keskiviikko 20. marraskuuta 2013

The Tarrasch Defence

En ole näemmä ainoa, joka on hieman ihmetellyt The Tarrasch Defence -kirjan evaluaatioita. Ehkä suurimman varjon kirjan ylle heittää kuitenkin se tosiasia, että Aagard itse sai kunnolla selkäänsä kirjan päävariaatiossa. Aagard ja Ntirlis toteavat NCB.ssä siihen malliin, että asema olisi ollut helposti pidettävissä. Pitänee paikkansa, jos pelilaudan vieressä olisi ollut läppäri ja Houdini/Komodo/Rybka.

"The book is as good as it gets for a Tarrasch book, but the Tarrasch defence is a pathetic one and this book proves it. In all chapters black is desperately fighting for the draw in some pawn down or bad but "defensible if you are houdini" endgames. If you like computer chess then you will like the analysis, which stands until the next version of houdini..."

"Haha spot on. Ridiculous amounts of impractical computer analysis to justify playing an at best inferior defence. The simple fact is that unless you're a GM a lot of the positions they give as OK for Black are far easier to play with White. A really hyped up dishonest and typically arrogant (just look at the issues around Excelling at Chess to see another example of how totally classless an author Aagaard can be) piece of trash. Only buy it if you need something to hit your computer with the next time Houdini suggests some inane line."

"When I saw that [Quality Chess] bought a computer with cables under water I became suspicious about their books and see this as a wrong path. I only have one so far and for me these books are not for GM´s because they simply turn on their computers and neither for amateurs because there are no explanation on ideas, themes, typical middlegames or endgames because that needs work and time and I guess Aagard only put his name on the cover. It´s totally impratical and a strong player can do better with a database and study of games. Today we see a lot of marketing and friedly critics but books made by computers are a piece of trash. Between 3...Be7, 3...Nf6 and 3...c5 any intermediate player and good student knows that the first two are far better moves. Kasparov, Kramnik and others came to these conclusions in the nineties about several other openings."

Laitetaan loppuun tasapuolisuuden nimissä myös kustannusyhtiön edustajan vastine:

"First I should make it clear that I am an employee of Quality Chess, and played a role in editing the Tarrasch book. I would not normally stop to comment on a forum such as this, but I felt that the comments of the ironically named "Honest John" required a response.
Firstly, on the subject of the Tarrasch in general, I don't see much point in debating this as it depends on one's personal preferences and what you are looking for in a chess opening. If the Tarrasch is not for you then fine; to tell the truth it doesn't really suit my style either.
However, on the following factual points the above poster is just plain wrong:

* Jacob did much more than put his name on the cover. It is true that in the first instance Nikos came to us with a repertoire he had produced; however Jacob checked every single line in the book and made substantial improvements along the way.
* Just because we have a powerful computer in the office, it is a complete fallacy to assume that no human thought goes into the books. Plenty of recommendations in this book are not the computer's first choice.
* If the above poster had bothered to look at the book he would know that it contains a great deal of explanations about strategy, middlegame/endgame motifs and so on

Ei kommentteja:

Lähetä kommentti