I like to revive this old thread since there were some interesting developements after the deadline of the Bogdanovich book, which was for the english edition around 2005/2006. Starting in 2005, two very strong correspondence players started playing 2...Nf6 on a regular basis and were pretty successfull.

SIM Igor Dolgov (current rating 2522) played 43 games from 2008 - 2011 scoring a very good 48% with Black (Average ratings: White 2396, Black 2406).

GM Alexei Voll (current rating  2555), played 31 games from 2005 - 2010 (White 2520, Black 2534) and scord a fantastic 58% without loosing a single game.

What does this mean?
1. There is every reason to take a close look at the variation (as a system on it´s own or as a different way to the Naijdorf avoiding all Bb5 systems).
2. Bogdanovichs book should be completely outdated (but still useful in its pawn structure and complete games parts).
3. As long as this system is not in the spotlight of elite tournaments, it should be a very dangerous weapon - at least to reach equality

I'd certainly agree with that for the independent options after 3 Nc3 (d5 or Nc6 ^ d5). A bit more interesting if just used as an anti-anti-sicillian move order perhaps.

Well its certainly a fun position if nothing else

Actually I did find another potential minor niggle: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e5 Nd5 4 d4 cd 5 Qxd4 e6 6 Bc4 Nc6 7 Qe4 now 7 .. f5 8 Qe2 Nde7 seems to be the 'fun' option in the main lines from the book (8.. d6 is presumably all right but also a pretty standard position type.).

The thing is that he doesn't really show how black can get a playable position in various deviations from the main game. eg:
9 h4!? Nc6 10 Bb5 and now 10 .. Qc7?! 11 BxN dc (I think) 12 h5 Nge7 13 c4 etc with a good position for white.

The book doesn't give any options though and it doesn't seem entirely obvious how black can improve, or really ever sensibly develop his e7 knight.

Well having got the book and looked 4 .. Nxc3 5 dc its actually somewhat more unbalanced than I suspected. cf:
5 .. Nc6 6 Bf4 e6 7 Qd2 Qc7 8 o-o-o h6 9 h4 b6 10 Qe3 Bb7 (this seems to be blacks basic set up) 11 Nd2 Ne7 12 Nc4 Nd5 13 Qg3 (mentioned in a note as better than Qd2).

The book then just gives 13 .. b5!? 14 Nd6+ BxN 15 ed Qa5 16 Qxg7 o-o-o as 'totally unclear' which is true I guess, if not the usual computer style approach nowadays. Fun to play around with anyway

Best me and my (relatively) humble computer can tell seems to be ~ 17 Bxh6 Qxa2 18 Bxb5 Rxh6 19 Qxh6 Qa1+ 20 Kd2 Qxb2 21 Bxd7+ which still isn't clear. 18 .. Rxh6 perhaps not a trivial move to find. 18 .. a6 seems somewhat dangerous after Bxd7+ etc.

The other line he gives is much saner - 14 Ne3. Then after 14 .. Qa5 15 NxN BxN  just 16 RxB seems so visually awful for black that Nxf4 15 QxN c4 etc (which he just mentions) might be advisable. Not totally sure of this for black after Be2 -> f3 etc but I guess reasonable enough.

The comparison with 'Dismantling the Sicillian' is interesting. In the pawn sac vs 3 .. d5 in that Bogdanovich basically dismisses it, giving two game fragments where black holds comfortably.
Not with 8 o-o though. I guess you'd need to analyse it independently to find out the truth

The 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d4 d5 line certainly is dealt with slightly briefly in dismantling (as you'd expect for such a minor line!). The ending after 10 .. f6 is agreed as bad but Bogdanovich seems to prefer 8..a6/Bd7 to taking on d4 directly.

Actually Experts vs has more in depth treatments vs these lines. (and a comment that it really wasn't so easy proving much.).

MartinC wrote on 12/08/09 at 20:39:45:


This pretty much sums it up. It is probably += but the position is positional unbalanced where black has a beter pawnstructure vs more space and easier development by white. My guess would be that the player that understands the position beter will prevail.

Well playable I assume. Certainly easy to see how you might prefer it to the e6 stuff - its dodgy tactics vs a maybe slightly worse position that you can presumably pretty much just 'play'. Not a bad achievement for black by move 5

Update: The newest games are from 2004. 

I'm still very impressed by this book. The author, IM  Bogdanovich, has played this opening for 30 years otb and in corr. chess. He is not afraid to challenge theory and seems quite objective (pointing out several improvements for white). He spends a decent amount of pages on typical pawn structures and how to handle them. An one-stop all you need book for this opening. 

gewgaw wrote on 11/25/09 at 23:14:21:


My computer has been screwing up today so I'll only answer these question briefly:

1. No, as the author has only included games up to 2003 (according to Schaakhamster). Even if the author had included games from 2009 (and I believe he should have), then the games may have been played too recently to make the final publication. 

2. No, Black can play 4...Nc3 instead as shown in the Table of Contents. Obviously this doesn't automatically mean that 4...e6 is refuted, or that 4...Nc3 is equal for Black.