tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post736727391959886340..comments2024-02-22T13:53:00.516-05:00Comments on Elizabeth Spiegel's blog: What's Up with the Watson-Hating?Elizabeth Vicaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-80723903391023648082008-07-05T20:09:00.000-04:002008-07-05T20:09:00.000-04:00Replace the word Chess by French (i.e. the people ...Replace the word Chess by French (i.e. the people of France) and Watson by any frenchman and you would have an idea what a whole country as suffered for years from the U.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-89505892078952109052008-06-23T01:46:00.000-04:002008-06-23T01:46:00.000-04:00Even though I am still relatively new to chess thi...Even though I am still relatively new to chess this whole rule dependence/independence debate has had me baffled for awhile. <BR/><BR/>The human history of achievement in any field is one of setting rules, breaking those rules with "new rules" , and then breaking those new rules with even newer rules...etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>As a musician the whole point is to LEARN the rules so that one can eventualy BREAK the rules and play the music that is most important to that individual person.<BR/><BR/>That is the history of music in a nutshell (yes I am oversimplifying but not by much). In my short time as a chess addict, I can see the same pattern in the history of chess. Even Lasker said you had to break rules... <BR/><BR/>I am learning the rules so that EVENTUALLY I can break them and be the chess player that I am meant to be.<BR/><BR/>In my other life as a music educator I teach my students the rules, but I also don't necessarily believe that I have to teach them in a straight chronological line. If something more "modern" catches their ears I will let them deal with that first. The trick is to show them how what they are digging on is a direct descendant from an earlier musical form or era. Once I do that they are almost always HOOKED on the idea of studying the history and evolution of the instrument. (drums in this case)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Again, I am new to chess but it seems to me it would be the same sort of process. The students must learn rules and principles so that they can CHOOSE when to use them or ignore them. But if that same student is really digging on the games of someone modern like Anand, I would say let them go with it. They would just need to be shown the connection and evolution that has lead to Anand's playing style(or whatever player the student might be gravitating to).<BR/><BR/>Tom GAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-44462583296802630062008-06-22T09:33:00.000-04:002008-06-22T09:33:00.000-04:00Mark,It's been done. Have a look at http://www.ch...Mark,<BR/><BR/>It's been done. Have a look at <BR/><BR/>http://www.chesscenter.com/twicjwatsonbkrev45.html<BR/><BR/>My sympathies lie entirely with Watson on all this.<BR/><BR/>Antonio MendozaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-71793153993770371122008-06-21T20:58:00.000-04:002008-06-21T20:58:00.000-04:00It's not easy to write instructional books. In ev...It's not easy to write instructional books. In every one I've seen, the author(s) make various missteps, to smaller or larger degrees, when discussing an original position or re-hashing a well-known game. That is part of the chess, it has veils of complexity and the best meaning of instructional authors can go astray by incorrect deductions, failures to understand structures, as well as single missed moves.<BR/><BR/>The Aagaard/Watson debate would be better if we consider concrete examples (i.e. specific chess positions) and why one person or the other may have made a fallacious statement (and if so, why fallacious). Some mistakes are worse (more damaging to an overall 'theory') than others. So let's go to the squares on the didactic debates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-65302403472217244962008-06-20T09:08:00.000-04:002008-06-20T09:08:00.000-04:00Jason, That was an unfortunate (but entertaining) ...Jason, <BR/><BR/>That was an unfortunate (but entertaining) typo! So I apologize. I actually noticed it a few minutes after I posted, but I didn't think it was important enough to report. Sorry! I'm enjoying this discussion very much.<BR/><BR/>--HowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-65536597943193817052008-06-19T09:43:00.000-04:002008-06-19T09:43:00.000-04:00Jacob responded to a few of the points above, so I...Jacob responded to a few of the points above, so I’ll just answer one point of Anonymous at 1.12 am:<BR/><BR/>“Comas Fabrego explicitly defines "lies" as arising from "LACK OF HONESTY" (emphasis mine). That sounds pretty insulting to me, Mr. Editor.”