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 120591 times)
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2795
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: 1381
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: 702
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: 1381
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: 1381
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: 1381
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
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 247
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: 1381
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
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 247
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
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #101 - 02/19/14 at 11:39:42
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 07/27/13 at 09:49:59:
As for 3...Nc6 I thought White's activity would compensate for the extra pawn islands. Though nowadays Black seems to score a huge percent in this variation - although a couple of corr games still seem like a road to rough equality, but nowadays White seems to be the one avoiding these, maybe for a reason...?



Your analysis in The Fascinating King's Gambit still holds in my opinion. But instead of 11.Ng3?, White should play 11.Qd2! intending 11...0-0 12.Qg5. When the queens are exchanged, there is not the slightest reason why Black's fewer pawn islands should be a factor. White's center may well be more important. A refutation of the King's Bishop Gambit this Black line is certainly not.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1381
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #100 - 02/19/14 at 11:25:11
Post Tools
PANFR wrote on 11/09/13 at 01:13:45:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 d6 6. Nxg4 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Nd5 Qg6 10. d3 Nb4 11. Nxc7+ Kd8 12. Nxa8 Qg3+ 13. Kd2 Qe3+ 14. Kc3 Qc5+ 15. Kd2

He mentions this position as equal, while the truth is that white is in deep trouble after 15...Rg8 (most probably losing by force). [...]

You are right. Same error in Kaissiber #32 (2008), p. 36: "12. Nc7+ Kd8 13.Nxa8 Qe3+ ist sofort Remis." After your recommendation 15...Rg8, a modern engine like Stockfish DD has no trouble finding 16.c4 Rg3 17.Ke1 Bg4 18.d4 Qc6 19.Qd2 Qxe4+ 20.Kf2 Nd3+ 21.Kg1 Ne1! 22.Kh2 Bg7! -+ and the myriad of other complex tactical variations necessary to force a win for Black.

Kaissiber #32 appeared in 2008, the engine used for the analysis was Rybka 2.3.2a, run on my old Pentium PC. Still, I think a human should indeed understand that Black is better in spite of the fact that he is a rook behind. So yes, mea culpa. Shaw has just quoted older analysis, without crediting.

A better excuse is that 12. Nxc7+ was "at least" a draw, so it was obviously worse than 12.Qf3 which I looked at in more detail. By the way: the recommended main line in Kais. 32 was Maurits Wind's idea 12. Kc3!?, a move ignored by Shaw. And, not to forget, Kaissiber #32 advised against 9. Nd5. Our choice was 9.d4!. - On p. 114 of his work John Shaw writes:

Quote:
This line [9.d4] could be dubbed the Bücker variation as the German analyst has published a lot of analysis about it. I believe the man himself called it the "Triumphlager" variation, but I can't see that catching on.

Shaw is wrong, I never proposed such a name for 9.d4. The article published in Kais. 32 was titled "Am Triumphlager des Königsgambits", using a term coined by Tartakower: he joked that Spielmann's article "Am Krankenlager des Königsgambits" would have better been titled "Triumphlager", because Spielmann presented mainly his wins with the gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PANFR
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 247
Location: Greece
Joined: 10/31/11
Gender: Male
Re: C30-C39: John Shaw: The King's Gambit
Reply #99 - 11/09/13 at 01:13:45
Post Tools
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 d6 6. Nxg4 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.
Nc3 Nc6 9. Nd5 Qg6 10. d3 Nb4 11. Nxc7+ Kd8 12. Nxa8 Qg3+ 13. Kd2 Qe3+ 14. Kc3
Qc5+ 15. Kd2

He mentions this position as equal, while the truth is that white is in deep trouble after 15...Rg8 (most probably losing by force).

Typical case of an engine misjudgement, I guess there are more like that in the book.

In any case, my most sincere respect to the author of the book, for spending so much effort and energy to such a sub-par opening.
  
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