|
WARNING: This post might contain irony, be too long and discuss areas which are of some importance to some.
I have long since given up on talking any sense to Mr. Anonymeous, as have many others.
Those who know my books, DVD's or have just met me will know that I am a pretty humorous person, with a rather overdeveloped sense of irony.
Yes, 8.Nd2 is a random move. Look at it, I got exactly everything you could ever want and played like a dream, and it was still not enough to win!
Mr. A. does not see the difference between a move that we have analysed and discussed here on the notice board and a move played between a few 2100 in awful games with moderate results in a not very important line. Had we had this discussion before the book came out, it would of course be in it. I always said that based on the material we had at the time I do not think it was a mistake not to include it. I still don't.
He does not see the difference between what Kosten found unpleasant in an internet blitz game and the refutation in an opening. Kosten never said it was the refutation and even if he did, it would still not be the case. It is just a possible move, and Black, being a tempo down, will have a few problems to solve. I do not find them too hard to solve still.
Mr. A. has not proposed one single move himself, which makes you wonder about his level of chess understanding. I have no idea how strong a player he is, but if he is a weak player, this would excuse for some of the statements he makes. His research has proved to be excellent on the other hand.
Mr. A assumes that I am dishonest by default. He does not live in the same world as I - I assume that people are honest and well intended.
Mr. A. has no sense of humour. This should motivate him to stay of the internet altogether as most people approach it with their worst jokes, and people know a lot of bad jokes!
His thinks that because he bought a book he can be offensive, make demands, be unpleasant and still expect to be talked to like he was a royal guest in a five star hotel.
It is a great tragedy that he will not buy our BAD books anymore (I admit, we make them as bad as we can on purpose).
I personally thought he would appreciate that I tested how a grandmaster would react over the board to the terrifying 8.Nd2. Though I still see absolutely no advantage for White after analysing it, it does appear to be a little tricky in practice. If I even come across a situation like this again, I will make sure that 8.Nd2 is mentioned - if nothing else then to get one of my own games in a book, hehehe.
I have been honest all the way, admitted failures when they were there, but not when I seriously do not think they were there. I have been light hearted and put in a real effort answering questions honestly. Mr. A's way of talking to me has been impolite to say the least. I am not surprised that he cannot see this himself, it fits the package.
Unlike Mr. A I do not pretend to be 100% right about everything. I give my opinion honestly, but I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. I am also curious and playful.
Mr. A is just right, and apparently the point was that Marin's book was bad. The reason why he is right has turned out to be irrelevant and changing from the Ponziani to the Ruy Lopez and so on. Because of this I suspected that Mr. A is indeed my wife, as I recognised the pattern of reasoning. "Jacob, you are evil and I am angry with you, and I will tell you the reason as soon as I find it."
I still think it was pretty funny.
Forgetting about Mr. A, the stereotypical Internet Troll and talking about the game the rest of you should consider this:
I am NOT a professional player. I run a small business and am a family man. I have taken two weeks holiday in my birth country, one to play a tournament where a lot of old friends are playing as well (costing me about 500 pounds), another in the countryside with my family. I like to play chess the same way most other amateurs do so, I just do it a little better than the average. If you look at my games you will see that I don't know even a third of the opening theory of the average guy on Chess Publishing, I don't take professional draws and in general I don't care that much about the result. I am just as happy when I lose as when I win - which incidently is one of the ways to win more often (I know easy to say, but harder to do).
About the game. 13.h4 Qd7 14.h5 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Qf5 is not really better for White, I fear.
Per Andreasen, the commentator here, said that 14.g4 was dubious. He is a very friendly guy and tries his best to explain the games to the audience, but unfortunately I play a different kind of chess than he, and he seems to have understood almost nothing of it so far.
27.Rxf5 looks dangerous, but we thought that White should draw. The rook can never move, but probably Black cannot make great progress either.
I had believed I could play Re2 at some point, but the pawn ending after Kf8 and Re8 is drawn, so is Kg7 2.Re7 Re8 3.b4 Kf6 4.Rd7 Kg7! with repetition.
Even in a game where Black makes a sort of blunder with 9...Be7, missing 11.Qe2 preventing his intended ...Bg5 - White could not prove anything over the board. The extra pawn was a very weak isolated double pawn, and accurate defence neutralised everything.
I will be writing a repertoire book on 1.e4 next year, and I can promise that it will not be with the Ponziani, but that it will be as good as I can make it. 3.Bb5 will come on the board. If you study my games back from 1998-2003 when I wrote some opening books, you will see that I do practice what I preach, and that I both won and lost games with my own recommendations.
Other publishers reprint and translate books with plenty of mistakes knowingly. Some authors give repertoires with 5 second Fritz suggestions in critical lines - or say that "he you will have to find something" when there is nothing to be found. It is often seen that the entire repertoire cannot be defended.
Marin played his repertoire in the Olympiad and later in 2006 and 2007 I saw him play the recommended lines again and again, against 2700 guys as well, winning against some of them, like Tiviakov and Jakovenko.
Yes, chess moves on and Marin has (also) not written the perfect book. Unfortunately we could not effort Kramnik, so we had to settle. For this I expect no forgiveness.
Would I have made all the same choices as Mihail - no. I probably would take on f4 in the King's Gambit. I would also choose 5...Bxd4 over 5...exd4 in this Italian gambit. But I don't want to publish 15 times my opinion a year. When I publish Marin, I want to publish his opinions.
We are trying very hard to imprint honesty and integrity to our authors and to check as much as possible ourselves. I know of no one who respects his readers more than Mihail Marin, a man of total integrity, but perhaps lack of ability - just like all other authors. Chess publishing is not big businesss we cannot check everything accurately. There will always be failures, no matter how hard we try. If being open and honest about some failures makes our books bad compared to those of others who are "smart enough to keep shut" it is probably bad for business, but I will not exchange my integrity for an extra zero on the pay cheque.
I am hoping that over time enough people will appreciate a chess publisher who is honest, tries hard, has a sense of humour and listen to criticism. So, if this debate has lost us one customer, I am hoping that another will take his place. John, I and our authors will do whatever we can to provide him with the best possible chess material.
Jacob Aagaard, Quality Chess
|
Pages: [1] 
Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition (Read 118248 times)
