Avruck and Schandorff on 1. d4

Hi all,

GMs Boris Avruck and Lars Schandorff both have repertoire books out that use 1. d4 as the starting point. Avruck aims for a Catalan, while Schandorff heads for the Queen's Gambit.

I would appreciate any feedback you might have. Personally, I like the fact that Schandorff uses lots of illustrative games in addition to theory, but that is only a style consideration.

Anything specifically? That's an awfully broad question... 😀

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
Anything specifically? That's an awfully broad question... 😀

It's broad because I don't want to limit the response. I am interested in anything anyone would want to comment on pertaining to the books.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Hi all,

GMs Boris Avruck and Lars Schandorff both have repertoire books ...

I have the two Lars Schandorff books. I's a mix and match for me.

For example, he offers f3 as a weapon against the benko. I don't like this. I don't like 2.Bg5 against the Dutch. I do like e3 against the Nimzo.

The lines are also positionally inclined, i.e. not for attacking players. The lines tend to be calm (except against the slav/semi-slav).

Originally posted by bikingviking
I have the two Lars Schandorff books. I's a mix and match for me.

For example, he offers f3 as a weapon against the benko. I don't like this. I don't like 2.Bg5 against the Dutch. I do like e3 against the Nimzo.

The lines are also positionally inclined, i.e. not for attacking players. The lines tend to be calm (except against the slav/semi-slav).

I have been using the Schandorff books here on the site for the last two months. It's still to early for me to tell much, but most of my games are OK so far. There's one where he advocates a relatively early g4 that I am paying the price for, but that's an anomaly.

I tried the Avruck books for a bit, but the move orders are a pain to sort even in CC, so OTB is a challenge I may never conquer. I also had one or two of his evaluations that I am not so sure about, after playing them and then checking with my computer to see what I did wrong after the game.

When comparing the two authors, my impression is that Avruck is "positional solid GM" and that Schandorff's work is "aggressive solid GM".

Paul I know you used to play the KIA a lot why not go for Reti (which is what I play now) if you want a change but with some similar pawn structures etc.

Other than that the catalan is worth learning but is very positional and will be talkinn years to fully get into the swing of it, as an aggressive player I tend to lose patience and get bored with it and start pressing too hard for tactics, which is a a failure of mine not the catalans.

Originally posted by plopzilla
Paul I know you used to play the KIA a lot why not go for Reti (which is what I play now) if you want a change but with some similar pawn structures etc.

Other than that the catalan is worth learning but is very positional and will be talkinn years to fully get into the swing of it, as an aggressive player I tend to lose patience and get bored with it and start pressing too hard for tactics, which is a a failure of mine not the catalans.

I think you are right on the money, because I do that already! I play a hybrid of KIA and Reti OTB, depending on what black does.

I have been attending chess classes with GM Lars Bo Hansen and his wife Jen (a WIM), and he thinks my results would improve if I switched to 1. d4.

(As an side, I highly recommend his book Foundations of Chess Strategy, which can help a player figure out what kind of a player he or she is, and what types of openings might be the best fit).

If I go with Avruck, I still have the "fianchetto crutch" to lean on, while if I go the Schandorff route I will be heading into truly new territory.

I am leaning towards Schandorff, simply because I think I need to get out of my comfort zone.