(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. d4 d5 2. c4 › Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
(Moderators: Jupp53, proustiskeen)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox (Read 176750 times)
Blue Flaneur
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 42
Joined: 03/23/08
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #215 - 07/18/11 at 17:02:53
Post Tools
the line given by cox is a simple bust. what do you not understand?

totally unacceptable. I'll still buy the book to look at it myself but it's clear that I'll be buying a book filled with errors.

I have the hiarcs book and I have already found many possible directions from c6 followed by a5. it's a pity everyman just doesn't care about readers. I blame both cox and emms equally.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Harvey Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 193
Location: Media City, UK
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #214 - 07/18/11 at 16:27:32
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/18/11 at 13:14:44:
Harvey Williamson wrote on 07/17/11 at 19:30:30:
I bought this book yesterday and tried the repetoire against the latest Hiarcs opening book. The 1st line I tried looks like a bust

...

23. Bf3 is not considered by Cox but it looks winning for White. 1-0 to the latest Hiarcs book Smiley



Here, you claimed the first line you tried by Cox was a bust. The line itself isn't busted. Cox was right that the line is probably ok for Black. He was wrong about 21...Nc6. One move was wrong, but the evaluation was correct. As you said yourself, "It would have taken a few seconds to check this with an engine."


Surely it is his job to do simple checks before releasing a new book?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #213 - 07/18/11 at 13:14:44
Post Tools
Harvey Williamson wrote on 07/17/11 at 19:30:30:
I bought this book yesterday and tried the repetoire against the latest Hiarcs opening book. The 1st line I tried looks like a bust

...

23. Bf3 is not considered by Cox but it looks winning for White. 1-0 to the latest Hiarcs book Smiley



Here, you claimed the first line you tried by Cox was a bust. The line itself isn't busted. Cox was right that the line is probably ok for Black. He was wrong about 21...Nc6. One move was wrong, but the evaluation was correct. As you said yourself, "It would have taken a few seconds to check this with an engine."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #212 - 07/18/11 at 03:02:29
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 07/17/11 at 21:57:35:
Harvey Williamson wrote on 07/17/11 at 19:30:30:
I bought this book yesterday and tried the repetoire against the latest Hiarcs opening book. The 1st line I tried looks like a bust

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "45"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2
Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 c6 12. O-O a5 13. b5 c5 14. Ne5 cxd4 15.
exd4 Bxe5 16. dxe5 d4 17. Na4 Qg5 18. Bg4 Qxe5 19. Nxb6 Ra7 20. Rc1 Qxb5 21.
Qxd4 Nc6 22. Qe3 Qe5 23. Bf3! *

23. Bf3 is not considered by Cox but it looks winning for White. 1-0 to the latest Hiarcs book Smiley



Yowsa, I thought the Tartakower defence was supposed to be quite solid. But if 14...cxd4 and 15...Bxe5 really is Black's best way to play, then I'd definitely stay away from this as Black. Is there really no time for natural development like 14...Re8 or 14...Qd6 15.f4 Nd7 ?


You can play ..Re8 on move 12 instead of the immediate and, according to Kasparov, somewhat premature ..a5.  There is probably at least one prior thread on this.  Somewhere.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Harvey Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 193
Location: Media City, UK
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #211 - 07/17/11 at 23:02:59
Post Tools
agreed but nc6 is the move in the book. It would have taken a few seconds to check this with an engine.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #210 - 07/17/11 at 23:00:35
Post Tools
I don't think this is so busted. Two GMs drew the position after 21.Qd4. I don't think they were seriously contemplating 21...Nc6? 

Here's some (computer-enhanced) analysis:



Note: Edited to bring the main line into better focus.
« Last Edit: 07/18/11 at 13:09:52 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #209 - 07/17/11 at 22:53:11
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 07/17/11 at 22:05:22:
BPaulsen wrote on 07/17/11 at 21:59:48:
@TalJechin - that's a Tartakower, not a Lasker.

I would have to imagine that even with that difference, producing an edge for white would be significant. However, that still leaves the Lasker to get around.  Grin


Thanks, corrected it - knew that of course, but somehow it came out wrong anyway...  Undecided


Yeah, I know you knew, but someone was going to point it out eventually.

I've done it before myself. Simple mistake. Brain is flying around at 100 miles per hour thinking about the actual chess content, so the names get mixed up occasionally as an afterthought.
  
