|
In a previous post I said I like several things in this book. However, the more I read it, the more agree with MarkG’s evaluation, and which by the way quite well sums it up.
My approach to the book, is more, not to follow it as repertoire openingbook, but more as a book which has collection of several (very nice) commented games on the Alekhine defence. Some of them are very interesting.
As a repertoire book, however, it is difficult to follow. In some chapters it is difficult to understand what the author recommends. I liked his book on the Slav where the games in each chapter where strongly related and one could understand the different ideas and advantages of playing each move, or each relevant move for the variation.
Here, I think this is reasonably well done in some chapters (e.g., the 4PA, the Voroznev part in the cxd6 exchange and perhaps the Chase which I have not yet examined in detail).
However, the layout of the other chapters is confusing to me. In the anti-main line chapter, it appears that the suggestion ends with 3…Nb6. Then on the 4th move what should Black do? Play 4…d5 (which is the Westerinen line) or 4…d6 which appears in most of the games shown here and transposes to the main line with 4.Nf3 Nb6. My main point is that the author recommends 4…d5 at the beginning of the chapter but then shows more games with 4…d6 and in two cases we have exactly the same position, one with d5 the other with d6.
Also, the main motivation for this chapter appears to be: “bored with the Miles ?” then why not surprise your opponent with 3…Nb6? Ok, but then the author is suggesting to exchange a line that gives equality (the Miles) with best play by one that does not well from a statistical point of view, and also needs “good insights” to play it well (is this the book that gives such insights?). Also, why not look at the games of the players that have been playing consistently this line, e.g, Konopka?
The Miles chapter also was a disappointment to me, mostly for a lack of “focus and relation” on the games in the chapter. Perhaps the reason was that the author did not want to lose much time with this line since it is boring, and only wanted to give an overview. The author gives the main line for Black after White’s 6.Be2 in the Sutovski-Miroschnichenko game (which by the way is a very nice game from Black’s point of view but I guess Sutovski’s 12.f4 did not catch on). Inside he makes a brief reference to a variant appearing in the game Karyakin-Kamsky (see also A. Greet’s main variation in his e4 book) which appears to be the critical line to evaluate the reliability of this line. But then, why only a brief reference to it? This appears to be the line that would need a book analysis, no? Was it because in Karyakin-Kamsky, Black lost?
Of course there are those games that must appear in every repertoire book. But does the Topalov-Carlsen game illustrates how Black should play against 6.Bd3 in the Miles (or the sidelines given here) ?
In the exd6 exchange, not clear what should be the “receipt” against White’s Bd3 and Nge2 plan. Not clear to me after examining the first two games in the chapter. Something interesting here, the rapid game Ivanchuk-Carlsen is used by Taylor to show that Black should not allow Bd3 and Nge2. Here Lakdawala, uses this game to show how Black should play (or should have played) to make this line viable for Black. Apparently Houdini agrees with Lakdawala.
I was also expecting a better explanation of why 6…Be7 is better than 6…Nc6 is the exd6 exchange (is it?).
I feel that many games here are quite long, and space could have been used to provide more opening explanations. Also, there are those games that are neatly played from Black’s point of view, should even be considered as model games for Black but are simply ignored because they quickly fade to a draw. I am remembering two Short games, one against Hou Hifan where he plays 5…exd6 and then 6… Nc6 which well illustrates the advantages of 6…Nc6. White had simply nothing.
As I said before I liked the Voroznev part in the cxd6 chapter. The last game is interesting and the evaluation and the author’s comments appear to be against “folklore” but his evaluation is worth a look (well, as I said there are parts in the book that appeal to me). What bothers me in this chapter are the rapid games in the other lines which gave a very bad idea of White can do in the exchange.
Well, to summarize, I am with MarkG.
Mr. Cox, 2nd edition, please.
|
Pages: [1] 
The Alekhine Defence: Move by Move (Read 57901 times)
