Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition (Read 57722 times)
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #110 - 07/19/08 at 02:59:21
Post Tools
I am shocked that you guys don't agree with me! I thought my argument was a lot better than Aagaard's argument!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #109 - 07/19/08 at 01:11:41
Post Tools
Quote:
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote on 07/18/08 at 21:27:05:
Maybe it is good to realize your question is rethorical, since none of the anwers seem to please you. You keep on asking why Marin didn't use these sources, but as a matter of fact, this is more a complaint, rather than a question. I mean, what do you want to hear? Marin did not use these sources because he is just a lazy, incompetent author, and his books suck big time. Something like that?


I want Aagaard to admit that Marin didn't use all available sources that he should have used and therefore the book isn't as good as it could be!


Well, if that has been your project here with so many juvenile, boringly repetitious posts, you may go to everlasting blazes.  I have reached the end of my tether with your incessant carping.  I shall never again respond to one of your posts here, or comment about it here to someone else.  I suggest the same course to others.  Ex communicatio te condemno.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #108 - 07/18/08 at 21:51:16
Post Tools
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote on 07/18/08 at 21:27:05:
Maybe it is good to realize your question is rethorical, since none of the anwers seem to please you. You keep on asking why Marin didn't use these sources, but as a matter of fact, this is more a complaint, rather than a question. I mean, what do you want to hear? Marin did not use these sources because he is just a lazy, incompetent author, and his books suck big time. Something like that?


I want Aagaard to admit that Marin didn't use all available sources that he should have used and therefore the book isn't as good as it could be!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zaphod Beeblebrox
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Life is wasted on the
living.

Posts: 11
Joined: 07/04/08
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #107 - 07/18/08 at 21:27:05
Post Tools
Maybe it is good to realize your question is rethorical, since none of the anwers seem to please you. You keep on asking why Marin didn't use these sources, but as a matter of fact, this is more a complaint, rather than a question. I mean, what do you want to hear? Marin did not use these sources because he is just a lazy, incompetent author, and his books suck big time. Something like that?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #106 - 07/18/08 at 19:23:08
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 07/18/08 at 12:23:41:
Anonymous, I think you are making different points now. 'Omitting' 8 Nd2 in the Ponziani is in my view a valid point, albeit one of far less importance than you attach to it. It is fair to say that the reader could have been better equipped than he has been to meet this move by White; of course no repertoire book can equip the reader to meet every move, but there is scope for debate about whether this one should have been covered or not.

However, your point about 5...Bxd4 and 8..Nd4 is different; you are saying that Marin could have recommended better moves for Black. Now maybe he could and maybe he couldn't - both your examples are highly contentious (John Emms recommended 4 00/5 d4 for White in Dangerous Weapons, so he presumably doesn't agree with you), but after all he could have recommended the Petroff instead of 2...Nc6. However, I really don't consider this a valid criticism. The purpose of a repertoire book is to show one reasonable way Black can play in each situation. If 5...exd4 or 8...exf4 were actually bad moves, that would be different, but they're not. 5..exd4 in particular transposes to the Max Lange, which Marin wants to play anyway in other orders (I think, no?). So choosing it as repertoire here is a no-brainer. A repertoire isn't an academic exercise in trying to refute this or that move. It's a way of kicking off the game, and considerations such as thematic coherence, absence of memory strain and avoiding dangerous pet lines of White players even if they may be unsound, are all important. After all in many people's view 2...exf4 is decidedly better than 2...Bc5, but there's a lot of pragmatic merit in settling for it even if 2 exf4 and 3 g5 may one day be definitively shown to be best.



IM John Cox, I don't know what your talking about! Most of Marin's recommendations are also recommended in either Play the Open Games as Black, The Chess Advantage in Black and White, or Play 1 e4 e5!. This is why Marin should have used these sources. You said they recommend different repertoire lines but they don't!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #105 - 07/18/08 at 13:20:48
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 07/18/08 at 12:23:41:
5..exd4 in particular transposes to the Max Lange, which Marin wants to play anyway in other orders (I think, no?).



No actually, if I recall correctly, it's a little weird.  Marin doesn't want Black to play the Two Knights, which is the usual way of reaching the Max.  He wants Black to play the Max, with all of its complexity, just to counter this move order.  Personally as I said, I'm not as impressed by White's play after 5...Bxd4 as Marin seems to be.
« Last Edit: 07/18/08 at 15:06:38 by Markovich »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #104 - 07/18/08 at 12:23:41
Post Tools
Anonymous, I think you are making different points now. 'Omitting' 8 Nd2 in the Ponziani is in my view a valid point, albeit one of far less importance than you attach to it. It is fair to say that the reader could have been better equipped than he has been to meet this move by White; of course no repertoire book can equip the reader to meet every move, but there is scope for debate about whether this one should have been covered or not.

However, your point about 5...Bxd4 and 8..Nd4 is different; you are saying that Marin could have recommended better moves for Black. Now maybe he could and maybe he couldn't - both your examples are highly contentious (John Emms recommended 4 00/5 d4 for White in Dangerous Weapons, so he presumably doesn't agree with you), but after all he could have recommended the Petroff instead of 2...Nc6. However, I really don't consider this a valid criticism. The purpose of a repertoire book is to show one reasonable way Black can play in each situation. If 5...exd4 or 8...exf4 were actually bad moves, that would be different, but they're not. 5..exd4 in particular transposes to the Max Lange, which Marin wants to play anyway in other orders (I think, no?). So choosing it as repertoire here is a no-brainer. A repertoire isn't an academic exercise in trying to refute this or that move. It's a way of kicking off the game, and considerations such as thematic coherence, absence of memory strain and avoiding dangerous pet lines of White players even if they may be unsound, are all important. After all in many people's view 2...exf4 is decidedly better than 2...Bc5, but there's a lot of pragmatic merit in settling for it even if 2 exf4 and 3 g5 may one day be definitively shown to be best.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1260
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #103 - 07/18/08 at 04:38:25
Post Tools
Quote:
Aagaard, your excuses are getting more pathetic every time! If you are just going to come out with a reprint, just do a reprint. But if you are going to do a revised second edition, make sure ALL the lines that need updating are updated!

GM Tony Kosten is basically saying he thinks that whole line of the Ponziani is bad for Black. He doesn't think your earlier deviations to 10 Qf3 are good either!

I am also shocked that you think Play the Open Games as Black is really dated and riddled with errors! Even if it is riddled wih errors (which I don't believe) there are still more recent sources like The Chess Advantage in Black and White and Play 1 e4 e5 that Marin should have used. Here are two examples that I gave earlier that show that Marin's books could have been better if he had used these two sources.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0 Nf6 5 d4!?, Marin recommends 5...exd4 and spends two whole chapters discussing it! He says 5...Bxd4 is too risky but if he had looked at Larry Kaufman's The Chess Advantage in Black and White, he would have realized that 5...Bxd4 is not to risky and basically refutes this line for White and could have just recommended 5...Bxd4 and analyzed it in about half a page instead of giving two chapters on 5...exd4!

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Bc5 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Nc6 6 d3 Bg4 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3, he recommends 8...exf4 and says 8...Nd4 is bad because of 9 Qg3 and then only gives 9 Nxc2+, 9... Qe7, and 9...exf4 for Black, but if he had used Play 1 e4 e5!, he would have realized that 9...0-0! is ok for Black!

These are just 2 examples of many more i can show!



apples and oranges dude... I mean you're saying one source is right and therefore another source must be wrong. If chess could be this definitive so easily it would already have been solved. The reality is that is up to YOU to do your own research using the sources available. You must decide what you consider too risky. It would be a cold day in hell before I played Bxd4 because I agree with Marin not Kaufman. I happen to agree with Kaufman on another of his other wonderful suggestions but not this one. You can't possibly ask someone else to make these types of decisions for you. They can help you weigh the pros and cons but that is it. Should you go to college at a state school, take out loans for a private school or delay college til you have the funds for the one you want. I mean honestly what you're asking is both illogical and impossible. This is not an academic research paper where all sources are relevant back to the dawn of time. This is chess. Half the sources out there are dated garbage and even if they have a few chapters that is still relevant... the amount of time spent for him to get a few extra words of analysis is ridiculous when you could just access these sources yourself. What you are asking for is an encyclopedia that is never wrong. Sure take kosten's analysis if that is what you agree with but that is your personal choice. I don't know how else to explain to you how childish your logic sounds.


you know on a sidenote... Nigel Davies' request for no anonymous people makes awhole more sense now.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #102 - 07/18/08 at 03:44:29
Post Tools
Aagaard, I just looked at Marin's bibliography for Beating the Open Games and he has Play the Evan's Gambit on there from 1997! Play the Open Games as Black was written in 2000! Your saying Marin didn't use Play the Open Games as Black as a source because it is dated and not computer checked but Play the Evan's Gambit is even more dated and im sure that book wasn't computer checked!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10378
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #101 - 07/18/08 at 01:44:24
Post Tools
micawber wrote on 07/17/08 at 06:46:45:
Thx for the gamescore and analysis:

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.c3,Nf6 4.d4,exd4 5.e5,Ne4 6.Qe2,f5 7.exf6,d5 8.Nbd2
8.....,Qxf6 (iso d3) 9.Nxe4,dxe 10.Qxe4,Qe6 (iso Qe7) is discussed in the
link from my previous post.

Botterill already in 1986 (and I am curious, dear Anonymous, if Marin did not include his book in his bibliography - might be another grave omission!) called 10...Qe6 "reasonably safe and hence hardly in the spirit of this lively variation."
After 8...d3 9.Qe3 Bc5 10.fxg7 Rg8 11.Nd4 Black should play Bxd4 (Grabinsky improved on Botterill's analysis after 11...Qe7, 15.Ne4! was his novelty) 12.cxd4 Bf5 and matters have been unclear since Iskov-Kaiszauri, Oslo 1980 (0-1 in 28 moves).
But again, I only will discuss this in the thread Micawber gave a link to. I actually had forgotten about it.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 715
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #100 - 07/17/08 at 21:57:10
Post Tools
Anonymous, I know Agaard's secret. Marin and him knew that the Ponziani was the refutation of 1..e5, but they tried to hide that. Why would someone buy a refuted opening repertoire? And as an active player, Marin will uses the Ponziani himself as a devastating effect when everyone will think that Black already equalized.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
rossia
Senior Member
****
Offline


Saw: "Game Over!"

Posts: 333
Location: Irkutsk
Joined: 09/17/07
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #99 - 07/17/08 at 21:12:43
Post Tools
Jacob Aagaard wrote on 07/17/08 at 07:00:17:
I should maybe add this - we are at the moment working on the first two volumes in our Grandmaster Repertoire series, which will be announced properly in August.


Well since this is no more a secret, please tell us what will be the contents of book 1 and 2, how many pages, and most importantly WHEN can we buy it?  Shocked Shocked Shocked
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Anonymous
Ex Member


Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #98 - 07/17/08 at 20:40:09
Post Tools
Aagaard, your excuses are getting more pathetic every time! If you are just going to come out with a reprint, just do a reprint. But if you are going to do a revised second edition, make sure ALL the lines that need updating are updated!

GM Tony Kosten is basically saying he thinks that whole line of the Ponziani is bad for Black. He doesn't think your earlier deviations to 10 Qf3 are good either!

I am also shocked that you think Play the Open Games as Black is really dated and riddled with errors! Even if it is riddled wih errors (which I don't believe) there are still more recent sources like The Chess Advantage in Black and White and Play 1 e4 e5 that Marin should have used. Here are two examples that I gave earlier that show that Marin's books could have been better if he had used these two sources.

After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 0-0 Nf6 5 d4!?, Marin recommends 5...exd4 and spends two whole chapters discussing it! He says 5...Bxd4 is too risky but if he had looked at Larry Kaufman's The Chess Advantage in Black and White, he would have realized that 5...Bxd4 is not to risky and basically refutes this line for White and could have just recommended 5...Bxd4 and analyzed it in about half a page instead of giving two chapters on 5...exd4!

After 1 e4 e5 2 f4 Bc5 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 Bc4 Nc6 6 d3 Bg4 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3, he recommends 8...exf4 and says 8...Nd4 is bad because of 9 Qg3 and then only gives 9 Nxc2+, 9... Qe7, and 9...exf4 for Black, but if he had used Play 1 e4 e5!, he would have realized that 9...0-0! is ok for Black!

These are just 2 examples of many more i can show!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jacob Aagaard
Full Member
***
Offline


Quality Chess says hi!

Posts: 165
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: 01/16/08
Gender: Male
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #97 - 07/17/08 at 07:00:17
Post Tools
I apparently cannot get through with this one to Mr. A, maybe because it makes his whole line of argumentation redundant. BTOG II was essentially a reprint. With very limited time on his hands, we asked Mihail to look into comments made on the first edition. This and his own practice was the backbone of the expanded reprint.

Some of the books mentioned were not out when the original book were written, and to be honest, I told Mihail that the Emms book was pretty dated. I know it is a very popular book, but it is filled with simple mistakes, as it is probably the last opening book not to be computer checked in any way. For example, there is this line:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bxd5 Qxd5 8.
Nc3 Qa5 9. Nxe4 Be6 10. Neg5 O-O-O 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Rxe6 Bd6 13. Bg5 Rde8 14.
Qe1 Qxe1+ 15. Raxe1 Kd7 16. Rxe8 Rxe8 17. Rxe8 Kxe8 18. Kf1 Kf7 19. Bd2 h6 20.
Ke2 Ke6 21. Kd3 Kd5 22. Nxd4 Nxd4 23. c4+ Ke5 24. f4+ Kf5 25. Kxd4 Bxf4 26.
Bxf4 Kxf4 27. b4 h5 28. a4 h4 29. a5 a6 30. b5 g5 31. Kd5 g4 32. c5 Ke3 33. c6
bxc6+ 34. Kxc6 axb5 35. a6 Kf2 36. a7 Kxg2 37. a8=Q Kxh2 38. Qa2+ Kh3 39. Kd5
g3 40. Ke4 g2 41. Qf2 1-0

He mentioned this line as very dangerous for Black. In reality 23...Ke6 was an immediate draw. As I had seen the game live, I had spotted it myself, but any computer would have pointed it out. I remember checking the book over back then and finding many of these mistakes.

I am not out to criticise John's book, it was exactly from that point where the culture in chess and chess writing changed to everything being fritzed, but it does mean that as a source it would be heavy chewing.

About 10.Qf3. If indeed this is worse for Black, then there are the other 6-7 options I gave to turn to.

In essense all openings will give Black problems to solve, but this does not look any more threatening to me than any of the other options you can work out. After 1.e4 e5 I have Maybe a million games in my database. 8.Nd2 represents 3 of these. In only (!) 336 pages there will have to be made some choices.

Anyway - "Perfectionism is spelled p-a-r-a-l-y-s-i-s" Winston Churchill.

I should maybe add this - we are at the moment working on the first two volumes in our Grandmaster Repertoire series, which will be announced properly in August. John and I have tried really hard to include all possible sources. I can assure you that 1) this is really hard and 2) most of the recommendations existing in other books are utter rubbish.

There are two recent books that recommend some gambits and try to make them look playable by suggesting new moves here and there without analysis. With analysis these suggestions become rather humorous, one of them transposing to the main line with two tempos less. So far I have not come across any new recommendation in the sources we have seen that are really improvements. We will do more to include responses to them, but honestly, many writers out there do not put a lot of work into their analysis, unfortunately. Maybe the conclusion we need to make is to pay more attention to the ideas given here on Chess Publishing  Wink.

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
micawber
God Member
*****
Offline


like many sneaks and skunks
in history he's a poet

Posts: 852
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/07/05
Gender: Male
Re: Beating The Open Games 2nd Edition
Reply #96 - 07/17/08 at 06:46:45
Post Tools
Thx for the gamescore and analysis:

1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nc6 3.c3,Nf6 4.d4,exd4 5.e5,Ne4 6.Qe2,f5 7.exf6,d5 8.Nbd2
8.....,Qxf6 (iso d3) 9.Nxe4,dxe 10.Qxe4,Qe6 (iso Qe7) is discussed in the
link from my previous post.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo