I thought he argued the QGA was move ordered.

The second volume (Ragozin, Vienna, Chebanenko, Tarrasch, Schara-Hennig, QGD 3…a6 or 3…Bb4)
is now announced for January 15th.

There‘s an interesting pdf sample (15 pages) at http://chess-stars.com/index.html -> Future Plans .

tracke

Thanks MNb.

This might be the first opening book that I've bought in a while (I haven't played anything other than internet blitz for years), because the lines look very similar to the repertoire that I've sort of cobbled together on my own.  The excerpt looks good, too.

I'm curious what the big problem with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.g3 g6! (Georgiev's mark) is.

If you are interested in these Slav / Catalan gambits of the c4-pawn, there's also an interesting chapter Catalan Sacrifices in Ivan Sokolov's book Chess Middlegame Strategies Vol. 2 (Thinkers Publishing 2018; https://www.schachversand.de/chess-middlegame-strategies-vol-2.html). 40 pages filled with deep analysis of the Knight Sacrifice on f7 and the Pawn Chain Break with the b2-b3 Push.

tracke wrote on 04/11/21 at 11:25:31:

A couple of days ago I bought this book and I must say I am deeply disappointed by it. In fact, the book is so bad that I had to think of the most famous hatchet job ever done on a chess book: Asked by Kingpin to review Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings, Tony Miles' entire review was: "Utter crap".

For once, as tracke has already mentioned, the book only deals with the King's Indian, the Grünfeld, the Benoni, the Slav and the Catalan. There is nothing on the Nimzo Indian (or, alternatively, on the Queen's Indian or the Bogo Indian), the Dutch, the Queen's Gambit Accepted and the Benko. And also nothing about minor options such as 1.d4 d6, 1.d4 g6, 1.d4 e6 or 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6. So the repertoire presented in the book is far from being a complete 1.d4 repertoire (in contrast to what GM Jozsef Horvath tells us in his preface).

Nevertheless, readers might be interested in what the author has to say about the five openings mentioned. For each of these openings, the book has a short introduction, a couple of model games, a theoretical section, a section on typical tactics, a couple of unannotated games for homework, and concluding tips. And there is a separate chapter on frequent endgame types reached from these openings. (Oh. Did I say openings? Plural? Well, see below.)

I think that, in principle, this structure can be quite useful for studying a new opening. But one thing I find strange. Each chapter starts with the analysis of a couple of "example games" played with the respective opening. Yet these games have nothing in common with the actual repertoire that's recommended. For example, against the King's Indian the author recommends the Petrosian System: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5. However, the chapter on the King's Indian begins with the analysis of a game with the Four-Pawns Attack, followed by two games with the Mar-del-Plata Variation, and one game with an early …Nbd7.

In fact, the author says: "Before we start to work on the theory of the King's Indian Defense, I would like to show you four example games. Please note that we are not going to play the same line as White, but I still think it is necessary to have a basic knowledge of typical ideas, plans and maneuvers."

Maybe it's just me, but I think it would have been more useful "to have a basic knowledge of typical ideas, plans and maneuvers" that are related to the recommended repertoire. On the other hand, if the author wanted to give a tour d'horizon on the King's Indian, perhaps he should also have included games with the Sämisch, the Fianchetto, the Averbakh, the Exchange Variation… you name it.

Moreover, the game with the Four-Pawns Attack is the encounter Letelier-Fischer 1960. Certainly a famous game, but it is rather atypical for the Four-Pawns Attack.   

After these "example games" there follows a theoretical section on the opening. Then, a few games are given and analysed in which the recommended variation was actually played. In case of the King's Indian, these are four games with Petrosian himself as White.

So far, so good (or bad). One could argue both for and against the approach taken by the author.

However, when it comes to the actual analysis, I must say I was rather shocked by how bad it is. I don't know which engine the author has used to check the lines. Fritz 1 perhaps? Often it appears he has used no engine at all. The pages of the theoretical sections are strewn with gross errors.

