It sounds like you are debating the virtues of the ECO codes.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 11/20/21 at 19:59:13:

This I don't get. Unfortunately I can't remember nor refind where and when I met the name Averbakh Variation for the first time (in the Modern); though it was well before Hillarp Persson wrote his first book. To me there was never any doubt that 3.c4 was the move that defined it (excluding the transpositions to the KID).

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 11/20/21 at 19:59:13:

I'm not a fan of nomenclature a la the Inner-Mongolian Gambit of the Patagonian Variation of the Averbakh Variation of the Modern Defense.

Hi.

Alright that pretty much explains it. Thank you.

So in effect it is a white setup with 3.c4 against the Modern. Interesting . Based on the Keene & Botterill explanation white presumably is also supposed to play 4.Nc3. Tiger more or less expands on this a little bit by having 4.Nf3 games in the same Averbakh chapter as well. I wouldn't care to much about that though since it seems kinda practical. More strange is that there in effect are two pretty deviating definitions of the Averbakh (just to be clear the Modern version not KID one). since Tiger's is "any black line from the 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 position that does not involve transposing to the King's Indian with... Nf6." So the fact that the whole name apparently was intended for white's way of playing sort of got lost there.

I would think the most orderly thing to do would be to retain the Averbakh anti-Modern as a name for the white setup with 1.e4, 2.d4, 3.c4. Also in my personal opinion, for simplicity, it shouldn't really matter much if black has played 1...g6+2...Bg7 or 1...g6+2...d6 and if white continues 4.Nc3, 4.Nf3 or some other move. I won't distinguish at least.

It would also be nice if there would also be names for at least the main black ways of playing. Like for example how 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 is known as the Kotov variation asfaik. I sort of fail to see why that should be a named variation and not 4...e5 or to a lesser extent 1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.c4 e5.

Another thing to do would be to forget about subvariations entirely  and come up with some actual better name for the non-Nf6 King's Indian Defence complex than the apparently quite taken Averbakh system. Then you can always say I'm playing the 4...e5 line in the non-Nf6 King's Indian Defence complex or something to that effect and even if it's somewhat sad not to have an actual name for your subvariation people still get you.

Have a nice day.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 11/20/21 at 10:09:57:


Hi Confused_by_theory,

Interesting question. I think this variation was so named before Tiger's book, but I don't know it's history.

Best wishes,

Roley

Hi.

Just a quick observation about the Modern and Tiger's book. There is quite a major shift in recommendation in the Averbakh section that is well worth noting. I played the old move recently and got an utterly lifeless position.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 e5 5.Nge2!?
This is not as popular as 5.Nf3, 5.d5 or even 5.dxe5; probably because white needs to be prepared for a few different structures and people are generally ok with the alternatives.
In terms of move orders:
4.Be3 c5!? 5.Ne2 Qb6!? looks ok for black. Also 5...Nc6 seems playable. If white doesn't mind this I suppose he can go for this. 
4.Ne2 seems fully viable. If there is a downside it is probably 4...Nf6 with a KID sideline (if white goes Ng3 later) or if not that then likely a Saemisch with early Ne2. I suppose not everyone would play these variations as white against the KID.
2...d6 3.c4 e5 4.Ne2 Bg7 5.Nbc3 is the move order I used. The position is a bit different if black from move four plays with a postponed Bg7, although even now I can't see how to benefit.
5...Ne7
Instead:
5...Nc6 6.Be3 Nh6 7.f3 f5 8.Qd2! (Tiger's exclam) when both 8...f4, as played by me, and 8...Nf7 are probably not great.
With the new move a plausible line is something like
6.Be3 Nd7 7.Qd2 0-0 8.f3 f5 (Diagram)
Trying to get counterplay even though the centre is not closed. Overall quite a complicated new recommendation. On the other hand if black doesn't go for this (or 5...Nd7 which is also mentioned) it is not clear to me what he should do.


Have a nice day.

The pgns also contain commentary and aren't just bare game scores.

Can the pgns be shared or are they somehow copyrighted (huh?)

And made in a shed, no less. 

A toss up over the last year which would come first: Man City to the title, Trump (note: an inferior Pantone orange) impeached, or this arrives. 

And... The Original Orange One lands it. Carrot juice all round, and we raise our glasses. Cheers!