If Avrukh's work always included g3, then I could incorporate some of his lines into my play.  I do enjoy attacking play, but the position is what dictates play slow or attack, right?

This is the sort of thing which (still) puzzles me.  If you are something like USCF class C strength, and are starting to play 1. d4, I don't know why you would be buying those Avrukh tomes and planning to "incorporate them into your repertoire."  We're talking about books which (1) in the view of IM John Donaldson, those of USCF Expert strength "will definitely have their hands full" with; (2) cover only certain systems of a rather sophisticated nature, such as the Catalan and the Slow Slav.

moahunter wrote on 02/05/11 at 03:34:13:


Or you can adopt one of my approaches: Have a narrow repertoire for each tournament, but drastically change it for the next tournament.   

If you played 1.d4 exclusively in your last tournament, switch to 1.e4 exclusively in your next. Your opponents will be expecting you to switch back to 1.d4 until you play 1.e4 three times in a row. 

There is one catch of this method. You have to do a lot of work.

These days I'm not all that sure 1. g3/1. Nf3/1. c4/1. d4/1. e4 are all that different from eachother.

It's not like black is struggling of late to show equality in some response to each of them. Just off the top of my head there's the Petroff against 1. e4, the NID/QGD complex against 1. d4, 1. c4 e5, and the Hedgehog versus 1. Nf3. That's just the bare minimum, without even focusing on other possibilities, of which there are many, and anyone reading this post will be able to list quite a few more where white is hard pressed to demonstrate much of anything (I'm too lazy to list all of them that come to mind, but I can think of at least 3 for every white first move).

It seems like whatever first move the person goes with should just play to their strengths, and if they're ever going to get anywhere they'll need to be able to play everything in the attempt to produce practical problems for the opponent.

Jay wrote on 01/27/11 at 16:56:39:


This statement is true in openings that do not lead to any advantage for white. If everything you can play is just as good, you better play something that suits your style.

My thesis is that white has no advantage after 1.c4, therefore 1.c4 and 1.d4 followed by 2.Bf4 are equal alternatives. The only difference is that black has the chance to make more mistakes after 1.c4.

Quote:


Obviously it's sound in that it doesn't lose by force. Unless an opening produces +/- regardless of black's choices after choosing it, it's not unsound.

Our discussion centered on 4...Qb6 last time, and Palliser was invoked.

My original point in this discussion was to point out 3...e5 isn't that big of a deal, and that white has very real ways of striving for an edge. It should not discourage white from playing 3. Nc3 anymore than 3...g6, 3...Nd4, or 3...Nf6 does.

Matemax wrote on 12/20/10 at 14:14:56:


I don't think he's force-fit so much as theory simply evolved in most of his recommendations - chess is in all likelihood a draw, so the search for += (white) or = (black) is still going on. Going through whatever is the most up-to-date volume:

Volume 1A) Anti-Grunfeld there's no += in his recommendation.

Volume 1B) Bayonet KID there's no += in his recommendation.

Volume 2) Hedgehog there's no += in his recommendation.

Volume 3) 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. g3, 1. Nf3 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. e4 e5 there's no += in his recommendation.

Volume 4) QGA, Slav, Anti-Moscow there's no += in his recommendation.

Volume 5) Tarrasch Defense, 5. Bg5 QGD there's no += in his recommendation.

I think he was force-fitting the 5. Bg5 QGD evaluation even back then, but yeah, theory has evolved in a lot of key lines. Of course, some of it still has relevance in a lot of sidelines.

I expect a lot of changes in the 3A/3B/4/5 this go-around. I expect if he ever did a third edition there'd be changes again, but obviously he never will so that task falls on someone else.

Every serious student can't rely solely on his recommendations. Aside from the laziness it implies, there's always subtleties to be found for both colors.

Markovich wrote on 12/19/10 at 04:30:42:


I am sure he has no (k)nightmares - he is just cool enought to write += even if there isn't one 

Markovich wrote on 12/19/10 at 04:30:42:


Khalifman's contributions form the backbone of a lot of the sideline issues in a 1. Nf3 repertoire much like his Anand series does for 1. e4 players (who else covers the super-rare stuff?). Some of his recommendations, ie: Double Fianchetto Defense, retain their relevance as serious theoretical tries. However, a lot don't due to age. His Hedgehog recommendation was outdated before it hit the presses, for example.

My repertoire has always been distinctively my own, never being the exact same as the one Khalifman promotes.

Quote:


The Palliser lines in 3. d4 are still +=, which was what we discussed a long time ago. That's what I was referring to, and that hasn't changed.

The solution isn't a Palliser attempt. A lot of the moves I mentioned in the thread I linked previously are novelties.

Quote:


7...Be6 8. d3 Nge7 (8...h6 9. Ne1 Nge7 10. b4 circumvents black's attempt to produce a main line with the useful h6 over a5) 9. b4.

Black can win the exchange, white gets very good compensation for it.

Quote:


I have his work, much like Khalifman's theory has moved on.

7...0-0 8. Ne1 d6 9. Nc2 and white can bind the d5 square without allowing ...d5 as in the main line. Black has not fared well at all in high level play of late.

I'm not sure why 7...0-0 8. b4 popped up since I never mentioned it.