Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) book of Dearing seems to be not so great at all (Read 24566 times)
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 784
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #53 - 11/21/07 at 13:22:59
Post Tools
Guys, this happened over two years ago...no point discussing specific remedies now.

The consensus seems to be that this was a hatchet job, which of course is a bad thing. But think for a second how many glowing reviews are written in cases where the reviewer has barely read the book, and is often a close associate of the author. Where are the protests at this widespread practice?

In the end, one has to review the review(er) as well...a review is as much about the reviewer as the book, and prospective readers / purchasers need to exercise their critical faculties accordingly. THis seems uncontroversial, but at the same time, it can't be widely practiced, or else no one would get (strenuously) exercised by a bad review.
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragan Glas
Senior Member
****
Offline


"If I, like Solomon, ...
could have my wish -
"

Posts: 424
Location: Ireland
Joined: 06/25/06
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #52 - 11/17/07 at 19:25:50
Post Tools
Greetings,

Edward_Dearing
I'd have to agree with many here in saying that you should send a suitable response to NiC.

If nothing else, it will alert the publishers to the fact that the review is likely to mislead their readers and, thusly, affect their own and their journal's reputation, as both Fernando Semprun and Smyslov_Fan intimate.

Even if they don't publish your response per se, they may feel that they should redress the balance themselves with a suitable "Editorial".

As for the content of your response...

I'd agree with MNb and others that it should address the specific points objectively without rancour.

As you've already done in the opening and closing paragraphs of your main post here, acknowledge the honour of having someone of his stature reviewing your book, etc,...

As mentioned by many here, I think that the issue surrounding people's idea of a "repertoire book" certainly plays a role here in the tangential nature of his review.

However, I think it might be better to muse whether Tiviakov appreciated the market for which this book is intended - which includes both the "repertoire" concept and the playing-strength of its intended audience.

Also, merely pointing out that you "explicitly stated" that this or that line was bad for Black several times throughout the book, is not enough.

You need to include the actual quotes - with page numbers - so that anyone who has the book already (or goes to a bookshop) can open it and see, clearly marked in black-and-white, those exact quotes on the exact pages where you said they were.

There is nothing like being told where to find an answer - and finding it where you've been told to look - to press a point home to a reader.

Again, make clear the dates that your book went to press and was finally published in relation to the date of the Chinese Dragon game - which will clearly indicate to anyone why this game was not referenced.

I have to say that my own SCID database (with some 380,000 games) favours ..., Nbd7 (White wins 46.1% with 46% drawn) over ..., Nc6 (White wins 55.4% with 14% drawn). On that basis, ..., Nbd7 appears "safer" - although this doesn't take into account later mishandling of the resultant positions by both sides. I'm not sure how the current databases stand now or, perhaps more importantly, at the time the book was published!?

As for his criticism of your conclusions regarding certain lines, that would be a nice opportunity to indicate that both yourself and the readers of NiC, particularly "Dragon fans", would welcome his thoughts on those lines.

If he chooses not to enlighten anyone, they can draw their own conclusions.

Please note that none of the above is intended as baiting him to respond - you are merely clarifying what appears to be a misunderstanding of the book's intended market.

I confess I don't have your book ... as a "Dragon fan", I'd welcome a copy Wink ... but I think from what many others have said, including JW on TWIC, that it can't be as "useless" as Tiviakov makes out. (I can only surmise that his questioning of your character and motives are due to his misunderstanding the book's intended market audience.)

As I said earlier, the publishers of NiC might feel compelled to redress the balance - whether directly or by publishing your response with or without an accompanying editorial.

Frendo
Agreed - what if it were changed to "Concerning Tiviakov's Review of Dearing's Play the Sicilian Dragon in NiC YB75" !?

Kindest regards,

James
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Glenn Snow
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1697
Location: Franklin
Joined: 09/27/03
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #51 - 10/25/07 at 16:24:18
Post Tools
Sorry for not posting any Dragon theory, but just wanted to say I'm so sick of seeing the title of this thread.  Why not title one's post with just "book of Dearing" or "Dearing's Dragon book" and go from there especially since the book of Dearing seems to be great after all.   Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
exigentsky
Senior Member
****
Offline


Q

Posts: 402
Joined: 05/14/07
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #50 - 09/29/07 at 06:11:16
Post Tools
Edward_Dearing wrote on 07/14/05 at 04:18:49:
Hey guys,

I just received my copy of NIC Yearbook 75. I must have done something to really offend Tiv in another life. Whatever it was, I clearly did it well!

He actually seems to unreservedly hate my book, but I am not exactly sure what to say in response. In fact, I am not even sure he has read it. His remarks about variations not being included seem irrelevant (to me at least) as it is a repertoire book, and most of the lines he mentions are of questionable quality in any case (he even describes one of them a "suspicious" but as yet unrefuted).

As for this not dealing with the Maroczy/Accelerated move order etc, again I fear he may just have not read the book. The first section in the introduction is entitled "move order" and then I immediately say "the first point to note..." is that black should play d6, not Nc6 etc.

His criticism of my analysis also seem a bit off. He says that I recommend 14...Qc7 and 14...Qb8 in the 12.Kb1 line, but that is clearly not the case. I explicitly state in several places that these lines are bad for Black, so again I can only conclude that he has not properly read the book.

In the Chinese Dragon he criticises me for not including a move that had not even been played until several months after the book was sent for publication, and goes so far as to say that this omissions renders Chapter 12 entirely useless and even submits that this signifies that I cannot be trusted. Nice.

He criticises my choice of 6...Nc6 against the Levenfish - claiming that I am "wrong" to recommend this, because 6...Nbd7 involves less theory (forget the fact that I don't play this move, and that it may also be inferior!). I really don't feel that this makes my selection "wrong" though.

Tiviakov also criticises a variety of other lines, but without giving any analysis - just saying that my conclusions are wrong because he has some secret analysis that he is not going to disclose?!

In his conclusion he gives my book 4/10 - saying that it is absolutely useless to anyone playing white, and quite inadequate even for Black players. In qualitative terms I suppose that means 60% of the book is utterly useless. (erm...I guess you should write to GAMBIT for your 60% refunds?!).

To be honest, I was rather looking forward to his remarks, even if negative. It''s an honour for me just to have a strong GM share their thoughts about my work. However I can't help but find this article offensive, and bordering on defamatory - Tiviakov refers to my book as "useless", "inadequate", "incomplete" and "unsuitable" (so no lack of condemnatory adjectives there then!) and even goes so far as to call me a novice, untrustworthy, and to imply that I am a poor author.

I have to say, this seems bang out of order. I am not really sure what the proper thing to do in these situations is, but would anyone think I would be justified to write a response to be included in the NIC Yearbook 76?


I haven't read your Dragon book, but I really like your Nimzo book. I will certainly say that you are a very good author.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
flaviddude
Senior Member
****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 329
Location: Australia
Joined: 01/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #49 - 09/29/07 at 03:51:57
Post Tools
Mikhail_Golubev wrote on 07/13/05 at 03:33:42:
I did not receive YB/75 as of yet.
As one who also has experience in writing, I can state that it is just crazy to expect that theoretical book of such lenght as Dearing's does not have any wrong evaluations of specific positions. Simply impossible.
If some part of wrong evaluations which were made by previous authors is fixed, that is already great.
(Also, the repertoire book for Black hardly should include all possible lines for Black. Maybe Tiviakov missed Dearing's explanation in the introduction and did not understand that it is still a repertoire book, even if expanded one? )


As a predominently correspondence player I find Eddie's book very useful. Of course I have to check out my database, various on-line databases and all my old chess books. I like it when I find differing evaluations on positions by different authors. Then I have to make my own evaluations.

Furthermore there is a variation of the dragon that I have been wanting to play for over 30 years but no-one ever played the line as white against me either over the board or in correspondence. Finally it has happened and my opponent is of sufficient strength to give the line a real test.  The line in question is given by Eddie, but I cannot reveal more as the game is in progress.
  

I am hopelessly addicted to the King's Gambit
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Online


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1620
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #48 - 08/18/07 at 11:32:23
Post Tools
I agree that Rd3 i better. Rydbka think is completly equal if both sides plays the right moves.

When I didnt find any improvment on Dearings a5 line than I look at subscriber database and found that game.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
JudgeDeath
Junior Member
**
Offline


I'm Wakko!

Posts: 67
Joined: 03/17/07
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #47 - 08/18/07 at 08:11:49
Post Tools
bragesjo wrote on 08/17/07 at 12:29:21:
Looking with Rybka on my brand new computer some lines are evaluted diffrently than Fritz 10 on my old but here are the lines.

Line 2

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 h5 11. O-O-O
Ne5 12. Bb3 Rc8 13. Bg5 Rc5 14. f4 Nc4 15. Qd3 Ng4 16. Bxc4 Nf2 17. Qe2 Nxh1
18. Bb3 a5 {is Dearings move but} (18... Bg4 {is my preference} 19. Nf3 Rxc3
20. bxc3 Qa5 21. Rxh1 Qxc3 22. Qd1 a5 {I have played blacks position agianst
Fritz 10 and Fritz was struggeling to get a draw}) 19. Qe3 {is not even
considered. Alla games I managed to find at that time was white wins! Today
Chessbase searching doesnt not work} a4 20. Nxa4 Bxa4 21. Bxa4 Rc4 22. Bb3 Bxd4
23. Rxd4 Rxd4 24. Qxd4 Qa5 25. c3 Qc5 26. Qxc5 dxc5 27. Bxe7 Re8 28. Bxc5 {
was on the only game with this line on Rogozenkos disc (a corr game) and white
won. Rydbka claims that white is alreadybetter}


