I think the repitoire books thing is down to what sells.

There are actually quite a few basically complete surveys getting written but many of them - Scherbakov's noteboom book say - are getting presented as repitoire books.

That's probably down to managing expectations. A repitoire book can safely cut out entire lines when they're not really theoretically relevant. A 'complete' book? You'd get endless, violent, complaints..... Never mind that it'd probably be more useful

On another note, excellent that they no doubt are, surely the impact of the GM repitoire books on specifically GM level chess is inherently limited?

Ideas of course but the detail is such an obvious, public, target.... Once you get a level of two below that and the amount of time for prep decreases its another matter.

Bibs wrote on 02/28/13 at 08:11:27:


The problem is that the Dilworth can be "avoided" on the way to the main tabiya which would mean including either another mainline reply or playing that worse endgame after 9. Nbd2 Bc5

Schaakhamster wrote on 02/28/13 at 08:04:44:


True, true! Am surprised the amount of time on that blog responding to the likes of 'Gilchrist is a legend' about precisely when the postman is coming.
Would probably help them if folk stopped pestering and just let 'em get on with it.

I was disappointed that the Dilworth wasn't included. Their right of course, I just wanted to learn about it, a line that has intrigued me. Ah well.

Schaakhamster wrote on 02/27/13 at 20:23:58:


I see no reason why chess book publishers should not have views and express them about reviews (both those with names affixed and those hiding behind aliases). I am surprised that this offends.
Disagreeing is not "rebuking".
Somebody here erroneously suggested that GMs take no note of QC texts. Aagaard disagreed and provided multiple examples. Aside from those stated I know of another top 10 player who is familiar with QC work from a personal conversation.
Readers here have views, writers have views, publishers have views. All express politely, respectfully and all is well.

(And no, I have nothing to do with QC at all. I last went to Scotland 28 years ago. It rained every day.)

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 02/27/13 at 10:54:09:


just an innocent question: is rebuking criticism on quality chess books in your job description? I have seen you having a go at several reviews on the Quality Chess blog. Doesn't seem a very efficient use of time. You can't please everyone.

barnaby wrote on 02/27/13 at 02:01:01:


Then what was the point of posting "B-" in the first place?

barnaby wrote on 02/27/13 at 02:01:01:


Oh, dear me.  Now I shall never know.

But the Riga is not good chess; there is no need to mention it in a repertoire book for the Black pieces.  As for the Dilworth, it's a repertoire book, you know?  Not a compendium.

They call it a GM repertoire book because it is of sufficient breadth, depth and precision to form the basis of a top-level repertoire in the given opening. 

@Flaneur Bleu: The Dilworth does not lose a piece.  Consult your sources, or see here:

https://ruylopez.chesstheory.org/p.php?z=pt&a=16838&b=0&c=16838&d=0

barnaby wrote on 02/27/13 at 02:01:01:


It is rather ludicrous to think that grandmasters are not heavily influenced by the Grandmaster Repertoire series. Gelfand took up 6…Nbd7 in the Najdorf because of Ftacniks’ book, probably more than hundred GMs have taken on Avrukh’s lines from GM1&2, with Yusupov coining the term: “I Avrukhed my opponent”. Ponomariov – Wang Yue in the Slav is a common example of how this happens. Ponomariov won two pawns, but sadly messed up in the technical phase.
Kramnik has openly expressed being inspired by Marin’s books, McShane played Marin’s repertoire for about a year, winning among others against Magnus Carlsen. Anand used one of the lines in his match with Topalov, but gave it his own twist, after Peter Heine Nielsen got infatuated with the books. Delchev used a novelty from Nikos and my book on the Tarrasch against Bacrot.
I really could go on, but I think I have made my main point. Obviously there is a caveat: Although books by Marin and Avrukh on main lines will influence grandmaster practice more than a book on the Open Spanish, Modern Benoni or Tarrasch, it is clear that these books are interesting to grandmasters of the highest level.