Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled? (Read 86792 times)
Hadron
Full Member
***
Offline


Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When
will you ever learn?

Posts: 195
Location: Levin, New Zealand.
Joined: 03/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #30 - 04/26/14 at 23:25:14
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/26/14 at 17:30:27:
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 09:42:11:
No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)

I became interested in this when I was studying the Calabrese Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, from which 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition. My record with this line, both OTB and online is quite simply enormous: P39 W31 D6 L2 (87.2% as Black).

Thanks. It shows that I am more a 3.Nf3 guy. - But it really seems that you are an ideal choice as an editor for the Bishop's Gambit. If there had been a need to find an editor with a similar experience in the Englund Gambit, my EG book would have never appeared.

But isn't there is more to the King's Gumboot than just the bog stock 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4?....
  

I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #29 - 04/26/14 at 17:30:27
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/26/14 at 09:42:11:
No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)

I became interested in this when I was studying the Calabrese Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, from which 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition. My record with this line, both OTB and online is quite simply enormous: P39 W31 D6 L2 (87.2% as Black).

Thanks. It shows that I am more a 3.Nf3 guy. - But it really seems that you are an ideal choice as an editor for the Bishop's Gambit. If there had been a need to find an editor with a similar experience in the Englund Gambit, my EG book would have never appeared.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 503
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #28 - 04/26/14 at 09:42:11
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/26/14 at 07:51:08:
You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book.


No, it's primarily a book on the Bishop's Gambit, so the line in question is 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 f5. (As you say, I can't give analytical details.)

I became interested in this when I was studying the Calabrese Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 f5, from which 3 f4!? exf4 is an unlikely transposition. My record with this line, both OTB and online is quite simply enormous: P39 W31 D6 L2 (87.2% as Black).
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #27 - 04/26/14 at 09:27:55
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/26/14 at 00:52:33:
In my opinion Shaw's claim that 3...Nc6 refutes 3.Bc4 is a bit strong, as I think the objective assessment (after both 4.d4 Nf6 and 4.Nf3 g5) is somewhere in the region of "=" to "=+", which may well also be true of the Quaade Gambit lines following 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Bg7 (as he admits in his book).

But I doubt that Taylor will be able to change the assessment of 3.Bc4 Nc6 significantly.


Especially since he seems to rely mainly/only on Fritz 12...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #26 - 04/26/14 at 08:59:21
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/26/14 at 07:51:08:
You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book. Indeed, it is far from obvious how White can achieve a large advantage against this move. A new suggestion for White from Taylor would be a valuable contribution to the KG theory, so I can only hope that the book will appear soon. - However, I believe that 4.d3 gives White a small plus.


Black replies with d6 and you get the symmetric position. As no-one has yet demonstrated a convincing mutual Zugswang, having the move could or should lead to a very small advantage to white. I would expect it might hinge around whether White should incur an isolated e-pawn by provoking exf4 and fxe4 or inflict it with the parallel idea. Alternatively perhaps both players should expect isolated e pawns.

There's the Ivanchuk - Nakamura game as a high level test, admittedly only in a rapidplay. Are there any other high level examples of the symmetrical attempt?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #25 - 04/26/14 at 07:51:08
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:22:26:
Obviously I know nothing of the actual events here, but from my perspective as a lawyer, I can say with confidence that it is seldom that anyone who uses so many exclamation marks as Mr Taylor does in that blog post is in the right in any dispute.


Smiley E. J. Diemer has often put three exclamation marks behind a move in his games. And a game of chess IS a kind of dispute, no?

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/25/14 at 11:04:55:
Incidentally, it's bizarre that Tim should think that I'd be motivated to do him down (so to speak) from pique at his refuting 3...f5, because I helped him with this variation more than any other in the book, sharing my own expertise, pointing out why the various lines he was proposing (at any given point) didn't work or were (quite often) good for Black. The one he finally came up with (which was actually his first idea, seriously refined) looks to be a critical test. An online chessfriend of mine did finally discover a defence (it seems), but only after I'd thrashed him from the White side several times. I think Black would need some thorough preparation to play against Tim's suggestions over the board.


You can't give analytical details, of course, but I believe the line which you refer to is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 f5, which has led to an extended debate in the thread on Shaw's book. Indeed, it is far from obvious how White can achieve a large advantage against this move. A new suggestion for White from Taylor would be a valuable contribution to the KG theory, so I can only hope that the book will appear soon. - However, I believe that 4.d3 gives White a small plus.

The reply 3...Nc6 against the Bishop's Gambit was recommended in an article by "C. Moriau" in Deutsche Schachzeitung 1874. Later sources called it Moriau's Variation. But I've also seen the name spelled differently: Moreau, from London.

No, I don't think that 3...Nc6 is a refutation of 3.Bc4. If it were =+, then I'd regard it as a refutation. So far I haven't seen any analysis which demonstrates even the slightest advantage for Black. My suggestion Qd2-g5 leads to a position where I'd (slightly) prefer White. I don't buy the idea that White shouldn't exchange Queens in the King's Gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 905
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #24 - 04/26/14 at 00:52:33
Post Tools
In my opinion Shaw's claim that 3...Nc6 refutes 3.Bc4 is a bit strong, as I think the objective assessment (after both 4.d4 Nf6 and 4.Nf3 g5) is somewhere in the region of "=" to "=+", which may well also be true of the Quaade Gambit lines following 3.Nf3 g5 4.Nc3 Bg7 (as he admits in his book).

But I doubt that Taylor will be able to change the assessment of 3.Bc4 Nc6 significantly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10620
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #23 - 04/25/14 at 17:29:44
Post Tools
Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:46:01:
The first time I saw 3...Nc6 given any serious attention was in Igor Glazkov's updated Korolevskii Gambit (Fizcultura i Sport, Moscow 1988), though I'm not sure (i.e. without cross-referencing) how well his variations compare now.

Estrin investigated 3...Nc6 with the aid of Glaskov in Das Abgelehnte Königsgambiet in 1982 via the move order 2.f4 Nc6 3.Bc4 exf4 but that analysis certainly doesn't hold up.
Given

Jonathan Tait wrote on 04/24/14 at 06:59:21:
He only found out about Shaw's book when he'd finished his own manuscript and decided to let the two books stand alone. But his assessment that White is okay in the critical line (4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Ne2 f3) seems to be borne out by your own research.

I'm skeptical. TalJechin definitely was the first to investigate this line. So it has been around for 10 years or so and I find it highly peculiar that Taylor "completely and totally busts Shaw's 3...Nc6" with it. TallJechin's assessment is far more modest and balanced. But perhaps Taylor has found something brilliant.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #22 - 04/25/14 at 17:09:49
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:30:14:
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 09:54:08:
I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand? It was given by 'micawber' in his Forum digest King's Gambit eBook from 2009, which is where I got it from when looking for a good defence to 3 Bc4.

Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).


Actually, I discovered it independently, it was a nasty surprise after just having refuted the similar line without d7-d5, given in some earlier work, McDonald's KG-book, iirc.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #21 - 04/25/14 at 12:48:00
Post Tools
Let’s face it, anyone who’s ever analysed the KBG with a computer has given 3…Nc6 attention, since computers (in my very limited experience anyway) spit it out instantly as their top choice and generally think it’s good for Black, at least until persuaded.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 503
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #20 - 04/25/14 at 12:46:01
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 04/25/14 at 12:30:14:
Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).


The first time I saw 3...Nc6 given any serious attention was in Igor Glazkov's updated Korolevskii Gambit (Fizcultura i Sport, Moscow 1988), though I'm not sure (i.e. without cross-referencing) how well his variations compare now.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10620
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #19 - 04/25/14 at 12:30:14
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 04/25/14 at 09:54:08:
I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand? It was given by 'micawber' in his Forum digest King's Gambit eBook from 2009, which is where I got it from when looking for a good defence to 3 Bc4.

Then the honour goes to Niek Narings (a Dutchman like Micawber and me), who wrote an article about the strength of 3...Nc6 in Schaaknieuws. In that time TalJechin was writing his book on the King's Bishopgambit. I send Naring's analysis to him and it made him realize how strong the move is (though he very well might have reached that position on his own, ie if I hadn't send it). That again inspired him to dig up new ideas (something he totally didn't need me for).

Along a slightly different line of thinking I came to the same conclusion as IM Cox:

Quote:
One of the side points of the book is that I completely and totally bust GM Shaw’s “refutation” of the Bishop’s Gambit with 3… Nc6?!

It's possible of course, but call me skeptical.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1547
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #18 - 04/25/14 at 12:22:26
Post Tools
Obviously I know nothing of the actual events here, but from my perspective as a lawyer, I can say with confidence that it is seldom that anyone who uses so many exclamation marks as Mr Taylor does in that blog post is in the right in any dispute.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jonathan Tait
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 503
Location: Nottingham
Joined: 07/11/06
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #17 - 04/25/14 at 11:04:55
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/24/14 at 23:16:48:
Timothy Taylor chooses topics with a fighting spirit. Bent Larsen reviewed his book on Bird's Opening in Kaissiber 26, and while Larsen criticized some variations, he generally liked the book as a source of inspiration. Taylor tries to detect new ideas. Bird, Alekhine's Defence or King's Gambit - in my view all of these are first-class openings. - However, the KG in particular is such a difficult topic that an author should welcome all the input/advice/corrections which he can get from an experienced editor like Jon Tait.


Thanks for that, Stefan.

Incidentally, it's bizarre that Tim should think that I'd be motivated to do him down (so to speak) from pique at his refuting 3...f5, because I helped him with this variation more than any other in the book, sharing my own expertise, pointing out why the various lines he was proposing (at any given point) didn't work or were (quite often) good for Black. The one he finally came up with (which was actually his first idea, seriously refined) looks to be a critical test. An online chessfriend of mine did finally discover a defence (it seems), but only after I'd thrashed him from the White side several times. I think Black would need some thorough preparation to play against Tim's suggestions over the board.
  

blog inspired by Bronstein's book, but using my own games: http://200opengames.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3117
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Taylor's King's Gambit book pulled?
Reply #16 - 04/25/14 at 09:54:08
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 04/24/14 at 06:52:00:
A quote from Timothy Taylor worth noting (from the link in the OP):

Quote:
Remember, I advocate, like Fischer, the Bishop’s Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4! One of the side points of the book is that I completely and totally bust GM Shaw’s “refutation” of the Bishop’s Gambit with 3… Nc6?!


It will be interesting to learn whether he has found something superior to the ideas so far published in the chesspub.


I'm not even sure that 3...Nc6 could be considered to be 'Shaw's refutation', as wasn't this Duras line analysed on the Forum beforehand? It was given by 'micawber' in his Forum digest King's Gambit eBook from 2009, which is where I got it from when looking for a good defence to 3 Bc4.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo