LostTactic wrote on 11/07/12 at 05:34:26:
Question for BPaulsen - I remember reading earlier that you were recommending Bg5 vs Semi-Slav, however because you're covering this in your Chess Developments book, will you be changing this recommendation in your Nf3 book or will it be similar coverage to your Chess Developments book? Also I must say that this Play 1.Nf3 book is the book I'm looking forward to the most atm, as I want to switch to 1.Nf3, but will stick with 1.d4 ala Schandorff till this book comes out. I do have the Khalifman books but they're incredibly intimidating and I'm hoping your book will be more accessible for someone at my level (roughly 1950 Fide).
5.Bg5 was going to be the original recommendation, but I just couldn't find anything in a few lines that justified memorizing 20+ moves of complex theory in the Anti-Moscow, while the line I was favoring for white in the typical Moscow was beaten down efficiently (read as: equalized effortlessly) in a fairly recent Kramnik-Aronian game.
Lines changed, expectations changed, the Slav/Semi-Slav complex cannot guarantee a += for white, and the best I could come up with were positions more comfortable for white (more space, better activity, things of those nature). I did my best, and that's about all I can say.
"Chess Developments: The Semi-Slav with 5.Bg5" was a project that only came about due to the amount of work I created detailing analysis on the Botvinnik, Anti-Moscow, Moscow, and Cambridge Springs. That book is actually almost done, I just need to finish the Botvinnik section, and expand the annotations.
In comparing to Khalifman, heh... Khalifman is much more thorough, but then he had the space to be. That said, that isn't a criticism - it still takes time to write all of those sidelines, even those awful/dubious ones he takes time to address. I wouldn't want to do it even if I had the space.
I focus on lines that, in my opinion, are critical due to popularity, logic/principle, or engine preference and focus on explaining those because they usually form the "core" of understanding the resulting positions. In the case of "lesser defenses" this often makes for more clear and concise explanations that lower class players can handle easily because the advantages crystallize more clearly. In openings like, for example, the Hedgehog, it can be difficult to realize the nature of a space advantage that has reduced black's counterplay to near zero - you still have to break his position! At that point you're left with maybe explaining thematic maneuvers (if they exist) and general ideas/principles, but it can get vague and difficult for people that need specifics - if you're ever wondering why an author cops out with the "and white is better due to his space" without saying more - that's why! At that point the best advice takes you outside of the book - study games from these positions, play training games against stronger players/engines, and do personal study. Only at that point will the player realize why white's space matters for more concrete reasons.
But that's why the popular lines are popular. White's task isn't ever easy there.
Pages: 
An interesting new chesspub member-authored book! (Read 155882 times)
