As long as we're turning this forum into the de facto rec.games.chess.books,
I'd like to mention a very annoying book I purchased a couple of years ago.

Jacob Aagaard's "Kalashnikov Sicilian" (Everyman) purposely omits a huge
number of critical lines in this opening, namely those arising after: 1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nc3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5. This is a
line I face about half the time on ICC (over 1000s of Kalash' games).

Aagaard admits that this is White's most critical test of the Kalashnikov,
and that Black's best response is 8...Nf6. This idea flies against the
"spirit" of this opening, by the way, since it transposes into a Sveshnikov.
If Black wanted a Sveshnikov, he would have played 4...Nf6 to begin with.

Aagaard claims, however, that he was unable to cover these lines because of
"copyright issues" related to *his* book on the Sveshnikov, published by
none other than *Everyman*!!! I realize that authors cannot steal from
themselves willy-nilly, but was unaware that publishers could sue themselves
for copyright infringement. Over the next twenty pages then, the author
presents what he infers are inferior lines for Black (I disagree, but I'm
certainly no IM like Aagaard, or Kalashnikov expert, as he implies from the
fact he authored this book). So if you're looking to play the Kalash from
the Black side, sorry but you'll have to buy TWO of Aagard's books. Or three
perhaps.

Even more disturbing is Aagaard's complete omission of the very popular
5.Nxc6, which is absolutely mind-boggling since this move is often seen at
the club level (and in 1-minute, where Black's next move is often 5...d6
RESIGNS!!).

I emailed Jacob and he responded to the effect that the book was really
written by his co-author Jan Pinski, who is described on the back cover as
"a very promising talent and...a renowned expert on the Kalashnikov."
Pinski, like Aagaard, is an IM and has a rating of about 2362. Not too
shabby, but I'd expect a "renknown expert" to be ranked somewhat higher than
3229 on the world rating list. Mr. Pinski has played a total of 18 rated
games since April, 2002, and barely more than 100 since 2000.

All I recall from Jacob's response regarding the omission of 5.Nxc6 that it
was inferior and you can't cover everything in a book. If Aagaard is reading
this and still has the email he sent me, I'd love to be corrected on this
point.

Ange1o DePalma

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am sorry to hear that because I have really enjoyed his "Excelling
at..." series of books. The only opening manual I have by him is his
book on the Queen's Indian which I do not find myself looking at very
often although I cannot identify any specific flaws.

Another general criticism of "Sicilian Kalashnikov" is the book is high on
variations, low on explanation. In that regard Neil MacDonald's book wins
hands down. Whenever I see page after page of one main line move followed by
two, three, four, five paragraphs of variations, my first thought is
"database dump." For the life of me I cannot understand books of that type,
which serve nobody. A top GM won't use them because the theory is out of
date (and besides, they don't read books, only games). A mid-level GM won't
read it because they have their pet system and don't care about what Aagaard
has to say about the Kalash. Besides, who on earth can remember all that
crap?

Some day chess publishers will realize that 97.283% of people who buy 98.73%
of all chess books are rated below 2200. I will *always* read textual
explanations of plans by white and black, with single lines explaining the
idea and diagrams generously supplied throughout. Once they get two
subvariations deep the author has lost the average reader. Not because we
don't understand what's going on, but because we know we will never remember
it, so what is the point? And even if you do remember a line to move 18 by
some crazy miracle, as I did on the black side of a Slav a few years ago,
there is almost always something nasty waiting for you at the end. Had I
studied to move 19 I would have won!

I have not seen Aagaard's "Excelling At" series. I do know he has written a
ton of books over the last 3-4 years, but during that time I have never seen
his name in a crosstable.

adp

Dnia 23-04-2006 o 21:17:53 Ange1o DePa1ma
napisa³:


I have not seen Aagaard's "Excelling At" series. I do know he has
written a
ton of books over the last 3-4 years, but during that time I have never
seen
his name in a crosstable.


Well, you play in weak tournaments and Aaaagaard plays in better ones.

I met him in Moscow Aeroflot Open in 2004 and he did quite well winning a
prize.

AFAIK he also gives lectures e.g. on chessbase.com but I bet that you
don`t play there.

--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Jerzy" wrote in message newsp.s8g9thj9p9fz7c@jc...
Dnia 23-04-2006 o 21:17:53 Ange1o DePa1ma
napisa³:

I have not seen Aagaard's "Excelling At" series. I do know he has
written a
ton of books over the last 3-4 years, but during that time I have never
seen
his name in a crosstable.

Well, you play in weak tournaments and Aaaagaard plays in better ones.

I did not mean I expected to see him in the Hackettstown Chess Club Spring
Round Robin. I know he plays in tournaments. I simply have not seen them
reported anywhere, or at least read his name anywhere except for the covers
of his books.

I met him in Moscow Aeroflot Open in 2004 and he did quite well winning a
prize.

AFAIK he also gives lectures e.g. on chessbase.com but I bet that you
don`t play there.

I do occasionally. Is that where the good players hang out, or just the
assholes like you?


--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dnia 24-04-2006 o 02:09:00 Ange1o DePa1ma
napisa³:

Well, you play in weak tournaments and Aaaagaard plays in better ones.

I did not mean I expected to see him in the Hackettstown Chess Club
Spring
Round Robin. I know he plays in tournaments. I simply have not seen them
reported anywhere, or at least read his name anywhere except for the
covers
of his books.


That`s why you are such a weak player. A good player knows plenty of other
good players e.g. Fischer knew all of them when he played chess.



I do occasionally. Is that where the good players hang out, or just the
assholes like you?


As far as namecalling is concerned : of course you are a moron what I
noticed long time ago

Of course I play there : my nick is "Jerzy64". And what about yours ?

--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Jerzy" wrote in message newsp.s8g9thj9p9fz7c@jc...
Dnia 23-04-2006 o 21:17:53 Ange1o DePa1ma
napisa³:

I have not seen Aagaard's "Excelling At" series. I do know he has
written a
ton of books over the last 3-4 years, but during that time I have never
seen
his name in a crosstable.

Well, you play in weak tournaments and Aaaagaard plays in better ones.

I did not mean I expected to see him in the Hackettstown Chess Club Spring
Round Robin. I know he plays in tournaments. I simply have not seen them
reported anywhere, or at least read his name anywhere except for the covers
of his books. snip

Pull in your fangs, go to TWIC homepage and download this week's file.
You will find a number of J. Aagaard's games there.

In article ,
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

As long as we're turning this forum into the de facto rec.games.chess.books,
I'd like to mention a very annoying book I purchased a couple of years ago.

Jacob Aagaard's "Kalashnikov Sicilian" (Everyman)

How odd. I found this one of the better opening books I've seen in
the last few years; not as good as Sadler's _Queen's Gambit Declined_,
but better than most of the other Everyman books because the
Kalashnikov (like the QGD) is very well-suited for the usual Everyman
complete-games treatment.

purposely omits a huge
number of critical lines in this opening, namely those arising after: 1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nc3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5. This is a
line I face about half the time on ICC (over 1000s of Kalash' games).

"Omits"? They (Pinski and Aagard) spend about 33 pages on that
position, about 20% of the book. How is that "omitting"?

Aagaard admits that this is White's most critical test of the Kalashnikov,
and that Black's best response is 8...Nf6. This idea flies against the
"spirit" of this opening, by the way, since it transposes into a Sveshnikov.
If Black wanted a Sveshnikov, he would have played 4...Nf6 to begin with.

You could be right. On the other hand, at least he's not trying to
con you into thinking that everything is rosy for Black here. He
covers 8...Nce7, 8...Nge7, and 8...Be7 in good detail (good enough to
convice me that I was going to play 7...Be7 instead of 7...b5). He
omits only the Sveshnikov lines after 8...Nf6 9.Bg5. Since you say
you don't want to transpose to the Sveshnikov anyway, what's your beef?

Aagaard claims, however, that he was unable to cover these lines because of
"copyright issues" related to *his* book on the Sveshnikov, published by
none other than *Everyman*!!! I realize that authors cannot steal from
themselves willy-nilly, but was unaware that publishers could sue themselves
for copyright infringement.

Can you imagine how much ****ing and moaning there would have been if
the Kalashnikov book had included a lot of Sveshnikov material
duplicating already-published work from the same publisher? "Hey!
Half of this 'new' book, I already bought! I demand a refund!"

Over the next twenty pages then, the author
presents what he infers are inferior lines for Black (I disagree, but I'm
certainly no IM like Aagaard, or Kalashnikov expert, as he implies from the
fact he authored this book). So if you're looking to play the Kalash from
the Black side, sorry but you'll have to buy TWO of Aagard's books. Or three
perhaps.

Only if you agree that the non-Sveshnikov lines are shaky. Me, I
think 7...Be7 looks fine.

Even more disturbing is Aagaard's complete omission of the very popular
5.Nxc6, which is absolutely mind-boggling since this move is often seen at
the club level

Yeah, they could have spared a footnote for 5.Nxc6, though I'd have
thought that even the C-players these days know enough not to do
that. They have a footnote on 5.Ne2. Who ever plays that?

By the way, I kind of disagree with your later comment about the book
not having useful descriptive text; I found the annotations very
helpful. For example, I remember one game in the 6.c4 system where
White gets in Nd5 and Bb6--something I really worried about when I
started looking at the opening--and the authors say something like
"usually, White winds up retreating the Bishop, because it's not
actually giving Black any problems on b6". I found a lot of that kind
of thing.

I can believe that McDonald's book is better, though--he's very good
in general. I looked at Aagard's first "Excelling at Chess" book and
wasn't impressed, though "Excelling at Calculation" looks interesting.
I have too many good books already.

-ed g.

My opinion is somewhere between Ed and Angelo. The following is the
review I posted on the book several years back:

Sicilian Kalashnikov
IM Jan Pinski & IM Jacob Aagaard, 2001,
Randy's Rating: 6.5

Sometimes your perspective on a book is kind of like the proverbial
glass that is either half full or half empty - here the optimist will
be happy with updated coverage and good discussion of plans for both
sides, while the pessimist will complain about a lack of attention to
previous published theory and some odd use of the English language.
These differences lead to an uneven feel to the book, and this detracts
from its overall score.

The Kalashnikov (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 generally
followed by 5.Nb5 d6) is a relatively recent addition to the black
Sicilian arsenal. It shares some common themes (and proponents) with
the more popular Sveshnikov Sicilian (4...Nf6 5.Nc3 e5), and there are
transpositional possibilities as well. This line was first covered in
book form in IM Jeremy Silman's The Neo-Sveshnikov, a very underrated
1991 book published by Chess Enterprises (who publishes lots of
underrated, inexpensive books, by the way). The theory was further
extended in another good book, then IM (now GM) Neil McDonald's 1995
Batsford book Winning with the Kalashnikov. This has been a fairly
popular defense, so it is not surprising that the theory is in need of
an update.

It is worth mentioning that the authors split the work on the book in
an interesting way. Jan Pinski is a Polish practitioner of the
defense with no previous books to his credit, while Jacob Aagaard has
written a couple of well regarded openings books. To blend their
talents, Pinski handled most of the chess analysis and Aagaard did the
"bookish" details. This seems a reasonable approach, but some of the
book's odd language may be attributed to the fact that neither player
likely claims English as their primary language. You will encounter
lots of sentences with an odd extra word tossed in; and every now and
then you'll find something that really makes you scratch you head. My
feeling is that a good editor should have been able to smooth out these
rough edges, and the book is hurt by this amateurish oversight.

The book covers the analysis in tree fashion, which is generally the
preferred approach. The authors seek to develop a "best of both
worlds" approach by providing several illustrative games at the end of
each chapter. In general, this is a good idea, because well-played
games can highlight how the opening leads to characteristic middlegame
(and even endgame) plans and play. There are definitely some
well-played games among these illustrative games, including some by
author Pinski and main practitioners like Sveshnikov, Sherbakov,
Shabalov, and Ivanovic. At the same time, I think the authors confuse
the situation a bit by including some opening analysis in these
supplemental games, because on occasion it disagrees with analysis in
the preceding portion of the chapter. In the first chapter, for
example, in a supplemental game after 6.c4 Be7 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be6
9.Nc2 Bg5 the authors rightly note that 10.Bd2?! is a tempo loss and
black is doing fine after 10...Rc8 11.Be2 h6! However, in the
theoretical section the authors analyze 9...Rc8 10.Bd2 Nf5 11.Bd3 Nd7
12.0-0 Nc5 13.Be3 Bg5 14.Be2 0-0 15.b4 Nd7 as unclear according to
Ivanchuk. Of course, 10.Bd2 should be 10.Bd2?! as long as black plays
10...Bg5 transposing to their supplemental game analysis.

It would be wrong to suggest that this is in general a haphazard book.
The introduction is nicely done, with a focused discussion on the key
elements for both sides that goes beyond the usual "typical plans."
There are also a lot of original suggestions; it is clear that
co-author Pinski has contributed more than his fair share of new ideas
to the book. That makes it particularly worthwhile to the practitioner
of this defense. The theory is also up to date, with many examples
from the last couple of years.

At the same time, I am troubled by the authors' cursory mention of
previous books. For example, the bibliography includes Nunn's Chess
Openings and McDonald's book but no mention of Silman's 1991 work. In
several cases, useful theory from that book seems to be ignored, which
could leave the reader in the lurch against an opponent relying on
supposedly "dated" theory. For example, in the very sharp line after
6.Bg5 Qxg5 7.Nc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 McDonald acknowledges that Silman,
Kuznetsov and Sveshnikov believe that 8...Be6! is the best. This is a
line that is analyzed quite a bit in Silman's book. Here, all the
authors say is that "possibly black should play 8...Be6!?, to capture
the knight with the king instead of the bishop."

While the authors cite McDonald's work in their bibliography, they
ignore some of his findings as well. For example, after 6.N1c3 a6
7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nge7 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxb5 axb5 11.Nxb5 is a sharp line that
was analyzed in both Silman and McDonald's book. Here, the authors
give Silman's 11...Ra7! and pronounce the position unclear. That well
may be, but both previous books had a lot more to say about white's
possibilities, and this book should too. In the similarly sharp line
with 10.Qh5, it's generally been considered that 10...hxg5 gives black
good play, and Aagaard and Pinski quote a 1998 game that shows a clear
advantage for black in the line with 11.Qxh8 Nxe5 12.exd5 Qa5+ 13.c3 b4
14.Nc4 Qxd5 15.Rd1 Qe4+ 16.Be2 Qxg2. Actually, this was all analyzed
in McDonald's book. There is no mention here, however, of his analysis
that leads to an edge for white after 16.Ne3.

In my opinion, a serious opening book has a duty to assimilate existing
theory and extend it. Simply ignoring previous works creates patchwork
coverage that makes it difficult for the student to keep up to date
from book to book. The authors do not do a particularly good job in
this area.

Part of the problem may be the book's coverage. The book spends 100
pages on the lines commencing with 6.c4, but just 34 on white's other
key alternative 6.N1c3. White's other sixth move alternatives
(including the interesting 6.Bg5 and the important 6.Be3) get barely 5
pages. The authors believe that 6.c4 is critical and that black's best
response to 6.N1c3 is to transpose to the Sveshnikov Sicilian (after
6...a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5 Nf6). While that may well be, it is hard for me
to believe that this is the best alternative for the average player
with limited study time -- the Sveshnikov is a theoretical minefield
and maintaining it as well as the Kalashnikov is probably more theory
than the average player should tackle. In my own experience with this
variation, white plays 6.N1c3 as often as 6.c4. I've also found that
many Kalashnikov players like the development of the king knight to e7,
so in the above position 8...Nge7 is their move of choice.

The book also covers fifth move alternatives for both sides. The white
sidelines with 5.Nf5 and 5.Nb3 are important, but I don't really
understand why the authors spend six pages on alternatives to 5.Nb5 d6.
These are not variations of the Kalashnikov and don't have all that
great a theoretical reputation anyway. I suppose they could form an
alternate repertoire, but given some of the other coverage issues
already mentioned, I think the pages could have been put to better use
elsewhere.

The authors also include a chapter on tricky move orders. This is
important and useful because white has some pretty simple ways to take
the second player out of Kalashnikov territory while maintaining the
possibility of playing an open Sicilian (i.e., with d2-d4). After 1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 (or 2.Ne2 and 3.Nbc3, or 2.Nc3 and 3.Nf3 or 3.Ne2)
for example, the Kalashnikov player is already stuck without a useful
way to get back to the Kalashnikov proper if white follows up with
4.d4. The book analyzes alternate methods of play for black, of which
3...e5 is probably critical.

The book closes with a chapter containing 25 combinations with
solutions. There is also an index of variations.

In general, the theory presented in the book is good. Pinski makes a
lot of suggestions that are not included in existing theory. Both his
games (many of which are found here) and his suggestions give the
impression of somebody who knows the subject matter well. This book
probably works best for an advanced player who already knows the
opening. They will likely not be as troubled by some of the coverage
holes related to other books on this variation. It's more of a
two-edged sword for the less advanced player. The authors' explanation
of key plans is useful, and the illustrative games have value as well.
However, some of the abbreviated coverage might cause problems for a
player who relies on this as their single method for learning the
defense.

In the final analysis, this is a reasonable book that could have been
much improved with more attention to detail. Translation and coverage
problems could have been addressed without an inordinate amount of
additional time or space. If that had been the case, this would have
been the book on the Kalashnikov. As it is, it is a useful supplement
but no more.





Ed Gaillard wrote:
In article ,
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

As long as we're turning this forum into the de facto rec.games.chess.books,
I'd like to mention a very annoying book I purchased a couple of years ago.

Jacob Aagaard's "Kalashnikov Sicilian" (Everyman)

How odd. I found this one of the better opening books I've seen in
the last few years; not as good as Sadler's _Queen's Gambit Declined_,
but better than most of the other Everyman books because the
Kalashnikov (like the QGD) is very well-suited for the usual Everyman
complete-games treatment.

purposely omits a huge
number of critical lines in this opening, namely those arising after: 1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d6 6.Nc3 a6 7.Na3 b5 8.Nd5. This is a
line I face about half the time on ICC (over 1000s of Kalash' games).

