I too have purchased Christof's book and I have found it to be very well written.  He has put obvious care and effort into his explanations making it accessible to both players who are relatively new to the Nimzo/Bogo as well as beneficial to experienced players who like the lines he has chosen.  Well done!

I actually wrote that I like my line better than the closed centre line - and I am still convinced that is pretty good. The main point was to explain why I didn't play the obvious choice, as it looks like perfectly suited to the general theme of the book. I also could have covered the same line like John Emms did, but I liked to explore things that weren't covered before in books. Thanks for the positive feedback on the book in general!

Dunno, has it ever looked that way?

The relevant DW chapter hardly claimed a win. iirc Petrov covered it for black in the relevant GM repetoire book a couple of years back which is a fair guide for at least plausible soundness.

Its very risky/tactically concrete of course. When I looked at it it looked scary, but appropriate enough for use surprising certain classes of white players.
(Or for more regular use if you've got a very good memory.).

I have received my copy of this book just a few weeks ago, so let me share my impression with you.
I can confirm that it's a really good book although I have neither read the entire book nor the greatest knowledge about the Nimzo-Indian.
The chapter about the 4.e3 line and its explanations about the three different set-ups (Ne2, Bd3/Ne2, Bd3/Nf3) is really great! The author's explanations about the different ideas in these lines provide a deep look inside and they are really helpful. Besides this, I disagree with the fact that many guys don't prefer fully annotated games instead of trees, as the author deals with a plethora of variations, so that the games can be more or less regarded as framework.
Another big plus of this book is the fact that the author provides a lot of his own analysis and does not simply reflect the current state of theory. Obviously, the author has spent a lot of work with it. He also mentions that he didn't manage to make several lines working, which underlines this fact as well.

On the other hand a few negative points must be mentioned, too. In my opinion, the Zurich Variation (4.Qc2 Nc6) is not fully convincing - at least for me. In my opinion there are three reliable alternatives (4...c5, d5, 0-0). Instead he provides a line including a pawn sacrifice which is mainly based on his own analysis. Fortunately he provides a postional sideline, so this sacrifice is not mandatory. I have to admit that I couldn't find a refutation, but a negative feeling remains. Besides this, my engine prefers the white side in some variations and so do I.
Against 3.g3 I would have preferred c5 instead of Bb4+, as Black seems to be in good shape after 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 b5 and 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d5. But this is just my own preference.

After all, it's just a really good book, so I advise everyone interested to have a look at it!

I looked to see what Sielecki gives against Avrukh's repertoire. Avrukh gives 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 a5 5.Bg2 d6 6.e4 0-0 7.Ne2 e5 8.a3, forcing the exchange of bishops. Sielecki doesn't mention 8.a3 and gives only a line against 8.0-0, reaching a position after Black's 10th which he says is Avrukh's recommendation - but in which White has not played a3. Am I missing something?

bragesjo wrote on 08/29/15 at 20:00:43:


More or less the same as me.

Last week I was crushed in the Sämisch line with f3 using "my" line with a quick c5+d5 (4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 6.f3 d5) and after reading the chapters in the book I am planning to change my options against 4.a3 and 4.f3.

The more I check the lines in the book the more I like them and how they are showed to us.

Congrats and thx for the book, chessexplained

Quote:


There, 10 b3 looks to me maybe too slow to cause trouble, but that's just on a quick glance! Maybe Black could have gone ...Nh5 at some point in this game too?