Stigma wrote on 10/21/10 at 18:51:07:

Why not 1.d3 to reach either a Polar Bear (and avoid the sharp 1.f4 e5) or a Big Clamp?

White must probably be happy to play some forms of ...e5 English and a reversed Pirc/Modern too. 1.d3 gets extra credt for the confused look on many opponents' faces! 

I like the September update, a nice little Big Clamp repertoire. There is not much literature on it (see also http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1263047423), so this is a welcome addition. Also useful as addition to Vigus' Polar Bear repertoire in DW: Flank Openings.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 10/14/10 at 18:36:36:

I take your point, Tony, but as the updates are currently running a couple of months late, the benefits of topicality are diluted anyway. My method would at least help to ensure that you have something to offer to your paying customers every month.
Anyway, I'm pleased to see that an update has finally appeared, and I hope the section soon gets back on schedule.

I saw Shaw at the Olympiad, and it seemed to me that the updates were the furtherest thing from his mind. At an Olympiad players are focussed on one thing, and to tell Tony that he would do the updates on the rest day was a joke. Moreover, Shaw was testing some of these Anti-Sicilians lines at the Olympiad and getting nowhere even against much weaker opposition.

On the bright side I got to speak with Sveshnikov's son Vladimir, who actually plays the Alapin better than his father and we had a session where he shared some of his thoughts and novelties in key lines. The guy is a monster with this system, with a performance rating of at least 2600+ when using it. At the Olympiad Vladimir faced another 2.c3 expert with white, Pavasovic, and demolished him in short order. Hopefully that game will make one of the Anti-Sicilian updates, if not, just look it up in an up to date database.

Tops

Anyhow, what's the plan now? Are we still waiting for Shaw to do 3 updates in 3 days or will they be assigned to 3 reserves or some other solution?

TN wrote on 10/07/10 at 13:00:01:

I used to work managing a team of freelances, and one method I employed to deal with persistent stragglers was to give them deadlines a few weeks ahead of when I actually needed the work from them. That way, if they continued to be late, I’d still have time to commission the work from someone else without putting my employers in the position of letting down the customers – which would have been the ultimate no-no and would certainly have cost me my own job. There always came a point, though, however good the late-suppliers were, when I’d have to question whether it was worth the uncertainty and inconvenience of continuing to use their services.