I now have Beating the Winawer - The h4 Ram by Kotronias, Ivanov, and Obodchuk. When first perusing the book, I was soon reminded of TonyRo's comments in the thread about The Benko Bible Volume 1, which is also written by Kontronias and Ivanov and published by Russell Enterprises. Beating the Winawer is loaded with material including original analysis, but it's lacking in readability and organization.

The book's flaws became readily apparent when I looked more deeply at Chapter 3, which covers what the authors call the "Main Line". This and all other chapters are centered around a single game, the moves of which are presented in bold type. For Chapter 3, this game is Vachier-Lagrave - Nepomniachtchi, Candidates Tournament Ekaterinburg 2020. After the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.h4 Qc7 8.h5 h6 9.Rb1 b6 10.Qg4 Rg8, the authors break away from the MVL-Nepo game for an extended examination of Black's alternatives to 10...Rg8.  All of this material is presented in plain text, with only occasional diagrams and blank lines between paragraphs to break up what would otherwise be a solid wall of text. Wondering  where the MVL-Nepo game would be resumed, I paged forward repeatedly and eventually found the next bolded move (MVL's 11.Bb5+) more than thirteen pages later! 

TonyRo's remark about The Benko Bible definitely applies to the Winawer book as well: "One thing I need to stress about this book again is how poorly it's edited. They really needed to separate some of this stuff into A/B/C main variations, with A1, A2, etc, and more bold."

The one redeeming organizational feature in Beating the Winawer is the Index of Variations in the back of the book. It definitely helps in navigating the mounds of text, but it would be even better to have something like this at the beginning of each chapter, like books from Thinkers Publishing and Quality Chess. This would eliminate the need to constantly flip to the back of the book to get one's bearings. The index in the Winawer book only lists main variations, so the reader still has to flip through pages to find if moves within these lines are covered. Also, as helpful as the index is, it can't overcome the typography. I tried to look up a move listed in the index, and it did indeed appear on the indicated page, but it was buried in the middle of a paragraph with no visual aids to alert the reader that this was the beginning of a new variation.

Moving on to my question in Reply #19 - Anish Giri covered the 7.h4 Winawer in his Chessable Lifetime Repertoire course on the French. He deviated from Nepo's 9...b6, instead recommending 9...Nbc6, with the intention of meeting 10.Qg4 (the usual move in this position) with 10...Rg8. Giri indicated the rook move to be a novelty, and the Mega Database shows no occurrences of this move until after Giri's course was published in August 2020. The Modern Chess database by Jobava and Basso mentioned by FreeRepublic in Reply #18 recommends the same 9...Nbc6 10.Qg4 Rg8. Both sources conclude Black equalizes with 10...Rg8.

I searched through Beating the Winawer for the authors' recommendation against 10...Rg8, but they only cover the older 10...Nf5, even though the Mega Database lists 27 games with 10...Rg8 since September, 2020. After going back and looking through Beating the Winawer, I realized there didn't seem to be many games from 2020 and none from after that year. The MVL-Nepo game was played in March 2020, so I wonder if the cutoff date for material in the book is sometime between March and August 2020. 

Forum members may recall that this new book first appeared several years ago in the "Coming Soon" section of the Thinkers Publishing website. Back then it had a slightly different title (Beat the French Winawer Variation) and only Kotronias and Ivanov were listed as the authors. After languishing for quite some time in the "Coming Soon" section, the book simply disappeared sometime around March 2024 without being published. It resurfaced in the later part of 2025 in the "Upcoming Titles" section of the Russell Enterprises site with its current title and a third coauthor, IM Andrei Obodchuk. It's pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if the manuscript submitted to Thinkers was never in a form suitable for publishing, leading the publisher to drop it. A third coauthor was brought onboard to get the work into some semblance of being ready to publish, but no effort was made to update it with developments that had occurred in the intervening five or so years.

This explanation seems plausible, and there are certainly other examples of Beating the Winawer being somewhat out of date. The authors treatment of the Armenian Variation begins with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Nb5 Bb6 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Bb2. Here Kotronias and his coauthors make no mention of 10...f6, which is one of the suggestions in April 2025 Modern Chess database French Winawer - Play the Armenian Variation by Dreev and Basso. (This line was discussed by me, MartinC, and others in this thread https://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1380429314). Beating the Winawer does cover the older 10...Nge7, but even here, Dreev and Basso improve on the line presented in the book.

Finally, by a fortuitous coincidence, the latest issue of Chess Life has a nice overview of French Winawer theory by Nikolaos Ntirlis. Among other variations, he covers the 7.h4 Winawer, showing how Black can improve on the MVL-Nepo game. He cites a 2023 correspondence game, which isn't mentioned by Kotronias and company. Instead they examine a 2020 correspondence game that ended in a draw and indicate how White could have obtained ⩲ with an improvement. That this suggestion comes on move 32 isn't entirely unusual - other variations are analyzed past move 30. Whether one regards such deep analysis as thorough or excessive may depend on one's point of view. However, it's rather moot in this case because the suggested improvement for White is evaluated as = when I check it with Stockfish. Also, in that 2020 game, Black had the option on move 18 to transpose into the 2023 game, which seems to offer a quicker and surer route to equality.

Despite its flaws, Beating the Winawer is of considerable utility to the White player seeking to adopt 7.h4 against the Winawer. The book has a wealth of material including original analysis and covers all of Black's major attempts to counter 7.h4. The authors also examine early Black sidelines in the Winawer such as the Armenian (as indicated above), the Portisch-Hook, 6...Nc6, the Classical Winawer (6...Qc7), and 4...Qd7/4...b6. In addition, they provide nearly a hundred annotated games to illustrate typical play in the various lines. The book is more than a White repertoire - the authors also analyze less optimal White moves and show how these can be met by Black. Thus, Black players may also find useful information in this work. However, those intending to use the book should be aware of the extra work required to wrestle with its organization and to update those variations where recent theoretical developments have occurred.

After 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. h4!?
Some authors suggest 7...Qc7!? for black. I gave up trying to make this work for black. However, I'm greatly encouraged by a sample game available at Modern-chess. French Defense for Black - Play the Winawer Variation - Part 1 by Jobava and Basso.

With black having an adequate answer to 7h4, I consider the Winawer feasible once again. Jobava & Basso:

"The Winawer is the most fascinating line in all Chess theory — wild, deep, and governed by its own logic. Most players never truly understand it. In this first volume, we take the positional approach — but not the boring one. Before diving into modern theory full of new ideas and novelties, we’ll study the classics: model games from Short, Jussupow, Korchnoi… all the way to Nepomniachtchi. Understanding comes first — theory comes after."

I'd not be so hugely worried about getting mated in those kingside castling lines. Dangerous of course, but white can only really do it by throwing his g pawn down the board uncastled so you do tend to get quite a lot of counterplay.

What worries me more from an objective point of view is how well blacks position stands up positionally after a c4 Bxf5 pair is put in. I'm not sure and its certainly not a well studied pawn structure.

In the line with 16.Rc1, is there a reason you rejected the straightforward 19...Nxe5 ?

Sadly 19...Ne7? seems to meet with a tactical refutation in the surprising 20.Qxd4! Nf5 21.Qxc3!, the point being 21...Nxh6 22.Ra1 Qb6 23.Qd2!, intending Rfb1 and c3 to round up the knight - amazingly putting white possibly ahead on material as well as still having the passed pawn, and some activity plus.

Instead 19...Nxe5 gives black some chances after 20.Nxd4 Bc6 21.g3 Qd5 22.Nxc6 Nbxc6 since white cannot hang onto his bishop pair, after 23.Rfd1 Nf3+ 24.Bxf3 Qf3, though white has his chances to win here, whereas black maybe has less. So I fear black is not out of the woods in this line... unless dom or another stronger Francophile can find some improvement for black?

Hi Dom, 
Thanks for your variations!

However, in line A I am still rather worried... instead of 19.Bd3, white has the interesting 19.Qb2 when 19...c4 seems to fail to 20.Ba5! (20...b6 21.Ba6+ Kd8 22.Bxb6+! ab 23.Qxb6 +-). So far I cannot find anything better than 19...Kb8 allowing ...Rc8 in defence, but after 20.Be2 Qe4 21.Qc3! where 21...c4 is met by 22.Ne1! where white has some strong ideas.

I rather get the feeling that 9...Bd7 is in a lot of trouble... and since I do not trust 9...cd either, that leaves 9...h6 as the only semi-reliable defence. I will have a look at your lines for B and get back to you in due course. 

All the best!

This is all the analysis so far, SmyslovFan, with a few extra bits thrown in last-minute. Hopefully this will help the discussion! 

Fair enough Here you go:

You can certainly win after 7.. Qc7 (with either side!). Some patience required as its not a straight up open fight, but there you go (similar things seem to apply to Mosalenko's treatment of 7.. Qa5)

If you want an open fight it'll have to these lines somewhere. 13 Qc1 seems like a typical move - in Watson's related main line at move 14 say.

Blacks typical plan here seems to be c4 - so you don't drop the pawn! - followed by whatever is needed to enforce f6 and then maybe e5 if need be. So Nce7 - g6 fits quite well, Rf8 also but its maybe slightly problematic in this precise position etc. 

White's queenside attack is very restricted by itself - especially if the black queen (as it seems) can get back to a5 to blockade the pawn with Ne7 in to stop Rb5. The danger is more getting tied down there then getting done on the dark squares/center.

Seems a priori reasonable, but certainly a lot of piece shuffling in prospect Taking on d4 is perhaps the concrete way to go.

