What do you think?
The Chebanenko Slav According to Bologan: A Popular Chess Opening Explained by a Top Player
Chebanenko's move 4...a6 in the Slav Defence has grown into one of the main systems for Black. It is an extremely flexible and almost universal weapon against the Queen's Gambit. The Chebanenko Slav is very popular among top chess players such s Victor Bologan, the author of the book, and Alexi Shirov. Club and internet players like it because it offers Black solidity and active counterplay in all lines. Victor Bologan is a world-class chess player, writes in a very accessible style and has included many tips, tests and tools.
238 pages, Paperback
First published June 15, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
July 4, 2011I've just been playing a game on the internet and it was this set up and I won. But. Fucketty fuck fuck. I was white, damn it.
The thought that strikes me, having finished the introduction of this book, which is a cross between an overview of the defence and a tribute to Chebanenko, is how much there is in it about belief. Those who set off to play it and don't believe and lose. Those who do believe and win. The ones who feel invincible because of the new pen scratches in their exercise book, the latter being state of the art equipment in the key period of the development of the CS.
There are those, I think, who see belief and knowledge as going in a particular order. One establishes truth through knowledge and then comes belief.
This was something I was forced to abandon as a bridge player because it is impossible to demonstrate truth. Only odds that something is likely to be. Or worse, not even odds. It was a big breakthrough in my education to understand that often things are the other way around. Believe. And from belief will come knowledge.
I know for a fact this is true in bridge and it is quite an amazing experience to go through. You have to relinquish control. You have to accept that something is right to do, not because you understand, but because you are told it is so. Eventually, having thrown your own paltry understanding of truth out the window in favour of this process of belief in the teachings of another, you begin to rediscover truth and it is a far greater thing than it ever would have been had you not gone through this process.
Many times in my life I've wondered if I could, like lots of others do, after all, take this approach to God and Christianity. I don't seek it and I don't expect ever to go through such an experience, but still, is it so different? From learning not to shift in defence in bridge; from learning to play the Chebanenko with trust? How do I know that if I was not more open hearted to the ideas, embrace them with belief and not knowledge, that knowledge would not come?
I guess that's a digression I wasn't expecting to make. The main point I wanted to make here, is that in chess, even though it is demonstrable in a way bridge isn't, belief without firm proof is important. From belief comes knowledge. From belief comes enlightenment. I know that happens in bridge. For me, coming back to chess after a very long spell away from it, I am suddenly full of hope that this understanding I have about belief now will pay dividends.
You can't begin to imagine the stubbornness with which I clung to the idea that stopped my progress in bridge: the idea that knowledge comes first. When I teach now, the most fantastic experience I can have is to have a student who is open to this way of learning. Belief. Understanding. Enlightenment.
The thought that strikes me, having finished the introduction of this book, which is a cross between an overview of the defence and a tribute to Chebanenko, is how much there is in it about belief. Those who set off to play it and don't believe and lose. Those who do believe and win. The ones who feel invincible because of the new pen scratches in their exercise book, the latter being state of the art equipment in the key period of the development of the CS.
There are those, I think, who see belief and knowledge as going in a particular order. One establishes truth through knowledge and then comes belief.
This was something I was forced to abandon as a bridge player because it is impossible to demonstrate truth. Only odds that something is likely to be. Or worse, not even odds. It was a big breakthrough in my education to understand that often things are the other way around. Believe. And from belief will come knowledge.
I know for a fact this is true in bridge and it is quite an amazing experience to go through. You have to relinquish control. You have to accept that something is right to do, not because you understand, but because you are told it is so. Eventually, having thrown your own paltry understanding of truth out the window in favour of this process of belief in the teachings of another, you begin to rediscover truth and it is a far greater thing than it ever would have been had you not gone through this process.
Many times in my life I've wondered if I could, like lots of others do, after all, take this approach to God and Christianity. I don't seek it and I don't expect ever to go through such an experience, but still, is it so different? From learning not to shift in defence in bridge; from learning to play the Chebanenko with trust? How do I know that if I was not more open hearted to the ideas, embrace them with belief and not knowledge, that knowledge would not come?
I guess that's a digression I wasn't expecting to make. The main point I wanted to make here, is that in chess, even though it is demonstrable in a way bridge isn't, belief without firm proof is important. From belief comes knowledge. From belief comes enlightenment. I know that happens in bridge. For me, coming back to chess after a very long spell away from it, I am suddenly full of hope that this understanding I have about belief now will pay dividends.
You can't begin to imagine the stubbornness with which I clung to the idea that stopped my progress in bridge: the idea that knowledge comes first. When I teach now, the most fantastic experience I can have is to have a student who is open to this way of learning. Belief. Understanding. Enlightenment.
Want to Read
June 18, 2011Gotta have another defense to 1. d4 - notgettingenough and I are interviewing candidates.
Hello, Mr Chebanenko Slav, we liked your letter. Please tell us more about yourself. What do you think you could bring to the job? Ah, I see, solid and reliable. That sounds good. And "counterattacking chances" is also a plus. You've worked with top Grandmasters too? Excellent!
Now, if you can just send us a full CV, we'll be able to proceed to the next round...
Hello, Mr Chebanenko Slav, we liked your letter. Please tell us more about yourself. What do you think you could bring to the job? Ah, I see, solid and reliable. That sounds good. And "counterattacking chances" is also a plus. You've worked with top Grandmasters too? Excellent!
Now, if you can just send us a full CV, we'll be able to proceed to the next round...
November 3, 2016
Excellent and in-depth analysis, with a good number of illustrative games. The only thing is — you really need to own this book as a reference if you play this opening regularly in tournament chess because it's really hard to remember the lines otherwise. This is probably true of any opening book though.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews