zirtoc: If black plays 11...Qc7 white can respond with.
Ethical, Moral, Problem
Sort:
Thaddeus_Samson wrote:
zirtoc: If black plays 11...Qc7 white can respond with.
You understand my line here is 10. Nd2 Nb4 11. Bd1 rather than 11. Kd1
ponz111: Your line.
Thaddeus: I like your analysis up through move 14, at least. But even assuming the whole thing is correct, isn't black still arguably better? Which suggests that 11. Bd1 would be correct, rather than Kd1.
zirtoc: Black is better after Kd1 and Bd1 but Kd1 and the line of my first post is better for White than Bd1 and the line of my second post.
Ok, let's see what the book Aleknine's Defense by Hlastimil Hort says about this variation: page 138 Varation B gives: 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd4 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. dxe5 ? [I give this move a !] Bg4 6. c4 this may also be ok as well as my
6. h3] Bxf3 7. Qxf3 ? [certainly incorrect that they gave a ? here--Qxf3 is the only move] Nb4 8. Qc3 and Black went on to obtain the advantage. However
8. Qc3 ? is a big mistake! Correct is Qb3! So now I give the best moves without the ?s and !s.
1.e4 Nf3 2. e5 Nd4 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. dxe5 Bg4 6. c4 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Nb4 and now my 8. Qb3 N8c8 9. Be3 a5 10. a3 a4 11. Qc3 e6 12. Nd2 Na3
13. Ne4 Qh5 14. Bd3 and White is clearly better.
ponz111: You need to look at your book again your Variation B on page 138 isn't legal. "1. e4 Nf3 2.e5 Nd4 3.d4"
Thaddeus_Samson wrote:
ponz111: You need to look at your book again your Variation B on page 138 isn't legal. "1. e4 Nf3 2.e5 Nd4 3.d4"
Thank you. I meant 1. e4 Nf6
ivandh wrote:
What if Newton didn't publish his work, because he didn't want to upstage Kepler?
Well I guess Einstein would have ended up as a Bell Boy.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
I would not go public at all, not for the sake of his work but so I could use it to take advantage of people in my own games. Whatever the case, all lines are computer checked nowadays so I doubt this is for real and destroys his work.
Not all lines are computer checked. I find many errors in opening books. In any event I really don't play anymore.
I don't think it's unethical at all -- if anything, it's more like a hindrance of chess discovery and progress. An improvement in a line can only lead to improved chess understanding for anyone who sees and comprehends it. And it doesn't necessarily make the book useless -- there is still probably good stuff in there aside from any flaw. I mean, we need to accept truth to make progress; that goes for everything.
Either choice is fine.
Wait -- do you mean literally contacting the author? lol, you may not need to make that big a deal out of it, though if you intend nothing condescending there's still nothing wrong with it. But I'm saying you shouldn't feel the need to pretend that your "improvement" doesn't exist and act as if the book is picture perfect -- cause that would be the first one.
brilliantboy wrote:
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.
i agree
ponz111 wrote:
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 traditional thing to do is to keep your idea secret and use it in a tournament game, if nobody else has yet. That's the whole idea: get the books, figure out improvements, use them. It's the reason why opening theory moves on and opening books get outdated.
Think of it this way, if his opening book remained unchallenged for all eternity, who would ever pay him to write the sequel :-)
[COMMENT DELETED]
ajedrecito wrote:
I agree with you that Nd2 gives White a reasonable advantage, but I propose an improvement for Black: 8...Nc6 with several possible plans, the most reasonable of which seems to be Nde7 and Nf5, although g6 and Bg7 is a possible plan too as is Qd7 with the idea of castling long.
If you have any way for White to gain any noticeable advantage here please reply!
give the whole line please
Not able to contact though I left messages. [not sure he received].
No reason to contact taylor, the line is very old and is not his creation. indeed dxe5 has often been considered so harmless that John cox in his excellent book on the alekhine didn't found necessary to analyze it. Since no modern player has supported white chances in this line i would expect black to be completely ok. The line given by Ajedrecito looks completely fine for black for example. Taylor's line with c6 indeed looks a bit strange since the abitily to exchange the d pawns on e5 without needing to play c6 is supposed to be the thing that makes this line inferior for white(since black is practically playing a much improved version of an old and still respectable mainline, 4...Bg4 5.Be2 c6 6.0-0 Bxf3 7.Bxf3 dxe5 8.dxe5....please notice how after 4...dxe5 5.dxe5?! as you propose black is obtaining the same identical setup without needing to waste a tempo on c6 and with white losing a move(h3) to exchange bishops. This just can't be good for white) .
Thaddeus: 11. Kd1 is interesting, but I think black is better after ...Qc7, 12. f4 O-O-O