MNb wrote on 03/09/21 at 03:57:05:

tldr

If you are unable to discuss things without resorting to nastiness and personal abuse – and not for the first time – then frankly good riddance.

Quote:


Yes, he still is. 

One could consider an axis of sorts: (1) Eric Schiller (bad moves in rushed books), (2) Ray Keene (plagiarism) and (3) Lakdawala (writing style).

TopNotch wrote on 03/08/21 at 20:40:58:


This reminded me that Williams lost fairly badly playing a rubbish line against Gawain Jones in a Caro-Kann some years ago, and sure enough:

[Event "4NCL 2011-12"]
[Site "Staverton Park ENG"]
[Date "2011.11.12"]
[Round "1.15"]
[White "Williams, Si1"]
[Black "Jones, G"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2513"]
[BlackElo "2635"]
[ECO "B10"]
[EventDate "2011.11.12"]
[WhiteTeam "Jutes of Kent"]
[BlackTeam "White Rose"]

1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3 dxe4 4.Qh5 g6 5.Qh4 Bg7 6.Nc3 a5 7.Nxe4 a4 8.
Bc4 b5 9.Be2 Nh6 10.g4 a3 11.Rb1 Qd5 12.Nc3 Qxh1 13.Kf1 Be5 14.Bf3 
Qxh2 15.Nh3 Nxg4 16.Bxg4 Bf6 0-1

I've been using Chessable more recently, and I'd say in a sense it is like the chess book market: some great books, some good books with flaws, some quite rubbish - except the nonsense they write in the course descriptions make me wonder if Lakdawala is truly that bad in comparison.

@Seeley

When a GM endorses an Opening product most buyers do expect soundness, promising lines plus a few evaluation changing novelties, we don't get that here. Moreover even the title of the Course is misleading 'Grandmaster Gambits' GM's very rarely venture this stuff even in simuls, and quite frankly it usually  points to a deficiency in the few titled players that do. Now to the meat of the matter:

Exhibit A) 

The Hillbilly against the Caro-Kann - That's the equivalent of thumbing your nose at the audience, I mean really!! You had months to prepare something useful and you decide to waste a chapter on this flight of fancy. When I first saw 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 it made me cringe, like scraping a nail on a chalk board. Williams claims that Black has to play perfectly to get the better game here, gimme a break and Palliser should really have talked ginger out of that one. The simple 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3 a5!? not considered in the course already leaves white struggling to equalise and improves, as if one was needed, on the mainline given, the idea is that 4.a3 or a4 gives black Nd7 to c5 added punch when it arrives, a sample line could be: 4.a4 dxe4 5.Qh5 e6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Qh4 Nbd7 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qxe4 Nc5 10.Qe3 Nxb3 11.Qxb3 Qd5 and Black is already better, not to mention L'ami's lifetime Repertoire on the Caro preceded Palliser's course and in it he gives the 'Hillbilly' (just typing the name makes me feel silly) short thrift and apparently GingerGM agrees with L'ami's analysis but decided to offer up this wet lettuce anyway. Some will argue that Magnus has played the Hillbilly, but will be slow to reveal it was in 1 minute (Bullet) chess and my answer would be Naka plays the Bongcloud, who cares.

Moving on we have a slew of rehashed 1.e4 e5 gambits where the Course again claims Black can only equalise with 'perfect play' which implies that he has a narrow path to a playable game. That's downright dishonest, lets take a quick look:

Exhibit B) 

The Anti Max Lange Gambit - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 This ancient line along with the so called Deutz Gambit form the Backbone of the repertoire against 1...e5, the last time I saw this stuff touted for White was by Eric Schiller and Andy Soltis way back in the 90's, it was suspicious then and even more so now. After 8.Nc3 Black is completely fine after all three main replies, which are 8...Qa5, 8...Qh5 and the more modern 8...Qd7 I myself have always had a fondness for 8...Qh5, here is the thing though, Ginger does not dispute this but implies that Black's moves are so hard to find and that it is White who is having all the fun. Let me tell you, I have been playing the Black side of these 'bluff' lines all my life and my only concern was how to avoid the drawish positions that result. They do at times offer a novelty or two but these novelties do not really improve on existing theory, there are essentially just different moves that do nothing to alter the evaluation of these lines as toothless.  

A Titled Tuesday game featuring Ginger vs Gata Kamsky (Eventually Drawn) was used in a Youtube promo to plug the course and the efficacy of this Anti-Max Lange line. Perhaps it would have been better to quit while ahead and avoid the risk of being hoisted by ones own petard, but luckily for us we are treated to another internet encounter where the line is tested again, this time Ginger gets to employ one of the Courses big novelties 13.c3!? against an unsuspecting fellow GM, for the record I think that 14...Rad8 is even more convincing than what 'DryCounty' did, anyway lets tune in and witness all the 'Fun' Ginger was having: https://youtu.be/Uywru5_sHNE?t=4433 

     

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/08/21 at 09:41:20:

As I won't spend any money to find out (my budget is very limited) I rely on extrapolateion.
1. There is a strong correlation between marketing like I quoted and authors being onesided and/or biased.
2. Both GM Williams and IM Palliser haven't been always objective in their analysis.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 09:59:53:

I totally agree. Had they mentioned this the advertisement would have been fine with me. They haven't.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/08/21 at 09:41:20:

I don't; this idea is nothing but a product of your imagination. I myself have played many gambits since 1980 or so. Indeed I both tried the Sicilian Wing Gambit and the 5.d4 gambit in Italian as well; I even own a 1973 booklet by George Koltanowski on the latter. But I've always stuck to the principle: an opening is as good as the best lines for your opponent.
For reasons laid out above I doubt if GM Williams and IM Palliser do in this course. TopNotch confirms this in his second comment.

Gambits have been popular since Greco's time, don't blame Williams and Palliser for that trend. About the marketing, isn't it expected? The target audience is looking for pizzazz, this is just giving it to them.

The really important question is: How objective is the analysis?

The advertisement at Chessable resembles BDG fanaatism too much to my taste.

"Drop bombs on f7 with the Hillbilly Attack versus the Caro-Kann. Opponents will shake their heads at this "primitive" barrage...until their king gets burnt to a crisp in a dozen moves."
The first moves are 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4. White scores 28% in about 750 games according to my databse. So call me sceptical.