TopNotch wrote on 08/12/06 at 02:28:22:

Quite the quote. It should be noted that Berry was a former KG player who has since given up on it, and it's psychology 101 that if one has to give up something they prized, they will (subconsciously or not) try to push others away from it as well (jealousy and all that).

It's just like the sorry guys you meet who have struck out with beautiful women so many times that they preach to all their friends "they're not worth it, nothing but trouble, i've heard they're terrible in bed", etc etc etc. Or the "she's not really pretty at all when the makeup comes off..." They have realized (whether truthfully or not) that their chances are slim to none...so if they cannot have the prized toy, no one can. You'd know something about being that guy, wouldn't you Toppy?    

The moral? I've not seen the analysis, but such a quote (by itself) from a bitter ex-KG'er doesn't really hold much sway over my opinion.

TopNotch wrote on 08/12/06 at 02:28:22:

One of the things about the KG is that it's foundation is solidly positional. White gives up a pawn to gain a development lead, initiative, and a freer hand in the center. If he is able to regain the pawn, his structure is often better than Black's in an otherwise neutral endgame. These principles cannot be really refuted, just like the Marshall Attack in the Spanish can't be.

And I can't agree at all that the KG is lacking in tactical and strategic richness - at least not "per capita" or "per variation." I agree that the Spanish is truly a fertile ground among openings, but if you compare the KG to just about everything else (Sicilian is really like 12 seperate openings under the same name) there's no lack at all. The number of different pawn structures the KG produces is quite high (compare to something like the Caro or Slav); there's no definate "best spots" for development as there are, say, the Spanish; about the only "static" feature of the KG is that there are no stagnant positions! Certainly no Exchange Slavs possible here. And even the wildest, sharpest variations are thematic and aesthetic - not chaotic and haphazard like the Najdorf PP.

Oh - and about the Gallagher & 15 years thing...he was quite successful with the KG for many many years. Even after he wrote his book. He's never played 3 Bc4, either...and it's quite understandable that instead of switching from 3 Nf3 five years ago, he decided to diversify. At the highest level, macro-diversity (several completely different openings) is much preferred to micro-diversity (several variations).

I wonder if the effect of comradery doesn't play into it either. Chess is a relatively tight-knit community...with the harsh realities of modern chess tourney prep, it's gotta be tough being the only one studying a particular opening - any opening. There's a certain synergy that's bound to happen when two or three diehard Najdorf players get together to prepare and bounce ideas off each other. Entire variations (Arkhangelsk, to name just one) have been born out of such group preperation. Peer pressure is a phenominal force, at any level.

TopNotch wrote on 08/12/06 at 02:28:22:

I'm not knocking the Dragon at all...I quite like the Dragon (as either side) and for a long time couldn't decide between it and the Najdorf...but I've heard the exact same thing said about the Dragon far more than the KG. The difference seems to be that because the Dragon is part of the huge body of Sicilian theory (instead of an "archaic" open game sideline) it attracts more attention. The difference is that almost everyone will have to play White vs. the dragon and study it...while only 1...e5 players will have to play the KG as Black. But I bet the ratio of those who actually play it to those who "after home study have dismissed it out of hand as too risky" is roughly equal to the KG.

In conclusion...if the KG is indeed riding out on 3 Bc4 as a last hurrah, then I will blindly follow with full expecations of victory and beautiful women. And, if it ever finally dies, I will smile knowing that GM-level theory really won't have much effect on my level anyways.  

But until that day, I look back on chess history and the huge number of "unsound" openings that are tossed wholesale into the garbage by arrogant theory experts (there's always a reason, too...in the mid 20th century, it was 'modern defensive technique'; in the 21st, it's 'computer generated analysis') and I just don't buy that the relative scarcity of KG at the highest levels is anything but whim and fashion (and, quite possibly, utter lack of balls.)

