micawber wrote on 06/05/08 at 18:22:21:

This occurred to me as well. Then I decided to understand Hansen's statement as described by Drkodos.

Carsten Hansen has reviewed the (subscribers) 1.e4,e5 section.
As we might have expected the review is rather favourable.
However I noticed the following text:

".... the hosts have covered the subject quite well. I only noticed sparse coverage of the King’s Gambit, but you can hardly fault Kosten, since it is hardly a topical opening at any level".

I want to make three remarks with regard to this quote:
(1) O. Renet's novelty in the KG-declined was of such quality that it caused Marin to rewrite a chapter in his e4-e5 book. And this was not the only analytical contribution from Olivier to the KG.
(2) The KG-discussion on this forum produced a record length thread with many participant contributing interesting idea's. So at least quite a few forum members have taken an interest in this "not topical opening".
(3) Hansen may have overlooked that the forum discussion's have been collected in a special database that can be downloaded from the subscription area (november 2007 update).
This provides easy access to valuable contributions of known experts on the KG like T. Johansson and M. Jensen.
. Together with the regular contributions, the coverage can hardly be called sparse.