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...

Quote:


Any opinions on 8.Ne5!? as suggested in "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire".

Bibs wrote on 02/26/11 at 13:15:47:


According to McD your team actually fumbled first, with 10...Nc6 and then in the game 14.Nb5! "would be very awkward for Black". Though imo, 11...Qf7? is the real fumble, as 11...Nh5 still seems to work, and perhaps also 11...0-0-0 which seemed to be your plan from the beginning.


Btw, when looking thru the DW Dutch, I noticed another omission of a vital corr game in an Everyman book - maybe they should sponsor their authors with a corr base?

1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 h6 3. Bh4 g5 4. e4 Rh7 5. Qh5+ Rf7 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. Qg6 Nc6 8. e5 Ne4!? 9. d5 Nb4 10.Nc3!! seems to tip the scales clearly in White's favour. 

(Now, Williams only gives: 10.e6 Nxc2+ 11. Kd1 dxe6 12. Kxc2 Qxd5) 

10... gxh4? (10... Bg7 11. Nxe4) 11.O-O-O Nxd5 12. e6 dxe6 13. Nxe4  1-0 Smith,D (2016)-Herzog,K (2041)/LSS 2007. 

However, 9...gxh4 instead of Nb4 may save the line for Black, or simply playing Williams' mainline 8...gxh4 instead of the interesting Ne4.

Nelson wrote on 03/01/11 at 18:10:20:

Neither does making strong statements without giving lines to back them up.

TalJechin wrote on 10/27/10 at 12:51:07:


This skimpy treatment of the critical line with 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5 Na5 9.Qa4 c5 10.dxc6 Nxc6 11.Rd1 is indeed a weakness. McDonald continues with 11...Ne4 and writes "This is the move Black wants to play – he responds to White's decentralizing queen move with a counterattack in the centre that gets full value out of 1...f5. However, we can't always play the moves we want, even in the Dutch – so can Black get away with it? The question is whether the resulting dynamism will compensate for the weak pawn that appears on e4 and Black's generally reduced control of the light squares." 

This is very fair and objective. The problem is that McDonald does not provide an alternative continuation to fall back on if 11...Ne4 encounters a problem (which it has, to judge by the corr. games cited by TalJechin). In the light of his comment above it is somewhat surprising that McDonald fails to mention not only 11...Kh8 - played by Mateusz Bartel - but also 11...Qb6!? played by McDonald's former student Tom Rendle three times in 2009.

I wonder, was there some problem at the editing stage? The history of the book does seem somewhat troubled... 

Be that as it may, I have attached some relevant games and added a bit of home analysis (not deep, so do check it).

Quote:


As I mentioned previously, it took me two minutes with a corrbase to more or less refute his main mainline in the 7...Nc6 variation...

I can't say I'd blame him for not delving into those various h3/Nh3 ideas - black is roughly equal with little theory to study, so it would be like complaining that a Sicilian book didn't spend time on 2.Na3 or 2.a3. Too much to cover with little chance of it getting used. - I've played the Dutch frequently online the last few days and haven't encountered a single game with 2/3.h3 or 2.Nh3. 

Besides, DW is also from Everyman...

Ok, so no one has answered my post?

Am i the only one who noticed Mcdonald didn't cover DW: The Dutch and other things?

Would be good to get a bit of social approval.

Also, I wonder if Mcdonald should read this forum, shouldnt take more than like an hour! He did used to be an author of some sections to my knowledge

Nelson is of course talking Absolute Rubbish, though the book has many other problems.
Nelson - give variations, or look like an opinionated duffer.

2...h6 is of course very tricky, but not necessarily bad I feel.
Played it against G. Kasparov (yes, him!) in a team simul with three others,  including Dutch expert IM Robert Bellin, some 17 years back. Kasparov showed nothing theoretically, he offered a draw much later, we accepted (I voted to refuse as we were outplaying him I thought, but was outvoted 3-1). Same simul he crushed a team led by GM Dlugy, and only conceded 3 draws in total.

Poor book, but not for this reason.

This book is verging on misleading for prospective new Dutch players even at sub 2000 level.

The line he gives in 2 Bg5 line is losing almost by force.

Why didn't he suggest the more "Leningrad" and sounder 2...g6 instead of 2...h6????

2...h6 will soon disappear from high level tournament practice if it hasn't already.

Regards,

Nelson.

As far as I can see the ideas 
a) 7...e6 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.Rd1 Qe7 10.d5
b) 7...e6 8.Qc2 Qe7 9.e4
and c) 7...e6 8.b3 and 9.Ba3

are still going strong.

Raspje wrote on 12/04/10 at 16:41:41:


See e.g.

http://www.tiendadeajedrez.com/epages/tiendadeajedrezcom.sf/?ObjectPath=/Shops/d...

A good book in its time, and still not without interest.

Phil Adams wrote on 12/03/10 at 12:46:26:

Thanks for enabling me to compare McDonald's remarks with those of Taimanov (1980) and Schwarz (1964). Everything up to 16...Nb3 is just copied, except the two games in the notes which are taken from a database. And even that choice is biased - where is Vaulin-Diu, RUSch, Elista 2001 ? Too much work to figure out the transposition perhaps?
You have confirmed my suspicion that the book is as superficial as the one on the KG. Which is a pity, as McDonald's analysis of the French Tarrasch is truely excellent.

I am slightly puzzled at the negative comments on McDonald's latest Dutch book. McDonald may not be a "superstar" author, but despite being rather prolific he has maintained a consistently high standard of work, with his main strength lying in the quality of his explanations, which are generally very useful for non-master players, or indeed for anyone wanting to get a quick handle on an opening before starting to study it in more detail. His latest book on the Dutch is no exception in my opinion. 

He has played the Dutch himself (over fifty times in the standard databases), which is always an encouraging sign of the probable quality of an opening book. This is his third book on the Dutch by the way.

I think this book is particularly interesting and potentially very useful for Dutch fans in that the two mainline repertoire options given differ from Kindermann and Pedersen, who both confined themselves to the modern 7...Qe8 system. There is some overlap with Beim in that both he and McDonald cover the 7...c6 system, but instead of showing the solid but rather tedious 8 d5 e5 9 dxe6 Bxe6 McDonald confines his coverage to the more combative (albeit probably inferior) 8 d5 Bd7 (admittedly also mentioned in Beim).

Finally McDonald offers 7...Nc6 and if 8 d5 Na5 (instead of the "kill-or-be-killed" 8...Ne5 covered in De la Riva’s book), when play can become similar to the Panno/Yugoslav King's Indian. To my knowledge this is the first time that this has been a repertoire recommendation, although McDonald also covered it briefly in "The Dutch Leningrad" and there also is some material in older books by Ehlvest and Bellin and of course ECO. I have never played it, but I’ve always been interested in this line, ever since I came across the old game Benko-Tal (attached, with brief notes).

Those seeking Avukh- or Marin-type coverage will be disappointed. But, be honest, how many of us actually need that degree of “scholarship” ?

So, I am pleased to have this book, but I urge potential readers to have a look at it themselves then make up their own minds as to its usefulness for them, and not be swayed too much by the opinion of others - me included.

MNb wrote on 12/02/10 at 22:19:43:


Yeah, I've seen it. Used to own a copy, even. Its good, far better than McDonald's effort, but still falls short of Beim and Kindermann.

Bowen wrote on 12/02/10 at 05:32:33:


Avoid it if you are rated 2000+. Or probably even 1800+. It is only a repertoire book in the very loosest sense of the word. I think "a collection of themed Dutch games with light notes" is much more accurate. Note the word highlighted in bold, its there for a reason.

Bowen wrote on 12/01/10 at 05:29:04:


According to Hansen's rating system two stars (out of four) is actually classified as 'Useful'. I'm not sure I would agree with that when you consider the alternative sources on the same opening. The book is obviously aimed at a sub-2000 audience, so it clearly does not suit my needs. But even so, as TalJechin stated in an earlier post - "but there's a limit to how little you can say and still be worthwhile reading...". That pretty much sums it up - all the descriptions are very generic plan-based explanations, the amount of actual analysis within the notes really could not have been smaller.

Kindermann is still the king of the Leningrad repertoire book, with Beim in second place. Nothing else that I've seen even comes close.

You are right and thanks for mentioning it.

But I still think that the spirit of my post is valid both concerning publisher and reviewer. A book could be excellent for lower rated player but not for higher rated, and the opposite.
As I understand Carsten Hansen's review the book is rather good for lower rated player trying to learn the Leningrad.

My interpretation of Carsten Hansen's review is that the book is not bad but the publishers’ promise is. Promising the book is both for GMs and for Club players.
My understanding after reading the review is that the book is not good for 2100+ but very useful below2000.
Must be impossible to write a book that is excellent to all in the range of say 1600 – GM level.

Must add that I don't have the book but base my opinion only on Carsten Hansen's review.

Bowen wrote on 12/01/10 at 05:29:04:


Since January 2010, the maximum rating Carsten provides for a book is 4 stars out of 4. 

If you want a good laugh, you should read the review of 'In Your Face Chess Novelties'. 

MNb wrote on 11/01/10 at 11:29:01:


I liked his book on the French, "How to play against 1.e4" - and maybe everyman should have castled the authors between "How to play against 1.d4" and "Play the Dutch", not that I don't like Palliser's work on the first, I think he one of the most consistently good chess authors, along with John Cox and some others.  But covering the Czech Benoni, would have suited McD better, as his strength is summarising plans and manoeuvres in closed positions. The Dutch may look closed too, but it's much more critical once it opens up a little and then the bird's eye view is not enough.

Quote:

I had no time to read it much, but it seems he forgot some transpositions between the Qe8 and c6 systems (with an exchange on c6. So the "alternative main line" given by Kindermann ( 8...Na6 without a5) isn't covered, if I'm not missing something. 
Something is missing for Nc6 players: how to play against an early d5, say on move 7, avoiding that system. What would you recommend TalJechin?

I ordered the book, and it should arrive to me on Wednesday. How is the coverage of 7...c6 and 7...Nc6?

How would those of you who have the book compare it with Kindermann's Leningrad System?

I was looking forward to this book a lot. The first book coverage of my beloved 7...Nc6 8.d5 Na5 variation. I have to say, I also am very disappointed with this effort. I've been working on this line with a club mate of mine over the past year and the analysis we have accumulated is far more comprehensive than anything mentioned in this book.

In the main 7...Nc6 variation the choice of 9.Qa4 c5 10.dxc6 Nxc6 11.Rd1 Nd4?! is a strange choice considering that the reliable 11...Kh8 is much sounder, and is the modern way of playing this position.

Coverage of the Lisitsyn Gambit is also very sparse. In 176 pages in this book, this gambit gets a full 1 page coverage. He covers the same ground as Khalifman, albeit in one very lightly annotated game segment. After 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Ng5 e5 4.d3 e3 5.Bxe3 Nc6....McDonald only mentions 6.g3  The two main moves in this position are 6.Be2 and 6.c4 and are not even mentioned. Admittedly, even Kindermann's coverage of this gambit was light, but he at least mentioned all possible moves, rather than just quoting the 3rd most popular choice 6.g3 as the only reply, and stopping there.

He concludes this coverage by quoting the game Husser-Bronzik, Bad Worishofen, 2008. There is no meaningful analysis of any variations past move 4 (and even up to that point its basic stuff). After Black's 9th move we have the last annotation given to this game 'Annoyingly for White, he can't centralize his knight as after 10.Nc3 d4 or 10.Nd2 d4 he loses a piece.' Yeah, thanks for that...

Sadly, this is a theme throughout the book - annotations that do not really add any value used extensively in place of actual coverage of variations. Even if its supposed to be taken as a beginner book, it still comes up short. Poor.

Chesscafe has the book in stock now. 

Unfortunate boo boo regarding the number of pages... 
http://shop.chesscafe.com/Play_the_Dutch.asp

ps. what does McDonald recommend against 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3!? ? 

And does he take into account DW: the Dutch?

works for me.

Have you clicked the "I'll be adding code" box?

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 10/18/10 at 22:41:52:


I just got a mail notification from the bookdepository that it's "Back in stock now"

According to the Everyman Chess homepage it's out. Maybe in a few days your chess bookstore has received it.

Thanks! I try to follow Chesscafe but I missed that one somehow.

Where did Bücker improve on Avrukh's Dutch lines? In a Kaissiber issue, perhaps?

Ametanoitos wrote on 09/24/10 at 21:14:00:


Does it matter when the introduction was written? 

For what's it worth, the content looked promising to me. Bd7!? instead of Qe8 was something that was new (or forgotten) to me and Qd3 e5 is definitely a better choice than c5?!

The proof of the pudding will of course be how well he deals with the mainline Qa4 - the only real threat to Nc6 imo.

You have a book extract at http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/Play_the_Dutch%3A_An_Opening_Repertoire...

The book should be out in October. Neil does his usual excellent job of explaining all the key strategical ideas and common tactical motifs to the club player, while presenting a repertoire. Plenty of Bartel games are included for sure!
In the main line Leningrad, both 7 Nc3 c6 and 7...Nc6 8 d5 Na5 are covered.

Its also now disappeared from the 'Coming soon' section on the Everyman homepage. I hope this doesn't mean that it will be delayed even further. 

Don't get your hopes up too much, McDonald's books are seldom heavy on theory as he prefers to point out useful strategic stuff. 

7...Nc6 is an interesting line, but 8.d5 Na5 9.Qa4 is something of a headache for black (although quite rare in practice in my experience), and the main mainline nowadays is shifting towards b3-systems a la Avrukh, so even if you find something nice vs Qa4 you might not get to reel it out.

One thing that would interest me, would be if McD takes a closer look at different new(ish) ideas for black, for example how Bartel handles the Leningrad by postponing d6. That would have been an obvious candidate for the Dangerous Weapons book on the Dutch, but evidently there was no Leningrader in the author team...

Since I owned Kindermann's "Leningrad System" I have regularly been playing the Leningrad and I think it is a very nice line to have at one's arsenal. Because this book advocates 7...Qe8 , I only play this line but I really would like to add 7...Nc6 to my repertoire as an alternate. After the main move 8.d5, 8...Na5 is the more sound option while 8...Ne5 is crazy and very entertaining. With the latter, I know games where Black sacs "a few" pieces to demolish white pawn cover (ie.h2, g3,f2) then proceeds to win in style. But I assume that is not everyone's cup of tea since I also think it should be objectively dubious to pursue such an approach at every game. I am really curious to see what line this new book will advice, if it is ever made out to the book shelves I mean.
Kindermann's book is very nice for those who consider playing the Leningrad. Maybe it is the best opening book I have ever owned, and I have lots of them believe me.

Touche, Antillian! 

Pier lala wrote on 01/26/10 at 09:53:05:


Don't really think young superGMs read books. Or so a certain young superGM mentioned a while back. Not since Informant went digital.

What are openings books? Summarising, explaining chessbase games for the rest of us.

SuperGMs dont need it explaining. 

Oh, and Kindermann's is a good book by the way (I am a mere non-playing 22-2300 btw).

Pier lala wrote on 01/25/10 at 20:15:08:

It is an obvious question isn't it? The Leningrad gets a lot of books given that is not necessarily getting constantly re-evaluated due to top-level GM games (okay, written on day 2 after Kramnik-Nakamura). Well, if he focusses on the Nc6 or c6 lines instead of Qe8 as in Kindermann's book, then this would potentially make a lot of sense. E.g. with Nc6 there's still plenty of unexplored ground.

Bowen wrote on 01/21/10 at 22:14:56:

Up to the announcement, McDonald will focus on the Leningrad. So even if he starts from the starting out book, he has a lot a pages to fill: the chapters about the Stonewall and the Ilyin-Zhenevsky will disappear and he will also focus on one Leningrad line instead of three in the starting out book (Nc6, Qe8 and c6). So I expect this book will be a really better and more detailed version of the "old" one.

My feeling is that c6 is not very ambitious. Not really the move you'd play in a must-win situation as white can go for drawish solutions.
Nc6 might be theoretically dubious but it is certainly a good choice when you have to go for it. It can be very tricky and white may not wait what will happen.
I would like McDonald to have Nc6 as main move for black. I had the impression, when reading his starting out book about the dutch, this is his preferred move.
Another thing I'd like to see, is which antidotes he will propose against the lines presented the dangerous weapons book. 

What if this book is also cancelled?

Then I might have a go at writing it.

So what will McDonald recommend against 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3? 7...Qe8, 7...Nc6 or something else?