Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll closed Question: Should non-2.Nf3 lines be covered in PTP?
bars   pie
*** This poll has now closed ***


Yes; transpositions chapter    
  3 (11.5%)
Yes; cover all key lines briefly    
  3 (11.5%)
Yes; handle in different chapters    
  3 (11.5%)
Yes; cover a few lines in detail    
  2 (7.7%)
No; this is Play the Petroff    
  12 (46.2%)
No; recommend other sources    
  3 (11.5%)




Total votes: 26
« Last Modified by: TN on: 10/12/10 at 12:56:00 »
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C42-C43: Play the Petroff by Har-Zvi and Gupta (Read 114154 times)
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #38 - 10/08/10 at 21:08:04
Post Tools
To recommend a weaker move just because it is less complicated or fits in better with the rest of the repertoire would be more of an injustice to the reader. The main lines of the King's Gambit Accepted are generally considered to be ok for White so I'm not talking about recommending the main lines of the accepted in that case, I'm talking about unsound gambits like the Danish and Goring. You don't have to tell a player to turn on a computer and analyze the position in more depth themselves, you can refer them to other books where the lines are examined in more detail. 

I agree with SWJediknight that 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3 Bb4+! (As I've already stated I think this is the best move as it leaves Black slightly better, avoids going into the Scotch Game with 3...Nc6, and 3...Bc5?! 4 c3! dxc3 5 Nxc3 is an improved version of the Goring Gambit and is slightly better for White) 4 c3 dxc3 5 Nxc3 is going to be a Goring Gambit Accepted so if your going to allow this there is no point in not recommending accepting the Danish Gambit.

The general consensus is that in the ...Bc5 line of the Goring Gambit White is slightly better and that the Modern Variation of the King's Gambit is =. Ankit, I don't know why you would be surprised by that.

Cox recommends declining the Blackmar-Diemer 3...e5 but this is also considered to refute the gambit just like accepting it does. So if you have a choice of gaining an advantage by acceptiong or declining a gambit, declining the gambit makes sense because it avoids the more complicated accepted variations and you still regain an edge. However, most of the 1 e4 e5 gambits are refuted by accepting and declining allows White equality.

1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 exf4 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Nxd5 6 O-O now simply 6...Be6, as recommend by Larry Kaufman in his book "The Chess Advantage in Black and White, is at least = for Black.

I think the best book to consult for White's alternatives to 2 Nf3 would be The Chess Advantage in Black and White. I think it's by a pretty good margin the best 1 e4 e5 repertoire book for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 905
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #37 - 10/08/10 at 11:53:00
Post Tools
I think Anonymous3's post about accepting gambits perhaps goes too far.  I think most of them are equal regardless of whether they are accepted or declined, accepting them is more theoretically critical but you have to either be familiar with the lines, or be at home in the sort of complicated, unbalanced positions that often result.  I think, together with their rarity in high-level play, that's why, in practice, many authors suggest declining them.  I personally prefer to accept most of them but that's just my personal taste.

I think people who want to know antidotes to White's misc. tries after 1.e4 e5 are better off consulting books like John Emms' Play the Open Games as Black, Nigel Davies's Play 1.e4 e5 and/or Marin's book.  I certainly see a strong case for the "a Petroff book should be about the Petroff" argument.

Btw 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 leaves Black with nothing better than to transpose to the main line of the Göring Gambit Accepted with 5...Nc6 or 5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 d6 7.Bc4 Nc6 (I would suggest the former as I think 8.Ng5 works quite well against the latter; instead 5...Nc6 6.Bc4 d6 7.Ng5 gives Black the important alternative 7...Nh6).  This is quite a good line for Black, certainly better than 3...Bc5, but it does go against the "avoiding accepted versions of gambits" policy.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #36 - 10/08/10 at 11:19:31
Post Tools
This would be like writing about the NID and Catalan in a QID book. It makes no sense.

A Petroff book should be about the Petroff. Unless it's a general repertoire book, there's no reason I can discern to cover sidelines.

That was a great post earlier by Ankit Gupta.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
spagh3tti
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 50
Joined: 09/27/10
Gender: Male
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #35 - 10/08/10 at 09:37:51
Post Tools
To be honest, I dont think you should cover any major non Nf3-system for White, most notably the KG.
If you did it would have to be full coverage of the best lines, and that takes up a lot of space. Besides, it's a little bit outside the scope of the book imo.
I dont think the KG is an opening where you can get away with 'hinting at ideas' and 'suggesting plans' and you dont wanna go cover sidelines just because they're the shortest (this is really one of the worst sins for a chess author and it really hurts the quality of the book).
If I were you I'd leave the KG alone.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ankit Gupta
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 26
Joined: 09/30/10
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #34 - 10/08/10 at 07:04:17
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 10/08/10 at 02:21:54:
Quote:
any lines we suggest against Cult-like variations (gambits), etc, we would steer away from any accepted variations.

Some lines like 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4, etc would fall quite in line with Petroff themes

Or 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3, where I reckon 3...Bb4+ would be the "Petroff" answer (or again 3...Bc5!?).

The modern variation is actually slightly better for White as well in the KG.


Even though accepting gambits doesn't fit in with the Petroff I think you should recommend them because they are generally the strongest lines to go for. Accepting the gambits usually leads to a Black advantage but declining allows White equality. I don't think you should recommend a weaker move just because it fits in better with the rest of the repertoire.

1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 would only fit with the Petroff if after 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3, you recommend 5...Be7 instead of 5...Nc6 which leads to huge complications.

I agree with MNb that 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3 Bc5?! 4 c3! dxc3 5 Nxc3 is an improved version of the Goring Gambit and is slightly better for White.

I don't see how the Modern variation in the King's Gambit is slightly better for White. I would be very interested to see your analysis.


Just want to clarify something; this is not a 1. e4 repertoire book. It is a Petroff book. Any "Anti-Petroff" material will not be of equal depth to the rest of the material. That said, we do not want to diminish the quality of the book, by slapping random analysis into an extra section.

For us to recommend an accepted variation of the gambit, and not go into adequate depth to such, would be an injustice to a reader.  And the positions that arise from the accepted KG, etc, are very complicated and standard plans are not easy to explain briefly. More so, it's the wrong approach for us, as authors, to tell a player to just turn on a computer (Rybka) and analyze a [very complicated] position in more depth themselves, reads its evaluation and assume that the evaluation is correct (because we're going to suggest a very complicated line and only touch on its basics).

I'm going to give an [famous] example of a random instance of drawback's of computer analysis. (I realize this is from a totally different opening).

[Event "World Championship"]
[Site "Brissago"]
[Date "2004.10.07"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Leko, Peter"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C89"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "2004.09.25"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "14"]
[EventCountry "SUI"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.11.11"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3
d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15.
Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6
22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3 26. Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+
28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4 0-1

If you go to the position after 24. Qxe2, before 24...Bxe2, then start Rybka, it will take several minutes before the evaluation shifts from advantage White to advantage Black. In a well-known post-mortem interview, Kramnik stated that he had trusted engine analysis too much in that position, and lost due to faulty preparation.

The King's Gambit accepted positions are far more complicated than that position, and often the result Rybka, etc, gives immediately, will not be accurate.

I was just throwing out the 3...Bb4/Bc5; not lines we are selecting per say. I'm kind of intrigued that you would feel that variation of the Goring Gambit is slight edge for White, but that the Modern Variation of the King's Gambit is simply equals in all variations. 

I also wanted to share a statement from author John Cox in his book, Dealing with d4 Deviations. In his Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Chapter, he wrote,

"The BDG is one of those things you have to be practical about. There's no doubt it is objectively weak, and that 4...exf3 is the best move. However, for some reason the BDG attracts the most fanatical followers of any opening, bar none. If you've ever felt that wounded tigresses can be a little overprotective of their cubs, hop over to one of the numerous BDG websites and venture the view that you've always wondered whether perhaps the gambit is unsound and that maybe the Catalan is a better bet for long-term pressure.

