HAJS wrote on 07/28/20 at 12:01:45:

You could do worse than start with the games by early Saemisch players and work up to today. 

• Botvinnik, Geller, and Spassky were terrors with 5.f3 and their games could be inspiring today, but of course theory has moved on.
• Petrosian was already mentioned. He could be fun to look at because his interpretation will be so different from the above players.
• Balashov played the Saemisch consistently when given the chance, but he was more of a 1.e4 player so you might not find that many examples.
• Sadler is a 1.d4 player whom I associate with the Saemisch, but actually when I checked on it he split about 50/50 between 5.Nf3 and 5.f3.
• Dreev is the big modern name, a consistent 1.d4 player who consistently chooses 5.f3.
• After that, when you look at modern players it seems they play the Saemisch only sporadically. Probably there are two reasons for this, although they are related so might amount to one reason. First, the Saemisch requires white to use a particular move order, so white loses some flexibility in the opening. Second, modern players vary their openings a lot to avoid preparation. I looked at Cheparinov, Hillarp Persson, Shankland, Wojtaszek, and they all play the Saemisch only a minority of the time.
• Ding Liren has taken up the 3.f3 Anti-Grunfeld move order so this might bear watching.

As for books, EricTheRed in Reply #5 is being modest about his book. I have my eye on it. It says something that I am tempted by a book when I don't play the opening with either color.

Paddy wrote on 07/29/20 at 23:25:29:

Gallagher is a good explainer but Ward is not. Same goes for presenting critical lines. I have six books by Gallager, and more where he is co-author, and they are all really good. I have three books by Ward, including his Saemisch book, and a couple of his videos, and the best I can say about them is I didn't pay list price.

Theoretically the Saemisch is probably about the same value as the Classical. Both are slightly better for white, and in each case the engine will overestimate white's edge. But the play required from black is very different. In the Saemisch the ...f7-f5 scheme by itself is a misfire. Instead black has to hurry on the dark squares, even sacrificing a pawn if necessary, before white develops and consolidates the grip on the center. In the Classical, the ...f7-f5 scheme amounts to real counterplay, but white's development is also real. The big plus of the Saemisch is if black plays routinely, they risk getting squashed like a bug. The big minus is if black plays actively and concretely, white doesn't have so many choices and there is a risk the game will follow preparation for a long time, then fizzle out. At club level probably the plus far outweighs the minus. At master level it's the opposite. One final point is it might be hard for white to play the Saemisch for a draw. Not that white should do that ordinarily, but if all you know is the Saemisch and black is in a must-win situation in the last round, you are in for a fight. In the Classical white has more ways to "equalize".

LeeRoth wrote on 07/29/20 at 21:14:59:

I have it, but I haven't started the King's Indian chapters yet. Part 1 + Part 2 combined are large enough that I'm not trying to learn it all at once, and I've started with more solid defences like the Nimzo-Indian, the QGD and the QGA since these are the kinds of defences that sometimes bore me and could conceivably turn me away from 1.d4 altogether.

Anyway, I like what I see of these courses. The analysis looks good and up-to-date. Barrish answers questions and has promised regular updates for at least a year; both parts have been updated once so far. The detail level seems just right for me (at around 2160), but I imagine titled players would want to dig deeper.

One quibble I've had is he's sometimes a bit cavalier about lines where White sacrifices material - there's quite a bit of that in the QGA 3.e4 chapter. The sacs are objectively correct of course (I believe strong cloud engines were used), but I often find myself wanting more explanation of why I'm fine despite being a pawn or two down, and examples of how to punish Black if he tries to hold on to the material. I've even seen positions where he sums up why White is better without mentioning the material minus. But he did add some extra explanations after my queries. And maybe these worries say more about me than about the courses. 

The opposite also occurs: There are a few lines, for instance in the "Glasgow Kiss" variation of the Slav with the gambit of the b7 pawn, where Black sacrifices and gets so much activity I'm not sure I would want to play the White side in a practical game.

(An aside on materialism: An IM friend of mine accused me of being too concerned with material in my games against him. My response: "Well, usually when I'm material down against you I'm worse, and when I'm material up I'm also worse, so what can I do?!")

Stigma wrote on 07/28/20 at 15:28:27:


This is a great list.  Do you have the Barrish course and, if so, is it any good?

The title of Svetushkin's Chess Stars book, as it appears both on the cover and on the spine, is 'The Ultimate Anti-Grünfeld. A Sämisch Repertoire', so it seems that this publisher at least shared Stigma's concern that potential readers might be lost if the book's content wasn't spelled out.

Eric's book got a recent mention in a review on a book on the Benoni by Ivanisevic, where Eric had launched a novelty; that Ivanisevic thought was a novelty.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 07/29/20 at 02:08:38:

I don't disagree with a lot of the coverage being on the King's Indian, obviously.

But does it go without saying, for all potential customers? Are you seriously claiming it never happens that club players interested in the Sämisch King's Indian overlook these books because "King's Indian" isn't in the title?

I do believe they have lost a few buyers that way. And now I've pointed out right here that books titled "something Anti-Grünfeld" usually also cover the Sämisch King's Indian. Yes, you and almost everybody here knew that already - so what? I'm happy if just one person reading this learns something they didn't know.

HAJS wrote on 07/28/20 at 12:01:45:


My own book, Opening Repertoire: The Modern Samisch, is recent and has received excellent reviews.  Here is one: https://chesscafe.com/book-reviews/the-modern-samisch-by-eric-montany/

Although I mostly cover plans with the bishop going to g5 instead of e3, I cover a lot of general strategy.  There's also a lot of material concerning move orders and earlier deviations, so that a fair amount of non-Bg5 lines are covered as well, and those move order issues are not covered in other books that I'm aware of.   

Good luck with the Samisch!

TD wrote on 07/28/20 at 15:45:07:

Yes, I know. I just find it weird to cover the King's Indian in detail, which in fact these books do, and not even mention it in the title. The Grünfeld is more respected on GM level, but on amateur level (where most of the readers are) the King's Indian is clearly more common than the Grünfeld.