TalJechin wrote on 02/26/14 at 17:59:06:

Sure. It would be pointless to continue after an apology. Even better, if they can bring themselves to drop tortured language ("Technically, this is not a novelty, but..."), but only their next books can show whether they are cured. 

Shaw: The King's Gambit, p. 87/88: 



The variation 12...Bxe5 ... 18.Bb3 on page 87 was from Kaissiber, it isn't credited. 

This is like the Oscars, but with a disparagement campaign. Stefan is posting in this thread, rather than in another, because he is urging people not to vote for Shaw's book. It is clear from his posts--the singling out of one author and the high emotion, some of which has been properly redacted--that the underlying impulse is not a campaign to raise scholarly standards (that would have resulted in very different posts), but to discredit and hurt Shaw in return for a perceived slight. Like an obedient but repressed driver who remorselessly retaliates within the law against a rival who has broken the law, Stefan may be technically in the right, but hardly seems to be coming from a higher place. It is only painful watching one beautiful bird trying to push another out of the nest.

Shaw worked on his book for many years. It represents a massive personal investment of time, far beyond anything he could have expected to recover financially or over the board. A labor of love, and given that the line is not exactly a critical theoretical battleground, a selfless gift to our game--one, like Stefan's own wonderful work, in chess's best quixotic spirit. I am grateful that it exists. I voted for Shaw.

I kind of agree with ErictheRed here.  I'd like to see a 'comprehensive report' with the various charges sent to QC, and then give them a chance to respond.

I do think that there is some validity to what Stefan is saying.  I'm actually a little disturbed at the laxity in citing sources and the strange use of N, although (to be fair) that's not new for QC books.  It appears to be an editorial decision.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/26/14 at 13:30:51:


I understand the grievances, but I don't understand why Shaw is being singled out like this.  As I wrote earlier, chess books are not scholarly works, chess journals do not have a history of scholarly citation, and because of this non-scholars have no way of tracking down source material.  Quality Chess could have hired Edward Winter I suppose, but barring that....???  

I doubt that there's a book on this list that would pass the sort of muster Shaw's book is being subjected to.  Perhaps they don't toss the 'N' symbol around as freely, but they also probably don't even bother to mention where ideas/analysis came from in a lot instances, leaving the reader to wonder whether it's the author's own work or someone else's. 

Anyhow in my opinion, we've done nothing but go in circles and ruin a potentially nice discussion of the best opening books of 2013.  This should have been confined to another thread (no reason to be in two when a link to the other would suffice), and should really have been taken up with the people at Quality Chess, not a public forum.  Are we all hoping that John Shaw notices our little threads and stops by for some abuse?  

More than enough problems have been discussed between knowledgeable folk like Taljechin and Stefan, and it's far past the time to take the discussion offline and to Quality Chess.  Come back and tell us how they respond, sure, but do we really need more of this sort of thing?  

Well, I could just quote the analysis you gave! 

For those interested in a snippet of Shaw's work, take a look at the PDF excerpt from QC:

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/King'sGambit-excerpt.pdf

Btw, I am sure that any opening book written in the internet age will be guilty of omitting and possibly misrepresenting previous works. I look at Shaw's book as a monumental achievement in the King's Gambit. It comes as close as any book I've seen to giving a final evaluation of a classic opening. (I know, there's no such thing as a final evaluation. But take a look at the book!)

For all the flaws that Stefan Buecker has mentioned, that major salient feature has been overshadowed. The book is over 600 pages of really dense, good analysis.

ErictheRed wrote on 02/25/14 at 18:55:52:


I think 28th of February is the planned date for closing this poll.