STEFANOS wrote on 07/16/11 at 07:09:22:


I'd say Tim Taylor puts a lot of work into his books. He doesn't churn them out. He investigates openings seriously, tests them out in his own games over the board and online, does his own analysis, gives his own ideas, comes to his own conclusions. The last three points there are key for me; they're really the only reason (apart from research) I'd even look at an opening book nowadays. Okay, if people don't like his style, fair enough.

Regarding Hansen: generally I like his reviews too. (The Ponziani one I'd discount as an aberration; opinions are fine, that's a reviewer's job, but in that case his criticisms just didn't reflect the content.) On Tim Taylor's books I think his opinions are fair. Take the conclusion to the last one:

Quote:


"even if I didn't believe everything he wrote" — yes, my thoughts exactly.

On the King's Gambit: yes, I agree; it's a difficult topic, especially having failed to complete a book on this myself. I guess we'll have to wait and see what TT comes up with. Anyway, wait and see seems a better plan than slagging off the book before he's probably even started writing it.

Thanks for the gracious reply by the way. And sorry for taking offence. Of course you're perfectly entitled to your opinion too.

Possibly I haven't got a clue, I respect your view. I agree that by  telling that it is the modern Schiller it is not polite and possibly incorrect, Schiller is beyond competition. The truth is that , Taylor nowadays writes books with the speed of light, even he received decent reviews, his books have lots of gaps in many areas and when we come to the naked truth, if they give added value in the money you spend, the answer is no. In may opinion - and it is only my opinion- his books are between middle average quality and sometimes tends to low. For example "Slay the Spanish" has 288 pages, but it could be the half. My main worry is King's Gambit is a very difficlut topic to write a book.  For example, Hansen completely burried the Dave Taylor book on Ponziani, but for me it wasn't worse than Timothy Taylor's books. When I give my money I want respect from the writer to give me something good, when you buy a chess book, you want to be a chess book not a novel, but not also a alegbra book having only analysis and variations.  For this reason, we have writers like Palliser,Cox, Emms, Avruk, Bauer,Marin who deliver books of high quality. Sorry, if I wrote something offencing it was not on purpose.

STEFANOS wrote on 07/13/11 at 17:42:15:


you haven't got a clue what you're talking about

Actually, there are no KG books with explanations in them so look forward to seeing one...
I have some of Taylor's previous efforts and I was a bit disappointed with the Bird book. Bent Larsen wrote something along the lines of "as a theory reference it is useless, but very inspring." Who am I to disagre with the great man...
Well I have no need for a very inspiring book on the KG. I need a way to get a position where I can play for the advantage after 2...exf4 3.Nf3 g5 or 3...d5. If anyone has a serious/genuine answer to that they will have my money, if not, well I guess everyman survives without it.
But let's give Taylor some credit, I'm sure there are plenty of chessplayers who do need an inspring book and it should be easy to improve on the last few KG books (Johansson's excluded).
I do wonder how many KG games Taylor played. In my experience there is a difference between sitting at the table solving real problems in games with something at stake and sitting in your comfy chair with your favourite engine running, interrupted only by the occasional tap on the spacebar. I would be pleasantly surprised if they have it out by january.
The 192 pages is probably just because they have to write something. If it is indeed 192 then it is likelly to be superficial. The problem with the KG is that for the book to be useful you have to include all the old stuff you will see in the lower ranks as well as all the new top-GM stuff. There is simply no way this will all fit on 192 pages with explanations as well.

I'm with fromper on this and daresay I will get much more out of this than the John Shaw book when it ultimately appears

I think I'm seeing a ratings gap on this one. I guess us lower rateds appreciate the extra explanation, while you master types just want him to show the book theory of the opening and move on. Now that I think of it, perhaps we should start a new thread on the writing styles of opening book writers to ask what styles everyone prefers, and also which writers we all think conform to which styles.

Fromper wrote on 06/10/11 at 15:01:26:


Quite well written, tsk!  From what I can tell, Taylor was asleep when his high school English teacher talked about "cogent" and "concise." Apparently his publishers have  large supplies of surplus ink and paper, and a severe shortage of red pencils. If I had to edit one of his books, the finished product would run about 48 pages. But then you'd have to charge less for it, wouldn't you?

Because I was not impressed by the excerpts of his other books available on Internet. Especially that word "deeply" was not the first I thought of.