Hi David

Can I follow on with a small number of questions:

1. In the Anti Nimzo-Indian line, I have faced 6...d5 (page 300) instead of d6 or b6 approaches. Thoughts please?

2. In the 1..e5 2..Bb4 line, Semkov expands on the line in the notes to game 12 after 3 Qc2 Nf6 4 Nf3 Bxc3 with the 9...dxc4 move shown in brackets. It seems fairly equal but your sense?

3. After 1c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Nf3 d6 is quite a common reply with 4 e3 being met by Nbd7 5 d4 g6 6 Be2 Bg7 7 0-0 0-0 leading to the "poor man's KID" from Axel Smith's e3 Poison book. 

How would you suggest that White tackles this please?

I am now a subscriber so please feel free to point me to notes in the archives if that covers these questions.
Best wishes

Krudos

Krudos,

Thanks – great to hear the repertoire has been working for you!

Here are my thoughts on the lines you mention:

1. 1 c4 b6 2 Nc3 Bb7 3 e4 e5!?

Funny you should bring this up as I faced this in two tournament games this year! I suggest the setup 1 c4 b6 2 Nc3 Bb7 3 e4 e5 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 g3 Bc5 6 Bg2 d6 7 a3 a5 8 d3 Nge7 9 0–0 0–0 when a good model game is Kramnik - Morozevich, Moscow 2013.  Kramnik played 10 Nh4, and later got a strong attack after Kg1-h1 and f2-f4-f5.

2. How to meet the triangle set up for Black so e6, d5, c6 and delaying playing f5 until White has committed eg by Black playing Bd6 and /or Nd7

First of all, I don’t think delaying ...f5 for too long necessarily helps Black, for example 1 c4 e6 2 Nc3 d5 3 e3 c6 4 Nf3 Bd6 5 b3 Nd7 6 Bb2 f5 can be answered by 7 Qc2 Ngf6 8 cxd5! when Black has no good recapture since 8...exd5 gives up the f5-pawn, 8...Nxd5 drops the g7-pawn, while 8...cxd5 allows 9 Nb5.

Instead, after 1 c4 e6 2 Nc3 d5 3 e3 c6 4 Nf3 Bd6 5 b3 f5 6 Bb2 Nf6 I like the idea 7 cxd5!? exd5 8 g3 0–0 9 Bg2 Nbd7 (Gritsak-Koziak, Karpacz 2008) when after 10 Ne2 White has play against the Stonewall structure, with a safe king and two well-placed bishops.

3. 1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 e3 Bb4 5 Qc2 d6.

This is covered in the book (page 53) but has developed a lot in the two years since the book was written. I now recommend the move 6 Ne2!? (instead of 6 Nd5). If you subscribe to the ChessPub Flank Openings section, you can refer to my analysis in the games Karjakin-Vidit and Duda-Eljanov.

Hope this helps.

David

IMDavidCummings wrote on 01/28/18 at 22:19:48:

Thanks for the compliment and the feedback. Hopefully you do realize that my criticism comes from my background as a corr. player. So I may be a bit unfair, because your primary goal obviously was to offer a practical repertoire. However given 1.d4 (because of Grünfeld and Slav 4...dxc4) and 1.e4 (because of Najdorf, Sveshnikov and Berlin Wall) being theoretically equal I started to wonder if your book might serve as a starting point for proving an objective opening edge for White. This means your book is actually better than you intended.

IsaVulpes wrote on 07/27/18 at 15:46:37:

My answer is largely yes. At some spots I think the repertoire could be more testing and everybody should read my comments on the book from that angle.
As almost always making the repertoire more testing means more work. For instance I don't buy IM Cummings' reply to my remarks on the Symmetrical Tarrasch. I maintain that it's a short cut, that thematically fits in the repertoire, but is not as testing as for instance the QGD Exchange Variation.
Having played the Classical Dutch for almost 20 years I've also learned not to fear the move Bg5. On the contrary, as soon as White plays it I start thinking about Black's winning chances. That includes specifically White castling queenside. Of course 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 and 4.g3 is most testing.

The line that's bothering me most right now is 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 Bb4 5.Qc2 Bxc3 6.bxc3 (I really don't like 6.Qxc3 Qe7 7.d4 Ne4 - see the diagram on page 71: isn't that Bishop lame on c1?) e4 7.Ng5 Qe7 8.f3 exf3 9.Nxf3 and now b6 iso d6.

Based on the sample / some reviews, this book looks like "everything I ever wanted": 
An alternative to 1.e4 to play around with (for 'broadening chess understanding' purposes and whatnot) and potentially use as surprise weapon in tournaments, which is interesting enough (so no system stuff, the c4/g3/Bg2 things I played in the past were just incredibly boring after a while) and theoretically testing, while not being another insurmountable amount of work on top of my main repertoire (as eg adding 1.d4 mainlines would be).

Given how large and popular a topic the entire King's Indian complex is, I don't ~really~ trust 35 pages to cover if sufficiently, but here I was thinking of buying the Sämisch repertoire by Montany anyhow, so that's not much of a bother.

