It possibly stems from the poor review John gave to Jacob's publishing house for their 'My System'. (which BTW I think is good.).

Jacob and John actually shared a hotel room together in Berlin 1997 and got along just fine. By all account they fell out years later due to a misunderstanding over a review.

More here which throws some light on the matter plus Jacob and Jeremy crossing swords with each other.

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/...

Maybe Jacob said he was thinking of writing a book called 'Chess Strategy in Action' and John said he was thinking of writing a book called 'The Attacking Manuel' and they nicked each other's idea!

Hi perfidious:,

I saw that too. Ouch!

http://www.colorado-chess.com/Histo...

He tries to feature d4, c4, Nc3 in as many lines as possible, while trying to stick to more strategic lines that don't require tons of memorization. Thus in the QGD he recommends 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5, which is a heavy-duty strategic line that scores very well for White. Makes sense.

Against 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 he consistently recommends 3.Nc3, which means White is going to see one Nimzoindian after another -- check any database, or just play in a few tournaments. The Nimzo scores pretty well for Black. But after all, no (honest) author can promise huge advantages in every line.

He recommends 4.e3 as you'd expect, but after 4....0-0 (again, you're going to see this over and over) he recommends 5.Ne2. And this is where it gets a little problematic. Games typically continue 5....d5 6.a3 Be7 (or 5....Re8 6.a3 Bf8). It would be great if Black played into White's hands with ...Bxc3+, but that's not going to happen very often. And if you check the positions after ...Be7 or ...Bf8 in the database, you see that White isn't scoring even 50%.

That's not too surprising if you consider an old-style (as in the 1880s or so) QGD after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 Be7.

click for larger view

Neither side is looking to set the board on fire, but this is perfectly respectable -- it's come up nearly 1,000 times in the cg database. But what moves would you never expect to see here? Well, 5.Nge2 has got to be on the list, right? You're putting your knight on an inferior square and blocking your bishop in the bargain. And sure enough, in over 900 games, there isn't a single example of 5.Nge2.

Now go back to the Nimzo line -- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Ne2 d5 6.a3 Be7, White's done exactly what he'd never do in the QGD -- stick his knight on that lousy e2 square. His compensation is that he's gained a tempo, because Black has moved his bishop twice. But where is that extra tempo, exactly? In the move a2-a3. Which isn't completely useless, but close. If you told white he could give the tempo back by retracting the a-pawn but in exchange he could put the knight on f3 instead of e2, he'd take that deal every time.

Watson clearly recognizes that the line isn't very good; after 5.Ne2 he writes <A tip: it may be that you'll eventually want to construct an alternative repertoire with 5.Bd3.> You don't say!

There's a similar story after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5. He recommends the dull and poorly-scoring 5.cxd5, but then notes that White might be better off with 5.a3, which leads to a relatively favorable Saemisch if Black takes the bishop, and if he retreats White hasn't misplaced his KN.

The QGD Exchange was long a favourite, and a sound basis for a player looking to improve; played it from the time I was 1600 through master level.

Think the idea of "strategic" with having a rep book useful for mid -level players kind of handcuffs him from getting too far away from the basic gist. Being "strategic" equals having minor to no structural weaknesses while still holding an advantage. Though maybe a slim one.

The Ne2 Nimzo response being a good example. But Watson should get props for at least mentioning other possibilities that may provide more advantage at some cost.

I still have an old copy of...