I quite like the book.

My eye was caught by the back cover blurb promising a system-type approach based on a dark-square strategy. I assumed that would mean Black to play ...d6 and ...e5 more or less against everything, but in the Nimzo this is only the case versus the Classical. Otherwise ...c5 & ...d6 is mainly suggested where appropriate.

So far I have only started reading the chapters about the Rubinstein and was slightly surprised to find out that there arise a plethora of different structures like the Carlsbad, Old Indian, Nimzo-Benoni (with the bishop on b4), Modern Benoni (rerouting the bishop from b4 to g7 via f8), French (!), reversed Catalan, playing against an IQP and with hanging pawns. And there is also of course the Hübner with its many transpositional possiblities and different plans which the author does his best to explain to the reader.

Don´t get me wrong, I don´t mention this to critizise the author´s choices, but want to highlight the complexity of the material. To be able to play the suggested lines against the Rubinstein well it certainly helps to have some experience with the above mentioned structures.

I like that whenever possible lines with active counterplay are preferred over passive solidity or dull equality.

There are two things which in my opinion could have been done better:

1. A tree structure is vastly superior over complete games. Illustrative games are very welcome but should be separated from the theoretical sections. If you choose to cover the material with complete games a very detailed index of variations should be provided which unfortunately is not quite the case here. I know next to nothing about the Nimzo and so was surprised that no mention of the line 4.g3 (played by Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen...) was made in the index and just found out it is covered in the introduction of the chapter about 4.Nf3 to which it is linked.

2. Printing in a single column format seems like a waste of space to me. Double columns should be preferred.

Apart from that the book is well produced.

From what I have seen I recommend the book to anyone looking for an ambitious repertoire for Black against 1.d4/2.c4 3.Nc3/Nf3/g3. Christof Sielecki makes me want to try out the suggested lines which is all I can ask for.

He avoids 4.e3 c5 5.Nge2 which is probably the best version of the Ne2 systems. If the Hubner isn't to one's liking, it's also possible to play 6...b6 7.0-0 Bb7 instead of 6...Nc6 7.0-0 Bxc3.

IMJohnCox wrote on 06/25/15 at 16:37:55:


I had this same question as well; I remember Mednis saying that early castling in the Hubner was dubious for Black.  But then a lot of strong players started doing it, and I think Sokolov only considered that move order in his Strategic Nimzo-Indian book, if I'm not mistaken.

So I guess times change, and I'm curious to get my hands on this new book.

One thing is, 4...0-0 5. Bd3 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 used to be considered favorable for White.  In the late '70s, ECO (Kotov) had it as leading to ±.  A couple of decades later, ECO had it as leading to +=, citing among other things Taimanov-Short 1983.  Sokolov (2012) thought it should be equal.

When did playing the Hubner with an early ...00 become socially acceptable? I remember Nigel doing it in his first tournament in Russia and someone (Taimanov, maybe) describing it as 'characteristic of the sometimes staggering gaps in Short's opening knowledge'. BITD it was all ...Nc6/...d6 and sometimes later ...000.

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 06/25/15 at 00:48:18:

No. I ordered mine from debestezet and they told me it would only arrive at the end of next month . On the plus side, now there is an excerpt available (edit: didn't see TonyRo's post above) 

The excerpt is up, and it looks great! 

Chessexplained wrote on 06/15/15 at 06:29:35:

Sure, 4...c5 5.g3 Nc6 etc. is interesting. I had this in my repertoire for a while, intending 6.Bg2 Ne4 7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 9.0-0 Na5. But then I was discouraged by some games by Hans Tikkanen on the White side of this; he seemed to have prepared it very well. But Black can deviate of course. I've also found 6.d5 Na5 7.Nd2 a bit annoying.

Anyway, I really like your choices against 4.f3, at least for when Black wants a sharp battle. There's even a third option in the same ballpark: 4...c5 5.d5 0-0 6.e4 Re8!? when White is very likely to go for the transposition with 7.Nge2 d6 etc. Maybe you're going for Blumenfeld-style play with ...b5 even after 6...d6, but the Benoni setup also seems playable. Though I've wondered if Black can even play it Benoni style keeping the rook on f8 and either using it to support a later ...f5 or doing something else with that tempo.