Quote:Yes indeed, but I don't really care about that myself. The book is still useful for what NM brings of his own to the King's Gambit. The mistakes, omissions, irrelevancies, etc. I can ignore or correct by cross-referencing with other books.
Yes YOU can because you're an expert and have these books, but what about the average players who only bought NM's book and wants to play the KG?
Quote:
I don't think he'd much played it before then either.
This is a bit unusual: Normally I'd criticize an author for not knowing what he's talking about, but I have plenty of experts' books on the KG already: Glazkov, Bücker, Gallagher, Bangiev (& Hergert), TJ, etc. By not being an expert NM gives a neutral (rather than disillusioned) view of the King's Gambit and I like his book for that reason.
But he did play some games. The first of them is even mentioned in Gallagher's book. IM Steffen Pedersen has written many good books both on openings that he has played and some that he never played. I don't think NM's KG book is very good regardless of whether he played the KG a lot or not.
Ok, so I will bite. Here are the grizzly details:
1) Game 3, Gallagher-G.Flear, Bern 1994. Here NM deals with Bangiev's improvement 11.e5 Qf7 12.exd6 Nd5 13.dxc7+ Kd7 14.Ng3!? quoting (copying) Bangiev's German book. However, one easily finds 14...Re8+ 15.Kd1 and now 15...Qf6! -+ as did indeed Gallagher in a subsequent article.
2) Game 4, Hector-Leko. Well, the less said the better. One could analyze some ideas after 9.d5 especially since MN did not invent this move. Alternatively 7.exf5 is seriously underestimated ny MN.
3) Game 8, Short-Shirov. MN remarks favourably on 7...Nc6 even though this was a dubious a seldom played move. 7...Rg8 preventing Be2 is much better but readers of MN's book are not made aware of this.
4) Game 9/10 Nunn-Timman. After 8.Nc3 McDonald analyzes 8...c6 and 8...Be6 but no mention of 8...Nc6 even though this had already been played in a number of games (Hector-Heine Nielsen, Copenhagen 1995, Kristiansen-Heine Nielsen, Danish Ch 1995 etc.)
After 8...c6 White's best is the simple 9.Be2. Gallagher quotes Korchnoi with this move and so does Bangiev, but it is totally absent from McDonald's book as if suddenly he does not know of either. The suspicion is confirmed insofar as MN is oblivious to Bangiev's improvement on White's play (14.Nd5! over 14.g3)
5) Game 13, Grasso-Pampa. McDonald in the notes ot Black's 8th claims that 8...0-0 is stronger than 8...Nh5 of game 14. Amazingly White wins game 13 and MN provides no improvment for Black, while in the notes to game 14 he gives the game Riemersma-Van der Sterren, which was good for Black. This is logically inconsistent and the reason is quite obvious. MN was lazy and wrong. 8...Nh5 is the better move. Even so after 8...0-0 9.Bxf4 MN missed the improvement 13...Qe4 already played in corr chess in 1997.
MN provides no further explanation for his use of exclam mark after 8...0-0. I suppose he simply copied Gallagher's punctutation, who in turn copied from Estrin&Glazkov, but this does not make it right. On top of this MN misses the transposition 8...Nh5 9.0-0 0-0! (Instead of 9...Qxh4)
6) Game 21, Chigorin-Davidov. Features the Muzio-Polerio gambit. Does MN know who Polerio was? I doubt it. MN dismissed 7.d3 as too slow citing 7...Bh6 8.Nc3 Ne7 9.e5. No mention of the better 9.Bxf4 analyzed extensively by Bücker in his book.
13.Qe2 is referred to as the MacLean attack, a common mistake. The correct name is the Lean attack. Now 13...b5 is '!' in MCO and the lamentable Complete book of gambits by one R.Keene. After 14.Nxe7 Qc5+ MN only considers 15.Kh1 not the better 15.Rf2. One cand find more improvements for White in this line but MN was not looking for one.
7) Game 22, Leisebein-Baer. 9...Qf5! Here MN only gives Estrin's 10.g4 nothing of 10.Bxf4. Likewise after 9...Qxd4+ 10.Be3 only 10...Qf6 is considered no mention of 10...Qg7.
