Pawnpusher wrote on 09/26/18 at 00:19:52:


It's easy enough to avoid if you are expecting it. Just open 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. e3 . Use ideas from the Axel Smith book !

RdC wrote on 09/25/18 at 11:29:28:


Why is that? Black is basically playing White in an IQP variation, no? I would argue that's better suited for hackers.

Well after I read the Hennig chapter and the Slav chapter Salgado Lopez writes that the Hennig is very playable up to about 2020, and that the Timman gambit in the Slav exchange is entirely playable. So I guess he's even more even handed than I thought.
By the way, Valeri Bronznik in his D4 Guerillas book  came to about the same conclusion about the Hennig, so there are two formidable analysts who say play it up till about 2000ish. Salgado says there is a refutation and supports it with a lot of analysis.

grandpatzer wrote on 09/24/18 at 14:23:56:


I agree with Pawnpusher that he's mostly promoting the White side but he tries to analyze all of the gambits objectively.  He's certainly doesn't claim to have refuted all of the gambits in the book.  The "Timman Gambit" for example, he writes, "I can tell in advance: this gambit seems to be good!".

It is mostly from a white perspective, but I think he makes a considerable effort to be objective. I am only as far as the von Hennig-Scharra chapter, but I like what I have read so far, and I think the analysis holds water when you look at it with engines.

I purchased this book a short time ago via the Forward Chess app.  I like a lot about the book but I feel it could have been even better.  Keep in mind I haven’t tested or ran any of the authors analysis on my own computer.  I don’t see where he ever mentions it, but all of the openings do arise via 1.d4.  I'll just briefly mention my thoughts about the main chapters.  The Budapest Gambit chapter is of course a system for White and at least on the surface appears to be quite promising.  The Blumenfeld Gambit chapter has improvements for both sides, but in the end he thinks the accepted variation is better for White. The Tarrasch and Marshall Gambits chapter only covers 5.dxc5 and 5.e4, both equal with best play according to the book.  Why not analyze 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.dxc5 that has been analyzed here on the forum and seems like a better try? The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit chapter has a lot of information.  I don’t know how much it adds to theory as I’m not that familiar with it.  He believes the variation where Black castles kingside to be his best chance. The Slav Gambits chapter only considers the Winawer Countergambit and “Timman’s Gambit”, (1.d4 d4 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bf4 e5).  Ok, to be fair in the latter variation he also covers 5.e4!? and 5.Nf3 e5? but no mention of 5.Bf4.  I can also think of some other very interesting Slav Gambits that could have added even more value to the book.  The Dutch Gambits chapter covers 2.g4 and the Staunton Gambit and this looks like another really good chapter with new and interesting analysis. Neither system gives an advantage but they are great surprise weapons. Easily Refuted Gambits covers the Englund Gambit (called the “Charlick Gambit in the book), the Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit, and the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.  This analysis should be useful to many players as well.  Lastly, he covers the Albin with one of the main lines of 5.a3, showing how White can maintain an advantage against Black’s various tries.  (There’s also thre chapters on “model games with exercises on the Budapest, Blumenfeld and VHS Gambits that I haven’t looked at yet.)  So all in all a very decent book as long as most of the analysis holds up.  My only regret is that he didn’t bother to analyze some of the other very interesting 1.d4 gambits.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 09/14/18 at 17:02:05:


Where you ilve that you find so many good chess books on shelf of bookstores ¿