Depends on how strict you are. Is Black allowed to play ...Nc6 ? Then quite a few have played it. Should the knight always go to d7? And does the name only apply against the Yugoslav? The two earliest games stem from the YUGch 1955. No Reshevsky here. And I could not find one single Botvinnik game coming close. Could GM Golubev provide more information?

With respect, I think GM Golubev is getting a bit too serious concerning opening nomenclature. I believe Dragadorf is a great name, besides we are stuck with it now - good luck starting a movement to change names...

Some Dutchies still call 6.f3 and 7.Be3 the Rauser Attack. But I think that is a bit confusing because of the Richter-Rauser.
GMGolubev wrote on 08/03/09 at 02:06:35:

Yes, that's why I think you are defending a lost case, even if I regret it.

In Gligoric's book on the Nimzo 4.e3 0-0 5.Ne2 is called Reshevsky's Variation.

A danger with trying to rename the Dragadorf could be that it might end up The Reshvinnik instead. 

But if it survives these early years, someone in Top 10 will start to play it regularly, and soon after it will become the Carlsen or Topalov-Sicilian...

GMGolubev wrote on 08/01/09 at 15:50:52:


I prefer the German/Russian tradition of namegiving as well. Reshevsky's Dragon would be nice. Botvinnik already has at least two openings on his name, Reshevsky none as far as I know.

BlkSabb wrote on 07/31/09 at 16:33:59:


IMHO, 'Drago/adorf' sounds exactly as ugly as 'Dragondorf'.

I prefer to call it Botvinnik's Dragon. In no way I am Botvinnik's fan, but Botvinnik played the Dragon with 7...a6, not Nc6/0-0. Only some games, but he played 7...a6 in years when he was the world champion.

OK, Reshevsky, for example, played 7...a6 without ...Nc6 earlier than Botvinnik, at least one game.

In any case, why to distort Najdorf's name? I do not get it. It is not funny. Najdorf was a living person, he is not Lord of the Ring hero.

Been looking through on a couple of long commutes. 
2 initial thoughts:

1
Chapter 4: Bauer's approach which worried me looking through the material:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1376698


Perhaps black may do best to avoid this altogether. Avoid playing immediate b5 in response to white's g4. The point is that Bauer's plan is to attack the qside weaknesses which black creates after b5.

Which leads to Ward's idea 9...h6 - not played yet here, but obvious enough. A move black may well want to play anyhow. White can make little headway on the kside, plus the positional Bauer option no longer available as the knight cannot be pushed.

Or possibly even 9...Ne5:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1512374

2
Chapter 3 
Delchev-Nataf
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1374865
(ouch)
The author questions the praise given to white's  move 11 a3. 
It appears from Bologan's notes  however that playing a3 is something of a stock response to Bb7 in certain positions, the point being that black's position is now sub-optimum for taking advantage of this - he cannot get the pawns rolling, and cannot get the lumps to the b-file. As such, the a3 pawn is not a weakness. A general rule, but a useful one maybe. Had never come across that rule before reading Bologan's best games, suspect many others haven't.

Hi,

I also do not think that the review is well argued (to say the least). My main concern and reason to post it here was that despite the low rating of the reviewer I expect many potential German buyers to read it, since Schach Niggemann usually puts Rieger’s reviews right into their online store, and I think that many people in Germany buy their chess books there (I do). That’s why I think it is relevant. My idea is to use the comment function on the website where it is now posted to point out the inconsistencies of the review, and I would be much more confident if I had backup from some people who are able to judge the positions (I am clearly not).

Some ideas:

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 Ke7 seems to be a mistake, so the remark that ‘Rybka and all other engines prefer White’ after it does not really tell us much. Only 17...d5 is given as an alternative, but it is hardly the only playable move. When he was checking the lines with Rybka, he should have at least said that it sees no big White advantage after 17.Ng3, instead of misleading the reader to assume that this move busts the black setup.

b) 8.Bc4 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.Qd2 Nbd7

b1) 11.0-0-0 h6 12.g4 is called a Rybka/Junior suggestion and ‘probably the strongest move’. I don’t have Junior, but strangely neither my Rybka 3 nor Fritz 10 consider 12.g4 even among the top 5 moves, and I don’t see why it should be particularly dangerous in this position. With 11...h6 Black is clearly committed to leaving his King in the centre, so after 12...Nc5 the direct 13.g5 hxg5 14.Bxg5 only activates his Rh8. Same goes for 13.h4 h5 14.gx5 Rxh5, and if I compare 14.g5 e.g. to the ‘Tiviakov system’ line 7...Nc6 8.Qd2 Bd7 9.0-0-0 Rc8 10.g4 Ne5 11.h4 h5 12.g5 I see only improvements for Black: The Nf6 can go to d7 instead of being pushed to the passive h7 square, Black has already made some progress o the Queenside, and he has pressure against e4, which makes the f4-f5 lever more difficult to accomplish.

What both my Fritz and Rybka do prefer is 12.h4 with the typical Yugoslav idea 12...Nc5 13.h5 Nxh5 14.g4 Nf6 15.Bxh6 Bxh6 16.Rxh6 Rxh6 17.Qxh6, but after 17...e5 18.Nde2 Nxb3+ 19.axb3 b4 20.Na4 Black seems to be fine. Also 12...h5 could be ok, although in the line 13.Kb1 Nc5 14.Nf5 gxf5 15.Bxc5 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 Fritz likes 17.Qf4 Rf8 18.Qg5 a lot, whereas 17.fxe4 dxc5 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Qf2+ Ke8 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8 doesn’t seem to give White anything. So perhaps something else than 13...Nc5 is better, e.g. 13...Qc7 or 13...Rc8 (but not 13...0-0).

b2) is simply beside the point, because as already noted it is essentially line a), and there after 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 Nc5 13.0-0-0 the suggested move is 13...e5, not 13...Nxb3+.

b3) 11.a4 bxa4 12.Nxa4 Qc7 13.0-0 0-0 14.c4 Rfd8 15.Ba2 Nc5 16.Nc3 is given with the verdict ‘White is slightly better’, which I don’t consider a huge challenge to the system to begin with (if I wanted equality at move 15, I surely wouldn't play the Dragon). In any case, it looks like a pretty standard Maroczy setup to me, with the White Bishop being no more active on a2 than on the usual e2 square. In my experience, engines (specifically Fritz) tend to overestimate White’s positions in the Maroczy, and here they evaluate it only as +=. The only problem I can see is that compared to a normal Accelerated Dragon Black has not managed to exchange one pair of Knights.

So in the end the criticism boils down to some lines that (except b2) could have been covered to make the repertoire more complete, although in my humble opinion they do not come even close to putting the Black setup in question. But well, this is a new system without much theory yet, so at least I do not expect worked out forcing lines beyond move 30, and you have to start thinking over the board at some point anyway...

At least I'm looking very much forward to receiving my copy.

Best,
Guido