Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll closed Question: What is Your Vote for the Opening Book of the Year 2016?
bars   pie
*** This poll has now closed ***


Collins, A Simple Chess Opening Repertoire for Whi    
  11 (8.5%)
Cummings, The English    
  16 (12.3%)
Delchev/Semkov, Attacking the English/Reti    
  2 (1.5%)
Dreev, Bf4 in the Queens Gambit and Exchange Slav    
  5 (3.8%)
Kuzmin, The Zaitsev System    
  6 (4.6%)
Mikhalevski, Beating Minor Openings    
  4 (3.1%)
Negi, 1.e4 vs the Sicilian III    
  7 (5.4%)
Ntrilis, Play 1.e4 e5    
  44 (33.8%)
Pert, Play the Ragozin    
  6 (4.6%)
Shaw, Playing 1.e4 -- Caro-Kann, 1..e5    
  12 (9.2%)
Smirin, Kings Indian Warfare    
  14 (10.8%)
Solozhenkin, The Spanish Main Road    
  3 (2.3%)




Total votes: 130
« Created by: LeeRoth on: 04/01/17 at 15:09:20 »
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016 (Read 5419 times)
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 766
Joined: 05/18/10
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #64 - yesterday at 13:04:27
Post Tools
Since you quoted my nomination, saying you trusted it and feel ripped off, let me say that it's a pity you bought a book you didn't like.

Yes, it's true, Dreev's 12.Nd2 plainly drops a pawn to 12...Ne4 where avoiding the pin with 12.Kf1 or 12.Ke2 doesn't.

This erroneous move reads like an aside that was interjected at the last minute as an afterthought. It is, as you say, in a subvariation--a tiny two-ply parenthetical  "10...Bxb5 11. Bxb5 Bd6 (11... Bb4+ 12. Nd2 +/=) 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13.O-O a6 ..." within the main analysis of a  novelty (10.Nb5!?) proposed in response to a sideline (9...Ba6, when the whole point of playing 8...b6 is to play Bb7, taking advantage of the open long diagonal) within another sideline (omitting Nc3 entirely for a long time is not on the list of the more important lines given by Dreev). Furthermore, in the very same place Dreev gives an alternative novelty that is both forcing and good, namely 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11.O-O +/=.

The point I got from reading this section of the book is that White should avoid allowing Black to exchange knight for bishop with ...Nh5, and that it's worth investing a tempo in h3 in order to achieve that aim, even at the cost of allowing an exchange of bishop for bishop. This is one of several strategic threads that run through the book, appearing in multiple variations. Furthermore, throughout we are armed with the move- order subtleties to execute these strategies while walking the Exchange Slav's all-too-smooth theoretical ice. The book is really superb in that respect; I've never seen anything quite like it. As far as I can tell,  this framework is unaffected by careless errors like the one you cite.

Of course, there would come a point where too many such oversights undermine faith in the book, and the location of that point is a subjective matter. And while it doesn't take a computer to find the error you mentioned, it does take a computer to rid a book like this, with so many variations, of such errors. For me, missing some tactics in places like this doesn't do it, but different people feel differently about computers and proofreading.

I would nominate and vote for the book again.
« Last Edit: yesterday at 19:03:26 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
buddho
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 04/21/08
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #63 - 04/23/17 at 11:51:52
Post Tools
Ok, 1 example that was easy to find as my bookmark was still in where I stopped reading it.

Only a sub-variation, but as I said this was 1 of 3 I spotted in the first 20 pages - there will quite likely be more.

Pg 27, Section C5 (a)



The book gives 12.Nd2 += whereas after ..Ne4 he is clearly worse. It should have given 12.Ke2 +=

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



Posts: 1995
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #62 - 04/23/17 at 04:51:48
Post Tools
I think the issue here is regarding fair comment and fair play.

It is the internet. It's anonymous. Which can lead to issues.

When critique comes, it's better to support this in some way. Give examples. Even just a single example.

Otherwise it's back to the old adage. "Everyone on the internet is a dog." And certain comments just go 'woof'. And no disrespect to you or anyone, but views can appear barkingly worthless.

My own opinion by the way - I found the text useful overall.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
buddho
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 04/21/08
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #61 - 04/23/17 at 00:26:32
Post Tools
I have no need to convince anyone, by spending my time trying to find the errors and posting them.

I no longer play correspondence chess.  I found 3 errors in the first 15-20 pages or so - literally the only ones I checked because I didn't understand the evaluation. My point is that if the evaluations are obviously wrong to a 1900, how does a 2600 not spot them.

I feel ripped off, because I have quite reasonably lost trust in the evaluations and do not have the time to check the whole book for mistakes. That's why I paid good money for it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 766
Joined: 05/18/10
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #60 - 04/22/17 at 19:41:34
Post Tools
buddho wrote on 04/20/17 at 19:32:35:
My conclusion is that Dreev didn't write it.

My conclusion would have been that Ntirlis didn't write it.


Errors according to engines exist in every book, and within reason neither surprise me nor bother me. I have been using Dreev's ideas over the board (as has Dreev). I remain pleased with the book. Looking at your posts, I see you play computer correspondence chess. Maybe engine evaluation differences are more critical there, but I care more about coherence and clarity. These are what allow a human non-master to do well with an opening against other humans. "Ripped off" is very strong language; until I see a lot of extreme examples, I remain unconvinced that there's even a problem.
« Last Edit: 04/23/17 at 01:29:44 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
mn
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 53
Joined: 09/22/16
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #59 - 04/20/17 at 20:42:44
Post Tools
buddho wrote on 04/20/17 at 19:32:35:
ReneDescartes wrote on 02/04/17 at 15:00:19:
I would like to nominate Dreev, Bf4 in the Queen's Gambit and the Exchange Slav, Chess Stars 2016.


Based on reading this recommendation together with its nomination I purchased the book. I feel ripped off. It has not been computer checked and has loads of terrible errors. I am 1900  fide, yet the first 3 positions that looked wrong to me, I engine checked and we're indeed wrong. Ie slightly better for white was much better for black.

My conclusion is that Dreev didn't write it.


Could you post one or two of the positions with erroneous evaluations?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
buddho
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 04/21/08
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #58 - 04/20/17 at 19:32:35
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 02/04/17 at 15:00:19:
I would like to nominate Dreev, Bf4 in the Queen's Gambit and the Exchange Slav, Chess Stars 2016.


Based on reading this recommendation together with its nomination I purchased the book. I feel ripped off. It has not been computer checked and has loads of terrible errors. I am 1900  fide, yet the first 3 positions that looked wrong to me, I engine checked and we're indeed wrong. Ie slightly better for white was much better for black.

My conclusion is that Dreev didn't write it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby
Senior Member
****
Offline


The night is dark and
full of terrors.

Posts: 312
Joined: 01/09/12
Gender: Female
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #57 - 04/19/17 at 17:27:55
Post Tools
Congrats!  To the author and editors and publisher.

It is a very good book and a deserving winner.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 2863
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #56 - 04/18/17 at 09:47:44
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 04/17/17 at 15:27:34:
I did a facebook post about the competition providing a link. Usually, the previous years you should be a member in order to vote. Lots of my th friends realised that they can vote as well, so they did.


That probably explains it, none of the votes came from the same IP address, so there was no obvious duplication. Even without the 25 or so votes on the 14th Nikos would have won, but the vote would have been much closer.
I think we should leave the vote to stand and be a bit more careful next year.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
JEH
God Member
*****
Offline


The rim pawn has no lee!

Posts: 1349
Location: Reading
Joined: 09/22/05
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #55 - 04/18/17 at 07:17:01
Post Tools
If guest votes were allowed at the start of the Poll, then the result should stand. I think it would be wrong to change the rules of the Poll now.

For next year, ChessPub could consider making it a member only vote.
  

"Football is like Chess, only without the dice."

"Those who want to go by my perverse footsteps play such pawn structure with fuzzy atypical still strategic orientations."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2060
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #54 - 04/18/17 at 03:24:08
Post Tools
I really do think that the vote should be restricted to members only; not that people couldn't create a membership just to cast a vote, but most would not make that effort.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nickajack
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 3
Location: USA
Joined: 02/21/17
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #53 - 04/18/17 at 01:38:50
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 04/17/17 at 21:47:18:
I left the poll open.  I thought having guests vote might bring in more votes and make the poll more meaningful.  The members didn't seem as interested as they usually are, and, given that hardly anyone noticed when the thread was accidentally deleted, I was concerned that a members-only poll might not garner enough votes.
 
I don't know that anything "dark" happened, but it is nevertheless disturbing that most of Nikos's votes came in on the 14th, after he posted his Facebook message.  The poll is supposed to be about the best book; its not supposed to be a popularity contest to see which author has the most friends.  If that is what has happened, then it was a mistake to let the guests vote.      

Tony, you are the boss.  If you want to back out the guest votes, it's your prerogative.      



Letting guests vote was a complete sham, and what could've gone wrong... did so.  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1258
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #52 - 04/17/17 at 21:47:18
Post Tools
I left the poll open.  I thought having guests vote might bring in more votes and make the poll more meaningful.  The members didn't seem as interested as they usually are, and, given that hardly anyone noticed when the thread was accidentally deleted, I was concerned that a members-only poll might not garner enough votes.
 
I don't know that anything "dark" happened, but it is nevertheless disturbing that most of Nikos's votes came in on the 14th, after he posted his Facebook message.  The poll is supposed to be about the best book; its not supposed to be a popularity contest to see which author has the most friends.  If that is what has happened, then it was a mistake to let the guests vote.      

Tony, you are the boss.  If you want to back out the guest votes, it's your prerogative.      


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


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1413
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #51 - 04/17/17 at 20:28:54
Post Tools
As i was typing from a cell phone with many typos, now that i am in front of a normal PC, i paste my fabook post made at the 14nth of April

"Dear friends,

Every year, there is a poll for the "best opening book of the year" at the chesspub forum. In that poll, two times my books have finished second (deservedly so) , both times behind another Quality Chess book. This year the list of nominations is also great, but i feel i have a fair chance to steal the first place this time. If you want to support "Playing 1.e4 e5" please vote for me. If not, please vote for another book so that i get what i deserve once more! (2nd place that is Tongue )"

(followed by a link of this page)

This is where the "vast swathes of guest votes, particularly on the 14th April" probably came from. As i said, my fb friends realised that they can vote, so they did.

Also, let me add one of my Greek comments in that post translated in English from Google Translate (and thus the bad grammar):

"Thank you for the support. I am not sure though that these votes will count because the head of the site wrote that probably they will not count the guest votes but only votes of the members will. Of course, becoming a member is free, although it was somewhat inelegant to win by votes of those becoming members the last 2 days. I uploaded this link mainly for those who are friends here and are already members (and they are many!). In any yet Anyway, thanks for the support!"

The only reason i upload all these, is that Mr Kosten's comment seemed to indicate that something "dark" might have happened at the 14nth of April, and i wanted to clarify the issue.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1413
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #50 - 04/17/17 at 15:27:34
Post Tools
Hello,

I am almost sure.of.what happened here. I did a facebook post about the competition providing a link. Usually, the previous years you should be a member in order to vote. Lots of my th friends realised that they can vote as well, so they did.

My opinion is that the guest votes shouldn't have been allowed from the start. If the.moderators decide here to take these votes out, I d take it a reasonable decision.

In any case, thanks.to those members who votes for my book!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo