This is all probably getting a bit sidetracked. My job is in academia, so I rather prefer everything to be referenced properly. That said, it struck me that Shaw gave credit mostly where it was due. Seemed quite a humble write really. And I did rather like it.

Surprised to see the Panov book there. The writing was terse. But, different opinions, and that's fine.

Well, no biggies this year for me. Everyman was mostly just one author, so no there of course. Never has an editor been so absent. 

Nominate:
"Playing the French" NN and JA
"King's Gambit" - Shaw
(Both QC, 2013)

For what my opinion is worth, I'm mostly with Stefan on the issue of a proper bibliography and quoting the sources of your analysis. I wasn't aware that this was an issue for Shaw, but I'm both willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and also fairly certain that even with the questionable material removed, he'd likely still win!

I can't believe Shaw doesn't have it locked up. He's got my vote. What a monumental piece of research, and on an opening that is more notable for its unique historical and philosophical importance than for any kind of contemporary criticality! An act of devotion.

Agree with ghenghisclown and others about the references. Lasker wanted to copyright chess games, but I'm glad it didn't happen. Perhaps Stefan or others were not credited where it would have been nice to do so, but that's hardly as serious a matter here as it would be in an academic work.

I would likely vote for Shaw's book, but if we are compiling possibilities for a final poll I'd also nominate:

Kotronias on the King's Indian, Volume One: Fianchetto Systems, Quality Chess, Sept 2013
Grandmaster Repertoire 12: The Modern Benoni, Marian Petrov, Quality Chess, June 2013

I own 3 books which apply for Opening Book of 2013:

John Shaw, The King's Gambit, Quality Chess 2013

Victor Mikhalevski, The Open Spanish, Quality Chess 2013

Lorin D'Costa, The Panov-Botvinnik Attack, Everyman Chess 2013

When an author doesn't quote his sources properly, his book should not be eligible as "Chesspub Book of the Year". 

When an author quotes other sources, which is usually the case for books written on popular openings, a bibliography is a must. Else this book should not be eligible. - Does the latter point seem too strict? I don't think so. The Chesspub Forum should strive to establish a standard. I believe that publishers and authors have an ability to learn.

Hi, 

Please use this thread to discuss and nominate the Chess Pub's 2013 Opening Book of the Year!

The rules are simple:

Any chess opening book that was first published in 2013 is eligible. If it is a reprinting of a previous edition, it is not eligible. If it is a major reworking of a previous edition, it is eligible. Grey areas will be decided by the voters.

Please include the full title, author, and publication date of any book you wish to nominate. 

We will have a poll for the winner in late February to early March. We generally have declared a winner by March 15th. Depending on how fast we work, we may have a winner by March 1st.