Mod of this zone here:

Ghengis, you're treading on thin ice. Stay on topic and stay non-confrontational.

But hey, let's talk about the Queen's Gambit...that'll get the author to respond right quick.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 02/10/16 at 01:20:19:


It goes like this:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h5 7.d3 Qf6 8.Nbd2 g5.

ErictheRed wrote on 02/09/16 at 15:56:39:


Yes, also baffled. Seemed childish and inappropriate.
I appreciate it's the internet, but here we are trying to be friendly and civilized, and mostly with great success, considering what happens elsewhere.

It makes no real difference. Khalifman believed that White is slightly better as did ECO. It was more of an "optical" advantage though. Many GMs (like Atalik for example in some of his annotations for chessbase) called this "solid" or even "equal". Today, engines are also able to help us understand better those simplified positions. So, it seems that Kramnik found out that Black is not worse at all.

In this particular position, the inclusion of the ...h6 move might favour Black, if anyone (according to Khalifman it is the same anyway).

The "big gain" with the 4...Nbd7 move order though, is that after 5.Bg5 h6! Black avoids those 4...Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 variations which were for many years a personal favourite of mine (after 4...Nbd7 5.Bg5 h6 the move 6.Bxf6 makes no sense as White wants to lure a bishop to f6 and not a knight!)

ghenghisclown wrote on 02/09/16 at 03:19:24:


If you want to discuss the 8. Bd3 line, you might be better off in the 2 Knights forum in a new thread, or in an existing one like  http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1301056797/15

I am about a week into the book, and utterly captivated.  It's really good.   

I especially liked the chapter on the Exchange.  I've spent a lot of time looking for something active that still makes sense to me.  I think I've finally found it.  I admit, I was initially skeptical about 8..g5, but I spent two days checking all the lines with Houdini and, as best that I am able to tell, it all holds up.
 
The chapters on the Breyer are nicely done.  Nikos is invested in this defense, and his enthusiasm shines through.  There is lots of original analysis and good explanation here, and after going through these chapters I felt like I was finally starting to understand this opening.

I don't say that lightly either.  I've played through lots of Breyer games, I've leafed through Kaufman, I've struggled through Bologan, and I've watched a bit of Eljanov's DVD, but it wasn't until I worked my way through Nikos's book, that things started to come together.  In the end, that's really all you can ask from an opening book.   

That said, I did feel like there were places where I could have used more explanation.  These are minor complaints and completely subjective, but I found the transpositions in Chapter 12 a bit baffling at first.  (The summary at the end was exactly what I needed.)  I also think more attention could have been spent on some of the more basic questions, such as how Black wins, what his plans are, and why -- often in similar looking positions -- he chooses one plan over another.

Someone already mentioned the bibliography, but I really like how often Nikos refers to, makes use of, and improves on the contemporary literature. 

I didn't care for the series of diagrams at the beginning of each chapter.  I am too lazy and too impatient to solve the diagrams, and I generally just skip ahead into the chapter.  Instead of diagrams, I'd rather have a longer introduction that spends more time on typical plans or tactics, or on the historical evolution of the line.

Well, I started off just intending to give some preliminary reactions to the book, and I've gone on longer than intended, without even getting into any of the specific theory or analysis.  So I'll stop for now, and if people have specific questions about theory, happy to dive back in, share thoughts, and analyze.