Michael Ayton wrote on 01/20/26 at 18:34:39:

I don't know if that is implied. For the moment, I just think Davies is emphasizing the positive aspect of ...b6.

Davies annotates 8 games, two by Gawain Jones. I think Davies and Jones have decided that ...b6 is useful in both open and closed positions. From the introduction:
"The idea is to capture on d4 and get intensified pressure against White’s e4 pawn, whilst if White plays d4-d5 the b6 pawn can help restrain White’s c4-c5 plan. Even after the exchange of pawns on e5 the b6 pawn is useful, helping to control the key c5 square."

I standadized the moves to 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. g3 O-O 5. Bg2 d6 6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. e4 Re8 9. h3 b6. Black lost this the first eight games played! It was played in 1938, 1945 and 1990, Wojtkiewicz-Brooks, New York. No wonder the authors of ECO were not impressed!

However, this position became popular in 2021 due to games by Praggnanandhaa and Golubev. In my data base it scores well:  +39 =17 -37.

FreeRepublic wrote on 01/20/26 at 14:04:39:

I notice that the authors of "Wojo's Weapons" (vol. 2) didn't mention that possibility.

Thanks.

I once waited on MCO updates. Then on ECO updates. I think it would take  a team of analysts to update an ECO volume.

These products had good research and analysis. One advantage was that you could see lines in context. Is this a major line, or a minor variation? Also, one could scan end of line evaluations to get a sense of things.

Sometimes that was misleading. The Velimirovic attack in the Sicilian mostly ended with = or unclear. Looking at the footnotes showed a different story. Black lost many over the board games, but was revived in the post-mortem.

Even now with computers, it would be good to know what happens if you step off the (narrow?) path that leads to equality.

I think a lot of opening theory in ECO remains valid and sometimes we discover something that has been discovered before.

GM Davies presents a double fiancheto by black. The ideas of the double-fiancheto are explained in the January 26th issue of ChessPublising. Various move orders are possible. For example,

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. e4 Re8 9. h3 b6


Is this (or something similar) covered in ECO?

GM Davies examines 10Re1, 10d5, and 10dxe. 

I'll add another 10th move 10.Bg5. After 10. Bg5 ed4 11. Nd4 Bb7 12. Qc2 h6 13. Be3 a6 14. Rad1 c5, the game resembles the Gallagher variation.

Time has already told, I think. It´s an interesting way to complicate the game but objectively White is slightly better.

No, the Gallagher is this sort of thing:  6...Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. e4 ed 9. Nxd4 Re8 10. h3 a6. 

Incidentally I recently noticed Sam Shankland giving 10...a6 a "?!", and saying that he thinks the old way of playing (with moves like ...Nc5, ...a5 and ...c6) is better.  I would think that both are generally regarded as "+/=" with best play, and so it should be difficult to make such a distinction.

Maybe transpose to a Grunfeld? It is what a lot of kidders do anyway.