Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Sad coverage of the King's gambit (Read 17408 times)
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 617
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #30 - 10/23/06 at 10:10:49
Post Tools
Quote:
Dragonslayer wrote on 10/16/06 at 17:04:53:
the one on the KG Kieseritzky gambit by IM Bernd Rechel that you could buy from TWIC theory in 2004


I just bought it
a total waste of money


actually that's not quite true
the game with 5...Nf6 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 Nh5!? is interesting

Smiley
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #29 - 10/18/06 at 19:59:22
Post Tools
Indeed several excellent chess books by non-GM's have been published.
For example Tim Hardings CD on the (spanish) Marshall attack was far superior to
the Lalic's book.
And Palkövi's book on the Two Knight's game easily outclassed Beljavski's.
Bückner's book on the King's gambit (unfortunately only available in German and Dutch)
contains far better research and much more interesting analysis than McDonalds book.

I just limited my examples to (1.e4,e5  Wink )


On TN's:
I think Tim Harding once pointed out that from the 10 best theorical novelties in the Informator in
some year, half had been anticipated by correspondence players  Smiley

In the 1.e4,e5 section of Chess Publishing I've pointed out that Motwani represented a variation 
by a game played in a junior championship; happily ignoring that the correct way to play this 
variation had been shown by two world class correspondence players 20 years before.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #28 - 10/18/06 at 17:59:00
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 10/18/06 at 15:54:05:

My point is the same for chess as it is in my field: Even though I (a M.Sc) have a very good reputation and track-record as a teacher people will almost always prefer a Ph.D. over me no matter what the job is. Likewise publishers will always prefer a GM over someone without. The syndrome is called the same thing in science as it is in chess: Snobbery.
History is rife with such bs. Why were some people "knights" just because of their descent or ancestry? Why should someone have a headstart in (capitalist) society because of their inheritance,

Placing titles earned, such as GM or Ph.D., are in the same category as titles based on ancestry, such as knight or king (or U.S. president!  Wink) makes for a poor comparison.  To accord higher status to an earned title recognizes the effort and training which went into earning that title - no so with inherited titles.
To collectively lable all status based on titles as snobbery is oversimplification.

Dragonslayer wrote on 10/18/06 at 15:54:05:
and finally why should someone write better books about openings just because they have a GM title?
True everything else being equal they do!

Well this is the point isn't it?  A book written by a GM (or Ph.D.) is a safer bet for the publisher - from the perespective of the likely quality of the work as well as marketability.  This doesn't mean it's fair, but it's understandable.  Again, it's not snobbery.  Without the title (or with a lower title) it's going to take extra effort to get one's ideas recognized or work published (think of it as the effort not expended to achieve the title if you like).  It doesn't preclude such recognition or publication, BTW - just makes it more difficult.

BTW Mike, I've read many of your articles for CCN and have a number of games you've annotated in my main Chessbase database.  Your writing/analysis is definitely first rate IMO, and you should get paid for work of that quality.
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #27 - 10/18/06 at 17:43:05
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 10/18/06 at 15:54:05:
OstapBender wrote on 10/18/06 at 03:55:14:

Gee, irony really is a tricky subject for us Americans.  Let me see if I get it.  If a person reveals his own cluelessness in the process of accusing another person of being clueless, I guess that would be ironic, wouldn't it?  Hmmm, if only I could think of a good example to illustrate this...  Undecided


OstapBender. I think you confuse irony with sarcasm  Wink

Told you it was a tricky subject for us Americans.  Wink That's sarcasm, BTW...

"If a person reveals his own cluelessness in the process of accusing another person of being clueless..."  Unless, I'm mistaken, this would be irony.  Roll Eyes

Then we have "Hmmm, if only I could think of a good example to illustrate this..."  Sarcasm again.

Maybe I need to look up irony in the dictionary.  Perhaps it doesn't mean what I think it means.  That's either sarcasm or truth, I'll decide after I look up the definition of irony.  Grin)

Sorry for being off topic.


  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #26 - 10/18/06 at 15:54:05
Post Tools
OstapBender wrote on 10/18/06 at 03:55:14:

Gee, irony really is a tricky subject for us Americans.  Let me see if I get it.  If a person reveals his own cluelessness in the process of accusing another person of being clueless, I guess that would be ironic, wouldn't it?  Hmmm, if only I could think of a good example to illustrate this...  Undecided


Oops... I just assumed that the somewhat selfpromoting choice of handle (you can say the same about mine but check my score against the Dragon beforehand) gave a clue. Apparently I was wrong. Sorry Top. Sincerely!
I guess you are not one of the lot who thinks the problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur.

OstapBender. I think you confuse irony with sarcasm  Wink

Top, I can see where you are going with your arguments. I am a Socialist so I don't necessarily agree with the axioms of capitalism you base them on.
My point is the same for chess as it is in my field: Even though I (a M.Sc) have a very good reputation and track-record as a teacher people will almost always prefer a Ph.D. over me no matter what the job is. Likewise publishers will always prefer a GM over someone without. The syndrome is called the same thing in science as it is in chess: Snobbery.
History is rife with such bs. Why were some people "knights" just because of their descent or ancestry? Why should someone have a headstart in (capitalist) society because of their inheritance, and finally why should someone write better books about openings just because they have a GM title?
True everything else being equal they do! But most of the time I would say that after seeing a book by a GM that everything (prose, honesty in revealing everything, choice of lines compared with intended audience, research in existing material and simple effort) was not equal. I guess publishers are not to blaim. The consumers are. As long as there are people willing to pay money for crap by people like Raymond Keene and Eric Schiller (actually Who's Afraid of the KG is one of his better efforts, I only have 5 or 6 lines that are completely winning against his repertoire)  there will be publishers peddling it.
For the record my score with the KG is 73%
P:56 W:37 D:8 L:11 These include some very old games. If I only take games since 2001 when I passed 1900 in rating, the score is 80% 
P:22 W:16 D:3 L:3 The losses include the game against Edoo where I was completely winning and a loss against IM Pilgaard, where I had a big advantage and only lost trying everything to avoid the draw.
IMHO the bad press a lot of people give the KG is the same snobbery: "If the GMs don't play it, it must be crap." I disagree...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 617
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #25 - 10/18/06 at 11:02:28
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 10/18/06 at 00:39:04:
I too have a theory, and it is that strong White players no better than to use the KINGS GAMBIT IN ANY FORM against strong opposition on a regular basis. To adapt a line from Nigel Short: To play the Kings Gambit regularly is to take ones life in your hands.


Yes, but that's not because the King's Gambit is unsound. More that it's not worth the time invested for the professional player. The King's Gambit is very easy to prepare for if Black knows it's coming. And worse, it's very easy to find novelties for Black, which White then has to solve over the board. Not the situation a pragmatic grandmaster (who has bills to pay) wants to face regularly: a difficult draw against a well-prepared 2250 player, a crushing defeat to some 2550 GM, a consequent big loss in prize money. Hence (checking a couple of scores in MegaBase):

Fedorov P44, W21, D16, L7, 66%
with 2 Nf3 (since 2003): P33, W15, D17, L1, 71%

Hebden P42, W18, D11, L13, 56%
with 1 d4 (since 1988): P655, W369, D204, L82 72%

[although: Gallagher P78, W48, D18, L12, 73%; with 2 Nf3 (since 1996): P57, W24, D28, L5, 67%]

But so what? So a GM scores better with 2 Nf3 or whatever; those are professionals' results, with professional technique to back them up. At lower levels you can get away with absolutely any old rubbish, much worse openings than 2 f4. Games are won and lost on mistakes, not small theoretical advantages. It's much better to play openings you enjoy, openings where you know what you're doing, pet lines with your own ideas, anything you like. (Actually that works at higher levels as well; e.g. in England GMs Hodgson and Hebden making big weapons out of 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 and 2 Nf3 g6 3 Nc3 respectively.)

Incidentally, my own score as White with the KG OTB is 69% (or 73% if I leave out several losses to Hebden Roll Eyes). As Black it's 78%, which is quite a bit better than my 66% against the Ruy (but that's playing the King's Gambit a tempo down; i.e. 3...f5).

TopNotch wrote on 10/18/06 at 00:39:04:
I could be way off base here, but I think there is a reason why there has not been a COHERENT repertoire book advocating the Kings Gambit since Joe Gallagher's effort 'Winning With The King's Gambit' WAY BACK IN 1992!!, that reason being, such a repertoire simply does not exist.


There have been two books by Thomas Johansson and one book, one CD by Bangiev.

But anyway, of course a repertoire exists. People write books on 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bf4, 1 e4 c5 2 a3, 1 g4, ... You can build a repertoire out of anything as long as you know what you're doing - and that's much easier in a pet sideline than a big main line. For instance, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4! is of course critical, but I've scored much better (80%) with 3 Bb5+ Bd7 4 a4 which is at best equal for White (and have a similar score with 1 b3). It doesn't matter. Smiley

TopNotch wrote on 10/18/06 at 00:39:04:
Admittedly you have peaked my curiosity concerning the mysterious C39, I will have to check my database to see what all the fuss is about, and why the standard recipe of g5 followed by Bg7 etc. shouldn't be good for Black here as well.


4...Bg7 is fine. It's just that in this particular position 4...Nc6 is better.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
OstapBender
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #24 - 10/18/06 at 03:55:14
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 10/16/06 at 17:04:53:
To Top

2) For me the letters I, r, o, n, and y spell irony. Since you prefer to keep your identity a secret, I will just assume that you are an American, whence you are excused for not understanding this tricky subject. I should think the irony of the first line of my post was obvious.

Gee, irony really is a tricky subject for us Americans.  Let me see if I get it.  If a person reveals his own cluelessness in the process of accusing another person of being clueless, I guess that would be ironic, wouldn't it?  Hmmm, if only I could think of a good example to illustrate this...  Undecided
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10764
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #23 - 10/18/06 at 01:36:46
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 10/18/06 at 00:39:04:
I could be way off base here, but I think there is a reason why there has not been a COHERENT repertoire book advocating the Kings Gambit since Joe Gallagher's effort 'Winning With The King's Gambit' WAY BACK IN 1992!!, that reason being, such a repertoire simply does not exist.


Maybe the word coherent means something different in English than in Dutch, but both Thomas Johansson's books from 1998 and 2004 seem very coherent to me. Of course TJ is not a GM.
Yes, TopNotch, Ricardo dos Ramos already told me you are not playing for the USA.  Wink
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #22 - 10/18/06 at 00:51:18
Post Tools
Keano wrote on 10/16/06 at 14:21:35:
Personally I´d prefer he didnt waste any space on Kings Gambit - The Lopez Marshall stuff is excellent this month, and it would be good to get more of his input on the "mainstream" openings. Full marks to his material though, top class.


I'm not sure that I fully agree that this would be a waste of space, since the King's Gambit still retains a certain appeal and popularity at the lower levels. A Grandmaster perspective would surely be welcome and will certainly carry more weight than the musings of a patzer like me.

Toppy Smiley
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #21 - 10/18/06 at 00:39:04
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 10/16/06 at 17:04:53:
To Top

Since I don't subscribe I am not allowed to email people only to post in this Forum. Anyway, I gave New In Chess a lot of stuff for 6 articles, and despite excellent criticism of these articles, they refused to pay me properly, with the one and only reason being that I do not have a title. So please excuse me if I don't rush to email Olivier everything else for free.
If you want to see what I mean I suggest you compare my articles for Correspondence Chess News (as well as the NIC ones) available for free with the one on the KG Kieseritzky gambit by IM Bernd Rechel that you could buy from TWIC theory in 2004.

I have a little theory why there is no coverage of the critical C39 lines but only some games with C38 against lower rated opposition on this site...guess what it is and add your guess as reason 3 for not subscribing.

To OstapBender: I don't have any aspirations or illusions about my own talent or lack of same (current Elo 2130), but yes I would! Fedorov only gave up the KG at the 2700 level. 

To micawber: Thx!


Dragonslayer wrote on 10/16/06 at 17:04:53:
To Top

Since I don't subscribe I am not allowed to email people only to post in this Forum. Anyway, I gave New In Chess a lot of stuff for 6 articles, and despite excellent criticism of these articles, they refused to pay me properly, with the one and only reason being that I do not have a title. So please excuse me if I don't rush to email Olivier everything else for free.
If you want to see what I mean I suggest you compare my articles for Correspondence Chess News (as well as the NIC ones) available for free with the one on the KG Kieseritzky gambit by IM Bernd Rechel that you could buy from TWIC theory in 2004.

I have a little theory why there is no coverage of the critical C39 lines but only some games with C38 against lower rated opposition on this site...guess what it is and add your guess as reason 3 for not subscribing.

To OstapBender: I don't have any aspirations or illusions about my own talent or lack of same (current Elo 2130), but yes I would! Fedorov only gave up the KG at the 2700 level. 

To micawber: Thx!


When one has attained a degree or some other profesional qualification in a certain field it is normal to have greater earning potential than someone else in that field that has not attained these qualifications. So why should it be any different with chess and chess titles?

You have a theory about why eco code C39 has been neglected by, presumably Renet in favor of some C38 games played by weak opposition as White. 

I too have a theory, and it is that strong White players no better than to use the KINGS GAMBIT IN ANY FORM against strong opposition on a regular basis. To adapt a line from Nigel Short: To play the Kings Gambit regularly is to take ones life in your hands.

I could be way off base here, but I think there is a reason why there has not been a COHERENT repertoire book advocating the Kings Gambit since Joe Gallagher's effort 'Winning With The King's Gambit' WAY BACK IN 1992!!, that reason being, such a repertoire simply does not exist.

Admittedly you have peaked my curiosity concerning the mysterious C39, I will have to check my database to see what all the fuss is about, and why the standard recipe of g5 followed by Bg7 etc. shouldn't be good for Black here as well.

Thanks Mr. Taitt for the review/opinion of Rechel's TWIC  theory article, I was toying with the idea of purchasing a copy myself, but unless someone from TWIC theory comes here to refute your evaluation of the product I think I'll keep my five pounds this time around.    
 
Last but not least, to Dragonslayer, I am not an american.

Topper Smiley 
    

  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 617
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #20 - 10/17/06 at 22:31:26
Post Tools
Dragonslayer wrote on 10/16/06 at 17:04:53:
the one on the KG Kieseritzky gambit by IM Bernd Rechel that you could buy from TWIC theory in 2004


I just bought it
a total waste of money

Huh
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dragonslayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 248
Location: Odense
Joined: 06/13/04
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #19 - 10/16/06 at 17:04:53
Post Tools
To Top

1) You seem to have a grotesque predilection for the "excluded middle" argument. I did not not imply that the 1. e4 e5 section is only about the Ruy Lopez. I implied that it is mostly about the Ruy Lopez, which is not the same thing. One is true the other is not.

2) For me the letters I, r, o, n, and y spell irony. Since you prefer to keep your identity a secret, I will just assume that you are an American, whence you are excused for not understanding this tricky subject. I should think the irony of the first line of my post was obvious.

3) I think Jonathan answered that one.

4) I thought that 7...a6 clearly indicated that the novelty in my game was played by Black. You might also want to check out Informator 83.

Since I don't subscribe I am not allowed to email people only to post in this Forum. Anyway, I gave New In Chess a lot of stuff for 6 articles, and despite excellent criticism of these articles, they refused to pay me properly, with the one and only reason being that I do not have a title. So please excuse me if I don't rush to email Olivier everything else for free.
If you want to see what I mean I suggest you compare my articles for Correspondence Chess News (as well as the NIC ones) available for free with the one on the KG Kieseritzky gambit by IM Bernd Rechel that you could buy from TWIC theory in 2004.

I have a little theory why there is no coverage of the critical C39 lines but only some games with C38 against lower rated opposition on this site...guess what it is and add your guess as reason 3 for not subscribing.

To OstapBender: I don't have any aspirations or illusions about my own talent or lack of same (current Elo 2130), but yes I would! Fedorov only gave up the KG at the 2700 level. 

To micawber: Thx!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2922
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #18 - 10/16/06 at 16:28:56
Post Tools
I agree - maybe a bit of proportion with the mainstream or more popular openings getting more coverage, but the less popular ones getting say one game. The way he did it this month concentrating on the Marshall for example, and then throwing in a KIngs Gambit was very good in my opinion. The next time he could concentrate on a different Spanish, or Petroff, and throw in a little bit about Philidor at the end - just an example but you know what I mean. I think his balance is very good.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #17 - 10/16/06 at 15:12:30
Post Tools
Personally, I'd like to see recent theoretically important games, so why add some black propaganda in C37 and C38 ? 

But if the available games allow it - I would prefer 'a little of everything' i.e. the Philidor, Scotch, Petroff, Vienna, KG etc rather than all games in the Spanish, as I don't play the Ruy with either colour...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2922
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Sad coverage of the King's gambit
Reply #16 - 10/16/06 at 14:21:35
Post Tools
Personally I´d prefer he didnt waste any space on Kings Gambit - The Lopez Marshall stuff is excellent this month, and it would be good to get more of his input on the "mainstream" openings. Full marks to his material though, top class.
« Last Edit: 10/16/06 at 16:25:26 by Keano »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo