Opening books' inaccuracies

There are many engines around, I'm sure they will do a good job in finding out the aforementioned mistakes, with 99% accuracy.

  I don't get this place: I just wrote a long post with more examples from MCO and didn't get through...Even the introductory post, yesterday: it got 'lost' twice before.

  You don't have to compare, remember I've told you I filled a whole page with inaccuracies, in the beginning of the book, then I gave up, they were too many?

  Some are illegal moves, some moves are missing, so you have to fill in the blanks..

  Some lines run too short before a clear idea becomes evident, and no analysis is given outside a certain game which went a certain way, so without attempts to improve on that line, outside the source game. Of course, there are some exceptions, especially when the suggested improvement runs only one move deep...

   One example of a line running too short comes from the same Slow Variation of the French.

  After 5...Ba5 6b4 cxd4 7Qg4 Ne7 8bxa5 dxc3 9Qxg7 Rg8 10Qxh7 and now 10...Nbc6, with the idea of ...Bd7 and O-O-O, as shown by Fischer, is better.

  After 11Nf3 Qxa5 12Rb1 , if I remember correctly, MCO gives the plan with ..d5-d4, targeting Pe5. After 12...a6( 12...the direct 12...d4 runs into 13Bb5, when 13...a6 fails to 14BxN, so Pe5 will not be threatened, after all) 13Be2 d4 14Ng5! and if I'm not mistaken, stops there...

  I don't think the critical line was played in that game of Nisipeanu( I believe), so nothing else was offered. But the critical line was 14...Nxe5( the point of Black's play)15Ne4!, with forking possibilities, 15...Rxg2 16Nf6+ Kd8 17Qe4( another fork)17...Rg6 18Qxe5+ Nd7and now 19Rxb7! gives White a clear plus.

  Another example is from the same line, but this time Black tries 11...Qc7, focusing primarily on Pe5.

The OP wants everyone to be impressed that he's discovered that opening books have errors?

In Andrew Soltis's 1994 book on 1.d4 (2nd edition even), he recommends a line that is completely busted:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 O-O 6.Nf3 c5 7.Be2 e6 8.O-O exd5 9.e5? (9.cxd5 or even 9.exd5 are both lightyears better than 9.e5??)

  Ok, so this time it did go through, which is why I've chpped it in two posts, what was previously written in one.

  So back to 11...Qc7. After 12Bf4 Bd7 13a6!? O-O-O 14axb7+ Kb8( or 14...Qxg7 15Qd3 Qb2 16Qd1 Kc7 17Bd3, with a plus for White)15Qd3!and here MCO mentions 15...Rg4 16g3 Ng6 17Qxc3( better than the immediate 17h3)17...NxB 18h3! Nxh3 19Rxh3and stops here, running a bit short of the next obvious continuations for Black. Either the immediate 19...Re4+ 20Be2 Nxe521QxQ+, or 19...Nxe5 20QxQ+ KxQ 21Nxe5 Re4+ 22Kd2 Rxe5 and then stop, ignoring 23 Bd3 Rg5 24Rh7although here other possibilities come up...

  MCO also ignore 15...d4, which gives Black more prospects. And both ECO and MCO don't mention the plan of capturing Pe5 witha knight. Starting with 15...Ng6 16Bg3 Ncxe5( of course, not the other knight)17NxN NxN 18Qd4, where NCO does give 18...f6, with a clear plus for White, due to the nasty relative( to the queen) knight pin.

  But neither book mentions the unsuccessful plan of forcefully breaking the pin with the exhange sacrifice, as tried by Zherbakov, in 1958. After 18...RxN 19hxg3 Ng6 20Qf6.

  After 20...Ba4 21Be2 e5 22Rh7 Rf8 Shamkovich devised a nice plan, starting with 23Bd3!? e4 24Be2 Qe5. Now 25Qa5 Bxc2 and 26Rh5 Qc7 27Rc1 Bb3 28Qb5 Ba2 29Rc2 e3. After 30Qb4! exf2+ 31Kxf2 Bc4 32BxB dxc4 33Rxc3 Re8 and now the final combinations begins with 34Rxc4 Qd7 35Rc8+! RxR 36 PxR(Q)++( double check)36KxQ( the consequence of the double check), and after 37Rc5+ Kd8 38 Qb8+, in view of 38...Ke7 39Rc7, Black resigned.

  The picture's more complete now.

  The point is to share these errors, so one can make the necessary corrections, if they happen to affect their repertoire.

  And it goes beyond errors, it touches our evaluations of the lines we play or find interesting.

What's the point? To draw before the game has even started?

  I don't understand the question. Sometimes the book gives you an inferior line, or it gives you another line based on an inferior line showed in another variation, which would have been the main one, had it not been for an inferior move being shown to support that line.

  Like that line in the KID, where MCO 14, written in '99, missed the best line, from a game played in '96, while adopting an inferior line from the same tornament to support its choice for that sideline when with the best line( played in the same tournament) the argument for choosing it as a sideline wouldn't ve worked out, and that line would have become the main line.

  Such practices confuse people when playing moves from their repertoire.

 And no, it's not going to be draws all the time: it's called the chess truth and it takes a lot of honesty to get to the bottom of it--that's how progress is being made, not by being afraid to share with others for fear of losing.

It's not fear, it's nonsense, the word novelty exists for a reason.

All opening books have errors. There can be thousands of variations and each variation several moves long. Of course there are going to be errors in any book on the opening.

  I'm not convinced that they should. First of all, typos should absolutely be excluded. Secondly, there are certain errors that are based, it seems, on not checking other sources, even though a refutation or improvement was known for years before a certain book( any book) was printed.

  I will bring more examples.

  As for novelties, I'm not concerned with what anyone tries to come up with on their own. But to not bring up certain omissions  because one wants to catch another unguarded and so they hide in the background, is rather silly.

 It also indicates fear of not winning as well as a lack of interest in the chess truth.

  Here's another one: if I remember correctly, MCO15 doesn't even mention 13Bd4 in the main line Taimanov; only 13e5 is given, which is the old line, but the book was written in 08' and 13Bd4 came around 1997...

 For decades all opening books on the Ponziani had this line for White:

There is a difference between book's innacuracies, and theory's development in my opinion...

Of course 9.e5 is a huge blunder! The right move is calling the arbiter, and claiming the opponents' move 8...exd5 as illegal.

  Yet an opening book inaccuracy and theory are almost the same thing. But this depends on how good such an opening book is, to some extent.

  I understand the distinction being made, sometimes there is no way but to go wrong first.

  But consider this: MCO14, if I remember correctly, gives the following, in the Four Knights Sicilian:

  After 6Ndb5 ( after the usual moves, with their usual transpositions)  Black responds to the positional threat of 7Nd6+ not by transposing into Sveshnikov/Chelyabinsk with the usual 7...d6 (intending 8...a6) and so after 8Bf4( creating a witness on d5 and planning Nd5) 8...e5 9 Bg5 and now 9...a6 10Na3 b5 11Nd5 or 11Bf6 and then Nd5--but in a much simpler way, the direct 7...Bb4, when now, with the bishop out, Nd6+ is not a threat anymore, and intending to equalize by breaking in the center with ...d5, rather than creating a weakness on d5, as in Sveshnikov, which, of course, incidentally, it's more reliable at the highest leves.

 So after 7a3 BxN 8NxB d5 9exd5 Back continues with 9...exd5 10Bd3 O-O 110-0 and now, in the line with the direct 11...Bg4, after 12f3, MCO14 gives the 1901 move(!) 12...Be6, and after 13Bg5 it evaluates it at plus over equal, which seems inaccurate, given that the two ways of breaking the pin have both given White a clear plus.

  Either 13...h6 14Bh4 g5 15Bf2( avoiding future harassing from Nh5)15...Nh5 16Nb5, or 13...Qb6+ 14Kh1 Nd7 15 f4( threatening 16f5)15...f5 16Qf3 gives White a clear plus.

  But 90 years later (!), in 1991, a natural improvement did occur in this line: 12...Bh5, with the idea of the knight leaping forward and trading pawns and queens, failing to gain complete equality, but at least giving White only a small edge. After 13Bg5 Qb6+( ...h6-...g5-...Nh5 idea doesn't work here, as the bishop occupies the h5 square) 14Kh1 Ne4! and after 15Nxe4 dxe4 16Bxe4 Qxb2 17Qb1! QxQ here NCO gives 18RaxQ, but 18RfxQ is not bad either, and after 18...f5,defending Pb7 by first attacking Be4, 19Bd3( 19Bc4+ Bf7 leads to even more simplification without winning Pb7) and after 19...b6 20 Rb5! White indeed only has a small edge. But to obtain this result, Black would have to play 12...Bh5, not the 1901's 12...Be6.

  MCO 14 was written in '99, and 8 years was time aplenty to update this 90-year old line( from 1991, when the improvement was made).

  Incidentally, here the immediate 11...h6 is in principle worse than playing ...h6 after ...d4 first. 11...h6 allows for Nb5, after 12Bf4 d4 13Nb5, with threats on c7, when after 13...Nd5 14Qf3, intending Be5 threatening Pd4( after first threatening Ph6 with Bxh6 after Re1), White gains a clear edge.

  So in principle, it is better to first play 11...d4 12Ne2!( 12Nb5? loses the knight to 12...a6), and only then 13h6, when 13...Bf4 doesn't have the same weight. But even there, White can switch plans with 14b4( already threatening Pd4), when after either 14...a6 15Bb2( again threatening Pd4) Kh8 16Qd2 b5 17Qf4( again threatening Pd4!) or 14...Bg4 15Bb2( or 15f3 first), threatening Pd4, 15...a6 16f3 Bh5 17 Kh1, again threatening Pd4, 17...Kh8, White has a clear plus, but only because a different plan was employed. But from Black's point of view, if he wants to play ...h6. it is more consistent to do it on move 12. Of course, given the turn of events he is better off with other moves altogether!

  Incidentally, after 11...Re8, the same plan with 12b4 can be employed, although here it makes more sense to use the bishop on g5, thus pinning Nf6, whereas after 11...h6 he simply had to look for something else. But here he can just do that: 12Bg5.

  The crave for power exists in most of us, no need for supporters: people are supporting each other unconsciously. They are reinforcing each other's illusions.

  If it only were that simple...No computer in the world can calculate all the possibilities after 1e4 a5. Not being able to do that, 'best moves' for either side remain a myth.

 I say, if one wants to not get an opening advantage, or much worse, by all means, do play 1...a5.

 I don't see the connection with 1...a5.