A few examples:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 Nbd7 8.Be3 Ng4 9.Lg5 f6 10.Bd2 f5 11.exf5 Nc5 12.fxg6?! ['??' would be more appropriate] 12…e4 13.gxh7 Kh8 with compensation for the material. [In fact, the position is completely winning for Black – according to Stockfish 13, that is.]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.d5 a5 8.Lg5 h6 9.Le3 Ng4 10.Bd2 f5 11.h3 Nf6 12.exf5 gxf5 13.Qc1 f4 14.g3 e4 15.Nh4 e3 (15…f3 16.Bd1 Na6 17.Bc2 [instead, 17.Bxh6 almost wins]) 16.fxe3 fxg3 17.Ng6 g2 18.Rg1 Bxh3 19.Nxf8 Qxf8 20.Qc2
a) 20…Ng4 21.0-0-0 Nf2 22.Qg6 Na6 23.Be1 Nxd1 24.Nxd1 Nc5 [instead, 24…Qf5 is unclear] 25.Bc3 Qf7 [25…Rd8 is the only move] 26.Qg3+-
b) 20…Nbd7 21.Qg6 Ng4 22.0-0-0 Nde5 23.Qh5 Nf2 24.Be1 Nfd3+ [much better is 24…Nxd1, leading to unclear play] 25.Kb1 [instead, 25.Rxd3 wins on the spot] 25…Bf5 26.Ka1±

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Nbd2 c5 (6…c6 7.0-0 b6 8.Qc2 Bb7 9.e4 Na6 10.e5 Ne8 [No alternative is given. This is not a grave analytical mistake, but the author is not being honest here. The position after 10.e5 has been reached in 120 games (MegaBase 2021), and in 116 of them Black played 10…Nd7, equalizing in games such as Karpov-Tal 1987 and Giri-Carlsen 2020. Instead, the apparently slightly inferior 10…Ne8 was played in only 2 games. – What is this? Wishful thinking by the author?] 11.a3+=) 7.cxd5 exd5 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.Nfd4. A pleasant position playing against the IQP. [I beg to disagree. As both white knights dispute the d4-square, this set-up is far from ideal for White: one of the knights is 'superfluous'.] 11…Re8 [after 11…h6! it is Black who is slightly better] 12.Be3 Rxe3 13.fxe3 Qe7 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.Rxf6 Qxf6 16.Bxd5. [This] keeps an extra pawn for White. [Yes, but after 16…Bh3 White is in dire straits.]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 0-0 6.Ngf3 dxc4 7.0-0 b5 8.a4 c6 9.axb5 cxb5 10.Ng5 Nd5 11.e4 Nc7 12.Nxh7 Kxh7 13.e5 Rh8 14.Bxa8 Nxa8 15.Ne4 [instead, 15.Rxa7 is the only move] 15...Bb7 [15…a6 wins for Black] 16.Qf3 Qd7 17.Rxa7 Nc6 18.Rxb7 Qxb7 19.Nf6+ gxf6 20.exf6 Rd8 [both 20…Nb6 and 20…Nc7 keep the balance] 21.Re1!! +-

Really, I have no idea how this could get published in our time and day. Of course I am just a patzer with a pentium. But still. The book is called a "bible", suggesting you can trust it. Well, you can’t.

Then, in the chapter "frequent endgame types", 10 endgames are analysed. All (!) of them arose from the King's Indian, mostly in the Averbakh (!) Variation. Some of these resemble endgames arising from the Benoni, but that's how far it goes. There are no genuine Benoni, no Grünfeld, no Slav, and no Catalan endgames. Make sense who may…

Finally, there is no index of opening variations. Why am I not surprised?

It looks like I must have that book. In a sense the proposed lines are a mirror image of the irrational lines of the King's Gambit. That romantic opening has become teethless (5...Qe7 against the Kieseritzky, 4...Nc6 5.g3 d6 7.d4 Bg7 against the Quaade). So it would be nice to play the QG in KG style!