would have prefered e3 or Bb2. I believe white started to lose the way around the 22 move when he played c5. If for any reason somebody  does not like the positions after 1...e5 he may try 1.Nf3 and after any other reply than 1...c5 to play 2.b4 like the great Smyslov used to play. 

And in order not to confuse somebody I do not claim  that 1.b4 is the super opening that must replace 1.d4 or 1.e4 , it is simply a sound opening system, but in order to play it you must be an experienced player with not only good positional and Strategic knowledge but also a high endgame knowledge also.

I would think that 1...e5 and 2...Bxb4 has been considered as leading to equality in every theoretical work I've ever seen.  6. Nc3 in MNb's game looks odd.  Surely the standard view is that after 1. b4 Black can play in a number of ways which should lead to equality, but has no route to an advantage.

About the book, it's really very good and every one who plays the sokolsky must buy it. Concerning if this opening is refuted or not the only I can say no refutation exists, databases do not always say the truth, in most of the cases the white player is lower rated. 
The opening is sound, has healthy strategical background and the pawn chains favour white. If white enter the middle game with a level position, then it has very good posibilities to outplay his opponent.
In every opening you play, you must know the ideas, the middle game positions they arise  and  also usual endgame positions. You may find Beauty sometimes in very ungly places.
Against 1...e5 white is fine, if a problematic line exists then this line belongs to 1...d5 or in lines where black advocates a QID approach.
In summary Sokolsky is a playable opening, but you must it study very well, before you give it a try like all the other opening 

Markovich wrote on 06/29/09 at 16:42:29:

What about 1...c6  for example 2.Bb2 a5 3.a3 ab etc?

I've recently become curious about the Kucharkowski-Meybohm gambit. (1.b4 e5 .2 Bb2 Bxb4 3. f4)  However, in both of the two recent sokolsky books, coverage has been sparse.   

Lapshun's book only includes a single annotated game by the author while Theory and Practice of the Sokolsky says in the introduction, " ...we don't recommend it for white since it is well answered by 2...d6.  Moreover, Black can avoid the gambit altogether by changing his sequence of moves to 2...Nf6 3. Bxe5 Bxb4, as explained in the introduction."

2. ...d6 is a typo as seen on pg22 of their book they meant 3. ..d6.  But also that is the only page of the book with any coverage of the gambit.  Having played the orangutan consistently over the past year and a half  after 2...Nf6 I'd just play 3. b5 and happily go down different paths.   

Does anyone know of some other resources or authors who discuss this gambit?  Any alternative to the main line holds some interest for me.

Holbox wrote on 02/01/10 at 14:47:13:


My web site? Maybe you're thinking of a different Marek, i.e. Marek Trokenheim's 1.b4 world: http://www.algonet.se/~marek/

Holbox wrote on 02/01/10 at 13:46:58:


The line does happen to get a (very short) mention in the book (in the notes to Game 89), though there are better reasons for buying the book than that.