<BR/><BR/>Mr. Editor? No need to be so formal, call me John. Whether it is “pretty insulting” is a value judgement, but I think his statement about classic books is true, and it repeats what many modern authors have said before about greats such as Alekhine, Nimzowitsch and Capablanca. Take, for example, Yermolinsky in his excellent “The Road to Chess Improvement”, p171. He states his respect for the greats and then says:<BR/>“The thing is, their books can be misleading. And there are some good reasons for this”<BR/>Later the same page, about Alekhine:<BR/>“…he was desperately searching for a sponsor for his match with Capablanca. Alekhine had to write a book that would tell the world he was a genius, and the last thing he wanted to do was to cast a shadow of a doubt on his exclusive position in the chess world. The games were selected and annotated in the most presentable way to reach the ‘strategic goal’ of winning universal recognition as a great player.”<BR/><BR/>Is Yermolinsky saying Alekhine’s annotations on occasion showed a “lack of honesty”? Absolutely, and I agree and so do many other writers and players.<BR/><BR/>Probably the most respected chess reference book is “The Oxford Companion to Chess”. Page 8:<BR/>“Having spent 13 years before the match praising Capablanca and courting his friendship, Alekhine spent the next 13 years derogating his rival in annotations, articles, and books. His purpose in doing so may have been to avoid a return match.”<BR/><BR/>I have picked on Alekhine, but there are many similar doubts about the total honesty of the annotations of Nimzowitsch, Capablanca and so on. Even the greats were human, so we should read their books, and every book, with a critical eye. <BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-9693277461124366762008-06-19T07:56:00.000-04:002008-06-19T07:56:00.000-04:00I have decided that I want to explain my point of ...I have decided that I want to explain my point of view this once. And this place is as good as any.<BR/><BR/>"not entirely stupid" relates to the fact that the line is drawn arbitrarily. I have a blind spot there as I don't see that it is a question of tone. I can see that the insult is only there if you know that this is meant to be an insulting text, which it certainly is not from the author's hand. <BR/><BR/>Someone wrote: "Is it respectful in Denmark to call someone<BR/>"not entirely stupid"?" - Yes, it is a compliment actually :-)<BR/><BR/>About American chess culture. It is quite clear that my point drowned in the ill adviced choice of one word. My point is this - Watson and other strong American players learned chess by playing and working on their own, especially on openings. This is one way of doing so, but not a chess culture in the way I was thinking about it - which was not meant to be negative - only to say that this is the enviroment that shaped his thinking. John made me aware of "tradition" as being a much better word than "culture" to bring my point across. <BR/>My point is, when you come from that place of learning on your own, it is easy to recognise certain traits everywhere around you, especially if this is the atmosphere you have grown up in (I am here talking about rule-independence), we are talking basic neurology. <BR/>In the same way is easy to find insults in my book, now it has been established that they are there :-) The introduction was read others to make sure that there was nothing controversial in there, as I want to discuss chess, not personalities. It seems we failed :-(<BR/><BR/>I still find it relevant in th discussion, though I can see that it proves nothing. To understand our perspectives and especially their biases is a good place to start when we want to expand our understanding of a subject.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why people take such an offense to a public debate about an aspect of chess theory. I am not wanting to measure my achievements to John's at all, as I would probably come out short.<BR/>I don't see, and do not believe that Watson identifies so deeply with the idea of rule independance, that disagreement with it is a personal attack. I think he does take pride in his great body of work, as he should, and those looking for praise of it, can find it in my writings too.<BR/><BR/>Btw. I have to admit that I don't understand Silman's review at all. In March he told me that he had talked to Watson and that I could write whatever I wanted and that there was no problem. They decline an invitation to read and veto any mentioning of Watson in the book. Now he complains and says that it would be much better to make contact. My impressions of Jeremy has always been that he is very genuine, so I think he has simply forgotten about our exchange of e-mails?<BR/><BR/>About the 2000 debate. I had some points about Watson's book, and I have not changed my opinion, but I never expressed an opinion on Watson. His "defence" was very much an attack and you can find a very harsh tone in many of his writings about others, at times justified, and at times maybe less so. The same goes for Jeremy Silman.<BR/>This is not meant as criticism, only I am trying to open up for a more nuanced view in this debate. I like to read their writings profoundly, when I agree as well as when I do not. There is true passion in there, and we need as much of that as we can in the chess world.<BR/><BR/>I will never return to this debate or to any discussion about rule independance again.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for misspellings, lack of complete cohenrency and other language mistakes. My baby is waking up and I have no time to edit it. Besides, that would be unfair on a blog, right?<BR/><BR/>I shall remember to ask John's girlfriends if he is gay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-45223836163830839202008-06-19T06:58:00.000-04:002008-06-19T06:58:00.000-04:00Just to be clear, I would normally delete an anony...Just to be clear, I would normally delete an anonymous comment that called someone gay, but in this case I'm going to assume the poster is facetiously paralleling the "Watson is uncultured" argument.Elizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-75750378332028737522008-06-19T01:12:00.000-04:002008-06-19T01:12:00.000-04:00John Shaw wrote: "[Comas Fabrego] doesn’t say “li...John Shaw wrote: "[Comas Fabrego] doesn’t say “liar” I think, he says “lies”. I know that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but...."<BR/><BR/>But nothing - on page 3, for example, Comas Fabrego explicitly defines "lies" as arising from "LACK OF HONESTY" (emphasis mine). That sounds pretty insulting to me, Mr. Editor.<BR/><BR/>Shaw: "Jacob’s theory seems to be that an author’s training and experience is influenced by his homeland, and this has an impact on his depth of understanding. It is not so illogical."<BR/><BR/>Oh, it's perfectly logical. It's also perfectly irrelevant. An author's ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not on vague prejudices concerning the author's cultural background. <BR/><BR/>Shaw: "I think that one is a result of Jacob not being a native speaker. Controlling tone in a foreign language seems difficult."<BR/><BR/>This is a feeble excuse. And I don't buy it, either. Is it respectful in Denmark to call someone <BR/>"not entirely stupid"? Is Aagaard incapable of grasping the shades of meaning once this notion is expressed in English? <BR/><BR/>Shaw: "Sorry, but I have not followed that debate at all."<BR/><BR/>There's no debate, in any proper sense. For one thing, Aagaard repeatedly misrepresents Watson's views (and those of others, too), suggesting for example, that he had called "Tarrasch and others dogmatic people who did not think." Really? Show me where. And for all the times Aagaard chirps "Watson is wrong," or "Watson is mistaken," and "Watson draws the incorrect conclusion," he never actually manages to disprove anything. If you want a more detailed accounting of Aagaard's red herrings, straw men, and total non sequiturs, see the above links Jeremy Silman's site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-8550861647665516182008-06-18T18:53:00.000-04:002008-06-18T18:53:00.000-04:00Everyone knows British men are all closeted homose...Everyone knows British men are all closeted homosexuals. <BR/><BR/>This is because they attend all-male boarding schools. It's cultural. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, John Shaw is gay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-91018793876638124792008-06-18T18:11:00.000-04:002008-06-18T18:11:00.000-04:00Elizabeth,The True Lies quote:"I think both author...Elizabeth,<BR/><BR/>The True Lies quote:<BR/>"I think both authors were strong enough to understand this and either they analysed the position superficially or, what is worse, they chose the example knowing that the suggested conclusions were false"<BR/><BR/>That does read strangely, but I think it probably my fault, as the editor. The suggestion, I believe, is that an author might use a position as a teaching example (“the power of the two bishops”) and ignore possibilities that are not part of that theme. If the example is in fact wrong, then I suspect the first possible explanation, superficial analysis, is more likely. <BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>“Basically, I feel like Comas Fabrego needs to stop throwing the word "liar" around so casually.”<BR/><BR/>He doesn’t say “liar” I think, he says “lies”. I know that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but I have a point. The title “True Lies in Chess” is a little joke. The Arnold Schwarzenegger film “True Lies” was renamed “Mentiras Arriesgadas” in Spanish (Dangerous Lies). Comas Fabrego named his book “Mentiras Arriesgadas en Ajedrez” (Dangerous Lies in Chess). When we translated it we returned to the English version. Okay, not the funniest joke ever, but it is more a tribute to Arnie than a deadly insult to every chess author. His general point is that we should read everything “in a critical, deep and creative way, to think and research for oneself”.<BR/><BR/>“With regard to Aagaard, I have to say that I find it hard to see beyond the American culture comment. That just seems like a small-minded and (much worse) illogical thing to say.”<BR/><BR/>I think the issue may be that “culture” is an emotive word. I am not sure of the perfect word, but I think I know what Jacob means: some countries have systematic chess training for juniors; chess is a natural part of life, which is covered on the sports pages of the newspapers, and so on. Russia and Iceland have a chess culture; Britain and America do not. This shows up in the number of strong players per capita. Jacob’s theory seems to be that an author’s training and experience is influenced by his homeland, and this has an impact on his depth of understanding. It is not so illogical.<BR/><BR/>“He goes on to admit this is not "entirely stupid" (7). Certainly, I could think of a more polite way to express this thought.”<BR/><BR/>I think that one is a result of Jacob not being a native speaker. Controlling tone in a foreign language seems difficult. <BR/><BR/>“Finally, I have trouble understanding how Aagaard reconciles his assertion that chess is not played in a less-rule-dependant style these days with the hard-to-avoid idea that computers have had an enormous impact on modern chess. But I'm terribly curious, if you have some ideas?”<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but I have not followed that debate at all. With my British chess culture, I am a follower of the Tony Miles school: “I just move the little wooden things.” <BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-2693823506616588352008-06-18T16:06:00.000-04:002008-06-18T16:06:00.000-04:00Doh!Those are homophones, not homonyms. Oh well.J...Doh!<BR/><BR/>Those are homophones, not homonyms. Oh well.<BR/><BR/><BR/>JasonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-89579114771419719862008-06-18T16:05:00.000-04:002008-06-18T16:05:00.000-04:00Howard,Is you comment about ad homonym attacks an ...Howard,<BR/><BR/>Is you comment about ad homonym attacks an intentional witticism or just a fortunate typo? I couldn't decide, since homonym is nearly a homonym of hominem.<BR/><BR/>How might an ad homonym attack work? Might one "gopher the juggler"? or demand an "eye for an I?" <BR/><BR/>Collective groans. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason RihelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-2786984835431864782008-06-18T15:06:00.000-04:002008-06-18T15:06:00.000-04:00Sorry, commentors, not commentators. EVSorry, commentors, not commentators. EVElizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-57142324843753325122008-06-18T14:38:00.000-04:002008-06-18T14:38:00.000-04:00Finally, I have trouble understanding how Aagaard ...Finally, I have trouble understanding how Aagaard reconciles his assertion that chess is not played in a less-rule-dependant style these days with the hard-to-avoid idea that computers have had an enormous impact on modern chess. But I'm terribly curious, if you have some ideas?<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for your response, John. Like earlier commentators, I find this kind of debate fascinating. <BR/>Cheers,<BR/>ElizabethElizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-78192058155564732152008-06-18T14:33:00.000-04:002008-06-18T14:33:00.000-04:00continued...With regard to Aagaard, I have to say ...continued...<BR/><BR/>With regard to Aagaard, I have to say that I find it hard to see beyond the American culture comment. That just seems like a small-minded and (much worse) illogical thing to say. Perhaps it colored my reading of the rest of the book, although it does seem to me that Aagaard takes other minor pot shots at Watson. An example: "1935 was the year Nimzowitsch died. It is also the arbitrary year set by Watson as the year when chess started to become what we know today, rule independant." He goes on to admit this is not "entirely stupid" (7). Certainly, I could think of a more polite way to express this thought. <BR/><BR/>I want to be clear about my investment in this discussion: while I have enormous respect for Watson as a writer, I have no personal stake in this. I don't especially identify as American. I'm not friends with Watson(although we are acquainted-- I would say we have spoken 50 words to each other total; certainly I have had longer and more interesting conversations with Jacob), and I was unaware of the past disagreements when I wrote the post. I simply ordered True Lies and the Attacking Manual at the same time and was struck/surprised by what seemed to be to be an Anti-Watson aspect of both.Elizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-59458308762665454442008-06-18T14:31:00.000-04:002008-06-18T14:31:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Elizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-89010492379438446692008-06-18T14:03:00.000-04:002008-06-18T14:03:00.000-04:00John-- Thanks for responding! I think you made a ...John-- Thanks for responding! I think you made a lot of good points and I'm glad to hear my impressions are not correct, as they do seem to indicate a really weird point of view. <BR/><BR/>In regard to True Lies, I think Comas Fabrego does often give Watson a lot of credit. He calls SOMCS "excellent" and full of "new and interesting concepts" (83), as well as "pleasant and useful" ((28). However, he also