Since you quoted my nomination, saying you trusted it and feel ripped off, let me say that it's a pity you bought a book you didn't like.
Yes, it's true, Dreev's 12.Nd2 plainly drops a pawn to 12...Ne4 where avoiding the pin with 12.Kf1 or 12.Ke2 doesn't.
This erroneous move reads like an aside that was interjected at the last minute as an afterthought. It is, as you say, in a subvariation--a tiny two-ply parenthetical "10...Bxb5 11. Bxb5 Bd6 (11... Bb4+ 12. Nd2 +/=) 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13.O-O a6 ..." within the main analysis of a novelty (10.Nb5!?) proposed in response to a sideline (9...Ba6, when the whole point of playing 8...b6 is to play Bb7, taking advantage of the open long diagonal) within another sideline (omitting Nc3 entirely for a long time is not on the list of the more important lines given by Dreev). Furthermore, in the very same place Dreev gives an alternative novelty that is both forcing and good, namely 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11.O-O +/=.
The point I got from reading this section of the book is that White should avoid allowing Black to exchange knight for bishop with ...Nh5, and that it's worth investing a tempo in h3 in order to achieve that aim, even at the cost of allowing an exchange of bishop for bishop. This is one of several strategic threads that run through the book, appearing in multiple variations. Furthermore, throughout we are armed with the move- order subtleties to execute these strategies while walking the Exchange Slav's all-too-smooth theoretical ice. The book is really superb in that respect; I've never seen anything quite like it. As far as I can tell, this framework is unaffected by careless errors like the one you cite.
Of course, there would come a point where too many such oversights undermine faith in the book, and the location of that point is a subjective matter. And while it doesn't take a computer to find the error you mentioned, it does take a computer to rid a book like this, with so many variations, of such errors. For me, missing some tactics in places like this doesn't do it, but different people feel differently about computers and proofreading.
I would nominate and vote for the book again.
|