Othy wrote on 01/14/14 at 00:33:27:


I have not discovered any analiticall errors in the other chapters in Obadchuks boook.
Lakdawalas book is bit newer, and has also some newer game references and maybee also more objective and also covers Scotch four knihgts and also Gleks g3 system.

katar wrote on 12/20/13 at 19:28:38:


Yesterday my copy of the Dangerous Weapons book finnaly arrived and I this looks very interesting. I also liked the link, so I will probebly play this next time I face Nd4, maybee no theoretical advantage but black has a cramped position and problems to activeate the Bishops. Many thanks!

I would have thought that some players might know of the Metger Unpin (an old classical thing, and still a main line) even if they hardly know anything else of the Four Knights.  I wonder how common such replies as 4...d6 and 4...a6 are among "club players."

maybe 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 a6 is best for black after all, black has Nxd4 ideas if white castles (as in 12.Bc4 b5 13.Bd3 O-O 14.O-O Nxd4)

Anonymous3 wrote on 12/24/13 at 01:23:38:

mind you I'm only talking about a slight advantage
after 10...Bxc3 white has the bishop pair and those doubled pawns aren't really weak, as usual in the four knights
10...Ba5 11.Be3 O-O 12.O-O Bxc3 13.bxc3 is a better version of this (for black) because the white bishop isn't well placed on e3 and now I have for example 13...d5 14.Qf3 Ne7 15.Bd2 Bf5 16.Bd3 Rad8 17.Rae1 Nc6 18.Re3
17...Qd6 has been played in a correspondence game but white has something after 18.Bxf5 Nxf5 19.g4 Ne7 20.f5
I've played a correspondence game in this myself some time ago and played 17...Nc8 but getting a draw wasn't so obvious

Anonymous3 wrote on 12/21/13 at 17:13:27:


I was a bit unclear, I meant personal preference not any form of theoretical edge, I would not even rate symmetrical as a large edge either.
Additionelly d6 is also playable when d4 transposes to Stenitz defence of Ruy Lopez.

ErictheRed wrote on 12/21/13 at 16:28:44:


Actually the game Sutovsky - Naiditsch Wijk aan Zeee II 2010 begins with this words

"The very game which induced the author to write this book! I very much wanted to work out what was realliy happening in this game, but alas this proved to be an impossible dream..

Many of the variation and assesments in the following notes are taken from Sutovskys  annotations in 64 -Chess review no 3 2010"

The funny thing is that several games earlier he had covered 10 h3 Bxf3 11 gxf3 c6 12 f4!? Maybee he intended it as food for thougtht.

At move 14 he writes "Sutovsky considers 14 .. 0-0-0 stronger without givning any variations: '.. White has a whole hosts of tempting continuations. However I fear the detailed analysis 
of the position would preclude playing the variation the variation in the future, so I will leave the reader to work out for himself the rich variaty of possible lines'.

The author of the present book has an other reason for modesty, attempting to research such variation would be impossible to pick put the most senseble ones. 
The number of striking possibiletys for both sides, at every move, defies belif, but does not help the assesment. To give any kind of more or less complete analysis of this position would requere a separet book.

Here I will only give one line of my analysis witch, with a great deal of caution, I would describe as the mainline"

After that there follows several pages full of lines.

katar wrote on 12/20/13 at 19:28:38:


Really, am I reading that correctly?  Obodchuk writes a book on the Four Knights, admits that 5.Bc4 is unsound, knows why, but just doesn't show the reader the line at all?  Why would someone buy the book, then?  What else has he omitted?