A PS here: I still got the first edition of ECO "C" (I think from 1974). Although it's obviously very old now, this is one of the best books on the Modern Steinitz ever written!

It seems like in Taylor's books, he presents interesting ideas, but he leaves out a lot of the critical variations.

and against the exchange? 

Apparently the King's Indian didn't work for Larsen. Some openings work for some people, and some openings do not. I never got any results with the French, both with black and with white, so I am staying away from it. Why I don't get results? I don't know. The French is of course a perfectly respectable opening. The essential thing is to find out what works for you.

To get back to the thread, I haven't had much experience with the Modern Steinitz yet, but the lines are very much in line with other lines I play, so I expect them to suit me well. The MS certainly appeals to me a great deal for the following reasons:
1.You're throwing your own line on the board as early as move 4.
2.Against white's main continuations, black has several options, so there is scope to vary within the system.      
3.Theoretically black is doing quite well.
4.The MS is totally out of fashion so most whites will not have faced it frequently (maybe might not have faced it at all) and may not know what to do against it - they might even have forgotten the theory!
5.I'm a big fan of Keres. He was great.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 05/19/11 at 14:26:55:

Larsen said he never played a dubious line if he thought the opponent might be able to refute it over the board. Repeating sick ideas doesn't sound Larsen-ish. Yes, he invited Tal to play Nxf7 in the Alekhine, but it took decades until a refutation was worked out. Larsen did sometimes play the King's Indian, although he didn't regard it as fully correct. His explanation was that he played the KI only when he felt out of form. During a KI game he felt "in danger" and instinctively played with utter care.

SWJediknight wrote on 05/17/11 at 16:01:01:


Spot on - this is a dilemma I'm facing as well. I've played the riga varaition of the ruy lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Ne4: 6.d4 ed4:) loads of times but it has now been busted - but the refutation is so incredibly complicated I might never get it? Still Larsen said he doesn't like to play a line he knows has been refuted. You might just come across this one opponent who goes all the way right into the refutation ... and even club players can have a (very) high degree of opening knowledge.

SWJediknight wrote on 05/17/11 at 16:01:01:


The Siesta is now one of black's best lines in the MS, theoretically and maybe pracically as well.

SWJediknight wrote on 05/17/11 at 16:01:01:


He does and he doesn't: Nge7 after 0-0 is covered in a chapter ("the knight defence"), but he doesn't mention Nge7 on move 5. Taylor just mentions the standard reply 5. ... Bd7 which has the deficit though that after 6.d4! ed4: white goes 7.Bc6:! and black is worse. So Taylor recommends playing 6. ... Nf6! after 6.d4, but black can't play the Rubinstein any more. So if you like the Rubinstein (I do!) then 5. ... Nge7 might be a way to get into it.

I am currrently studying the Rubinstein and it's an amazingly complex variation, and very tactical. If black knows what he's doing then it is very difficult for white to achieve anything, and white may easily get into trouble. Even a giant like Fisher was struggling against the Rubinstein. Since the variations are so unusual and most whites may never had a game with it, there is a big potential for scoring points with black here.
I don't agree with Taylor that the Rubinstein is no good if white plays 5.c3 and refrains from castling.      

NeverGiveUp wrote on 05/13/11 at 13:45:19:


Well, i think Taylor thinks that 12...Nh6 is best, since the knight is still trapped on g5 so maybe the gambit is still ok. Still think that if i was a GM, it would probably only work on suprise value, i doubt it would work against a prepared opponent since i think there are numerous tries for an edge for White. But, that doesnt mean that the line is refuted

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/19/11 at 08:50:50:


Having seen some preview pages of "Slay the Spanish" over at Amazon, I tend to agree with Ametanoitos's assessment, and also Taylor's assessment in the book (beyond risky at 2600+ level but at lower levels/fast time limits players could have a lot of fun with it if they're prepared to take risks).  Deep analysis reveals that White has too many promising continuations at present for the line to be likely to make a comeback at high levels.   In that respect the line is like 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4, which at one time was considered respectable and quite popular with GMs, but is now under a cloud due to 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 (analysed by Stefan Bucker at Kaissiber #32)- such is life with risky lines for Black in the computer era.

I am not convinced that the same won't happen with the Siesta in the next decade- it looks sound for the moment, but Tim Harding's article illustrates that the final verdict in the most critical line has yet to be reached.

But as you say, if one considers the risks to be too large, Black has decent solid ideas to fall back upon including 5...Nge7, and 5...Bd7 followed by ...g6 or ...Nge7-g6 (and they also work against 5.c3, if Black isn't tempted by the Siesta).