and there is a lot of junk out there...not Dearing's of course

Edward,

I have said so many times, I will continue to do so... you have written a FANTASTIC BOOK (pathetic Tivjakov not withstanding).

I am sorry to hear that you got paid less than a month's salary... or else you are not doing badly! 

Regards


Fernando

Yes, the word is not good, excellent or other, it is just FANTASTIC

My comments were more in the form of advice to lower level players who wish to improve their game.

My argument wasn't that people shouldn't write these books, but rather just to point out to people that they don't have to get 'duped' into buying all these books. One of these books is sufficient. 

It seems obvious in many respects but nobody has pointed it out in chess literature that I have come accross, so I assumed that it's because people who write these things have an interest in keeping players buying chess books even when they don't really need 'em..or even use 'em. Maybe I am wrong about this as according to Dearing there is not much money in writing chess books. (Does this also mean that the owners of chesspublishing.com don't maintain the website for the profit..charitable indeed)

Most people who buy chess books are not "full time" players, but amateurs like me. I for one don't have time to go through five books of 250 pages of analysis each between work, girlfriend and other necessities..and can't imagine others being able to. 

As to the commonly made argument that in a heavily analysed opening such as the dragon it is important to be armed to the teeth with all the latest improvements..well it was none other than dragon expert GM Golubev who said that except for a few lines in this opening, it is is not really the case. Moreover, he said that the best way to study the dragon is not buy going through or memorizing lines but playing the opening at the board and then checking the literature afterwards. (Using a database for this purpose wouldn't be 'groping in the dark', I would think)

Obviously these are only my views, but a view that newbeis should hear i think..

krieg

Hi Kreig,

I agree with your comments to a certain extent, but I do think some of them are a little sweeping. I'll share my thoughts on them as they arise:

"...Chris Ward's books (the second edition no doubt was to get some extra cash based on the first one's success, just like all second editions are meant to do)."

I for one was thrilled when I discovered that Winning with the Dragon 2 was available. So much so that I had a copy sent out to me mid-tournament in Hungary; and I certainly wasn't the only one. Every other dragon enthusiast in the tournament wanted to see it, and several evenings were spent pouring over the content together.

On the issue of money, chess writing simply doesn't pay well enough for it to be the only motivating factor. Winning with the Sicilian Dragon 2 was no doubt the cumulative product of thousands of hours of spent analysing, writing, playing and discussing. Money no doubt played an issue (everyone wanted to see a sequel) but I do find your suggestion slightly offensive (even if it was directed at Chris, rather than myself). By way of example, my salary for one month is more than I received for over a year's worth of work on Play the Sicilian Dragon.

"one of these books is more than adequate for someone wishing to learn the opening."

In many respects I would agree with this. It is certainly true of something like the Lopez or the c3-sicilian, but can this really be true of the dragon? The obvious criticism of this suggestion is that not only has dragon theory changed dramatically over the last 20 years, but each important new text has brought something new and exciting. Miles and Moskow laid the foundation by producing a reference source on the Dragon; Sapi & Schneider were then the first to produce comprehensive volumes that covered every line; Ward then made the Dragon a more conceptually accessible opening by writing about it in terms of ideas and themes (it should also be noted that he introduced an enormous amount of fresh ideas and analysis); Tiviakov then plugged a hole in the market by writing an entire Monograph on 9.0-0-0 / 9.g4, the understanding of which simply didn't exist in earlier works; Mayer then produced the first modern work to offer comprehensive coverage of the Soltis variation (the theory of which had exploded in recent years); Golubev then produced his excellent Easy Guide to the Dragon. This book was the first to take account of databases and the changing manner in which players deal with an enormous breadth of information. Rather than getting caught up in endless variations, Golubev simply told it how it was, pointing out the best variations for either side in each line and leaving the reader to further research side issues via database facilities; Winning with the Dragon 2 was slightly different in that some parts of the book probably did not need to be updated (but hey, that's the nature of writing a repertoire book!) but the popular understanding of the book's main areas of focus (9.0-0-0 Nxd4 / Bd7 and ...Qa5) was enhanced considerably.

What I am ultimately trying to get at here is that each important book on the dragon has done the following:

(i) dealt with different subject matter, often from a different but enlightening perspective;

(ii) covered significant developments in theory that had occurred in the interim period; and

(iii) contributed something fresh and innovative to the dragon.

"I think this is an important point that should be communicated to amature chess players. Authors and GM's won't tell you this because they want you to buy their books, they're in the businness."

Erm...I am entirely honest with anyone who asks my advice on chess, and I imagine the same is true of most serious chess professionals. If a pro-player is willing to give up his time to answer questions, is he really going to go to the effort of then deceiving you?

"If its just the latest analysis you need you can always check a computer database, like fritz or chessgames.com."

Erm...most of the important stuff covered in the aforementioned books did not exist in databases or anywhere else. Very often it is the analysis, rather than the games cited, that makes the book important. Also, I have found (and this could just be me) that simply sifting through database games without any guidance is a bit like groping around in the dark - difficult and largely pointless.

"there really isn't too much Dearing or anyone can add to existing theory."

Er...this is a difficult one for me to answer. I agree that I don't have anything to contribute that entirely revolutionizes the dragon, but by the same measure I would like to think that there is quite a lot of original content in Play the Sicilian Dragon (albeit usually in terms of correcting previous assessments/errors etc).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and although I have disagreed with the above points, please don't think that I disagree with your general theme that studying one book thoroughly, in conjunction with playing and analysing an opening, is any substitute for superficially perusing several.

Best wishes,

Eddie