Tauromachie wrote on 03/14/20 at 15:58:52:


Yes, it is out. I have it but have just skimmed it quickly. Against 8. Be2 in the Marshall, he recommends 8...Na6. He considers several replies for white: Ba3, Bc3, Ba5, Bd6, Bf8

I tend to disagree with IM Semkov's

Quote:


After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.e3 at least according to IM Bronznik and GM Scherbakov the Stonewall fully equalizes. It seems to me that in the Meran without Nc3 White has more chances to maintain an edge.

As far as I can tell there are two possible explanations for the omission of e3 lines: (i) Semkov feels he can get away with claiming that they transpose to "another opening" (the Semi-Slav) and that he is thereby justified in excluding it from a book on the Triangle; (ii) Semkov just isn't happy with black's prospects in the Slow Slav and hopes that (i) is a plausible enough alternative explanation that people will accept it. Personally I can't help suspecting both factors to be at play - though admittedly that I don't see how one could accept (ii) while rejecting (i), so I guess I'm really just endorsing (ii).
Personally my main interest in this book is for its coverage of the Marshall Gambit, as I use and recommend the Triangle move order to reach the Semi-Slav. So for me it is disappointing to see it given so little treatment, although as a counter-point I would note how refreshing it is to see the depth of coverage given to white's alternatives to 4. Nc3 after 3. Nf3 c6, which I believe have been less attention than their theoretical significance merits in the previous works of Scherbakov, Guramishvili and Krasenkow.
I have basically given up the Noteboom in favour of the Botvinnik, but I also retain some interest in that opening. From a theoretical perspective it seems to be in some sort of paradoxical dual-state: in OTB games black has a plus score, while in ICCF games white scores almost 60%; I have seen Stockfish claim assess white's advantage is less than in even the Nimzo-Indian, I have seen LC0 assess it is on a rough par with the Dutch Defence; I have some 2600+ players claim that it is objective mistake to allow it, I have seen other 2600+ players claim it is only a semi-correct opening where white shouldn't find it too hard to prove an objective advantage. At least off the top of my head I can't name any openings that still provoke such a diverse range of opinions, and for if for no other reason than that the Noteboom holds a certain appeal.
As regards winawer77's question my answer is 'no', although in the past I have been a premium member on Chess24 and therefore have seen Guramishvili's series and have taken notes on the Marshall Gambit videos. In general I would say that it does a good job condensing the lines and providing a theoretically sound repertoire. This is true of most of her series, which it is widely believed typically have heavy input from Anish Giri. The main possible exception of the mainline with 8. Be2 Na6 9. Ba5 b6 10. Qd6, where she recommends 10... bxa5!? - a tricky and interesting exchange sacrifice line, but objectively it gives white a larger advantage than the mainline with 10... Bd7. If you're interested in the series then you can check out the first of her two videos covering the Noteboom on YouTube, as well the series' introduction video.
Krasenkow's Chessbase series by contrast I have not seen. However after reading in the review on Chessbase that he recommends 8. Be2 Qxg2?! for black and that even the Chessbase reviewer found his lines unconvincing I feel pretty safe in the belief that I'm not missing out on any brilliant analysis there. (Edit: it has come to my attention that there are two reviews of this DVD on Chessbase. The review I am referring to is the one by Markus Hochgräfe, not by Paul Smith).
Not to mention that at least in the free preview video his delivery is quite possibly the most boring monotone I have ever seen. I understand that this is not an issue at all for some people but as a soon to be high school teacher I have my limits.

Jack Hughes wrote on 02/14/20 at 20:29:42:


All very good points, and definitely the reasons why I was underwhelmed at the extract and variations covered. I was very much looking forward to this book; one of the defenses that interest me the most, written by one of my favourite publishers. I had high hopes.

It still might be good, but the omission of e3 setups and simply saying ‘Play the Meran’ is puzzling. Personally, I would play ...f5 in these structures, or refer back to Kornev in any case. But still, I think it should be covered. Finally, 200 pages doesn’t seem that much, although considering Chess Stars are more densely packed than most other publishers it may be ok.

Finally, do you have the Krasenkow and Guramishvili series on this opening? If so, would you kindly share your thoughts on both?

From what he wrote, he advocates to avoid Stonewall structure at any point. That left me wondering what would he recommend against slow Slav setup (Nf3+e3)... Heading for Meran anyway with ...Nf6 does not seem so clear, having in mind Avrukh's GM Rep, also recent Grand Prix game Grischuk-Duda (iirc.) revealed that no simple transposition to standard Meran exists. A quick look at database reveals that he had no favourite answer as well.

ChessStars has some new books listed as future plans, for example

The Modern Triangle by Semko Semkov
expected in February

In his younger years Semkov has played the Triangle a lot
so he´s certainly a very competent author for this topic!?

tracke