Isn't 1.c3 and 2.Qa4 the start of "The Improved Bong Cloud"? White follows up with Kd1, f3, Qh4 and Qe1, all played instantly.  The "improved" bit is that it takes fewer moves than the original version with 1.f3 and 2.Kf2, following up with c3, Ke3, Kd3, Kc2, Qe1 and Kd1. Maybe Mr Nemtsev has a section on this in his book? Maybe katar or grandpatzer could let us know?

Statistically and by performance-rating 1.c3 was my most successful opening, just one annoying loss (from a +/- position) and the rest wins in about a dozen games. I beat a couple of NMs and a couple of experts in there, the others were club players of varying standard.

My rationale for giving up offbeat openings was different: I needed to have openings that would hold up against IMs and GMs. But IMs and GMs are ready for anything solid I might try, so I also needed experience in those openings. And the way to get the necessary experience was by playing the same openings against the club players.

There are books on unpopular, supposedly bad openings, like 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c5 by Azeri GM Сергей Каспаров. Yet I read somewhere that a couple elite GM analyse that opening seriously, at least for rapid game.

1. c3 and what look like rubbish could work in rapid, if feeling brave maybe even a classical game. If Carlsen plays North Sea Defence, why not ¿ 

Greetings, it seems to me that we are underestimating the fact that both systems are, as stated by the author, for 3-minute chess, or bullet chess. Thus the "shock" value, and the fact that your opponent might think, after your very few "Elshad" moves, that you are a complete beginner, (not to say a complete patzer!) might be a psychological asset. The systems, however unorthodox and anti-theoretical, are certainly playable in bullet and blitz (we're not blundering away any pieces or so...)

What is the critique exactly?
Two comments by "God Members" but no substantive criticism, just barbs.
Please give a variation/refutation or describe the problem with the book.  Bad typesetting?  Incorrect diagrams?  I would be curious to know how much time the commenters spent with the book before publishing opinions.
It seems the only "problem" is the concept - i.e., c3 Qa4 and advancing the kingside pawns.
The concept of chess itself can also be criticized as a waste of time with enormous opportunity cost.  But participation in this forum presumes that we are here to discuss the concept, not to ridicule it or to question its right to exist.  I would not go to a chess forum just to call chess stupid and make fun of chessplayers.

It seems to me author wrote the book as a labor of love and a tribute to the nonconformist amateur player Elshad Mamedov.  The author is not trying to be Boris Avrukh.  It is an opening to insult and humiliate drunken rivals at the pub: does the book succeed within those parameters?  Perhaps still not, but tell why.

God why?