HagenWatch1 wrote on 04/19/15 at 04:27:49:


Troll?

HagenWatch1 wrote on 04/19/15 at 09:34:23:


Of course you will,Hagen's Watch,sooner than later I expect.

It is not a tip,it is information of the kind that you get if you actually bother to read the book you have criticised in a manner that suggests you did not read it.

The author,stated his intention clearly and,would likely be understood by the intended audience a book titled 'Grandmaster Repertoire 7' is aimed at."It does exactly what it says on the tin".

"Makes me glad I got the Jovanka book otherwise I might have not learned about this line being used in OTB play."

Really??

Now,that is interesting.Since the author did say 3…c5 exists but that he,quite rightfully,in his repertoire book would not be covering it.So,realistically you could have learned of the existence of the move 3…c5 from him. Just not what it involves.

Even a free online database would have shown you this information!

i.e. someone without an entirely specific interest the Caro-Kann, would be able to get your "mind-boggling" information in a few seconds.

"3…c5.In the past decade this move has come out of the shadows and now represents worthy competition to the basic continuation 3…Bf5". Anatoly Karpov,p.35,Caro-Kann Advance and Gambit System,Batsford Chess,2006."

In 'Starting Out:The Caro-Kann' by Joe Gallagher,2002,pages 103-104,has information on the development of the two moves.

FWIW,I have the first edition of 'Play the Caro-Kann'.

If you are going to claim "surprising omission","failure" and imp ly that an author has somehow not done what he or she promised in their book to the point of claiming that it makes "the omission to the line I mentioned even harder to justify" ,then at least read the book first.Or at least be frank about the author's intention and the book's intended audience.

The "mind boggling" and the brouhaha seem disingenuous.

Stanley wrote on 04/19/15 at 07:01:13:

Thanks for the tip but his answer is rather vague..."theory is unresolved on this matter". Then he concludes he prefers the pure move 3.Bf5. As to the other poster who mentions this line was long known before the Jovanka book is correct as well, since the move was apparently played by World Champion Botvinnik himself in the 1961 return match against Tal. This is mentioned in the Jovanka book. It still would have been interesting to hear why the author preferred this so called "pure" move. Makes me glad I got the Jovanka book otherwise I might have not learned about this line being used in OTB play. As to my post count...don't worry - I'm going silent for a long time now that I've gotten my answers. I'll post again only when I'll have an issue with a line I'm playing.

Because those are repertoire books which made (or rather their authors did) different choices.  (By the way, it's 3. e5 which is the Advance variation, and 3...c5 was a recognized line long before Houska's book.)