http://www.newinchess.com/A_Cunning_Chess_Opening_Repertoire_for_White-p-7225.ht...

The usual chess shops would, I'd guess, be an obvious place to start. And hey presto.
You can look at the pdf download.

Sisyphus. Good name. I feel it.

kylemeister wrote on 10/10/13 at 22:09:33:

A-ha, so that's why Chessbase tries to annoy me by classifying my Slav games as QGAs (with the ECO codes)

These things change over time, but today the position surely arises much more frequently from the Slav move order.

Btw., both Wojo's Weapons 1 and the Kaufman repertoire (the recent book sources on this line) are missing from Burgess' bibliography...

Stigma wrote on 10/10/13 at 20:33:34:

He's written a book on the Slav, so I'd have thought he must have noticed the transposition.

Actually, I understand that pragmatic attitude very well. But I used to play 1.d4, 2.Nf3 intending mostly Anti-indian systems, and switching to 2.c4 and more critical chess was such a revelation. But I'm still not as prepared for stuff like the Albin and Hennig-Schara as I should be!

I think 1.d4, 2.c4 will be my main repertoire for the foreseeable future, but lines like those in Burgess' book can come in handy as backup lines with less memory work or against certain opponents.

ReneDescartes wrote on 10/10/13 at 17:52:43:

But there must be reasons none of those are among Black's main defences. We should be happy to allow Black to play an inferior defence, provided we are well-prepared of course!

If you want to play only lines with Nf3 against the major defences anyway, it makes sense. But I like to move my f-pawn early in the King's Indian and allow the Nimzo-Indian now and then. 2.c4 just gives White more options than 2.Nf3/3.c4 against the defences that are actually critical. (1.Nf3 is another story, since it's designed to avoid the highly critical Grünfeld and several lines in the critical Queen's Indian).

I always wondered why Palliser, who did not recommend the Exchange QGD in Play 1.d4!, didn't go further and use the order 1.d4 2.Nf3 3.c4 rather than 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nf3. It certainly seems logical to me to just kill all the popular trappy early-Black-initiative systems at move 2.  No Benko, Budapest, Albin, Schara, period. I have mostly worked out this theory (of independent Black options after 1.d4 2. Nf3) for.myself, so it will be nice to see what Burgess has to say.

I got the the book today. I was laughing out loudly at his choice against the KID.


1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 6.a4


It doesnt mean I consider it bad but...this move feels a bit strange. Burgess also writes about this in his introduction of the KID chapter where he says that he understands that the reader will be suspicous of the move 6.a4. I think Gallagher had this idea in his book 101 attacking ideas. In the introduction of the book Burgess writes that the repertoire offers plenty of ropes for black to hang himself with . Maybe the space gaining 6.a4 is such move which could make the do or die KID player to overpress his game.I leaves few targets in the center for black to attack. There is just one white pawn standing there in the center.

His repertoire :

QGD: Bf4 system
QGA:Mannheim variation (4.Qa4+)
Slav : Slow slav (Nf3-e3)
Semi-Slav :g3 setup.
Ragozin: 5.Qb3
Tarrasch: 8.Be3


Against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6  --Torre Attack (with Torre poison pawn if black goes for that).

KID: Counter fianchetto system with 6.a4
Grunfeld :The repertoire against the Grunfeld looks more normal with fianchetto setup with c4 included. Kingside is developed first.

Anti-Benoni : 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 d5.
                     1.d4 c5 2.d5

Dutch:  Stonewall : Nbd2 with Nh3.
            Leningrad :4.c3 with 6.Nh3.

All in all : After  having speed readed the book it looks good. I may have to look deeper on the move 6.a4 in the KID.

As a Black player I am not too happy about that table of contents. I suppose that is Burgess's point.