alumbrado wrote on 03/02/08 at 16:28:04:


Well, then you need to explain why this British IM Demetrios Agnos now has no games at all in Chessbase's Mega Databases, while most of Greek GM Dimitrios Anagnostopoulos' early games in Mega 2007 (up to the mid-90s) were played in Britain, including two British Championships.

Besides Donaldson-Agnos/Anagnostopoulos, Isle of Man 1997 there is also the following example:

- Adams-Anagnostopoulos, Lloyds' Bank op (2), 1991 [B07] (source: Mega DB 2007)
- Adams-Agnos, London 1991 [B07] with the same moves up to move 10 where the variaton ends (source: Nunn/NcNab: The Ultimate Pirc)

I rest my case

Pessoa wrote on 02/26/08 at 14:54:27:


Wow, quite a long list. Hansen the reviewer might well have pointed out many of the same problems. I also wonder if there was an editor involved at all?

The only explanation I can think of is the book was rushed to try and get it published before Christmas. But since they failed that, it would have been much better to wait and do some serious editing and blunderchecking.

I want to rectifiy the authors on one small point:

Pessoa wrote on 02/26/08 at 14:54:27:


Agnos and Anagnostopoulos are the same player, as I learned from the GM himself after he beat me in an open tournament. He used a shortened form of the name for a number of years while playing tournaments in western Europe. Probably both Donaldson's scoresheet and the databases ca. 1998 said 'Agnos'. I think we can forgive the authors for not keeping up with the changing names of European title holders!

I just received my copy. I was flipping through the whole book to see if it deals with 1.Nf3 Nc6 (yeah.. the index would certainly have been useful!)
If 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.c4 e5, it seems that Black can choose not to transpose into the reversed closed Sicilian lines since ...d6 hasn't been played. Now, if 3.Nc3 (3.g3 e4), White has to know a whole lot of 'English: Three Knights' theory, right? Just wondering if 1...Nc6 trips up the Nf3-c4-g3 recommendation.

FM Carsten Hansen wrote on 01/24/08 at 03:39:23:

(… continued from Reply #90)

Page 193, Game 126 (Romero Holmes – Carrasco Martinez 2004)
Comment to 11.e4:
"An important alternative is 11.Rd1, and now:
a) 11...Bd7 12.e4 Nb6 [...] 13.Nc3 Qc7 14.Bf4 e5 15.Be3 with a plus for White, Chekhov – Sibarevic, Banja Luka 1983, but Black can improve by 14...Qe8, e.g. 15.Qe2 Na5 [...], Kavalek – Gruenfeld, Thessaloniki ol 1984."
This doesn’t make sense, because after 13...Qc7, Black cannot play 14...Qe8. It only becomes clear after looking up the game Kavalek – Gruenfeld in the database: Gruenfeld played 13...Rc8, not 13...Qc7.

Page 193, Game 126 (Romero Holmes – Carrasco Martinez 2004)
In the comment to 13...Qh5, the alternative "13...Bxb4" is analysed, but the equally possible 13...Nxb4 is not. (Only a slight irritation.)

Page 195, Game 127 (Cosma – Olivier 1998)
Comment to 17...Be8:
"This is a perfectly normal move, but Black shouldn’t play it until the position is further under control. A better try is 17...a5 to undermine White’s queenside [...]."
Actually, 17...Be8 was the only move, because White threatened to play 18.e4, winning a piece; it seems that this is what would happen after 17...a5? 18.e4! +– (Fritz).

Page 195, Game 127 (Cosma – Olivier 1998) 
Comment to 22.h4: 
"White can do even better with 22.Bxg7 Bc6 23.Bxh6 Qg6 24.e4! and Black’s position is a complete mess."
According to Fritz and Rybka, 22.h4 is the best move in the position, because after 22.Bxg7, Black can try 22...Rxc5. It is true that even after this White has a great advantage, but 22...Bc6 loses outright.

Page 197, Game 129 (Spangenberg – Paglilla 1998)
Comment to 37.Rd6: 
"37.Rde1! Qc7 38.Qf3 is uninspiring for Black."
Another typo; this should read "37.Rde1! Bc7 [...]".

Page 198, Game 129 (Spangenberg – Paglilla 1998)
Comment to 51.Qe3: 
"[...] Faster is 51.Qd7+ Kg8 52.Qe8+ Kg7 53.Bc3+ Kh6 54.Qe6+ Kh5 55.Qe2 and the coming queen exchange makes the win trivial."
True, but in this line, 54.Qh8+ is even faster, forcing mate after 54...Kg6 55.Qg7+ Kh5 56.Qg5#.

Page 200, Game 131 (Vinh Bui – Son Nguyen Ngoc Truong 2003)
Comment to 10...Bd7:
"In Capablanca – Trompowsky, Black tried 10...Bb7, but after 11.Rd1 0-0 12.Na3 Qb6 13.e4 Nf6 [...], he was in serious trouble."
Fine, but the reader (or Fritz, for that matter) wonders why White refrained from playing 11.e4, winning a piece. An interesting variation might have occurred here on the board: after 11.e4 Nb6 12.Rxd8 Nxa4 13.Rd7 Rfd8 14.Rxe7 Rd1+ 15.Bf1 Rxc1 16.Rxb7 Nc5 17.Rb4 Rd8, White is piece up, but how is he to develop his queenside? Perhaps Capablanca had seen something like this and decided to play it safe ...

Page 215, Game 139 (Hansen – Petersen, corr. 1990)
Comment to 13...h6:
"13...c5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Ng5 fxg5 16.Bxb7±".
This seems to imply that 13...c5 is a mistake, but apparently, it is not. On 14.Bxf6, Black has two alternatives to 14...gxf6: one game was drawn after 14...Qxf6 15.Ne5 cxd4 16.Nxd7, Hoffmann (2440) – Braun (2215), Bad Wiessee 1998 (although White may be slightly better here). Another game, a truly high-class encounter, saw 14...Nxf6 15.Nxc5 Be4 16.Qc3 e5 17.e3 Bxc5 18.dxc5 Qd5, with compensation for the pawn, Kramnik – Carlsen, Moscow, 10 November 2007; but it stands to reason that this game wasn’t known to the authors when the book went to the printer.

Page 231, Game 149 (Andersson – Bergstrom 1996)
"45.f4! 
Bringing up the reserves. The end is in sight and Andersson finishes off with precision. 
45...Rc7 46.Rd5! a6 47.Nxe5+ Ke6 48.Nc6 axb5 49.Nd4+! Ke7 50.Rxd6! 1-0."
Well, 46.Rd5 was not the most precise, I suppose, because this gave Black the chance to play 46...Ke6!, threatening ...Nxe4, with counterplay. Instead, White should have played the preliminary 46.fxe5 fxe5, and only now 47.Rd5!  
Nor was 47.Nxe5+ the most accurate, because after 47...Ke6 48.Nc6, Black could have played 48...Nxe4, rather than blundering with 48...axb5. Again, better would have been 47.fxe5 fxe5 first, and only then 48.Nxe5+ Ke6 49.Nc6, when White, a clear pawn up, has a substantial advantage.

Page 232, Game 150 (Krogius – Matanovic 1966)
The comment to Black’s 10. move quotes a game fragment "Portisch – Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1975". 
However, according to Megabase 2008, the fragment is from the game Portisch – Furman, Wijk aan Zee 1975.

Page 232, Game 150 (Krogius – Matanovic 1966). 
Comment to 17...d4:
"[...] The alternative 17...Rac8 18.Nd3 d4 19.Bg5 is clearly better for White."
Fritz and Rybka don’t agree, thinking that Black is at least equal after 19...c4. 
Are the engines right? Well, ask the grandmasters! Megabase 2008 contains four games in which the position after 17...Rac8 was reached:
- Dorfman (2545) – Psakhis (2525) 1983, drawn on move 23
- Podgaets (2450) – Balashov (2545) 1983, drawn on move 20
- Berkovich (2445) – Naumkin (2430) 1992, drawn on move 21
- Naumkin (2455) – Zaitsev (2430) 1994, drawn on move 19.
Dorfman and Naumkin played 18.b3 followed by 19.Rfd1, Podgaets and Berkovich played 18.Rfd1 followed by 19.b3. So, these not exactly weak masters had no problems (as Black) playing 17...Rac8, nor did they (as White) play 18.Nd3. Perhaps they had a reason?  

Page 235, Game 152 (Petrosian – Botvinnik 1963)
Comment to 11...c5:
"11...Qd7 is supposed to equalize for Black, but it is not as easy as the books claim: 12.Qxd7 Nxd7 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Bf4 c5 and now [...] White should opt for the untried 15.Ne3!"
Untried? According to Megabase 2008, 15.Ne3 was played in the games 
- Trifunovic – Vukovic 1960
- Savon – Zaitsev 1969
- Ivkov – Sosonko 1977
- Gutman – Zilberman 1979, 
all ending in a draw.

Page 236, Game 153 (Vladimirov – Harikrishna 2000) 
The comment to Black’s 15. move contains a game fragment "Eperjesi – Petran, Budapest 1975".
I cannot find such a game in Megabase 2008; instead, the moves of the fragment correspond to the game Ivkov – Jelen, Bled 1979.

Page 243, Game 156 (Polgar – Xie Jun 1996)
The comment to Black’s 14. move contains a fragment from the game "Donaldson – David, Isle of Man 1997", resulting in the assessment: "22.Nd4± [...], and the bishop is much stronger than the knight."
I have two points to make. First, Fritz and Rybka assess the position after 22.Nd4 as almost equal, with only a very slight edge to White. (But I have to admit that this could be one of those cases when the engines are 'wrong' ...) Second, the game was drawn on move 27 (Megabase 2008).

Page 245, Game 157 (Donaldson – Cartagena 1997)
The comment to Black’s 12. move contains a game fragment "Donaldson – Goldbar (computer), The Hague 1997". 
Again, I cannot find this game in Megabase 2008; instead, the fragment is from the game M.Voorn – Goldbar (computer), The Hague 1997.

Page 247, Game 158 (Kasparov – Short 1990)
The annotation contains a fragment (so it seems) from the game "Magerramov – Panchenko, Bad Worishofen 1994". It ends in the assessment "36.Rd4 +=". 
I have two points to make. First, this should read "Bad Woerishofen" or, better still, "Bad Wörishofen". (Sorry for that one!) Second, after 36.Rd4 White is totally winning, and therefore Black resigned at this point (Megabase 2008).

Page 253, Game 161 (Tratar – Sveshnikov 1999)
Comment to 17...b4:
"17...Bc5+ 18.Kh1 [...] Qb6 19.fxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxh6 Kf8 21.Nf5±."
Here, 20.d4! (Fritz, Rybka) looks much stronger than 20.Nxh6.

Page 264, Game 168 (Chekhov – Spassky 1990)
Comment to 23...Rd8:
"23...Bb4 is not as good: 24.g4 Be7 25.gxh5 fxe5 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.Qe4 and White is winning."
Yes, but after 24...Re7 (instead of 24...Be7), it is Black who is winning, not White. (Fritz, Rybka)

Page 265, Bibliography
The bibliography appears to be incomplete: the first author on the list is Bosch, the last is Matanovic. What about the second half of the alphabet? Surely the books by Watson on the English Opening should have been mentioned? (At least the authors refer to them quite frequently.) And also the books by Raetsky and Chetverik on the English Opening (1.c4 e5) and the Catalan should be on the list, as well as Palliser’s important and very good Beating Unusual Chess Openings, covering a few lines advocated by Donaldson and Hansen in quite some detail.

My list ends here, but it may not be complete: so far I have only looked at about 70% of the book in some detail. It remains to be seen whether the rest contains a similar bunch of ... well, let's say, 'errors'.

That’s many negative points. Any positive ones?

Well, the positive aspects of the book have been described elsewhere, here in the forum and in Stephen Ham’s review. The book does contain much valuable information; if only it had been better organised ...

A last point:

Black_Widow wrote on 02/09/08 at 11:29:07:

Actually, at least four such annotations can be found in the book: on pages 81, 96, 126, and 256.

Being originally a e4 player, I used other sources, to find a path through the variation-jungle. And I am especially interested in the mixture reportoire from english with d4 openings. So it would have been a great help. Apart from finding where in the book some variations were discussed.

JonHecht wrote on 02/23/08 at 19:52:02:


Personally I think it is even worse. Because of a lack of index, major continuations are not discussed, and other games would not have been part of the book.

Besides, if Carsten would do one of his excellent reviews on this book, I think it would be one of his main comments on the book.

Yes, I gave that point serious consideration before echoing the criticism of others, but how much easier the book would be to navigate if only this index was present.  Understanding is indeed the main aim of such a repertoire, but lets remember that it is an opening repertoire rather than a middlegame manual.  Even the oft-criticised Everyman books have an index of sorts at each chapter end, a basic courtesy not offered by this book.  I learnt chess (as White) for the first time using Tony Kosten's The Dynamic English, but I think I'd have been put off if it had no index.....when I tried the Nimzo Larsen attack, or Dunnington's Reti book, I would have struggled without the indices each of the books on those openings contained; are flank openings somehow not as deserving of thorough navigation just because they aren't as sharp as Sicilians?

Once again I should say that I think it looks like a very good book, and with my existing experience of the English Opening it isn't too foreign to me in terms of concepts, but I still feel an index should be present in all opening books, however rudimentary the index or indeed content of the book is.  I think my view on this is only compounded by the fact that the author reviews chess books so well, and so often, as to make one expect such a basic inclusion; I imagine John Watson might also feel that way, knowing his own pet hate of this omission with regard to the much-maligned Everyman system of indexing mentioned earlier.

I would imagine a trawl through the archives at Chess Cafe might even reveal Carsten Hansen making the same point about the work of another, and were that the case then I would have to assume he does indeed feel (as you do, Jon) that learning an opening by understanding it thoroughly negates the need for an index and memorisation, but even if I accepted this point (which I don't) I would still like to be able to refer to the book quickly by line and move when checking it against, say, a recent loss I'd suffered in one of my own games. 

Oh well, this rant may well have outweighed the good intent I had when originally posting here, that being that I think the book is definitely a worthy addition to the library of anyone interested in flank openings.  I'm certainly glad I own it despite my one criticism. 

As a casual 'online' player without an ELO rating I very rarely comment on omissions of coverage in a book as they rarely trouble me due to my being either unaware of them (!) or unconcerned by them (my opponents are more or less as ignorant as me).  For this reason it could perhaps be said that such a book is intended for a more sophisticated audience than me anyway (it even says as much in the introduction, i.e. that it is aimed at players from 2000 to 2400 USCF), but that won't stop me from using it if I like the lines.  Perhaps the point Jon makes is more relevant to players at that level?  

Seems a very interesting book - looks good apart from the shocking lack of an index.  I cannot understand this - Carsten writes good reviews of chess books and has doubtless critiqued hundreds in his time - I don't know why he was unable to add an index of variations to this book, something that is essential in every modern chess opening book, surely?!