So my questions at this point would be:
- Is my impression correct, and this book *does* offer a theoretically testing & varied repertoire that's a manageable enough amount of effort to qualify as a 2ndary weapon? In particular for "first round of a tournament"-occasions, it would be nice to have a calm starting move, rather than risking to run into some weird gambit lines I had no chance to look at 
- Would the combination of the book with Montany's KID repertoire 'cover all my bases', or is there some other major-ish line that could do with some extra coverage / work on my own?
- How many of the lines would allow me to later (whenever I'm crazy enough) add 1.d4 lines via moveorder-switching? Say I'm not too interested in learning the Grünfeld and Slav anytime soon, but have a repertoire against the Nimzo and am a fan of the QGD Exchange, I could transpose via 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.d4, if I gathered this correctly from the excerpt (I guess in this example I would also need a response to the Benoni, but that is part of the Montany Repertoire anyway?!). Does that stay true for the majority of this repertoire, or are there some lines where a transposition is ruled out very early on (aside from 1...e5 and 1...c5, of course)?

Thank you!

Demuth in his Reti book does much the same if I remember correctly (I don't have the book at hand). There has to be a decent alternative, but maybe it is the best try?

Being a corr. player and tired of the Najdorf plus Berlin Wall and also of the Grünfeld and the Slav I wondered if 1.c4 would suit me. So recently I bought the book for inspiration.
It does some excellent work on the Grünfeld and the Slav problem. Also my skepticism regarding 1.c4 e5 and 5.Qc2 is well met. Still I have three minor complaints and one biggie.

1. Against the GPA with colours reversed 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 f5 (not mentioned in the Index of Variations; it's on page 104) the recommendation is the usual 3.d4 taking advantage of the extra tempo (compare 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3) with exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6?! 5.Qe3+.  Unfortunately Black can improve as Qd4 doesn't exactly run away. After 4...Nf6 intending 5...Nc6 it's much harder to prove anything for White.

2. The book doesn't mention 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.e3 f5 4.d4 Nf6 (this is very much like the Hebden Variation of the Sicilian GPA: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.f4 d5 4.Nf3).

3. The interesting recommendation against the Dutch is 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.d4 e6 (the Anti-Leningrad system 3...d6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.Qc2 g6 6.h4 is very much to my taste) 4.Qc2. Imo best is b6 and after 5.Bg5 Bb7 6.e3 the transposition Bb4. Then the bishop is not optimally placed on g5. Compare 7.f3 (after 5.Nf3 Black wins the fight for square e4) O-O 8.Bd3 c5 9.Nge2 Nc6 10.a3 cxd4 with 4.e3 b6 5.Bd3 Bb7 6.f3 Bb4 7.Qc2 O-O 8.Nge2 c5 9.a3 cxd4 10.axb4 (page 383 via transposition).

4. My main complaint is that the Anti-Queen's Gambit System is not an Anti-Queen's Gambit system at all - it's just the Symmetrical Tarrasch. Granted, the book recommendation 7.Bb5 of Carlsen-Radjabov, Stavanger 2013 is a NID, Rubinstein Variation with colours reversed. The extra tempo must count for something; clever. However the important possibility (the words of author himself, page 232) 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.e3 d5 (page 129) 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4 a6 7.b3 (7.g3 is the other option, but Black can avoid it via 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nf3 a6 5.b3 c5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.d4 Nc6) Nc6 8.Bb2 (page 231) doesn't get much attention. It's not even mentioned in the Index of Variations. Imo the author should have included another entire annotated game for this specific line. This becomes even more urgent on page 235, the note 7...exd4 8.d4 Nc6 9.Be2 "similar to Carlsen-Radjabov" (see just above). Well, the bishop being on e2 iso b5 makes quite a difference; worse, with this specific move order 9.Bb5 (iso the recommended 9.Be2) does not necessarily transpose. And of course there is 8...a6 again. It's true that in the Symmetrical Tarrasch Black usually plays ...Bd6 iso ...Be7, but as soon as White plays the common dxc5 that doesn't matter anymore. If we also realize that in a way White is playing against his/her own variation (the Semi-Tarrasch with ...Nxd5), as  the author remarks on page 259, there is quite some food for thought here.
Of course corr. players don't really need shortcuts like the Symmetrical Tarrasch. 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 (or 2.Nf3) d5 3.d4 and 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 are respectable options. It also means allowing the NID though with 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 and I'm not sure if that one has enough punch for a corr. game. It's this or 4.e3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4 a6 7.g3.

It appears on this forum at least that I may be the first to notice something:

In the 'Old Indian' section, Cummings gives 'forcing line' by Demuth which begings with 11. Ne5!? concluding "and White is playing for two rsults, with Rook and two minor pieces for the queen and 2 pawns". 

However, that may be a bit misleading. Formally the count is correct, but as Black has not traded his Ra8 yet...perhaps he need not and can make use of it or trade it under more favorable circumstances?

Sorry, have the electronic version, not sure what page it is on. 

In any case, White is not exactly better...and that helper for the Queen should not be discounted.

And in the line suggested, Black could opt for 13...dc3 which is pretty equal.

I would suggest not going into the line: White is better developed, has a better center....why opt for that line?

If White really wants to play for two results in that line....19 Qe3 would seem to be the way to go about it.

I agree with Canadian Club. There is certainly some venom is what Cummings suggests, and the positions are non-standard for what some black players might be expecting.

However, there is a decent amount of work involved in getting to play this stuff competently. There are a variety of structures: e.g. reversed Sicilian Taimanov type structures, KIDs, Maroczy Binds, play with and against the IQP.

Good book though. Definitely happy to recommend.