Whether the accusation is justified ot not, if the subject is some form of discrimination and the discussion grows longer the probability of an apologist using a variation of "don't whine" approaches 1.

IM Andrew Greet wrote on 09/26/12 at 15:48:41:

I'll decide that for myself, thank you.

Firstly, I should make it clear that I work at Quality Chess, and was involved with proofreading of the Morra book. But putting any company bias aside, I think some people are being MUCH too sensitive about this case of perceived sexism. The fact is that women still make up just a tiny minority of competitive chess players, and if it just so happens that a male player has remained undefeated against females for his career, then why shouldn't he remember that fact and mention it in conversation after a woman finally beats him?
It seems to me that, in order to judge whether the comment carried any negative connotations towards women, one would have had to actually be present and hear the tone in which it was said. None of us were in a position to do that, so I do find it strange that some people have automatically interpreted it in the worst possible way.

Markovich wrote on 08/09/12 at 01:26:07:



HOLY CRAP, you're right!  That gives me ideas...

I recently reviewed the book for my Youtube channel and gave it top marks.
The main reason for that is simply that I found it entertaining to read and full of great attacking chess. It's simply inspirational to see a book in the romantic attacking spirit, with few "positional" considerations. Sure, a "GM Repertoire" on for example  the g3,Rb1 Benko is the theoretically better material, but does it make you "reconsider" your chess? I for my part, after seeing some of the attacking lines in the book, thought about playing some sharper stuff in the future. It won't be the Morra, I don't even play 1.e4, but it raised the interest in sharpening my repertoire. On a side note: I played the Morra in Internet blitz on a decent level with very good results after looking at the book. Even titled players have no decent line prepared most of the time.

Btw, I am quite sure that this book contains mistakes, but that's true for all books. In fact usually it doesn't matter so much, as people simply don't know lines to the very end (see above about blitz games). I know that is not a "scientific" approach, but in reality some slight holes in variations don't matter very much, as even stronger players don't know them.

Why? Do I need to? Note I am not disagreeing nor commenting on the chess content nor the opinion of the majority here .......
I do read the reviews and views here before I purchase my chess books. Initially it looks like one of the books which fit one of my book-buying criterion: passion. But then ......
I have refrained from commenting until now, with the blog comment on QC blog which is not denied by the editor ......
so, back to my original question, do I need to buy the book to tell me it is sexist or that I was mistaken?

If anyone is interested in the typos, printing errors or editorial oversights, see http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=1309#comment-7121.
Also if anyone was intrigued as what was the sexist comment made by the author, at least one was revealed at the same blog comments. Not sure if there were others.
On my part, I am in two minds initially. It is the author who repeats the sexist attitude of the player but then is not QC repeating and reinforcing the same sexist attitude by publishing it? A possible defence is to say it is historical but I think by now everyone knows about these sexist attitudes if they desire to dig a bit (..... after did not one of the Polgar sisters comment that she did not hear of any male opponent who lost to her of not being afflicted with some form of malady), do we really need a 2012 publication to repeat something which smells like, looks like "shit".
Further support for some complicity on QC's part is revealed by the fact that QC acknowledges it edits to quite an extent the chessic material, including checking lines/variations et al. This is to say some lines are added and/or improved by the editors. Evidence? the famous case f the missing lines which has now turned up in the QC newsletter.
Surely, the same editorial zeal (which is applauded!) should also apply to non-chessic stuff. After all this is basic Inclusive Non-sexist Language Course 101.
I think QC in not taking a stand on this has tainted its name. Albeit at the same time they publish a seemingly great book by Judit Polgar. But then ...... (I cannot say more without being defamatory).
Finally two things: some will say, let's talk chess but unfortunately this is chess! when I am constantly trying to get more girls to play and persist with chess ......
Secondly, there goes my dream of publishing with QC ......

barnaby wrote on 08/03/12 at 14:43:30:


I agree on those little mistakes, there's also one in the introduction page on Chapter 2 where a6 is played but in fact where Be7 must be played (wrong diagram).

In your example, if you turn the page, the right moves are shown: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Bc4 a6 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Qe2 b5 9. Bb3 Nbd7 10. Rd1 or 10. Nd4.