Quote:


WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY
WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY
WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY
WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY WHINY

Zaphod is on vacation till August 18. For urgent matters, please contact his wife.

What???

Silman's review is by the way written against better knowledge. I had asked permission to mention these old things from Watson, through Silman, in advance. And all I wrote was that I disagreed with one idea. If you know this and reread Silman's review, it is actually rather hilarious. I must say I do not know his motives for writing what he did.

Why did I mention this again? Especially after the debate had turned sour back in 2001. Well, the Attacking Manual 1 is the elaborate answer to this debate.

When you think about what Watson wrote about me and about other authors, you will know that this is a guy that throws stones and throws to kill. I personally do not mind, I like a bit of passion and brutal honesty, even if I at times disagree.

So what do we have here?

I disagree with one idea from Watson, but ALWAYS make a point of saying that I love his books, which I do.
I admit that I cannot remember 1500 pages of theory.
I say that the other publishers are focusing on introductions and sidelines at the moment and probably will continue to do so as it makes financial sense, but underlines that I like ALL kinds of books. I deliberately never said anything negative about them, only that I want something else in the marketplace, and that it is thus my own responsibility to make it happen.
Oh yeah, I also make a bit of fun at a guy who is continuously insulting me and our author, but still answer most of his questions.

I have a change of heart - Kick that sucker out.

rossia wrote on 08/14/08 at 05:46:14:


Yes, I agree that Aagaard should be kicked out. All he does it attack people.

Can't stand it anymore.

I remember playing an open Sicilian one day against a 2670 GM and the Kopec system the next day against a 2540 GM. They both worked fine, but probably would not have, had I reversed the use of them. 

I think everything has its time and place. Like with Marin's books. What inspires one reader makes little sense to another. Not because they are good or bad, but because of the way the reader reads them. As long as a book connects with people it can be said to be good. When it connects with everyone it is usually bland .

I think the idea of always avoiding the main lines altogether is unhealthy, just as it is too much fun to try something off-beat not to do it from time to time as well.

I am not sure about this, but Markovich might have it the wrong way around. Winning leads to having fun less often than having fun leads to winning. At least, this is what I suspect. What does others think about this idea?

A-Tong wrote on 08/13/08 at 17:18:21:


I'm amazed by the number of people who made this kind of comment (rather akin, in many ways, to Anonymous's).  Frankly, I thought the history of the theory was brilliant, indicating where the opening had been and how it had evolved.  I learned a great deal more about the middlegame positions from this.  I guess if you want to memorize a bunch of repertoire suggestions unquestioningly, then Marin is not for you, but if you want to understand the repertoire and have some notion of how to respond when your opponent doesn't follow your book's recommended path, I'll take some history and many pleasant evenings working through Marin...

There is more heat than light in some corners of this thread.

But I don't see how anyone can dispute that Quality Chess is one of the best chess publishers, and certainly a contender for the best.  The same could be said of Chess Stars, if the only criterion were the technical content; I don't know of a single modern work that could be compared along that dimension with Sakaev's monumental 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld tome; and many other Chess Stars works are similar.  With respect to the physical quality of the editions, the correctness of language, and other nontechnical considerations, Chess Stars really does not contend with Quality.  Personally I appreciate holding a good edition in my hand and reading well-constructed English sentences; but I also value strong and deep chess content.  For that matter, Quality has produced some very strong chess content as well.

Personally if I had to pick the best Chess Publisher, it would be Gambit.  I mean, just look at the breadth and depth of their list, and the quality of their editions.

Concerning what openings to play, I think that something is to be gained from tackling difficult systems for the sole purpose of learning more about the game.  But in general, I play what I think best enables me to win.  Winning is what this game is all about for me, and I think that most players are the same.  I can't imagine playing a suboptimal line for fun, because for me, losing, or giving a draw to someone that I should have beaten, is definitely not fun.