Another resource (especially if playing as white against the Czech Defense) is the reviews posted on amazon for both of these books. Some of these reviews question the soundness of this opening for black, and offer specific lines for white. I'm not yet convinced that there is a definite refutation, but the lines offered there are probably worth looking into for anyone playing this opening, or playing against it.
I doubt it's unsound, not at the amateur level anyway
Well I had this played against me so I'm no great expert or anything but a few things pop out. One is that ...c6 prepares ...b5 which could possibly then go to ...b4, attacking White's Nc3 which is defending his e4 pawn. Very crude.
...Qa5 is also a possibility and the pin on the knight again makes ...Nxe4 a threat. Or there is ...Qc7 in support of a central thrust with ...e5
Finally Black can always play ...g6 and transpose back to the Pirc -- presumably he only does this when it's a line where ...c6 is known to be advantageous to Black. I don't know which lines those are though.
Ok, and again thanks for going out of your way to get me a screen shot of the intro to that book, I emailed it to my friend.
I got that screenshot from the amazon.com page for the book. Like many of the recently published books advertised there, you can "Look Inside" the book before deciding whether to purchase it. Often they allow access to only a few pages, but in this case you can see a surprising amount of the book. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1857446836?keywords=lakdawala&qid=1445301268&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3
PeskyGnat's post #55 links to an older book mentioning the Czech Defense. I have that book too, but I found Lakdawala's book to be more detailed, and it's presumably more up-to-date on theory.
Another resource (especially if playing as white against the Czech Defense) is the reviews posted on amazon for both of these books. Some of these reviews question the soundness of this opening for black, and offer specific lines for white. I'm not yet convinced that there is a definite refutation, but the lines offered there are probably worth looking into for anyone playing this opening, or playing against it.