derdudea wrote on 04/11/10 at 06:40:20:

I was busy refuting Golubev's recommendation and I did not return to earlier stages for a thorough checking. Meanwhile, Golubev recommended in Chess Today 10.dxe6, evaluating it as slightly better for White. However, I still prefer to keep the centre. Only should White avoid the mistake 10.h3? and castle instead, thus eliminating tactics on d5. 

Markovich wrote on 04/16/10 at 15:18:17:


"Revolutionize Your Chess," which I understand also has some stuff on the Saemisch Nimzo.  You haven't snapped it up?

Stigma wrote on 04/15/10 at 13:44:20:



The criticism only refers to Semkov (and maybe Golubev, if Semkovs citations are correct), especially since Semkov often stresses his computer-checked analysis.

I only mentioned Moskalenko, whom I adore as an opening expert, to show that this is an important line for White, quickly leading to disaster if you follow Semkov´s path.

Moskalenko indeed follows other lines later on and his book is not meant to be as in-depth analysis on topical opening lines.

But regarding the claim of Semkov´s book, to provide White with an engine-checked, detailed repertoire in the KÍD, such an mistake is not acceptable.

Very good of you to share this; Semkov really should have caught that one. Does this make 6...Na6 playable again? How early must White deviate to be OK (or have chances for advantage)? It seems that 10.h3? is an error, and 10.dxe6 or 10.0-0 should be preferred.

Moskalenko steers clear of this criticism since he does indeed meet 8...c5 9.d5 e6 with 10.dxe6!?. He even gives 8...c5 a '?!', presumably thinking that the knight is misplaced on a6 in his favorite dxe6 structures.

Though I admit there are some examples of sloppy analysis in Moskalenko's books. For example his coverage of the Stonewall Dutch in "Revolutionize Your Chess" doesn't even mention the currently critical lines with an early Nc3 and/or Ne5 as discussed by Bern/Johnsen/Agdestein and Avrukh.

HgMan wrote on 04/08/10 at 20:53:39:


Inspired by a thread from the nimzo - forum, I´d like to continue it with a quite important example from the Semkov´s Kill K.I.D. on the Four pawns and probably Golubev´s book, too.

In the 6....Na6 line I followed established theory and especially Semkovs book:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.Nf3 Na6 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.Be3 so far recommended not only by Semkov, but even by Moskalenko in  "Revolutionize your chess", too

8....c5 a rarer continutation, but according to Semkov. p. 92 "recommended by Gallagher and Golubev" whose books I do not own, but if all GM´s agree, what could be wrong with the following line...

9.d5 e6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 exd5 12.cxd5 Nb4 13.Bb1 Re8 following Semkov and his model game Banikas - Delithanasis, Kavala 1997.

Semkov now gives 14.a3 Da5 with the annotation: "Golubev advocates here as an improvement ´the bizzare Nfxd5 15.exd5 Bd4´". Semkov improves on Golubev´s analysis with 16.Ne4. leading to clear plus for white. After 14.a3 Qa5, Semkov continues with 15.0-0 Nd7 16.e5 and the final judgement "White has a clear advantage". 

Some minutes of silicon-helped analysis reveal a different truth: 14.a3 Nbxd5! 15.exd5 Qb6 and White is almost done, for example 16.Qe2 Rxe3 17.Qxe3 Re8 18.Be4 Qxb2

In my corrgame I saw the problem, but only after black´s 13....Re8. 14.Kf1 and White has a long way to go for a draw. The game is still going on and by move 32. it starts to look drawish, but with best play White should be lost in move 14!