MNb i only looked at it a bit quickly, so don't be harsh on me if something is not quite correct!


1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. g3 Nf6 

(As a Tarrasch player i would definately play 3... c5 at this point 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. O-O Nf6 

(5... d4 is correct and the critical Black's try according to my understanding 6. d3 Nf6 7. e3 e5 8. exd4 exd4 9. Re1+ Be7 10. Ne5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 O-O seems OK for Black even though there must be a more convincing continuation?) 

6. d4 dxc4 is a transposition to a known Catalan line where in my opinion Black has equal chances) 

4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4 c5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. a3 was the tabiya you asked for a recommendation. I believe that 8... dxc4 9. Qc2
Nc6 10. Qxc4 Be7 is the answer 

(10... Bb6 11. Nc3 

(11. Bf4 is potentially akwatd to meet, stopping e5 11...Nd5

(or mayne we can play it? 11... e5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13.
Bxe5 Ng4 14. Bc3 Nxf2 15. Rxf2 Qd1+ 16. Bf1 Bh3 17. e3 Bxe3 18. Qe2 Qc1 19. Qe1
Bxf2+ 20. Kxf2 Qh6 and probably White has an edge) 

12. Bd2 is probably a little +/=?) 

11... e5 12. Bg5 

(12. Rd1 Be6 or simply 12... Qe8=) 

12...Be6 13. Qh4 and now after 13...h6 14. Bxf6 Qxf6 15. Qxf6 gxf6 this b3 square seems annoying! For example 16. Na4 Rfd8 17. Nxb6 axb6 18. Rfd1 Na5 19. Nd2 Bb3) 

11. Nc3 

(Now 11. Bf4 is met by 11...Ng4 12. h3 e5 13. Bd2 Be6) 

11... e5 12. Rd1 Be6 13. Qxc6 (13. Qb5 Qb8 =) 
13... bxc6 14. Rxd8 Bxd8 15. Nxe5 Nd5 16. Nxc6 Nxc3 17. bxc3 Bf6 of course i should add references etc or analyse more variations but my first impression is that Black should be more or less OK. I didn't check though my corr games database. Is there a particular game that was played and caused you worries?

No MNb, unfortunately we don't have the space to analyse English, Reti and 'd'-pawn lines. But we can create a seperate thread (or use this thread if the originator hasn't got a problem with that) to discuss those lines. I have a lot of material in these deviations from the main line Tarrasch. At moment though there are thoughts of using this material in the future for maybe a Greek edition of the book, or something like that. Anyway he can discuss them at least and i can provide my opinions using my experience after studying them. If you wait a bit i can see the line you give and respond to you. At present there is a lot of work to do but i hope that i'll find a little amount of time to look at this shortly.

@ReneDescartes: Thank you for your kind words, they are really appreciated. But i believe that using words like "jealous" to discribe others motivations is at least injustice. I would be much more sceptical than them in fact! Maybe i would express by thoughts in another way though, but in reality i am the one that has to prove to the scepticists that my book is of high quality and not the opposite.

Thank you Konstriktor for your kind words.

I think that we are playing with words here. To tell you the truth i believe that objectively this position is equal. Avrukh disagrees (regarding his evaluation in his book) but i have Euwe, Keres, Kasparov and a lot of other people that have supported my opinion in the past! 

We can talk for hours about what "+/=" means, or even try to write a book about it (but Rowson did that first, see his "Chess for Zebras") but we can agree (i think) that "+/=" means that the game should end in a draw after correct play by both sides. But that's not the real point.

Imagine we are talking about the Lasker's Defence (someone can also see the relevant thread). Let's say that we conclude that Lasker leads to equality and Tarrasch leads to a slight advantage for Black, but we agree that Black has counterplay in the Tarrasch. What is more important for a club player? To play a level (or slightly worse position, imo) without great level of activity, as in the Lasker Defence, or play a position that he will have excellent counterplay regardless of the theoritical status? In both cases the "hyper-theoritical" (as Rowson calls it) evaluation is a draw (as really there are no "+/=" in Chess but only win-draw-loss). Personally i prefer the second option because i am an amateur, and an ambitious one in fact that wants to be able to win every game with Black. 

I sincerely believe that there are far more dangerous lines that White can chose against the Tarrasch (and in fact i cnsider Avrukh's line more dangerous for White than for Black in practice). Many of them are neglected by today's theory as the "theory" in Tarrasch is a very confused subject in general. Also many of Black's options have been unmentioned in the past and someine reading this thread can figure out what i am talking about (see those ...h6 lines we analysed some time back or the big discussion about 6.dxc5 and alternatives to 6...d4). So, a book had to come (as many of the members of this foroum concluded) to "sort things out".

I wish that all these could happen of course but i don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm not a professional. Even though it is true that i have made money from chess (from coaching) all those years i see it (and i''ll continue to see it of course) only as a (wonderfull) hobby. What i want to do now is to offer the best material i could offer to the readers to make them not regret for the money they spent. Many foroum members helped in this and i'm gratefull to them.

Lots of new ideas for White are analysed also! And you will see that they are extremely dangerous and ambitious!  Of course we found the way to counter them eventually but they can really be quite unpleasant in practice. 

I believe that an opening book should be ahead of the theory of the opening it analyses. We don't see this quite a lot in recent books and that's why i have criticized many new books in several threads of this foroum. But the Tarrasch book is simply MANY years ahead of the current theory of the opening.

Yes, Ntirlis Nikolaos is actually my name