Well, you can be an ICCF member with a simple request, download the archives and never play a game there for the rest of your life, that's true.

LSS is free to be a member of and play and you can get their archives there in the same manner.

There are also several tuned corr databases in circulation made by enthusiasts but I won't mention anything specific because they all border on the illegal. Needless to say some of those databases are excellent and much better than ICCF archives.

I own no one database! I always use chesslive. It's free and there is both otb and correspondance in it. The problem is that you can't see the tree after the first 15 moves so for example, about the line I have mentionned in the anti-moscow, I checked EVERY GAMES one by one (having 2 correspondance games as White right now, and should win both, but despite that, it could be playable for Black), it took much time. I understand that Sakaev or Paulsen may not have put as much time as I did in THAT ONE SINGLE position. But the last corr databases on the market should have the same games, making the work I did far much easier and quicker.

Arkhein, what's the best/easiest way for authors to get access to correspondence games?  Just purchasing something like this http://www.chesscentral.com/ChessBase_Corr_Chess_Database_2013_p/corr-2013.htm?

I bought Complete Slav II from Sakaev and Semi-Slav Bg5 from Paulsen at the same time some days ago. I could compare the books in some chapters. I own "the Slav" from Burgess too, and Dreev's books. When I bought Sakaev's book, I have read the critics here, and I have to say that I am not disappointed about the presentation, I expected a bad presentation but a very good content. 

For me, the presentation was ok, it may not be easy to read for some people but I am used to navigate through many lines, because I like when there is many lines. It's why I always loved the old "the complete" serie from Batsford, or the "gambit" serie as "the Slav" from Burgess. 

But I have to say that I have been disappointed by the content of "Complete Slav II"! I can't speak for the whole book but about the lines I have studied a lot, I can say that the book is far from "complete". 

First of all, the Moscow and Botvinnik variations have a lot of deep lines played in correspondance play. Paulsen's book is far from perfect too, but the good side of Paulsen's book is that it contains correspondance games (but this 2013 book has no games more recents than 2011, no bibliography).

Sakaev's book has no bibliography, and 0(!!) correspondance game in it. I don't understand why the chess world, many autors or GM in their preparation don't use correspondance play!!

At the moment, I haven't found big mistakes in Sakaev book (for example a line given as equal while this is losing, or the opposite), but there is many omissions or "avorted" analysis.

I will give some examples about the parts of the analysis I know quite well.

- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.Ne5 Nbd7 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Rd1 Qa5 13.Na2 is interesting, and this is also the idea of both Sakaev and Burgess. but Sakaev doesn't speak a word about a dangerous line with 15.e5!? and 16.h4 given in the book of Burguess, 13 years older, and used in some games. This example was minor, but it was one of many examples where I was waiting is thoughts.

Now about this line:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd6 a6 14.a4 e5 15.Bg4 exd4 16.e5 c5 17.Re1 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 O-O 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Ne2 f5 21.Bh5 f4 22.Nxd4 cxd4 23.Re6 Rf6 24.Qe1 Bd5 25.Re7+, I have been deeply amazed by Dreev's book on this line, he was ahead of it's time in his analysis. But none of Paulsen or Sakaev analyse 25..Kf8!?, which has been played a few time with a draw in most of correspondance play, and is mentionned in Dreev's book. Sakaev only gives 25..Kg8 26.axb5 Qd6 27.h3 (which is a good move and I have to admit his coverage was OK, but even here is conclusion is lazy). He gives 27.Bg4"!?" too but without analysis, very lazy decision. Paulsen's doesn't cover 27.h3 which is a little bit disappointing, because he considers 27.Bg4 in a complete game but he could have seen there is some games that save Black game with an improvment (28..d3! instead of 28..axb5 as in the game Grabliauskas - Avortins, corr 2009). Where Paulsen is clearly superior to Sakaev is here: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd6 a6 14.a4, where Paulsen recommands 14..b4 as an improvment over 14..e5. And I liked his advice very much. Paulsen is very honest about it and I find his analysis good. Dreev didn't check 14..b4, he wasn't ahead of his time in this line, but it's ok, this move didn't exist at the time. Since Dreev's book, there have been a lot of 14..b4 in correspondance play, with fair results for Black, and some at top OTB games. Sakaev doesn't even mention 14..b4, big disappointment. 

Another critic of Sakaev's book. In the Botvinnik, there is a line (the one with 17..Nb8"!" analysed by Paulsen), he gives 18.axb4 cxb4 19.Qd4! (he analyses others moves too) and in the end, he finds nothing for White, giving the game as equal. But later in the end of the chapter, Sakaev says: "Blacks has severe problems. Quite popular line in former times: 16..Qb5 17.a3 Nb8 leads to White's advantage, but after 18.ab4 cxb4 it is better to choose 18.Qd4! and sacrifice the queen" which is a total contradiction with his line some pages ago. And this is not the only example of that type... 

I only could speak about the line I have analysed before with other sources or by myself, maybe there is part of the book which is better but I have the impression that I didn't learn much (not much prose, and analysis not always that profound). I would have prefered to pay for more dense books but deeper, to deserve the title "complete". 

So Sakaev's book is more as an introduction to me, in some places there is a novelty here and here and maybe I can learn some things, but you can't use it without working by yourself, you have to double-check, and to complete the "holes" by yourself with other sources.

So it is. Thoughtfully concealed in two different places, as well.

Really, the organisation of this book is breathtaking. What on earth were they thinking?

Curious to have the Meran and Slav and not the hybrid Anand used in the Gelfand match (ie 5...a6 instead of 5...Nbd7 in the Meran). Or is it hidden away somewhere - doesn't appear in table of contents?

Got my copy of Vol.2 yesterday (from distributor Niggemann).

Yes, it´s the same wonderful mess as Volume 1. Anyway, I like it! Despite the awful reading it´s of course an important and useful source (if the variation you´re interested in belongs to the content and not to the non-content).

I wonder what extraordinary 3-4 books a good editor could have made out of Sakaev´s files ...

tracke