Hi BPaulsen!

Thanks for your comment. As you know, 3.d4 is also presented in the Dangerous Weapons as an alternative, I'm looking forward to seeing your contribution to it. And I'm really looking forward to seeing your book. 1.Nf3 has been my main weapon for a long time. It's a Dementor for many black players 

Lauri Torni wrote on 03/13/12 at 21:04:08:


2...Nc6 is the main line I cite. 3.e4 isn't best, not even close, not even in the same ballpark. White may as well just offer a draw after 2.d3 if 3.e4 were best.

3.d4!? is the recommendation and that's all I'm giving away for now. The vast majority of the games in that position occur with colors reversed (if people care to start researching it now - even then most of the analysis will be original), and I'm of the opinion it's a poor Bird's Opening black is playing (1.f4/2.Nc3 being very strange bedfellows), and that the "extra tempo" is detrimental. I've discussed the position with players I've done work as a second before, and they've never been fond of black's cause either.

Does that mean I expect 2.d3 to refute the Dutch? Hell no. Do I think I will still be able to pose very real problems? Absolutely. Perhaps most surprisingly to some on here might be this - do I think it's an inferior try for an advantage compared to the main line Leningrad? No, and I say that having poured through the theory exhaustively.

And yes - I still realize 2.d3 looks like a gimmick. Frankly speaking the move offends me at first sight because I much prefer battling it out in critical variations in well traveled main lines that represent principled play - but as I intend to show, it works, should be taken very seriously, and is worth using for 1.Nf3 players. For people concerned the book will be full of gimmicks I will stop that idea here - it's the only one in the entire book that qualifies as such. The rest of the book, in all likelihood, will be criticized, if anything, for being too theoretical.

Given when GM A. Khalifman does his next OFWAK update it will probably cover all of the main line Leningrad, people could just use that instead. It will not be the end of the world.

By the way, I love your signature.

@Eric the Red

That idea has already had preliminary discussions, especially after all the QID discoveries I've shown John Emms. Depending on how the first book goes I would very much want to do a pro-black book, and boy would it be easier.

Lauri Torni wrote on 03/14/12 at 12:26:54:


If the point is to play d2-d3-d4 I fail to understand the logic of how this tempo loss could be a theoretically challenging approach.

But as a surprise weapon it no doubt has some sting, given that white is very good at tactics and understands when & how to sacrifice to keep the initiative going.

[quote author=0058585052575858610 link=1324330989/91#91 date=1331675764]Does not 4. e4 lose the pawn with 4...f/dxe4?[/quote]

typo, he means e5 not d5

Personally I'm fine with playing black and suddenly be white in a KG or Vienna. :) 

But maybe the rep will go for a g3-setup instead of e4? At least that would be less demanding for the white players.

What have you planned against 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6? It is recommended in the "Dangerous weapons: the Dutch", and black has scored very well with it.

Best may well be 3.e4 d5 4.d4!? transposing to the Vienna 

gewgaw wrote on 03/12/12 at 20:15:47:


Hours - I have no idea. I do know that I spent ~80 hours on just one variation...before rejecting it. That represented one extreme. The Queen's Indian English was a three week affair due to me finding black improvements in many areas. In fact, the number of black improvements I've stumbled across in general is pretty remarkable, and space-willing I'll get to fit all the really relevant ones in.

@Gilchrist is a legend:

If I were content to settle with less in many areas the book would actually be finished already.

It's not finished due to my stubborn belief that the purpose of this repertoire is leaving black with problems to solve. As such, it is about 50% finished, possibly more, but definitely not less.

BPaulsen wrote on 03/12/12 at 01:43:51:

Perhaps the real question is: how much of it will require a degree of positional understanding that (say) we 1800s just don't have? Despite being a big fan of Tony Kosten, for example,  I never got on with his book on the English - not because I wasn't willing to work at it, but because in many lines I couldn't really see what White was trying to do. I believe Donaldson says something to the effect that you need to be around 2000 to use his repertoire book. Of course a book of positional lines can be highly educational, if it explains what's going on in a way that a patzer can understand. But are you trying to do this? Do you even have enough space to do it?