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.

I had some responses about the Move By Move Nimzo book, and have been told that it was good even for my level (~2250). But I wonder how much is attributed to theory both in that book and also in this forthcoming book.

I just saw this:

http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/The_Four_Knights%3A_Move_by_Move

tracke 

As TopNotch expressed it, I'm also disappointed by this book. It has been written by Obodchuk, an unknown (to me) russian IM in 2010, and translated by Steve Giddins to be published around summer 2011. It contains 64 full games, 40 of them being played between 2007 and 2010.

I especially disliked 2 things about this book. The first is the lack of comment in most games, either in the opening phase or later. I sometimes wonder how a book can be filled with so much information (e.g., GM series from Quality Chess). With this book, I wonder how it is possible to produce a book with so few information. The second point is the lack of consistency for a repertoire book. You often have 2 or 3 choices for White against each variation, but the author never states which one he prefers, the advantage / drawback of each and so on. In fact, there is almost no prose in this book.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 (it also covers 3...Bc5) 4.d4 cxd4, both 5.Nd5 Bg7 6.Bg5 and 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 are covered. I couldn't find out the preference of the author, neither an explanation for what type of games we reach in each variation. Does one involve greater risks, does one suit strategic players, and so on.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Qe7 9.Re1 Nd8 10.d4 Ne6, we reach a main variation of the spanish four knights. Three moves are covered. 11.Bh4 in one game, descibed as "Not considered as strongest (...) main moves are Bd2 and Bc1." 11.Bd2 in two games, descibed as "This move is no weaker than the main line Bc1." No additional comment! And 11.Bc1 is covered in only one game with the comment "This position has been reached in practice countless hundreds of times. It is considered that White has some strategic initiative, thanks to its preponderance in the centre and the two, albeit for the time being, passive bishops, but in general, the position is close to equality." It's then up to you to decide between 11.Bd2 and 11.Bc1.

Personnaly, I expect more from a good chess opening book. It's a selection of games, but with very few (or even no) opinion given by the author. Maybe some people will like this book, but it is cleraly not my cup of tea.

how did it disappoint you?

It will be interesting to see the analysis of the Belgrade Gambit in this book.  Maybe it will go past the scope the work done here.

This book came out earlier then expected:
http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/PDFs/959.pdf

Maybe the Kaufman repertoire and the Ragozin will arrive sooner too