Chessmoby wrote on 08/31/08 at 22:22:40:

Hardly an opening idea methinks

In a way it is. It is part of the Chapter about the Botvinnik Slav.

Of course, we've already had a rather lengthy discussion of what should be included and what shouldn't, but now that the book is out, it's worth revisiting.  To get the ball rolling on some of the points in Christoph's list:

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 08/22/08 at 06:25:00:


I agree.  I thought this was worth including.


Quote:



I think you have to include the Berlin, but I might have moved it back in time to the year 2000.  For me, 3..Nf6 is an obvious move, so not in itself a great idea.  But the idea to play it in a world championship match against the greatest attacker of our time:  that was special.

I would have included the Breyer.  The idea of undeveloping the knight so that it could rest comfortably on d7 instead of being hung out on the edge was a pretty good one.  And it was was one of the main ways of meeting the Ruy, if not the main way, for a number of years. 

I would not have included the Open.  It's an important system, to be sure, but the idea of taking a center pawn doesn't strike me as one of the Greatest Ever.  It strikes me as pretty obvious.  

I wouldn't have included either the Zaitsev or the novelty.  I don't find either all that significant, but hey, that's me.

Quote:


I agree that Lasker's was worthy of inclusion.  It's the first chapter in Sadler's QGD book and fundamental to the whole opening.  

But I would also have included the more basic idea of playing the QB to g5, rather than to b2.  If nothing else, it would have been a good excuse to include Pillsbury-Tarrasch, Hastings 1895.  

I was looking forward to reading Hansen's review, as I usually find his reviews to be a general indicator for the quality of a chess book.

I'm a big fan of constructive criticism. That said, I find his review far too vague to be particularly helpful. I'd like to adress only a few points:

• Hansen questions the inclusion of the Gothenburg Variation. I admit that the idea is not great per se, but the story behind its creation was simply too good to pass over (the chapter heading and the first paragraph could have rung a bell as well). Besides, the Gothenburg is actually a quite good example of an unsuccessful attempt of an opening idea (antithesis).
• Hansen wonders why the "Anti-Zaitsev" novelty from Anand - Adams made the book, but not the Zaitsev itself (as he suggested). I explicitly stated it as a representative example which shows how the halflife of an opening idea has shrunk in comparison to earlier times. On the other hand, Hansen fails to mention why the Zaitsev (or the Open Ruy) qualifies (in his opinion) and why the Berlin does not.
• To answer Hansen's question about the inclusion of Lasker's Defence to the Queen's Gambit, the reason is purely historical (Lasker's Defence was [besides Tarrasch's Defence] the most traditional way of meeting the Queen's Gambit in the first part of the 20th century).
• Hansen states that 4 e3 against the Nimzo-Indian was first played in the game Janowsky-Nimzowitsch. Which one? Hopefully not the one from St Petersburg 1914; I can name a dozen independent sources which predate the Rubinstein-Alekhine game a round (and therefore a day) before that.
• Hansen goes on to dissect a quote from the "Bringing in the Harvest" chapter. To my defence, the mentioned quote is not the one from MGP Vol II, but rather from Kasparov's commentary of the game Botvinnik - Smyslov, Wch (14) 1954 from the Mega Database 2008 [even though I do have to admit that ChessBase is known to get details wrong]. In general, I tried very hard to confirm the accuracy of any quotes and/or chapter headings. While at it, I'd also like to apologize to Tim Harding for borrowing one of his headings from his "Kibitzer" column without any reference; I simply wasn't aware of it.
• Finally, what I find most irritating: Hansen gives a rather big list of opening ideas that could have been included as well; yet, he does not give ANY reasoning for his choices. Why, for example, should the Panov Attack be included? Or the Leningrad Dutch (theoretical and/or historical significance?)?

This book was meant to cause discussions, but for a serious discussion I would need much more than this review. Maybe others who read the book would like to join?

MilenPetrov wrote on 07/30/08 at 18:25:05:

I only trust this compatriot of mine when he is negative.

Yes, it seems that the book is very interesting and contains high quality material. I will go for it with my next chess books order
Speaking about books reviews, we should be very careful. Frankly speaking I do not trust John Elburg's reviews. I can give you a lot of examples where he says some title is perfect or superb, but in practice it is simply waste of money. If you check his reviews there is almost no any negative review

P.S. I would like to make it clear that i do not criticize the book, but the book reviewers.

I have had the chance to peruse the table of contents, and it seems that this is a very ambitious book! (Can one actually peruse a table of contents?)

I really look forward to seeing it on a bookshelf because unfortunately, I don't have gobs of money lying around to buy every interesting book available.  If it is as thought-provoking as the chapters suggest, I may well buy the book.  

Thanks, Christoph, for sharing your views here at the Chess Pub and for letting us chess fans know about a potentially fascinating review of chess history!


Cheers!

PS: Will you tell us if any ideas that we suggested actually made the book?

(The edit was an embarrassing one:  I misspelled Christoph's name!)

Did you mention Anonymous's 8.Nd2 in the Ponziani? If not, then be prepared for Anonymous abandoning Everyman Chess books as well.

In any case, I will probably buy the book. Anyone know where one can locate reviews for the book?