You aren't going to face it more than once or twice in a chess lifetime, you are – unlike your opponent – hardly likely to have more than a dim recollection of the theory, and sod's law dictates that this happy event will probably occur in the third Saturday game of a weekender, when few of us are at our sharpest tactically. In these circumstances, if you run into some knife-wielding maniac with a glint in his eye and a yard of BDG workbooks on his shelf at home, then by all means take his pawn, but don't blame me if one slip sees you getting torched" (John Cox).


That same mentality can be said for gambits like the King's Gambit.

In regards to your comment about the Modern Variation, it's actually not so easy to get equality in several lines.

If you look at the following recent game:

[Event "4th Kings Tournament"]
[Site "Medias ROU"]
[Date "2010.06.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Carlsen, M."]
[Black "Wang Yue"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C36"]
[WhiteElo "2813"]
[BlackElo "2752"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "2010.06.14"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 exf4 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6. O-O Be7 7. Bxd5 Qxd5
8. Nc3 Qd8 9. d4 O-O 10. Bxf4 Bf5 11. Qe2 Bd6 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13. Nb5 Qd8 14. c4
a6 15. Nc3 Nd7 16. Rad1 Bg6 17. Qf2 Re8 18. h3 Rc8 19. Rfe1 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1 c6
21. d5 Nf6 22. Qd4 cxd5 23. Nxd5 Nxd5 24. cxd5 Qd6 25. Ne5 Re8 26. Re3 Rd8 27.
Nc4 Qf6 28. Re5 h6 29. d6 Bf5 30. Nb6 Be6 31. d7 Kh8 32. a4 g6 33. Qc3 Kg7 34.
a5 h5 35. h4 Rxd7 36. Nxd7 Bxd7 37. Qd4 Bc6 38. b4 Bb5 39. Kh2 Ba4 40. Rd5 Bc6
41. Qxf6+ Kxf6 42. Rc5 Ke6 43. Kg3 f6 44. Kf2 Bd5 45. g3 g5 46. g4 hxg4 47. h5
Be4 48. Rc7 f5 49. h6 f4 50. h7 g3+ 51. Ke1 f3 52. h8=Q f2+ 53. Ke2 Bd3+ 54.
Ke3 1-0

After Black played 9...0-0, White had a slight advantage due to the extra space and development lead. Of course, Black has the two bishops, but the position is certainly easier to play for White. No one can say and justify that that position is just completely equals.

Now, if someone with a computer says 9...g5 is possible and gives Black an edge of -0.5 or something; the fact is that move would simply result in positions similar to mainline accepted variations except White has even more open lines than usual to attack with.

Sure, there's a lot of ways for Black to deviate earlier, but none of the resulting positions are all that simple.

Moreover, White can even play something like 5. c4 and "force" Black to play an IQP (Isolated Queen's Pawn) position. Is that position advantageous for White? No. But White is at least equals and the IQP is one of the most highly complicated pawn structures in chess.

Does this mean, if we do a brief "Anti-Petroff" section we won't at all consider suggesting the Modern Variation? Of course not; it's a legitimate line and a legitimate possibility. All I'm saying is there is a lot to consider for us before we would choose any line for such complicated openings --- and something that looks equalish at first may not necessarily be completely equals.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #33 - 10/08/10 at 05:16:59
Post Tools
TN wrote on 10/08/10 at 03:00:12:
Quote:
I don't see how the Modern variation in the King's Gambit is slightly better for White. I would be very interested to see your analysis.


You first. Wink



Larry Kaufman in The Chess Advantage in Black and White shows Black is at least = in all lines.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #32 - 10/08/10 at 03:00:12
Post Tools
Quote:
I don't see how the Modern variation in the King's Gambit is slightly better for White. I would be very interested to see your analysis.


You first. Wink
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #31 - 10/08/10 at 02:21:54
Post Tools
Quote:
any lines we suggest against Cult-like variations (gambits), etc, we would steer away from any accepted variations.

Some lines like 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4, etc would fall quite in line with Petroff themes

Or 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3, where I reckon 3...Bb4+ would be the "Petroff" answer (or again 3...Bc5!?).

The modern variation is actually slightly better for White as well in the KG.


Even though accepting gambits doesn't fit in with the Petroff I think you should recommend them because they are generally the strongest lines to go for. Accepting the gambits usually leads to a Black advantage but declining allows White equality. I don't think you should recommend a weaker move just because it fits in better with the rest of the repertoire.

1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 would only fit with the Petroff if after 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3, you recommend 5...Be7 instead of 5...Nc6 which leads to huge complications.

I agree with MNb that 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3 Bc5?! 4 c3! dxc3 5 Nxc3 is an improved version of the Goring Gambit and is slightly better for White.

I don't see how the Modern variation in the King's Gambit is slightly better for White. I would be very interested to see your analysis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10620
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #30 - 10/08/10 at 02:05:20
Post Tools
Ankit Gupta wrote on 10/07/10 at 22:30:14:
Or 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3, where I reckon 3...Bb4+ would be the "Petroff" answer (or again 3...Bc5!?).

3...Bc5 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 may lead to a good version of the Göring Gambit. It's one of the lines not well covered in Danish Dynamite.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ankit Gupta
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 26
Joined: 09/30/10
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #29 - 10/07/10 at 22:30:14
Post Tools
Anonymous3 wrote on 10/07/10 at 19:28:06:
Ankit, what do you think about my suggestions against White's alternatives to 2 Nf3?

Against 2 Nc3, I would recommend 2...Nf6 so if White plays 3 Nf3 the game transposes into your Petroff repertoire instead of 2...Nc6 where after 3 Nf3 one would have to learn some extra lines.

Against 2 Bc4, I would recommend 2...Nf6, which allows one line of the Italian Game with 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nc6 but after 3 d3 Black can avoid going into the main line with 3...c6, instead of 2...Nc6 which allows a direct transposition to the Italian Game with 3 Bc4.

Against 2 f4, I would recommend 2...d5 and in the main line 3 exd5 exf4 4 Nf3 Nf6, the solid Modern Defense, which avoids the more tactical lines of the King's Gambit Accepted and leaves Black at least equal instead of another solid line 2...Bc5, the King's Gambit Declined, which I think it slightly better for White.

Against 2 d4, I would recommend 2...exd4 and now:
a) 3 Qxd4 Nc6 4 Qe3 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4
b)3 c3 dxc3
c)3 Nf3 Bb4+! 4 c3 dxc3 5 Nxc3 Nc6, transposing to the Goring Gambit, 5 bxc3 Bc5, and 4 Bd2 Bc5
Even though these lines aren't that similar to the Petroff, I think these are clearly the best lines to go for and leave Black slightly better and 3 Nf3 Bb4+! also avoids going into the Scotch Game.


We are still in discussion about what lines we want to suggest against Anti-Petroff options.

Some of your suggestions make sense (against the Bishop's Opening and Vienna Game), but any lines we suggest against Cult-like variations (gambits), etc, we would steer away from any accepted variations.

Some lines like 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4, etc would fall quite in line with Petroff themes, so anything we do suggest we'd want to keep as close as possible to Petroff ideals.

Solid lines like the Bishop's Opening, Vienna 3 g3 (where White is not going for a theoretical edge), I suspect would be easy to cover and to suggest lines reaching decent positions for Black (using hardly any space).

There's also stuff like 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 and how to avoid going back into mainline theory with 4...Nc6. Maybe 4...Bc5!?, which Alekhine and Marshall both played. Or 2 d4 exd4 3 Nf3, where I reckon 3...Bb4+ would be the "Petroff" answer (or again 3...Bc5!?).

The modern variation is actually slightly better for White as well in the KG.

That said, anything we do suggest, if we decide to do a brief section on Anti-Petroff material, will be streamed out beforehand.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10620
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #28 - 10/07/10 at 20:53:04
Post Tools
You have forgotten 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Bc4. Not that it is a problem, given your recommendations.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous3
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 305
Joined: 08/15/08
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #27 - 10/07/10 at 19:28:06
Post Tools
Ankit, what do you think about my suggestions against White's alternatives to 2 Nf3?

Against 2 Nc3, I would recommend 2...Nf6 so if White plays 3 Nf3 the game transposes into your Petroff repertoire instead of 2...Nc6 where after 3 Nf3 one would have to learn some extra lines.

Against 2 Bc4, I would recommend 2...Nf6, which allows one line of the Italian Game with 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nc6 but after 3 d3 Black can avoid going into the main line with 3...c6, instead of 2...Nc6 which allows a direct transposition to the Italian Game with 3 Bc4.

Against 2 f4, I would recommend 2...d5 and in the main line 3 exd5 exf4 4 Nf3 Nf6, the solid Modern Defense, which avoids the more tactical lines of the King's Gambit Accepted and leaves Black at least equal instead of another solid line 2...Bc5, the King's Gambit Declined, which I think it slightly better for White.

Against 2 d4, I would recommend 2...exd4 and now:
a) 3 Qxd4 Nc6 4 Qe3 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4
b)3 c3 dxc3
c)3 Nf3 Bb4+! 4 c3 dxc3 5 Nxc3 Nc6, transposing to the Goring Gambit, 5 bxc3 Bc5, and 4 Bd2 Bc5
Even though these lines aren't that similar to the Petroff, I think these are clearly the best lines to go for and leave Black slightly better and 3 Nf3 Bb4+! also avoids going into the Scotch Game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ankit Gupta
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 26
Joined: 09/30/10
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #26 - 10/07/10 at 18:56:54
Post Tools
slates wrote on 10/06/10 at 06:51:30:
Thanks to Ankit for participating here and inviting comments and suggestions. 
I am looking forward to this book and would love to see a brief section on the KG (preferably the Modern variation), the Bishops Opening and something for when White goes for the Four Knights, which I dislike playing against the most. If 3...Bb4 is the suggestion here I'd be very pleased....

But mainly it's good to know that a Petroff book for Black is finally coming and that it promises to be a good one  Smiley


The 3...Bb4 line is covered in great detail against 3. Nc3. We've looked at it and injected several new ideas for Black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ankit Gupta
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 26
Joined: 09/30/10
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #25 - 10/07/10 at 18:53:20
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 10/05/10 at 20:31:38:
There is no need for complete coverage. 2.Nc3, 2.f4 and 2.d4 can be covered "Yusupov" style using test positions containig a complete game with brief annotations. Of course i am not in the position to tell you the way you should do it, i just like th way Yusupov gives the not-2.Nf3 lines in his chapter (in the exercises section) about the Petroff. Less that 5 pages are needed for sure for this.

Also i beleive that by asking opinions about the book here will improve a lot the desire of many foroum members to buy the book and also the quality of the book itself because always someone here can spot a critical line or a nice interesting idea. Ankit, we are with you! Please keep up the good work. Smiley


I talked to GM Har-Zvi and GM Emms yesterday about briefly including "Anti-Petroff" lines in a Petroff book. If we decide to, which we might now, it will certainly not be in the detail that the rest of the Petroff repertoire will be in. But, we will try to give a gist and suggestions for certain lines, if we end up going ahead with covering such a "bonus" section.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Play the Petroff by Ronen Har-Zvi and Ankit Gupta
Reply #24 - 10/07/10 at 08:09:39
Post Tools
Good News because the Breyer has gotten short shrift - and it's been played from Spassky to Carlsen.

Come to think of it Chessbase is putting out a two part DVD set on 1.e4 e5 repertoire by GM Gustafsson. Not too excited by it. Still, it makes a nice addition. The sample videos (on the Marshall) have been up on Youtube for a week. He also taped one in German.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo