Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021) (Read 21076 times)
Seeley
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 352
Location: UK
Joined: 04/03/10
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #13 - 03/09/21 at 09:22:24
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/09/21 at 03:57:05:
Now I'm out of this thread again

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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10757
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #12 - 03/09/21 at 03:57:05
Post Tools
Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
@MNb - You seem to be making the assumption that prospective buyers expect objectivity or theoretical soundness in the lines being proposed.

Please restrict yourself to what I write, not to what you think you can read between the lines. It saves you from making false assumptions about me. Usually I stop reading after such a bad start, but for you I'll make an exception.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
You're right that Chessable haven't mentioned that, but nor have they claimed the lines presented are sound.

Bogus. They promise quick wins and devestating attacks. That 28 percentage shows that, unlike what they and you falsely suggest, chances are low after 2.Bc4.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
All they've said is that the lines are 'approved by grandmasters and even world champions'.

As expected you're going downhill. Neither 2.Bc4 against the Caro-Kann nor 5.d4 in the Italian are "approved by grandmasters and even world champions". You're actually confirming what I really suggested; the advertisement is dishonest.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
A stronger player won't expect the lines to be sound,

A weaker player like me neither, so this is irrelevant.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
while weaker players frankly won't care,

So what? I don't care either what weaker players think or not. I only care if this video is worth my money. The answer is no for the reasons I gave. How other weaker players want to spend their money is none of my business. This is even more irrelevant.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
as it's not theoretical soundness they're interested in but exciting and aggressive lines offering the chance of attacks and quick wins.

False dilemma. It's possible to strive for both. Accidentally I just looked at GM Schandorff's recommendation against 6.Bc4 e6 7.Nqe2 Nf6 8.O-O in Capablanca's Caro Kann from his 2010 book. There is a big hole that gives White "exciting and aggressive" play in theoretically sound lines, with real chances of "attacks and quick wins".

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
We live in a world where products are advertised to us all the time, and as consumers it's up to us to understand the rules of the game.

Smarty, I do understand. I just dislike them and you are one of the guys who has a problem with this and react withs a condescending comment based on false assumptions (the other one is that I need your extensive explanation - I don't).

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
We know that people sell us beer by telling us how great it tastes, not by warning us we might wake up with a bit of a headache the morning after drinking it.

Wrong analogy. The second part should be "not by warning us that it tastes like shit".
Guess what? I dislike Pabst being advertised as quality beer as well.

Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
Why should the the marketing of chess products be any different?

Why should I think this kind of marketing acceptable?
The reason this kind of marketing exists is because they can get away with it. Like criminals. It should be unnecessary, but especially for you I'll add a disclaimer: I'm not saying that GM Williams and IM Palliser are criminals or that this advertisement is a crime.

My prediction came true again - after starting a comment with a false assumption the rest of it only can go downhill. The only reason I took the effort to react is that you have demonstrated in the past that you can do much better.
Now I'm out of this thread again. This one exception is already more than enough. You accept dishonesty in advertisement; I don't. Waste your money on this or not; just don't expect me to remain silent. 'Nuff said.
  

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
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #11 - 03/09/21 at 02:59:21
Post Tools
Quote:
TopNotch wrote on 03/08/21 at 20:40:58:


The Hillbilly against the Caro-Kann 
     


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.


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).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1692
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #10 - 03/09/21 at 01:58:10
Post Tools
All this talk of the Hillbilly Attack is making me nostalgic. The 3.Bb3 novelty was devised by NM Jack Young, and the name "Attack" was intended to be ironic. Jack was always interested in the humorous side of chess. One thing is for sure -- Simon Williams doesn't understand the point of this opening, which was simply that the bad move 2.Bc4 really wasn't so bad! Jack was also the inventor of the infamous Fishing Pole (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Ng4 5.h3 h5) and numerous other laughable systems which he discussed in Bozo's Opening Emporium in Chess Horizons. Nothing pleased Jack more than getting away with a bad opening. Along those lines, when he took up checkers he was particularly interested in the barred openings. For a short while at the turn of the millenium I rented a room from Jack, and got to see first-hand how hard he worked at his crazy openings. He would play them in correspondence and against the computer before trying them out over-the-board.

Here's an early Hillbilly Attack, against the well-known FM Asa Hoffmann. The ratings are just guesses. I became NM in 1987 and I remember Asa was a little higher rated than me. I was surprised by 1...c6 and answered 2.Bc4 on the spur of the moment. It was a back and forth struggle for both of us. As he noted in the post-mortem, I could have forced a late draw with 41.Bxg4 then Rxc2. Instead 41.Bxb3 was an insane attempt to win with both flags hanging, and I went rapidly downhill from there. I never played it again, although if I had won this game I might have!

[Event "Manhattan CC Insanity 12-SS (g/30)"]
[Site "New York (USA)"]
[Date "1988.06.05"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Bennett, Allan"]
[Black "Hoffmann, Asa"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B10"]
[WhiteElo "2250"]
[BlackElo "2350"]

1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3 dxe4 4.Qh5 g6 5.Qh4 Nf6 6.f3 a5 7.Nc3
b5 8.a4 e3 9.d4 b4 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Bf5 12.Qe5 Rg8 13.Qxe3
Bg7 14.Ne2 Na6 15.O-O Nc7 16.Kh1 Nd5 17.Qf2 h5 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Rae1
O-O-O 20.Rc1 e5 21.dxe5 Qxf2 22.Rxf2 Bxe5 23.c3 Kb7 24.Ng3 bxc3
25.bxc3 Bxg3 26.hxg3 Rge8 27.c4 Nb4 28.Bxb4 axb4 29.c5 Rd3 30.Rb2
Rc3 31.Ra1 Ka7 32.Bxf7 Rb8 33.Re1 Rb7 34.Be8 Rxc5 35.g4 hxg4
36.fxg4 Bc2 37.Rc1 b3 38.Bxg6 Rg7 39.Bf5 Rc4 40.Be6 Rcxg4 41.Bxb3
Be4 42.Rc5 Bxg2+ 43.Kg1 Bd5+ 44.Kf1 Rg1+ 45.Ke2 R7g2+ 46.Kd3
Rxb2 47.Ra5+ 0-1
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pantu
Ex Member
*



Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #9 - 03/08/21 at 21:54:11
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 03/08/21 at 20:40:58:


The Hillbilly against the Caro-Kann 
     


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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1692
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #8 - 03/08/21 at 21:02:56
Post Tools
Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 14:22:40:
... We know that people sell us beer by telling us how great it tastes, not by warning us we might wake up with a bit of a headache the morning after drinking it. Why should the the marketing of chess products be any different?

Okay, but when someone on a random message board points out the likely ensuing headache, that should also be fine, right? And maybe someone else might say it doesn't even taste that great...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #7 - 03/08/21 at 20:40:58
Post Tools
@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 

     
« Last Edit: 03/09/21 at 07:42:04 by TopNotch »  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seeley
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 352
Location: UK
Joined: 04/03/10
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #6 - 03/08/21 at 14:22:40
Post Tools
@MNb - You seem to be making the assumption that prospective buyers expect objectivity or theoretical soundness in the lines being proposed. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

MNb wrote on 03/08/21 at 11:36:13:


Seeley wrote on 03/08/21 at 09:59:53:
..... very fast time limits on the internet, where wheeling out sharp and even unsound openings might be quite an attractive idea

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

You're right that Chessable haven't mentioned that, but nor have they claimed the lines presented are sound. All they've said is that the lines are 'approved by grandmasters and even world champions'. A stronger player won't expect the lines to be sound, because he or she will know they're unlikely to be, while weaker players frankly won't care, as it's not theoretical soundness they're interested in but exciting and aggressive lines offering the chance of attacks and quick wins.

We live in a world where products are advertised to us all the time, and as consumers it's up to us to understand the rules of the game. We know that people sell us beer by telling us how great it tastes, not by warning us we might wake up with a bit of a headache the morning after drinking it. Why should the the marketing of chess products be any different?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10757
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #5 - 03/08/21 at 11:36:13
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/08/21 at 09:41:20:
The really important question is: How objective is the analysis?

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:
..... very fast time limits on the internet, where wheeling out sharp and even unsound openings might be quite an attractive idea

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:
Gambits have been popular since Greco's time, don't blame Williams and Palliser for that trend.

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.
  

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
 
Seeley
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 352
Location: UK
Joined: 04/03/10
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #4 - 03/08/21 at 09:59:53
Post Tools
I think it's a case of Chessable trying to gauge what is probably an unusual market for chess products at the moment. Most people who are playing the game currently are doing so at very fast time limits on the internet, where wheeling out sharp and even unsound openings might be quite an attractive idea if it offers chances for quick wins against opponents who haven't got time to defend accurately. Also, The Queen's Gambit miniseries brought a lot of new players to the game, people who don't have the interest or the patience to learn, say, 15 moves of Catalan theory giving them a small positional advantage at the end. To them, too, an aggressive, trap-filled way of playing could be very appealing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1692
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #3 - 03/08/21 at 09:41:20
Post Tools
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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #2 - 03/08/21 at 08:27:09
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 03/08/21 at 07:08:28:
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.


Marketing like that annoys me and I was surprised that Palliser was co-authoring and endorsing such Opening systems. Simon Williams claims that only against the 'Hillbilly' does White risk being slightly worse and black has to 'play perfectly' to achieve this.  In fact this claim of having to play 'perfectly to equalise' is one that he makes repeatedly throughout the course, when the truth is Black has many ways to equalise against the systems he is proposing, many of which have been known since Euwe's time.    

Feels like taking advantage of the naivety of many amateur players. Oh well as P. T. Barnum famously said " 
There's a sucker born every minute".
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10757
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
Reply #1 - 03/08/21 at 07:08:28
Post Tools
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.
  

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
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2211
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Chessable - Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4 (2021)
03/08/21 at 03:43:39
Post Tools
Anyone has any thoughts on this new Chessable Course, 'Grandmaster Gambits 1.e4' by Simon Williams & Richard Palliser?

The comments on Chessable are all over the place, ranging from love it to hate it and everything in between.
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo