Surprising to see that. My copy only just arrived and I have been quite impressed so far. I have a passing familiarity with the variation, but a fair bit was new to me here. 

One problem may be that the reviewer is a quite weak non-player. Had never heard of him so looked it up:

http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=4637755

Only 4 rated games in the last 9 years (at least) and a rating of only 2163. I would thus be sceptical of his ability to actually be able to review effectively. 

Odd criticism: a game from 1972, ECO, and a one-mover from Rybka/Junior. 

As noted many times in many places, weak players can write books with PCs, but they struggle to judge resulting positions.
Similar with reviewing. Simply - he isn't experienced enough to be able to judge. 

That said, I am sure Simon Williams will pop by to reply at some point to the specific criticism, when he has finished the more important matter of the British Championship. 

Reviewers - if you are grumpy, having a bad day at work, wait till tomorrow. 

I recommend the book - lively stuff, engagingly written with plenty of explanation by an expert in the line. 

Hi folks,

so far I have been only reading in the Dragons forum, but now I think I have something of interest to tell.

I do not have the book yet, but I want to bring to your attention a highly critical (in fact devastating) review in German that has just been published on my internet chess server. The reviewer Martin Rieger regularly writes book reviews on that site, and I believe that they are rather widely read, because one of the biggest chess booksellers in Germany cites them frequently in their online store. 

I reckon it might also be of interest for the non-German speakers and of course for Simon Williams himself, who I believe should be given a chance to reply to the strong claims made in the review.

I have asked the reviewer for permission to translate the text in full, but until then I think I can at least give you his main points. Bottom line is: he claims that the book is bad because it omits several important games/variations that put the suggested lines in jeopardy:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 a6 and now:

a) 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.Bc4 b5 10.Bb3 Bb7 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Nc5 13.0-0-0 e5 14.Nde2 Nxb3+ 15.axb3 b4 16.Na4 Qc7 17.Ng3 (instead of 17.Rd2 d5 18.Qg5 Qe7 19.exd5 as in Timman-Shanava, Baku 2008, which is the line featured in the book with Williams’ suggestion 19...h6 as an improvement over 19...Nxd5) 17…Ke7 (17...d5 18.exd5 Nxd5 19.Ne4 0-0-0 20.Nec5±) 18.Nf1 (or 18.Rhf1 suggested by Rybka) 18...Bc8 19.Ne3 Be6 20.Kb1 Rac8 21.Rd2 Qa5 22.Rhd1 Rc6 23.Qh4 h6 24.f4+- Rcc8 25.Rxd6 exf4 26.Rd7+ Bxd7 27.Nd5+ Qxd5 28.exd5 g5 29.Qe1+ Kf8 30.Nb6 Rb8 31.Qxb4+ Kg7 32.Qd4 Bf5 33.Re1 Rhe8 34.Rxe8 Rxe8 35.d6 Re4 36.Qd2 Re8 37.Nd5 Nxd5 38.Qxd5 Kg6 39.Ka2 Rb8 40.c4 h5 41.c5 Rb5 42.Qd2 Bd7 43.c6 Bxc6 44.Qc2+ 1-0 Huschenbeth-Shanava, Pardubice 2008

b) 8.Bc4 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.Qd2 Nbd7  - looks like the same as a) with different move order to me, but I'm simply reproducing the lines given in the review:

b1) 11.0-0-0 h6 12.g4 (suggested by Rybka/Junior) instead of 12.Kb1, 12.Nd5 or 12.Rhe1, which are discussed

b2) 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Nc5 13.0-0-0 Nxb3+ (if I understand it correctly, 13...e5 should be the repertoire choice, right?) 14.Nxb3 Qc7 15.Kb1 is not mentioned: 15…Rc8 16.Rd2 b4 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 Qc4 19.Re1 Rg8 20.Ka1 Rc7 21.Rd4 Qb5 22.Qf4 Kd7 23.Rxb4 Qxd5 24.Rd4 Qc6 25.Na5 Qc5 26.Nc4 d5 27.Ne5+ Kc8 28.c4 g5 29.Qd2 e6 30.cxd5 Nxd5 31.Rc4 Qe7 32.Rxc7+ Nxc7 33.Nc6 Qf6 34.Qd6+- Re8 35.Rc1 Qf4 36.Na7+ Kb8 37.Qb6+ Ka8 38.Rxc7 1-0 Real de Azua-Scarella, Villa Ballester 2008

b3) 11.a4 bxa4 (11...b4?! 12.Nd5 a5 13.Bh6 '±' according to ECO) 12.Nxa4 Qc7 13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 Rfd8 15.Ba2 Nc5 16.Nc3 Ostojic-Ivanovic, Yugoslavia 1972

Best,
Guido

When in The Netherlands (never in Belgium or Suriname) the debate on spelling flares highly once again it is always a relief to me that the English speaking nations make even a bigger mess of their spelling. As Dutch chessplayers tend to translate the names of chess openings I guess we should call it Drakedorp - Dragon being English for Draak and dorf being German for dorp (village).
The only problem is the article. Dorp is neutral, which means that we have to use "het". But all chessopenings and -variations begin with "de".

Much better sounds the Drydorf.

After all, it's more dry than both Dragon & Najdorf.

Today my copy finnaly arrived. Quick looks indicates that there are also som interesting suggestions in the classical lines as well, particellery a new way against g3 system.

On the Everyman website this new book is already available to buy in their e-book format, which is an interesting new marketing strategy.  See

http://www.everymanchess.com

I got the book today, and I have to agree with Glenn, it looks good! A Yugoslav setup with a quick Bc4 does indeed look critical, and I'll have to delve into all the variations to see what's what here. That said, it looks well written, the intro is quite nice and helpful, and there seems to be original analysis everywhere. Kudos to Williams on an interesting new book about an interesting new opening.

Anand 11 has been out since January of this year. I find it hard to believe that he couldn't get his hands on a copy before the final draft on his book was submitted. 

I was basing it less on his personality and more on the style of his chess, some of his annotated games where he expresses his thoughts at the moment of playing, as well as his Dutch book. If you have it, you might retract the doubt cast on my speculation. Sorry for the confusion.

I would say that the ability to write and convey opening thoughts in a way meaningful to an amateur is completely separate from organizing one's own repertoire. Look at all the crappy opening books out there written by GM's.