on 12/21/13 at 16:28:44:
on 12/20/13 at 19:28:38:
Obodchuk admits this where he says that he omitted the best play for both sides because if he were to publish the line, it would not be playable for White anymore.
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?
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.