parisestmagique wrote on 05/06/09 at 07:39:11:


Thanks, not only were there no chess engines to help me, I didn't even have a computer - I had a typewriter with a chess set! Of course, I hate to think how many tactical errors Rybka would find in it nowadays!

i've often wondered about some older books that have 5-6 authors and some famous GM on them is being used a sale for the book written by the other authors.

Yes Smyslov_fan that is quite true. Opening books do get you in trouble.
Another example,  incidentally the same page 147 of N.Davies repertoire book



Here N.Davies quotes the game (Mieses - Sargeant, 1945) without further comment (as did Euwe and Keres before him) 
16.Bxc6,bxc6 17.Rxd2,Qc5=

Apparently authors copied each other, without looking at the position after Black's 16th move:
White isnt obliged to take the knight on d2 immediately, after all it is going nowhere.
After 17.Qxa7! he enjoys a significant advantage.
Black can evade all trouble with 16....Qxc6 (iso bxc6).

I had thought that the topic was about authors intentionally misleading their audience.

There are many cases of authors misleading their audience by omission.  That is, they stop at a critical point in a line and say something to the effect of "and white has more than enough compensation for the pawn".  

Authors do this for many reasons, some are more noble than others.  However as a chess player, while these omissions can be frustrating, I use them to help me to learn about the key positions and come to my own conclusions.  

Just as with my texts on history, I often write in the margins of my books.  I know this will devalue the book for those who collect pristine copies, but I consider books to be conversations.  I stopped expecting Truth to be passed down through chess books about the same time I bought my first opening book, Horowitz' excellent Chess Openings:  Theory and Practice (1961).  It was the only serious opening volume available in English for many years.  A friend once said of that book that it gave the reader just enough information to get into trouble.

That is what the best of today's opening books do too! 

So while authors of chess openings still have not solved the game of chess, the good ones keep getting me into trouble!  

I see your point about my the misleading move cutoffs. I apologize. 

Still, could it be an error rather than intentionally misleading? It is just a very small sideline in the book.

Micawber, that criticism is a bit unfounded. His recommended move is 6...d6, but he says in the fine print that he also likes 6...Qf6. He gives that as an example game to support 6...Qf6. Is it really fair to criticize him for a faulty positional analysis in a position 10 moves out of his recommended repertoire? He gave 6...Qf6 merely as an idea for an alternative. There are countless deviations between move 6 and move 18.

Sorry if that's a bit nit-picky, but I don't want anyone to think he made such a big mistake analyzing his own recommended repertoire. 6...Qf6 is merely another idea he says has merit.

I doubt if there are (m)any authors who deliberately mislead their readers (if we leave out the more notorious "Winning with...") books. But there are several factors that can cause writers to deviate from their written recommendations in a real game:
(a) A faulty memory. 
Even the strongest players sometimes can't recall their previous analysis. While this has caused some mishaps (for instance Piket-Kasparov, Corus in a Grunfeld line) this also can work the other way round. At the bord they detect an ever better line...
(b) Time.
The time a writer can spent on individual lines is limited. In a real game players spent easily 30 - 60 minutes on a critical position, a luxury they often can not afford while writing a book (especially if it's got a deadline). I could quote several mistakes in Anand's 1993 monograph on the spanish Marshall Gambit that I think were unintentional. The extra time is specially important in judging positional compensation, or the correct appraisal of (near) endgame positions.
(c) Concentration
In an actual game the level of concentration is much higher than when analysing for a book or article.
(d) Misleading computer analysis. 
Sometimes it seems that writers trust their "engines" way too much, and take too little time to judge a position with common sense.... (Remember Kramnik's famous defeat against Leko in the Marshall, where the refutation lay just outside the computer - horizon).
(e) Laziness: Not really taking the time to examine important sources.
(at least not as well as do would do in preparation of an important game.....)
Two notorious examples imo are 
N. MacDonald The King's Gambit
B. Lalic The Marshall Gambit.
But it applies to other authors who for instance omit to check a good base of correspondence games, or think that no source from before 1995 is worth checking.

ghenghisclown wrote on 04/10/09 at 09:07:17:


What I think is the truly great shame is that John Watson IS a very good writer.  There are far less talented writers who peddle much more shite than he's done in that chapter but since I expect better from him I'm much more cross with him than others (who perhaps deserve a bigger kicking).

The other shame is that it's not really such a bad chapter at all - at least it wouldn't have been had it been presented differently.

If JW had said something along the lines of "look this is a bit rubbish but it's good rubbish and perhaps worth a punt in a rapid game or surprise situation" then it would be fine.  There's a lot of material on that particular line - much more so than I've seen gathered together in one place anywhere else.

It's trying to pretend the line is objectively viable that's the problem.  It's really rather sad.