Arcticmonkey wrote on 04/04/11 at 18:13:07:
So all in all, i think the book is a solid 8.5/10. The analysis is very good as always with Taylor but i cannot get over the strange and sometimes downright confusing format that he presents his material in. There's little structure (he doesn't really miss much (i've only seen 2 small things since ive been studying it for about two week), it's just all muddled up between the games. The e-book format is also released so that would make it easier to just delete things that are unecessary (which is quite a lot of deleting).
But
are these things unnecessary? Maybe, if you just want a reference work. But TT doesn't write reference works. He writes books.
Looking at the examples you give:
Arcticmonkey wrote on 04/04/11 at 18:13:07:
There is one section in the Siesta line, where he gives about 2 pages of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5. He gives us a long story about Tal, then goes on to say that the gambit is bad (he also calls it something weird as well, i thought it was just the Elephant gambit). What is the point of having this? i dont know.
To demonstrate that avoiding the book moves is sometimes stupid.
Arcticmonkey wrote on 04/04/11 at 18:13:07:
There are also instances where its just damn confusing. So, in the Actual first chapter on the theory of the ...Nge7 solid line, the first two games are with the wrong move order. Now, Taylor goes on to point out that this is deliberately the wrong move and should not be adopted which is fine, but it has me wondering why approximately 4 pages were spent on it. A (at least in my view) better approach would have been to simply tell us the wrong move order, in a game (or two) which has the right move order.
To emphasize the necessity of correct move orders by showing why certain move orders are wrong.
I'd guess these elements come from his work with his students. Sometimes things have to be said repeatedly, and with examples and explanations so that they stick.
Arcticmonkey wrote on 04/04/11 at 18:13:07:
Here's my biggest problem. For some reason, he forgets that this is an opening book quite a lot of the time. He gives entire games annotated; yes i even mean the endings fully annotated. I don't particularly see the point of doing this. The chance that you'll follow a game that long (if you can even remember that far) and that someone will improve on move 53 is extremely low, its probably never even happened ever. It's obvious that he's very passionate about these particular games that he annotates but perhaps in a seperate book written on the endgame. This goes into another problem of giving entire game scores. I'm not sure if he realises that everyone has chessbase these days, and that they can look up the rest of the game in the database.
Because if you
are actually reading the book then this stuff is interesting. And mostly everything is there for a reason. For instance, in the Exchange chapters there are numerous full games in the notes. These are may well be unnecessary theoretically, but he wants to emphasize that these positions are boring and depressing for Black. And he wants to hammer that point home.
Arcticmonkey wrote on 04/04/11 at 18:13:07:
The entire first section (which is about 40 pages long) is given on how world champions played this opening. Almost all of them have no theoretical significance, and a lot of them start off with a different move order so different positions are reached to the lines that he recommends. Again i don't see the point of this entire chapter; perhaps some useful themes can be grasped from a deep study of these games but like i said the positions are unique due to the different move orders. My suggestion would be (instead of this entire chapter), have puzzles both tactical and positional which reinforce the themes. I think this will work a lot better than asking 1600-2300 players go through about 10 games which they will probably just breeze through, not understanding some things along the way (thats what i did).
I think this is partly propaganda: See what a good opening this is, how well Black did in all these games, how even very strong players have played feebly and struggled as White. From this the reader starts to get a feel for the opening and is encouraged at the same time.
And it's history as well. Personally I like openings being put in historical context: where up-to-date theory, analysis and games are juxtaposed with those from earlier days and centuries. And this is very appropriate for Open Games since a lot of the old stuff is still relevant.
So to go back to your original comment:
Arcticmonkey wrote on 04/04/11 at 18:13:07:
BUT PLEASE IM TIMOTHY TAYLOR IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE READING THIS! CUT DOWN ON THE UNECESSARY MATERIAL!
Perhaps he will, but I wouldn't hold your breath