"No ; Yes transposition chapter" could be another alternative.

Anyway, the reason I suggested it was that I was reading Palliser's book on the Czech Benoni, and got both confused and irritated at all the transposition notes within the commentary (otherwise, it's a good effort though!).

But what's the point of mentioning that a3 0-0, 0-0 Ne8, b4 transposes to 0-0 0-0, a3 Ne8, b4 and so on, and on. If "it just transposes" why mention it?

The important thing is if different move orders offer different alternatives on the way to the transpo or creates more choices or obstacles for the opponent, for example if one move order makes it important for the other part to suddenly play the standard moves in a certain order. Palliser has a good example of this, where Kh8 Rad1! Nf6 suddenly ran into Nxe5! dxe5 and d6.

Besides, knowledge and evaluation of transpo tricks are something where titled players are definitely better than an engine - so why hide that stuff in between all the "X is better than Y but not as strong as Z" variations? So, to my mind the only question is if transpos should be dealt with a chapter of their own or in a pre-chapter to every major variation, the 2nd option may be easier to do.

Quote:


You can read it here: http://borgchess.blogspot.com/2010/10/kg-newish-idea-in-modern-defence.html

You only missed one major thing, Bxe4! instead of Qxg6, and of course you should get a good corr-database for reference, it will save you a lot of work!

Anyway, thanks again for posting your analysis of 13.Qe1 - it was a long time since I last felt motivated to look at the KG, so it was nice to see that it's still more "unclear" than "easy equality"!

"On the whole, how many people would want us to cover transpositions in an independent chapter?"

We could set up a poll with the options:

- I don’t think it is important how it is handled as long as it is handled
- Handle it in the different chapters where it is appropriate
- Handle it in an independent chapter

Would anyone with english as first language please improve on the above options?

TalJechin wrote on 10/10/10 at 16:36:36:


On the whole, how many people would want us to cover transpositions in an independent chapter?

Also, just a warning, the King's Gambit analysis (on the ...Be6 variation of the Modern Variation) I posted is very brief (since the only purpose of it was to suggest that that line is not as equals as some who posted earlier in this forum might believe it is). So, a lot of variations and side-variations Black can choose may not be covered, etc. That said, Black's alternatives should basically handled in a similar fashion.

If you review it on your blog (what is your blog?), and find any errors, please feel free to let me know.

The Petroff is not as drawish as people believe it to be. True, some lines are drawish, but on the whole, that can be said for any opening from Black's POV (exchange French, exchange Slav, exchange QGA, etc). There are lines that White can play that are somewhat dry, but there are several lines that end up in sharp positions.

Since the Petroff is employed at the very top level so often (as opposed to some other openings), where errors are less frequent in play, is a large reason for why many games in the Petroff end in a draw result.

We will try to present the active choices for Black that do not afford White any significant noticeable advantage.

trw wrote on 10/10/10 at 01:54:04:


It shouldn't be a problem for us to go over transpositions within the text of games. Many Everyman Chess Series do this, so I see no reason we cannot.

Thanks for your input; your comments are appreciated.

I would also like some discussion of transpositions to be honest.

Also FYI Ankit, you can attach pgn files to your post so no need to copy/paste.

Ankit Gupta wrote on 10/09/10 at 15:23:42:


I am looking forward to the book.  I've always been attracted to the Petroff but have only been an occasional dabbler.  So what would I like to see?   

In the 3.d4 line, I would like to see 5..Nd7.  After 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 7.0-0 I like having the option of 7..Bd6 (transposing to the 5..Bd6 6.0-0 Nd7 line) or 7..Qh4.  At the top level, I take it that 7..Bd6 is considered better, but at amateur level 7..Qh4 can lead to a livelier game with opposite side castling.  It gives you a chance to try to mix things up when you need to.   

Maybe the main lines after 7..Qh4 are theoretically +/=, but I don't think it matters as much at amateur level.  If, for example, you consider a game like Anand-Ivanchuk, Linares 1993, Anand knows how to win this position with the two bishops and the pawn for the exchange.  At club level, I bet Black wins this as often or even more often than White.

I confess, though, that I don't pay that much attention to 3.d4 because it doesn't come up that often in my occassional Petroff games.  Whichever you choose, I hope you will comment in the book on why 3.d4 has fallen out of favor.  Is it simply fashion or has White (other than Tiviakov) just given up trying to play it for a win?
 
In the 3.Nxe5 line, I would like to see 6..Nc6/6..Be7 and 8..Nb4.  It's by far the main line at the moment.  Is Marshall's 6..Bd6 playable?   The old 6..Nc6, 7..Bg4 line has looked shaky to me since that K-K game where Kasparov chased Karpov's Queen to a6.  And, for some reason that I can't quite remember at the moment, I think that 6..Be7, 8..Bg4 is under pressure.  

But this then is a problem I have with the Petroff because in the 8..Nb4 9.Be2 line, I think that I would prefer to play the White side after 9..0-0 10.Nc3 Bf5.  Those c3-d4 pawns look a little too mobile for my taste  (and I can tell you that its dispiriting when White plants a piece on d6 for the rest of the game).  So I hope you will discuss how to play against these pawns and show that Black is OK here.  Also, after 15.Bf4, it alsways feels wrong to have to play 15..Rc8.  Is Karpov's 15..Bd6 playable?

But what I'd really like to see, if you can make it work, is  ..Be6, either at move 9 or 10.  I saw GM Har-Zvi's video on ICC where he looked at 10..Be6 followed by ..c5, and while I have not analyzed it yet, it looked like something that I would be happy to try.  So again I hope you will cover these alternatives thoroughly.  There is really little out there on them.

As for the rest of the book, I assume it will be 5..c5! against the Cochrane, that there will be a good line against the Nimzo after Nxc3, and I would echo a prior comment that we really do need some suggestions for how to win again 5.Qe2 and 5.d3.  Then we can play the Petroff as our #1 defense even in must win situations against lower-rated players. 

I also think that it would help to have a historical overview as to how the opening has developed and changed.  It seems that, after 8..Nb4, everyone used to take on d5 until Karpov played Be2 and, after that, it really became a different and more complicated opening.

Oh, and in case you still care, consider this another vote to keep it just a Petroff book.

Good luck finishing the book and thanks for asking!



edited

ANDREW BRETT wrote on 10/09/10 at 12:45:20:


We will emphasize Nxc3. Nf6, while being a line, we felt was not the best approach for Black.

So to answer your question, Nf6 is not bad; it's certainly a viable option for Black, we just felt that it is better we cover the more mainstream line of Nxc3.