Home > Publishing Schedule > Coming Soon…

Coming Soon…

We have updated our Coming Soon page with some titles we plan to publish in Spring and Summer of 2020. It’s quite a few books, so I will keep the details brief in this post. You can read more about each book on its own webpage, as linked below. The first five books below are expected in Spring 2020.

Playing the Grünfeld by Alexey Kovalchuk. The title tells the story – a fighting repertoire against 1.d4 by a talented young Russian player.

GM Mihail Marin will supply a two-volume Black repertoire against 1.d4 using 1…f5, with the aggressive Leningrad Dutch at its heart. The titles are Leningrad Dutch and Dutch Sidelines.

The 2600+ Ukrainian GM Martyn Kravtsiv is writing two volumes from White’s perspective after 1.e4 e5. The title Italian Renaissance tell the story – Bc4 is White’s choice, covered at both move 2 and 3, for added flexibility. There will be Volume I and Volume 2.

The following four titles are expected in Summer 2020.

Playing the Stonewall Dutch by Nikola Sedlak is another where the title is self-explanatory. A bold repertoire against 1.d4.

Think like a Machine by Manella & Zohar explores what chessplayers can learn from computers, using lots of spectacular examples where we humans struggle to find the right moves.

In Playing the Petroff Swapnil Dhopade, one of the new generation of Indian GMs, shares a repertoire against 1.e4 that is both compact and reliable.

In A Matter of Technique GM Jacob Aagaard starts a new series called Grandmaster Knowledge. The annotator’s cliché for winning a won position is that “the rest is a matter of technique” – this book shows how it should be done.

Categories: Publishing Schedule Tags:
  1. Andrew Greet
    January 9th, 2020 at 17:31 | #1

    Just to be clear, the front cover images are not yet finalized. We are well aware of certain changes which need to be made to some of the covers (perhaps the most glaring mistake as things stand is the differing angles of the board photos on the Marin Dutch books). We just didn’t want to delay the announcement of these new titles any longer, so rest assured we will fine-tune the cover designs in due course.

  2. Birdyfox
    January 9th, 2020 at 18:02 | #2

    What a program !! Fantastic list, I can’t wait ! Thanks for your announcement.

  3. January 9th, 2020 at 18:32 | #3

    The Petroff at last looking forward

  4. Pinpon
    January 9th, 2020 at 18:38 | #4

    Well done !
    Interesting to see if the Petroff book will be Bd6 oriented in the ‘’ old ‘’ main line
    Btw , will we see the upcoming Gelfand book in summer 2020 ?

  5. Mich
    January 9th, 2020 at 18:50 | #5

    Good news … but where is Dumbo ???

  6. January 9th, 2020 at 19:16 | #6

    Can’t believe my luck…. a book from Quality on the Petroff!! …..like Pinpon would be even happier if the Old Main Line is based around 6…Bd6 but as I also play 6…Nc6 I’m not going to be too worried either way.

  7. Leon Trotsky
    January 9th, 2020 at 21:59 | #7

    That is a lot of books.

    I was wondering if Marin’s Dutch books would have the flag of the Netherlands as background, but that is not necessary anyway.

    There has not been a book on the Stonewall Dutch since Agdestein’s book.

    I wonder how the Playing the Grünfeld book differs from Awrukh’s two volumes.

  8. Alex
    January 9th, 2020 at 23:57 | #8

    Love that caped pawn cover! 😀

    I’m also considering the Grunfeld book but I am unsure how to handle 1. c4 and 1. Nf3. Perhaps the symmetrical English is the way to go? I know it probably won’t be in the scope of the book but it would be nice to see if he has any general suggestions. I’ve been trying the KID lately and being basically universal other than vs 1. e4 is one of the best parts.

  9. The Doctor
    January 10th, 2020 at 08:22 | #9

    @Alex
    Against 1 Nf3 QC have given extensive coverage of Anti-Grunfeld lines in Beating Minor Openings

    Against 1 c4 I’m guessing most Grunfeld players plat 1…Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 as given in the recent Chess Stars book on the Grunfeld.

  10. Duvupov
    January 10th, 2020 at 09:37 | #10

    Interested in the Petroff book. If the old main line is Bd6 I wonder how the repertoire will differ from ‘ Fight 1.e4 like Caruana’.
    Looks like the writer doesn’t play the Petroff himself, or am I missing something? Any hints on lines already?

  11. Karl
    January 10th, 2020 at 10:06 | #11

    After publishing “Playing the stonewall dutch”, is there any hope for “Playing the london system”? 😉

  12. Andrew Greet
    January 10th, 2020 at 10:54 | #12

    Leon T: Avrukh’s books were cutting edge at the time and are still of much value, but theory moves on and there are certain lines in his books in which Black has come under some pressure. Kovalchuk’s repertoire benefits from more up-to-date theory, as well as analysis from stronger engines, more recent elite GM games and so on. There are also certain lines where Avrukh’s analysis still holds up, but Kovalchuk offers another solution which he happens to find more appealing.

    Duvupov: Swapnil has played the Petroff a few times although it’s true that it hasn’t exactly formed the backbone of his repertoire. Still, we think his analysis of it is first-rate.

    Karl: We are not yet desperate enough to advocate the London System! (Just joking – sort of…) If you’re looking for a guide to that opening, Sedlak’s books published by NIC are in my opinion your best chance to equalize with White.

  13. Thomas
    January 10th, 2020 at 11:07 | #13

    @Andrew Greet

    Sedlak’s books were published by Chess Evolution. The NIC book is Romero’s.

  14. Andrew Greet
    January 10th, 2020 at 11:24 | #14

    @Thomas
    You’re absolutely right; thanks for the correction. I googled the book and the top few results were NIC, so I lazily named them as the publisher, forgetting that they also run a shop!

  15. John Shaw
    January 10th, 2020 at 11:34 | #15

    Mich :
    Good news … but where is Dumbo ???

    “The Electrifying Elephant Gambit” is also on the way. The books in the post above are not yet a complete list of our plans, and many publication dates remain to be clarified.

  16. Ray
    January 10th, 2020 at 12:54 | #16

    Great line-up, with lots of must buys! Thanks a lot!!

  17. Paul H
    January 10th, 2020 at 13:50 | #17

    @John Shaw
    Is completion of Negi still pencilled in at some point?

  18. Karl
    January 10th, 2020 at 13:52 | #18

    Andrew Greet :
    Karl: We are not yet desperate enough to advocate the London System! (Just joking – sort of…) If you’re looking for a guide to that opening, Sedlak’s books published by NIC are in my opinion your best chance to equalize with White.

    It am joking too. But just look at your banner http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/i/banner5.png
    With the stonewall book you’re moving into that direction. Soon or later i will see a london system book from quality chess. 😉

  19. The Doctor
    January 10th, 2020 at 13:53 | #19

    I’m quite interested in Jacob’s book ‘A Matter of Technique’ as I spend too much time looking at openings, get great positions then generally only achieve draws!
    My question is what rating of player is this aimed at?
    As I’m only around 2000 rated, will this be much use to me?

  20. John Shaw
    January 10th, 2020 at 15:18 | #20

    Paul H :
    @John Shaw
    Is completion of Negi still pencilled in at some point?

    Yes. And the next one in the Negi series will be this year – that’s “1.e4 vs Minor Defences”.

  21. Thomas
    January 10th, 2020 at 15:26 | #21

    2020 will be a long year….

  22. Andrew Greet
    January 10th, 2020 at 15:30 | #22

    Paul: Yes, Negi 5 will happen in 2020.

    Karl: Thanks for the point about the banner. If we ever publish a London repertoire for White we’ll be sure to change it to “Tired of good positions?” etc.

    ‘Doctor’: My guess is that even though the typical reader of Jacob’s books may be rated a little higher, an ambitious 2000-rated player should still be able to get a lot out of them. We’ll be able to answer better once the book is finished of course.

  23. Tom Tidom
    January 10th, 2020 at 15:38 | #23

    John Shaw :

    Paul H :
    @John Shaw
    Is completion of Negi still pencilled in at some point?

    Yes. And the next one in the Negi series will be this year – that’s “1.e4 vs Minor Defences”.

    While I´m happy to read this it probably also means that the coverage of the Ruy Lopez from White´s side is quite far in the future.

    Perhaps someone is willing to write “Playing the Ruy Lopez” in the meantime ;-).

  24. Jacob Aagaard
    January 10th, 2020 at 17:22 | #24

    A Matter of Technique will not be an exercise book, so should be accessible from 1500 or so and upwards. The pieces move the same and stronger players are not that often smarter, just more trained, talented and well-read.

  25. RYV
    January 10th, 2020 at 20:57 | #25

    jacob’s book should be of the highest need. We all loose winning ( or draw) position so often. It is really important to learn how to do to concretize a wining advantage and not let our opponent escape.

  26. William
    January 10th, 2020 at 21:51 | #26

    What are the other planned books in the series Grandmaster Knowledge?

  27. January 11th, 2020 at 04:10 | #27

    Andrew Greet :
    Duvupov: Swapnil has played the Petroff a few times although it’s true that it hasn’t exactly formed the backbone of his repertoire. Still, we think his analysis of it is first-rate.

    If he does decide to go with 6….Nc6 in the Old Main Line, it would be good if Swapnil could include something on white’s 8 Nd2. Sakaev included a two line note in his 2011 book on the Petroff but subsequent authors have ignored it. It is quite a popular sideline and very common in ICCF games. It may look passive but it is not without it’s subtleties.

    Thanks.

  28. Paul H
    January 11th, 2020 at 17:31 | #28

    Thanks for the update on Negi.

    Are you also able to provide an update on the plans for the Grandmaster Preparation series? I notice on Chessable an expanded edition of Calculation- with video from Jacob- is in the coming soon section.

  29. Jeroen
    January 11th, 2020 at 22:50 | #29

    Surely this is the most impressive lineup of forthcoming titles I’ve seen in a long time. I’m very much looking forward to the The Italian Renaissance. Keep up to good work!

  30. JB
    January 12th, 2020 at 09:28 | #30

    Hey Xmas came early in January! Even though (in a non Brexit manner) I couldn’t give a monkeys for all the Dutch there’s a lot to look forward to. Seeing a major clash between the Italian and Petroff book so is John getting locked in the dungeon again to edit one book while Andrew edits the other up in the daylight and neither allowed to look at each others notes? Very happy Jacob catering to club players.. I’ll never be a GM but trying to be the best I can be and his new book seems more at my level. Keep healthy Jacob! Good luck and we’ll all ignore the publication dates as usual and just enjoy them when they arrive 😀👍

  31. JB
    January 12th, 2020 at 09:56 | #31

    PS After finishing your MVL black rep books with the Najdorf and Grunfeld books looking forward to the Magnus version with the Qd6 Scandi, Norwegian Rat and some more quality mainline stuff.😂

  32. The Doctor
    January 12th, 2020 at 11:16 | #32

    John Shaw is a middlegame expert – maybe a book on the subject in a future?

  33. Leaf
    January 12th, 2020 at 23:11 | #33

    For the book Stonewall Dutch by Nikola Sedlak, does it cover everything after 1. d4 f5 ?

    Does it cover 1. Nf3 and 1. c4?

    Thanks.

  34. Patrick
    January 14th, 2020 at 20:51 | #34

    It seems like everyone is harping over the opening books. While I myself am interested in the Italian books and the Stonewall Dutch book, the other two, and probably the biggest two for me, will be the two non-opening books! Think Like a Machine and A Matter of Technique!

  35. Andrew Greet
    January 17th, 2020 at 11:18 | #35

    JB – Excellent suggestions; in the meantime we’ve got the Elephant Gambit on the way to satisfy your desire for a quality repertoire to last a lifetime.

    Doctor – John is definitely a middlegame expert, as long as we can define a middlegame as a position with nothing but a rook and a number of pawns on each side. But in any case, running the company combined with editing/proofreading duties keeps John busy to say the least, so don’t expect any more books authored by him anytime soon.

    Leaf – The Stonewall book focuses on d4/c4 set-ups. Obviously we understand that there would have been a certain value in covering earlier deviations too. On the other hand, there are many other books covering sidelines after 1.d4 f5, and ultimately we decided that an in-depth guide to the d4/c4 realm would be the best way to let the author shine. Sedlak has generally favoured the 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 move order in his own games; obviously this only works if you play the French as well – but if you do, then it’s an excellent option for a Dutch player.

  36. Luis
    January 19th, 2020 at 12:10 | #36

    Hello

    When will be known which line Negi proposes against the Alekhine.

    Although, wondering whether you have in sight a book on the Alekhine (Baburin as the writer?)
    I think many books on how to play against the Alekhine are very interesting, e.g, Shaw and
    Greet (with a diferente editior)

    Thanks, Luis

  37. Pete
    January 20th, 2020 at 06:09 | #37

    Please more info about the new series Grandmaster Knowledge

  38. Mstoe
    January 21st, 2020 at 23:58 | #38

    When will be the official announcement of Negis book? Will he also cover the Pirc & Modern in it& what Lines will he suggest?

  39. January 22nd, 2020 at 18:56 | #39

    @Andrew Greet

    Now that you have GM Nikola Sedlak in your stable of writers he would be an ideal candidate to do a book on Playing The London…theory has moved on since his earlier works and the opening continues to be popular at all levels.

    I know you don’t think much of the opening but, I’m pretty sure that if Quality published a book on the London it would be a stronger seller than a book on lets say the Elephant Gambit!!

  40. Pete
    January 22nd, 2020 at 22:22 | #40

    @Michael

    QualityChess intends to make chess more exciting (even by virtue of Elephant Gambit) rather than boring (London)

  41. TM
    January 23rd, 2020 at 17:22 | #41

    Hello,

    Is there any chance to see in the future books with titles like “Playing the Sozin Variation (Including Fischer’s Attack)” or “Playing the Exchange Ruy Lopez”?

  42. Phil Collins
    January 24th, 2020 at 08:29 | #42

    Playing the Tarrasch Defence would be a nice book. Covering the so called “Dubov Tarrasch”, the new move order with an early Nf6 like Carlsens choice. It should be a complete repertoire: QGD, QP-Openings, Tarrasch vs English/Reti, Tarrasch vs Nimzo-Larsen, Tarrasch vs “Orangutan”, Tarrasch vs Bird.

    * Dubov Tarrasch: The Dubov Tarrasch suggested Tarrasch in the early 1920s in “Die Verteidigung des Damengambits”.

  43. Topnotch
    January 25th, 2020 at 21:51 | #43

    Michael :
    @Andrew Greet
    Now that you have GM Nikola Sedlak in your stable of writers he would be an ideal candidate to do a book on Playing The London…theory has moved on since his earlier works and the opening continues to be popular at all levels.
    I know you don’t think much of the opening but, I’m pretty sure that if Quality published a book on the London it would be a stronger seller than a book on lets say the Elephant Gambit!!

    The London has seen better days, the surprise effect has long gone and enough ink both digital and physical has already been spilt on it. Black is comfortable in most lines and the London offers nothing objectively except a position to just play chess. Just Play Chess – The London System is not a title I think would sell very well, not sexy enough. A book on the Elephant Gambit however, would probably do better since it is such a controversial and little covered topic, so much so that even I would be tempted to buy it if only out of sheer morbid curiosity.

  44. Dayvid Marques
    January 26th, 2020 at 00:24 | #44

    What is the purpose of Boris Gulko’s book that appears in the 2020 quality catalog?

  45. Andrew Greet
    January 27th, 2020 at 12:21 | #45

    Here are the answers to the various questions:

    About Negi – against the Alekhine he’s going main line with 4.Nf3; against the Pirc/Modern it’ll be Be3/Nf3. We’ll announce the publication date when we are ready. We will not announce the announcement date.

    As for the London System, I tend to take a similar view to that of Topnotch in the post above, but John and Jacob are the ones who ultimately decide what to publish. So anything’s possible – but at this stage a prospective London book isn’t exactly at the forefront of our team meetings.

    The Alekhine Defence, Dubov Tarrasch and Exchange Ruy Lopez aren’t the worst ideas I’ve heard. Like I said, anything’s possible, and some ideas are more possible than others.

  46. January 27th, 2020 at 20:39 | #46

    @Topnotch

    “the London offers nothing objectively except a position to just play chess. Just Play Chess”

    Perhaps that is why it is so popular at the highest levels of ICCF…..they just want to play chess in a position which offers imbalances.

  47. Topnotch
    January 28th, 2020 at 14:30 | #47

    Michael :
    @Topnotch
    “the London offers nothing objectively except a position to just play chess. Just Play Chess”
    Perhaps that is why it is so popular at the highest levels of ICCF…..they just want to play chess in a position which offers imbalances.

    Indeed, if you want to keep your repertoire fresh and reliable these days it is essential to have the latest Correspondence Database and keep it updated or else you are likely to face many unpleasant surprises.

  48. The Doctor
    February 2nd, 2020 at 00:10 | #48

    I really enjoyed reading Smirin’s inspiration KI Warfare.

    So I’m intrigued by Sicilian Warfare. Smirin is primarily a Kan player, I’m wondering whether this will including mainly his games, and will it cover other Sicilian variations othe than the Kan?

  49. IronTigran
    February 3rd, 2020 at 04:07 | #49

    Hi, any plans on updating Marin’s work on the English and Petrov’s Modern Benoni? Also, any plans on launching a book on 1.f4 and the Reti Opening

  50. Riesner
    February 3rd, 2020 at 18:11 | #50

    IronTigran :
    Hi, any plans on updating Marin’s work on the English and Petrov’s Modern Benoni? Also, any plans on launching a book on 1.f4 and the Reti Opening

    Please no book on 1.f4! This move is a waste of time and not a “quality” move!

  51. Leaf
    February 3rd, 2020 at 23:51 | #51

    Recently Vassilios Kotronias wrote a new book on Tarrasch. Does anybody know what is the difference between it and the one by Jacob and Nicos?

  52. IronTigran
    February 4th, 2020 at 07:37 | #52

    @Riesner
    Riesner who said 1.f4 doesn’t give an advantage? People are slowly turning to rarer moves for finding something out of an opening, I think your prejudiced mind needs a lot of schooling to understand that.

  53. Riesner
    February 4th, 2020 at 09:50 | #53

    IronTigran :
    @Riesner
    Riesner who said 1.f4 doesn’t give an advantage? People are slowly turning to rarer moves for finding something out of an opening, I think your prejudiced mind needs a lot of schooling to understand that.

    I see, that’s why the GMs nowadays played a lot 1.f4 recently. Oh wait,…

  54. Ray
    February 4th, 2020 at 11:12 | #54

    I think a good repertoire book on 1.b3 would also be very welcome (at least to me 🙂 ). The only reasonably recent book is by Lakdawala, but the quality is what you would expect…

  55. RYV
    February 4th, 2020 at 12:22 | #55

    Andrew Greet :

    .. Like I said, anything’s possible, and some ideas are more possible than others.

    Whay about a QC encyclopedia of openings ?

  56. Patrick
    February 4th, 2020 at 16:17 | #56

    IronTigran :
    @Riesner
    Riesner who said 1.f4 doesn’t give an advantage? People are slowly turning to rarer moves for finding something out of an opening, I think your prejudiced mind needs a lot of schooling to understand that.

    How about the fact that in the vast majority of databases, 1.f4 scores UNDER 50 PERCENT for White, and White goes first! For example, 365chess.com, 1.f4 scores a whopping 47.6% (35% White Victories, 25.2% Draws, 39.8% Black Victories – 35 + half of 25.2 is only 47.6!).

    The problem is that White gets nothing to counter the early weakening of the King. Black has committed to nothing. In the Dutch Defense, White has committed to 1.d4, which weakens e4, and so the move 1…f5 makes more sense. It prevents e4 and puts a clamp on e4 when combined with 2…Nf6, and in some cases, a future …d5.

    With Black having not committed to d5 yet, 1.f4 is fruitless, and just weakens the White King. I agree with Riesner. You want something offbeat? Time would be better spent covering 1.b3 or 1.Nc3. They don’t score as well as the “big 5” (e4, d4, c4, Nf3, and g3), but they at least result in a plus score for White!

  57. Noel
    February 5th, 2020 at 08:24 | #57

    Could you re publish “Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective” by Valeri Beim?

    That great book is no longer in print.

  58. Ray
    February 5th, 2020 at 10:23 | #58

    @Patrick
    I agree 1.f4 may not be so great, but I doubt the reason is the weakening of e4 in the Dutch vs. not committing to anything against 1.f4. After all, by far the main move for black against 1.f4 is 1…d5 – weakening the e5-square and thereby justifying the move 1.f4 (in your reasoning). That doesn’t sound logical to me. I suspect the real reason for the below-average score of 1.f4 might be that the Dutch is a counterattacking opening. This only works well if white is ambitious which generally is the case. Playing such a counterattacking opening with reversed colours tends to work less well (imo) because black usually is satisfied with an equal position. That being said, 1.f4 is regularly played by Kamsky with good results, so it can’t be that badb.

  59. Riesner
    February 5th, 2020 at 11:43 | #59

    @Ray

    Regularly played by Kamsky? He is more a London System guy, nobody play 1.f4 regularly, not in blitz, rapid or classic.

    @IgonTigran Insulting me, does not make 1.f4 more better. Learn to respect other
    opinions. There is a reason, why 1.f4 will not be a quality chess book. I think, they have more
    interesting than writing a book about a move which is more worse than 1.h3

  60. Ray
    February 5th, 2020 at 12:11 | #60

    @Riesner
    Strictly speaking you are right, but Kamsky has more than once played 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.f4 in serious games. Look it up in a database and you will find games as recent as 2019.

  61. February 5th, 2020 at 16:30 | #61

    @Patrick

    Database percentages are of passing interest but I have always found that the ratings of the players is more relevant..for example if a 2300 player is playing a 2600 player then regardless of the opening chances are the 2300 player is going to get ground down…..similarly a game between two low rated players is often not reflective of an openings potential…

  62. Patrick
    February 5th, 2020 at 19:28 | #62

    @Michael

    This is why I use the laws of statistics when evaluating things like databases. A valid sample size is said to be 30. You need at least 30 minimum to do a valid statistical analysis. If you had 14 games with 11 of them Black wins, it could just as easily be an anomoly. But here we are talking 20,657 games. So now the question is the following:

    A) Are there just as many cases where White is higher rated than Black as there are cases where Black is higher rated than White? This would be easier to determine if this database gave stats like average rating for White, average rating for Black, average rating for White in games where White won, etc. If there are just as many, you have a valid sample easily.

    B) Is Black significantly higher rated than White overall across the 20,657 games? If that’s the case, the fact that nobody that high up plays the White side of it should say something!

    So either way, 1.f4 just feels wrong to me! And this comes after playing a Dutch last night that I won in 30 moves, but should have lost had White played his 16th move back on move 15.

  63. IronTigran
    February 6th, 2020 at 05:45 | #63

    @Riesner
    1.f4 is a serious try for a small advantage, albeit rarely played. Magnus has a 100pc score with with, and creative players often get very nice positions out of the opening. Your reasoning with the databases is pathetic to say the least – just because an opening scores badly doesn’t mean it is inherently wrong – it just means that White hasn’t explored it much. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 is considered bad if you look at the databases, but having looked at it seriously I see it as a legitimate way for White to play. I suggest learning chess properly first, if you don’t understand this simple statement- chess these days is less about an opening advantage and more about keeping pieces on the board, which 1.f4 does to perfection.

  64. Patrick
    February 6th, 2020 at 11:50 | #64

    @IronTigran

    First off, I am the one that used the database reference, not him. Secondly, just because anybody made a database reference does not mean that is all we do or know. Your comment is offensive. Third, you want non-database common sense? The Sicilian Wing Gambit is a total joke because it has already been figured out that an early d5 defuses all of White’s play and Black is probably slightly better. Even the French Wing Gambit is a better argument! That lead to the deferred Wing Gambit and a 552 page book by another publisher, and he sugarcoated 2…Nc6 when 2…g6 gives White bigger problems! If the wing gambit was the biggest problem for Black, I would be a life long Sicilian player and kiss the French good-bye. Throwing attacks at people simply because we referenced a database and making the assumption that we are clueless, digital people otherwise just makes you look pathetic! I wish I could play Black against you over the board. My best wins ever are against offbeat garbage, the highest one being black against someone that tried to play 11.Nd3 instead of 11.Nxc6 in Larsen’s opening.

  65. February 6th, 2020 at 12:37 | #65

    Having had enough of dealing with another poster’s stupid shenanigans, I have a useful question for you. The Italian books. Are they coming out together as one unit or as two separate parts, one early spring and one late spring?

  66. IronTigran
    February 6th, 2020 at 13:03 | #66

    @Patrick
    A real chess education is required for you my friend – these days the lines with 3…d5 in the Wing are practically refuted as far as Black is concerned – White is infact playing for an advantage in many lines. Instead of trashing a respectable opening spend your angry outbursts somewhere else – The 1.f4 first move is a legitimate try for an advantage. Also, take that garbage about the Wing Gambit and throw it in the trash – in reasonably top level correspondence chess (2300+) White has a +5 score in the main line of the Wing after 3…d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e5 6.c4! (Correspondence Database 2020). Also, in the 54 games I could find in the Database with the Wing Accepted, i.e. 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3, White scores rather well – 12 to 8 with 32 draws – not bad for a total joke eh? Don’t believe the almighty computer each time – its perhaps only as smart as you are!

  67. Patrick
    February 6th, 2020 at 13:24 | #67

    @IronTigran

    The one that needs the chess education is you! Now you are assuming that I just look at databases and research them to move 3 and call it a day. Sorry little child, but I am 2 steps ahead of you there. I do not play the Sicilian because of 2.Nf3 and 3.d4. Against your clown line, I do not play what you claim. 1.e4 c5 2.b4?! cxb4 3.a3 d5! 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6! I did a lot of research on this line 4 years ago when I played the Taimanov in conjunction with the French until I switched to the French, which I have played since the 90s, almost exclusively in 2018.

  68. IronTigran
    February 6th, 2020 at 14:43 | #68

    @Patrick
    Again, you prove to be an absolute patzer! The line you give is a sham – if Black doesn’t occupy the center here he has clear chances of being worse. First of all statistics indicate in the live database that 5…e5 has been played 528 times, whereas your pet line with 5…e6 only 68 times, so I assumed you meant the main line with 5…e5, not some random line that hasn’t been played that much. Again, I am infinitely ahead of you man-child, so you should see this line and understand where your chess understanding currently stands – 1.e4 c5 2.b4(!/!?) cxb4 3.a3 d5(?!) 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 e6(?! – now who locks in his bishop for free? Not me!) 6. Be2! (The line scores almost 62 percent in 9 games, including correspondence, so it’s definitely the best way forward) Nf6 7.d4!?(Frank Meissien, one of the foremost experts of the Wing Gambit in Correspondence play, played 7.0-0 in a game that could decide his GM Norm chances, so it is definitely a serious move, but we transpose) Nc6 8.0-0 Qd8(!? – the engines first choice is definitely not human – shows how difficult Black’s position actually is) 9. Re1 a6(!? – again not a natural move to make, but Black is solid) and here I deviate from that game with 10.Bc4!? (Perfectly possible is 10.axb4 Bxb4 11.c3 Be7 12.Nbd2 0-0 13.Bd3 Nd5 and now I deviate from previous games with the interesting 14.Qc2!?, with an unclear game ahead) preparing d5 and improving one of my pieces, with a complex game…

  69. Ray
    February 6th, 2020 at 15:14 | #69

    I’m having great fun watching this discussion, but maybe it’s time to tone down a bit? To each their own I say. Chess is (luckily) much too complex for making strong verdicts on the value of opening lines. If modern chess engines have learned me one thing, it’s that almost all openings are playable nowadays – at least by ordinary players such as myself. The fact that a respected Publisher such as QC are publishing a book on the Elephant Gambit (a total joke?) is telling in that respect. I see no reason why openings such as 1.f4, 1.b3 or even 1.Nc3 would be off-limits while at the same time publishing books on the Elephant Gambit and Morra Gambit.

  70. Ray
    February 6th, 2020 at 15:19 | #70

    PS: I would definitely be interested in a book on 1.e4 c5 2.b4. @ IronTigran: do you know if there are any good books around, or are you perhaps working on one yourself?

  71. Patrick
    February 6th, 2020 at 15:40 | #71

    @IronTigran

    Talk about hypocrisy! You play an offbeat line, but yet expect execlusively main line responses back! I hate to break it to you but there are many “main lines” that I don’t play, and play an offbeat response myself. Works both ways turkey!

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nge7 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nf5 8.Bxf5 exf5 9.Kf1!

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 and now 7…O-O!, 7…Kf8!, 7…Nf5! (I have played all 3!)

    1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e4 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2 b5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 and now in a correspondence game, I won with 10.Ne2 (played 38 times) instead of 10.Bxc5 (played 574 times)

    1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 and now 5.a3 (played 37 times) over 5.Bf4 (played 209 times).

    So in one breath you preach for abnormality as the main lines are all figured out, and in the next breath, you just assume everyone else will play normal lines.

    Plus, if you think you are so smart and already know these Wing Gambit and 1.f4 lines, what do you need a book for? Let them spend their time with more instructive stuff than 1.f4 for those of us that don’t think we are above everyone else on the planet?

  72. Patrick
    February 6th, 2020 at 15:43 | #72

    @Ray

    If I remember right, I think Gambiteer I covers the Wing Gambit from White’s viewpoint. Most other sources are for Black on Anti-Sicilians and have a short snippit that covers 2.b4?!

  73. Mich
    February 6th, 2020 at 16:13 | #73

    @Ray
    There is “The Sicilian Wing Gambit” by Schmucker (Joachim Beyer Verleg edition) as the last one on the subject.

  74. Bill
    February 7th, 2020 at 01:02 | #74

    @Ray
    I, too, am a fan of this thrilling back-and-forth. Seems like it might be more appropriate at another site’s forum, though.

  75. IronTigran
    February 7th, 2020 at 05:25 | #75

    @Patrick
    Am not an expert by any means, but I have tried out all the openings you have mentioned, and they are indeed decent. I am yet to see anyone completely refute a gambit like the King’s or the Morra, so if that is impossible then the Wing Gambit is a 100 percent sound! Calling me names will not remove the deficiencies of your chess education, so God Bless you, you still have a long way forward to go with respect to understanding chess. Hate is not an answer to chess improvement, and neither is dogma!

    @Ray
    Ray not much literature on the subject, but I would suggest going through the games by a correspondence IM Frank Meissen. IM Shivananda of India and IM Kamran Shirazi are other experts whose games you can consult. Of course, use an engine like Komodo MCTS or Stockfish to improve on them. I have no plans of writing a book on the subject until I make atleast an IM title, so you have to wait! With regards to 1.f4 and 1.b3, I would definitely see the former as a decent try for an advantage, with the latter as an interesting way to play. 1.Nc3 is not an independent move, often transposing to the Veresov or the 4 Knights, known to possess sterile equality.

  76. Ray
    February 7th, 2020 at 09:16 | #76

    Thanks!

  77. Riesner
    February 7th, 2020 at 17:55 | #77

    IronTigran :
    @Riesner
    I suggest learning chess properly first, if you don’t understand this simple statement- chess these days is less about an opening advantage and more about keeping pieces on the board, which 1.f4 does to perfection.

    Why so agressiv? Maybe you should try yoga! I have a very good chess
    education, so don’t tell me what to do! 1.f4 is rarely move and my opinion is that there are a lot of better moves to play for small advantages! Please accept my opinion and don’t be so rude.
    We can argue but on a normal way! I suggest you to try a normal tone for the next time otherwise I won’t take any of your argumentation seriously and I guess you will loose the
    respect from the other readers

  78. Patrick
    February 7th, 2020 at 20:01 | #78

    @IronTigran

    You are such an extremist and sound just like Donald Trump! Nowhere did I EVER claim a refutation. Only YOU have claimed that saying that 3…d5 is refuted!

    I believe I claimed a “below 50% score” for 1.f4 and I believe I said that 3…d5 “defuses all of White’s play”. NOWHERE do I EVER claim refutation, unless of course your English is that bad that you think something here means that. “Defuses all of White’s play” simply makes claim that all of the tricky garbage that White tries to get with the wing gambit is stopped with that defense. Nowhere does that mean that it’s a forced win for Black, but you and your Trump type of mind wants to put words in other people’s mouth!

    And like I said before, a SLIGHT DISADVANTAGE for White, as in =/+, NOT -+, in my book, is completely unacceptable! I have no problems with a +/= position as Black, but if I am going first, =/+ is inacceptable, and deemed a “Bad Opening” for White.

    But I will again say for the 50th time. Nowhere, NOWHERE, did I ever, EVER, utter the word refutation. And so your “black or white” views, and your putting words into my mouth when they are the words that you yourself and only you yourself are using instead, as much as you want to claim it’s name calling, sometimes the truth hurts, and there is no way to describe your behavior except for 2 words.

    Extremist and Hypocrite!

  79. Patrick
    February 7th, 2020 at 20:18 | #79

    And I will also add that 1.Nc3 does not transpose if White plays it right. Against 1…d5, stronger than 2.d4 is 2.e4! Yes, this can transpose to other stuff, but White should not be playing 2.d4.

    Also, it should NEVER transpose to the Four Knights. 1…e5 is the weakest move of the legitimate moves for Black. It has been a while since I have studied these lines, and so my memory may not be great, but I believe it’s 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 that is stronger. I want to say this may be followed by g3 and Bg2, but I’m not sure if it’s there or against the Sicilian. I recall the major difference in one of those 2 openings was instead of e4 and some other move, White played g3 and Bg2 instead, and without e4 pushed, the scope of the Bishop is open.

    Again, haven’t played 1.Nc3 since the mid-2000s, so I make NO CLAIM that everything stated is 100% accurate, but I am 100% sure that transposing to the Four Knights is not in White’s best interest in those 1.Nc3 lines!

    While it may be 15 years old, a great source of 1.Nc3 was the book “Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3”.

  80. Patrick
    February 7th, 2020 at 20:21 | #80

    And another “independent” line with 1.Nc3 is the Tubingen Gambit (place an um lout over the U – don’t know how to type German letters). 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.g4! It can transpose to the Bronstein Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.g4) or lead to independent lines, depending on the followup.

  81. RYV
    February 7th, 2020 at 20:42 | #81

    just to add some fuel to this debate ; i used to play ..b6 when faced with this b4 gambit. It might not be the best theotical move ( computer move) but practice has shown that it was very effective as it is a very bad new for white: NO Gambit, play serious chess!

  82. Ray
    February 9th, 2020 at 15:26 | #82

    @RYV
    There are some serious gambits around, or am I mistaken? Just to name a few: Marshall Gambit, Schliemann Gambit, Two Knights with 4.Ng5, Benko Gambit, Anti-Moscow Gambit, Botvinnik Variation, French Poisoned Pawn. Need I say more? Or do you have a different definition of ‘Gambit’?

  83. RYV
    February 9th, 2020 at 18:56 | #83

    Serious gambit as the few you mentioned are not serious chess
    All those gambit have been analysed until until draw. They are not chess anymore

  84. Thomas
    February 9th, 2020 at 20:02 | #84

    >>>All those gambit have been analysed until until draw. They are not chess anymore<<<

    Time to switch to Halma.

  85. Benjamin Fitch
    February 9th, 2020 at 22:24 | #85

    Because it’s a basic fact of chess that there are non-material factors that can equal a pawn (in any phase of the game), and that without this aspect chess would be missing a fundamental dimension, it makes no sense to lump all gambits together any more than it would make sense to lump all sideways rook moves together and claim that they’re not serious chess (or that they’re always better than forward or backward rook moves).

  86. John Shaw
    February 10th, 2020 at 10:45 | #86

    I deleted a comment on this thread – a lot of name-calling at another commenter. Strong opinions about chess are fine; insults to commenters you disagree with are not.

  87. February 10th, 2020 at 11:10 | #87

    Seeing some discussion on 1.f4 I must add few words 😀
    I have started playing it in 2003 when I was 12 years old (rated 1900) and I am a big fan of this move till today (I am now rated 2400+). Of course I don’t claim any opening advantage but the positions are much more interesting than some exchange Slav.
    Personally I don’t have a high percentage with this move but the performance is not different to other moves because I usually play it against stronger opponents so 50% is OK.
    But in general I wouldn’t be attached only to statistics, I see a lot of players scoring badly in a risky offbeat openings (like 1.f4 but also let’s say some Pirc/Modern Defence) just because their theory ends after 5 moves (I also lost many games not because the opening was bad but I just didn’t understand enough). That’s not the way to play controversial openings, you are not only surprising your opponent but also yourself. A lot of such examples add to the bad reputation of these openings. If you decide to play an offbeat opening which is risky, you need to study it before playing so the books covering it are important.

  88. Daniel
    February 10th, 2020 at 13:57 | #88

    Will you put an umlaut on the “u” in “Playing the Grunfeld” so that it’ll be “Playing the Grünfeld” in the final version?

  89. John Shaw
    February 10th, 2020 at 14:35 | #89

    @Daniel

    Yes, the umlaut exists in the latest version of the cover. I know it’s not yet on the Coming Soon version. Thanks for the reminder though.

  90. Daniel
    February 10th, 2020 at 15:32 | #90

    Nice.

  91. An Ordinary Chessplayer
    February 10th, 2020 at 17:59 | #91

    Agree with piongu’s perspective. After 1.f4 white’s position is not worse, so if white scores less than 50% in the database there are some wrong moves following. Oftentimes white players try to follow some pre-conceived scheme, and when it doesn’t work they still persist in the next games because they don’t have any master examples (or master coaches) to show them the way. Or perhaps they don’t persist but simply switch to the London system.

    All that said, I don’t have much interest in a book on 1.f4. There are many, many openings that are “better than its reputation”. Maybe it’s best not to publish books about these openings, so that the few specialists can continue to earn some points playing them.

  92. A Super Talent
    February 11th, 2020 at 09:15 | #92

    @An Ordinary Chessplayer
    Pretty decent points here – I agree with you that sometimes not publishing books might be a good idea. However, in order to take the game of chess forward, one sometimes needs to create new theory, and thus it might be essential to write books on rarer openings.

    @John Shaw
    So when can we expect the books to come to India, and could you give us some tentative dates regarding the publishing of the books?

  93. Patrick
    February 11th, 2020 at 15:04 | #93

    @A Super Talent

    If you go to each book, it tells you when it will be published. Roughly half of them are Spring 2020 and the other half are Summer 2020. Pressuring them to give an exact date, like April 19th, is stupid because either A) It will be wrong anyway, or B) Now you are pressuring them to push out an unfinished product where the quality of it will be trash, like most Microsoft products that get pushed out too early.

    They put seasons on purpose to give them a 3 month span to get it out, and actually, they technically have 6 months to get it out. It doesn’t say Spring 2020 based on any place in particular. Half of the world has Spring 2020 from late September to late December, namely the Southern Hemisphere, namely where it is Summer right now, and where toilet water swirls clockwise! Life is very “down under”!

  94. Patrick
    February 11th, 2020 at 15:05 | #94

    That last sentence was meant to read:

    Life is very different “down under”!

  95. February 11th, 2020 at 18:11 | #95

    @Patrick

    And here’s me from “Down Under” thinking that it was impossible to give an exact date of publication as both spring and summer in some northern countries only lasted a day and it was near impossible to predict each year what those two days will be !!!!

  96. Patrick
    February 11th, 2020 at 22:31 | #96

    @Michael

    If you are implying extreme northern countries that are cold all the time when referring to each of them being one day, I was going under the assumption that it was based on official dates, not local weather. For example, the Northern Hemisphere has Spring and the Southern Hemisphere has Fall (or Autumn) from the Vernon Equinox in late March to the Summer Solstice (Winter Solstice for the Southern Hemisphere) in late June. Of course, yes, depending on where in the hemisphere you are, it can feel like Spring and Summer for way longer (Miami, Florida in the United States) or way shorter (Northern Greenland) than the official dates.

  97. February 12th, 2020 at 03:47 | #97

    @Patrick

    Sorry it’s just something of a light hearted tongue in cheek joke down here and given as the reason why many of our forefathers immigrated from England and Scotland (including mine) to down under… ….

  98. KevHun
    February 12th, 2020 at 11:35 | #98

    I confess to having a soft spot for the Caro-Kann and am quite interested in finding out when Lar’s book on the Caro is coming out. I have seen the titles coming out in Spring and Summer, but nothing yet for his book. Is the book still ongoing?

  99. Bebbe
    February 14th, 2020 at 09:21 | #99

    Playing the Grunfeld will be interesting.

    Had a look at the following variation yesterday:

    4. cxd5, Nxd5 5.e4, Nxc3 6.bxc3, Bg7 7.Nf3, c5 8.Rb1, 0-0 9. Be2, Nc6 10.d5, Ne5 11. Nxe5, Bxe5 12.Qd2, e6

    Here 13.f4 is the mainline and is what all strong players do. I started to analyse what will happen after 13.c4 and 13.0-0. Against 13. c4, Qh4! should be played I guess. There could follow 14.Qc2, exd5 15.cxd5, f5! and black is fine. After 13.0-0 it is not obvious what to do.
    Any suggestions? None of the books I have covered these two continuations.

    In my opinion the line with 9.- Nc6 is more interesting (and more risky) than 9.-cxd4.
    It is hard to play for a win after 9.-cxd4.

  100. Andrew Greet
    February 14th, 2020 at 10:59 | #100

    I’ve just checked the book and Alexey does indeed mention 13.c4 and 13.0-0. Black is fine everywhere. And yes, Alexey’s reason for recommending 9…Nc6 rather than 9…cxd4 was that, although both moves end up being equal with best play, he feels that 9…Nc6 offers more chances to play for a win.

  101. Thomas
    February 14th, 2020 at 11:15 | #101

    Delchev feels the same

  102. Bebbe
    February 14th, 2020 at 12:24 | #102

    @Andrew Greet

    Thanks a lot for your answer! I suspected that Alexey would recommend 9.- Nc6 since this is the most combative move. Have to wait a little longer to get all the answers and it seems like another “mustbuy”.

  103. RYV
    February 14th, 2020 at 20:34 | #103

    I will probably speek a (very small) minority but still, i think playing safe is best. So i would prefer a move that secure a fine position rather than offering ” chance to play for win” which also mean higher risk to loose.
    it would be of high value to have a book with all or most of forced lines ( almost forced) that conclude to a draw.

  104. Patrick
    February 15th, 2020 at 15:02 | #104

    @RYV

    I don’t think that is the typical attitude of books written by Quality Chess. From what I have seen over the years, QC appears to prefer lines with winning chances, even for Black, over draw lines. Most of the time, it seems to be the right approach, but some lines of theirs I simply do not trust, the big one being their marketing that Black is fine after 6.dxc5! in GM Rep 10. It feels like White gets the Bishop pair in an open position for basically nothing, and that all other aspects of the position appear equal, and so I personally do not see what benefit Black gets for playing this!

    You want safe with 90 percent draws? May I suggest the second edition of Langrock’s book on the French. Draws Galore! However, overall, I would rather lines myself with winning chances, and I myself reserve the Rubinstein mainly for when I face a situation where a draw is sufficient or else in a few cases at the club where I know my opponent is extremely erratic and gets really impatient if they do not get the level of thrill that comes from lines like the Kings Gambit or Morra Gambit!

  105. RYV
    February 15th, 2020 at 18:43 | #105

    I am not playing to draw … but i dont want to loose. So i will Always choose the safe position without conterplay for my opponent rather than a double edge attaking play. This is not Always possible with black but “dont loose with white” is a first step.

  106. Bebbe
    February 15th, 2020 at 22:06 | #106

    @RYV

    Seems like your style is similiar to Ulf Anderssons. I guess you have studied his games. It is all about strategy and endgames.

    If it is not your optimal style it may harm your play. Losing is not the end of the world.

  107. RYV
    February 15th, 2020 at 23:41 | #107

    @Bebbe
    yes, i found many games of U. Anderson very interresting. Winning with simple moves, correct exchange,… it is even difficult to see where his opponent made a mistake !?

    “Losing is not the end of the world.” i agree but it is not exactly about win/defeat, safe play give you control of the game. Safe play is not incompatible with attack.. as long as it is with control.
    ….
    but no problem, i loose games…lots of games!!

  108. February 16th, 2020 at 04:27 | #108

    @RYV

    If you like safe and solid positions Qualities new book on the Petroff may well be of interest to you….the opening has held up well for me in correspondence over a number of years..

  109. Topnotch
    February 16th, 2020 at 15:17 | #109

    piongu :
    Seeing some discussion on 1.f4 I must add few words
    I have started playing it in 2003 when I was 12 years old (rated 1900) and I am a big fan of this move till today (I am now rated 2400+). Of course I don’t claim any opening advantage but the positions are much more interesting than some exchange Slav.
    Personally I don’t have a high percentage with this move but the performance is not different to other moves because I usually play it against stronger opponents so 50% is OK.
    But in general I wouldn’t be attached only to statistics, I see a lot of players scoring badly in a risky offbeat openings (like 1.f4 but also let’s say some Pirc/Modern Defence) just because their theory ends after 5 moves (I also lost many games not because the opening was bad but I just didn’t understand enough). That’s not the way to play controversial openings, you are not only surprising your opponent but also yourself. A lot of such examples add to the bad reputation of these openings. If you decide to play an offbeat opening which is risky, you need to study it before playing so the books covering it are important.

    Your handle looked familiar and it just occurred to me where. Are the guy that did that Accelerate the Dragon course on chessable?

  110. Andrew Greet
    February 17th, 2020 at 17:45 | #110

    I’ll say a few things about the choice between the safest continuation and something offering more winning chances in a repertoire book. The most important thing to stress is that we never knowingly allow our authors to recommend an “exciting” option at the expense of theoretical soundness. (And yes, before some smart arse points it out, I know we’ll be publishing an entire book on the Elephant Gambit, but we and the authors of that book are honest from the outset that this isn’t a fully correct opening – I’m referring to cases such as this Grunfeld variation where the opening is fully sound and the question is how to handle a certain variation.)

    We tend to assume that most readers are tournament players who would prefer not to allow weaker opponents to, for instance, force a perpetual check in some simple way in the opening. Sometimes it’s hard to escape such things – and other times, avoiding it might be playable but involve a lot more effort and risk. So in such cases, we might give the solid equalizer allowing a draw as the main line, while also mentioning the backup option for those who prefer to take the risk.

    In the case of this Grunfeld variation, we have a few options which are reliably equal in the end. Different players will have different preferences; but as far as I can see, both 9…Nc6 and 9…cxd4 require careful preparation as the cost of a mistake could be high. Alexey gave his reasons for preferring the former move, and we’re happy with the…

  111. Andrew Greet
    February 17th, 2020 at 17:50 | #111

    (here’s the rest as I reached the character limit):

    …with the way this part of the book turned out. While accepting that some will take a different view, it’s not as if 9…cxd4 equalizes in a way which can be learned in ten minutes. Both options require serious effort and the author is of the opinion that 9…Nc6 offers slightly more chances to exploit an error from the opponent.

  112. RYV
    February 17th, 2020 at 19:51 | #112

    @Andrew Greet
    dont you think that most of your readers are candidate masters who would be happy to secure a draw against titled players ? or force their opponent to enter risky/weaker lines ? ( this is actually the best way to beat a stronger opponent)
    It is very frustrating when reading an oppening book that , from 2 or 3 ( or more) playable moves, only one continuation is analysed as being ” the only way to fight for avantage..”. Showing how other moves lead to an equal game is also important and important part of theorical opening knowledge.

  113. RYV
    February 17th, 2020 at 20:00 | #113

    I remember a discussion with IM’s & GM’s who agree that learning white variations that lead to forced draw ( perpetual, repetition, or liquidation to simple/dry endgames) was an essential part of their progression.

  114. Andrew Greet
    February 18th, 2020 at 10:18 | #114

    Okay, so now we’ve moved on discussing from the black side of the Grunfeld and are talking about lines that force a draw (or an extremely dry position) with White? Sure, I can see that in certain situations, knowing such variations and playing them against a stronger opponent might cause said opponent to take excessive risks; or of course take the draw, which would not be a bad result.
    For a White repertoire book, if the option of a forced draw is there, it’s useful to mention it, and we will generally do so if it doesn’t take up too much space. However, I get the impression you might like to see 20 pages of analysis showing how to kill the game with White in a certain variation – and while I can see that being a valid strategy against certain opponents, I would tend not to think of it as the most valuable use of pages in the book.

  115. Thomas
    February 18th, 2020 at 11:09 | #115

    The idea that most readers of QC books are happy to force a draw with White in the opening might be a very slight step away from reality.

  116. RYV
    February 18th, 2020 at 14:29 | #116

    @Andrew Greet
    I think that most QC readers are playing in team matches during weekends for their league at all level( from top league to obscure 4 or 5 division!). In such competition, the team result is more important than individual result and ” neutralizing” opponent’s players is what matters most, much more than performing. In such situation, playing for a win at all cost is usally less important .
    first secure a half point…play for a full point as a bonus if possible.

  117. Cowe
    February 18th, 2020 at 14:35 | #117

    @Andrew Greet
    There are some lines – e.g. in the Sveshnikov – where both Black and White must learn how to force a draw (liquidating Qside pawns, repetitions), same for 1.e4 e5 secondary systems containing lots of draws. Indeed the knowledge that one side plays with a draw in hand helps pruning opening preparation. However, equal doesn’t mean draw, far from it. It would be nice to see positions evaluations with expected win/draw/lose rates, but maybe this depends too much on players’ strength.

  118. RYV
    February 18th, 2020 at 14:47 | #118

    I think a book ( one single book) on how to kill the game with white would be usefull. Not very exciting for sure but it could help many players to achieve good results.
    I agree that best use of books is to explain ambitious lines ( from both sides) but sometimes….

  119. Andrew Greet
    February 18th, 2020 at 14:48 | #119

    Well, now that we know the demand is there I’ll ask Bogdan Lalic if he wants to author our new “Grandmaster Draw” repertoire series. Featuring must-have titles such as Snoozing the Sicilian, Nullifying the Nimzo-Indian, Equalizing with 1.e4, Calming the Caro-Kann and Pacifying the Petroff. Keep the suggestions coming!

  120. Topnotch
    February 18th, 2020 at 15:02 | #120

    I think a good Repertoire Book should contain a brief history showing the progression of a line, and why the author finally settled on a certain option. The Book should also contain lots of fresh ideas and mention forced drawing lines in brief so as to alert the reader as what to expect. There is only so much a Repertoire Book can accomplish, and it is up to the reader to fill in the rest with database research and personal analysis, Negi’s Books so far are the model and by the way Harikrishna’s French Toast also sets the bar very high. The responsibility on how to beat weaker players, and what lines to avoid is up to the player and is always a tricky proposition. In my experience the best way to deal with weaker players, that play for a draw with White from move one is just to keep playing Magnus style.

  121. Peter
    February 18th, 2020 at 15:48 | #121

    I am also pretty sure there is a high practical value and high demand also for a “Grandmaster Draw” series. And you might strongly consider renaming yourself to “Equality Chess” then …

  122. Paul H
    February 18th, 2020 at 15:59 | #122

    You have updated the cover for the Grunfeld book and finalised the page count, I see.
    Does this mean a publication date is imminent?
    Thanks

  123. Andrew Greet
    February 18th, 2020 at 16:38 | #123

    Equality Chess – I love it!

    Yes to the Grunfeld. (Announcement will follow.)

  124. RYV
    February 18th, 2020 at 17:07 | #124

    @Andrew Greet

    beside the joke, i can hear an ironic ton which is not really construtive… sorry if you feel offensed, it was not my goal.

    keep on with good books whatever the subject.

  125. Patrick
    February 18th, 2020 at 17:22 | #125

    @RYU

    Saying that the majority are playing on teams is laughable! I have over 2900 USCF rated games and 349 FIDE rated games and not once have I ever played in a Team event! Team events where I am tend to be the top 100 players in the country and scholastics. I am not amongst the top 100 in the country, and if you know how to get someone that is a couple of months shy of 45 to be eligible for a scholastic team event, let me know!

    @Andrew Greet – Here are my suggestions for the openings I play as Black:

    Fizzling Out the French (and yet I tend to beat the Exchange!)
    Killing the KID Softly (since there already is “KILL K.I.D.” for the ones that want blood)
    Oozing Away Old Indian Excitement

  126. Patrick
    February 18th, 2020 at 17:31 | #126

    Here’s some more drawing line books (I think the first one below is the best one!):

    Brexit Chess: Play the English with draw!

    Relaxing on the Beach and Getting Some Sun Ruys! (Ruy Lopez)

    How to Make Non-Spicy Italian!

    Reti or Not, Here I Draw!

    Queen’s Half-Gambit (Playing 1.d4 d5 2.c4 and gambitting half the point!)

  127. Andrew Greet
    February 18th, 2020 at 17:38 | #127

    @RYV

    I don’t feel offended and neither should you. I do understand that an arsenal of drawing lines could be useful in certain situations, but I think it would be hard to inspire a wider audience to buy such a book. I can also imagine what kind of jokes people would make about such a project, which is why I couldn’t resist making them myself.

    “Tranquilizing with the Torre/Trompowsky”; “The Mind-Numbing Modern”; the possibilities are endless.

  128. RYV
    February 18th, 2020 at 17:44 | #128

    @Patrick
    As i understand, you are playing in northern america where it seems to be no team events ( or very few) but it is different in Europe where there are championship at all level .

  129. Luis
    February 18th, 2020 at 21:50 | #129

    As a follow up to Andrew’s last post,

    “Surviving with the Alekhine” !?

  130. Ray
    February 19th, 2020 at 09:32 | #130

    @Luis
    Or ‘Appeasing the Alekhine’.

    And I guess ‘Lulling the London’ would be as boring as it gets.

    As to the topic on drawing lines. In my opinion most amateurs play for fun. Trying as white to kill the game is not my definition of fun, but I do realize tastes differ. However, I firmly believe it’s not good for once’s chess development to shy away from ambitious lines. I can’t imagine there’s a business case for a book on forced white drawing lines. Besides, a smart titled player would avoid such lines anyway when playing a weaker opponent, so what’s the use of such a book?

  131. Andrew Greet
    February 19th, 2020 at 10:45 | #131

    Appeasing the Alekhine is great! The fact that it’s a ‘semi-correct’ defence which gives White better-than-average chances to obtain an advantage is worth some bonus points.

    Another nice one could be “Dulling The Dragon – The Yugoslav Yawn.” 300 pages of spectacular perpetual checking combinations. Followed by “Neutralizing the Najdorf – A Passive-Aggressive Repertoire with 6.Bg5.”

  132. Cowe
    February 19th, 2020 at 10:57 | #132

    (Quality) Equality Chess has some merit since looking for theoretical advantage tends to be old-fashioned. See for example the Be2 Najdorf: arguably equal, but plenty of room to outplay any opponent, and much knowledge to be gained in these systems. That is quality equality! On the other hand, a book on Bg5 najdorf is more flashy but will add up 300+ pages with no chance to prove advantage or reach a definite conclusion (maybe good saleswise, feed the golden goose).
    In our days , having a headstart in “rich equality”-type positions with many opportunities for both sides to go wrong can be considered an opening success for most tournament players. I would like to see such books rather than ones making claims of += and hiding some clean equalisers in subvariations, old-fashioned style.

  133. Ray
    February 19th, 2020 at 12:12 | #133

    @Andrew Greet
    🙂 That’s a good one 🙂

    @ Cowe: I agree with you, but this is not what RYV was asking for. He was looking for a book with forced draws. Which is quite different from objectively equal postitions with plenty of play. But there are quite a number of books on these openings, or am I wrong? E.g. plenty of books on the Italian with 4.d3, the London. I think nowadays it’s commonly agreed that there is no lasting advantage for white. E.g. Negi and Shaw are quite honest about this in their repertoire books. E.g., Negi even gives 3 or 4 lines for white in the mainline Najdorf with 6.Bg5 all ending in equality. The same in some variations against the Caro-Kann (e.g. with 7…e6).

  134. Pinpon
    February 19th, 2020 at 19:51 | #134

    I completely agree with Cowe and i hope there will be new evaluation formulae for positions in the future . Not those of Kaufman ( +0.12 for instance ) but evaluations linked to games played by Leela , Stockfish or others at DIFFERENT levels of play . What would be = with ( +0 =100 -0 ) at 3500 level could be different at 2600-2800 level and of course at 2000-2200 .

  135. RYV
    February 19th, 2020 at 22:52 | #135

    just forgot to say that the best way to secure a half point so far is….
    the pre-arranged game ( whatever color or opening) !

  136. Michael Agermose Jensen
    February 20th, 2020 at 09:18 | #136

    @Andrew Greet

    I heard Golubev once had a manuscript turned down, it was called “Drawing with the Dragon”.

  137. Thomas
    February 20th, 2020 at 12:46 | #137

    Don’t forget Garri’s classical “Repetition in the 70s”.

  138. Patrick
    February 20th, 2020 at 21:17 | #138

    Drawing Da Dumb Dutch

    Wimpy Winawer (or Winless Winawer)

    Nothing Nimzo

  139. Joeri
    February 20th, 2020 at 23:17 | #139

    And some offbeat drawing weapon’s from the masters themselves…

    Leko’s Lion

    Giri’s Grob

  140. Ray
    February 21st, 2020 at 10:28 | #140

    @Joeri
    I hope the latter will soon after be followed by ‘Grinding the Grob’

  141. Topnotch
    February 21st, 2020 at 14:50 | #141

    A few more titles off the top of my head.

    Banishing the Berlin
    Living with the London
    Dutch Dynamite
    Spanish 4KNights 4life
    How not to play 1.e4
    Romp with the Tromp
    The invincible 1.b3
    Winning with the Italian Stallion
    1.g3 anyone?
    Killing them softly with 1.c4
    Gambit Cartel
    The Modern Morra

  142. February 23rd, 2020 at 10:11 | #142

    I like it. Some comedy gold in last few posts 🙂

  143. William
    February 23rd, 2020 at 18:47 | #143

    Are there plans for an updated 1c4 repertoire?

  144. 1.f3 is not so bad
    February 23rd, 2020 at 19:50 | #144

    @Topnotch
    Why everybody hates me ?
    1.f3 d5 2. f4 ! and you have your beloved Dutch !

  145. February 24th, 2020 at 12:44 | #145

    @Topnotch
    I don’t fully get what you mean, but it’s me who did that course for chessable.

  146. RYV
    February 25th, 2020 at 19:01 | #146

    question for QC team :
    why did you stop numbering the GM repertoire serie ?

  147. Andrew Greet
    February 26th, 2020 at 11:51 | #147

    William – we do have plans for a 1.c4 project; further details will follow in due course.

    RYV – we decided to stop at 20 because the numbering was getting too complicated. For example, suppose Negi’s first 1.e4 book would have been GM 15 – 1.e4 vol. 1. If we went by the old system, we would have reserved volume numbers 16 to maybe 19 for this series, and the next GM rep book on a different opening would have been, say, volume 20. There’s a certain logic to that, but it would have been ridiculous being here several years later with ‘gaps’ in the volume numbering which have yet to be filled. Not to mention the problem of a book series requiring more volumes than were originally intended – we couldn’t extend the series to volumes 20/21 etc. because those would have already been taken by a different opening. Something similar could have happened with Kotronias’s KID series. So in short, the numbering system had outlived its usefulness and maintaining it would have made things unnecessarily confusing for us, for chess shops and for readers.

  148. Patrick
    February 26th, 2020 at 14:41 | #148

    With all of these drawing titles, what are you supposed to do when your opponent doesn’t want to draw?

    Last night, the following position occurred in my game with Black to move (I’m White):

    W: Kc5, Be4, P’s d4, g3, h2
    B: Kf6, Ne7, P’s e6, g7, h6

    Should be a fairly easy draw – if nothing else, maybe even a toggle the Knight between e7 and g8 with …h5 flicked in at the right time.

    Nope! He played 45…Nf5 46.Bxf5 Kxf5 47.Kd6 g5?? How am I supposed to draw after this? I had to resort to winning with 48.g4+ Kf6 49.h3 Kf7 50.Kd7 Kf6 51.Ke8 e5 52.dxe5 (8.d5 also wins) Kxe5 53.Kf7 1-0

    Can we get a title “How Not to Win the Won Position”?

  149. Tobias
    February 29th, 2020 at 09:48 | #149

    @Patrick
    “A matter of technique” by Jacob will deal with losing winning positions. Not drawing, but maybe good enough for you anyway?

  150. February 29th, 2020 at 20:33 | #150

    Will Playing the Petroff also cover 3 Nc3 lines, a move I often face in reply to 2….Nf6?

  151. Benjamin Fitch
    March 1st, 2020 at 22:37 | #151

    @Andrew Greet
    Regarding the mentioned 1.c4 project: At some point, a 1.Nf3 (with typically 2.c4) repertoire from Quality Chess would sure be great.

  152. Topnotch
    March 2nd, 2020 at 02:48 | #152

    piongu :
    @Topnotch
    I don’t fully get what you mean, but it’s me who did that course for chessable.

    By Handle I meant your name “Piongu” looked familiar, then I remembered from where, it was the chessable website. I enjoyed your Accelerate the Dragon course, it was very concise and appealing, although I am having second thoughts about the 2…g6 move-order and leaning more towards 2…Nc6, especially after Magnus showed a convincing way to deal with the Rossolimo in his Wch match with Fabi.

  153. March 2nd, 2020 at 17:12 | #153

    @Topnotch
    Ah OK 😀 I have the same nick on every chess website.
    I play myself 2…g6 and 2…Nc6 (like 50:50) so it’s harder to prepare and I can always pick another if I find some specific problem before the game.
    Btw. I hope to see a QC book on the Accelerated Dragon one day 🙂

  154. Andrew Greet
    March 2nd, 2020 at 17:21 | #154

    @piongu
    An Accelerated Dragon book could be a possibility at some point. On the other hand, I still get a small royalty payment each year from my 2008 ‘Starting Out’ book on that subject, so I’d have mixed feelings about a potential QC book giving customers a reason not to buy it!

  155. John NS
    March 3rd, 2020 at 03:09 | #155

    Andrew

    The first diagram on the Kindle version of your AD book is completely wrong at least in the preview. Any chance to fix it. What does the mysterious dedication mean if I am allowed to ask or is that garbled too.

  156. March 3rd, 2020 at 04:10 | #156

    @Andrew Greet

    You could always write the book on the AD for QC and get a new stream of royalties!!….your Starting Out book on the AD was (still is) excellent.

  157. Andrew Greet
    March 3rd, 2020 at 10:21 | #157

    John – The dedication was to my girlfriend at the time who is Russian, so I used Cyrillic (‘Lena’ is what the letters say.) I just wrote the book and had nothing to do with the production, especially on Kindle which happened years later, so you should ask Everyman if they can correct it.

    Michael – Nice try! I have a vague notion about writing another book in the future, but the timing would have to be right for me. At this point of my life, I’d rather pull out my own teeth with a rusty pair of pliers than spend my evenings and weekends writing a chess book.

  158. March 3rd, 2020 at 11:02 | #158

    Andrew Greet :
    @piongu
    An Accelerated Dragon book could be a possibility at some point. On the other hand, I still get a small royalty payment each year from my 2008 ‘Starting Out’ book on that subject, so I’d have mixed feelings about a potential QC book giving customers a reason not to buy it!

    Yeah I have that book, I bought it in 2008 and it was a great source of information for me to master this opening 🙂 To this day it’s a good book but a lot of new ideas are popping up lately especially in Maroczy. There’s also nice Panjwani’s book but sooner or later a new extensive work would be needed.

  159. Chris
    March 3rd, 2020 at 12:22 | #159

    Maybe you could convince Jacob and Boris to write an AD book for QC when they are done with their ‘Technical’ volume? I would immediately preorder that even if they didn’t start writing 😀

  160. Andrew Greet
    March 3rd, 2020 at 13:09 | #160

    Jacob and Boris co-authoring a book on the Accelerated Dragon: that sounds wonderful! While I’m making that happen, I should also convince Jacob to double my salary and lend me his BMW for free over the weekends.

  161. Chris
    March 3rd, 2020 at 13:53 | #161

    If you start with your salary and the BMW, the book might not sound too bad for him anymore 🙂

  162. Riesner
    March 3rd, 2020 at 17:26 | #162

    Would also be nice if you would convince Vladimir Kramnik writing a long detailed opening book about the Berlin Wall. I miss this opening in your Grandmaster Series. 🙂

  163. John NS
    March 4th, 2020 at 05:40 | #163

    @Andrew Greet

    On the kindle the dedication reads “To 5=o”. It’s a bit cryptic rather than Cyrillic…

  164. Andrew Greet
    March 4th, 2020 at 09:45 | #164

    John – I’m sure my ex will be heartbroken to hear that.

    Riesner – I love that suggestion! Come to think of it, we should make our own “Opening According to Kramnik” series for both White and Black, but with big Vlad as the author; he’s got time on his hands now that he’s retired from top-flight competition.

  165. Riesner
    March 4th, 2020 at 11:35 | #165

    That sounds great, but I think we have to wait at least 10 years :-D. This man is too busy and too expensive :-D.

  166. Tobias
    March 4th, 2020 at 11:50 | #166

    Kramnik can for sure write the book(s).
    All QC has to do is lure him inte their dungeon, now that John is not there and refuses to write another book anytime soon.

  167. CbT
    March 10th, 2020 at 23:45 | #167

    Andrew Greet :
    Here are the answers to the various questions:
    About Negi – against the Alekhine he’s going main line with 4.Nf3; against the Pirc/Modern it’ll be Be3/Nf3. We’ll announce the publication date when we are ready. We will not announce the announcement date.
    As for the London System, I tend to take a similar view to that of Topnotch in the post above, but John and Jacob are the ones who ultimately decide what to publish. So anything’s possible – but at this stage a prospective London book isn’t exactly at the forefront of our team meetings.
    The Alekhine Defence, Dubov Tarrasch and Exchange Ruy Lopez aren’t the worst ideas I’ve heard. Like I said, anything’s possible, and some ideas are more possible than others.

    Hello. Looking forward to seeing some of the books discussed recently. Since early move orders in the Pirc and Modern tend to matter and Be3/Nf3 is a bit general I have two questions related to Negi’s approach:

    (A) What does this mean Mr. Negi intends to do against the Modern?
    1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 and then 4…a6 5.Nf3 (?)
    1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be3 when 4…Nf6 with a Pirc is Tiger’s recommendation (the other serious move is 4…c5 5.Nc3 – with a Sicilian dragon; where Negi has done good coverage in his 1.e4 series and also against the weirder black non-mainline Dragon setups)
    1.e4 g6 2.d4…

  168. CbT
    March 10th, 2020 at 23:46 | #168

    … 2…Bg7 3.Be3 (?) And theory says 3…d5 with ok chances for black, but I doubt someone has bothered to go full red team here with computers and made sure this is actually the case.

    (B) Does this means he goes 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 and 5.Nf3 after all of 4…Bg7, 4…c6 and 4…a6 or does he at some point play for Qd2+Bh6 plans (with delayed or no Nf3).

    Good work when it comes to all the great chess books QC publishes!

  169. Andrew Greet
    March 11th, 2020 at 10:12 | #169

    1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 is the recommended move order, usually with Nf3 to follow, but sometimes Qd2 first. That’s as much detail as is appropriate to give at this stage.

  170. Luis
    March 11th, 2020 at 11:09 | #170

    Andrew
    Since I am seeing some more posts with some further information on Negi’s book I wonder
    whether the following question can be answered against Alekhine

    After 4.Nf3 g6, will Negi recommend (I think so) 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7? And if Yes what line will
    he suggest next?

    I understand that this might be not appropriate at this time. In that case, please ignore/remove
    my query

    thank you

  171. Andrew Greet
    March 11th, 2020 at 11:50 | #171

    @Luis
    Yes to 5.Bc4, but I’d rather not say which option he favours on move 7 as it will only lead to someone else asking “after X, Y and Z, what does he think about this option?” or “How does he meet the recommendation in whatever book?”

    Do any of you people actually base your buying decisions on the revelation of which line Author X recommends against whatever it might be? Or do you generally know in advance if you want the book or not, and you’re just curious about the details? Or do some of you ask because you play the opposite side of the opening in question and you want to know which line you’re likely to face more often once the book hits the shelves?

  172. Ray
    March 11th, 2020 at 11:59 | #172

    @Andrew Greet
    Good question 🙂 . Personally, I’m not basing my buying decision on the specific recommended lines. I base my decision on the topic of the book. E.g., I’m interested in the Grunfeld, so I’m going to buy that book. It’s inevitable that not all lines are 100% to my taste, but that’s no problem for me. If I’m interested in a certain opening I’m going to buy most books on that opening anyway, so I can mix and match.

  173. Luis
    March 11th, 2020 at 14:48 | #173

    Andrew

    I perfectly understand

    i) I will buy Negi’s book whatever are his choices
    ii) i was curious because i know some recente ICCF games by a player Pavlov that is doing quite well against 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6. Bb3 Bg7 and several reliable 7th moves and I was curious to see what Negi will suggest
    iii) to be honest I was a bit disappointed with Shaw’s choice but I perfectly undertand his choice
    based on a pragmatic point of view
    iv) I also feel that although the Alekhine defence is considered 2nd rate I doint thing it is easy
    (after several Black’s 4 move) to give a good winning recommendation;
    I had that feeling reading your book e4 against minor defences
    even after the
    “more than hypermodern” 4…Nb6 I wonder whether the best choice isn ot a line based on exd6
    either on moves 5 (or even better after 4.a4 a5 …) in constrast to those “caveman” approaches
    with h4-h5 (after Black plays g6)

    my only final remark is whether a book on the Alekhine by an “expert” would not be a possibility

    please, keep up the good work,

  174. CbT
    March 11th, 2020 at 14:57 | #174

    Hi.

    I asked mostly out of curiosity this time. I do play the Pirc & Modern as black. With white finding dangerous lines against the Pirc & Modern has strangely never felt like an issue (will still get the book though) 🙂

    I’d say there are two big advantages to knowing recommendations. The first is that if the book comes out in I don’t know how many months, knowing that respected author x thinks this line is worth recommending in a repertoire book enables you to adopt the line immediately if you should want (maybe try it out a little).

    Knowing what line is recommended also makes it possible to look in the database beforehand and run computers on the lines in question. Trying to find ideas and dangerous lines is good practice analytically and also when you finally get the book in your hands physically you can check for possible problems directly.

    If I spot a problem with the lines while holding the book in my hands for the first time I might not buy it (tend to get from bookstore but have also ordered here previously).

    Have a nice day.

  175. CbT
    March 11th, 2020 at 15:03 | #175

    Thanks a lot for the reply.

  176. March 11th, 2020 at 16:54 | #176

    @AndrewGreet
    I won’t buy a book if I can’t see myself playing a significant repertoire choice. For example, I wouldn’t have bought the Najdorf book if David V had chosen the poisoned pawn against 6.Bg5. I also try not to bug you about forthcoming titles before you’re ready…!

  177. March 11th, 2020 at 16:57 | #177

    @Andrew

    From the the Coming Soon section it looks like Playing the Petroff has been pushed up the publishing list and will now be published earlier than originally planned….or is this just wishful thinking on my part ?

  178. TD
    March 11th, 2020 at 17:15 | #178

    And The Leningrad Dutch is postponed… 😢

  179. Raffie
    March 11th, 2020 at 17:54 | #179

    Hi,
    I’m a titled player and played almost every opening in my life except the Grunfeld with black.
    I’m looking for a book with sound explanations and ideas but also theoretically up to date which is suitable for the practical player. Would this book the best starting point for me, or do you recommend another Grunfeld book to start with?

  180. Andrew Greet
    March 12th, 2020 at 09:42 | #180

    @Raffie
    Well, clearly Alexey’s book is more up-to-date than anything else and the general ideas are explained pretty well (I added quite a few explanatory notes myself during editing), so I can’t think of a better option for you.

    Oh and Michael – I’m midway through editing the Petroff so it looks like you will get your wish.

  181. March 12th, 2020 at 18:31 | #181

    @Andrew Greet

    You have one happy customer!!

    Thanks

  182. William
    March 13th, 2020 at 17:50 | #182

    Is Mauricio Flores Ríos planning on writing any new books in the near future?

  183. March 13th, 2020 at 22:24 | #183

    Any news on the Caro kan book

  184. KevHun
    March 14th, 2020 at 09:54 | #184

    hasan :
    Any news on the Caro kan book

    Hasan, that’s the one I am interested in myself. His GM one was superb.

  185. March 17th, 2020 at 16:51 | #185

    No news so fare of the Caro kan Front Kevhun

  186. Jacob Aagaard
    March 18th, 2020 at 08:45 | #186

    @hasan
    There are plans and a few early chapters. I expect a lot of people will deliver sooner than we expected, but with no more editors in our team…

  187. March 18th, 2020 at 18:39 | #187

    @Jacob Aagaard Thans jacob We as Caro kan players we cane wait

  188. Patrick
    March 19th, 2020 at 14:26 | #188

    @Andrew Greet

    Andrew, in response to your post 171, I can say that sometimes it actually does depend. For example, I am a huge French advocate, and also play the White side of it, mainly the Advance over the board and 3.Nc3 in Correspondence.

    If you were to advertise a book like “How to Beat the French”, then yes, it would absoultely depend on the line whether I buy it or not. 3.Nc3? Yes! 3.e5? Yes! 3.Nd2? Absolutely Not! 3.exd5? You couldn’t pay me enough to take it!

    Sure, in some cases, it’s a buy no matter what (for example, an “Objective” book on the French – Not geared specifically to White or Black), and in some cases, it’s a hard pass no matter what (cough – Grunfeld), but yes there really are cases where yay or nay is solely dependent on the lines chosen!

  189. Andrew Brett
    March 20th, 2020 at 13:35 | #189

    I’m looking forward to the Technique book by Jacob – any more info on what is covered in this book and also on the rest of this series. What level of player is it aimed at ?

    In terms of potential new ideas – Classical Sicilian or an update on the Sveshnikov (in light of Magnus’ efforts) Sicilian with good coverage on 3 Bb5 systems ( you could do this alone for white) Long shot : Queens Gambit Accepted.

    Keep up the good work !

  190. Ray
    March 21st, 2020 at 12:21 | #190

    ‘Playing the Benko Gambit’ would also be nice, especially if it would include anti-Benoni systems (such as 3.Nf3, delaying c2-c4 or how to deal with 1.Nf3 as a Benko / Benoni player).

  191. Ray
    March 21st, 2020 at 12:23 | #191

    By the way, I’m currently studying the Najdorf book – it’s really fantastic! Great choice of variations: based more on understanding than mere memorization. I hope the Grunfeld book will have a similar philosophy!

  192. RYV
    March 21st, 2020 at 16:12 | #192

    Alekhine defense is one serious missing in the GM serie. Anything planned ?

  193. Joop
    March 22nd, 2020 at 07:44 | #193

    I am working through Ntirlis black classical repertoire books right now.
    Great stuff!

    Any chance he’s going to release a white repertoire?

  194. Ray
    March 22nd, 2020 at 16:24 | #194

    And another suggestion: maybe Schandorff could write an update of Playing 1.d4 after he finishes Playing the Caro Kann 🙂 . And a one-volume ‘Playing the English’ would also be very nice. Anyway, I guess you have enough planned already, but you never know…

  195. Patrick
    March 23rd, 2020 at 13:07 | #195

    @Ray

    While Quality Chess has written numerous excellent books, and while their success rate is FAR superior to certain publishing companies like Everyman, you can’t just completely write off anything that isn’t written by Quality Chess as being just outright bad. There is some really good stuff out there by other publishing companies.

    Why would it make sense for Quality Chess to mimic what was just recently published, and is actually a good book. A single volume book on the English was recently published, and while I don’t own it, I have browsed it at the book seller at tournaments, and it is a really good book if you plan to take up the English Opening. Since I probably can’t mention titles that are not by this publisher on this forum, I’ll simply say it’s between 400 and 500 pages and the primary color of the cover is Yellow. If I was to go back to playing 1.c4 as White, I’d buy it in a heartbeat!

  196. Mechanize
    March 23rd, 2020 at 20:34 | #196

    Any news about Negi’s book?

  197. Thomas
    March 24th, 2020 at 11:26 | #197

    @Patrick

    No. Not that book.

  198. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 02:21 | #198

    @Thomas

    What is wrong with “That book”? In some ways, it is one of the best books written as it is complete, not some narrow repertoire. You read it and figure out for yourself which lines you prefer. That way if a line fails, you have a backup.

    Watson’s 4 books were like that too, the third being the English, but it is dated.

    Complete, objective books beat narrow repertoires 11 times out of every 10!

    Sometimes the narrow repertoire is all that is available, but any objective book I will recommend over any repertoire. So yes, Yellow is the way to go if you are going to play the English (blue 10 years ago)

  199. Ray
    March 25th, 2020 at 08:13 | #199

    I think you mean the book by Carsten Hansen. It’s supposed to be ‘complete’ indeed, but I agree with Thomas – No. Not that book. Imo it’s shallow, and he doesn’t give goed explanations of the plans. Too schematic. Of course there’s more material out there, and I’m certainly not a QC Fanboy (though I do own a lot of their books). I also have the books by Georgiev (Chess-Stars) e.g., and the DVD’s by Marin (Chessbase), and the book by Cummins (Everyman). But bith Georgiev and Cummins recommend lines with e2-e3, which I don’t like. Marin does recommend my favourite (g2-g3), so that’s indeed a good source. But I simply prefer books, because they are more in depth.

  200. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 14:02 | #200

    @Ray

    Any “complete” book is of course going to be shallower than one line of one opening covered in 3 volumes (i.e. 2.g3 English – Marin).

    While there are some “strong” repertoire books (e.g. The Marin series, the GM Rep 1.d4 series, Dismantling the Sicilian – First edition from 2009), many of them are just slapped together line selections. For example, the rewrite of DTS which was in essence written by a different author claims to try to go with “the best move” in each case, rather than a cohesive repertoire like the first one that centers around the English Attack. Yes, there may be a line or two that is equal, but if you are going to go with the repertoire approach, having them mesh is more important than having the extra tenth of a point according to artificial intelligence.

    A more objective book is going to be shallower. Now I don’t mean shallow like “Standard Chess Openings” by Schiller – that book is total garbage, but like the Hansen book, where the intention is not to drive you down a narrow path. It is to lead you to many avenues, and you are then expected to do further research on your own via databases or New In Chess Yearbook articles or Chess Informant games – sources that continue to give up-to-date coverage rather than pigeon-holing down the path of a 10-year repertoire (Marin’s books are that old now). The objectives of the English have not changed. Specific lines have. That’s why the objective book beats the repertoire! It’s to…

  201. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 14:04 | #201

    (cont.) It’s to guide you to the world of possibilities that you continue to keep up with via articles and practice, rather than hold your hand down a single trail that might become a dead end in 10 years, but that’s where they dropped you off. It’s your job to find your way back out, unlike the objective book that doesn’t go quite as deep, but has provided you with different avenues that you can take with further research and doesn’t leave you hanging out to dry when a single system goes dead!

  202. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 14:23 | #202

    @Ray

    While I still see “Chess Lessons” by Popov as the best book I’ve read yet amongst books written in the 21st century, because of the two posts above, I still see “The Wonderful Winawer” as the best “opening” book of the 21st century. Far better than his other one, The Even More Flexible French.

    It follows everything mentioned above. You study the book, realizing that some lines may be dated, but it covers EVERYTHING, including 7…Qc7, 7…O-O, 7…Kf8, and 7…Nf5 against 7.Qg4, all the Non-7.Qg4 lines, sidelines for White like 5.Bd2, 4.Nge2, 4.a3 and others, 4…Ne7, early-…b6 lines, and it’s not 35 Black wins. Actually, I seem to recall White scoring pretty high outside of the Portish-Hook.

    But that is where you have to be aware that the buck doesn’t stop there. You now need to go through articles (NIC Yearbook, Informant, Chessbase Magazine, etc) and recent games post-2010 (when the book was written), to get further expansion and updates on the Winawer. New ideas for White, New ideas for Black, etc, even if you only play it from one side or the other.

    Pigeon-holing to GMR 14 and 15, or Volume 1 of the French series by Thinker’s Press from last year, is a mistake if you ask me. I actually have played all but 7…Nf5 in tournament competition, and 7…Nf5 on the internet. I don’t play 7…Qc7 much any more, but I still have three more places to run, something I wouldn’t have with a Repertoire book!

  203. Thomas
    March 25th, 2020 at 16:11 | #203

    What’s the use of giving all possible lines without explaining them?
    Discussing plans, thinking of pawn structures?

    Just giving lines – I can do that myself with my database.

  204. Ray
    March 25th, 2020 at 17:00 | #204

    @Thomas
    I agree with you. If you really want to broadly understand an opening, in the past there were great books on the Spanish and the KID (Bellin and Ponzetto) which went through all the opening, just discussing the arising pawn structures and typical plans for both sides. Another book which comes to mind is Pirc Alert (the first half of the book deals just with general ideas, structures and plans). I really like such books. My criticism was aimed specifically at the quality (or rather lack thereoff) of Hansen’s book.

    @ Patrick: I think you got the wrong impression if you think I let myself be pigeon-holed and slavishly follow repertoire books. I always mix and match from different books, provided they are good and offer enough explanations of plans and ideas. For example, I know already that I don’t like …c6 against the Fianchetto Grunfeld, so I’m using Delchev for that line. And so on. The point is, I’m sure both Kovalchuk and Delchev are quite good, and that’s what matters, not if it’s a repertoire book or not.

  205. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 17:25 | #205

    @Thomas

    Where do you get the idea that it’s nothing but lines. We aren’t talking John Nunn’s Database Dumps of the ’90s here.

    For example, quoting Moskalenko from game 1:

    “13…O-O-O! This strong and logical move exposes the disadvantages of White’s position: a delay in development, a bad pawn structure and a lack of coordination between the pieces. However, the energetic 13…Rg4!? is a modern alternative: 14.Qxh6 (14.Qh3!? deserves some – computer – attention.) 14…O-O-O 15.c4 (To prevent …Nd5, but:) 15…Ng8!? …”

    How is that not explanation? That’s not just lines! Did you actually read the book? Or just flip open to a page or two that happened to look “too busy” and not actually read it?

    I don’t think you understand what I’m getting at. Covering all the lines with lighter coverage doesn’t mean no explanation. If it’s a tree and not complete games, maybe the tree goes to move 17 instead of move 26. Who on earth at the amateur level is going to follow a line to move 26 anyway outside of maybe a correspondence game? Joe Shmo vs Jane Doe is not the same as Carlsen vs Caruana.

  206. Thomas
    March 25th, 2020 at 18:07 | #206

    Quoting Moskalenko doesn’t help evaluating Hansen’s book I think.
    But of course I might be wrong.

  207. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 20:10 | #207

    @Thomas

    You mentioned no title in your post, and so when you post a response, and don’t mention a title, one would normally assume that you’d be “responding” to the last post or latest mentioned title.

    But alas, how is this not “explanation” (Line 1.1 – Move 6, in response to 6.d4) – and I quote:

    “While perfectly natural, this move leaves the c4-pawn somewhat exposed, a bit like the samisch variation of the Nimzo-Indian where White has put his Bishop on g2 instead of the more favorable d3-square. At the same time, Black has already weakened his light squares by putting his pawns on d6 and e5. The more solid 6.d3 is also an option when Black has tried …”

    “10.c5
    White has to open the position for his Bishops. …”

    “With an interesting queenless middlegame where both sides can claim a share of the chances, although I would prefer White with the Bishop Pair and more harmonious pawn structure, …”

    How is this not prose? As you scroll down further, there are explanations everywhere, hideous blunders, comparisons to other openings like the c3-Sicilian or Old Indian (Not his problem if you don’t know what the Old Indian is – This is a book on the English – If you don’t know what an Old Indian is or the ideas behind the Old Indian, get an Old Indian Book!).

    I don’t get your gripe. Opening books rightfully assume that you know things like mating patterns. If you don’t, you need a book on mating patterns. Don’t expect each opening book to…

  208. Patrick
    March 25th, 2020 at 20:11 | #208

    (cont.) Don’t expect each opening book to do that for you. That’s what they made middlegame and endgame books for!

  209. Thomas
    March 26th, 2020 at 08:52 | #209

    “With an interesting queenless middlegame where both sides can claim a share of the chances, although I would prefer White with the Bishop Pair and more harmonious pawn structure, …”

    Just to pick this one, it’s a perfect example for what Willy Henriks calls “free advice”.
    It doesn’t help anyone but sounds great. Or does it?

    Just to make sure – explanation does not mean to put a lot of prose into a book.
    Otherwise Lakwadala’s books would be simply unbeatable.

  210. Thomas
    March 26th, 2020 at 08:53 | #210

    Hendriks of course

  211. Ray
    March 27th, 2020 at 16:17 | #211

    I received the Grunfeld book yesterday, and at first side I like it a lot. Just to add to the discussion above: Kovalchuk also sometimes uses phrases such as ‘black has the more harmonious position’, but much more often his explanations are to the point. I had a good look at Hansen’s book on the English, with an open mind to Patrick’s enthousiastic endorsement, but alas, I just mainly saw a seemingly endless stream of moves, ending with assessments such as ‘I prefer white’. Of course, there will be some more useful comments hidden inside this wood of variations, but overall I stick with my earlier opinion. And antother point which I forgot to mention earlier: the quality of the analysis is simply much better with Quality Chess books. It clearly shows that their books ae thoroughly edited by top editors such as Andrew 🙂 .This is really a huge added value in my opinion. In books by other pubishers I too often see (with Stockfish running) huge errors in the analysis.

  212. Ray
    March 27th, 2020 at 16:18 | #212

    PS: Of course I meant ‘first sight’, not ‘first side’ 🙂

  213. TD
    March 27th, 2020 at 16:28 | #213

    Hansen’s book is not meant to be a theoretical book. “I feel there is a need for a book that dives into the concepts that are fundamental for playing the English Opening well. Therefore, while this book does contain some game references and some theory, they mainly serve to add to the overall understanding of the opening. Also, I should add that not all variations are covered – that has not been my goal. Rather, I have aimed to cover what I felt was most important for the reader to understand the English Opening.” “You will have to start selecting variations and putting together a repertoire, but armed with the knowledge you have acquired in this book.”

  214. Ray
    March 27th, 2020 at 17:05 | #214

    Well, that may be so, but I didn’t see any ‘concepts’ in the book, nor did it add to my ‘overall understanding’ of the opening. Just endless variations, like I wrote above. But I guess it’s just me. If you like the book, I say kudos, one can’t argue about preferences 🙂 .

  215. Patrick
    March 27th, 2020 at 20:18 | #215

    @Ray

    I can’t possibly agree that analysis quality is Black and White comparing Quality Chess to all other publishers. There are phenominal books by Quality Chess, and there are Questionable ones. There are phenominal books by competing publishers (e.g. The Wonderful Winawer) and there are Questionable ones (e.g. 1…d6 – Move by Move).

    But even that is neither here nor there. A narrow repertoire book with one choice for the side you are writing for at each move doesn’t require much for it to fall apart. A prime case in point for a Quality Chess book is Grandmaster Repertoire 10. Bottom of page 295 and I quote “Now White can present three major challenges: B21) 18.Be2, B22) 18.Qd4 and B23) 18.Nd4. Well, I’ve got one for ya! 18.Rd1! I actually looked heavily at a game from Sweden in 2018, Pantzar vs Larsson. Didn’t see much for Black – just looks like a horrible pawn down game. I have always questioned giving up the Bishop pair that fast for no real comp, unlike say, the Tromp or Winawer or Nimzo-Indian where pawn damage is inflicted. All it takes is one idea like this and the whole thing could fall apart. 6.dxc5 is why I discarded the Tarrasch Defense a few years ago.

  216. Patrick
    March 27th, 2020 at 20:25 | #216

    Also, some have argued piecemealing multiple books. That may work all fine and good for openings with tons of books published – Najdorf, Dragon, Taimanov, French, Ruy Lopez, Caro-Kann, QGD, Slav, Nimzo-Indian, King’s Indian, etc.

    But what happens when you write a repertoire on a narrow topic where not much is published, and it falls apart? Latvian Gambit (Old books like “The Latvian Gambit Lives” are complete, not repertoire), Sokolsky, Tarrasch Defense, Larsen’s Opening, etc.

  217. RYV
    March 28th, 2020 at 01:09 | #217

    today, everyone can write chess openings books. you need a correct database, a modern engine for analysis ..and some previous reference books.
    so what makes the difference between good books and others ?

  218. March 28th, 2020 at 03:26 | #218

    @RYV

    It depends on the criteria one uses to judge Opening book.

    Just to throw out a few:

    -Written by a GM/IM/FM/Master ,basically an authority, who plays opening themselves.
    -How much of extensive work was done.
    -Is it accessible to the masses.
    -The Opening is in fashion.
    -The cover looks nice
    -I always buy every book by this author/publisher.

    I am always amused by the book “Simple Chess” by Michael Stean. I think it is an absolute amazing book that attempts to decode positional chess. But, I have been told by many people that the title killed the book sale.

  219. Ray
    March 28th, 2020 at 09:08 | #219

    @Patrick
    Of course I’m generalizing. There are plenty of good books published by other publishers, but I do maintain that QC books (again, in general) have very few analysis errors, and is obviously benefitting from good editing.

    @ RYV: obviously it’s not that simple, otherwise there wouldn’t be any chessbooks anymore. Indeed anyone can look for themselves in Chessbase with the latest engine running. But a) It’s nice to hav someone cut out a path through the jungle of variations, saving you a lot of work; b) the enigine’s judgement is not always right (take for example the KID or other openings with a closed pawn structure) and c) you’re missing the explanation of plans. It’s one thing to reach a position which Stockfish X calls ‘0.00’, but’s it’s another thing to know what to do in that position, or what to do if you’re out of book. I.m.o. that’s the added value of good chessbooks. So making a mere database dump (as some writers do) is indeed not useful at all.

  220. RYV
    March 28th, 2020 at 10:09 | #220

    Ray :

    …c) you’re missing the explanation of plans.

    not sure planing is of heavy value anymore in modern chess. Calculation & Concrete variation/line is the rule.

  221. cowe
    March 28th, 2020 at 15:21 | #221

    Plans, ideas, knowledge or awareness of the needs of a position are still important to OTB players. or is this no longer “modern chess”? Possibly the audience for chessbooks has shifted toward people considering that 500+ pages books on a single opening can be called practical.

  222. Ray
    March 28th, 2020 at 15:38 | #222

    @RYV
    Great, that means I can throw away just about my entire collection of chess books :-). Including the books by Shanklands, which I thought had great rules of thumb, but which it now turns out are useless.

  223. Frank
    March 28th, 2020 at 16:12 | #223

    @Patrick
    18.Rd1 is effectively addressed in the Kotronias 2019 Tarrasch book which is insanely detailed AND good!

  224. RYV
    March 28th, 2020 at 16:34 | #224

    plans are an old soviet concept.
    you must find some short term objectives (control of a colum, weaksquare…). once you have some croncrete advantage, you try to make progress with technical play…but a i dont call this a plan.
    for exaample in the KID, once you closed center, there is no plan. just try to get the pawn lever on c4-c5 before your opponent get g5-g4. Is this a plan ?

  225. Ray
    March 28th, 2020 at 17:23 | #225

    Let’s not get into a semantic discussion. I don’t really care what a plan is. I just want to know what my goals are in a certain position, where to put my pieces, which pieces to trade and not, etc etc. But if you can get by with just calculating like a computer, that’s of course fine – I even envy you for that. It’s just that for me personally I like to have some hints where to start. I still think there’s room for positional play without much calculation, even in this day and age. So I guess we just disagree. But no need to have a superior attitude on this by calling it an old soviet concept.

  226. RYV
    March 28th, 2020 at 20:13 | #226

    @Ray

    well i may suggest you to get a re-look at 2 old books
    simple chess by M.Stean ( best chess book ever – my point of view of course)
    method in chess by J.Dorfman ( Strange book but with an interresting view of handling the middlegame)

    anyway, whatever the structure, the opening, you should adapt to what your opponent is doing and not try to stick to ” the requierement of the position” . this is my view

  227. Patrick
    March 28th, 2020 at 21:44 | #227

    @RYV

    In response to your Kings Indian post, it appears you must not be a Kings Indian player. Speaking as a Kings Indian player, the closing of the center does not automatically equate to a race to c5 vs g4. You appear to be assuming closing of the center equals Mar Del Plata with 10.Be3.

    1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 (Gligoric Variation – I have played this position from both sides) Ng4 8.Bg5 f6 9.Bc1 (9.Bh4 is an option too) Nc6?! 10.d5 (there is that closing of the center!) Ne7 11.h3 Nh6 and now you have the old 12.g4 or an idea in NIC Yearbook in the early 2000s, 12.h4, looking to open the h-file instead of the g-file. No c5 intended!

  228. March 28th, 2020 at 21:57 | #228

    @Andrew

    On a lighter note….can we expect to see an excerpt for The Italian Renaissance vol 1 and Playing the Petroff anytime soon?

    Cheers

  229. RYV
    March 28th, 2020 at 23:53 | #229

    as i was said earlier, a common comment in openings books is “white stand better because he has the B pair” or he has better prospect because of the B pair and so on.
    therefor a usefull book would be :

    “playing the bishop pair” !

  230. Ray
    March 29th, 2020 at 09:58 | #230

    @RYV
    Indeed this is a common comment in many opening books, but I agree this is not useful. This is also not what I meant with giving ideas and plans, obviously. Since you don’t seem to understand what I meant, let me give you a completely random example from Kovalchuk’s book (p.435): “This move amounts to a pawn trade: black can hardly ignore the pawn, with f5-f6 and Qh6 on the cards, so he is more or less forced to capture it. White will than capture on b7, hoping that the rook on the 7th rank along with the newly opened kingside lines will benefit him”. And the evaluation of this line on p. 437 is: “White has a passed pawn in the centre but it will not get much further. Black has good control over the position and his rook may go to b2, threatening the white king as well as the a2-pawn”. This may all be completely obvious to you of course, but I think comments such as these are useful to the lesser gods among us. And mind you, this is just a completely random example, the book is full of these pointers, which is totally different from the example you’re giving. The latter is more the type of comment you find in Hansen’s book.

  231. Jacob Aagaard
    March 29th, 2020 at 11:03 | #231

    @Patrick

    Patrick :
    @Ray
    I can’t possibly agree that analysis quality is Black and White comparing Quality Chess to all other publishers. There are phenominal books by Quality Chess, and there are Questionable ones. There are phenominal books by competing publishers (e.g. The Wonderful Winawer) and there are Questionable ones (e.g. 1…d6 – Move by Move).
    But even that is neither here nor there. A narrow repertoire book with one choice for the side you are writing for at each move doesn’t require much for it to fall apart. A prime case in point for a Quality Chess book is Grandmaster Repertoire 10. Bottom of page 295 and I quote “Now White can present three major challenges: B21) 18.Be2, B22) 18.Qd4 and B23) 18.Nd4. Well, I’ve got one for ya! 18.Rd1! I actually looked heavily at a game from Sweden in 2018, Pantzar vs Larsson. Didn’t see much for Black – just looks like a horrible pawn down game. I have always questioned giving up the Bishop pair that fast for no real comp, unlike say, the Tromp or Winawer or Nimzo-Indian where pawn damage is inflicted. All it takes is one idea like this and the whole thing could fall apart. 6.dxc5 is why I discarded the Tarrasch Defense a few years ago.

    I do not want to make big overarching points or conclusions as there have been in this discussion, but let me just…

  232. Jacob Aagaard
    March 29th, 2020 at 11:03 | #232

    … butt in with a few comments on this.

    I remember busting line after line in the Wonderful Winawer when it came out. Ten odd years ago.

    GM10 on the Tarrasch was written mainly in 2009-10 and released in 2011. 12…0-0 was the novelty at the time. So in 2018 there is an improvement with 18.Rd1 for White. White won the game. When I check it now, it takes me not two minutes to see that 27…Bf5 would have held a draw in Pantzar-Larsson, although not in a position I would strive towards from the opening. So after another 2-3 minutes I realise that 20…Bg4 21.f3 Be6 is the way to play. Is White better after 22.Bxe6 fxe6 23.0-0 Qxb5 24.Ne4 Rad8? If you let Stockfish run, it does not think so. I would argue it is a tiny +=. The book argues that 6.dxc5! is strong and hails it as a big discovery. Page 17-18. It argues that White is minimally better, but not more than you get in other openings like the Petroff or Caro-Kann.

    So, where the Wonderful Winaver was fun, it was like swiss cheese at the time. I am absolutely sure that there are lines in GM10 and all our other opening books that are wrong. I could find some examples quite quickly, I think. But we do work hard to find the missing lines (two people always do this), to find analytical mistakes (again often two people will check a book) as well as ensure quality in language, presentation and so on. We are not wizards. We are normal people who work in an office. We make mistakes all the time. We omitted 3.h4 in the…

  233. Jacob Aagaard
    March 29th, 2020 at 11:06 | #233

    … Grunfeld book. When the Italian book was ready for typeset, John realised 3…g6 was missing. It will be in the book, but the author and the line checker had both missed it. We will keep trying to improve. In comparison, other publishers often just fix a few commas and print. It is absolutely a cheaper way to do it, but it means you rely on the author being flawless. They never are.

    There is no trick to hard work. It is just that so few people want to do it…

  234. Franck Steenbekkers
    March 29th, 2020 at 11:28 | #234

    Are the italian books ready for printing

  235. Ray
    March 29th, 2020 at 15:02 | #235

    @Jacob Aagaard
    Thanks for your thoughts on this Jacob, for me the extra work really shows and is a big reason why my book shelves are filled with QC books 🙂 .

  236. Ray
    March 29th, 2020 at 15:51 | #236

    @Jacob Aagaard
    By the way, thanks for reprinting ‘Questions of Modern Chess Theory’ in hardcover version!

  237. RYV
    March 29th, 2020 at 16:34 | #237

    Hi jacob. I have a question for you but of course everybody’s input is welcome.

    chess books are primary information books. And as a reader i prefer to have the latest news, the more important news at first place. So why are the chapters of the book Always arranged from side line to main line. I would prefer to have the big main line as chapter one, late variations from the main line at chapter 2 to 5 for example , and other side lines as chap6 to 10. closing the book with oddities.

    so the question is will you publish next opening books this way ? if not what is the Reason ?

  238. The Lurker
    March 29th, 2020 at 17:45 | #238

    @RYV

    Maybe because if you put sidelines first and main lines last, you learn why the sidelines are the sidelines and the main lines are the main lines?

  239. RYV
    March 29th, 2020 at 18:14 | #239

    dont you think it is more important to learn main lines first then you will better understand why sidelines are siidelines ?
    I dont see the point to spend time and time reading about sidelines. I go to the main line first… so i usally read the book form last chapter back to the begining of the book !

  240. The Lurker
    March 29th, 2020 at 19:01 | #240

    RYV :
    dont you think it is more important to learn main lines first then you will better understand why sidelines are siidelines ?

    In a word, no. Often the only explanation for why the main line is the main line is that, well, all the sidelines aren’t as good for some concrete reason. Without learning the sidelines, you will never know what those concrete reasons are, and so won’t really understand why the main line is the main line.

    I dont see the point to spend time and time reading about sidelines. I go to the main line first… so i usally read the book form last chapter back to the begining of the book !

    Sounds like you’ve already figured out a solution to your posed problem. Skip to the end. And remember that QC can’t possibly please everyone.

  241. Patrick
    March 29th, 2020 at 19:49 | #241

    @Jacob

    I hope you didn’t mis-interpret what I said. The intent was not to attack Quality Chess Publishers, and I know that you guys work really hard. You have even come to our club in Charlotte, NC multiple times!

    I was simply pointing out to another poster that it isn’t like Quality Chess is god and all others (New In Chess, Everyman, Chess Stars, Russell, Thinkers Chess, etc) are hot garbage, and that QC has their errors too, just like others do.

    And the argument about the Wonderful Winawer is not that it was flawless. Of course, any 2010 Opening book will have holes punched in it, but the format allows for holes without it becoming useless. If you cover the entire Winawer, and suddenly 7…Kf8 becomes busted, you have elsewhere to run (7…O-O, 7…Qc7, 7…Nf5). If it was a narrow repertoire book for Black, recommending only 7…Kf8, then the book would be useless today if 7…Kf8 were actually busted (not saying it is). That’s what I was saying was the downfall of Repertoire books.

  242. Ray
    March 30th, 2020 at 09:44 | #242

    @The Lurker
    I think it’s largely a matter of taste. Personally, I always start at the last page.

  243. RYV
    March 30th, 2020 at 13:42 | #243

    when we read the newspaper, the most important informations & articles are on front page or first pages.

    when i read a chess opening book i want to know what is new compare to older publications, so it would be natural to put it at the begining of the book.

  244. Duvupov
    March 30th, 2020 at 16:11 | #244

    I’m dying for some sneak preview lines from the Petroff book.

  245. The Lurker
    March 30th, 2020 at 20:02 | #245

    Ray :
    @The Lurker
    I think it’s largely a matter of taste. Personally, I always start at the last page.

    I usually start with the index of variations. I agree that it’s a matter of taste. If you want only “the best” (without necessarily understanding why it’s the best), RYV’s approach may be better. If you want to win more, the best would probably be to figure out which variations are the highest percentage. I was just trying to point out to RYV that there’s more than one way to look at it, and QC can’t put all ways into one book. But RYV seems to think his preference is “natural” and everyone else is a blithering idiot, so there’s no point in discussing it further with him.

  246. Andrew Greet
    March 30th, 2020 at 21:00 | #246

    Patrick – different readers may want different things in an opening book. Speaking not as a QC editor/employee but as a reader, I happen to prefer ambitious repertoire books where the author tries as hard as possible to present the strongest ideas they can find. You prefer a broader selection of lines with less detail. I find that to be of less value because, with a combination of my existing knowledge/playing strength and a database, I can figure out what the main theoretical options are and roughly what the plans should be by myself. That doesn’t mean you are wrong, because we all have different needs and may value certain things differently. However, the pattern of sales figures for our books tells us that repertoire books tend to be most successful.
    Of course there are certain exceptions such as ‘The King’s Gambit’, where we covered many options while maintaining our usual high level of detail – and look what it did to the page count! 🙂

  247. Andrew Greet
    March 30th, 2020 at 21:10 | #247

    RYV – As has been pointed out, in many openings you can learn by observing what’s wrong with the sidelines before moving on to the main lines which avoid whatever kind of problems have been identified. On the other hand, maybe with certain openings it could be argued that you can learn better by studying the main lines first, perhaps by gaining an understanding of certain thematic pawn structures for instance.
    This issue strikes me as similar to the “why don’t you flip the diagrams in Black repertoire books?” question: we generally do things a certain way, but you can’t please everybody. But if you happen to prefer studying the main lines of an opening first, then check the index, be a rebel and start with the final chapter – problem solved! The diagram zealots don’t have that option, so consider yourself lucky.

  248. Thomas
    March 31st, 2020 at 06:07 | #248

    Andrew Greet :
    The diagram zealots don’t have that option, so consider yourself lucky.

    But they have!
    The only thing needed ist to learn to read upside down.
    No big thing.

  249. A Super Talent
    March 31st, 2020 at 07:24 | #249

    @RYV
    No, the most sensational news is on the 1st page – all dramatic things are not important!

    @Andrew Greet
    Agree with your statement. But agree with Patrick. We can’t say that QC is the best and the rest are the worst! Chess Stars has produced some beautiful work in recent times – The Scotch by Khalifman, Everyman continues to provide insightful books from time to time, but maybe too much Lakdawala for my taste, and New in Chess has some exciting stuff as well. One can say that QC has created a niche for itself due to the general quality of work, but there is still room for improvement.
    I agree that authors should try and provide the strongest ideas, as they are most critical, but at the same time they are moves that would have been analysed deeply by our opponents. I’m not sure what the ideal approach is, but something like this might be a compromise – give one main line and one additional option which can be used for variation. Don’t dig too deep into both, but just enough to satisfy the reader of the line’s soundness.

  250. RYV
    March 31st, 2020 at 09:53 | #250

    you dont learn what’s right by observing what’s wrong.
    when observing what’s wrong , you get is a good illustrative exemple of what you should not do and it help you to understand why. but knowing what’s wrong it doesnt teach you what is correct.
    …otherwise we would not even need the main line chapter, just read all sideline !

  251. Andrew Greet
    March 31st, 2020 at 10:49 | #251

    @RYV
    I’ve given my opinion and don’t see the value in adding anything else, especially as you seem convinced that your preferred way is the only correct way. So just accept that we take a different view and move on with your life. If you feel you will get more out of a given book by going through the chapters in a different sequence, then we encourage you to do so.

  252. RYV
    March 31st, 2020 at 13:30 | #252

    no problem andrew. Keep it the old conservative way – the historical way- as you want
    I am not convinced i am right, just i dont see your arguments again mine so far. and i think my point of view deserve to be honestly taken into account

    just think about it :
    why does newspapper put the strong/important novelties on first pages instead of backpages ?
    when you try to fix Something, do you intentionally test all non-correct/suboptimal ways before going to the availiable solution?

    again i dont claim i am right; maybe it is a way to progress…maybe not.

    about my way of reading opening book, esppecially QC book which are not for beginners.
    first i look for recent novelties in todays variations…(they usally are in the last chapters)
    second, i compare all recent lines ( main line & side lines) with older publications ( once again this is usually from back to begining as an anti-chronological order)
    third , i have a critical analysis with my own point of viiew.

    I think it is a natural way to work with such books and i will be surprised to be the only one. That is why i think the chronological way from old side lines to recent main line is not the natural way… and not the optimal way to put authors work in light.

    take care & stay home

  253. Ray
    March 31st, 2020 at 15:11 | #253

    @RYV
    I think you’re repeating yourself, your point is clear. It doesn’t make it any more convincing if you keep repeating it. Is it so hard to accept that some people have different views? Not everyting is black and white and can be proven like a math problem… There’s also such things as personal preferences in the way one acquires knowledge. Personally I start with the main lines, but I can understand and accept that others have a different way. I don’t see the problem with starting at the back of a book, what’s so difficult about that?

  254. RYV
    March 31st, 2020 at 16:36 | #254

    @Ray
    i dont have problem considering someone else having a different point of view…
    but i would like to know their arguments. ( not just “personnal preferences”)
    Anyway that’s not the end of the world as long as the index is not randomly arranged, i will find my way .

    other subject
    does books on random Fischer chess exist ? theory, games & tournaments ..

  255. A Super Talent
    April 1st, 2020 at 04:06 | #255

    @RYV
    Sidelines can also be sidelines because they are relatively unexplored, not because they are bad.
    Take the Grand Prix Attack against the Sicilian. It was not taken seriously till the 90s, then it suddenly became fashionable.
    Take the Sveshnikov, the Kalashnikov, King’s Indian – any such opening that was initially snubbed.
    Your logic is inherently flawed. Only by knowing what is not right that it becomes easier to understand why something is right. That is the basic nature of human exploration. That is how we invented fire and wheel. That is how our minds progress.
    Geniuses are not those who get it right the first time – they are ones who have failed the most!
    I take it you are either too old or too radicalized to understand what I am saying. So have a good day and stay at home.

  256. Patrick
    April 1st, 2020 at 13:26 | #256

    @A Super Talent

    Another possibility besides being too old is being too young! Whatever the generation after the millennials is called, as in the kids in grade school, high school, and college today, all seem to expect everything to be handed to them.

    My wife is a high school teacher. Their hands are strapped these days, as they are forced to give passing grades to many people who don’t deserve a passing grade. What was considered a legitimate disability in the 90s is nothing like what is considered a disability today. The fact that the kids don’t want to do any work these days is a disability and they have these special profiles written up about them and you basically have to pass them even if they spend all day not paying attention in class and are on their phone all the time.

    My daughter, almost 10, expects everything to be handed to her. She expects to be allowed to shout from whatever room she’s in and expects it delivered to her, like she’s some princess or queen and her parents are slaves.

    Actually, it’s the “old” people (Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Gen X) that have the common sense these days!

  257. gernot zechner
    April 1st, 2020 at 13:32 | #257

    RYV seems to be a difficult person, who tries hard to convince others, that they are wrong. The logic to start with mainlines is strange, to say at least. But it is RYV’s choice how to use opening books.
    I agree with A. Greet + Ray etc: starting with sidelines, bc the „so-called mainline“ developed over decades due to trial and error. So some minor lines were popular maybe 30y ago. Imo to understand an opening to need to look at different positions/lines from all angles. How and why a line developed a certain way over the years.

    This would also mean that u should not look at the „Classics“, bc Botvinnik, Alekhine, Capa played soo much weaker than Carlsen, Caruana. It’s common knowledge that u can learn a lot from those old games.

  258. RYV
    April 1st, 2020 at 20:04 | #258

    Hi
    I read some interresting comments. And it calls for developpements.
    sidelines are not necessary bad lines – yes! they even can be as good as main lines. It’s sometimes just about fashion : Magnus played 12..Rb8 instead of the usual 12..Bf6 and mainline suddenly skip to sideline. So novelties tend to replace mainlines .
    Today, an opening book is mainly an update of a previous opening book on the subject. It means only a fraction of the book is new material and this new material is concentrated in mainline. So unlless we are new to the chess world, we already have 1 or 2 or mostly more than 3 books on the grunfeld, Najdorf, QGD….and we already had read about the old lines. OK, It is Always interresting to know what a new author thinks about those line ( sometimes nice novelties or a different evaluation from a known position) but it is evident that the most interresting part of his work is what the author put in the mainline- or new mainline.

    we invented fire and Wheel ( time ago) i dont need to re-invented them each time with each book.

    • Jacob Aagaard
      April 3rd, 2020 at 07:42 | #259

      The idea that opening books now are only a marginal update on previous books clearly does not relate to our books. What nonsense!

  259. Joop
    April 1st, 2020 at 20:29 | #260

    If you want the latest developments in opening lines than you’ve got New in Chess Yearbooks. If you’re only interested in specific openings than you’ve got Chesspublishing.com.
    I don’t think a book about a complete opening is there to only inform you about the latest novelties.
    If I buy a newspaper I want news. If I buy a book I want something well thought out by an author.

  260. RYV
    April 1st, 2020 at 20:45 | #261

    there is comment about chronological developpement of lines over the years to justify sidelines( old lines) first and mainline (modern line) last. It also says we must have a multiple angles approach to handle the position better. Absolutly right, it is important to study mainlines AND sidelines. Do it the way you want but the fact one line is older than another doesnt add any value.

  261. Ray
    April 2nd, 2020 at 07:06 | #262

    @RYV
    Sorry, I don’t see what you’re trying to accomplish here. Do you want to hear you’re right? If that’s the case I can help you: ‘you’re absolutely, 100% right’. And then we can move on with our lives.

  262. RYV
    April 2nd, 2020 at 08:00 | #263

    @Ray
    nice comment, i appriciate.
    keep it easy, we are just talking here. If you dont have any argument to add and you dont understand what it is about, then what subject do you wish we discuss ?

  263. PatientPetroff
    April 2nd, 2020 at 08:20 | #264

    Big thanks for the great work to the entire QC team. Are there any news about the petroff book? I am very exiced about the mainline recommentations 🙂

    • Jacob Aagaard
      April 3rd, 2020 at 07:40 | #265

      Yes, we have news on the Petroff. We are in the final phases of completing it. The physical process is a bit delayed at the moment, but regarding the editing, Andrew is expecting the final updates from Swapnil. Meanwhile, this morning, we are going to Skype on what he is doing next… I think 6-8 weeks is the right anticipation for the physical book to exists. If there is a world for it to exist in, of course…

  264. Timotheos Lirindzakis
    April 2nd, 2020 at 15:24 | #266

    Is Playing the Grunfeld ready?

  265. Adrian
    April 2nd, 2020 at 15:28 | #267

    RYV :
    @Ray
    nice comment, i appriciate.
    keep it easy, we are just talking here. If you dont have any argument to add and you dont understand what it is about, then what subject do you wish we discuss ?

    RYV; a good discussion is not bad…but pushing your opinions is not discussing, it’s just plain nagging. Stop trolling, you’ve made your point.. Now, stop nagging and get on with your life without bothering me (and other QC clanmembers).

    Please.

  266. Adrian
    April 2nd, 2020 at 17:02 | #268

    Too bad my post has been deleted…

    @QC: spamming and nagging is allowed. But giving feedback on that isn’t, right?

    What a pity… I always thought that QC members were better than that…

    • Jacob Aagaard
      April 3rd, 2020 at 07:38 | #269

      It was the only one in the pending folder as suspected.

  267. The Doctor
    April 2nd, 2020 at 21:34 | #270

    @Timotheos Lirindzakis
    I’ve had it for over a week now

  268. Jacob Aagaard
    April 3rd, 2020 at 07:37 | #271

    @Adrian
    Nothing is deleted. At times the blog puts thing for approval. And we are slow at the moment to approve things, all working from home.

  269. Adrian
    April 3rd, 2020 at 09:45 | #272

    Jacob Aagaard :
    @Adrian
    Nothing is deleted. At times the blog puts thing for approval. And we are slow at the moment to approve things, all working from home.

    Okay, my apologies! I’ve jumped into conclusions too fast.

  270. Ray
    April 3rd, 2020 at 10:02 | #273

    @The Doctor
    Me too. I really like it a lot so far! I’ve decided to take the plunge and switch to the Grünfeld and the Najdorf coming season. Plenty of time to prepare, now that the chess season has prematurely ended 🙂

  271. Gery
    April 3rd, 2020 at 14:00 | #274

    I had pre-ordered the Grünfeld book, but was informed you cannot ship because of your office being closed. Any plans when you will resume shipping?

  272. RYV
    April 3rd, 2020 at 17:01 | #275

    “…this work takes a different approach from that of a typical repertoire book. Rather than filling valuable pages analysing rare, inferior and generally irrelevant options, the author delves deep into the most important main lines,…”

    I hope this will be the new guideline for most comming rep books.

    can you explain why a book is published Under the “GM rep” serie or Under the ‘playing..” serie ?
    is it narrow repertoire vs complete repertoire ? intended public ? review process ?

  273. Martin The Bear
    April 3rd, 2020 at 22:08 | #276

    @Andrew Greet

    @Andrew: Haha, I love your post. People who have no other problems than complaining about such things must have a splendid life.

  274. Topnotch
    April 4th, 2020 at 05:27 | #277

    RYV :
    “…this work takes a different approach from that of a typical repertoire book. Rather than filling valuable pages analysing rare, inferior and generally irrelevant options, the author delves deep into the most important main lines,…”
    I hope this will be the new guideline for most comming rep books.
    can you explain why a book is published Under the “GM rep” serie or Under the ‘playing..” serie ?
    is it narrow repertoire vs complete repertoire ? intended public ? review process ?

    I would guess a book published under the GM Rep banner would consist of the most critical hardcore mainlines constantly in a state of flux and in need of regular maintenance to stay up to date, a condition more suited to the professional player, or an ambitious amateur with an an inordinate amount of time to study the latest wrinkles in opening theory. The Playing Series takes a more practical approach by choosing sound and in general more positionally minded lines where understanding the structures is at least as important as knowing the theory. In such lines theoretical developments are usually not as drastic or rapid and often surprises can be handled successfully based on feel and experience with the lines, a typical example could be the Tarrasch against the French in the play Series as opposed to 3.Nc3 against the French in the GM series and so on.

    To…

  275. Topnotch
    April 4th, 2020 at 05:36 | #278

    By now this blog could greatly benefit from a few standard posting tools, like an edit button as well as an indicator that you have exceeded the character limit before you actually send a post, that ends up being cut off and making one look like an idiot.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

 Limit your comments to