03 Oct 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI have browsed both books and wasn't particularly impressed with either; too many offbeat games, though I suppose that's inevitable with an opening that isn't played at the highest level.
Have you read Kosten's book?
It really is quite impressive.
I agree with the theme of your argument (if the shoe fits then wear it) but that doesn't really take anything away from Kosten's work in itself.
He must have some interest in the Latvian because he's hardly going to make millions out of the book & a fair amount of analysis - presumably h ...[text shortened]... reasonable amount of work went into it, unlike a database dump from Mr Schiller for example.
As far as the economics of such books is concerned, I sometimes wonder whether books on unusual and/or rather dodgy openings might not sometimes sell better. I remember many years ago searching the largest chess bookshop in London in vain for a book on the Semi Tarrasch. There were books galore on garbage like the Grob or St George Defence but absolutely nothing on such a mainstream opening variation which can arise from the Caro-Kann and the English as well as the Queen's Gambit. Maybe the Semi Tarrasch just isn't 'sexy' enough, or perhaps too much hard work to write a book on it.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
The one on Baker St?
Yeah I've been there. It's where I got my Morra book from.
Talking of opening books that one is the best I have. A true labour of love from Hannes Langrock, who actually did play the Morra for several years!
By the way, chessdirect has some hard to find books such as the highly rated King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor by Thomas Johansson
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by Northern LadWhy do you have such a negative attitude against unorthodox openings?
I have browsed both books and wasn't particularly impressed with either; too many offbeat games, though I suppose that's inevitable with an opening that isn't played at the highest level.
As far as the economics of such books is concerned, I sometimes wonder whether books on unusual and/or rather dodgy openings might not sometimes sell better. I rememb ...[text shortened]... i Tarrasch just isn't 'sexy' enough, or perhaps too much hard work to write a book on it.
03 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchWell the Grob is a bit of a one-trick pony.
Why do you have such a negative attitude against unorthodox openings?
If you don't fall for the old trick
1.g4...d5
2.Bg2...Bxg4?!
3.c4
with a decent attack for white after say
3...Nf6
4.Qb3
1...e5, 2....Nc6 & a dark square counter-strategy is the way to go against the Grob with the key freeing move ...h5 fairly early on.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI think we had have many discussions about Grob (also about this line) so I advice to look at these threads.
Well the Grob is a bit of a one-trick pony.
If you don't fall for the old trick
1.g4...d5
2.Bg2...Bxg4?!
3.c4
with a decent attack for white after say
3...Nf6
4.Qb3
1...e5, 2....Nc6 & a dark square counter-strategy is the way to go against the Grob with the key freeing move ...h5 fairly early on.
Btw. 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2?! Bxg4 3.c4 c6! is good for black. 2.h3 is much better.
03 Oct 07
By the way, I find 6 games by Kosten choosing the Latvian gambit:
Lamoureux / Kosten 1994 1/2 1/2
Schnabanel / Kosten 1994 0-1
Elburg / Kosten 2001 1/2 1/2
Ruggeri / Kosten 2001 1/2 1/2
Tiemann / Kosten 2001 1-0
Voliani / Kosten 2001 1/2 1/2
Hardly resounding, but at least he does play it sometimes.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MahoutBe interesting to know just how often he has played it.
I've raised the questions about Tony Kostens Latvian book on a website run by Tony Kosten...quite a slow forum there so might take a while...but I'll let you know if there are any interesting responses.
I know that obviously only relatively few games make it onto internet databases.
I would stand by the claim that if you are a Latvian gambit devotee the Kosten book is required reading.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI would be interested in finding out the nature of the tournaments (quickplay?) and the quality of the opponents listed.
By the way, I find 6 games by Kosten choosing the Latvian gambit:
Lamoureux / Kosten 1994 1/2 1/2
Schnabanel / Kosten 1994 0-1
Elburg / Kosten 2001 1/2 1/2
Ruggeri / Kosten 2001 1/2 1/2
Tiemann / Kosten 2001 1-0
Voliani / Kosten 2001 1/2 1/2
Hardly resounding, but at least he does play it sometimes.
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by Northern LadThere may be several reasons for writing a book:
I don't think I do. It's just that when players write books, and in particular strong GMs, I expect a certain degree of honesty and objectivity.
The publisher might approach the GM because they think there is a gap in the market
The GM may feel passionately about a particular subject
Like musicians the GMs not at the very top require several income streams; bit of teaching, bit of writing for magazines, writing books, some prize money, running a website etc...and unless you are going to be very lazy about it then I don't think writing chess books are easy money.
If the book is well written then it's value for money...just because it's not covering the latest trend in top flight chess doesn't mean it's not good for a club player. In fact I would say the reverse may be true...the lines the super GM's play may not be the best for club players with limited study time.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by MahoutHaving spoken to a number of GMs and others who have written books, my strong impression is that, with a few exceptions, not a awful lot of money is generally made from writing chess books. So I suppose that from that point of view, maybe it's a bit harsh to criticise those who do so.
There may be several reasons for writing a book:
The publisher might approach the GM because they think there is a gap in the market
The GM may feel passionately about a particular subject
Like musicians the GMs not at the very top require several income streams; bit of teaching, bit of writing for magazines, writing books, some prize money, running ...[text shortened]... he lines the super GM's play may not be the best for club players with limited study time.
I agree that there's no reason for average club players to play the same openings as those favoured at GM level. I just think that it's better for enthiusiastic amateurs to write books on openings such as the Latvian which are suspect at top levels of chess but playable to an extent at lower levels.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by KaworukunThere is nothing you can do about it except give up the Danish. A lot of us play this line for black, since we're too lazy to learn the Accepted and this defence is equally valid against the more commonly played Goring Gambit. Actually, I wouldn't say it's altogether boring; just fairly comfortable and safe for black.
I find e4 e5 d4 ex d4 c3 d5 very annoying. It tends to lead to a boring game. What can I do about this?