I can tell a lot by using reason before an event occurs, as in chess, politics, physics, sports, etc...Saying I need to spend money to criticize an author's choices is ...well not the best rebuttal.
The fact is, these books are let downs and some people don't want to face that.
Quote:Really. Search any database for games after say, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0
9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Nc6 13.d5 Nd8 14.a4 Rb8 and you'll see many feature this "standard" maneuver. Classic games include one or more Bogoljubow - Rubinstein encounters, Smyslov-Levenfish, Schmid-Smyslov, Keres-Vidmar, Evans-Rossolimo, Karpov-Spasski, etc..
I have no doubt that the plan occurs in classic games. I also have no doubt the plan sucks.
I always look at recent games of 2400+ to see what they're playing and how they're doing in certain lines. I can see if there are any similarities. Postny doesn't follow the plan at all, while most of the rest do play f6, some f5 like Postny, and a few find their own way. There certainly does seem to be a lot of international-level players puting their knight on g7 and f7. I just wasn't HONESTLY aware that was the plan. I wasn't saying 'Oh Really?" to be sarcastic, I was being honest. I can't believe that's the plan. It also is occurring less in recent games. I dunno..to me seems like positional play through process of elimination (the knight's doing more on d7 as in a Breyer thsan on f7). However, I agree with you that this is the standard plan in this variation. It just doesn't impress me.
I just don't think this opening choice is anything other than third rate.
In anycase my point is that the plan isn't a shining example of efficiency or much of a winning attempt. The score for this (on Chesslab and my Chessbase) isn't great, either.
And as you can clearly see, the plan with a4 and b4 nullfies any advantage on the queenside black may think he has.
Some times old lines are good, sometimes not. If people aren't playing something, the question is "Why not?'
Quote:"...counting pages?"
Book reviewers do this all the time, even on the quick. Neither Watson nor Hansen read every page of every book they encounter, and reasoned coverage is an issue. I think it's relevant that he chooses to spend more pulp on the evil of two lessers.
Quote:Even you if don't read, talking about books you haven't read...
I've talked about Houska, and Sverre's, both of which I own and read. I don't need to read a book to criticize an author's chosen focus, since the variations are readily available (and stats). I can also see how easy it would be for the good club player to outplay a slightly lower rated opponent in this opening, or outplay a higher one. The former is possible if the lower rated doesn't know the plan, but the latter would be difficult indeed. Plus, there's nothing really on the queenside, and the Kingside often comes under fire ( I don't believe in this fortress thing).
You guys are over looking the obvious anyway: I started off by saying that this book cannot teach us about the Ruy Lopez, just about the plans within the chosen subset, and here we are proving it. The usual ideas in the closed do not involve Nf7, and f6. That's what the ideas are in the Rubenstein, but what about the ideas in the cxd4 variation, which bears more in common with other Spanish types like Adams-Ivanchuk Lucerne '89 or Svidler-Shirov Tal Memorial 2006. These are the kind of games I think of when I think of the Ruy Lopez, or the games from both Fischer-Spassky matches.
I guess I was wrong when I thought that I thought this f6 and Ng7 business wasn't standard, but hey...it still isn't proper Lopez practice to me and definitely is not something to write home about. I still think it would have been better to focus on Bd7 or cxd4...
"I can tell a lot by using reason before an event occurs" I like this quote very much, and it can be applied to Openings and Opening variations as well, i.e. one can often detect using logic and reason that something is fundamentally suspect even before it has been proven. Those familiar with many of my older posts on the forum, especially the 1.e4 e5 section, will know exactly what I'm driving at here.