quote from GM Tony Kosten Quote:If I see some interesting analysis in a thread, and it is relevant for a game I am analysing (that is: theoretically important, between strong players, and played in the last month) then I will incorporate it, but I don't see all the threads by any means, or check all the analysis. For those GM writers who don't look at the Forum at all (the vast majority, I would say) how would they get hold of the important analysis? We would need a strong player to check all the threads and find all the important material, I suppose? Or do you have a better idea?
Something like that. I think it is up to some of the subscribers to email the theoretically interesting lines/analysis from the forum with the proper link, preferable attaching a pgn/cbh file that the GM-writer can store for reference and use when he analyses a game.
I could provide pgn/cbv-files for some interesting topics, but certainly not for the whole 1.e4,e5
forum content
As an alternative the GM-writer could PM some of the stronger forum-members asking them to provide a synopsis of of relevant forum-material on topics he is planning to adress in the months ahead.
Interesting analysis on 1.e4,e5 games need not necessarily be confined to last month games I think.
As an example there is a thread in this forum that refutes analysis in both Emms and Davies repertoire books. Interestingly the first part of this analysis is not new, it was published by Keres some 60 years back. But unfortunately these days quite a few authors seem to rely on chessbase and computeranalysis and ignore the 'old' masters.
Quote:Hmm, interesting, does that mean that ChessPublishing could stop paying the GMs and simply link to old games each month without anyone noticing? What a great idea, why didn't I think of it before!!
Dont you dare
My memory is quite long: A few weeks ago I exposed someone <Chwileulotne85> on this forum
who claimed a 157 years old game by Morphy as his own recent accomplishment