andy did you not crush me on some dragon blitz games in 76

Yes.  There is a danger that in responding to the review that you could do more harm than good if you're not careful.  If this were a small, local journal and the review written by a local master, the best plan would be to ignore the review altogether, but since it is NIC and written by a top Dragon expert, the relative success of the book does really hang in the balance.

You might sensibly start by acknowledging Tiviakov's status and the honor associated with such an important practitioner of the Dragon deeming your work worthy of review before expressing concern that he may have misunderstood the parameters of the book, etc., etc.  It would be important to respond to his criticisms clearly, succinctly, and even-handedly.  Don't make it a tit-for-tat kind of letter, but one that would make the prospective reader appreciate there is another point of view on this book.  And keep it short!  The last thing you want is to provoke Tiviakov into responding to your response (this happens in academic philosophy journals all the time and makes both sides look like ninnies!).

Maybe Tiviakov was not your intended audience.  As someone with only a passing interest in the Dragon, I found the book excellent: clear, interesting, interested, and innovative...

Tiv is probably p***** that he didn't write this book himself...

Anyway, since NIC market issue 75 with " - Tiviakov's expert view on Dearing's Dragon monograph." I think you're clearly entitled to reply to his unfair criticism! 

Just beware of a flame war, it's probably more efficient to simply reply to every point (as you did above) and let the readers make up their own view who's right and wrong.

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?

your generous and were always brilliant by the way you look great much better than when we were kids, yes I am playing alot againtrying to restore our youth. My eldest may be playing rugby for us shortly maybe will catch you at a lions game or wales, He got my muscles but the mothers speed. weak chess player but great winger

Listen, tivakov is a great guy like I said I spent time with him in norway. Eddies book is great it appeals to players of my class , indeed me and us junior champ dan fernandez poured over it for ours a great work. What imean is that tivikov does not need eddie for anything but us mortals are better for eddies work best dragon book maybe ever (I think I know something on this) Andrew best of three on the site for the fans If you beat me I pay 1000 us give me draw odds you pay nothing just for fun love to support the pros what do ya think Dragon rocks and still love the british guys you have all the class (cooksey????)

  I was amazed by Tiviakov's review in NIC. Am I being naive when I say that pre-internet if one did not appreciate a book or found it poor,one kept quiet. Chess is a precarious enough existence for professionals( excluding the very top) without this sort of thing. One should not assassinate one's own colleagues. Maybe this is fun for the crowd but it isn't very funny really.


  Play the Sicilian Dragon is a repertoire book and is not meant to give total coverage as Tiviakov seems to expect. A complete book on the Yugoslav Attack alone could well number over 500 pages which of course is impractical. A complete book on the Dragon as a whole is impossible to write in this day and age.

   My own book Starting Out-the Sicilian Dragon ( which has been at the printers for 6 months-get a move on guys!!) features over 90 annotated games. I could not keep it down to less in order to cover all the lines, and that in a basic form !

Chess book-writing is very poorly paid and the opening textbook may well become a thing of the past with the constant flow of games and information . I have every sympathy for Dearing on this one-his book is excellent!



Andrew

he played a kind of dragon today ( nova college tournament)