OK, I looked at google docs and it looks a lot more straightforward than CVS.  You just maintain one copy of the doc, online.  However it doesn't manage changes the way CVS or another version control system does; that's strictly up to the users.

Also I'm not sure if google docs allows you to define a file structure (a set of directories and subdirectories for storing your files), which CVS does.

No problem.  I was not and am not offended.  I got confused, and assumed that you meant that I was negative toward this system.  Apparently you were talking about the book.  I hope that I gave no offense, which was not my intention.

CraigEvans wrote on 12/15/09 at 22:54:28:


And @everyone

Its a nice idea and I wonder whether there could be some nice, automated modality for several people working at once on a single set of variations.  Posting to forums like this one gives rise to immense confusion once you start getting into the technical details.  It takes forever just to figure out what position people are talking about, and to get a consistent read on anything you have to patch together numerous posts.

One modality that springs to mind is just CVS (Concurrent Versions System), with which some of you may be aware.  It's main use is to enable groups of people to develop software.  But absolutely nothing precludes its use to maintain pgn files, which would presumably be the basis any sort of group development effort.

See here: http://www.nongnu.org/cvs/

There are more modern, sophisticated mechanisms that do even more than CVS does, but CVS happens to be what I'm familiar with because we use it here were I work.  It's pretty easy to use.

You first "checkout" to get the entire file structure, then as you create new files you "add" them, then "commit" them back to the main repository.  You can then check your "status" to see which files have been updated by someone else.  It's normal to put a CVS "header" at the the top of the file that displays the current version number and shows, for example, a log explaining why each new version was created.

Anyway, regardless of whether we do this or how we do it, that's the sort of thing we would need to coordinate our "development" efforts.  I could maintain a CVS repository on my website, or perhaps Tony would be willing to maintain one here.

@lg:  Really?  I don't know how I created that impression.  I maintain my interest in this defense and in playing it.  I have an open mind about its ultimate merit, but to me it's one of the most interesting opening systems of all.  I no longer rely exclusively upon this defense (I never did, really, sometimes playing 1...e5), but instead now I often play the Sicilian.  That's because I've decided that 1...c5 is the best answer to 1.Nf3 and this compels me to have a Sicilian in my armory.  But I still play Alekhine's.

P.S. My order came from NIC yesterday, but the Alekhine book was back-ordered.  I expect I'll have it soon enough since some of you already have yours.

P.P.S.  By my reckoning that would be lg, TonyRo, CraigEvans and Markovich as the initial working group.  Anyone else interested?

Burgess "The Complete", despite being really old now, is still my main reference on the sidelines, and sometimes to understand the development of theory in the main lines. developments in Miles and Kengis are for obvious reasons not in there, but all the old main lines were well covered. That was a book written by a untitled player, and yet it was extremely good. I think that in many cases ambition and love for the subject can outweigh a certain difference in playing strength, but in general you need someone with at least IM-stringth or close. Both Burgess and certainly Bogdanov qualify in that respect.
I ran a quick check on Valentin Bogdanov playing Alekhine as black in my database. I found 3 games, but the earliest was from 2008, when he probably already was planning the book...

Likewise, I would be happy to "do my bit" in producing some literature on this opening. Whilst there is an increase in the amount of literature on the opening, it seems that almost none of it is produced by afficionados of the opening, nor by very strong players. Therefore, the deficiencies of all the previous works (even the good ones by Burgess and Cox) will remain. 

I'd accept happily that those here who would work on this book would be in no way comparable as players... but as a community, checking each other's work etc and testing ideas, something pretty good could be produced. And sometimes, labours of love can be more enjoyable and inspiring than the best book by a 2700+ player on a topical GM line, and maybe more useful to a larger core of players...

well, as far as I remember you have given the same skeptic opinion a few months back, I think

Ludde (and others that might be interested)

I have the book and looked at it for the past two days.
So my opinion is based on a short analysis.

The book is interesting and I am glad I have it but I cannot ignore a comment that I did here somewhile ago when people start advertising that two new books where in the pipeline.

At the time I said something like "perhaps, based on the very good critics on Cox's book, everyman should ask him to do a revised version - in my opinion, such a revised version would receive two major changes, Miles and Voroznev, and small changes in the rest".

Before going on, I said this in relation with the new book by Taylor to be published by Everyman, next month. This was said with no intention to criticize Taylor's book (by the way, I read his "pawn sacrifices" and based on it, I  am definitely looking forward to see his Alekhine book). It was 
said with the idea that Cox's book was a major achievement as a starting book.

I had a brief look at Bogdanov's book and I am definitely much more impressed with Cox's book.

One thing that puzzles me in this book was the lack of depth, in my opinion, in topical lines, which sometimes, perhaps, many times, are very briefly mentioned.
Usually, he gives interesting games, which are interesting as chess games but not as Alekhine games.
To be more precise, we see games where White, or Black plays a less recommended (or less topical) move (here "recommended" is not my term, it is his, and the good line appears then as a sideline in the text. 
Then, we see about more 10 moves of the main game, with some analysis per move while the good line is analysed very briefly, sometimes just a sequenc eof moves of a recent game.
There are many examples, here are some:
i) one game mentions Bologan's approach to the 4...Bg4 line, in the sidelines and very briefly, however the main game follows a move labelled as ?! by the author
ii) the three games in the Miles which were advertised 
in the pdf made me think the most about this book; however, the lines followed in these games are not the topical ones played by White (these topical lines are very briefly mentioned in the sidelines).
One point I would like to make is that the Miles is more about ideas rathe then moves, and I was expecting a deep explanation of some of those lines
iii) the exchange played with cxd6 by Black - one game where White plays Be3 and d5 which is interesting - but then, the vorozhnev is mentioned in the Intro of the section and has some (not brief) analysis in the middle of the main game. However, one wonders if one game with the voroznev was selected, perhaps, we could see more of it an dthe authors opinions

There are more examples of this. 

However, I dont want to say that there only negative aspects (and here "negative" means I was not as impressed as my expectations made me believe to be).
Positive things are: very recent games are being mentioned and commented (I also see references to recent correspondence games that are new for me)and sometimes we see interesting (short) analysis or comments.

For instance in the Alburt variation - mentioned as a sideline (and, here, I have nothing against this choice) he mentiones two interesting remarks: i) he makes a brief remark to Alburt's Nc6 move in Ljubojevic- Alburt (no reference to the game however) where he says that "this must yet to be solved" which conforms with what we think of it and ii) in Alburt's sacrifice after 7.a4 he mentions one of those correspondence games with some new analysis (here "new" means I have never seen it) and which might be important for people trying to play it.
The voroznev also appears to have some analysis based on new correspondence games but here, i ask
the "vorozhnev" colleagues to give an opinion.

In short, an interesting book but which does not fill
up to my expectations.

By the way, the last NIC yearbook has an article on the Miles by Finkel (which is a follow up of a previous one by him). It is quite interesting.