disagrees with some endgame analysis and says "I think both authors were strong enough to understand this and either they analysed the position superficially or, what is worse, they chose the example knowing that the suggested conclusions were false" (52). That's a weird thing to accuse someone of, don't you think? It seems like it's no longer a friendly disagreement when you accuse someone of intentional intellectual dishonesty. <BR/><BR/>I definitely accept your excellent point about "books from childhood," but I also think that Comas Fabrego's sense of timing is unfortunate. By this I mean that he complains about innaccurate authors, then immmediately makes a generalization about middlegame strategy books ["This is, more or less, the impression gathered from current middlegame strategy manuals (John Watson's SOMCS or his predecessor, Nimzowitsch's My System)..."], and then seems to use Watson's analysis as an example of what he was talking about immediately before-- the lies. Maybe it's just unfortunate timing, but the placement seems to imply Watson is one of the liars. Basically, I feel like Comas Fabergo needs to stop throwing the word "liar" around so casually. <BR/><BR/>more in the next comment...Elizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-54656268817456844562008-06-18T13:11:00.000-04:002008-06-18T13:11:00.000-04:00I’m John Shaw, the non-Jacob Aagaard half of Quali...I’m John Shaw, the non-Jacob Aagaard half of Quality Chess. Naturally, I am biased, but I think Elizabeth completely misreads the tone and content of both books. Disagreeing with someone’s views about chess is not attacking them or anything to do with hatred.<BR/><BR/>Jacob disagrees with one point in John Watson’s book. He even mentioned it in the first sentence of the Preface so that no-one could miss it:<BR/>“…I was thinking about why I disagreed with one, and I stress one, of the ideas in John Watson’s monumental work Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy - Advances since Nimzowitsch.”<BR/><BR/>Jacob’s tone in the Attacking Manual 1 towards John Watson seems respectful at all times. You said:<BR/>“Aagaard uses Dvoretsky as an example of why Watson is wrong, yet calls Dvoretsky Watson's hero sarcastically. That doesn't make any sense, right?”<BR/><BR/>You’re right. It makes no sense at all, so why believe it? What you claim is sarcasm is nothing of the kind. Dvoretsky is also one of Jacob’s heroes, as well as his friend and mentor.<BR/><BR/>The misinterpretation of “True Lies in Chess” is hilarious.<BR/><BR/>“Is he really calling Watson (who he names repeatedly as one of these problematic authors) a liar? That seems quite ridiculous, especially since in the game that follows, Comas Fabrego agrees more often than not with Watson's annotations.”<BR/><BR/>Let’s see the relevant “lies” quote from the book:<BR/>“It turns out that from that entire array of books that captivated us in our childhood, only a few were really worthwhile, and even those were full of lies and mistakes.”<BR/><BR/>Note “in our childhood”: Comas Fabrego did not read Watson’s 1998 book in his childhood. He read the likes of Nimzowitsch. This explains the point you found ridiculous: the next section is about modern views of Nimzowitsch. As you noticed, Comas Fabrego often agrees with Watson’s refinements of Nimzowitsch. If anything, Comas Fabrego is saying Nimzowitsch’s books had “lies”. <BR/><BR/>Your quote: “Watson (who he names repeatedly as one of these problematic authors)”<BR/><BR/>Oh really? Where does he do that? Quotes, please. Certainly he sometimes disagrees with Watson’s analysis (he also sometimes disagrees with the analysis of Botvinnik, Keres, Nimzowitsch, and many other famous authors) but I don’t remember him saying anything like what you claim. Perhaps I’ve forgotten, and if so I’m here to be corrected. His point is that one should not implicitly trust any author’s analysis.<BR/><BR/>“I'm quite sure it's strange that they use these seemingly opposed viewpoints to attack Watson.”<BR/>Once again, occasionally disagree with, not “attack”. There is no Jacob-led conspiracy to disagree with Watson in our books. In fact, when our company decided to publish a translation of True Lies, Jacob and I had no idea of the content. Neither of us speaks Spanish, so Ari Ziegler chose the book, and the translator Manuel Perez Carballo also recommended it. <BR/><BR/>In conclusion:<BR/>The “unprofessional and logically questionable attacks on John Watson” are all in your head, not on the pages of our books.<BR/><BR/>I enjoy a friendly debate, which I hope this is, so I might comment further if anyone replies.<BR/><BR/>John ShawAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-32935210545953038072008-06-17T05:49:00.000-04:002008-06-17T05:49:00.000-04:00Disagrements and debate must be a part of scholarl...Disagrements and debate must be a part of scholarly life and extend into print. If every word written were taken verbatim and applied without criticism there would be no new ideas and development in chess, science or any field. Without questioning there is no rigour.