Quality Chess Blog

I am very flattered by the support for Strategic Play. We were not really in doubt that Pump Up Your Rating would get a lot of support, but which book that should accompany it in the vote was by no means clear. It seems that no one cared that Calculation won the ACP award last year. Personally that would make me pick a different book and we might still do this. We will decide it on the editorial meeting tomorrow. This would not be unfair in this particular case, as the author can ask his publisher not to nominate his book for the prize. I will basically leave it in the hands of the editors.

We have just received the invitation to the ACP award. As usual each publisher is allowed to put forward two books for consideration by the members of the Association of Chess Professionals.

Last year the prize was won by yours truly with Grandmaster Preparation – Calculation one (1!) vote ahead of Judit Polgar’s How I Beat Fischer’s Record. If John and I had voted, Judit would have won, but as “consolidation” she won the prestigious ECF Book of the Year Award later in the year.

On the side I have included some of our best non-opening book titles from the last year. Which one do you think we should put forward?

Here is the result of the last poll.

I am surprised by this poll. Carlsen has looked incredibly strong and determined, while the players in the candidates are all showing their “human” sides. Anand today looked not very good for the first time, but I am not sure people were thinking he would have a big chance in a rematch. A question is if he would even enjoy one…

I personally voted Anand, though this was more because I think his cautious play is the right strategy for this long event, than because I have been blown away by his great chess. I just think the others have played too poorly as well, relying a bit too much on luck. I feel that the 2013 candidates was played on a much higher level by especially Kramnik and of course Carlsen. Aronian looked as shaky then as here.

Quality Chess do not have a political affiliation and inside the company we have a lot of different opinions. Thus I am not in any way going to state an opinion on which person would be the best FIDE president.

Read more…

In December I had lunch with a friend who understands chess in a way very few people do in the world. At some point in the conversation I said something along the lines: “Kramnik is the greatest player of our age in my opnion. I do not think anyone has advanced our understanding of chess as much as he has.” To this my friend answered: “Yes, of course.”

Kramnik is my personal favourite for the candidates. I do not believe that Aronian will have the nerves to win. But I also have an outside belief that Topalov will come highly motivated and should not be underestimated. Anyway; the public thinks this:

Elsewhere on the internet there has been some debate on what constitutes a novelty and what does not. Some people think that it is a move not played before; others think it is a new idea. Then there is the whole computer aspect of it. If a computer plays or mentions it; is it a novelty?

In Quality Chess we are trying to make useful books to those wanting to prepare for their games in the most effective manner possible. Most people will use a combination of books and databases, while some will only use databases. For this reason we have always gone by the “not in the database” definition.

We encourage our authors to indicate when a move is new. We always tell them to give sources where appropriate and to credit all ideas by other people to them. Therefore you will frequently find in our books a N and a comment saying that another person has analysed this in xxx publication.

We also tell our authors to write the truth. You will not find many examples of over-optimistic evaluation in QC books. Not only is it rather low to write in this way; making it unpleasant to go to work. We also think it is a poor business strategy.

Regarding novelties; I did not put up an article first, as I did not want to prejudice the view from people frequenting this blog. It could have been split in other ways, but this is what we could think off in the office and what others suggested. The result indicates a difference of opinion, but does not suggest that we are out of touch, so we will continue to do what makes sense to us and what keeps our books consistent.