Jay wrote on 03/16/11 at 21:37:24:


Jacob Aagaard.

It is still beeing worked on!

wolfsblut wrote on 08/23/08 at 16:26:48:


Indeed, we don't want to learn theory like a long poem in school days, on the contrary, we're looking for decent theory chunk, but nothing more 

Like with other repertoire books we are going to present a repertoire and not much more than that. There is enough material to deal with.

The emphasis will be on well-analyzed improvements. Most other theoretical works on the market are based on surprise or introduction, while they often will use phrases like: and here black has to find something. Well, if the author can use 10 pages on the line, he should also have found something. If he cannot, the reader is likely not to do so either and the 10 pages are dead weight.

Avrukh has found more than 100 improvements already and will undoubtedly find many more before finishing these books.

ghenghisclown wrote on 08/20/08 at 12:10:50:

 
Hopefully they will address transposition issues from 1Nf3 in connection with the d4 repertoire too. According to an earlier message the emphasis there is on Catalan and g3 KI. I would not be surprised if more than half the players who aim for that repertoire start with Nf3, not 1d4. Many probably play the symmetrical English as well, over Benoni systems, so they may have to buy both the English and the d4 repertoires, making CP happy.

based on the link Mr Aagaard provided, Marin is making it a special point that transpositions and attempts to get out of a proper English will be covered. I am also looking forward to the book, even though I'm not really (yet?) a Marin fan. I think the English is undervalued and underexplored.

I agree that this should have been in the general chat area. Sorry, my mistake.

AM2 will be out in October if nothing goes wrong - with no mistakes in the typesetting.

I might not answer all questions and mean no offense thereby.

Aagaard, you still didn't answer my question on what you think about my suggestion about how to do updates to your opening books.

Another question for Jacob, when is Attacking manual 2 coming?
I did like part 1 very much, the only critical thing I have is what already is mentioned here before, that "spine of the book" thing. 

I will write it in the autumn and winter. It will take a lot of time and I want to select the critical lines everywhere. At this moment there is not more to say .

hahahaha

I promise we will not "balloon"

Maybe I should elaborate?

1.d4 will be in two volumes. I cannot recall who it was who said that it will be impossible to do it all in one volume. Anyway, he was right.

The first volume will be out in November, I hope, and the second probably in January.

drkodos wrote on 08/16/08 at 18:58:13:


Unneccessary ad hominem. He was simply asking for clarification of a point already made by Aagaard. If it didn't matter, Aagaard wouldn't have brought it up in the first place, right?

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 08/17/08 at 08:44:00:


That sounds like a good idea .

ANONYMOUS3000 wrote on 08/17/08 at 04:29:11:


Yes, I am also interested in hearing what books Qualitychess is planning for Black in their Grandmaster Repertoire series. 

Anonymous3 wrote on 08/16/08 at 19:03:31:


To be honest, it sounds like a good idea but let's not forget Quality Chess is the only chess publishing company that offers free updates online. Aagaard is not obliged in the first place and is only doing it out of goodwill for all his readers.

It's good to note that you have toned down though.

Anonymous3 wrote on 08/16/08 at 19:00:20:



I wager 400 Quatloos you cannot.

drkodos wrote on 08/16/08 at 18:58:13:


No, I don't really care about this discussion anymore and I am done discussing it.

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 08/16/08 at 17:08:02:


I don't know when I misquoted Tony. Can you tell me when I did this? The only thing I can think of that you are referring to is when I said that Tony belives that 8 Nd2 in the Ponziani is the refutation of the line Marin recommends. I think Tony does believe this. Recently he said that he doesn't think that the line Marin recommends is Blacks best line by any means.

Aagaard: L'état? C'est moi!

I am very impressed by IM Aagaard's display of wisdom, his thickskin and tolerance of rough criticism (a sentiment I appreciate, we must not "walk on eggshells" but sometimes be brutally honest, something we lack here in America), and his communications with us lowly club players. Thanks for sharing, much obliged chess friend!

Anonymous3 wrote on 08/15/08 at 19:07:01:


Hi, this is ANONYMOUS3000! In order to avoid any confusion with Anonymous3, I decided to place my username in upper case.

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.

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.

I certainly like the idea of doing reasonable coverage of a repertoire for one color in a few hundred pages.  I was hoping that one day Drazen Marovic would do something like a White version of his "An Active Repertoire for Black" -- but that book was less than 200 pages and used a format of about 120 succinctly-annotated complete games (two columns per page).

Looking at 1.d4 it looks to be 300+ pages, but I disagree that the Catalan and g3 against the KID are main options for White. Actually, those are the ones I personally have feared most as Black with these openings over the years.

Quote:

In my opinion, quality chess is one of the better publishers on the market...

We must totally admit that publishing houses are pointing at the biggest customers: the amateurs who make 90-95% of all chess players.

If you write an opening book for Elo range 2100-2400 many reviewers will take care that no amateur buys your book, cause they will state something like this: "intended for stronger players so intermediate players should stick with xxx book..."

Every serious/tournament chess players should stand on the shoulders of giants. This means that there's is no overnight recipe how to obtain FM level or so (check out Yermolinksy's book).

As I have MaS degree I see no problem with a lot of work in any field of chess, the bigger problem is time which I don't have.

When one masters for example Khalifman's "Opening according to Anand/Kramnik" he or she has made a lifetime job in chess. Pure main lines are an guarantee of openin g success.

Since it's very hard and exaustive to write such a series of openings books, we can hardly see any competition in this field. So do not expect that all chess publishers employ such a task.

When on the start of big marathon you see all this crowded people you just can not resist imagining that they will all cross goal line. But they certainly won't. 

Same is in chess. Many play chess, but only few cross 2600 mark, only the best 2700 mark.

I try to be the best, to give best what I can. Because of that I don't stick with crowd who awaits a book with 100 pages and with title "Unbeatable lifetime repertoire".

Aagaard go for the best, make Grandmaster repertoire the best opening series ever for high class players.

I disagree with that to some extent. Even though I don't play most of the openings that Quality Chess has covered thus far, Tiger's book was very high quality, as were both of Vigorito's, Dearing's Grunfeld book, both of Marin's. I also own Attacking Manual one, which so far is quite good. It appears as though quality chess cares about their books. I for one think both the Chess Explained, Starting Out, and Dangerous Weapons are sub-par books. I too believe people too often look for the easy way out with openings. I enjoy the Chess Stars and Quality Chess books thoroughly because they have staying power, and great depth. The openings covered - Classical Nimzo, Bc4 Grunfeld, Semi-Slav are all openings for big boys. Chess Stars does the same thing - no backing down, and that's what I want from a book. I'm wicked excited for the 1. e4 books, even if I have to wait eons for them.

Aagaard,

How many volumes do you expect to publish in the 1. d4 and 1. c4 series respectively?

Playing mainlines as amateur is one of the most stupid things ever!
Playing Bg5 against the semislav, the bayonet attack or Bc4 in the Gruenfeld is suicide against better prepared players ...
and it is really one of the most stupid things to lose because of lack of opening knowledge ... the whole game was a waste of time then ...
Play good lines, but not too theoretical ..

and GM's frequently do not play mainlines btw ...
Kramnik played b3 against the semislav recently and won ...
Tiviakov won the european ch with the c3-sicilian ...
kamsky plays Bb5 against the Nc6 sicilian  ...

CheckMate wrote on 08/12/08 at 14:45:22:


So what is wrong with that? It is a free market. If people like it, they will buy it, if they don't, they won't. I for one certainly welcome more choice.

Quote:


You're a loon

For Marin's 1 c4 book, make sure he uses the right sources this time! For his 1...e5 books, He didn't use sources that help you write a repertoire book like Play 1 e4 e5!, The Chess Advantage in Black and White, Play the Open Gamas as Black, chesspublishing.com, etc. His 1...e5 books would have been a lot better if he did. Instead he used sources like Akiba Rubinstien: Uncrowned King which don't help you write a repertoire book!

I see no point in a 1.Nf3 book. The way top players play it, it is to transpose to 1.d4 or 1.c4.

There will be books for Black as well, but later on. First White.