Stigma wrote on 10/28/19 at 20:14:26:


I have both books but haven't studied them in depth. 
Lakdawala gives his repertoire in 10 games. I'm not a big fan of his writing style but the analysis looks decent. Probably more than enough to get your repertoire up and running.
Moskalenko gives 16 games. He also has a separate chapter on a typical knight sacrifice. I think he gives multiple ideas in many variations.

If I had to pick one it would be Moskalenko.

Just took a look at Everyman's excerpt pdf from Lakdawala's book, there are some aggressive attacking plans in there, holy crap! Seems uncharacteristic of him.

He admits in the introduction that a lot of memorisation is needed for this sharp repertoire.

grandpatzer wrote on 10/27/19 at 08:21:55:

That title would provoke backlash against the unoriginality of the Exchange QGD; complainers would also point out since the book provides only one suggestion for each Black defense, it should have been titled a "Repertoire" rather than a "Compendium."  I think persons who are attracted to chess opening theory tend to overemphasize trivial details in real life too, as if a marketing blurb or book title needs the same move-order precision as the POisoned Pawn variation.

VGA wrote on 10/26/19 at 22:49:29:


Then why don't publishers title these books properly, for example: "A Compendium of original ideas for the 1.d4, 2.c4 Player", rather than advertising them as "repertoire books" in the first place. Of course the "repertoire" title sells, but intellectual honesty should go first.   

@gillbod,

thanks a lot! That's enough detail for me. 

gillbod wrote on 07/03/19 at 20:26:09:

Just one comment: This assumes 12.Nb5 e5 is the critical line, but there's also 12...Ne8, which I think I would prefer if I got this position as Black. I like keeping options open with the central pawns when I can, and White hasn't done all that well against ...Ne8 it in practice.

Stigma wrote on 07/02/19 at 23:11:51:


There is some new material, but not a huge amount. Particularly in that 8...fxe6 line, after 12.Nb5, instead of following up with 13.Qb3 as Moskalenko did in the old analysis (which he also provides here), he also provides some extra options with 13.fxe5. 

Stigma wrote on 07/02/19 at 23:11:51:


He does cover 8.f4, and tries to give ways to avoid the draw after 8...Nc6 9.d5 Na5 as far as I can see. The analysis of alternatives comes relatively deep into the lines, so I don't feel that it's fair to share that level of detail here out of respect to the publisher.

In addition, to 8.f4, coverage is also given to 8.Be2, 8.Bb5 and 8.h3.

It really is a book with a lot of options for white. I get the impression that Moskalenko just went through his personal opening files and decided to polish some selected lines and make a book out of it.

I've been enjoying it so far; he does have a good knack for explanation, and I like the line selection.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 07/03/19 at 04:30:40:

I wouldn't say 5...Bg7 is simple. Maybe if Black meets 6.e4 with 6...Nxc3, but even there White can get attacking chances. 5...Bg7 6.e4 Nb6 is naturally complex since all eight minor pieces are still on the board.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 07/03/19 at 04:30:40:

Moskalenko is recommending mostly the same lines he has been playing and recommending for years, decades even. So I'm not so surprised. The biggest change may be the Exchange Slav. I believe at the time of Revolutionize Your Chess he wanted to play into Semi-Slav main lines - at least the book had some coverage of the Botvinnik Semi-Slav.

gillbod wrote on 07/02/19 at 21:52:02:

Since you seem to have both these Moskalenko books, does the section on 8.dxe6 fxe6 in his KID main line look like it's been updated much? 
9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 Nd4 11.Nxd4 cxd4 12.Nb5 used to be the main line, but I think Black is fine. White has alternatives like 11.Bd2 or 11.Qe1, but I'm not sure they achieve much. For one thing Black can play ...Nh5 against several White move orders.

gillbod wrote on 07/02/19 at 21:52:02:

After 5.Bd2 Bg7 6.e4 Nb6 7.Be3 0-0, is Moskalenko sticking with his trademark 8.f4!? I've seen theory indicating after 8...Nc6 9.d5 Na5 it leads to a forced draw with best play. There is also the almost unknown 8.f4 c5!?, which Larry Kaufman has claimed is at least equal for Black.

I think I saw a Moskalenko game with the calmer 8.h3 instead, so maybe he has switched.