GMTonyKosten wrote on 07/04/13 at 11:04:19:


That is wrong of course.

However, in this electronic age accidental mistakes can occasionally happen. Text can be imported, or copied and pasted, without proper attribution by mistake.

Different approaches have their pros and cons. Some Ebooks can not be altered and text can not be copied or supplemented. That goes a long way towards providing proper attribution. On the other hand, some products are very easily altered and that has some benefits too.

As a consumer, I like the option to edit. When I add a note, I try to remember to add my initials to avoid confusion.

I've also mashed products together. For example, I've combined one book on the Vienna QGD with another book on the Ragozin QGD. I manually try to sort out the few cases of overlap. As new games become available, I can add them.

This is all for my own personal use, yet I struggle with the attribution problem. Ingenious programming can help. For example, text copied from a Kindle Ebook will paste into another environment with attribution. Every electronic solution I have seen could have been made better IMO.

Stigma wrote on 05/05/20 at 00:56:12:

Because GM Avrukh and IM Bronznik gave it as a near refutation in their books.

Stigma wrote on 05/05/20 at 00:56:12:

If GM Avrukh and IM Bronznik were too optimistic indeed the answer obviously is yes. There are also 7.g3 and 7.Qb3. I mean, I can't imagine that White will stop looking for an advantage.
Given the statistics according to my database there is also 5.g3 Nge7 6.Nbd2 to (re)consider. So I won't claim that Black is out of the woods.

Stigma wrote on 05/05/20 at 00:56:12:

I haven't done a systematical research (yet?). FM Henris presents 7.b4 Ng6 8.Bb2 Qd7 9.Qa4 and "Black must play accurately in order to maintain as small as possible White's advantage".

My first point was rather that FM Henris' work deserves some compliments too, despite all the plagiarism (unfortnately I found yet another example). My second point was warning those who follow the antidotes that in the past were heavily promoted on Chesspub (including by myself).

Only recently I could borrow FM Henris' book. Neglecting the issue with copying/plagiarism it is an important book for this not so important opening. Henris disputes the verdict of GM Avrukh and IM Bronznik  that 5.a3 Be6 6.Nbd2 secures a clear advantage for White.



Henris provides  quite some analysis (assuming it's his own he has done a fine job), the point being that either 19...b5 or 19...Qb6 will provide sufficient counterplay.

So 5.Nbd2 remains.



Spanish corr. IM Jesus Julio Remis Fernandez has played several games with his novelty, losing only one  and drawing all the others. White has problems defending the two crucial pawns.
So the fans (not especially me btw - I'm just another gambit weirdo) can foster hope again?

Henris cited in the literature sources and in many of the lines quoted the author. I do not see much of a problem, it is a very good book from my point of view. I think you need to put aside personal vanities and watch the chess players of the same virtues, which are many

JonathanB wrote on 07/05/13 at 07:18:21:


The Golombek Gambit only works once.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 07/04/13 at 11:04:19:


I suggest you contact the publisher and the author to voice your displeasure. Via solicitor letters.

How 'wonderful'.

The thing which confuses me is the idea that anyone should feel it to be worth writing so many pages about this opening. You could do a pretty thorough survey of a really major opening in less.