I agree as well...

Markovich wrote on 01/05/12 at 22:45:15:

Yes, he did. 

I remember John Watson suggesting that he didn't think John Emms's lines against Kasparov's approach gave "a true equaliser", so perhaps some of the sub-variations may need updating.  Also, Emms himself gave some recommendations for White in his "Starting Out: the Scotch Game" (2005).  However, as far as I'm aware the variation up to and including 8.c4 Nb6 is still widely regarded as a critical test of the Scotch, having had quite a few tests at super-GM level last year, so I doubt that wholesale changes are needed.

Dear me, is what Aagaard said or didn't say, thinks or doesn't think, really important enough to give rise to all this heat? Would it not be more constructive to talk about the actual strengths and weaknesses of the subject book?

But I really think it's a bit much to call Aagaard ignorant and say that people here have been brainwashed by him, don't you, anonymous3? Those allegations are so ridiculous that they don't even require deletion. Please, nothing more ad hominem. And please stop telling people that you don't care what they think. Why post here at all if that's the case?

Personally I think it't a very fine book, and I would be happy to see a new edition. Of course, opening books do very often make recommendations with which I disagree, and this one is no exception.  But on the whole I have always considered it very sound.

Concerning the Scotch, I thought I recalled that Emms advocated 3...Nf6 4.Nxc6 bxc6 5.e5 Qe7 6.Qe2 Nd5 7.c4 Nb6. Am I wrong? Further I believe this line holds up today.

Let's take the quote from Aagaard in question (http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=442#comment-1263)

Quote:


The truth is in between: Aagaard dismissed it because it wasn't relevant, due to being outdated and not computer checked. So anon3 interprets these statements too harshly but there is some ground to it.

Later on in the comments someone also points out that Kaufman was published 3 years prior to Marin's book.

My take: Aagaard doesn't take kindly to criticism (which has been an ongoing trend in his communication). Both books should have been considered for Marin's book (they all are excellent books btw), considering Quality Chess status as the flagship chess book publisher (which they have earned fair and square). 

MNB, why do you react so violently to anon3? It seems a bit out proportion. I would just have asked himself to back his words by proving them.

I think Emms offered both accepted (...dxc3) and declined (...d5, and also mentioned the transposition into a line of the Ponziani from the Göring via 4...Nf6 5.e5 Nd5).  However, two lines that are given as transposing into the Göring from the Danish (3...d5 and 3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6) in reality don't fully transpose.

The one thing that I did find inconsistent was the main recommendation against the Danish of 3...dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5"!", while missing the fact that 5...Nc6 leaves White with nothing better than 6.Nf3 transposing directly to his recommended lines against the Göring double-pawn sacrifice.

The suggestions of 4...Bc5 in the Scotch Four Knights and Spanish Four Knights but not the Scotch proper also struck me as a little inconsistent but I think to be fair to Emms the Scotch Mieses variation (4...Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 etc) is such a huge topic, and one that he has a lot of experience with, that it was probably impractical to cover 4...Bc5 against the Scotch in such a wide-ranging repertoire book.

CraigEvans wrote on 01/02/12 at 17:52:44:


To be fair Emms did mention the "straightforward" 8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5 as a viable alternative for White, assessing the resulting positions as "unclear" with best play- he may just have underestimated White's chances.  Most other articles prior to Gutman/Bücker's analysis in Kaissiber either ignored the 8.fxg7 line or rejected it out of hand.

Actually, looking over the lines I think there is indeed room for an update.  For example in his coverage of the Göring Gambit he gave (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Bc4 d6 7.Qb3) 7...Qe7 an "!" in view of Black's problems in the line 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qd7, and correctly noted that 8.Qxc3 is probably White's best response, but missed the transposition 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qe7 which avoids the 8.Qxc3 line.  Also, after 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 d6 7.Nc3, 7...Be7 (as per analysis by John Watson; 8.Qb3 Nh6 9.Nd5 0-0) is far more critical than Emms's 7...Be6, plus he also misses a few resources for White in the ...d5 declining variations.  And of course as you say, the Scotch and 4.Ng5 Two Knights are more critical- e.g. the modern 8.Bd3 line in the Two Knights is relegated to just a small footnote but has recently had numerous tests.

I don't think this reflects badly on the book though- even the best books contain numerous pieces of analysis that are superseded during the following decade.

Anonymous3 wrote on 01/02/12 at 21:41:25:

I doubt if Aagaard has said this. You know, Emms recommends 3...Nf6. This move is quite irrelevant to Marin's book as it gives 3...Bc5.
Your post mainly shows what kind of guy/girl yóú are.