Yes, after I posted this I opened my copy of Moskalenko's offering for the first time, going straight to this section. I will have to look at it in some detail before giving real feedback... but my worry instantly over his coverage of 7...Qc7 is it seems concerned with black not being able to lose, but he doesn't really suggest many ways that black can play for a win either.

So it looks like I will have to keep investigating 9...cxd4 and 9...Qa4 - I really do not have much faith in 9...Bd7 and 9...h6 looks much more defensive in nature and without experience of defending those sorts of positions, I get the feeling I might struggle. However, I'd be interested on some Francophiles' opinions on my suggested 13.Qc1!? as an attempted improvement - does anyone have more faith in black's position here? As I am less used to these structures I may well be mis-assessing things.

I'll have a look at Moskalenko's black proposals tomorrow and comment when I can... this is doubly important for me as I continue to meet 1.d4 e6 with 2.e4 as I enjoy playing the white side of the French, and it would be nice to have an alternative to the 5.Qg4 which has served me well over the years.

Well first up it certainly is a genuinely dangerous move

You've also hit a basic point about the nature of Williams' book - its very committed to super aggressive chess even when it goes slightly past the point of soundness.

This isn't anything like the worst case, because it has been the main line for a while, albiet suffering from Rb1 for the moment. But given the stated objectives he could hardly give taking on d4 or some of the slower ideas as his main line!

Mosalenko which I think you've also ordered gives a bunch of ideas here. Also see Nakamura - Shulman from the 2010 US championships. (13.. h6 in the Qxd4 gambit.). 

I must admit to a vaguely soft spot for 7 .. Nc6 8 h5 h6 ^ 9 Qg4 o-o or 9 Nf3 Qa5 10 Bd2 o-o but that's because I'm used to 7 Qg4 o-o after which this isn't so scary

None of this is trivial mind. Even 11 Rb1!  Qxa3?! (!?) isn't hopeless , cf 12 Rb3 Qa4 13 Qc1 Nd8 14 Ra3 Qc6, or even the bizzare looking 12 Rb3 Qa5!? 13 Rxb7 cd 14 cd Qa4.

The former might be taking weak dark squares a bit far, the latter I dunno.

Afternoon folks,

Have received and have started to look through Williams' book on the French. However, there are quite a few lines which he seems to advocate by his mentioning of them, but which his comments betray a complete lack of confidence in. 

The first one of these is 7.h4 against the Winawer. He seems very unconvinced by black's position in almost every line he mentions, and doesn't really go into any depth about alternatives. He even talks about worrying about the general soundness of black's set-up (in his main line with 7...Nbc6 8.h5 Qa5 9.Bd2). Statistics seem to back up that white is doing well in this line, especially after his main recommendations 9...Bd7 and 9...h6.

So, is he right to be so pessimistic? Is 7...Nbc6 in fact the wrong move, and perhaps black is better off with e.g. 7...Qc7?

Or, is there any salvation for black in the line 9...cxd4 10.cxd4 Qa4? 
i) 11.Nf3 Nxd4 12.Bd3 Nec6 13.Kf1! Nxf3 14.Qxf3 Qd4 15.Re1 Nxe5 16.Qg3 Nxd3 17.cxd3 and I worry about black's survival - Rh4 seems a strong idea, and it is hard to see how black develops any of his remaining pieces... I can't see any improvement here. Maybe black can grovel beginning with 17...Rg8?
ii) Williams also suggests 13...Nf5, but after 14.Bxf5 exf5 15.h6 his 15...Rg8! (his exclam, I'd give ?!) isnt met necessarily by 16.Bg5, but by 16.hxg7! which seems an improvement, intending a later Bg5-f6. 16...f4 seems forced but after 17.Rxh7 white can play Rh4 to round up the f-pawn, and I do not believe in black's chances being enough for the pawn he is essentially losing. 
iii) He also mentions the possibility of 11.h6 Qxd4 12.Nf3 Qe4+ 13.Be2 and now gives 13...Nxe5?! which looks a little dubious to me - I am not sure I like the endgame that arises in his main line with 14.Bc3 f6 15.hg Rg8 16.Nxe5 fe 17.Qd3 Qxd3 18.Bxd3 d4 19.Bb4 Rxg7 20.Rxh7 Rxh7 21.Bxh7 - the bishop pair and the passed g-pawn looks stronger than the extra doubled pawn... However maybe black can play 13...hxg6, when 14.Rh4!? Qg6 15.Kf1! looks rather interesting and possibly good for white after 15...Rg8 16.g3 intending simply to take on h6 or/and to play Bd3 with good play for his material.

So, are there improvements for black above? Am I also being too pessimistic? 7.h4! looks like a very strong move, and 7...Nbc6 seems to be inadequate as far as these lines show (in conjunction with his analysis on 9...Bd7 and 9...h6 which also seem inadequate).