The Ponomariov-Azarov game was similar to mine except they removed the Bishops by throwing in Nxb4 and Nxb5 before the Knights returned to d4 and d5 to exploit the pins. This improves the idea for White as the Bishop can be evicted from f3 by Qe3 and White has f4 as a follow-up. 

One doubt about the reliability of that game is that it was played in the European under 12. The winner later won the FIDE knock-out and both players are now GMs.

One of the first chess books I ever read was the Penguin "The Game of chess" by Golombek and one of the first openings he discusses is the Four Knights sequence which runs 1 e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5 . Golombek now writes (with translation from English descriptive) of 7. .. Bxc3 
"A necessary exchange, since White was threatening Nd5 followed by Nxf6+ when Black has to break up the Pawns in front of his King by gxf6, leaving his King thus open to attack"

So taking this as received wisdom, I would always take on c3 with Black and expect it by my opponents when White. 

That is until today when my opponent retained the symmetry with 7. .. Bg4. I continued with 8. Nd5, but then 8. .. Nd4 and 9 Bc4 Bc5. I now duly weakened his King side pawns with 10 Bxf6 gxf6 and now punted 11 Qd2 in the interests of a rapid 12 Qh6, 13 Nxf6 and 14. Qxh7 mate. When he met this with 11. .. c6, I though I had blundered a piece, but found what looked an escape route with 12. Ne3, the point being that 12. .. Bxf3 can be met with 13. c3. Even so Black should snatch the pawn with 12. .. Nxf3 13. gxf3 Bxf3, the point being that 14. Nf5 can be met with 14 . .. Kh8 and the threat of Rg8 check fends off the White attack.

So what's the best way to "refute" 7. .. Bg4, if indeed there is one? The idea of 8. Bxf6 gxf6 ( 8. .. Qxf6 would lose a piece after 9. Nd5) and 9 Bxc6 bxc6 has been tried to exploit the doubled pawns using the Knights.

Bibs wrote on 03/06/12 at 05:50:35:

 

Greet's e4 book? Yes anyway, that's unfortunate...but every book has mistakes.

Writing something more understandable and more basic is not the same as condescending, especially these days with the breadth and width of data and complexity of chess. I don't know about the Goofy comment (never bought any of Lakdawala's works) but I have watched him play: He's very serious. And if by serious you mean dry, I'll take Goofy.

dfan wrote on 03/05/12 at 22:05:22:

This is what I meant to say but I see rereading my short posts that I was far from clear. Perhaps it still sounds condescending - well fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree. I never said all 1400-1800 players like goofy chess writing or that no 1400-1800 player likes serious writing.

For what it's worth, I don't mind either style as long as it's well done (whatever that means - I don't have clear criteria). I don't have a clear preference and see advantages of both styles. And I believe that, on average, the advantages do not apply equally for a ~1600 than for a ~2000 player.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread.

Yes. And it's still condescending. Try some books by Euwe, someone who understood a few things about chess and also was a qualified teacher. His explanations always were elementary but never goofy, not even slightly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Goofy.svg

gwnn wrote on 03/05/12 at 11:09:59:

How condescending. I am an 1800 and I like to be taken seriously by chess authors.