LostTactic wrote on 06/10/11 at 14:10:14:


QC is great, but I'm biased in favor of Khalifman's style - I want everything covered, even if it means losing out on explanations. I can figure out the details of why something is labelled "+=, =, =+" myself, so I value just getting pointed in the right direction.

Plus, given I always do my own independent work on the related lines he covers, he's only adding to it. He doesn't update his series like QC does theirs when problem lines come up, but as far as I'm concerned he doesn't need to - I can (and have) figured out the majority of the solutions well ahead of time myself, so I just want masses of variations with an opinion of where they stand.

QC is great, and does a good job balancing explanation with lines, but like I said above - I prefer tons of variations, and forcing myself to work out why something is evaluated a certain way instead of having it explained to me.

Different strokes for different folks. They're both great series in their own ways. There's no doubt both have considerably enriched theory.

BPaulsen wrote on 06/10/11 at 06:50:10:


Would you say the Khalifman series is better than QC's Grandmaster Repertoire series? Also does Khalifman do updates to his series like QC?

Sorry for going off topic, but I'm considering buying the Khalifman series.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what Watson covers against 3.Nd2 and 3.Nc3. My guess is 3...Be7, 3...Nc6 and 3...c5 against the former and 3...Nc6, 3...Nf6 (McCutcheon, ...Be7 Steinitz) and the Winawer with 6...Qa5 against the latter. But in any case it should be a fantastic book.

TN wrote on 06/10/11 at 01:07:32:


Sorry, I was just kidding.

Anonymous, what does he recommend after 1.e4 e6 2.b3?

7...f5 is not the PP variation but the "old" line ... can be a PP line if Black plays: 8.Qg3 Ne7 9.Qxg7! Rg8 10.Qxh7 cxd4 ....many ideass interesting in this line and one of them is Keres's idaa: 11.Ne2...I have recorded one recent game from now world champion Anand: Anand-Hansen,Danemark 2003

It's true some authors (among them is Short in small book about French) adviced to play it for Black, ..., Short with a strange argument: "6..Qc7 we saw revival of this 70's years line. Advantage of this strategy is many has forgotten how to reply! that's why I advice it firmly"...but only one not so long analysis was given with 7..f5 about main game Hjartarson-Nikolic Tliburg 1988 (quote from Short's "La Defence Francaise" -Ed. Echecs International - ISBN 1 870816 03 X)

Watson dealed about it more (PF 3: saying "used in 40's and  used 20 years later by Botvinnik and then 20 years later mainly by norvegian and swedish players" ) .... not so much analysis, I agree,...despite historical value mainly about Botvinnik's work (was Botvinnik strategy in first game vs Tal in world championship, Pushkin theater Moscow 1960)

I play the oo Winawer and had to play McCutcheon too...because of the move order...1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 (french style) 3.Bg5 and here Black can play a Veresov, but I like French too much 3...e6 4.e4 Bb4 5.e5...hence I am interested with an updated book about McCutcheon.

I'd like to see a 4th edition but meanwhile...

I'm considering to take up Winawer 7. ...Qa5 from Moskalenko and buying PTF 3rd edition for Winawer sidelines, Exchange variation, KIA, etc. and perhaps Tarrasch Be7 and Advance, too. Are there some variations where it's too outdated?

I am not so sure about a White advantage after 10.Ne2. I once had this position on the board and wasn´t able to demonstrate something after the further 10... 0-0 11.c3 b6 12.Nf4 Qd7 13.a4 Ba6 14.Bb5 Nec6 15.h4 Bxb5 16.axb5 Na5 17.h5 and now 17... Qf7 instead of the weak 17... Nb3? given by Khalifman. Black seems to have a solid position here. I notice a recent game Zude-Braun was even won by Black.