I'm struggling to work out what you're saying here, but after 18...Bg4 19.Nf3 Rxc3 20.bxc3 Qa5 then 21.Rd3 as in Eames-Snape 4NCL 2005/06 is felt to be better (and equal) than 21.Rxh1 by Chris Ward.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Online


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1620
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #46 - 08/17/07 at 12:29:21
Post Tools
Looking with Rybka on my brand new computer some lines are evaluted diffrently than Fritz 10 on my old but here are the lines.

Line 1 :

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 h5 11. O-O-O
Ne5 12. Bb3 Rc8 13. Bg5 Rc5 14. g4 hxg4 15. f4 Nc4 16. Qe2 Qc8 (16... Na5 {
is the Ivanchuk line and is mentioned in Dearigns book as an alternative} 17. e5 Nxb3+ 18. Nxb3
Rxc3 19. bxc3 Bc6 {and would be my preference (have not meet this line in
practise yet dispete over 800 Dragon games)}) 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. h5 Nxb2 19.
Kxb2 {Dearing writes that this move have never been played and it is here that
white players should look for improvements, No moves are given} Rxc3 20. e5 {
there was an old discution on the forum earlier where black lost by force In
some game and computer analysis did not turn up well. I think that this was in
this continuation} Bg7 21. h6 Bh8 22. h7+ Kg7 {I dont remeber what move that
was played next and Rybka finds nothing better than} 23. f5 {
but it is possible that} Rg3 {might be playable} 24. f6+ exf6 25. exf6+ Kxf6
26. Qf2+ Rf3 27. Nxf3 gxf3 28. Qxf3+ Ke7+ 29. c3 {
and Rybka thinks that white is much better} Be6 (29... Qc5 30. Rhe1+ Kd8 31.
Qg3 Kc7 32. Rd5 Qc6 33. Red1) 30. Rde1 Qc6 (30... Qc5 31. Rhf1) (30... Kd7 31.
Re3) (30... b5 31. Rhf1 b4 32. Kb1 Bxc3 (32... Qxc3 33. Rxe6+) 33. Bxe6 fxe6
34. Rxe6+ Kxe6 35. Qxf8 Qxf8 36. Rxf8 g5 37. h8=Q) 31. Qxc6 bxc6 32. Bxe6 fxe6
33. Rhf1 *

Line 2

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 h5 11. O-O-O
Ne5 12. Bb3 Rc8 13. Bg5 Rc5 14. f4 Nc4 15. Qd3 Ng4 16. Bxc4 Nf2 17. Qe2 Nxh1
18. Bb3 a5 {is Dearings move but} (18... Bg4 {is my preference} 19. Nf3 Rxc3
20. bxc3 Qa5 21. Rxh1 Qxc3 22. Qd1 a5 {I have played blacks position agianst
Fritz 10 and Fritz was struggeling to get a draw}) 19. Qe3 {is not even
considered. Alla games I managed to find at that time was white wins! Today
Chessbase searching doesnt not work} a4 20. Nxa4 Bxa4 21. Bxa4 Rc4 22. Bb3 Bxd4
23. Rxd4 Rxd4 24. Qxd4 Qa5 25. c3 Qc5 26. Qxc5 dxc5 27. Bxe7 Re8 28. Bxc5 {
was on the only game with this line on Rogozenkos disc (a corr game) and white
won. Rydbka claims that white is alreadybetter} *

Line 3

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3
Ne5 12. Kb1 Re8 13. h4 h5 14. Bh6 Nc4 (14... Qa5 {
has had soma attention recently}) 15. Bxc4 Rxc4 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Nd5 e5 {
this eintire section is useless, black gets no play} 18. Nxf6 (18. Nb3 Be6 {
transposes to my suggestion} 19. Nxf6 Qxf6 20. Qxd6 Rec8 21. c3) 18... Qxf6 19.
Nb3 Re6 (19... Rec8 20. Qxd6 Be6 21. c3 R4c6 {is what I would have played} 22.
Qd2 Qe7 {sure white has a pawn but black has some play but maybee not enough?}
23. Qe3 Ra6 24. g4 Rh8 25. g5 Rc8) 20. Rdf1 {sample move from Dearings book}
Qf4 {is this the best he came up to?} (20... Re8 21. g4 Rec8 {
Rybkas move. Rydbkas thikns the position is equal, or slightly better for black
}) 21. Qxf4 exf4 22. Rd1 {and only white can win} *

Line 4

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 h5 11. O-O-O
Ne5 12. Bb3 Rc8 13. Bg5 Rc5 14. Kb1 Re8 15. Bh6 Qa5 16. g4 {
is not mentioned and is actutally more dangeorues than it looks} (16. Bxg7 Kxg7
{of Dearings book is harmless}) *

Also there are better moves for white in for example the Topalov line section but that section in not part of the suggested repertoure and are food for thought and nothing more.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
e2e4
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 83
Joined: 02/17/06
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #45 - 08/17/07 at 07:44:36
Post Tools
Quote:
Dearings book has some analystic mistakes in Bc4 Yugoslav.


You have concrete variations?

Regards, e2e4
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bragesjo
God Member
*****
Online


Long live the Nimzo Indian

Posts: 1620
Location: Eskilstuna
Joined: 06/30/06
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #44 - 08/16/07 at 14:59:00
Post Tools
Dearings book has some analystic mistakes in Bc4 Yugoslav.
But Black has playable alternatives.

But the book is is still the best Dragon book.



  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
parisestmagique
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 471
Location: paris
Joined: 01/24/06
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #43 - 08/16/07 at 08:49:38
Post Tools
i find the book of Dearing absolutly marvelous.
Hommik-Gornoi game 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. Qd2 O-O 8. f3 Nc6 9. O-O-O Bd7 10. g4 Rc8 11. h4 Ne5 12. h5 Qa5 13. Nb3 Qc7 14. Be2 b5 15. Kb1 b4 16. Nd5 Nxd5 17. exd5 a5 18 Nd4! (18. Bh6 !?) Nc4 19. Bxc4 Qxc4 my computer "thinks" that after 20. hxg fxg 21. Qh2 white is clearly better, for exemple Kf7 22. b3 Qc7 23. Bh6
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
robl
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 01/14/07
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #42 - 08/16/07 at 02:25:13
Post Tools
Eddie I love your book too!
I'd also like to make a suggestion for Black in the infamous 9....Bd7!? line. You cite the Hommik-Gornoi game 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. Qd2 O-O 8. f3 Nc6 9. O-O-O Bd7 10. g4 Rc8 11. h4 Ne5 12. h5 Qa5 13. Nb3 Qc7 14. Be2 b5
15. Kb1 b4 16. Nd5 Nxd5 17. exd5 a5 18 Nd4! but instead of 18...a4, why not Nc4 here? 19. Bxc4 Qxc4 and Black seems to have good counterplay. I am a weak 1800 rated player so I could be missing something obvious.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Waffles
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 7
Location: Washington
Joined: 10/20/05
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #41 - 04/17/07 at 19:10:21
Post Tools
Eddie, I purchased your excellent Dragon book!  I think it is one of the best openings books I have. I love it!  Tiviakov is way off the mark.

Thanks,
Sterling
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fernando Semprun
Senior Member
****
Offline


Be nice to others. Life
is to be enjoyed!

Posts: 402
Location: Madrid
Joined: 04/29/03
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #40 - 09/15/05 at 16:25:23
Post Tools
John

Great book about the Scandinavian!

All your latest books (the ones I bought are the ones I know of) are excellent

1) Two on the Scandinavian
2) Survivor Guide to Rook Endings (bought it twice! since my first copy was lost/stolen)
3) Starting out Minor Piece Endings, Fantastic, although imho (2200 FIDE, been 2300) not Starting out AT ALL.
4) Easy Guide to the Ruy Lopez (although you needed more pages for such a broad topic)
5) Play the Najdorf Scheveningen Style (grows on you, and I have played the Scheveningen for 30 years)

I also bought attacking with 1.e4, but I rather play main lines....

Slightly off topic (what!) but just goes to show if Tivjakov also gave bad marks to your excellent second Scandinavian effort.

When /If you do a sequel, perhaps you may consider explaining move order tricks a bit more. The Scandinavian is tricky (for me) with c6/Bf5/e6/Nbd7 coming in different move orders, and lately, even ommiting Nf6! And that c2 pawn hangs after Qe2 (although I have not played ANYONE that has taken it!)

Thanks for the good work!
  

Fernando Semprun
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2891
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: book of Dearing seems to be not so great at al
Reply #39 - 09/15/05 at 06:03:48
Post Tools
Smyslov Fan is completely correct. Although the problem is that it is a "review" and in journalism these tend to be pretty subjective -love it or hate it stuff. The problem here is that the review is claiming to be completely authoratative (unlike say the local hacks review of a pop concert) and coming from Tivvy the man with the specs who is something of a Dragon expert.

However I agree - would be great if someone like Timman (he still is in charge there isnt he?) would have a look at this book and write a small note to defuse the situation.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo