kylemeister wrote on 05/23/13 at 18:19:13:


I wanted to update my repertoire a bit and had a look at this line. It turns out 10. a4 was played already in 1994, between Nigel Davies and Eran Liss (IM at that time) and this game is referenced by Dembo. As far as I can see, there is nothing mentioned on this line at all in the file (only 10. a4 Qxd1 11. Rxd1 Bxc3, which incidentally does not look like much of an edge for White either). I can't find anything substantial in the rest of the offered extra analysis either, as already mentioned by others.

I guess the way to try to obtain an advantage is by 10. Nh4!? as in the thread http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1426877642/5
or any other suggestion?

Book III came during a period where I was changing my black repertoire (which I am still working on)

I put my own together against the Grunfeld from Avrukh as preparation for a team match, and have faced the hedgehog many times and am still struggling against it. I wish there was more coverage of it in WWIII, as it is very popular around here.

Er, it says that 10. a4 has never been tried in a game, but NIC's online database has a couple of games with it (one of them between two GMs in the Bundesliga in 2008).

SteelyDanIII wrote on 04/24/13 at 15:22:29:


Not to mention that, I believe, the possibility of Black going for this line has been considered a reason for White to prefer 6. d4 instead of the old standard move order 6. 0-0 after 1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. Nf3 Nf6.

(Semi-offhand observation regarding 10. Be3:  I notice that in NIC's online database, 10...Bd7 [which I seem to recall being given as "!" decades ago] scores over 50% for Black.)

I think the Bogo-Indian was used as a surprise weapon in the first round games by both Carlsen and Radjabov. It's safe enough for doing that. Not that this opening would become their first choice afterwards.. 

Pessoa wrote on 02/19/13 at 09:50:18:

Just as to illustrate my point, in round 3 of the current Candidates Tournament for the World Chess Championship, Grischuk played …d5 before …0-0 against Kramnik. See? (And, by the way, the game ended in a draw on move 35.)

One more comment on the book:

In the introduction to the Bogo-Indian (page 383), with some amusement one reads:
"It seems strange to us that players of Black would want to try to steer the game towards the Bogo-Indian: very few players believe it to be that good of a choice for Black, anyway. After the simple 4.Bd2, Black will lose time when he exchanges on d2. […] The Bogo-Indian was often just seen as a way for Black to play creatively and avoid theory and perhaps introduce new ideas – not as a theoretically serious equalizing attempt."

Er, what? Not a theoretically serious equalizing attempt? It seems Carlsen and Radjabov don't agree, as they both used the Bogo-Indian in their first-round games of said tournament (Aronian-Carlsen, Gelfand-Radjabov). Carlsen "lost time" playing …Bb4 and …Bxd2, and Radjabov "lost time" playing …Bb4 and …Be7. Still, both games ended in a draw. Aronian and Gelfand must be real patzers as they didn't manage to profit from such gambling by Black …      

TD wrote on 02/10/13 at 08:45:36:

can I ask what they give against the Hedgehog? 7.d4 or 7.Re1? thanks

STEFANOS wrote on 11/21/12 at 20:56:09:

Many positive things about the Wojo’s Weapons series have already been said elsewhere; no need to repeat those here.

So I go immediately for the quibbles (concerning Volume 3):

The blurb on the back of the book tells us, the authors "claim to have found a sure route to an advantage against the Grünfeld". Well, the authors do make such a claim, but I cannot really agree with them, for two reasons:

First:
The authors claim White gets an advantage in the line 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.0-0 Nb6 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.d5 Na5 10.Qc2!? Even if that might be the case: In the introduction to Chapter 2 ("The Fianchetto Grünfeld, Main Line with 10.Qc2!?") they say "Rowson [in his book on the Grünfeld] goes so far as to try to avoid 10.Qc2 altogether by playing …d7-d5 and …Nf6xd5 before castling."
It is perhaps not without reason that also Dembo and Delchev recommend the same strategy to Black in their respective books on the Grünfeld, and indeed it appears to avoid the variation put forward by Hilton and Ippolito. What’s strange is that this strategy is not at all mentioned in their book any further. I, for one, have not been able to find the slightest remark about what the authors suggest White should do after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 (before castling!). MegaBase 2013 has 4 games in which this position was reached with Wojtkiewicz playing White; twice he played 5.d4, twice 5.cxd5. Of these 4 games Wojo (ca. 2575 ELO) managed 'only' 1 win (in a blitz game against Kempinski 2528) and 3 draws, admittedly against decent opposition (Jasnikowski 2425, Schmidt 2440, Stohl 2578). 

