Seth_Xoma wrote on 07/31/10 at 04:58:21:


He recommends the line from Fischer - Kovacevic, Zagreb 1970 up to 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Nbd7 9. Ne2 b6 10. Bg5 Qe7 11. Qh4 Bb7 12. Ng3 h6 13. Bd2 and now either Kovacevic's 13...O-O-O 14.Be2 with the improvement 14...e3! 15.fxe3 Bxg2 16.Rg1 Be4 or 13...Rg4! 14.Qxh6 O-O-O which worked very well in Romero Holmes - Matamoros Franco, Elgoibar 1997.

Somehow typical for the book is his comment on 12...h6 ("This is an important fine point."), which shows that he expects his reader to find the line 13.Bxh6?! Rg4 14.Qh3 O-O-O 15.Be2 Rgg8! =+/~ on his own.

Quote:


Thanks, I'll be getting this quite soon, I think. I generally like the Chess Stars books, so have a minimum level that I expect of them, so it can't be bad.

Oh dear, I was looking forward to getting this book but from the views expressed here it looks very patchy indeed. I was a bit sceptical when I saw such a huge range of variations was covered in little over 200 pages.

I think I'll wait for Simon Williams' Killer French for my next French fix

There is almost no chapter without such mistakes. Vitiugov has no concept at all and routinely ignores important variations or topical lines questioning his choices.

You like one more example? Take a look at chapter 5, the exchange variation. Vitiugov dismisses 3.exd exd 4.Sf3 Sc6 because Black "may have difficulties in the well-known variation 5.Bb5 Bd6 6.c4 dxc4 7.d5 a6 8.Ba4 b5 9.dxc6 bxa4 10.0-0 Ne7 11.Qa4. White does not risk anything while Black must still make several very accurate moves."

Such an assessment by a 2700+ grandmaster should have something like a  justification. But what about 11....Rb8, a line, played in 14 games since 1993, when Korchnoi invented it? It scores since then 68% for Black with no white wins. Should Mr. supergrandmaster not provide us with a solution leaving White with a comfortable advantage to justify his assessment? By the way, in around 100 games played in the 11....0-0 mainline, obviously only Vitiugov found an easy advantage for White - the guys who played it did not achieve anything significantly above a 50% score for White.

I wrote some posts as a review after I got the book several weeks ago. They were more and more critical. but after really working through it, my assessment becomes harsher and harsher. This book is crap! High level crap, but crap!

Now I have reached chapter 19 : 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Be7 4.Ngf3

Good explanation of main plans in this universal system line...but ....after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 (I use the classical move order) 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Ngf3 c5 6.c3  Nc6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.oo there are missing sublines or assessments I don't agree:

8...h5 ("Morozevich's last invention" - Vitiugov...I am not sure about that...move was played in Timofeev-Arencibia,Cappelle La Grande 2004 and  Ivanov-Figler 2005...variation explained in Eingorn's book) 9.Re1 ...then 9...cxd4!? is not given and the plan to fix the d4 pawn and attack it later with Qb6 seems reliable : 10.cxd4 g5  11.Nb3 g4 12.Nfd2 a5 (or 12...Qb6 first) 13.a4 Qb6 14.Bb5 (14.Nb1 Nxb4) Bb4!? (14..Nc4 15.Nc4 dxc4 16.Nxd4 oo 17.Re4 Rd8=)


After the given move by Vitugov 9..g5 you can only follow the Ivanov-Figler move 12.N2b3! and Vitiugov stops here ... (and as given in previous post "good luck" for Black to play this middlegame)


In the alternative line 8...a5 Vitugov desn't give the obvious 9.a4!? Qb6  as played in Fedorchuk-Giaccio,Lorca 2007 (Moskalenko)...if I were White, I will work Fedorchuk's games in this variation

And in the "main" line 8...g5 9.dxc5 Ndxe5  he doesn't give the 10.Bc2 move I feel very interesting for White (if you want one reference game, here is one:  Monroy, Charles-Gozzoli, Yannick Le Grand-Bornand FRA, ch-France ...june I don't remember which year)

I don't share assessment too for 8...g5!? 9.dxc5 g4 10.Nd4 Ndxe5 11.N2b3!? where Vitugov misses one plan: 11..Nxd3 12.Qxd3 e5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bh6!

@Chess_Addicts: no,no...you are right "Steinitz" is a good name 

Vitiugov put aside one main line with 7...Be7 giving only recent Carlsen game vs Karjakin without even mentionning what has been said in chesspub forum or chessbase website and others...mainly, Carlsen has chosen this line because Karjakin was expert in French.

Comparing to McDonald's book (I am happy to have bought his book same time as Vitiugov'sone): Mc Donald gives "Black's brilliant 7...Be7 move" .... It's another anectode which confirms my previous post: where authors devoted a real in depth work for variation, Vitiugov annotates "lighty"  (Be7 "a seemingly harmless move" - Vitiugov).

Vitiugov gives 7...Qb6 and 7..a6 as main moves

For 7.Qb6 referenced games are:

- Nunn-Ehlvest,Reykjavik 1988 (I have recorded it from Tiemann(s book)

- Kamsky - So, Khantisiysk 2009 ( deviating at move 18: 18..f6! was given in game .Gueroff-Jackelen,1988 Europe Echecs 1997)

- Bologan-Volkov,Sochi 2006 (deviating at move 12: 12...b5?! was in game Svidler-Bareev,2006 or 12...oo Eyo-Cardona,Formigal 2002 (Khalifman) )

- Salem-Volkov,Dubai 2002 and Shomoev-Volkov,Tomsk 2006 (new games for my data)

- Nyback-Volkov,Plovdiv 2008 (as given by chesspublishing update mai 2008)

- Short-Timman,Amsterdam 1994 with Ivanchuk's move 13...g5 and only analysis of the  novelty of this game with 15...Rb8?!

- Quezada Perez-Cordova,La Havanne 2009 (not mentionning the interesting 19...f6 and quoting the line as "cannot be recommended to Black" some moves fter 19..g6 )

- Chandler-Gurevich,Leningrad 1987 (forgetting the 15...Bxd3 analysis or 21.Nf1!? Nunn-Zysk,Allemagne 1987 (Short) )

and main analysis is about the Boleslavsky plan 7..Qb6 8.Na4 and the usual sacrifice in this line Nxb4


For 7...a6 referenced games are:

- Topalov-Morozevich,Linares Morellia 2007  with 10.Ne2

- Richards-Kiriakov,2005 (new analysis from Vitiugov with 10..g6)

- Safarli-Lintcheski,Kirirshi  2006 (missing the 12...Nbd3+ or 11...Nd7 analysis)

- Dominguez Peres-Nogueiras Merida 2002 (see NIC #42 with Glek analysis about 12.Bd3)

- Riazantsev-Michna,Hamburg 2005 (missing the 10.Nd1!? b4 11.oo cxd4  line DeFirmian,Dreev,Manille 1990 (Tiemann)  )

- Anand-Morozevich,MonteCarlo 2004 (missing the  10..Qb6 alternative Blatny-Andersson,Prague 1996 (Inf 67 and Tiemann))

-Karjakin-Viiugov,Khanti Manski 2009 (new move 10...b4!? )

- the "beauty prize game" -sic - Kasparov-Radjabov,2003 with 10...c4 Europe Echecs juin 2003

- not mentionned is the quick 9.f5 Vescovi-Pelikian,Guarulhos 2006 (chesspublishing update 2006)

7...a6 system is covered mainly by Vitiugov with the "fashion" move 8.Qd2 b5 9.a3!? followed with Qb6 which follows the classical battle about the control of dark square diagonal a7-g1 and the blockade square d4.

For White it will be a good idea to stick to Kasparov analysis after 11.g4 or SHipov analysis after 11.f5. I have referenced this game too: Hungaski-Cordova,Moscou 2006. I like too the 9.h4 strategy: Wohl-Happel,Naujac 2004  (not playinf an early a3)

I just bought three books about French from my preferred IM book seller (Slavisa Peric): two 2008 books ("How to play against 1.e4" McDonald and How to Beat the French Defence, Andreas Tzermiadianos" ) and Vitiugov's book.

2008 books have been reviewed a little in other threads...but I think they are excellent from quick 2mn browsing...Mc Donald uses good explanation style and I think I can improve widely my knowledge.. examples are numerous...in Exchange for example with the "Morphy plan chapter".

After reading 1st half part of book and entering variations (in my hugge Bookup book) I have now fuzzy point of view of Vitiugov's book....Vitiugov explains it clearly: it's book for Black playing French Defence...hence (like I do myself) only some selected variations are dealed which limits the contents of the book (and work) for Black (good news) but also has the obvious defect of lack of coverage for White.

Style writing need improvment too...because sometimes it doesnt care chess level of audience ("well known line",...). High-level targeted audience is often the argument for no explanation (I read only funny one about Sveshnikov assesment in one variation). And without good textual explanation, reader is only left to short-comment assessment (!?)  ... meaning only 'good luck if you want to play this move'.

I can add too that many variations delt for Black,I have not chosen...and then I can sum of first part of book as with little value for me with my current knowlege (ok,now French defence...about 30 to 40 books reading ). Now book is worthless as was Short's book for me: what is more awaited from a GM writer  is a clear method of chess analysis of middlegame reached learning opening variations..and you will not find this.

Other defects is also: poor reference to other works (name of books and authors are only in the short bilbiography on first pages), tricky name of variations ( "Karasev's variation" and Romanishin is not named from the Be7 variation and same for Reti's variation....I know there are no real rule to name variation..but why using special one even if one russian player was first to play this line).

What I have got clearly from the book are some moves at the end of specific variations .. no more.

***********

@Chess_Addicts:

To answer quickly last post...(I am not at home with all my written work)....if  you mean the Paulsen (with a3) and a later Be3 (instead of Bb2) then Vitiugov deal with line as others with the "modern move f6"  (add moves and I can post more myself a better answer)

Having finally had a chance to get a look at this book in the bookshop I have to say that my initial suspicions were more or less confirmed. It doesnt bother me so much what others are saying that he skips some minor lines - I couldnt care less about that. What bothers me is that the whole book is on the "light" side - mostly in the critical lines he stops when it is just starting to get interesting. I couldn't really recommend anybody buy this book, although there were a few interesting ideas in it as you'd expect, but these were few and far between.