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 ... 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

Edward_Dearing wrote on 07/14/05 at 04:18:49:


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.

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.

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.

Dearings book has some analystic mistakes in Bc4 Yugoslav.
But Black has playable alternatives.

But the book is is still the best Dragon book.

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.

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!