My article in Kaissiber 33 (2008) pp. 46-56, studied the Berlin Defence of the Kieseritzky Gambit in detail: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6, including a single-page refutation of Rubinstein's move 6.d4. In my modest opinion, this was a major achievement. The line 6.d4 had been regarded as playable by chess authors for decades. Some people have expressed their doubts though, most prominently Robert Hübner, who didn't believe that 6.d4 was correct (can s.o. help, giving the source?). Hübner gave no concrete analysis. 

John Shaw prefers to present "Ivanchuk's Refutation", after a game Fedorov - Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2001. But this treatment is no refutation at all. This failed attempt is discussed on nine pages (!) in his book, yet here Shaw doesn't even mention my findings. 

Stigma wrote on 02/20/14 at 19:45:31:

"Stretching" may be one of the operative words, when it comes to this 600-page work. Let me show a little side-line (11...Qf6) from my article in Kaissiber 33, after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4! d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4 Nh5 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Ne4 f5 11.Ng5: 



Perhaps I should explain why I chose to publish the analysis in such a condensed form, without verbal explanation. After spending three months on the analysis of the Berlin Defence, my ChessBase file had reached a considerable size - the equivalent of 130 pages printed in the Kaissiber format. Sounds extreme, but it is actually normal practice for a theoretician. So I had to do some heavy editing. The final result were the 13-page article - which includes verbal comments and diagrams. In effect more than 90% of the variations had to go. Again: a normal process, just ask John Watson.
 

So anybody who criticizes me for compressing an interesting line into mere three lines, without any diagram, should consider that the space in a chess magazine of 80 pages is limited. 

Now let's look at the coverage of these three lines in Shaw's book, p.85f.:

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/14/14 at 17:03:27:

This remark was a bit harsh. Henk Smout asked me what was wrong with calling 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ "Muzio Gambit", as Shaw does on p. 198. But 8. Bxf7+ has been regarded as dubious since 1889. Shaw doesn't even mention the more popular 8.d3. And while Shaw's side-hint "7.d3 might well be the best try" is true, he falls back into calling 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ main line in his conclusion. When you are a theoretician, "main line" should be synonymous to "best play". 

Clearly the best free sources on the Polerio-Muzio Gambit, warmly recommended, are the web sites built by Dr. Thomas Stock: http://gcpolerio.blogspot.de/ and the new http://polerio.wordpress.com/ . Both offer a lot of historical material on the gambit, plus the latest theoretical developments. Dr. Stock had famously written a 39-page article "Das Vermächtnis des Kiebitzes" in Kaissiber 13, covering both history and theory of the Muzio-Polerio-Gambit.  - This is what Herr Dr. Stock posted on his (first) website November 14th, 2009: 

Quote:
 
Take this, John Shaw! But obviously the man from Scotland was not interested in the Muzio, just as he wasn't interested in 2...Qf6. Not a big fault, admittedly, if other parts of the work were useful.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/14/14 at 18:14:57:

Thanks, but there are more qualified authors for a book on the Muzio: Dr. Thomas Stock, Henk Smout ... And I am really, really eager to continue (or better: restart) Kaissiber in the next months. Still, my remarks about Shaw's work are of some general interest, I believe, and I'll continue until the poll ends. The "leading chess publishing house" (as some call Quality Chess) should try to set a standard for other chess publishers.

TalJechin wrote on 02/14/14 at 17:41:26:


Yeah it's a big endeavor, and I think that Marin did a pretty good job in his books on 1...e5 at times.  It's better suited for a specialized variation, i.e. the historical development of the Seville variation of the Grunfeld, than a major opening.

Speaking of the Grunfeld, Rowson did a great job in his Understanding the Grunfeld at times.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/14/14 at 17:03:27:


When the FKG came out I had some feedback from a very enthusiastic reader who almost demanded that I'd write a historical survey on the whole KG... 

It's a nice idea, but highly demanding as the author needs to be 1) a quite strong player 2) have extensive historical knowledge 3) have access to a vast number of old books and magazines 4) have lots of time to do it 5) be an excellent writer to make it an interesting read...

I don't know about #4, but the rest seems to fit you, Stefan! When do you start?

Maybe it would be workable if one does it in several volumes, one for each major variation... 

ReneDescartes wrote on 02/14/14 at 15:45:42:


Marin describes the historical development of a Chigorin line in his "Spanish Repertoire for Black" which I found more instructive than ploughing through variations.

Giddins organizes his account of the Winawer French in his MBM book historically, showing how Botvinnik succeeded with the ultra-closed ...c4, how that was nearly refuted with a very precise move order, how Korchnoi then revived an early ...f6, etc; and how ...c4 is still good in certain circumstances. I also love that way of looking at variations. I wish someone would do it for certain lines in the QGD. Sadler comes close.

Pale Horse, Pale Rider wrote on 02/14/14 at 10:51:04:

I believe the first edition of The Safest Sicilian was published in 2006 (I don't have my copy with me).  Anyway there are probably much older books that did something similar as well, but I think that this precise format was Semkov's idea.

By the way, the poll is hidden to me now as I've already voted, but did anyone nominate our very own BPaulsen?  I actually haven't seen his book yet, but there are electronic editions available now so I'll pick it up very soon. That's a shame if not .

WSS wrote on 02/14/14 at 02:43:01:


Have you seen other books by the same publisher?  The Safest Sicilian did that as well, and also The Safest Grunfeld (my copy of which I gave away to a friend...).  I think it was Semkov's idea to organize the books this way, though I'm not sure.  Just trying to give credit where it's due, even if I'm not sure exactly who did it first.

I haven't seen many of these books this year, but I'll say that I really liked Moskalenko's Pirc book, as I like almost all of his books.  It's just overflowing with tons of ideas and really fires up the imagination.  I also like how he gives short player bios and histories of variations, so that you see the ideas as very personal, tied to particular players' personalities and style.  Personally, knowing some of the chronological history of a variation really helps me to understand it: "Kasparov tried this against Karpov in their third game of their match, but in the 7th game Karpov has prepared this, so in the 13th game Kasparov introduced this move to avoid Karpov's idea," etc.