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 9224 times)
RoleyPoley
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 395
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #73 - 04/29/17 at 10:33:27
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/28/17 at 22:38:06:
Regarding a run-off election:

I think it's a non-starter.  My thanks go to LeeRoth and the rest for running this poll while I've been away from the site. It's difficult enough to get one poll completed in a reasonable time, having a run-off seems pointless to me. It's rare that any one book will get a majority when there are so many great books out there.

I see no good reason to have a run-off election for book of the year.


Agreed. We sort of had a run off last year I think but that was only because there were too many books nominated to fit in one poll.
  

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

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


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6899
Joined: 06/16/05
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #72 - 04/28/17 at 22:38:06
Post Tools
Regarding a run-off election:

I think it's a non-starter.  My thanks go to LeeRoth and the rest for running this poll while I've been away from the site. It's difficult enough to get one poll completed in a reasonable time, having a run-off seems pointless to me. It's rare that any one book will get a majority when there are so many great books out there.

I see no good reason to have a run-off election for book of the year.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Online


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10112
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #71 - 04/28/17 at 13:26:06
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 04/28/17 at 08:14:30:
If that the case I play corr chess for the wrong reasons.

Not at all. Experimenting a bit is what theme tournaments are for and it only can be expected that you will be at the receiving end now and then.
One opponent of mine wrote me that he deliberately didn't use silicon power because he wanted to find out how good his own analytical skills were.

  

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
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Online


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2516
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #70 - 04/28/17 at 11:58:20
Post Tools
@bragesjo:

Nothing wrong with those reason of course. I hope you get a lot out of it! It must be a bit frustrating when you lose out to heavy computer analysis, but the satisfaction of finding a human move that the computers struggle with is good consolation.

I was thinking of what I've heard from CC players who are more concerned with trying to reach the top of that discipline than using it to improve their understanding or OTB play.
  

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


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1435
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #69 - 04/28/17 at 08:14:30
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 04/27/17 at 17:41:07:
[
I thought much of the point of modern correspondence chess was trying to be computer proof in the openings, either by analyzing them to ridiculous depths or by finding some pockets of theory where the computers still misunderstand what's going on? If you're just following a book, you're not even trying...

I don't find this task very interesting myself; I much prefer a fight between fallible humans who try their best over the board.


If that the case I play corr chess for the wrong reasons. I play corr chess thematical tournaments to try out openings and lines I normally does not get the chanse to play. I also play corr since the local chessclub has moved so its takes a very long to to get there and gets late when I get back  home I  still want to play some sorts of chess appart from a few weekend tournamnets away from local town.  Also, I can not get ridiculous depths  at my old laptop. In some other games I found some interesting middlegame ideas and moves where computers does not have clue on whats going on. I some games I made exchange sacrifices where computers wants to play something completly different and after a long while computer asses my move as better.
« Last Edit: 04/28/17 at 09:22:02 by bragesjo »  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Online


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2516
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #68 - 04/27/17 at 17:41:07
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 04/27/17 at 14:47:47:
I had a book written for black that I used when I played the opening in over the board and I followed the book lines without any computer check.

I thought much of the point of modern correspondence chess was trying to be computer proof in the openings, either by analyzing them to ridiculous depths or by finding some pockets of theory where the computers still misunderstand what's going on? If you're just following a book, you're not even trying...

I don't find this task very interesting myself; I much prefer a fight between fallible humans who try their best over the board.
  

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


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2516
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #67 - 04/27/17 at 17:34:31
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 04/27/17 at 06:47:32:
Perhaps in the future we should have a runoff when no single book received a majority of the total votes cast?

I'm not sure how well that would work. People are voting for books they have actually read hopefully, but I don't think many will have bought every single book that's nominated. If a book is amazing but I haven't seen it, I still can't vote for it in the second round.

Personally, I haven't voted at all the last couple of years because I have almost no time to study openings anymore. Doesn't seem to make much difference to my results! It's hard enough to find time to play a few games and be rested at the same time now and then.
  

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


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1435
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #66 - 04/27/17 at 14:47:47
Post Tools
About book and correspondence games and errors I can share some experience from a different book by a different author in a different opening.

I am new to correspondance chess I am currently playing in a thematical tournament in a solid opening. I had a book written for black that I used when I played the opening in over the board and I followed the book lines without any computer check. In one position the book suggested a  commiting forced sequence of moves leading to dynamic balance quating some game that ended up in a draw.  My opponent followed the sequence but played an improvment  over the quated game directly where the books sequence ended. And it turns out that the improvment simply wins a pawn in all lines becouse of a deep tactical piece sacrifice for a pawn and the piece will be regained by force many moves later with a strong attack as well that the computer discovered almost at once. I failed to find the best defence and lost very quickly.

So books can not be trusted. I reached the position in some other game too some days later  so I diverted from the book and played something else instead.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Online


USCF National Master

Posts: 2141
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #65 - 04/27/17 at 06:47:32
Post Tools
Perhaps in the future we should have a runoff when no single book received a majority of the total votes cast?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 787
Joined: 05/18/10
Re: ChessPub Opening Book of the Year 2016
Reply #64 - 04/25/17 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: 04/25/17 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: 2006
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: 787
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
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 116
Location: Ottawa
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
WWW  
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