After working through the book I still have a very high opinion about it, maybe even more than before. Now I just want to share some more typos/mistakes/notes :

p.34 right „Schonberger - Krebs, email 2012“ : probably the white player is Kay Schönberger (/Schoenberger)

p.44 right „... when Black‘s active bishops offers him ...“ : offer

p.62 left „This been played ...“ : has

p.69 left „Black centralizes his rook and put pressure on ...“ ; puts

p.110 left „the immediate 15...gxf5 should lead to a draw in the same way“ : well, 15...gxf5?? 16.Qh5+! is probably winning for White! But this doesn’t affect the over-all evaluation

p.113 left ; the whole variation B21 is fine for Black, but if you analyse 9.Be2? (-+) and 9.Be3 (=+), you could also take a look at the chaotic 9.Kd1?! (oo/=+) which is the first choice of my SF10

p.126 right „11.Ne4!N The knight it heading...“ ; is

p.131 right „15.d5 ... 19.Ng5 Ree8 was level...“ ; 19.Nxg5

p.148 left „Blac intends ...Re8 ...“ ; Black

p.153 left „... enables Black‘s pieces to springs to life“ ; spring

p.199 right „... where my analysis shows that Black more than enough resources...“ ; has

p.203 right „... capturing it does not give White as easy game „ ; an

p.230 left „... 26.Kxd2 Despite White‘s extra pawn, the opposite-coloured bishops enabled Black to hold the draw ...“ ; that‘s a little bit misleading imo, as actual the material is equal and only three moves later White wins his extra pawn! Even if the position after 26.Kxd2 is not too complex, it might take some time and playing strengh to see that spending a pawn is the best (or even the only) way for Black to reach the draw!?

p.235 right „... even through it is currently blocked ...“ ; though

p.237 left „16.Qg3+ ... 18.Rxe6 (17.Qf4 gives Black the extra option of ... 17...Bg4!? ...“ ; if you want to make some sense out of this, read 18.Qg3+ (for 17.Qf4) and 18... Bg4!? (for 17... Bg4!?)

p.265 left In the coverage of the Modern Defence to the King‘s Gambit I miss the Declined Falkbeer 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3

p.271 right „This is the only key move to know. 9.Kd2 So far ...“ ; Obviously 9.Qd2 was the move played in Hector-Smith 2017

p.293f „15.Qf2 Ne7! With an extra pawn and the knight heading for the perfect g5-square, ...“ ; certainly the Ne7 heads for f5 or g6

p.302 left „3.Nc3 would of course lead back to variation C of the previous Chapter 1.“ ; Chapter 15

p.305 <-> p.307:  7.Nbd2 0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Re1 Re8 and 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 Qc7! (Re8?!) lead to the same position but get different evaluations/suggestions, probably the second suggestion is better

* * *

I didn‘t look as deep in Kravtsiv‘s books (Italian Renaissance 1&2), there I just counterchecked Swapnil‘s Petroff lines and noticed one little typo/mistake (Vol.1, p.157 left):
17...Bd7! 18.Nd4 b5! 19.Qd6 Ra6 20.Qe7 Qxe7=
That’s nonsense cause of 19.Qd6?! Ra6?? 20.Qxa6 +-
Obviously meant is 18.Nd4 b5 or 18.Qd6 Ra6 19.Qe7 Qxe7=

tracke 

I probably did not explain myself very well. Obviously, lots of shocking moves are so because they are bad. Nc6 is not bad, which makes it even more shocking in my eyes. I play it for two reasons: aesthetic (a beautiful and sound move) and because it allows me to play 4 dxe5 Bc5 without being afraid of 4 Bd3 d5 5 dxe5. The story about my opponent being shellshocked was just an illustration. It's not my main goal to shock my opponents or to make them uncomfortable.

That's true, but the reasons for playing 4...Nc6 don't have to be psychological. It's a sound alternative to 4...d5 that doesn't give White the ability to make a draw immediately.

fjd wrote on 07/27/20 at 01:28:36:

I think for that move alone it is worth taking up the Petroff. I've only had it on the table OTB once, but my opponent was completely shellshocked. I lost later because I'm bad at chess, but the look on his face was priceless.

It also means that one can play 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 Nxe4 4 dxe5 Bc5 as Lakdawala recommends. It mostly ends in perpetual but at least it's fun.


MNb wrote on 04/21/20 at 11:29:47:

Wow that's awesome, never heard of this line

fjd wrote on 07/27/20 at 08:17:29:


It does indeed....I should of had a closer look...sorry!

fjd wrote on 07/27/20 at 01:28:36:


5 Bxe4 perhaps..

TopNotch wrote on 04/18/20 at 23:41:20:


tracke wrote on 07/17/20 at 21:38:58:


In a similar vein, on the Quality Chess blog "JB" says Dhopade's repertoire allows white to force a perpetual at move 6. http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/7441#comment-458104

I think the line in question is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd3 d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxf7.

Is the Petroff really only suitable for match play, correspondence play, or the last round of a swiss? I would not always object to a draw against a slightly weaker white, but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it. And if white is substantially weaker, I would feel obliged to vary from a forced perpetual. Move two seems like a good moment.

I came to that conclusion a long time ago, but it didn't stop me from posting this nonsense:
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 04/19/20 at 03:05:17:

The correct thing to do is, after having weighed up all the pros and cons in the decision-making process, to write down the reasons why I decided the way I did. Then I won't have to keep repeating the question endlessly for 20 years.

errata 1 (not really important):
p.22: 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Nxe5 d6 5.Nf3 d5 doesn’t transpose to Chapter 6 (5.d3) but to Chapters 8-10 (5.d4).

Btw, from the preface: „Carlsen only played 1.e4 in two of the twelve classical games of the match, [...]“
That’s not explicitly wrong but maybe misleading, of course Carlsen had only six classical games as White.

tracke