Regarding a run-off election:

I think it's a non-starter.  My thanks go to LeeRoth and the rest for running this poll while I've been away from the site. It's difficult enough to get one poll completed in a reasonable time, having a run-off seems pointless to me. It's rare that any one book will get a majority when there are so many great books out there.

I see no good reason to have a run-off election for book of the year.

@bragesjo:

Nothing wrong with those reason of course. I hope you get a lot out of it! It must be a bit frustrating when you lose out to heavy computer analysis, but the satisfaction of finding a human move that the computers struggle with is good consolation.

I was thinking of what I've heard from CC players who are more concerned with trying to reach the top of that discipline than using it to improve their understanding or OTB play.

bragesjo wrote on 04/27/17 at 13:47:47:

I thought much of the point of modern correspondence chess was trying to be computer proof in the openings, either by analyzing them to ridiculous depths or by finding some pockets of theory where the computers still misunderstand what's going on? If you're just following a book, you're not even trying...

I don't find this task very interesting myself; I much prefer a fight between fallible humans who try their best over the board.

About book and correspondence games and errors I can share some experience from a different book by a different author in a different opening.

I am new to correspondance chess I am currently playing in a thematical tournament in a solid opening. I had a book written for black that I used when I played the opening in over the board and I followed the book lines without any computer check. In one position the book suggested a  commiting forced sequence of moves leading to dynamic balance quating some game that ended up in a draw.  My opponent followed the sequence but played an improvment  over the quated game directly where the books sequence ended. And it turns out that the improvment simply wins a pawn in all lines becouse of a deep tactical piece sacrifice for a pawn and the piece will be regained by force many moves later with a strong attack as well that the computer discovered almost at once. I failed to find the best defence and lost very quickly.

So books can not be trusted. I reached the position in some other game too some days later  so I diverted from the book and played something else instead.

Since you quoted my nomination, saying you trusted it and feel ripped off, let me say that it's a pity you bought a book you didn't like.

Yes, it's true, Dreev's 12.Nd2 plainly drops a pawn to 12...Ne4 where avoiding the pin with 12.Kf1 or 12.Ke2 doesn't.

This erroneous move reads like an aside that was interjected at the last minute as an afterthought. It is, as you say, in a subvariation--a tiny two-ply parenthetical  "10...Bxb5 11. Bxb5 Bd6 (11... Bb4+ 12. Nd2 +/=) 12. Bxd6 Qxd6 13.O-O a6 ..." within the main analysis of a  novelty (10.Nb5!?) proposed in response to a sideline (9...Ba6, when the whole point of playing 8...b6 is to play Bb7, taking advantage of the open long diagonal) within another sideline (omitting Nc3 entirely for a long time is not on the list of the more important lines given by Dreev). Furthermore, in the very same place Dreev gives an alternative novelty that is both forcing and good, namely 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11.O-O +/=.

The point I got from reading this section of the book is that White should avoid allowing Black to exchange knight for bishop with ...Nh5, and that it's worth investing a tempo in h3 in order to achieve that aim, even at the cost of allowing an exchange of bishop for bishop. This is one of several strategic threads that run through the book, appearing in multiple variations. Furthermore, throughout we are armed with the move- order subtleties to execute these strategies while walking the Exchange Slav's all-too-smooth theoretical ice. The book is really superb in that respect; I've never seen anything quite like it. As far as I can tell,  this framework is unaffected by careless errors like the one you cite.

Of course, there would come a point where too many such oversights undermine faith in the book, and the location of that point is a subjective matter. And while it doesn't take a computer to find the error you mentioned, it does take a computer to rid a book like this, with so many variations, of such errors. For me, missing some tactics in places like this doesn't do it, but different people feel differently about computers and proofreading.

I would nominate and vote for the book again.

I think the issue here is regarding fair comment and fair play.

It is the internet. It's anonymous. Which can lead to issues.

When critique comes, it's better to support this in some way. Give examples. Even just a single example.

Otherwise it's back to the old adage. "Everyone on the internet is a dog." And certain comments just go 'woof'. And no disrespect to you or anyone, but views can appear barkingly worthless.

My own opinion by the way - I found the text useful overall.

buddho wrote on 04/20/17 at 18:32:35:

My conclusion would have been that Ntirlis didn't write it.


Errors according to engines exist in every book, and within reason neither surprise me nor bother me. I have been using Dreev's ideas over the board (as has Dreev). I remain pleased with the book. Looking at your posts, I see you play computer correspondence chess. Maybe engine evaluation differences are more critical there, but I care more about coherence and clarity. These are what allow a human non-master to do well with an opening against other humans. "Ripped off" is very strong language; until I see a lot of extreme examples, I remain unconvinced that there's even a problem.