There's a sample up at http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/ceslav.html.

MNb wrote on 07/27/08 at 22:31:28:


The simplest and best way of dealing with Anonymous is to ignore him.  That is what I have decided to do and what I respectfully urge everyone else to do as well.

[/quote]

I do ask questions about certain openings but nobody answers those questions! [/quote]

That's a lie. On your stupendous question on 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 Bg4 3.Ba3, someone gave you a detailed analysis, even though it was not necessary. 

The way you put down others for contradicting themselves while you contradict yourself is very hypocritical indeed. 

Quote:


You're right: I'm sorry.  But wait a minute: You actually read what other people say?  And, still, you post the most inane nonsense?!   

If you go back over your last 130 posts (yikes!), I think you'll find that I was more patient than many.  But I'm tired of your 1). vague, self-serving questions that do not contribute to fostering productive discussion about chess theory, and 2). Ludicrous complaints that are poorly conceived, vitriolic, and--in some threads--interminable, not to mention incorrigible.   

I'll try one last time: this forum is designed to promote dialogue about chess theory.  It is an exercise in give-and-take; but you only take, no give, which leaves me to conclude that you are a very poor chess player (you have nothing tangible to contribute) and you fail to understand the compact that makes this forum work (you lack social skills and don't learn much).   

If you had posted something like: I am working on line X, but I don't understand this new move or idea and rather than following that up with "Can somebody please answer my question," but rather more discussion of the line you're interested in, then I suspect you would enjoy a more positive response to your posts.  Rather than analyzing the Ponz, you preferred to complain.  Rather than saying anything useful about John Cox's book, you preferred to complain.  Rather than asking an interesting theoretical question about the Slav you went hunting for someone to tell you an answer rather than doing the work yourself.

Are you that poor a chess player that you don't trust your own work over the board?  You're looking at the wrong books: pick up an introductory guide to chess (not beginners, but something that will teach you about chess fundamentals) and learn how to play the game.  You'll be richer and happier for it...

it can't be more ridiculous unless yours are ridiculous in the first place.

Quote:


So you agree that yours are ridiculous?

Oh, and if there are any mistakes, don't bother to correct them in advance of a second printing...