<BR/><BR/>Being a chemist I have seen two Nobel laureates going at it hammer and tongs in the journals attempting to disprove the other. At the end of this extensive process once concedes the other is, in fact, correct and the evidence is clear. <BR/><BR/>In this case it is the duty of the authors to challenge the reader to think critically about what they are saying. This allows your own conclusions to be drawn and speeds up the learning process. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the American chess comments, one criticism levelled against chess in the UK is the weekend congresses are hacktastic events which impede the development of players. This is part of the chess culture and enviroment, obviously these shape the thoughts are ideas of chess players much as a child has the similar accent to it's parents even in foreign countries. <BR/><BR/>My interpretation, for what its worth, is the point he is making is that the chess enviroment in America is shaped by a different philosphy than in Eastern Europe. I don't see this as an attack rather a qualifying statement to his argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-8498642147637618472008-06-16T18:02:00.000-04:002008-06-16T18:02:00.000-04:00In addition to the link provided above by Naisorte...In addition to the link provided above by Naisortep, here are rebuttals to Aagaard: <BR/><BR/>Watson responded to Aagaard's criticism of SOMCS from _Excelling at Chess_ here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_excelling_chess.html<BR/><BR/>And Silman defended Watson against Aagaard's _Excelling at Positional Chess_ here"<BR/><BR/>http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_exel_pos_chess.html<BR/><BR/>...and against _Attacking Manual_ here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Attacking_Manual_1.html<BR/><BR/>I am familiar with all of the books named here, and in my judgment Watson is way ahead on this "debate".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-84862053093420537882008-06-16T15:45:00.000-04:002008-06-16T15:45:00.000-04:00I haven't seen Fabrego's book, but Aagaard's book ...I haven't seen Fabrego's book, but Aagaard's book seems very respectful of Watson. Disagreement is not "hating". The act of singling out one author to disagree is to acknowledge the import or impact of the quoted book.katarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04032591421971431222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-83451273149869395162008-06-16T15:37:00.000-04:002008-06-16T15:37:00.000-04:00A good debate or fight over ideas in chess is so m...A good debate or fight over ideas in chess is so much superior to the accusation and counter accusation of cheating or the old tired fight of who was ducking whom (see Capablanca Alekhine, Kasparov-Kramnik). <BR/><BR/>Quality has put out some good stuff - Understanding Chess Tactics by Martin Weteschnik for example is very nice.<BR/><BR/>So let them go forth and argue away but let's move away from this talk about "chess culture" - With the top players of the old East Bloc now relocated all over the world, can anyone really speak of a homegrown native chess culture?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-86128587267823342472008-06-16T14:20:00.000-04:002008-06-16T14:20:00.000-04:001) An ur-text in this debate, cited by Aagaard in ...1) An ur-text in this debate, cited by Aagaard in Excelling at Chess (I think), is Kasparov's article on his Najdorf vs. Nisipeanu at Sarajevo? in NiC (circa 2000-2001?), with the famous line, "It's a matter of chess culture."<BR/><BR/>2) This is productive booger-flicking, IMHO. Synthesis comes from the dialectical battle. (I've elsewhere said that the original English translation of My System--a great one, I agree--reads like Marx's screed in The German Ideology.)<BR/><BR/>3) I also suspect that Watson is more right than Aagaard from the perpective of Adams's Deep Thought, but that most humans will generally get better practical results from studying Aagaard. (This observation is weakie-specific.)<BR/><BR/>4) Quality Chess has published some incredbly great books! I agree that My System was not a very good edition--I haven't examined it closely enough to know whether it descends to the abomination level.<BR/><BR/>5) There are nations (e.g., Kurdistan). There are states (e.g., Iraq pre-invasion). There are even some nation-states (e.g., Japan).<BR/><BR/>6) Two best ice cream flavors in USA: teaberry & bittersweet at Maurer's Dairy, 34 S. Market St., Shamokin PA.Bill Brockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14550157556545540714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-56451184751185074742008-06-16T12:47:00.000-04:002008-06-16T12:47:00.000-04:00The new edition of My System from Quality Chess is...The new edition of My System from Quality Chess is an abomination. The translation is awkward, and missing much of the zest and wit from (for example) the old McKay version. What a missed opportunity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com