Opening books' inaccuracies

  I'm sure everyone has seen one, so you can share them here. I'll do the first one, involving ECO.

  In the French Nimzowitsch/Winawer, the Slow Variation with 5...Ba5 6b4 cxd4 7Qg4 Ne7 8bxa5 dxc3 9Qxg7 Rg8 10Qxh7 Nd7 11Nf3,instead of focusing on Pa5, with 10...Nf8 11Qd3 Qxa5, tried in 1954 by Botvinnink in his championship game with Smyslov, Black has 11...Qc7 and here ECO gives the line 12Bb5 a6( of course, it is long known that 12...Rxg2? land the black king in trouble after 13Kf1 and 14Rg1!) 13BxN+ BxB 14O-O-O, and evaluates it with a plus over equal sign.

  While that may be true in itself, it is misleading, since it stops too short and Black has, in fact, two ways of equalising.

  The first involves Sundin's move, 14...d4 ( intending to meet 15Nxd4 with 15...Qxe5, and with ideas of ...Bc6 and ...Bxf3). But White has 15Bg5! and after 15...Bc6 16Bxe7 Kxe7 ( defending Rg8), 17Ng5? will bring White on the verge of defeat, so he must first start with the check 17Qh4+ Ke8 and only now 18Ng5, when after 18...Qxe5 19f4 Ewe judges it as being slightly better for white( because of the initiative on this side of the board), while for Kasparov it is equal after 20Qf6.

  But regardless of whose judgment you see as more fitting, there is a cleaner way to equalise, starting with an old move, 14...Qc4 ( with ideas of ...Bb5, targeting Rf1). After 15Ng5 Black has 15...O-O-O with a threat involving a tactical stroke. But Maric did not see it in 1957, and after 16g3 he played the mediocre 16...Nf5?, which gave Vukcevic a chance to obtain a clear plus with 17Nxf7 Bb5 18Bg5 Rfd8 19Be7. The game ended abruptly after 19...Re8 20Nd6+( fork) 20...NxN 21BxN, when after 21...Bd7( 21...Bc6?? allows mate in one, on c7) 22Rab1 Maric resigned.

  After 22...Rh8 there can follow 23Rxb7!, since the queen cannot be taken( 23...RxQ?? 24Rb8#), so after 23...KxR 24Rb1+( 24QxB+ reaches the same position, but the check from the rook gives Black more chances to go wrong) 24...Kh8( the only move) 25QxB and now either 25...Rb8 26RxR+ RxR 27Rb6!? or 25...Qc8 26BxQ ( threatening mate on a7) RxB 27Qc6+Ka7 28Qxe6, since there are no back-rank mates because of the earlier advance, g2-g3--are both hopeless.

 But Maric missed the threat which equalises rather quickly, the threat that 15...O-O-O made possible: trading Pf7 for Ph2 with a promising position due to the danger of white king.

 After 16g3, Black had 16...Rh8! with the idea of 17Qxf7( 17Qg7 is even weaker) 17...Rxh2, when Black recovers the rook( Rf1) with good prospects.

 So practically White is forced to exchanged queens with 17Qd3 QxQ 18PxQ, when 18...Be8(defending Pf7) brings equality.

  So the evaluation of the whole line is misleading, because it gives White the impression he can get an edge with 12Bb5.

  And so now, if he wants more than equality, he must turn to either 12Bf4 or else switch to 11f4.

  Anyway, it was a good memory exercise.

It is not a sign of intelligence.

The following is not a good example since it's *very* old, but it's a humorous piece of trivia:

----------

(p. 17)

      - 32 -

   In the eighth edition of a popular manual by

Dufresne and Mieses, the following line of play is

given:

1. P-Q4    P-Q4

2. P-QB4   P-K3

3. Kt-QB3  P-QB4

4. Kt-B3   BPxP

5. KKtxP   P-K4

6. KKt-Kt5 P-Q5

7. Kt-Q5   Kt-QR3

8. Q-R4    B-Q2

9. P-K3    Kt-K2

"and Black has the superior position." The analysts

seem to have overlooked that White has a mate on

the move!

Chernev, Irving. 1937. Curious Chess Facts. New York: The Black Knight Press.

----------

Here's the game and continuation in algebraic notation:

  What isn't? The understanding of that line? This is what counts. And in chess, memory also counts, or else calculation will have flaws, not to mention quick losses, like Spassky's sixth game against Fischer, in '72.

  And without a psychological burden, memory improves tremendously, otherwise it's rather blurry.

  Yeah, chess in the pre-computer era...

  But still, who doesn't check the most forcing moves available after the recommended move?! Curious, indeed.

Descriptive notation. Who's White anyway?:)

Queen's pawn 4, queen's pawn 4, queen's bishop pawn 4, king's pawn 3 ( why not 6? lol )

Nice.

True.

  Correction: I meant to illustrate losses due to memory lapses( with that example), not 'quick' losses. Also, I've corrected 'blurry'.

My opponents have a blurred vision all the time, at bullet, and not because I'm playing b6, pardon my French, P-QN3 ( was it Owen's or Larsen's )

I remember a loss on this variation, based on "winning with the closed sicilian" (1992), by Gary Lane :

This was analysis from this book.

I played this line in a few games, in rapid play, and some blitzes.
But one day, i played someone who was him self a closed sicilian specialist with white, and who had the same book.

The difference with me, he saw the problem with this line, and he played me the refutation.

Don't use engine please, use your brain, and try to find out where the variation is refuted...

What's the point anyway. Not using an engine does not preclude nor exclude the use or misuse of your brain. It is up to you, not the engine.

About my variation...

- RandomBean : 14.Bf8 is too passive, white will continue with c3 or Rac1 and c3 with better pieces and structure, and again a big advantage.

- watershoot : 12...Qd8 is the move!

After 12...Qd8, white loses Bf4 like an idiot, after Bg5, f6-g5 and bye bye the bishop.

Seems simple?

Well, when u read a book, u read many words, try to memorize many variations, and most of the time (amost always), u just trust the author who seems confident with what he proposes...

Now, i am always trying to check analysis but u can't check everything and miss some ideas...

It is rather rare nowadays since most good authors check with engine, but it is important to keep your critical thinking.

  Bullet or classical, we all have blurred vision, to some degree.

I'm not the nazi

  Very good, very instructive.

  Are you sure? Hitler wouldn've been possible without a whole country supporting it( at least at first).

  And Hitler was just the expression of our crave for power, that exists in most of us.

   There are many mistakes in MCO's latest editions. Anyone?

Yes I'm sure. I don't have supporters. In most of us, except me, apparently.