Yes, I did wonder myself at the outset if A's posts were parodic, and for that reason was never liable to respond to them.

He's doing the research himself as you can see from above 
Don't let me started on the definition of "research"

4 pages of posts fighting on a line of the ponziani and its exclusion from a book!!

Anonymous - but not so anonymous as the other anonymous people - seems quite obsessed with it.. He may be overdoing it a little bit, specially by referring to known chess personalities without a sign of gentlemanship - e.g Aagard!! tell me why Marin did not do that.. (that sounds like stuff I heard in the army or something) - but otherwise he's just reasking a question that he feels is left unanswered..

I don't agree with him but he does not deserve a ban.. Only encouragement to do try finding answers by himself

My guess is that Anonymous is writing a repertoire book for black with the Slav and the Ruy Lopez as main weapons and furthermore dealing with every white deviation imaginable. Below is a small selection of Anonymous' posts. What do others make of it?

Quote:

I'll bite: what is the book about?

Wow, I am shocked that most poeple disagree with me. If you are going to come out with a 2nd revised edition, I thought it would have been best to cover all lines that need updating. I doubt Marin even knows about 8 Nd2. If Marin had used the most important sources like Chesspublishing.com, which I am using for my book, Marin would have known about 8 Nd2 in the Ponziani and could have included it in the book!  

This line of the Ponziani isn't the only line that Marin doesn't address in his 2nd edition! IM Andrew Greet refutes Marin's recommendation against the Center Game in his book Dangerous Weapons: 1 e4 e5! Why doesn't Marin address that in his 2nd edition???!!!

Quote:


Hm... yes okay, that was not very nice. I've been hanging around on this forum for a few years now and never really bothered to post anything. Basically, because I don't have anything constructive to add to most discussions, and besides I don't have many questions to ask. However, I enjoy reading other posts a lot, and I am quite happy with this forum actually.

Now I thought it was funny to reply in this way I did. Nothing serious to get upset about I think, just some weird kind of humour. Personally, I find "Beating the open games" an amazing book, and I was quite surprised by all the negative comments after the first edition. It appeared that some lines were missing and a lot of people did not like that. Fair enough. But now there is a second edition where most of the holes of the first edition are fixed, so we should all be happy now, right?

"Beating the open games" has great prose, terrific explanations and above all, it is very interesting to read, unlike most chess books which are often a bit dull. And now there is even an improved edition with many more lines. I've seen the update on the site of quality-chess, and it looks really good. Therefore, I was really astonished by the complaints of the starter of this topic (whose name should not be mentioned), and admittedly, a bit annoyed.

If some people were offended by my very first post:  

Now please, leave me be. I've got a galaxy to rule.

Zaphod

Talking about "childish behavior that the anonymity of the internet affords"(Bibs)
we should not overlook that zaphod beeblebrox introduces himself to this forum
with an "anonymous" bashing ...

tracke 

Btw, I agree with Markovich. Maybe anonymous ask too many (silly) questions
but at least he seems to be an ambitious, honest and serious chessplayer!