Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled? (Read 33399 times)
IM_Serious
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 06/04/16
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #65 - 06/06/16 at 08:11:57
Post Tools
1) World Champions Play the King's Gambit
2) Why Not the King's Knight Gambit?
3) The Scary Queen Check with ...d5
4) The Scary Queen Check without ...d5
5) The Bogo Tabiya and how it may be avoided
6) Three Gambits from The Bogo Tabiya
    1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.d4 d5 6.exd5 cxd5 7.Bb3 Bd6
    a) The Fischer Gambit 8.Nge2
    b) The Short Gambit   8.Nf3
    c) The Eberth Gambit  8.Qf3
7) The Modern Defense ...d5 on move 2 or 3
8) Black Pretends a Bishop is a Knight (lines with ...g5 or ...Be7)
9) Rare Third Moves for Black
10) Offbeat Declines
11) The Classical King's Gambit Declined
    1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.c3
12) The King's Gambit Met by Gambit

I have never been annoyed by Taylor's writing, because his side comments generally have something to do with chess.

p 501 "One thing I learned from Alexander Kotov's Think Like a Grandmaster is that when you are contemplating a sharp or tactical move, don't look at the secondary lines until you have closely examined the critical stuff."

There are some minor writing idiosyncrasies such as the widespread abbreviation B for Bishop.

p 501 "...moving the B again so that it may be exchanged for a knight, and..."

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1987
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #64 - 06/05/16 at 18:23:03
Post Tools
It's an unusual approach.
Aiming at the near-blind market with massive text.
Is there actually a Braille version too? That would be thoughtful.

Regarding actual chess content, for which forgive the impertinent query. How does it stack up theoretically? Lines covered?

And on the Irritating Style stakes, how's it looking in the Lakdawala versus Taylor fight?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 347
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #63 - 06/05/16 at 11:58:49
Post Tools
IM_Serious wrote on 06/04/16 at 14:17:17:
Apparently it's finally published.

Hardcover, only 200 copies, 792 pages, $90 includes shipping.

facebook.com/TimTaylorChessFiction/posts/1037113699676482




Thats a shame. It's probably very unlikely that i will be buying a copy then.
  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IM_Serious
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 06/04/16
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #62 - 06/05/16 at 08:21:49
Post Tools
i.imgur.com/1vUW8dg.png

Nope, I'm just a consumer who has waited a Long Time for this book.

1) The book really exists, I have it in my grubby hands right now!

2) It's huge. It's almost exactly the same size as Skinner's book of Alekhine's Chess Games (McFarland).

3) The print is extra large. It looks like 19-point font, so many old-timers can probably read this without glasses.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1987
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #61 - 06/05/16 at 02:37:27
Post Tools
Firstly, welcome!
Interesting first post. Just out of interest, forgive the curiosity. Are you the author?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IM_Serious
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Joined: 06/04/16
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #60 - 06/04/16 at 14:17:17
Post Tools
Apparently it's finally published.

Hardcover, only 200 copies, 792 pages, $90 includes shipping.

facebook.com/TimTaylorChessFiction/posts/1037113699676482

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6892
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #59 - 03/23/16 at 04:07:43
Post Tools
Hi,

I'm sorry but I've been AWOL from the site for a while now. Looking back over the course of this discussion, perhaps it is time to close the thread entirely.

i will give the parties one last chance to respond, then close this thread on or around Easter. I won't delete it, so others may refer to it. But I agree that it's time to move on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4106
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #58 - 02/28/16 at 07:10:37
Post Tools
I'm inclined to second katar's post.  (For the record, I'm a Southern United-Statesian whose recollection of Taylor dates from his participation in the National Open in Mobile, Alabama in 1977) ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
katar
Senior Member
****
Offline


look another year went
by

Posts: 392
Location: LA
Joined: 09/21/05
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #57 - 02/28/16 at 06:28:17
Post Tools
CaptainDunsel wrote on 02/27/16 at 14:36:17:
I talked to a publisher who confirmed the prevailing opinion in the industry that Taylor lacks a certain emotional maturity, which I've noticed is clear even from his chess writings.  Just read his chess analysis, and see for yourself.

It is fine to discuss events that occurred, but I would like to avoid name-calling and conclusive evaluations of a person's "emotional maturity."
In the quoted text, an anonymous commenter cites an anonymous source as the purported "prevailing opinion in the industry."  Even if all that could be considered true as opposed to a defamatory, unsourced opinion, please let's just stick to the facts and avoid judgments.  Better yet, why not avoid drama altogether and just discuss chess moves.  Taylor was in a vulnerable spot based on his pleas for donations for his wife's health condition, which does not always bring out the best in a person.  Personally I think certain of Taylor's works have redeeming qualities, and he was friendly and courteous to random kibbitzers in a skittles room the one time I interacted with him.  Anyway, I am not trying to be a jerk or start a war.  Just want to see peace and chess here at Chesspub rather than gossip -- regardless whether folks deserve the judgments heaped on them.  Lips Sealed
  

2078 uscf
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
CaptainDunsel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 5
Location: USA
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #56 - 02/27/16 at 14:36:17
Post Tools
I talked to a publisher who confirmed the prevailing opinion in the industry that Taylor lacks a certain emotional maturity, which I've noticed is clear even from his chess writings.  Just read his chess analysis, and see for yourself.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 347
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #55 - 02/14/16 at 11:23:31
Post Tools
I'm curious about how big Taylor's book will be. I think on his website he said the manuscipt is 1500 pages ( i forget the term he used) but wont be as big once the printer has done his bit. I'm assuming that this is because diagrams for example that may be included in the book, are given their own page in the manuscript?
  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1987
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #54 - 02/14/16 at 05:56:04
Post Tools
Perhaps a line could be drawn under this at CP.
mods?
--------
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #53 - 02/13/16 at 21:36:08
Post Tools
Trefor wrote on 02/03/16 at 07:47:40:
Have just been reading Taylor's WordPress Blog, which explains, in his opinion, why this book is still not published.
I won't give the url here as I obviously have no idea of the truth. Let's just say that he names names and isn't sparing with accusations!


Let's just say he has a rather "imaginative" interpretation of events, as well as a very selective memory.

For instance, regarding the new comment: Before this I had written eight previous books for Everyman, such as Slay the Sicilian, without editing problems, indeed usually with almost no editing at all. I strive to turn in an absolutely clean copy. — Yes, he had written several books previously for Everyman, and I edited almost all of them, indeed without problems, but not with "almost no editing". They were all rigorously edited, not least because he never submitted a "clean copy". Apart from anything else, the manuscripts were always full of abbreviations which had to be individually converted. I already posted about this (and his other complaints about the editing) two years ago on the first page of this thread.

But as regards the offending variation...

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/24/14 at 07:52:45:
analytical corrections/queries were mostly referred back to Tim for his consideration (some he accepted, some he didn't – fair enough). Occasionally, I might insert something trivial extra, for explanatory purposes (the sort of thing that would be prefaced by "Ed." in a magazine), and add text to that, but these would (almost always) have been thrown up by Fritz running in the background. I'm not sure what went wrong in the case he mentions (maybe I missed a move out when typing them into the document), but I can't look at it until Tim gives the exact reference.


Okay, now he has given the reference, and of course his analysis is correct. So it's rather odd. I'm not sure how this faulty addition got through unchecked. Firstly, as I said, analytical queries/corrections were mostly (as in virtually all) referred back to him – seven pages worth for this book (though, as was his right, he ignored two-thirds of them). Secondly, if this one wasn't referred (which it doesn't appear to have been), I'm not sure how it got through anyway, since Fritz would have been running on my machine too.

Well, it's very annoying of course, though I'm not sure it's really worth throwing your toys out of your pram over. The idea that a reputation could be ruined by one mistake in one bracketed variation is ridiculous. Mistakes are inevitable in chess books. Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse my adding an extraneous one, so apologies are clearly due here – for what little they're worth now.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 299
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #52 - 02/03/16 at 16:29:28
Post Tools
It may be just me, or it may be the strong influence of the title he chose for his blog, but "Tim Taylor's Chess & Fiction" poses a constant challenge for me separating out the fact from the fiction.

I don't think I am up to the task.

I have found his previous works to have been equally confusing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 187
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #51 - 02/03/16 at 15:32:26
Post Tools
Trefor wrote on 02/03/16 at 07:47:40:
Have just been reading Taylor's WordPress Blog, which explains, in his opinion, why this book is still not published.
I won't give the url here as I obviously have no idea of the truth. Let's just say that he names names and isn't sparing with accusations!

Warning: long blog post.

Anyway. Hope things work out for mr Taylor and that he gets to publish his book some day.

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trefor
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/25/13
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #50 - 02/03/16 at 07:47:40
Post Tools
Have just been reading Taylor's WordPress Blog, which explains, in his opinion, why this book is still not published.
I won't give the url here as I obviously have no idea of the truth. Let's just say that he names names and isn't sparing with accusations!

The sad thing is that despite all of the controversy I am keen to see the analysis, I find the Bishop's gambit very interesting despite the short thrift given in John Shaw's great book
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #49 - 08/19/14 at 13:31:42
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 08/19/14 at 08:08:38:
Dunno what's happened there.


It's been retitled as being about the King Bishop's Gambit.

Andrew Martin has done a recent video advocating the move order 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 and now not 3. .. e4 (Falkbeer) or 3. .. c6 (Nimzowitsch) but 3. .. exf4. Obviously this can transpose to several lines of the King Knight's Gambit but also to the line 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. exd5 which is or was considered inferior to 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7yvmzLtKPM
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #48 - 08/19/14 at 08:08:38
Post Tools
tracke wrote on 08/19/14 at 06:47:54:
Is Timothy Taylor´s King´s Gambit book pulled?
No, obviously he just had to find a new publisher ...
Now it´s New in Chess (~500pages, ~jan15 ?!).


Just googled for that and found Tim's Facebook page where he says that New in Chess decided not to publish it after all. Dunno what's happened there.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tracke
Senior Member
****
Offline


Introite tam etiam ibi
dei sunt

Posts: 333
Location: Kiel
Joined: 09/21/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #47 - 08/19/14 at 06:47:54
Post Tools
Is Timothy Taylor´s King´s Gambit book pulled?
No, obviously he just had to find a new publisher ...
Now it´s New in Chess (~500pages, ~jan15 ?!).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Win-Kings-Bishop-Gambit-Fischers/dp/9056915622/ref=sr_1_...

tracke  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PANFR
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 244
Location: Greece
Joined: 10/31/11
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #46 - 05/04/14 at 17:28:54
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 05/03/14 at 00:47:05:
Is it that stupid? There's an immediate threat of Qxe4 which needs to be defended against. You block in the B f8 but if you intend g5 to hold the f4 pawn, that gives the Bishop a square on g7. You end up with a grip of the dark squares, similar to some of the more mainstream ideas against the Kings Gambit.

By some standards including engine assessments 2. f4 is just a dubious move, so replies to it should be looking for a Black advantage, but equality will do if it creates an original position.


Quite so. Black disrupts his natural developing scheme to deliver pseudo-threats.
In the lines engines evaluate the position as equal (4.Nc3 and 4.d3, mainly) Black follows with ...Qh4+ after a couple of moves, which hardly justifies 3...Qe7. And I can hardly see how Black can play ...g5 without seriously compromising his kingside after an eventual h2-h4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #45 - 05/03/14 at 00:47:05
Post Tools
PANFR wrote on 05/02/14 at 17:29:09:
After ten minutes thought, engines evaluate 3...Qe7 as equal, which means that such a stupid move should be avoided, since it's not tactically justified


Is it that stupid? There's an immediate threat of Qxe4 which needs to be defended against. You block in the B f8 but if you intend g5 to hold the f4 pawn, that gives the Bishop a square on g7. You end up with a grip of the dark squares, similar to some of the more mainstream ideas against the Kings Gambit.

By some standards including engine assessments 2. f4 is just a dubious move, so replies to it should be looking for a Black advantage, but equality will do if it creates an original position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #44 - 05/02/14 at 19:23:52
Post Tools
There is nothing new under the sun. Henk Smout has found an antique example for 3...Qe7 at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1610055 . It had been published with comments (which are given in the link above) in Australian Town and Country Journal (NSW), January 20, 1872:


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PANFR
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 244
Location: Greece
Joined: 10/31/11
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #43 - 05/02/14 at 17:29:09
Post Tools
After ten minutes thought, engines evaluate 3...Qe7 as equal, which means that such a stupid move should be avoided, since it's not tactically justified.
My database has 18 games with it, and white is scoring rather well (+17 =0 -1). None of these games is worth much, I think.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2874
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #42 - 05/01/14 at 09:47:38
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 18:56:32:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/29/14 at 12:41:06:
[quote author=033512510 link=1398286690/35#35 date=1398763731]
No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley


Does that include 3. .. Qe7? Engines seem to like it and it does threaten a pawn. I expect it needs a bit of work to uncover all the tactical justifications.


Engines are notoriously unreliable in the early opening phase, the horizon effect is probably the main reason, as all the tactical justifications tend to melt away with the ply depth a few more moves in...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #41 - 05/01/14 at 09:40:44
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 05/01/14 at 01:16:02:
If you try to play initiative chess with White, you want to cut down Black's dangerous responses, rather than encourage them to proliferate.

The Ruy Lopez doesn't cut down Black's dangerous responses either, like 3...a5. Just saying. - I won't defend the Bishop's Gambit (3.Nf3 is better), but if Timothy Taylor is listening, the idea 3...Qe7 should be in his book.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #40 - 05/01/14 at 01:16:02
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/30/14 at 23:59:16:
So there remains some work to be done to justify the idea.


Unless there's  hidden positional or tactical subtleties beyond the search depth, the engines think the problems can be solved. With apologies to King's Gambit fans, 2. f4 is a bit of a dodgy move in comparison to the alternatives. It's not even a threat of 3. fxe5 . If you try to play initiative chess with White, you want to cut down Black's dangerous responses, rather than encourage them to proliferate.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #39 - 04/30/14 at 23:59:16
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 18:56:32:
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/29/14 at 12:41:06:
No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley

Does that include 3. .. Qe7? Engines seem to like it and it does threaten a pawn. I expect it needs a bit of work to uncover all the tactical justifications.

Wow, you managed to find a possibility not considered in The Evolution of Chess Openings! By the way: This 1906 work has sorted the alternatives by their date of introduction. So the six pages covering the Bishop's Gambit begin with the oldest option, 3...f5 (Lopez 1561), ... idea No. 10 is 3...d5 from a game Bilguer vs Bledow (published in Chess Players' Chronicle 1841), the eleventh option is 3...b5 (1841) and the "newest" is 3...Nc6 (1874).

This is a remarkable gap of 140 years between 1874 and "XIII. - thirteenth. - 3...Qe7, recommended by RdC 2014 in chesspub.com". - There are eight games with 3...Qe7 in the database (White won 7, lost 1). So there remains some work to be done to justify the idea.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #38 - 04/29/14 at 18:56:32
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/29/14 at 12:41:06:
No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley


Does that include 3. .. Qe7? Engines seem to like it and it does threaten a pawn. I expect it needs a bit of work to uncover all the tactical justifications.
« Last Edit: 05/06/14 at 09:34:30 by GMTonyKosten »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #37 - 04/29/14 at 13:43:06
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 10:28:51:
Presumably a tactical point is that the obvious continuation 4. Bxg8 Rxg8 5. Qh5+ winning back a pawn can be thwarted by Black flicking in 4. .. Qh4 + himself.


Yes, 4...Qh4+ is possible; but actually 4...Rxg8 5 Qh5+ g6 6 Qxh7 Rg7 is very good for Black anyway. This dates back to Mayet-Hanstein, Berlin 1866. Smiley
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #36 - 04/29/14 at 12:41:06
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/29/14 at 10:28:51:
I suppose if you are writing an advocacy book about the King's Bishop Gambit, all possible continuations have to be considered, even if in practice there's around one recorded OTB game a year. [...]

No, it is sufficient for a modern Bishop's Gambit author to consider the twelve replies in The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906).
Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #35 - 04/29/14 at 10:28:51
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 10:42:11:
No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)


I didn't even know that 3. .. f5 was possible, but a superficial engine check seem to confirm that it's OK. I suppose if you are writing an advocacy book about the King's Bishop Gambit, all possible continuations have to be considered, even if in practice there's around one recorded OTB game a year.

Presumably a tactical point is that the obvious continuation 4. Bxg8 Rxg8 5. Qh5+ winning back a pawn can be thwarted by Black flicking in 4. .. Qh4 + himself.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2851
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #34 - 04/27/14 at 14:02:01
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/27/14 at 11:40:54:
...although it's not really a thread about the opening at all.


Very true!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #33 - 04/27/14 at 11:40:54
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/27/14 at 10:56:28:
so other 3rd moves should be discussed in a different thread.


...although it's not really a thread about the opening at all.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2851
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #32 - 04/27/14 at 10:56:28
Post Tools
Hadron wrote on 04/27/14 at 00:25:14:
But isn't there is more to the King's Gumboot than just the bog stock 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4?....


yes, but ...

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 10:42:11:
it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4


so other 3rd moves should be discussed in a different thread.

Meanwhile I didn't want to take this thread off topic with my

GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 10:54:08:
I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand?


I just wanted to point out that 3...Nc6 is hardly John's invention. Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #31 - 04/27/14 at 07:21:31
Post Tools
Hadron wrote on 04/27/14 at 00:25:14:
But isn't there is more to the King's Gumboot than just the bog stock 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4?....

I don't trust the alternatives. Losing one game quickly, reaching the Breyer Gambit (3.Qf3) via a transposition of moves, was enough.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hadron
Full Member
***
Offline


Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When
will you ever learn?

Posts: 190
Location: Levin, New Zealand.
Joined: 03/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #30 - 04/27/14 at 00:25:14
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/26/14 at 18:30:27:
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 10:42:11:
No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)

I became interested in this when I was studying the Calabrese Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, from which 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition. My record with this line, both OTB and online is quite simply enormous: P39 W31 D6 L2 (87.2% as Black).

Thanks. It shows that I am more a 3.Nf3 guy. - But it really seems that you are an ideal choice as an editor for the Bishop's Gambit. If there had been a need to find an editor with a similar experience in the Englund Gambit, my EG book would have never appeared.

But isn't there is more to the King's Gumboot than just the bog stock 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4?....
  

I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #29 - 04/26/14 at 18:30:27
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 10:42:11:
No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)

I became interested in this when I was studying the Calabrese Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, from which 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition. My record with this line, both OTB and online is quite simply enormous: P39 W31 D6 L2 (87.2% as Black).

Thanks. It shows that I am more a 3.Nf3 guy. - But it really seems that you are an ideal choice as an editor for the Bishop's Gambit. If there had been a need to find an editor with a similar experience in the Englund Gambit, my EG book would have never appeared.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #28 - 04/26/14 at 10:42:11
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/26/14 at 08:51:08:
You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book.


No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)

I became interested in this when I was studying the Calabrese Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, from which 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition. My record with this line, both OTB and online is quite simply enormous: P39 W31 D6 L2 (87.2% as Black).
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2874
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #27 - 04/26/14 at 10:27:55
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/26/14 at 01:52:33:
In my opinion Shaw's claim that 3...Nc6 refutes 3.Bc4 is a bit strong, as I think the objective assessment (after both 4.d4 Nf6 and 4.Nf3 g5) is somewhere in the region of "=" to "=+", which may well also be true of the Quaade Gambit lines following 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Bg7 (as he admits in his book).

But I doubt that Taylor will be able to change the assessment of 3.Bc4 Nc6 significantly.


Especially since he seems to rely mainly/only on Fritz 12...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #26 - 04/26/14 at 09:59:21
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/26/14 at 08:51:08:
You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book. Indeed, it is far from obvious how White can achieve a large advantage against this move. A new suggestion for White from Taylor would be a valuable contribution to the KG theory, so I can only hope that the book will appear soon. - However, I believe that 4.d3 gives White a small plus.


Black replies with d6 and you get the symmetric position. As no-one has yet demonstrated a convincing mutual Zugswang, having the move could or should lead to a very small advantage to white. I would expect it might hinge around whether White should incur an isolated e-pawn by provoking exf4 and fxe4 or inflict it with the parallel idea. Alternatively perhaps both players should expect isolated e pawns.

There's the Ivanchuk - Nakamura game as a high level test, admittedly only in a rapidplay. Are there any other high level examples of the symmetrical attempt?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #25 - 04/26/14 at 08:51:08
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 04/25/14 at 13:22:26:
Obviously I know nothing of the actual events here, but from my perspective as a lawyer, I can say with confidence that it is seldom that anyone who uses so many exclamation marks as Mr Taylor does in that blog post is in the right in any dispute.


Smiley E. J. Diemer has often put three exclamation marks behind a move in his games. And a game of chess IS a kind of dispute, no?

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:04:55:
Incidentally, it's bizarre that Tim should think that I'd be motivated to do him down (so to speak) from pique at his refuting 3...f5, because I helped him with this variation more than any other in the book, sharing my own expertise, pointing out why the various lines he was proposing (at any given point) didn't work or were (quite often) good for Black. The one he finally came up with (which was actually his first idea, seriously refined) looks to be a critical test. An online chessfriend of mine did finally discover a defence (it seems), but only after I'd thrashed him from the White side several times. I think Black would need some thorough preparation to play against Tim's suggestions over the board.


You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book. Indeed, it is far from obvious how White can achieve a large advantage against this move. A new suggestion for White from Taylor would be a valuable contribution to the KG theory, so I can only hope that the book will appear soon. - However, I believe that 4.d3 gives White a small plus.

The reply 3...Nc6 against the Bishop's Gambit was recommended in an article by "C. Moriau" in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1874. Later sources called it Moriau's Variation. But I've also seen the name spelled differently: Moreau, from London.

No, I don't think that 3...Nc6 is a refutation of 3.Bc4. If it were =+, then I'd regard it as a refutation. So far I haven't seen any analysis which demonstrates even the slightest advantage for Black. My suggestion Qd2-g5 leads to a position where I'd (slightly) prefer White. I don't buy the idea that White shouldn't exchange Queens in the King's Gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 889
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #24 - 04/26/14 at 01:52:33
Post Tools
In my opinion Shaw's claim that 3...Nc6 refutes 3.Bc4 is a bit strong, as I think the objective assessment (after both 4.d4 Nf6 and 4.Nf3 g5) is somewhere in the region of "=" to "=+", which may well also be true of the Quaade Gambit lines following 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Bg7 (as he admits in his book).

But I doubt that Taylor will be able to change the assessment of 3.Bc4 Nc6 significantly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #23 - 04/25/14 at 18:29:44
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/25/14 at 13:46:01:
The first time I saw 3...Nc6 given any serious attention was in Igor Glazkov's updated Korolevskii Gambit (Fizcultura i Sport, Moscow 1988), though I'm not sure (i.e. without cross-referencing) how well his variations compare now.

Estrin investigated 3...Nc6 with the aid of Glaskov in Das Abgelehnte Königsgambiet in 1982 via the move order 2.f4 Nc6 3.Bc4 exf4 but that analysis certainly doesn't hold up.
Given

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/24/14 at 07:59:21:
He only found out about Shaw's book when he'd finished his own manuscript and decided to let the two books stand alone. But his assessment that White is okay in the critical line (4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Ne2 f3) seems to be borne out by your own research.

I'm skeptical. TalJechin definitely was the first to investigate this line. So it has been around for 10 years or so and I find it highly peculiar that Taylor "completely and totally busts Shaw's 3...Nc6" with it. TallJechin's assessment is far more modest and balanced. But perhaps Taylor has found something brilliant.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2874
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #22 - 04/25/14 at 18:09:49
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/25/14 at 13:30:14:
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 10:54:08:
I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand? It was given by 'micawber' in his Forum digest King's Gambit eBook from 2009, which is where I got it from when looking for a good defence to 3 Bc4.

Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).


Actually, I discovered it independently, it was a nasty surprise after just having refuted the similar line without d7-d5, given in some earlier work, McDonald's KG-book, iirc.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1546
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #21 - 04/25/14 at 13:48:00
Post Tools
Let’s face it, anyone who’s ever analysed the KBG with a computer has given 3…Nc6 attention, since computers (in my very limited experience anyway) spit it out instantly as their top choice and generally think it’s good for Black, at least until persuaded.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #20 - 04/25/14 at 13:46:01
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/25/14 at 13:30:14:
Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).


The first time I saw 3...Nc6 given any serious attention was in Igor Glazkov's updated Korolevskii Gambit (Fizcultura i Sport, Moscow 1988), though I'm not sure (i.e. without cross-referencing) how well his variations compare now.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10068
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #19 - 04/25/14 at 13:30:14
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 10:54:08:
I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand? It was given by 'micawber' in his Forum digest King's Gambit eBook from 2009, which is where I got it from when looking for a good defence to 3 Bc4.

Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).

Along a slightly different line of thinking I came to the same conclusion as IM Cox:

Quote:
One of the side points of the book is that I completely and totally bust GM Shaw’s “refutation” of the Bishop’s Gambit with 3… Nc6?!

It's possible of course, but call me skeptical.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1546
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #18 - 04/25/14 at 13:22:26
Post Tools
Obviously I know nothing of the actual events here, but from my perspective as a lawyer, I can say with confidence that it is seldom that anyone who uses so many exclamation marks as Mr Taylor does in that blog post is in the right in any dispute.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #17 - 04/25/14 at 12:04:55
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/25/14 at 00:16:48:
Timothy Taylor chooses topics with a fighting spirit. Bent Larsen reviewed his book on Bird's Opening in Kaissiber 26, and while Larsen criticized some variations, he generally liked the book as a source of inspiration. Taylor tries to detect new ideas. Bird, Alekhine's Defence or King's Gambit - in my view all of these are first-class openings. - However, the KG in particular is such a difficult topic that an author should welcome all the input/advice/corrections which he can get from an experienced editor like Jon Tait.


Thanks for that, Stefan.

Incidentally, it's bizarre that Tim should think that I'd be motivated to do him down (so to speak) from pique at his refuting 3...f5, because I helped him with this variation more than any other in the book, sharing my own expertise, pointing out why the various lines he was proposing (at any given point) didn't work or were (quite often) good for Black. The one he finally came up with (which was actually his first idea, seriously refined) looks to be a critical test. An online chessfriend of mine did finally discover a defence (it seems), but only after I'd thrashed him from the White side several times. I think Black would need some thorough preparation to play against Tim's suggestions over the board.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2851
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #16 - 04/25/14 at 10:54:08
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/24/14 at 07:52:00:
A quote from Timothy Taylor worth noting (from the link in the OP):

Quote:
Remember, I advocate, like Fischer, the Bishop’s Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4! One of the side points of the book is that I completely and totally bust GM Shaw’s “refutation” of the Bishop’s Gambit with 3… Nc6?!


It will be interesting to learn whether he has found something superior to the ideas so far published in the chesspub.


I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand? It was given by 'micawber' in his Forum digest King's Gambit eBook from 2009, which is where I got it from when looking for a good defence to 3 Bc4.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #15 - 04/25/14 at 00:16:48
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/24/14 at 09:10:56:
I don't have any books by Tim Taylor, but is it fair to say that he concentrates on openings where even a game by an FM is a rarity?

Timothy Taylor chooses topics with a fighting spirit. Bent Larsen reviewed his book on Bird's Opening in Kaissiber 26, and while Larsen criticized some variations, he generally liked the book as a source of inspiration. Taylor tries to detect new ideas. Bird, Alekhine's Defence or King's Gambit - in my view all of these are first-class openings. - However, the KG in particular is such a difficult topic that an author should welcome all the input/advice/corrections which he can get from an experienced editor like Jon Tait.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1458
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #14 - 04/24/14 at 17:51:02
Post Tools
katar wrote on 04/24/14 at 11:24:33:
As Mr. Buecker wisely said: The chess world is too small for quarrels.


Are you trying to pick a fight? This was my idea (N), I believe. Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 299
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #13 - 04/24/14 at 13:55:20
Post Tools
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1987
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #12 - 04/24/14 at 13:23:50
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/24/14 at 10:54:21:
GabrielGale wrote on 04/24/14 at 04:38:16:
What is being said and will be said on ChessPub Forum, if allowed, can and will probably get very toxic!

Prophylactic locking?!

Hassle avoidance rather than chastity belts.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
katar
Senior Member
****
Offline


look another year went
by

Posts: 392
Location: LA
Joined: 09/21/05
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #11 - 04/24/14 at 11:24:33
Post Tools
Personally I don't agree with what Tim had to say or the way he said it, but I applaud the civil tone in this thread so far. 

According to his blog it seems that Tim's wife desperately needs a surgery that the family can't afford without insurance.  I imagine perhaps Taylor was counting on some income that didn't materialize-- I understand how that might provoke an emotional outburst under the circumstances.

As Mr. Buecker wisely said: The chess world is too small for quarrels.
  

2078 uscf
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
katar
Senior Member
****
Offline


look another year went
by

Posts: 392
Location: LA
Joined: 09/21/05
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #10 - 04/24/14 at 11:10:14
Post Tools
RdC wrote on 04/24/14 at 09:10:56:
The Kings Bishop gambit cannot really be avoided

True that 3.Bc4 can't be avoided after 2...exf4, but the Bishop's gambit can be avoided after 1.e4 e5 and then either 2...Bc5 or 2...d5.
  

2078 uscf
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2851
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #9 - 04/24/14 at 10:54:21
Post Tools
GabrielGale wrote on 04/24/14 at 04:38:16:
What is being said and will be said on ChessPub Forum, if allowed, can and will probably get very toxic!

Prophylactic locking?!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 649
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #8 - 04/24/14 at 09:10:56
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/24/14 at 07:59:21:
But his assessment that White is okay in the critical line (4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Ne2 f3) seems to be borne out by your own research.


From the viewpoint of the practical player of 1. .. e5, you want something that gives Black equality and a chance for White to go wrong. The Kings Bishop gambit cannot really be avoided and the line with Nf6 and Nc6 looks as good as any with the added advantage that you can also get it by transposition. While some of the lines of the Kings Knights gambit can get frightening, particularly those where White sacrifices on f7, a line that involves playing Nge2 doesn't seem scary and I would have thought Black had a playable position even if he doesn't know or forgets about 6. ..f3.

Perhaps Shaw exaggerates in calling the Nc6/Nf6 lines a refutation, but it remains a practical defence.

I don't have any books by Tim Taylor, but is it fair to say that he concentrates on openings where even a game by an FM is a rarity?

The sequence 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 can be justified on positional grounds as a mirror of the Tarrasch. I doubt there's a convincing refutation, unless, as in the Tarrasch the resulting isolated pawn can become a problem.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #7 - 04/24/14 at 07:59:21
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/24/14 at 07:52:00:
It will be interesting to learn whether he has found something superior to the ideas so far published in the chesspub.


The answer to that is "no". He only found out about Shaw's book when he'd finished his own manuscript and decided to let the two books stand alone. But his assessment that White is okay in the critical line (4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Ne2 f3) seems to be borne out by your own research.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #6 - 04/24/14 at 07:52:45
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 04/24/14 at 00:54:33:
Fair enough, a criticism was linked to, the person criticised has now replied. Equals.
Better now that chesspub not get involved, not continue this if one party is 'getting legal', I humbly suggest.


I dunno; I'd quite like to talk about the editing process, explain some of the things Tim took objection to (referring to extracts from his blogpost, given in italics below), which can be done without getting into legal stuff.

The very first thing I noticed was the terrible English that was inserted into the book – Most of the examples Tim gives here (pages 75, 76, 110, 192) look like "leftovers"; that is, when the text is being tweaked, there are occasionally extraneous words left in by mistake. Authors can do that themselves of course when writing the book. Proofreading should eliminate them. The other one (page 149), "themself", is a reflexive pronoun of the gender neutral singular "they". (Example: "It would be better if they did it themself". You could use "themselves" in the same way, but "themself" emphasizes the singular form of the usually plural pronoun.) It's clear that Tim didn't like "themself", but it's not incorrect.

the very first diagram in the book was out of place! ... Everyman requires a chess author to submit the games in Chessbase format. I did this on the King’s Gambit. It’s impossible to misplace a diagram on Chessbase, as the software generates the diagram from the game in question! – That's correct up to a point. ChessBase does generate the diagrams when they're exported from the games. But when we add further diagrams (or change diagrams to fit the typeset) we use a different process: click the relevant position in the relevant game, use the copy diagram function, and paste the diagram into the document. Yes, I see the first diagram was wrong – I'm not sure how that happened; maybe I had another game open in the other position and copied that by mistake; stupid – but again proofreading should pick that up.

The bit about the dots within moves (e.g. 1.Nf3 vs. 1 Nf3) shows a similar unfamiliarity with process. There's no problem at all removing the dots. It can be done in seconds with a few specific Replace functions. (And it's not just Everyman house style; Batsford and Gambit do it this way too – maybe it's an English thing.)

Tait had written in his own variations, often not correct. He is not a titled chess player; he is definitely not an International Master. – Actually I am an IM (SIM in fact) at correspondence chess (but okay, I don't regard that as real as a proper OTB IM title either). As for inserting my own variations: analytical corrections/queries were mostly referred back to Tim for his consideration (some he accepted, some he didn't – fair enough). Occasionally, I might insert something trivial extra, for explanatory purposes (the sort of thing that would be prefaced by "Ed." in a magazine), and add text to that, but these would (almost always) have been thrown up by Fritz running in the background. I'm not sure what went wrong in the case he mentions (maybe I missed a move out when typing them into the document), but I can't look at it until Tim gives the exact reference.

He reversed meanings of key lines, like where I said Grandmaster Larry Evans was “discouraged” when playing Bobby Fischer—and Tait changed the whole meaning by rewriting the text to “not discouraged.” – This is the only example I've seen (so far). I inserted "not" into the text because "Evans is discouraged or oblivious" (as written) didn't make sense with what followed. If Evans was discouraged, his play would reflect that – i.e. he would change his play – but he carried on regardless. So he was either oblivious or not discouraged.

If Jonathan Tait had tried his vicious, yet childlike attack on my book (apparently because I had refuted, in my book, the above mentioned Nordic Counter Gambit which is his favorite – This is just silly. There's no "apparently" there. Editing may seem vicious but at most it's ruthless, all in the cause of trying to enable authors to say what they want in the best possible way (of which they're not always the best judge). Nor is 3...f5 refuted, incidentally, though Tim found a very nice idea in one line of it.

I am running into sentences and sometimes whole paragraphs deleted from the text (one of the paragraphs featuring a great quote from GM Joe Gallagher is just gone). These are exceptionally hard to spot, as it’s hard to “see something” that is not there! – I can't answer these without knowing the precise points they occur. But nothing is changed or deleted for no reason. For instance, if something has been deleted, that might because the author has already said it elsewhere and forgotten about it.

In general, writing is tweaked for all sorts of reasons. As editor you get a double overview, both micro (the minute details of the text) and macro (how things follow each other and how the whole all hangs together). An annotator, although they may have an overall plan for what they want to say, will mostly annotate move by move, not noticing repetition of words and phrases, the way they're saying things the same way, and other such inadvertent stylistic errors. And there are particular ones that afflict chess writers, such as reverse sentence construction (a clause with the verb towards the end; very simple example "Better is 1 Nf3", which just reads abominably, though it is sometimes necessary to put things this way) or something I call Annotator's But (a clause, followed by "but" and a refuting clause, which gets incredibly tedious to read after a while). It's part of an editor's job to correct for style, which means tweaking the text. But it's done while maintaining the author's style as much as possible – the success of which can be seen by the fact that such tweaking is hardly ever noticed.

Okay, some authors are precious about their writing, some aren't. Another IM told me recently that I'm the best editor he's ever worked with; whereas, as a writer, I definitely fall into the "precious" category myself. But I'm a bit surprised about Tim because he's never complained before, and his submitted text always contains loads of abbreviations which have to be rewritten anyway. (And on a case by case basis; they can't just be globally replaced.) I've never minded doing that for Tim's books because I like them. He does his own work and always has interesting things to say. His King's Gambit book was good too – but it did need editing, whatever he thinks.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1315
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #5 - 04/24/14 at 07:52:00
Post Tools
A quote from Timothy Taylor worth noting (from the link in the OP):

Quote:
Remember, I advocate, like Fischer, the Bishop’s Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4! One of the side points of the book is that I completely and totally bust GM Shaw’s “refutation” of the Bishop’s Gambit with 3… Nc6?!


It will be interesting to learn whether he has found something superior to the ideas so far published in the chesspub.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GabrielGale
Senior Member
****
Offline


Who was Thursday?

Posts: 423
Location: Sydney
Joined: 02/28/08
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #4 - 04/24/14 at 04:38:16
Post Tools
I agree with Bibs that this should be locked ASAP. What is being said and will be said on ChessPub Forum, if allowed, can and will probably get very toxic!
  

http://www.toutautre.blogspot.com/
A Year With Nessie ...... aka GM John Shaw's The King's Gambit (http://thekinggambit.blogspot.com.au/)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1987
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #3 - 04/24/14 at 00:54:33
Post Tools
Fair enough, a criticism was linked to, the person criticised has now replied. Equals.
Better now that chesspub not get involved, not continue this if one party is 'getting legal', I humbly suggest.

Tony K, Moderators, lock, move on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 384
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #2 - 04/24/14 at 00:27:01
Post Tools
I wondered when Tim was going to get round to slagging me off on his blog. Seems he now has.

For what it's worth, I've edited six of his books before this one and he's never had any problems with any of them – even though the amount of work that's required to tidy them up is astonishing. Okay, some new errors will occur in the editing process, but that's what proofreading is for.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
najdorfslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 124
Joined: 05/08/09
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #1 - 04/23/14 at 23:38:26
Post Tools
That makes very interesting reading. Seems Everyman behaved very unprofessionally indeed!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 872
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
04/23/14 at 21:58:10
Post Tools
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo