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!

Fernando Semprun hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that 

Quote:


This isn't Chess Life or some hatchet-job magazine that has come out with the review.  The editors at NiC have final responsibility for what is printed, and if there is an article or review that is clearly off-mark, the editors should at least delay publishing the review until they've had a chance to check it with other experts.  The review wasn't a letter to the editor, it was a paid article.  As such, once a review that is clearly wrong-headed is published, the magazine owes to its readers to correct the error.   

Simply allowing the author to respond is not enough, experts on the Dragon such as those who have spoken up here should also write in to protest the negative review.   

good choice vigorito look forward to see your games happy hunting

Eddie ~

If that's too forward, please accept my apologies.  We Yanks are an informal lot, and having spent as much time with your Dragon book as I have, I feel like I've gotten to know you.

The Tiviakov review stunned me.  (Clearly I'm not the only one who has had that reaction!)  I'm a US National Master, and a full-time chess coach.  I''ve been playing the Dragon for 30-odd years, and have a full shelf of Dragon books.  Yours in one of the best.  Additionally, it is so lucid and so full of "chess wisdom" that it is a gold mine for a chess instructor.  Simply put, Play The Dragon is one of the best openings books I've ever seen.  Congratulations on a great job!

It's clear that Tiviakov does not understand the nature of a reprtoire book.  It also seems to me grossly improper to bash your analysis and refuse to offer any reasonable analysis to defend his position.  (One thing I've always liked about John Watson's reviews on TWIC is that when he is critical of an author's analysis, he supports his comments with specific variations.)  It is specious to suggest that Tiviakov should be exempt from such intellectual honesty on the grounds that he's a practicing Grandmaster and doesn't want to share his analysis.  That's an understandable position, but then he should probably have declined to review your book.

Are there analytical errors in Play The Dragon?  Undoubtedly, but as both you and Mikhail Golubev have pointed out, how could anyone (GM ST included) write a serious book on any opening, never mind on the Dragon, without making some mistakes in analysis and evaluation?  It simply goes with the turf.  That reality makes your conceptual/textual explinations all the more important .  The fundamental ideas and logic of the position are the solid rock on which a player can stand amid the swirling currents of this or that topical variation.  The Dragon lives and breathes fire despite its many obituary notices because it is based on sound logic and powerful fundamental ideas. It seems to me the greatest value of your book, at least for the vast majority of players who will study and benefit from it,  lies not in the specific moves (though they are important, of course) but in your deliniation of the positional logic and the fundamental ideas on which the Dragon is based.   

As for Tiviakov's tone, all I can say is that it is in such poor taste as to border on the obscene.  Again it is specious to suggest that there may be a "language problem".  If he isn't sufficiently fluent in English to handle the nuances of a perhaps critical, but still courteous, review, I wonder if he has sufficient fluency to judge a book written in English.  Especially one like yours, in which the words are perhaps its greatest asset.  As I noted earlier, that's not intended as a criticism of your analysis, but rather as praise for your conceptual discussions.  Such explinations may not be important to Tiviakov, but they sure are to the rest of us.  By the way, that is another reason that I question his selection as a reviewer of the book.  Clearly he doesn't understand what is and what is not useful/important to players with ELOs several hundred (or many hundred) points below his lofty plain.

On the subject of a response to the review, I'd agree that you need to, and that it needs to be specific (the "reprtoire book" issue, for example), low key and as respectful as possible.  (Though I'm not advocating your being a wimp, either!)  There's clearly been an outcry at Tivakov's commentary, and so it makes sense to let others fight the battle for you.

I don't yet have a copy of your Gruenfeld book, but I am looking forward to it.  Keep up the good work.

NM Pete Prochaska
President, Chess Odyssey

A couple of years ago he was photographing what he claimed to be a creature from another universe inside an Egyptian pyramid.  Recently, he was talking about seeing a flying saucer and provided a picture of his UFO and his analysis of what he thinks he saw in Chessbase:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2550

So, a crazy book review from him is no surprise.

Eddie - of course you'll write a good response (get Tracey to help if in any doubt over the tone!), while you know that it's an excellent book.

NiC YB 75 had some really good content, but I'm a little worried by their 'repertoire' flaws. They even published a strange letter criticising Joe's great KID book for not mentioning a line which wasn't one he'd selected for his black repertoire! The normally very sensible Glenn sensibly pointed out what a repertoire book was, but then seemed to get a little confused himself and carried away!
Then the book reviews (generally good as ever) pointed out that Kindermann's Exchange Lopez work could have been more useful for Black, alongside a photo of the cover which states that it's a repertoire book for white!

Tiviakov's review is one of the funniest/strangest  I've ever seen. Clearly he has no idea of the meaning of the word 'repertoire'.

It probably is a language issue, but not the way you mean. My guess is they asked Tiviakov to review the book since it is about the dragon. Tiviakov I suspect is as well versed in English as I am in French, which means that you can read it but with some effort. Therefore I think he immediately went into to moves (after all that is what he is hired for) without reading but diving into the variations and evaluations.
This is exactly the same way I read german chess books when I was 12 since I hadnt learned any german but it is very similar to dutch so you can understand it.

I finally received YB/75. It is pretty clear that Tiviakov did not understand that he reviews a repertoire book. Therefore he simply did not read the introduction in full. Unbelievable! As review, the article is totally inadequate, with all my respect to NiC. Sergei's opinions on specific lines are of course interesting, he does not provide lines to support his judgements.

   
Eddie,

Write to NIC and thank Tiviakov for his review, saying  that you will leave it to the readers to make their own judgement. Be dignified. No criticism of the GM at all.

There has been a great deal of POSITIVE feedback about this book and it is well-deserved. You have nothing to worry about.

One point I personally did not like about the review was that Tiviakov declined to comment on several critical lines because he did not want to reveal his secrets.

It's all or nothing with the Dragon-you cannot criticize if you do not show detailed proof . 

( see,I am learning fast!)

Andrew

he does that too just got in to rugby as well as my old friend know I did before him.

Quite justified I think, especially if you word it like you just did.
I havent bought your book so I cant judge about it, but I think it is fairly normal that when someone critisises your work, you are entitled to a defense.

Rugby in Florida, USA? Not American Football? How come?

Pointless playing me mate-I have 4 kids and am permanently worn out these days. Would take me at least a couple of weeks study on my own to get my game back to a decent level ( and I'm NEVER on my own) . If you are playing regularly you would kill me!

8)

Chess-book writing is not only badly paid, it is also hard work. Despite this more stuff is publicated than in the pre-internet era, so I do not think Martin's prophecy will come true.
I am glad, Martin's farewell did not last eternally. Concerning me, all grieves are buried.

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? )

Sorry, Eric.
I didn't mean to be rude. I just couldn't believe it.
In Gausdal he played a Sveshnikov against Korneev (but that seemed to be a prearranged draw).
After that, I only saw Dragons/Accelerated Dragons from him at every opportunity he got to play it.
By the way, didn't your tourney start today?
Good luck!

I don't believe you, Eric.
Even if Tiviakov told you he gave up the dragon, he probably wasn't serious. I saw one game of him against Garcia Gildardo with the dragon proper and tho accelerated dragons   
at the European championship.
So what???  ???

Hey guys,

Yeah, I heard that Tiv has some issues with my book, although as I don't have NIC 75 yet I will have to wait and see what his issues are.

Oh well, you can't please everyone all of the time. As for not including dodgy dragon side lines, I am not really sure what to say... erm... you might as well ask why there are no chapters on the c3-sicilian - the answer will be the same: "because the book is not on that!"

Anyway, I am just thrilled that he bought a copy!

Well he writes that the part about the Chinese dragon isn't usefull, the part about 11... Nxd4 hasn't got the necessary explanations, that many very important lines aren't in the book: like 9... a5 9...Nd7 and of course   
12... Nc4, that he didn't write anyhting about problems of the move order 2... Nc6 and 2... d6 and that he sometimes just gives a wrong evaluation of the position

I've just got Nic yearbook 75, and Tiviakov writes of several mistakes about the book. Is there a better way to learn the dragon? Just wandering what you've got to say