Second:
As for "Black’s Solid Grünfeld with …c7-c6" the authors claim that the line 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.d4 c6 6.Nc3 d5 7.Qb3 is "almost certainly plus-over-equal for White". Then they devote Chapter 8 of their book to the "drawish move" (their own words) 7…Qb6 and call it "Black Grovels with 7…Qb6". The implication seems clear …
However, listen to what Boris Avrukh (Quality Chess, 2011) has to say about 7…Qb6: "This is a thematic (!) response to White’s queen sortie in positions with a Slav pawn structure, and it works well for Black (!) here."
If we now compare Hilton and Ippolito’s recommendation against 7…Qb6 with Avrukh’s recommendation against this, we get 'best play from both sides', ending up with the line 8.Nc3 Rd8 9.Rd1 Bf5 10.Ne1 Be6 11.c5 Qxb3 12.axb3 Nbd7 13.b4 (Hilton and Ippolito: "[this] was a little better for White in Anic–Nataf, Vichy 2000") 13…a6. (Avrukh: "Black had absolutely no problems in Anic–Nataf, Vichy 2000"). – Make sense who may. Judging fom the course of the game mentioned (drawn on move 48), Avrukh appears right. The only other game in MegaBase 2013 to reach the position after 13…a6 was Borovikov (2586) – Heimann (2459) 2012, drawn on move 15.
I should add that, for some reason, Hilton and Ippolito do not list Avrukh’s essential work on the Grünfeld in their bibliography …

That’s my main point with the pure chess contents so far, although there are a few more things one could point out, mainly interesting set-ups for Black that are not mentioned in the book, such as 15…e6 with the idea …Be5 in the Maroczy (instead of 15…Qb6 which is, admittedly, the main line, but even this main line is 'treated' only in a short note to the rare 15…b6 played in one of the main games in the book).

What I find more disturbing is that the proofreading has been done either very badly or not at all. I have found numerous typos and illogical comments. Here goes:

Page 131: After the first moves of the game Wojtkiewicz–Möhring 1988 (1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.g3 c6 5. Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.Qb3 Qb6 8.Nc3 Qxb3 9.axb3 Na6) we find the following note: "Less attractive is 9…Bf5, when here White gets a small advantage without a fight: 10.Ne5 Rd8 (10…Qxb3 11.axb3 transposes to 8…Bf5 9.Ne5 Qxb3 10.axb3, given in Tregubov–Bezemer below)". – Sorry, I don’t get that, as in the main game Black has played …Qxb3 already on move 8. 

Page 137, note to 9…e6: "(12…cxd5 13.Bxd5 Nc6 14.Be5)". – Here 14.Be5 is not possible, as the bishop is still on c1. This should probably read "(12…cxd5 13.Bxd5 Nc6 14.e3)".

Page 139, note to 17.a3: "The alternative 17.Bc7 Rdc8 18.Bd6 …". – This makes no sense, as there is no black rook on d8 and, according to my engine, after 17.Bc7 Black would get a huge advantage after 17…b5. Presumably this note was meant to go with the move 17.a3 as played in the game Alekseev-Shirov, given in the note to the move 16…b5.

Page 141, note to 8…Qxb3: "(17…Nc6 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Nxc6 Kf8 20.Rxa7 just gives White a slight edge)". – This should probably read "(17…Nc6 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Nxc6 Kf8 20.Nxd8 Rxd8 21.Rxa7 just gives White a slight edge)", as 20.Rxa7?? would lose to 20…Rxa7 21.Nxa7 Rxd4.

Page 141, note to 8…Qxb3: "(20.Rc1 Bxd4 Nbd7 21.Rbc7)". – This should read "(20.Rc1 Nbd7 21.Rbc7)", Bxd4 being a 'superfluous move'.

Page 143, note to 17…e6: "not 18…Nh5? 19.Bc7! Rdc8 20.Nfd5". – This should read "not 18…Nh5? 19.Bc7! Rdc8 20.Nxd5".

Page 146, note to 12…Na6: "And 12…Na6 11. [sic] Ng5 Nac7 12.e4 Nb6 13.f4 gave White a big pawn center in V.Jürgens–A.Conny [sic], Chemnitz 1999". – This should read  "And 12…Na6 13.Ng5 Nac7 14.e4 Nb6 15.f4 gave White a big pawn center in V.Jürgens-C.Auer, Chemnitz 1999".

These findings are all taken from Chapter 8 ("Black Grovels with 7…Qb6"), the only one into which I have looked in some detail so far. It is to be feared that more of such misprints / errors are to be found in other chapters of the book, too.

A further note, on the organization of chapter 8. It starts with the sub-heading "Black Takes First: …Qxb3". This theme is then correctly illustrated by the game Wojtkiewicz–Möhring 1988. The next sub-heading is "White Takes First: […]", correctly illustrated by the game Mikhalevski–Vydeslaver 1996. The confusing bit is that, still under the same subheading, there follows the game Tregubov–Bezemer 2004, in which we again find Black taking first, playing 8…Qxb3. – I don't exactly like such things ...