8) Game 25. I have recently mentioned the total insuffiecieny of MN's analysis of 6...Nc6. After 6...d5 MN wonders what improvement Fedorov might have had to meet this move. Well, two better moves than 7.exd5 were already known: 7.Be5!? Coco-Tusiko, corr 1995 and 7.Nc3.
9) Game 26. MN dismissed the Hamppe-Allgaier gambit with an incredibly superficial piece of analysis, apparently unaware of 8.Bc4+ which Shulman had been succesful with in some games in 1997 and even published in a NIC Yearbook. MN's analysis of 9.Kh1 is an almost reproduction of the game Tseitlin-Marciano, Bukharest 1993 without quote. 9.Be3 was analyzed by Marciano, but of course MN does not know of this.
10) Game 32. MN only gives 14...f5? when in fact there are two better moves: 14...Nc6 (Wells-Ibragimov 1993) and 14...Qd5 (Hector-Barkhagen, Sweden 1996). Black won both of these games, and while White should be better after either move one wonders why MN gave 14...f5? preference.
11) Game 40. The continuation of this game is known to everyone but MN to be a drawing variation and was surely played with this in mind. Nevertheless, 9.Qe1! is a better try but readers of MN will never know. The fate that befalls the Steinitz gambit in this book is too sad to be told.
12) Game 45. Black could play 10...Bxf3 (Sanchez-Almeyra - Estremera, Barcelona 1992 given by Gallagher in the Trends 2 booklet.) and here White has a nice trap...but alas MN only mentions 10...Bc7.
13) Game 56. 3...Ne7 is made to look interesting. I should think that the very least one could expect was the transposition 4.Bc4 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 to the modern defence being given, but not so. Instead we are treated to a totalt disregard for White improvements. After 3...Nc6 one would expect a few lines on the simple 4.d4, instead only 4.Nc3 g5 5.h4 is given transposing to the complicated Hamppe-Allagier. I guess the reader can figure out that 5.d4 is covered elsewhere on his own. While 5.Bc4 is totally left out.
14) Game 57. The Adelaide countegambit was getting popular around 1998 but here we are given a brief fragment with 4.exf5. Nothing of 4.d4, 4.Bc4, 4.Nc3, 4.d3 or indeed 3.Nc3 transposing to the Vienna gambit. After 2...Nf6 only 3.fxe5 is given when 3.Nf3 is obviously the more felxible move.
15) Game 58. In Bücker's book he prefers 7...g5 over 7...dxe5 of the game. No mention either of 4.Nf3 or 4.Bc4.
Rest asure that I could fill the entire forum with similar examples.
16) Here are some lines left out:
2...d6
2...c6 or 2...exf4 3.Nf3 c6
2...d5 3.exd5 Bc5 (Miles)
2...Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6 or 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 Bc5
2...exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Quaade gambit
2...exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 or 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3 likely to transpose to wither the Becker defence or the Rosentreter gambit.
2...exf4 3.Nf3 h5 even though MN faced it himself!
2....exf4 3.Bc4 Ne7 (Polgar-Barua, Biel 1993)
and the list goes on and on and on...
Anyone buying this book expecting to play the KB with White must be sorely disappointed as after 3.Bc4 there is little help and after 3.Nf3 d6 or 3...g5 MN gives no line that leads to a playable game for White.
I found a lot of good things in the book as well, but for experts it is useless and for beginners there are simply not enough explanations and too many interesting variations and moves are left out for it to be useful. I am a big fan of veracity in chess books as far as it is possible but all too often they fall short. Books on the BDG for being too optimistic. MN's KG book for the opposite and simple lack of trying.
Indeed if the book is intended for the average player then why does MN make the all too common mistake of selecting the lines that GMs play against various defences instead of fun lines. E.g. 5.d4 and 5.Be2 against the Schallopp instead of 5.Qe2!?
4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 against the Cunningham instead of the fun 5.Nc3!? Nxe4 6.Ne5.
Pages: 
C30-C39: A new look at the King's Gambit (Read 71996 times)
