09 Apr 08
5 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockI can understand John Watson - books/articles in which someone based on shallow analysis claims to refute fundamental openings/opening systems makes me act in the same way.
😵
Thanks!
Edit: John Watson's review is fiery.
Similar claims are made by GM Sveshnikov - only he has his own system which claims that 1.e4 is the best and that Sicilian is the only correct answer.
But analysis provided by Sveshnikov has very high quality and his doubful claims are not supported by them.
P.S. Sveshnikov does not follow his system in practice - some lines he plays are out of his system (for example 2.c3 sicilian, 3.e5 against French), but as he explains - these lines are more practical.
09 Apr 08
OK, I just can't resist stirring the pot a bit more. The reviews that I previously posted were generally critical of Berliner's book. Now, here's a review that takes a somewhat sympathetic stance. It's a review by Dap Hartmann titled "Hands Off Hans!". (about two-thirds of the way down the page)
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ICGA/journal/contents/content22-4.htm
09 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookPlease do stir the pot. It makes thing interesting. 😉
OK, I just can't resist stirring the pot a bit more. The reviews that I previously posted were generally critical of Berliner's book. Now, here's a review that takes a somewhat sympathetic stance. It's a review by Dap Hartmann titled "Hands Off Hans!". (about two-thirds of the way down the page)
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ICGA/journal/contents/content22-4.htm
But check out this thread tomorrow or later on today. I'll post something on the book and all angles are welcomed in the discussion.
Edit: This review is pretty close to what I really think. People are just criticising and don't seem to have read the book at all.
09 Apr 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Mad RookI like the following sentence the best:
OK, I just can't resist stirring the pot a bit more. The reviews that I previously posted were generally critical of Berliner's book. Now, here's a review that takes a somewhat sympathetic stance. It's a review by Dap Hartmann titled "Hands Off Hans!". (about two-thirds of the way down the page)
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ICGA/journal/contents/content22-4.htm
"Most reviewers blatantly ignore what Berliner writes in the very first paragraph of the Foreword: "[This book] is not a compendium of opening variations.You will not be able to look up your favourite lines here!"
Quote made by Berliner`s fan (as he defends him with obvious passion) only shows Berliner not from the best side. In my opinion if you want to refute openings you can`t do it without refuting particular variations. Refuters who can`t do it are not worth to be taken serious.
09 Apr 08
Originally posted by adam warlockOK, one more turn of the ladle - Not a review, but a humorous article by Hans Ree discussing a system by Evgeny Sveshnikov that asserts that 1.e4 is the only correct move! 😉
Please do stir the pot. It makes thing interesting. 😉
But check out this thread tomorrow or later on today. I'll post something on the book and all angles are welcomed in the discussion.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans91.pdf
09 Apr 08
Originally posted by KorchI like your style Korch, I really do. But let me just challnege you to two things:
I like the following sentence the best:
[b]"Most reviewers blatantly ignore what Berliner writes in the very first paragraph of the Foreword: "[This book] is not a compendium of opening variations.You will not be able to look up your favourite lines here!"
Quote made by Berliner`s fan (as he defends him with obvious passion) only shows Berliner not f ...[text shortened]... ot worth to be taken serious.
Ideas without particular lines are nothing in modern chess.[/b]
1- Please read this thread and discuss ideas. I think you are one of the guys that can possibily give more value to what I intended to this thread.
2- When I finish my system study let us play a game were we play one of the openings Berliner says he's refuted.
Once again I want to tell that I haven't got my mind made up on Berliner's veracity or not I just want to learn and experiment.
And I think that the reason why Berliner doesn't go to all variations possible is that he truely believe that each position has one very best move for both sides. So if in his own mind he refuted black's best reply there's no reason for him to write how to refute an inferior move. I think he's guessing that a reader that has read, studied and understood his book and method can come up with a refutation on his own. Of course I don't read his mind but I think that at leas the first part of my guess is really a good guess. Another thing is that I think his book was mainly written with CC in mind. So that would give the reader more time to refute the so-called inferio move.
09 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlock1. Which ideas do you mean?
I like your style Korch, I really do. But let me just challnege you to two things:
1- Please read this thread and discuss ideas. I think you are one of the guys that can possibily give more value to what I intended to this thread.
2- When I finish my system study let us play a game were we play one of the openings Berliner says he's refuted.
O C in mind. So that would give the reader more time to refute the so-called inferio move.
2. No problem. From Watsons rewiev I already know at least few lines which are ignored by Berliner in his book.
If he don`t want to go all variations then he will not be able refute these openings (which he claim to be done). In my opinion refutation without particular lines are impossible.
09 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Korch1- the ideas I'll be posting in hopefully a near future. I made this thread hoping that I'd post my thoughts on Berliner's thoughts, Berliner's thoughts and get some feedback with your guys thoughts.
1. Which ideas do you mean?
2. No problem. From Watsons rewiev I already know at least few lines which are ignored by Berliner in his book.
If he don`t want to go all variations then he will not be able refute these openings (which he claim to be done). In my opinion refutation without particular lines are impossible.
2- But keep in mind that I'll really try to study and seek for improvements in those lines in the time being. Let's do one thing though Choose what opening you want to play in the near future so I can focus particularly on that one. The thing is that I'm in no way the player you are so I really need this handicap.
I see what you mean by analysing all variations but you have to understand Berliner's point of view. It's like this: with best play black is doomed (says he) so why should he bother analysing the rest? And one other thing t isn't an opening compendium, it's a way to think in chess so this is just a wild guess of mine but it could be that he's leaving something for the readers.
09 Apr 08
Originally posted by adam warlock1. When you will post them I will comment it.
1- the ideas I'll be posting in hopefully a near future. I made this thread hoping that I'd post my thoughts on Berliner's thoughts, Berliner's thoughts and get some feedback with your guys thoughts.
2- But keep in mind that I'll really try to study and seek for improvements in those lines in the time being. Let's do one thing though Choose what open ...[text shortened]... st a wild guess of mine but it could be that he's leaving something for the readers.
2. I`ll choose Kings Indian Defence.
From Berliners point of view black is doomed, so he dont need to show refutation of all lines.
From my point of view black is not doomed until there are not showed lines which base this opinion.
09 Apr 08
Originally posted by KorchOk thanks for this chance of improvement.
1. When you will post them I will comment it.
2. I`ll choose Kings Indian Defence.
From Berliners point of view black is doomed, so he dont need to show refutation of all lines.
From my point of view black is not doomed until there are not showed lines which base this opinion.
09 Apr 08
1 edit
Here's yet another review: http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_rb/rb_systm_wrld_chmpns_apprch.html It is more favorable than the others.
BTW: Note that while the review states that 1. d4 scores best, this is only because of the Sicilian, not Berliner's reason. Moreover, this is probably because the Sicilian is not met with critical lines when all games are included. However, if one filters Mega Database 2008 for 2600+ games from the last 10, 20 or 30 years, 1. e4 scores better by 2%. Thus, the best move is as fleeting as ever. It really seems to be preference above all.
10 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by exigentsky😛
While he didn't state the system move for the Nimzo, it's hard not to have f3 fit in somewhere. 😛
For what it's worth I think I'd have played f3 even I hadn't read the system. I was expecting g5 and then with the black pawns on g5 and h6 (taking into account KS castling) he's really asking for h4 with my bishops on d3 and f2. And notice the rook mate. If he didn't take the rook mate would come later on only. If I had played my queen to the h5 instead of Rh8+ mate could be forced in two moves, but I just couldn't resist sacing a rook. 😵