CanadianClub wrote on 02/13/15 at 10:00:31:

No, thank you!

slates wrote on 02/15/15 at 12:02:08:

Thanks, means a lot!

slates wrote on 02/15/15 at 12:02:08:

I think if you check in the thread and it says you've voted for The Killer Sicilian, then your first vote likely didn't register for some reason. I tried to change my vote just to see if it was possible, and I don't see an option for it. If it still says you voted for Bologan, perhaps SmyslovFan can change it, perhaps not.

RoleyPoley wrote on 02/15/15 at 12:46:37:

I agree with all of these points. Thanks for the vote! 

Gut Gambit wrote on 02/15/15 at 21:25:11:

Too many years - and you forgot tears! Thanks for the vote, I'm very pleased with the final product! 

Negi's and Bologan's books were my candidates. The explanations of Bologan fit better to me. The first chapter about pawn structures and manoeuvering helps me a lot. Someone who knows all this will surely prefer Negi. I can understand Ametanoitos's points. But I think Bologan's way of citing is nearly the best I've seen in chess opening books so far. To be honest: This is an easy task.

Can't say anything about the other books, as I haven't read them.

I've changed my vote from Bologan to Rotella, now that I have had some time with my copy (which hadn't arrived when I first opted for Bologan). The more I read of The Killer Sicilian, the more I like it. I still think Bologan has produced something very worthwhile but I did tire of the overuse of naming devices at the start of the book, amongst other things; in the first 22 pages of the introduction to strategic ideas, the first chapter, there were over 60 named 'ideas' such as 'The e5 Bone (Thorn)', 'The Black Bone (Thorn)', 'Paulsen's Hole', 'Stanley's Maneuver', 'Fat Bertha', 'The Baron's Counterattack', 'The White Shark', 'The Black Shark', 'The Zuke-Strike', 'The Big Hook', 'The Centaur Attack', 'The Octopus', 'The Donkey', 'The Pendulum Maneuver' etc.
I doubt I will remember these devices (or the other 45 or so!) from the names although I suppose for many people this method of teaching works.  In smaller doses I think it's more effective but it seemed like everything here was given a name whether it needed it or not.
Anyway, I a happily working through Tony's Kalashnikov book now whereas I flagged during Bologan, although this may also be a reflection of the range of content each author is tackling; nonetheless I have voted for Tony's book now, so hopefully my original vote can be ignored (assuming the poll creator can see it and/or change it?), assuming it registered in the first place, as I didn't think multiple votes from the same user would process?

I voted for Negi's book. There can be no comparison really with anything else we saw this year and probably with most opening books in general.

I still haven't bought Tony's book although I plan to during the weekend.

Bologan's book is practically unreadable.

LostTactic wrote on 02/12/15 at 00:50:36:


Really? Have you read academic journals? They put the names of the researchers and the date (for example [Aagaard, Ntirlis, 2014] or [Aagaard and Co, 2014] etc) just as every normal chess book puts the names of the players and the name of the tournament (let's say Aagaard- Ntirlis, Glasgow 2014). The "problem" is that a paper might have many contributors with the actual name of the research to be very long. That's why they have an index at the end. While in a chess book like Bologan's you have moves and at the of it...nothing! While in most of the cases there is already there quite a lot of space where two damn names could have been written! It is not long and you gain nothing! This is NOT something that everybody in chess publications should do. PLEASE DON'T!

Also Bologan annoyingly attributes lines to other analysts. One example is the Central game where he says "Emms analyses this", "Emms proposes that" when it is actually Andrew Greet the one that wrote the relevant chapter in the DW: 1.e4 e5 and it is made clear in that book multiple times! Emms was the editor and wrote a couple of other chapters. This general sloppyness is everywhere.

Anyway, i stated my opinion about Bologan's book too many times already. It has certain value, i like the fact that i have it and it helps me a lot, but as a book it is much bellow certain standars in many respects.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/11/15 at 18:38:54:


Goh is the family name and Wei Ming is his personal name. Either the parents gave him an English name as well or he adopted one himself.
so, when you have that mix which is quite common in countries which are former colonies of the UK, chinese, culturally with English education, then in a convention which requires the form, first name, last name, what do you do but: Wei Ming Kevin, Goh.

It is a toss whether one prefers the chinese name as preferred first name or the English name as preferred first name.

Therefore equally it could have been: Kevin Wei Ming, Goh.

Of course, if we follow strictly the chinese convention, then it is: Goh, Wei Ming Kevin OR Goh Kevin Wei Ming. Family name comes first in Chinese.

Welcome to multicultural world.

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/11/15 at 07:45:03:


I don't understand (really). An insult to whom? Don't you think the content is very good, as it seems to me, though I am no expert at computer analysis? Certainly the explanatory content is rich.

Is it Bologan's fault that his editor seems to have taken LSD?

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/11/15 at 07:45:03:

Wow, thanks Nikos! Means a lot coming from an amazing author such as yourself! 

Ametanoitos wrote on 02/11/15 at 07:45:03:

It's surreal to read that... 

DenVerdsligeRejsende wrote on 02/11/15 at 08:19:52:

Thanks for the kind words!