Hello guys!

How well did you fare in practice using repertoire carved by IM Cummings?

From 1 to 5, how many stars would you appoint to the book, and why?

IMDavidCummings wrote on 02/20/17 at 15:17:47:


Thanks for your reply David, somehow I figured you would settle on the very interesting 8.Bf4!? as your recommendation as it seems to best fit the ethos of your book, while at the same time avoiding many tricky theoretical transpositions to lines not covered after 7...Na6.

Kudos on a very well written, fresh and instructive repertoire book which hopefully will prove an excellent companion to the soon to be released e3 poison by Quality Chess.

TN wrote on 02/21/17 at 03:31:34:


It does, but Black could also play 1. c4 Nf6, 2. Nc3 e6, reaching the Mikenas. Cummings then recommends 3. Nf3, which could transpose to his anti-QG line after 3...d5 (instead of 3...Bb4). I assume that using both lines would be more cumbersome. That being said, for someone who plans to play the QGD exchange, as I do, the Mikenas would seem to be fairly good for White.
I was basically curious to know if there are any concerns in Cummings' (or yours or anyone else's) with playing the Mikenas these days.

A quick question on the repertoire for IM Cummings (I've purchased the ebook version from Everyman): your move order permits the Mikenas Attack, but you avoid it by attempting to transpose into your preferred line vs the QGD. Did you avoid the Mikenas for reasons of economy, or do you not like it (and if so, why)?

Hi TopNotch,

Thanks for your feedback on the book and for highlighting the KID move-order issue in your earlier post. I’ve been mulling over this line and wanted to post some thoughts and a recommendation. 

After 1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 Bg7 5 Nf3 0-0 6 Be2 Na6 7 0-0, the move 7...c6 was championed by GM Glek in the late 90s/early 2000s and played occasionally by others. It is indeed rare (played in around 5% of games after 7 0-0), but I agree it is helpful to give advice on what to do if Black delays ...e7-e5. Now White often plays 8 Be3 or 8 Re1 which usually transpose to mainline 6...Na6 lines – if White was prepared to enter those anyway there is less incentive to vary. 

White actually has a wide choice of other decent moves however, for example 8 h3, 8 Qc2 and 8 Rb1, but the one I like is 8 Bf4!?. This is an unusual placement for the bishop in the KID, but is justified by the knight on a6. If Black wants to play ...e7-e5 he needs to move  the f6-knight, meanwhile White will develop quickly by playing Qd1-d2 and centralizing the rooks. In the game Shchekachev-Glek (St. Petersburg 1998), Black played 8...Nh5 but ended up worse. Later, he tried 8...Nd7 in Chuchelov-Glek (Bad Zwesten 2000) and Hoffmann-Glek (Bundesliga 2004) but White was again slightly better from the opening. Also, in MegaBase, there are some instructive annotations by King and Chuchelov to the first two of these games.

David 

Stigma wrote on 02/13/17 at 20:18:42:


Yes it's compatible with the 1.Nf3 move order, as he recommends 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3

I like this book by Mr. Cummings, it is refreshing divergence from the usual 1.c4 followed by g3 offerings. However I noticed in the KID section that the following move order was missing: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 Na6 7.0-0 and now the book does not consider 7...c6, which poses some problems for readers following this repertoire. Essentially black holds back e5 for a move and White now has to think for himself, and before someone comments that c6 is rare, let me add that this move has been used by very strong players and it usually transposes to the normal 6...Na6 lines, however the recommended Petrosian setup is no longer viable.   

Perhaps Everyman will publish an update to rectify this omission in the future.

Regards,

Tops