New game from Poland (Gbyl-Plichta) is importand for one of the critical lines:




Can black get enought compensation after white take on f4 and plays Na4?

najdorfslayer wrote on 09/16/14 at 19:40:08:


Against the Saemisch with 6.Be3 he recommends 6…c5.

Scarblac wrote on 06/05/14 at 07:56:40:

It isn't (occasionally White chooses a setup with Bd3 and Nge2) but I wouldn't let that keep you up at night: Boykov's approach with ...Na6 is also valid against 5.h3.

I received the book yesterday, I'm a ~2000 player who wants to start playing the KID.

I'm very happy with what's in the book. He gives plenty of theory for me, I like his choice of lines, and the explanations are helpful and to the point. I think the memory markers and exercises are going to be very valuable but haven't really worked with the book yet. His comments are inspiring, e.g. after black plays ...Nh5-f4 and white can play g2-g3, my first thought would be that the knight would have to retreat, but he says things like "KID players never retreat!" and then shows convincing tactics that allow the knight to stay there. Great for a player like me trying to switch to an opening.

What I miss are side variations and early move orders, his chapters basically begin at move 7 or so and the moves before aren't discussed. Watson's 1.d4 book uses 5.h3, he only discusses 6.h3, is that really always exactly the same? Burgess has 6.a4 as line against the KID, it isn't mentioned (mentioning Burgess is a unfair, he doesn't play c4 so that's no KID). No lines with e3. His lines against the fianchetto start at move 7 or so, surely there is *some* subtle difference between 3.g3 and moving it later?

Now this is an opening I don't know well yet and move orders are probably less critical in it than in openings where the forces make contact immediately, but I still think the book is a bit incomplete without an "Odds and Ends" chapter and a little bit of discussion of move 3-6 alternatives.

I have posted a detailed review of this excellent book at my blog that might answer readers' questions:
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/04/review-of-dejan-bojkovs-modernized.htm...

Bojkov's approach to the Kavalek System is rather unusual but looks playable and definitely cuts down on the theory.  What's more, this approach is very consistent with the ideas in the rest of the repertoire, which is likely his main motive in choosing it.  In his approach, you generally play ...e5 and ...exd4 -- and then, if possible, try to get in ...d5 as well.  If White prevents the d5 break, then you go for dynamic play.  It seems to work.

I have also posted a detailed bibliography on the Kavalek which is worth comparing:
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-kavalek-system-vs-kings-indian.htm...

I think I prefer the main theoretical lines here, but quite a bit of theory has definitely accumulated over the years.  So Bojkov's idea is worth knowing.

Ludde wrote on 05/22/14 at 10:54:23:

Quote:


He gives 13...Nf4! (Which is also how 13.Nc2 is answered) and then covers 14.c5;14.Re1;14.Rb1 and 14.Bxf4.

kylemeister wrote on 05/19/14 at 17:50:10:


He gives the game Premnath -  Kokarev, Mumbai Mayor's Cup 2010 for 11.Bf4 Nh5! with fairly detailed notes.

I got the book yesterday. Some words about my first impressions.

Pluses:

1. The enthusiasm of the author shines through the whole book.
    This makes me want to dig deeper into the material.

2. Coverage of the Classical with 7...exd4 is refreshing. With the
    open center and piece play this feels more like an Open Game.
    Indeed I remember dabbling with this line in the 1990s after
    reading about it in Tony Kosten´s book about the Philidor-
    Defence (!) via the move order 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 exd4
    4 Nxd4 g6 5 c4 Bg7 6 Nc3 Nf6 6 Be2 0-0 7 0-0 Re8 8 f3 c6.

3. Also I like the coverage of 6...c6 against the Fianchetto since it
    looks like a relatively low theory weapon for Black.

Minuses:

1. I don´t like the layout. It´s not very user friendly if you give the
    main line in bold and then also start the variations with a move
    in bold. Using a structure with a), b), c) etc. is much better to
    follow. If you really want to use a format with complete games
    then if my memory serves me right Andrew Greet´s "Beating
    unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4" is a good example how to
    structure it well. Personally I strongly prefer a tree format.

2. Don´t recommend lines where a forced draw cannot be avoided
    unless you have an alternative ready! This is an issue in the
    chapter about the Four-Pawns-Attack where after 1 d4 Nf6
    2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 Nf3 e5!? is recommended.
    That´s generally an interesting choice but has the flaw that
    Black can´t avoid the repetition after 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Nxe5
    Qxd1+ 9 Kxd1 Na6 10 Be2 Rd8+ 11 Kc2 Nc5 12 Bf3 Nfxe4 13
    Nxe4 Bf5 14 Re1 Bxe5 15 fxe5 Rd4 16 Kc3 Rd3+ 17 Kc2 Rd4. If
    you are playing for a win with Black you have to look elsewhere
    which means studying 6...c5!

3. Make sure your reader can´t be move ordered in a line you
    suggest. As mentioned above against the Fianchetto 6...c6 is
    recommended. Now in the Chapter about the Makogonov Bojkov
    misses the possibility 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5.
    Nf3 O-O 6. h3 Na6 7. g3!? which has already been pointed out
    by Vigorito in his "Attacking Chess: The KID" books. White
    playing Nf3 and h3 in the Fianchetto is quite normal while ...Na6
    for Black isn´t. And he can´t transpose back to the recommen-
    dation against the Fianchetto with 7...c6 since there Black
    usually continues with ...e5 and ...Nbd7. Also some advice what
    to do if White delays d2-d4 would be valueable here.

4. Perhaps a Chapter about „Odds and Ends“ should have been
    added since some lines are missing. 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7
    4 e4 d6 5 Nge2 is only mentioned as a transpositional tool in the
    Samisch and 5 Bd3, 4 Nf3 0-0 5 Bg5 and some other minor lines
    don´t seem to be covered.

I hope the above doesn´t sound too nitpicking and despite my criticism I have a positive feeling about the book and give it a provisional rating of 3,5 g7-bishops out of five