It feels to my non-initiated hands identical to Quality Chess paper. It feels like a much more quality product than the move by move series (I have the Slav and Nimzo books), double column, smaller diagrams, etc. Of course this is all quite beside the point. And there is something that I think I've seen mostly in Gambit books, but maybe also in some QC/EC books: when there's a crossroads, the book gives you the page numbers (e.g. A Rb1 pg 15, B Rc1 pg 18, C Ra2!? pg 19).

I notice he sometimes offers as many as three different lines for Black, albeit perhaps not in White sidelines. I, for one, will surely play 4 .. Bb4 to avoid the Marshall. Brrrr... (But I looked at his lines and compared with the John Cox d4 book and looks like Scherbakov found a good way against all tries - well that was to be expected seeing as the d4 book had the Marshall covered in less than 10 pages more than 5 years ago - in fact credit to the old book as there are still plenty of unclear positions with a White initiative). And players who hate that turnip on c8 in the Stonewall rest assured, he offers non-Stonewall setups too. I think in all lines but I didn't check the book *that* deeply.

And at the risk of sounding like a superficial person, I agree that the paper is great!

Is this same line also given in Scherbakov's book?

Is Avrukh's recommendation considered in the book? I think it would be 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 f5.

I am considering buying this book since the opening sounds interesting. And I also need a good book for a long train ride soon.

BPaulsen wrote on 03/02/12 at 19:38:30:

No, that only applies to me. I play chess for fun and I have a limited taste. Thanks for your answer. That was the kind I was looking for.

BPaulsen wrote on 03/02/12 at 19:38:30:

Yes. I do my best to prevent my subjevity from oppressing objectivity and to find a nice equilibrium.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 03/02/12 at 20:00:58:


Approx weight (using kitchen scales): 750g
Dimensions (if that's what you mean by long): 24x17x2 cm
Objective: yes — as far as I can tell, given that I don't really know much about these lines

MNb wrote on 03/02/12 at 19:14:58:


5.Nc3 Nf6 just heading directly into the Meran would make more sense, unless you have some particular liking for that very passive Chebanenko, because that's what 5.Nc3 a6 ultimately will transpose into.

5.b3 would be the more typical treatment for the solid/quiet type that aim to retain flexibility should black opt for a Semi-Slav or Stonewall set up. If you don't mind defending the black cause in those positions where you'll be hit with the Ne5+f4 ideas and are willing to prepare them - have at it. They're definitely not fatal, but I can't say they're much fun for the black cause, either. Note that due to your move order you would lose out on stuff like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.b3 (5.Nbd2 limits white to set-ups involving Nd2 over Nc3) c5!?, noted previously on here by Markovich, and since picked up in practice by numerous GMs with good results.

Refusing to play the Stonewall at all just makes no sense to me. If something is good and it works, then it's good and it works. Why avoid it and make life harder on yourself than it otherwise needs to be? This isn't a criticism, I am honestly wondering.

Struck with defending the Slav Stonewall or the attempts by white to avoid the Meran with b3/Nbd2 and the like I would undoubtedly choose the former. Preference? Perhaps. But also the play is dictated to white rather than the opposite being the case.

Carry on.