Archive

Archive for September, 2014

Publishing Schedule – September

September 3rd, 2014 162 comments

Here is a list of some of our forthcoming books. As always, the dates are what we are aiming for and not an official publishing schedule.

Ilya Maizelis Chess from Scratch October
Judit Polgar A Game of Queens October
Tiger Hillarp-Persson The Modern Tiger October
John Shaw Playing 1.e4 – Caro-Kann, 1…e5 & Minor Lines Winter
Boris Gelfand Positional Decision Making in Chess Winter
Mauricio Flores Rios Chess Structures – A GM Guide Winter
Mihail Marin Learn from the Legends – Hardback Winter
Boris Avrukh GM Repertoire 1A – 1.d4 The Catalan Winter
Parimarjan Negi GM – 1.e4 vs The Sicilian I Winter
Emanuel Berg GM 16 – The French Defence Vol 3 Winter
Vassilios Kotronias KID – Vol 2 – Mar del Plata I Winter
Vassilios Kotronias KID – Vol 3 – Mar del Plata II Winter
Lars Schandorff GM 20 – Semi-Slav Winter
Lubomir Ftacnik GM 6B – The Najdorf Winter
Wojciech Moranda Race Up the Rankings Spring
Tibor Karolyi Tal’s Best Games 2 – World Champion Spring
Victor Mikhalevski GM 19 – Beating Minor Openings Spring
Parimarjan Negi GM – 1.e4 vs The Sicilian II Spring
John Shaw Playing 1.e4 – Sicilian & French Summer

 

Categories: Publishing Schedule Tags:

A few words about mistakes

September 1st, 2014 13 comments

This will hopefully be a short post, as I am rather exhausted, suffering from a cold and four hours of rook and knight vs. rook and knight endgame analysis with Boris Gelfand.

In the cause of events we talked about one of the recurring topics – what constitutes a mistake.

I wrote about this already in Excelling at Chess published back in 2001 and although I cannot remember the words I used, I do not think there was any noticeable difference between what Boris said and what I wrote back then; maybe with the exception that Boris phrased it a bit more accurately.

A mistake is a move that makes your task more difficult.

It is that simple.

The topic came up when I said at one point that I thought that one move he made was maybe not a mistake anyway, if White was able to hold the draw no matter what. I meant this in the objective sense, in which we often use ?!, ? and ??. I have to admit that in my annotations I have a strong tendency to go for ? only in the situations where the objective evaluation of the position is significantly changed. This means after analysis and engine assistance.

But this of course does not tell us anything about how many good moves we still have to find in order to win the game.

In Excelling at Chess I told the story of how a friend of mine was three pawns up and later on complained of how he missed the win when he was one pawn up. It is of course an extreme example, but this is essentially what we are talking about. It is not important if the engine can find a win, but if you can find it at the board; and how easy/difficult it is to do so.

The same with equal positions. There are equal positions that are comfortable, promising and depressing. I know which ones I prefer.

The morale of all of this is that when you analyse your games and think about your play after the game, do not complain that you are not as strong as the engines; instead understand where you needed the engines help to prove your point and where you did not. Obviously this is only relevant if you want to improve your results. Otherwise ignore and continue with your Internet blitz games!

Categories: Jacob Aagaard's training tips Tags: