I think it's an interesting variation Ender gives, so why not talk about some concrete move orders?

MNb wrote on 02/08/13 at 17:11:20:



It is not so eaesy, just check with Houdini. White is comfortable after this Nh5 manouvre. I know that his plan looks logical for black, but it is not so easy. I tried it in many games and i feel hat black has no counterplay. This Bf4 system is much, much better than his reputation.

My problem with this book is that he gave no antidote to popular on club level line, where white plays 

1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nf3 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. Bf4 d6 with e3, Qc2, Be2 and 0-0. This line is not easy to play for black, since there is almost no hope for e5 break. Believe it or not, but i fount this setup more annoying that any major system. This is the reason I gave up leningrad since i feel that black has not much counterplay. Bishop on f4 looks silly, but it covers e5 square very good. If black wants to play Nh5, then white don't need to move ths bishop, since he can recapture with e pawn and black have problematic pawn on e7. What to do in this setup, what is the best plan for black?

Chess_Addict wrote on 05/31/11 at 10:55:09:


I tohught it might  be of interest to know that the two updates have been publsihed. 

http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/Play_the_Dutch%3A_An_Opening_Repertoire...

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and either download the pgn files or, while using an iPad, load them into your ChessViewer

As pointed out earlier, the critical line 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. 0-0 d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. d5 Na5 9. Qa4 c5 10. dc6 Nc6 11. Rd1 Ne4 12. Ne4 fe4 13. Ng5 Nd4 14. Be3 was omitted by Neil McD. Neil provided an update to 14.Be3 in the notes to the game Goganov - Grigoryan 2011.

Since we are talking about updates.... There are also a number of relatively recent New in Chess Yearbooks which have some relevant information to McD's book. You can download games, to get an idea what the surveys are about. Consider, however,  that the downloads do not have the annotations, which is where the meat is.

YB 90: 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. 0-0 d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. d5 Na5 9. Qa4 c5 10. dc6 Nc6 11. Rd1 Kh8

YB 92: 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. 0-0 d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. d5 Na5 9. Qd3

YB 94: 1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 d5

YB 72 and 95: 1. d4 f5 2. Bg5  h6

YB 85: 1. d4 f5 2. h3  /  1. d4 f5 2. e4  / 1. d4 f5 2. Nc3  d5

YB 74: 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nc3 0-0 6. Nh3 d6 7. d5


And here are some CBM surveys that relate to McD's book:

CMB 131: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nh3 Bg7 5.Nf4
CBM 125: 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f3
CBM 130: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Nh3 
CBM 126: 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3

OT: did I miss something or we were supposed to have 2 updates within a year from publication?

Quote:


I had to look this up, as I haven't looked at it for a long time. And you're kind of right, on p108-109 he mentions 6.b4 Nc6! in a footnote, but 80% of those two pages are devoted to 6...d6 7.Bb2 Nc6 etc and on p106-107 vs 5.b4 he also mentions Nc6 briefly, but again the emphasis is on plans with d6+e5. 

It seems to me that insisting on a Leningrad Stonewall is the solution to the early b4-ideas. Kindermann was certainly on the right track, but after for example 6.b4 Nc6 7.a3 he still preferred d6. Not that d6+e5 is unplayable, but it gives White the play he wants.

The strength of the book is in the recipes vs ML divergences - here's a scalp I took a month ago in the series, partly thanks to the recommendation of the Leningrad Stonewall. Though we were out of book after seven moves, as he went Nbd2 instead of Qd3, still strategically it didn't change too much c4 is still a weak square...