Dave 

OstapBender wrote on 08/11/06 at 21:08:30:


I'm not sure about the last 5 years, but it did say something for Kasparov to use the Dragon in the 95 World Championship. It gives the opening a certain level of credibility despite the ups and downs. Then again, Short, Ivanchuk, Adams, Morozevich, etc. have all given the KG a few tries in the last 10 years. And many of those games have been 3 Bc4.

Good thinking. If we follow TN's argument, 6.Bg5 against the Najdorf is also dodgy, due to the Poisoned Pawn. Since 2005 there have been 25 games with this opening with both players having ELO 2500+. White scores 46%.
And how many games have been played lately with the sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.o-o-o Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 h5 on that level? Also good for the museum? Or worse (for Black), the 9.o-o-o variation? If TN is consequent, he starts playing 1...e5 tomorrow. I hope for him he won't.
TN has proven one thing. 2.Nf3 is more suitable on top level than other 2nd moves. That is old news, isn't it? We know that already about 100 years or so.

Excellent post by OstapBender, as always.

TopNotch wrote on 08/10/06 at 23:07:08:

Since you aren't looking for a defense against the King's Gambit (a diehard Dragon player, by all indications), I have to wonder why you are interested in reading these books ...

You're not -   - a closet King's Gambit player, are you Top - lunging that f-pawn forward when nobody's watching?  

Say it ain't so!  

Just to clarify what I meant with the 2+2=3 analogy, then I will give it a rest.

I say:
Line X in the KG has been busted for White by a specific move (say on move 15, let's call this move B). This statement is verifiably true (in the same sens that 2+2=4 is true) since all moves from this position lead to an undisputable result (at least =+)
On the other hand, I claim that line Y (which diverges from line X at some earlier stage in the opening, say move 8, let's call this move A) of the KG is an interesting try for White. This statement is not verifiable since there may be a refutation later than move 8 of variation Y (move C). In the absence of evidence for such a refutation, the working thesis must be that variation Y is superior to variation X

Now my claim is this: Since both variation X, its refutation (move B) and variation Y (improving on variation X with move A) are widely known, or at least should be to the author who has done his homework, the author of any book on the KG should inform his reader on this state of affairs.

Other people have claimed that it is perfectly ok to write a book with annotated games in the KG (which I do not dispute even if the back cover blurb contradicts this) AND present variation X without its refutation (move B). Or indeed present the refutation move B and ignore the improvement (move A).

So there are four ways of presenting this line:

1) Variation X without either move A or B.
2) Variation X with the refutation, (move B).
3) Variation X with the improvement (move A)
4) Variation X with both the refutation (move B) and the improvement (move A)

These alternatives are NOT contingent. 1) and 3) paints a too optimistic picture (2+2=5  ), while 2) is too pessimistic (2+2=3). IMHO only 4) is acceptable (given that both move A and B are widely known and even given in other books).

Now this would not be a problem if it was limited to a few variations (we all make mistakes), but MNs book is literally littered with 1), 2) and 3)s and hardly any 4)s. This does not constitute an overview or an introduction to the KG. It is a distortion of the facts.
Such a book can not be considered useful in any objective sense.

Of course there is also option 5) if the author actually discovers move C which refutes variation Y.

I hope this clarifies matters and let this be my last spew of venom 

The reason I bought MNs book (which at first I had decided that I wouldn't) is that there are actually quite a lot of 5)s, contributing to the theory of the KG. But the book as a whole is not useful for learning the KG. Play with White: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 or 3.Nf3 g5 and see what I mean. According to MNs book you then have no useful move 4 and cannot even reach equality. Logically this means that the KG is =+ in MNs view. Surely the punter who forks out 15 quid for the book deserves to be told so before getting to page 75 and discover the awful truth.

MNb's example from Williams's book is very good. Other examples are legion. Very often authors neglect to realize that two different move-orders lead to the exact same position in two different places of their book. Disturbingly often the position is even evaluated differently, and why? Because the author recommends one line and then typically ends with += and discourages another, which predictably ends with only '='.

Dragonslayer wrote on 08/08/06 at 14:50:59:


yes, but as I've now learnt: the blurb on back covers are nothing to do with the authors

i.e. never judge a chess book by its cover