No!

"I'm just not entirely sure who the author was writing for - the book offers little to a seasoned Alekhine veteran in terms of new analysis, and is not really a "Starting Out:" book, though it is closer to this style. "

In fact this is a good point.

And, besides my criticisms and yours, I feel there is distinctive lack of "assertive personality" on this book.

If one reads the book by J. Cox, one sees clearly his opinions on some variations which in some cases are backed with played games by the author.

In the recent articles by Marin on the Alburt variation, one also sees clearly his opinions on the line (despite here, one also sees that Marin has not been playing this variation

In the recent book by Bogdanov, most of the opinions given in the book are stereotyped opinions.
I was expected some strong opinions on new and old variations.
I also feel that the reference to players of Odessa of a few years ago is misleading since, one gets the idea that their researches would be given in the book and see nothing of it.
I also feel that the book is very Westernalized for a Russian (Ucranian ?) writer. In the Intro we see a paragraph mentioning several good players which play once in a while the defence and what about Mamedyarov (which apparently is not playing it anymore but played it quite often a few years ago and appears in the book in several games and in-the-middle-references). And what about Miroshnichenko?
And others?
In noticed a few (just a few) interesting (to me) comments in the middle of the main games but these do not strike me as justifying a new book

I think the new forthcoming book by Tim Taylor will be very different on this aspect.

I agree. I have ordered the book and i'd like to know how it compares with the Cox's book. For example, are there any new ideas or forgoten ones that this book proposes? if they were in the critical lines the better.

Know next to nothing about Alekhines so nothing to contribute there.

Do have some limited expertise in elearning and collaborative online endeavours.  So, suggest working on a wiki. Easier for geographically separated folks working asynchronously to collaborate that way in my experience.   

Good luck.

I'd like to be a part of this historical effort! Please inform me about the details. Maybe with a PM?

I dont want to be the odd sheep but I have a few comments and one query to make about this project which I think are important. Some of these have already been pointed out before. Markovich, read to the end before starting to ask whether I want to be on it or not. I think the two main issues I am raising might be interesting and the query is important.

Query - Why exactly are we doing this?

Comment/Answer 1 - There are some posts on quite interesting analysis on some topical and some not topical lines that have been published in the site.
Thus, collecting all of this makes sense (if this is one possible answer to the query). However, i would like to stress again that many of these thoughts have been read and collected by the main analyser of the section (in this case, I refer to John Watson but some interesting interaction has also been obtained with J. Cox) and some have appeared in the monthly analysis.
Thus, what we are doing is ethical? In fact, could we even use the site to try to do something, while there exists an
an e-book on the defence which is being done and updated by
some of the analysers of the section?
Again, and even if this ethical problem is solved, or you convince me there is no ethical problem, I still ask
you again, what we are achieveing will be more
than what is in those posts?
Yes, I know that many analysis have not been covered by JW. But this happens to every book, article, and will happen even to this project.

To conclude (by the way, i still have more on
the variations I think should have priority but unfortunately, i need to leave)

i) What exactly is the aim of thsi project?
ii) Is it ethical?
iii) Wouldn't we need to have the opinion of the moderator of the section on this?
iv) Will the project by mostly a document on the posts? Will it need more analysis?

Daniel wrote on 12/18/09 at 00:28:44:


Great.

OK people, this weekend I'll draw up a more definite specification of this proposal.  I'll post in a separate thread.  This will of course be subject to discussion and amendment.