My friend, your honesty speaks well for you. Now let me make one thing clear. You have the full right to criticise anybody. It is not in the first place you criticising a GM that annoys us. It is the repetitiveness. So there are two simple rules to follow:

1. Limit your criticising to one thread - in this very case the Beating the Open Games one. Don't start two new ones and neither bring the subject up in a fourth one.
2. Even within that one and only thread it is not necessary to repeat your message a dozen times. We are not dumb you know and your message has come through. People will not change their opinion when they have to read your opinion for the zillionth time.

drkodos wrote on 08/15/08 at 14:26:43:



This reminds me of a more specific comment Gregory Kaidanov made to me.  He related that in the USSR he had friends he studied chess with, but "here there is no culture of chess study."

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 08/15/08 at 05:48:35:



No reason to back off a correct statement.  The only reason a chess culture exists in the US is because of all the foreign players here.  There is no true US Chess Culture.  People born and raised in the states, by and large, have little interest in chess.

Anyone threatened by this fact needs therapy.

The US even pretends many of their foreign players are actual Americans and always uses them in propaganda as if they are native sons/daughters.

True pathos.

Jacob - one small point regarding your Attacking Manual, which I raised in another thread here and have seen a couple of other people agree with, is that the print is too close to the spine of the book and it's slightly awkward to read.  In the spirit of constructive criticism I would offer this to you for consideration in future editions/publications.  
With regard to the content I cannot say anything negative, rather I would like to thank you.  It's very entertaining.  I also like the Artur Yusupov book and am happy to own three or four other Quality Chess titles, the best of which is the outstanding San Luis 2005 book. 

Please keep up the good work.  I think Gambit and Quality Chess are the best publishers on the whole at present, whilst Chess Stars produce superb work which is often pitched at a level above my own.  I've noticed a decline in the quality of Everyman books, in terms of production values at least, whilst Batsford seem rather haphazard in their output and style. 

Well, this has all been a bit off topic, but I hope the new books are as good as they promise to be.  I'll be buying the 1c4 title. 

Incidentally, Anonymous has to go....

With regards what openings to play, I think the main argument weaker players have for playing sub-optimal lines is Tim McGrew's "dimensional analysis", i.e. increased chance of the opponent failing to find the best responses.  In that case the sub-optimal openings aren't really a handicap as there's at least as much chance of coming out of them with a good middlegame as with the objectively best lines.  Then, if these lines are considered 'fun', there's the chance of using the lines to bring more enjoyment en route to victory.

Obviously as playing strength increases, the scope for this declines.  I recall a book review discussing the issue of "what to do if I reach GM level and can't play a King's Gambit against Shirov", and whether that is a good argument for starting off with the Lopez right off- you can argue either way on that one.

On the subject of this thread, I say kick "Anonymous" out, and as for John Watson, while I don't always agree with what he says, his reputation as a fine author is well deserved, and he is fully entitled to express his views.

Just voted yes.

I wish people would just ignore Anonymous' posts.
But I also see that it is hard to do...

Cant believe that one out of currently 1525 members is allowed to continously pollute chesspub, without any actions. 

Where are Alumbrado?

I just voted yes.

@Aagaard, You may be right that I have the flow of causation wrong between winning and having fun, but if so, I suspect that most other players do as well.  I thought that playing the Schliemann was great fun, but I never played it again once I perceived it to be unsound (so far I'm not sure what Radjabov is up to with it.)

P.S. I have several of your works, and as I have said in at least one other thread, I consider you to be one of the better chess authors currently writing.  I think quite highly of Watson as well.

Quote:


Unfortunately, I've read your posts.  You're a foam-flecked lunatic.