Thanks MNb. Much appreciated.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 10/24/16 at 08:59:18:


Thanks Tony. I guess my database don't have those games.

If anyone has those games and doesn't mind attaching them here. Thanks.

I guess still curious why the position is not discussed at all in the book.

Dear All, I have been reading Sveshnikov's books, especially the blitz and rapid Rep book co-authored with his son and also the book on GPA. I kinda like his approach and his prose in general (esp his book on c3 Sicilian which I have read previous;ly), even though they can be a bit dogmatic and idiosyncratic.

I will like to ask ChessPubbers with more experience a few questions about the GPA, in particular the old-style GPA with 2 f4.

Firstly, on reading the GPA book, Sveshnikov clearly says that  the Tal Gambit is the test. So I have been having a look to see if I like that position. 
[BTW, I have read Denis Monokroussos' review which rather negative on this whole 2 f4 GPA.]
BTW, Sveshnikov also say that in his experience most players will not play the Tal Gambit 2...d5 if they have not prepared, but instead will opt for a plan based ...Nc6 and ...g6.
On 2...d5, Sveshnikov recommends 1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Nf6 4 Bb5 Bd7 5 Bxd7 Qxd7 6 c4 e6 7 Qe2 or 7 Nf3
and
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Nf6 4 Bb5 Nd7 5 c4 a6 6 Bxd7 Bxd7 7 Qe2 or 7Nf3 or 7 d4 or
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Nf6 4 Bb5 Nd7 5 c4 a6 6 Ba4 b5 7 cxb5 Nxd5 8 Nc3

I have started looking at 4...Nd7 6 Bxd7 and 6 Ba4 variations and looked up the databases and only considering post 2010 games as indication (?).
On the 6 Ba4 8 Nc3 variations there are 2 games by two (2300+ and 2200+) White players. On 8 Nf3 there is a game by a 2400+ White player.
On 6 Bxd7 7 Nf3, there are three Sveshnikov games, three Love Janse (2100+) games and only one post 2010 game by a 2000+ White player. 
7 Qe2 there were three games with two 2300+ and one 2100+ White players. 
On 7 d4, which Sveshnikov said was interesting but untried, the latest I could find was a 2010 game.
So not very popular. I will get to these later ......
BUT 
I wish to ask a question about the following, which Sveshnikov mentioned in Ch 2, Theoretical Overview, and subsequently totally did not address in Ch 6 (chapter on 2...d5 variation) unless I am missing something. I am not sure whether this is an oversight on Sveshnikov's part or an editorial mistake by NIC. In any event, Sveshnikov said, 
"The strongest move is 2...d5!, [......] But in order to achieve satisfactory play, Black should definitely reply 3...Nf6! [......] B) 4 Bb5+ [......] The move 4...Bd7 leads to relatively simple play and the more reliable equality, whilst after 4...Nbd7 a more complicated position arises. Depending on your opponent's play, the tournament situation and your plan for the concrete game, you can make your own choice. I will offer one short variation: 4...Nbd7 5 c4 a6 6 Bxd7+ Bxd7 7 Nf3 Qc7 8 d3 e6 9 dxe6 Bxe6 10 0-0 Bd6. Black has wonderful compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but not more than that. White can play 11 Ne5, 11 Ng5, or simply 11 Nc3. [emphasis added]

I cannot find any games with this position. Can anyone help?
Query: Does this variation make any sense? Would a Black player play like this? The two bishops look impressive! Black has better development?
White is castled but requires 3 moves to connect the rooks.

Would appreciate your comments and assistance.

Thanks for posting the link. Igor. Not sure why yours is the right link  and mine isn't, as both have the same review of the  book...mine just has a few more reviews thrown in. 

Either way though it does appear to be a rather uninspiring book if you are to approach the opening from White's point of view. I have been playing the Anti-Sicilian as it was known in the late 1960s (from a series of articles penned by Roger Lancaster in B.H. Wood's Chess magazine), for almost 50 years and still find my opponents to be fairly ill prepared for it

A recent posting at The Chess Mind Blog pretty much dismisses the value of the book.

http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/category/book-reviews

Perhaps "just garbage" is a little harsh, but in my mind this occupies the same place as 2.Na3 versus the Sicilian, etc.  You can play it in a few games to avoid theory but there's no hope of an advantage.  Still, you get a game of chess.

Well it no doubt makes more sense when white isn't commited to d4. Still not objectively dangerous of course, but not insane.

Mtal wrote on 07/16/13 at 03:04:17:


Look at this one:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2009/french-f4.htm
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2011/goeller-moldovan.htm
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2011/goeller-sherer.htm
...and you'll decide for yourself.

It is very hard for white to get himself in objective trouble by move 2 More likely a matter that the positions aren't/weren't remotely attractive to the typical sorts of people setting out to hack with the grand prix. If you like defending a pawn up then they might work reasonably. Read the book if interested!
(I haven't.).

2 f4 isn't really a different move order vs 2.. e6 because it comes first I can't imagine it helping dramatically although you might just about try some d3/Nbd2/c3 set up.

He does cover a lot about 2.f4 it appears.

http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/979.pdf

There's a new book by Sveshnikov on the Grand Prix Attack.

In it, he recommends the old 2. f4 move order. This is often met by 2. .. d5 and then if 3. exd5, then 3. .. Nf6 followed by the sacrifice of pawn with .. e6.

I make no comment on the viability of the lines recommended except that they appear to score 9/10 on the boring chess scale. Many players used the GPA for the excitement of a quick attack on the king, not a dull technical process trying to trade off a difficult position against an extra pawn. For these players it was for this reason that the 2 . Nc3 move order was adopted in order to avoid the 2. .. d5 counter-gambit.