RoleyPoley wrote on 10/15/19 at 17:26:11:

Maybe; I know that it was delayed for quite a while.

Speaking of Lemos and the Exchange QGD, it appears from the sample at Amazon that he doesn't address 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cd ed 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 0-0 9.Nge2 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.f3 g6 (considered "!" in Chess Publishing three years ago, and seen in two Mamedyarov-Radjabov games at the recent World Cup).

I looked at the Lemos 1.d4 d5 2.c4 repertoire for White in a bookstore and couldn't find Ntirlis' lines with ...h6 against the Exchange QGD addressed anywhere(?!). Well, I suppose that's good for Ntirlis!

Lemos can be pretty sloppy around the edges. In his White Fianchetto repertoire he says at one point that it doesn't hurt to throw in an early Nf3 if you don't want to face, etc. But then he goes on to rely on some lines that require Ne2.

MNb wrote on 10/13/19 at 15:18:59:

Stating the obvious here, but the number of volumes needed depends largely on how detailed you want to be, i. e. on the target audience (how sharp the chosen lines are makes a difference too). For instance Damian Lemos just a released a one-volume White repertoire book in the Queen's Gambit with a lot of the same lines as Schandorff had, the main difference being Lemos gives the Exchange Slav (which admittedly saves a lot of space).

Frankly I don't find 3-, 4- or 10-volume repertoires very user-friendly, especially not for people with jobs and other interests besides chess. I have used some of Schandorff's lines through the years, but I'm not sure I would have been attracted to his repertoire if it had been a lot more than 2 books.

A repertoire can give the most important lines and some nice novelties, but for people who need completeness (as well as for keeping it up-to-date) there are always sources like ChessPublishing, CBM and Informator.

I agree; I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just wanted to say that the kind of lines Scarblac listed--which we do see most often today -- wouldn't have to be the equivalent now of the older repertoire.

Deviations now regularly happen in top-level tournaments on move 8,9,11, etc. -- but not because the long theoretical lines don't exist anymore. They're too much work to memorize compared to the benefit, too risky to remember, and often thought to be worked out eventually to equality; therefore memorizing them is less profitable for professionals than mastering new (equal) strategical concepts which the centaur may create in unfamiliar positions, as brabo was saying in another thread.

The theory of forcing main lines may be worked out in many cases to an equal position, but what of it? The fact matters little if both opponents don't know the theory. Lines such as the e3 Semi-Slav are more common than the Botvinnik variation today, but not better than the Botvinnik variation if you know the latter and your opponent doesn't.

Now, you may not get a chance to play theoretical sharp lines  very often these days, but they are still capable of winning for you if you know the theory. I fail to see why Schandorff couldn't update his repertoire in the same spirit of the original. Of course the lines have changed a lot; that comes with the territory he chose to work on.

As evidence I might cite Kasparov's recent appearances. He obtained a superior position in the early middlegame in nearly every encounter! If his opponents were playing offbeat blitz stuff, that only increases the resemblance between his case and how a booked player might profit in an amateur tournament.

Not that I am advocating extensive deep opening study--I think other means of improvement are more profitable for ordinary mortals--but the arguments behind Schandorff's book still present a valid point of view. Negi's work is too in-depth, but if you could truncate the lines at the point where your opponents won't often know them, it might be seen as a modern 1.e4 version of Schandorff. 

Well, Lars Schandorff has two Playing d4 books, one for the QG and the other for the indian defences.

Scarblac wrote on 10/02/19 at 12:36:07:



A tentative reply from a Grand Patzer:

- Some early Nf3, h3, Be3 line against King's Indian
- f4 and Bb5+ against the Benoni (Taimanov variation)
- 3.Nf3 d5 vs. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6, with perhaps 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 b6 to follow.

- early Be3 (without Nf3) in the exchange Grunfeld, or maybe some early h4 line
- g3/Bg2 and 12.a4 against the Benko
- The Exchange QGD with or without Nge2
- some early e3 line against the Slav
- some anti-Meran line against the Semi-Slav

Just my two cents of course