ReneDescartes wrote on 06/12/17 at 15:59:41:
Here's a variation. After 1.d4 c6 2.c4 d5 3.Nc3 Nd7 4.e4 h6 5.f4 g5 6.fxg5 Bg7 7.Nf3 Nf8 8.Be2 hxg5! 9.Bxg5 Ne6 10.Be3 Qb6(?!), which Nemtsev describes as one of his main lines, he gives 10.Rb1 for White. This is exactly one of those pointless or unenergetic moves supplied for the opponent in cheap opening monographs that Nunn warns about .
What move does Nemtsev neglect to mention, a move obvious in this position (see diagram) where White's b-pawn is hit and where Black's stated intention is to contest the dark squares? (Hint: it's a standard developing move that further clears the back rank, effectively unpins the d4-pawn, and is thematic against a wide variety of Black king's fianchetto openings).
11.Qd2, of course, after which Black's best is 11...Nf6 (11...Bh6 12.O-O-O and White's position is absolutely classical, two tempi up in development with Black's kingside gone). 12.d5 Nc5 (forced); but then 13.Na5 hits both the queen and the knight pinned to it. After Black withdraws with 13...Qc7, White doubles Black's pawns and diverts a center pawn to the flank with 14.Nxc5 dxc5. White keeps his large advantage with normal moves such as 15. Bd3 in a position that is sharp primarily because Black's kingside is gone.
This is not some computer improvement--it's what exactly the stuffy correct opponent Nemtsev describes (i.e. me) would play as a reflex. What good is the time spent memorizing his opening analysis beyond this point, or for that matter after some White improvements earlier in the line?
This book isn't doing its readers any favors.
Thanks for showing this sample line. Your proposed 11.Qd2 is strong. Black should have better included
10...Nf6, e.g. 11.h3 Qb6. In that case the reply 12.Qd2? would run into 12...Ng4 13.Bg1 Bh6, and even the best line (according to the engine)
12.0-0 Qxb2 13.Rc1 Nh5 14.Rf2 Qa3 would pose practical problems. How relevant is that? Not so much, I fear, as 9. Nxg5! would have been more precise. Therefore Black should have considered 6...hxg5 (when White cannot take back with the knight) 7.Bxg5 Bg7 8.Nf3 Ngf6, intending Nf8-e6.
One of the points of the Elshad System is, apparently, to undermine the broad white center with a Ne6, a motif that resonates with me, as it resembles the Nd6 in the Vulture.
After
1.d4 c6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3, there is a plausible alternative:
3...Na6!? (instead of Nd7)
4.e4 h6 5.f4 g5 6.fxg5 hxg5 7.Bxg5 Nc7, or perhaps 6...Bg7 7.Nf3 Bg4. Black's strategy would be very similar to Elshad's, with a knight heading in many lines to e6. It isn't obvious to me why the manoeuvre Nd7-f8 should be superior to Na6-c7, in my opinion the option Bc8-g4 can be useful.
Of course White could just choose another set-up without f2-f4. If there was a "moral obligation" to occupy the center with f2-f4, I'd rather play 1...c6, 2...Na6, 3...Nc7, 4...g6, 5...d5, in the spirit of the De Bruycker Defence. No need to gambit a pawn.
[The original De Bruycker Defence is c6/Na6, with the intention to react with d6 & e5 against a c4/d4/e4 center, and with d5 against a d4/e4/f4 center. In this concrete case the open c-file may give White a plus, but it would be worth debating over the board.]
Studying irregular openings can inspire new ideas. Even the Elshad System...
When I was trying out this "system" in speed games it was sometimes advantageous to abandon the ...Nf8-e6 maneuver and instead play ...Nf8-g6. Having said that, ...Na6-c7 (c5) and then possibly to e6 seems like it should be a better option.
Pages: [1] 
The Elshad system (Read 28825 times)
