Home > Authors in Action > The King’s Gambit reaches Glasgow

The King’s Gambit reaches Glasgow

20130723_125109

 

Solid proof that The King’s Gambit exists. Click to see a larger version and marvel at the concentration of my hard-working colleagues.
 
So the jinx is over? Not quite. Not all the books due to arrive in Glasgow actually arrived. We asked the delivery man why not. “Perhaps the other books were on a different flight and were delayed by the thunderstorm.”

Categories: Authors in Action Tags:
  1. FREDPHIL
    July 23rd, 2013 at 13:58 | #1

    Ah ah ! Beautiful fake !
    Well done guys.

  2. Daniel Peter
    July 23rd, 2013 at 17:48 | #2

    About the King’s Gambit : Please, tell me if this gambit { 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Cc6 3.Cf3 f5} is included in the book!

  3. Ray
    July 23rd, 2013 at 18:40 | #3

    :-). Why the unhappy face, John? Cheer up!

  4. Paul
    July 23rd, 2013 at 19:38 | #4

    Excellent news, and thank you for processing my order today. I look forward to reading it.

  5. Zvonokchess1996
    July 23rd, 2013 at 19:59 | #5

    Daniel Peter, as far as I know, white achieves an advantage after 4.exf5 e4 5.Ng5! Nf6 6.Be2+=.

  6. randfigur
    July 23rd, 2013 at 21:05 | #6

    Great news! I’ve been looking forward to this book for a long time. Will review all of my KG games with it.

  7. Michel Barbaut
    July 23rd, 2013 at 23:02 | #7

    Daniel Peter :
    About the King’s Gambit : Please, tell me if this gambit { 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Cc6 3.Cf3 f5} is included in the book!

    With 680 pages I think John has covered everything ! 🙂

  8. Paul Lubson
    July 24th, 2013 at 07:55 | #8

    Well .. Gallagher didn’t recommend 3.Nf3 due to f5 in reply as I remember, so instead he recommended 3.Nc3 transposing to the Vienna gambit.

    Is this a repetoire style book or full coverage?

  9. John Shaw
    July 24th, 2013 at 10:13 | #9

    Daniel Peter :
    About the King’s Gambit : Please, tell me if this gambit { 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Cc6 3.Cf3 f5} is included in the book!

    Australian IM Alex Wohl was heavily involved in developing that line. Alex is a friend of mine and Jacob’s, so we would never overlook it. The coverage is in the book. Some tricky lines, as I recall.

  10. John Shaw
    July 24th, 2013 at 10:13 | #10

    Ray :
    . Why the unhappy face, John? Cheer up!

    Ray, that is my cheery face.

  11. John Shaw
    July 24th, 2013 at 10:19 | #11

    Paul Lubson :
    Well .. Gallagher didn’t recommend 3.Nf3 due to f5 in reply as I remember, so instead he recommended 3.Nc3 transposing to the Vienna gambit.
    Is this a repetoire style book or full coverage?

    More than a repertoire, but not quite complete coverage. The lines not included are ones that I think are irrelevant, following the principle “don’t include inferior replies to inferior lines”. So, for example, there is not complete coverage of 3.Bc4. I think it is inferior and Black has one very strong line in reply. So that line is covered; Black’s lesser replies to 3.Bc4 are not.

  12. Jacob Aagaard
    July 24th, 2013 at 11:00 | #12

    @John Shaw
    I can confirm this

  13. John Johnson
    July 24th, 2013 at 13:35 | #13

    Nessie has surfaced. I am impressed and impatient. ( Floridians get these things later, I actually wasn’t miserly and ordered it from one of the businesses that gets it a month or so before Amazon).

    • Jacob Aagaard
      July 25th, 2013 at 08:36 | #14

      Chess4Less is in Florida and gets it one day after the London Chess Centre.

  14. Paul
    July 24th, 2013 at 16:22 | #15

    Is there now a confirmed sighting of the other 2 books? I see they are now moved to the published section of the website…..

