@Stigma --

The Petrosian KID chapter features three games by Petrosian, one by Korchnoi, one by Mecking and two by Kramnik.  So, no, not a modern approach.

The Gruenfeld recommendation does indeed include 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.Rc1 dxc4 7.e4 a la Kramnik-Kasparov, Frankfurt (rpd) 1998.    

I'm thinking of getting the Lakdawala book and mining it for backup lines for my 1.d4 repertoire (after checking them carefully, of course). But still I have a couple of questions about the coverage, especially of the KID and the Grünfeld:

semper_fidelis wrote on 02/16/19 at 18:54:22:

This was about the Petrosian KID and the sharp, modern interpretation of it, often with 0-0-0. Does Lakdawala in fact go for this, or is the chapter more typically positional?

Against the Grünfeld his setup is 4.Bf4 with 5.Nf3 (or vice versa). I thought 4.Bf4 with 5.e3 was more flexible, and it also scores a bit better in practice. So how does Lakdawala justify his choice? Does he go for the ambitious 5...0-0 6.Rc1 dxc4 7.e4, by any chance?

VGA wrote on 10/31/19 at 23:09:10:


But the lines are so different. There aren't so many e4 repertoires out there with a thematic consistency of gaining space, which is what Lakdawala's is.

Quote:


But Houska is basing her lines on 4...Bf5 lines, whereas Lakdawala focuses on the Smyslov. Again, I think he brought something new to the table.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/30/19 at 22:34:33:



Never underestimate the power of the Dunning-Kruger!

RoleyPoley wrote on 10/30/19 at 22:17:52:

Superficiality also helps. Example from the one and only Lakdawala book I own:



Krug-Tiemann, Dresden 2008.

Even Fritz 5 in a splitsecond finds 14.Nd6!
This is not an incident or accident. In one of his notes IM Lakdawala presents the game Krug-Bracker, Willingen 2006:



and recommends 15.a3, totally missing Nc5! while Fritz 5 again finds it immediately.
This kind of oversights is OK with me in a book on the Veresov. But there is no way I'm going to trust this author when writing about serious openings, as I wrote before.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/30/19 at 16:55:43:


I think in his interview on the perpetual podcast he said he was a chess dillitant (not sure if that is the correct word - most likely the wrong spelling too!) so he could grasp things very quickly. I think he said that he didnt sleep much because of his back problems so often worked on one book when in bed and another during the day?

Perhaps because a lot of what he writes is based on his own experience with an opening, and his games in particular that might help him speed up the writing process. Also, his chatty style may come naturally to him and not take any time at all to write (and if editors arent stripping it out or sending back for re-writes it doesnt add any delays).

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 10/30/19 at 21:42:24:


No, I was just attempting to give an example of similar things that he has written, lots of hyperbole and metaphor mixed in with references to politics or popular culture.

I myself could not come up with writing the way that he does, because to use the amount of literary devices that he does when writing instead of just being literal and straightforward is too much for me.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 10/30/19 at 20:20:04:


I myself have Asperger's, but I find his style very hard to read. It is not straightforward to the point, but uses all sorts of literary devices. Instead of writing for example something like, "Black finds himself on a shaky bridge, which reminds me of Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water", it would be easier to just write, "Black is worse in this position."

In any case, I bought the book at a bookstore. The lines are indeed very aggressive, which is unlike his previous books.

I think that this was discussed few times, but his writing style using all sorts of hyperbole and metaphor is seriously annoying to me.

I personally prefer straight to the point, even better if the author writes more robotically.

His books are decent, like a journalist's articles are decent. But as with journalism, there's always an angle or a hook. Don't expect scientific inquiry. A lot of chess writing starts from the other end. A player does a search for the truth to improve their own game, and when they are done they look around and think -- maybe there's a book here.

I don't like his prose, it's a distraction:
Quote:

My first reaction -- wait, is a craving for complications the root of all evil? Then I realize that the most thought Lakdawala put into it was checking the grammar and spelling, so it's useless trying to extract any deeper meaning from it. He just churns this stuff out. It's possible to cut whole paragraphs from his books without losing any information.

Edited:

ReneDescartes wrote on 10/30/19 at 01:07:52:


It's not the speed at which he puts me off that makes me doubt his thoroughness, but rather the fact that the books I have seen do have gaps. He is undoubtedly much less thorough that each author you mention.

However, thoroughness is not why I have bought his books: his years of coaching come through, and he anticipates questions and lines which a typical club player might ask.

Most importantly: he covers lines that I'm interested in, often which I don't see covered elsewhere in much detail (see below).

Quote:


Lakdawala is a solid IM. He does play positional lines, but has a long career and also played sharp lines in it. I think the I-am-a-boring-positional-player quips are jokes to a certain extent.

In many of his books, they are about lines he has played in the past: e.g. the London, Slav, ...d6 book, Modern, Sveshnikov.

For example, in his Slav book, he covers 6.Ne5 6...Na6, which is off the beaten track, and which he put some time into for his own work.

In his Sveshnikov book, he covers 6...h6, which is again a line he has played in the past, and again shows some originality. There is often some thoughtful stuff in his books.

Quote:


Yeah, Sielecki is a class act. I have watched his YouTube channel for many years, and loved the Nimzo book. In particular, the explanations of the Hübner were really first rate. I haven't read any other work of his.

But if I want to play the ...h6 Sveshnikov, isn't Lakdawala more or less my only source? What if I want a recent repertoire book on the Smyslov Caro Kann? Lakdawala was more or less the only option at that time.

Summary: there are gaps in the coverage. But he covers lines that I want to play that aren't receiving coverage elsewhere.

Thanks, TNich and VGA.

TNich wrote on 10/28/19 at 23:40:12:

I'm not too surprised by that. I have some previous books by both authors and find them a bit variable. But Moskalenko actually plays these lines (and this style) after all.

I have Moska's old material on 4.f3 in Revolutionize Your Chess. Maybe I will just take that and Sopiko Guramishvili's recent Chess24 videos as a starting point for now. I'm really trying to take a break from 1.d4 to expand my horizons with some flank openings anyway.

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.

I picked up the Forward Chess version.

It's more or less what I was expecting from reading the preview.

Quick points:

1) The KID and Nimzo chapters are to a large part recycled from previous Moskalenko work. Perhaps some new stuff has been added. There is certainly some material that has been cut compared to Revolutionize your Chess.

2)  As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's not a repertoire book. E.g. gaps in coverage against the Dutch, what do do against 1...e6 1...g6 and 1...d6. It's certainly a foundation for a repertoire. Perhaps mainly useful for existing white d4 players looking to broaden their horizons.

3) Furthermore from 2, there are often several options given within each line. E.g. both the Saemisch (with classical e3 set ups) and f3 in the Nimzo. Against the Grunfeld, 5.Bd2 is the recommendation, but Moskalenko gives multiple plans for white, e.g. after 5...Nb6 6.Nf3, 6.Bf4, 6.Bg5, are covered. As well as 6.e3 followed by 7.Nf3 or 7.f4.

Against the Queens Gambit Accepted, again several options for white are given e.g. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 cxd4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 and now 7.Bd3, 7.b3, 7.Bb3, 7.a4 get a game of analysis each. Also 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bxc4 a6 5.Qe2 is given a game.

4) I can imagine that some buyers might not count the recommendations against the Slav (exchange) and the Semi Slav Triangle (Marshall Gambit, but with 6.Nc3 like Carlsen-Anand 2013 World Championship match) as aggressive. Particularly in the Triangle where finding sharp stuff is easier than finding quiet stuff! That he didn't choose to do so is perfectly fine by me, but it might not be to everyone's taste.

As an aside, the repertoire complements the old Keene + Jacob's Opening Repertoire for White very nicely. E.g. similar structures in the Nimzo, but different move orders (so the white player could choose between 4.a3 4.f3 and 4.e3). Benoni Flick Knife is covered, but with different plans. King side hacks against the KID where possible, but with queenside play likely if Black knows their theory. Gruenfeld plans which avoid the standard c3 d4 e4 pawn centre. Exchange Slav, but one with an early Nf3 and the other without. It's quite nice as a combination: thematic overlap, but different lines.

Other lines that I haven't mentioned above: Qc2 against the Benko. f3 exchange plans against he QGD (I've not looked at these chapters yet, only eyeballed them).

Some might not like that this is not a complete repertoire, and that it opts for some breadth of analysis over depth. But I will find some material in here to incorporate into my own play, so I'm happy.

Dink Heckler wrote on 07/02/19 at 10:25:47:


Perhaps is the "early Bf4", without Nf3, Exchange Slav?
From an email I got from New in Chess, the line vs. the Grunfeld is the early Bd2 line, and the Botvinnik plan of f3-e4 in the Exchange QGD.

MW wrote on 06/28/19 at 19:22:15:


Sure, anything that can be shared with Author’s and Publisher’s consent would be appreciated. I plan to buy the book, so some sort of preview would be great for me.

Now Moskalenko's book is available, too, from New In Chess, and very soon other sellers, I suppose. If you have it, a short review would be appreciated.

Paddy wrote on 06/25/19 at 10:06:40:

I have only used the Android app, but if we assume the iPad app is very similar:

- Make sure you have the same account connected to the website and the app, using the 'Forward Chess Cloud' system (that I don't actually remember how to set up, but you only do it once and I believe it's explained on the FC website)

- Buy a book on the website

- Go to the 'Store' tab in the app on your iPad

- Press 'View Complete List' or the button for the publisher of the specific book. You should see a button with 'Buy' or the price next to each book

- For books you have purchased, the button should say 'Download' instead of the price. Press it, and you have the book.

Anyone who's familiar with Moskalenko's writings knows the Four pawns' attack is "his" King's Indian weapon, and especially the dxe6 lines when Black goes for ...c5 and ...e6. So it's not a huge surprise that he sticks to his guns.

Though I actually had the impression they had been pretty much defanged since he covered them in Revolutionize Your Chess (2009). Does he have improments that make them viable again? Or has he finally swtched to Four Pawns' Attack main lines? I realize my curiosity will force me to buy this book...

Searching a not-very-up-to-date database, the most recent game I find with Moskalenko playing "his" 4PA against the KID is from 2013. But he seems to throw in lots of different White openings these days - everything from Tromps and Londons to 1.c4 and 1.e4 in addition to his trademark sharp 1.d4 lines. I don't know if he's always done that or he felt a need to be less predictable after he started publishing his opening ideas in popular books.

Glenn Snow wrote on 06/23/19 at 16:32:31:


If I buy it at a discount at the Forward Chess website, will it show up in the app on my Ipad?

Seems daft otherwise!

Apparently it’s available via forward chess? Not through the app,  it’s shown as available on the forward chess website.

Personally, I see the four pawns as a good weapon. Both sides are required to know some stuff, so familiarity and experience matters a lot. I think white can expect to face the KID more often than black KID players face the 4 pawns. Especially Moskalenko’s version (at least the one from his earlier book) where he avoids the standard Benoni structures.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 06/11/19 at 22:29:29:


New Zealand dollars....the AUD would not be much different....

Let's hope that he has new ideas for White in the Slav Exchange, otherwise frankly I don't understand his decision to suggest it. It seems to me that most repertoires are "forgetting" to include a line vs. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 dxc4, which seems a beginner's move, but is actually a very tricky line. Anyway, I will probably buy it, because I like the introductory parts with the main ideas, history, etc.

All in all, this looks like a similarish repertoire to the old Keene/Jacobs repertoire for white. Broadly speaking, that is.

The Benoni chapter looks interesting. The Be2+Bd2 stuff in the Flick Knife Benoni is new to me.

I’m not sure there’s enough in the book to tempt me. I already have Revolutionize your Chess, which contains the same lines against the Nimzo and KID. The suggestion against the QGD looks standard and well covered by other sources. The Dutch isn’t covered.

The only thing that might tempt me is if the chapters on the Gruenfeld and Slav are particularly original and thought provoking. There’s no info on this from the sample pages, alas.

Regarding the Moskalenko repertoire, how is the Slav Exchange an "ambitious idea"?

It's also somewhat unpleasant that he refers to his other book for the Dutch. Not truly a complete repertoire.

Mtal wrote on 06/09/19 at 00:07:05:


No idea, but I’d imagine it’ll be quite aggressive, with a liberal use of the f-pawn. I don’t have the book, but memory tells me he covered f3 setups in the Nimzo and the Four Pawns against the King’s Indian in one of his earlier books.

Just speculation of course, I might be completely wrong. I just can’t see Moskalenko recommending anything else.

It looks like Amazon has it as available.

Anyone know what the Moskalenko rep is?

At this point we have to suppose that there is going to be some delay...

kylemeister wrote on 05/13/19 at 18:18:42:


A bit strange since on New in Chess website, says publishes this Wednesday 

https://www.newinchess.com/an-attacking-repertoire-for-white-with-1-d4

I checked his line vs the Nimzo against Sielecki's repertoire:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 O-O 6. e4 d6 7. Nge2 b5 8. Ng3
bxc4 9. Bxc4 Qa5 10. Bd2 Ba6

And now he improves with:

11. a3 Bxc4 12. axb4 Qxb4 13. Ra4 Qb3 14. Qxb3 Bxb3 15. Ra3 Bc4

Unfortunately 12 .. Qxb4 appears to be just bad, and something like Qc7 is better.

It looks like it doesn't cover Roiz's line (d5 d6 e4 b5) at all.

Against the Benko I see:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. f3 axb5 6. e4 Qa5+ 7. Bd2 b4 8. Na3
d6 9. Nc4 Qd8 10. Bd3 e6 11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. Ne2

He gives d5 here, I have Nc6 in my repertoire but Be7 is maybe even better. In any case let's see how we refute d5, which is the most common move:

exd5 Nxd5 14. O-O Be7

He says this is better for white due to the weak c4 square, lead in development and the potential passer on the a file. The Bd2 and Ne2 don't look so hot to me though.

15. Qc2 Nc6 16. Be4 and now he gives Rc8 which is probably bad.

Most Benko players would be happy to get this on the board, I think.

Ah! The black queen is missing from my PGN because I copied it from the Everyman PGN. No wonder it wasn’t in my database.

Thanks a lot kylemeister!

thanks kylemeister. I tried to answer but I got the moves wrong anyway. I saw your answer and was able to quickly delete my post. Everyman's pdf sample correctly has a black queen on d8. Their pgn sample is missing the black queen.

In the PDF introduction to Lakdawala's book, he gives the following position from the Meran Semi-Slav a digram. Does anyone know how this position arises?

MNb, I agree with your post except for two small things.

MNb wrote on 03/22/19 at 10:14:30:
The opponent also cares about the 100 Elo.

MNb wrote on 03/22/19 at 10:14:30:
This can become complicated. It's typical for amateurs to stick with an opening that is not serving them well simply because they like it.

Of course amateurs should keep the enjoyment in chess. But fun is such an individual thing. I find winning more fun than losing, as do most players. But for me, analyzing afterwards (win or lose) is actually even more fun than playing. My friends joke about this, that's their fun. In terms of study I enjoy learning something new, it could be an opening, and I enjoy it even more when I can use my new knowledge to win a game.

kylemeister wrote on 03/21/19 at 20:46:11:
Yes, a good quote, almost exact.

Quote:

Back in the day next to that quote I penciled in the names of famous players on the white side of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.a4. Quoting myself here...

Quote:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128857
Larsen didn't play d4-d5.

Nowadays we can add other famous names to that list. Half a lifetime ago, a young master at my club asked for my advice on a replacement for his tattered King's Indian. I advised the QGA, and we played some training games in this very line. Later in a tournament after one of his QGAs, I asked him if there were any other lines that were bothering him. He said no, everybody plays 7.a4. True then; but having recently taken up this opening myself, I now face a variety of 7.Bb3, 7.Bd3, 7.b3, etc., not to mention 3.e4, 4.Qa4+, and what-not.

My least favorite Nimzo-Indian line is 4.e3. I think I have something like 0/6 in it - and half of those games were with White! The positions are just a bit too quiet for my taste, and when they do heat up it's often in an IQP scenario, which is not my cup of tea either. I've never felt comfortable on either side of the IQP.

The right thing to do is of course to learn these position types instead of running away from them. But when I can play fianchetto-based defences instead and get both interesting, unbalanced positions and good results, sticking with the Nimzo would involve a sacrifice of short-term results for (hopefully) long-term gains.

kylemeister wrote on 03/21/19 at 20:46:11:

That's a weird coincidence - i was in a chess book shop this afternoon and that was one of three books i picked up to have a look and that was the part that i was reading!

i'm quite looking forward to the Moskalenko repertoire. i went through his book 'Revolutionize Your Chess' in a bit of detail.

his chapters on the Nimzo and 4 Pawns KID were nicely done, and i remember thinking that it would be great if he did a whole repertoire along the same lines. hopefully this is that book.

I am pretty happy with both authors so I will get both. I wish there was some more info on what moskalenko has in his. Oh i saw what pert has in his DVD and being a d4 player, was not sold on it being so attaching for some reason, he did have some lines I liked so will probably get it down the road. Also have to see what the one on the kid and grunfeld are on. He is a great presenter though. Simon Williams did a very aggressive d4 rep also which I kije, just have not had time to look at all of it yet.