Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit (Read 206701 times)
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 868
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #116 - 02/22/14 at 21:28:35
Post Tools
This book recommends, I think, the idea of 3. .. Nc6 against the Kings Bishop Gambit of 3. Bc4. Presumably after 4. Nf3, you go back into normal territory with 4. .. g5.

But staying in the King Bishop territory with 4. .. Nf6 also has to be possible, as in a County match game earlier today. After 5. Nc3, I'm not sure what Black's next move should be. In the event I punted 5. .. d5 and after 6 exd5, a Two Knights lookalike with 6. .. Na5. The subsequent play appears to be original. White made a temporary sacrifice with 7. 0-0, so Black chopped it off 7. .. Nxc4. Then 8. Qe2+ is met by a desperado 8. .. Ne3 to block the e file for a moment. White takes it 9. dxe3 and Black develops the Bishop with a pin 9. .. Bc5. White then plays the check 10. Qb5 which forces 10. .. Nd7. White unpinned with 11. Kh1, whereupon Black has to take on e3 with the Bishop. 11. .. Bxe3 12.Bxe3 fxe3 13. Rae1. Now finally 13. .. 0-0 14. Rxe3 Nf6. I though at the time this was slightly better for White on development and activity grounds. The game as a contest now ended abruptly as White blundered with 15. Ng5 which allows 15. .. Ng4 winning material. The clever-looking 16. Nxf7 doesn't work because of 16. .. Nxe3 17 Nxd8 Rxf1+


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #115 - 02/21/14 at 08:17:36
Post Tools
Pale Horse, Pale Rider wrote on 02/20/14 at 22:44:47:
So I guess the conclusion is that either the author/editor didn't know all this, or chose to ignore it. In both cases it's not exactly good advertisement for QC. I guess the number of novelties is marketing feature too tempting too resist.

"Didn't know all this" seems unlikely, because several books that give 5.Qe2 are listed in the bibliography of King's Gambit. There are more examples like this one, a lot more. How many of those N signs are "true"? Hard to say. The N matter is complicated, some ideas in KG seem actually new, but don't have the N.

Hans Ree has written an article in NIC Magazine 6 (2013) p. 102-105, about his own love to the King's Gambit, refering to Shaw's book, calling the work "impressive". Ree's piece is full of personal and historical musings about the gambit. It gives a hint how rich the history of this opening is. It is a pity that Quality Chess has chosen to focus on the N side of the opening, badly ignoring the O (for Oldie) aspect. 

You have written "author/editor". It would indeed be interesting to know how much of the book is pure Shaw and how much editing there was by Jacob Aagaard. The phrase "technically, this is not a novelty" turns up in older books from Quality Chess, before the era Shaw. So I'd suspect that it comes from Aagaard.

By the way, Aagaard has contributed one of his games plus a very detailed analysis on pp. 291-295 (excellent work, imo). But you can't be sure that this is his only contribution. There is occasional material in other QC books with the Aagaard sound.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 287
Joined: 12/26/12
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #114 - 02/20/14 at 22:44:47
Post Tools
So I guess the conclusion is that either the author/editor didn't know all this, or chose to ignore it. In both cases it's not exactly good advertisement for QC. I guess the number of novelties is marketing feature too tempting too resist.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #113 - 02/20/14 at 19:45:31
Post Tools
It seems Quality Chess is really stretching their use of the 'N' symbol in some cases. Disappointing, and a case of false marketing since they can then claim their books contain that many more novelties.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #112 - 02/20/14 at 17:21:45
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:46:26:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:15:13:
But I can't claim that I fully understand the Chess Informant logic. Neither do I understand what the N stands for when John Shaw or Jacob Aagaard are using it. Quality Chess books contain sentences like "Technically this is not a novelty, but..." So it seems that there are cases when a move isn't new, but Quality Chess doesn't care and puts an N behind the move, because - well, I have no idea. When you know earlier sources which have given a move, why can't you just credit the earlier author? Wouldn't this be the honest thing to do?

I'd have to see the particular instance to which you refer, but sometimes this language means that the move has been played by a (relatively) weak player who didn't follow it up correctly, so the move has been played before, but the idea behind it is new. I do think that it is stretching things to still call that move a novelty in that sort of case.


Okay, so let me give you an example.
Shaw: The King's Gambit, p. 427, right column:

Quote:
4...d6.
This logical move has only been played in a couple of games, including Kulaots - Kiltti, Vantaa 1996. White's best reply looks to be:
5.Qe2!N
Technically a novelty, although it has been considered by a few commentators.


The move 5. Qe2 has been played before, and not by some patzers: Bronstein - Drozdov, Riga 1986.

However, the move 5.Qe2 has a much older history. Let's see the tournament book Vienna 1903, p.65:



So Carl Schlechter credits 5.Qe2 to Simon Alapin, giving the move two exclamation marks. It wouldn't be fair to say that the move has merely been "considered", as Shaw puts it. No, the move has been clearly recommended, no doubt about it, by Alapin and Carl Schlechter. This comment had also appeared in Deutsche Schachzeitung (since Carl Schlechter was editing the DSZ). The idea 5.Qe2 is also getting "!!" in Wiener Schachzeitung 1904, p. 236. Would you call this merely "considered"?

In WSZ 1904, p. 84, there is more analysis of 5.Qe2 by Alapin. Who else did mention the move 5.Qe2? Rudolf Spielmann in the 8th edition of the Handbuch ("Bilguer"), Euwe, Keres, Korchnoi/Zak, older editions of ECO C, Estrin/Glazkov, Gallagher, Soltis, Raingruber/Maser, Bangiev, Johansson, Reinderman 2006, Kalinichenko. Many of these authors are putting an exclamation mark after 5.Qe2.

Many thanks to Henk Smout for researching the case.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 287
Joined: 12/26/12
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #111 - 02/20/14 at 16:23:57
Post Tools
dfan wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:46:26:
I'd have to see the particular instance to which you refer, but sometimes this language means that the move has been played by a (relatively) weak player who didn't follow it up correctly, so the move has been played before, but the idea behind it is new. I do think that it is stretching things to still call that move a novelty in that sort of case.

I think in this case the new move following the rare move should be labelled 'novelty' ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #110 - 02/20/14 at 14:46:26
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:15:13:
But I can't claim that I fully understand the Chess Informant logic. Neither do I understand what the N stands for when John Shaw or Jacob Aagaard are using it. Quality Chess books contain sentences like "Technically this is not a novelty, but..." So it seems that there are cases when a move isn't new, but Quality Chess doesn't care and puts an N behind the move, because - well, I have no idea. When you know earlier sources which have given a move, why can't you just credit the earlier author? Wouldn't this be the honest thing to do?

I'd have to see the particular instance to which you refer, but sometimes this language means that the move has been played by a (relatively) weak player who didn't follow it up correctly, so the move has been played before, but the idea behind it is new. I do think that it is stretching things to still call that move a novelty in that sort of case.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #109 - 02/20/14 at 14:15:13
Post Tools
Pale Horse, Pale Rider wrote on 02/20/14 at 12:10:07:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/20/14 at 10:49:29:
By the way - I wonder: who invented the N sign in opening books? Doesn't it basically have the same meaning as Oskar Cordel's sign * used in his Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)? The German theoretician defined the new sign on p. xi of the work as follows:


This surely doesn't clear up the matter, but the * is nowadays being used in the pgn-files meaning 'unfinished game' instead of a result (1-0 etc), so i guess it can't be used in this context anymore. I always thought that TN and N meant the same thing: a new move that cannot be found in databases but I might be terribly wrong. Maybe the T underlining that the new move is of (possible) theoretical relevance and not just bad but new move in a given situation.

Yes, this would be a possible interpretation: N for new move, a move not published before, TN for a N accepted as strong by the editorial staff. - But I suspect that Chess Informant had to reconsider their practice when the ECO series started. They had probably intented that in later Informants an N should only be used for moves not before considered in ECO volumes. Following this logic, the early ECO C had no use for "N" anymore. But in later editions the N sign made a reappearance. Apparently the N was too useful.

But I can't claim that I fully understand the Chess Informant logic. Neither do I understand what the N stands for when John Shaw or Jacob Aagaard are using it. Quality Chess books contain sentences like "Technically this is not a novelty, but..." So it seems that there are cases when a move isn't new, but Quality Chess doesn't care and puts an N behind the move, because - well, I have no idea. When you know earlier sources which have given a move, why can't you just credit the earlier author? Wouldn't this be the honest thing to do?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 287
Joined: 12/26/12
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #108 - 02/20/14 at 12:10:07
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/20/14 at 10:49:29:
By the way - I wonder: who invented the N sign in opening books? Doesn't it basically have the same meaning as Oskar Cordel's sign * used in his Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)? The German theoretician defined the new sign on p. xi of the work as follows:


This surely doesn't clear up the matter, but the * is nowadays being used in the pgn-files meaning 'unfinished game' instead of a result (1-0 etc), so i guess it can't be used in this context anymore. I always thought that TN and N meant the same thing: a new move that cannot be found in databases but I might be terribly wrong. Maybe the T underlining that the new move is of (possible) theoretical relevance and not just bad but new move in a given situation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #107 - 02/20/14 at 10:49:29
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 02/19/14 at 16:30:00:
I'll have a look at your 11.Qd2N in a few days.

By the way - I wonder: who invented the N sign in opening books? Doesn't it basically have the same meaning as Oskar Cordel's sign * used in his Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)? The German theoretician defined the new sign on p. xi of the work as follows:

Quote:
Die von mir angegebenen oder empfohlenen Züge sind mit * bezeichnet. Zuweilen giebt diese Marke lediglich an, von wo ab meine Bearbeitung einer Wendung beginnt.

On second thought, does his * sign really mean the same as the N sign which we see in more recent works? By his definition, Cordel is using the * sign only for moves suggested and recommended by him - moves that haven't appeared in earlier sources. He might as well have used the N sign, as a shorthand for "Neuerung / novelty", because this is exactly what he claims.

Chess Informant has had various definitions of the N symbol. In volume 10 there are even two symbols:
TN "a theoretical novelty / Theoretische Neuerung"
N "Novelty / Die Neuerung". - I can't tell the difference between the two. 

In vol. 11 N is defined as "A novelty / Die Neuerung". In later volumes, the TN has gone. Now it is just N "a novelty / eine Neuerung". I've also seen (where?) N defined as "novelty in the system of Chess Informant", or something similar. A definition that makes it possible to say "1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 Ne4N".  Cry

John Shaw gives no definition of "N" in his The King's Gambit at all. How many N moves in this work may be actual novelties?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #106 - 02/19/14 at 16:53:44
Post Tools
PANFR wrote on 02/19/14 at 12:14:23:
No, factly he doesn't mention the move at all.
I had a brief look at 9.d4 sometime ago, and I concluded that it' equal- but I did not attempt any serious analysis, and the existing games on it (I have 25 of them, mostly from correspondence chess, although with little involvement of really good correspondence players) suggest that a draw is the most likely outcome.
If interested, I can give you the related games- mostly ICCF/ IECG/LSS stuff from average. or less than average engine users.

Thanks. Yes, I'd be interested in those corr-games. Please e-mail me a pgn file, if possible (redaktion@kaissiber.de). - I agree that White doesn't have much. But the result in Kaissiber tells us that there are many options for White, which can be tried and explored over the board. For example 9.Nd5 Qg6 10.d3 Qg3+ 11.Kd2 Nb4 12.Kc3 (Maurits Wind). In corr chess it will probably lead to a draw, but not more. And Black can certainly go wrong. So this opening looks very much like any other opening.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #105 - 02/19/14 at 16:30:00
Post Tools
Thanks Stefan! I'll have a look at your 11.Qd2N in a few days.

Nice to see some new ideas for White at last! Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PANFR
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 256
Location: Greece
Joined: 10/31/11
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #104 - 02/19/14 at 12:14:23
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/19/14 at 11:57:01:
PANFR wrote on 02/19/14 at 11:52:43:
I was not aware of the Kaissiber article, since I have never subscribed to it- I just have quite a few of your books/ pamphlets published in the 80s-90s, when I was playing more regularly.
I noticed this flaw when reading Sakaev's Petroff book, dealing with the same variation, and also concluding that the position is a forced draw- apparently wrongly.
Yet, the mainline in Sakaev's book is equal, although Black has all the fun there is in the position (IMHO not much, just a very,very slight positional edge, which is extremely hard to materialize).

Thanks for the hint, so it seems I have to buy the Sakaev book. Does he cover the strongest move 9.d4? This is a line where I'd really prefer to be White.


No, factly he doesn't mention the move at all.
I had a brief look at 9.d4 sometime ago, and I concluded that it' equal- but I did not attempt any serious analysis, and the existing games on it (I have 25 of them, mostly from correspondence chess, although with little involvement of really good correspondence players) suggest that a draw is the most likely outcome.
If interested, I can give you the related games- mostly ICCF/ IECG/LSS stuff from average. or less than average engine users.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #103 - 02/19/14 at 11:57:01
Post Tools
PANFR wrote on 02/19/14 at 11:52:43:
I was not aware of the Kaissiber article, since I have never subscribed to it- I just have quite a few of your books/ pamphlets published in the 80s-90s, when I was playing more regularly.
I noticed this flaw when reading Sakaev's Petroff book, dealing with the same variation, and also concluding that the position is a forced draw- apparently wrongly.
Yet, the mainline in Sakaev's book is equal, although Black has all the fun there is in the position (IMHO not much, just a very,very slight positional edge, which is extremely hard to materialize).

Thanks for the hint, so it seems I have to buy the Sakaev book. Does he cover the strongest move 9.d4? This is a line where I'd really prefer to be White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PANFR
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 256
Location: Greece
Joined: 10/31/11
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #102 - 02/19/14 at 11:52:43
Post Tools
I was not aware of the Kaissiber article, since I have never subscribed to it- I just have quite a few of your books/ pamphlets published in the 80s-90s, when I was playing more regularly.
I noticed this flaw when reading Sakaev's Petroff book, dealing with the same variation, and also concluding that the position is a forced draw- apparently wrongly.
Yet, the mainline in Sakaev's book is equal, although Black has all the fun there is in the position (IMHO not much, just a very,very slight positional edge, which is extremely hard to materialize).
Regarding the Bishop's gambit, I am still quite satisfied as Black with 3...d5! - also equal, but Black has all the fun (again).
The Nc3 lines in Shaw's book are very interesting, but they are also borderline refutable- which means I have not found any refutation, but I do think Black should have something against them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo