there are whole books written about 1.d4 c5. this alone puts the rigorous claim that 1....c5 would be a 'mistake', in doubt.
Hardly. I take no position on 1.d4 c5, whether it's good, bad, ugly, refuted, or sound. But whole books being written about something in chess reflects absolutely nothing about the topic. It just means someone needed a payday.
what does refuted mean anyway?
Email this to Carlsen before its too late.
all ready did.
email my opening and its variations to Magnus Carlsen...
I think this is the "Dzinzi Indian defence.
So it would seem:
http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/10/jan12.htm
The original Dzhindzhi Indian was
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 a6 4 Nc3 c5 5 d5 b5
bvump
bvump
there are whole books written about 1.d4 c5. this alone puts the rigorous claim that 1....c5 would be a 'mistake', in doubt.
Hardly. I take no position on 1.d4 c5, whether it's good, bad, ugly, refuted, or sound. But whole books being written about something in chess reflects absolutely nothing about the topic. It just means someone needed a payday.
Yep. I didn't need to search a source very far : http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Sicilian-With-Repertoire-Books/dp/9548782375
""""
Only costs $117 per copy. USED!
bump
Bump
Why do you keep bumping this dumbass topic?