"Omits"? They (Pinski and Aagard) spend about 33 pages on that
position, about 20% of the book. How is that "omitting"?

Aagaard admits that this is White's most critical test of the Kalashnikov,
and that Black's best response is 8...Nf6. This idea flies against the
"spirit" of this opening, by the way, since it transposes into a Sveshnikov.
If Black wanted a Sveshnikov, he would have played 4...Nf6 to begin with.

You could be right. On the other hand, at least he's not trying to
con you into thinking that everything is rosy for Black here. He
covers 8...Nce7, 8...Nge7, and 8...Be7 in good detail (good enough to
convice me that I was going to play 7...Be7 instead of 7...b5). He
omits only the Sveshnikov lines after 8...Nf6 9.Bg5. Since you say
you don't want to transpose to the Sveshnikov anyway, what's your beef?

Aagaard claims, however, that he was unable to cover these lines because of
"copyright issues" related to *his* book on the Sveshnikov, published by
none other than *Everyman*!!! I realize that authors cannot steal from
themselves willy-nilly, but was unaware that publishers could sue themselves
for copyright infringement.

Can you imagine how much ****ing and moaning there would have been if
the Kalashnikov book had included a lot of Sveshnikov material
duplicating already-published work from the same publisher? "Hey!
Half of this 'new' book, I already bought! I demand a refund!"

Over the next twenty pages then, the author
presents what he infers are inferior lines for Black (I disagree, but I'm
certainly no IM like Aagaard, or Kalashnikov expert, as he implies from the
fact he authored this book). So if you're looking to play the Kalash from
the Black side, sorry but you'll have to buy TWO of Aagard's books. Or three
perhaps.

Only if you agree that the non-Sveshnikov lines are shaky. Me, I
think 7...Be7 looks fine.

Even more disturbing is Aagaard's complete omission of the very popular
5.Nxc6, which is absolutely mind-boggling since this move is often seen at
the club level

Yeah, they could have spared a footnote for 5.Nxc6, though I'd have
thought that even the C-players these days know enough not to do
that. They have a footnote on 5.Ne2. Who ever plays that?

By the way, I kind of disagree with your later comment about the book
not having useful descriptive text; I found the annotations very
helpful. For example, I remember one game in the 6.c4 system where
White gets in Nd5 and Bb6--something I really worried about when I
started looking at the opening--and the authors say something like
"usually, White winds up retreating the Bishop, because it's not
actually giving Black any problems on b6". I found a lot of that kind
of thing.

I can believe that McDonald's book is better, though--he's very good
in general. I looked at Aagard's first "Excelling at Chess" book and
wasn't impressed, though "Excelling at Calculation" looks interesting.
I have too many good books already.

-ed g.

I never liked you much. You're an arrogant pipsqueak. Bad combination.

So are you buddies with Jacob?

"Jerzy" wrote in message newsp.s8ioqoemp9fz7c@jc...
Dnia 24-04-2006 o 02:09:00 Ange1o DePa1ma
napisa³:

Well, you play in weak tournaments and Aaaagaard plays in better ones.

I did not mean I expected to see him in the Hackettstown Chess Club
Spring
Round Robin. I know he plays in tournaments. I simply have not seen them
reported anywhere, or at least read his name anywhere except for the
covers
of his books.


That`s why you are such a weak player. A good player knows plenty of other
good players e.g. Fischer knew all of them when he played chess.



I do occasionally. Is that where the good players hang out, or just the
assholes like you?


As far as namecalling is concerned : of course you are a moron what I
noticed long time ago

Of course I play there : my nick is "Jerzy64". And what about yours ?

--
U¿ywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Ken Jones" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Jerzy" wrote in message newsp.s8g9thj9p9fz7c@jc...
Dnia 23-04-2006 o 21:17:53 Ange1o DePa1ma
napisa³:

I have not seen Aagaard's "Excelling At" series. I do know he has
written a
ton of books over the last 3-4 years, but during that time I have never
seen
his name in a crosstable.

Well, you play in weak tournaments and Aaaagaard plays in better ones.

I did not mean I expected to see him in the Hackettstown Chess Club Spring
Round Robin. I know he plays in tournaments. I simply have not seen them
reported anywhere, or at least read his name anywhere except for the
covers
of his books. snip

Pull in your fangs, go to TWIC homepage and download this week's file.
You will find a number of J. Aagaard's games there.

You don't get the point either. He's an average IM, eh? He doesn't exactly
play in Linares.