Naturally, I think my own repertoire needs to be given more attention on Chesspublishing 

Technically, I guess I agree with Inn2, but topical for whom?  Judging by the forum, there are very few Caro-Kann players and lots of advocates of the Scandinavian and the Alekhine, and I don't hear them complaining about the coverage.  Obviously, it would be great to have a separate Caro-Kann section (I know, I know), but I can live with sharing so long as the overall coverage at least attempts to tackle the topical lines and the e-book gets filled in...

1 e4 ... is a huge topic, but the Caro coverage is light.  I'm not sure I can improve on Inn2's comments, but I certainly second his criticisms and strongly agree that the Short Variation of the Advance is poor (it's the last part of it I remember looking at and not finding what I was looking for in more than a couple of lines).  It's an important variation with very little coverage and no suggestion of the key lines.  In general, though, I've stopped using the e-book as a resource, because it's inferior to most books, many of which are out of date themselves.  There's a lot of offbeat stuff, but most Caro-Kann players are less interested in offbeat ideas and aren't particularly interested in transposing to the Scandinavian.  We may like our cardies and tea, but we also want a solid defense to 1 e4...

JEH wrote on 06/21/06 at 11:58:01:


correction! that should read "the ones that make the defence playable".
think the complaint is the c-k is not up to date with the real critical lines, instead we tend to get more coverage of offbeat stuff. Compare to Volzhin for example, who used to focus more on critical theory. 

suggestions: 

Advance-
Georgian Advance system:  4. Be3/ 4. Nd2 in both cases intending Nd2-b3. sometimes with waiting move Be2 before playing Nf3, preserving option of f4 etc. Very rich in nuances not discussed by Martin. Played by Malakhov and Zviagintsev. Both known for playing offbeat stuff which are surprinsgly devastating. 

Short System 5. Be2 Nd7 6. 0-0 Bg6 and 6...h6, both almost exclusively played at 2600+ level (Izoria, Pantsulaia, Dreev, Bologan, Morozevich etc), there have been many many games played but very little coverage thus far (only one game each i think!)

3...c5 4. c4! (life and death issue, hope to see Martin make line playable for Black, so far not convinced by what i see in the ebook, but perhaps not Martin's fault!)

Smyslov 4... Nd7- think the incredible Anand-Bologan game with Re1 a few years ago refutes one whole subline, and its not in the ebook if i recall correctly.

Classical 4... Bf5-
11. Bd2: Jobava-Bareev pawn sac, nowadays solution to this problem is known. but is nowhere in the ebook too. 
11. Bf4 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Bb4: Martin finally covered this in latest update. but he didn't show a terribly theoretically significant game (would consider something like karjakin-mchedishvili, and especially Kritz-Ruck more important for discussion). more games in this line will be welcome as this is a fairly important line of defence.

and these are just off the top of my head! Since c-k section as a whole is already fairly backward, think a good solution is to do a Prie or Olivier, and consider a line intensively each time to bring everything up to date first. 
Then again, maybe not Martin's style though, and maybe not why most people like Martin for! 

Several people have mentioned that the Caro-Kann coverage is not very good in the past, which particular lines are lacking?

I believe his next one deals with the rest of the Veresov, and the other Tromps have been really well covered by him in the recent past.
His goal is to gradually cover all the d-Pawn Specials properly, one-by-one. Once finished he will just consider the newest games, but only after having built-up a strong theoretical base.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/19/06 at 09:52:29:

I like the comments in my subscribed sections (Neil, Andy and you), though I wish you would stick to my repertoire entirely guys

Well this is what I try to aim to do, analyse it in a serious way (especially the opening bit) and yet try not to make the games too dull. It is hard to hit the right balance, especially as the subscribers go from quite weak to super strong GMs!
I agree that Jonathan could be more specific, but on the other hand the pointers he gives to the best move in a position and the right way to play a line are priceless. I personally find this much, much, more useful than when Gary Lane was doing it.
Eric is definitely searching for the absolute truth, and the problem is that a lot of the lesser d-Pawn lines give White no advantage, or even leave him worse. Should any serious opening site gloss over such niceties, or should it be truthful?
I prefer to know whether the line I am thinking of playing has been refuted!

Hello Tony, a very interesting subject for discussion ! maybe you could start a new thread. 
For myself, i tend to prefer deeper analysis so my favourite sections are by Ruslan, Prie and Olivier. But i think a good mix of lesser analysis and more verbal commentary like your own Open Sicilians section and Watson's Flank Openings probably satisfies a wider target audience. Surely its the quality of analysis that counts, not quantity. More important is to suggest possible ways which future theory may develop. 

i agree different openings lend themselves to different types of treatment (ie. 'serious' main lines should be treated 'seriously' ), so nobody really expects tons of variations when Rowson covers 1. e4 c5 2. a3 (or 2. Na3)!