Latest Updates:
Normal Topic "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns (Read 13494 times)
Semkov
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 72
Location: Sofia
Joined: 12/27/04
Gender: Male
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #8 - 08/16/10 at 15:21:04
Post Tools
derdudea wrote on 04/11/10 at 06:40:20:
HgMan wrote on 04/08/10 at 20:53:39:
[quote author=7C50435A5E47585259310 link=1240882763/9#9 date=1270729492]Normally I do check, but Yakovich is a source that I have trusted so much before, I allowed myself to become lazy.


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 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.

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. 
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMGolubev
Junior Member
**
Offline


ChessPublishing KID

Posts: 52
Location: Odessa UKRAINE
Joined: 12/23/08
Gender: Male
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #7 - 04/16/10 at 17:11:51
Post Tools
derdudea wrote on 04/16/10 at 10:50:13:
Stigma wrote on 04/15/10 at 13:44:20:
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.



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 Semkovīs 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 Semkovīs book, to provide White with an engine-checked, detailed repertoire in the KÍD, such an mistake is not acceptable.


Well, the fact that I did not find that ...Nbxd5!, Qb6! -+ idea shows that I looked at the line superficially/not carefully enough. Though it is clear from the book that my suggestion (Nfxd5) was made with a rather limited confidence.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4928
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #6 - 04/16/10 at 16:20:38
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 04/16/10 at 15:18:17:
In what book does Moskalenko treat the Four Pawns?  By and large I like Moskalenko for this enthusiasm and originality.


"Revolutionize Your Chess," which I understand also has some stuff on the Saemisch Nimzo.  You haven't snapped it up?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #5 - 04/16/10 at 15:18:17
Post Tools
In what book does Moskalenko treat the Four Pawns?  By and large I like Moskalenko for this enthusiasm and originality.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
derdudea
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 175
Location: Germany
Joined: 10/03/08
Gender: Male
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #4 - 04/16/10 at 10:50:13
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 04/15/10 at 13:44:20:
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.



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 Semkovīs 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 Semkovīs book, to provide White with an engine-checked, detailed repertoire in the KÍD, such an mistake is not acceptable.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lou_Cyber
Full Member
***
Offline


"I didnīt understand that.
It must be true."

Posts: 237
Location: Rendsburg
Joined: 01/28/05
Gender: Male
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #3 - 04/16/10 at 09:16:45
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 04/15/10 at 13:44:20:
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.


I never thought 6...Na6 was unplayable. I always thought it to be as good as the main lines. Have I missed something?
  

If you try, you may lose. If you donīt try, you have lost.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3272
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #2 - 04/15/10 at 13:44:20
Post Tools
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.
« Last Edit: 04/15/10 at 15:01:50 by Stigma »  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
knightmare
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 85
Location: Germany
Joined: 12/01/06
Re: "Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
Reply #1 - 04/15/10 at 11:00:09
Post Tools
As a corr. player the first rule is: NEVER trust books. Check everything. There are so many mistakes in the books (especially in notes and sidelines), so many "analyses" are extremely superficial, etc.
  

ELO 2060. Corr.: 2190. Which casts doubts if I ever knew what I was doing. At least on the Board.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
derdudea
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 175
Location: Germany
Joined: 10/03/08
Gender: Male
"Deadly" book recommendations - KID Four Pawns
04/11/10 at 06:40:20
Post Tools
HgMan wrote on 04/08/10 at 20:53:39:
Markovich wrote 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 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 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!

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo