Ametanoitos wrote on 06/26/09 at 11:55:41:
And now some bad things:
The experimental structure is interesting but in some lines it is comfusing to go back and forth, between the games and the theory section to try to find what is the right move or what is the clear reccomendation.
And now the serious stuff! In S.O. 1.d4 J.Cox reccomends a line against the Stonewall that never was considered critical. I used this line to a series of lectures of mine in a local club when i tried to provid them with a good repertoire with 1.d4. I have done a lot of research in Cox's line because of these lectures and i was expecting to see if my conclusions matched the ones of the authors. I was very dissapointed when i saw in page 65 the line 7.Qc2 Nbd7? which is given as the one of the two reccomendations. Cox didn't considered this move in his book so i tried to find out if this is a good move or not. I realised that White has a big advantage after 8.cxd5! (not even mentioned in the book!) 8...cxd5 (taking with the e pawn and sacing the f pawn is a typical sequence but here doesn't work because the Bd6 is hanging, so Black doesn't have enough compensation) 9.Nc3! (with Nb5 in mind) 9...a6 10.Bf4! Bxf4 11.gxf4 O-O 12.Na4! the classical game Taimanov-Lisitsin, 1949 is a good demostration of correct play by White here!
So, we pass the unfortunate issue of 7...Nbd7 and go to the other reccomendation 7...O-O! Now Cox uses the game Khenkin-Vaisser, 1999 which continued: 8.Ne5! b6 9.Nc3! with the idea cxd5 and Nb5, 9...a6?! etc when White is better and won the game. B.Shipkov in his CB Cd analyses this game also and gives the improvement 9...Ne4! which Cox doesn't consider! When i did these lectures i now chose the "easy" path and i said that here the engines prefer slightly White because i suppose that Black has weekened his queenside with b7-b6. It is true that the engines give a slight advantage to White but i think that the positio is equal.
Cox believes that the best move for Black is 8...Qe7! when he repeats a line given by Lautier: 9.Nd2 Ne4 10.Ndf3 b6 11.Bf4 Ba6 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Rfc1 with white slightly better. I search in informant notes reveals that 10...b6?! is actually inaccurate and should be played only after white moves his knight on d3. So best is 10...Nd7! 11.Nd3 (11.Bf4 g5! 12.Nxd7 Bxd7 13.Bxd6 Nxd6!=) 11...b6! 12.Bf4
(12.Nfe5 Bxe5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bb7= or 13.dxe5 Bb7 14.f3 Nec5=)
12...Bb7! 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.Nfe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Nf6=
I was very dissapointed that this plan with Qc2 and Ne5 in this exact move order which demands by Black so great accurancy is not mentioned in the book.....
I would give 7,5 to 8 out of 10 to the book.
As a reviewer of some of the chapters I will try to give an answer to some of your comments and worries.
The experimental structure is new so automatically not to everybodies taste. I admit that first time that I saw the idea of the author, I was also sceptical but after a while I got used and even appreciated the concept. Instead of just dumps of info, we get entertaining lessons. Now as consequence to keep the lessons easy to read, you need to stick to the essence of the example games by keeping the sidenotes within limits. The theory parts at the end of each lesson fulfills the needs of the students which want to go further that just the lessons. A serious student won't mind that some forth and back reading will be necessary.
The line 7. Qc2 on page 65 in the book is only mentioned as a sidenote because as you said yourself except the Cox book , never been regarded as a critical independent line. From my personal 13 years of experience I only encountered it once in 25 official fide rated games (against several FM, IM and GM's) and even in that 1 game on the next move the FM already deviated from the critical path. So far the easy way to explain why your petline isn't mentioned. However there is more. In March this year so before publication I informed the author that the 3rd chapter especially around 7. Qc2/ 7. Nc3 needed a rework. I analysed the materials heavily for one month, sent the conclusions and hoped things could be rectified. Unfortunately we were too close to publication so we could only do some minorpatches, missing the major ideas of my analyses. The number of pages were already fixed so adding new pages wasn't possible anymore. A further delay of the deadline wasn't an option after the already several times postponed publication.
Enough talk, now some concrete stuff to help you further.
1. d4, f5 2.g3, Nf6 3. Bg2, e6 4. Nf3, d5 5. 0-0, Bd6 6. c4, c6 7. Qc2, Nbd7!? 8. cd5:, cd5: 9. Nc3, a6 (9. ..., 0-0 is a major alternative 10. Nb5, Bb8 11. Bf4, Bf4: 12. gf4:, Ne8 13. Rfc1, Nb6 14. Nc7, Nc7: 15. Qc7:, Nc4 16. Qd8:, Rd8: 17. b3, Nd6 18. Ne5, Bd7 and Rybka gives 0,27 for white) 10. Bf4!? (Likely stronger is 11. Bg5), Bf4: 11. gf4:, 0-0 12. Na4, Nb6 13. Nc5, Nc4!N 14. b3, Nd6 15. Ne5 and Rybka gives 0,29 for white so again very far from the claimed big advantage.
1. d4, f5 2.g3, Nf6 3. Bg2, e6 4. Nf3, d5 5. 0-0, Bd6 6. c4, c6 7. Qc2, 0-0!? 8. Nc3! (8. Ne5!? as you explained yourself, gives with careful play good chances for equalty.), Ne4!? (For the many alternatives please drop me an email for the extensive analysis) 9. Ne4:!, de4: 10. Bg5, Be7 11. Be7:, Qe7: 12. Ne5, c5 13. e3, Nd7 14. Rad1, b6 15. Nd7:, Bd7: +/=
Conclusion there isn't an easy way to equalty in this sidesystem . This weak spot doesn't mean the book isn't relevant. At contrary in the many very well written lessons there are plenty of new and rare ideas explained which will help any amateur bring his general understanding of the stonewall to a higher level.
Pages: 
New book - Win with the Stonewall Dutch (Read 187241 times)
