barnaby wrote on 09/19/13 at 04:59:06:



What I would have thought. Serves the authors right for using the lazy game format for a book also.

hicetnunc wrote on 09/18/13 at 15:55:54:





bare unannotated games are 'public events'

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz17.pdf

I have crossed the magic threshold and now can post a link to a sample of Ruy Lopez games.

I still need to work on the selection process and ordering of games.

Without discussing the legal aspects, it's my feeling that the game selection made by the author is part of his work, and shouldn't be freely distributed. I mean, there's some work in selecting the right games, isn't there ? (it ?)

gwnn wrote on 09/18/13 at 11:18:48:


It is just a collection of recent games. You would need the book to understand how a particular game fits in the repertoire.

If I included the set of tabiya, or a .pgn of the tree, there might be a problem. But even with that, I would think it would be necessary to have Kaufman's book to really get a use of my game digest.

I need to make a few more posts before I can put up a link to a sample. I have mostly lurked till now.

Hi, I am preparing to use the Kaufman for Black against 1.e4 and may add other portions as time goes on.

I have made .epub files of games I have extracted from recent databases with a collection of Tabiya. I was wondering how useful this would be to a general audience.

Each move is presented with a separate diagram, so no set is needed to follow the games, and I use a chess font, so the files do not get huge.

heavypieces wrote on 09/03/12 at 01:39:19:

I have to agree that the full-games format (where he often stops quoting the game because someone played a bad move (!)) is a bit weird, and if you were looking for good explanations this is clearly the wrong book, but I still think he gives some interesting suggestions, which you should still check for yourself

I think a repertoire book is not more than a starting point and Kaufman's book is among the best repertoire books.  

I agree that Cox' book "Play 1.d4" is a great book, maybe even better than Kaufman's. For example his lines against the Dutch have served me very, very well. But I really don't like that there has been some bashing against Kaufman's book in this thread. 

I think Kaufman did a very good job in the Semislav/Slav complex. 
It is very sensible to offer a backup-repertoire against these complicated lines: 

Kaufman suggests 
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Qc2 or Qb3 
and 
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 

I have chosen the first option a few times and this line scores 
incredibly well (much better than the Slow Slav) in praxis 
(at least beyond 2000).  
The second option has more bite than the lame 4.c4xd5 used 
my many White players in praxis. 

His Catalan-like handling of the Ne5-Slav is also very reasonable.  
I have played many blitz- and rapidgames in this line. White has a 
space advantage and has a relatively safe position. Of course the Slav is a hard nut and White has a modest advantage at best, but 
I think Black is under a little pressure. 

Kaufman's handling of the Bg5-Semislav is over all pragmatic and good. 

In the Botwinnik there are holes of course. 

But you must not forget that after 
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 
Black has already reached the point of no return. White can still play 
the solid 6.a4 if he doesn't want a theoretical battle. 

Cox says it very well in his book: "Play 5.Bg5, it is a good move ..."