Keano wrote on 09/28/09 at 14:12:07:


I was talking about d3; Ne4 is just a low-theory alternative to the mainline. I didn't claim it is the best but I do claim it is adequate.

7. ... d3 isn't better for black but it does take sting out of the iniative of white. I do believe a comfortable equality is the result. 7. .. dxc3 just doesn't make sense to me: you let white play Qe2 with a tempo and then you open up the position out of free will... .

I can only thank the gods for COWE. Several players at my club play the Scotch gambit thanks to this book but the book doesn't consider the best move after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 Ne4 (recommended by Davies in Play 1. e4 e5!) 6. Qe2 Nc5 7. c3. It only considers 7. ... dxc3 which is good for white but neglects the best move: 7. ... d3 after which I don't see a lot of problems for black.

Keano wrote on 09/28/09 at 12:40:46:


Having reread the review, I disagree. If you compare the repertoire with Perelshteyn's games, as Watson has done, it is clear that if Perelshteyn has played a game where the opening repertoire in the book fails to achieve the desired result, then the variation is completely ignored. Also, one good novelty in a chapter does not make the chapter good - in fact, in the Bd2 line most of the assessments are incorrect as the key variations are nearly always ignored. Even in the variation they refuted, the authors neglected several more important variations, and several of the proposed 'novelties' are not superior to previously played moves in the given position, in that they also fail to obtain the advantage.

Whilst some of the ideas are good, the analysis is not very good as it is either incomplete, offers incorrect evaluations or ignores important options. To take an extreme example, the Phillidor via. the common move order 1...d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5/Nbd7 is completely ignored, and in the 1...e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 move order, the authors advocate 4.de5, which should only lead to equality as the position is too symmetrical after ...d6 for White to claim any advantage. I recall that the coverage of the Voronezh Variation in the Alekhine was also very brief although to be fair that was probably one of the better sections of the book as at least the analysis given was of a good quality.

The book could be recommended to a new player, say under 1600, to introduce them to an opening repertoire, but the main problem in my view is that it teacher the player bad habits in studying the opening and will leave the reader unprepared for the most common variations. This sets up the player for a range of problems later in their career. As Watson says in his conclusion, 'some GMs are profiting from this book, but not by improving their chess.'

Opening books are also about scientific integrity to some extent. Leaving out Black's best, while well-known or easy-to-find moves in a repertoire book for White is dishonest. This is exactly what Dzjindzi did as has been proven not only by Watson. I think that a good reason for bashing.

Devilman wrote on 09/26/09 at 22:59:12:


It's a sin to play 1...e5 and not know the Two Knights, especially at your level.  Take up the Two Knights!  In your line, 4...Nf6!.

Devilman wrote on 09/27/09 at 00:31:33:


No, you don't disturb. It's just that I doubt if we really can help you with your questions. It's not true that it's hard to find books for Black. More or less recently are published books by Kaufmann, Marin (repertoires for Black) and Palkovi (general overview of the Italian). If I am not mistaken the repertoire book by Davies also recommends the Italian. Emms prefers the 2K.
But at your stage you also could do well with older stuff. On my shelves I have volume XI/1 of the German version of the Euwe-series and Pachmann's Moderne Schachtheorie. Both are from the 80's and when it comes to stuff like this they still are satisfactory. In these two books you already could have found out about the disadvantages of 5...Qe7. They are known since the corr. games London-Edinburgh of 1824.
Thank you for confirming my point. Now I am strongly convinced that you need some good book.

This puts me in mind of a game Rossolimo-Evans which went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. d4 ed(?) 6. 0-0 d3 and now Evans described 7. e5 (as played by Rossolimo and given by TN) as "a sharp move which virtually wins by force."  Classic open-game stuff.