That is a risk with writing a chess book. Let's hear it!
Ethical, Moral, Problem
Sort:
UVF02368 wrote:
That is a risk with writing a chess book. Let's hear it!
Not at all ready to do this. Thank you for your opinion. But hope to get more opinions.
Here is a related problem--which happened to me twice. I wrote a book on a chess opening. Somebody posted on an Amazon review that he really liked the book but he found a flaw in my analysis of a not very important variation and thus he gives the book a 4 star rating instead of 5. However his analysis is wrong. What to do in this situation?
If it was me, I would contact the author and show him his error, leaving him to decide what to do about it. If he goes public then he'll be applauded for his honesty (and who knows...maybe the book is salvageable). If he keeps quiet then it will only hurt his reputation in the end. If the error is big enough to destroy his book it certainly won't go unnoticed forever.
As for the amazon reviews, you could leave a comment on the review explaining why their analysis is wrong. Anyone who is swayed enough by amazon reviews to not buy your book would surely read the comments as well.
If you have found the flaw, someone else, and probably a stronger player than you, will also find it. If you don't play it, someone will. So, the book is doomed in any case. If you don't play it you deprive yourself of points you could gain with your idea, and also of fame - your name would enter theory books and the whole variation might even be named after you.
Play it, Sam.
The polite course would be to contact the author and disclose your finding. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong in stating what you have found in any forum.
Aug 1, 2011
0
#8
1pawndown wrote:
The polite course would be to contact the author and disclose your finding. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong in stating what you have found in any forum.
Second the motion, and of course you should play your refutation ASAP OTB!
What if Newton didn't publish his work, because he didn't want to upstage Kepler?
Very good replies! I have an emotional understanding of how the author would feel if his work and book were refuted. This is because I have written books on the openings myself. But on the other hand, I can see the need to get my idea out to the public. Right now I have the idea and have checked it out some but will need a couple of hours to check it out completely. I am 98% sure right now.
Question should I contact author or just give my refutation right here?
Next question and this is regarding the Amazon review--I was thinking author not allowed to comment on his own work?
Ok, you all have convinced me of the appropriate action. Right now I am trying to get into touch with the Author, Timothy Taylor, who wrote the recent book Alekhine Alert! Have emailed a friend of his. If anyone knows how I can get directly in touch with Mr. Timothy Taylor--please let me know.
There is some very good information in his book. For example he gives good information on how to battle against the "Chase Variation" and the "Four Pawns Attack" He also believes that the "Exchange Variation" is nothing to be afraid of.[1. 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 and now Black can play 5. ... exd6 --but he should not play cxd6.
His main line is to avoid some of the best play vs the Alekhine with this move sequence: 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 and now his key move
4. ... dxe5. This is the move I wish to "refute" This line is given in the Alekhine books I have seen. [continued in next posting--I hope some wonderful reader will be able to put what is in this posting on a board with pieces moving for me]
You might want to inquire about this over at the chesspub.com forums. Those guys over there seem to go over every book with a fine-toothed comb. It's possible someone may have already looked into that line.
After his main line: 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 d5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5
White has two moves: 5. Nxe5 is by far the most played move and Mr Timothy Taylor has some good analysis on this continuation. He also analyzes 5. dxe5 and here I find improvement for White--actually the improvement could really knock down the viability of the whole 4. Nf3 dxe5 line!?
Here we go: 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. dxe5 [! Dave Taylor] [no relation to Timothy Taylor] and now the main line as given by Timothy Taylor is: 5. ... Bg4 [he says this is the "only move" nothing else is good for Black]
Now 6. h3 Bxf3 --here he gives reasons why 6. ...Bh5 is bad for Black
and now: 7. Qxf3 e6 and here he says this position represents best play by both sides. and now:
8. Qg3 the author gives other alternatives which are not good for White. So
he now gives this alternative as best to this stage of this opening variation.
We continue: 8. ... Nd7 [he explains why 8. ... Nc6 9. Bb5 is good for White
and now: 9. Be2 c6 10. Na3 his sugested line...
