Dubbelschaak wrote on 03/18/20 at 16:15:39:

To my knowledge that has always been considered the standard reply, and as leading to some advantage for White.  For example here are some bits from Panczyk & Ilczuk in their Classical KID book of a while back.

7...Ne5 8. Nxe5 de 9. 0-0 e6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Be3 ed 12. cd Ne8 13. Qd2 Kh7 14. Rac1 ± M. Galyas-G. Meister, Hungarian Team Ch. 2005

7...Nb8 8. 0-0 c6 (8...Bg4 9. Be3 Nbd7 10. Nd4 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 Rc8 12. f4 += V. Bhat-H. Nakamura, US Chess League 2008) 9. Be3 Na6 10. h3 Nc5 11. Qc2 a5 12. Rfd1 += V. Popov-N. Nikolaev, Peterhof 2005

Hello Mr. Cummings, 

I'm still at it, your repertoire i mean, and enjoying it. Don't think i'll go back to playing 1.e4 anytime soon 

I have another question regarding the repertoire though.

Lately, when the game turns into a King's Indian, i've been running into 6...Nc6 

Is this some kind of anti-Petrosian line? How to keep it along Petrosian lines? I've been trying 7.d5 (but then i'm still facing Black's ...f5 kingside attack) and i've tried 7.O-O e5 8.d5 Ne7 9.Bg5 which doesn't really feel like i'm playing Petrosian's system even though i got to play Bg5.

What do you suggest?

Bedankt voor de link TD 

Thanks again MW 

I'll put the book on my list.

Syzygy wrote on 01/01/20 at 23:04:07:

Thanks, i'll look into it 

IMDavidCummings wrote on 01/01/20 at 19:32:15:

Thank you for responding David, and happy new year to you too. I'll be looking into your suggestions 

Speaking of #1, I was reminded of Karpov playing an early ...e5 + ...c5 against Kasparov in their '87 match.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067247

MW wrote on 01/01/20 at 02:25:08:

Me neither, it looks too early to fix the structure like that.

I'm also interested to hear what he has to say about the specific move order you suggest as I can't find it in his book..... The position can arise via the symmetrical variation with the moves, 1 c4  c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Nf3 e5 when after 4 e3 Nf6 we reach the position you refer to above. It is a bit of a nuisance for white and probably why David avoids this in his book by playing 2 Nf3 when faced with the symmetrical so that he can play 3 d4 after 2....Nc6.

But 2 Nf3 is not possible in the 1...e5 line so why does black not play 2...c5 more often?

In your move order the d5 square looks very inviting for the white pieces so my first thought would be 3 g3 followed by Bg2, but now 4....f5 and it is not all that clear so let's see what he has to say. 

In passing I have played 1 c4 on and off for close to 50 years and have never faced 1...e5 followed by 2....c5...perhaps I've just been lucky!

Yes it's Chapter 4 .....2...Bb4 and other Second/Third Moves.

After the main move 2....Bb4  he gives two notes the first (a) pertains to 2...d6  and the second (b) to  2....f5.

It's a good book I still use it.

I'm sure IM David Cummings will comeback to you regarding this question but in the interim if you look at page 104 note "b" of his book; at the top he offers 1c4 e5, 2 Nc3 f5, 3 d4 and follows the recommendation up with some analysis.

3 g3 is also a popular response according to the databases.   

Hope this helps.

The line you played transposes to the anti-QGD and is treated in the game Carlsen-Radjabov in the book.

Link doesn't seem to work.

Very clear and helpful, thanks David.

Hi David
I have been looking at the Pseudo Grünfeld with 5h4 and 6e4 ideas comparing it with 5e4. The theory for 5e4 I referenced is from July 2012 , the game Keklidze-Robson.

I would be interested in your thoughts of the line 5h4 h5 6e4 Nxc3 7dxc3 Qxd1+ 8Kxd1 f6 so using the Robson plan. It seems to be much better than playing 8.. Bg4 (the Forcen Esteban game on p315) and without the weaknesses after 5..h6 (p314 of your book).

Many thanks

Krudos

Very useful post for me - thanks David

Dear mister Cummings and fellow subscribers.

I'm a new subscriber here and I'm trying transitioning from playing g3-lines a la Marin to lines with an early d4 according to your repertoire (I have your book). 

I've noticed in some threads here you've been giving tips on newer recommendations as well as referencing some games here, but it's a not so easy for a new subscriber. I was wondering if perhaps you (or others) could write a list of which updated games are important to look through, to make it easier to get started.

Many thanks!

fjd wrote on 02/13/19 at 17:25:01:


Yep, I think 3...Nc6 just gives black a very comfortable game after 4 exd4 Nxd4 5 Nxd4 Qxd4 6 Nc3 c6....so if you want to play the Reti you really need to be prepared to go down the 3 b4 line...as a Reti player I can say 3 b4 leads to interesting games.

Ahhhh fair enough. But after 1 Nf3 d5 2 c4 d4 3 e3, Black would normally avoid 3...c5 4 b4, and play 3...Nc6 instead, right?

What about 3 c4, intending 3...d4 4 b4 and 3...e6 4 cd5 ed5 5 d4 - ?

Question:

So let's say I want to play something similar to Cummings' proposed repertoire, but I want to avoid both 1 c4 e5 and 1 Nf3 d5 2 c4 d4. So I would play 1 Nf3 d5 2 e3 and 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4. What are the extra lines I'd need to add (particularly in 1 Nf3 d5 2 e3, which I have almost no experience with)?

After a recent game I came across a transposition I don't think is covered. Hopefully I'm wrong and can be directed to the page!

I can't find mention of a Queen's Indian Defence set-up for Black. Specifically after 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nf3 and now 4...b6!?. It's hard to see a good way for White to avoid a transposition to the e3 QID with a later d2-d4. For example 5.b3 Bb7 6.Bb2 Nbd7 7.d4 Bd6 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 a6 (9...Re8!?) 10.Rc1 Qe7 11.Na4 dxc4 12.bxc4 Rad8!?

The lines covered are where Black puts the bishop less actively on e7.

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.

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

befuddled wrote on 12/13/16 at 18:44:03:


I have order too! I hope to received it as soon as possible!

PDF extract is up. Looks good!

In short, there is no early g3, which facilitates transpositions to d4. I have to say that I'm happy to see opportunities to transpose to non-fianchetto d4 lines. This seems to crop up in the suggested repertoire, with transpositions into the semi-Tarrasch and Petrosian King's Indian.

Looks great from the extract. I'll likely wait until the eBook is released before pulling the trigger.

Nc3 can't be stopped and will be played sooner or later winning a tempo. The question was whether to fianchetto or not in this open position.

IM Cummings, out of interest does the book have a line against 1.c4 d5? Probably not very good but potentially annoying. I would probably play 2.cxd5 and aim for g3 gaining a tempo sooner or later on the Queen on d5. Potentially this doesn't fit in the books idea of not fianchettoing so curious to see what is recommended.

MartinC wrote on 11/21/16 at 21:02:20:

That's true, but I don't like those options. Besides 1.c4 is most of the time not my first move...

Unfortunately not my repertoire.

Thanks for your interest in the book! 

It has been sent to the printer so should be on track for the schedule quoted by gillbod. 

I'm also told that the PDF excerpt will be posted on the Everyman website soon.

Q When? 
A Be patient readers. When it comes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLxqRax8mTA

Great news!