Yes, I was given it today as a thank you for some annotating. It's a fraud on the public. 2 c3 - see my book on the subject. 2 f4 - see my book on the subject. 3 Bb5 - see my forthcoming book on the subject. Some entertaining stuff in the Sveshnikov style, but at the same time pretty naughty.

Straggler wrote on 11/22/14 at 22:35:44:


I don't deny that 3.Bb5 is a very good move, but this flies in the face of years and years of theoretical development by vast numbers of players, many much strong than him. Though Svesh also claims that the Kalashnikov is the theoretically strongest choice vs. 1.e4 in general. I love the Kalashnikov, but c'mon.

kylemeister wrote on 11/22/14 at 18:07:24:


Yeah that's a bit out there. I enjoy Sveshnikov's writing based on his enthusiasm, and I love what he's done for the game in general, but his books thus far have been just so so for me. And one book on the black side on the Rossolimo seems a bit extreme (at least for me), but if he covers a bunch of different options well, maybe it's an interesting angle. Certainly something no one has done before!

I do notice that he's played a lot of 3...e6, which could use some updated coverage from someone! It almost went in my book, but I decided to stick with what I've played all my life, 3...Nf6. The latter has the added benefit that those with the Sveshnikov in their repertoire can meet 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3!? with 3...Nf6, not having to learn more theory in the event of 4.Bb5.

Apparently it's the first of a three-volume series which will provide a complete repertoire based on the Kalashnikov. So it doesn't cover alternatives to 3.d4 after 2.Nf3 e6 or 2...d6. And it doesn't cover the Rossolimo, because that will have a volume to itself.

I think I'll wait for TonyRo's book.

Alias wrote on 05/05/14 at 14:59:20:


Thanks that's what I meant!

najdorfslayer wrote on 05/05/14 at 07:31:17:


Bologan's Black Weapons in the Open Games: How to Play for a Win If White Avoids the Ruy Lopez

It seems to me that this is an Open Game book (aka 1.e4 e5). Isn't it?

I suppose the link is referred to another book...