However here White should play 10. Nbd2 and here White has a rather strong opening advantage. continued
OK Here is main line: [forgive my typing just had left shoulder replaced]
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. dxe5 [!] Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3
7. Qxf3 e6 8. Qg3[!] Nd7 9. Be2 c6 10. Nd2 [this is my new move vs his 10. Na3]
Here is one follow up: 10. Nd2 Nb4 11. Bd1 Qa5 12. a3 Nh6 13. f4 0-0-0
14. c3! Nb6 15. 0-0 Nd5 16. Kh2 Qb6 17. Nc4 Qc7 And White is quite a bit better.
Here is another follow up: 9. Be2 c6 10. Nd2 and now:
10. ... h6 11. Nc4 b5 12. Ne3 Nxe3+ 13. Bxe3 Qa5+ 14. c3 b4
15. 0-0 bxc3 16. bxc3 Qxe5 17. Qxe5 Nxe5 18. Rab1 White is apparently winning.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Using your variation, I had Chessmaster play itself to see what it would come up with. I was hoping for a strong game, but it appeared to me that black made some questionable moves. Time control was set to 40 seconds for both sides, perhaps not enough time to get a good game. Anyway, this is what it played.
10. Nd2 Nb4
11. Bd1 Qa5
12. a3 Na6
13. f4 f6
14. O-O fxe5
15. Nb3 Qd5
16. Be3 exf4
17. Bxf4 O-O-O
18. Bf3 Qc4
19. Rf2 Nac5
20. Na5 Qd4
21. c3 Qf6
22. Bc7 Nd3
23. Bxd8 Qxd8
24. Rd2 N3e5
25. b4 Be7
26. Bg4 Bh4
27. Qe3 Qb6
28. Qxb6 axb6
29. Nb3 Nxg4
30. hxg4 Nf6
31. Re2 Nxg4
32. Rxe6 Bf2+
33. Kf1 Bg3
34. Re4 h5
35. Ke2 Nf6
36. Re3 h4
37. c4 Nh5
38. Nd4 Bf4
39. Rf3 Be5
40. Rd1 Nf4+
41. Kf1 Rd8
42. Re1 Rxd4
43. Rxe5 Rxc4
44. Rg5 Ne6
45. Rg6 Re4
46. Rf7 Kd8
47. Kf2 b5
48. Kf3 Re1
49. Rxb7 Ke8
50. Rg4 g5
51. Re4 Rxe4
52. Kxe4 Kd8
53. Ke5 Kc8
54. Rf7 Nf4
55. Kd6 Nxg2
56. Kxc6 Kd8
57. Rg7 Ne3
58. Rxg5 Nc2
59. Kxb5 Nxa3+
60. Kc5 Ke7
61. Rg4 h3
62. Rh4 h2
63. Rxh2 Ke6
64. Rh3 Nb1
65. Rd3 Kf5
66. b5 Ke4
67. Kc4 Ke5
68. b6 Na3+
69. Rxa3 Kf6
70. b7 Ke5
71. b8=Q+ Kf6
72. Ra5 Kg7
73. Ra6 Kh7
74. Qc7+ Kg8
75. Ra8# 1-0
Chessmaster prefers Nd2 to Na3, also.
Thanks, zirtok, for printing that computer game! Here are my comments re that game: if 11. a3 Nxe4 12. axb4 Qxa1 13. Nb3 Qa4 14. Qxe5 Qxb4+ 15. Bd2 Whie has better game. In the game as played, I would suggest 16. Bf3 Qc4 17. fxe4 Qxc2 18. Bg5 Bc5+ 19. Nxc5 Qxc5+ 20. Kh2 and now White seems to get a big
advantage after either 20. ... 0-0 or 20. ....Qxe5
What to do in this situation: You recently bought a book--it is a repertoire for either Black or White for one certain opening. It is a very nicely written book and you know the author spent years preparing for this book. The author has picked out several lines to play for either Black or White. However you found a flaw in his analysis in the most important main line that he is advocating. The flaw [and your new improvement] would be enough to possibly destroy his book. Do you keep quiet or do you "show" the improvement?
I am very much leaning towards "keeping quiet". I do not want to destroy his work and I am pretty sure nobody will notice and there are some very good points in the book.
[I am considering coming out with my point some time in the future] What do you think?