Yes, Larsen played exd6 so I think we will have that
in the exchang (after all, it is the move played by
Short)
I liked his Intro. After reading his books, namely the one on Pawn sacrifices, I was expecting a book based on strong opinions (that is, "I recommend this because of this and that ..." and " I dont recommend this....".
However, I was unsure about a reliable repertoire, which appears to be what he has chosen (we still have to understand why he has given two choices again the Modern - although they are related) or something very wild - like 4...Nb6 against the Modern
and perhaps 5...g5 against the 4PA, etc).
What he writes for 5...Nd7 is definitely one example of his options based on wehat he thinks (I am not sure I agree but I like his reasoning).
He gives 5 possibilities for not choosing this move:
i) White gets a perpetual 
ii) Blakc gets lost if it wans to evade the perpetual and cites a well known Fischer-Larsen game
Then gives two examples iii) and iv)where Whie plays the sacrifice and wins because it has a better computer and a better memory and where Black wins for the same reason.
And then 
v) White declines the sacrifice and Black lost a lot of time studying complicated lines that may never happen, etc.
 

I respect Taylor's chess writing more than some here seem to.  He invariably brings an original perspective.  He may not be Boris Avrukh, but so what?  He's a lot stronger than I am, and generally when a strong player starts talking chess, I listen.  So I too look forward to this book.

Even further, it's been pushed back a month and removed from the Coming Soon section...... Wop Waaaahhh! 

Now the infamous BDG book has moved into the "Coming Soon" Section sans PDF. Bodes well for gambit fans as well!

I am surprised with the upcoming book section (right
handside on their main page) of everymanchess.com.

Last month it appeared in this section with no pdf.
The othee two references had a pdf. However, there is an explanation for this since the release date of the other two references was one month earlier.

Now ( afew days ago) there was an update. The other two references were moved to the "out section" and two new references appeared in "the upcoming section" WITH PDF!. However, the Alekhine
book which still is in the upcoming section (since last
month) has no pdf.
What is the explanation for this? Suggestions are given below:

i) incompetence of the webpage updaters
ii) the book is going to be delayed again
iii) the book has a really big secret on the Alekhine and
they are not putting the pdf in order for the secret
not to be used in forthcoming CM articles
iv) they do this to annoy guys like me
v) none of the above

Markovich wrote on 02/06/10 at 17:36:44:


Phil Adams wrote on 02/08/10 at 01:01:32:


I agree completely with both of these posts - which is why I think the very sensible 12.Nf3!? is better than 12.f4 - Its too easy for White - develop, put the rooks in the centre and exploit the weaknesses Black has self-inflicted.

[quote author=73627973767B7C170 link=1250652709/125#125 date=1265325066][quote author=2B282224450 link=1250652709/124#124 date=1265323908]

Incidentally, the new 1 e4 ... update has some interesting stuff on the Voronezh ...[/quote]

It seems unfair that white can get away with all those moves on the queenside just to clear the diagonal and kick the knight when it emerges on c6, but chess isn't always a "fair" game :-)

Nevertheless, it always seemed to me that if there was a good answer to the Voronezh, it probably involved f5 just because white is so far behind in development on the kingside. I looked at that Milliet-Mirzoev game when it appeared in TWIC a couple of weeks ago. Food for thought - though far from conclusive because it must be pointed out that black was over 200 points higher rated than white. [/quote]

Concerning the line used in Milliet-Mirzoev, 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Rc1 0-0 9.b3 Nc6 10.d5 Ne5 11.Be2 f5, this has been known since the earliest days of the Voronezh and it scores very badly for Black, with White scoring 77% from nearly 100 game. However, the game can get messy and unbalanced. If White tries to crush Black with f4 then White too is creating weaknesses on the e-file, which can become a factor if White cannot keep a grip on the position. This I found out the hard way in my game vs Sebastien Maze in the first round of the Port Erin open, back in 2003. (I did manage to draw that game, which was the very last to finish that day, but it left me knackered for the rest of the tournament!)

[Event "Monarch Assurance 12th"]
[Site "Port Erin"]
[Date "2003.09.28"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Adams, Philip"]
[Black "Maze, Sebastien"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B03"]
[WhiteElo "2115"]
[BlackElo "2412"]
[PlyCount "144"]
[EventDate "2003.09.27"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "IOM"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2003.10.22"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Rc1
O-O 9. b3 Nc6 10. d5 Ne5 11. Be2 f5 12. f4 Ng4 13. Bd4 Bh6 14. g3 e5 15. dxe6
Bxe6 16. Nf3 Re8 17. O-O Bf7 18. Re1 Nf6 19. Bd3 Rxe1+ 20. Qxe1 Nbd7 21. Rd1 a6
22. Bf1 Qc7 23. Qd2 Re8 24. Bxf6 Nxf6 25. Qxd6 Qxd6 26. Rxd6 Ng4 27. Na4 Bf8
28. Rd7 Re3 29. Rd3 Be8 30. Ne5 Re1 31. Nxg4 fxg4 32. Kf2 Ra1 33. Nc3 Bc5+ 34.
Ke2 Bc6 35. Nd5 Rxa2+ 36. Rd2 Ra3 37. Rd3 Kf7 38. h3 h5 39. hxg4 hxg4 40. Bg2
a5 41. Be4 Bb4 42. Ke3 Bc5+ 43. Ke2 a4 44. bxa4 Rxa4 45. Rc3 b5 46. Bc2 Rxc4
47. Rxc4 bxc4 48. Ne3 Bf3+ 49. Kd2 Bb4+ 50. Kc1 c3 51. Bd1 Be4 52. Bxg4 Ba3+
53. Kd1 Bc5 54. Nc4 Kf6 55. Bd7 Bf2 56. g4 Bg3 57. f5 g5 58. Ba4 Bf4 59. Na3
Bf3+ 60. Kc2 Bxg4 61. Kxc3 Bxf5 62. Bc6 g4 63. Nc2 Kg5 64. Ne1 Kh4 65. Ng2+ Kg3
66. Kd4 Bd2 67. Ke5 Bc2 68. Kd4 Bd1 69. Kd3 Bf3 70. Bd7 Bc1 71. Ne3 Kf4 72.
Nxg4 Bxg4 1/2-1/2

MarkG wrote on 02/06/10 at 18:42:06:


I went over and looked at that game in the update.  After 11...f5 I would be reasonably happy as Black, and I would buy the comparison with the Dutch Leningrad, if my knight were on f6.  But it's way over on that ratty b6 square.  Who am I to disagree with a GM, but for the time being, I do.

Keano wrote on 02/05/10 at 14:28:37:


Our friend Kam came here a while back and posted some analyses in support of 9...f5.  I punched what I thought was a pretty big hole in it, and there was no rejoinder.  It's a game of chess, of course, but if 9...f5 is the move that Black has to rely on then There's Trouble in River City.  A major point of Alekhine's (yes my friends, I've had it all figured out since that night Caissa appeared to me in a dream) is not to accept permanent weaknesses without getting something pretty big in return.  When you started out 1...Nf6 and you're looking down at weak squares, you'd better have either a material advantage or one heck of an initiative.  My opinion.