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #208 - 07/17/11 at 22:05:22
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 07/17/11 at 21:59:48:
@TalJechin - that's a Tartakower, not a Lasker.

I would have to imagine that even with that difference, producing an edge for white would be significant. However, that still leaves the Lasker to get around.  Grin


Thanks, corrected it - knew that of course, but somehow it came out wrong anyway...  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #207 - 07/17/11 at 21:59:48
Post Tools
@TalJechin - that's a Tartakower, not a Lasker.

I would have to imagine that even with that difference, producing an edge for white would be significant. However, that still leaves the Lasker to get around.  Grin
  
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #206 - 07/17/11 at 21:57:35
Post Tools
Harvey Williamson wrote on 07/17/11 at 19:30:30:
I bought this book yesterday and tried the repetoire against the latest Hiarcs opening book. The 1st line I tried looks like a bust

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "45"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2
Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 c6 12. O-O a5 13. b5 c5 14. Ne5 cxd4 15.
exd4 Bxe5 16. dxe5 d4 17. Na4 Qg5 18. Bg4 Qxe5 19. Nxb6 Ra7 20. Rc1 Qxb5 21.
Qxd4 Nc6 22. Qe3 Qe5 23. Bf3! *

23. Bf3 is not considered by Cox but it looks winning for White. 1-0 to the latest Hiarcs book Smiley



Yowsa, I thought the Tartakower defence was supposed to be quite solid. But if 14...cxd4 and 15...Bxe5 really is Black's best way to play, then I'd definitely stay away from this as Black. Is there really no time for natural development like 14...Re8 or 14...Qd6 15.f4 Nd7 ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Harvey Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 193
Location: Media City, UK
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #205 - 07/17/11 at 21:28:33
Post Tools
Anyone who wants more details of the Hiarcs book can look here http://www.hiarcs.com/chess-opening-book.htm
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #204 - 07/17/11 at 20:33:40
Post Tools
This is not a comment on the book or on Cox's choice of lines.  I don't have the book yet.  

This is only a comment on the Bologan-Short game, which is hardly an advertisement for the ..Bf5 variation.  White was better throughout the game and the bishop on g6 was nothing more than a big pawn for most of it.  The result would have been the other way around if Bologan hadn't badly botched the endgame.  

 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #203 - 07/17/11 at 20:25:09
Post Tools
bigbelly wrote on 07/16/11 at 19:31:51:
If Short, Spasski and other super GM's think it's OK for Black, maybe we lesser players should keep an open mind.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LostTactic
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 336
Joined: 02/19/11
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #202 - 07/17/11 at 19:46:39
Post Tools
Harvey Williamson wrote on 07/17/11 at 19:30:30:
I bought this book yesterday and tried the repetoire against the latest Hiarcs opening book. The 1st line I tried looks like a bust

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "45"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2
Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 c6 12. O-O a5 13. b5 c5 14. Ne5 cxd4 15.
exd4 Bxe5 16. dxe5 d4 17. Na4 Qg5 18. Bg4 Qxe5 19. Nxb6 Ra7 20. Rc1 Qxb5 21.
Qxd4 Nc6 22. Qe3 Qe5 23. Bf3! *

23. Bf3 is not considered by Cox but it looks winning for White. 1-0 to the latest Hiarcs book Smiley



That's pretty horrific, good find! Houdini gives +0.92 at depth 21 for me. I still haven't received my copy yet, I hope John releases a pgn update to this line or something.

Btw could you try seing how his Lasker defence line holds up if you have time?

Edit in:

Just did a bit of analysis, it's just his 21... Nc6N that is wrong, either 21... Ra6 (as in the 2nd game game included) or slightly better Houdini's 21... Qg5

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Harvey Williamson
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 193
Location: Media City, UK
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #201 - 07/17/11 at 19:30:30
Post Tools
I bought this book yesterday and tried the repetoire against the latest Hiarcs opening book. The 1st line I tried looks like a bust

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "45"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2
Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 c6 12. O-O a5 13. b5 c5 14. Ne5 cxd4 15.
exd4 Bxe5 16. dxe5 d4 17. Na4 Qg5 18. Bg4 Qxe5 19. Nxb6 Ra7 20. Rc1 Qxb5 21.
Qxd4 Nc6 22. Qe3 Qe5 23. Bf3! *

23. Bf3 is not considered by Cox but it looks winning for White. 1-0 to the latest Hiarcs book Smiley

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge