on 04/08/10 at 20:53:39:
on 04/08/10 at 12:24:52:
Normally I do check, but Yakovich is a source that I have trusted so much before, I allowed myself to become lazy.
Me too, but I also was inclined to trust Yakovich. I just got lucky that I didn't. For what it's worth, this forum is a remarkable resource for catching a number of potential blunders involved in blindly following book recommendations.
Inspired by a thread from the nimzo - forum, Iīd like to continue it with a quite important example from the Semkovīs Kill K.I.D. on the Four pawns and probably Golubevīs 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 00 6.Nf3 Na6 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.Be3
so far recommended not only by Semkov, but even by Moskalenko in "Revolutionize your chess", too8....c5
a rarer continutation, but according to Semkov. p. 92 "recommended by Gallagher and Golubev" whose books I do not own, but if all GMīs 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 īthe bizzare Nfxd5 15.exd5 Bd4ī". Semkov improves on Golubevīs 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 blackīs 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!