    • Jacob Aagaard
      July 25th, 2013 at 08:35 | #16

      Were in the warehouse late Monday night. Some shops will start having them soon, as will we.

  15. The Lurker
    July 24th, 2013 at 16:32 | #17

    I’ll believe it when I see it in my hands. After all, if they can fake the moon landing… *grin*

  16. farbror
    July 24th, 2013 at 20:41 | #18

    Can we expect King’s gambit vol. 2 anytime soon 😉

    • Jacob Aagaard
      July 25th, 2013 at 08:29 | #19

      2014

  17. Ray
    July 24th, 2013 at 21:18 | #20

    @John Shaw
    Haha :-). At least you haven’t lost your sense of humor :-).

  18. Gilchrist is a Legend
    July 24th, 2013 at 21:52 | #21

    @Paul
    I saw that too, both say “Published 19 July” now. However, my orders have not been processed for those two yet, so perhaps tomorrow or something. Perhaps they received the books late in the day to ship them the same day.

    • Jacob Aagaard
      July 25th, 2013 at 08:29 | #22

      It is happening this week. Sorry; lots of orders and not a world full of hands. Just shipping the books out takes a few days.

  19. John Johnson
    July 25th, 2013 at 02:08 | #23

    @The Lurker
    ahh photo shop? Like those pictures of Stalin with people added and removed according to the politics of the moment. Nah I believe!

    • Jacob Aagaard
      July 25th, 2013 at 08:21 | #24

      I held it in my hand, but did not take a copy home because of expanding websales. Then I had a 10 game match in the King’s Gambit on Playchess last night and could check nothing. Did get 3…g5 4.d4!? in a few times, with good results.

  20. Paul
    July 25th, 2013 at 08:34 | #25

    Yes, I arrived home to it behind my door last night, so can confirm further positive sightings. Delved into the Bc4 refutation first.

  21. AirChess
    July 25th, 2013 at 13:46 | #26

    @Paul
    Strange, Nessie also arrived at my house in an UPS Truck. Always thought the legend is about one unseen monster… Seems like its popping up now all over the world!

  22. Jacob Aagaard
    July 26th, 2013 at 09:51 | #27

    If this is not the publication of the year, then what is? Please send your proud photos of holding Nessie to john@qualitychess.co.uk and we will make a special post about it.

  23. Mathijs
    July 26th, 2013 at 14:15 | #28

    I’ll definitly only believe this one when I have it in my own hands (maybe not even then; this book is making me doubt reality).
    Btw, it does say on my account that the order is processed, but I did not receive a forwarded e-mail from UPS, as I did for my last order. Is that a sign of trouble? It does mean that I’m afraid to leave the house for fear of missing the delivery, but then, as a true chess layer, I’m afraid of leaving the house anyway.
    I will send a photo holding the book, if I manage to procure a camera (and the book of course).

  24. Jonathan Tait
    July 26th, 2013 at 19:53 | #29

    Arrived this morning. Terrific work, John. And you even mentioned the Wagenbach 🙂

  25. John Shaw
    July 29th, 2013 at 10:08 | #30

    Jonathan Tait :
    Arrived this morning. Terrific work, John. And you even mentioned the Wagenbach

    Hi Jonathan,

    Glad you like it so far. The Wagenbach, as I am sure everyone else knows, is 3…h5.

  26. John Shaw
    July 29th, 2013 at 10:15 | #31

    Mathijs :
    I’ll definitly only believe this one when I have it in my own hands (maybe not even then; this book is making me doubt reality).
    Btw, it does say on my account that the order is processed, but I did not receive a forwarded e-mail from UPS, as I did for my last order. Is that a sign of trouble? It does mean that I’m afraid to leave the house for fear of missing the delivery, but then, as a true chess layer, I’m afraid of leaving the house anyway.
    I will send a photo holding the book, if I manage to procure a camera (and the book of course).

    Hi Mathijs,

    No e-mail from UPS is not a sign of trouble – individual books are sent AirMail. I would predict your book should arrive any time now.

  27. John Johnson
    July 29th, 2013 at 12:12 | #32

    Nessie does exist I have looked through about the first chapter. It is very interesting.

  28. Jeff Davis
    July 29th, 2013 at 13:30 | #33

    Any idea why Amazon still lists the publication date as September and seems to have no copies?

  29. Wojciech
    July 29th, 2013 at 13:52 | #34

    Dear John,

    last Thuesday you informed us that you finally received The King’s Gambit and another books from the printer’s. Then you said that all the orders would be shipped by the end of last week. Some of us have already received their books. Unfortunately my order has not been even shipped yet. Could you please advise, when my books are going to be despatched?

  30. John Shaw
    July 29th, 2013 at 14:02 | #35

    Jeff Davis :
    Any idea why Amazon still lists the publication date as September and seems to have no copies?

    Hi Jeff,

    Amazon in the US will usually get their copies from our US distributor. Those books get to the US on a ship from Europe to New York. So they will always be slower than those who go for air freight.

    One general point: what appears on Amazon about our books is not always under our control. You might think if we spot an error, they will quickly fix it, but it is not always so easy.

  31. July 29th, 2013 at 14:41 | #36

    Jeff Davis :
    Any idea why Amazon still lists the publication date as September and seems to have no copies?

    As John mentioned, the quickest way to get the KG book is by ordering direct from Quality Chess. Or, you can go the Amazon route which is, basically:
    – wait for the boat to carry the books to across the ocean
    – wait for the distributor to mail the books to the book shops
    – wait for the book shops to list the book on Amazon
    – wait for the order to be shipped to you

    Order direct, at http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/124/the_king , and the process is simpler:
    – wait for the order to be shipped to you

    (edit: p.s. This is the 11,000th comment on the blog)

  32. John Shaw
    July 29th, 2013 at 15:40 | #37

    Wojciech :
    Dear John,
    last Thuesday you informed us that you finally received The King’s Gambit and another books from the printer’s. Then you said that all the orders would be shipped by the end of last week. Some of us have already received their books. Unfortunately my order has not been even shipped yet. Could you please advise, when my books are going to be despatched?

    Hi Wojciech,

    Sorry, there seems to have been a mix-up with your order. Tomorrow will be the absolute latest your books are despatched. Plus a free book added as an apology for our slowness. The confusion of processing orders for multiple books, with some of them delayed, seems to have blown a few minds in our admin section.

  33. Wojciech
    July 29th, 2013 at 15:50 | #38

    Thanks 🙂

  34. BigH
    July 29th, 2013 at 19:13 | #39

    @John Shaw

    Hello John,

    Thank you for great books and nice articles in this blog. But is my order all right ? It still says not shipped about Trompo and King’s gambit.

  35. John Shaw
    July 30th, 2013 at 12:34 | #40

    @BigH

    Hi Big H,

    Your order was processed yesterday. UPS tracking details should be available soon. Your order has one extra free book added. Not speedy enough from our end – it will be better the next time we print new books.

  36. Jacob Aagaard
    July 30th, 2013 at 13:49 | #41

    I have to say as a witness, that the guys in the office have been fighting a hurricane of orders, combined with an avalanche of mistakes done by shipping companies and printers. Be nice to them please.

  37. Jeff Dixon
    July 30th, 2013 at 20:19 | #42

    How are you checking these guys’ order statuses? Just happen to know who they are by screen name?

  38. Chris
    July 30th, 2013 at 20:36 | #43

    I ordered 3 books, including the Kingsgambit and 2 books that came earlier. Later i ordered the Kontronias and 2 books still to come. When the first package arrived, i found all 3 books from first order AND the Kotronias. I didn’t expect it to be included, thanks. 🙂

  39. Mathijs
    August 2nd, 2013 at 16:38 | #44

    Jacob Aagaard :
    If this is not the publication of the year, then what is? Please send your proud photos of holding Nessie to john@qualitychess.co.uk and we will make a special post about it.

    Can I ask: how is this coming along? I duly sent my nerdy photograph holding the book, but from John’s response I got the feeling that he thought I was a random crazy person, rather than a part of a coordinated effort (he was very polite, as you should be to crazy people).
    I do feel that celebrations for the book are much more in order than for some birthday; after all, Jacob is just mortal, while this book is for the ages. Still, I do wish Jacob a belated happy birthday.

  40. Jonathan Tait
    August 5th, 2013 at 10:29 | #45

    Yes indeed. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I played it first though, nor that János is a correspondence player. A couple of corrections there:

    1) 3…h5 started out in blitz games (with János playing it more-or-less as a joke) and developed from there as it proved surprisingly difficult to refute. János then started playing it in tournaments quite a while before I did. Coincidentally, the first game I have on record actually featured 5 h4 g4 6 Ne5 etc.

    2) János is almost exclusively an OTB player. His correspondence games with this line come from thematic tournaments which I (and later John Elburg) set up.

    I might mention this in a letter to Chess or somewhere, just to put it on record for historical accuracy. I still think your book’s great though 🙂

  41. John Shaw
    August 5th, 2013 at 10:48 | #46

    Jeff Dixon :
    How are you checking these guys’ order statuses? Just happen to know who they are by screen name?

    By screen name usually, but in one case where the screen name gave nothing away, I checked which email address was used to register that screen name. I don’t normally look at email addresses, but when someone using a pseudonym asks about their order, I presume they are OK with it.

  42. John Shaw
    August 5th, 2013 at 11:03 | #47

    Mathijs :

    Jacob Aagaard :
    If this is not the publication of the year, then what is? Please send your proud photos of holding Nessie to john@qualitychess.co.uk and we will make a special post about it.

    Can I ask: how is this coming along? I duly sent my nerdy photograph holding the book, but from John’s response I got the feeling that he thought I was a random crazy person, rather than a part of a coordinated effort (he was very polite, as you should be to crazy people).
    I do feel that celebrations for the book are much more in order than for some birthday; after all, Jacob is just mortal, while this book is for the ages. Still, I do wish Jacob a belated happy birthday.

    Hi Mathijs,

    I was aware of Jacob’s request, so I never thought you were a random crazy person. With the number of quick emails I send a day, polite is the best I can do on tone. Any other tone that seems to be there is probably by accident or bad typing.

    So far your photo is the only response to Jacob’s request. Maybe chess players are too retiring, or perhaps they want to keep their 2.f4 plans as a surprise.

  43. John Shaw
    August 5th, 2013 at 11:27 | #48

    Jonathan Tait :

    Yes indeed. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I played it first though, nor that János is a correspondence player. A couple of corrections there:

    1) 3…h5 started out in blitz games (with János playing it more-or-less as a joke) and developed from there as it proved surprisingly difficult to refute. János then started playing it in tournaments quite a while before I did. Coincidentally, the first game I have on record actually featured 5 h4 g4 6 Ne5 etc.

    2) János is almost exclusively an OTB player. His correspondence games with this line come from thematic tournaments which I (and later John Elburg) set up.

    I might mention this in a letter to Chess or somewhere, just to put it on record for historical accuracy. I still think your book’s great though :)

    Hi Jonathan,

    Interesting about 3…h5. About why we thought you played it first and János Wagenbach is a correspondence player – the answer in both cases is ‘our database’. Yours are the first 3…h5 games we have, and just about all the Wagenbach games we have are correspondence.

    With hindsight, I see we would have reached closer to the truth just by Googling “Janos Wagenbach Chess”. I don’t want to incur the wrath of Edward Winter, but we work harder on the moves than the history.

  44. Jeff Dixon
    August 5th, 2013 at 16:46 | #49

    I hate to be like the child in the back seat during a looooooooooong car ride, but how’s my order coming? =)

  45. John Shaw
    August 5th, 2013 at 17:17 | #50

    @Jeff Dixon

    Hi Jeff,

    Posted by Claire on the 24th of July. AirMail estimate to the US is 6-9 working days. So that means it is very definitely due now.

  46. Mathijs
    August 5th, 2013 at 23:14 | #51

    @John Shaw

    John, I hope you don’t think I was actually offended. I have a rather self-depracating sense of humour that tends to bring out the apologetic in people. One of it’s many unfortunate features – incomprehensibilty, for example, being another one.

    Too bad about the lack of response. I assume lack of digital knowhow might also play a role. I had to ask a friendly neighbourlady to take my picture. Quite hard to explain.

  47. Mathijs
    August 5th, 2013 at 23:58 | #52

    I almost forgot, I have some historical phonetic material that should but won’t interest you. I was unaware that the Quaade variation, one of the cornerstones of the book, was named after a Dutch captain. But that would mean that the pronunciation of its name is quite different from what it would be if he had been English. Being both Dutch and a niggler, I am in a unique position to address this issue. The name Quaade is actually rather uncommon in the Netherlands, but after consulting with my father, I feel fairly comfortable that the pronuciation should be: Kwah-duh. That is: two syllables, with stress on the first. The vowel in the first syllable doesn’t really occur in English, I think. You can hear the vowel sound in this link:
    http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg

    Personally, I only feel comfortable playing a variation if I can pronounce its name…

  48. John Shaw
    August 6th, 2013 at 12:26 | #53

    @Mathijs

    Hi Mathijs,

    All good – I don’t take anything too seriously on the internet.

    Quaade – I have been saying Kwah-day, just out of ignorance. We need a book “Pronunciation for chess players”. Special chapters on “Groningen” and “Scheveningen”.

  49. Andre
    August 6th, 2013 at 13:19 | #54

    Which exact line with h5 are you guys talking about? If it involves h4, g4, Ne5, h5 … doesn’t it transpose to the Long Whip variation?

  50. John Shaw
    August 6th, 2013 at 15:03 | #55

    @Andre

    The line is 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5, planning …h5-h4 to stop White undermining with h2-h4. After, say, 4.d4 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ne5 d6 it is not a Long Whip as the bishop is not on c4 yet – so no sacs on f7.

  51. Andre
    August 6th, 2013 at 15:10 | #56

    Thanks. I was under the impression that it’s a Long Whip too with d4 instead of Bc4.

  52. John Shaw
    August 6th, 2013 at 15:16 | #57

    Andre :
    Thanks. I was under the impression that it’s a Long Whip too with d4 instead of Bc4.

    That’s certainly also true. I just have a tendency to consider the Bc4-and-takes-on-f7 lines, as the ‘real’ Long Whip.

  53. Mathijs
    August 17th, 2013 at 22:54 | #58

    I’ve owned “The King’s gambit” for a couple of weeks now and I’ve come to worship it as an idol, with great ceremony and abject humility. That said, I do not think it is entirely beyond reproach. I have one actual objection and two minor quibbles. Perhaps they are the sort of thing that can be addressed in a second edition, or a newsletter?

    The biggest problem I have is with the Hungarian defence (chapter 3). I am convinced, by you, that white has no advantage there. However, I do want to play the Kieseritzky. I mean, the book starts with 90 pages of delicious analysis of the Flude variation and then you expect us not to play it? But the coverage in chapter 3 is not such that it can provide a repertoire. Black has plenty of serious and also some annoying alternatives on moves 6 and 8. Now I have to rely on Johansson’s old book to fill the gaps. Since I do imagine you have plenty of analysis here, I think this was an odd editorial choice.

    The other slight quibbles are with lines that are not very serious, but that I often encounter in blitz. The first concerns the Wahls variation of the Adelaide counter-gambit (unlike you, I enjoy the names of variations). That is, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.exf5 e4 5.Ne5 Nf6. Here too the focus is only on black’s best continuations, but the lesser ones are hardly trivial. Again Johansson is more comprehensive, although hardly as reliable.

    Finally there is a weird line that I’ve never seen analysed, but that I enounter really quite often (probably more than the other two lines combined; which says something about the level at which I play). It goes 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 (or 2.Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6) 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.exf5 Nxe5. Now 5.d4 Nxf3+ 6.gxf3 Qh4+ 7.Ke2 looks like a position that should appeal to the king’s gambiter (is it really not gambiteer?), but of course black should be punished more severely for his ridiculous set-up. After 5.Nxe5 Qh4+ 6.g3 Qxe4+ 7.Qe2 Qxh1 8.Ng6+ Ne7 9.Nxh8, white is a piece up, but the h8 knight is not to be saved. I’ve let this position fizzle to draw at least twice in blitz before turning on the computer and proving with painstaking analysis that white is in fact close to winning here. It’s not so trivial. And it’s certainly the sort of work that I’d rather let you do ;). A hint, according to my engine 9…d6 10.Nc3 Be6 11.b4! is critical.

    Because the ratio of criticism to praise has become rather unhinged, I will repeat that I absolutely love the book. It’s certainly my favourite opening book and quite possibly my favourite chess book overall. I feel invigorated playing lines that I used to dread, especially the Modern, the Fischer and the Becker. A very impressive effort.

  54. Mathijs
    August 21st, 2013 at 12:32 | #59

    I fear my comment my have been snowed under, so I’m going to shamelessly bump it. I was rather looking forward to a reply, even if it is only along the lines of: “How dare you raise such issues here, on our OWN forum? Be gone, you killjoy!”, or in the stronger language I would expect a Scot to express such sentiments.

  55. garryk
    August 21st, 2013 at 13:12 | #60

    @Mathijs
    Don’t worry, in five more years the 2nd edition with 500 more pages will answer all your questions…

  56. Jeff Dixon
    August 21st, 2013 at 14:30 | #61

    @Mathijs

    “It goes 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 (or 2.Bc5 3.Nf3 Nc6) 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.exf5 . . . .”

    You seem to be missing a move pair, or it should be 3…f5, as the f5 square is empty.

  57. Mathijs
    August 21st, 2013 at 17:16 | #62

    @Jeff Dixon

    Sorry, I meant 4.fxe5. I shoudn’t type lines blindly.

    @garryk

    I hope it will be a smaller issue. I realise it’s a bit absurd to complain about omissions in a 680 page book, but I think my point about the Hungarian defence is quite valid. At any rate, I’m not sure if all these lines should be included in the book, but I imagine mr.Shaw will have something to say on them in any case and I would be very interested to hear.

  58. Remco G
    August 21st, 2013 at 20:54 | #63

    He typoed, he means 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bc5 4.fxe5 Nxe5 etc.

  59. Indra Polak
    August 22nd, 2013 at 13:38 | #64

    Why would you play 4. … Nxe5? I thought Nc3 and Bc4 and d3 and keeping the tension is much better and leads to a normal declined variation.

  60. Indra Polak
    August 22nd, 2013 at 13:39 | #65

    Erh i mean why would you play 4. fxe5 🙂

  61. John Shaw
    August 22nd, 2013 at 17:42 | #66

    @Mathijs

    Hi Mathijs,

    I was not ignoring your points. It is just we have been moving office for the last couple of days and this is the first moment I have had a working computer and internet connection.

    Firstly, I do expect you to play the Kieseritzky. Against 3…g5 I would recommend varying between 4.h4, 4.Nc3 and 4.d4. So it is a fair criticism that after 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 d6 5.Nxg4 I obsess about 5…Nf6 and ignore the rest. My feeling was that 5…Nf6 was by far the most troubling line and the others were not a problem. But I agree a little guidance on the lesser lines would have been beneficial.

    On the other two lines you mention, I would have to check my analysis again to be 100% sure. They sound like very minor lines, so I think I will not regret how I have covered them (or not covered them). It’s the Kieseritsky line I am thinking about – maybe my 680-page book should have been over 700.

    Overall I am glad you like the book, and I always want to hear serious points of criticism. In almost every book we have done there have been, with hindsight, parts I might have edited differently.

  62. Mathijs
    August 22nd, 2013 at 20:43 | #67

    Hi John,

    thanks for your response. I’m glad you see my point on the Hungarian defence.

    I certainly think it’s reasonable not to include the other two lines I mentioned, as they are obscure. On the other hand, you’ve set the bar incredibly high (or low, I guess) by including stuff like the Wagenbach, which I’m pretty sure I’ll never face. And most of the alternatives in the Adelaide gambit wouldn’t require a separate chapter, of course. I expect a single column would be enough to dismiss them all. I remembered another line like that. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d5? (mentioned by Johansson). It’s the sort of move that throws you off if you’ve never seen it (at least if you’re not too strong a player), but can be dismissed in a few lines.

    The third line is a bit more curious. It is obscure because it looks bad at first sight and turns out to be bad upon close analysis, but is actually rather unclear in the middle. I think my opponents usually stumble into it. But if it really requires at least 11 precise moves to obtain an advantage, it might deserve to be less obscure than it is. I was also just curious whether you were familiar with it and what your opinion was.

    I think you should aim for at least 721 pages for the book, for the obvious reason that a book on the king of openings should be longer than any book on a sideline of the KID.

  63. Jacob Aagaard
    August 23rd, 2013 at 10:01 | #68

    @John Shaw
    With exceptions of the books Andrew or Colin edited :-0.

  64. Jacob Aagaard
    August 23rd, 2013 at 10:10 | #69

    @Mathijs
    arrgg. I think we should cut the KID book in half instead!

  65. Andrew Brett
    August 25th, 2013 at 10:43 | #70

    Got a copy – can see why this took years to come to fruition but the wait was worth it. Lots of interesting ideas- makes me wonder whether 3……g5 has too much theory to play OTB.

  66. Jeff Dixon
    August 28th, 2013 at 16:17 | #71

    It exists! And in hardcover! Thanks for the upgrade!

  67. The Lurker
    August 30th, 2013 at 19:44 | #72

    Nessie lives! I just got it today. What a behemoth of a book!

  68. Chris
    September 15th, 2013 at 09:01 | #73

    After now having a closer look at the book, i must admit i am missing some more material on the Quade-Variation where black captures on g3. It is always mentioned in the text that it is an option for black, but it rarely appears in the analysis?! Especially in variations like the Becker defense, where g3 is the only recommended line for white. Taking the pawn does not loose by force, maybe its even best (?) for black.

    Maybe this would have increased the book even more, but i miss that line definitively.

  69. Chris
    September 15th, 2013 at 09:12 | #74

    Not to forget: The book is great!

  70. Jonathan Tait
    September 23rd, 2013 at 16:54 | #75

    Andre :
    Thanks. I was under the impression that it’s a Long Whip too with d4 instead of Bc4.

    Actually, that position *has* been reached via the Kieseritzky. The earliest game I have (with 6 d4 in the Long Whip) is W.Mead-B.Pritchett, Brighton 1885, which isn’t *completely* irrelevant to the lines John gives in the book 🙂

  71. John Shaw
    September 24th, 2013 at 10:39 | #76

    @Chris

    Hi Chris,

    I just spotted your comment now. …f4xg3 ideas are mentioned in the Short – McShane game. But it’s true I don’t analyse this option in every line. A few reasons for that: Black has this option so many times that covering it comprehensively would be almost impossible. Also, I feel White’s play is then quite clear – maybe not forcing an advantage, but White should have play using the half-open files. I mention this plan in the book.

    Finally, and this is my main point, my hope with Quaade-style play was that White would have a fun line that can be played without studying long analysis.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

 Limit your comments to