Markovich wrote on 01/06/10 at 13:43:33:


Many things have puzzled me on this book.
Length of chapters, etc, Lines overcovered and lines undercover.
For instance, the author says that 4...Bg4 was the main line somewhile ago, than it was replaced by 4...g6 and then by 4....dxe5.
However, we see the same length for 4...Bg4 as for the rest. 

However, with respect to the line in the Vaganian game, I think it is a sideline of a sideline.

First 5...Nb6 was relegated to a sideline (however, I must confess that I have nothing against what was said there).
Then, when I saw 5...c6, I thought that the Vaganian
line (meaning Vaganian played it frequently and even Ivanchuk) which includes the moves exd6 Qxd6 would be covered. I was interested to see what he would say about this line. But then, Vaganian played dxe5 at the wrong time allowing dxe5! and we have,
before move 10, a line that only happens if one of the
players makes the wrong sequencer of moves. This should be a sideline and not the main game

I am keen to agree with Markovich: this book can be useful as a survey.
It cannot be compared with Baguirov's book as it is not so detailed and neither with Cox's book with which I started looking at the Alekhine.
It neither does bring new idea's but offers from time to time a new look at more or less known positions. The explanations are also quite interesting as, in my eyes, it is the only thing that can be considered as "new".
So, a good complement to existing books but not to be recommended for beginners nor experimented players looking for really new assessments.

By the way, Taylor's book has appeared in the "coming soon" in the everymanchess website.
So, probably, no delay

However, still no pdf

and a happy New Year to all of you

and let us hope we will see good Alekhine games, from Black point of view, in the New Year

Fair enough, but it boils down to a matter of opinion.

Damn, I logged on just now to correct "Bologan" to "Bogdanov" (big diff in playing strength), but you'd already caught it.

I agree that there is not enough coverage of the most critical lines.  The treatment of Bologan's (ha ha) line against the Old Main Line is especially shallow; he doesn't treat 12...h5 at all, and 12...h6 only briefly.  The game he analyses, Iordachescu-Chigladze, Plovdiv 2008 is marred by a bad mistake by White on move 11.

But I'll stand my ground on my general evaluation of this book, taken as a survey.  And I do think that fairly good positional interpretations (which are more useful for weaker players than strong ones, it's true) are much more characteristic of Bogdanov's writing than dry evaluations.

I finally received my copy of Bologan's book on Christmas Eve, which brightened my holiday.  I've now had the chance to look at it at some length, and for what it is, a broad survey of the opening based on recent games, I like it very much.  Bologan's frequent observations on the positional pluses and minus of various continuations are very teacherly, not surprising perhaps, given that he's a respected chess coach.  This increases the value of the book for a first-time Alekhine student.  For example, his analysis of Fedorowicz - Baburin, San Francisco 2002 is packed with long paragraphs interpreting the various positions.

After 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.O-O Be7 7.c4 Nb6 8.Nc3 O-O 9.h3 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nc8 11.f4 Nc6 12.b4 Bh4, Bologan says:

"14...a6 creates another defensive set-up on the queenside.  Now the advance with a4 and b5 requires preparation and leads to the opening of the a-file.  While this will fall into White's hands, the number of the combat units will decrease.  Recapturing on b5 with a piece opens the line of attack on the b7-pawn, but on the other hand weaknesses appear in White's own camp as well."

Personally I find this sort of thing much more illuminating than a line or two followed by a dry, unexplained evaluation.

Nobody should look to this book for interesting new ideas, but as a survey work, I think it's very good.

We are referring to an article in CBM

As I said in a previous post in this thread

"ii) the three games in the Miles which were advertised 
in the pdf [with Be2, Bd3 and Bc4] made me think the most about this book; however, the lines followed in these games are not the topical ones played by White (these topical lines are very briefly mentioned in the sidelines).
One point I would like to make is that the Miles is more about ideas rather than moves, and I was expecting a deep explanation of some of those lines

if you are interested in the Miles, Rogozenco is quite good but also at the recent one by Finkel in the latest NIC Yearbook (this one is quite good also but is more specific - mostly about Be2)