Both this week's columns in "The Spectator" and "The Times" feature original material. "The Spectator" has a review of a new book on Nimsowitsch (or Niemsowitsch) which has the premise of reviewing the classic games in the light of modern knowledge and engines. The material quoted is a reappraisal or perhaps a reappraisal of a reappraisal of the old and much quoted Nimzo-Salwe game in the Advance French. I think it confirms that Salwe got it wrong much later than older annotations believed. But it gives another source for future recycling.
In "The Times", there's original material (unless it repeats the Andrew Martin commentary) of the Howell - Jackson game from an early round.
The puzzle is taken from the first round where a young English IM finds a clever way to force resignation.
Roger is surely showing his dry sense of humour; also by failing to mention that RDK managed to feature a Times winning move today with Justin on the wrong end of things. Penguin's revenge.
There's an well-known trade-off, that if you plug a book, you get to use part of the book for that week's column. That's established, if dubious, practice.
The research of your blog is that the original game amongst others is endlessly recycled. As it's unlikely that this is the last appearance of Nimzo-Salwe, there's now a choice of notes.
I took a brief look at that game. There's a position where given a familiarity with ideas from the Tarrasch French, you might punt .. Ng4 with the idea of the standard Rxf3 exchange sacrifice to allow Qxh2.
It's only equal according to an engine but it suggests that Salwe's Bd7 was nowhere near as bad as books would have us believe. It's also a theme in the 1974 book in Botterill's comments.
Roger is surely showing his dry sense of humour; also by failing to mention that RDK managed to feature a Times winning move today with Justin on the wrong end of things.
Brilliant.
Funny thing is though I'm looking at the position and I can't even remember what was played. I think this may explain a lot.
There's an well-known trade-off, that if you plug a book, you get to use part of the book for that week's column. That's established, if dubious, practice.
No, it's perfectly acceptable practice. The only thing is that you need to make clear whether you're quoting from the book you review, or merely referring to it.
7 comments:
Both this week's columns in "The Spectator" and "The Times" feature original material. "The Spectator" has a review of a new book on Nimsowitsch (or Niemsowitsch) which has the premise of reviewing the classic games in the light of modern knowledge and engines. The material quoted is a reappraisal or perhaps a reappraisal of a reappraisal of the old and much quoted Nimzo-Salwe game in the Advance French. I think it confirms that Salwe got it wrong much later than older annotations believed. But it gives another source for future recycling.
In "The Times", there's original material (unless it repeats the Andrew Martin commentary) of the Howell - Jackson game from an early round.
The puzzle is taken from the first round where a young English IM finds a clever way to force resignation.
RdC
Original material in the Spectator? Or plugging books by his mates? That’s not so new.
Roger is surely showing his dry sense of humour; also by failing to mention that RDK managed to feature a Times winning move today with Justin on the wrong end of things. Penguin's revenge.
There's an well-known trade-off, that if you plug a book, you get to use part of the book for that week's column. That's established, if dubious, practice.
The research of your blog is that the original game amongst others is endlessly recycled. As it's unlikely that this is the last appearance of Nimzo-Salwe, there's now a choice of notes.
I took a brief look at that game. There's a position where given a familiarity with ideas from the Tarrasch French, you might punt .. Ng4 with the idea of the standard Rxf3 exchange sacrifice to allow Qxh2.
It's only equal according to an engine but it suggests that Salwe's Bd7 was nowhere near as bad as books would have us believe. It's also a theme in the 1974 book in Botterill's comments.
RdC
RdC
Roger is surely showing his dry sense of humour; also by failing to mention that RDK managed to feature a Times winning move today with Justin on the wrong end of things.
Brilliant.
Funny thing is though I'm looking at the position and I can't even remember what was played. I think this may explain a lot.
There's an well-known trade-off, that if you plug a book, you get to use part of the book for that week's column. That's established, if dubious, practice.
No, it's perfectly acceptable practice. The only thing is that you need to make clear whether you're quoting from the book you review, or merely referring to it.
Funny thing is though I'm looking at the position and I can't even remember what was played
Ah yes I can, now I think about it.
Post a Comment